For example, JD castigates me for my position on Ezek.40-48 amd Zech.14, as he has done both in the past and quite recently. When I say "no" to any notion of animal sacrifices being revived in a supposed millennium, and referred him to Heb.9 & 10 his only reply was to limit the scope of that epistle and say that is only for Jews, and only for this age (I think I have him right here).

How that answers the objection and how it squares with the once-for-all (ephapax) nature of the atonement and the final abolition of the old covenant (Heb.8:13) he did not explain. Hebrews is decisive against any notion of a revival of the OT sacrificial system, whether now, or in some future millennium.

When I raised the question as to whether the Ezekiel temple was ever meant to be built, and why post-exilic Judaism never made any attempt to construct a temple along those lines, he fairly flew into a passion. Such a question was in itself an expression of unbelief.

1. Both are from the New Testament, not the Old!
2. One is from Christ Himself, the Son of God, the other from Peter, by then an apostle trained under the teaching of Christ Himself, particularly after His resurrection.

These two texts therefore prove nothing at all for your millennial contentions. Neither do they contradict my point regarding the OT prophetic perspective, but rather reinforce it.

They teach instead that a "palingennesia" or "apokatastasis" (similar meaning), will take place when He comes. This will involve both the resurrection of the body and the renewal of creation (Rom.8:21-23). Neither the earth nor we will have to wait another 1000 years for this to happen.

Rather than being negative, it is essentially positive: while it rejects on one hand the bypaths of millennial teaching in any form, it places all emphasis on the (one) Second Coming, the Last Judgment, and the new cosmos. This is surely where the burden of NT teaching lies.

Biblical truth in Biblical proportions!

As to the OT prophets talking about the millennial kingdom, one must understand that they are looking at "last things" from their perspective. They do not see the distinction between the time between (the first and second comings) and the final state. Hence the two are confused from their vantage point, and what may to a superficial glance look like a "millennial kingdom" is in fact (from a NT angle) a description of the final state.

With respect, Terry, if you are out of your depth, stay on shore!

Put another way, if the air's too hot, stay out of the kitchen!

DJC49 wrote:
Revelation is a highly symbolic, visually graphic, imagery-laden book of apocalyptic literature, JD. The Book is resplendent with metaphor.

His facile idea is that it is merely history written in advance, a book like Kings or Chronicles, only in advance of events. He never really understood what I was getting at!

Yet even he baulks at literalism when it suits. For example, will there be a seven-headed beast roaming the earth during the tribulation? "Oh no! Of course not! Can't you read the Word of God?" Then where does literalism stop and symbolism begin? What is the criterion? He is none too clear on that.

DJC49 has tried to point out that Rev.14:4 is not a condemnation of marriage (and it is notorious that certain elements in the patristic period appealed to that text in the interests of celibacy. Do you support that??). But do you listen? No. You are so wedded to your foolish bald literalism that you cannot see the real message of the book, and consequently make it instead into a comic strip, a Monty Python production. This is tantamount to blasphemy.

With the sort of mindset you constantly betray any attempt to discuss with you on a rational level is futile.

JD has little idea on what unites us, or for that matter what divides us. I find it curious, to say the least, how much he claims to know about me from such a distance.

JD,
"However, having said that, I don't think one of you exceeds the other in discerning the truth."

In reality he flits from bough to bough, and darts from tuft to tuft, all the time telling us that we are confused, Biblically illiterate, ignorant unbelievers.

Lurker wrote:
Murray,
Approaching three years ago when I first decided to make a comment on one of these threads I was promptly greeted by JD and handed the same label you have just been awarded "yea, hath God said...?"
Some things never change.

You equate me with Satan ("yea, hath God said...?"), and you equate your interpretations of Scripture with the very words of God. "Thus saith the Lord = thus saith JD!!

You seem not to have read at all my previous post, calling for some humility and casting away of your hubris. You have reaffirmed your arrogant dogmatism with a vengeance!

Let me say again: rapture teaching, as held by Dispensationalism, is a refuge of lies (Isa.28:17) the artifice of false teachers in the nineteenth century, and foisted on the church by their many disciples.
1 Thess.4:16-17 teaches no such doctrine. What it teaches is that when Christ comes, once and once only, visibly, publicly, with fanfare of heavenly trumpets, the Christian dead will be raised, and those remaining alive will be caught up with them to become part of a massive welcoming band, "meeting Him" as one meets an arriving train. From thence they accompany Him to the earth and to the Great Judgment.

"Fact" (from JD) = your version of Scripture teaching, irrespective of the fact that many others with the same Bible in front of them read it - on its own terms - very differently.

If you would just be humble enough to admit that simple FACT, and be just a little willing to learn from people who also read Scripture, but who, for example, do not see rapture teaching a la Dizzy-pensationalism in the Scriptures - then you would not incur the frustration and name-calling of which you complain.

It would also make for some humility on your part, instead of the unwarranted hubris we so commonly observe, as in the dogmatic & oft-repeated "This is fact" asseverations.

"...putting your denominational twist on them."
And what, pray, is that? What is my "denomination"? I should like to know from someone who has often claimed to know more about me than I know myself.

"...the other unbelievers you are so fond of..."
And who might they be? Oh, I know! The non-Dizzy-pensationalists from whose wisdom I draw.

My comments of late have given voice to astonishment at your inability to answer straight questions, and veer off into utter irrelevancies.

Will that be a fanfare trumpet, or a normal orchestral trumpet (i.e. valves or no valves?)

Will there be a verbal decree to accompany the trumpet sound? I mean, how literal do you want to go?

I asked on another thread about whether you would identify the ten horns with any historical figures. NOw for your information, "historical" refers to the PAST, not the future. If you would identify one of the horns with say Nero, or the Pope, or Napoleon or whoever, then that is a historical identification. But to be a fururist you have to say that these "kings" are still future, in the next dispensation beginning with your supposed rapture. In other words, the vision has nothing to do with us now, in this present age (according to you).

My point is, however, where literalism stops and symbolism begins. Surely the very verse you quote is a signal to treat the images and motifs of Revelation more generally as symbols, and interpret them accordingly, the way most commentators down through the centuries have done, i.e. until your Dizzy-pensational crowd came along.

Otherwise we have absurdities, and God does not indulge in absurdities and make Himself a laughing-stock to the world of unbelief. Yet it is unquestionable that your approach and conclusions have done just this.

What are the horns of the Beast? Does an angel actually come down from heaven, book in hand, and give it to his earthly servant as a meal?

Therefore my challenge to all Dispies still stands.

Perhaps in the light of your merry dance we should now refer to Dispensationalism as Dizzy-pensationalism!

A ratbag theology if ever there was one!

BTW, what is your own approach to Revelation?
Idealism a la Hendriksen?
Preterism a la Sproul?

Moulton and Milligan observe here that in the light of its (rare) use in Greek lit. the emphasis should be on the adjectival component orthos (straight), rather than the verb temno (to cut).

It is noteworthy that the same word appears in Prov.3:6 (LXX) where it has to do with Wisdom rightly directing the paths of the diligent seeker. Again, nothing to do with dispensations.

And this is only the beginning of sorrows for the position.
1. Once we affirm that people will be saved during the millennium we have a 'second-chance' doctrine. But see 2 Cor.6:2.

2. According the Dispies the Holy Spirit is the restrainer of 2 Thess.2:6-7, but during the Rapture He will be removed. How then in the light of 1 Cor.12:3 will people be saved? Does He then return for the millennium? Or will the physical presence of Christ then be sufficient to effect salvation?

3. The sheer complexity of the system leaves the mind boggling. Several 'parousias', several resurrections, anything up to seven judgments, saints here but not here (as you point out), Christ reigning over people not His kingdom subjects.
And JD has the temerity to accuse me of making things complex, as he has done quite recently.