Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@Wolfgang said:
IF you had read the post above more carefully, you would have noticed the reference to Rev 1:1-3 ...
Rev 1:1-3 (LEB)
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his slaves the things which must take place in a short time, and communicated it by* sending it through his angel to his slave John, 2 who testified about the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are* those who hear the words of the prophecy and observe the things written in it, because the time is nearHave these scriptures made it obvious to you?
Yet, if we adopt this sense, it is not necessary to follow the preterist interpretation of the book. In eschatology and apocalyptic, the future is always viewed as imminent without the necessity of intervening time (cf. Lk 18:8). That en tachei does not preclude delay or intervening events is evident from the book of Revelation itself.
Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation (Revised Edition), ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, vol. 13 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 595.
I am NOT playing dumb in the least ...but I am telling you the truth that these terms are NOT names in the first place. Why do you not acknowledge this most simple truth and fact??
Because I don't accept that as a simple truth and fact.
Ha ha ha ... best argument I've read in a long time. When you recognize that your argument has been shown to be wrong, just write "I do't accept that ...." Now, that's really cute @reformed
You have hardly shown it to be wrong. Just claimed that it is wrong. It's not wrong just because you say so. That's a pretty arrogant position.
-
The elephant in the on the topic is "Dispensationalism ". It needs to be identified, exposed and rejected. Let the Bible interpret itself. Let the context (immediate/intermediate), language, words, language, the figure of speech, vision, intertextuality, OT usage, verb tenses, etc...
Roll up your sleeves along with prayer and deep study, cradled in the bowl of humility for a better understanding of God's message through human reason and expressions. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
The elephant in the on the topic is "Dispensationalism ". It needs to be identified, exposed and rejected. Let the Bible interpret itself. Let the context (immediate/intermediate), language, words, language, the figure of speech, vision, intertextuality, OT usage, verb tenses, etc...Why does dispensationalism need to be rejected? Dispensationalists do let the Bible interpret itself. Dispensationalists do let the context dictate the meaning. Seems to me you don't know which side you fall on and are just trolling.
-
Correction:
The elephant in the Room on this topic is "Dispensationalism ". It needs to be identified, exposed and rejected. Let the Bible interpret itself. Let the context (immediate/intermediate), language, words, language, the figure of speech, vision, intertextuality, OT usage, verb tenses, etc...
What is the truth or the belief of Dispensationalism? Do you really understand the teachings of Dispensationalists? CM
PS. No, no "trolling"! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Correction:The elephant in the Room on this topic is "Dispensationalism ". It needs to be identified, exposed and rejected. Let the Bible interpret itself. Let the context (immediate/intermediate), language, words, language, the figure of speech, vision, intertextuality, OT usage, verb tenses, etc...
What is the truth or the belief of Dispensationalism? Do you really understand the teachings of Dispensationalists? CM
PS. No, no "trolling"! CM
The question is do you understand what Dispensational Theology is? I don't think you do.
-
@reformed said:
The question is do you understand what Dispensational Theology is? I don't think you do.
Please, enlighten me, if you really know. Don't go too fast. CM
-
That is really a broad subject. But here is a good article on the matter. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=pretrib_arch This article is short, to the point, and gives a good overview of what Dispensational Theology is and what it is not.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Rev 1:1-3 (LEB)
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his slaves the things which must take place in a short time, and communicated it by* sending it through his angel to his slave John, 2 who testified about the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are* those who hear the words of the prophecy and observe the things written in it, because the time is near
Have these scriptures made it obvious to you?Yet, if we adopt this sense, it is not necessary to follow the preterist interpretation of the book.
I see, you just don't accept the obvious and think that is a valid argument ...ha ha ha
In eschatology and apocalyptic, the future is always viewed as imminent without the necessity of intervening time (cf. Lk 18:8). That en tachei does not preclude delay or intervening events is evident from the book of Revelation itself.
Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation (Revised Edition), ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, vol. 13 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 595.
I see, you believe a commentary by a Mr. Johnson above the simple truth of Scripture. That certainly is your privilege .... eh, but why would you accept that person's ideas as truth and not accept what someone else is pointing out what scripture plainly says?
Because I don't accept that as a simple truth and fact.
Ha ha ha ... best argument I've read in a long time. When you recognize that your argument has been shown to be wrong, just write "I don't accept that ...." Now, that's really cute @reformed
You have hardly shown it to be wrong. Just claimed that it is wrong. It's not wrong just because you say so. That's a pretty arrogant position.
Oh really ... Rev 1:1-3 already said so. And I don't think, that should be called a pretty arrogant position, or? I don't think that "I don't accept {such and such}" is a valid argument in the first place ...
-
@reformed said:
Why does dispensationalism need to be rejected? Dispensationalists do let the Bible interpret itself. Dispensationalists do let the context dictate the meaning. Seems to me you don't know which side you fall on and are just trolling.Dispensationalism does NOT let the Bible interpret itself ... certainly no more so than other "...isms" are letting the Bible interpret itself. As for letting the context dictate the meaning, dispensational theology disregards remote context quite often.
Actually, dispensationalism did not show up on the theological scene until rather recently, it was developed and promoted by Scofield and others ... prior to that, no such theology was propagated in Christendom
It seems that a major reason for the ideas of Scofield and company was to try and rectify the obvious dilemma between theology that claims that the coming of the Lord was/is still future after almost 1900/2000 years whereas NT Scripture rather plainly states in various different terms and expressions that it was very imminent and would happen soon, shortly, and even still within the time frame of the generation of Jesus' and the apostles' contemporaries. Unfortunately, dispensationalism heeds to the false futurism theologies and with its "dispensations" tries to explain away the simple, plain, straight forward time statements found in Scripture ...
-
Ouch! Truth hurts. Mr. Reformed, what says ye? CM
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
The elephant in the on the topic is "Dispensationalism ". It needs to be identified, exposed and rejected. Let the Bible interpret itself. Let the context (immediate/intermediate), language, words, language, the figure of speech, vision, intertextuality, OT usage, verb tenses, etc...Why does dispensationalism need to be rejected? Dispensationalists do let the Bible interpret itself. Dispensationalists do let the context dictate the meaning. Seems to me you don't know which side you fall on and are just trolling.
The problem is at the root of Dispensationalism. They sever Daniel's 70th week from the bible by inserting thousands of years before it that scripture does not mention.
They then reinterpret it to mean Antichrist, instead of Jesus who fulfilled the 70th contiguous week when read in context.
So they begin their system based on one scripture removed from context and base wild themes on it that must happen, for a future fulfillment. That is, they recreate the world Daniel described as happening in the first century, well into the future. You would need a Roman Empire, so they pull one out of thin air. You would need a physical Israel and Temple, so they pull that out of thin air too. Since it is Antichrist ruling the 70th week afflicting the world, they need another destruction of Jerusalem to happen in the future. Only they call for it to be a 7 year tribulation (1 week) to match their scheme. Then add the rest. Pre-trib rapture, physical millennium and future Antichrist even though Christendom recognized the Papacy as the culprit from the 10th century on.
Add to this, not one scripture directly supports ANY of their claims.
See the Jesuit origins of futurism posted earlier why Dispensationalists are nothing more than stooges of the Catholic Church.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Rev 1:1-3 (LEB)
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his slaves the things which must take place in a short time, and communicated it by* sending it through his angel to his slave John, 2 who testified about the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are* those who hear the words of the prophecy and observe the things written in it, because the time is near
Have these scriptures made it obvious to you?Yet, if we adopt this sense, it is not necessary to follow the preterist interpretation of the book.
I see, you just don't accept the obvious and think that is a valid argument ...ha ha ha
In eschatology and apocalyptic, the future is always viewed as imminent without the necessity of intervening time (cf. Lk 18:8). That en tachei does not preclude delay or intervening events is evident from the book of Revelation itself.
Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation (Revised Edition), ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, vol. 13 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 595.
I see, you believe a commentary by a Mr. Johnson above the simple truth of Scripture. That certainly is your privilege .... eh, but why would you accept that person's ideas as truth and not accept what someone else is pointing out what scripture plainly says?
It's not just him. It is countless other theologians. That being said, you also don't accept what others point out as what Scripture plainly says such as Jesus being God. So I guess we are at an impasse.
Because I don't accept that as a simple truth and fact.
Ha ha ha ... best argument I've read in a long time. When you recognize that your argument has been shown to be wrong, just write "I don't accept that ...." Now, that's really cute @reformed
You have hardly shown it to be wrong. Just claimed that it is wrong. It's not wrong just because you say so. That's a pretty arrogant position.
Oh really ... Rev 1:1-3 already said so. And I don't think, that should be called a pretty arrogant position, or? I don't think that "I don't accept {such and such}" is a valid argument in the first place ...
No, it didn't prove me wrong at all.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Why does dispensationalism need to be rejected? Dispensationalists do let the Bible interpret itself. Dispensationalists do let the context dictate the meaning. Seems to me you don't know which side you fall on and are just trolling.Dispensationalism does NOT let the Bible interpret itself ... certainly no more so than other "...isms" are letting the Bible interpret itself. As for letting the context dictate the meaning, dispensational theology disregards remote context quite often.
Actually, dispensationalism did not show up on the theological scene until rather recently, it was developed and promoted by Scofield and others ... prior to that, no such theology was propagated in Christendom
Of course, this is is a popular myth. While not called "Dispensationalism" it goes back to the church fathers.
It seems that a major reason for the ideas of Scofield and company was to try and rectify the obvious dilemma between theology that claims that the coming of the Lord was/is still future after almost 1900/2000 years whereas NT Scripture rather plainly states in various different terms and expressions that it was very imminent and would happen soon, shortly, and even still within the time frame of the generation of Jesus' and the apostles' contemporaries. Unfortunately, dispensationalism heeds to the false futurism theologies and with its "dispensations" tries to explain away the simple, plain, straight forward time statements found in Scripture ...
See, this is your misinformation. Dispensationalism didn't begin with Scofield.
@C_M_ said:
Ouch! Truth hurts. Mr. Reformed, what says ye? CMTruth doesn't hurt, nobody has corrected me yet.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Actually, dispensationalism did not show up on the theological scene until rather recently, it was developed and promoted by Scofield and others ... prior to that, no such theology was propagated in ChristendomOf course, this is is a popular myth. While not called "Dispensationalism" it goes back to the church fathers.
Ha ha ha ... sure!! Any "ism" I know of in Christian circles always claims that it goes back to the church fathers and even the 1st century church.
It seems that a major reason for the ideas of Scofield and company was to try and rectify the obvious dilemma between theology that claims that the coming of the Lord was/is still future after almost 1900/2000 years whereas NT Scripture rather plainly states in various different terms and expressions that it was very imminent and would happen soon, shortly, and even still within the time frame of the generation of Jesus' and the apostles' contemporaries. Unfortunately, dispensationalism heeds to the false futurism theologies and with its "dispensations" tries to explain away the simple, plain, straight forward time statements found in Scripture ...
See, this is your misinformation. Dispensationalism didn't begin with Scofield.
See above ... eh, @reformed, maybe it had just been forgotten for all those centuries from the 1st century AD until Scofield and he and his comrades "re-discovered" that church fathers theological position
-
Mr. Reformed, are you trying to say that the "Church Fathers" has it all and knew it all? Are you trying to say they were immune to error? Who cares how far a thing goes if it's unbiblical, it's unbiblical. You have to come better than this. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Mr. Reformed, are you trying to say that the "Church Fathers" has it all and knew it all? Are you trying to say they were immune to error? Who cares how far a thing goes if it's unbiblical, it's unbiblical. You have to come better than this. CM
You and @Wolfgang are just being bullies at this point, twisting things I say, and mocking. Perhaps you should examine yourself?
-
??? just speaking for myself, I do not regard myself as being bully here ... actually, you with your "I do't accept ... what doesn't agree with my current theology" attitude makes you to make such false accusations against others.
I am not twisting what you said, rather I am perhaps pointing out some details of what your statements actually do say ... in some cases, it seems you did not even realize such implications of what you are promoting -
@Wolfgang said:
??? just speaking for myself, I do not regard myself as being bully here ... actually, you with your "I do't accept ... what doesn't agree with my current theology" attitude makes you to make such false accusations against others.
I am not twisting what you said, rather I am perhaps pointing out some details of what your statements actually do say ... in some cases, it seems you did not even realize such implications of what you are promotingI didn't say I didn't accept it because it doesn't agree with my current theology. I don't accept it because it doesn't work biblically.
You have repeatedly twisted and misrepresented what I have said in this thread.
-
@reformed said:
I didn't say I didn't accept it because it doesn't agree with my current theology. I don't accept it because it doesn't work biblically.The real problem is that you equate your interpretation/your theology with Biblical truth, thereby excluding the possibility that your ideas just may not be what is Biblically true.
I admit that what I write is my current understanding and not necessarily the biblical truth, as I am not all-knowing and have absolute truth, and then I endeavor to objectively - as much as possible - point out the Biblical evidence on which my understanding is based.
You, in contrast, claim that what you believe is biblical truth, implying that what you accept and believe is the truth and can therefore not be incorrect.
You have repeatedly twisted and misrepresented what I have said in this thread.
I can understand that what I have pointed out may appear to you as what you claim here ... but it isn't. What you perceive as "twists" and "misrepresentation" are actually what your ideas do indicate and do imply and do actually say ... but you do not seem to realize it and thus regard it as twisting etc.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
I didn't say I didn't accept it because it doesn't agree with my current theology. I don't accept it because it doesn't work biblically.The real problem is that you equate your interpretation/your theology with Biblical truth, thereby excluding the possibility that your ideas just may not be what is Biblically true.
Are you not doing the same?
I admit that what I write is my current understanding and not necessarily the biblical truth, as I am not all-knowing and have absolute truth, and then I endeavor to objectively - as much as possible - point out the Biblical evidence on which my understanding is based.
Yet you don't believe Jesus is God...
You, in contrast, claim that what you believe is biblical truth, implying that what you accept and believe is the truth and can therefore not be incorrect.
I've never claimed such.
You have repeatedly twisted and misrepresented what I have said in this thread.
I can understand that what I have pointed out may appear to you as what you claim here ... but it isn't. What you perceive as "twists" and "misrepresentation" are actually what your ideas do indicate and do imply and do actually say ... but you do not seem to realize it and thus regard it as twisting etc.
No, you can say that but it's not true. You do not represent what I say accurately.
-
The difference is that when you can't refute a biblical argument, you resort to "I don't accept ..." whereas I don't.
I admit that what I write is my current understanding and not necessarily the biblical truth, as I am not all-knowing and have absolute truth, and then I endeavor to objectively - as much as possible - point out the Biblical evidence on which my understanding is based.
Yet you don't believe Jesus is God...
Indeed ... because no one has shown with biblical evidence that Jesus is God, rather when I have presented biblical evidence that the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and thus is not God, you and others resort to creeds and theologies and just repeat verses which I have shown in detail to be misinterpreted by trinitarian theology and eventually you end up again with "I just don't accept ..."
I can understand that what I have pointed out may appear to you as what you claim here ... but it isn't. What you perceive as "twists" and "misrepresentation" are actually what your ideas do indicate and do imply and do actually say ... but you do not seem to realize it and thus regard it as twisting etc.
No, you can say that but it's not true. You do not represent what I say accurately.
And yet ... here you do that very thing.
-
@Wolfgang said:
The difference is that when you can't refute a biblical argument, you resort to "I don't accept ..." whereas I don't.
Not true. I already refuted them, then you kept saying the same thing as if it must be so, and I said no I don't accept it. Again, twisting and misrepresenting what I said.
I admit that what I write is my current understanding and not necessarily the biblical truth, as I am not all-knowing and have absolute truth, and then I endeavor to objectively - as much as possible - point out the Biblical evidence on which my understanding is based.
Yet you don't believe Jesus is God...
Indeed ... because no one has shown with biblical evidence that Jesus is God, rather when I have presented biblical evidence that the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and thus is not God, you and others resort to creeds and theologies and just repeat verses which I have shown in detail to be misinterpreted by trinitarian theology and eventually you end up again with "I just don't accept ..."
We have shown more than ample evidence, including his own claims, that Jesus is God.
I can understand that what I have pointed out may appear to you as what you claim here ... but it isn't. What you perceive as "twists" and "misrepresentation" are actually what your ideas do indicate and do imply and do actually say ... but you do not seem to realize it and thus regard it as twisting etc.
No, you can say that but it's not true. You do not represent what I say accurately.
And yet ... here you do that very thing.
No I haven't actually.
-
@reformed said:
Yet you don't believe Jesus is God...
Indeed ... because no one has shown with biblical evidence that Jesus is God, rather when I have presented biblical evidence that the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and thus is not God, you and others resort to creeds and theologies and just repeat verses which I have shown in detail to be misinterpreted by trinitarian theology and eventually you end up again with "I just don't accept ..."
We have shown more than ample evidence, including his own claims, that Jesus is God.
Jesus NEVER ONCE said anything to declare himself to be God ...
What you have done is to present typical trinity theology interpretations of certain verses, and these interpretations were shown to be false, at times plain fantasy and not even what the text itself stated .... -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Yet you don't believe Jesus is God...
Indeed ... because no one has shown with biblical evidence that Jesus is God, rather when I have presented biblical evidence that the man Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and thus is not God, you and others resort to creeds and theologies and just repeat verses which I have shown in detail to be misinterpreted by trinitarian theology and eventually you end up again with "I just don't accept ..."
We have shown more than ample evidence, including his own claims, that Jesus is God.
Jesus NEVER ONCE said anything to declare himself to be God ...
What you have done is to present typical trinity theology interpretations of certain verses, and these interpretations were shown to be false, at times plain fantasy and not even what the text itself stated ....Not so. You have never shown a single shred of evidence that shows Trinitarian Theology to be false. Rather, you ignore parts of Scripture to make it seem like you have done so.
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
I think I found the key to why we seem to engage in biblical kabuki dancing on the topic of the Millennium. The reason is NOT recognizing the two approaches. We must first distinguish “Biblical premillennialism” from “Dispensational premillennialism”.“Biblical premillennialism” teaches that the millennium is to occur after the Second Coming of Christ and that God’s people will spend the millennium in heaven, while there will be desolation on earth.
“Dispensational premillenialism” teaches that the millennium will be spent on earth, and that the OT prophecies to the Israelite nation will be literally fulfilled; it is also a time during which there will be “evangelism and testing”.
I hope this helps. CM
No that actually doesn't help, nor is it necessarily true. That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical.
You have to do better. Put your finding or knowledge where your bold assertions are. It would be nice if you take heed your words and counsel...
Are you prepared to take those words above back: "...That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical"?
@reformed said: "You have hardly shown it to be wrong. Just claimed that it is wrong. It's not wrong just because you say so. That's a pretty arrogant position".
Those words hurled at Wolfgang (page 12). What about a little self-application in relating to me (CM)?
@C_M_ said: Check your faith belief. Let the Word speak over personal theology.
Read the text (Rev. 20:1-10) again, slowly and in context. Better yet, read the entire chapter.
- What happens after the return of Christ, according to Scripture? Please list from the text.
- What happens during the millennium? Please list from the text.
- What happens at the end of the millennium? (See page 10 above-my 8-points). Do you accept them as biblical teachings?
"...you can't say the first is necessarily biblical".
Please explain, why? Biblical reasoning. CM
You love to say:
@reformed said: "Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation".
Where is the biblical "beef"?
"...you obviously don't understand Dispensational teachings..."
If you could prove your assumption, it's would be a hollow victory. You see, "Dispensational teachings" are deviations from the Bible. My first task and responsibility are to understand the Word.
Keep studying. "Doubling down" is not the way forward. This is the Bible, not politics. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
I think I found the key to why we seem to engage in biblical kabuki dancing on the topic of the Millennium. The reason is NOT recognizing the two approaches. We must first distinguish “Biblical premillennialism” from “Dispensational premillennialism”.“Biblical premillennialism” teaches that the millennium is to occur after the Second Coming of Christ and that God’s people will spend the millennium in heaven, while there will be desolation on earth.
“Dispensational premillenialism” teaches that the millennium will be spent on earth, and that the OT prophecies to the Israelite nation will be literally fulfilled; it is also a time during which there will be “evangelism and testing”.
I hope this helps. CM
No that actually doesn't help, nor is it necessarily true. That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical.
You have to do better. Put your finding or knowledge where your bold assertions are. It would be nice if you take heed your words and counsel...
Are you prepared to take those words above back: "...That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical"?
@reformed said: "You have hardly shown it to be wrong. Just claimed that it is wrong. It's not wrong just because you say so. That's a pretty arrogant position".
Those words hurled at Wolfgang (page 12). What about a little self-application in relating to me (CM)?
@C_M_ said: Check your faith belief. Let the Word speak over personal theology.
Read the text (Rev. 20:1-10) again, slowly and in context. Better yet, read the entire chapter.
- What happens after the return of Christ, according to Scripture? Please list from the text.
- What happens during the millennium? Please list from the text.
- What happens at the end of the millennium? (See page 10 above-my 8-points). Do you accept them as biblical teachings?
"...you can't say the first is necessarily biblical".
Please explain, why? Biblical reasoning. CM
You love to say:
@reformed said: "Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation".
Where is the biblical "beef"?
"...you obviously don't understand Dispensational teachings..."
If you could prove your assumption, it's would be a hollow victory. You see, "Dispensational teachings" are deviations from the Bible. My first task and responsibility are to understand the Word.
Keep studying. "Doubling down" is not the way forward. This is the Bible, not politics. CM
And you have been wishy washy on this whole subject.
-
@reformed said:
And you have been wishy washy on this whole subject.
I and others are holding you accountable for your statement above. Here's how you can fix it:
- State what I said on the subject and changed positions.
- What specifically did I supported and changed back?
- What biblical truth of this subject matter I'm inconsistent?
In the meanwhile, I shall share where the "Saints" will be during the millennium. CM
-
Physical Kingdom ? Beatitudes spoken by Jesus includes physical inheritance:
"Blessed are the meek, because they will inherit the earth."
along with spiritual beginning:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
Personally thrilled with:
"Blessed are the pure in heart, because they will see God."Isaiah 65:17-25 has Joyful prophecy about new heavens and a new earth, which is yet to be fulfilled.
Zechariah 14:4 includes prophecy about Mount of Olives being split in half, which is also yet to happen. Jesus has not yet returned physically, which is useful knowledge when conversing with someone who believes Jesus has already returned.
@reformed said:
God sends lies? Did you just say God lies?1 Kings 22:19-23 includes a deceiving spirit responding to Adonai's request to do Adonai's will.
Keep Smiling
-
@Dave_L said:
The great tribulation Jesus spoke of happened in 70 AD. Josephus will confirm this is the worst event in human history, not in numbers of casualties, but in horrors and suffering.
Dave,
"The great tribulation...in 70 AD. Josephus will confirm this is the worst event in human history...in horrors and suffering". Would you say that this true today in light of all that happened since Josephus' times and writings? Do you speak of "horrors and suffering" of a people, a time, or a geographical location that is "the worst event in human history"? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
"The great tribulation...in 70 AD. Josephus will confirm this is the worst event in human history...in horrors and suffering". Would you say that this true today in light of all that happened since Josephus' times and writings?One should keep what Scripture states within its scope and context.
A major cause for error and false understanding is connected with readers taking what Scripture states out of its context and trying to interpret it in light of their different scope and context of today. Another example: People read "world" and think of it as the global entity that is in view what we hear "world" in today's news, etc .... but, quite obviously, when Lk 2:1 speaks of "all the world be taxed", the term "world" is not meant in today's usage, else Scripture would propagate an error, because that taxation in Lk 2:1 did not happen in places such as are now known as USA, Japan, India, etc
Do you speak of "horrors and suffering" of a people, a time, or a geographical location that is "the worst event in human history"? CM
See above ... the question is not whether Dave or I or you are speaking of a certain people, time or geographical area but the question is: What was/is in view of the author of a statement in Scripture ...
As for the "the statement made by Jesus (cp. Mt 24:21) "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." we must be careful to understand it in light of the context and scope that is in view ... which is not "a global world", which is not "all of human history", etc.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
