Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why prophecy can't be taken literally

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Dave L View Post

    Why did they reject him en masse?
    Be specific.

    Do you mean the Jews after Christ was resurrected? If so, do you really not know the answer to that question?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seanD View Post

      Be specific.

      Do you mean the Jews after Christ was resurrected? If so, do you really not know the answer to that question?
      Why did Jesus need to explain that Elijah was John the Baptist? Along with dozens of other unintelligible prophetic passages?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Dave L View Post

        Why did Jesus need to explain that Elijah was John the Baptist? Along with dozens of other unintelligible prophetic passages?
        Because some of the prophecies were murky. Like I said, they didn't understand the full scope of Jesus' redemptive and spiritual mission. Obviously the disciples themselves were confused by this prior to his resurrection. But that doesn't at all refute my point that a lot of the prophecies they (and we today) attributed to Jesus as Christ were considered by Jews as a LITERAL individual deliverer prior.

        So what is your argument exactly? First you said prophecies aren't literal. Then you changed that to we don't understand prophecy until after they're fulfilled. Which is it?
        Last edited by seanD; 12-28-2020, 12:57 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seanD View Post

          Because some of the prophecies were murky. Like I said, they didn't understand the full scope of Jesus' redemptive and spiritual mission. Obviously the disciples themselves were confused by this prior to his resurrection. But that doesn't at all refute my point that a lot of the prophecies they (and we today) attributed to Jesus as Christ were considered by Jews as a LITERAL individual deliverer prior.

          So what is your argument exactly? First you said prophecies aren't literal. Then you changed that to we don't understand prophecy until after they're fulfilled. Which is it?
          Was this prophecy murky too? “Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed—for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead. Then they went home.” John 20:8–10 (NLT)

          “I have told you these things before they happen so that when they do happen, you will believe.” John 14:29 (NLT)

          “Yes, I’m telling you these things now, so that when they happen, you will remember my warning. I didn’t tell you earlier because I was going to be with you for a while longer.” John 16:4 (NLT)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Dave L View Post

            Was this prophecy murky too? “Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed—for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead. Then they went home.” John 20:8–10 (NLT)

            “I have told you these things before they happen so that when they do happen, you will believe.” John 14:29 (NLT)

            “Yes, I’m telling you these things now, so that when they happen, you will remember my warning. I didn’t tell you earlier because I was going to be with you for a while longer.” John 16:4 (NLT)
            This is exactly what I meant. They knew a Messiah would come, they just didn't understand that he would die (ESPECIALLY via crucifixion -- the most humiliating death an individual back then could die), and then be raised by God again. To them there would be only one resurrection at the final judgement (John 11:24). In fact, some Jews entertained the idea there would be two messiahs that would come in order to solve some of the seemingly conflicting descriptions of the messianic prophecies. Crucifixion was the furthest thing from any Jew back then, which needed the miracle of the resurrection to resolve that. So I don't see what your point is here. This exemplifies what I was saying.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by seanD View Post

              This is exactly what I meant. They knew a Messiah would come, they just didn't understand that he would die (ESPECIALLY via crucifixion -- the most humiliating death an individual back then could die), and then be raised by God again. To them there would be only one resurrection at the final judgement (John 11:24). In fact, some Jews entertained the idea there would be two messiahs that would come in order to solve some of the seemingly conflicting descriptions of the messianic prophecies. Crucifixion was the furthest thing from any Jew back then, which needed the miracle of the resurrection to resolve that. So I don't see what your point is here. This exemplifies what I was saying.
              But you said they understood Isaiah 53? Is there any lingdom prophecy you could have figured out before fulfillment?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                But you said they understood Isaiah 53? Is there any lingdom prophecy you could have figured out before fulfillment?
                I meant they understood it from the perspective a literal deliverer would come, thus those prophecies would be literally fulfilled. They just couldn't fully understand his role. If you're now arguing that we don't fully understand prophecies until they're literally fulfilled, then I'm on board with that. But it seems like that's not what you were arguing at first.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post

                  I meant they understood it from the perspective a literal deliverer would come, thus those prophecies would be literally fulfilled. They just couldn't fully understand his role. If you're now arguing that we don't fully understand prophecies until they're literally fulfilled, then I'm on board with that. But it seems like that's not what you were arguing at first.
                  But most thought it was about Israel instead.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                    But most thought it was about Israel instead.
                    I'm not sure that's true, nor can be proven. All Jews believe that today obviously, but it isn't clear if this was the consensus view prior to the second century. I doubt it. Notice In Acts 8, the Ethiopian never assumed it was Israel, but an individual. I believe Trypho also expressed this view in his discussions with Justin Martyr. But I don't think we can know for sure one way or the other. To my knowledge, all ancient references to Isaiah 53 that predate the second century assumes it is an individual, though I'm not 100% sure about that.
                    Last edited by seanD; 12-29-2020, 11:37 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post

                      I'm not sure that's true, nor can be proven. All Jews believe that today obviously, but it isn't clear if this was the consensus view prior to the second century. I doubt it. Notice In Acts 8, the Ethiopian never assumed it was Israel, but an individual. I believe Trypho also expressed this view in his discussions with Justin Martyr. But I don't think we can know for sure one way or the other. To my knowledge, all ancient references to Isaiah 53 that predate the second century assumes it is an individual, though I'm not 100% sure about that.
                      Why did they reject Jesus and kill him if you are right about this? Even the disciples were ignorant until after the resurrection.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                        Why did they reject Jesus and kill him if you are right about this? Even the disciples were ignorant until after the resurrection.
                        The issue is probably complex, though I suspect the Jewish leadership rejected him primarily for political reasons. Others (i.e.the zealots?) probably rejected him because they became disillusioned with his messianic message. They were expecting a Davidic king that would overthrow the Roman Empire, so a message like "love thy enemies" wasn't exactly what they wanted to hear. I suspect the reason was multifaceted. There's also the spiritual aspect of it, or the "good soil" and the "bad soil" (Matthew 13:10-23).

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post

                          The issue is probably complex, though I suspect the Jewish leadership rejected him primarily for political reasons. Others (i.e.the zealots?) probably rejected him because they became disillusioned with his messianic message. They were expecting a Davidic king that would overthrow the Roman Empire, so a message like "love thy enemies" wasn't exactly what they wanted to hear. I suspect the reason was multifaceted. There's also the spiritual aspect of it, or the "good soil" and the "bad soil" (Matthew 13:10-23).
                          The Jews believed in a Premillennial kingdom. And rejected Christ because he taught an Amillennial kingdom of the Spirit. Most reject his gospel of the kingdom today siding with the Pharisees.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                            The Jews believed in a Premillennial kingdom. And rejected Christ because he taught an Amillennial kingdom of the Spirit. Most reject his gospel of the kingdom today siding with the Pharisees.
                            The disciples believed this too (Acts 1:6-7). Funny thing is, Jesus never corrected them, if we suppose they were in error.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post

                              The disciples believed this too (Acts 1:6-7). Funny thing is, Jesus never corrected them, if we suppose they were in error.
                              Peter preached Amillennialism at Pentecost. They finally understood.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                                Peter preached Amillennialism at Pentecost. They finally understood.
                                No he did not. He was preaching the resurrection of Christ, the Son of God. It had nothing to do with eschatology.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X