The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

Arial

Active member
You can't even get this right. The "shoe" you spew your venom against is clearly beyond your comprehension. You "realize" nothing, but your ego won't allow you to shut your mouth and learn. That's sad. Really sad.
If you are able to talk about yourself like that, why don't you do something about it?

KNOCK IT OFF!! You are acting like a teenager.
 

Right Divider

Body part
If a person doesn't start from a particular premise, and is willing to admit that there way is not necessarily right, check out other perspectives, then check it against scripture, there is ample indication that it might be otherwise. I have shown one such interpretation and all you have said is it is wrong, you are right. That is not a persuasive argument, or any kind of argument or defense of your position.
You have made no valid argument to speak of.
It would be the natural conclusion to the 144,000 being literal and what follows afterward in Revelation.
The passage NAMES twelve LITERAL tribes of Israel. The natural reading is that it's talking about twelve literal tribes of Israel.
To conclude that because of the OT references in Revelation, therefore the book is written to only Jews, and about Jews, is sloppy to put it mildly.
Nonsense. The book is completely saturated with Jewishness.
There might be other reasons for all the Jewish references. One of them might be because Jesus is Jewish, the NT was written by believing Jews, and much of it to Jews (but not exclusively for them.) I could probably come up with half a dozen or so more.
If you cannot see the difference between 'the "Gospels", the Hebrew epistles and the book of Revelation' and Paul's epistles, it's simply blindness on your part.
 

Arial

Active member
For those who are actually interested: coming up I will take a look at the first and second death and see if we can put it into perspective. At the moment I need to take a break from the nonsense.
 

Right Divider

Body part
You, Clete, Glorydaz, Right Divider have all put forth the very things that are a part of ultra-dispensationalists.
Nonsense... you are simply continuing the smear campaign.
The two gospels,
There are MORE than two gospels. You can read all about them in the Bible.
Paul's letters being only for Gentiles,
Paul's letters are for everyone that wants to be saved by grace through faith. Paul makes NO distinction between Jews and gentiles in the body of Christ. Galatians 3:28
Peter, James and John only for the Jews etc.
Jas 1:1 (KJV)
(1:1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Are you unable to READ THAT?
Revelation written to and for Jews only.
Nope... you are a liar. I've already said that it's TO the Jews (i.e., Israel) but FOR EVERYONE.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
He changed the topic to be entirely about me. That is changing the topic. If I were searching the web for ideas to present I wouldn't hesitate to say so. ANd what does that have to do with anything anyway? I do search the internet to get information that I don't have. Are you saying you and everybody else in the world doesn't do that? It is a lot easier and faster than going to the library, a lot more intelligent than say--- make everything up in my head. Did you go to school to learn things? Do you listen to a preacher or teacher, read books and get your ideas and beliefs from these things.

I am still waiting for for one of you guys to come up with something besides using deceptive language and these various falacies: strawman, hasty generalization, false dilemma, slothful induction, burden of proof. When you do, I will continue.
Why don't you stop for a minute and read what YOU write. Instead of mocking people who speak of dispensations, why can't you at least give them the consideration you do from what you read on the internet. It's like you set yourself up as an enemy and plug your ears to whatever we say. I didn't learn what I know from the internet. I learned it by listening to reason from brothers and sisters in the Lord. I had so many unanswered questions (just like you do), but when I saw those questions being answered, I was happy. Yes, happy that those questions I had finally had an answer. God has different plans for different times with different people. What do you think Paul is talking about here?

  • 1 Corinthians 9:17
    For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

  • Ephesians 1:10
    That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

  • Ephesians 3:2
    If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

  • Colossians 1:25
    Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
 

Arial

Active member
You have made no valid argument to speak of.
I have given nothing but valid arguments. Valid is not determined by what you believe and don't believe.
The passage NAMES twelve LITERAL tribes of Israel. The natural reading is that it's talking about twelve literal tribes of Israel.
If it were a normal everyday natural type of literature, you would be right. But it isn't. It is apocalyptic/poetic literature. That means it is a type of writing that reveals things that are unseen using visions and symbols. The same thing we see in Dan, Ez. Joel, parts of Isiah.
Nonsense. The book is completely saturated with Jewishness.
Try reading what I said about this that you are responding to.
If you cannot see the difference between 'the "Gospels", the Hebrew epistles and the book of Revelation' and Paul's epistles, it's simply blindness on your part.
The difference us in who is saying what to who, why they are saying it, why they use the particular words they use, what the subject is etc. Not least of which is individual personalities and ways of expressing ideas. All the truths in them are the same and are all for the believer, whether Jew or Gentile. If what you say is true, then why are they in a Bible that is given to and for all believers? Why not have a separate NT for Jews only? Or do you not think that God was in control of what ended up in the Bible, just as He was in control of what truths were given?
 

Right Divider

Body part
I have given nothing but valid arguments. Valid is not determined by what you believe and don't believe.
Only in your head.
If it were a normal everyday natural type of literature, you would be right. But it isn't. It is apocalyptic/poetic literature. That means it is a type of writing that reveals things that are unseen using visions and symbols. The same thing we see in Dan, Ez. Joel, parts of Isiah.
Again, you try to FORCE it to be what you want it to be.
 

Arial

Active member
  • 1 Corinthians 9:17
    For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

  • Ephesians 1:10
    That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

  • Ephesians 3:2
    If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

  • Colossians 1:25
    Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
We went over those eons ago in another thread. I do not recall you responding but that would all be mute anyway. I have nothing against dispensationalists or people believing whatever they want to. It is some sort of hostile, unforgiving group of dispensationalist that have come into this thread and made it all about dispensationalism. When that is not what it is about at all. It was not me that began that it was that little band of rigid, dispensationalist who did and are doing it. I am merely responding to it, but I am not going to anymore. You are giving dispensationalism a VERY BAD NAME. Not to mention casting shame on the name of God. I deeply repent and am ashamed of my participation. Are you?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I doubt He would be very happy to hear you say that.

You doubt Jesus would be happy to hear He is NOT the true Israel? Do you have a scripture that says He is?
You will say anything just to not agree with me, wouldn't you?
Why would you say that? It doesn't even make sense.

Even if it makes no sense. Never mind thinking it through before you say it.

I did think it through, so you're actually falsely accusing me. Why would you do that.?
The scripture you used to support the statements you made is completely unrelated to the specific thing we were talking about, and you did not even bother to show how they might be connected.

I actually thought it made total sense. Which is why I posted it. If Jesus is the root...all things come from Him.

John 1:3-4
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And why have you turned this way towards me. I connect it back to the first time you realized I did not and would not agree with you. Out came your claws.
Ah, such resentment and quite unwarranted, I assure you. I knew we didn't agree on many things when I first met you, but you seemed like an alright person at the time. You forget that I've watched your interactions with others here on this board, so that may be why I'm not as friendly as I was to begin with. It doesn't have to be this way. Just relax and don't take things so personally.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
We went over those eons ago in another thread. I do not recall you responding but that would all be mute anyway. I have nothing against dispensationalists or people believing whatever they want to. It is some sort of hostile, unforgiving group of dispensationalist that have come into this thread and made it all about dispensationalism. When that is not what it is about at all. It was not me that began that it was that little band of rigid, dispensationalist who did and are doing it. I am merely responding to it, but I am not going to anymore. You are giving dispensationalism a VERY BAD NAME. Not to mention casting shame on the name of God. I deeply repent and am ashamed of my participation. Are you?
Me? No, it's my job to preach the gospel. What do I have to repent of?
There is no other way to make Paul's teaching, including the Gospel of Grace, line up with the rest of scripture without first figuring out that God had different plans for different people and times. It's basic 101 Bible. Until you realize that, you'll continue to go around teaching false doctrine.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Ultra dispensationalism: (from gotquestions,org) "According to ultra-dispensationalism, the four Gospels are for Jews only and have no bearing on the church.
False.

This is, at minimum a drastic over statement. Dispensationalism simply teaches that the previous dispensation was still in effect during the events and teachings that took place in those books and that this must be taken into account when reading them and attempting to apply them. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to legalism because Jesus and the Twelve not only obeyed the Law of Moses by taught their followers to do the same.

The book of Acts deals with a different 'church" and is not the body of Christ.
Again, false.

This simply has to be an intentional mischaracterization. The book of Acts is a history book that lays out the transition from one dispensation to another. Without the book of Acts there would be no way to reconcile the books written by Paul with the rest of scripture. No one would even accept his writings as scripture and we'd all be believing and practicing our faith in manner basically identical to today's Messianic Jews.

Only the prison of Paul are directed to the body of Christ or "mystery" church.
There are some dispensationalists that believe this. I am not one of them nor are any of the dispensationalist that I know. The vast majority of dispensationalists believe the church age began in Acts 2. I believe the evidence supports something closer to Acts 9 (i.e. with Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus). I've seen arguments for the church age starting as late as Acts 28 but they are all quite stained and are quite unconvincing in my view. The Acts 28 people are the only one who think that only the prison epistles apply directly to the BoC. They are a tiny minority of Dispensationalists.

Not even the book of Revelation addresses the church---the letters of the seven churches are written to the Jewish church of the tribulation."
Well, duh! That's what the book of Revelation itself plainly states. A point I've already made on this very thread back when discussing dispensationalism was against your rules.

Are you maybe starting all your theories with what you have read and what you have heard and then planting those things in the Bible?
No, on the contrary, it is quite completely the opposite. I didn't start out as a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists. What brought me to it was very simply the most thorough treatment of the biblical material I've ever seen presented by anyone on any topic along with the most eloquently brilliant theological argument that I think is possible to make in defense of the systematic theology.

Are your beliefs original with you or is what you were taught and so believe?
A bit of both but even that which I hold to that was taught to me, I do not believe BECAUSE it was taught to me. I've never been that guy. I was tossed out of my sixth grade Sunday school class because I refused to be convinced that it was necessary to be dunked in water to be saved. I am persuaded by arguments, not people. That has been true of me since I was literally a child.

When you say the things almost exactly as is said above----are you simply quoting something off the internet? (By the way, if something has a meaning in the Bible such as the number 12, and this meaning is discerned from its uses by God in the Bible, if someone gives an explanation of the meaning, they are all going to say the same thing in similar language. So once again deeply flawed thinking on your part.) But lets continue.
Stop trying to deny it, Arial. You found a comment about the meaning of the number twelve somewhere on the internet and decided to slightly reword it and had no idea that the guy you were basically quoting was a major figure in the brand of doctrine you most like to despise.

E.W. Bullinger's original - " Twelve is a perfect number, signifying perfection of government, or of governmental perfection." (First published in 1894)

Arial's rewording - ""It is a perfect number and represents God's power and authority as well as a perfect governmental foundation."

Pretty obvious.

A quote from the same article quoted above. The quote is from a strong dispensationalist, H. A. Ironside and is from his book, "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" He says that he "no hesitancy in saying that [ultra dispensationalism's] fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendos crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it had divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number, it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with extreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views, and instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord of missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth." (emphasis mine.) These are not my words. They are a quote from a dispensationalist.
My response to him is the same as it would be had you said it (or anyone else for that matter).

Saying it doesn't make it so.

In fact, I've learned from long experience that people who talk about "Satanic perversion of the truth" or "doctrines of demons" or some similar comment have run out of substance and have had to resort to emotionalism. Their hope is that people won't want to be associated with "Satanic perversions" and go running like scared rabbits from the doctrine they are trying to discredit with such baseless claims.

Regardless, it doesn't touch me or my doctrine in the slightest because what Ironside is railing about is a form of dispensationalism that I reject and that not 1% of dispensationalists actually believe. Ironside is doing little more than chasing windmills.

Then we have this from Jesus Himself : Matt 7: 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruit.
What would keep me from using the exact same verse of scripture against you and you Amillennialism?

Nothing!

Add to that to make a hodge podge of scriptural teaching rather than consistency, open theism, which flatly denies much of what God says about Himself---and really I would be an utter fool to even consider anything you put forth.
Then please, by all means, put me on ignore you stupid moronic fool!

All you know how to do is parrot nonsense that you find online from sources you aren't the slightest bit familiar with and repeat baseless nonsense like this last idiotic sentence. If anything it is the Calvinist who denies what God says about Himself. He is, after all, the author of the whole book. You blasphemous Calvinists want an immutable god while the bible states flatly that the real God not only Created the universe but that this same Creator BECAME a man and then died and then rose from the dead with a new glorified human body that He hadn't ever had before.

Clete
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You, Clete, Glorydaz, Right Divider have all put forth the very things that are a part of ultra-dispensationalists.

Which doesn't inherently make us ultra-dispensationalists.

Or can't you take us at our word when we say "We're not ultra-dispensationalists"?

The two gospels, Paul's letters being only for Gentiles, Peter, James and John only for the Jews etc. Revelation written to and for Jews only.

As mentioned before: The ENTIRE BIBLE is FOR everyone, regardless of Jew or Gentile.

However, some parts of the Bible are written TO specific groups of people.

And that did not come from Ironside, but a simple doctrinal statement on ultra-dispensationalism.

You're making what is known as a "guilt by association" fallacy.


chrome_screenshot_1643150037622~2.png

chrome_screenshot_1643150037622~3.png



Hey---if a person criticises Mary Baker Eddy or Christian Science----or anything--- the proponents stand up and yell "Liar. Liar!" So you saying what you said doesn't make it so. If the shoe fits---wear it.

Sorry, that's not how this works.

When someone makes a false accusation (aka bearing false witness) against us, as you have done, then of course we're going to call the person out on that.

And certainly I have seen the exact behavior and attitude towards descent in this forum that Ironside mentions. I realize that you take a little of your beliefs from here and some from there, but some of them also exist in ultra-dispensationalism.

Supra.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I am still waiting for for one of you guys to come up with something besides using deceptive language and these various falacies: strawman, hasty generalization, false dilemma, slothful induction, burden of proof. When you do, I will continue.

Hypocrite.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For those who are actually interested: coming up I will take a look at the first and second death and see if we can put it into perspective. At the moment I need to take a break from the nonsense.
Revelation records a 1st resurrection but not a 2nd resurrection.
Revelation records a 2nd death but not a 1st death.
 
Top