Eschatology change

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
With regards to Amil, I've been thinking about how a spiritually minded OT Jew would have viewed prophecies like Isaiah 65-66, Ezekiel's Temple, etc. Is there any sound principle of interpretation they might have used to realize that the kingdom was spiritual but being spoken of in earthly and Jewish-centered terms? Or was there no way for them to know that until Christ came and revealed that? There seems to have been some way for them to have known (and I have a hunch how) based on what Hebrews tells us about Abraham.

Thoughts?

Read Michael Brown's stuff on Jewish apologetics. He notes how pious Jews wrestled with Ezekiel's temple. It's not simply a difficulty of "sacrifices still going on." There are a number of difficulties in taking it literally (for example, it doesn't mention a ceiling).
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Read Michael Brown's stuff on Jewish apologetics. He notes how pious Jews wrestled with Ezekiel's temple. It's not simply a difficulty of "sacrifices still going on." There are a number of difficulties in taking it literally (for example, it doesn't mention a ceiling).
This morning I listened to his debate with Demar.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
This morning I listened to his debate with Demar.

Obviously, I don't accept all of Brown's conclusions, but Demar was completely unprepared. Demar has not advanced his critique beyond Hal Lindsey. He acts like every premillennialist is still reading Late Great Planet Earth. In any case, Hitchcock's dissertation on the date of Revelation is probably the final word on the subject.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Obviously, I don't accept all of Brown's conclusions, but Demar was completely unprepared. Demar has not advanced his critique beyond Hal Lindsey. He acts like every premillennialist is still reading Late Great Planet Earth. In any case, Hitchcock's dissertation on the date of Revelation is probably the final word on the subject.
Love you brother, I disagree. Demar handled the texts better, or at least stayed in the texts, while Brown used the shotgun mosaic approach. Demar would go to scripture and Brown would change the discussion by introducing another text or subject while trying to create his mosaic-like eschatology. Brown is very much a Dispey but yes, not Lindsey. When I use Dispey I mean...he does not represent Historic Premil and sides with Dispensationalism more often.

I would go further into detail but I have a rather long drawn out discussion with a PreTriber I attend church with and don't have time. I appreciate you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
Love you brother, I disagree. Demar handled the texts better, or at least stayed in the texts, while Brown used the shotgun mosaic approach. Demar would go to scripture and Brown would change the discussion by introducing another text or subject while trying to create his mosaic-like eschatology. Brown is very much a Dispey but yes, not Lindsey. When I use Dispey I mean...he does not represent Historic Premil and sides with Dispensationalism more often.

I would go further into detail but I have a rather long drawn out discussion with a PreTriber I attend church with and don't have time. I appreciate you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
Demar did bring up a good point about symbolic language in scripture. He said If you compare psalm 18 to the original event, in 2 Samuel, it's not obvious that the Lord showed up on a cloud breathing fire out of his mouth. I think it's something good to keep in mind as we try to understand a book like revelation or symbolic language in the scriptures.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Love you brother, I disagree. Demar handled the texts better, or at least stayed in the texts, while Brown used the shotgun mosaic approach. Demar would go to scripture and Brown would change the discussion by introducing another text or subject while trying to create his mosaic-like eschatology. Brown is very much a Dispey but yes, not Lindsey. When I use Dispey I mean...he does not represent Historic Premil and sides with Dispensationalism more often.

I would go further into detail but I have a rather long drawn out discussion with a PreTriber I attend church with and don't have time. I appreciate you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Brown is not a dispensationalist. He is historic premil. He recently wrote a book refuting dispensationalism.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Case in point. Demar brought up his line (I'm 99% sure he did; I know he did in his debate with Ice) about how premil sees most of the world's Jews being exterminated (and hence it is a bad view). I'm like, "Logically, what does that have to do with anything?" Demar uses that line in almost every debate he does.
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
Case in point. Demar brought up his line (I'm 99% sure he did; I know he did in his debate with Ice) about how premil sees most of the world's Jews being exterminated (and hence it is a bad view). I'm like, "Logically, what does that have to do with anything?" Demar uses that line in almost every debate he does.
Well, since they charge us with anti-semitism it sorta turns the argument back on them...ha
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
My bottom line view on eschatology: all sides "cheat" a little and no one side is perfect. I decided to lean towards futuristic amil because it doesn't have as many problems. Still has problems but ones I can work through. I'm not 100% satisfied on how it deals with imprisoning the spirits of heaven and punishing them after many days (Isa. 24-27)
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Brown is not a dispensationalist. He is historic premil. He recently wrote a book refuting dispensationalism.
He is a Zionist and would likely agree with dispeys on many things.
Obviously, I don't accept all of Brown's conclusions, but Demar was completely unprepared. Demar has not advanced his critique beyond Hal Lindsey. He acts like every premillennialist is still reading Late Great Planet Earth. In any case, Hitchcock's dissertation on the date of Revelation is probably the final word on the subject.
"DeMar came with his 1970’s template, but it did not work in this debate."

Sounds like you and Alan are in agreement.


I think premil is a distraction and I need to more on.

Yours in the Lord
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Brown is not a dispensationalist. He is historic premil. He recently wrote a book refuting dispensationalism.
I’m actually really happy to hear this. For some reason, I had just assumed Brown is Dispensationalist. That was an unfair assumption, and I’m glad.
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, since they charge us with anti-semitism it sorta turns the argument back on them...ha
I guess that beliving that Millions of Jews will be slaughtered prior to the supposedly millennium kingdom is not as bad as believing that the Church is the true Israel. Gets me everytime.. ha.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Jacob,

When you say (post 69), "I'm not 100% satisfied on how it [the amil view?] deals with imprisoning the spirits of heaven and punishing them after many days" (Isa 24:21-22), I think a satisfactory answer is given by E.J.Young in loc. cit. in his Isaiah commentary, vol 2 — these are the fallen angels in the heavenlies consigned to the abyss until the final judgment and the lake of fire, which the NT confirms — Eph 6:12; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6.

Also, when you say re eschatology, "all sides 'cheat' a little and no one side is perfect", I'd be interested hear how you think the amil does this, or lacks — I take pleasure in studying and trying to answer these sorts of questions.
 

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
There are no more promises for a separate ethnic Israel to inherit. Jesus alone has inherited. "His father has given him all that he has." He is an Israel-of-one. He is the Israel of God (and so are his people as his seed, plural). Paul places national Israel in exactly the position of Ishmael, the elder brother, Gal.4. All the sons have been disinherited, Act.2, all but One. But there is one way back, returning as servants of the Seed, and to be made members of his house on the same basis as everyone else, and to be raised from there to the position of sons again by grace.

The fulfillment is Jesus, the Vine, the olive Tree. The church is simply the NT era expression of all--those of the ages prior to Jesus as well as those of the present age--the branches that have ever been or ever will be grafted into him. Talking about future fulfillments that are coordinated to a separatist expression presupposes that all the promises are NOT in him yes and in him amen
Love this. Wish I could be as eloquent. I am going to quote this at Tovia Singer on Youtube
 
Top