Zionist Elements in the New World Order Plan (blockbuster!)

[skyblue888]

Check this out Overaged when you have a chance:

http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/as..._FOUNDATION.pdf

I have had to take Christian friends step-by-step in helping them see this error before we were able to move on with anything. And we actually made some good progress, and they were blown away!

Once they understood that the 70th week was already fulfilled from 27 A.D. to 34 A.D., everything else began to fall into place!

George Burnside, a famous Godly Adventist evangelist back in the 50s got it!

Just read this link about Futurism.

Very well done.

sky

[jasd]

>>But included in that is exposing deceptions, which includes exposing Dispensationalism.<<

One supposes that the Dialectician defines his/her terms...

I suspect that you reference that which was ‘coined' and quasi-Writ; however, that ‘coinage’ does nothing in the way of nullifying true Dispensationalism per the written word of Gd.

“Thee only of all the families of the earth have I known.”

That’s Dispensationalism.

St Paul’s teaching that the gentiles are engrafted branches of Israel’s signifier – the Olive Tree.

That’s Dispensationalism.

Revelation 21 informs that the Gates of the Heavenly City Jerusalem bear the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and not such as, Han Su Yuk, Ali Malayoob, Long Hair Sky, Dunaberi Tup, etc.

That’s Dispensationalism – from Genesis through Revelation.

The ‘other’ is cheap coinage. Misguided – having neither the wherewithal nor the gumption to have either parsed Holy Writ or to have read Arthur Koestler – not to mention historical studies. Etc.

[Lysimachus]

Call it what you like JASD, but it won't change the facts that the ideological principles behind Dispensationalism "AS IT IS KNOWN", separates Israel from the Church, creates an infamous gap between the first 69 weeks and the 70th week, bypasses 1500 years of history as being "insignificant" on the prophetic scale, save for the 7 churches, creates a ficticious diabolical Antichrist Devil-Man outside the Papal System, rejects that the Beast Power of Daniel and Revelation is realized in the Papacy, imagines that the Antichrist will literally sit in a third temple on the Temple Mount, etc. etc. etc.

So you are more than welcome to "properly employ the word dispensationalism" if you so well please. But do not confuse how you employ it to the very fact that Dispensationalism as it is understood theologically is unbibilical.

It's the voice of the false prophet.

It''s one of the main ingredients to hone in the New World Order and persecute God's true commandment keepers.

[skyblue888]

Amen to that.

There is only one dispensation and it is that of grace.

"The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men." Titus 2:11.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Even Ellen White uses the phrase "the dispensation of the Holy Spirit" several times.

I mean even the term "futurism" isn't bad. We know there is yet a future tribulation, a future re-manifestation of antichrist, a future 7 last plagues, a future millennium, etc. etc. But when we say "futurism", we're meaning a particular ideology. So when we're dealing with "dispensationalism", let's not get hung up on the fact that there is a true Biblical meaning to "dispensations". We know that already.

[ClubV12]

Hey, lets not leave out the "1335 Futurists", their in a league all their own. They are distinctly different from what we normally think of as "Futurists".

Much of this dispensation thing goes over my head for the time being, I've got a full plate already and am peddaling as fast as I can to keep up...

My Muslim friend inquired of me the other day, "Why did Jesus have to die?" Dare I say, perhaps THE most important question of them all.

[cheddar]

You love to talk out of both sides of your mouth and come across as this faithful follower of Ellen White and historicism.

And then you’re the one who starts all these futuristic threads like the ‘1335 futurists’.

Sounds to me like there’s some doubt in your mind and your not sure what to believe.

‘A double minded man is unstable in all his ways’ and will not receive anything from the Lord.

Adventists have always taught that the 1290 and 1335 days (oh my bad! I mean years) are in the past – so throw them in the past and call it a day.

The SDA church teaches that futurism is the dark side of the force – so stay away young padawan.

[Lysimachus]

cheddar,

True Futurism, in essence, demands that one place the Antichrist beyond the Dark Ages. In other words, the bulk of Daniel and Revelation are placed in the future, and 1500 years goes unchecked, with no application to the Beast or Little Horn powers.

Placing the 1335 in the future I personally do not believe is "futurism". If there is a future application, it would simply be the "acme end-point of Historicism". In other words, Historicism has finally met it's "climactic point". The future side of Historicism is not "Futurism". It still recognizes the Antichrist power during the middle-ages.

Also, Ellen White is amazingly silent on the 1290 and 1335 of Daniel 12. She makes one statement that is confusing to many that some take it to mean that the 1335 being ended is in error, or that the man she was referring to is in error for putting it in the past. But even so, the fact that the historical application of the 1335 being in the past does not erase the possibility of it being repeated again in literal form at the end. To be honest, we really do not know, and it's still something being worked on.

You act as if Adventists cannot progress in their understanding? Daniel 11 is just finally being understood by Adventists within the last decade. And it's taking ADVENTISTS to crack these codes. The evangelical world though is aloof to these passages. They just make anything up, out of their wild hats, out of thin air. No disrespect to them, but many evangelical Christians come up with some really whacky ideas.... they are always coming up with with stuff without sound foundations.

Decoding prophecy is like a massive structure on a solid foundation. One cannot progress and crack additional codes until firm foundations have been laid.

This has been done throughout the last 1500 years with the Reformers, and Adventists are building on these solid platforms. Dispensational Futurists, and Preterists, on the other hand, are building on top of shaky foundations that originate from a handful of men. But not from a broad stretch of history where men were impressed by the Spirit of God with overwhelming unanimity throughout Europe and the world.

When Ellen White said "Many do not realize how firm the foundation of our faith has been laid", she meant exactly what she said.

And sadly, there are many like you who do not realize just how right she was.

[cheddar]

Wrong!

The little horn power is the one who takes away the daily – so if the little horn power reigned in the middle ages then the 1290 day time period has to be in the middle ages as well.

Quote:

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Dan. 12:11

In order for the 1290 days to be seen in the future then your identification of the little horn power (papacy) must be in error. Are you saying that the little horn power is not the papacy?

[Lysimachus]

Wrong!

The little horn power is the one who takes away the daily – so if the little horn power reigned in the middle ages then the 1290 day time period has to be in the Middle Ages as well.

Quote:

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Dan. 12:11

In order for the 1290 days to be seen in the future then your identification of the little horn power (papacy) must be in error. Are you saying that the little horn power is not the papacy?

This is why I primarily hold to the historical position of the 1290 and 1335. All I'm saying is that we may yet discover a way that these time prophecies re-apply at the end. Maybe not.

[ClubV12]

To this day there is no universal agreement on WHAT the "daily" actually is, cheddar.

Lots of people have an opinion on it, but it remains an opinion, no matter how well presented the evidence and documentation may be. I have yet to form a conclusive opinion on the matter myself. It remains an interesting study.

This 1335 Futurist group, as Lysimachus noted, is distinctly different than what the worlds christian community considers "Futurists". The 1335's originate solely from a Seventh-day Adventist background. Off shoots of Adventists in some cases, certainly Adventist fanatics in others and well meaning Adventists in good standing simply trying to figure it out. Quite a mixed bag of Adventist folks. I have not seen anything to date on the subject that I totally agree with. MOST of what I've seen on the subject I strongly disagree with!

In both cases, the daily and the 1335, will be fully revealed when God will's it. Maybe tommorow? Next year? I don't know...

[cheddar]

To this day there is no universal agreement on WHAT the "daily" actually is, cheddar.

Lots of people have an opinion on it, but it remains an opinion, no matter how well presented the evidence and documentation may be. I have yet to form a conclusive opinion on the matter myself. It remains an interesting study.

This 1335 Futurist group, as Lysimachus noted, is distinctly different than what the worlds christian community considers "Futurists". The 1335's originate solely from a Seventh-day Adventist background. Off shoots of Adventists in some cases, certainly Adventist fanatics in others and well meaning Adventists in good standing simply trying to figure it out. Quite a mixed bag of Adventist folks. I have not seen anything to date on the subject that I totally agree with. MOST of what I've seen on the subject I strongly disagree with!

In both cases, the daily and the 1335, will be fully revealed when God will's it. Maybe tommorow? Next year? I don't know...

There's a pretty strong agreement on who and what the little power is so your options are very limited.

[ClubV12]

There is no question in my mind the 1260, 1290 and 1335 were segments of the 2,300 year prophecy. The question is, will any of those segments also have a future application as well, a secondary fulfillment. Unlikely in my opinion, but I leave open the possibility.

Lysimachus says,

"She makes one statement that is confusing to many that some take it to mean that the 1335 being ended is in error, or that the man she was referring to is in error for putting it in the past."

I've looked at this statement closely, in terms of context, time, place, people involved, history and I am absolutely convinced she is saying the 1335 was in the past. Correcting this man on his error of trying to place it in some future position. 1335 is done, over, stick a fork in it. But could it have a "dual fulfillment"? Very unlikely, I think a "dual fulfillment", with THIS issue, is impossible.

But still, I will leave a little room for some kind of possible future application in a way I don't yet understand.

As for the daily, no comment, we simply don't know for sure.

[Lysimachus]

There is no question in my mind the 1260, 1290 and 1335 were segments of the 2,300 year prophecy. The question is, will any of those segments also have a future application as well, a secondary fulfillment. Unlikely in my opinion, but I leave open the possibility.

Lysimachus says,

"She makes one statement that is confusing to many that some take it to mean that the 1335 being ended is in error, or that the man she was referring to is in error for putting it in the past."

I've looked at this statement closely, in terms of context, time, place, people involved, history and I am absolutely convinced she is saying the 1335 was in the past. Correcting this man on his error of trying to place it in some future position. 1335 is done, over, stick a fork in it. But could it have a "dual fulfillment"? Very unlikely, I think a "dual fulfillment", with THIS issue, is impossible.

But still, I will leave a little room for some kind of possible future application in a way I don't yet understand.

As for the daily, no comment, we simply don't know for sure.

You summed this up pretty well. I agree with you.

Concerning the daily, however, I'm 100% settled now that it can only be referring to Christ's High Priestly ministry in the Holy Place. I used to hold the paganism view. Also, Dr. Frank Hardy, Ph.D. has written a sound and lengthy refutation of the daily being anything to do with the Sabbath. Heidi Heik's "The 'Daily' Source Book" strikes so many lethal blows into the Daily being paganism, I was seriously virtually bleeding in the end. You're talking to someone who believed in the Paganism view, and my father who used to be a missionary and speaker for many years held to this view too. After presenting the overwhelming data from the Bible, Ellen White, History, and the Pioneers, there is no question in my mind any longer that the daily represents Christ's High Priestly ministry, and my father was forced to change his view too. You should have seen him.... "there goes my view of the daily!" as he falls on the couch, lol. At this point, it would be too difficult for me to just summarize the points made in the book. They have to be read in their totality to get the "big picture".

I know another lady who used to believe in the Paganism view. I told her to buy Heidi Heik's book, and well, she now changed her mind as well. lol.

Heidi Heik's books are still new. But they are soon bound to become the "standard" in source knowledge concerning issues, and their purpose is to bring unity in Adventism. Thus far, nobody, and I mean NOBODY has refuted his arguments in his books.

[skyblue888]

I agree with you on the daily.

As to the possibility of re-applying these time prophecies of Daniel 12, I don't see how since there will never again be a message for the people of God that will be based on time. (1 S.M.188)

sky

[Lysimachus]

Oh I believe you are right Sky. However, do not forget that the 1260 year time frame was not understood until after it passed over. Same with the 2300, and 1290 and 1335.

So let's assume there is a re-application of the 1260, 1290, and 1335. Does it mean it will be a test? No, because we won't know how long it lasted until we're in heaven, cuz we weren't sure when it began. Then we'll look back and say "oh, that's how long it lasted!".

So you're right. I don't think we should even worry about these time frames as being literal. After the Sunday Law passes, we'll be more concerned about #1. Purifying our characters and getting rid of every known sin, and confessing our sins to one another and coming into true gospel unity, and #2. Spreading the Three Angel's Messages to the entire world. We will not be concerned about how long it will last. We'll just know that Jesus' return is just around the corner. :)

[jasd]

>>Call it what you like JASD,<<

“A rose by any other name..., eh” To subscribe to the Evangelical’s position re the matter, without definition, is to corrupt the Biblical position re Gd’s Dispensation towards His Biblical people, which ain not today’s Jews as supposed but to Jews as included within the general assembly of the COI.

>>but it won't change the facts that the ideological principles behind Dispensationalism "AS IT IS KNOWN",<<

Or hijacked and misconstrued...

>>separates Israel from the Church,<<

Good and bad: those who resort to an ‘Evangelical’ definition of Biblical Dispensatinalism think that today’s Jews are Israel. That, on its very face, is incorrect and unBiblical. However, Israel, that is Israel proper, is the church and vice versa – no Olive Tree, no gentile engraftation, no gentile church, no ‘spiritual’ church.

>>creates an infamous gap between the first 69 weeks and the 70th week,<<

Thereupon, your ‘dispensationalists’ prove right, as proper exegesis demands that interpretation. The ‘Seventy-weeks’ vision necessitates that the entirety of Israel, all twelve tribes – are in view during some aspect of its fulfillment. That, of course, was not the case should one adhere to the dogma that the stoning of Stephen was the date upon which the prophecy terminated.

The way the .Org interprets the vision countenances only a remnant of Jews of the Southern Kingdom.

Moreover, lexically, the date 457 BC cannot be honestly factored as the beginning terminus for the fulfillment of the vision. (Remember: the Northern tribes together with the majority of the Southern Kingdom had gone into exile and since, for practical purposes, been lost to history)

>>bypasses 1500 years of history as being "insignificant" on the prophetic scale,<<

Though their view is correct, it is so because of incorrect exegesis. It is only “insignificant” in that it was not represented in the ‘metal’ image of Daniel 2 – because the great kingdoms of that era – proscribed usury – as did/does Gd.

>>save for the 7 churches,<<

The “7 churches” were a constituted fact of history.

>>creates a ficticious diabolical Antichrist Devil-Man outside the Papal System,<<

Goes to interpretation, one supposes – I mean, Writ does say that Satan will be cast to earth having great wrath. Are you one of those who believe that he will still interact with mankind in spirit-form only?—or will he become part of the norm – bright, shining, and beautiful to behold – performing miracles...?

>>Antichrist Devil-Man<<

St John sets the paradigm that we may discern the Antichrists (plural), and Gd often used the singular to represent the many/plural (Ephraim the man, the tribe, and the commonwealth of tribes – spoken of by Gd as “he”)

Look for a ‘peoples’ – a small people – per Writ. It seems that the RCC represents more than 1 in 7 of the peoples of the world – and to hear some tell it – soon will be all 7,000,000,000. Not so small, eh?

Again, it seems that an unBiblical understanding of Dispensationalism is largely – a farrago goin’ South.

>>rejects that the Beast Power of Daniel and Revelation is realized in the Papacy,<<

The understanding represented by the above – is wishful hermeneutics.

>>imagines that the Antichrist will literally sit in a third temple on the Temple Mount, etc. etc. etc.<<

Imagines? Make your best case...

>>So you are more than welcome to "properly employ the word dispensationalism" if you so well please.<<

Indeed. There is already too much confusion abounding.

>>But do not confuse how you employ it to the very fact that Dispensationalism as it is understood theologically is unbibilical.<<

Aspects of ‘Evangelical dispensationalism’ do represent Biblical truths; as well, aspects of it do not. Seems a rather ordinary fact vis-à-vis the teachings of other .orgs.

>>It's the voice of the false prophet.<<

A faulty leitmotif. I suspect that we haven’t yet heard the voice of the “false prophet”. It will be a thing of beauty and the words uttered will seem indisputable.

>>It''s one of the main ingredients to hone in the New World Order and persecute God's true commandment keepers.<<

That may be so, and then again, it may be that waking to a sky full of shining ‘chariots’ (Isaiah 66:15) one morning – read: UFOs – would constitute ‘credible’ evidence that our ‘star brothers’ have arrived to save us from self-destruction. That would translate to – ‘salvation’, which ought to coalesce world religions into one belief system – however temporary.

Prepare to be surprised, very, very, surprised. Surprised and confounded.

[Lysimachus]

>>Call it what you like JASD,<<

“A rose by any other name..., eh” To subscribe to the Evangelical’s position re the matter, without definition, is to corrupt the Biblical position re Gd’s Dispensation towards His Biblical people, which ain not today’s Jews as supposed but to Jews as included within the general assembly of the COI.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

Call it what you like JASD,

Quote:jasd

“A rose by any other name..., eh” To subscribe to the Evangelical’s position re the matter, without definition, is to corrupt the Biblical position re Gd’s Dispensation towards His Biblical people, which ain not today’s Jews as supposed but to Jews as included within the general assembly of the COI.

>>You speak in riddles. I have no clue what you just said.<<

No riddles here: You say, "AS IT IS KNOWN" re dispensationalism – I say, “Biblical Dispensationalism”; and it remains “Biblical Dispensationalism” even though you name it "AS IT IS KNOWN".

You’ve essayed re dispensationalism without first defining your term; ipso facto, it was confusion – definitely not an E-ticket, eh?

Further, you neglected to point out the Evangelical’s erroneous/conflated use of the term “Jews” – compounding [their] idjitcy.

I found it necessary to make the distinction between the colloquial use of “Jews” as opposed to the Biblical use of it. A very large and significant distinction.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

but it won't change the facts that the ideological principles behind Dispensationalism "AS IT IS KNOWN",

Quote:jasd

Or hijacked and misconstrued...

>>Ask Michael Pearl, Chuck Missler, Grant Jeffrey, Charles C. Ryrie, Perry Stone, Roy B. Zuck, Glenn R. Kreider, Mark L. Bailey, Chuck Swindoll, Jack Van Imp, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey, Dave Hung, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, John MacArthur, Thomas Ice, Dave Hunt, John Walvord etc. etc. if it is "misconstrued". I'd like to hear their answer.<<

The above-mentioned teach that today’s less than 20,000,000 Jews are Israel. Tchah!—they neglect to apply elementary hermeneutics. You like or embrace error?—you like or embrace their answers. One ought to prefer Biblical truths.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

separates Israel from the Church,

Quote:jasd

Good and bad: those who resort to an ‘Evangelical’ definition of Biblical Dispensatinalism teach that today’s Jews are Israel. That, on its very face, is incorrect and unBiblical. However, Israel, that is Israel proper, is the church and vice versa – no Olive Tree, no gentile engraftation, no gentile church, no ‘spiritual’ church.

>>So you do believe then that Israel is now realized in the Church? This is news to me.<<

Sometimes, we must care to read incisively.

Seems you fall into the same error as those you referenced above; that is, todays Jews, National and International, are Israel. That is incorrect. Jews have always been a part of Israel – not Israel proper.

Among those who identify themselves Jews today are bloodline Jews. Likewise, among them are those who say they are Jews but are not. Either way, they, separately or combined, are not Israel per se. The only way you may associate Jews and Israel is by definition: Jews are Israelites, they are not, sum toto, Israel.

Basic exegesis.

Your use of [a spiritual] “church” replacing the original church of Israel, whose beginnings were in the wilderness, is not Biblically factual. Jesus Christ’s imperative was to go to the lost of Israel, which thereafter, became known as the ekklesias, the called-out ones.

Gentiles are adopted/engrafted into the general assembly of the COI; yes, even today – Gd knowing whereof He speaks and does...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

creates an infamous gap between the first 69 weeks and the 70th week,

Quote:jasd

Thereupon, your ‘dispensationalists’ prove right, as proper exegesis demands that interpretation. The ‘Seventy-weeks’ vision necessitates that the entirety of Israel, all twelve tribes – are in view during some aspect of its fulfillment. That, of course, was not the case should one adhere to the dogma that the stoning of Stephen was the date upon which the prophecy terminated.

>>How does it demand that interpretation? Contextually, historically, and liguistically, it has proven impossible to separate the 70th week. To dismember it is child's play.<<

First, one must recognize the separation of the tribes. Biblical exposition is impossible without recognition of that FACT. Second, one must forget dogma derived from the premature wresting of the book of Daniel. It is unGdly. Third, one must read clinically/critically.

Daniel 9 begins with the prayer of Daniel, which is prologue. Daniel’s prayer elicited the arrival of Gabriel whose response to Daniel’s prayer was the Seventy-weeks prophecy. Note that: Daniel did not pray for Jews but for all Israel – thereby predicating the answer re the subject of his prayer.

v6) all the people of the land

v7) unto all Israel

v11) Yea, all Israel

v15) brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt

v20) my people Israel

Simple: unless Gd has a short attention span, He informed Daniel re the subject of his prayer; that is, the COI. [/respectfully]

>>Contextually, historically, and liguistically, it has proven impossible to separate the 70th week. To dismember it is child's play.<<

Feathered budgies?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The way the .Org interprets the vision countenances only a remnant of Jews of the Southern Kingdom.

>>How does this effect the 70th week?<<

I explained it. The answer to Daniel’s prayer must be re all the peoples of Israel; that is, the 12 tribes of the COI – not just the primary tribes of Judah – Judah, Benjamin, Levi – else Gd does not know how to have a cogent conversation. [/respecfully]

At the time of Stephen’s stoning – almost the entirety of the Jews from the Southern Kingdom were still in its ‘diaspora’ together with the entirety of the Northern Kingdom (and would be where the sceptre of David and Solomon was). One stipulates that there are the odd exceptions, the odd few. The Royal line in Nazareth..., etc.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Moreover, lexically, the date 457 BC cannot be honestly factored as the beginning terminus for the fulfillment of the vision. (Remember: the Northern tribes together with the majority of the Southern Kingdom had gone into exile and since, for practical purposes, been lost to history)

>>Keep in mind that it was common to refer to Judah as "Israel". This has been studied upon by experts in the field. Regardless, the 70 weeks are 70 consecutive weeks, not 69 weeks, plus thousands of weeks, then the 70th week again. If this were so, it could not properly be termed "the 70th week", but the 354th (or more) week!<<

Yes, occasionally Writ does, though rarely, refer to Judah as Israel (though never as "all Israel" Dan 9:prologue), Biblical facts withstanding its common use thusly. That said, it is common today to refer to Judah as ‘Israel’. It is still an egregious error. Should one wish to reference the State of Israel one does so by "State of Israel" unless context allows otherwise. To simply employ the vernacular Israel is sloppy.

>>experts in the field.<<

I’ve read in the above, what seems to be a list of your “experts in the field”.

[jasd]

>>the 70 weeks are 70 consecutive weeks, not 69 weeks, plus thousands of weeks, then the 70th week again.<<

Jesus Christ did exactly that according to Luke 4. He split the prophecy of Isaiah 61 into thousands of weeks/thousands of years. Are you saying that your dogma supercedes Jesus Christ?—or that we cannot follow Jesus Christ’s own example? Pish-tosh.

>>If this were so, it could not properly be termed "the 70th week", but the 354th (or more) week!<<

Feathered budgies?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

bypasses 1500 years of history as being "insignificant" on the prophetic scale,

Quote:jasd

Though their view is correct, it is so because of incorrect exegesis. It is only “insignificant” in that it was not represented in the ‘metal’ image of Daniel 2 – because the great kingdoms of that era – proscribed usury – as did/does Gd.

>>I suppose these 1500 years also exist between the 4th beast and the Little Horn that grows out of it? Sawing off the Little Horn and inserting 1500 years between the Beast and the Little Horn is, well, essentially, preposterous reasoning.<<

No, you’re working from a flawed premise – thinking the Little Horn to be the Pope/Papacy. It may, in fact, be that the “Little Horn” is only now present, or soon to be, upon world stage rather than millennia ago.

I submit that your interpretation of the four beasts is fatally flawed and that the four beasts do not represent Babylon, Persia, Greece, and the Papacy. That sort of falsehood occurred because of the wresting of the book of Daniel – to spite Gd’s sealing of the book. Waayyy, unwise and premature exposition.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

save for the 7 churches,

Quote:jasd

The “7 churches” were a constituted fact of history.

>>It's a good thing, otherwise Dispensationalism would have no chance in deceiving anybody.<<

Which “Dispensationalism”? "AS IT IS KNOWN" dispensationalism? Or Biblical Dispensationalism?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimacus

creates a ficticious diabolical Antichrist Devil-Man outside the Papal System,

Quote:jasd

Goes to interpretation, one supposes – I mean, Writ does say that Satan will be cast to earth having great wrath. Are you one of those who believe that he will still interact with mankind in spirit-form only?—or will he become part of the norm – bright, shining, and beautiful to behold – performing miracles...?

>>But the difference is, this is stated in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about a single-Antichrist.<<

Finally, someone who agrees that St John uses Antichrist in the plural sense.

>>Remember, it is the Dragon (the Devil) that gives power unto the Beast (Antichrist). Therefore, the Papacy and the Devil work together as one wicked Antichrist force.<<

You reference Revelation 13, yes?—how do you correlate verses 1, 2, and 3 to the Papacy? I perceive great deviousness in the construction of this belief.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

Antichrist Devil-Man

Quote:jasd

St John sets the paradigm that we may discern the Antichrists (plural), and Gd often used the singular to represent the many/plural (Ephraim the man, the tribe, and the commonwealth of tribes – spoken of by Gd as “he”)

>>No need to educate me on the plurality of Antichrists. We know that. But we're using the term in the sense of referring to the chief Antichrist--the same Little Horn of Daniel 7, and the son of perdition of 2 Thess 2:3.<< [ed.jasd]

Sorry, I was thinking that there are other-than-you reading my posts. I, being the ever so thoughtful and generous – salt of the earth type guy :-)

Again, with the “Little Horn-is-the-Antichrist-Pope”. Faulty exposition.

Anyway, “chief Antichrist”!?—wha's that?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Look for a ‘peoples’ – a small people – per Writ. It seems that the RCC represents more than 1 in 7 of the peoples of the world – and to hear some tell it – soon will be all 7,000,000,000. Not so small, eh?

>>Who said people who are member of a system are the Antichrist? It is the leadership, the headship that is at fault here, not ignorant masses of people.<<

Oh, okay, “Your Mama!—oops, your Papa!” dogmatology...

>>We're talking about a system here that is behind the scenes calling the shots, not those who are ignorantly subverted into the system.<<

I can agree with that should you be referencing a NWO. I also agree that the heavy hand of International Zionism is part, a very large part, of the NWO machinations. That said, and getting back to the "system", I think most people who enter into Catholicism do so willingly – by faith, family, culture, etc – sorta the same way Protestors join their favored .orgs.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Again, it seems that an unBiblical understanding of Dispensationalism is largely – a farrago goin’ South.

>>Whatever that means.<<

Mish-mash. Hodge-podge, circling the drain.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

rejects that the Beast Power of Daniel and Revelation is realized in the Papacy,

Quote:jasd

The understanding represented by the above – is wishful hermeneutics.

>>Wishful hermeneutics? How so? You mean like the "inconsistent" and "wishful" hermeneutics where historicists recognize that interpreting the 42 months of Revelation 13 should be logically have the same hermeneutic employed to this time frame as the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27? Hmm.<<

The sort of wishful hermeneutics that will wrest and twist Daniel waaayyyy before its unsealing – that they might make merchandise of the saints.

Yes, Revelation 4 quotes the “voice ... as it were a trumpet” saying, “Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.”

Umm, looking... looking... looking... for the “beforehand” – as ‘things which must be hereafter and those things which were beforehand’.

Unless the book of Revelation is hopelessly, chronologically convoluted – “hereafter” is “hereafter” – and not relegated wherever wishful hermeneutics places them, willy-nilly.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:lysimachus

imagines that the Antichrist will literally sit in a third temple on the Temple Mount, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:jasd

Imagines? Make your best case...

>>Indeed. Paul's language is consistent. He defines his own hermeneutic. In 1 Cor. 3:16,17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 2:21, Paul employs the Greek word "naos" to identify the Churches as the Temple of God. Whenever Paul is referring to a physical temple building, he employs the Greek word "eidoleion" for a pagan temple (1 Cor 8:10) and "hieros" for a Jewish temple (1 Cor 9:13).

In 2 Thess 2, Paul is consistent with His own language concerning the "man of sin" that sets himself up in the "naos" of God. Meaning, the man of sin sets himself in Christianity and usurps Christ's High Priestly ministry in heaven, claiming to forgive sins.

Revelation employs the same language, and employs "naos" for the Temple in heaven. So the focus with "naos" here is Christ's two-fold sanctuary--the spiritual Temple on earth that mirrors the literal Temple in heaven.<<

The above is good. Thanks. However, note: that when St Paul uses naos he does so analogously with the attendant or comparative explanatives. That, he does, with all his proffered texts wherein he uses naos, with the exception of 2 Thessalonians 2: 4 (as you pointed out). However, by omitting metaphoric/analogous language in 2 Thessalonians 2: 4, he takes his reader directly to the naos of the Holy and the Most Holy – rather than a supposed ‘spiritual temple’ or the Temple proper with its storage rooms, cells, dormitories, banking facilities, etc.

Or, perhaps more properly, he places the man of sin/son of perdition 'in the shrine'. That would seem to support the concept of a Third Temple. However, it seems to me that the phrase "of God" 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is troubling and begs an exacting parsing.

So, St Paul places the man of sin/son of perdition in the very naos of the Temple; either the Holy or the Most Holy [unspecified]. He was not constrained by only the one aspect whereby naos might be used.

Likewise, when he uses hieron in 1 Corinthians 9: 13 he makes no analogies with a ‘spiritual’ temple, but deals with a narrative of Temple functions.

Anyway, is the Antichrist, that man of sin, and the son of perdition – all one and the same? Make your best case....

>>ALL the Protestant reformers recognized the "naos" of 2 Thess 2 to represent the Christian Church. If you refuse to believe this, then essentially you are denying God's witnesses of history who were direct witnesses to the atrocities of Antichrist.<<

Again, with the [singular] Antichrist... You know, St John told us that even before there was the first Catholic upon the Xtian scene – “Antichrists [...] went out from among us...” (1 John 2:18, 19)

>>Christ's disciples discovered Jesus Christ. God used the Reformers during the Reformation to discover Antichrist.<<

It may be incorrect to so ‘cavalierly’ insert “Antichrist” wherever one takes a notion... It lacks a certain ‘care’ in regards to Writ.

>>These are sacred realities that the modern Futurist world despises, and therefore, will end up finding themselves under strong delusion and will end up believing a lie because they refused to give any heed to the multitude and unanimous voices of God's direct witnesses of history.<<

It goes to interpretation... and the measure one receives of the HS.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

So you are more than welcome to "properly employ the word dispensationalism" if you so well please.

But do not confuse how you employ it to the very fact that Dispensationalism as it is understood theologically is unbibilical.

Quote:jasd

Aspects of ‘Evangelical dispensationalism’ do represent Biblical truths; as well, aspects of it do not. Seems a rather ordinary fact vis-à-vis the teachings of other .orgs.

>>I never said there was no truth in it whatsoever. There is a lot of truth in it, even enough to save someone with little to know knowledge of the Bible. But its still tinctured with enough error to deceive multitudes concerning the identity of Antichrist.<<

St John lays the margins of the paradigm identifying the Antichrist(s) – very explicitly. Hard to miss.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

It's the voice of the false prophet.

Quote:jasd

A faulty leitmotif. I suspect that we haven’t yet heard the voice of the “false prophet”. It will be a thing of beauty and the words uttered will seem indisputable.

>>Perhaps the acme of such fulfillment will be so, but such ideologies being preached today originate from the False Prophet. We're speaking about false prophecies here. The False Prophet is not a single man. Just like the "single woman" riding the beast is an apostate system, so likewise consistency demands the same for the "false prophet". The Harlot, the Beast, and the False Prophet all represent systems and various aspects of systems.<<

Sounds reasonable – except we may be premature re the identity of the False Prophet.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

It''s one of the main ingredients to hone in the New World Order and persecute God's true commandment keepers.

Quote:jasd

That may be so, and then again, it may be that waking to a sky full of shining ‘chariots’ (Isaiah 66:15) one morning – read: UFOs – would constitute ‘credible’ evidence that our ‘star brothers’ have arrived to save us from self-destruction. That would translate to – ‘salvation’, which ought to coalesce world religions into one belief system – however temporary.

Prepare to be surprised, very, very, surprised. Surprised and confounded.

>>I am amused.<<

Don’t be; it would be to your detriment. Though I worded my position somewhat with tongue in cheek – I am, for the most part serious re its narrative.

Should one be only “amused” he/she may find that he/she is more circumscribed than is desirable.