Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim

[Arial]

Yes, one return when Jesus steps on the earth again. You keep forgetting about 1 Thes 4:16ish.

I never forgot it. Dispensationalism begins with a false premise, does not keep scripture consistent with itself, and then inserts it premise into the passage. Scripture never says he is going to come part way back but not touch the ground, and they never do say what he does after coming part way back (-ascend again? or hang there suspenced?) and then come again later to rule as Israel's king. And not very successfully because there is a rebellion. Who are those armies that rebel btw?

Dispensationalist agree with Heb 11. Do you?

Of course. What's your point? To divert away from having to face the dispensational contradictions to scripture that I showed? You quoted my words and then said nothing about them. What's up with that?

 

[Arial]

I chuckle and say....Post 61 proves you wrong. 1000 is often quite literal.

I had not read post #61 yet and since I did read it I have addressed it. And read the post you were responding to with 61. Here it is.

I have shown you in post #37 that there is not one number in scripture that doesn;t mean more than a mathematical figure or calculation, and how Covenant theology arrives at the symbolism of 1000 that makes it consistent with the rest of the Bible instead of adding things to it as dispensationalism does when it says the 1000 years is literal and presents a kingdom that is not mentioned in Scripture but only presupposed by dispensationalism.

Where in there do I say 1000 is always symbolic? Where have I ever said that? But what you did in post 61 was show me places where they are not symbolic but literal mathematical numbers. And as I said when I responded to that post, one would expect that in historic narrative which all those passages were. And you say you proved your point, when the assertion was a straw man in the first place, and you also seem to think that if sometimes it is not being used symbolically, then it never is. So, prove to me that it never is. Prove to me that the numbers in Revelation are not being used symbolically. Revelation is not historic narrative as those passages you gave were.

I trust you stand corrected.

Nope.

 

[Arial]

Those who say Jesus will return on a white horse....the same way he left...per their interpretation of Acts 1 do.

I really wish the millennialist would stop skirting around this issue.

No one said he would return on a white horse but you. No one said he left on a white horse. So, what are amilennialists skirting?

 

[Arial]

Why should I read Rev as some strictly symbolic book?

Because it is a book signifying as it says. You seem to think that interpreting it according to the meaning of the symbolic and representative images means we are saying nothing really happened. That is faulty reasoning.

 

[CrowCross]

No, sorry, my friend, it does not.

Well, you do believe Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. and 1 Thess 4:16-17 are speaking of the same event? No, you probably do not.

Yes, I believe that event will literally happen. Why shouldn't I?

As to the same event question....there is the trump of angels as well as the trump of God. Do you think they're the same trumpet?

 

[Arial]

It still doesn't matter if the white horse is literal or not. What ever the white horse"symbolically" represented Jesus didn't leave in that fashion.

Rev 19:11-16


11Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

That is what John saw in heaven, not of earth. It does not say he is returning on a white horse.

 

[CrowCross]

No one said he would return on a white horse but you.

Yes, me and the bible....Have a look.

No one said he left on a white horse.

That's true, the bible dosn't say that. Have a look.

So, what are amilennialists skirting?

Their skirting what the bible proclaims...Jesus didn't leave on a white hores....but shows Jesus returrning on a white hores.
The amilennialists view of escatology creates a contradiction....Especially when the angels say Jesus will return the same way He left.

Are the angels lying in Acts 1:11? Personally I don't think so. One solution is Christ Jesus returns TWICE. What is the amilennialists solution Arial?

 

[CrowCross]

I never forgot it. Dispensationalism begins with a false premise, does not keep scripture consistent with itself, and then inserts it premise into the passage. Scripture never says he is going to come part way back but not touch the ground, and they never do say what he does after coming part way back (-ascend again? or hang there suspenced?) and then come again later to rule as Israel's king. And not very successfully because there is a rebellion. Who are those armies that rebel btw?

The answer is simple....solve your white horse delima.
As to the armies that rebel....that's off topic.

Of course. What's your point? To divert away from having to face the dispensational contradictions to scripture that I showed? You quoted my words and then said nothing about them. What's up with that?

You provided no contradictions.

The bible says Jesus comes back twice....where does the bible say Jesus touches the ground in 1 Thes 4? Where is the white horse? In the stable?

 

[CrowCross]

I had not read post #61 yet and since I did read it I have addressed it. And read the post you were responding to with 61. Here it is.

Where in there do I say 1000 is always symbolic? Where have I ever said that? But what you did in post 61 was show me places where they are not symbolic but literal mathematical numbers. And as I said when I responded to that post, one would expect that in historic narrative which all those passages were. And you say you proved your point, when the assertion was a straw man in the first place, and you also seem to think that if sometimes it is not being used symbolically, then it never is. So, prove to me that it never is. Prove to me that the numbers in Revelation are not being used symbolically. Revelation is not historic narrative as those passages you gave were.

You were shown where the number can be literal. Is it always? No.
You haven't demonstrated the the 1000 year reign isn't literal.
In fact I believe you think were in that "age" right now....but we know were not in that "age" as Satan isn't locked up right now. Can you show Satan is currently locked up?

Nope.

 

[CrowCross]

Because it is a book signifying as it says. You seem to think that interpreting it according to the meaning of the symbolic and representative images means we are saying nothing really happened. That is faulty reasoning.

Are the two witnesses symbolic? You would say yes.
Is the beast system and the mark symbolic? Once again you would say yes.

 

[CrowCross]

Rev 19:11-16


11Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

That is what John saw in heaven, not of earth. It does not say he is returning on a white horse.

strike down the nations,....from your quote. Sounds like Jesus is on earth. How is verse 19 and onwards not on earth?
The verse continues with "the beast was captured along with the false prophet,"....Does Jesus have a net that reaches down from heaven that He cast while riding His white horse and captures the beast and false prophet? What is Zech 14 about?

 

[Arial]

strike down the nations,....from your quote. Sounds like Jesus is on earth. How is verse 19 and onwards not on earth?
The verse continues with "the beast was captured along with the false prophet,"....Does Jesus have a net that reaches down from heaven that He cast while riding His white horse and captures the beast and false prophet? What is Zech 14 about?

Why do you have to post with such arrogant aggressiveness and utter contempt for those who do not see things the same way you do?

He isn't on earth because what John is seeing is in heaven, and it is a vision. It does not say he is on earth so are you now spiritualizing?

I am not answering your question about Zech because you have completely hijacked the thread to be about the only thing of Christianity you seem to find important. The thing you consider yourself the final authority on. Like a pope. Your behavior and manner of speaking to people shows what little you think of the brethren, so I suggest you take a vacation from eschatology and seek grace to be obedient to the imperatives of the brotherhood. They are in your Bible.

 

[Arial]

Are the two witnesses symbolic? You would say yes.
Is the beast system and the mark symbolic? Once again you would say yes.

This thread is not about interpreting Revelation!!! It is about Covenant theology vs Dispensationalism.

 

[Arial]

You were shown where the number can be literal. Is it always? No.

But I never said they couldn't be literal. You are consistently misrepresenting what I say and that violates forum rules.

You haven't demonstrated the the 1000 year reign isn't literal.

I have demonstrated how Covenant theology arrives at its interpretation of it with representative numbers and have done so with the scriptural evidence.

You have not demonstrated that it is literal. Andi if you try to you will discover that you all you can do is presuppose that it is by confirmation bias. Of course that would require self-examination and self-honesty.

In fact I believe you think were in that "age" right now....but we know were not in that "age" as Satan isn't locked up right now. Can you show Satan is currently locked up?

He is bound from deceiving the nations. That is all. That is all the scriptures say he is bound from doing. And you use the word "we" quite loosely as though you are everybody. Everybody that counts anyway. We are in this age. The time after Christ's first advent, death, resurrection and ascension. The saints are waiting the next age when redemption is consummated and Christ dwells with us. Does it mean nothing that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever spoke of a third period of time lasting a thousand years before he returns? Nothing at all?

 

[Arial]

Yes, me and the bible....Have a look.

I did look. Posted a whole post about it.

The answer is simple....solve your white horse dilemma.

I don't have a white horse dilemma.

You provided no contradictions.

Oh, yes, I did. Don't lie.

The bible says Jesus comes back twice....where does the bible say Jesus touches the ground in 1 Thes 4? Where is the white horse? In the stable?

We have already been over that. Don't you get dizzy on that hamster wheel?

Their skirting what the bible proclaims...Jesus didn't leave on a white hores....but shows Jesus returrning on a white hores.
The amilennialists view of escatology creates a contradiction....Especially when the angels say Jesus will return the same way He left.

We have already been over that. Doesn't your mouth get dry rehashing the same things over and over?

Are the angels lying in Acts 1:11? Personally I don't think so. One solution is Christ Jesus returns TWICE. What is the amilennialists solution Arial?

The amillennialist doesn't need to find a solution because the Bibe never says he will return twice it says he will return once. Therefore, they look withing the scriptures (not a dispensational teaching which they consider a wrong framework) to find out what this rising to meet the Lord in the air when he returns. Because it is obviously speaking of his return within the surrounding text. It is even subtitled "The Return of the Lord".

Don't you eventually bore yourself rehashing the same things over and over and over thread after thread after thread?

 

[Carbon]

Yes, I believe that event will literally happen. Why shouldn't I?

As to the same event question....there is the trump of angels as well as the trump of God. Do you think they're the same trumpet?

Are you serious? Do I really have to explain that?

And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matt 24:31.

16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 1 Thess 4:16-17.

What do you think the trumpet sound of God is? What gives you the right or authority to say that is something different? It may help if you read both of these passages in context. Maybe not.