PDA

View Full Version : Different Understandings of Eschatology



serpentdove
April 2nd, 2016, 09:52 AM
[Different Understandings of Eschatology Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "The Bible is a glorious revelation of God that includes His creation, His plan of redemption for His people, the conflict between two kingdoms, and His intention to restore the earth to its original condition that existed before the fall. Throughout church history, the Bible has been interpreted in different ways, but this is not because the Scriptures are lacking in clarity. Some factors that may cause people to interpret the Bible differently include: using an improper hermeneutic (http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue59.htm), reading into the Scriptures what it does not say, following personalities and traditions instead of testing everything with Scripture, and elevating human reason and experience above the authority of God's Word. The Word of God can be best understood when it is read in a literal, normal, and plain sense. A normal reading of Scripture (http://biblicalconnections.blogspot.com/2009/10/contrast-literal-hermeneutics-with.html)is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic.

Throughout church history, all areas of Biblical doctrine have been studied, recognized, and accepted. In the first two centuries, the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible and the canon of Scripture were recognized and affirmed. Later, in the third and fourth centuries, it was the study of Christology which dealt with the human and divine nature of Jesus. In the 16th century, the Reformers dealt with soteriology, the doctrine of justification. Now, the doctrine of eschatology, which is the study of the end times, appears to be a central focus of study and conversation.

Tragically, many of today's evangelicals, who embrace the biblical soteriology of the Reformers, are also embracing a Roman Catholic eschatology that the Reformers never challenged. Using an allegorical approach to eschatology, Roman Catholicism rejects all the prophecies and covenants that declare Jesus will have a literal, physical reign on the earth from the throne of David. This amillennial view regards the "thousand years," which is mentioned six times in Revelation 20:1-6, as symbolic. They say it has already begun and is identical with the church age, with Christ reigning as King in the hearts of His people.

It is difficult to understand why evangelicals would allegorize the Scriptures that clearly teach a physical, earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ on the throne of David (Luke 1:32). Why would they deny the glorious reign of King Jesus who will be sent by His Father to restore and refresh the earth to its pre-fall condition? (Acts 3:19-26; 2 Sam. 7:12-17; Dan. 2:44). The kingdom of Jesus will have blessings that have never been seen before, including peace and righteousness (Isaiah 2:4, 11:3-4, 32:1,17, 65:21-22, Zech. 8:4-5), good health, and long life (Isaiah 35:5,6, 65:20), the removal of the divine curse on the earth due to the sin of man (Romans 8:18-23), and a restored earth which will produce an abundance of food (Joel 3:18, Amos 9:13, Psalm 72:16, Zech. 8:12, Isaiah 35:1, Ezekiel 36:34-35). Also in this amazing Kingdom, "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord" (Isaiah 11:9).

The Millennium is the fulfillment of God's purpose in glorifying His exalted Son. All of His redeemed saints and all the nations of the world will worship and praise Him for being the King of kings! "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it" (Psalm 22:27-31)." :Poly: Pro-Gospel.org

Epoisses
April 2nd, 2016, 10:13 AM
Jesus will not have a literal, physical reign on the earth during the millennium.

Why would Jesus have a physical reign on a desolated earth during the 1000 years when the new Jerusalem is still in heaven?

You have no answer for that.

The new Jerusalem will still be in heaven during the 1000 years so that's where the saints will be. After the 1000 years it is moved to earth and the earth is recreated like new and then Jesus will reign on earth and the throne of David forever.

The false 1000 year reign on earth is a setup for the antichrist when he appears on earth to deceive the world.

God's Truth
April 2nd, 2016, 10:32 AM
When Jesus comes again, it will be at the great white throne judgment---at the resurrection.

When Jesus comes again, it will be too late to repent.

He comes as a thief in the night.

When he comes it will be to give salvation to those who are clothed.

Jesus is sitting on Thee throne of God.

When he comes, he will judge, God's wrath will be distributed, and this earth will flee AWAY.

There will be a new earth, and by then, Jesus will hand over the kingdom to the Father.

How do you EVER get that Jesus will sit on some earthy thrown?

God's Truth
April 2nd, 2016, 10:34 AM
I guess you think that Jesus was longing to sit on a manmade throne on this sinful earth?

serpentdove
April 2nd, 2016, 11:01 AM
Jesus will not have a literal, physical reign on the earth during the millennium...

You've never had a dictator. You will. :o

See:

The Millennium (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_J_Vernon_McGee/The%20Millennium.pdf) by Dr. J. Vernon McGee

serpentdove
April 2nd, 2016, 01:44 PM
I guess you think that Jesus was longing to sit on a manmade throne on this sinful earth?

"Re 20:2 a thousand years. This is the first of 6 references to the length of the millennial kingdom (cf. vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There are 3 main views of the duration and nature of this period: 1) Premillennialism sees this as a literal 1,000 year period during which Jesus Christ, in fulfillment of numerous OT prophecies (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:12–16; Ps. 2; Is. 11:6–12; 24:23; Hos. 3:4, 5; Joel 3:9–21; Amos 9:8–15; Mic. 4:1–8; Zeph. 3:14–20; Zech. 14:1–11; Matt. 24:29–31, 36–44), reigns on the earth. Using the same general principles of interpretation for both prophetic and non-prophetic passages leads most naturally to Premillennialism. Another strong argument supporting this view is that so many biblical prophecies have already been literally fulfilled, suggesting that future prophecies will likewise be fulfilled literally. 2) Postmillennialism understands the reference to a 1,000 year period as only symbolic of a golden age of righteousness and spiritual prosperity. It will be ushered in by the spread of the gospel during the present church age and brought to completion when Christ returns. According to this view, references to Christ’s reign on earth primarily describe His spiritual reign in the hearts of believers in the church. 3) Amillennialism understands the 1,000 years to be merely symbolic of a long period of time. This view interprets OT prophecies of a Millennium as being fulfilled spiritually now in the church (either on earth or in heaven) or as references to the eternal state. Using the same literal, historical, grammatical principles of interpretation so as to determine the normal sense of language, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Christ will return and reign in a real kingdom on earth for 1,000 years. There is nothing in the text to render the conclusion that “a thousand years” is symbolic. Never in Scripture when “year” is used with a number is its meaning not literal (see note on 2 Pet. 3:10)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 2021). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

As a reminder God's Truth is number 39 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) (http://vananne.com/serpentdove/TOL%20Heretics%20List.htm) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:

Epoisses
April 2nd, 2016, 05:47 PM
Would any dispensationalist like to answer this question?

Where is the new Jerusalem at during the 1000 years - in heaven or on earth?

God's Truth
April 2nd, 2016, 05:51 PM
"Re 20:2 a thousand years. This is the first of 6 references to the length of the millennial kingdom (cf. vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There are 3 main views of the duration and nature of this period: 1) Premillennialism sees this as a literal 1,000 year period during which Jesus Christ, in fulfillment of numerous OT prophecies (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:12–16; Ps. 2; Is. 11:6–12; 24:23; Hos. 3:4, 5; Joel 3:9–21; Amos 9:8–15; Mic. 4:1–8; Zeph. 3:14–20; Zech. 14:1–11; Matt. 24:29–31, 36–44), reigns on the earth. Using the same general principles of interpretation for both prophetic and non-prophetic passages leads most naturally to Premillennialism. Another strong argument supporting this view is that so many biblical prophecies have already been literally fulfilled, suggesting that future prophecies will likewise be fulfilled literally. 2) Postmillennialism understands the reference to a 1,000 year period as only symbolic of a golden age of righteousness and spiritual prosperity. It will be ushered in by the spread of the gospel during the present church age and brought to completion when Christ returns. According to this view, references to Christ’s reign on earth primarily describe His spiritual reign in the hearts of believers in the church. 3) Amillennialism understands the 1,000 years to be merely symbolic of a long period of time. This view interprets OT prophecies of a Millennium as being fulfilled spiritually now in the church (either on earth or in heaven) or as references to the eternal state. Using the same literal, historical, grammatical principles of interpretation so as to determine the normal sense of language, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Christ will return and reign in a real kingdom on earth for 1,000 years. There is nothing in the text to render the conclusion that “a thousand years” is symbolic. Never in Scripture when “year” is used with a number is its meaning not literal (see note on 2 Pet. 3:10)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 2021). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

As a reminder God's Truth is number 39 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) (http://vananne.com/serpentdove/TOL%20Heretics%20List.htm) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:
I am not torturing myself by reading all your junk.

Totton Linnet
April 2nd, 2016, 06:29 PM
[Different Understandings of Eschatology Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "The Bible is a glorious revelation of God that includes His creation, His plan of redemption for His people, the conflict between two kingdoms, and His intention to restore the earth to its original condition that existed before the fall. Throughout church history, the Bible has been interpreted in different ways, but this is not because the Scriptures are lacking in clarity. Some factors that may cause people to interpret the Bible differently include: using an improper hermeneutic (http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue59.htm), reading into the Scriptures what it does not say, following personalities and traditions instead of testing everything with Scripture, and elevating human reason and experience above the authority of God's Word. The Word of God can be best understood when it is read in a literal, normal, and plain sense. A normal reading of Scripture (http://biblicalconnections.blogspot.com/2009/10/contrast-literal-hermeneutics-with.html)is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic.

Throughout church history, all areas of Biblical doctrine have been studied, recognized, and accepted. In the first two centuries, the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible and the canon of Scripture were recognized and affirmed. Later, in the third and fourth centuries, it was the study of Christology which dealt with the human and divine nature of Jesus. In the 16th century, the Reformers dealt with soteriology, the doctrine of justification. Now, the doctrine of eschatology, which is the study of the end times, appears to be a central focus of study and conversation.

Tragically, many of today's evangelicals, who embrace the biblical soteriology of the Reformers, are also embracing a Roman Catholic eschatology that the Reformers never challenged. Using an allegorical approach to eschatology, Roman Catholicism rejects all the prophecies and covenants that declare Jesus will have a literal, physical reign on the earth from the throne of David. This amillennial view regards the "thousand years," which is mentioned six times in Revelation 20:1-6, as symbolic. They say it has already begun and is identical with the church age, with Christ reigning as King in the hearts of His people.

It is difficult to understand why evangelicals would allegorize the Scriptures that clearly teach a physical, earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ on the throne of David (Luke 1:32). Why would they deny the glorious reign of King Jesus who will be sent by His Father to restore and refresh the earth to its pre-fall condition? (Acts 3:19-26; 2 Sam. 7:12-17; Dan. 2:44). The kingdom of Jesus will have blessings that have never been seen before, including peace and righteousness (Isaiah 2:4, 11:3-4, 32:1,17, 65:21-22, Zech. 8:4-5), good health, and long life (Isaiah 35:5,6, 65:20), the removal of the divine curse on the earth due to the sin of man (Romans 8:18-23), and a restored earth which will produce an abundance of food (Joel 3:18, Amos 9:13, Psalm 72:16, Zech. 8:12, Isaiah 35:1, Ezekiel 36:34-35). Also in this amazing Kingdom, "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord" (Isaiah 11:9).

The Millennium is the fulfillment of God's purpose in glorifying His exalted Son. All of His redeemed saints and all the nations of the world will worship and praise Him for being the King of kings! "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it" (Psalm 22:27-31)." :Poly: Pro-Gospel.org

The reformers went back to the Fathers [so called] this they did because they also looked for protection from the civil power.


...are you sure that YOU fully embrace the apostolic way?

serpentdove
April 2nd, 2016, 07:16 PM
Where is the new Jerusalem at during the 1000 years - in heaven or on earth?

See:

New Jerusalem, The Eternal City (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkypnS3GJRM) J Vernon McGee

jamie
April 2nd, 2016, 07:24 PM
Where is the new Jerusalem at during the 1000 years - in heaven or on earth?


I'm not sure what a dispensationalist is but Paul explained that New Jerusalem is a symbolic covenant which is the mother of all.
(Galatians 4:22-26)

Epoisses
April 2nd, 2016, 08:21 PM
See:

New Jerusalem, The Eternal City (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkypnS3GJRM) J Vernon McGee

Earthly Jerusalem will be flattened like a pancake to make a great valley for the resting place of the new or heavenly Jerusalem.

Epoisses
April 2nd, 2016, 08:23 PM
I'm not sure what a dispensationalist is but Paul explained that New Jerusalem is a symbolic covenant which is the mother of all.
(Galatians 4:22-26)

Yes and Revelation says that it is a physical city with physical dimensions not some warm and fuzzy on cloud nine. Jesus said in the Father's house there are many mansions which sounds pretty physical to me.

jamie
April 2nd, 2016, 09:04 PM
Yes and Revelation says that it is a physical city with physical dimensions not some warm and fuzzy on cloud nine.


Are you saying Paul was mistaken about it symbolizing a covenant?

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 02:34 PM
Are you saying Paul was mistaken about it symbolizing a covenant?

No, I am saying you are mistaken and quit looking at me with those puppy dog eyes!

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 02:43 PM
No, I am saying you are mistaken and quit looking at me with those puppy dog eyes!



Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children — but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:21-26)

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 04:09 PM
Abraham....looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Heb. 11:10

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 05:58 PM
Abraham....looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Heb. 11:10


A city is made up of people. Jesus Christ is the foundation of this group of people, the saints.

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 10:51 PM
A city is made up of people. Jesus Christ is the foundation of this group of people, the saints.

The new Jerusalem is a city in heaven where the throne of God is. It is also symbolic of the new covenant and God's people on earth. You are living proof why the uneducated should not be allowed to read the bible unsupervised. You're a child that needs discipline.

jamie
April 4th, 2016, 08:03 AM
The new Jerusalem is a city in heaven where the throne of God is.


The new Jerusalem is a symbolic city in heaven where the throne of God is. The new Jerusalem symbolizes the everlasting covenant of God and is the mother of us all.

Epoisses
April 4th, 2016, 10:02 AM
The new Jerusalem is a symbolic city in heaven where the throne of God is. The new Jerusalem symbolizes the everlasting covenant of God and is the mother of us all.

...and you worship a symbolic god and keep a symbolic law as well. You're religion is make believe.

patrick jane
April 4th, 2016, 11:09 AM
...and you worship a symbolic god and keep a symbolic law as well. You're religion is make believe.
23889

Bociferous
April 6th, 2016, 12:04 PM
It is difficult to understand why evangelicals would allegorize the Scriptures that clearly teach a physical, earthly reign of the Lord Jesus Christ on the throne of David
1. Because the Bible, both Testaments , contains multiple books that are either clearly symbolic, are largely figurative or contain passages and stories that suggest the propriety of a figurative interpretation.
2. Because any predominantly "standard" or literal interpretation of the Bible runs into tensions (unsolved propositions, incoherence, contradiction, etc.) which require the spiritual or metaphoric meaning to resolve. Resolved tensions = higher degree of truth.
3. Because some believe that God speaks yet today through metaphor in His word in both subjective/personal and objective/universal ways despite the fact that attempts by persons trying to hear and respond to a higher spiritual union or relationship with God have always been beaten down by organized religion which attempts to control what God is allowed to say.

Because God uses literal elements as the basis for teaching higher spiritual principles, it's possible that the literal elements themselves--the "clear...physical, earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David"--may be symbolic of something higher.

That God has chosen to speak to us strongly in metaphor is likely because He designed us to receive information this way:

[I]In classical theories of language, metaphor was seen as a matter of language not thought. Metaphorical expressions were assumed to be mutually exclusive with the realm of ordinary everyday language: everyday language had no metaphor, and metaphor used mechanisms outside the realm of everyday conventional language. The classical theory was taken so much for granted over the centuries that many people didnít realize that it was just a theory...

As a cognitive scientist and a linguist, one asks: What are the generalizations governing the linguistic expressions re ferred to classically as poetic metaphors? When this question is answered rigorously, the classical theory turns out to be false. The generalizations governing poetic metaphorical expressions are not in language, but in thought: They are general map pings across conceptual domains. Moreover, these general princi ples which take the form of conceptual mappings, apply not just to novel poetic expressions, but to much of ordinary everyday language. In short, the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. The general theory of metaphor is given by characterizing such crossdomain mappings. And in the process, everyday abstract concepts like time, states, change, causation, and pur pose also turn out to be metaphorical. The result is that metaphor (that is, cross-domain mapping) is absolutely central to ordinary natural language semantics

The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, George Lakoff (1992)




The Word of God can be best understood when it is read in a literal, normal, and plain sense. A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic.
Is this the teaching of God or man, and why does it seem to run contrary to our design?

Choleric
April 6th, 2016, 12:11 PM
2. Because any predominantly "standard" or literal interpretation of the Bible runs into tensions (unsolved propositions, incoherence, contradiction, etc.) which require the spiritual or metaphoric meaning to resolve. Resolved tensions = higher degree of truth.

I would be interested to see some examples of places where literal interpretation tensions are resolved by allegory or metaphor.


Because God uses literal elements as the basis for teaching higher spiritual principles, it's possible that the literal elements themselves--the "clear...physical, earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David"--may be symbolic of something higher.

maybe this is what you mean. Like how in galatians Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sara, which was a literal story that is 100% historically true, yet we draw a deeper meaning from it as well by Pauls example.

But that in no way renders the story of hagar and sarah as untrue or less than literal.

Bociferous
April 7th, 2016, 05:59 AM
I would be interested to see some examples of places where literal interpretation tensions are resolved by allegory or metaphor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePVHVPgQp3k&list=PL9cB5V7RUwdw6yHgiUdWT2aRTdq1cW_hn


maybe this is what you mean. Like how in galatians Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sara, which was a literal story that is 100% historically true, yet we draw a deeper meaning from it as well by Pauls example.
Yes, good example. Your taking pains to point out that the story was "100% historically true But that in no way renders the story of hagar and sarah as untrue or less than literal" suggests you suppose I approach the metaphoric as a means to eliminate literal or historical truth. This is incorrect. I believe God uses literal elements (people, places, literal things) as paints on His canvas of history (and also uses non-historical stories) to show both whom and how He saves.

Grammatical-historical literalism has turned into a control method, it's champions decreeing that only the literal and its included, obvious symbolism is valid. I believe this is false, that it's a manmade doctrine that stands in direct opposition with the grand design of the most symbolic, spiritual book on earth. Fallen man has always tried to control what God is allowed to say. Unfortunately modern Christianity is no exception.

chrysostom
April 7th, 2016, 06:26 AM
Using an allegorical approach to eschatology, Roman Catholicism rejects all the prophecies and covenants that declare Jesus will have a literal, physical reign on the earth from the throne of David. This amillennial view regards the "thousand years," which is mentioned six times in Revelation 20:1-6, as symbolic. They say it has already begun and is identical with the church age, with Christ reigning as King in the hearts of His people.


there is no official catholic view of eschatology
-and
-I suspect there never will be
-there are many catholic writers who do have a view of it
-and
-we are all free to reject those views as I do

Interplanner
April 9th, 2016, 09:55 AM
The new Jerusalem is a city in heaven where the throne of God is. It is also symbolic of the new covenant and God's people on earth. You are living proof why the uneducated should not be allowed to read the bible unsupervised. You're a child that needs discipline.



The new Jerusalem is not a symbol. It is the name given to the community of all believers. It is not on earth, but it matters dearly to Paul who calls it 'our mother.'

There are no NT sections in ordinary language (ie aside from the apocalyptic of the Rev) that say that there is to be events in modern Israel or that God 'goes back' to dealing with Israel and not the church. Part of that is because the Rev was about the conflagration of 1st century Israel.

Epoisses
April 9th, 2016, 04:08 PM
The new Jerusalem is not a symbol. It is the name given to the community of all believers. It is not on earth, but it matters dearly to Paul who calls it 'our mother.'

There are no NT sections in ordinary language (ie aside from the apocalyptic of the Rev) that say that there is to be events in modern Israel or that God 'goes back' to dealing with Israel and not the church. Part of that is because the Rev was about the conflagration of 1st century Israel.

The new Jerusalem is a physical city with physical foundations and streets of gold. It is also symbolic of the new covenant or 'our mother' and God's people or the bride of Christ. It is a physical and spiritual city in heaven.

genuineoriginal
April 12th, 2016, 12:34 PM
Your taking pains to point out that the story was "100% historically true But that in no way renders the story of hagar and sarah as untrue or less than literal" suggests you suppose I approach the metaphoric as a means to eliminate literal or historical truth.

You have proven that you twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them.

genuineoriginal
April 12th, 2016, 12:50 PM
The Word of God can be best understood when it is read in a literal, normal, and plain sense. A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic.
Yes.

Later, in the third and fourth centuries, it was the study of Christology which dealt with the human and divine nature of Jesus.
This was done without a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, and anyone that studies Christology with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been labeled a heretic since the fourth century.

In the 16th century, the Reformers dealt with soteriology, the doctrine of justification.
This too was done without a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, and anyone that studies soteriology with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic is also labeled a heretic by many denominations.

Now, the doctrine of eschatology, which is the study of the end times, appears to be a central focus of study and conversation.
A consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic will not work for eschatology if the framework for understanding scripture violates that hermeneutic in Christology, soteriology, and/or covenantology.

genuineoriginal
April 12th, 2016, 12:52 PM
Jesus will not have a literal, physical reign on the earth during the millennium.
Of course He will.

Epoisses
April 12th, 2016, 11:11 PM
Of course He will.

He will have a literal physical reign on the earth after the millennium when the earth is made new.

Choleric
April 12th, 2016, 11:33 PM
He will have a literal physical reign on the earth after the millennium when the earth is made new.

, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Bociferous
April 13th, 2016, 06:10 AM
You have proven that you twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them.
Don't express opinions. Opinions are worthless in the realm of intelligent discussion. Give me examples of where and how I "twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them".

chrysostom
April 13th, 2016, 06:46 AM
, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

any time two or more are gathered in His name
-He will be with them
-they have already reigned with Him a thousand years
-the byzantine empire

SaulToPaul
April 13th, 2016, 06:49 AM
-they have already reigned with Him a thousand years
-the byzantine empire

:chuckle:

genuineoriginal
April 13th, 2016, 12:08 PM
He will have a literal physical reign on the earth after the millennium when the earth is made new.
He will have a literal physical reign on the earth for the millennium, which is followed by the Judgment and then the earth is made new. Revelation 20-21

genuineoriginal
April 13th, 2016, 12:45 PM
Don't express opinions.
Why impose limits on others that you refuse to impose on yourself?

Opinions are worthless in the realm of intelligent discussion.
That is your opinion and it is worthless.
But, even though this stated opinion of yours is worthless, there are many opinions that are worthwhile, especially in the realm of intelligent discussion.
After all, you can have no intelligent discussion without the sharing of opinions.

Give me examples of where and how I "twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them".
Thread: Traditional Salvation Violates God’s Justice (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117097-Traditional-Salvation-Violates-God%92s-Justice)

Bociferous
April 16th, 2016, 10:34 PM
That is your opinion and it is worthless.
But, even though this stated opinion of yours is worthless, there are many opinions that are worthwhile, especially in the realm of intelligent discussion.
After all, you can have no intelligent discussion without the sharing of opinions.
The claim for the worthlessness of opinion is epistemological. Your comment, "You have proven that you twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them."lacked value because it failed to make any argument. It included no reasons.

Your charge that my stated opinion was itself "worthless" failed to take into account that after posing my opinion, "Opinions are worthless in the realm of intelligent discussion" I went on to show by inference why reasonless opinions have no value: "Give me examples of where and how I "twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them." I.e., I inferred that without reasons opinions are only subjective comments that carry no weight in rational argument.

Now let's examine your response. For "evidence" that I "twist Scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them" you post a link to the thread neither you or anyone else were apparently able to rebut. Stating an opinion and posting a link with no explanation why or how this alleged "twisting" occurs is a classic example of posting valuless opinion.

Do yourself a favor and study the differences between truth, knowledge and opinion.

Some examples:

"The difference between opinion and truth is that opinions are personal truths, while truths are an undisputed fact. Common misconception about undisputed truths and personal truths lead, to the confusion between opinion and truth. The confusion is caused by the closeness of relation the words hold, and not so much by the differences between the two."

Link removed.
"An opinion is like a belief but where a belief would refer to one's views towards an objective proposition an opinion is subjective and thus has no objective truth value."

Link removed

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

"We have constant and recurring problems distinguishing between matters of faith and opinion. Yet, as can be readily seen, there is a vital and observable difference. Matters of faith have to do with revelation, the will of God, the expression of truth, necessary things. This truth is knowable, identifiable, and complete as a body or unified whole. It is uniform in every age (since its revelation), applicable to every society and circumstance and able to be obeyed by every accountable creature. God will hold us responsible for our treatment of it (Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 3; Eph. 5:17; 3:4; etc.). But with opinion, we enter the realm of human judgment, faulty reasoning, biased conclusions and traditions 'handed down from the fathers.'"

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034065.html

There are a number of distinctions between these terms [knowledge, truth, opinion] and even more differences between secular and religious handling of them but understanding the basics should be a requirement for posting to theology boards.

genuineoriginal
April 18th, 2016, 01:56 PM
The claim for the worthlessness of opinion is epistemological. Your comment, "You have proven that you twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them."lacked value because it failed to make any argument. It included no reasons.

Your charge that my stated opinion was itself "worthless" failed to take into account that after posing my opinion, "Opinions are worthless in the realm of intelligent discussion" I went on to show by inference why reasonless opinions have no value: "Give me examples of where and how I "twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them." I.e., I inferred that without reasons opinions are only subjective comments that carry no weight in rational argument.
You fail to consider that even "reasoned" opinions can be worthless and that opinions given without stating the reasons for them can also be worthwhile.


Now let's examine your response. For "evidence" that I "twist Scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them" you post a link to the thread neither you or anyone else were apparently able to rebut. Stating an opinion and posting a link with no explanation why or how this alleged "twisting" occurs is a classic example of posting valuless opinion.
I rebutted your twisting of scripture, but you were not able to accept the rebuttal as valid, since it went against your opinion.


Some examples:

"The difference between opinion and truth is that opinions are personal truths, while truths are an undisputed fact. Common misconception about undisputed truths and personal truths lead, to the confusion between opinion and truth. The confusion is caused by the closeness of relation the words hold, and not so much by the differences between the two."

Link removed by staff
The author's opinion about what are opinions and what are truths is lacking in truth.
Truth is often disputed and lies are often accepted as facts.


"An opinion is like a belief but where a belief would refer to one's views towards an objective proposition an opinion is subjective and thus has no objective truth value."

You need to remove that link, because it is an undisputed fact that links to other forums are not allowed on TOL.
You should probably remove the quote, since it is a subjective statement with no objective truth value.


Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
And facts are often non-truths that have been accepted as if they were truths.


"We have constant and recurring problems distinguishing between matters of faith and opinion. Yet, as can be readily seen, there is a vital and observable difference. Matters of faith have to do with revelation, the will of God, the expression of truth, necessary things. This truth is knowable, identifiable, and complete as a body or unified whole. It is uniform in every age (since its revelation), applicable to every society and circumstance and able to be obeyed by every accountable creature. God will hold us responsible for our treatment of it (Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 3; Eph. 5:17; 3:4; etc.). But with opinion, we enter the realm of human judgment, faulty reasoning, biased conclusions and traditions 'handed down from the fathers.'"

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034065.html
That is very appropriate, since your faulty reasoning and biased conclusions on that other thread are a result of your opinion.



There are a number of distinctions between these terms [knowledge, truth, opinion] and even more differences between secular and religious handling of them but understanding the basics should be a requirement for posting to theology boards.
There does not need to be any requirement such as that, since that requirement is a sure way for the board to turn into some kind of Intellectual Elitist board that has no relevance at all.
_____
The Dangers of Intellectual Elitism and Narcissism (http://humanities.drury.edu/?p=690)
. . .
the gaze of an intellectual almost always turns inward to the strength of her ideas or his interpretations of someone else’s ideas and not the source of those ideas. Abstract, conceptual theories themselves can appear equally pretentious and narcissistic.
. . .
To misquote a professor, academia is a long and tricky road; reaching the top is an achievement in and of itself. Yet far too often this pride turns into intellectual narcissism and it is this sort of elitism that has led to eugenics, slavery, manifest destiny and the scientific “proof” of social constructs like race or sexuality. Presumably, we do not know the current extent of our elitism now because as the privileged few, we are trained not to see those who pave the way for us. We cast aside and ignore the janitors, the technicians, the grocers, the farmers, the average taxpayer, our middle-school teachers and the various other individuals that allow us to lead a life of relative luxury.
. . .

Bociferous
April 19th, 2016, 05:48 AM
You fail to consider that even "reasoned" opinions can be worthless and that opinions given without stating the reasons for them can also be worthwhile.


I rebutted your twisting of scripture, but you were not able to accept the rebuttal as valid, since it went against your opinion.


The author's opinion about what are opinions and what are truths is lacking in truth.
Truth is often disputed and lies are often accepted as facts.


You need to remove that link, because it is an undisputed fact that links to other forums are not allowed on TOL.
You should probably remove the quote, since it is a subjective statement with no objective truth value.


And facts are often non-truths that have been accepted as if they were truths.


That is very appropriate, since your faulty reasoning and biased conclusions on that other thread are a result of your opinion.



There does not need to be any requirement such as that, since that requirement is a sure way for the board to turn into some kind of Intellectual Elitist board that has no relevance at all.

_____
The Dangers of Intellectual Elitism and Narcissism (http://humanities.drury.edu/?p=690)
. . .
the gaze of an intellectual almost always turns inward to the strength of her ideas or his interpretations of someone else’s ideas and not the source of those ideas. Abstract, conceptual theories themselves can appear equally pretentious and narcissistic.
. . .
To misquote a professor, academia is a long and tricky road; reaching the top is an achievement in and of itself. Yet far too often this pride turns into intellectual narcissism and it is this sort of elitism that has led to eugenics, slavery, manifest destiny and the scientific “proof” of social constructs like race or sexuality. Presumably, we do not know the current extent of our elitism now because as the privileged few, we are trained not to see those who pave the way for us. We cast aside and ignore the janitors, the technicians, the grocers, the farmers, the average taxpayer, our middle-school teachers and the various other individuals that allow us to lead a life of relative luxury.
. . .
And the hits just keep on comin folks...

genuineoriginal
April 19th, 2016, 11:34 AM
And the hits just keep on comin folks...
It appears that you either lack the ability to understand or the willingness.