ECT Are We Now In the Time of the prophecy of Luke 17: 26-29?

northwye

New member
Are We Now In the Time of the Prophecy of Luke 17: 26-29?

Luke 17: 26-29 says "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.28. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29.But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all."

Luke 17: 26-29 says that people at this point in time will be like those in the time of Noah, they will not know what is going on and what is ahead. We are in a time in which people are divided one against another by their opposing ideology. Many who do not know what Marxism is are promoting forms of Marxism.

Fascism, like Marxism, moves toward the creation of a totalitarian world government with a collectivist culture and society. But Marxism begins from the dialectic.

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

Marx as a young radical intellectual followed a Leftist Hegelian movement in Berlin, based upon Hegel's bringing the Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, into modern philosophy. In the dialectic the first position, called the thesis, is argued against by an opposite position, called the anti-thesis. Though not understood by many, this paradigm has somehow come to be used in a great deal of discourse now in all the institutions of society.

The dialectic in Greek philosophy before the time of Christ was a procedure for making arguments and counter arguments by use of a thesis and its opposition or anti-thesis. The dialectic is in appearance a formal way of making arguments. But Paul says in I Timothy 6: 20-21 that the anti-thesis in the dialectic process produces "falsely called knowledge."

αντιθεσεις. anti-thesis, is translated as oppositions in I Timothy 6: 20 in the King James Version.. But there are other Greek words used in the New Testament which mean opposition, such as anthistémi, antidiatithémi, antipolítef̱si̱, or enantío̱si̱. Antithesis is a specific word used in Greek philosophy in relation to the dialectic.

The tactics of argument do not necessarily, in the dialectic, deal with what is true, but often what appears to be an argument or a tactic of discrediting the opponent.

Dean Gotcher says: "God cannot speak into the pre-flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, dialectic mind, even though it might quote scripture." From: https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brai...ic-gotcher.htm

"The dialectic is man thinking through his feelings. This is the reason God flooded the world and will judge the world again. "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." (Luke 17:26) " So says Gotcher.

Then he says "The dialectic paradigm rejects the word of God as the final authority.........You do not dialogue truth, you teach truth, you dialogue compromise. From: https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brai...ic-gotcher.htm.".......The prophecy of Luke 17: 26. Gotcher is saying, can be seen to began to be fulfilled now because of the widespread use of the dialectic.

Gotcher is saying that the mindset behind the use of the dialectic is somehow like that of the mindset of pre-Flood times, as well as the mindset of people at the times of the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah events.

Various forms of the dialectic are in use now in the media, in education, in government in the corporations and in the churches. We not only live in an age of deception, and in a time when common morality is declining, but we also live in the era of the dialectic, both as a way of making arguments and also as a way of thinking.

The Tower of Babel Event is in Genesis 11: 1, 4-9. "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.............And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

Genesis 11: 1, 4-9 has to be interpreted by other scriptures, and the interpretation of the Flood event in Genesis 6 to 7 is part of the understanding of Genesis 11: 1, 4-9.

Those descendants of Noah, his sons and their wives after the Flood who are the subject of Genesis 11: 1,4-9, apparently not only speak the same language, but they also have the same religion, follow the same doctrines of what can be called an early form of the Babylonian religion. In a sense the descendants of Ham in the Tower of Babel Event had returned to the mindset - the dark and flawed mindset of those right before the Flood. In other words, the descendants of Ham in the Tower of Babel Event had reverted back, to some extent, to the mental and spiritual condition of the descendants of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men of Genesis 6, an inter-breeding which brought on the judgment of God as the Flood of Noah/. Genesis 6: 9 says "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Generations is from: Strong's Hebrew number 8435, to-led-aw': or toldah {to-led-aw'}; from 03205; (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:--birth, generations." This sounds like it could be talking about Noah's genetics. But whether the Sons of God in Genesis 6 were fallen angels who bred with human women to produce a race of hybrids, or a people faithful to God had bred with a people not faithful to God, to produce offspring who God rejected, the Tower of Babel Event marked some kind of return to the mindset, morally and psychology, of the pre-Flood times.
 

Interplanner

New member
There are many good thoughts here North, but attaching it to something outside that generation is not sound, because of the other locations where it is. There is no coincidence that Daniel also said the end of the city and worship system would be like a flood...or perhaps the evil of that generation of zealots would be like that. Words kind of escaped Josephus trying to describe them. And yes they do have a way of harkening back to the problem of the nephilim.

He meant his generation, although there are examples to all others. There may even have been some 'marxism' at work in the antimessianic movement.
 

northwye

New member
Luke 17: 26-29 is a prophecy for the future, at some time, from the point of view of the First Century, How the mentality of people at the time the prophecy is to be fulfilled is like the mentality of people at the time of Noah is probably hard enough to grasp by those on TOL who are more focused on issues like what is Israel.

I don't know if dispensationalism has a position on Luke 17: 26-29. Nor have I ever come across any specific preterist or historicist view on Luke 17: 26-29.

I probably should have left out the mention of the Tower of Babel event because the connection between Marxism, the bringing of the dialectic in Greek philosophy into modern philosophy by Hegel, the Marxist version of the dialectic, its widespread use now and the mentality of people at the time of the Flood of Noah is so foreign to those on TOL.

If you do not know what the dialectic is as used by many now, you probably also do not know that it is being used widely now. The idea is not necessarily that the mentality at the time of Noah's Flood was Marxist, but that in our time Marxism contributed to the widespread use of the Marxist form of the dialectic.

And the idea of Gotcher that God does not speak into the dialectic mind of the pre-flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah people at that time, just as he does not speak into the dialectic mind of people in 2017 is an abstract idea. It is beyond the literal attitude. There is something more abstract going on to make the dialectic mind as seen by Gotcher at the time of the Flood of Noah and before like the dialectic mind of 2017.

Gotcher says "The dialectic is man thinking through his feelings. This is the reason God flooded the world and will judge the world again."

He says "The dialectic paradigm rejects the word of God as the final authority.........You do not dialogue truth, you teach truth, you dialogue compromise." From: https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brai...ic-gotcher.htm.

That you do not dialogue Truth in the dialectic is one reason why Paul in I Timothy 6:20-21 says to avoid the false or pseudo knowledge of the αντιθεσεις. anti-thesis. The anti-thesis within the dialectic, opposes the thesis, which for the Word of God is Truth. Dialogue is necessary for the dialectic to work and to oppose Truth.

At a more abstract level we can see that the dialectic mind of people right before the Flood of Noah rejected Objective Truth, and they rejected the idea that there can be Objective Truth from God. "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11.And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12.That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

It is interesting that this statement on love of the truth as a condition of salvation is placed right near Paul's statement that there is to come an apostasy as the man of sin, the son of perdition, is to sit in the temple of God. And for the dispensationalists that must be a literal temple of God and the man of sin must be one individual. II Thessalonians 2: 3-12
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

New member
Luke 17: 26-29 is a prophecy for the future, at some time, from the point of view of the First Century, How the mentality of people at the time the prophecy is to be fulfilled is like the mentality of people at the time of Noah is probably hard enough to grasp by those on TOL who are more focused on issues like what is Israel.

I don't know if dispensationalism has a position on Luke 17: 26-29. Nor have I ever come across any specific preterist or historicist view on Luke 17: 26-29.

I probably should have left out the mention of the Tower of Babel event because the connection between Marxism, the bringing of the dialectic in Greek philosophy into modern philosophy by Hegel, the Marxist version of the dialectic, its widespread use now and the mentality of people at the time of the Flood of Noah is so foreign to those on TOL.

If you do not know what the dialectic is as used by many now, you probably also do not know that it is being used widely now. The idea is not necessarily that the mentality at the time of Noah's Flood was Marxist, but that in our time Marxism contributed to the widespread use of the Marxist form of the dialectic.

And the idea of Gotcher that God does not speak into the dialectic mind of the pre-flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah people at that time, just as he does not speak into the dialectic mind of people in 2017 is an abstract idea. It is beyond the literal attitude. There is something more abstract going on to make the dialectic mind as seen by Gotcher at the time of the Flood of Noah and before like the dialectic mind of 2017.

Gotcher says "The dialectic is man thinking through his feelings. This is the reason God flooded the world and will judge the world again."

He says "The dialectic paradigm rejects the word of God as the final authority.........You do not dialogue truth, you teach truth, you dialogue compromise." From: https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brai...ic-gotcher.htm.

At a more abstract level we can see that the dialectic mind of people right before the Flood of Noah rejected Objective Truth, and they rejected the idea that there can be Objective Truth from God. "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11.And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12.That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

It is interesting that this statement on love of the truth as a condition of salvation is placed right near Paul's statement that there is to come an apostasy as the man of sin, the son of perdition, is to sit in the temple of God.





Sorry but I've concluded that Jesus is might 'tighter' in his references. He said the same things in Mt24A and Mk13A so I think he's sharpening warnings about that generation. He used the flood analogy thanks to Daniel 9.

Luke is crammed with references to things or images of the zealot revolt: terrorists, bad military decisions, Pilate's killing of rebel Galileans while sacrificing, the 'terms of peace,' (twice) the "vultures," the obvious lines of ch 19 and 21, the timestamped warning of ch 23 about the babes as adults. The redemption of Israel is intentionally there in the nativity so that in the overall presentation about Jesus and Paul, any Roman administrator can see it is not inflammatory, and mentioned again at 24:21, again showing Jesus was not a Galilean rebel. the question of 22:52 re rebellion.

The question "what will men do?" (23:31) asks how awful would they get in the revolt. They were. Like I said, Josephus runs out of words, but it was extremely evil, and the upper classes who were baited into thinking they would have 'peace and safety' (I Th 5:3) became disgusting too, in relation to what high ethical standards they had.

Everything Paul says (Luke-Acts is mostly transcribing and protecting Paul, Lk 1, Acts 1, 16:10 being where Luke joins the team) points to an understanding that the end of the world was to be right after this revolt failed and Israel demolished, esp in Thess. The Son would be revealed. That word choice is the obvious first reason to connect the Rev to the destruction of the country.

The longing to see a day of the Son of Man referred back to happier times during the ministry which would be increasingly distant as the days turned awful in the general revolt. The wrath of the Son of Man would quick and be after the evil like Noah and S&G.
 

Danoh

New member
...I don't know if dispensationalism has a position on Luke 17: 26-29. Nor have I ever come across any specific preterist or historicist view on Luke 17: 26-29...

As in every other area of inquiry and or reflection on in life, it is ever the case that when one approaches attempting to sort out a thing through operative principles or general rules of thumb, rather than through specific content, one finds one is easily able to figure out whatever content has been left out and or never touched on.

Or..."give a man a fish" (content), feed him for a day (tomorrow he will need more outside help; he will need additional content once more).

"Teach him how to fish" (guiding principles any content is basically the result of) and "you feed him for a lifetime" (he is now able to figure out what's what, what goes where, etc., on his own).

In this, it is obvious once more, that your approach has resulted in your being so used to needing to be spoonfed where Dispys supposedly stand on one position or another, northwye, that unless you are spoonfed it - via one more book "about" or another - you are unable to "know if dispensationalism has a position on..." it.

In this, northwye, you have ended yourself up no better off in your "study" approach than others on here I have tried pointing out this very principle to, only to find the same obvious ignorance at work in them that you just now exhibited once more, is exactly the case with you.

If your approach does not allow you to sort out where a different perspective sees things from without your having to ask, then your approach has a gaping hole in it.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
 

northwye

New member
"At a more abstract level we can see that the dialectic mind of people right before the Flood of Noah rejected Objective Truth, and they rejected the idea that there can be Objective Truth from God." Otherwise, they would not have all perished in the flood except Noah and his family.

What does the Jewish revolt in the First Century have to do with the dialectic of Satan and the mindset of people right before the Flood of Noah?

Behind the dialectic interpretation of Luke 17: 26-29 is the understanding that there are examples of the use of the dialectic in scripture and that the implication from Genesis 3: 1-6 and John 8: 31-44 is that Satan is the author of the dialectic.

In Genesis 3: 1-6 the serpent deceived Eve into getting into a dialogue with him and in that dialogue the Serpent used the dialectic to "fix" Eve's faith in God and obedience in him.

In John 8: 32 Jesus told the people standing before him, including the Pharisees, that "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

The Pharisees replied to Christ, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" John 8: 33

Again in John 8: 39 the Pharisees argued with Christ saying to him "Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

Then in John 8: 44 Christ said to the Pharisees, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil. Jesus had come to create the New Covenant, and in the dialectic the thesis, or Truth, was now Jesus Christ, who was standing before them. The doctrine of the Pharisees from the Old Covenant that they were the chosen people by their flesh was no longer the Truth. but the Pharisees were using this doctrine in John 8:39 and 8: 41 to make a dialectic argument opposing that of Christ. The Pharisees were of their father the devil who was a murderer and a liar, and the implication is that they were also of the devil in making an argument against the Truth of Christ, the Mediator of the Everlasting New Covenant (Hebrews 8: 6, Hebrews 9: 15 and Hebrews 12: 24). They were doing the dialectic against Jesus.
 

Danoh

New member
lol

northwye, were you an old school Pentecostal in a former life - I mean...your hoighty toighty, and demon behind every bush, really does take the cake...and then some...

:chuckle:

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
 

northwye

New member
This Looks Like One Dispensationalist View of Luke 17: 20-37

https://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/luke-17-the-lords-other-end-times-prophecy/

"Luke 17, The Lord’s Other End Times Prophecy - A Bible Study by Jack Kelley"

"After being rejected and executed by the leaders of His generation, the Lord would go away, and only the invisible phase of the Kingdom would remain. It’s called the Church"

"This is a clue as to why the Church and Israel are mutually exclusive in the world. The Kingdom of God began with Israel. He had Moses tell them so. “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6)"

"But then because of their disobedience it was taken away from Israel and given to the Church. In Matt. 21:43 Jesus said. “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”

"But this wasn’t to be permanent. After the Church disappears, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. The early Church understood this, as evidenced by James’ prophecy in Acts 15:13-18 where he said that the Lord would first take from among the Gentiles a people for Himself, and after that would return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle. Later Paul confirmed this, saying that Israel had been hardened in part until the full number of Gentiles come in, and after that Israel would be saved. (Romans 11:25-27)"

"The Days Of Noah"

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26-27)

Like it was in Noah’s time most people on Earth at the End of the Age will be unaware that life as they know it is about to end, not because they haven’t been warned but because they haven’t believed the warning. Noah is used as a model of the believing remnant of Israel at the end of the age, preserved through the judgment while the world is destroyed. Noah and his family remained in the general location of the judgment while the unbelievers were swept away in the flood.

At the End of the Age Israel’s believing remnant will remain in the general location of the judgment but will be preserved while the Lord completely destroys the nations around them. Speaking of the time of Jacob’s Trouble (the Great Tribulation) in Jere. 30:11 the Lord said,

I am with you and will save you,’ declares the LORD. ‘Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you.”

In the symbolic language of Revelation the Jewish remnant is represented by a woman, while Satan is called the serpent.

The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. (Rev. 12:14)"

There is a lot of dispensationalist theology cited here, and very little on how the time of fulfillment of Luke 17: 26-29 will be like that of the historical time right before Noah's Flood, or how the mentality of the people at the time of the fulfillment of the Luke 17 prophecy would be similar to that before the Flood,in which God judged the entire generation.

There is an interesting interpretation of Acts 15: 13-18 above: "But this wasn’t to be permanent. After the Church disappears, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. The early Church understood this, as evidenced by James’ prophecy in Acts 15:13-18 where he said that the Lord would first take from among the Gentiles a people for Himself, and after that would return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle." The text says "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The interpretation that James gives of Amos 9: 11-12 is in Acts 15: 13-14, " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

James interpreted Amos 9: 11-12 and similar Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of Old Covenant Israel as agreeing with Peter's saying that God had called a people out of the Gentiles for himself. The restoration of Amos 9: 11-12 is seen in the New Testament to be the New Covenant though some dispensationalists try to take advantage of the very brief and cryptic statements in Acts 15 and deny this is the case.
 
Last edited:

Danoh

New member
Your post immediately above mine here, northwye, is sourced from Acts 2 Dispensationalism, not Acts 9.

Acts 2 Dispensationalism is similar in erroneous approach to that of the hybrid of Acts 9 and Acts Dispensationalism being purported by most on here as THEIR "MAD."

Acts 2 Dispensationalism itself is a hybrid of Reformed Theology with how Acts 2 Dispensationalism attempts to sort things out.

But it never really broke free of it's purported freedom from the Reformed.

Thus, it's continued obvious mix of the two.

The other extreme being the mix of Acts 9 and Acts 28 Dispensationalism as a hybrid, being touted on here by most as "MAD."

The same error in principle is obvious.

Good luck sorting it out.

They themselves remain blind to being able to do so.

Taking offense this is even pointed out to them.

Just as you do.

Birds of a feather each trying to pass off their version of the bottom of their bird cage, as a solution.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
 

Interplanner

New member
North,
maybe slow down so this is a conversation.

You asked:
What does the Jewish revolt in the First Century have to do with the dialectic of Satan and the mindset of people right before the Flood of Noah?

Were we talking about the dialectic of Satan? The question was 'are we now in the time of Lk 17's prophecy?' It's about that generation, and the dialectic of Satan was probably used by the zealots. The flood analogy was used by Daniel about the same event of the 1st century. The picture painted by Christ about people right before the destruction of Israel has both:

the agitators who wanted the fight with Rome and the upper classes were in their way, and

the upper classes who wanted 'peace and safety' and no conflict with either zealots or Rome, yet ended up doing truly horrible things in the end.

I was saying that the ugly head of Noachian types showed itself in that generation, but more sophisticated and pseudo-messianic.
 

Interplanner

New member
This Looks Like One Dispensationalist View of Luke 17: 20-37

https://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/luke-17-the-lords-other-end-times-prophecy/

"Luke 17, The Lord’s Other End Times Prophecy - A Bible Study by Jack Kelley"

"After being rejected and executed by the leaders of His generation, the Lord would go away, and only the invisible phase of the Kingdom would remain. It’s called the Church"

"This is a clue as to why the Church and Israel are mutually exclusive in the world. The Kingdom of God began with Israel. He had Moses tell them so. “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6)"

"But then because of their disobedience it was taken away from Israel and given to the Church. In Matt. 21:43 Jesus said. “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”

"But this wasn’t to be permanent. After the Church disappears, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. The early Church understood this, as evidenced by James’ prophecy in Acts 15:13-18 where he said that the Lord would first take from among the Gentiles a people for Himself, and after that would return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle. Later Paul confirmed this, saying that Israel had been hardened in part until the full number of Gentiles come in, and after that Israel would be saved. (Romans 11:25-27)"

"The Days Of Noah"

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26-27)

Like it was in Noah’s time most people on Earth at the End of the Age will be unaware that life as they know it is about to end, not because they haven’t been warned but because they haven’t believed the warning. Noah is used as a model of the believing remnant of Israel at the end of the age, preserved through the judgment while the world is destroyed. Noah and his family remained in the general location of the judgment while the unbelievers were swept away in the flood.

At the End of the Age Israel’s believing remnant will remain in the general location of the judgment but will be preserved while the Lord completely destroys the nations around them. Speaking of the time of Jacob’s Trouble (the Great Tribulation) in Jere. 30:11 the Lord said,

I am with you and will save you,’ declares the LORD. ‘Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you.”

In the symbolic language of Revelation the Jewish remnant is represented by a woman, while Satan is called the serpent.

The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. (Rev. 12:14)"

There is a lot of dispensationalist theology cited here, and very little on how the time of fulfillment of Luke 17: 26-29 will be like that of the historical time right before Noah's Flood, or how the mentality of the people at the time of the fulfillment of the Luke 17 prophecy would be similar to that before the Flood,in which God judged the entire generation.

There is an interesting interpretation of Acts 15: 13-18 above: "But this wasn’t to be permanent. After the Church disappears, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. The early Church understood this, as evidenced by James’ prophecy in Acts 15:13-18 where he said that the Lord would first take from among the Gentiles a people for Himself, and after that would return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle." The text says "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The interpretation that James gives of Amos 9: 11-12 is in Acts 15: 13-14, " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

James interpreted Amos 9: 11-12 and similar Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of Old Covenant Israel as agreeing with Peter's saying that God had called a people out of the Gentiles for himself. The restoration of Amos 9: 11-12 is seen in the New Testament to be the New Covenant though some dispensationalists try to take advantage of the very brief and cryptic statements in Acts 15 and deny this is the case.




re your last line. Right: all they are doing is protecting Chafer's repair of the broken Bible as he found it before he came.
 

northwye

New member
OK You agree that the form of the dialectic used widely now as Dean Gotcher understands it is of Satan. The dialectic could be a formal academic debate where there is considerable agreement on both sides as to what a fact is and mostly attacks on the opponent to discredit him do not occur. But this formal kind of dialectic is not what Gotcher is talking about. Gotcher is also saying that as a result of this widespread form of the dialectic that many people now think in a dialectic way, so that there is what he calls the dialectic mind. The dialectic mind can be seen as leading not only to loss of faith, but to serious divisions in society and culture which can lead to widespread violence.

It would probably take a few years to turn our whole educational system around and began to teach didactically again. But to began that turn around, there has to be an understanding of what the form of the dialectic now in popular use is all about. It may be that a few of those of the Baby Boomer Generation who are now in their sixties and early seventies have some slight memory of what a didactic educational system is. And "Uncle" Carl Rogers of Squaw Bay in Madison, Wisconsin should be understood as having been one of the Social Engineers who brought us this form of the dialectic. William Coulson, a clinical psychologist, was one of the encounter group facilitators under Rogers in southern California after Rogers left the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Coulson became what was called "The Repentant Psychologist." https://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/LATINM.TXT

Coulson repented of having worked with Rogers to "destroy" the Immaculate Heart nuns of Los Angeles, California in the mid sixties. He became critical of Carl Rogers and the Encounter Group movement partly under Rogers at that time.

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/rogers.html

The Encounter Group facilitators were mostly psychologists who made use of some of the then recent findings of experimental social psychologists of the Group Dynamics movement, which studied group behavior and ways to create a cohesive small group as a collective. In other words, both the Group Dynamics and Encounter Group movements were moving toward a collectivist culture and society. Something like the dialectic was used by the Facilitators in the Encounter Group movement. Dean Gotcher has studied both movements and had a series of talks he made on Carl Rogers and Gotcher in other talks and essays looks at the Group Dynamics movement. Carl Rogers was one of my professors at Wisconsin.
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

New member
North,
to help you get closer to clarity: describe the Seahawks Michael Bennett situation, but without using the word dialectic.
 

northwye

New member
I talked to William Coulson on the phone once and exchanged E Mail messages with him maybe four years ago. I don't think I mentioned Dean Gotcher to him, though it was Gotcher who first told me about Coulson. I did talk to Coulson about the Frankfurt School of Transformational Marxism. He is aware of their important role in the changes going on since about 1950. He said that A.H, Maslow hung out with the Frankfurters, meaning that when both Maslow and Herbert Marcuse were professors at Brandeis they were friends. Along with Theodore W. Adorno, Marcuse was an original Frankfurter Marxist who became influential professors in the U.S.
 

Danoh

New member
northwye, regarding the comments on James' words in Acts 17 per your post repeated in the Spoiler below, both you and Kelley, are off.

His is obviously an Acts 2 Dispensationalist position.

Acts 2 Dispensationalism has never been a consistent Dispensationalism.

And what Kelley asserts, as cited in your post, is one example of that.

James was neither asserting that the Amos Prophecy will take place after this Gentile age, nor denying it.

Neither was he asserting what was taking place back in the 1st Century was in fulfillment of Amos.

It is clear James and company were unsure what all was actually going on.

Only that it did not contradict the Prophets because God did say through them He would do a work among the Gentiles; God was obviously behind what was then happening; He knew what was what, and so that was good enough for them.

James' response is a response commonly depicted in Scripture, during times where God does a thing not yet understood by His saints, but they nevertheless go along with Him in their sense that He alone is Sovereign; He knows best; and so that is good enough for them.

Peter; his companions; and the others are all depicted experiencing that and going with it, in Acts 10, and 11.

Or as summarized in...

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

And in....

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

When their minds were right, those men were all about "When in doubt, let go, and let God..."

When their minds were right, that was their mantra, whether in doubt, or with their backs up against a wall...

Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

THAT is how one gets in their minds - via verse with verse comparison, Isaiah 8:20; Luke 24:27; Acts 17:11,12.

NOT via yours and IP's so obvious endless books based approach, nor via the fool nonsense often propagated by him, that all one need do is read the passages aloud 10x and in just some supposed right inflection.

Talk about "what a fool believes..."

Once more, you and yours prove yourselves clueless about the One BOOK "about" you each should know far better by now than any of you clearly do.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8

Spoiler
This Looks Like One Dispensationalist View of Luke 17: 20-37

https://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/luke-17-the-lords-other-end-times-prophecy/

"Luke 17, The Lord’s Other End Times Prophecy - A Bible Study by Jack Kelley"

"After being rejected and executed by the leaders of His generation, the Lord would go away, and only the invisible phase of the Kingdom would remain. It’s called the Church"

"This is a clue as to why the Church and Israel are mutually exclusive in the world. The Kingdom of God began with Israel. He had Moses tell them so. “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6)"

"But then because of their disobedience it was taken away from Israel and given to the Church. In Matt. 21:43 Jesus said. “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”

"But this wasn’t to be permanent. After the Church disappears, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. The early Church understood this, as evidenced by James’ prophecy in Acts 15:13-18 where he said that the Lord would first take from among the Gentiles a people for Himself, and after that would return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle. Later Paul confirmed this, saying that Israel had been hardened in part until the full number of Gentiles come in, and after that Israel would be saved. (Romans 11:25-27)"

"The Days Of Noah"

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26-27)

Like it was in Noah’s time most people on Earth at the End of the Age will be unaware that life as they know it is about to end, not because they haven’t been warned but because they haven’t believed the warning. Noah is used as a model of the believing remnant of Israel at the end of the age, preserved through the judgment while the world is destroyed. Noah and his family remained in the general location of the judgment while the unbelievers were swept away in the flood.

At the End of the Age Israel’s believing remnant will remain in the general location of the judgment but will be preserved while the Lord completely destroys the nations around them. Speaking of the time of Jacob’s Trouble (the Great Tribulation) in Jere. 30:11 the Lord said,

I am with you and will save you,’ declares the LORD. ‘Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you.”

In the symbolic language of Revelation the Jewish remnant is represented by a woman, while Satan is called the serpent.

The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. (Rev. 12:14)"

There is a lot of dispensationalist theology cited here, and very little on how the time of fulfillment of Luke 17: 26-29 will be like that of the historical time right before Noah's Flood, or how the mentality of the people at the time of the fulfillment of the Luke 17 prophecy would be similar to that before the Flood,in which God judged the entire generation.

There is an interesting interpretation of Acts 15: 13-18 above: "But this wasn’t to be permanent. After the Church disappears, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. The early Church understood this, as evidenced by James’ prophecy in Acts 15:13-18 where he said that the Lord would first take from among the Gentiles a people for Himself, and after that would return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle." The text says "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The interpretation that James gives of Amos 9: 11-12 is in Acts 15: 13-14, " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

James interpreted Amos 9: 11-12 and similar Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of Old Covenant Israel as agreeing with Peter's saying that God had called a people out of the Gentiles for himself. The restoration of Amos 9: 11-12 is seen in the New Testament to be the New Covenant though some dispensationalists try to take advantage of the very brief and cryptic statements in Acts 15 and deny this is the case.
 

northwye

New member
To study different types of dialogue which make use of the anti-thesis opposition to a thesis, you need verbatim statements of what was said. You have exactly that on ECT. But it would be good to compare this with examples of that kind of dialogue in the Leftist media, from the TV, newspaper and magazine news. Sometimes there are more than one person speaking on the mainstream News, and one person speaking can be treated as though it were dialogue because in many cases the News is part of an argument between the Left and the Right, or Conservative - or populist, Christian and/or Patriot positions.

The Western culture which was influenced by the Protestant Reformation had. at least for the middle and lower middle classes, for many years held the belief that there is an objective reality which can be discovered and when discovered can be seen by everyone. I remember a statement made by Hans Selye, who was a pioneering endocrinologist, saying that research findings on stress, such as that it is additive and cumulative, can be seen by everyone and seen forever. This statement is part of the belief in Western European and in American culture at one time that there is an objective reality which can be found out and when found can be understood by a great many people.

Then in about 1945 George Orwell published his collection of essays called, "In Front of Your Nose," including essays on the denial of objective reality, or the massive telling of lies in the media and elsewhere, espcially in the Communist and Nazi media.

Isaiah 59: 14 says "for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter."

Jeremiah 9: 3 says "And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth;"

Study of verbatim records of dialogue in the Leftist media and even elsewhere now in society would show that George Orwell is right, there is a denial of objective reality going on and a lot of telling of lies in dialogue, in the dialectic process. And there would be a lot of dialectic argument about what is a lie and what is not a lie.

So, the use of lies within the dialectic process is a denial of objective reality.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1: 25 Those of the dialectic mind changed the truth of God for a lie.

Ephesians 4: 25 says "Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another."

In dialogue which is driven by a strong desire to win the argument and defeat and discredit the opponent, the end is thought to justify the means and so lies or half lies are used to win. They are not thought of as being lies.
 

Danoh

New member

northwye

New member
"Traditional Marxists scoffed at Transformational Marxists when they united socialism (Marx) with psychology (Freud). The Traditional Marxists eventually kicked the Transformational Marxists out of the official Communist Party. Yet universities around the world now consider the writings of these Transformational Marxists (Lukacs, Gramsci, and Korsch) as some of the most important reading a student can do if he is going to understand how the world is to function in the 21st century."

"The key to dialectic thinking is the right to question, mock, and ridicule the traditional, didactic, patriarch authority paradigm. The facilitator’s agenda is to create and sustain such an environment. The very right to question the role of traditional authority has an effect on all participating in such surroundings. All but the strongest in faith are drawn by "the feeling of group belongingness" to trust and follow the facilitator. All who surrender to the "group feel" will harass those who question the facilitator’s "authority." Persecution is being harassed for holding to a position. The experience can be quite heated. "

"Marxists, almost 100 years ago, realized that their goal of total global supremacy could be achieved by incorporating the methods Sigmund Freud used on his victims. Rejected by the Communist International, these Transformational Marxists came from Frankfurt Germany to the United States in 1933, the year Hitler became Germany’s chancellor. Through the use of role playing, devised by the Marxist, J. L. Moreno, and an understanding of group dynamics, by the Marxist Kurt Lewin, the patient was taken off the couch and is now placed in a group."

Kurt Lewin was the founder of the Group Dynamics movement, which did experiments on group behavior in the fifties.

"God's Word does three things:

1) It presents truth external from all cultures, truth that could not be known without a
direct revelation from God.

2) It condemns the idolatry that all cultures practice. We all have at one time or
another worshiped the works of our own hands and mind, and

3) It transforms that which is good in all cultures, such as giving a glass of water to
someone who is thirsty, but it is now done in the name of the creator and savior
of the world, Jesus Christ."

"Deliberately covering up this use of "humanistic reasoning skills" with selected affective scriptures, which is being done, only makes it more seductive to the undiscerning Christian."

"The first phase, THESIS, can be identified as the traditional way of doing things. Yet in diaprax, this phase becomes what I call "THE THESIS INTERROGATION." The second phase, ANTITHESIS, is important transitional phase between the first and third phase, from tradition to transformation. This second phase has to be successfully crossed if the process is to accomplish its purpose."

"In the traditional way of thinking, reality is based upon external evidence or facts with knowledge being the accumulation of these facts (quantity) as well as respect for and obedience toward them. In the transitional way of thinking, feelings determine reality. And in the transformational way of thinking, only what can be reasoned is real. Simply put, traditional thinking sees reality out there somewhere as facts, established for all times and places; transitional thinking sees reality in the heart, where facts can be overlooked in the pursuit of pleasure and where problems can be solved by simply going somewhere else that feels better."

"After reading hundreds of socio-psychology books by men such as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Kurt Lewin, Warren Bennis, Antonio Gramsci, Lawrence Kohlberg, Ronald Havelock, Richard Bandler, and Ronald Lippitt the evidence is abundant and the intent is clear as to their use for this process. While some may naively refer to this process as the "reculturing of America," I recognize it as a deliberate plan by socio-psychologists to eliminate absolute faith in and obedience to God."

"Hegel's dialectic was the cause for two world wars and many wars between and since. One historian recently stated that, during this century, all governments that used this process combined have been responsible for the killing of more than 250,000,000 of their own citizens. Abortion, like the Holocaust, could not have become legal without the aid of dialectic reasoning. Wherever this process has gone, it has brought death and despair while promising life and prosperity."

"Somewhere within the process there lies a switch that confuses men's minds, numbs their feelings, and freezes their responses. Aware that something is gaining control over them and not able to explain or define what it is, they are unable to develop any response that will stop the process. This trigger shuts off man's awareness of impending danger (past history or depth history; depth perception) and freezes his ability to resist the process (indecision). The numbness one experiences comes from the fear of potential alienation and loss of respect because of the inability to explain the differences between what one says he believes (black and white) and what he does or desires to do (gray zone). This produces feelings that are not based on God's Word, but that are instead based upon the fear of losing respect in the eyes of others. This kind of fear prevents one from making an immediate or effective response. This fear is not from God, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Tim 1:7). "

"Although the scriptures warn us of the "traditions of elders," it does not ask us to abandon what traditional thinking longs for and depends upon, the belief in lasting facts or truths. To the Christian, man's longing and dependence must be upon God and His Word and not upon the things or comforts of this world. To a Christian, facts or truths are based upon the words of the Creator, His revelation about things external to the creation and beyond human-reasoning.

Facts or truths of nature, evidenced in its design and motion, can be discovered through human-reasoning, but its purpose remains cosmic-bound—unknown—without God's Word. God's Word does not deny the facts or truths found within nature, known as the laws of nature, but only affirms that He created them and can supersede them at anytime, at His own choosing. This is something those under the influence of diaprax can never accept nor understand.

"Therefore the key element in traditionalism is a dependence upon an external, overt, unchanging authority or the dependence upon lasting facts and truths which apply to all times and places—God's Word, the laws of nature. It is up to that authority or that truth to either reveal Himself to man (God), or to be discovered by man (the laws of nature). The laws of nature are discovered through "hard" science and requires evidence (sight) before being understood and accepted as fact: "I know therefore I believe." The Word of God requires trust and faith in the words of a higher authority because the evidence is unseen at the time and understanding comes only after trust is applied: "I believe therefore I know."

"Somewhere within the process there lies a switch that confuses men's minds, numbs their feelings, and freezes their responses." And so many of them will mock those who warn them about the use of the dialectic.

This is all from: http://www.professionalserve.com/doublespeak/diaprax6.htm
 
Last edited:
Top