Zone1 What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

[surada]

yet nobody uses him as a source for anything. lol I have several of Darrell Bock's and FF .Bruce's histories, neither cite him for anything; Bock works at the Dallas Seminary; obviusly you don't really know what you're talking about re Schofield's importance.

Darrell Bock? He's pure Scofield Dispensationist.

Dispensing Dispensationalism: A Critical Analysis of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible - White Rose eTheses Online

etheses.whiterose.ac.uk

 

[DudleySmith]

Darrell Bock? He's pure Scofield Dispensationist.

Dispensing Dispensationalism: A Critical Analysis of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible - White Rose eTheses Online

etheses.whiterose.ac.uk

lol no, he isn't.

 

[DudleySmith]

Of course he knows. Scofield became popular during the great depression and the dust bowl years in tent revivals attended by poor uneducated people. It got a surge in popularity from Late Great Planet Earth. It's found it's way into the mainstream with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist preachers. It's even found it's way into militant Catholicism particularly those who bitch about Vatican 2.

lol Bock and Bruce are none of those things, and contradict such people constantly in their works. You've never read either.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Sorry, yes. The 'Second Coming' is a made up opinion; it a reference to his next return, not an actual number of returns: he has already been here twice, and if you go by some theologies he came several times. Why anybody even questions that is just bizarre.

No, sorry.

 

[DudleySmith]

No, sorry.

Sorry, yes.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The futuristic heresy really became popular with the prophet Hal Lindsey's book Late Great Planet Earth.. and then Tim Lahaye's Left Behind series.

Nope. Your Bible says He is coming again and that EVERYONE will see Him in the clouds. Nobody cares about LaHaye, Lindsay or Scofield except you.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Sorry, yes.

I have something to look forward to, you do not. I am fine with that.

 

[norwegen]

Go ahead; here There just isn't anything in his words or anybody else's that says anything about a 'Second Coming', and his first 'Coming' was part of prophecy of his coming and dying, which is pretty much leaving, by anybody's standards. He came back after three days, and will come again, that's number two, obviously. He is referring to the returning to the physical world, and according to the books all who have died are currently dead and won't be risen until he returns. Visions are a different thing. I.E. there is no Second Coming, he's already been here twice.

"And after this I will return," said God (Acts 15:16). James referenced Amos, but Amos didn't use the word "return," because God had always come to Israel in clouds of heaven. St. Paul, as I said, believed Christ was the Son of God and said Christ was the one who had historically come for Israel.

Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time (Heb 9:28). A second coming. But as with James, that is in the New Testament context of kingdom and judgment.

As Israel's age drew to a close, Christ came twice, but all through Israel's history, he had always come. Only once did God come in the form of a man, as Philippians 2:5-8 avers. Otherwise, he comes in clouds of heaven, in Spirit, invisible to the naked eye.

That's what the text says.

 

[norwegen]

Of course they don't name him. He founded the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody institute.. They have turned out thousands of Dispensationalists and Dominionists preachers...as well as fundamentalists and modern day prophets who claim Russia is Gog and Magog and will invade Israel.

Scofield was hired to promote Christian Zionism.

DL Moody founded the Moody Institute. He was a dispensationalist at any rate.

Scofield and Darby really started infusing dispensationalist thought into Christian theology. Dispensationalism has indeed been a reference point for much modern "Christian" thought.

 

[DudleySmith]

"And after this I will return," said God (Acts 15:16). James referenced Amos, but Amos didn't use the word "return," because God had always come to Israel in clouds of heaven. St. Paul, as I said, believed Christ was the Son of God and said Christ was the one who had historically come for Israel.

Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time (Heb 9:28). A second coming. But as with James, that is in the New Testament context of kingdom and judgment.

As Israel's age drew to a close, Christ came twice, but all through Israel's history, he had always come. Only once did God come in the form of a man, as Philippians 2:5-8 avers. Otherwise, he comes in clouds of heaven, in Spirit, invisible to the naked eye.

That's what the text says.

And again it wouldn't be the actual second time. If he didn't die then he wasn't resurrected. It is referring to his second resurrction on Earth. His first coming was his birth to Mary and Joseph. His second coming was his first resurrection; the quote is referring to his third appearance. It's pretty simple.It will be his second coming as a leader.

 

[DudleySmith]

I have something to look forward to, you do not. I am fine with that.

Yes, a lot of narcissists feel a lot more 'special' than others; that's the whole point of making up your own theological fictions.

 

[norwegen]

And again it wouldn't be the actual second time. If he didn't die then he wasn't resurrected. It is referring to his second resurrction on Earth. His first coming was his birth to Mary and Joseph. His second coming was his first resurrection; the quote is referring to his third appearance. It's pretty simple.It will be his second coming as a leader.

His first coming was long before his birth in a manger. So were his second coming, his third coming, etc.

 

[surada]

A paper proposing that the book of Revelation was written before 68 A.D., not around 95 A.D. I've always thought the book was written by John the Apostle and not some other John, in any case, so I find the paper interesting.

What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

There are three main subjects we examine One is the external evidence that comes from Polycarp's statement, with all of its uncertainty. We show that it is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory of Revelation's

www.academia.edu

Introduction

Dating the Book of Revelation

One of the most important items in terms of interpreting the Bible is to understand the historical context in which it was written. Much of the debate concerning Bible Prophecy hinges on when Revelation was written.While dispensational scholars insist that John wrote his apocalypse in the mid 90's, a more compelling argument can be made for a much earlier date,around 65-66 AD.

Now one may ask, "Why is this important?" After all, it was nearly 2,000 years ago. What difference does 30 years make? Obviously, 30 years (or even 10 years) can make a big difference in the history of a nation. Germany and Japan in 1950 were quite a bit different than they were in 1940. In the same way, Rome and Jerusalem, the two main players in the Book of Revelation, were much different in 96 AD then they were in 66 AD. Thus the dating of the Book of Revelation becomes crucial in properly interpreting the book.

The author then goes on to list the external and internal evidence.

John of Patmos has a Jewish attitude and a poor command of Greek. John the Apostle was good in Greek.

John of Patmos - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

 

[surada]

This is only true if you don't believe Revelation to be about the Last Days before the and after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Other than that, the time in which the revelation was given to John doesn't matter to understanding the Book. He may have received the revelation 30 years prior to writing it down. Doesn't matter. It's still about the latter-days.

It's about the first century and written to first century Christians. The charlatans are always saying that Gog and Magog are Russia or the US is Babylon or the EU is the beast.

 

[DudleySmith]

His first coming was long before his birth in a manger. So were his second coming, his third coming, etc.

No, his earhtly appearance and death and resurrection are what is important to Christian theology.

 

[DudleySmith]

John of Patmos has a Jewish attitude and a poor command of Greek. John the Apostle was good in Greek.

John of Patmos - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

Nah. That theory is based on an apocryphal book that had the poor writing when compared to the the other books by John.

All the Apostles and their disciples had 'Jewish attitudes'; they were all Jews, and their bible was the Old Testament books, especially the Torah. Not to be confused with the racist Babylonians and the Temple scam, i.e. also the govt.

 

[norwegen]

His 'Coming' back to life was a 2nd coming in the literal sense, a'rising', or return, as people then understood 'resurrection'; that is implicit the 're' prefix in the word 'resurrection'.

This is not in the text.

What is in the text is that Christ was the rock that had followed Israel (1 Cor 10:1-4). What is in the text is that he appeared once for all at the end of the ages (Heb 9:26).

What is not in the text is that his resurrection was his second coming. He was resurrected long before the author of Hebrews said he would appear a second time (9:28). Was that author wrong? Should he have said "a third time"?

 

[DudleySmith]

This is not in the text.

What is in the text is that Christ was the rock that had followed Israel (1 Cor 10:1-4). What is in the text is that he appeared once for all at the end of the ages (Heb 9:26).

What is not in the text is that his resurrection was his second coming. He was resurrected long before the author of Hebrews said he would appear a second time (9:28). Was that author wrong? Should he have said "a third time"?

It doesn't have to be in there, it's immediately obvious. What the author is referring to is his coming again as a leader and teacher, not a resurrection for a second time. And besides, the provenance of the book of Hebrews is questionable, unlike most of the other books of the NY, either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox; it was included because it had some important info for Jewish Christians. He did not die again after his resurrection.

 

[norwegen]

No, his earhtly appearance and death and resurrection are what is important to Christian theology.

Certainly, they're important, but that's irrelevant to Christ's historical comings among his people. Even evangelicals say Christ appeared in the Old Testament. Their favorite example is the fourth man who appeared in a blazing hot oven with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

 

[norwegen]

It doesn't have to be in there, it's immediately obvious.

No it isn't. The text is what is immediately obvious.