Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

How to Understand Revelation and Daniel


Recommended Posts

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Invicta said:

If you don't know them, how can you say you don't follow them?

What a moronic question.....

I can't possibly "follow them" if I don't know what they are.

I may walk a similar path - that I wouldn't know - but I cannot follow if I don't know.

 But it is never beyond you to twist anything you like to try to make me look bad.

And this is, quite simply, nothing more than a deliberate attempt to belittle me. However, all you have succeeded in doing is to once again display the lack of basic logic that you show in many of your posts.

And it shows your propensity for false accusation and deliberate misrepresentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

I feel like this is not a place of love. Christians turn more people away from salvation by pointing fingers at each other and arguing about who has the correct interpretations of Gods words. Jesus invited the woman at the well to give him a drink of water. He was forgiving, he didn't tell her her belief in him was the wrong interpretation. He blessed her and told her to sin no more. He didn't say, here is what I mean by that. It was good enough that she believed he was the messiah.

Shame on you for bickering instead of walking in humility for the sake of humanity. No one knows what happens after we die. We do know Christ  wants us to believe he is the Son of God and have faith in him. Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Celina and the Brethren,

I had previously started a thread on, "Prophecy School of Interpretation." Here is the link:

Some of the comments on that thread may help you in understanding the various methods of interpreting scripture. The two main schools of interpreting the prophecies of the scripture is the 'Futuristic' and the 'Historical.' I considered "A-millennialism' as a third method in that thread as part of the initial discussion.  I will clarify that with the following statement: "The 'Allegorical' and the 'Symbolic' methods of interpretation usually fall under the 'Historical' method of interpretation and has produced the 'A-millennialism' doctrine concerning the prophecies in Revelation

The 'Futuristic' method has produced, I believe, the correct pre-millennial method of interpretation of the prophecies of the scriptures.

I hope this brief study, and reference to the link on, "Prophecy Method of Interpretation," will be a help to you and any of the other brethren. If you, or anybody else, would like to discuss different methods of interpretation on the other thread that is fine with me.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, Alan said:

The 'Allegorical' and the 'Symbolic' methods of interpretation usually fall under the 'Historical' method of interpretation and has produced the 'A-millennialism' doctrine concerning the prophecies in Revelation

Not so.

The main interpretations, or understandings are.

1 Historical, or Continuous Historical.  The true understanding as always been taught by the non Catholics.

2, Preterist.  A Catholic teaching.

3. Futurist, with its many variations.  Another Catholic invention. As in Preterist, invented to counter the true teaching that the Pope is Antichrist.

4 Allegorical.  Or the Spiritual.  Teaches that Revelation has only a spiritual  application and various allegoric applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Not so. I disagree with this statement.

The main interpretations, or understandings are.

1 Historical, or Continuous Historical.  The true understanding as always been taught by the non Catholics. The Continuous Historical is the result of Historical and is not considered a true method. The Historical method is not true at all. I have proven it not true in my Revelation Bible Study thread on numerous occasions. The Historical method is false and is the method of the Preterist and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

2, Preterist.  A Catholic teaching. The Preterist method is a result of the Historical method.

3. Futurist, with its many variations.  Another Catholic invention. As in Preterist, invented to counter the true teaching that the Pope is Antichrist. The Futurist method is not, I repeat not, a Catholic invention. As other threads here on OnLine Baptist has already brought out, and I have brought out in my Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study, the futuristic method was the method of interpretation by the early church fathers long before the Catholic church taught a-millennialism.  Your post is a historical non-truth.

4 Allegorical.  Or the Spiritual.  Teaches that Revelation has only a spiritual  application and various allegoric applications. The Allegorical, or Spiritual, method falls under the heading of the Historical method.

Invicta,

In order to simplify the main methods of interpreting the scriptures to a relatively simple explanation, in my explanations I gave Celina, and all of the brethren, the two main methods of interpreting the scriptures: the Historical and Futurist methods that are commonly accepted among IFB brethren. And, I gave the results of those two methods. In your explanation you combined the results and added some thoughts which are in error. In fact, your post is somewhat confusing. I have put my thoughts in red fonts in your posts in reply.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 11/07/2017 at 0:29 AM, Alan said:

The Continuous Historical is the result of Historical and is not considered a true method. The Historical method is not true at all. I have proven it not true in my Revelation Bible Study thread on numerous occasions. The Historical method is false and is the method of the Preterist and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

No.  You have stated it, that is not proof..   It has nothing to do with Preterist which is mainly a literal interpretation.  They take the Rev, Temple as the literal temple before AD 70.  The Historical is mot false.

On 11/07/2017 at 0:29 AM, Alan said:

The Preterist method is a result of the Historical method.

Nonsense.  The Preterist was promoted by the Catholic Alcazar to challenge the true teaching that the Pope is Antichrist.

On 11/07/2017 at 0:29 AM, Alan said:

The Futurist method is not, I repeat not, a Catholic invention. As other threads here on OnLine Baptist has already brought out, and I have brought out in my Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study, the futuristic method was the method of interpretation by the early church fathers long before the Catholic church taught a-millennialism.  Your post is a historical non-truth.

No Sir,  You are wrong.  You can check this by reading writings such as Cardinal Belarmine and others about the same time, which are available on line..  The futurist teaching is not the teaching of the early church "fathers".  Also long before the Catholic church taught futurism..  They taught for instance, that the Anthrist would be revealed on the fall of the Roman Empire and the Emperor., that the temple in Revelation was the church, that after the Antichrist was destroyed would be the end of all things.

On 11/07/2017 at 0:29 AM, Alan said:

Your post is a historical non-truth.

I am sorry Brother, but I  can only think that you have not read the history, only what people have said about it.  Very dangerous.It is very obvious that you have not studied the "fathers"

On 11/07/2017 at 0:29 AM, Alan said:

The Allegorical, or Spiritual, method falls under the heading of the Historical method.

It that wasn't so sad I would consider it laughable.  David Cloud says that and he should know better. Historical is as Rev 1 says, signified, or figurative  or as we would say, symbolic.  Allegorical, means that there is no actual fulfillment just spiritual truths.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Invicta,

I am not going to argue the matter and let my two posts stand as they are.

Celina,

All of the above material, talked mentioned by Invicta and I, has been discussed numerous times here on OnLine Baptist and I do not want to continue the discussion on your thread. I will give you, and anybody else, who wants to research whether or not the early church fathers were pre-millenial, the following website for reference: http://www.essentialchristianity.com/pages.asp?pageid=21918

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Invicta said:

No.  You have stated it, that is not proof..   It has nothing to do with Preterist which is mainly a literal interpretation.  They take the Rev, Temple as the literal temple before AD 70.  The Historical is mot false.

Nonsense.  The Preterist was promoted by the Catholic Alcazar to challenge the true teaching that the Pope is Antichrist.

No Sir,  You are wrong.  You can check this by reading writings such as Cardinal Belarmine and others about the same time, which are available on line..  The futurist teaching is not the teaching of the early church "fathers".  Also long before the Catholic church taught futurism..  They taught for instance, that the Anthrist would be revealed on the fall of the Roman Empire and the Emperor., that the temple in Revelation was the church, that after the Antichrist was destroyed would be the end of all things.

I am sorry Brother, but I  can only think that you have not read the history, only what people have said about it.  Very dangerous.It is very obvious that you have not studied the "fathers"

It that wasn't so sad I would consider it laughable.  David Cloud says that and he should know better. Historical is as Rev 1 says, signified, or figurative  or as we would say, symbolic.  Allegorical, means that there is no actual fulfillment just spiritual truths.

 

I would simply ask folks to consider both sides of this argument from the point of view of the two people involved:

Alan is known as a thorough teacher who uses a large amount of Bible in his posts.

Invicta is known as one who presents false histories to suit his own point of view. One only has to search out the name Darby on this site to find Invicta falsely attributing all sorts of doctrines to him and also to find refutations of his false claims.

 

Of these, I would far more inclined to trust Alan's information than anything Invicta posts.

 

And I know for a certainty that much of what Invicta has posted here is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, DaveW said:

I would simply ask folks to consider both sides of this argument from the point of view of the two people involved:

Alan is known as a thorough teacher who uses a large amount of Bible in his posts.

Invicta is known as one who presents false histories to suit his own point of view. One only has to search out the name Darby on this site to find Invicta falsely attributing all sorts of doctrines to him and also to find refutations of his false claims.

 

Of these, I would far more inclined to trust Alan's information than anything Invicta posts.

 

And I know for a certainty that much of what Invicta has posted here is false.

If you are referring to my differing from Alan regarding the ECF.  Then you have never read them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No - simply, I am referring to your consistent twisting of history and Bible to suit your own ideas, which has been seen many many times.

Alan on the hand most often writes thoughtful and biblically referenced material here.

THIS is the point I make - if people compare what you have written on this forum over the years with what Alan has written over the years they will quickly come to the conclusion that Alan is far, far, far more reliable than you are. 

In a simple matter of "he says vs he says" there is a no contest on past record: Alan has a far greater reliability than you.

You make stuff up and lie about stuff.

Proven, shown, and seen many times over.

If anyone doubts that, a quick search as I suggested above will supply ample proof. And I would encourage people to do said search and not just take my word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • Members

 

Celina

The catching up of the church (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) will happen before the day of the Lord(Tribulation)). Since Israel has gathered back to Israel the land the catching up of the church is near it is near and hasteth greatly.

 

Zephaniah 1:14-2:3

14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

16 A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.

17 And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

1Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired;         (Israel)

2 Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the day of the LORD'S anger come upon you.

3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger.

 

Celina Live for Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
43 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Eric,

Great. Would you mind telling me (if it`s not too far off topic) what is the difference between Baptists and Independent Baptists?

regards, Marilyn.

Hi, Marilyn. Your question is a valid one, but it's not actually part of this thread.  Feel free to start a thread on the subject. Thanks. :11_blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...