Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
lsenders{at}hotmail.com
> says...
>
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >The context of John is pre-pentecost.
>
> True, but that does not support you. Not in any way.
>
The very first rule of interpretation is CONTEXT.  Who is the audience?
Who is the speaker? What precipitated the text.

It supports in that it denies primary interpretation as being to the
Church.  One has the ability to return to the passage after Pentecost
and find application, but application is not interpretation.  You like
to banter about the term "eisegesis", but to deny the primary
contextual audience posits nothing but a "reading into" the text.  The
Church is not in the context because it has not been disclosed.  It
remains a mystery up to Jn 13-16 in part, Pentecost in reality.
Therefore, one would have to read back into the account that Christ is
speaking to the Church.  And to do this one must eisegete the passage.

It supports me in everyway.
>
> >Not only pre-pentecost but
> >pre-upper room.  The Church has yet to be revealed.
>
> Oh, no. This is completely and radically false. But no doubt you find
it yet
> another convenient excuse for dispensationalist eisegesis.
>
Okay, you have put forth a contrary, though undefined, objection.  So,
what is the basis of your objection?  What is your proposed
alternative?  And. . . . how do you defend it.

Again, negation without adding anything to the discussion.  Your chosen
form of debate is too often the kings new clothes.
>
> >As far as your accusations concerning Gal & Eph, "in
Christ" is that
> >which scrapes off all the dross.  "In Christ" has no reference
> >whatsoever to OT saints, or to Tribulation saints or Millennium
saints.
>
> False. They are no less saints than the saints of the New Testament.
They are
> now no less 'in Christ'.
>
You are again reading into what I stated.  I did not say they were not
saints.  After all, just what is a "saint?"  (Please, biblical
definition)  However, no where will you find "in Christ" prior to
Pentecost.  Also, the "Bride" is a Church distinctive as is the
permanent indwelling of the Spirit.  The Church is a "heavenly
priesthood" as opposed to Aaronic priesthood.  Aaron's priesthood is
seen again offering sacrifices both in  Daniel's 70th week and later in
the Millennium.  But then you "spirit" away the normative reading of
the pertinent passages, don't you?
>
> >"In Christ" is a Church Age distinctive.
>
> What was that supposed to mean?
>
Why would any one have to explain that to you?  You know Roman's
forward and backward.  Surely this is a rhetorical question, baiting me
in some pretended way.
>
> >The indwelling of the HS in
> >each and every Church Age believer, a "pledge" and a
"seal" to bring
> >that individual "blameless and spotless" as a Bride before the
> >Bridegroom, separates the Church from ALL other economies.  Note in
Mt
> >25:1 the distinction of "virgins" as opposed to "bride."
>
> Ah, yes, your favorite excuse for eisegesis on Mt 25:1-46! How
_could_ I forget?
>
How often does it have to put to you before you own up to it.  Negation
without adding anything to the discussion.  NO revealing of an
alternative position.  No support structure for that position.  Why
bother to reply at all if you are not willing do the minimal which you
expect of others?
>
> >In the
> >Vulgate and Syriac versions of this verse, the interpretive addition
is
> >"went out to meet the bride and bridegroom."
>
> But this is irrelevant. You are using this textual variant as an
excuse for MORE
> eisegesis. And you even cook up a false history for the variant, too.
>
No.  It was a reference to illustrate the fact that dispensationalism
at this point, was not a 1800's johnie come lately as it's accusers
like spew, denying the historical record of millennialism being not
just the predominant, but the only view for the first two centuries,
and for the greater part the third and fourth as well.  There are
recent discoveries of letters dating 500AD to perhaps 300AD where the
fundamentals of dispensationalism are noted.

Again, these two version reveal that the early Church taught that the
Church and Israel were distinct economies within the Eternal Decree.
>
> If you look at a _responsible_ account of the history of this
variant, Loren,
> you will find that that those scholars whose specialty it is to know
it well,
> say the variant you so love was written by someone who did NOT
understand Jewish
> Marriage Customs. It is _not original_. So do not put these words in
Christ's
> mouth.
>
You are again talking outside of the context of the point-  Mt 25:1 as
amplified by Vulgate and Syriac.  I was not using these two variations
as authoritative proof text, but as an illustration to the fact that
such a distinction was made very early on in the Church.
>
> >The Church alone is the
> >Bride.  The context of Mt 24 & 25 has the believing remenant of
> >national Israel represented by the 5 faithful virgins.  Distinction!
>
> But a false distinction, based on bad textual history and worse
eisegesis.
>
Need we go back to the first objection?  Your interpretation has the
Church as the primary audience.  The problem is that it doesn't yet
exist.  Therefore, to place the Church in the context, one must read it
back into both the historical moment and the context.  Hermeneutics 101
disavows such things.
>
> >Also, never is the Church given tribal reference.  Rev 7 can only
refer
> >to Israel after the gathering of "dry bones."  Does the
Church ever
> >have reference in the "dispersa?"  No.
>
> But the only reason you answer 'no' is because 'no' is the answer you
need for
> your circular reasoning supporting bad theology. You don't actually
have a good
> reason to believe this 'no' is the _correct_ answer.
>
sola negation!  That is your herald!

Again, answer the point which is made.  When was the Church dispersed
such that it then inherits the gathering of dry bones.  Ezek. 36:37ff
is the passage.  Please explain to us all how, in the context, "the
house of Israel" suddenly comes to be interpreted as to finding primary
fulfillment by the Church?  To do so, you have to destroy the entire
context of the passage as well as the prophecy of Ezekial.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/28/04 11:40:07 AM