Todd Dennis - Idealism

[MoGrace2U]

You gotta read this all the way to the end -

www.hyperpreteristarchive.com/blog1.php/2008/04/23/prophecy-fulfillment-model-pointing-to-j#more39

Then tell me what is the spiritual antitype that he thinks 70AD points to. Cause according to him, Israel got nothing spiritual by the fulfillment of this prophetic type! But then he quotes Rev 21:22 whereby the temple of the Bride city is the Lord God and the Lamb.

I am beginning to think that these guys only see a spiritual application for this life as being what scripture speaks of.

[stephenpatrick]

Mar 7, 2010 17:16:50 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

You gotta read this all the way to the end -

www.hyperpreteristarchive.com/blog1.php/2008/04/23/prophecy-fulfillment-model-pointing-to-j#more39

Then tell me what is the spiritual antitype that he thinks 70AD points to. Cause according to him, Israel got nothing spiritual by the fulfillment of this prophetic type! But then he quotes Rev 21:22 whereby the temple of the Bride city is the Lord God and the Lamb.

I am beginning to think that these guys only see a spiritual application for this life as being what scripture speaks of.

Hi Robin.

It almost seems that they are saying that prophecy has no finality to it. Or we can't say with certainty that what was prophesied was fulfilled and finished. Since the natural fulfillment points to the spiritual fulfillment and the natural wasn't the substance, we then can't point with certainty that any particular prophecy meant anything to those it affected in the natural, or was any benefit to them spiritually. Zowie! Did I read that right?

Natural, physical fulfillments of prophecy can never be credited with being over, or fulfilled, or completed.

Does the word fulfillment mean nothing?

[Allyn]

I'm reading through this and I find his comparrisons as ridiculous, for example the shadow comparrison.
One thing, so far, that has stood out was his aksing why we don't consider the land promise fulfillment as the one we should consider as if we who now have the NT are not privy to any other understanding of the promises to Abraham.
I'll keep reading

[Allyn]

Mar 7, 2010 17:16:50 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

You gotta read this all the way to the end -

www.hyperpreteristarchive.com/blog1.php/2008/04/23/prophecy-fulfillment-model-pointing-to-j#more39

Then tell me what is the spiritual antitype that he thinks 70AD points to. Cause according to him, Israel got nothing spiritual by the fulfillment of this prophetic type! But then he quotes Rev 21:22 whereby the temple of the Bride city is the Lord God and the Lamb.

I am beginning to think that these guys only see a spiritual application for this life as being what scripture speaks of.

I can't find what he is talking about, Robin. The hope of Israel was for those who died, not for the living. So what shadow could it be that is going to be later represented any better than it was at its original fulfillment. Any Old Covenant Jew who died waited right along with everyone else of Israel who had died before them. If they died under the Law then they were raised under the Law. some to life everlasting because of the faith they had in God's truthful promises concerning the Messiah.

Even thos Jews who died prior to the resurrection but who did not accept Christ fell uner that same "rule", but were raised to everlasting shame just as the angel of Daniel 12 said would happen at the end of the days.

So yes, what is the spiritual antitype for the already spiritual (the dead in the dust)?

[Sower]

Hi Robin and Allyn,

I read it, and the whole time I kept wondering where is he going with this, at the end I still don't know, but I do know I don't want any part of.

He's building a new site called,"IdealistArchive.com," I read the introduction and it seems that's his new theology.

Blessings,

The Sower~

[MoGrace2U]

I think what got me about that article was he was talking about how the physical event was not the spiritual reality but merely pointed to it and how Christ fulfilled the promise. But when he gets to 70AD all of sudden it means nothing spiritual took place? So much for his type/ antitype dialogue!

And I find it especially odd that as a former HP, which focus is on the resurrection of the dead and the judgment which accompanied the parousia of Christ, he now says none of that is what the sign event was about at all. So what was 70AD? He can't just drop it - where is his antitype? If the cross signified the atonement, then 70 AD signified when that atonement was received by those who were DEAD.

These guys would rather be 'orthodox' than tell the truth. He is not any more clear than he accuses the HP's of being. And that is because he won't say what he means. Israel's end must conclude with the receiving of the promise. To say only the Church has the promise, leaves the dead in limbo.

And there is nothing 'Ideal' about that paradigm.

[Allyn]

Mar 7, 2010 21:57:05 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

I think what got me about that article was he was talking about how the physical event was not the spiritual reality but merely pointed to it and how Christ fulfilled the promise. But when he gets to 70AD all of sudden it means nothing spiritual took place? So much for his type/ antitype dialogue!

And I find it especially odd that as a former HP, which focus is on the resurrection of the dead and the judgment which accompanied the parousia of Christ, he now says none of that is what the sign event was about at all. So what was 70AD? He can't just drop it - where is his antitype? If the cross signified the atonement, then 70 AD signified when that atonement was received by those who were DEAD.

These guys would rather be 'orthodox' than tell the truth. He is not any more clear than he accuses the HP's of being. And that is because he won't say what he means. Israel's end must conclude with the receiving of the promise. To say only the Church has the promise, leaves the dead in limbo.

And there is nothing 'Ideal' about that paradigm.

I'm glad you brought this article up. I have followed almost zilch of anything from Todd since his change and I see I haven't missed a thing.

[Sower]

Mar 7, 2010 21:57:05 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

I think what got me about that article was he was talking about how the physical event was not the spiritual reality but merely pointed to it and how Christ fulfilled the promise. But when he gets to 70AD all of sudden it means nothing spiritual took place? So much for his type/ antitype dialogue!

And I find it especially odd that as a former HP, which focus is on the resurrection of the dead and the judgment which accompanied the parousia of Christ, he now says none of that is what the sign event was about at all. So what was 70AD? He can't just drop it - where is his antitype? If the cross signified the atonement, then 70 AD signified when that atonement was received by those who were DEAD.

These guys would rather be 'orthodox' than tell the truth.

True, but I don't think "idealism" will fit orthodoxy.

He is not any more clear than he accuses the HP's of being. And that is because he won't say what he means.

I wonder if he know.

Israel's end must conclude with the receiving of the promise. To say only the Church has the promise, leaves the dead in limbo. And there's nothing 'Ideal' about that paradigm.

True, besides Israel and the church became "one" in Christ and partakers of the promises together (Ephesians 3:6). If one received it, so did the other.


The Sower~

[mellontes]

I haven't read the article but I suppose I will one day...

I am under the impression that we (Gentiles) get zilch and are still outside the promise if Israel has not yet received her promise. It seems by what I see in these comments that Israel hasn't received the fulfillment of the promise...is this correct thinking or have I messed up again?

[MoGrace2U]

Something that has come to light in my own recent studies is who the Gentiles ought to be considered to be when mentioned in the NT. We see the translators using Gentiles most often but the word ethnos means nations - and it can have various applications - it does not just mean heathens in the sense of non Jews.

And unless we forget what Hosea has told us, the 10 tribes of Israel were scattered into the nations in Isaiah's day by the Assyrians and became "not My people". But there was to come a day when their children would be gathered back in - and that was to be under a new covenant.

When you look at some of the gospel accounts and what was being preached to these 'Gentiles' we find many events from Israel's history that were apparently expected to be known by them to which they were pointed to Christ for their understanding and belief. Even Cornelius may have been one of these children of the exiles, in that his whole house was to be saved at the preaching of Peter. For which they were then baptised.

I am finding that such 'Gentiles' are less likely to be pagan heathens as they were strangers to Israel's promises from which they had been cut off and which were now being restored to them by their faith in the gospel of Christ. Which was their hope in the Holy One of Israel who was to come and restore them to fellowship and the covenantal promise given to Abraham for the resurrection of the dead.

To the Jews first, then the Samaritans and then the 'Gentiles'... which has opened the way for all men to be saved.

[mellontes]

Apr 11, 2010 12:35:05 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Something that has come to light in my own recent studies is who the Gentiles ought to be considered to be when mentioned in the NT. We see the translators using Gentiles most often but the word ethnos means nations - and it can have various applications - it does not just mean heathens in the sense of non Jews.

And unless we forget what Hosea has told us, the 10 tribes of Israel were scattered into the nations in Isaiah's day by the Assyrians and became "not My people". But there was to come a day when their children would be gathered back in - and that was to be under a new covenant.

When you look at some of the gospel accounts and what was being preached to these 'Gentiles' we find many events from Israel's history that were apparently expected to be known by them to which they were pointed to Christ for their understanding and belief. Even Cornelius may have been one of these children of the exiles, in that his whole house was to be saved at the preaching of Peter. For which they were then baptised.

I am finding that such 'Gentiles' are less likely to be pagan heathens as they were strangers to Israel's promises from which they had been cut off and which were now being restored to them by their faith in the gospel of Christ. Which was their hope in the Holy One of Israel who was to come and restore them to fellowship and the covenantal promise given to Abraham for the resurrection of the dead.

To the Jews first, then the Samaritans and then the 'Gentiles'... which has opened the way for all men to be saved.

Oftentimes, "nation" is strictly Jewish in nature...referring to all their nations.

And as for the "to the Jew first," the great commission was given strictly for the Jews. The Gospel mission was preached to the Jews first before going to the Gentiles.

Here is the order:

Acts 1:8 - But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth [land].

In other words, wherever the Jew resided - but to them first.

How can it be said that the judgment of the nations were other Gentile nations? Was the Roman Empire wiped out? No, just old covenant Judaism...

A proper understanding of "nation" and its extent it not only vital to the initial preaching of the Gospel, but also the judgment of these "nations" in 70 AD. Let us not forget that we are a "holy nation" - the ones who would receive the promise...

Matthew 21:43 - Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

[MoGrace2U]

Hi Ted,
I am focused on the moment on Hosea where the 10 tribes were in exile until Messiah, while Judah was restored to the land after the BC. Israel had their exile for their idolatry a long time, but because Judah had been more faithful their judgment was stayed. Yet both had committed idolatry. And when their sins were filled to the full with the crucifixion of Messiah, their judgment came. Now Israel who had been returned to the nations from whence they first came, would receive the promise instead. If you don't see this at all let me know.

[Morris]

Apr 11, 2010 20:06:57 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Oftentimes, "nation" is strictly Jewish in nature...referring to all their nations.

I'm in general agreement with the remainder of the post but I'm curious as to what leads us to this notion; especially the "all their nations" idea?

Although "nation" is often the Greek word "ethnos", there is also the Greek word "hellen", more properly identifying a Greek person but also used to reference a 'non-Jew'.

John 7:35, "Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?" This verse is talking about Jews (the dispersed) that are among the Greeks/Gentiles (non-Jews).

Acts 18:4, "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Jew and non-Jew.

Now, regarding the judgment of "the nations", we can see it in Rom 2:9, "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile [Hellenos]". It doesn't use the word 'judgment', but I think 'pressure' & 'calamity' are similar enough.

If we look at the context of this verse we find (Rom 2:5,6), "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds".

Judgment may have come in 70 AD to the Jew (via the destruction of Jerusalem and its environs) first, but I also think judgments came upon the Gentiles after that; "to the Jew first, then for the Gentile".

1 Peter 4:17, "For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

Also, it appears to me in the NT that there are different types of judgments being talked about as well.

[mellontes]

Morris, Robin,

The reason I bring up this "nations" thing is because some are saying that the judgment in 70 AD applied to the Gentile (non-Jew) nations as well. It may be so, but I fail to see how this judgment was enacted. Apparently, Alan Bondar has preached a message on how the word "Gentile" does not always refer to non-Jews. I haven't listened to the message as yet. I look forward to an establishment of a 50-hour day...and the wherewithal to stay awake for 42 of them each and every day.

Perhaps it is my emphasis of the exchange of covenants and the Jewish nature that is prohibiting my understanding of the "non-Jew" things...