What does Mike Blume Really Believe ????

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

How did He prophecy the river Euphrates drying up if it happened 100's years before in Daniel's time???? Not a scholar but there is a difference between prophecying and writing past history. I prophecy John F. Kennedy will be killed in Dallas.

You missed the point. Gotta read more carefully, bro.

John did not prophesy something in his past. He was shown AN INDICATION in the vision of WHAT GOD CONSIDERED JERUSALEM to be. A new Babylon!

God took something associated with Babylon and her defeat, which happened to be the drying up of Euphrates, and applied it to JERUSALEM in Revelation in order ot show John what He considered of Jerusalem. She had become her own sort of enemy and fought the church just as she was fought by Babylon. SHE became a BABYLON. And God would destroy her as He destroyed Babylon. God would not do it through drying up Euphrates. But God used that picture from the Old Testament to simply indicate that He would destroy her and how she was now a BABYLON herself, when she was once persecuted by Babylon.

[mfblume]

Bro Epley,

One man put it like this:

Corresponding to the Sixth Trumpet (9:13-21), the Sixth Vial is poured out upon the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, that the way might be prepared for the kings from the rising of the sun. As we saw on 9:14, the Euphrates was Israel’s northern frontier, from which invading armies would come to ravage and oppress the Covenant people. The image of the drying of the Euphrates for a conquering army is taken, in part, from a stratagem of Cyrus the Persian, who conquered Babylon by temporarily turning the Euphrates out of its course, enabling his army to march up the riverbed into the city, taking it by surprise.2] The more basic idea, of course, is the drying up of the Red Sea (Ex. 14:21-22) and the Jordan River (Josh. 3:9-17; 4:22-24) for the victorious people of God. Again there is the underlying note of tragic irony: Israel has become the new Babylon, an enemy of God that must now be conquered by a new Cyrus, as the true Covenant people are miraculously delivered and brought into their inheritance. As Barrington observes, the coming of the armies from the Euphrates “surely represents nothing but the return of Titus to besiege Jerusalem with further reinforcements”; 22 and it is certainly more than coincidental that thousands of these very troops actually did come from the Euphrates.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Thad,

The only REAL controversy is that die-hard dispensationalists cannot take it when we say God is finished with Natural Israel, and they hold no more place in prophecy than for all of them to come to God one day. We do not believe in a millennium in our future and we do not believe God will turn back to the Jews. Dispensationalism teaches that there are two plans of salvation for the Jews. Acts 2:38 for now, and the millennium salvation without Acts 2:38 in the tribulation and millennium.

Mike,

I acknowledge that the referenced quote is several days old, and after entering into discussions with you on other threads I have learned that it often seems futile (to me, at least) to enter into discussions with you because they never end with any type of resolution, pro or con, nevertheless I feel compelled to jump in here and tender some personal thoughts about your private interpretation of the context of Matthew chapter 24, with the hope that you might give them some consideration.

First, let it be known that I am among those whom you classify as "diehard dispensationalists." This is not to assert, or even suggest, that I am an avowed proponent of ALL the conflicting beliefs which are found within the three major teachings of end-time prophecy (i.e., pre, mid, and post- tribulation), but that I hold to the widely held view that the actual fulfillment of our Lord's promised return at the end of the present age to gather unto Himself upon the clouds of heaven, ALL of His chosen people, is a futuristic event. In fact, I reject many of the things that are embraced and published, as if it were sound biblical-based truths within each of these stated position of eschatology. Why? Simply because each embrace a belief that God will grant an exemption to the COMMON experience of death to an elect group of His chosen people who will be "alive" upon the earth when this event occurs, while not granting such an exemption to those which preceded them. Such non-scriptural beliefs directly contradict the sound teachings of the Bible which explicitly state that death is an event which ALL mankind MUST experience. God's granting of an exemption from this COMMON experience, IF it were true, would represent a blatant display of "respect of persons," and this is expressly forbidden under the terms of His established principle of "righteousness."

Concerning your private interpretation of the context of Matthew 24, I would call your attention to the very FIRST statement that our Lord uttered in response to the inquiry of His chosen apostles, wherein they asked Him to tell them of that SPECIFIC sign, or event, which would be indicative of the nearness of His second coming. Please note that, in direct response to this question, it is found written in Matthew 24:4 (as well as Mark 13:5 and Luke 21:8), that Jesus said - "Take heed that no man deceive thee." Deceive about what? The doctrine of Repentance? Faith towards God? Baptisms? Laying on of hands? Eternal punishment? No! None of these! But what He was warning them about (and you and I as well), was that we must exercise extreme caution when it comes to the things concerning those events which would precede and surround His second coming! The remaining portion of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, contains a brief outline of some of the things which one can expect to witness as the moment for His return draws near, including some which would transpire during the generation which existed whenever He uttered these words, but the majority being fulfilled in those days which preceded His actual coming again.

I believe it extremely crucial, if one is to achieve success in properly interpreting any of the prophecies of the Bible, to always bear this important factor in mind. While it is true that EVERY passage of the Bible is true, this does NOT mean that EVERY passage is necessarily complete within that which it projects. This is why God decreed that the truth of ALL things would be established through the words of two or three witnesses. When we find that something is not FULLY explained within a particular passage, then we MUST locate other passages, wherein the same matter is addressed, and the then, AFTER we have thoroughly examined and compared them one with the other, we can expect to arrive at a clearly defined, unified understanding of the matter. This process, the apostle Paul called, [I]"rightly dividing the word of truth."[I] I fear that this is something that you have neglected to do when arriving at you conclusions concerning the esoteric nature of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

[mizpeh]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by PaPaDon

First, let it be known that I am among those whom you classify as "diehard dispensationalists." This is not to assert, or even suggest, that I am an avowed proponent of ALL the conflicting beliefs which are found within the three major teachings of end-time prophecy (i.e., pre, mid, and post- tribulation), but that I hold to the widely held view that the actual fulfillment of our Lord's promised return at the end of the present age to gather unto Himself upon the clouds of heaven, ALL of His chosen people, is a futuristic event. In fact, I reject many of the things that are embraced and published, as if it were sound biblical-based truths within each of these stated position of eschatology. Why? Simply because each embrace a belief that God will grant an exemption to the COMMON experience of death to an elect group of His chosen people who will be "alive" upon the earth when this event occurs, while not granting such an exemption to those which preceded them. Such non-scriptural beliefs directly contradict the sound teachings of the Bible which explicitly state that death is an event which ALL mankind MUST experience. God's granting of an exemption from this COMMON experience, IF it were true, would represent a blatant display of "respect of persons," and this is expressly forbidden under the terms of His established principle of "righteousness."

PapaDon,

I have a couple of questions if you have the time.

Did Elijah and Enoch die? Are they exceptions to the rule?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by PaPaDon

Mike,
I acknowledge that the referenced quote is several days old, and after entering into discussions with you on other threads I have learned that it often seems futile (to me, at least) to enter into discussions with you because they never end with any type of resolution, pro or con, nevertheless I feel compelled to jump in here and tender some personal thoughts about your private interpretation of the context of Matthew chapter 24, with the hope that you might give them some consideration.

I find this hard to work with you since you have given me the impression you will not change your beliefs. But let us see what you have to say. You speak patronizingly as though you know you are right but I must concede I could be wrong before we chat. Sorry, but you must show the same respect to me that I would give to you indicating I am always open for correction. I have not seen that from you yet.

Concerning your private interpretation of the context of Matthew 24,

See, this is a judgmental call from you that is unacceptable. I do not have a private interpretation of this. And I cannot discuss this with you if you insist I do. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to this note only, but will not continue in another unless you cease demanding I am wrong and you are right.

I would call your attention to the very FIRST statement that our Lord uttered in response to the inquiry of His chosen apostles, wherein they asked Him to tell them of that SPECIFIC sign, or event, which would be indicative of the nearness of His second coming. Please note that, in direct response to this question, it is found written in Matthew 24:4 (as well as Mark 13:5 and Luke 21:8), that Jesus said - "Take heed that no man deceive thee." Deceive about what? The doctrine of Repentance? Faith towards God? Baptisms? Laying on of hands? Eternal punishment? No! None of these! But what He was warning them about (and you and I as well), was that we must exercise extreme caution when it comes to the things concerning those events which would precede and surround His second coming!

Agreed.

The remaining portion of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, contains a brief outline of some of the things which one can expect to witness as the moment for His return draws near, including some which would transpire during the generation which existed whenever He uttered these words, but the majority being fulfilled in those days which preceded His actual coming again.

You obviously use the old traditional thought (I could say "private interpretation", too, but will refrain) that there are three differing questions asked by the disciples which I claim are not so, but are actually synonymous.

Jesus said evrything he listed in Matthew 24 before verse 34 would occur in one generation. Everything.

Mat 24:34 KJV Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This includes the temple destruction.

I believe it extremely crucial, if one is to achieve success in properly interpreting any of the prophecies of the Bible, to always bear this important factor in mind. While it is true that EVERY passage of the Bible is true, this does NOT mean that EVERY passage is necessarily complete within that which it projects. This is why God decreed that the truth of ALL things would be established through the words of two or three witnesses. When we find that something is not FULLY explained within a particular passage, then we MUST locate other passages, wherein the same matter is addressed, and the then, AFTER we have thoroughly examined and compared them one with the other, we can expect to arrive at a clearly defined, unified understanding of the matter. This process, the apostle Paul called, [I]"rightly dividing the word of truth."[I] I fear that this is something that you have neglected to do when arriving at you conclusions concerning the esoteric nature of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

You repeat this a lot. I will present again my words to others here about those three chapters, and ask you to point by point refute my error that you claim exists. But I need you to give me the same courtesy you demand of me. Will you concede I may be right and you wrong? If not, thanks for your time.

Everyone is familiar with the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS... Matthew, Mark and Luke. They carry for the the same stories, for the most part, during Jesus' time on earth, and simply rephrase the stories from how they personally knew about it and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all relate the same conversation Jesus had with the disciples about the coming of the Lord.

Notice Matthew 24 says the "SIGN" the disciples asked about is the "coming" of the Lord and the end of the "age", whereas both Mark and Luke say the "SIGN" in the same conversation was of the destruction of the temple.


Mat 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Luke 21:6-7 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (7) And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?


Mark 13:2-4 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, (4) Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?


It’s the same conversation! Matthew records the same thought as Mark and Luke did, using different words. The manner in which we understand what the sign of the coming of the Lord in Matthew 24:3 is, is by realizing that same sign is noted in Luke as the sign when "these things" shall come to pass. What things? The stones of the temple being overthrown!

Futurists have often told me there is no way Jesus came when the temple was destroyed. And yet when I show this correlation of scriptures to them, they cannot answer me.

Let us allow scripture to interpret itself.

PapaDon, can you answer these points? As mentioned in the DEEPER WATERS section, you have not responded to this issue I mention in this post detailingly with scripture, but glossed over my thoughts in a rather patronizing manner, I might add. Please go through my points and let's chat scripture.

[Trouvere]

I have not read all these posts but I want to say something about
Brother Blume.He is not afraid to read and study his bible.I may not
agree with him all the time but its nice to know that he is not
lazy.He reads his bible and studies.I think of all the time he was
at the Pastorate in NS.He posted indepth studies on the web.
Some folks..not all but some only get a one liner fifteen minutes before service and feel justified because "I heard from the Lord."
The other thing is he is willing to apologize when he is wrong.He wasn't always
willing neither was I in the many bible debates we have had over the
years but I have to say he is a "Worthy Opponent."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

I have not read all these posts but I want to say something about
Brother Blume.He is not afraid to read and study his bible.I may not
agree with him all the time but its nice to know that he is not
lazy.He reads his bible and studies.I think of all the time he was
at the Pastorate in NS.He posted indepth studies on the web.
Some folks..not all but some only get a one liner fifteen minutes before service and feel justified because "I heard from the Lord."
The other thing is he is willing to apologize when he is wrong.He wasn't always
willing neither was I in the many bible debates we have had over the
years but I have to say he is a "Worthy Opponent."

Thanks for your kind words.

[QUOTE=mizpeh;138904]

PapaDon,

I have a couple of questions if you have the time.

Did Elijah and Enoch die? Are they exceptions to the rule?

You have submitted the same question that has perplexed and confounded the minds of countless others for many generations, although I must admit, it is one which I certainly anticipated whenever I submitted my post wherein I asserted that the death of man's fleshly body was a "common" experience.

The short answer to your question is a resounding Yes! BOTH experienced death, in the same manner as "righteousness" has demanded that ALL of the rest of mankind has, or will undergo this experience. The death of the fleshly body was a judgment which God inflicted upon ALL mankind through His imposition of that "promised" penalty He informed Adam he would receive should he elect to partake of the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We inherited this judgment because we derive our beginning from the "seed" which was resident in Adam's body, upon which this penalty was imposed of God.

Admittedly, this is an easy response to an extremely complex, mysterious event, the knowledge of which demands that one be willing to make an investment of their time to explore the depths of the Bible's mysteries to determine. And because I have ventured to make the bold, profound pronouncement that both Elijah and Enoch also underwent the "common" experience of death, then it is my responsibility to tender scriptural evidence in support of my assertion.

In my efforts to do this it is my sincere hope that you will not be as many, who approach a complex biblical mystery with preconceived ideas and assumptions, for in so doing I assure you that you will not be able to recognize or appreciate anything I proclaim concerning it. I pray that your approach to understanding the intimate, esoteric essence of this biblical mystery will be as the Bereans of old, who, when told of things by the apostle Paul and Silas which directly contradicted or conflicted with the teachings of their Jewish religious leaders, turned to that which they knew contained the truth, that is to say, the sacred Scriptures, and validated the merits of their words.

Allow me to expend just a few moments to provide you with a brief example of the wrong avenue to take when attempting to determine the truth of a matter before attempting to delve into this matter further. Suppose you were reading a book, authored by Mr BCD, and you read a particular statement which he made that you experienced some difficulty in comprehending the point which he was endeavoring to make. Now there exists several avenues in which you could locate an answer which might satisfy you, one of them being you could ask a friend or ally what they thought the author meant by his statement, or, and this is the most important approach, you could contact the author and ask him personally. Would he not be the best source for the answer you desired? Of course!

In much the same way we, when entertaining questions concerning any of the mysteries found within the biblical text, MUST go directly to the Author (which, of course, is none other than God), and ask Him. Has He not promised that if we ask, we shall receive; if we knock, it shall be opened unto us; and if we seek then we shall find? Please note that the emphasis is upon our actions of faith in Him to do all of these things. And when we do these things I assure you that He will respond! I speak from experience in this manner, for I have often sought Him for the answers to questions, and He has NEVER failed me yet! Now it might be that He does not respond according to my timetable, but He will when He sees that we are ready to receive the answer to that which we have sought Him for. SO in providing you with the answer to your questions, I shall do so, using ONLY the sound precepts of the Bible in support thereof, therefore to possess verification, or to authenticate the merits of my assertions, I would ask that you seek such from the source of my information! I might add that the ONLY time that God will NOT respond to our requests for things, yes, even the authentication of the words of others, is in those instances when we seek Him for things which are intended to fulfill our own lusts (see James 4:3).

I shall now present you with a choice. Do you desire that I provide you with a sound biblical-based answer to your request privately (via PM), or publicly through this forum? Please bear in mind that should you choose the latter there will be others who will be inclined to submit rebuttals to assertions I make, simply because their preconceived ideas and assumptions conflict with mine, and in that scenario this might develop into a protracted, lengthy endeavor with numerous interruptions which might hinder or impede your ability to fully comprehend the merits of that which I might have to say concerning this important biblical mystery. As for me, I would desire that everyone who occasions to read the things I might choose to post concerning this important issue, would be willing to approach it with the attitude of learning something new, or expanding whatever degree of knowledge they might presently possess about this matter. Sadly, however, I do know that in forums of this type such an expectation rarely bears fruit, for there are many who seek only to refute things before taking into consideration everything that one asserts about a particular matter. Oh! If only we all would approach things with a desire to learn something, rather than mount an assault upon the integrity and character of those whose statements might, in one manner or another, conflict with our own preconceived beliefs. For instance, just imagine what the outcome might have been had the Jewish religious leaders during our Lord's earthly journey, had taken the time to seriously consider that which He asserted, instead of seeking ways to find fault with Him. An interesting though, huh?

Please consider these things before responding. I shall await your response. You may contact me via PM or email.