I listened a David Curtis recording on Acts and he was saying that the promise of the resurrection was for Israel. Such an idea doesn't match up with any scriptures in my head. When I saw Rick's statement, then It confirmed to me that Curtis brought some old time dispy baggage into his End Time perspective.RickC wrote: Yes, absolutely. Again, we have to do what we can to understand them in their own cultural, religious, historical, and literary context! For example, "the valley of dry bones" in Ezekiel. It's seemed perfectly "logical" to some that these dry bones coming back to life means: "Jews today returning to the modern nation of Israel." Of course, this is the dispensational "logic" where this system of theology's "reasoning" has totally missed what Ezekiel actually had in mind; namely, the return of the Jews from Babylonian exile.
{Please see my new signature!} ... ....
This isn't a comment about dispensationalism but just really about how the previous views of some people are carried forth into the new perspective.
I have seen the same thing happen with people moving from a full preterism view to a partial preterist view. I see this some with John Anderson who is biased to say there was no separate person called "Satan" -- the sense I see this is that many in the full preterist camp at least tend to say that Satan no longer exists.
So, I have just offered this as an observation -- something to kind of be aware of. There isn't particularly a problem. The old baggage might still work
