In I Corinthians 15, they that experience the resurrection are 'they that are his at His coming.' Revelation does not have everyone resurrected at the same time, and I understand you would take such things more allegorically.
We'd have to discuss each passage.
So basically, you would say that you understand aspects of the role of Israel eschatology better than the apostles, and that your approach to eschatology depends on your having knowledge the apostles did not. Why would Jesus affirm their belief about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel by telling them it was not for them to know the times or seasons that were appointed by His Father if they were wrong? Why not just interpret scriptures about the restoration of Israel in a straightforward way like this passage indicates the apostles and also Christ did?
Also, the Lord Jesus had already told them to make disciples of all nations. But they had to work out the details of what would happen. Jesus had opened up their minds to understand the scriptures. So why should we assume what understanding they had was wrong, even if they had to grow into a fuller understanding of how the major points of it would come to pass?
There are a wide array of views under the broad tent of dispensationalism. There are also those that hold to what I would call hyperdispensational views of multiple gospels.
If you read about very early Christian views of eschatology, they believed that Christ would set up an actual kingdom on earth. For example, like Justin who wrote of the prophets being in Jerusalem in the eschatological future.
The early church fathers were not dispensationalists. Some of them were chiliasts, believing in a millennial reign of Christ, but there was by no means a consensus on this point. Direct statements were made concerning the Jews that eliminated the possibility of dispensationalism being true. It was obvious they considered the Jews to be brethren like themselves, and there was no separate track that they were on in God's plans.
This is a claim that is circulated amongst dispensationalists, though.
Regarding the Apostles, no, I do not think my knowledge is superior. But, at the time of Jesus' ascension, they had not been led into all truth. Do you deny this? I think it's pretty apparent. They didn't even know how to handle the addition of Gentiles to the Church, and that is why Acts 15 (which you quoted) addressed the issue of Jews and the Mosaic Law.
By the way, if they believed in dispensationalism, there's little evidence of that. Despite the efforts of dispensationalists to squeeze in an interval, I don't see any intervals between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the unrighteousness outside of the dispensationalist interpretation of Revelation 20.
Perhaps you can show me this, though. Show me evidence that there is a 1000 year gap between the resurrection of the righteous at Jesus' return, and the resurrection of the unrighteous to damnation.
Remember, I view Revelation 20 in a different manner, so I will not accept an exegesis of Revelation 20.
Additionally, I don't want to see a bunch of assertions from the Greek unless you have an advanced degree in Greek from a respected evangelical seminary. I freely acknowledge that I don't have a Greek background, so I don't usually make linguistic assertions. Neither do very many people here..I only know one person who has any decent academic credentials.
