For ex-premils - why are you ex?

[timspong]

This is for those that were premil but now hold to a different eschatological view. Can you please describe the path you took and the major turning points that caused your change of mind?

[Littlejoe9763]

Hi Tim,
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by premil, but I was a pretrib rapture/futurist before becoming a Partial Preterist. Does For me, the change began when I realized that there really is no verse that supports a pretribulation rapture. The one most commonly attributed as such is 1 Thess.4. But the timing set forth in Revelation 20 seems to put the first resurrection after armageddon (and therefore after the tribulation). I can't reconcile a first resurrection happening both as a pretribulation rapture and a post armageddon resurrection. Logically, it must be one or the other.

LJ

[Hitch]

I was fortunate, my dad, following over twenty years as DF pastor ,began questioning the system and led the way out of the wilderness.

[dizzle]

This is for those that were premil but now hold to a different eschatological view. Can you please describe the path you took and the major turning points that caused your change of mind?

In reading the Bible, I found several plain verses that clearly contradicted premill and no matter how far and wide I searched and tried, they couldn't be reconciled [1]. My process of kicking premill to the curb was painful, had a detour into heresy, and took a long time. There are members here who had seen me make the journey. JPHolding met me while I was still premill.

[1]I started questioning premill before I started questioning futurism. In other words, the force of 1 Corinthians 15 hit me way before Matthew 24:34 did.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

This is for those that were premil but now hold to a different eschatological view. Can you please describe the path you took and the major turning points that caused your change of mind?

I started for me when I realized that for all pre-mills like to scream about how the Bible, and in particular the book of Revelation should be interperated 'literally.' They were more than happy to take some verses(such as Rev. 13) as symbolic, or mostly symbolic. Every time I asked about this I could never get a straight foreward answer.

Then I found JP's articles on eschatology and later dee dee's site, that provided a consistant way to read biblical prophecy that actually makes sense.

[dizzle]

Thank you for the compliment, that means a lot to me. I am always so blessed when I see how my efforts have helped people. A few months ago the co-host of The Narrow Mind said that my site was hands down the best resource for preterism on the Net. I was so honoured.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Thank you for the compliment, that means a lot to me. I am always so blessed when I see how my efforts have helped people. A few months ago the co-host of The Narrow Mind said that my site was hands down the best resource for preterism on the Net. I was so honoured.

Your welcome. Quite frankly the more I learned about preterism the more sense it made to me and the less sense futerism did.

[dizzle]

Your welcome. Quite frankly the more I learned about preterism the more sense it made to me and the less sense futerism did.

I gave a presentation for Applachian State University last week, and at the end the teacher said after silence when asking if the class had any questions or challenges "Isn't someone going to defend Tim LaHaye" and a gal spoke up and said, "All I have to say is that this makes more sense than anything else I have heard."

[gooner]

I signed up to TWeb. It took about 2 and a half years for me to embrace Preterism. Why could Matt 24 not speak to it's original audience and how on earth was a letter addressed to 7 churches in Asia about events that are supposed to take place thousands of years later? The truth is I was addicted to "prophecy" and actually was quite caught up with idea of "working out Revelation". Then I discovered psalm singing and now that I do that every day with the kids the pre mill view seems absurd. Jesus did everything the OT said He would.

[John Reece]

This is for those that were premil but now hold to a different eschatological view. Can you please describe the path you took and the major turning points that caused your change of mind?

My perspective was premillennial until (sometime during the 1980s) I went through a process of marinating my mind in the Greek texts of Jesus' sayings, reading and re-reading them over and over again -- all the while praying earnestly that God would help me disabuse my mind of my own presuppositions as well as those of others.

[dizzle]

I signed up to TWeb. It took about 2 and a half years for me to embrace Preterism. Why could Matt 24 not speak to it's original audience and how on earth was a letter addressed to 7 churches in Asia about events that are supposed to take place thousands of years later? The truth is I was addicted to "prophecy" and actually was quite caught up with idea of "working out Revelation". Then I discovered psalm singing and now that I do that every day with the kids the pre mill view seems absurd. Jesus did everything the OT said He would.

Gooner used to be one of my debate opponents regularly on another forum.

[lee_merrill]

For me it was the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52 and the first resurrection in Revelation, both these contradict a pre-mill rapture. I suppose I also should say I also am not a preterist, just someone who believes the church will need to discern who is the antichrist. Well, Paul did say something like that, in a letter to Gentiles...

Blessings,
Lee

[dizzle]

you are a little flame guy - come on

[lee_merrill]

Xena, your post was apparently addressed to Tim's post, but do you mean this little flame guy? Glad to discuss preterism if appropriate, though as I recall I have discussed this with Xena before...

Blessings,
Lee

[dizzle]

Umm I was referring to your avatar.

[JonLanceBarker]

This is for those that were premil but now hold to a different eschatological view. Can you please describe the path you took and the major turning points that caused your change of mind?

well, Left Behind tended to be popular reading among many in my church (still is, to the extent of my knowledge...and i still haven't finished either of the first two books.)

i was pretty much swallowing most of the ideas, mainly because i didn't know of many other interpretations.

however, i got rather suspicious of such things as the rapture when i couldn't find anything that really said much about it in Revelation.

at this point, i was leaning more towards what i would now call a post-trib futurist interpretation (which had nothing to do w/ the wackos at Waco, btw) once again, because i had no framework other than futurism to work with.

last year, due to the recommendation of a good friend of mine who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox preterist, i came across JPH and DDW's articles on preterism...and i was struck by the fact that they MADE COMPLETE SENSE. :ahem:

and so...here i am today, telling you how i became an orthodox preterist. :teeth:

my five cents...take 'em for what they're worth. :blush:

[lee_merrill]

Umm I was referring to your avatar.
Well, yes, but I didn't know if this was a call to jousting! :fencing:

Blessings,
Lee

[timspong]

Thanks for all the replies, they have been most helpful. I was going to give the std premil rebuttals on the issues raised, however, I would rather leave that for other discussions. I think this thread would be better served for those of us who are premil but are not 100% convicted of that view.

I happen to be reading NT Wright at the moment and find his work pretty enjoyable, although I am not too sure of his eschatology; it sounds a lot like preterism to me. Can anyone confirm?

Lastly, can anyone recommend other good amil or preterist web resources? Expository teachers would be preferable.

thanks

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This is for those that were premil but now hold to a different eschatological view. Can you please describe the path you took and the major turning points that caused your change of mind?The first step was the realisation that the verse about "one shall be taken, one shall be left" did not refer to anything like a rapture.

This was followed up by the realisation that the main texts that speak of the resurrection of the saved in the Epistles do not suggest that human history carries on for the lost.

This was followed up by an exposure to the way the New Testament explained the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, and the way it discussed the identity of Israel.

This was followed up by an exposure to more mainstream Protestant views of Revelation 20 and "the first resurrection."


These were the main steps of learning that moved me away from futurism and premillennialism. A huge number of other smaller steps fill the gaps, and have happened since then too. Preterism came later, due to the many explicit time statements in Scripture.

[dizzle]

Thanks for all the replies, they have been most helpful. I was going to give the std premil rebuttals on the issues raised, however, I would rather leave that for other discussions. I think this thread would be better served for those of us who are premil but are not 100% convicted of that view.

I happen to be reading NT Wright at the moment and find his work pretty enjoyable, although I am not too sure of his eschatology; it sounds a lot like preterism to me. Can anyone confirm?

Lastly, can anyone recommend other good amil or preterist web resources? Expository teachers would be preferable.

thanks

There are very few good preterist web resources, 99.9% of what is on the Net being hyperpreterism. I am not trying to self-promote, but I would start with my site at preteristsite.com - because from there you will get links to other preterist sites that are orthodox only. Also, I do have an expository commentary on Matthew 24 there at:

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

Yes I believe NT Wright is definitely preterist in a lot of his application though he apparently does not apply the label to himself. However to me a rose by any other name...

[eschaton]

I would like to add my testimony to this thread.

Like some others I saw that those scriptures attributed to the rapture were actually talking about the resurrection. Then through more study I saw that a golden age of Christ literally on the earth with His saints was inconsistent with the scriptures as a whole.

I now consider myself an amillennialist, but I am not a preterist. Okay, it's time to make everybody mad at me again.

Look for preterism among the early Christians and the eschatology you find is not preterist. Preterism is a development of the last couple of centuries just like dispensationalism. I put them in the same category.

What is missing today is the way the apostles taught the earliest Christians to interpret the OT. Modern hermeneutics teaches the literary-historical or the historical-critical method of interpretation. These methods were developed after the reformation. Jesus and the apostles never took a class on modern interpretation. I believe close scrutiny of how the apostles, Jesus, and the church fathers interpreted the OT shows a very different view than what is common today. They understood the Christ-centered, spiritual view of scripture. Mythical or religious texts of other cultures such as Greece and Egypt were interpreted allegorically by ancient scholars, more than in a historical-literal fashion, so the spiritual view of the fathers is more consistent with the times.

Note the differences in the way the Sadducees and the Pharisees understood the scriptures (Acts 23:8). The high preist was a Sadducee. So there was a difference in the way the Jews understood these things. The first century Jew Philo wrote extensive allegorical expositons of scripture, while the historian Josephus gave a more literal look at the scriptures.

[Secretary of Funk Jnthn]

A reminder; Eschatology 201 is for discussion of orthodox eschatology positions. Full Preterism/Hyperpreterism is not deemed orthodox.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

There are very few good preterist web resources, 99.9% of what is on the Net being hyperpreterism. I am not trying to self-promote, but I would start with my site at preteristsite.com - because from there you will get links to other preterist sites that are orthodox only. Also, I do have an expository commentary on Matthew 24 there at:

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

Yes I believe NT Wright is definitely preterist in a lot of his application though he apparently does not apply the label to himself. However to me a rose by any other name...

JP also has a great series on eschatology/preterism here: http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html

[TyRockwell]

Could someone please define 'preterism' please? Thank you.

[eschaton]

Could someone please define 'preterism' please? Thank you.

I'm sure you can get several definitions of preterism. Here is one from Wikipedia.

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days (or End Times) refer to events which actually happened in the first century after Christ's birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism


Heretical full preterism isn't allowed to be discussed in the eschatology section at TWEB. When we say preterism here we are probably talking about orthodox or partial preterism.

Partial Preterism, which is the older of the two views,[citation needed] holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" (Last Judgment) of Christ were fulfilled c. AD 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices.

Of the four things listed above I think beliefs about the Antichrist and Great Tribulation best define preterism since many premillennialists also believe the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was a fulfillment of prophecy. I'm not sure if all preterists believe 70AD was a last judgment, but maybe they do.

[TyRockwell]

Also, I do have an expository commentary on Matthew 24there at:

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

I read your exposition on Matthew 24.

It must be noted that the "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 are different words than the "this generation" in Matthew 23:36

The "this" in 23:36 refers to the present generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The "this" in 24:34 speaks to "that" generation, as the word "this" is outside of the time of the speaking. The greek word for 'this' being, 'autos' in a third person, other, or 'that same' sense.

The 'that generation' is the one to whom Jesus refers in Matthew 24:27-31, and 32-34 expresses parabolicly.

Ty

[TyRockwell]

Thanks, eschaton.

Then, a person could believe in a premillineal return of Jesus, post trib, and still be considered preterist? Acknowledgeing that some prophecies, but not all, were fulfilled in the first century? Are there specific doctrines implied that have to be first century verses those that are future?

Thanks,
Ty

[dizzle]

Also, I do have an expository commentary on Matthew 24there at:

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

I read your exposition on Matthew 24.

It must be noted that the "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 are different words than the "this generation" in Matthew 23:36

The "this" in 23:36 refers to the present generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The "this" in 24:34 speaks to "that" generation, as the word "this" is outside of the time of the speaking. The greek word for 'this' being, 'autos' in a third person, other, or 'that same' sense.

The 'that generation' is the one to whom Jesus refers in Matthew 24:27-31, and 32-34 expresses parabolicly.

Ty

Nonsense and dealt with already in the commentary. I see you are back to your abysmal exegesis. It must be nice to live in such a world where "this" means "that."

Please remind me never ever to drive with you because if you tell me to that "this" turn, I will turn, not comprehending that you could mean "that" turn which "could be" near or two thousand miles away.

Nice. :rofl:

You crack me up.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

The turning point for me was reading Revelation Unveiled by Tim LaHaye.

Seriously.

I had been doing fairly in depth study of scripture for a year or two at that point, but had not yet touched eschatology. My Sunday School class at that time was going to do a series on LaHaye's commentary on Revelation. I was thrilled. This was my chance to really get a grasp on eschatology. I was really looking forward to it.

But....(of course there is a but)...

The very first chapter had something so hermenitucally (sp?) forced that I knew it was not right. The "seven churches = the seven ages of the church" nonsense. Specifically when LaHaye said that the Protestant Reformation was the "dead" church of Sardis, because the local churches were controlled by the government, I knew that was forced to fit the theory.

No, I am not a proponent of state run church (I am a Baptist after all), but come on. The Reformation was a glorious time in church history, despite some faults.

So, this was the first "chink" in my premill/futurist armor. After this I began to look at the entire book more critically. By chapter three I was so disgusted by the obvious (to me) speculative nature of LaHayes book, that I was ready to chuck all of my previous eschatology beliefs outside of the "basics" (pre-trib rapture/seven year trib/pre-mill coming). (It never even occured to me that LaHaye might be wrong on those counts as well)

But that left a lot of blank to fill in. So I began to study eschatology in more depth. I stumbled across preterism. Like other said, it made sense where nothing else did. The rest is history.

[TyRockwell]

]Nonsense and dealt with already in the commentary. I see you are back to your abysmal exegesis. It must be nice to live in such a world where "this" means "that."

Please remind me never ever to drive with you because if you tell me to that "this" turn, I will turn, not comprehending that you could mean "that" turn which "could be" near or two thousand miles away.

Nice. :rofl:

You crack me up.[/color]

So how do you explain the two different words for 'this'?

[TyRockwell]

Suppose you are leaning over a map. You put one index finger where you are, calling the location 'this.' You put your other index finger on your destination, calling it 'this' using a form of 'this' with a different emphasis. Are you talking about being in both places at the same time, or is there a space of time getting from where you are to where you will be?

Peace
Ty

[dizzle]

:looney:

[TyRockwell]

Please remind me never ever to drive with you because if you tell me to that "this" turn, I will turn, not comprehending that you could mean "that" turn which "could be" near or two thousand miles away.

Since Jesus didn't compose his disciple's questions, Hillary-style, he answered both of them, they, maybe even he, not knowing that the Holy Spirit's answer would have to deal with two different times.

This position does not advocate a rapture or dispensationalism. It just adds nuance to seeing which prophecies were fulfilled in the first century.

Not intending to put you on the spot, but do you have a lot of research (interpretation, hermanuetic, exegesis) to defend?

[John Reece]

It must be noted that the "this generation" in Matthew 24:34. are different words than the "this generation" in Matthew 23:36

No, not different words; rather, different grammatical inflections of the same words.

In 23:36 the term is thn genean tauthn (tēn genean tautēn) = "this generation" (Greek syntax has "the generation this").

The grammatical inflection thn (tēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the definite article o, h, to (ho, hē, to) = "the".

The grammatical inflection genean (genean) is the accusative singular form of the feminine noun genea (genea) = "generation".

The grammatical inflection tauthn (tautēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun outoV (houtos) = "this".

In 24:34 the term h genea auth (hē genea hautē) = "this generation" (Greek syntax has "the generation this").

The grammatical inflection h (hē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the definite article ("the").

The grammatical inflection genea (genea) is the nominative singular form of the feminine noun genea (genea)

The grammatical inflection auth (hautē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun outoV (houtos) = "this".

The grammatical inflections noted above differ in the respective verses because:
in 23:36 the term is part of a prepositional phrase in the predicate of the sentence and is therefore in the accusative case;
in 24:34 the term is the subject of the sentence and is therefore in the nominative case.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

[/color]

So how do you explain the two different words for 'this'?
The word used for "this" is a word that means "this" throughout the Gospel. This has been addressed more than once at TWeb. Here's (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=857052) a refresher course.

[John Reece]

So how do you explain the two different words for 'this'?

See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2148638&postcount=34).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, not different words; rather, different grammatical inflections of the same words.

In 23:36 the term is την γενεαν ταυτην (tēn genean tautēn) = "this generation" (Greek syntax has "the generation this").

The grammatical inflection την (tēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the definite article ο, η, το (ho, hē, to) = "the".

The grammatical inflection γενεαν (genean) is the accusative singular form of the feminine noun γενεα (genea) = "generation".

The grammatical inflection ταυτην (tautēn) is the accusative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun ουτος (houtos) = "this".
In 24:34 the term η γενεα αυτη (hē genea hautē) = "this generation" (Greek syntax has "the generation this").

The grammatical inflection η (hē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the definite article ("the").

The grammatical inflection γενεα (genea) is the nominative singular form of the feminine noun γενεα (genea)

The grammatical inflection αυτη (hautē) is the nominative singular feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun ουτος (houtos) = "this".
The grammatical inflections noted above differ in the respective verses because:
in 23:36 the term is part of a prepositional phrase in the predicate of the sentence and is therefore in the accusative case;
in 24:34 the term is the subject of the sentence and is therefore in the nominative case.Thanks John. That was an error so basic that even Strong's concordance could have corrected it.

[dizzle]

Thank you John you are such a peach. I am going to cite to you in my commentary once again to stop another course of futurist obfuscation. I so appreciate you lending us the benefit of your Greek expertise.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I just noticed that my comment to John could have looked like I was belittling the knowing he displayed. It totally wasn't meant that way.

[dizzle]

I just noticed that my comment to John could have looked like I was belittling the knowing he displayed. It totally wasn't meant that way.

Oh I didn't see it that way. I understood it to mean that Ty himself could have seen this error in Strongs and should never have made it. IOW, a squirt bottle could have put out that little flame, but John provided the water bazooka.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Oh I didn't see it that way. I understood it to mean that Ty himself could have seen this error in Strongs and should never have made it. IOW, a squirt bottle could have put out that little flame, but John provided the water bazooka.
Bingo.

[John Reece]

I just noticed that my comment to John could have looked like I was belittling the knowing he displayed. It totally wasn't meant that way.

No, I took it the way Xena took it (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2148720&postcount=40).

[timspong]

The word used for "this" is a word that means "this" throughout the Gospel. This has been addressed more than once at TWeb. Here's (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=857052) a refresher course.

very good. I really like that style of teaching, do you have any more?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

very good. I really like that style of teaching, do you have any more?
Thanks. And I really like the dialogue style as well. It's the only reason I can tolerate Plato.

I have written a couple of pieces in that style over the years, but nothing on eschatology. One of them will actually be published soon, and you can check it out here (http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.html)if you like. It's a parody of Plato's Euthyphro, dealing with divine command ethics.

[eschaton]

Thanks, eschaton.

Then, a person could believe in a premillineal return of Jesus, post trib, and still be considered preterist? Acknowledgeing that some prophecies, but not all, were fulfilled in the first century? Are there specific doctrines implied that have to be first century verses those that are future?

Thanks,
Ty

You come up with some interesting ideas. I suppose somebody could be a preterist and believe in a premillennial post-trib return of Christ, and somebody probably does somewhere, but I don't know of any. Preterists tend to be postmillennial or amillennial. Since they see most prophecy as history, the amount of future prophecy is minimized. I believe the term preterist was originally used to describe an interpretation of the book of Revelation done by a Jesuit. Most of the symbolism was interpreted as a description of first century events or situations.

The church historian Eusebius wrote about some things talked about in the great tribulation section of Matthew (Mat 24:16-28) and said they were suffered around 70 AD (Book III Chapter VII.—The Predictions of Christ). If the great tribulation is the thing talked about in Revelation (Rev 2:22, 7:14) then it stands to reason that a lot of what Revelation talks about is history. The resurrection is believed to be still future, so the 1000 years preceeding it gets "spiritualized."

Most of the earlier fathers believed that Daniel's abomination of desolation (Mat 24:15) was talking about a future antichrist. After the middle of the second century, this antichrist was associated with the future end of the Roman Empire (the beast). Rome made Christianity the official religion and some like Eusebius saw the empire in a different light, but it was still believed that the antichrist would appear near the end of the Roman empire. The abomination of desolation was more commonly seen as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Rome and the western part of the empire fell, but nobody was identified as the antichrist. Then the reformers identified the pope and RC church as antichrist, and the catholics accused the reformers of being antichrist.

[TyRockwell]

Darth Xena wrote: {color=blue]Oh I didn't see it that way. I understood it to mean that Ty himself could have seen this error in Strongs and should never have made it. IOW, a squirt bottle could have put out that little flame, but John provided the water bazooka.[/color]

You guys are so defensive! I also was consulting Strong's. I am not a futurist as regards the long tribulation. I know it began in the lifetimes of the apostles, as Jesus clearly said. But the tribulation did not END in the lifetimes of the apostles, either. It continues to this day.

That is why the 'this' is a different inflection and distinguishes 23:26 from 24:34.

Can everyone agree there is a distinction in some way? There is a purpose for the change in inflection in the 24:34 'this'.

There is another distinction, as well. Jesus' harsh address to the religious leaders in the twenty-third chapter points to 'the wrath to come' as it applied to those hearers. Same wrath John the Baptist prophesied.

But after a Sabbath Day's walk, and talking to only the Twelve, at the Mount of Olives, the context was not one of hostility it was information privately given to them. The 'they' who would turn them over to tribulation would be dealt with in "the days of vengence, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." Luke 21:22

But the second question is about Jesus' second coming, its signs and the end of the age. So, the 'this' of the second questions answer relates to something not only in 'this generation', that saw it begin, but continues past it.

For the tribulation to have ended, and Jesus' second coming to have taken place in the first century, then 'every eye' would have seen him, and the religious leaders of the first generation would have said, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." That did not happen.

In short, 23:36 refers to the 70 AD time of wrath, while the 24:34 refers to the ongoing tribulation, until Jesus' Second Coming.

[TyRockwell]

You come up with some interesting ideas. I suppose somebody could be a preterist and believe in a premillennial post-trib return of Christ, and somebody probably does somewhere, but I don't know of any.

Thanks a lot, eschaton!

You have now met someone who believes in the post-trib, pre-mil return of Jesus. I'm guilty.

All along I've tried to explain to people on tweb that my interpretation didn't fall into any 'ism' camp that's known to me.

I hope you'll also see the other posts in this thread where I was pounced upon by merely pointing out a difference in two types of the word 'this,' one in Matthew 23:36 and the other in Matthew 24:34.

BTW, Its hard to know how to explain something to people whose 'pigeon holes' you don't fit into, IMO, because they don't consider that there is another POV, and don't seem willing to evaluate the message on its merits. TGITH (Thank God Its Thursday).

[eschaton]

You come up with some interesting ideas. I suppose somebody could be a preterist and believe in a premillennial post-trib return of Christ, and somebody probably does somewhere, but I don't know of any.

Thanks a lot, eschaton!

You have now met someone who believes in the post-trib, pre-mil return of Jesus. I'm guilty.

All along I've tried to explain to people on tweb that my interpretation didn't fall into any 'ism' camp that's known to me.

I hope you'll also see the other posts in this thread where I was pounced upon by merely pointing out a difference in two types of the word 'this,' one in Matthew 23:36 and the other in Matthew 24:34.

BTW, Its hard to know how to explain something to people whose 'pigeon holes' you don't fit into, IMO, because they don't consider that there is another POV, and don't seem willing to evaluate the message on its merits. TGITH (Thank God Its Thursday).


I'm glad that I've pleased you, but you don't appear to be a preterist. Are you a preterist? Simply the post-trib, pre-mil belief isn't uncommon at all. I used to be that myself. The combination of that with preterism would be uncommon for the reason I tried to explain.

I suppose if you don't believe there will be an antichrist, and you believe the great tribulation was in the first century, then you are a preterist.

Your interpretation of "this generation" leads me to believe you are not a preterist.

[dizzle]

I hope you'll also see the other posts in this thread where I was pounced upon by merely pointing out a difference in two types of the word 'this,' one in Matthew 23:36 and the other in Matthew 24:34.

:rofl: :rofl:

Lord forbid we actually expect you to be faithful to the text instead of your wild imaginations.

[TyRockwell]

I'm glad that I've pleased you, but you don't appear to be a preterist. Are you a preterist? Simply the post-trib, pre-mil belief isn't uncommon at all. I used to be that myself. The combination of that with preterism would be uncommon for the reason I tried to explain.

I suppose if you don't believe there will be an antichrist, and you believe the great tribulation was in the first century, then you are a preterist.

Your interpretation of "this generation" leads me to believe you are not a preterist.

My journey has taken me from a background of haven been taught the usual pretrib, premillineal dispensationalist view, which I always questioned in my mind, because no one could tell me when Daniel was unsealed, to now an understanding that includes a postribulation, premil return of Jesus with a differing idea of 'the antichrist' and the tribulation than I've seen anywhere. Much more of prophecy was fufilled by 70 AD than I was taught.

The antichrist, is not a human person. John said it was a spirit. It is actually an alliance of spirits, of the "principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this age, and spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies." Eph. 6:12 There was just such a spiritual antichrist in the time of Jesus. The alliance of antichrist spirits since Jesus are somewhat different than those in Jesus' ministry.

If by preterist one must hold that the tribulation was only in the first century, then I am not preterist, as I hold that "great tribulation" means "long tribulation," and that it continues until Jesus' bodily return, or shortly before. "Great" does not mean "extremely horrific" to the extent that pretrib rapturists teach. There is no evacuation, or rapture of the church to heaven. If that qualifies as a preterist view then I am preterist.

If by preterist, one must hold to a belief in a human antichrist, then I am not one.

If a preterist holds that the time of wrath and the destruction of the temple were first century, then I am a preterist.

If one must hold that Rome was the beast of Revelation to be preterist, then I am not one.

If a preterist must believe that the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth is figurative for now, or any other time prior to the second coming, then I don't fit into preterism.

To fully know what things were first century fulfillments, then one must grasp truths only recently unsealed in Daniel. It is of little use to consult the early church fathers, except for historical information.

If one can hold that much of Revelation has already come to pass and be preterist, then I am one.

What is a preterist?
Ty

[TyRockwell]

:rofl: :rofl:

Lord forbid we actually expect you to be faithful to the text instead of your wild imaginations.

So, do you not consult Strong's or Jack Bauer or John Reece for the words, 'this' in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34? :ahem:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

ty, at least those three sources - Myself, John Reece, and Strong, would have noted that it's the same word, not two different words with different meanings. It's just different parsing because of grammar, not a different meaning.

[eschaton]

[/color]

My journey has taken me from a background of haven been taught the usual pretrib, premillineal dispensationalist view, which I always questioned in my mind, because no one could tell me when Daniel was unsealed, to now an understanding that includes a postribulation, premil return of Jesus with a differing idea of 'the antichrist' and the tribulation than I've seen anywhere. Much more of prophecy was fufilled by 70 AD than I was taught.

The antichrist, is not a human person. John said it was a spirit. It is actually an alliance of spirits, of the "principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this age, and spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies." Eph. 6:12 There was just such a spiritual antichrist in the time of Jesus. The alliance of antichrist spirits since Jesus are somewhat different than those in Jesus' ministry.

If by preterist one must hold that the tribulation was only in the first century, then I am not preterist, as I hold that "great tribulation" means "long tribulation," and that it continues until Jesus' bodily return, or shortly before. "Great" does not mean "extremely horrific" to the extent that pretrib rapturists teach. There is no evacuation, or rapture of the church to heaven. If that qualifies as a preterist view then I am preterist.

If by preterist, one must hold to a belief in a human antichrist, then I am not one.

If a preterist holds that the time of wrath and the destruction of the temple were first century, then I am a preterist.

If one must hold that Rome was the beast of Revelation to be preterist, then I am not one.

If a preterist must believe that the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth is figurative for now, or any other time prior to the second coming, then I don't fit into preterism.

To fully know what things were first century fulfillments, then one must grasp truths only recently unsealed in Daniel. It is of little use to consult the early church fathers, except for historical information.

If one can hold that much of Revelation has already come to pass and be preterist, then I am one.

What is a preterist?
Ty

I gave a link that gives a fairly technical definition of what a preterist is. In my own opinion, I would classify you as preterist because of you interpretation of 1 John 2:18.

My understanding is that John contrasts the fact that it is said that an antichrist is coming with the fact that there are already many antichrists. This seems to be the traditional understanding of the church fathers.

In christian tradition antichrist isn't identified by just four verses that use the word, but by many passages mainly from Revelation, Daniel, the Pauline epistles etc. Traditonal christian interpretation believes that although the Bible was written by many different men living at different times, it was inspired by the Creator with a purpose in mind. Therefore they tended to make connections and see a plan in scripture.

In the last few hundred years interpreters prefer a more "scientific" approach. The intention of the author was more about reflecting his own cultural and politcial setting than it was any overall purpose. That's why interpreters today prefer not to see a connection in the story told by diverse parts of scripture. The literal surface meaning of what was said is more the focus rather than looking at the scriptures with any preconceived notion.

[TyRockwell]

ty, at least those three sources - Myself, John Reece, and Strong, would have noted that it's the same word, not two different words with different meanings. It's just different parsing because of grammar, not a different meaning.

I know that the word 'this' is essentially the same, with a slight difference. The aspect in the definition that is called "a reflexive, baffling wind" also has a sense of "backward" to it.

That same "reflexive, baffling wind" is also found in Rev. 4:1 in the phrase "after this," which in the Greek is "hereafter, hereafter" (the double not a typo) suggesting a traversing of time. Strong's also calls the "reflexive, baffling wind" root 'seldom used.'

My point is that the 'this' of Matthew 23:36 has an immediacy, an accusative case, and the object of the verb emphasis to that specific generation, while the Matthew 24:34 sense is for a nominative case, beginning in the same specific generation but continuing, traversing time, not only in 'this generation."

[dizzle]

[/color]

I know that the word 'this' is essentially the same, with a slight difference. The aspect in the definition that is called "a reflexive, baffling wind" also has a sense of "backward" to it.

That same "reflexive, baffling wind" is also found in Rev. 4:1 in the phrase "after this," which in the Greek is "hereafter, hereafter" (the double not a typo) suggesting a traversing of time. Strong's also calls the "reflexive, baffling wind" root 'seldom used.'

My point is that the 'this' of Matthew 23:36 has an immediacy, an accusative case, and the object of the verb emphasis to that specific generation, while the Matthew 24:34 sense is for a nominative case, beginning in the same specific generation but continuing, traversing time, not only in 'this generation."

The fact is that you are talking completely out of your hindquarters and now resorting to telling fabrications for Christ. Shame on you.

[TyRockwell]

Thanks for the explanation, eschaton. I was thinking I was a preterist, probably, for having a notion that my 'premil scenario' is different than the one widely held, and also for my take on the antichrist spirits.


The reason I have for a difference in the antichrist spirits from Jesus to the apostles ties into the Daniel 7:11 depiction of Rome's principality's (beasts') death before the ascension of Jesus in Daniel 7:13. This fact has great significance for the interpretation of the Revelation13:2 beast, showing the surviving principalities who were allowed to live according to Daniel 7:12, but in the absence of Rome's beast, who was slain and thrown into the blazing fire.

[TyRockwell]

[clor=blue}The fact is that you are talking completely out of your hindquarters and now resorting to telling fabrications for Christ. Shame on you.[/color}

I have done no such thing! Why are you so hostile? Why is it so difficult to admit that the tribulation was not limited to the first century?

[dizzle]

Yes you have, and that is why I answered you accordingly to your folly. Quite simply put, you have no clue what you are talking about. And when corrected on your errors, you simply make up new ones. I have absolutely zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense.

here is the stinker again for reference


while the Matthew 24:34sense is for a nominative case, beginning in the same specific generation but continuing, traversing time, not only in 'this generation."

So according to Ty's Atrocious Exegesistm what Jesus really meant to say was "Truly I say to you, this generation will pass away before all these things take place."

Pluhease.

[TyRockwell]

So according to Ty's Atrocious Exegesistm what Jesus really meant to say was "Truly I say to you, this generation will pass away before all these things take place."

Jesus DiD say that these things would happen in that generation. He did not say, "this generation exclusively." Neither did he imply that "these things" would END in this generation.

[dizzle]

:looney:

[TyRockwell]

:looney:

In fact Jesus said that thec tribulation was to be far worse in 'this generation' than ever to be again.Matthew 24:21, another proof that the trib lasted past the first century.

He also said that their generation was the BEGINNING of sorrows.

[John Reece]

I know that the word 'this' is essentially the same, with a slight difference. The aspect in the definition that is called "a reflexive, baffling wind" also has a sense of "backward" to it.

That same "reflexive, baffling wind" is also found in Rev. 4:1 in the phrase "after this," which in the Greek is "hereafter, hereafter" (the double not a typo) suggesting a traversing of time. Strong's also calls the "reflexive, baffling wind" root 'seldom used.'

My point is that the 'this' of Matthew 23:36 has an immediacy, an accusative case, and the object of the verb emphasis to that specific generation, while the Matthew 24:34 sense is for a nominative case, beginning in the same specific generation but continuing, traversing time, not only in 'this generation."

:huh:

There is absolutely no difference in the sense of the word in 23:36 and 24:34.

In terms of the definition of outoV (houtos = "this"), there is no 'aspect in the definition that is called "a reflexive, baffling wind"'.

The fact that the term is in the accusative case in 23:36 and is in the nominative case in 24:34 makes absolutely no difference in the meaning of the term in the respective contexts.
.

[dizzle]

Thank you John once again. Your knowledge is once again edifying to me.

[TyRockwell]

3778 houtos (hoo'-tos);

including nominative masculine plural houtoi (hoo'-toy); nominative feminine singular haute (how'-tay); and nominative feminine plural hautai (how'-tahee); from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):

KJV-- he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.




846 autos (ow-tos');

from the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); the reflexive pronounself, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:

KJV-- her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thyself, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare 848.

[dizzle]

Oh my goodness, Ty who doesn't know Greek at all, thinks that he can argue with someone who has mastered Greek by using one of the crappiest resources out there - Strong's!

:rofl:

[TyRockwell]

Strong's is not wrong. There is a reason for the difference in words. Its like in english grammar. Matthew 23:36 is the present tense "this generation," while the Matthew 24:34 "this generation" is the present perfect tense.

[dizzle]

Let's see.... John Reece is extraordinarily qualified in Greek. You are not.

Whom shall we trust is correct here?

Choice, choices.

There is nothing worse than simply bending the Scriptures to fit your own preconception.

[TyRockwell]

Let's put it this way. Does the text say that the tribulation would only be in this generation, and not continue past it?

Didn't Jesus say that it would be worse in that generation, and never be that bad AGAIN, again, implying at least one time successive to that generation, when there would still be tribulation, only not to be compared to the other worse time?

[dizzle]

:looney:

I will perform the reductio ad absurdum to your points later tonight.

[John Reece]

3778 houtos (hoo'-tos);

[snip]

846 autos (ow-tos')
You have cited two entirely different words:
outoV (houtos) = demonstrative pronoun meaning "this".
autoV (autos) = reflexive pronoun meaning "self".
Of the two, only the first occurs in 23:36 and 24:34.

[TyRockwell]

[color=blue]846 autos (ow-tos')
You have cited two entirely different words:
ουτος (houtos) = demonstrative pronoun meaning "this".
αυτος (autos) = reflexive pronoun meaning "self".
Of the two, only the first occurs in 23:36 and 24:34.[/color

Didn't we already establish that the word for "this" in 23:36 is slightly different than the "this" in 24:34, and that you said there was a difference in 'inflection, while into english they are both still translated 'this'?
Matt.23:36 "this"=
5026 taute (tow'-tay);

and tauten (tow'-tane); and tautes (tow'-tace); dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:

KJV-- her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

I only brought out strong's 846 to show that it came out of 3778
So, 23:36 could be stated, "this same generation"
But 24:34's 'this' is 3778
By implication, if 23:36 is the dative case, then 24:34 is the non-dative case, allowing for a wider time, or a starting time.

[dizzle]

Ty, this is utterly laughable. You know zero about Greek, and yet you think you are going to seriously refute someone who is in my book, a Greek expert, by Strong's. Do you have any idea, first, how arrogant that is, and second, how disrespectful to John?

[John Reece]

Strong's is not wrong.

But you are. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151175&postcount=70).
There is a reason for the difference in words. Its like in english grammar. Matthew 23:36 is the present tense "this generation," while the Matthew 24:34 "this generation" is the present perfect tense.
You are projecting into the respective verses distinctions that are not present in the text.
The term "this generation" in 23:36 is not "the present tense".
The term "this generation" in 24:34 is not "the present perfect tense".
It's not as though the term were a verb.

[John Reece]

Didn't we already establish that the word for "this" in 23:36 is slightly different than the "this" in 24:34,
No. You merely made an assertion — contrary to fact — that there is a difference. I have demonstrated that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses.
I only brought out strong's 846 to show that it came out of 3778
That's an example of the the word-study fallacy known to exegetical scholars as the root fallacy.
So, 23:36 could be stated, "this same generation"
Absolutely not. You are substituting the reflexive pronoun for the demonstrative pronoun with no linguistic or contextual warrant for doing so.
But 24:34's 'this' is 3778
By implication, if 23:36 is the dative case, then 24:34 is the non-dative case, allowing for a wider time, or a starting time.
The only dative case occurrence in 23:36 and 24:34 is the single word umin (humin = "you" plural), which is exactly the same in both verses.

[dizzle]

You rock.

[TyRockwell]

The only dative case occurrence in 23:36 and 24:34 is the single word υμιν (humin = "you" plural), which is exactly the same in both verses.

Is the "you" in 23:34 in any sense of the word applicable to 'you' in a continuing sense, beginning definitely in the generation of the speaking, and also forward? I hope to avoid being misunderstood to mean "at a later generation," which I don't mean at all.

So, you are saying that the Strong's #5026 means absolutely the exact same thing as Strong's #3778. without any shadow of a hint of a differing application, even present tense or present perfect tense?

Why, then would another word be used?

See, I come from a persuasion that there are exact meanings in the original texts that make a huge difference, that the translation into english sometimes loses, accounting, for example "elohim" in Psalm 8:5 being rendered 'angels' when actually "God" is the true meaning.

I believe, as the Proverb says, that "it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search them out."

Also, that any interpretation must take into consideration other texts on the same subject, or the same time, such as a distinction between the "time of wrath," and a 'time of tribulation.'

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I'll have a look at this thread next week. :smile:

[TyRockwell]

Thanks, Bill!

[dizzle]

I'll have a look at this thread next week. :smile:

I can summarize it for you.

Ty. Pwned.

[TyRockwell]

I can summarize it for you.

Ty. Pwned.

:huh: What did that post mean?

[dizzle]

Precisely.

[TyRockwell]

that there is a difference. I have demonstrated that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses.

Are we to believe that the Daniel 12:1-2 mention of the great (as in long) tribulation, did occur way, way, way before the resurrection of Daniel 12:3, in the time of the end of this age?

making it a short tribulation? Also Matthew 24:21.

[TyRockwell]

]that there is a difference. I have demonstrated that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses.

What you have not demonstrated is why two different words (do not leave it as 'same meaning') were used.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

that there is a difference. I have demonstrated that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses.

Are we to believe that the Daniel 12:1-2 mention of the great (as in long) tribulation, did occur way, way, way before the resurrection of Daniel 12:3, in the time of the end of this age?

making it a short tribulation? Also Matthew 24:21.

er....this red herring won't work with John, he knows Hebrew too.....

[dizzle]

And he has demonstrated it, but Ty keeps pretending like he hasn't, and he wonders why I treat his posts in this thread with absolute scorn.

John, please, please don't loose patience, I guarantee you that your work will be put to good use as I am going to reference the heck out of you in my commentary.

[John Reece]

Is the "you" in 23:34 in any sense of the word applicable to 'you' in a continuing sense, beginning definitely in the generation of the speaking, and also forward?

The "you" refers to the people to whom Jesus was speaking — to them only and to no one else.

So, you are saying that the Strong's #5026 means absolutely the exact same thing as Strong's #3778. without any shadow of a hint of a differing application, even present tense or present perfect tense?

Strong's numbers mean nothing to me. Please refer to the words in question.

See, I come from a persuasion that there are exact meanings in the original texts that make a huge difference

If you really believe that, you should should respect the original texts enough to stop making contrary-to-fact assertions about them.

[TyRockwell]

All I see proved here is that the tribulation began in the first century, which I didn't disagree with. I tend to think that the innumerable multitude in Rev. 7:14 must mean more than only first century Christians, but I'm willing to see that as a possibility.

In light of the first century beginning of tribulation, when do you suppose it ended?

And where do the bowls of wrath of Rev. fit into such a view?

[dizzle]

No, what was proved is that the Greek does not say what you claim it says. Stop misrepresenting what was said the same way you misrepresent the text.

As far as your exegetical questions - they are completely separate from your bogus and falsified claims as to the Greek - and are, what is commonly called, a big fat stinky red herring.

[TyRockwell]

I am not convinced that the Greek, as exegeted by you and John Reece is more accurate than that of the Amplified version. So I'm far from alone in seeing there must be a reason they came up with their version of Matthew 24:34, which is what I was arguing for.

How do you think that Jesus came back in the first generation?

[dizzle]

You do realize the Amplified Bible is not a translation, and thus it wouldn't matter if they INTERPRETED something as outright falsely as you - it is no better than a commentary, and I am well aware that screwy things have been written down in commentaries.

As far as your last question, you claim to have at least perused my site and my commentary. I have to disbelieve that, since your question is soooo basic, that if you were there at all to any superficial extent, you would have caught on to that.

Back to your misrepresentation of the Greek - you can choose to be dishonest or give up your tradition. Amplified. Ha! That is a hoot. Why don't you just go and use the New Living Translation.

Any screwy thought can find someone to support it, and it isn't any less screwy or any less false just because you might have found a cohort. The Amplified Bible is well known for its infusion with Word of Faith crap as well. Just chuck the real translations out of the window for the sake of your tradition. :no:

[TyRockwell]

My you are soooo hostile!

I've heard that the Amplified is a translation, not a commentary. Its' intent', supposedly was to bring out all the meaning of the original texts, which too often get squeezed down to reducing two distinct words into: "that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses," quoting John Reece.

True, I am no Greek scholar, but me thinks you protest it too much. At least I could find my way around a Strong's to find out why the Amplified translators rendered Matthew 24:34 the way they did. You may now insert your insult to Abingdon's Strong's here.....

[The Logos]

I know that I am new here,so maybe I am missing something that has gone on between Ty and DX previously. That is the only way I can see any reason for the apparent hostility. Please do not give me the old "this is how debates go and if you can't handle it you should'nt be here",I have heard this many times before. DX, you seem to be unrelenting in your badgering and ridicule of a fellow christian. Especially when Ty has taken the time to give a defense of his belief. If it was completely ridiculous and absurd,I could understand not wanting to listen to any of it but it seems to be well thought out,perhaps not articulated as well as it could be. I he is probably wrong on the greek aspect,seeing how John is fluent in the greek language. Even so he does not deserve such treatment. Everytime he attempts to make a point there you are,not to make an argument for your view. Nor,do you make an attempt to offer proof or evidence that he is incorrect. Instead,you heep insult and mockery upon him. On all the forums that I have been on this is the first time that I have seen a christian spoken to in that way,not by some hostile atheist but by another believer. Perhaps it is not my place say such things to you or anyone but I have done so nonetheless. I hope I did not offend you in any way. If so then I apologize. It was not my intent to insult or belittle you. And maybe you did not intend to do so to Ty but that is the way I read it. I was not trying to hijack this thread,sorry.

Now to the discussion. I see that this says for ex-premils but I saw that others were on here debating so...
Matthew 24 starts with the disciples telling and showing Jesus how great and beautiful the temple was and then He tells it will be destroyed. So the disciples ask 2 questions:1.When will the temple be destroyed? 2.When will His second coming and the end of this present age be? Jesus for whatever reason appears to ignore the first question. How do I know this? By the context of the rest of the chapter. He starts off with the signs of the end of the age. If it was just an answer to the temple being destroyed or Jerusalem being laid seige,then why would such a global context be applied. And right after this Jesus begins speaking about His second coming. So please help me see how all the preterist get the idea that the temple being destroyed in 70 A.D. was the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus Christ.

[The King]

I was a pre-mil mid-tribber, because I grew up with dispensationalist doctrines. But now, I see that all that dispensationalist stuff is just a silly harmonization of quite different biblical prophecies. For example, the book of Daniel has very little overlap with the book of Revelation, even though the Dispensationalists try to harmonize the two.

The King

[Hitch]

I know that I am new here,so maybe I am missing something that has gone on between Ty and DX previously. That is the only way I can see any reason for the apparent hostility. Please do not give me the old "this is how debates go and if you can't handle it you should'nt be here",I have heard this many times before. DX, you seem to be unrelenting in your badgering and ridicule of a fellow christian. Especially when Ty has taken the time to give a defense of his belief. If it was completely ridiculous and absurd,I could understand not wanting to listen to any of it but it seems to be well thought out,perhaps not articulated as well as it could be. I he is probably wrong on the greek aspect,seeing how John is fluent in the greek language. Even so he does not deserve such treatment. Everytime he attempts to make a point there you are,not to make an argument for your view. Nor,do you make an attempt to offer proof or evidence that he is incorrect. Instead,you heep insult and mockery upon him. On all the forums that I have been on this is the first time that I have seen a christian spoken to in that way,not by some hostile atheist but by another believer. Perhaps it is not my place say such things to you or anyone but I have done so nonetheless. I hope I did not offend you in any way. If so then I apologize. It was not my intent to insult or belittle you. And maybe you did not intend to do so to Ty but that is the way I read it. I was not trying to hijack this thread,sorry.

Now to the discussion. I see that this says for ex-premils but I saw that others were on here debating so...
Matthew 24 starts with the disciples telling and showing Jesus how great and beautiful the temple was and then He tells it will be destroyed. So the disciples ask 2 questions:1.When will the temple be destroyed? 2.When will His second coming and the end of this present age be? Jesus for whatever reason appears to ignore the first question. How do I know this? By the context of the rest of the chapter. He starts off with the signs of the end of the age. If it was just an answer to the temple being destroyed or Jerusalem being laid seige,then why would such a global context be applied. And right after this Jesus begins speaking about His second coming. So please help me see how all the preterist get the idea that the temple being destroyed in 70 A.D. was the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus Christ.

First of all 'Second Coming' does not appear in any of the passages you used. You have applied conjecture not context.

Obviously and even if you're not DF the end of the age came within the life span of some of Jesus comtemporaries.\ and the writer of Hebrews who uases the tern 'end of the world'. Sp waht world ended? The world of daily bloody sacrfices that began before the Floof.



Dont you think it strqnge that Jesus would be talking about an event thousands of years future when its clear the disciples he was speaking with didnt understand the cross at this point?

Welcome to the forum


H

[dizzle]

*snip*

I don't play Internet drama

Now for where you get to the issue:


Now to the discussion. I see that this says for ex-premils but I saw that others were on here debating so...
Matthew 24 starts with the disciples telling and showing Jesus how great and beautiful the temple was and then He tells it will be destroyed. So the disciples ask 2 questions:1.When will the temple be destroyed? 2.When will His second coming and the end of this present age be? Jesus for whatever reason appears to ignore the first question. How do I know this? By the context of the rest of the chapter. He starts off with the signs of the end of the age. If it was just an answer to the temple being destroyed or Jerusalem being laid seige,then why would such a global context be applied. And right after this Jesus begins speaking about His second coming. So please help me see how all the preterist get the idea that the temple being destroyed in 70 A.D. was the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus Christ.

A global context is not employed. And the passage is not about His Second Coming. If you would like to take one small chunk at a time, I am game. If you wish perhaps just to peruse a general idea of what the argument would be, I would invite you to skim through my commentary that I have written on the matter.

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

I don't mind regurgitating it in pieces here, but I am just giving you that link as a resource.

[dizzle]

I've heard that the Amplified is a translation, not a commentary. Its' intent', supposedly was to bring out all the meaning of the original texts, which too often get squeezed down to reducing two distinct words into: "that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses," quoting John Reece.

OMG! I took your word for it on the Amplified. Silly me. The Amplified actually says:

Truly I tell you, this generation - that, the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite given time period - will not pass away until all these things take place.

Whoops :nc:

True, I am no Greek scholar,

That's the understatement of the year.

At least I could find my way around a Strong's to find out why the Amplified translators rendered Matthew 24:34 the way they did.

You knew your way around Strong's enough to make a fool of yourself, which is why Strong's is more harm than good in the hands of the ignorant who think it gives legitimacy to their exegetical fallacies. Second, the Amplified says the exact opposite. Kind of like what you do to Jesus' words.

PS: Reading the introduction to the Amplified, they do intend for it to be regarded as a translation. However, such as in the passages promoting Word of Faith teachings, it borders on commentary, but I note that it is their intention and goal to be a translation, so I was incorrect in that regard.

[John Reece]

I've heard that the Amplified is a translation, not a commentary. Its' intent', supposedly was to bring out all the meaning of the original texts, which too often get squeezed down to reducing two distinct words into: "that in terms of meaning there is no difference at all in the sense of the word rendered "this" in the respective verses," quoting John Reece..

Were it not for a request made by Xena, I would not have responded to any of your posts. However, for Xena, I will persevere as long as you persist in making contrary-to-fact assertions about the biblical texts.

What you refer to above as "two distinct words" is in fact not "two distinct words".

If only you knew enough Greek to look up the word (there's only one, not two) in a Greek lexicon you would find the word listed under a single heading irrespective of it's varying inflections in different contexts. By the way, when I say "a Greek lexicon", Strong's does not count, as it is essentially a concordance with definitions that are all too often erroneous and even more often misinterpreted by people who can only look up words by numbers and then misunderstand what they find.

The word rendered "this" in 23:36 and the word rendered "this" in 24:34 is the exact same word. In the Greek text, the difference in case (accusative in 23:36; nominative in 24:34) does not involve any difference in meaning.

I doubt there is anyone else reading this thread (including those who share your eschatological perspective) who is not able to understand the facts of the original language as I have painstakingly presented them here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2148638&postcount=34). here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151006&postcount=62), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151175&postcount=70), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151219&postcount=73), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151244&postcount=74), and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151415&postcount=86),

[dizzle]

Thank you John, I really really appreciate it - these sorts of things prove so very useful in the future, and I love to preserve them.

[TyRockwell]

PS: Reading the introduction to the Amplified, they do intend for it to be regarded as a translation. However, such as in the passages promoting Word of Faith teachings, it borders on commentary, but I note that it is their intention and goal to be a translation, so I was incorrect in that regard.

All of the WOF people I've ever heard of are DF, premil rapture folk. I am not.

I know that 70 AD was an end of the age that was at hand. Now another end of the age is at hand, and people have been beheading, crucifying, and burning Christians at the stake all along. Some are treated shamefully in forums.

What is going on is that people don't see two ends of two ages, as is revealed in the unsealing of Daniel. I didn't get this from DF, premil, pretrib rapturists, either. They ignore the first and only see the second end.

Just because the trib will never be as bad as in the first century doesn't mean the millineum has come, or that it will not. Delegated dominion from Jesus means that there will be a world wide witness to the power of the kingdom. And just as Jesus didn't win his whole generation to faith in him, so we will not see a gradual perfecting of society, but the world will see the demonstration of the Spirit's power.

Mr. Reece said that Jesus didn't deal with the disciple's question about the second coming. Greek or no, many scholars, not I of course, see that he did. The 'you's of Matthew 23 are the people subject to the time of wrath. The 'you's of chapter 24 are the disciples and most other Christians, enduring tribulation with faith and patience, still today.

[dizzle]

Notice that Ty just pretends like his misrepresentations never happened and gives a "yeah but"

Come on Ty - show us where in the Amplified it said what you said.

Come on Ty - tell us once again how you are right and John Reece is wrong

You can't keep skirting your outright errors - that is ----- honesty impaired.

[TyRockwell]

Notice that Ty just pretends like his misrepresentations never happened and gives a "yeah but"

My inadequacies in the Greek do not carry over into the English.

Come on Ty - show us where in the Amplified it said what you said.

Found in the Amplified, as was seen by many others before the Amplified was published, was the second coming in Matthew 24:34. The 'these things' he spoke of were not extended back before verse 29. It was another age's end from 29 on through 25:10

Come on Ty - tell us once again how you are right and John Reece is wrong

We were both off perspective. Its true the time of wrath was the first century. That's the message to the scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:1 through 24:2. Then the message to the disciples was 24:4 through 24:28. Then the signs of, and the second coming are 24:29 through 25:10.

You can't keep skirting your outright errors - that is ----- honesty impaired.

So, I admit I can't prove the surface text by the underlying Greek. I won't try it again. I'll stick to the surface text. There are sharks under the surface!

[dizzle]

Found in the Amplified, as was seen by many others before the Amplified was published, was the second coming in Matthew 24:34. The 'these things' he spoke of were not extended back before verse 29. It was another age's end from 29 on through 25:10

No you don't Mr. Clinton. That wasn't your original claim - where in the Amplified in Matthew 24:34 does it say what you earlier claimed it did. Show me. You see, I had a strange feeling you were not being accurate, so I looked for myself. From this vantage point, you made that up out of whole cloth.




We were both off perspective. Its true the time of wrath was the first century. That's the message to the scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:1 through 24:2. Then the message to the disciples was 24:4 through 24:28. Then the signs of, and the second coming are 24:29 through 25:10.

No you don't Mr. Clinton - we are simply speaking of what the Greek text actually says in the areas you made specific claims. You keep trying to deflect, but I am pretty focused, and I won't let you get away with it.




So, I admit I can't prove the surface text by the underlying Greek. I won't try it again. I'll stick to the surface text. There are sharks under the surface!

No you don't Mr. Clinton. Earlier you claimed that you thought the Greek text was of the utmost importance and that is what matter. So what you are trying to say now boils down to "Okay I know the Greek totally disproves me, so I will make something up!!!"

:rofl:

Do you hear that flushing? It is your credibility.

[TyRockwell]

I said I'd stick with the surface text, and stay awaay from Greek. That ought to make you happy. The surface text rocks.

[dizzle]

Thus you sold the farm. Because the surface text in ENGLISH is not going to contradict the native text.

It will make me happy when you stop warping facts to suit your ideology.

And where again is that part in the Amplified? Or did you indeed just make that up?

I am not going to forget that dude. You might as well pony up an admission that such is another example of you not knowing what you were talking about - because I will re-ask the question in each post until you do.

[TyRockwell]

Matthew 24:34 in the Amplified seems to point to the time of the context, verses 29 to 25:10 the second coming, the this generation meaning the one "after the tribulation of those days", verse 29.

[dizzle]

That isn't your original claim - you claimed that the Amplified translated the text into a way that supported your screwy claim about "this" - Please don't make me embarass you by quoting precisely what you said.

What you are claiming now is your exegesis of multiple verses - that wasn't your earlier claim - and this claim has ZERO to do with the Amplified - you would make that claim with nearly every translation - so come on now, show me that you weren't making this up out of whole cloth where you said the Amplified in that specific verse contradicted John.

The flushing continues. You might do well to slink out of this thread with your tail firmly tucked between your legs and hope no one remembers it.

[dizzle]

Jack Bauer if you are reading this - think reality distortion field. However, Ty just doesn't have the gift, but he is trying.

[TyRockwell]

I already said I saw this generation in Matthew 24:34 as the time before the second coming. That's why I saw a differing "this" in the Greek, one covering a time after "the tribulation of those days", but continuing from first century.

[dizzle]

I guess I will have to embarass you after all. Well I will have to do it in a bit, unless someone else does, since I am working on planning for a fresh install of Leopard.

[TyRockwell]

Isn't that what I was aiming for? to try to prove the 'this' of 24:34 as differing from 23:36?
I failed to prove it, or you couldn't see it, so I'm back to the surface rocking text.

[Hitch]

Six or seven years a go this would have been funny

[dizzle]

Six or seven years a go this would have been funny

He's worse than Shugart.

[TyRockwell]

What do you think I was trying to prove?

[dizzle]

You are hilarious. I now suspect you hope to just post so much screwy circles you will get everyone dizzy.

[TyRockwell]

I'm askiung, Don't you see i was trying to use the greek of 'this' in 23:36, as differing from the greek, 'this' in 24:34, to show a continuing time of trib from 1st century to after trib of 24:34

[dizzle]

Yes. And you were slapped down utterly and completely. The Greek testifies against you.

But stop asking me questions - your level of fixation is .... odd. When I am done with my Leopard project, I promise you - the thrashing is coming.

[TyRockwell]

Hey, I still see it there in the greek, but Mr. Reece and you kept saying there was no difference in the two words for 'this' Reece even said he didn't care about the Strong's numbers. TWO different numbers.

[dizzle]

Okay, be straight with me.

Are you smoking crack or something?

And what part of "stop posting questions to me" until I finish something else was unclear? Perhaps you are as bad with english as you are with greek.

[TyRockwell]

Hey, copy and paste what I said! I'll fess up. You and Reece couldn't see it. Have you tried praying to see it?

[dizzle]

Hey, I still see it there in the greek, but Mr. Reece and you kept saying there was no difference in the two words for 'this' Reece even said he didn't care about the Strong's numbers. TWO different numbers.

John, I know, I know. Please, please don't bloody your head against the wall when responding to this one. I am thinking our friend Ty here may be one fry short of a Happy Meal.

[dizzle]

Hey, copy and paste what I said! I'll fess up. You and Reece couldn't see it. Have you tried praying to see it?



Have you tried rehab?

[TyRockwell]

You guys ARE just jesting, right?

[TyRockwell]

Have you tried rehab?

back at ya.

[John Reece]

Mr. Reece said that Jesus didn't deal with the disciple's question about the second coming.

Not so. Except for the comment posted here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2143566&postcount=10), I have posted nothing in this thread other than corrections of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Greek text.

[John Reece]

Come on Ty - tell us once again how you are right and John Reece is wrong

We were both off perspective. Its true the time of wrath was the first century. That's the message to the scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:1 through 24:2. Then the message to the disciples was 24:4 through 24:28. Then the signs of, and the second coming are 24:29 through 25:10

Not true. I have not been "off perspective" in anything I have posted in this thread.

You indiscriminately mix up your presuppositions about the English version texts with your mistunderstandings of the Greek text, and then project that confusion onto me.

I have presented no comment about any of the matters that you tag onto your assertion that I have been "off perspective".

[John Reece]

Hey, I still see it there in the greek, but Mr. Reece and you kept saying there was no difference in the two words for 'this' Reece even said he didn't care about the Strong's numbers. TWO different numbers.

I suspect that you are still confusing the number for the reflexive pronoun with the number for the demonstrative pronoun, as you did here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2151053&postcount=64).
Here is an excerpt from the post cited above:
3778 houtos (hoo'-tos);

including nominative masculine plural houtoi (hoo'-toy); nominative feminine singular haute (how'-tay); and nominative feminine plural hautai (how'-tahee)

846 autos (ow-tos');

from the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:
Note that the word identified by the number 3778 is represented in Strong's as have four different spellings (houtos, houtoi, haute, and hautai): one word, four spellings (and there are quite a number of other spellings for this one word, representing differences not only in syntax but also differences in the person, number, and gender of whatever word in any given context that the pronoun may modify).

Note also that you presented the reflexive pronoun (identified by the number 846) as though it were a word that occurs in 23:36 or 24:34, when in fact the reflexive pronoun does not occur in either 23:36 or 24:34.

With regard to the word rendered "this" in both 23:36 and 24:34, there is a difference in spelling because that's the way Greek distinguishes the difference between the use of the word as a part of the predicate of the sentence and the use of the word as a part of the subject of the sentence, as your quote of Strong's above clearly demonstrates.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This is a perfect case of why the saying exists: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." In this case, very little (Sorry Ty, but every move you're making here does make it look worse).

[dizzle]

Thank you John. And I do intend upon preparing a summary with links and quotes of the fiasco that Ty has done on this thread.

[TyRockwell]

Quoting you, John Reece:
I went through a process of marinating my mind in the Greek texts of Jesus' sayings, reading and re-reading them over and over again -- all the while praying earnestly that God would help me disabuse my mind of my own presuppositions as well as those of others.

I also went through a change of presuppositions, but mine is a more recent update than yours (latest upgrade, maybe)

But my problem has been trying to explain it. So I sought to find it in the Greek. I was not able to prove it to you. I admit you have a highly developed expertise in Greek. I have now abandoned the use of greek in explaining my point of view. However, everytime I log on, you and 'what's her name' and Jack Bauer seem determined to remind me that I messed up the whole greek language. I would now like to move on.


That doesn't mean my proofs for what point I'm making is not right there in the surface English text. Like most people, we get our undertanding of scripture from the big picture. When I let scripture work, comparing and contrasting the english pictures, I see that the "this' of 23:36 relates to the hearers, the scribes, Pharisees, teachers of the law, hypocrits. They were the 'you's Jesus spoke to, the generation subject to the "time of wrath" Jesus decreed.

What I see as the object of the 'this' of 24:34 is the 'you's Jesus was talking to there; not the religious leaders at the temple, but his disciples, in private. So, it doesn't matter what the greek is, the two different groups he was addressing, at two different times, and the things he said to the second group as distinguished from what he said to the first group, is the point.

If you are interested, we could delve further into this per the English message, but I will not continue to be bashed for my errors in Greek.

[John Reece]

If you are interested, we could delve further into this per the English message, but I will not continue to be bashed for my errors in Greek.

No, I am not interested in delving "further into this per the English message".

So long as you refrain from posting "errors in Greek", you will not be "bashed" by me.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Hey, copy and paste what I said! I'll fess up. You and Reece couldn't see it. Have you tried praying to see it?

I recall the words of Francis Beckwith on arguing with fellow Christians. If they can't beat you with logic and reason, they'll trump you with spirituality.

[TyRockwell]

I recall the words of Francis Beckwith on arguing with fellow Christians. If they can't beat you with logic and reason, they'll trump you with spirituality.

In the quote of me from last night, I was trying to find out exactly what post from earlier in the day they wanted me to deal with. There had been a few.

I had already told them that I admitted failure to make my point using greek, but that didn't mean I didn't see the same result in the english text. From John Reece's latest post, he doesn't want to deal with the english, suggesting that only greek scholars can understand the Bible, or that we ungreeked barbarians have to get our understanding from them.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

[/color]

In the quote of me from last night, I was trying to find out exactly what post from earlier in the day they wanted me to deal with. There had been a few.

I had already told them that I admitted failure to make my point using greek, but that didn't mean I didn't see the same result in the english text. From John Reece's latest post, he doesn't want to deal with the english, suggesting that only greek scholars can understand the Bible, or that we ungreeked barbarians have to get our understanding from them.

But ty, you argued that they should pray to see that it is so. The implication.

God has set this as truth.
I know this because I prayed and God revealed it.
If you prayed and asked God, he would reveal it to you.

The hidden implication in all of that is that they are being unspiritual for resisting this truth of God.

Now while I have a stance on this, it doesn't matter at this point. The point is that the NT is written in Greek and the best understanding DOES come from those who know the language. To say the English is superior to the Greek is nonsense.

Like it or not, you do get your understanding from them. Who do you want to translate your Bible into English? Greek scholars who know the language or English scholars who don't?

[TyRockwell]

But ty, you argued that they should pray to see that it is so. The implication.

God has set this as truth.
I know this because I prayed and God revealed it.
If you prayed and asked God, he would reveal it to you.

The hidden implication in all of that is that they are being unspiritual for resisting this truth of God.

Now while I have a stance on this, it doesn't matter at this point. The point is that the NT is written in Greek and the best understanding DOES come from those who know the language. To say the English is superior to the Greek is nonsense.

Like it or not, you do get your understanding from them. Who do you want to translate your Bible into English? Greek scholars who know the language or English scholars who don't?

Hi, AP

I'd like to clarify. I was being a little facetious with that "have you prayed to see it" statement. They were being highly derogatory, so I returned an insult.

The point was not that I place myself in a higher spiritual place by asking if they prayed. I don't. At the same time I know the propensity to hold an alliegance to a doctrine that one can only be loosed from by being willing to change one's mind.

That said, in a corollary to what John Reece said, if we believe that the Greek is accurate, then we can believe that it was accurately translated. The Bible has already been translated, so within the various versions of actual translations (not paraphrases or commentaries) one can expect that some are more accurate in certain passages, where that translation may be less accurate in another passage, and another version may 'have it right.'

This being the case, we all need to be students willing to be taught, not holding that one version has it totally right; and that we must let the letter of the word be illuminated by reflection and prayerful consideration. Proverbs says, "In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom." I take that to mean truth and wise insight can be gleaned from various translations considered together to see which or which combination brings a sense of 'seeing the light,' with willingness and the Holy Spirit's help.

This is not me saying, 'I see the the light,' but an encouragement for others to see deeper than black ink on white paper. For example: Many people have read a verse or section of scripture one way for years, then one day are surprised and say, 'I've never seen it that way before, and now I can see it.' Just leave room for that to happen.

My efforts were to try to spark a possibility that they might consider another interpretation. I failed, and my efforts to find in the Greek what I was gleaning from various translations didn't help my cause.

[John Reece]

[From John Reece's latest post, he doesn't want to deal with the english, suggesting that only greek scholars can understand the Bible, or that we ungreeked barbarians have to get our understanding from them.

Oh no, nothing of the sort.

It's just that I am old and in poor health, unable to sit at the computer without exacerbating pain in the groin and belly (a consequence of multiple radical abdominal surgeries during the past four years). I can only work at the computer standing on my feet, which results in painful swelling of the feet, ankles, and lower legs. I pay a painful physical price for every minute I spend posting on this website. That, and the fact that I lack sufficient mental energy to engage in arguments about the Bible. That's why I try to confine myself to dealing only with the biblical languages.

I do not believe that knowledge of the biblical languages is a prerequisite for understanding the scriptures, nor do I look down on anyone who has not yet been blessed with motivation and opportunity to study the biblical languages in the way that I have been privileged to do. I am only grateful rather than proud.

Were it not for Xena's request, I would not have bothered you with unsolicited information about the Greek texts, preferring as I do to spend what little energy I have responding to people who desire to receive what I may be enabled to share.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

From John Reece's latest post, he doesn't want to deal with the english, suggesting that only greek scholars can understand the Bible, or that we ungreeked barbarians have to get our understanding from them.This is an absurd characterisation!

Ty, remember that preterists emphasise the english meaning of "the generation," and YOU, not John, but YOU, suggested that we we ignorant of two supposedly different Greek words for "this," implying that the English was misleading or inadequate.

The only reason anyone else even mentioned the Greek was to reply to your mistaken claims about it. The Enlish versions were doing just fine until you came along and tried to impugn them with your misunderstanding of the the Greek.

[dizzle]

Quoting you, John Reece:
I went through a process of marinating my mind in the Greek texts of Jesus' sayings, reading and re-reading them over and over again -- all the while praying earnestly that God would help me disabuse my mind of my own presuppositions as well as those of others.

I also went through a change of presuppositions, but mine is a more recent update than yours (latest upgrade, maybe)

But my problem has been trying to explain it. So I sought to find it in the Greek. I was not able to prove it to you. I admit you have a highly developed expertise in Greek. I have now abandoned the use of greek in explaining my point of view. However, everytime I log on, you and 'what's her name' and Jack Bauer seem determined to remind me that I messed up the whole greek language. I would now like to move on.


That doesn't mean my proofs for what point I'm making is not right there in the surface English text. Like most people, we get our undertanding of scripture from the big picture. When I let scripture work, comparing and contrasting the english pictures, I see that the "this' of 23:36 relates to the hearers, the scribes, Pharisees, teachers of the law, hypocrits. They were the 'you's Jesus spoke to, the generation subject to the "time of wrath" Jesus decreed.

What I see as the object of the 'this' of 24:34 is the 'you's Jesus was talking to there; not the religious leaders at the temple, but his disciples, in private. So, it doesn't matter what the greek is, the two different groups he was addressing, at two different times, and the things he said to the second group as distinguished from what he said to the first group, is the point.

If you are interested, we could delve further into this per the English message, but I will not continue to be bashed for my errors in Greek.

If the Greek contradicts you, which it does, the English cannot trump the Greek. You are simply a ideologue in search of a proof text.

Oh and rest certain, at least in this thread, I will absolutely continue to bash you for you refused to admit your errors, still refuse to admit you misrepresented the Amplified, and mangle the text. So like it or not, that is what I will continue to do, so that your bluster to cover your incompetence doesn't remain unexposed.

[dizzle]

This is an absurd characterisation!

Ty, remember that preterists emphasise the english meaning of "the generation," and YOU, not John, but YOU, suggested that we we ignorant of two supposedly different Greek words for "this," implying that the English was misleading or inadequate.

The only reason anyone else even mentioned the Greek was to reply to your mistaken claims about it. The Enlish versions were doing just fine until you came along and tried to impugn them with your misunderstanding of the the Greek.

And refuse to admit his utter error, then tried to claim the translators of the Amplified (as opposed to other versions) agreed with him - and when I should he made up that claim out of thin air, deflected yet again.

[dizzle]

[/color]

In the quote of me from last night, I was trying to find out exactly what post from earlier in the day they wanted me to deal with. There had been a few.

I had already told them that I admitted failure to make my point using greek, but that didn't mean I didn't see the same result in the english text. From John Reece's latest post, he doesn't want to deal with the english, suggesting that only greek scholars can understand the Bible, or that we ungreeked barbarians have to get our understanding from them.

Misrepresentation appears to be a habit with you. Misrepresenting me is one thing, but misrepresenting John, who is one of the dearest men and scholars on this board, is quite another.

[dizzle]

Oh no, nothing of the sort.

It's just that I am old and in poor health, unable to sit at the computer without exacerbating pain in the groin and belly (a consequence of multiple radical abdominal surgeries during the past four years). I can only work at the computer standing on my feet, which results in painful swelling of the feet, ankles, and lower legs. I pay a painful physical price for every minute I spend posting on this website. That, and the fact that I lack sufficient mental energy to engage in arguments about the Bible. That's why I try to confine myself to dealing only with the biblical languages.

I do not believe that knowledge of the biblical languages is a prerequisite for understanding the scriptures, nor do I look down on anyone who has not yet been blessed with motivation and opportunity to study the biblical languages in the way that I have been privileged to do. I am only grateful rather than proud.

Were it not for Xena's request, I would not have bothered you with unsolicited information about the Greek texts, preferring as I do to spend what little energy I have responding to people who desire to receive what I may be enabled to share.

Thank you John, I really appreciate your efforts and have received and benefited greatly from your gift.

[TyRockwell]

Oh and rest certain, at least in this thread, I will absolutely continue to bash you for you refused to admit your errors, still refuse to admit you misrepresented the Amplified, and mangle the text. So like it or not, that is what I will continue to do, so that your bluster to cover your incompetence doesn't remain unexposed.

I wish that you, the entire group of people piling on at the same time, would stop and consider that I don't have sinister motives in what I seek to develop.

I wonder if you would not still advocate a wholly first century tribulation no matter how many other scripture references might be employed to describe a generations later return of the Lord.

At first, it seemed that the preterist view that included a much expanded view of what prophecies were fulfilled in the first century fit what I had come to believe as well, along with no rapture, no 70th week yet unfulfilled, and no human antichrist. Now, it seems that the preterist position must include a belief that Jesus returned in the first century, that the tribulation of those days precludes any subsequent times of trial and persecution since then as included in a prophetic scenario.

Of this I remain unconvinced, and since I must be the most vile misrepresenter, I'll get my umbrella now, as I predict the drop of a very large anvil....

[Hitch]

Lol

[dizzle]

:violin:

[JonLanceBarker]

At first, it seemed that the preterist view that included a much expanded view of what prophecies were fulfilled in the first century fit what I had come to believe as well, along with no rapture, no 70th week yet unfulfilled, and no human antichrist.

generally, antichrist=Nero or antichrist=Domitian, though i think Nero fits better.

Now, it seems that the preterist position must include a belief that Jesus returned in the first century,

:doh:
uh, no...not in the sense of a Second Coming (in bodily form).
more like in the sense of a crowned King moving in to take His throne by force.
the Second Coming/Final Judgment comes at the end of the "millennial" kingdom on earth, however one defines that kingdom.
(in other words, it hasn't happened yet!)

that the tribulation of those days precludes any subsequent times of trial and persecution since then as included in a prophetic scenario.

do you subscribe then to a dual fufillment scheme, or a more historicist viewpoint?
i think dual fulfillment would be an acceptable preterist position, although i don't think it's the most likely to happen...but then that's just me. :teeth: :shrug:

[TyRockwell]

generally, antichrist=Nero or antichrist=Domitian, though i think Nero fits better.

While Nero and Domitian were certainly evil, I do not consider either of them to be 'a' or 'the' antichrist. Antichrists are spirits. The spiritual pricipality, the Prince of Rome, was slain and thrown into the blazing fire in Daniel 7:11


:doh:
uh, no...not in the sense of a Second Coming (in bodily form).
more like in the sense of a crowned King moving in to take His throne by force.
the Second Coming/Final Judgment comes at the end of the "millennial" kingdom on earth, however one defines that kingdom.
(in other words, it hasn't happened yet!)

I consider Jesus to be King now over his spiritual kingdom from heaven. He is already seated on his throne at the right hand of the Father, and he has raised us up and seated us together with him. The 'taking by force' concept is by spiritual warfare, the church exercizing our Christ given dominion. ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail"...

When that dominion has been seen as a testimony in all the world, then Jesus will return to begin his bodily 1000 year reign on earth, we ruling with him.



do you subscribe then to a dual fufillment scheme, or a more historicist viewpoint?
i think dual fulfillment would be an acceptable preterist position, although i don't think it's the most likely to happen...but then that's just me. :teeth: :shrug:

I am not a huge fan of 'dual fulfilment' though I see parallels. I think I see in scripture a kind of repeat of history, with the church triumphing in our