The Great Tribulation is Over! (Faramir versus Athanasius) Commentary

[Darth Xena]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between Faramir and Athanasius on the Great Tribulation located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=27460#post27460

Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[Darth Xena]

Well let's get this party started!!! Faramir pointed out the devasting point to futurism, and that is the anchoring of the Tribulation to the destruction of the Temple then standing. Even without any specific time verses such as "this generation" this fact alone would thrust the Great Trib into the first century.

[Darth Xena]

Timing is everything.

[John Powell]

Dee Dee Warren:
Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.


POWELL:
Oops! :dunce: I didn't know. I won't do that anymore.

So, I take it that a significant difference between "preterists" and "futurists" is whether the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus in Matt 24 was fulfilled in about 70 A.D. or is yet to be fulfilled.

Q1: What is a simple definition for "preterism"?

SPELLING:
The word "prophesized" is nonstandard and perhaps should mean to have arranged prophetic revelations according to size. :no:

prophecy (profes-ee): the prediction or revelation :thumb:
prophecies (profes-eez), pl.

prophesy (profes-ah-ee): to predict or reveal :thumb:
prophesied, (profes-ah-eed)
prophesying, (profes-ah-eeng)
prophesies (profes-ah-eez)

The prophet will prophesy (ah-ee) a prophecy (ee) in the future.

The prophet prophesied (ah-eed) a prophecy (ee) in the past.

The prophet is prophesying (ah-eeng) several prophecies (eez) today.

The prophet prophesies (ah-eez) several prophecies (eez) today.

I've screwed these up myself, so this is for me too.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEBATE:
Q2: Were there many false Christs and false prophets between the time of this Olivet discourse and 70 A.D.?

Q3: Was the tribulation in 70 A.D. great "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, NOR EVER WILL."?

Q4: What is the abomination of desolation? Didn't this have something to do with idols in the Temple?

John Powell

[Darth Xena]

03-10-2003 @ 11:39 PM
John Powell:



POWELL:
Oops! :dunce: I didn't know. I won't do that anymore.

Better not!! :whip:

So, I take it that a significant difference between "preterists" and "futurists" is whether the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus in Matt 24 was fulfilled in about 70 A.D. or is yet to be fulfilled.

Yep.

Q1: What is a simple definition for "preterism"?

The belief that the great majority of the eschatological texts of the NT were fulfilled in the first century. The Second Coming, the bodily resurrection, and the final judgment are yet future.

SPELLING:
The word "prophesized" is nonstandard and perhaps should mean to have arranged prophetic revelations according to size. :no:

prophecy (profes-ee): the prediction or revelation :thumb:
prophecies (profes-eez), pl.

prophesy (profes-ah-ee): to predict or reveal :thumb:
prophesied, (profes-ah-eed)
prophesying, (profes-ah-eeng)
prophesies (profes-ah-eez)

The prophet will prophesy (ah-ee) a prophecy (ee) in the future.

The prophet prophesied (ah-eed) a prophecy (ee) in the past.

The prophet is prophesying (ah-eeng) several prophecies (eez) today.

The prophet prophesies (ah-eez) several prophecies (eez) today.

I've screwed these up myself, so this is for me too.

Sigh. Librarian.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEBATE:
Q2: Were there many false Christs and false prophets between the time of this Olivet discourse and 70 A.D.?

Steven Carr and I will be debating this point if he doesn't find a way to wiggle out of it.

Q3: Was the tribulation in 70 A.D. great "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, NOR EVER WILL."?

Taken Biblically, yes.

Q4: What is the abomination of desolation? Didn't this have something to do with idols in the Temple?

Maybe this will come up. It is a combination of factors.. let's see if it is covered in the debate.

John Powell [/QUOTE]

[PuritanD]

Powell raises a good question. He stated, "Q3: Was the tribulation in 70 A.D. great "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, NOR EVER WILL."?"

Now, I admit that I am not fully up to speed on eschatology but if preterism believes that nothing is greater than that which happen in AD 70 then God's final judgment must be a cakewalk in comparison when a 1/3 of everything is destroyed

Also, if the Jews build a third temple, which seems impossible but so did the idea of a Jewish state at one time. Does this hurt the preterist's understanding?

Just curious

PuritanD

[Darth Xena]

03-12-2003 @ 12:50 AM
PuritanD:

Powell raises a good question. He stated, "Q3: Was the tribulation in 70 A.D. great "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, NOR EVER WILL."?"

I do not want to steal Faramir's thunder so I am going to reserve commenting on this until later.

Now, I admit that I am not fully up to speed on eschatology but if preterism believes that nothing is greater than that which happen in AD 70 then God's final judgment must be a cakewalk in comparison when a 1/3 of everything is destroyed


You are assuming a wooden literalness.... well let me ask you. If at this alleged future judgment, that is not nearly so bad as Noah's flood then. I mean more than 1/3 of life was destroyed, only eight people and two (with the exception of clean animals) of each animal made it. Even in the most fantastic futurist scenario more than eight people live.

Also, if the Jews build a third temple, which seems impossible...

I do not find it impossible, I find it irrelevant. They may build it but has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy and will only interest me to the extent to see another example of man's apostasy and to see PeTA's reaction.

... but so did the idea of a Jewish state at one time. Does this hurt the preterist's understanding?

Nope. The time statements are unequivocal.

Just curious

PuritanD [/QUOTE]

[Darth Xena]

I see Faramir did address this language a bit in his response.

[PuritanD]

Dee Dee,

How come the wailing wall which I believ is the west wall is still standing if not one stone will be left upon another?

I just thought about this and have no idea how significant this is if at all.

[Darth Xena]

Hmm, Puritan, let's leave this a bit. Athanasius may bring that up, and again, I don't want to steal Faramir's thunder.

[Solly]

03-13-2003 @ 06:55 AM
PuritanD:

Dee Dee,

How come the wailing wall which I believ is the west wall is still standing if not one stone will be left upon another?

I just thought about this and have no idea how significant this is if at all.

PD, I believe the Western Wall represents the foundations of the Temple mount, built up to level the area, and not the Temple itself.

[Darth Xena]

Okay, okay!!! I agree with Solly, but I think for other reasons the point is mute even if it were the Temple. Jesus' statement is typical prophetic hyperbole, it does not require minute literalism.

[John Powell]

03-13-2003 @ 09:53 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Okay, okay!!! I agree with Solly, but I think for other reasons the point is mute even if it were the Temple. Jesus' statement is typical prophetic hyperbole, it does not require minute literalism.

POWELL:
EXCELLENT! :thumb:

Doesn't that suggest that when those same prophets made other religious claims that they might also have been employing typical religious hyperbole?

When they claimed that God is an Omnibeing that possibly they were exaggerating? Perhaps what they meant was that God is very very knowledgeable, powerful, and good.

When Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning" it does not necessarily mean the very very beginning, but just the beginning of the creation of the Earth and sky?

When a Bible writer says "with God all things are possible" maybe the writer was exaggerating? Perhaps he meant that the kinds of things non-philosopher types might imagine being impossible for God to do, He can probably do that.

When another says that God cannot lie, maybe he was exaggerating, meaning to say that God rarely lies?

When the Bible says "all have sinned" maybe it was exaggerating, that nearly all adults sin, but some persons such as children have not sinned?

When it says "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being reborn of water" it was exaggerating because some persons, such as children, don't require that?

What do you say?

How can a modern believer in the Bible reliably tell when a writer in the Bible is using typical religious hyperbole and when He means his words to be taken to be literally true? By committee agreement of his church? :huh:

John Powell

[stevencarrwork]

Dee Dee wrote about :-
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEBATE:
Q2: Were there many false Christs and false prophets between the time of this Olivet discourse and 70 A.D.?

the following statement :-

Steven Carr and I will be debating this point if he doesn't find a way to wiggle out of it.

-------------------------------------
I remind her of the resolution that she agreed to debate, and which she said she would start in a week or two
'RESOLVED that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

Not a word in there about false prophets.

So I will not be debating whether or not there were false prophets, contrary to Dee Dee's claims.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEBATE:
Q2: Were there many false Christs and false prophets between the time of this Olivet discourse and 70 A.D.?

WARREN:
Steven Carr and I will be debating this point if he doesn't find a way to wiggle out of it.

STEVENCARRWORK:
I remind her of the resolution that she agreed to debate, and which she said she would start in a week or two
'RESOLVED that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

Not a word in there about false prophets.

So I will not be debating whether or not there were false prophets, contrary to Dee Dee's claims.


POWELL:
I do not think you read Dee Dee's words with sufficient charity, Steven. She did NOT say or clearly imply that you and she would be debating false prophets.

Her words implied that you and she would be debating the point of my question which was relevant to false Christs and false Prophets. If you were only going to debate false Christs (which appears to be the case) or only going to debate false prophets or going to debate both, her words were sufficiently truthful.

I think if you were to strike "contrary to what Dee Dee claims" from your last sentence then I would not have good cause to criticize you.

John Powell

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 12:30 AM
John Powell:



POWELL:
I do not think you read Dee Dee's words with sufficient charity, Steven. She did NOT say or clearly imply that you and she would be debating false prophets.

I think if you were to strike "contrary to what Dee Dee claims" from your last sentence then I would not have good cause to criticize you.



Thank you for your clarifying comments. I appreciate them.

[John Powell]

stevencarrwork:
Thank you for your clarifying comments. I appreciate them.

:cheers:

POWELL:
Now, back to business.

John Powell

[Darth Xena]

Thank you John so much. You read my words in the spirit in which they were intended and I in no way intended to imply that Steven and I would be debating false prophets.

On the hyperbole issue, that sounds like a good debate topic in itself.. but let me see if I can briefly address it (though I would really like to try to keep this particular thread to the issues raised between Athanasius and Faramir) - I can point to certain instances and claim prophetic hyperbole because of several factors which do not apply in the instances which you gave. First of all immediate context.... these statements appear in an apocolyptic passage which has different ground rules for interepretation than do didactic passages. Second we have a "control" for these passages, ie. I can point to similar passages that happened in the past and use them to guide what these passages mean, or at least how the original audience would have understood them to mean.

[John Powell]

03-14-2003 @ 11:05 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Thank you John so much. You read my words in the spirit in which they were intended and I in no way intended to imply that Steven and I would be debating false prophets.

On the hyperbole issue, that sounds like a good debate topic in itself.. but let me see if I can briefly address it (though I would really like to try to keep this particular thread to the issues raised between Athanasius and Faramir) - I can point to certain instances and claim prophetic hyperbole because of several factors which do not apply in the instances which you gave. First of all immediate context.... these statements appear in an apocolyptic passage which has different ground rules for interepretation than do didactic passages. Second we have a "control" for these passages, ie. I can point to similar passages that happened in the past and use them to guide what these passages mean, or at least how the original audience would have understood them to mean.

POWELL:
Thank you for that response. Perhaps you are right. Let's deal with this another time.

John Powell

[Sher]

03-10-2003 @ 11:39 PM
John Powell:

prophecy (profes-ee): the prediction or revelation :thumb:
prophecies (profes-eez), pl.

prophesy (profes-ah-ee): to predict or reveal :thumb:
prophesied, (profes-ah-eed)
prophesying, (profes-ah-eeng)
prophesies (profes-ah-eez)

I've screwed these up myself, so this is for me too.Hi John, Me too! :xmm: I try to remember it by thinking that a prophecy is what they "see" (C ... get it?) :idea:

[Sher]

03-12-2003 @ 06:20 AM
Dee Dee Warren:


You are assuming a wooden literalness.... well let me ask you. If at this alleged future judgment, that is not nearly so bad as Noah's flood then. I mean more than 1/3 of life was destroyed, only eight people and two (with the exception of clean animals) of each animal made it. Even in the most fantastic futurist scenario more than eight people live. Matt 24:21 "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Can we align destruction with tribulation? :huh: Noah's deluge was a destruction of mankind, save those on the ark. The Great Tribulation was/will be "shortened" or "no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened." (Matt 24:22)

I think we need to examine context here of v. 22 with v. 21. The flood, I believe, was destruction; the Great Tribulation ... well, tribulation.

Is it "wooden literalism" to believe that Jesus meant what He said? Both by v. 21 & 22, and that there would be a Great Tribulation to begin with? Shouldn't both be taken literally?

[John Powell]

Today @ 10:11 PM
SherBear:
Hi John, Me too! :xmm: I try to remember it by thinking that a prophecy is what they "see" (C ... get it?) :idea:

POWELL:
Hi Sherbear.
Good memory tool :thumb:

John Powell

[Darth Xena]

Is it "wooden literalism" to believe that Jesus meant what He said? Both by v. 21 & 22, and that there would be a Great Tribulation to begin with? Shouldn't both be taken literally?

Well if I say that I am distraught that I have run errands while it is raining cats and dogs, should you take all parts of that statement "literally"?

[Sher]

Today @ 06:15 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Well if I say that I am distraught that I have run errands while it is raining cats and dogs, should you take all parts of that statement "literally"? Hi Dee Dee,

But by the very nature of that sentence, we are not confused as to the meaning. There is no wiggle room as it has never, to my knowledge, actually rained cats and dogs.

However, with the knowledge that God is not the author of confusion, we can be aware that the statements of those verses can be accepted as literal, because there has been, and continues to be tribulations.

Coupled with the context, allowing scripture to interpret scripture, that we see that there has to be a literal interpretation to these verses.

Matt 24:21-22 "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened."

Rev 7:13-14 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Sher:

But you have proven my point.... Jesus was using language that was stock and trade of the OT prophets for which there was no wiggle room. The language he was using was exactly the same as the exaggerated example I gave you. I have a whole article prepared on this very subject, but I am not going to post it here... we can also debate the point later, but really here we are supposed to commenting on the ongoing debate between Faramir and Athanasius, not really getting into a debate ourselves.... we can do that some other time.

[PuritanD]

Faramir versus Athanasius

Athanasius is giving Faramir a run for his money. I cannot wait to see how Faramir is going to refute this.

[Darth Xena]

Believe it or not PD, that is one of the easier points from a preterist view.

[Darth Xena]

And Faramir just did a fine job of refuting that objection. The key is that the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible.

[PuritanD]

So I guess then that the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) to go out to all ethnos was completed in AD 70 as well since Matthew is using ethnos here. Opps, I guess Faramir forgot this one... I wonder why????

The Acts 2 question I think was a bit unfair and taken out of context. It is clearly demonstrating that there were Jews from the dispora there at Pentecost.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Puritan, what you have done though is a "yeah but" example. According to Paul, the requirements of Matthew 24 were fulfilled, so your objection is not really with what Faramir said (and I am not trying to be a wise buy really) but with Paul said. Let's examine....

Colossians 1:5-6 – because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

Colossians 1:23 – if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Paul says that the Gospel was even preached to every creature under heaven at the time he wrote to the Church at Colosse and was even bearing fruit in the whole world.

Paul told the Romans that their faith was being proclaimed to all the nations and throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:5-6 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ

Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations , according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith

And Christ's Great Commission command would expand as "all nations" expanded and notice a HUGE difference.. Christ's command was to disciple all nations which is a big difference than to simply proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations, which Paul says was fulfilled.

And the Acts 2 quote was perfectly within the context, especially considering the Jewish focus of Matthew 24.

[PuritanD]

Dee Dee

My point is simple. If Faramir wants to argue from the word ethnos to make his point, he needs to argue not from how Paul uses the term or even Acts but in Matthew. If we want the Bible to interpret the Bible (which I fully agree with), we should try to understand a certain idea or verse within the book itself.

I argue that Faramir's argument is weak due to the lack of a comparison from 28:18-20 with Matt. 24 which is a lot closer in context than Acts, or PE. And, is extremely similar in idea and thought. Also, I was unaware that making disciples did not include proclaiming the Gospel.

Again if Faramir is going to try to limit ethnos in 24:14 then he must to be consistent within the book to translate it in chapter 28 similarly (especially since this was to a Jewish audience in nature as well :)

It seems to me that preterists on this point want their cake and eat it too. I just find it extremely difficult to have it both ways.

I think that trying to use "expansion" hermenuetics is a bit dangerous for it can open a pandora's box. For example, a homosexual individual could use such a hermenuetic arguing that Paul was limited in his understanding of what homosexual unions are today or even feminist could abuse such a thing.

[Pickle]

Preterism and futurism are both ideas that Jesuit scholars promoted in the Counter Reformation to get the heat off the papacy. All the Protestant sects were pointing at the Roman papal power and calling it the antichrist of prophecy, and the popes didn't like that.

The 1260 days of the great tribulation are past, but they are future to 70 AD. Thus both sides are wrong.

The 1260 days of persecution were cut short about 25 years from 1798 to 1793. Persecution almost totally ceased at that point. The Jesuits themselves were abolished by the pope himself, who got poisoned, they say, for doing that. Immediately after, on May 19, 1780, the sun was darkened, and that night the moon was blood red. Before that generation passed away, the stars fell on Nov. 13, 1833, and since then Christ's coming has been near, even at the door.

A lot of points could be brought out, but I'll stop there for now.

[PuritanD]

DeeDee,

Why are you leaving me hanging????? :bonk:

[nomad]

one thing... one contention is this, that one verse says

'a cry will go up in egypt such as never has been and never will be'

then later

'such tribulation will appear in all the world such has never been, or never will be'

(not exact quotes)

and i don't see the contradiction...

just because my church gave more money to missions this year than last year, doesn't mean that i (as a member) gave more money to missions personally than last year...

i guess we still have the flood though...

[Darth Xena]

Puritan D.... sorry, I have been very busy!!! Eeek!!


Nomad, no the point remains even with that Egypt verse. It is typical hyperbole, surely if the futurist version of the Great Trib is correct there shall be greater cries in egypt than before... examples could be and were multiplied.

[nomad]

surely if the futurist version of the Great Trib is correct there shall be greater cries in egypt than before...


i agree that's what we would EXPECT, but it is not a logical contradiction. i can easily imagine a scenario where both statements could be true, without being in conflict.

i'll do some research on hyperbole and prophecy...

[Darth Xena]

I cannot picture a situation in which both would be literally (meaning woodenly literally) true without contradiction.

[nomad]

i tried to give an example, but maybe it wasn't good enough.

tribulation is uneven in the world, even today.

just because overall the tribulation was/will be greater in the entire world than then, does not mean it was/will be also be greater in any particular place.

we have already had great tribulations in the last century (germany, russia, china) that did not touch egypt...

unless i'm missing something...