What Anti Christ?

[Lizard]

In another thread on this post dealing with the "Anti Christ" Reba posted the following:

03-11-2003 @ 07:27 PM
Reba:

These are the ONLY references in scripture to antichrist.


1 John 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Notice the reference numbers are there so you can read the context.

Since the originator of that thread stated that it was addressed to futurist only, I posted a new thread here. However, this is in response to this thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=31977#post31977). I would like for David (the originator of the other thread) to respond to this, but other Futurist are welcome to respond as well.

DFs claim that there is one "AntiChrist" that will rule the world in the "end-times". Yet as Reba had shown there is no scriptural reference of any one anti christ. My question is then. What is the scriptural basis for this alleged "Anti Christ"?

Please use scripture to support your arguments.

I look forward to your response.

[philpott]

For preterists (incl. partials), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 Ad, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour."

[Hitch]

03-13-2003 @ 05:57 PM
philpott:

For preterists (incl. partials), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 Ad, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour." Well there were lots of folks who liked to eat chicken before the fall. There a lots of folks who like to eat chicken today. Yet many goverments, kindoms, and empires have come and gone. And this somehow prove no chicken consumers live today?

I reckon your reasoning is strained.


take care

Hitch

[Lizard]

03-13-2003 @ 12:57 PM
philpott:

For preterists (incl. partials), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 Ad, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour."

Thanks for you input philpott. However, I really want this thread to stay on topic, that is biblical support for "The AntiChrist".

If you (or anyone esle) would like to start a new thread that raises the issue of 1 John 2:18 problems for the preterist, there are many pretersit here (including me :yipee:) who would be happy to respond.

Oh, and welcome to tweb. :hi:

FYI, we here at tweb prefer the term "orthodox preterist" to "partial preterist".

[philpott]

Faramir:

Sorry for the detour. I will start a new thread with this discussion.

Thanks,

Philpott

[CT292]

For preterists (incl. partials), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 Ad, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour."

Speaking as one of those preterists who readily admits that there are "many antichrists today", this current application is used in a sense of ethics rather than of prophetic fulfillment. Thus, the various Popes in history are "antichrists" (WCF XXV:6) in an ethical way and not in any prophetic way.

Even the late Dr. Bahnsen, who was a preterist, nevertheless had taught that the Beast of Revelation 13 was typified in our current godless civil government. (cf. Helping the Poor Without Feeding the Beast (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe086.htm)). Yet also taught that Imperial Rome was the prophetic fulfillment of Revelation 13-19.

As for 1 John 2:18, the preterist interpretation is inescapable: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

See also, 1 John 4:3: "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John lived in the "last times" when his prophecy would find fulfillment. Yet this does not rule out other"types" of antichrists in the future who are but pale imitations of the original prophetically fulfillied ones in John's day. You've no doubt heard the term, "copycat killers" Thus, current antichrists are mere "copycats" of the original ones, but are not to be seen as fulfilling any bible prophey which has already been fulfilled.

Colin

[Lizard]

Thanks for the reply Colin. As a fellow preterist, I really appreciate it. However you might want to post in the thread that Philpott will be starting on this subject. Once you do that, I will be happy to delete it here so this thread can stay on the topic of biblical proof for "the AntiChrist".

[GrayPilgrim]

Not meaning to go off topic but wanting to straighten out a possible lexical fallacy that I see developing here. The Biblical use for a term and the Systematic Theology use of the same term are not the same thing. Now you are going to say I have shown my weakness. Problme is lets look at a less debated word "sanctification":

In ST it is the synergistic process begun at salvation where God refines and purifies the beleiver.

The Biblical use of the same term:

Set apart for a particular ppurpose (can refer to a pot or pan) (Leviticus)
To make something acceptable (Acts)
Saved (especially in 1 Corinthians)
Roughly the same as the ST meaning (Hebrews)


So to force the Biblical usage on a ST term is an invalid form of argumentation.

GP

[Jaltus]

NIV Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.
4 Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.
6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.
7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.


NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.


Just because the word "antiChrist" does not appear does not mean the concept is not there.

[efta777]

Just because the word "antiChrist" does not appear does not mean the concept is not there.

No indeed, the concept is all over the place, and I'll be the first to admit that the beast of Revelation is indeed an anti-Christ. I am perfectly okay if everyone wants to use the term "THE Anti-Christ" when referring to this beast, because that's what he is. However, where I begin to have a problem is where people take verses from other books and say that they are talking about the same Anti-Christ as the Beast in Revelation, even if there is no evidence.

[Lizard]

03-14-2003 @ 12:37 AM
Jaltus:

NIV Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.
4 Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.
6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.
7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.


NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.


Just because the word "antiChrist" does not appear does not mean the concept is not there.

OK Jaltus, I will concede that the "concept of antichrist",is elswhere in the Bible, I never denied that. Of course there are many differnent "concepts" of antichrist. As efta pointed out many (not all) furturist make a direct comparison between the term antichrist as defined in John's epistles and the beast of Revelation. These are two differnet "concepts" of antichrist.

Here is a quote from Tim LaHaye (as quoted in End Times Fiction, by Gary DeMar, p. 137) that gives the concept of antichrist used by some futurist.

The Bible repeatedly predicts, however, that one person will arise as the embodiment of all anti-Christian attitudes, purposes, and moties that Satan has implanted in his emissaries throughout past cetnturies

It is this concept of the AntiChrist that there is one personification of all that is contrary to all that is Christ that I do not see. That is that there is one "The AntiChrist" predicted by scripture.

The concept of the antichrist described by LaHaye, would of course include the concept of antichrist in 1st and 2nd John, but it is far beyond the mere apostacy that John used to describe an antichrist, as Gary DeMar goes on to show (IBID):


anyone who "denies" the Father and Son (1 John 2:23)
"every spirit that does not confess Jesus" (1 John 4:3)
"those who do not acknowledge Jesus" (I John 4:3)
"those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 7)




And of course the concept of antichrist also applies to the peson of lawlessness. Of course when you quoted the passage from 2 Thes., you left out verse 7 (which is a preterist favorite)

NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. (emphasis added :teeth: )


GP:

Not meaning to go off topic but wanting to straighten out a possible lexical fallacy that I see developing here. The Biblical use for a term and the Systematic Theology use of the same term are not the same thing. Now you are going to say I have shown my weakness. Problme is lets look at a less debated word "sanctification":

Not off topic at all GP. It is the practice of (some) furturist of interchanging the Biblical use of the term antichrist and the ST use of that term that I was trying to address with this thread. (You just said it much better than I ever could have :doh: :argh: :xmm:)


Of course efta also said it much better than I could:

03-14-2003 @ 12:44 AM
efta777:

No indeed, the concept is all over the place, and I'll be the first to admit that the beast of Revelation is indeed an anti-Christ. I am perfectly okay if everyone wants to use the term "THE Anti-Christ" when referring to this beast, because that's what he is. However, where I begin to have a problem is where people take verses from other books and say that they are talking about the same Anti-Christ as the Beast in Revelation, even if there is no evidence.

Thanks efta :thumb:

To sum up:

I agree that the "concept" of antichrist (at least as defined by ST) is found outside of John's epistles. However, this concept is far beyond the concept of antichrist as used in the Bible. And many (not all GP) furturist do not make this distiction.

I have yet see any one give biblical evidence that there is one "The AntiChrist" that is a personification of the antitesis of Jesus. Which is the concept of antichrist used by some furturist.

In Christ

Faramir

[Darth Xena]

Good show Faramir!!

And I would say on a side note, I will be developing the idea of "antichrist" in my upcoming debate with Stevencarr on false messiahs. But... I find this one thing strange....

Futurists posit that the Book of Revelation says more about the "antichrist" than any other book, yet the term is not used once. I do not dispute that the broad concept is there as Faramir pointed out, but a specific identification of a person as THE antichrist is not there, which is odd indeed considering that the only person ever to use that phrase is the Apostle John who also wrote Revelation.

[Lizard]

Thanks Dee Dee.

:blush:

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

You are again making a lexical error, as perhaps futurists do as well.

There is a world of difference between being an antichrist and the antichrist.

The antichrist appears in Revelation, not in John's Epistles (please, no quibbles over Revelation also being an epistle). The antichrist is the one who will proclaim himself messiah and rule over the world. Obivously, that is the opposite of Jesus, who had others proclaim Him messiah and died for the entire world.

Hence, The antichrist.

[John Reece]

The antichrist appears in Revelation
That is sheer presupposition.

Cite the text in which the word "antichrist' appears in Revelation.

Otherwise, admit that you are presupposing that a being in Revelation, that does not match up with any biblical textual description of "antichrist", is in fact The Antichrist.

[Jaltus]

John,

You are also making the lexical fallacy, the very reason I wrote my post!

Show me where Trinity is. Show me where incarnation is.

My entire point was that the concept can be there when the words are not! Good grief, read my posts!

[John Reece]

O.K., Jaltus.

You got me on that one.

:smile:

[Darth Xena]

Today @ 02:24 PM
Jaltus:

Dee Dee,

You are again making a lexical error, as perhaps futurists do as well.

There is a world of difference between being an antichrist and the antichrist.

The antichrist appears in Revelation, not in John's Epistles (please, no quibbles over Revelation also being an epistle). The antichrist is the one who will proclaim himself messiah and rule over the world. Obivously, that is the opposite of Jesus, who had others proclaim Him messiah and died for the entire world.

Hence, The antichrist.


I disagree Jaltus, I think.. or perhaps we are speaking past each other. Revelation does not say that the "Beast" will declare himself Messiah if we are going to quibble, but I will agree the Beast is aposited there as an contrast to Christ, but the Beast does not make that claim in a narrow sense at least. And he/it wil not rule the entire world in the same way that Jesus died for the whole world. Different "worlds" in view.. Jesus died for the entire world meaning people who ever lived or will. The Beast ruled the Roman Empire. Nowhere near the same thing.

The Beast is of course antichrist, but not THE antichrist. There is no such Biblical figure. And the Beast in Revelation is not simply a man, but is also the Empire and also the apostate Jewish system. They are all antichrist. There is not THE antichrist.

[Jaltus]

The Beast is of course antichrist, but not THE antichrist. There is no such Biblical figure. And the Beast in Revelation is not simply a man, but is also the Empire and also the apostate Jewish system. They are all antichrist. There is not THE antichrist. I totally disagree. As a preliminary, I am arguing from within the futurist ideal, since I am assuming that is what the question is about.

First off, the religious system, assuming it is held up by a single figure, would be the beast of the sea, since it causes people to worship the first beast.

Secondly,
Rev 13
2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.
4 Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.
6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.
7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Obviously, the beast is worshipped by all the world, just as Jesus died for all the world. Remember, John wrote the G of J also, so this is picking up the same general concept.

Third, he died and rose again, something that OBVIUSLY has a direct connection to Jesus, a messianic claim and a claim to divinity. What else do you think that means?

At least you are finally arguing eschatology with me, I was afraid you'd run off, chicken-girl.

[Hitch]

Hmmmmm demands worship,,, rules the world,,, and called a beast and lasted 42 months...and was certainly an antichrist...living in the first century,,,

Starts with N

[Darth Xena]

Did you see that I have a pet Jaltus? Isn't he quite dapper?

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

Re:
John,

You are also making the lexical fallacy, the very reason I wrote my post!

Show me where Trinity is. Show me where incarnation is.

My entire point was that the concept can be there when the words are not! Good grief, read my posts!

I have acknowledged that you caught me responding to a statement you made in a post without having carefully read the entire post.

For that, I apologize.

However, I’m not so sure my comment necessarily qualifies as a lexical fallacy.

You wrote:
My entire point was that the concept can be there when the words are not!

But just because the concept can be there without the word being there does not necessarily mean that it is there. The burden of proof lies with the claim that it is there without the word being there.

If I had written, “The fact that the word antichrist does not occur in Revelation means that there is no reference to the concept of antichrist in revelation”, then that would indeed be a lexical fallacy. But that was not my comment.

Here is what I wrote:
Cite the text in which the word "antichrist" appears in Revelation.

Otherwise, admit that you are presupposing that a being in Revelation, that does not match up with any biblical textual description of "antichrist", is in fact The Antichrist.

You say that just because the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible does not mean the concept is not there.

True, but for that to be a relevant analogy, it would have to be the case that the word “Trinity” does occur in the Bible and is defined therein.. Then in a context that does not have the word “Trinity”, we have a concept that does not match the definition given for the word “Trinity”, asserted to be the Trinity. Only in such a case would a reference to the Trinity be a relevant analogy

In 1 John 2:22 we have this definition of “the antichrist”: Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

My point is that the biblical concept of “the antichrist” (as defined in the scriptures) is not in Revelation, not merely that the word is not there.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 02:12 AM
Hitch:

Hmmmmm demands worship,,, rules the world,,, and called a beast and lasted 42 months...and was certainly an antichrist...living in the first century,,,

Starts with N


When was Nero resurected?

[Darth Xena]

The image of the Beast shifts repeatedly in Revelation from Nero to the Roman Empire (and I would argue that there are two beasts, the land beast (apostate Israel) and the sea beast (Nero/Roman Empire). Nero committed suicide, the Empire was thrown into a turmoil and racked by civil war and seemed like it was doomed to dissolve, but it was not but was "resurrected" back power.

[John Reece]

When was Nero resurected?

This is not my comment, and I have no interest in defending it. But it is interesting to consider:

It is not an actual Roman emperor, but a supernatural monster from the abyss that is to play the part of the Nero redivivus, and that in the immediate future. - R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC), volume 1, page xcvii.

[Darth Xena]

I need to learn to do that Greek and Hebrew font thing.

[David]

to understand scriptures, you have to take the predominance of scriptures, and get the basics right and progress thru consistently and NOT get hung up on One Word or as the preterrists do on a misplaced pronoun and four verses.

The key is that the Bible is consistent and meshes together perfectly and surely the Lord God will do nothing except he revealeth his secrets unto his servants the prophets.

For who will obey unless the trumpet is clear and the Lord obviously didn;t leave us in the dark but the truth is there for all to see if they search and their heart is right.

The Lord isn't responsible for our lack of knowledge, we are... so we have to get busy and make progress.

The AC is not all the little anti-Christs as many little AntiChrists don;t lead the last world government as stated in 2 Thess 2. One person sits on the throne not many, and one man is called the beast as anyone that reads revelation realizes. His name differs from Son of Perdition to beast, to King of the North, to little Horn etc. etc but they are talking about the same man, for even the NWO knows and states absolutely that they have found their man and are training him and he will come forth and will rule, the whole dark side knows this, as even common sense should tell any searcher this as man wants the embodiment of leadership in ONE MAN, and so it will happen because ' it is written'

So read Daniel 2,4,7,8,9,11,12 Rev 11,,12,13,16,17,18,

It is no mystyery but as plain as day and night. The whole world doesn't bow to many leaders but One, their isn;t many leaders images on the Image of the beast but ONE, he has a mulitidude of little anti-christ followers who take His Mark but there is only ONE SUPREME LEADER.

He has a distinctive face, distinctive speech, distinctive method, and he is very religious and will seduce the whole world except the elect.

SEE Daniel 2, 7,8, 9, and postings on AC Board. http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Anti-ChristsProphecies.html


And please don;t be so naive and close minded to think his name has to be ANTI_CHRIST in every verse, that's ludicrous. If you know the time line and his characteristics you know who is being talked about.

An evil hierarchy has an ultimate leader thatbis tiotally possessed by one and ony one Satan, His name adds up to 666 and he is one man and not many... That's a given and easy to answer for anyone that has studied prophecy as a whole.

Do NOT get tripped off by One WORD or a few verses, SEE the forest before trying to figure out specifics and the trees.

David

PS) Forgive my typos no time to correct my pecking ... Sorry

[Darth Xena]

The When of a prophecy is equally as important as the what. If the when is ignored, the what can mean almost anything for any time. God can tell time, and He can communicate it to us accurately. When God deigns to give us a time reference, He is putting His very reputation on the line under the test for false prophesy unless it is impliedly conditional.

[Darth Xena]

If soon, near, and at hand, do not mean soon, near, and at hand, what words could God have chosen if He really did want to say soon, near, and at hand?

[efta777]

He could have said, "Hey, listen up, this is all going to happen to YOU, not your ancestors, not distant relatives, but YOU!" Or, for short: "This generation will not pass away..." :brow:

[Darth Xena]

Or "there are some standing here who will not taste death until....."

Eeek!!!

But for the record, I know that DeMar and others place a lot of weight on the use of "you" - I do not. I think with the other indicators, it is strong, but I do not believe it can bear the weight placed upon it by some preterist exegetes. You will notice that I rarely if ever (and I cannot remember doing it once) use that in my argumentation.

[Jaltus]

John,
My point is that the biblical concept of “the antichrist” (as defined in the scriptures) is not in Revelation, not merely that the word is not there. And I am disagreeing with you. Oh, I think that nowadays we use "the antichrist" much differently than John used "an antichrist" in his epistles, but the modern concept has so innundated the church that the evil figure of Revelation cannot but be THE antichrist.

The reason that the figure in Revelation is called THE antichrist is deliniated above in my previous post.

[Darth Xena]

I suspected we were speaking past each other. You are using then a modern anachronistic designation, and okay I have no problem there. By that standard if we starte using the designation Frita Farkle to depict this figure, than sure, Revelation has Frita Farkle thoughout it. But I think the argument was that Biblically speaking, the Beast is not THE antichrist as THE antichrist is not a strictly Biblical concept. But is THE antichrist a modern idea that can find a referent in Revelation? Sure. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

[Jaltus]

My point was a little more than that, as the reason we use "antichrist" is because he is the one to go against Jesus and to claim (or have the claim made for him) that he is the messiah.

Hence the difference between the I John usage and the Revelation usage.

[Darth Xena]

And again that makes him or it antichrist, but not THE antichrist in a Biblical sense as I do not think the Bible teaches a THE antichrist. But certainly the Beast is antichrist which again allows for our designation.

[Jaltus]

I guess. I am noting that in I John there are a bunch of antichrists and the spirit of antichrist, which is why the designation "THE antichrsit" for the Revelation beast would be okey dokey.

But at this point, it is just semantics.

[John Reece]

Another interesting comment re Nero redivivus.

Again, not my comment. And again, I have no interest in defending the comment, or in this case the commentator and his theses.

13:18 We are now told in so many words that "the beast" is not just a symbol but an epithet designating an actual human being, whose person has been given some description in the verses of this chapter.

The beast has conquered the world, and all nations and peoples worship him. This evidence shows the beast to be a Roman emperor. The description is more definite, however. Three times, and with impressive emphasis (verses 3, 12, 14), this beast (emperor) is characterized as one who has recovered from a sword-stroke which had seemed to deal a mortal wound. This designates with certainty the emperor Nero, as no one doubts who knows the history of the legendary Nero redivivus.

This identification is at once confirmed in another way. The name is not given directly, but its "number" is furnished, and he who has wisdom may "reckon" it.

Each letter of the alphabet (Greek, Roman, or Semitic) has its fixed numerical value, and numbers, great or small, and are commonly expressed by letters or combinations of letters. It was long ago seen to be probable, and is now certain, that the intended interpretation of the number 666 is found in the Semitic writing of the name Neron Qesar, Nero Caesar; the numerical values being as follows: nun = 50; resh = 200; waw = 6; nun = 50; qoph = 100; samekh = 60; resh = 200..
The Apocalypse of John, Charles C. Torry, Late Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale (1900-1932); founding director of the American School of Oriental Research, Jerusalem (1901).

[GrayPilgrim]

John R quoted:
...It was long ago seen to be probable, and is now certain, that the intended interpretation of the number 666 is found in the Semitic writing of the name Neron Qesar, Nero Caesar; the numerical values being as follows: nun = 50; resh = 200; waw = 6; nun = 50; qoph = 100; samekh = 60; resh = 200.

Thanks I have heard for years that Nero equaled 666, but never been shown how that would work. The addition of qsr solves taht problem. My guess of why some manuscripts have 616 is that they dropped the final Nun and thus lost 50. Once again, thanks.

GP

[Darth Xena]

GP did you mean 616??

[GrayPilgrim]

Yup, and I went back and edited.

[Darth Xena]

Okay cool.... I think I have some more neat informatin on this if I can dig it up to post it.

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

I am noting that in I John there are a bunch of antichrists and the spirit of antichrist, which is why the designation "THE antichrsit" for the Revelation beast would be okey dokey.

John did not just write about “an antichrist”. And he did not just write about “the spirit of antichrist”. In 2:20 he uses the very specific phrase “the antichrist, in the context of a very clearly stated definition of “the antichrist.”

You seem to take the legendary myth of Antichrist and overlay the actual words of scripture with that legendary figure.

Neither the beast in Revelation nor the man of sin/lawlessness in Thessalonians match up with the definition of the antichrist in 1 John.

But at this point, it is just semantics.

To me, biblical exegesis is not “just semantics”.

[John Reece]

GP,

I have the scoop on 616, but it will take me a while to copy it. I propose to type out the entire explanation given by Gentry in his doctoral thesis.

Coming up shortly...

[Darth Xena]

Dear John that is what I was referring to... Gentry's doctoral thesis. And I think you misinterpreted Jaltus. He was not referring to the textual examamination as "semantics" he was referring to some of the differences that he and I were having. Some of the differences that he and I were having with this issue were the results of semantics. I can assure you that Jaltus has the utmost respect for exegesis of the text and does not come to it flippantly.

[Hitch]

Today @ 08:38 PM
John Reece:

GP,

I have the scoop on 616, but it will take me a while to copy it. I propose to type out the entire explanation given by Gentry in his doctoral thesis.

Coming up shortly...

I have the North published works of Gentry on CD. I f anyone cares to have a passage posted let me know.


Actually I have 64 titles on that CD. North waved copyright so if there is a way Tweb could use it I'll be glad to oblidge.
H

[John Reece]

GP,

As promised:

The Textual Variant “616”
As mentioned previously, although the number 666 is the undeniably certain reading of the original autograph, there is an intriguing textual variant that appeared very early in Revelation’s manuscript history. That variant preserved the number of the beast as “616.” There is not only some slight manuscript evidence for this variant, but also the historical record of it in Irenaeus and the Donatist Tyconius. Upon a careful consideration of this variant, we can fairly draw the conclusion that this variant points to Nero as well.

In the discipline of textual criticism, the critic’s task is to discover the original reading of a handwritten text by analysis of available copies of the text. The critic often is forced to do so on the basis of various probability factors presented by the whole array of manuscript evidence. Textual variants necessarily fall into two broad groups: those that arise by accident and those that arise by intention. There are various ways by which accidental variants can mar the text. There are errors of sight, caused by a confusion of similarly drawn letters; errors of writing, where a scribe inadvertently writes one letter for another; errors of hearing (especially when a text is being dictated to copyists) due to the similarity of sounds between certain, diphthongs, etc.; and errors of judgment, where, for example, an abbreviated word might have been put in for the wrong unabbreviated form. Intentional variants can occur for any number of reasons and these reasons are more difficult to discern. But “for the most part” they are derived “from attempts by scribes to improve the text in various ways.”

The two leading opinions before the textual critic in the present instance are 666 and 616. In the earlier extant manuscripts the number is written out in words that are quite different: six hundreds and sixty-six is written εξακοσισιοι εξηκοντα εξ; “six hundreds and sixteen are written: εξκακοσιοι δεκα εξ. Or, as in some of the later manuscripts – and almost certainly in the original – the variant numbers are written thus: 666 appears as χξς; and 616 appears as χις. The letters in question are ξ (60) and ι (10). Immediately the Greek student recognizes the difficulty of an accidental confusion accounting for the divergence. It is difficult to see how an error of sight, sound, writing, or judgment could account for the variant; the letters are as different in style, size, and sound as any two Greek letters could be. Obviously the variant is of the intentional class. But why?

Although such a problem is necessarily difficult to trace down, a strong case can be made for an early copyist’s intentionally altering the number to make the discerning of the referent easier. If the Beast’s number in the unadulterated text does refer to Nero Caesar (as seems evident from the evidence cited above); and if this fact would be recognizable with a degree of effort by the original recipients of the letter (as should be most likely if Revelation was written to be understood by, rather than to taunt, the persecuted recipients); then it should be no mere coincidence that 616 is the numerical value of “Nero Caesar” when spelled in Hebrew by transliterating it from its Latin spelling. This would seem satisfactory to explain the rational for the divergence: so that the non-Hebrew mind might more readily discern the identity of the Beast. Even Guthrie, who rejects the Nero theory, grants that this variant gives the designation Nero “a distinct advantage.” As Metzger writes: “Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters נרון קסר is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form of Nero Caesar נרו קסר is equivalent to 616.” Thus, rather than either being inconsequential to or overthrowing the Nero theory of 666, the textual variant provides a remarkable confirmation of the theory.
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation = doctoral dissertation by Kenneth L. Gentry

[John Reece]

Dee Dee wrote:
I think you misinterpreted Jaltus. He was not referring to the textual examamination as "semantics" he was referring to some of the differences that he and I were having. Some of the differences that he and I were having with this issue were the results of semantics. I can assure you that Jaltus has the utmost respect for exegesis of the text and does not come to it flippantly.

Thanks for the clarification, Dee Dee.

Things can get confusing when posts are flying back and forth from multiple parties.

[John Reece]

My apologizes to you, Jaltus.

I did not believe you consider biblical exegesis to be a matter of mere semantics. I had some misgiving about appearing to assume so, but I did not know the reason for what you wrote (as explained by Dee Dee), and I did not know how else to respond to it, assuming that you were responding to my posts. I really took it as a dismissive belittling of my comments rather than as an assumption that that is your attitude toward biblical exegesis.

My perception was that I was getting more than I deserved of that from the start (of my entry into Theology Web), and I got rather sensitive about it.

Blessings,

John

[adam.naranjo]

I thank John reace for puting up that info on 666/616.

You know what?

I find that the problem with these forums tends to be that Hardly anyone who holds a certain point of view has actually read the works of those who disagree with them.

When I actually dared to read Kenneth Gentry and Bahnsen and DeMar and Mathison etc,. I was blown away by the evidence offered in favor of Orthodox preterism. Having been a DF for years I didn't expect to have my eschatological worldview blown to bits by the scholarly work of the authors mentioned above -- as well as the witness of church history.

I suggest that these eschatological debates be withheld in some fashion, until those involved have read the appropriate material. Let us (those who have read both sides of the issue, HONESTLY) point others to the works of those who deserve to be heard.

http://www.americanvision.com

kennethgentry.com (http://www.kennethgentry.com/)

cmfnow.com (http://www.cmfnow.com)

I urge DF's to READ the OTHER VIEW!!!
Please!!!
READ!!!
I know it's not as easy as writing posts on a website all day, but please READ for goodness sake.

Adam.Naranjo

[John Reece]

And I thank you, Adam.Naranjo, for your comment.

John

[Hitch]

Today @ 10:39 PM
adam.naranjo:

I thank John reace for puting up that info on 666/616.

You know what?

I find that the problem with these forums tends to be that Hardly anyone who holds a certain point of view has actually read the works of those who disagree with them.

When I actually dared to read Kenneth Gentry and Bahnsen and DeMar and Mathison etc,. I was blown away by the evidence offered in favor of Orthodox preterism. Having been a DF for years I didn't expect to have my eschatological worldview blown to bits by the scholarly work of the authors mentioned above -- as well as the witness of church history.

I suggest that these eschatological debates be withheld in some fashion, until those involved have read the appropriate material. Let us (those who have read both sides of the issue, HONESTLY) point others to the works of those who deserve to be heard.

http://www.americanvision.com

kennethgentry.com (http://www.kennethgentry.com/)

cmfnow.com (http://www.cmfnow.com)

I urge DF's to READ the OTHER VIEW!!!
Please!!!
READ!!!
I know it's not as easy as writing posts on a website all day, but please READ for goodness sake.

Adam.Naranjo Dont hold your breath. But dont worry iether. The best students will question, and when faced with the usual responses, locate the resources now available. And remember, unlike most of us, DF teachers do not recommend their readers examine other views, most warn against it. for obvious reasons.

Its amazing how often I come across DFs who have never before encountered anyone they believe to be a committed christian who
dares question 'Dispensational Truth' much less who actually holds a conrtary view.

take care



Hitch

[Jaltus]

John,

Np. Misunderstandings happen especially when you are just getting to know the style of those you are debating.

I also rarely dismiss someone's posts unless I know them and they are working on their particluar hobby horse (a certain KJVO comes to mind). If I am going to dismiss you, or just a single post of yours, I let you know it, hehe.

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

:smile:

Thanks much for cutting me some slack as a newcomer.

[Darth Xena]

Hey John thank you for posting that stuff.. you saved me a LOT of typing. One thing though in response to Adam's post, it would be great if people read that stuff first, but a lot of people just don't have the time or whatever other reason there may be. I find actually these forum discussions quite fruitful... I have gotten numerous PMs and emails over the years from people who never posted but were "lurking" who have told me that I am responsible in large part for their change of eschatological view over a long period of time of reading posts and exchanges.

[John Reece]

Twas a pleasure, Dee Dee.

:smile:

Thanks for Corralling me into TWeb.

:yipee:

[Darth Xena]

I am so glad you came. I find your material very interesting...

[Bill the Cat]

Has anyone ever heard of the "Ezekiel War"?

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 07:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71805#post71805)
Bill the Cat:

Has anyone ever heard of the "Ezekiel War"? Yes.

[Bill the Cat]

and.... when is it supposed to take place in everyone's eschatological view?

[Woman]

GP,

Can you explain to me a little about Systematic Theology? This is another term with which I am unfamiliar. Is it a scholarly term? One which is encountered when studying theology at a higher level? Is it terminology that is more modern in order to allow debate with a clearer meaning? I note that you said ST meanings may be different than Biblical definitions?

Thanks if you have time...

[Hitch]

Today @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72621#post72621)
Bill the Cat:

and.... when is it supposed to take place in everyone's eschatological view? Speaking strictly for myself; I dont literalize it any more than John does. Its a generic reference to the history long battle that began when the enemy was thrown out of heaven. The enemy and those caught up in its kingdom (covenant breakers) always come againt the Covenant Keepers.
Sometimes its obvious, such as when Israel was persued by Egypt. Sometimes more subtle as when Sol offered sacrfices to foriegn gods. It can also be as direct as when Christ was personally tempted by the enemy.

The battle is continuous through history. The hight of the 'prince's' power was on this very day just shy of two thousand years ago. Three days later its power was forever broken. Although still active the might of the Resurrection was its death blow and the enemy can never regain its former strength. This is evidenced by the public visibility of the risen Christ.



Ezek 39:1
, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog,
(KJV)


Christ was born the Savior. Still it pleased God that he go through the historical process. For reasons only God knows , as He certainly could have destroyed the enemy outright, He chose to send His Son to take on our form, eat ,sleep ,grow and age until the time prepared before time. I reckon (Im guessing your objection will be in part: 'Why do we still struggle if this great war is won?') this is why, though the enemy was cast out and judged long ago God is pleased that we , the members individually and corporatlely of Christ's Body, also proceed through the historical process. It is given to us to realize in history, bit by bit, the great victory of the Cross and Resurrection.

The battle has always been the Lord's. So I dont thik it a stretch to see Gog as a literary device reminding us of the terrible power of our enemy, as compared to us, and the soverign destruction God renders aganst it, whether through spectacle of drowning whole armies in the sea, or the forlorn cries from the Cross, on our behalf.

Sorry to get so preachy

Take care

Hitch

[Evangel]

in regards to cmfnow.com what eschatogical viewpoint is Rev. Greg L. Bahnsen talking about in his articles PT025 Rapture and resurection and PT008 Future and Folly. I think he has a preterist standpoint but the text is beyond my knowledge of eschatology at this moment. Myself i have been a futurist my whole christian life but recently i have learned more about eschatology and i am inclined to join the ranks of Dee Dee Warren and his comrades, but id like to spend more time reading and praying about it until i can decide either way.

Is there a book on preterism that the local orthodox preterists would consider an accurate representation of their stand point? hopefully one that someone knew to the subject would readily be able to understand, or at least one that i dont have to keep going to dictionary.com to understand.

Also i know very little about Historicism other than that Protestants mainly follow it. any information you could devulge to me on this subject would be greatly appreciated, as always. internet links would be preferred.

[Hitch]

Is there a book on preterism that the local orthodox preterists would consider an accurate representation of their stand point? hopefully one that someone knew to the subject would readily be able to understand, or at least one that i dont have to keep going to dictionary.com to understand.


He shall Have Dominion Ken Gentry,1992

Gentry gives a gerneral overview of Post Millennialism.


The Days of Vengeance Dave Chilton,1987

Chilton's line by line OP commentary on the Apocalypse aimed squarely at DTS style futurism.

I cant urge you more strongly to explore at least one of these works.

take care

Hitch

[Evangel]

thank you very much. im probably going to go to the bookstore today and buy gentry's book.

[CT292]

Evangel wrote:

in regards to cmfnow.com what eschatogical viewpoint is Rev. Greg L. Bahnsen talking about in his articles PT025 Rapture and resurection and PT008 Future and Folly. I think he has a preterist standpoint but the text is beyond my knowledge of eschatology at this moment.

The late Dr. Bahnsen was an orthodox Preterist. In fact, he had taught the preterist method of prophetic interpretation to Dr. Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, David Chilton and James Jordan way back when they were all students of Bahnsen at Reformed Theological Seminary in the late 1970's. That is also where they learned about Theonomy too.

Dr. Bahnsen has a 63 audio tape preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation which was highly praised by Cornelius Van Til. This commentary is being transcribed for publication and it differs in a few details from Chilton's commentary (particularly in Rev 13-19), but otherwise, it is the same preterist postmillennialism.

Is there a book on preterism that the local orthodox preterists would consider an accurate representation of their stand point? hopefully one that someone knew to the subject would readily be able to understand, or at least one that i dont have to keep going to dictionary.com to understand.

Dr. Ken Gentry's The Beast of Revelation is highly recommended. Also, Marcellus Kik's Eschatology of Victory and Dr. Keith Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. There is also Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness, though not all preterists agree with DeMar's preterist view of Matt 24:36-48 or with a preterist view of 2 Peter 3. There is also, Joseph Balyeat's book, Bablyon: The Great City of Revelation which is a preterist exposition of Rev 17. And Jay Adams wrote a small Preterist book called The Time Is At Hand. This was used as a text book by Greg Bahnsen at RTS.

For more information, see Dr. Gentry's articles:

Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate (http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/CommentaryArticle.asp?id=4)

The Beast of Revelation Identified (http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/CommentaryArticle.asp?id=5)

Of Preterists and Postmillennialists (http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=16)

Also i know very little about Historicism other than that Protestants mainly follow it.

This is an outdated method of interpretation mainly used by the Protestant Reformers and puritans as a propaganda polemic against the Roman Papacy in their day. See the book, The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray for examples of historicist eschatology. But the so called "Year-Day" theory of Historicism has long since been discredited in favour of Preterism or Idealism or Futurism.

Steve Gregg's book, Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary compares Historicism with the other 3 views. Marvin Pate's book, The Four Views of the Book of Revelation does not even have Historicism in it and rightly dismisses it as being outdated and subject to continual revision and date setting.

Yet Kenneth Gentry wrote an Introduction to a 1990 reprint of David Brown's, classic 19th century historicist, postmillennial work, Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?. This work is considered to be the most powerful refutation of premillennial futurism ever written. Yet as Gentry pointed out in his Introduction, the issues between Historicism and preterism are minor and not relevant to the millennial discussion, and he also pointed out that Dr. Brown did take some prophetic statements preteristically.

Colin

[o2bwise]

anti-Christ is described with a belief.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In the Bible, the Greek for flesh is sarx and always means sinful flesh.

Much of the power of the gospel is the revelation of the victorious life of the Man Christ Jesus, who fought the battle where the battle must be fought - in fallen humanity, with a flesh with a predisposition to do evil.

The Catholic concept of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was conceived with an unfallen nature so as to be a suitable vessel for Christ. Thus, Christ is exempt from the heredity of fallen man.

Most of Protestantism does essentially the same thing. Even though Romans 1:3 states that Christ is of the seed (sperma in the Greek) of David according to the flesh and Hebrews 2 states that Christ took the same flesh and blood as the CHILDREN of men (what child of man's flesh was unfallen?) and that He likewise shared in the same, a popular position is that Christ was not of the sperm of a fallen man - and that the sperm is where moral degeneracy comes from. (I don't know what Bible states this, by the way.)

Either way, the reason for this anti-Christ position is the same. If Christ came in the same "baggage" as we are encumbered with, HE WOULD HAVE SINNED.

Or to put another way, "Where sin abounds, grace cannot possibly more abound."

anti-Christ is more a false concept that has infiltrated Christianity, than it is some persona.

And it has infiltrated almost all of Christianity.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Evangel]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73405#post73405)
CT292:
The late Dr. Bahnsen was an orthodox Preterist. In fact, he had taught the preterist method of prophetic interpretation to Dr. Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, David Chilton and James Jordan way back when they were all students of Bahnsen at Reformed Theological Seminary in the late 1970's. That is also where they learned about Theonomy too.

Dr. Bahnsen has a 63 audio tape preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation which was highly praised by Cornelius Van Til. This commentary is being transcribed for publication and it differs in a few details from Chilton's commentary (particularly in Rev 13-19), but otherwise, it is the same preterist postmillennialism.


heh then I was right and I also have much to learn about eschatology. Oh well I just recently purchased LaHayes new book. Since I couldn’t find any preterism books and his had support for his view and lots against preterism. But I am currently in the midst of The Case For Faith by Lee Strobel and I want to finish it first.


Dr. Ken Gentry's The Beast of Revelation is highly recommended. Also, Marcellus Kik's Eschatology of Victory and Dr. Keith Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. There is also Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness, though not all preterists agree with DeMar's preterist view of Matt 24:36-48 or with a preterist view of 2 Peter 3. There is also, Joseph Balyeat's book, Bablyon: The Great City of Revelation which is a preterist exposition of Rev 17. And Jay Adams wrote a small Preterist book called The Time Is At Hand. This was used as a text book by Greg Bahnsen at RTS.

For more information, see Dr. Gentry's articles:

Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate (http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/CommentaryArticle.asp?id=4)

The Beast of Revelation Identified (http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/CommentaryArticle.asp?id=5)

Of Preterists and Postmillennialists (http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=16)


thank you very much for the recommended books. I think the next book I will purchase will be Gentry’s. I will also find time to read the kindly provided links in the next few days. In the mean time id like to know your personal stance on the matter and why you believe it to be so.


This is an outdated method of interpretation mainly used by the Protestant Reformers and puritans as a propaganda polemic against the Roman Papacy in their day. See the book, The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray for examples of historicist eschatology. But the so called "Year-Day" theory of Historicism has long since been discredited in favour of Preterism or Idealism or Futurism.


I had sensed it was a little dated, but someone had mentioned it in another thread and I was curious as to what it was. I’ll take your word on its credibility, especially after my reading of some pro-historicism sites.

Steve Gregg's book, Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary compares Historicism with the other 3 views. Marvin Pate's book, The Four Views of the Book of Revelation does not even have Historicism in it and rightly dismisses it as being outdated and subject to continual revision and date setting.

Yet Kenneth Gentry wrote an Introduction to a 1990 reprint of David Brown's, classic 19th century historicist, postmillennial work, Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?. This work is considered to be the most powerful refutation of premillennial futurism ever written. Yet as Gentry pointed out in his Introduction, the issues between Historicism and preterism are minor and not relevant to the millennial discussion, and he also pointed out that Dr. Brown did take some prophetic statements preteristically.

Colin

I thank you again for taking the time to explain things to me. I am what you would call a “newbie” to eschatology and theology for that matter. I’m also curious as to what Idealism is.

[Darth Xena]

Dr. Bahnsen has a 63 audio tape preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation which was highly praised by Cornelius Van Til. This commentary is being transcribed for publication and it differs in a few details from Chilton's commentary (particularly in Rev 13-19), but otherwise, it is the same preterist postmillennialism.


Where can I get that!!!! Tell me!! Tell me!!!

[CT292]

Evangel wrote:

I am what you would call a “newbie” to eschatology and theology for that matter

I think the next book I will purchase will be Gentry’s

For a "newbie" I would not recommend Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion book. That work is really for advanced study.

I would recommend, Keith Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope for postmill studies and also, John J. Davis's, Christ's Victorious Kingdom.

For introductory orthodox preterist studies, I would recommend, David Chilton's The Great Tribulation and his, Paradise Restored books.

Colin

[John Reece]

Today @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74132#post74132)
CT292:

For a newbie I would not recommend Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion book. That work is really for advanced study.

For introductory orthodox preterist studies, I would recommend, David Chilton's The Great Tribulation and his, Paradise Restored books.

Colin

I quite agree. Good advice worth heeding.

:thumb:

[Hitch]

Today @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74132#post74132)
CT292:

Evangel wrote: Well at least Evangel has learned that as one leans toward the Reformation the reading list expands geometricly.


For a "newbie" I would not recommend Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion book. That work is really for advanced study.

I would recommend, Keith Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope for postmill studies and also, John J. Davis's, Christ's Victorious Kingdom.

For introductory orthodox preterist studies, I would recommend, David Chilton's The Great Tribulation and his, Paradise Restored books. Colin may have a good point wrt Gentry but my HS reading level wasnt too much of a problem. Personally though its Chilton's in your face style that attracks my interest.

I reckon the majority have entered this view from many different angles and starting points so its good to have many responses. I was fortunate enough to be led by a life long DF so Im sure my trail was easier than some.

Colin Evangel; Please keep us posted as to what you actually do and your opinions as they change or remain .

Take care

Hitch

[John Reece]

Hitch:

Colin may have a good point with Gentry but my HS reading level wasn’t too much of a problem. Personally though its Chilton's in your face style that attracts my interest.

Yes.

My point was not that there is any difficulty in terms of reading comprehension re Gentry's book referenced above, but that it’s just bland and not likely to convince anyone that’s not already convinced.

That’s the value of Chilton’s books: he’s convincing.

John

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74608#post74608)
John Reece:

Hitch:



Yes.

My point was not that there is any difficulty in terms of reading comprehension re Gentry's book referenced above, but that it’s just bland and not likely to convince anyone that’s not already convinced.

That’s the value of Chilton’s books: he’s convincing.

John LOL Yup.

[efta777]

For a "newbie" I would not recommend Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion book. That work is really for advanced study.

For a good first book on Post-Mil preterism that gives a good start, I would recommend DeMar's "Last Day's Madness."




Evangel:
well I just recently purchased LaHayes new book.
Good choice. LaHaye's books are the very thing that turned me off of Dispensational Futurism. I read "Revelation Revealed" and I realized that while everything sounded okay on the surface, his entire theory falls apart when it's at all scrutinized. Even though I wanted to believe it, reading this book made me realize that LaHaye and other futurists (Like myself at that point) were completely off base in their Biblical exegesis. Therefore, I would recommend LaHaye's books to anyone wanting to find out why I stopped being a DF. Just be sure to test all of his theories.

[Lizard]

Today @ 01:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74718#post74718)
efta777:



For a good first book on Post-Mil preterism that gives a good start, I would recommend DeMar's "Last Day's Madness."




Good choice. LaHaye's books are the very thing that turned me off of Dispensational Futurism. I read "Revelation Revealed" and I realized that while everything sounded okay on the surface, his entire theory falls apart when it's at all scrutinized. Even though I wanted to believe it, reading this book made me realize that LaHaye and other futurists (Like myself at that point) were completely off base in their Biblical exegesis. Therefore, I would recommend LaHaye's books to anyone wanting to find out why I stopped being a DF. Just be sure to test all of his theories.

Two excellent recommendations. Revelation Revealed (or is it Revelation Unveiled) by Lahaye is the book that persuaded me that futurism (or at least traditional DF) was a house of cards. (I actually considered other forms of futurism before I imbraced preterism)

Last Day Maddness was the first preterist book I read.

[CT292]

In reply to Dee Dee's calm and low key request for obtaining the 63 tapes of Bahnsen's Exegesis of Revelation, you can try Mount Olive Tape Library (http://mtolive.entrewave.com/view/mtolive/) which has the tapes available.

For some reason, Covenant Media Foundation doesn't appear to have it.

Colin

[Darth Xena]

Thank you !!! That is awesome

[Bill the Cat]

Chilton ended up a full preterist, so why lean on his writings?

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 10:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77380#post77380)
Bill the Cat:

Chilton ended up a full preterist, so why lean on his writings? Mainly because he was not FP at the time of writting.


I also know that he died at a relativly young age and that fact lends credence to some of the things I ve heard about his mental state near the end. Although iIve never bothered to look deeply into the matter. His publisher ,North, has been very harsh in criticizing him wrt to his FP stance, yet still highly reccommends The Days of Vengeance I also highly reccommend Chilton's Rich Christians in An Age of Guilt Manipulators for anyone having questions about the so-called 'christian left'. He rips Sider to pieces.

Take care

Hitch

[CT292]

Bill the Cat wrote:

Chilton ended up a full preterist, so why lean on his writings?

Because Chilton's early preterist works are still orthodox, and his publisher, Gary North still stands by them inspite of Chilton's later defections after his tragic stroke which he had sufffered in 1994.

His rebuttal to Ronald Sider still remains as a decisive critique of so called "Christian socialism" and a helpful primer on Christian economics.

And nobody's "leaning" on Chilton's writings. There are plenty of other good orthodox preterist books available now, but back in the mid-1980's, Chilton's preterist works were ground breaking and can still be useful for an introduction to orthodox preterism.

His Commentary on Revelation however, should be read in light of Greg Bahnsen's published criticisms of it.

See: Review: Another Look at Chilton’s Days of Vengeance (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb075.htm)

Colin

[efta777]

You can also read "Days of Vengeance" for free on the net at www.freebooks.com, though for a book of that size I would highly recommend buying it (Not that I have yet, though I hope to soon). I was also just looking through some of the introductions there and I came accross a very funny word which I believe was coined in that book:

Pessimillenialism

[Bill the Cat]

The point I was making was that Chilton said that it was inevitable for a partial preterist to "fall off the cliff" into full preterism.

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 09:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78215#post78215)
Bill the Cat:

The point I was making was that Chilton said that it was inevitable for a partial preterist to "fall off the cliff" into full preterism. Well Cat he didnt say that in The Days of Vengeance



H

[Bill the Cat]

See my comment and quote here

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=77262#post77262

[Hitch]

Have you read much of Chilton Cat?

[Bill the Cat]

some, why? I've also read some of DeMAr, and it doesn't "rock my eschatological world" as Dee-Dee says.

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79026#post79026)
Hitch:

Well Cat he didnt say that in The Days of Vengeance



H

Nor did he say that in his other books.

It was only by means of second hand sources that I heard of Chilton's move to a full preterist view - and that after his books had all been published.

Unless I missed something I'm still unaware of....

:huh:

[Bill the Cat]

04-26-2003 @ 07:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79268#post79268)
John Reece:



Nor did he say that in his other books.

It was only by means of second hand sources that I heard of Chilton's move to a full preterist view - and that after his books had all been published.

Unless I missed something I'm still unaware of....

:huh:

"Some of you know my sort of gradual movement into full preterist position...I recently ran across a passage in ‘Paradise Restored’, that now I look at and think; that should have pushed me over the cliff, twelve years ago into full preterism! I don’t know why it didn’t! I don’t know what I would have done if somebody had come to me and said, ‘David Chilton, look at what you said!’ What I’m getting at is, here I am as a full preterist..." (David Chilton, Conference on Bible Prophecy, Oklahoma City, 1997)

No, he said it himself. His own book is what pushed him over to be a full preterist. So who's gonna follow him over the edge?