Our Featured Member Article: Raising Cain and Abel By Dee Dee Warren

[Trout]

Theology Web Proudly Presents Our Featured Member Article:


Raising Cain and Abel


By Dee Dee Warren

400

As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.

This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6…

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

…and state that this verse proves that there are two physical resurrections with an intervening Millennium. When confronted with the idea that the “first resurrection” is referring to the conversion experience, the argument is commonly stated that the Greek word for resurrection in this passage “anastasis” is never used for anything other than a physical resurrection, thus it must mean the same thing here when used of the “first resurrection.” At first blush, the argument appears to carry some force, but upon examination, it is really an exercise in question-begging. It is presumed the word never means anything different so it cannot mean something different here, but that is simply assuming what must be proven and pointing to one’s assumption as the proof. However, it is conceded that the other times the phrase is used in the New Testament it does refer to a physical resurrection, so in that sense, there is a presumption that it is used so here.

So how do I overcome this presumption? Well let’s see…. The word “anastasis” is communicating a concept. Words are not anything in themselves, but rather are containers for ideas. This word is a container for the concept of “being raised from the dead” in which being literally raised from the literal dead is indeed its primary meaning. However, this “concept” of being raised from the dead is used multiple times in Scripture to mean something else. In fact, it is used to describe the born again experience. Now if a premillennial believer were to ask me for another verse (other than Revelation 20:5, the verse under dispute) where the born again experience is very clearly called an “anastasis,” I would say that the request is improper. Why? Because it is not necessary for the actual word “anastasis” to be used for there to be a resurrection. It is apparent that in describing Christ’s resurrection, words other than “resurrection” are used, but no one disputes that a resurrection is being referred to. Also, there are ways to describe something without using the actual dictionary term, in other words, if you say Dee Dee never tells the truth, that is the same as calling me a liar even though you never used the actual word “liar.” Someone who never tells the truth is a liar by definition. By analogy, the born again experience is a resurrection by definition since the very descriptive words that define what a resurrection is are used of it. Let’s examine the Scriptures…

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

This verse says we were dead spiritually. This is the normal word used for dead. But we were made “alive.” This is resurrection by definition – something that is “dead” is made “alive.” Notably, the word for made alive is often used indisputably in the gospels for resurrection.

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

We were “buried” and then “raised,” this is all speaking of a spiritual experience which is the anti-type to the physical resurrection to come.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. “

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

And most importantly:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

All of these verses are very clearly describing a “resurrection” regardless of the fact that “anastasis” is not used with several references from the pen of John himself. This really isn’t that radical of a concept.

This point can also be proven by defeating the premillennial idea (and one that is absolutely necessary to them) that the “final resurrection” does not include everyone that ever lived. A premillennial debate opponent once put it to me this way,


There is only one resurrection we as believers experience. We do not have a part in the final resurrection. We have already been resurrected and rewarded with thrones and crowns by then.

To begin the dismantling of this position, it is helpful to look at other writings of John to determine what he was talking about. Does John elsewhere outside of Revelation 20 mention “two” resurrections? Yes of course….

Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Okay, what do we know from this passage? First, the passage teaches TWO resurrections. This is very important, and it tells us something about the timing of these TWO resurrections. The FIRST resurrection is something that was happening right then and continues….”the hour is coming and now is.” It is a continual event. ALL BELIEVERS HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED THIS. Other Scripture sheds light on exactly what is meant by this FIRST resurrection as shown above.

But our subject resurrection verses also speaks of a SECOND resurrection. What does the verse tells us about that event?

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

It says first that “the hour is coming”- that is it is yet future to when Christ was talking. It will involved ALL of the dead who are in the graves. The righteous will receive “life” and the wicked will received “condemnation” but they ALL are resurrected, it is just a qualitatively different resurrection. But this resurrection of ALL who are dead and buried is one event. It is not the righteous at point A and the wicked at point B which is at least a thousand years away from point A. It is not just the righteous of the Millennium.

Jesus makes the same point again:

“Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus is speaking of the resurrection of the righteous (which we have already seen is the same event as the resurrection of the wicked) which takes place on the last day. There are no days to follow. An argument from silence here will not do, that is, that Jesus has not spoken of the wicked for Jesus again uses “the last day” and does speak of the wicked.

He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Paul also speaks of this in Acts 17:31 – because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness.

Paul connects the two events in Acts 24:15 – I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

This utterly defeats the premillennial paradigm which has the righteous that die prior to the Millennium resurrected before the Millennium with the wicked being raised and judged at the end of the Millennium. Jesus makes the two events at the same time! Concurrent. ON THE LAST DAY. So the wicked are judged (which is spoken of in John 5 as occurring when they are resurrected) on the last day which is the same time that the righteous are resurrected. It is one event occurring at the end of time.

400

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Trout]

Notice – The rules for discussing this article will be the same as those found in the Eschatology 201 forum. If you have any questions regarding appropriate behavior you'll find the rules listed here: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12063) This is a departure from the traditional "Letters" decorum, the rules have been relaxed at the request of the author of this article. If you have an article you have written and would like to see it published here, please PM me or send an email to troutk13@theologyweb.com. If we like it and it fits within our guidelines for featured articles we'll consider posting it.

Thanks

[anderpow]

It just amazes me that one would think that God would allow the church to go through the tribulation. And then using one or two verses from here and there to back up the claim I can make the Bible say whatever I want if I use one verse here and one verse there and take it out of context but Dee Dee is Entitled to have her own view. I just think she wrong on this one!

[Dee Dee Warren]

It just amazes me that one would think that God would allow the church to go through the tribulation.

It amazes me that anyone thinks the Tribulation is future when the Bible clearly says it was a first century event. But that is another thread. We can be amazed by a zillion things.



And then using one or two verses from here and there to back up the claim I can make the Bible say whatever I want if I use one verse here and one verse there and take it out of context

And it is easy to say, difficult to prove. What I stated above has been the historic position of the church for oh about two thousand years. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that this then is a simple case of pulling things here and there. It may still be wrong, but it certainly isn't a case of using one or two verses here or there unless we think that the Church has been doing that for a few thousand years and we moderns know so much better. I think there is a bit more to it than that.




but Dee Dee is Entitled to have her own view. I just think she wrong on this one!

"My view" at least on this issue is the historic position ofthe Church. Those who wish to change the course of that ship have a large burden of proof. Anyways, I may be wrong on this one. We don't see that from this post.

[Trout]

You know. . .

In many circles the one resurrection viewpoint is borderline heresy, interestingly enough it seems to have been the classical position of the church for many centuries.

The last paragraph of The Athanasian Creed seems to clearly indicate one resurrection: (Attributed to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria around A.D. 325)


"He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation."


The Westminster Confession (A.D. 1646) has this to say:



Chapter XXXII.

Of the State of Man After Death, and and of the Resurrection of the Dead.

I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.

III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.

Dee Dee, do you know the origin of the multiple resurrection theology?

Was it ANF?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee, do you know the origin of the multiple resurrection theology?

Was it ANF?

I do not know the definite origin - whatever I say I am sure that somebody could dig up something earlier or different, but the origin of the popularization of this view is recent, and concurrent with modern dispensationalism - whether we take this back to Darby, the Plymouth Brethren, or even just the mass production of the Scofield Reference Bible in which the Bible is commentary on the notes.

[One Bad Pig]

This utterly defeats the premillennial paradigm which has the righteous that die prior to the Millennium resurrected before the Millennium with the wicked being raised and judged at the end of the Millennium. Jesus makes the two events at the same time! Concurrent. ON THE LAST DAY. So the wicked are judged (which is spoken of in John 5 as occurring when they are resurrected) on the last day which is the same time that the righteous are resurrected. It is one event occurring at the end of time.

:shocked: Now that's an eye-opener, no mistake about it!1 You aren't making it easy to be skeptical. Granted, I discarded the pre-Trib position years ago. However, I wasn't sure if mid- or post-Trib was the better position. Then I come here, and you consistently present preterist explanations that seem obvious! :dizzy: If you explain 1 Cor. 15 and Rev. 1-20 as well as you have Daniel/Olivet discourse/resurrection, you'll have yourself a convert. :teeth:



1Apologies to Samwise Gamgee.

[Dee Dee Warren]

:shocked: Now that's an eye-opener, no mistake about it!1 You aren't making it easy to be skeptical. Granted, I discarded the pre-Trib position years ago. However, I wasn't sure if mid- or post-Trib was the better position. Then I come here, and you consistently present preterist explanations that seem obvious! :dizzy: If you explain 1 Cor. 15 and Rev. 1-20 as well as you have Daniel/Olivet discourse/resurrection, you'll have yourself a convert. :teeth:

Revelation is a tough nut in some ways and not in others. I have found though that it is much easier to go through the clearer passages before tackling Revelation. 1 Cor 15 though is not tough at all. In fact it was 1 Cor 15 itself that made me abandon premillennialism. It is truly a premill deal-breaker. Let me give you something to think about.

1 Corinthians 15, verses 20 through 28.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

Now this passage tells us, at minimum, several things important to our discussion.

ONE. Christ was physically raised first, and then those who belong to Christ will be physically resurrected at His “coming.”

TWO. After this physical resurrection of those who belong to Christ, the “end” of Christ’s reign comes.

THREE. The “end” is characterized by Christ having all things put under His feet, ending all authority and power, and swallowing up death in victory.

Now - we have seen that from my article that the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked are on the last day - well that has to place the 1 Cor 15 event at the last day - which makes sense since the destruction of the last enemy, death, happens concurrently with Christ's return. If death is the last enemy there are no more. There can be no millenium in which satan stirs up a rebellion at the end and in which there are enough enemies of Christ to try to kill Him again. Impossible.

[One Bad Pig]

Revelation is a tough nut in some ways and not in others. I have found though that it is much easier to go through the clearer passages before tackling Revelation. 1 Cor 15 though is not tough at all. In fact it was 1 Cor 15 itself that made me abandon premillennialism. It is truly a premill deal-breaker. Let me give you something to think about.

1 Corinthians 15, verses 20 through 28.
I was troubled more by the end of the chapter (verse 52 in particular, which was instrumental in me rejecting pre-Trib).

[Dee Dee Warren]

But timing wise it flows with the points made - this is a history ending event, not a millenium beginning event.

[One Bad Pig]

But timing wise it flows with the points made - this is a history ending event, not a millenium beginning event.
Yes, but the "last trumpet" brings to mind the 7th trumpet judgement (about which point the two witnesses are resurrected), which would have occurred c. 70 AD under the preterist paradigm.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes, but the "last trumpet" brings to mind the 7th trumpet judgement (about which point the two witnesses are resurrected)....

Why should it? Revelation at that point mentions nothing about Christ's return (that allegedly is Chapter 19), and nothiikng about the resurrection of the saints. It may be a last trumpet (many trumpets were blown in the OT - of any event there was a last one) of that judgment event, but nothing indicates it is the last judgment of all time (trumpets are a horribly common symbol in Scripture) - in fact Revelation gives the vast timing indicator of the "thousand years" before the end of time, and the desturction of death, making the 1 Cor 15 event once again end the millennium. You have to remember that similarity of terminology does not entail exactness of reference.

[Bill the Cat]

Wish I had more time to run with this, but... :sigh:

Dee Dee, you wrest the very same words out of verse 4-5 that you use to prove a future resurrection of vs. 20. "they came to life" and the "the rest came to life". Gah, wish I had time to expound...

[One Bad Pig]

Why should it? Revelation at that point mentions nothing about Christ's return (that allegedly is Chapter 19), and nothiikng about the resurrection of the saints. It may be a last trumpet (many trumpets were blown in the OT - of any event there was a last one) of that judgment event, but nothing indicates it is the last judgment of all time (trumpets are a horribly common symbol in Scripture) - in fact Revelation gives the vast timing indicator of the "thousand years" before the end of time, and the desturction of death, making the 1 Cor 15 event once again end the millennium. You have to remember that similarity of terminology does not entail exactness of reference.
And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.<NASB>
This comes right after the seventh trumpet (v. 15), and seems to point to the final judgement -- and the trumpets in 1 Cor 15 and here are undeniably eschatological, which is why I made the connection. Rev. 11:11-12 sounds much like the Rapture, but in slow motion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.<NASB>
This comes right after the seventh trumpet (v. 15), and seems to point to the final judgement -- and the trumpets in 1 Cor 15 and here are undeniably eschatological, which is why I made the connection. Rev. 11:11-12 sounds much like the Rapture, but in slow motion.

Well again, the timing references in Revelation place that event after "a thousand years" - during a special time of restraint of satan and rule of the saints. So it cannot be refering to the final judgment - but Christ judges the dead at other intervals - in this "coming" He was pronouncing judgment on Israel - past and present. He was vindicating Himself and damning those that denied His prophets and forerunners (remember Jesus' woes to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 - that upon them would come the bloodguilt of the ages).

Also "judged" is a bad thing for the unjust but a good thingn for the just - remember in Revelation the dead saints under the altar are praying for vengeance and vindication - they are part of the dead that is "judged" - judged righteous and vindicated - the dead saints asked "how long" and this is the answer - now.

As Chilton affirmed: this is not the final judgment on the Last Day but rahter the historical vindication and avenging of the martyred saints, those who had suffered at the hands of ungodly Israel as Jesus had foretold.

With issues of judgment, unless one is a monist, one must believe there is a judgment immediatly upon death - your spirit does not go to the Lord. Each time Christ vindicates Himself and His power, His enemies, living and dead are judged. And at the final judgment, complete judgment will take place.

[One Bad Pig]

Well again, the timing references in Revelation place that event "a thousand years" - during a special time of restraint of satan and rule of the saints. So it cannot be refering to the final judgment - but Christ judges the dead at other intervals - in this "comng" He was pronouncing judgment on Israel - past and present. He was vindicating Himself and damning those that denied His prophets and forerunners (remember Jesus' woes to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 - that upon them would come the bloodguilt of the ages).

Also "judged" is a bad thing for the unjust but a good thingn for the just - remember in Revelation the dead saints under the altar are praying for vengeance and vindication - they are part of the dead that is "judged" - judged righteous and vindicated.

As Chilton affirmed: this is not the final judgment on the Last Day but rahter the historical vindication and avenging of the martyred saints, those who had suffered at the hands of ungodly Israel as Jesus had foretold.
Okay, I think I understand your point now. I'm still not sure how the timing references work out, though.

[Dee Dee Warren]

There is NO eschatololgical view that does not have problems. I will not say my view has NO problems, but it certainly has the least that I have seen. And when ALL the chronology of the Bible is laid out, it dovetails so perfectly. But we have been "brainwashed" (I am using that colorfully) in a rigidity with terms that is not Biblical - like "coming" must mean the Second Coming and "judgment" in this contexxt must mean the final judgment. It doesn't. Christ is judgment among the nations NOW (Psalm 110:7) - it is part of the Messianic reign.

[Bill the Cat]

Wish I had more time to run with this, but... :sigh:

Dee Dee, you wrest the very same words out of verse 4-5 that you use to prove a future resurrection of vs. 20. "they came to life" and the "the rest came to life". Gah, wish I had time to expound...

OK, can you tell I had no time to type this? :sigh:

Now, let's look at the text of vs 4 and 5.

Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.


If the "coming to life" in vs 4 is our Spiritual resurrection at salvation, the exact phrase is used of the rest of the dead in vs 5. There is no way around this verse meaning universal salvation if you are consistent with the 2 exact same phrases.

Teach you to use me as a whipping boy...:wink: :lol:

[Dee Dee Warren]

You don't start with Revelation and use that to overturn the passages I brought forth above. An answer will harmonize them all, so far, you have not provided an answer.

[Bill the Cat]

You don't start with Revelation and use that to overturn the passages I brought forth above. An answer will harmonize them all, so far, you have not provided an answer.

Dee Dee, your whole article does not explain why John would convey two entirely different concepts 15 words apart using exactly the same words. If "coming to life" in vs 4 means coming alive in Christ, then vs 5 is all the rest of the dead coming alive in Christ after. Or (for my view) vs 4 refers to a physical resurrection and vs 5, using the exact same words, refers to the exact same physical resurrection process. The born again experience is not a resurrection because our spirits were NEVER alive in Christ before our conversion. Resurrection is the reanimation of dead flesh. Every time resurrection is used, it is reanimation of a body. It referrs to something that was alive, died, and was raised, not something that was dead from the get go. Immediate context here is blatantly physical for both uses of "came to life".

[Dee Dee Warren]

Bill repeating a point several times only makes it doubly wrong. My WHOLE article did not deal solely with John 5, it harmonized John 5 with other passages (and you missed some large points with John 5) - the whole point of the article was showing how your interpretation of John 5 is impossible using other passages to show this. You must deal with the whole article otherwise you have just caused Scripture to contradict itself. It is a common tactic I find in these kinds of debates (and that is not coming out worded as nicely as I would like) that futurists often piecemeal verses and explain them away without coheriing them synoptically. So until you deal with the entire article's argumentn flow, namely the last day arguments, there is not much sense in responding.

One observation about John 5 though shows you to very flawed. Anyone care to point it out besides me?

[MacG]

DeeDee,
With all due respect, it seems to me that you have ignored the context rule here. If I am not mistaken, you are arguing that these verses in revelation refers to being born again. You go on to state that just because that Greek word never elsewhere refers to anything other than bodily resurrection it does not mean that that is has to here. These verses clearly refer to those who had been faithful to Christ not receiving the mark and were beheaded for it. Their bodies died for their born again witness, not for their spiritually unreformed witness. In other words they were born again before they were beheaded. The resurrection here refers to those dead bodies, does it not? "Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands."
Blessings,
MacG

[Dee Dee Warren]

I would love for a futurist to deal with the whole argument. It does not do to just focus on Rev 20 when that is just a peice (very small in fact in this article) of the argument.

[MacG]

I would love for a futurist to deal with the whole argument. It does not do to just focus on Rev 20 when that is just a peice (very small in fact in this article) of the argument.

Pardon me. I must have misunderstood. I thought your use of Rev 20 was the foundation from which the argument was proposed. I was going on if the foundation is faulty, then the prooftexts are meaningless.
Blessings,
MacG

[Dee Dee Warren]

No I was showing that the foundation of premill using Rev 20 was faulty. Merely pointing back to Rev 20 and saying nuh uh doesn't deal with the arguments I used to dismantle the futurist argument. I am not saying you are doingn that Mac, I am being more general here.

[gsmoluk2002]

It just amazes me that one would think that God would allow the church to go through the tribulation. And then using one or two verses from here and there to back up the claim I can make the Bible say whatever I want if I use one verse here and one verse there and take it out of context but Dee Dee is Entitled to have her own view. I just think she wrong on this one! :eek: I am with you on this one it would seem to me that people only see what they choose to see!
@gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

:eek: I am with you on this one it would seem to me that people only see what they choose to see!
@gsmoluk2002

Does that apply to YOU? Care to do a substantive rebuttal?

[gsmoluk2002]

It amazes me that anyone thinks the Tribulation is future when the Bible clearly says it was a first century event. But that is another thread. We can be amazed by a zillion things.



And it is easy to say, difficult to prove. What I stated above has been the historic position of the church for oh about two thousand years. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that this then is a simple case of pulling things here and there. It may still be wrong, but it certainly isn't a case of using one or two verses here or there unless we think that the Church has been doing that for a few thousand years and we moderns know so much better. I think there is a bit more to it than that.




"My view" at least on this issue is the historic position ofthe Church. Those who wish to change the course of that ship have a large burden of proof. Anyways, I may be wrong on this one. We don't see that from this post. :eek: You are wrong, and I still see "noooooooo" evidence to back up, your "fluft balony." You only see what you want to see, and then you believe it. I dont see it, and I dont belive it. "Prove it!" Were's the "History." @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

THAT is your idea of a substantive rebuttal?

:lmbo:

Okay, well futurists, there you go. Surely this is not your champion. I could argue for futurism better than this. Here is a clue buddy, this is a debate board. Debate is not plugging one's ears and going "lalalalalala" but it is actually engaging the points made. Statements like:

You will only see what you to see

And there is no evidence

WITHOUT engaging the points are, well, dumb. You are free to make them, but for the sake of the futurists I respect, please don't. It makes them look bad.

[gsmoluk2002]

Does that apply to YOU? Care to do a substantive rebuttal? :eek: It will be done let me know what you would like me to have done, and it will be ready for everyone to see. As an article!! "Very extsensive." @gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

THAT is your idea of a substantive rebuttal?

:lmbo:

Okay, well futurists, there you go. Surely this is not your champion. I could argue for futurism better than this. Here is a clue buddy, this is a debate board. Debate is not plugging one's ears and going "lalalalalala" but it is actually engaging the points made. Statements like:

You will only see what you to see

And there is no evidence

WITHOUT engaging the points are, well, dumb. You are free to make them, but for the sake of the futurists I respect, please don't. It makes them look bad. :eek: Well you are obviously upset or cranky, cause it shows!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over it and "prove it," what about the dark age's, or has that slipt your mind, with more church history you will learn a lesson!!! @gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

THAT is your idea of a substantive rebuttal?

:lmbo:

Okay, well futurists, there you go. Surely this is not your champion. I could argue for futurism better than this. Here is a clue buddy, this is a debate board. Debate is not plugging one's ears and going "lalalalalala" but it is actually engaging the points made. Statements like:

You will only see what you to see

And there is no evidence

WITHOUT engaging the points are, well, dumb. You are free to make them, but for the sake of the futurists I respect, please don't. It makes them look bad. :eek: How old are you? And can you act like a grown up? And I am far from "DUMB!" :bawl: @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dude, you are obviously clueless about what the article is about since history or the dark ages has zero to do with it. If you do not wish to debate the Scriptural points made within, please do not participate in this thread. You are thus far incoherent.

[gsmoluk2002]

Dude, you are obviously clueless about what the article is about since history or the dark ages has zero to do with it. If you do not wish to debate the Scriptural points made within, please do not participate in this thread. You are thus far incoherent. :eek: I am not going to feed into your childish behaivior, so please be advised, I am not your dude. Dee Dee. My name is George, and I am ready when you are with a rebutal of your article. And yes the dark ages have much to do with bible prophesy, it is clear you see what you want to see! I will be waiting for an answer for an article of rebutal. @gsmoluk2002 I n Jesus Gracious Name.

[Dee Dee Warren]

:eek: I am not going to feed into your childish behaivior, so please be advised, I am not your dude. Dee Dee.

George, it is you who have earned so far a reputation as a person of cocksure arrogance with no substnace thus far. When you have something substantive to say, I will address it. Please stop whining on my thread.



My name is George, and I am ready when you are with a rebutal of your article. And yes the dark ages have much to do with bible prophesy, it is clear you see what you want to see! I will be waiting fo an an answer for an article of rebutal. @gsmoluk2002 In Jesus Gracious Name.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Please do not participate further on this thread until you are going to rebut the issues in the opening post. Please note the article is narrowly focused on ONE issue. If you go down rabbit trails, please do not post them here. If you wish to deal with this ONE issue, feel free, otherwise keep it off this thread please. Your comment about the Dark Ages shows me you are clueless about the point being made but rather are on a futuristic hobby horse where you wish to prove your schema rather than focus on the one issue. If your post goes off topic in that manner, I will request it to be removed as I am asking you very bluntly, deal with the issues in the opening post. I am not interested in your entire scope of prophecy.

[gsmoluk2002]

It amazes me that anyone thinks the Tribulation is future when the Bible clearly says it was a first century event. But that is another thread. We can be amazed by a zillion things.



And it is easy to say, difficult to prove. What I stated above has been the historic position of the church for oh about two thousand years. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that this then is a simple case of pulling things here and there. It may still be wrong, but it certainly isn't a case of using one or two verses here or there unless we think that the Church has been doing that for a few thousand years and we moderns know so much better. I think there is a bit more to it than that.

Read what you said about Church History. Thats what I have been refering to! @gsmoluk2002




"My view" at least on this issue is the historic position ofthe Church. Those who wish to change the course of that ship have a large burden of proof. Anyways, I may be wrong on this one. We don't see that from this post.
And it is easy to say, difficult to prove. What I stated above has been the historic position of the church for oh about two thousand years. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that this then is a simple case of pulling things here and there. It may still be wrong, but it certainly isn't a case of using one or two verses here or there unless we think that the Church has been doing that for a few thousand years and we moderns know so much better. I think there is a bit more to it than that.

[gsmoluk2002]

And it is easy to say, difficult to prove. What I stated above has been the historic position of the church for oh about two thousand years. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that this then is a simple case of pulling things here and there. It may still be wrong, but it certainly isn't a case of using one or two verses here or there unless we think that the Church has been doing that for a few thousand years and we moderns know so much better. I think there is a bit more to it than that. :eek: You were clearly refering to Church History! Thats what I have been refering to! @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

Please deal with the issues in the opening post. I am not going to ask again before I report to a moderator. The context of that comment was that my view in the opening post has been the historic position. Please deal with the opening post.

And please stop double posting.

[gsmoluk2002]

I will respect the fact that some were along the line I may have gotten mixed up. I asure you I am problaby not on the same page as to what I was initally thinking about your article "Raising Cain and Able. @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

Fair enough. The only point I am dealing with in the article is the timing of the resurrection/rapture in a very narrow scope.

[Guitaristmike]

Hello Dee Dee,

Nice thread, I can see you have placed a lot of thought and time into your post and I must say it shows. :lol: I read your post two weeks ago and can see no one has engaged you in the passages you presented. So I figured why not :shrug:, we could sharpen one another

As I read through your thread I looked up the word anastasis, here is what I found from Stongs.

386 ἀνάστασις [anastasis /an·as·tas·is/] n f. From 450; TDNT 1:371; TDNTA 60; GK 414; 42 occurrences; AV translates as "resurrection" 39 times, "rising again" once, "that should rise" once, and "raised to life again + 1537" once. 1 a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat). 2 a rising from the dead. 2a that of Christ. 2b that of all men at the end of this present age. 2c the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored to life (Heb. 11:35).

According to the definition in Strongs, the view of the resurrection in Revelation 20 could not be used in the context of what you are referring to since it is referencing those who were beheaded for Christ. Instead it seems to be pointing to the actual first resurrection (rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:17). Now I must say I believe your argument has validity in that as a Christian I have been resurrected to a new life in Christ, i.e. Saved, born again, baptized into the family of God (Ephesians 4:5-6 not water but by Christ), resurrected to newness of life in Christ – all descriptions for salvation. So, I do agree with you on that (Romans 6:5 and the several others as you referenced). However, I find that it does not seem to cause me any problem being pre-trib. I agree with passages you used to support being resurrected to newness in Christ.:teeth:

I belive you would agree with me that belivers are baptized into the family of God, as I stated not by water but by Christ. Then we are told to be baptized in water being symbolic for the burial, death and resurection of Christ. But we need to note that water baptism is not referred to as the seconed bapism, just in the same sense being "resurected to newness in Christ" is seperately distinct form the bodely resurection from the grave.

As you stated "Words are not anything in them, but rather are containers for ideas". I totally agree with that, but the context of a passage always demines what the words are conveying and need to flow with other passages.

So, where from here, huuumm… Well, there are two passages we can look at in a little detaile. Lets start out with Thess 4:15 -17

In 1 Thess. 4:15 - 17 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Here we can see that Paul included himself in the passage living at that time. This shows that Paul was expecting the rapture to happen immediately.

17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Again Paul includes himself by saying "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together" The question then arises, if Paul believed the church was to go through the tribulation why did he not mention it here? Or to reword it a little, If Paul believed there was no rapture except the one, why did he say "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together". Even from your perspective, Paul would have known they had not gone throw the tribulation, so why would he mention it being immediate.

Staying in that same line of reasoning, in 1 Corinthians 15:51 -57 the same exact thing is stated. "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed". Paul again is including himself.

Well I think that’s enough for now I am sure you will have a response. I will not be able to respond until Monday night at the earliest, I do not have access to a PC for the week end. Have a nice week end.

Peace,

Mike

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Mike, I am now suspecting that I have given myself too much credit for clarity, and that I must be unclear because everyone seems to be missing it, thus the fault must be with me. My focus in the above article is not just on Revelation 20, that is just a piece. There is a systematic argument made using other resurrection passages that give the timing of the event making a premill interpretation impossible. To just focus on Revelation 20 is to miss the thrust of the article, and to cut off several legs of the table. Revelation 20 in isolation may be understood several ways. I posited that my understanding is the only way that understands it in light of other resurrection timing passages, so without dealing with those passages, it it not really dealing with the article. I don't want to debate just Revelation 20 - I want to debate the systematic theology I posited. How does premill reconcile that systematization. I have yet to have a premill deal with this issues - they always seem to go off on a Revelation 20 tangent. I hope maybe I made my goal clearer now without coming off like a jerk or anythikng.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Greetings again in the name!

Been a while, but I do check in now and then. Noticed your article on Revelation 20.4-6 and decided to give it a go.

I also note that you are not accepting rebuttals that merely point out flaws in your interpretation. You wish to engage an alternate systematic interpretation, and I hope to oblige you.

Let me state from the outset that my views are not at all settled yet. But you wish to have a systematic rebuttal to your article, so my rebuttal will have to come from the standpoint of a system, and the system that I choose is one similar to that of Milton Terry. I am not at all convinced that this system is the way to go, but it is frankly the one that I have the most difficulty poking holes in from the standpoint of the biblical texts. Simply outlined:

1. There was a resurrection, but only of the just, in anno domini 70. It remains an open question whether this resurrection included all of the righteous up to that point or only some of them.

2. There will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust at the end of time.

I want to emphasize that the timing of either one of these events is not my immediate focus. A primillenialist could easily place that first resurrection in our future, then the second one a thousand years past that. But, since you take certain timing phrases differently from that, I will place the first resurrection at 70, since your view of the timing statements put it there.

I intend to very briefly summarize what such a view looks like set alongside various New Testament passages. Then I will come to a critique of your handling of Revelation 20.4-6.

First stop, Olivet and its various parallels. You and I would agree that the entire discourse is speaking of the events of 70. So here is where the resurrection comes in, Matthew 24.31:


And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

On its own this verse may seem innocuous enough. Could (symbolically) mean one of a handful of things, right?

But this is not the only time Jesus mentions this regathering. He does so also in Matthew 8.11-12 and Luke 13.28-29:


I say to you that many will come from east and west and recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves being thrown out. And they will come from east and west and from north and south and will recline in the kingdom of God.

Manifestly, these passages are parallel to the regathering mentioned on Olivet. But what do they mean? A bit of close reading will elucidate.

The Matthean passage is speaking of gentiles coming into the kingdom ahead of Jews. Jesus is, at this point of the narrative, complimenting the faith of the gentile centurion (Matthew 8.5-13). The many are gentiles coming from east and west to dine (the implication of recline) with the patriarchs. Dining with the patriarchs. Already we have a clue as to what is going on. But we will come back to this point later.

The Lucan passage is not speaking of gentiles. The narrative setting is completely different from that of Matthew. The Lucan saying is complementary to the Matthean, but not the same saying, or incident, or even focus. Jesus is speaking, not to or about a gentile, but to and about those who ate and drank in the presence of Jesus, those on whose streets Jesus taught (Luke 13.26, the immediate context). Since the mission of Jesus was only to the lost sheep of Israel, these are clearly Jews, not gentiles.

In the Lucan version, Jesus does not mention the many that will come in from all over. Luke has the patriarchs and prophets themselves coming from the four points of the compass:


...when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves being thrown out. And they will come from east and west and from north and south....

That pronoun they refers to the patriarchs and prophets coming into the kingdom as part of this regathering. Put these two (complementary but not identical) sayings together and the picture could not be clearer: The patriarchs and prophets will be regathered first, then the many gentiles will be gathered in with them.

But notice that, while the gentiles are not necessarily dead, the patriarchs and (most of) the prophets certainly are! What is going on?

Only what Isaiah prophesied in 26.18-19:


We were pregnant, we writhed in labor,
We gave birth, it would seem, to wind.
We could not accomplish deliverance for the earth,
Nor were the inhabitants of the world born.
Your dead will live!
Their corpses will rise.
You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy,
For your dew is the dew of lights,
And the earth will give birth to the shades.

Now, Dee Dee, I do not want to get into a tangent here. I know full well that you interpret these verses symbolically only. I am mentioning them only for how they fit in nicely with the view that I am presenting. They are not a proof of my view, but they fit.

But does not Isaiah himself deny resurrection just a few verses before this passage? Isaiah 26.13-14:


O Lord our God, other masters besides you have ruled us.
But through you alone we confess your name.
The dead will not live, the shades will not rise.
Therefore you have punished and destroyed them,
And you have wiped out all remembrance of them.

These shades that will not rise are clearly the wicked. They are punished by having no part in the resurrection mentioned in 26.14. The first resurrection, according to my miniature outline, consists only of the just, not the unjust, and Isaiah in this passage reflects only this resurrection of the just. He writes of the first only. The second is not in view.

Back to business....

I mentioned above that note about reclining (thus dining) in the kingdom. What would a first-century Jew (id est, the target audience of Jesus) most naturally think of when confronted with talk of dining in the kingdom? Luke 14.13-15 supplies the answer just one chapter after Jesus speaks of the patriarchs coming in:


[Jesus said:] But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind. and you will be blessed, since they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. When one of those who were reclining with him heard this, he said to him: Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!

Jesus mentions the resurrection, and a Jewish listener (presumably a Pharisee; see 14.1) instantly thinks of dining in the kingdom. Does Jesus go on to correct this connection? He does not. In fact, he reinforces it with a parable about a dinner (14.16-24)! Read the parable carefully. Jesus wants to make himself very clear on the kinds of people that will end up attending the great dinner, but does not question the basic fact of there being a great dinner, or on the connection that his listener makes between the resurrection of the just and eating bread in the kingdom.

If this Jew was mistaken about that connection, Jesus has done nothing to clear up the misunderstanding, and he has in fact reinforced it with his parable. I can only conclude that, for a first-century Jew (including Jesus!), dining in the kingdom is the activity of the resurrected righteous.

(But this is no surprise. We knew all along that dining in the kingdom and resurrection were connected in the Jewish Pharisaical mind. The Talmud is clear on that point. And it is utterly pagan to speak of dining with the dead. Dining with Abraham implies, to a Jew, that Abraham has been raised from the dead. Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees on many, many points, but not on resurrection!)

And, of course, it is in Isaiah again that we receive word of an eschatological banquet connected with the resurrection. Isaiah 25.6-8:


The Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain,
A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine.
And on this mountain he will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples,
Even the veil which is stretched over all nations.
He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces,
And He will remove the reproach of his people from all the earth,
For the Lord has spoken.

A lavish banquet (for all peoples, including the gentiles, apparently), and death being swallowed up.

Now, there are quite a few references throughout the New Testament that speak of the resurrection of the just and the unjust, not least of which is John 5.29. These references are speaking, of course, about the second resurrection on my outline, when both the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised. But I will come to John 5.24-29 later.

What about Paul? Briefly, in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 he addresses the fate of the dead, and he does so using Olivet as his lesson plan. Dispute this if you wish, but the parallels are too strong (and in too much the same order!) for coincidence. We can debate that matter at length, if you wish, but I will content myself right now with pointing out the matter of timing in 4.13-15:


But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

What is painfully clear from this quote is that Paul himself thinks it at least possible that he will be alive at the time of the resurrection. If by we who are alive he meant that he would certainly be alive he was clearly mistaken, a problem for any view. But it is quite natural for him to place himself in the category of the living, seeing as how he had not died yet, if it was at least possible that he would be alive at the time of the resurrection.

Neither the view that I am espousing here nor a classical premillennial view has any trouble with the pronouns in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11. If the resurrection of the just (and note that there is no mention of the unjust being raised in this passage) is the next event on the calendar, then Paul does well to say we the living. He just might be alive at that time, whether at 70 or much later.

What does not make any sense at all is the usual preterist view, since Paul (by your own exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15) knows that the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2.1-12) has yet to be revealed, then the coming of 70, then the entire messianic age, or age to come, or millennium before any resurrection would be taking place. Nobody would say we the living when he knows that he will be dead, an entire age having to intervene. How long did Paul expect the age to be, a year or two? It just does not make sense.

But in my outline it makes perfect sense. Paul is speaking of the events described on Olivet, but from the perspective of what will happen to the dead. Jesus had been speaking of the signs of the times, and signs are meant for the living, so he of course mentioned the dead only indirectly (in the regathering). The Thessalonians probably knew a version of Olivet very similar to ours, whether in written or in oral form matters not, and thus knew about the living but were understandably unclear as to the fate of the dead. So Paul runs through the discourse again, this time discussing the dead more explicitly.

Before leaving Thessalonica, let me point out one sometimes overlooked difficulty in dividing events at 1 Thessalonians 5.1. Paul calls what goes before the coming of Jesus, and writes of the gathering in that connection. At 5.1 he switches over to talk of the day of the Lord. Two different things? If they are, then he seriously misleads his Thessalonian converts in 2 Thessalonians 2.1-2:


Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

Remember that Paul is writing to people that he knows to be having difficulty understanding eschatological events. It boggles the mind that, if he was speaking of two different events an entire age apart, he would not say so!

In 1 Corinthians 15.20-28, briefly, Paul writes only of the resurrection of the just; the unjust go unmentioned.

In Hebrews 10.32-12.2, again briefly, the faithful saints of the Hebrew scriptures died without receiving what was promised (11.39). But the readers of the epistle will not be so unfortunate! They, with just a bit of endurance, will receive the promise (10.36). Why? Hebrews 11.40:


...because God had foreseen something better for us, so that apart from us they [the faithful of old] would not be made perfect.

Now, Hebrews does not explicitly mention the resurrection of the just in this connection, but these statements clearly teach a change of status for the righteous dead in the very near future, relative to the writing of the epistle. (Or at least that is the next item on the eschatological list, not some intervening age.) Abraham had not yet received what was promised, nor had the readers, at the time of writing. But they were very soon going to receive it.

By the time we get to Revelation 20.4-6, of course, we already know that the first resurrection is that of the just only, while the second is that of the unjust as well:


Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Your connection of these two resurrections with John 5.24-29 simply will not work. The only thing similar between the passages is the two-stage view of resurrection. Everything else falls apart:

1. In John 5.25 the first stage is explicitly described as an ongoing process: ...an hour is coming, and now is.... In Revelation 20.4 the first resurrection is explicitly described as an event: ...they came to life . Furthermore, this event is placed at the beginning of the thousand years, and its effects (the reigning with Christ) are said to last one thousand years. There is simply no mention of any [I]before the beginning of the millennium coming to life, nor any during the millennium, as would be the case in an ongoing process. This resurrection is an event, plain and simple.

2. In John 5.24 Jesus defines, as it were, the nature of the death that he goes on to describe in 5.25, and that death is metaphorical: He who hears has passed from death to life. Clearly not a literal death, clearly not a literal coming to life. In Revelation 20.4 John defines the nature of the death, as well: ...those who have been beheaded. A very literal death indeed. I know that you try to find two classes of people raised in this verse, one class being dead (beheaded), the other still alive (those who have not worshiped the beast or taken the mark). One small problem.... According to the book itself that latter class is dead too! In Revelation 13.15, the image of the beast is given the power to cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Regardless of what you and I might think of the actual events being described, what is manifestly clear in the logic of the book of Revelation is that the righteous are not around for the judgment of the bowls. They have either left the scene (18.4) or been martyred (most of the rest of the book), and it with the latter that John is especially concerned. Those who have triumphed over the mark of the beast are those who are dead by the crystal sea in 15.2 (the crystal sea being situated in front of the throne of God, in heaven, according to 4.6), not those who will suffer from the plagues of 15.1, who are, revealingly enough, called those who dwell upon the earth in 13.8, 14 and 17.8. Where are the righteous living? They are dead.

3. If, in fact, John meant to include the living being raised (metaphorically) in Revelation 20.4, he must have forgotten all about them in the rest of the text, since 20.4 speaks only of coming to life and 20.5 only of the rest of the dead. Where are the living? Only the dead are in view here.

4. It goes without saying that the raising of a martyr after his righteous, God-pleasing death is a terrible metaphor for the raising of a sinner after his unrighteous, God-hating state of death in sin and trespass. Most passages that speak of raising the dead in the metaphorical sense specify that the death is one of sin and shame. Ephesians 2.4-6, Romans 6.1-4, Colossians 2.11-12, and 1 John 3.14, all of which you reference in your argument, all make it clear that the death in question is that of sin, or of hatred, or of trespass. Revelation 20.4 does exactly the opposite, specifying the death in question as a martyrdom, an honorable thing before God.

5. If the righteous come to life metaphorically in 20.4, then do the unrighteous come to life metaphorically in 20.5?

Most of these observations and questions have been made in other posts, but you did not answer them because no system accompanied the comments. I hope that I have offered enough of a system to entice you to answer these objections to the linking of John 5.24-29 and Revelation 20.4-6, particularly since this particular system has been held by some, most notable the venerable Milton Terry, and it is, in its own way, premillennial, since the raising of the righteous happens before the millennium. I have, of course, left gaping holes in the analysis, but not to do so would require several volumes.

Thank you for your tireless efforts on this site. It is the only one of its kind that I regularly check. I look forward to your thorough dismantling of the Terry position, and with it premillennialism in general.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Etcetera, before I answer, I have to get one thing straight, because this article was submitted with the intention of having certian foundational things in common with those with whom I am debating - ie I was trying to be pretty limited in scope. It seems to me you are positing a quite unorthodox view of the resurrection of the righteous - and for me to dismantle that would require a debate on the nature of the resurrection of the righteous - and that is not what I am intending upon doing in this thread. For our beliefs about the nature of the resurrection are going to put necessary bounds on the options of certian passages that may be unclear. Just as for an analogy, our beliefs on the divinity of Christ put certain limits on unclear passages that might be denyinbg His divinity. Thus is my arguments, and from my studies on the issue, a nonphysical, nonfleshly resurrection being taught in 1 cor 15, and in 1 Thess 4 is not an option, and not the subject I wish to debate in this particular thread. I am assuming in my short piece agreement with the historic position of the church on the nature of the resurrection and my peice is on a disagreement merely of chronology. So you must clarify that first, for I am not wanting to use this article as a springboard in which the nature of the 1 Cor 15 is debated as being a non-empty-graves-nonphysical resurrection.

EDITED TO ADD: and I know I must have been horribly unclear somewhere because everyone seems to think that this article is only about John 5 and Revelation - but it is the tying of those passage systematically with the fact that Jesus taught both the just and the unjust were to be raised on the last day. This does not allow for the schema that was presented above, until the last day passages are dealt with.

And as an aside 1 Cor 15 describes the end of the Messianic reign. It cannot be glossed over.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh and as an aside Etc... I think you saw in my response to Athanasius that I am becoming less convinced that there is not a division in Matthew 24. So my earlier conversations with you on that point are more dogmatic than I would be right now. I am working on a thesis that I wished I had more time to develop on the "coming" of Christ that would tie it all together.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

The orthodox view insists on a literal bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust at the end of time. Terry holds to that. I am confused by your comments on 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15, since you yourself have always insisted that orthodoxy does not depend on agreeing with the creeds and the historical faith on which passages teach the doctrines in question. Is it not enough that Revelation (for one) teaches the bodily end-time resurrection of both the just and the unjust? And Acts? Why would it matter whether we took one or more other passages off the table, just as you yourself do with certain passages that most of orthodoxy regards as teaching an actual resurrection?

Nevertheless, I am not advocating a symbolic reading of those Pauline passages. I insist on a bodily resurrection, exactly as Paul said, just one that was not well-known at the time because most of the righteous involved had been dead for many, many years, and the more recently deceased were very few in number (compared to the millions of the entire empire). After all, Matthew reports that many were raised at the time of the death of Jesus, yet that is the only record of such a phenomenal event. Not even the other gospels report it. Herod suspects John the baptist of having been raised, but does he try to check his tomb (or his severed head, for that matter)? The disciples of John had buried him, so perhaps such an obvious thing for us was not quite so easy to come by.

So bodily, yes, but obvious to the world at large, no.


...and I know I must have been horribly unclear somewhere because everyone seems to think that this article is only about John 5 and Revelation - but it is the tying of those passage systematically with the fact that Jesus taught both the just and the unjust were to be raised on the last day. This does not allow for the schema that was presented above, until the last day passages are dealt with.

My schema completely acknowledges a resurrection of the just and the unjust on the last day. Revelation 20.11-15. How are you not seeing that?

Thanks for the response.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee:

The orthodox view insists on a literal bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust at the end of time. Terry holds to that. I am confused by your comments on 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15, since you yourself have always insisted that orthodoxy does not depend on agreeing with the creeds and the historical faith on which passages teach the doctrines in question. The creeds do not mention passages, they mention doctrines. Just wanted to be precise with that. In broad theory with this clarification I just gave you would be correct. However, without raising the spectre of heresy then, my article was written with the common understanding of 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4 being a future event. I think it is impossible to make them past conssitently without denying orthodoxy wholesale - again the key word is consistently. A person may do it inconsistently. But my argument again is based upon my a priori assumptions that my opponents will have at a minimum some things in common with me, and preterizing 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15 simply is not something anticipated in this line, just as my article does not anticipate me having to debate hyper-dispensationalists. In other words, it is an apologetic against mainline premill thought. You seem to be arguing against premill yourself - so in the defeat of premill we would seem to be in agreement, and thus my basic dispute is not engaged.



Is it not enough that Revelation (for one) teaches the bodily end-time resurrection of both the just and the unjust? And Acts? Why would it matter whether we took one or more other passages off the table, just as you yourself do with certain passages that most of orthodoxy regards as teaching an actual resurrection? It matters because you are proposing something way off the beaten path. I am attempting to engage mainline premill. But you last sentence is incorrect. The only passage that this may be said of is Rev 20 and premill historically has never been the orthodox majority, so that is incorrect.



Nevertheless, I am not advocating a symbolic reading of those Pauline passages. I insist on a bodily resurrection, exactly as Paul said, just one that was not well-known at the time because most of the righteous involved had been dead for many, many years, and the more recently deceased were very few in number (compared to the millions of the entire empire). After all, Matthew reports that many were raised at the time of the death of Jesus, yet that is the only record of such a phenomenal event. Not even the other gospels report it. Herod suspects John the baptist of having been raised, but does he try to check his tomb (or his severed head, for that matter)? The disciples of John had buried him, so perhaps such an obvious thing for us was not quite so easy to come by.

So bodily, yes, but obvious to the world at large, no. Okay thanks for the clarification, but it appears then that you are arguing against premill as well, adn while we would disagree on the point of this novel idea you are proposing, the apologetic is to defeat premill which you seem to be in agreement with.




My schema completely acknowledges a resurrection of the just and the unjust on the last day. Revelation 20.11-15. How are you not seeing that? Because it is shocking to preterize 1 Cor 15. I saw that at some places you seemed to say that, but in others it could be seen differently so I had to clarify. I am sorry you are finding that irritating, it certainly is not my intnetion.

I do intend upon engaging some of your points if you still wish me to. I am not so sure for your post seemed to end on an irrated tone.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

You seemed to deny that my schema had any place for a last-day resurrection of the just and unjust, when it clearly insisted on one. That frustrated a little, but I am fine. Sorry for the tone.

Nice to speak to you after all this time, by the way....

What you must understand, Dee Dee, is that I am still massively questioning. I am defending a view akin to that of Terry (which you called novel; he flourished a hundred years ago) because it seems to best address my tripartate concerns and observations:

1. It is a fundamental mistake to separate the Pauline passages from their model, Olivet.

2. Those preterist timing verses are so, so convincing.

3. The resurrection, especially for a Jew, is supposed to be bodily.

Which would you have me slice off, my ears, my lips, or my nose? ;-)

My view involves all of those elements. You seem to distance it from premillennialism, yet its schema is exactly what a premill says, is it not? Jesus comes once, raising only the just, then the millennium, then he comes again to raise everybody. It is premill through and through. The absolute timing is different; the relative timing is the same.

If I recall, your entire article was the linking of certain passages with others, right? Revelation 20.4-6 with John 5.23-29 and others that speak of the resurrection on the last day. The exact timing did not really enter the discussion. I link those passages very differently, and that is what my post is about.

Are there gaping holes in my understanding? Of course. Am I trying to be contentious or heretical? Of course not. I am just reading the texts to the best of my God-given ability.

If you would prefer we not discuss my particular view on this thread, that is fine. But I would rather like at some point to discuss those three points above. None of the usual schemes are clicking. (Not even, or perhaps especially not, the hyperpreterist view. You mentioned to me once that hyperpreterists see the first resurrection in Revelation 20.4-6 as metaphorical too, and the millennium as stretching from 30 to 70. Silly in my opinion. And how could I possibly agree with them when I insist that it is literal?)

In him, as always.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee:

You seemed to deny that my schema had any place for a last-day resurrection of the just and unjust, when it clearly insisted on one. That frustrated a little, but I am fine. Sorry for the tone.
I really was just very confused about exactly what you were trying to say.




Nice to speak to you after all this time, by the way....
You too very much so.




What you must understand, Dee Dee, is that I am still massively questioning. I am defending a view akin to that of Terry (which you called novel; he flourished a hundred years ago) because it seems to best address my tripartate concerns and observations:
I loosely used the word "novel" - not meaning new but meaning rare, unusual, so I could have chosen a much better word.



1. It is a fundamental mistake to separate the Pauline passages from their model, Olivet.
This is the one you must abandon - you cannot be consistent with this even within your own view. I will show you what I mean, and perhaps that is where I will concentrate to keep things manageable.



My view involves all of those elements. You seem to distance it from premillennialism, yet its schema is exactly what a premill says, is it not? Jesus comes once, raising only the just, then the millennium, then he comes again to raise everybody. It is premill through and through. The absolute timing is different; the relative timing is the same.
Yes you are correct - when I meant premill, I mean classic premill as in future. You agree with both in a sense, but you agree with me that the millennium is now. You have other problems though ;)

If I recall, your entire article was the linking of certain passages with others, right? Revelation 20.4-6 with John 5.23-29 and others that speak of the resurrection on the last day. The exact timing did not really enter the discussion. I link those passages very differently, and that is what my post is about.


You mentioned to me once that hyperpreterists see the first resurrection in Revelation 20.4-6 as metaphorical too, and the millennium as stretching from 30 to 70. Silly in my opinion. And how could I possibly agree with them when I insist that it is literal?)
That is one hyperpret view, there are others, but none make much more sense.

Be back in a bit, but since my idea was to try to keep this as a manageable debate because of severe tiem constraints, I will try to perhaps focus in on one major area.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:


This is the one [Olivet parallel to Paul] you must abandon - you cannot be consistent with this even within your own view. I will show you what I mean, and perhaps that is where I will concentrate to keep things manageable.

That is what I am looking for. The four primary things that have kept me from preterism (your version of it, anyway, and not my novelty... heh, heh) are Paul and Olivet, the literal nature of Revelation 20.4-6, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (apart from the Olivet thing), and the three ages. This thread has the potential of addressing at least the first three of these four, and maybe that fourth as well, if you bring in your usual pick of passages to set alongside 1 Corinthians 15.

Looking forward to it.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Etc - I have to warn you that I will be a while on this - I have a lot on my plate and I write very slow, I never have been able to compose substantive posts quickly. And also I do not think I am going tohave much new since our lengthy personal exchange.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:


And also I do not think I am going to have much new since our lengthy personal exchange.

Hmmm. Well, that may pose a problem for Paul and Olivet. I found your distinctions, and the reasons for them, less than convincing last time, which of course is one reason why I am still not a postmillennialist.

I posted a basic study of the interrelationship of Olivet with Paul (and the rest of the New Testament and apostolic fathers) in the eschatology forum some time ago, one with which the likes of Carson and Bruce would likely agree, and no preterist saw fit to respond, even though such a Pauline connection breaks the system down completely, as you acknowledge in your insistence that I give that one up.

I have found, in fact, a real reluctance on the part of preterists to interact with the particulars of the parallelism (it being more than just parallelism, after all; there is the matter of parsimony, and of dovetailed timing statements) between Olivet and other parts of the biblical texts. I once had an email exchange with Holding on 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and Olivet, and he was rather elusive as well. (His actual articles on the matter elucidate very little of what I would consider the most salient points.)

As I may have intimated one other time, I myself would find it easier to fudge on the timing statements than on the fact that Paul used Olivet with, and was explaining Olivet to, his Thessalonian converts.

At any rate, that is how things stand, and have stood for a long time. I do hope that you might (eventually) shed some light on exactly how you disassociate Paul from Olivet, as well as the other parallels.

Thanks.

Ben.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee:



Hmmm. Well, that may pose a problem for Paul and Olivet. Well you mean for your view of it. Neither of us are a problem for Paul and Olivet. :wink:



I found your distinctions, and the reasons for them, less than convincing last time, which of course is one reason why I am still not a postmillennialist. Well you knnow I found your argument not persuasive as well, but we can see how we do this time. We all grow as times passes and hopefully we both allow our views to morph.



I posted a basic study of the interrelationship of Olivet with Paul (and the rest of the New Testament and apostolic fathers) in the eschatology forum some time ago, one with which the likes of Carson and Bruce would likely agree, and no preterist saw fit to respond, even though such a Pauline connection breaks the system down completely, as you acknowledge in your insistence that I give that one up. "Saw fit" Etcetera is quite unfair. I do not "see fit" to respond to 99 percent of hte posts in eschatoloogy. Do you think that is because I don't hae answers? Or perhaps because there are other issues taking my attention, and I don't have sufficient time? That may be the reason for others I suspect. There is also a place for hte fact that other factors are so blatantly clear that on ones where there is ambuiguity or reasons to think several different ways, one goes with the one that harmonizes with the passages which are not. In isolation I would probably agree a whole lot more with you on the 1 Thess issue. But not once 1 Cor 15 is brought to bear which is way clearer.



I have found, in fact, a real reluctance on the part of preterists to interact with the particulars of the parallelism First of all Etc that is spinning. You have not proven reluctance. I wrote a lengthy response to you on this and other isses that took me several months to write. I hardly call that reluctance. You didn't find my answer convincing then but that is not reluctance. Not responding to a forum board thread where there is opportunity to swallow one's whole life in responding to people is not reluctance. Please be fair. And in fact it is not parallelism. Strictly speaking parallel passages are ones which are spoken about the same event at the same time, such as when a harmoney of theGospels is produced.



(it being more than just parallelism, after all; there is the matter of parsimony, and of dovetailed timing statements) between Olivet and other parts of the biblical texts. And I have shown you, though you disagree, where there is no dovetail whatsoever. I will certainly go through it again, but I warn you I am very slow.



I once had an email exchange with Holding on 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and Olivet, and he was rather elusive as well. (His actual articles on the matter elucidate very little of what I would consider the most salient points.) There you go again Etc. "Reluctant" and "elusive" - must you use such loaded terms? I cnanot speak for Holding not being privy to your emails, but I was hardly reluctant and elusive with you. I suspect Holding used my material for I seem to remember his conferring with me on this, but I am not sure.



As I may have intimated one other time, I myself would find it easier to fudge on the timing statements than on the fact that Paul used Olivet with, and was explaining Olivet to, his Thessalonian converts. And see that is where it meets the road doesn't it? I think we both agree that all systems have difficutlies. We must decide where the barriers are now mustn't we? I think the timing statements are insurmountable, and the other passages which give some room must give before them. The timing statement are much more powerful than trying to draw parallels from unparapall passages in asserting exactness of referent. That is where you are rigid where rigidity is unwarranted.

I do hope to get to this in decent time. I have been very sick the past week, and my brain is almost too fuzzy to even write this post.

EDIT - forgive the atrocious miskeyboarding errors please

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I certainly intended no unfairness with the use of the terms reluctant or elusive (though Holding was, I think, elusive on that point in every sense of the word when I communicated with him; note that I never said that you were elusive... well, check that, I did say as well, but I meant that of him being both reluctant and elusive; I could have made that clearer; sorry).

As for your answer to the alleged parallelism, I may be remembering incorrectly, but it seemed to me that you never really got around to your argument against it. You basically said that you did not see the passages as parallel because similarity of reference does not prove identity of referent (or something like that). As I recall, that is pretty much where you left it. You seemed to have had more to say on the subject, but said that you were very busy with other matters. Which is fine, of course, but does not mean that the question has been answered.

As another example, when I in our exchange made my comments on Matthew 8.11-12 and Luke 13.28-29, your only real response was something like: I do not think you can do that with those verses; you must make them harmonize. (My view does harmonize them. Always did. But it does not make them the same exact statement with the same exact protagonists.) Again, I understand the constraints of time. But the question still burns in my mind.

Or when I maintained that παραδιδομι did not carry the necessary meaning that you were getting from it in 1 Corinthians 15, or likewise αχρι ου, you did not give much actual response. You did answer my contention about καταργεω, but not my counterpoint after that about the defeat of death at every resurrection.

The parallels between Olivet and Paul are quite important when navigating eschatology. (Are they not a significant part of what kept Solly, for example, from embracing preterism?) I certainly realize that people have much to do, and cannot respond to every post in any forum. I myself sat out for more than a year completely, so who am I to judge? You may have read a bit more into that phrase saw fit than I intended (I am in fact a bit puzzled about that comment of yours; if you see fit is a concession where I come from, not an attack). I am merely stating that no preterist has yet answered my questions on the matter. I am not even saying that the reason for the lack of response is bare lack of answers. There may be a perfectly valid answer that I am overlooking in my stubbornness or blindness. But while watching the timing statements in Matthew 24, the great tribulation, the millennium, and Old Testament prophetic symbolism get replayed time and time again, I have yet to see any real in-depth discussion of what Paul is doing with Olivet, or why, without meaning to, he would happen to have fashioned his discussion of the postmillennial coming using seven to nine distinct images that also appear on Olivet of the premillennial coming, and in the same order.

Perhaps I am just being selfish. I guess that I basically understand the preterist viewpoint on the timing statements, and on the tribulation, and the millennium, and the symbolism, and there is very little to keep me from a preteristic view on those matters. But I do not at all understand the preterist view of what Paul was trying to say to his gentile converts.

Is it possible that you are confusing me with someone else, that you think that you made certain arguments with me but actually did not?


Strictly speaking parallel passages are ones which are spoken about the same event at the same time, such as when a harmony of the Gospels is produced.

Having spent many, many hours working on the synoptic problem, I understand your view of parallelism here. The Lucan sending of the 12 is parallel to the Marcan and Matthean sending of the 12, but the Lucan sending of the 70 is not, at least not in the same sense. Scholars of the synoptic problem, however, do tend to call that a parallel, and I am using the term in that sense. Luke 10 contains material that runs parallel to the material in Luke 9 = Mark 6 = Matthew 10. Likewise, when certain scholars try to find parallels between Mark and Homer, they do not imagine that Mark and Homer are writing of the same exact events. They mean by it only that Mark had Homer in mind when he wrote his text, and that is exactly what I am claiming for Paul and Olivet. Paul had Olivet in mind when he composed 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11. He used it as his lesson plan. He did not independently use the same imagery as Jesus. He got the imagery from Jesus, even if fully aware of the Old Testament background of much of it.

Look at the quotes page (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes.html) on the Blue Letter Bible to see a similar use of the term parallel.

I do not know how exactly to settle this matter of terminology. I am so used to calling those verbal and sequential similarities parallels. What would you call what I am describing? Allusion and echo are too weak, literary dependence is misleading, reference is too vague.

I certainly apologize for sounding unfair. I am not trying to be. I do not want a fight. And if a fight is all that will result from a discussion of eschatology, be it my fault or not, then I will politely back out. But I do think that a fairminded discussion could be profitable. I will try to ease up on loaded terms, or even terms that could be construed as such. You are a sister in the Lord. I would rather lose my right hand than cause you offense.

Sorry to hear that you are sick. Hope you get well soon.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee:

I certainly intended no unfairness with the use of the terms reluctant or elusive (though Holding was, I think, elusive on that point in every sense of the word when I communicated with him; note that I never said that you were elusive... well, check that, I did say as well, but I meant that of him being both reluctant and elusive; I could have made that clearer; sorry).
Okay and itis quite possible I was overly defensive.



As for your answer to the alleged parallelism, I may be remembering incorrectly, but it seemed to me that you never really got around to your argument against it. You basically said that you did not see the passages as parallel because similarity of reference does not prove identity of referent (or something like that). As I recall, that is pretty much where you left it.
Oh no. You had sent me an "A - B" pairing of Olivet and Thess that I responded to in full. And yes exactness of terminology does not prove exactness of referent. It can be evidence of it, but not when there are significant differences or even one large irreconcilable one as there is in Olivet and Thess. The terminology is similar because the events are related. Jesus does an exact quote from Isaiah 13 of the fall of Bablyon in describing the fall of Jerusalem. Exact. Yet no one says those are the same events.



You seemed to have had more to say on the subject, but said that you were very busy with other matters. Which is fine, of course, but does not mean that the question has been answered.
I am always way too busy, and I just now got an email of urgent importance that is going to be taking my attention for a while kind of along the lines of our prior email correspondence - and you know I invested heavily in that. You may not remember. Ihave the text of our discussion and in my file it is 56 pages long in 10 point font. That could be why I got defensive with the earlier comments - I invested a great deal of time into our prior discourse.



As another example, when I in our exchange made my comments on Matthew 8.11-12 and Luke 13.28-29, your only real response was something like: I do not think you can do that with those verses; you must make them harmonize. (My view does harmonize them. Always did. But it does not make them the same exact statement with the same exact protagonists.) Again, I understand the constraints of time. But the question still burns in my mind.
Actually I spent about two of those 56 pages on that issue.



Or when I maintained that παραδιδομι did not carry the necessary meaning that you were getting from it in 1 Corinthians 15, or likewise αχρι ου, you did not give much actual response. You did answer my contention about καταργεω, but not my counterpoint after that about the defeat of death at every resurrection.
I think you are thinking of someone else. We went into great depth on these issues but I don't recall this counterpoint you mention, but I have not read our exchange in a while



The parallels between Olivet and Paul are quite important when navigating eschatology. (Are they not a significant part of what kept Solly, for example, from embracing preterism?) I certainly realize that people have much to do, and cannot respond to every post in any forum. I myself sat out for more than a year completely, so who am I to judge? You may have read a bit more into that phrase saw fit than I intended (I am in fact a bit puzzled about that comment of yours; if you see fit is a concession where I come from, not an attack). I am merely stating that no preterist has yet answered my questions on the matter. I am not even saying that the reason for the lack of response is bare lack of answers. There may be a perfectly valid answer that I am overlooking in my stubbornness or blindness. But while watching the timing statements in Matthew 24, the great tribulation, the millennium, and Old Testament prophetic symbolism get replayed time and time again, I have yet to see any real in-depth discussion of what Paul is doing with Olivet, or why, without meaning to, he would happen to have fashioned his discussion of the postmillennial coming using seven to nine distinct images that also appear on Olivet of the premillennial coming, and in the same order.
That will have to wait for my further response. I am not sure what Solly reason's were.





Perhaps I am just being selfish. I guess that I basically understand the preterist viewpoint on the timing statements, and on the tribulation, and the millennium, and the symbolism, and there is very little to keep me from a preteristic view on those matters. But I do not at all understand the preterist view of what Paul was trying to say to his gentile converts.

I do concede that my view like all views does have issues - but I do honestly think it has the least, and the ones it does are supported by ones that are very clear.



Is it possible that you are confusing me with someone else, that you think that you made certain arguments with me but actually did not?
I don't think so...




Having spent many, many hours working on the synoptic problem, I understand your view of parallelism here. The Lucan sending of the 12 is parallel to the Marcan and Matthean sending of the 12, but the Lucan sending of the 70 is not, at least not in the same sense. Scholars of the synoptic problem, however, do tend to call that a parallel, and I am using the term in that sense. Luke 10 contains material that runs parallel to the material in Luke 9 = Mark 6 = Matthew 10. Likewise, when certain scholars try to find parallels between Mark and Homer, they do not imagine that Mark and Homer are writing of the same exact events. They mean by it only that Mark had Homer in mind when he wrote his text, and that is exactly what I am claiming for Paul and Olivet. Paul had Olivet in mind when he composed 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11. He used it as his lesson plan. He did not independently use the same imagery as Jesus. He got the imagery from Jesus, even if fully aware of the Old Testament background of much of it.
In that I agree. But that does not mean it is the same event. It does mean that the events are related somehow at a minimum.



Look at the quotes page (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes.html) on the Blue Letter Bible to see a similar use of the term parallel.

I do not know how exactly to settle this matter of terminology. I am so used to calling those verbal and sequential similarities parallels. What would you call what I am describing? Allusion and echo are too weak, literary dependence is misleading, reference is too vague.
I only recently got so fussy about the use of parallel, and am not sure what an appropriate alternate would be.



I certainly apologize for sounding unfair. I am not trying to be. I do not want a fight. And if a fight is all that will result from a discussion of eschatology, be it my fault or not, then I will politely back out. But I do think that a fairminded discussion could be profitable. I will try to ease up on loaded terms, or even terms that could be construed as such. You are a sister in the Lord. I would rather lose my right hand than cause you offense.

Sorry to hear that you are sick. Hope you get well soon.

In him.

Etcetera.
I am still not much better today - I have almost commpletely lost my voice....

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Well, I am rather embarassed. I had saved all of our old correspondence in several files, all of which I saved in a special folder on my hard drive, and have referred back to them now and again. Yep, all those files saved in a special folder... except one. You guessed it, the one with a big block of text on 1 Thessalonians 4-5. I had never referred back to it because I had misplaced it, and obviously forgot all about it.

So, my mistake on that entirely. I am sorry. As I reread the material, I do now recall having read it the first time through, as well as some of my general impressions.

I have not, however, found anything else on my construal of the regathering in Matthew and Luke.

You did invest much time and effort in our correspondence, and I have always been grateful. I am very sorry to have conveyed anything other than gratitude in what I have written here.


That will have to wait for my further response. I am not sure what Solly reason's were.

In a post written to me he mentioned at least the two ages and the connection between Olivet and Paul, referencing Carson.


The terminology is similar because the events are related. Jesus does an exact quote from Isaiah 13 of the fall of Babylon in describing the fall of Jerusalem. Exact. Yet no one says those are the same events.

Because Jesus explicitly states that he is speaking of (the temple in) Jerusalem in Matthew 24.1-2, and Judea in 24.16 (see also Luke 21.20, 24). His quotation of Isaiah 13 amounts to an as in the days of Babylon, so it will be.... If he spoke only of Isaiah 13, it would be midrash, not contemporary prophecy. Thus Jesus distinguishes completely and thoroughly between a day of the Lord on Babylon and a similar day of the Lord on Jerusalem. Where does Paul distinguish between two parousias?


I only recently got so fussy about the use of parallel, and am not sure what an appropriate alternate would be.

Well, I will probably continue using that term, then, for lack of a better one. Incidentally, synoptic scholars often acknowledge two passages as parallel in your limited sense by calling them pericopes and giving them the same unofficial title.

It would seem that, because of my egregious oversight, the ball is in my court on Paul and Olivet. I have begun a response to your points. I will post them here, with your permission. (I cite you indirectly in all but one spot so far; you have always respected my privacy, which privacy you can freely eschew from this point on, under the name Etcetera, but I want to respect yours as well.)

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I do hope that you begin to feel better.

God bless.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I appreciate that very muchly.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I was sort of waiting to hear from you on that matter of citing verbatim your private correspondence with me before posting anything. I can leave direct quotes out of it completely, if you wish.

What do you think? It is up to you.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I should also mention that perhaps the main thing that your correspondence did for my thinking was to make me ponder long and hard the relationship of the Hebrew scriptures to the apostolic writings. I am not nearly as quick as I once was to cite a New Testament verse, find its antecedent in the Old Testament, then assume that the same event is being referenced. The connections are many and dense between the Testaments, but they are often subtle, and have to be read in the right light. And for that insight I am especially grateful.

Get well.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Etc - I have a suggestion. Can you wait until I post something short that has to do with your theory and not to do with the Olivet/Thess issue? I think it is necessary because I think what I will post makes your theory impossible - and while you may thinik my position on Olivet/Thess is unlikely - it is not impossible, ie there is nothing that blatantly contradicts something that is very clear nor does it create an absolute contradiction. I think if I am allowed to deal first with this major problem I see with your theory which is directly on point to my article (while this Olivet/Thess is more of a veer a bit off the main point) it will show how such things MUST govern our evaluation of the possibilities with the remaining passages. This may be a bit though with my health and my schedule - but that is what I would like to see.

I don't have an issue with you quoting our private correspondence - the only hesitation I have is that I did not deal with issues in that correspondence in isolation but as part of a very large argument which presumes knowledge made in points made throughout so that the argument would be phrased (maybe) differently if I were dealing with Thess/Olivet as a stand-alone issue.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:


...the only hesitation I have is that I did not deal with issues in that correspondence in isolation but as part of a very large argument which presumes knowledge made in points made throughout.

Understood. I am trying to be very careful with quotations. And I am open to having it pointed out that I have misunderstood you.


Can you wait until I post something short that has to do with your theory and not to do with the Olivet/Thess issue? I think it is necessary because I think what I will post makes your theory impossible.

I have a couple of passages in mind right now that I see as terribly inconvenient, perhaps even fatal, for my theory. You may be thinking of the same points, or you may have something else in mind that I have missed, but the major obstacle to my view, as I see it, is the transformation of the living in 1 Corinthians 15.51-53. The resurrection of the dead I can (with some difficulty) read as a private event that went unnoticed. The transformation of the living is, of course, a problem of a different order of magnitude. One would have to take the attached resurrection literally, but the transformation symbolically. And that would, I think, make Paul see red.

If you have spotted another fatal flaw, go ahead and post it. I will wait. Well, even if it is the same flaw, or closely related, I will wait till you tell me that it is before proceeding.

What this will do, if it holds, is push my position into something like a basic futuristic premillennial view. I do not see that view as my final resting place, as it were, but it would be the position with which I would most closely identify at present.

Which will force me to warp a few timing statements, of course, but what I hope to show is that the preterist view, too, warps timing statements. The only view that would appear not to is the hyperpreterist one, but it warps the meaning of resurrection, a much more fatal flaw, historically speaking, than the ignoring of any timing statement.

Awaiting your mini-post.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

To better explain myself on warping timing statements, I actually do not fudge any of them. I do not understand them all, but I hold them in tension with other concepts till such time as I can make sense of it all. Sort of a holding pattern.

Just to clarify.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I may see now the source of at least some of our confusion:


Actually I spent about two of those 56 pages on that issue [Matthew 8.11 and Luke 13.28-29].

The issue that I meant was only the synthesis of these two passages, not the whole fabric of the regathering. You did not seem to address what I perceived to be the main issue. But, then, I was probably not clear enough on that. There is one spot in which I know of a distinct misunderstanding. At one point I said: Notice that the patriarchs are already in the kingdom, with the gentiles coming to join them. You took that to mean that the patriarchs were already there when Jesus spoke those words. I in fact meant that they were there by the time the gentiles got there. We were speaking past each other on that and probably other points.

Your answer is a little bit confusing, probably partly because of our mutual confusion overall. You seem to take these two passages as referring to the same thing as Matthew 24.31, which you seem to place in 70, yet you think that any potential gathering of patriarchs would have happened at the resurrection of Jesus 40 years earlier. I am just not seeing how the trumpet could blow both in 30 and in 70, yet it all be the same event.

But it was your insistence on harmonizing that seemed to me to skirt the issue. Luke has patriarchs and prophets being gathered in, and your answer made it sound like: Well, if you insist on reading Luke that way, then try the resurrection as the time of gathering. Which would make the Lucan passage no longer parallel at all to the others, or at least Matthew 24.31, yet you did seem to regard it as such.

Hence my confusion. Do you regard those three passages as parallel, and what actual event(s) to you link them with? The destruction of Jerusalem? The gentile mission? Hudson Taylor in China? (Just kidding on that last one, though I am sure that there is some relationship.)

Thanks.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Etc it is going to be a bit. I am actually getting worse health wise and am trying to see the doctor.

[Etcetera]

By the way, Dee Dee, not to sound flaky or anything, but I have pretty much already given up on the Terry idea. Which puts me right back in eschatological limbo.

About the only thing that I can say for certain right now is that I am not a dispensationalist, and not a hyperpreterist. Everything else is fair game.

If your fatal flaw was a different one than mine, I would still like to hear it, just to see how the passages come together.

Thanks again.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Etc, the fatal flaw was what you came up with plus one other concept. I would like to still address it for the sake of the readers.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Our posts crossed.

Sorry to hear about your ill health. What kind of sickness is it? (If it is not too personal....)

My prayers go with you.

Etcetera.

[gsmoluk2002]

Dee, Dee said:

As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.

This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6…

Some how I grabed the wrong Thread this is the correct one. @gsmoluk2002

It is not your fault you were niave and laid all of your trust in a church and not in the Holy spirt. I Pray you have learned a lesson and now have your faith in Jesus alone! @gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

[QUOTE=gsmoluk2002]Dee, Dee said:


As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.

This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6…





The proof is in the pudding, so to speak! I have yet to see any pudding? Simple to prove? All talk and no pudding! Dee, Dee. @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

[QUOTE=gsmoluk2002]Dee, Dee said:


As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.

This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6…





The proof is in the pudding, so to speak! I have yet to see any pudding? Simple to prove? All talk and no pudding! Dee, Dee. @gsmoluk2002
an d of course your reply is just dripping with pudding. :ahem:

[gsmoluk2002]

an d of course your reply is just dripping with pudding. :ahem:


It is evident to me! You (studyhound) have a problem with me, and thats ok but if you think your aragance, and sarcasim is going to be ofensive to me you are wrong"Studyhound." @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

It is evident to me! well good for you.


You (studyhound) have a problem with me Nope not a one.


and thats ok but if you think your aragance, and sarcasim is going to be ofensive to me you are wrong"Studyhound."


Ooh that’s a big charge, I point out that your post is lacking in any kind of proof and you call me arrogant, and if I recall you also used sarcasm in your post, with all your pudding comments, so please be so kind to dismount your high horse.



TY
:sh:

[gsmoluk2002]

well good for you.

Nope not a one.

[/font]


Ooh that’s a big charge, I point out that your post is lacking in any kind of proof and you call me arrogant, and if I recall you also used sarcasm in your post, with all your pudding comments, so please be so kind to dismount your high horse.



TY
:sh:


First of all Proof is in the Pudding is a "reference" to something! Secondly I have no high horse in which to sit upon, nor do I choose to sit upon one! Thirdly you have been sarcastic on a few ocasions and in the next post I will put your comments on the line for you to meditate over! Forth if you choose to continue in your sarcasim, and aragance it will be most "Juvenial' of you! Have a good night.

@gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/3921.gif Enough with the jibber-jabber, either bring it or ….

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/5184.gif



Yay I think I found my own personal troll!!! :troll: :troll: :troll: :troll:

Dee Dee had Troy
X and Ezraarah

I fell special......:woohoo:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/5184.gif



Well if we're nice I sure who ever wrote the bot program can write another. :blush:


:lol: I can just see it.....No he's mine .....no he's mine.......

:fencing: (http://misc.php/?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=16#)





Did we run him off??

Faramir!?! Did you scare him off??

:teeth:




(I know we could use a few more futurists to trounce :poke: :hehe:))

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/5184.gif




I don't know about redy, but I am ready. :wink:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/5184.gif


So here is the proof in the pudding! @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

So here is the proof in the pudding! @gsmoluk2002

:sigh: looks like some one had their sense of humor removed...

Look I don't know were you have been on the web, but here we are a bit lighter and try to have fun.

You came on to Tweb like a bull in a china shop, with a additude and not much to back it up (even a fellow premill pretrib was pointing that out) and you also made a charge at me of scripture twisting that you could not and have not backed up. So like the old saying goes if it quackes like a duck and walks like a duck.......

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

:sh:

[gsmoluk2002]

[QUOTE=studyhound]:sigh: looks like some one had their sense of humor removed...

Look I don't know were you have been on the web, but here we are a bit lighter and try to have fun.

You came on to Tweb like a bull in a china shop, with a additude and not much to back it up (even a fellow premill pretrib was pointing that out) and you also made a charge at me of scripture twisting that you could not and have not backed up. So like the old saying goes if it quackes like a duck and walks like a duck.......




:bonk: You must have been beaten up alot as a kid! @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

[QUOTE]



:bonk: You must have been beaten up alot as a kid! @gsmoluk2002

It is now offical we have a :troll:

[gsmoluk2002]

It is now offical we have a :troll:

Give me a break! Far from it, if someone takes a bold step, he gets labled by a few people in a click! I can asure you my boldness is just that and nothing more! If that warants a lable by a few People that are aposed to what I know to be true so be it, I have been called worse by better people in my life. @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

Give me a break! Far from it, if someone takes a bold step, he gets labled by a few people in a click! I can asure you my boldness is just that and nothing more! If that warants a lable by a few People that are aposed to what I know to be true so be it, I have been called worse by better people in my life. @gsmoluk2002
And for those who missed the personal ( and very sad) shot that was taken at me in post 77:
You must have been beaten up alot as a kid! @gsmoluk2002 Hmm one wonders why it is so light as if to be hidden?

[gsmoluk2002]

And for those who missed the personal ( and very sad) shot that was taken at me in post 77: Hmm one wonders why it is so light as if to be hidden? There is nothing to it, I dont need to give you even a hint of an explanation, but I will. Their is no hidden agenda, or a plot to hide a simple question, brought on by someone who is a sad juvenile looking to use Theology Web as a platform to use his argumentive and hatefull personality towards Futurist, in a way that could be excusable being that it is a debate forum. Maybe you have some friends on this site that are Futurist but the fact remains you are against the Futurist thought. Simple answer is I tried some new colors and well they just did not work out! This is the last I will say on this matter I have given you an explanation and that is it! @gsmoluk2002 The colors come from the TWEB site there not colors of my own!

[gsmoluk2002]

And for those who missed the personal ( and very sad) shot that was taken at me in post 77: Hmm one wonders why it is so light as if to be hidden?

It is now offical we have a :troll:


Hmm, I do not wonder because it gets one in a "Big Mess" @gsmoluk2002

[Bill the Cat]

Giz,
I am a futurist Dispy and SH and I disagree, but he is nothing short of a good friend to me. We disagree on eschatology, but we agree that Christ is in us both. You would do well not to act the innocent. Say what you mean to say with Biblical data, not ad homs or mud slinging. Studyhound is far the better man in this exchange. Learn a valuable lesson from me (one who has learned the hard way) if you are teachable. If not, your pride will be your undoing.

:btc:

[studyhound]

Alright, I am tired of the tit-for-tat, if you want to continue this gsmoluk2002 open a thread in the locker room that is a better place for this type of exchange.

To get to the point at hand, gsmoluk2002, you made a charge at Dee Dee that was paramount to saying she had no substance to her post, would you care to back it up with some scripture and commentary, on how she is wromg.

:sh:


P.s. oh btw BTC :cheers: I always said you were a stand up guy no matter what Dee Dee says :whistle:

[gsmoluk2002]

[studyhound]Alright, I am tired of the tit-for-tat, if you want to continue this gsmoluk2002 open a thread in the locker room that is a better place for this type of exchange.

To get to the point at hand, gsmoluk2002, you made a charge at Dee Dee that was paramount to saying she had no substance to her post, would you care to back it up with some scripture and commentary, on how she is wromg.




I asked for her to finish her statement with more evidence as she said she would, thats that! Proof is in the pudding! Also I have no need to go into the locker room at this point, as I see the end from the begining and it would be *redundant to go any further with you!

re•dun•dant \-dənt\ adjective

[Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow — more at redound]

(1594)

*1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous

b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary

c : characterized by similarity or repetition 〈a group of particularly redundant brick buildings〉

d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off

2 : profuse, lavish

3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

— re•dun•dant•ly adverb

Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.

[gsmoluk2002]

To get to the point at hand, gsmoluk2002, you made a charge at Dee Dee that was paramount to saying she had no substance to her post, would you care to back it up with some scripture and commentary, on how she is wromg.




Dee, Dee said:

As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.





It is not your fault you were niave and laid all of your trust in a church and not in the Holy Spirt. I Pray you have learned a lesson and now have your faith in Jesus alone! @gsmoluk2002






Prove it then! The proof is in the pudding! @gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

Giz,
I am a futurist Dispy and SH and I disagree, but he is nothing short of a good friend to me. We disagree on eschatology, but we agree that Christ is in us both. You would do well not to act the innocent. Say what you mean to say with Biblical data, not ad homs or mud slinging. Studyhound is far the better man in this exchange. Learn a valuable lesson from me (one who has learned the hard way) if you are teachable. If not, your pride will be your undoing.

:btc:



I appreciate your loyalty to studyhound, but I on the other hand, know I do not feel the way you do! I do not feel he does not have Jesus Christ in his life! Again thanks for your advice. @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

Guys I just noticed this was going on. Thanks for your support - I am ignoring this troll as God only gives us so much time and wasting them on nonsense isn't good stewardship. GS - you are disrupting this thread, please get off of it. You may start a new one of your choosing to disrupt.

[Trout]

gsmoluk2002,

Please do not make back to back posts to the same person, that is what the edit button is for.



Let me remind you of our decorum:

Disruptive behaviour will be curbed by moderator intervention, and there may be certain instances when behaviour or comments which are technically allowable will be censored if they are used to such a degree or are of such a nature that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog. Behavior which becomes, or can be, disruptive, such as but not limited to, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or blatant rudeness for its own sake, will not be tolerated. Threads which become disruptive may be edited, closed, or moved to the Locker Room where said rules are more relaxed within limits. We also ask that any personal issue with another member be taken up in the Locker Room or privately as well.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via PM or email.

thanks

[gsmoluk2002]

Let me remind you of our decorum:

Disruptive behaviour will be curbed by moderator intervention, and there may be certain instances when behaviour or comments which are technically allowable will be censored if they are used to such a degree or are of such a nature that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog. Behavior which becomes, or can be, disruptive, such as but not limited to, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or blatant rudeness for its own sake, will not be tolerated. Threads which become disruptive may be edited, closed, or moved to the Locker Room where said rules are more relaxed within limits. We also ask that any personal issue with another member be taken up in the Locker Room or privately as well.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via PM or email.

Ok! @gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

Guys I just noticed this was going on. Thanks for your support - I am ignoring this troll as God only gives us so much time and wasting them on nonsense isn't good stewardship. GS - you are disrupting this thread, please get off of it. You may start a new one of your choosing to disrupt.



http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif

[studyhound]Alright, I am tired of the tit-for-tat, if you want to continue this gsmoluk2002 open a thread in the locker room that is a better place for this type of exchange.

To get to the point at hand, gsmoluk2002, you made a charge at Dee Dee that was paramount to saying she had no substance to her post, would you care to back it up with some scripture and commentary, on how she is wromg.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif





I asked for her to finish her statement with more evidence as she said she would, thats that! Proof is in the pudding! Also I have no need to go into the locker room at this point, as I see the end from the begining and it would be *redundant to go any further with you!


re•dun•dant \-dənt\ adjective

[Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow — more at redound]

(1594)

*1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous

b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary

c : characterized by similarity or repetition 〈a group of particularly redundant brick buildings〉

d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off

2 : profuse, lavish

3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

— re•dun•dant•ly adverb

Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.




Boy, this sounds as if I just wrote the same thing! And showing some favortism! I will not post on this thread again, do to the fact there is a great bias on this website towards futurist, unless the conform or run they ae not treated as Christian but a threat to there reason. I will remain on this site though! @gsmoluk2002

[Dee Dee Warren]

Etc judging from your later posts in eschatology where you have really gone in a different direction, and considering the time pressures I have, I am not going to go back and refute something that you no longer hold. I think it wouold have been interesting and useful to some folks, time constraints have to make me decide what I am going to pursue.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Fair enough. I was not really holding my breath on this issue anyway. As you say, I have changed my course.

In him.

Etcetera.