Eskatollogy

[Justme]

Hi forum,
]

Is there really such a thing as biblical eschatology?

There is a end of time, but are there really 'endtimes'? Are 'endtimes really biblical?

That should fire up the forum a tad.

Justme

[jpholding]

Can you define those terms, Kemosabe? :smile:

eschatology
endtimes

[Bill the Cat]

Crikey, I may have to argue with JP?? :help:

:btc: :poke: :brow:

[Justme]

Hi jpholding,


Can you define those terms, Kemosabe?

Yes, I can Tonto, here goes!

Escatology as talked about by the internet masses or TV evangelists appears to be the study of the signs of the end of the world as we know it.

These signs are generally considered to be things listed from the discussion on the mount of Olives, but such things as 200 million men armies and such enter in as well.
End times-again the internet masses and TV evangelists are saying we live today 'in the end tiimes or the end of the world as we know it is coming 'soon.'
I prefer to call it Chicken Little Syndrone.'

But that's
Justme

[jpholding]

Ho ho!

Escatology as talked about by the internet masses or TV evangelists appears to be the study of the signs of the end of the world as we know it.

Well, by my preterist view then, there isn't much in the way of Biblical eschatology at all -- it amounts to just about 2-3 Bible chapters.

End times-again the internet masses and TV evangelists are saying we live today 'in the end tiimes or the end of the world as we know it is coming 'soon.'I prefer to call it Chicken Little Syndrone.'

Ditto for preterists. I can't speak for others. :thumb:

[Justme]

Hi jpholding,

Wasn't it Hi ho?

JP: Well, by my preterist view then, there isn't much in the way of Biblical eschatology at all -- it amounts to just about 2-3 Bible chapters******************

Great. Where?

I found out from DDW that everything before verse 34 would be past tense, she listed certain exceptions that aren't referred to in Matthew 24, but it would include the great tribulation. What 3 chapters do you consider to talk of eskatoology after the great tribulation?

Justme

[jpholding]

Wasn't it Hi ho?

Not when Santa rides Silver. :lol:

Great. Where?

Not to be exact, but:

* Rev. 20:6 to the end of Rev.
* John 5:25-29
* 1 cor. 15... can't recall and I am on a trip away from my resources.
* A bit of 1 Thess, I think after ch 4 but don't hold me to that as I don't memorize Scripture and am not near a Bible.

[Justme]

Hi jpholding,

Ho Ho Silver away...with sleigh, ....left Tonto holding bag????


* Rev. 20:6 to the end of Rev.
* John 5:25-29
* 1 cor. 15... can't recall and I am on a trip away from my resources.
* A bit of 1 Thess, I think after ch 4 but don't hold me to that as I don't memorize Scripture and am not near a Bible.

Rev 20 et al,

I would consider this a story about a beginning not an ending,but interesting.

Oops, John 5 says this...
25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Note the HAS NOW COME...past event.

Actually 1 Cor 15 is about His resurrection, our resurrection and the body involved. It is future stuff to us, as I see it, but show me what you feel is the 'sign' of the end here.

1 Thess 5..here again I read this as telling us we can not know the timing of the day of thew Lord.

See you later,

Justme

[jpholding]

Howdy,

Ho Ho Silver away...with sleigh, ....left Tonto holding bag????

Don't complain, it's full of toys!

Note the HAS NOW COME...past event.

My bad memory at work. I'm back with resources now, make it 5:28-9 only.

Actually 1 Cor 15 is about His resurrection, our resurrection and the body involved. It is future stuff to us, as I see it, but show me what you feel is the 'sign' of the end here.

Not so much "sign" but a description. 15:48-55 is what I have in mind.

1 Thess 5..here again I read this as telling us we can not know the timing of the day of thew Lord.

I think the "day of the Lord" was in 70 AD and that it is NOT the same thing as what people call the "rapture" earlier in that book. Want details?

[Justme]

Hi jpholding,

What I was origonal thinking about is these TV fire & brimstoners that talk about the signs of the end, usually mentioning a lot of the Matthew 24 stuff.

One TV host up here in Canada said that the only thing left to do was get the gospel preached and the 'end' would come.

I don't consider the Olivet discourse (up to the famous sentence" ALL these things......) to be in the future. If it isn't that changes what Revelation is, which changes what a lot of things are...so I wonder if there really is any such thing as biblical eschatology.

But hey what are these verses in Matthew that some call the rapture. I didn't think rapturists considered the gospel to include any rapture verses.

Justme

[Bill the Cat]

06-02-2003 @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115403#post115403)
Justme:

If it isn't that changes what Revelation is, which changes what a lot of things are...so I wonder if there really is any such thing as biblical eschatology.


Hey JustMe, what do you think Rev is? Just curious

[Justme]

Hi Bill,

You asked:Hey JustMe, what do you think Rev is? Just curious
*********************

I think it is just as advertized. It is the account of a vision that John saw and the explanations that were given to John from a heavenly/or angelic point of view. It is sort of an overview of the NT at the same time as it puts forth happenings and principals of certain events.
For instance, it talks about the birth of Jesus from an angelic point of view Chap 12, which doesn't really look a lot like the account in Luke.
As I mentioned somewhere else Heaven was apparently operational when the vision started out because:

Rev 4
1After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven.

The above is why I don't worry much about when the vision was seen or written.

I do chuckle when I read where people say the numbers etc (144000) are to be taken absolutely literally. It's a dream for God's sake!

Justme

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117428#post117428)
Justme:

Hi Bill,

You asked:Hey JustMe, what do you think Rev is? Just curious
*********************

I think it is just as advertized. It is the account of a vision that John saw and the explanations that were given to John from a heavenly/or angelic point of view. It is sort of an overview of the NT at the same time as it puts forth happenings and principals of certain events.
For instance, it talks about the birth of Jesus from an angelic point of view Chap 12, which doesn't really look a lot like the account in Luke.
As I mentioned somewhere else Heaven was apparently operational when the vision started out because:

Rev 4
1After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven.

The above is why I don't worry much about when the vision was seen or written.

I do chuckle when I read where people say the numbers etc (144000) are to be taken absolutely literally. It's a dream for God's sake!

Justme


That's pretty good. I agree with you in some respects. The book is advertized as follows:

Rev 1:19 "Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

As a futurist, I try to be careful to not think that Rev is ALL in the future after Ch 3.

[Justme]

Hi Bill,

That is the really amazing thing about the Book. You as a futrist can read the chapters and say "that fits my plan" and I believe you when you say that. Believe me when I say as a person who says" it is over", it fits mine, too. I know of no other writing that can say so many different things....and say them different , so clearly.

Amazing book,

Justme

[Bill the Cat]

Agreed. Dee Dee has graciously agreed to let me defend the Futurist Pre trib premill position in the "Wrestlemania" in July. I really hope it comes to pass. I'm sure "this generation" will not pass away before it comes to pass.

:btc: :rofl:

[Faramir]

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117529#post117529)
Bill the Cat:

Agreed. Dee Dee has graciously agreed to let me defend the Futurist Pre trib premill position in the "Wrestlemania" in July. I really hope it comes to pass. I'm sure "this generation" will not pass away before it comes to pass.

:btc: :rofl:

*off topic

I hope it comes to pass too. And I hope it happens soon (that is preterist soon not furturist soon)

Sorry: Couldn't help it :smile:

[Bill the Cat]

Yeah, yeah, that was the joke!! I was figuring on someone posting that. And BTW, you'll see that soon still means soon to me too in the ring!! I have an ace up the sleeve :teeth:... I hope :shrug:

[Justme]

Hi Bill,

Okay, I'll tune in. What I said about rev still stands.

Justme

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 12:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115403#post115403)
Justme:

Hi jpholding,


One TV host up here in Canada said that the only thing left to do was get the gospel preached and the 'end' would come.


He he, I have a good idea what verses were used. Two problems: The place where the Gospel had to be preached was the oikoumene, which meant the Roman Empire. Second, the "end" was the end of the age, which preterists say happened in 70 AD.



But hey what are these verses in Matthew that some call the rapture. I didn't think rapturists considered the gospel to include any rapture verses.



I assume they mean where it speaks of people "taken". That's understood by preterists in light of Jeremiah's use of the word "taken" to refer to people *killed* in his predicted destruction of Jerusalem. So those people are not "raptured" but "ruptured". :brow:

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117600#post117600)
jpholding:

I assume they mean where it speaks of people "taken". That's understood by preterists in light of Jeremiah's use of the word "taken" to refer to people *killed* in his predicted destruction of Jerusalem. So those people are not "raptured" but "ruptured". :brow:

Hey JP, as you know, I am a futurist but I do not consider those "taken" as raptured. Context is the key

Mat 24:39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Mat 24:40 "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
Mat 24:41 "Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.

Taken as those wicked in Noah's day were. Taken like taken by surprise as the 5 foolish virgins were. Taken does not mean taken away to safety. Words are different and have different actions involved.

harpazō
to seize (in various applications):--catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

but paralambanō
to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself

[jpholding]

06-04-2003 @ 08:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117618#post117618)
Bill the Cat:

but paralambanō
to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself

Hmm, Bill -- the same word is also used for Satan taking Christ to the mountaintop. It's also used of Paul being escorted around as a prisoner. How about it means those taken into slavery by the Romans?

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119456#post119456)
jpholding:



Hmm, Bill -- the same word is also used for Satan taking Christ to the mountaintop. It's also used of Paul being escorted around as a prisoner. How about it means those taken into slavery by the Romans?

Like I said, this verse is not IMO a rapture verse, but is a verse talking about those who were taken by evil with no resistance given (swept away by itif you will). The Greek here is paralambano

Lemme clear this up with Thayer which fits into all contexts cited by both of us:
Thayer Definition:
1) to take to, to take with one’s self, to join to one’s self
1a) an associate, a companion
1b) metaphorically
1b1) to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be
1b2) not to reject, not to withhold obedience

paralambano is a passive "taken" in the manner of no resistance offered, it is expected.

paralambanō
Total KJV Occurrences: 50
took, 17
Mat_1:24, Mat_2:14, Mat_2:21, Mat_20:17, Mat_26:37, Mat_27:27, Mar_4:36, Mar_10:32, Luk_9:10, Luk_9:28, Luk_18:31, Joh_19:16, Act_15:39, Act_16:33, Act_21:26, Act_21:32, Act_23:18
received, 13
Mar_7:4, Joh_1:11, 1Co_11:23, 1Co_15:1, 1Co_15:3, Gal_1:9, Gal_1:12, Phi_4:9, Col_2:6, Col_4:17, 1Th_2:13, 1Th_4:1, 2Th_3:6
taketh, 8
Mat_4:5, Mat_4:8, Mat_12:45, Mat_17:1, Mar_5:40, Mar_9:2, Mar_14:33, Luk_11:26
take, 5
Mat_1:20, Mat_2:13, Mat_2:20, Mat_18:16, Act_21:24
taken, 5
Mat_24:40-41 (2), Luk_17:34-36 (3)
receive, 1
Joh_14:3
receiving, 1
Heb_12:28



harpazo is a forceful "taking", being unexpected
harpazō
Total KJV Occurrences: 18
caught, 5
Act_8:39, 2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:4, 1Th_4:17, Rev_12:5
force, 3
Mat_11:12, Joh_6:15, Act_23:10
take, 3
Mat_11:12, Joh_6:15, Act_23:10
away, 2
Mat_13:19, Act_8:39
catcheth, 2
Mat_13:19, Joh_10:12
pluck, 2
Joh_10:28-29 (2)