Tribulational Flavors [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

adam.naranjo

February 14th 2003, 11:12 AM

I pray for the Church -- that God might destroy pop-culture eschatology. I was a dispensationalist (hardcore) for years, and then I actually started reading the Bible without taking for granted the Christian pop-culture -- now I hold an orthodox preterist view and am a postmillennialist. (p.s. If anyone has any questions about Postmillennialism throw them my way -- I love to dispell the myths and preconceptions)

Books to read:

He Shall Have Dominion: Postmillennial Eschatology (2d ed.) (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=HSHD&Category_Code=B)

Greatness of the Great Commission (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=GGC&Category_Code=B)

Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875523897/qid=1045237876/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9064650-9345432?v=glance&s=books)

The Victory of Christ's Kingdom: An introduction to Postmillenialism (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767226/qid=1045237876/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-9064650-9345432?v=glance&s=books)

Perilous Times: A Study In Eschatological Evil (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=PT&Category_Code=B) -- Great stuff on the book of Revelation

The Beast of Revelation (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=BBEA&Category_Code=B) -- Amazing and absolutely irrerfutable evidence that the "Beast" of revelations was "NERO CEASER", who's letters of his name adds up to 666 using hebrew numbering (which uses letters as numbers) -- in greek it adds up to 616 (greeks also used letters as numbers), some early manuscripts of Revelation actually say 616 not 666.
BUT, THE BEAST termonology is also used in a general sense to speak of the roman empire as a whole...not only a person...ahhh, just read the book. This and Furthure evidence leaves no logical room for doubt.

The Great Tribulation: Past Or Future? (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=TGT&Category_Code=B) -- this is a debate on tape between Gentry and Tommy Ice (LeHays right hand man)... Gentry (partial preterist postmillennialist, smashes Ice) (PS LeHay will not debate anyone, instead he sends out tommy Ice to get smashed for him)

Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (3rd edition) (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=BJF&Category_Code=B) -- Again, the evidence stacks up showing that the book of revelation was written before the tribulation which ended with the desctruction of jerusalem is 70 a.d. (Just like Christ said, "there will not be one stone left standing on another" -- the temple was utterly destroyed, along with the disobedient covanent breakers, Israel -- just like when Christ said [just before the olivet discourse] 'the blood of all the prophets will be avenged on THIS generation" -- and "some here will not taste death until they see the kingdom come with powe" -- "this genereation will not pass away" etc...etc..)

Last Days According to Jesus (https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=LAS02BP)

Adam.

Lizard

February 14th 2003, 01:33 PM

efta777:
I didn't learn most of these terms until I started to move away from the "pop culture" eschatology of LaHay and Lindsay. I'd never even heard the term Preterist before - I don't think they like to mention us.

I think you are right. When I finally abandoned the "pop culture" eschatology, I accidently ran across an article on preterism. My first reaction was "what kind of nonsense is this".

But after I read a little more on the subject, I began to see why LaHay and Co. don't want you to know about it.

Now I am one.

:yipee:

Preterist that is. :D

Jaltus

February 14th 2003, 01:39 PM

I knew about preterists right off the bat. I just don't think they can have a coherent reading of Revelation. err, then again, nobody really does. How about a less coherent reading of Revelation?

Lizard

February 14th 2003, 01:43 PM

Jaltus:
I knew about preterists right off the bat. I just don't think they can have a coherent reading of Revelation. err, then again, nobody really does. How about a less coherent reading of Revelation?

I will concede that as a possibility for now. I am just now getting comfortable defending preterism, in the OD and Revelation is hard enough for any position. I have not yet had the time to get to understand the finer points of Revelation from a preterist perpective.

However, am sure that Dee Dee would be more than happy to enlighten both of us. :D

Darth Xena

February 14th 2003, 01:46 PM

Hey Adam... you are right on the money with those book recommendations. I can barely describe my first reaction when I firs heard of preterism, but suffice it say I thought it was one of the nuttiest things I had ever heard until I really examined the foundations, and well... the rest is history. I came kicking and screaming but here I am.

And Faramir, you know my heart has been that this site not be a preterist site, and though it is nice not to be in the minority for once, that is not reflective of the church as a whole, which we would like to this site to be. I have been going out of my way to invite competent futurist defenders such as my new friend Rusty from ThingstoCome.org, and I encourage others to do the same.

Darth Xena

February 14th 2003, 01:48 PM

I am just now getting a pretty good handle on Revelation, and it is not that big of a bear for preterism at all. Of course, it is not without its problems, but considering in my last debate at another forum, I was told that the mark of the beast was an implanted global tracking device so that the antichrist knows where everyone is at... hey, I am pretty comfortable in my view. LOLOLOL!!!

Lizard

February 14th 2003, 01:51 PM

Dee Dee Warren:
And Faramir, you know my heart has been that this site not be a preterist site, and though it is nice not to be in the minority for once, that is not reflective of the church as a whole, which we would like to this site to be. I have been going out of my way to invite competent futurist defenders such as my new friend Rusty from ThingstoCome.org, and I encourage others to do the same.

Yes Dee I know. I agree. I thought I said as much, but with fewer words ;) (see bold)
Faramir:
:yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

But seriously, I really do not want this to be seen as a preterist site. I know that that was never the intent.

But it is nice not to be in a overwhelming minority for once. I just hope it doesn't last. ;)

Ric

February 16th 2003, 12:37 AM

I am an orthodox preterist, pretribulation, pretmillenial, Trinitarian. Read the Bible for my statement of faith. :read:

Darth Xena

February 16th 2003, 08:15 AM

Ric... huh??? How can you be a pretributional preterist???

Ric

February 16th 2003, 02:28 PM

Dee Dee Warren:
Ric... huh??? How can you be a pretributional preterist???

Maybe I have the definition wrong? But isn't a (partial) preterist one who believes that not all prophecy has come to pass?

Darth Xena

February 16th 2003, 02:34 PM

Yes, but the Tribulation is not one of those things... the hallmark of preterism is that the Tribulation is long past. It is the resurrectoin and boldy coming of Christ and judgment that is yet future.

Carl Smuda

February 19th 2003, 02:37 PM

I voted Historicist. I have a few bookmarks on Historicist websites. But I cannot define what this means. It turns out, that I've risen to my level of incompetence. I've not time no mo. When you think of this one called Carl, please pray that I pass this community college police academy, okay? I would appreciate it. nevertheless, not my will but His be done.

Doesn't Historicism say the prophecies have been being fulfilled throughout the ages?

I can certainly follow along with the preterist's hallmark that GT has passed. (let those in JUDEA head for the hills) but world globalization and the erosion of civil liberties makes me wonder. I like the optimist point of view. But I wonder.

Dee Dee, I'm still reading that article on "continuation". so far it sounds like the same think as I think I understand covenant theology.

God Bless,
Carl

P.S. :help: :help: :help: I just got off Historicist.com and oh-oh. I'm not feeling comfortable. I'm holding a bizarre chart I just printed in acrobat that is some overview of Revelation by Jason Potts. It seems that the book ends with 1917 A.D. - 2nd Advent; World Wars...or no! wait,

right now we are in the following all at once: The seventh seal. The seventh trumpet. the third woe. the seventh vial. Judgment of Papal Roman Empire. Laodiccea (historical progress of the nation of Israel). Revelation 3:14-22. 1917 A.D. Power of the Holy People.

Can I change my vote? put me down for "I have no clue, pass the peanuts" :argh:

Bill K.

February 20th 2003, 07:20 AM

I usually simply refer to myself as a Preterist because I understand the Olivet discourse to have been fulfilled in 70 AD, but I noticed that another option in the poll was "double fulfillment." If this means that one sees both a fulfillment in 70 AD that ends the age of the Jews, and a Gentile-recapitulation of the same sinful course of the historical Israel that ends in the same tragic way, than I am in the "double" group.

Jesus: "When I return, will I find faith on the earth...?"

I have not read this thread all the way through. Are there others of my ilk posting here?

In Christ,
Bill

Darth Xena

February 20th 2003, 07:27 AM

Dear Bill:

I probably should clarify what I meant by "double" when I posted the poll which would not be the position you just articulated... the "double" I was referring to was an exact refulfillment with the focus once again on Israel. You seem to be alluding to a Gentile typological refullfillment.

Bill K.

February 20th 2003, 08:15 AM

Yes, I am. Thanks for the clarification.

Hitch

February 23rd 2003, 04:54 PM

02-20-2003 @ 12:20 PM
Bill K.:

I usually simply refer to myself as a Preterist because I understand the Olivet discourse to have been fulfilled in 70 AD, but I noticed that another option in the poll was "double fulfillment." If this means that one sees both a fulfillment in 70 AD that ends the age of the Jews, and a Gentile-recapitulation of the same sinful course of the historical Israel that ends in the same tragic way, than I am in the "double" group.

Jesus: "When I return, will I find faith on the earth...?"

I have not read this thread all the way through. Are there others of my ilk posting here?

In Christ,
Bill Better sit down Bill.... 'Are there others of my ilk posting here?' Possibly a majority.

H

The Curtmudgeon

February 24th 2003, 06:21 PM

Well, if Dee Dee's avatar will put that sword down for a minute, I'm voting 'futurist'.

If not, then I'll just s.l.o.w.l.y back out of range and then turn and run (got my practice doing rattlesnake hunts with my cousins).

The (running from my cousins, that is, not the mere snakes) Curtmudgeon

Rubens

March 1st 2003, 09:42 PM

I am on the fringe of understanding some of these terms myself.

Lets just say I reckon that Jesus raptures the believers, then there's the great tribulation which we all get to spectate from the mezzanine floor, then the second physical coming and reign, then the millenium...

So I am a pre-trib, pre-millenium "part" preterist, yeah?

On your poll therefore I should tick "futurist"?

Yikes, this is harder than I thought...

:hrm:

studyhound

March 6th 2003, 02:01 AM

Sorry to be so late in the game, but hey this my first day here so that makes me the newbie :hi: I throw my hat in with the preterist camp.

I will say that I am a recovering dispy. but have been clean for 4 years now and I feel'n great and my future is bright. :lol: :teeth:

(I love these smilies :yipee: :cheers: :angel: :kiss: :cir: )

Studyhound

Darth Xena

March 6th 2003, 05:01 AM

Studyhound is cool. The first two posts are in my polls. :thumb:

:yipee:

And you are not late in the game at all, this game's only been going since 1/26/03 so you are part of the elite few that in a few years can say, "Oh yeah, I was one of the first members."

Now be good and invite all your friends.

Lizard

March 6th 2003, 10:31 AM

03-06-2003 @ 02:01 AM
studyhound:

Sorry to be so late in the game, but hey this my first day here so that makes me the newbie :hi: I throw my hat in with the preterist camp.

I will say that I am a recovering dispy. but have been clean for 4 years now and I feel'n great and my future is bright. :lol: :teeth:

(I love these smilies :yipee: :cheers: :angel: :kiss: :cir: )

Studyhound

Welcome fellow former dispy. I've been clean for about two years now myself. :thumb:

Solly

March 6th 2003, 10:34 AM

Am I hurting you my lad?

--No Sir, why.

I should be, I'm standing on your hair. GET YOUR HAIRCUT LAD!!

studyhound

March 6th 2003, 11:48 AM

03-06-2003 @ 02:01 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Studyhound is cool. The first two posts are in my polls. :thumb:

:yipee:

And you are not late in the game at all, this game's only been going since 1/26/03 so you are part of the elite few that in a few years can say, "Oh yeah, I was one of the first members."

Now be good and invite all your friends.

:bawl: Its so good to be some were where I am understood. :thumb:

I would invite my friends but I dont have any :cry: Just kidding they are all "non-theological" and dont like the division theology makes. Ill convert them yet :love:

Studyhound

Carl Smuda

March 6th 2003, 01:27 PM

Rubens,
God Bless you in the name of Jesus Christ! Praise our Father in heaven who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in high places. How ARE things down under? I see your textbook pretrib-rapture. I respect that. I don't share your P.O.V. but I did for years. Then I concluded only one second coming at put me in the post-trib group. I didn't know that that was historical, or classical premillennial. Then I got so sick of "Left Behind" everywhere that I sought out alternatives to Dispensationalism and had no where to go but Covenant Theology. That opened it up to Postmillennial and finally, with the advent of Dee Dee, preterism. Although just between you and me I voted Historicism. I'm ex-Catholic. I guess I have the right to call the Pope 'the Beast' just like all those reformed protestants from the 16th century.
Sincerely,
Carl :bonk:

03-01-2003 @ 06:42 PM
Rubens:

I am on the fringe of understanding some of these terms myself.

Lets just say I reckon that Jesus raptures the believers, then there's the great tribulation which we all get to spectate from the mezzanine floor, then the second physical coming and reign, then the millenium...

So I am a pre-trib, pre-millenium "part" preterist, yeah?

On your poll therefore I should tick "futurist"?

Yikes, this is harder than I thought...

:hrm:

bar Jonah

March 11th 2003, 02:48 AM

02-10-2003 @ 12:52 AM
efta777:

I didn't learn most of these terms until I started to move away from the "pop culture" eschatology of LaHay and Lindsay. I'd never even heard the term Preterist before - I don't think they like to mention us.
We open theists know just how you feel. The mainstream tries to pretend we don't exist, either. Try finding the Open View / Open Theism... or even "neo-theism" *shudder* in any theological dictionary or encyclopedia. I have yet to find one that even acknowledges we exist, despite the fact that, from what I hear, we are growing in number.

efta777

March 14th 2003, 02:10 PM

RI,
I'll definately agree with you there. I for one, would like to see the OVers represented at least in theology Dictionaries and the like, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. There are enough of you out there (Like preterists) that it shouldn't just be ignored.

Darth Xena

March 19th 2003, 07:52 PM

Who are you talking to Efta?

Darth Xena

March 19th 2003, 07:53 PM

:rofl: :rofl:

Just kidding RI!!!

Woman

March 19th 2003, 08:04 PM

What does an open-theist believe? Or what is the open view?

:smile:

Wesley's son

March 24th 2003, 12:47 PM

02-13-2003 @ 09:05 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=15848#post15848)
Jaltus:

I would fall into the double fulfillment, though not a total double.

I think I might be under that persuasion too. What events would not be repeated in the future?

Carl Smuda

March 24th 2003, 02:03 PM

03-19-2003 @ 05:04 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40343#post40343)
Woman:

What does an open-theist believe? Or what is the open view?

:smile: No, sorry that's not one of the choices. You can't ask that sort of thing in here.

:bonk: :bonk: :bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

kidding. Woman, they believe that God cannot see everything that is going to happen. the possibilities are open, not closed. No elect or predestination. And I'm not even emotionally ready to even think about how they explain prophecy. :argh:

bar Jonah

March 24th 2003, 02:08 PM

Today @ 12:03 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43790#post43790)
Carl Smuda:

No, sorry that's not one of the choices. You can't ask that sort of thing in here.

:bonk: :bonk: :bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

kidding. Woman, they believe that God cannot see everything that is going to happen. the possibilities are open, not closed. No elect or predestination. And I'm not even emotionally ready to even think about how they explain prophecy. :argh:
RRRHHNNNNN! Wrong, Carl. Sorry! Why must you misrepresent what Open Theists believe? Are you really so afraid of our views?

Anyone who doesn't believe in election and predestination must deny God's word, itself. The Bible obviously refers to election and predestination. The simple explanation is that Open Theists (and many non-OVers as well, particularly dispensationalists) believe in election and predestination on a corporate or humanity-wide level, not on an individual level.

Carl Smuda

March 24th 2003, 02:44 PM

Today @ 11:08 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43795#post43795)
RightIdea:

RRRHHNNNNN! Wrong, Carl. Sorry! Why must you misrepresent what Open Theists believe? Are you really so afraid of our views?

Anyone who doesn't believe in election and predestination must deny God's word, itself. The Bible obviously refers to election and predestination. The simple explanation is that Open Theists (and many non-OVers as well, particularly dispensationalists) believe in election and predestination on a corporate or humanity-wide level, not on an individual level. RightIdea, okay. Thank you. And good point. I don't know the OV well. I apologize for acusing the movement of denying election and predestination. It sounds best for you to tell the good woman the correct answer.
very respectfully,
Carl :juggle:

Bill the Cat

April 19th 2003, 05:58 AM

I am a futurist. But I may be leaning to double fulfillment. I love Hilton Sutton. I think he treats the future tribulation idea more fairly than LaHay or some of the others. Not nearly as fanciful or science-fictional. I've read DD and JP's articles on preterism and I don't necessarily disagree with their interpretations, but I think there will be a universal grand fulfillment that involves all mankind, not just the Jews

sacre

April 22nd 2003, 02:30 AM

I am a Preterist also, and a new member of these forums, so don't jump on me without an introduction first, please.

Lizard

April 22nd 2003, 09:57 AM

Today @ 02:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75273#post75273)
sacre:

I am a Preterist also, and a new member of these forums, so don't jump on me without an introduction first, please.

Actually sacre, I think that there are a disproportiantely large number of preterist at tweb (compared to the general evangelical population).

So welcome.

Have a banana from a fellow preterist. :yipee:

Solly

April 22nd 2003, 09:58 AM

03-24-2003 @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43795#post43795)
RightIdea:
The simple explanation is that Open Theists (and many non-OVers as well, particularly dispensationalists) believe in election and predestination on a corporate or humanity-wide level, not on an individual level.

Like Karl Barth?

sacre

April 22nd 2003, 10:32 AM

Thanks for the banana and the welcome, Faramir. As to the "disproportion" business: why should we be surprised at the theological purity of the church? By the grace of God, the proportion will continue to shift in the direction of truth.

Godspeed,
R.

John Reece

April 22nd 2003, 10:37 AM

Welcome, sacre!

The link to the Homepage in your profile here at TWeb seems to be broken. Is that fixable?

:cheers:

sacre

April 22nd 2003, 12:38 PM

Thank you, John Reece. I just clicked on the link in my profile, and it worked for me. I'm not sure what the problem is. http://www.biblestudy.wxs.org

Regards,
R. McIntyre

John Reece

April 22nd 2003, 01:23 PM

Works for me now.

Thanks.

Hitch

April 22nd 2003, 09:09 PM

Yesterday @ 07:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75273#post75273)
sacre:

I am a Preterist also, and a new member of these forums, so don't jump on me without an introduction first, please. DIE YANKEE PRETERIST FRESHMAN DOG !

TWells

May 2nd 2003, 10:35 PM

Right now im a progressive dispensational, post tribulational, futurist (try saying that five times fast) ...a local bookstore recently recived a bunch of Sproul books, so im considering taking a look at his 'last days according to Jesus.'

Darth Xena

May 2nd 2003, 10:40 PM

04-19-2003 @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73015#post73015)
Bill the Cat:

I am a futurist. But I may be leaning to double fulfillment. I love Hilton Sutton. I think he treats the future tribulation idea more fairly than LaHay or some of the others. Not nearly as fanciful or science-fictional. I've read DD and JP's articles on preterism and I don't necessarily disagree with their interpretations, but I think there will be a universal grand fulfillment that involves all mankind, not just the Jews

And where in the passage (Matthew 24 specifically) does it say that???

Revelation and the Discourse both limit the time for fulfillment and it was back then.

Darth Xena

May 2nd 2003, 10:41 PM

Hitch, you didn't scare him did you? Does he know you are a preterist dog yourself?

Bill the Cat

May 3rd 2003, 06:01 AM

Yesterday @ 10:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85853#post85853)
Dee Dee Warren:

And where in the passage (Matthew 24 specifically) does it say that???

Revelation and the Discourse both limit the time for fulfillment and it was back then.

Yeah Yeah, I've heard all of the "time texts" and I agree with Thomas Ice here where he says:
I believe that the timing of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is governed by the related phrase “all these things.” In other words, Christ is saying that the generation that sees “all these things” occur will not cease to exist until all the events of the future tribulation are literally fulfilled

Dr. Darrell Bock, in commenting on the parallel passage to Matthew 24 in Luke’s Gospel concurs:

What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation. . . . The tradition reflected in Revelation shows that the consummation comes very quickly once it comes. . . . Nonetheless, in the discourse's prophetic context, the remark comes after making comments about the nearness of the end to certain signs. As such it is the issue of the signs that controls the passage's force, making this view likely. If this view is correct, Jesus says that when the signs of the beginning of the end come, then the end will come relatively quickly, within a generation.
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51—24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), pp. 1691–92

Hitch

May 3rd 2003, 12:09 PM

What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation. . . .

LOL thats how Hal sold all those books,,1948 + 40...Hal has recently re-defined 'generation' to lifespan which he calculates at roughly 120 years.

What cracks me us is the willingness of this programs adherents to blindly accept the gross internal conflict required and to do so unquestioningly. Jesus could come(in rapture) any moment. Why? Because there are no prophetic events between J 14 and the rapture. So naturally hundreds of books listing the 'signs' have been the guides of adult Sunday School classes for the last 100 years in America. Hmmmm see you're not supposed to ask why there are 'signs' when there arent supposed to be any. Emporer Imminence has no clothes and if you dare say so the likes of John Haggee will threaten you with 'being left behind'.

And being left here with Haggee would scare anybody.

Take care

Hitch

theist

May 5th 2003, 07:11 PM

I'm pretty sure Jesus was clear that the Apostles would see "these days"...

in HIS grip,

rustyb

theist

May 5th 2003, 07:17 PM

Luke 21:36 Be always on the watch, and pray that YOU may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that YOU may be able to stand before the Son of Man." (NIV)

Jesus wasn't talking 2000 years into the future, he was talking to the apostles and disciples.

in HIS grip,

rustyb

Bill the Cat

May 6th 2003, 08:13 AM

So if that's the case, then every time Jesus said the word "you" it can only mean those who were listening? That would make most of His words irrelivant to us, because they would have been fulfilled.

I believe, rather, that "all these things" embraces all thus far predicted, and that "this generation" means the Jewish race, instead of only those then living. The Greek word so rendered is used in the sense of race in the Greek classics, and as examples of such use in the New Testament, Alford points to Mat_12:45, and Luk_16:8, as examples of such use in the New Testament. Christ has described the awful end of the Jewish state; after such a destruction and scattering of the remnant to the ends of the earth, all the examples of history would declare that the Jewish race would become extinct. Christ, however, declares that, contrary to all probability, it shall not pass away until he comes.
The People's New Testament by B. W. Johnson

Darth Xena

May 6th 2003, 09:33 AM

Today @ 08:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88825#post88825)
Bill the Cat:

So if that's the case, then every time Jesus said the word "you" it can only mean those who were listening? That would make most of His words irrelivant to us, because they would have been fulfilled.

I believe, rather, that "all these things" embraces all thus far predicted, and that "this generation" means the Jewish race, instead of only those then living. The Greek word so rendered is used in the sense of race in the Greek classics, and as examples of such use in the New Testament, Alford points to Mat_12:45, and Luk_16:8, as examples of such use in the New Testament. Christ has described the awful end of the Jewish state; after such a destruction and scattering of the remnant to the ends of the earth, all the examples of history would declare that the Jewish race would become extinct. Christ, however, declares that, contrary to all probability, it shall not pass away until he comes.
The People's New Testament by B. W. Johnson

Bill you seem to be equivocating. Ice does not believe "generation" means race (which is nonsensical on other grounds) but believes generation is delimited by "all these things." Even if Ice is correct, and he is not, I can still prove using his own argument that it is a first century generation. In other words I can gore him with his own ox.

Bill the Cat

May 6th 2003, 11:43 AM

i'm just showing the variety of ideas on this particular subject. I personally believe, even after reading "Days of Vengence" that even if it was a first century (partial) fulfillment by the destruction of the temple, that there will be a total fulfillment of "all these things" in the future. Do you believe in multiple fulfillments of prophecy? There is frequently a quick literal, then a more distant universal fulfillment of some prophecies.

Edited later:
I told you I only had a little time to post, so I really can't develop the ideas I'm putting out until later. Thanks for the patience.

Darth Xena

May 6th 2003, 11:55 AM

There is absolutely no indication in the passage to indicate a future fulfillment whatsoever, that is mere speculation. Seems to me that an inordinate amount of devotion is given to mere speculation when the clear meaning is right there. Are you also looking for a double fulfillment of the Tyre prophecy? Or the prophesy of God getting back at Assyria for doing nasty deeds? If not, why not? Why the baggage laid on this one judgment passage?

Solly

May 6th 2003, 12:12 PM

Today @ 04:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88918#post88918)
Dee Dee Warren:

There is absolutely no indication in the passage to indicate a future fulfillment whatsoever, that is mere speculation. Seems to me that an inordinate amount of devotion is given to mere speculation when the clear meaning is right there. Are you also looking for a double fulfillment of the Tyre prophecy? Or the prophesy of God getting back at Assyria for doing nasty deeds? If not, why not? Why the baggage laid on this one judgment passage?

Yes, there is room for double fulfillment. The judgments upon Tyre and the other nations, but esp on Babylon prefigure the judgments upon the whole world, else why would John use the imagery of Babylon in Revelation.
The passage in Matt 24 can indicate a future judgment if, a. not all belongs to the judgment upon Jerusalem, reading "this generation" as the time in which these judgments would begin to come to pass - upon the whole age, not just Jerusalem, and b. it again prefigures the great judgment, as is seen in the similar imagery of trumpets, clouds, coming etc.

Tony (Tweb's resident non-praeterist amillennialist)
I have just got Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism so hope to get back to this soon.

Darth Xena

May 6th 2003, 12:40 PM

Today @ 12:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88933#post88933)
Solly:

Yes, there is room for double fulfillment. The judgments upon Tyre and the other nations, but esp on Babylon prefigure the judgments upon the whole world, els

Ohhh Sollllyyyyyy :whip: :ddw:

You are assuming what you need to prove and that is that Revelation is speaking of a worldwide judgment. It is not. And prefigurement (if that is a word) is NOT double fulfilment. The details of the earlier judgments are not particularly fulfilled in the later judgment, the themes are. And judgment themes are repititive but again that is not double fulfillment. And no one says (or will say) that the specific anicent judments upon Babylon were fulfilled in AD70 (different city - typology) or even in a futurist sense at the end of the world - different subject.

why would John use the imagery of Babylon in Revelation.

Because Babylon was evil typified and God was giving Jerusalem the back of His hand by comparing them to their ancient enemy and using archetypical symbols of evil and apostasy.

The passage in Matt 24 can indicate a future judgment if, a. not all belongs to the judgment upon Jerusalem, reading "this generation" as the time in which these judgments would begin to come to pass

But the passage doesn't say that which puts a major monkey wrench into that theory.

- upon the whole age, not just Jerusalem, and b. it again prefigures the great judgment, as is seen in the similar imagery of trumpets, clouds, coming etc.

Well you know I have a lot to say about the age thing so I will spare you the repitition, and agian, prefigurement is not double fulfillment. Judgements in Scripture frequently use clouds, coming, and trumpet imagery so I would expect the final judgment to follow suit, but that is not double fulfillment.

Bill the Cat

May 6th 2003, 01:37 PM

Today @ 11:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88918#post88918)
Dee Dee Warren:

There is absolutely no indication in the passage to indicate a future fulfillment whatsoever, that is mere speculation. Seems to me that an inordinate amount of devotion is given to mere speculation when the clear meaning is right there. Are you also looking for a double fulfillment of the Tyre prophecy? Or the prophesy of God getting back at Assyria for doing nasty deeds? If not, why not? Why the baggage laid on this one judgment passage?

And I beg to differ. There are more prophecies that have been "double fulfilled" than just the tyre one, such as Moses delivering the Israelites. And if one were to hear the Tyre prophecy when it was spoken, it would sound exacly like it were meant to be fulfilled in totality by Nebbuchadnezzar, which it was not. The idea put forth is called a type. A smaller pre-fulfillment of a grand event. Moses was the temporary deliverer, but Jesus was and is the deliverer proper. And like I said, if "all these things" have been fulfilled, they are totally irrelivant to us, so we have no need of them.

John Reece

May 6th 2003, 01:42 PM

Today @ 05:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88947#post88947)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ohhh Sollllyyyyyy :whip: :ddw:

You are assuming what you need to prove and that is that Revelation is speaking of a worldwide judgment. It is not. And prefigurement (if that is a word) is NOT double fulfilment. The details of the earlier judgments are not particularly fulfilled in the later judgment, the themes are. And judgment themes are repititive but again that is not double fulfillment. And no one says (or will say) that the specific anicent judments upon Babylon were fulfilled in AD70 (different city - typology) or even in a futurist sense at the end of the world - different subject.

. . . Babylon was evil typified and God was giving Jerusalem the back of His hand by comparing them to their ancient enemy and using archetypical symbols of evil and apostasy.

Well you know I have a lot to say about the age thing so I will spare you the repitition, and agian, prefigurement is not double fulfillment. Judgements in Scripture frequently use clouds, coming, and trumpet imagery so I would expect the final judgment to follow suit, but that is not double fulfillment.

Thanks for that, Dee Dee.

:thumb:

Darth Xena

May 6th 2003, 01:44 PM

Today @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88993#post88993)
Bill the Cat:

And I beg to differ. There are more prophecies that have been "double fulfilled" than just the tyre one, such as Moses delivering the Israelites. And if one were to hear the Tyre prophecy when it was spoken, it would sound exacly like it were meant to be fulfilled in totality by Nebbuchadnezzar, which it was not. The idea put forth is called a type. A smaller pre-fulfillment of a grand event. Moses was the temporary deliverer, but Jesus was and is the deliverer proper. And like I said, if "all these things" have been fulfilled, they are totally irrelivant to us, so we have no need of them.

You are confusing prefigurments, typologies, and "hard" fulfillment. The passage is limited in time to its immediate fulfillment. There is nothing in the passage indicate it would have a future fulfillment at all. It amazes me that the clear timing verses from the mouth of Christ are so easily dismissed. So, Jesus' first coming is ocmpletely fulfilled. Is that irrelevant to us? Creation was done just once, is that irrelevant to us? Something being done does not make it irrelevant since the majority of the OT is narrative of past events. They are done. But they are written for our instruction. Chirst is the one who limited Matthew 24, at least up to verse 34, to the first century.

Bill the Cat

May 6th 2003, 01:51 PM

Like I said, it is still irrelivant to us. Yes creation is irrelivant to a certain degree. Preterists have no reason to look forward, be on your guard, etc...things Paul warned us of. "Time texts" are too rigidly adhered to. And like I've said many times, it doesn't make sense to me at all. And I've read all of "days of vengence" so it's not arguing from ignorance of the belief.

Like my wife says... there's no way this could be the millenium because I live in hell!!

Ugh, I wish I had time to extrapolate....

And I want my smiley!! :teeth:

John Reece

May 6th 2003, 01:58 PM

I am persuaded:

Luke 24

44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

I am persuaded that there are no unfulfilled OT prophesies.

I am also persuaded that there are no NT prophesies that do not relate to the fulfillment of the teleology of John 14-17, Ephesians 1-4 and 1 Corinthians 12-15.

Ephesians 3

20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Darth Xena

May 6th 2003, 02:58 PM

Today @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89007#post89007)
Bill the Cat:

Like I said, it is still irrelivant to us. Yes creation is irrelivant to a certain degree. Preterists have no reason to look forward, be on your guard, etc...things Paul warned us of.

But Bill this is classic question-begging. Are you going to then deny that creation is a past event because you feel that it is now irrelevant. You have conceded that to you parts of the Bible are irrelevant to a certain degree, so why not this part? Why the emotional attachment when Jesus limited the fulfillment? You have no problem accepting other things are past. So my answer to your objection, taking it as true for the sake of argument, so what? If it past, it is past. Nothing changes that, and so what if that then makes it partially irrelevant. If it is, it is.

"Time texts" are too rigidly adhered to.

Well let's say that the next time your paycheck comes due, your boss waves it off saying that you just adhere to concept of time too rigidly. You have just made inane whole phrases out of the Bible. God said specific time words for a reason. How can you justify hand-waving them away?

And like I've said many times, it doesn't make sense to me at all

It may in time. It didn't make sense to me at first either. But it also doesn't make sense to me that God would die for my sins either, but the Bible teaches it.

And I've read all of "days of vengence" so it's not arguing from ignorance of the belief.

Days of Vengeance isn't the best book to read on the subject. It is way too esoteric. Last Days Madness is the book you should read. If all I have read was DoV, I wouldn't buy it either. That is a book that presupposes an already existing preterist foundation. And I think Chilton was off his tree in parts of it.

Like my wife says... there's no way this could be the millenium because I live in hell!!

And I say there is no way this cannot be the Millenium because the Biblical chronology demands that is, my personal feelings do not matter.

JackS

May 6th 2003, 03:44 PM

I'm new here and just voted Preterist. Now I will say I use to defend Dee Dee on that other site and I never got kicked out.
:poke:

I guess being offline during the great kick out helped.:huh:

Bill the Cat

May 6th 2003, 04:00 PM

And you know I love ya Dee Dee.!!

Today @ 02:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89083#post89083)
Dee Dee Warren:

[QUOTE] But Bill this is classic question-begging. Are you going to then deny that creation is a past event because you feel that it is now irrelevant. You have conceded that to you parts of the Bible are irrelevant to a certain degree, so why not this part? Why the emotional attachment when Jesus limited the fulfillment? You have no problem accepting other things are past. So my answer to your objection, taking it as true for the sake of argument, so what? If it past, it is past. Nothing changes that, and so what if that then makes it partially irrelevant. If it is, it is.

No, I meant that just because God created however many years ago, he is not still creating. Creation is an ongoing thing, and not a prophecy. Just as the admonition to stay alert and not fall into drunkenness.

Well let's say that the next time your paycheck comes due, your boss waves it off saying that you just adhere to concept of time too rigidly. You have just made inane whole phrases out of the Bible. God said specific time words for a reason. How can you justify hand-waving them away?

Thanks, that's what I wanted you to say. :thumb:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

So this means that ALL of Rev has been completed if soon means soon. because Jesus showed John the things that must soon take place, and says nothing about any gaps in time for distant future judgement or anything else past "soon"

It may in time. It didn't make sense to me at first either. But it also doesn't make sense to me that God would die for my sins either, but the Bible teaches it.

Not the same thing. And the Bible also teaches harmony in the animal kingdom during the millenium too, but that ain't happenin right now either.

Days of Vengeance isn't the best book to read on the subject. It is way too esoteric. Last Days Madness is the book you should read. If all I have read was DoV, I wouldn't buy it either. That is a book that presupposes an already existing preterist foundation. And I think Chilton was off his tree in parts of it.

I think he was off the whole forest on almost all of it. IMHO :ddw:

And I say there is no way this cannot be the Millenium because the Biblical chronology demands that is, my personal feelings do not matter.

So see above on Rev 1:1 which, if soon means soon, then it all has happened, and that makes for full preterism.

And I still love ya Dee Dee. Even though we may disagree.

Hitch

May 6th 2003, 08:57 PM

So see above on Rev 1:1 which, if soon means soon, then it all has happened, and that makes for full preterism.

And I still love ya Dee Dee. Even though we may disagree.

Come on Cat I know we can expect better of you than this one.

H

Solly

May 7th 2003, 03:20 AM

Yesterday @ 05:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88947#post88947)
Dee Dee Warren:
You are assuming what you need to prove and that is that Revelation is speaking of a worldwide judgment.

And you are assuming otherwise, because the praeterist NeoPostMill case depends upon it. Since prefigurment is a classic tool of the scripture writers, John's inspired allusions to events in the Roman empire can easily provide the launch pad for his message to the church throughout the church age, showing what is happening behind the scenes, not merely at that point.

And prefigurement (if that is a word) is NOT double fulfilment.

Prophecy is a lot more complicated that just the fact that something was predicted and then it comes to pass. Who would have thought that Hosea, in writing "Out of Egypt I have called my son" was also predicting something in Christ's life. DF is not involved in every prophetic statement.

The details of the earlier judgments are not particularly fulfilled in the later judgment, the themes are. And judgment themes are repititive but again that is not double fulfillment. And no one says (or will say) that the specific anicent judments upon Babylon were fulfilled in AD70 (different city - typology) or even in a futurist sense at the end of the world - different subject.

So it is themes. That can be handled in double fulfillment, because it is still a matter of taking references to one thing, and applying them to another. The whole Bible is predictinve in that sense, since the flood is also figurative of what is to come; DF to my mind does not need exact matching, just as Peter showed on the Day of Pentecost: this is that he sai, not thus is it fulfilled, in referring to Joel.

Because Babylon was evil typified and God was giving Jerusalem the back of His hand by comparing them to their ancient enemy and using archetypical symbols of evil and apostasy.

Really? So all those enemies have been cast into the lake of fire, and the New Jerusalem has descended from heaven just at the fall of Jerusalem. Most people would see the events in Rev as more cosmic in scope than that. But then, the P-NPM case requires said troublesome critters got out of the way, so that we can sail on to a glorious theonomic future.

Judgements in Scripture frequently use clouds, coming, and trumpet imagery so I would expect the final judgment to follow suit, but that is not double fulfillment.

As far as the references in Matt 24 are concerned, I am not refering to DF - there is only single F, and that is the end of the world/age when Christ returns physically. The judgments against Jerusalem prefigure the judgments and tribulation of the rest of the age, but Christ was close enough to the action not to need DF.
After all, if Christ was not returning physically at 70ad, then why, when warning them of false Christs, did he not just say, but I'm not coming back then, it will be a while longer? Where the false Christs coming in judgment? No. And what were the great signs and wonders these false Christs were showing?

Can you point out to me in scripture where three ages that follow back to back are recorded?

If there are three ages, then how can you make use of the now/not yet scema, since that was developed by those who hold to a two ages schema, in which the ages overlap, in which the ethical/eschatological age to come (the age of glory) is invading this present evil age. You see, Paul etc were writing in the previous age according to yourselves, which means that this age was invading his age, which isn't much use.

Solly

May 7th 2003, 03:24 AM

Yesterday @ 06:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89012#post89012)
John Reece:
I am persuaded that there are no unfulfilled OT prophesies.

Then, IMHO, you cannot follow DD, for NeoPostMillennialism requires the fulfillment of the OT prophecies about a kingdom on earth. that is why it is called post Millennialism; Christ won't return until the kingdom has been established. The Theonomic twist is that not only is it a glorious future for the church, but society will also come under its sway, beecoming Christianised. (Quite a few NeoPostMills are Theonomists) which is what distinguishes it from classicPostMillennialism.

Darth Xena

May 7th 2003, 04:25 AM

Today @ 03:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89708#post89708)
Solly:

Yesterday @ 05:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88947#post88947)
Dee Dee Warren:
You are assuming what you need to prove and that is that Revelation is speaking of a worldwide judgment.

And you are assuming otherwise, because the praeterist NeoPostMill case depends upon it. Since prefigurment is a classic tool of the scripture writers, John's inspired allusions to events in the Roman empire can easily provide the launch pad for his message to the church throughout the church age, showing what is happening behind the scenes, not merely at that point.

Well all we have each done is made statements of position, but I would not disagree that Revelation could have "typical" value in that point, but that does not change the fact that the primary fulfillment was in the first century.

And prefigurement (if that is a word) is NOT double fulfilment.

Prophecy is a lot more complicated that just the fact that something was predicted and then it comes to pass. Who would have thought that Hosea, in writing "Out of Egypt I have called my son" was also predicting something in Christ's life. DF is not involved in every prophetic statement.

Of course not but the primary fulfillment is the direct fulfillment. It is he primary fulfillment that fulfills the exact details. The prefigurement fulfillls the themes, but the exact details are not as important. My point remains.

The details of the earlier judgments are not particularly fulfilled in the later judgment, the themes are. And judgment themes are repititive but again that is not double fulfillment. And no one says (or will say) that the specific anicent judments upon Babylon were fulfilled in AD70 (different city - typology) or even in a futurist sense at the end of the world - different subject.

So it is themes. That can be handled in double fulfillment, because it is still a matter of taking references to one thing, and applying them to another. The whole Bible is predictinve in that sense, since the flood is also figurative of what is to come; DF to my mind does not need exact matching, just as Peter showed on the Day of Pentecost: this is that he sai, not thus is it fulfilled, in referring to Joel.

Direct fulfillment does indeed need exact mathes otherwise the prophecy is false. And of course the whole Bible is typologically predicftive, but you would not deny that the flood is a past event, despite any figurative value. You would not project the flood primarily into the future, and that is what is being done with the first century coming and the first century tribulation. And Joel was particularly fulfilled.

Because Babylon was evil typified and God was giving Jerusalem the back of His hand by comparing them to their ancient enemy and using archetypical symbols of evil and apostasy.

Really? So all those enemies have been cast into the lake of fire, and the New Jerusalem has descended from heaven just at the fall of Jerusalem. Most people would see the events in Rev as more cosmic in scope than that. But then, the P-NPM case requires said troublesome critters got out of the way, so that we can sail on to a glorious theonomic future.

I think you know I was referring to the bulk of Revelation. Those things happen at the close of the Millenium (another bad timing issue for amill) however the New Jerusalem is both a present and future reality.

Judgements in Scripture frequently use clouds, coming, and trumpet imagery so I would expect the final judgment to follow suit, but that is not double fulfillment.

As far as the references in Matt 24 are concerned, I am not refering to DF - there is only single F, and that is the end of the world/age when Christ returns physically. The judgments against Jerusalem prefigure the judgments and tribulation of the rest of the age, but Christ was close enough to the action not to need DF.

Well that is simply putting the cart before the horse and putting a schema upon the text. The specific time frame for direct fulfillment was given by Christ and it wasn't in our future, it is long past. You have turned it on its head.

After all, if Christ was not returning physically at 70ad, then why, when warning them of false Christs, did he not just say, but I'm not coming back then, it will be a while longer? Where the false Christs coming in judgment? No. And what were the great signs and wonders these false Christs were showing?

Why would He limit the time frame to the first century very dogmatically? Josephus records fraudulent miracle workers.

Can you point out to me in scripture where three ages that follow back to back are recorded?

If there are three ages, then how can you make use of the now/not yet scema, since that was developed by those who hold to a two ages schema, in which the ages overlap, in which the ethical/eschatological age to come (the age of glory) is invading this present evil age. You see, Paul etc were writing in the previous age according to yourselves, which means that this age was invading his age, which isn't much use.

That last statement made no sense to me and I know this is something you are developing further, so perhaps that should wait until then. I believe I have shown the three ages, so now the burden of rebuttal I think is upon you. An overlapping can be used effectively by either model. The Exodus imagery suits well, it is the transitional generation, it is not a black line in the sand which crosses one age to another it is a generational line.

At this point though, maybe we should take this into another thread.. I really would like this to stay a more surface level demographics thread, and yes I know, I started it. :poke:

Today @ 03:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89709#post89709)
Solly:

Yesterday @ 06:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89012#post89012)
John Reece:
I am persuaded that there are no unfulfilled OT prophesies.

Then, IMHO, you cannot follow DD, for NeoPostMillennialism requires the fulfillment of the OT prophecies about a kingdom on earth. that is why it is called post Millennialism; Christ won't return until the kingdom has been established. The Theonomic twist is that not only is it a glorious future for the church, but society will also come under its sway, beecoming Christianised. (Quite a few NeoPostMills are Theonomists) which is what distinguishes it from classicPostMillennialism.

Actually I think John would readily agree that he and I have significant disagreements in several areas. But the Kingdom is established, it is now growing. I am not sure what John meant by his statement, but depending upon how he meant it, he and I may be in complete agreeement for I can say the same thing. All the kingdom prophecies are being fulfilled now, but they are not done being fulfilled. There will come the consummation which will include the resurrection. I think your dichotomy between society and the church though in theonomy is somewhat misplaced, society will join the church which is how society comes under its sway. It is not the Church holding sway over a pagan society, it is a Christian society. I see though you do say that, it just seems a bit in conflict with the two terms.

Bill the Cat

May 7th 2003, 08:44 AM

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89411#post89411)
Hitch:

So see above on Rev 1:1 which, if soon means soon, then it all has happened, and that makes for full preterism.

And I still love ya Dee Dee. Even though we may disagree.

Come on Cat I know we can expect better of you than this one.

H

1) Thanks, I appreciate your confidence in my ability :thumb:
2) I told you guys I didn't have lots of time to extrapolate :hrm:
3) Is this or is this not a "time text"?
4) Why couldn't the destruction of Jerusalem be a prefigure of a destruction on a more grand scale?
5) Man I wish I had more time!! :rant:

John Reece

May 7th 2003, 09:34 AM

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89709#post89709)
Solly:

Yesterday @ 06:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89012#post89012)
John Reece:
I am persuaded that there are no unfulfilled OT prophesies.

Then, IMHO, you cannot follow DD, for NeoPostMillennialism requires the fulfillment of the OT prophecies about a kingdom on earth. that is why it is called post Millennialism; Christ won't return until the kingdom has been established. The Theonomic twist is that not only is it a glorious future for the church, but society will also come under its sway, beecoming Christianised. (Quite a few NeoPostMills are Theonomists) which is what distinguishes it from classicPostMillennialism.

Solly,

Who said I followed Dee Dee? :smile:

You have identified one of the reasons I quit allowing myself to be labeled a Postmillennialist, and never became a Theonomist, despite my great admiration and appreciation for both Postmillennialists and Theonomists. It's just that God and his Plan are even greater than they have yet comprehended.

:cheers:

:thumb:

Solly

May 7th 2003, 09:39 AM

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89928#post89928)
John Reece:
Solly,

Who said I followed Dee Dee? :smile:

You have identified one of the reasons I quit allowing myself to be labeled a Postmillennialist, and never became a Theonomist, despite my great admiration and appreciation for both Postmillennialists and Theonomists. It's just that God and his Plan are even greater than they have yet comprehended.

It was only oin the area of preterism that I made that comment John, I didn't know your other allegiances.

Tony

John Reece

May 7th 2003, 09:42 AM

Today @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89720#post89720)
Dee Dee Warren:

Actually I think John would readily agree that he and I have significant disagreements in several areas. But the Kingdom is established, it is now growing. I am not sure what John meant by his statement, but depending upon how he meant it, he and I may be in complete agreeement for I can say the same thing. All the kingdom prophecies are being fulfilled now, but they are not done being fulfilled. There will come the consummation which will include the resurrection. I think your dichotomy between society and the church though in theonomy is somewhat misplaced, society will join the church which is how society comes under its sway. It is not the Church holding sway over a pagan society, it is a Christian society. I see though you do say that, it just seems a bit in conflict with the two terms.

Yes, Dee Dee, we agree for the most part, and the only disagreement is where I am quite alone - there is no school of interpretation that has grasped what I think I see. But to me it is so obvious I don't quite understand how it is missed, except for the principle declared in Isaiah 55.

John

John Reece

May 7th 2003, 09:46 AM

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89931#post89931)
Solly:

It was only in the area of preterism that I made that comment John, I didn't know your other allegiances.

Tony

Allegiances? What allegiances?

Don't you know "heritics" don't have allegiances?

Ah, I should not joke about it . . .

:smile:

Darth Xena

May 7th 2003, 10:01 AM

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89411#post89411)
Hitch:

So see above on Rev 1:1 which, if soon means soon, then it all has happened, and that makes for full preterism.

Come on Cat, that makes no sense. Let's put it out of Revelation and use our noodle. If I were to prophesy that a decade of prosperity was to begin for you "soon" what would you expect? You would expect that the decade would beging soon right? Would you expect it to end soon just because it began soon? Come on!! Revelation says that the events are soon. One of the events is a "thousand year" period. What does that tell you? The beginning of the thousand years was soon, the end was at least a thousand years away (no matter how you interpret "thousand"). So your objection holds no water whatsoever.

Come on Cat I know we can expect better of you than this one.

H

I agree. It is just hand-waving the time texts away.

Darth Xena

May 7th 2003, 10:07 AM

/ot somehow my avatar just seems wrong on several levels having this conversation :rofl:

Darth Xena

May 7th 2003, 10:09 AM

Today @ 09:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89940#post89940)
John Reece:

Allegiances? What allegiances?

Don't you know "heritics" don't have allegiances?

Ah, I should not joke about it . . .

:smile:

I have a very disobedient swarm, and Solly is the one that got away :whip:

Bill the Cat

May 7th 2003, 10:10 AM

Today @ 10:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89950#post89950)
Dee Dee Warren:

Come on Cat, that makes no sense. Let's put it out of Revelation and use our noodle. If I were to prophesy that a decade of prosperity was to begin for you "soon" what would you expect? You would expect that the decade would beging soon right? Would you expect it to end soon just because it began soon? Come on!! Revelation says that the events are soon. One of the events is a "thousand year" period. What does that tell you? The beginning of the thousand years was soon, the end was at least a thousand years away (no matter how you interpret "thousand"). So your objection holds no water whatsoever.

I agree. It is just hand-waving the time texts away.

......aaaahhh, too many words, too little time to post them. My sincerest apologies for not giving my reply my all. :shy:

John Reece

May 7th 2003, 10:24 AM

Today @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89958#post89958)
Dee Dee Warren:

I have a very disobedient swarm, and Solly is the one that got away :whip:

:lol:

Solly

May 7th 2003, 10:34 AM

:poke:

Hitch

May 8th 2003, 07:56 PM

05-07-2003 @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89880#post89880)
Bill the Cat:

1) Thanks, I appreciate your confidence in my ability :thumb:
2) I told you guys I didn't have lots of time to extrapolate :hrm:
3) Is this or is this not a "time text"?
4) Why couldn't the destruction of Jerusalem be a prefigure of a destruction on a more grand scale?
5) Man I wish I had more time!! :rant: Why expect 'destruction on a more grand scale'? Didnt Jesus promise growth on a grand scale?

Jesus has long since conquered the world and destroyed the works of the devil. Now its time for growth and the historical realization of God's blessing in the lives of Covenant Keepers and his wrath on covenant breakers. The 'destruction' neccessary for the continued growth of the Kingdom of God was accomplished in full by Christ.

Take care

Hitch

Darth Xena

May 8th 2003, 08:23 PM

Amen!!! Why are we so enamored with torching the earth?

John Reece

May 8th 2003, 08:44 PM

Today @ 12:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91459#post91459)
Hitch:

Why expect 'destruction on a more grand scale'? Didnt Jesus promise growth on a grand scale?

Jesus has long since conquered the world and destroyed the works of the devil. Now its time for growth and the historical realization of God's blessing in the lives of Covenant Keepers and his wrath on covenant breakers. The 'destruction' neccessary for the continued growth of the Kingdom of God was accomplished in full by Christ.

Take care

Hitch

Spot on Hitch .

:thumb:

'Glad to see you using the quote button. Without it, I had some difficulty figuring out when you were quoting someone, and when you were responding to someone.

Bill the Cat

May 9th 2003, 11:42 AM

Yesterday @ 07:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91459#post91459)
Hitch:

Why expect 'destruction on a more grand scale'? Didnt Jesus promise growth on a grand scale?

Jesus has long since conquered the world and destroyed the works of the devil. Now its time for growth and the historical realization of God's blessing in the lives of Covenant Keepers and his wrath on covenant breakers. The 'destruction' neccessary for the continued growth of the Kingdom of God was accomplished in full by Christ.

Take care

Hitch

So where is the prophecied peace in the Animal Kingdom? :huh:

:btc: :btc: :btc:

Darth Xena

May 9th 2003, 06:09 PM

Who says that is to be taken in a wooden literal sense? That is like asking when did the stars fall from the sky in Matthew 24.

John Reece

May 9th 2003, 09:05 PM

Yesterday @ 11:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92400#post92400)
Dee Dee Warren:

Who says that is to be taken in a wooden literal sense? That is like asking when did the stars fall from the sky in Matthew 24.

Yes, Dee Dee :thumb: .

Bill the Cat

May 12th 2003, 09:49 AM

and why not take it in a literal sense? Was it not that way in Eden? :btc:

Jacob

May 12th 2003, 12:53 PM

05-09-2003 @ 11:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92400#post92400)
Dee Dee Warren:

Who says that is to be taken in a wooden literal sense? That is like asking when did the stars fall from the sky in Matthew 24.

You're right, it doesn't have to be taken in a "wooden literal sense". Neither do we need to take Mt 24:33-34 in a "wooden literal sense":

Mat 24:33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Mat 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

But the question is why do you suggest that we put aside the normal literal meaning and assume figurative speech?
If the prophecies of "peace in the animal kingdom" are not to be taken in a "wooden literal" sense, what do you think they refer to? How are they fullfilled?

Jacob

Jacob

May 12th 2003, 01:37 PM

05-07-2003 @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89880#post89880)
Bill the Cat:

4) Why couldn't the destruction of Jerusalem be a prefigure of a destruction on a more grand scale?

Bill,

I find significant biblical precedent in this idea. The OT prophecies concerning the Christ often had a preliminary meaning for the immediate recipients of the prophetic word, but the ultimate fullfillment happened much later. Just a few to consider (not all concerning Christ):

FIRST
Mat 2:16 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.
Mat 2:17 Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
Mat 2:18 "A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH, WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING, RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN; AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED, BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."

The "primary" meaning of these verses from Jeremiah would obviously point people to think of the circumstances surrounding Moses' birth. But prophetically it pointed to Christ.

SECOND
Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
Isa 7:16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

No need to explain...

THIRD
Hos 11:1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (cf Mt 2:15)

No need to explain...

FOURTH:
Dan 11:31 "Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set
up the abomination of desolation.
Dan 12:11 "From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
Mat 24:15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Mar 13:14 "But when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

This "abomination of desolation" saw fullfillment in David's time (but was not fully fullfilled), at the destruction of the temple, and possibly in the future. Just considering the two-fold fulfillment makes the point - multiple & expanding fulfillments are not untypical. There is a "type" of fulfillment preceding the more significant fulfillment.

Jacob

Darth Xena

May 12th 2003, 07:00 PM

Jacob, perhaps you could start a new thread, I kind of want to keep this more surface level demographics discussion.

jabberwocky

June 22nd 2003, 02:47 PM

Preterist. The Orthodox, not the insane flavour.

Darth Xena

June 22nd 2003, 03:07 PM

05-08-2003 @ 08:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91502#post91502)
John Reece:

Spot on Hitch .

:thumb:

'Glad to see you using the quote button. Without it, I had some difficulty figuring out when you were quoting someone, and when you were responding to someone.

OMGoodness!!! Hitch used the quote button!!! The end of the world is near!!:teeth:

Darth Xena

June 22nd 2003, 03:08 PM

Today @ 02:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130220#post130220)
jabberwocky:

Preterist. The Orthodox, not the insane flavour.

:rofl:

Have you seen my article at:

www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

spl_cadet

June 22nd 2003, 10:58 PM

It has yet to come because there's a couple extra-biblical prophecies which look spot-on to me which say that it's coming within a couple decades.

Which means I get to fight the AntiChrist and his army. Woohoo!

Darth Xena

June 22nd 2003, 10:59 PM

Been listening to Lindsey again have we?

spl_cadet

June 22nd 2003, 11:06 PM

Today @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130439#post130439)
Dee Dee Warren:

Been listening to Lindsey again have we?

Sts. Malachy and Faustina actually.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

'As I was praying, I heart Jesus' words: 'I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My Will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will
prepare the world for My final coming.'

As we all know, JPII is from Poland.:eek:

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 24th 2003, 10:14 PM

I didn't know they kicked us out... Ithought we just left because there were so many jerks there LOL!:rofl:

The double fulfilment option is an odd one. It says "Yes, we now agree (whereas historically we did not) that the events of 70 AD did happen and were a fulfilemtn of prophecy, but since we can't let go of our precious futurism we have to say that it will be fulfilled again.

That sounds harsh I know but it looks so true. it is certainly possible for some prophecy to have a double significance (e.g. some of the OT prophecies), but surely we are only able to know this AFTER the secondary fulfilment has taken place. :eek:

Athanasius

July 13th 2003, 10:01 PM

Of all of the eschatological positions that the poll lists, I would have to choose Futurist. But if you had a "Partial Double Fulfillment" option, that would fit me better. I think that the idea of double fulfillment solves a lot of problems, and there is OT precedent for it.

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 13th 2003, 10:14 PM

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148086#post148086)
Athanasius:
I think that the idea of double fulfillment solves a lot of problems, and there is OT precedent for it.
Double fulfilment is a "way out" for futurists.

It is clear that many of the preteristic claims about the fulfilment of prophecy are true. So what is the futurist to do? Simple, he just says: "Oh I grant that you're right. But if there is a future fulfilment as well, then I can be right too!"

There may well be an OT precedent for so called "double fulfilment." The thing to note, however, is that we can only ever identify a prophecy as having a double fulfilment after the double fulfilment has occured in history. befoe that time, we can only know about the fulfilment that has occured. Saying that double fulfilments have happened before doesn't show that the NT texts HAVE double fulfilments. It's just a way of admitting that the other side's interpretation is true, and being unwilling to let go of one's "exciting" understanding of "end time" prophecy. A double fulfilment of NT prophecy can only be assumed, and never established.

Athanasius

July 13th 2003, 10:47 PM

Hi Theonomy,

I can see why you would say that, and I would agree with you were it not for the fact that there are such differences between the Olivet account in Luke and the account in Matthew (see http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm). One seems to point to a 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, and the other to an as yet unfulfilled seige of it. So, I think that there are scriptural indications of double fulfillment. In this case, I don't think that we have to wait until the second fulfillment occurs to know that it is coming! I think that double fulfillment is an simple way to resolve some of the time vs nature paradoxes in the Olivet Discourse. And the way I look at it, the simpler an idea is that does the job well, the better. I'm all for an easy way out, if it has good explanatory power!

Coffin Builder

July 14th 2003, 01:43 AM

Actually, i was a Preterist (ableit for a short time), but now i am leaning towards double fulfillment, albeit i don't know to what extent it is double. so, i guess you can say it was a way out for this partial preterist :]

this biggest problem i see with the two camps is how the Olivet Discourse (Matt.) and Rev is set up. In Matthew, it starts on the same note i think it does in the other synoptics: the utter destruction of the Temple. however, Matthew takes an odd shift: you know how Matt. is ordered topically, rather than chronologically? but, after the Discourse (24-25) there are a few parables, leading up to the last one in 25, when the King separates the sheep from the goats on the Last Day. so, he introduces the topic with the 70AD destruction, and ends with the Final Judgement. why is that?

also, notice Revelation starts by talking to the 7 churches, and like the Discourse speaks of a soon return. yet, somewhere between 19 and 21 it suddenly shifts to the Final Judgment, yet again. if Rev. was exclusively future, why make a drastic jump from the contemporary 7 churches to the end times? if exclusively 70AD, why the drastic jump from 70AD to the Final Judgement?

we know of precidents of prophesies that were fulfilled in the OT era and typed the coming Messiah. the best example i can think of right off the bat is the whole Immanuel business. Isaiah (i think?) prophesied for some king a sign that a child would be born. we aren't told it occured, but it makes no sense that wouldn't have since Is. was speaking of a sign for the king for something to occur at the present time (i dunno, like a victory or something? i need to refresh on OT stuff). yet, the Angel appealed to it as prophetic of the Christ's birth.

course, i can't stand the whole pop-dispie thing, as if it indeed is future, Rev. is pretty much typology. meaning, we won't really be able to say what it means untill either we are knee deep in the Trib, or raptured, whichever comes first. what i find the most amusing is that they try to apply the typology to modern day gov leaders, etc.-- what do you think folks were doing during the WW2? i'd wager that a many clergymen thought Hitler was the antichrist. indeed, he fit it pretty well (not like a glove, mind you, but pretty well nontheless).

Athanasius

July 14th 2003, 04:10 AM

Some good points, sheepdog.

Darth Xena

July 14th 2003, 04:17 AM

Both accounts of the Discourse are delimited by the same timing verse..... and Sheepdog, maybe if I get a chance I can get to some of your questions..

Athanasius

July 14th 2003, 04:32 AM

Dee Dee,

I have a new article that will soon be published on my website explaining why I don't believe Mat 24:34 limits the scope of the OD to the time of the apostles. I'll let you know when it is up.

Darth Xena

July 14th 2003, 04:46 AM

Sure thing.

/ot Dan sent me a fantastic preview of a new article.

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 14th 2003, 06:46 AM

Today @ 03:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148100#post148100)
Athanasius:

Hi Theonomy,

I can see why you would say that, and I would agree with you were it not for the fact that there are such differences between the Olivet account in Luke and the account in Matthew (see http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm). One seems to point to a 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, and the other to an as yet unfulfilled seige of it.

There is a simple explanation for this, which does not require any recourse to speculation about another future fulfilment. When Matthew wrote about it, it was unfulfilled, but when Luke wrote about it, he could do so with greater clarity in referece to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, since Luke wrote after 70AD.

Glenn

Darth Xena

July 14th 2003, 07:06 AM

Glen, I had never heard that reason before. Interesting. I will add that to my databank, LOL, but I think even if Luke wrote before 70AD that there is no such problem at all. I never saw it, and I heard Tommy Ice try to explicate it and it was a bramblebush.

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 14th 2003, 08:47 AM

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148282#post148282)
Dee Dee Warren:

Glen, I had never heard that reason before. Interesting. I will add that to my databank, LOL, but I think even if Luke wrote before 70AD that there is no such problem at all. I never saw it, and I heard Tommy Ice try to explicate it and it was a bramblebush.

De De,

I agree fully. Even things were different, and Luke had been written before 70AD, there would be no issue between Matthew and Luke, and neither would require a delayed futurism (i.e. double fulfilment).

I only made that point because Athanasius rested his case on the differences between matthew and Luke, so i was just offering a reason for these differences.

(thanks for the Dean's pick, btw :smile: )

Darth Xena

July 14th 2003, 09:05 AM

It is an interesting thing to consider for sure. I am very interested in Athanasius' article that he alluded to. He is one of the best futurist discussion partners that I have encountered. He will make an argument worth reading and refuting.

Your post on double fulfillment though really struck me as very good. No one is so tenacious on double fulfillments of numerous other passages, why this one?

Bill the Cat

July 14th 2003, 09:09 AM

Dee Dee, don't be surprised if you see some of Ath's arguments in the wrestlefest :teeth: :btc:

Darth Xena

July 14th 2003, 09:12 AM

I won't be surprised, in fact I will be glad because I really am tired of some of the inane arguments of past debates.

Darth Xena

July 14th 2003, 09:16 AM

Now Theonomy, you had better be rooting for me in the Wrestle Fest :)

Athanasius

July 14th 2003, 11:07 AM

Dee Dee,

Is it true that orthodox preterists were booted off of another Theology Forum site? Which one was it? They did not bother to distinguish between heretical and orthodox preterists?

Some of my best friends are orthodox preterists, so if it is true, I think that is very unfair! I also think it is a mistake for churches to write premillennialism into their statements of faith, although I myself am a premillennialist.

Bill the Cat

July 14th 2003, 01:17 PM

Well, I'm gonna stay away from the goof balls in our camp...

Sorry, I knew how much you were waiting for quotes from the Omega Code and all. :btc: :rofl: :tom:

RevSteve45

August 4th 2003, 05:15 PM

Dee Dee,

You said,

I can barely describe my first reaction when I firs heard of preterism, but suffice it say I thought it was one of the nuttiest things I had ever heard until I really examined the foundations, and well... the rest is history. I came kicking and screaming but here I am.

Dee Dee, I still DO think Preterism is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard. I find it absolutely AMAZING that people can think the Tribulation has already happened, considering the cataclysms that are described in Revelation. But then again, my FIRST exposure to Preterism, has been on this site.

Believe it or not, about the only doctrine held by "orthodox" Christians that I think is nuttier, is Hyper-Dispensationalism or Acts 9 Dispensationalists.

At least Preterists limit their views to Eschatology.

In His Service,
Steve

Darth Xena

August 6th 2003, 06:10 AM

08-04-2003 @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167003#post167003)
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

Dee Dee, I still DO think Preterism is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard. I find it absolutely AMAZING that people can think the Tribulation has already happened, considering the cataclysms that are described in Revelation.

You'll get used to us and our totally amazing quirk of believing what the Bible says about the timing of events. That is just a little pet peeve of us preterists.

But then again, my FIRST exposure to Preterism, has been on this site.

Lucky you. But that was obvious by the way you did not,and still do not, seek to understand the view you are criticizing. Learn first, speak later is a good lesson. It is one I have had, and still do, learn the hard way, as you have with some of the embarassing statements you have made. But now at least you are beginning to understand another view within Christianity. Maybe one day you will be reasonable enough to say with the likes of Jaltus that while he disagrees he thoroughly understands how a reasonable person comes to this conclusion.

Believe it or not, about the only doctrine held by "orthodox" Christians that I think is nuttier, is Hyper-Dispensationalism or Acts 9 Dispensationalists.

What about Open View? We have a bunch of those nuts here. Egad, one of them is a co-owner.

At least Preterists limit their views to Eschatology.

We are working to take over the whole Bible in my new cult of DDism. :wink:

RevSteve45

August 6th 2003, 10:26 AM

Dee Dee,

It is not true that I do not seek to understand the views of Preterists. However, the information that I have found so far, mostly concentrates on FULL Preterism, which you say you are not. So I am still looking for a full exlanation of what Preterists like you believe.

Where could I find out what Open View is? That is another theological position I have never heard of.

In His Service,
Steve

studyhound

August 6th 2003, 12:03 PM

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=169531#post169531)
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

It is not true that I do not seek to understand the views of Preterists. However, the information that I have found so far, mostly concentrates on FULL Preterism, which you say you are not. So I am still looking for a full exlanation of what Preterists like you believe.

Where could I find out what Open View is? That is another theological position I have never heard of.

In His Service,
Steve

Hey Rev.

R.C. Sproul Does a great job in explaing the view Of a O.P. (orthodox Preterist) In his book the last days according to Jesus. Pick it up it is not to diffuclt to read.

<><

Darth Xena

August 6th 2003, 12:05 PM

Steve, actually I would recommend Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar or End Times Fiction by Gary DeMar (which is a very easy read).

For Open View, it is the belief that God does not know the future exhaustively. It has many variations but that is the short summary.

gooner

September 13th 2003, 05:58 PM

that was a great nights read....I voted futurist but then regretted it when the double fulfillment option was embraced by a number of posters although I do not believe in "double fulfillment " but double reference..ie rather than a passage having two seperate fullfilments a passage contains two prophecies each having its own fulfillment.The Virgin in Is 7 is a good example.
BUT
Luke written post 70?uuuummm don't think so.Acts follows Luke and knows nothing of Pauls martyrdom....I can not concede that Luke would omit such a glorious event from the Acts as Pauls martyrdom.

Spiritus Naturae

September 21st 2003, 03:36 PM

:rockon: The future...ahhh yes, the future...any Steve Miller Band fans out there? :ponder: Hmmm, wonder what his stand is on the Tribulation?

Darth Xena

September 21st 2003, 04:58 PM

Spirit I accidentally deleted your PM. For a definiton of NeoHymeaneanism see www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

Spiritus Naturae

September 21st 2003, 07:52 PM

:sad: <snif> ...that's ok...deletion can happen to the best of us, I suppose...<snif> :sad:

ryanedwards

December 3rd 2003, 05:00 PM

Hey Dee Dee,
Did you really say Hymenaeanism (Full Preterism) is heresy? If so, why? If not, what did you say is?
ryan

Darth Xena

December 3rd 2003, 05:37 PM

I will PM you ryan. This forum is not for the discussion of unorthodox eshcatology.

Dr. Jack Bauer

December 3rd 2003, 05:50 PM

Today @ 10:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325183#post325183)
Dee Dee Warren:

I will PM you ryan. This forum is not for the discussion of unorthodox eshcatology.

Huh? But there dispies are here discussing eschatology aren't there? :eek:

Socrates

December 4th 2003, 12:35 AM

09-14-2003 @ 08:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=211232#post211232)
gooner:

I voted futurist but then regretted it when the double fulfillment option was embraced by a number of posters although I do not believe in “double fulfillment” but double reference. Ie rather than a passage having two seperate fullfilments a passage contains two prophecies each having its own fulfillment. The Virgin in Is 7 is a good example.

Yeah, double reference is right. Dr Fruchtenbaum (www.ariel.org) teaches this.

Darth Xena

December 4th 2003, 02:46 AM

Taught nowhere in the passage.

Socrates

December 4th 2003, 04:40 AM

Today @ 05:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325703#post325703)
Dee Dee Warren:

Taught nowhere in the passage.

:soc: Is this referring to the previous post on the previous page?

gooner:

I voted futurist but then regretted it when the double fulfillment option was embraced by a number of posters although I do not believe in “double fulfillment” but double reference. Ie rather than a passage having two seperate fullfilments a passage contains two prophecies each having its own fulfillment. The Virgin in Is 7 is a good example. ”

:soc: Yeah, double reference is right. Dr Fruchtenbaum (www.ariel.org) teaches this.

:soc:Why not taught, if that's what you mean? There is a double reference in Isaiah 7 to both the coming Messiah in the future and Isaiah's own son for the benefit of Ahaz himself. As the AiG article The Virginal Conception of Christ says:

Isaiah 7:1–18:24

1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

2 Now the house of David was told, ‘Aram has allied itself with Ephraim’; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, ‘Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smouldering stubs of firewood — because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 ‘Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.’

7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

‘It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.

9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’’

10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 ‘Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.’

12 But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.’

13 Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria.’ (NIV)The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural form of ‘you’ in the original Hebrew of v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who was present, v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would be destroyed (vv. 15–17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated by a the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew) and the house of David as a whole (indicated by the plural form). Some anti-Christians, starting with the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimhi, have failed to understand this and misinterpreted the child Immanuel as a sign to Ahaz, possibly Ahaz’s godly son Hezekiah.

The word for virgin here is ‘almah. Some liberals and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means ‘young woman’, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young woman’s bearing a son should be a sign — it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates it as παρθενος (parthenos), the normal word for virgin. Later Jews, such as Trypho, Justin Martyr’s (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi (11th Cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that ‘almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos.

However, even Rashi admitted that the word could mean ‘virgin’ in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. In the KJV, the word is translated ‘virgin’ in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), ‘maid’ in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and ‘damsels’ in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of ‘almah in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage). Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, betûlah, ‘emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).’ It is qualified by a statement ‘neither had any man known her’ in Gen. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to ‘almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of betûlah is used of a married woman. The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of ‘almah in Is. 7:14 as ‘virgin’, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal.