Tribulational Flavors [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

adam.naranjo

February 14th 2003, 12:12 PM

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, 02:33 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, 02:39 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, 02:43 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

dizzle

February 14th 2003, 02:46 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.

dizzle

February 14th 2003, 02:48 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, 02:51 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, 01:37 AM

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

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 09:15 AM

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

Ric

February 16th 2003, 03:28 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?

dizzle

February 16th 2003, 03:34 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, 03:37 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, 08:20 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

dizzle

February 20th 2003, 08:27 AM

Bill K.

February 20th 2003, 09:15 AM

Yes, I am. Thanks for the clarification.

Hitch

February 23rd 2003, 05:54 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, 07:21 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, 10:42 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, 03:01 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

dizzle

March 6th 2003, 06:01 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, 11:31 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, 11:34 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, 12:48 PM

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, 02:27 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, 03:48 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, 03:10 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.

dizzle

March 19th 2003, 08:52 PM

Who are you talking to Efta?

dizzle

March 19th 2003, 08:53 PM

:rofl: :rofl:

Just kidding RI!!!

Woman

March 19th 2003, 09:04 PM

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

:smile:

Wesley's son

March 24th 2003, 01:47 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, 03:03 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, 03:08 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, 03:44 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.'

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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:

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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:

dizzle

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.

dizzle

May 7th 2003, 10:07 AM

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

dizzle

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

dizzle

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:

dizzle

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

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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:

dizzle

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!

dizzle

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!

Sheepdog

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.

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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

dizzle

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: )

dizzle

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:

dizzle

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.

dizzle

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

dizzle

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.

<><

dizzle

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?

dizzle

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, 06:00 PM

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

dizzle

December 3rd 2003, 06:37 PM

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

Dr. Jack Bauer

December 3rd 2003, 06:50 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, 01:35 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.

dizzle

December 4th 2003, 03:46 AM

Taught nowhere in the passage.

Socrates

December 4th 2003, 05:40 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.

dizzle

December 6th 2003, 04:43 PM

Please read more carefully. I said taught nowhere in the passage. And it isn't. If you wish to say it is possible to have a double fulfillment or double reference in principle I would not necessarily disagree, but it is not necessary for there to be one, and I would prove that other passages rule it out. The comparison with the Isaiah passage is completely apples and oranges, and there are other ways to view it other than the way you presented above as well. To dogmatically state that the Olivet must have a double fulfillment is unwarrented, for it is taught nowhere in the passage whatsoever.

Paul

December 8th 2003, 04:10 PM

I voted Historicist :)

It looks like I am a small minority here.

I understand Historicist to be someone who opines that the prophecies extend throughout the history of the Church or salvation history until the 2nd Coming or Last Judgment.

dizzle

December 9th 2003, 08:14 AM

Yes that would be correct. That is one long generation though.

Paul

December 12th 2003, 06:14 AM

Here's an interesting outline still in progress from a Catholic:

http://www.trumpet7.com/end_times.htm

Aspects of this are very appealing to me right now, though some parts I definitely disagree with -- at least at the moment.

The generation mentioned in the Gospels ... I don't know what exactly to think about that. But I was thinking of not just the prophecies in the Gospels but also the prophecies in the Apocalypse.

TorchofGod

January 2nd 2004, 09:36 AM

I would say I am a progressive preterist .

studyhound

January 2nd 2004, 10:04 AM

TorchofGod:

I would say I am a progressive preterist .

Progressive??

:studyhound:

BTW welcome to Tweb!

TorchofGod

January 10th 2004, 02:17 AM

Oops..I think I meant orthodox. I should have rechecked the possible definaitions.
I believe that at the time revelation was written , it was written to cover things past, present and future,f rom Johns point in time.It moves forwards and backwards,and repeats itself some.Chapter 14 seems to be a synopsis of the whole b ook.
Ch 12 refers to teh first coming of the Lord. Ch 13 to the second. Ch. 8 is repeated in chapter 16, with a slight change of wording.I do have a verse from revelationthat first made me beleive it covered past present and future.
Rev 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
verse 9 is the verse I mean. I posted 8 to poi nt out the con te xt is the Lord speaking to John, explaining what he is goingto be writing about. Past, present , and future. Thjat is why I think I am a orthodox preterist, because I beleive at the time it was written, some had happened, and now I beleive alot more has since happened, and thsat some is still going to happen.

dizzle

February 25th 2004, 06:58 AM

:bump:

John Reece

February 25th 2004, 10:11 AM

:bump:

Thanks for the bump, Dee Dee, which prompted me to re-read the thread from the beginning.

:thumb:

dizzle

February 26th 2004, 05:46 AM

That is funny... your custom smiley for bump was substitued for mine cause we use the same code.

Lee1023

March 8th 2004, 12:47 AM

I voted Historic but I am not sure of the term, except that the tribulation refered to in scruipture was the seige on Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

shunyadragon

May 24th 2004, 07:53 AM

Uncertainty clouds my view, but as best as I can describ my beliefs of tribulation is multiple tribulations in cyclic millenialism.

Lizard

May 24th 2004, 09:43 AM

shunyadragan:

The Eschatology forum is strictly for discussion of eschatological discussion within orthodox Christianity. I would love to discuss your views, however, this is not the place for that. If you wish to disucss your eschatology you may start a thread in comparative religion.

Thanks

Monkman

June 16th 2004, 11:09 PM

Well,

As a former roman catholic, I have spent years to figure out what all the eschatological fuss is about... somehow it doesn't appeal to me, although I have read the Left Behind series out of sheer curiosity...

I am anglican now and I do regard the 'amillenial' (better described as present millenial) view to be the most credible one... if that makes me a liberal, so be it, I am european anyway, so but for very small isolated evangelical circles over here, we just don't 'do' eschatology the american way...

Well some interpretations: Yes, part of Matthew 24 is about A.D. 70 but not all ( I am not a preterist however, for I do not believe Jesus came back in A.D. 70), Babylon is not Rome but ... Jerusalem, the city that killed the prophets and is allegorically described as Babylon as a type for a pagan city.

And yes, after the church age ('millennium', the period between the first and the second coming of our Lord) there will be an apostasy and an antichrist and a great tribulation... followed by the Parousia/Second Coming.

At least you guys could give me the credit for having studied fundamentalist protestant eschatology for years, trying to understand what is behind it, which is not easy for someone from a liberal catholic background.

So... am I the only amillenialist here or are there more?
Greetings from the Netherlands, Europe :eek:

dizzle

July 11th 2004, 11:09 AM

Dang we got 37 orthodox preterists here. Have YOU voted yet?

{Tim}

July 21st 2004, 08:18 AM

Make that 38. Though I still don't quite understand all this milennialism stuff... yet. I'll keep reading about it though.

I don't necessarily rule out a possible future (tribulation) fulfillment of some kind, but I don't think it's in any way required. Still I haven't really looked into this very much, anyway, so you can just ignore me anyway :wink: :smile:

AV1611

December 14th 2004, 08:31 AM

I am a futurist :smile:

InChristAlways

January 3rd 2005, 01:07 PM

I am a futurist :smile:I haven't meant a "dispensationalist" yet that wasn't a futurist as I hear there are more bible colleges that teach that unorthodox "doctrine" than any other now, but some of us hope to change that LOL.
Wonder how they would have fared if that symbolic 1000yr period wasn't in revelation:wink: Looks like the polls aren't exactly in their favor right now.
Well some interpretations: Yes, part of Matthew 24 is about A.D. 70 but not all ( I am not a preterist however, for I do not believe Jesus came back in A.D. 70), Babylon is not Rome but ... Jerusalem, the city that killed the prophets and is allegorically described as Babylon as a type for a pagan city.You are on your way to the Truth of the Bible as it is no doubt the destruction of first century Jerusalem and the tribulations on Israel.

Anoetos

January 13th 2005, 12:38 PM

I didn't read the whole big long crazy thread, but I have a question:

Does "Complete Double Fulfillment" mean that the events described in Matt 24 referred immediately to the fall of Jerusalem but also to future end times events?

And for the record I'm part. pret. trad. Ref. Amil.

Ho hum...

CJD®

April 1st 2005, 12:44 PM

While no preterist (at least self-designated. I'd be surprised if the date of John's apocalypse was as Gentry argues), I do think the Olivet Discourse clearly refers to AD 70 — in its entirety.

I couldn't vote (couldn't allow the label :smile: ).

CJD

Spirit-Filled

June 19th 2005, 11:40 PM

I voted Orthodox Preterist,I believe Matt.24 has been fulfillled and some Of Rev.possibily but I believe in future resurrections and future rewards and punishments.

Rowland

June 26th 2005, 04:02 AM

I think that you ask these questions on eschatology to get the nut cases like myself to reveal themselves. :eek: Ok, so you have succeeded. I believe that the Great Great Tribulation began in 1914 at the beginning of WWI and will last for 96 years ending with the coming of Jesus Christ in the year 2010. I believe that the regular Tribulation began with the sin of Adam and Eve. The entire history of the human race is one long terrible Tribulation. It's possible that the Great (only one Great) Tribulation began with the start of the Jewish Roman war in 66 AD and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Jeckle&Hyde

June 27th 2005, 10:52 PM

I will start my comment to this thread with one question (if all don't mind)

If you are a "double-fulfillment" or "partial-praeterist" or "futurist" or anything of that sort...

Where in the word of god does it state that there will be a third temple built beyond the destruction that was to come to the Jews during the first century?

Mal !

August 15th 2005, 10:58 AM

I fall into the 'double fulfilment' catagory, roughly speaking. I do not believe in the physical rebuilding of the Temple after AD70. I don't believe that God has any further use for a physical temple, nor does he need animal sacrifices, the perfect sacrifice being Jesus. :ahem:

kaine diatheke

August 22nd 2005, 12:08 AM

I voted for the historicist position. I recently came to the conclusion that we're in the Trib now and have been since the first century. I have a thread up called "imminent posttribulationism" that discusses my position a little better.

newworld

November 5th 2005, 02:33 PM

I am also curious about the tribulational flavors we have here. What I am asking is what position do you take on the timing on the Great Tribulation in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation in general. I know that a particular category may not fit everyone precisely, this is just to get a general feel for our demographics.

Hello, The early Church definately believed that there would be a time in the future when Christians would be persecuted by the antiChristos, and I believe that too. I also think a lot of what's written in Revelation is yet to be fulfilled.

Paul

*Apollyon*

November 7th 2005, 06:18 PM

Pigeon hole me as a Preterist/amilennialist. It's pretty clear to me that Jesus was talking to the first century audience when he said "This generation shall not pass away until these things come to pass" paraphrased

54ball

November 8th 2005, 12:53 AM

I voted futurist, but this is a topic I dont claim to have a great understanding of. Heard Hank Hannigraf (sp?) talking about it on the radio not long ago. (partial preterist?) Interesting stuff.

Zguy28

July 10th 2006, 04:23 PM

Futurist. I believe the Church will be taken up at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:52). That can't be before the seventh trumpet in Rev 11:15. So evidently we will see the first six. Would that be mid-trib? :smile:

Hitch

July 10th 2006, 07:10 PM

When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound, and time shall be no more,
And the morning breaks, eternal, bright and fair;
When the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore,
And the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.

.

On that bright and cloudless morning when the dead in Christ shall rise,
And the glory of His resurrection share;
When His chosen ones shall gather to their home beyond the skies,
And the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.

Let us labor for the Master from the dawn till setting sun,
Let us talk of all His wondrous love and care;
Then when all of life is over, and our work on earth is done,
And the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.

Scott Johnson

July 17th 2006, 03:18 PM

I'm new here and this seemed to me to be as good a place as any to start.

I'm a partial, or orthodox preterist of the amillennial persuasion. I believe the great tribulation of the Olivet discourse to speak of the time between the encompassing of the Roman army around Jerusalem until her fall AD 70.

dizzle

July 17th 2006, 03:24 PM

welcome, there are a lot of us orthodox preterists here

Scott Johnson

July 17th 2006, 03:43 PM

welcome, there are a lot of us orthodox preterists here

Thanks for the welcome:lol:

I've been lurking about for the last couple of days and noticed that quite a few people seem to have it right. :tongue:

dizzle

July 17th 2006, 04:10 PM

If you aren't aware of my site yet, check out

http://www.preteristsite.com

Scott Johnson

July 17th 2006, 09:06 PM

If you aren't aware of my site yet, check out

http://www.preteristsite.com

Actually, I linked here from your site. I've been spending quite a bit of time there lately. Your ongoing commentary of Matthew 24 is priceless. In fact the entire site has been an invaluable resourse for me.

dizzle

July 17th 2006, 09:19 PM

Hey thanks~

ForHimAlone

July 18th 2006, 04:32 PM

Faramir, you did great!! Also, I object generally to the term "full preterism" as it cloaks a heresy with the indicia of credibility by using a good term "preterism" for an utterly bad idea, thus, I use the term Hymenaeanism.

Interesting term! I did not like "full" preterist expression, either, as preterist is appropriate to describe their view. But the use of "orthodox" is also new to me, as I used "partial" preterist to define the postion known as orthodox preterism.

Evolution of an eschatology student: Used to be Dispy - (primordial ooze) - then Historicist (grew fins and scales) - then Double Fulfillment (swinging from vines and eating bananas) - Now (and hopefully to stay) orthodox Preterist (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) God does work miracles!

neosnoia

July 24th 2006, 07:10 PM

Lizard

July 24th 2006, 07:13 PM

Mmmmm, peanuts.

Seriously, I have no clue.

I used to believe that the tribulation was coming in the future and that it would happen right before the millenium. What did that used to make me? :smile:

That would mean you used to be a futurist. Premillenial futurist to be exact (but most futurist these days are also premil, so that may be a little redundant).

But hey, you are in good company, I too used to be a premil futurist.

neosnoia

July 24th 2006, 07:24 PM

I will give you the brief answer, and let Dee Dee give you her answer. ;)

Full or Hyper-preterism believes that all of the Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

Orthodox Preterists believe most have been fullfilled.

Orthodox for the most part agree that Jesus will return again physically and that there will be a future physical resurection and a future judgement.

How did I do Dee Dee?

Can you be a post or amillenialist (regarding the trib), and be a orthodox preterist too? Is there a view that says that the trib is metaphorical or that it's happening now? (Not that I believe that, just curious.)

Is it a one or the other situation?

If not, then I guess I'm an orthodox preterist postmillenialist.

Perhaps I should read this whole thread? But there are other sticky threads that seem to be similar. I'm so confused! :brood:

dizzle

July 24th 2006, 09:58 PM

I am an orthodox preterist postmillenialist. Your millennial view is not by necessity tied up with your tribulational view.

Lizard

July 25th 2006, 10:01 AM

I am an orthodox preterist postmillenialist. Your millennial view is not by necessity tied up with your tribulational view.

:yeahthat:

Can you be a post or amillenialist (regarding the trib), and be a orthodox preterist too? Is there a view that says that the trib is metaphorical or that it's happening now? (Not that I believe that, just curious.)

Post or amill (or premill) is a persons position on the nature of the millenial kingdom in relation to the return of christ.

Preterism v. Futurism is about the timing of the tribulation. Preterist say the tribulation is past. Futurist say the tribulation is future. (This is a very simplistic explanation, the real differences are not that black and white.)

Alternate views of eschatology are historicism (which would include the idea that the trib is happening now, but not all or even most historicist would say that) and idealism which says that the trib language is metaporical.

And there are even combinations. You can have a preterist interpretation of Matthew 24 and an idealist interpretation of Revelation.
Is it a one or the other situation?

No. But most preterist are either amil or postmil and understand the millenial kingdom to be the "Church Age". Though it is possible to be a preterist in regard to the tribulation and still believe that the millenium is still future to us.

It is also possible (but I know of no one who holds this view) to beleive in a future tribulation at the end of the mellenium followed by the second coming. This position would be a postmil futurist.

If not, then I guess I'm an orthodox preterist postmillenialist.

Nothing wrong with that. (But being an orthodox preterist postmillenialist, I am biased).

But there are alternatives.

Perhaps I should read this whole thread? But there are other sticky threads that seem to be similar. I'm so confused! :brood:

I think the simlar thread you are referring to is Millenial Flavors (or something similar).

Now most (I know of no exception, but I guess it is possible) preterist are either amill or postmil (and there is very little, if any difference between preterist postmil and optimistic amil).

If you are confused, you are in good company. My wife asked me the difference between post/pre/a mil and I think I just made her more confused.

neosnoia

July 25th 2006, 11:04 AM

Post or amill (or premill) is a persons position on the nature of the millenial kingdom in relation to the return of christ.

Wiki confused the heck out of me, but that is what it seemed to be saying too.

Can you recommend a site that lays it all out a bit better?

and idealism which says that the trib language is metaporical.

Hmmmm. I think I might lean towards idealism in this instance then. Or preterism. I haven't made up my mind. :teeth:

Though it is possible to be a preterist in regard to the tribulation and still believe that the millenium is still future to us.

Aha! That might be where I'm getting confused! The trib and the millenium have always been inseperable in my mind. I have never considered that they are able to be seperated. Interesting. Cool.

It is also possible (but I know of no one who holds this view) to believe in a future tribulation at the end of the mellenium followed by the second coming. This position would be a postmil futurist.

I think that JW's sorta, kinda, maybe hold this view. At the end of the millenium, they believe that Satan is let loose again (a second trib?) for a little while, before Christ destroys him (a third coming?). :blush:

If you are confused, you are in good company. My wife asked me the difference between post/pre/a mil and I think I just made her more confused.

It's quite a bit clearer now. You did a great job! Thanks for humoring me. :hug:

ForHimAlone

July 25th 2006, 02:21 PM

Wiki confused the heck out of me, but that is what it seemed to be saying too.

Can you recommend a site that lays it all out a bit better?

Hmmmm. I think I might lean towards idealism in this instance then. Or preterism. I haven't made up my mind. :teeth:

Aha! That might be where I'm getting confused! The trib and the millenium have always been inseperable in my mind. I have never considered that they are able to be seperated. Interesting. Cool.

I think that JW's sorta, kinda, maybe hold this view. At the end of the millenium, they believe that Satan is let loose again (a second trib?) for a little while, before Christ destroys him (a third coming?). :blush:

It's quite a bit clearer now. You did a great job! Thanks for humoring me. :hug:

Hi there..you may have the issue cleared up neatly in your mind so the following may seem redundant. I wanted to re-state the different positions in as simple a fashion as I could muster.

Preterist - Two types: 1. Full 2. Orthodox

1. Believes all of Revelation has been fulfilled already
2. Believes most of Revelation has been fulfilled already

Both camps believe great tribulation is a past event.
Both camps believe millennium is symbolic rather than literal
Both camps believe antichrist is a past personage
#2 Believes Second Advent, Resurrection, Judgment and New Heaven/Earth have not happened yet.
Millennium is past / currently ongoing event and stands for Gospel or 'inter-advental' period
Christ's return brings end of history, resurrection, judgment and restoration of cosmos. No historical epoch after this but only merging of time and eternity; heaven and earth; God and men.

Pre-millennial

Two schools of thought:

1. Historic Pre-millennial
2. Dispensational Pre-millennial

Historic school has advocates among ECF (Early Christian Fathers) as Irenaeus, Papias, Justin Martyr

Historic Premillennialists believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ to take place at the end of the world, proceeding a brief tribulation period. No such advocate that I have yet read from among ECF, however, have specified that the tribulation period in question was to be exactly seven years' length. Historic premillennialists also have a less-developed understanding of the 'antichrist' than does the dispensational school.

Dispensational school divides history into political 'dispensations' - or epochs of time. These more or less flow or interlock with one another and proceed on a course towards a literal 1000 year reign of Christ to take place, in their thought, after the second coming

Dispensational makes radical distinction between Israel (nationally) and church. Israel has separate redemptive history and tract from the church; They represent two, distinct groups God deals with in salvation history.

Dispensational school posits from Daniel 9.26-27 that the last of the "70 Weeks" prophecy has not been fulfilled and is to be seen as a seven-year period at some point yet in the future. This is the so-called "great tribulation" period of the Left Behind movies/books. This "tribulation" is a future event from our day and comes just prior to the return of Christ and establishment of a literal 1000 year kingdom, from this school's perspective.

Believe dispensationalists do not believe anything past chapter four of Revelation has been fulfilled.

Dispensationalists tend to interpret Revelation literalistically - not 'literally' as they like to say.

Revelation, Daniel, Enoch and 4 Esdras comprise a type of biblical literature called 'apocalyptic' and its genre is the conveying of messages via symbols / symbolism.

Dispensationalists believe in a future seven year tribulation and in a future personal antichrist figure. They believe in a literal millennial kingdom and that after this is another great conflict..what they see as spoken of in Revelation 20.8ff..Gog and Magog, the release of Satan after the 1000 years.

Orthodox Preterists are a-millennial, that is, they see the millennial period symbolically as representing the entire inter-advent period (or Gospel age - the time occupied between the first and second coming of our Savior)

Amillennialists do not see a literal 1000 years following Christ's return but only the eschaton, or "last day" which produces the onset of the 'ages of the ages' - eternity, IOW.

Orthodox Preterists are post-millennial because they see the return of Christ follows the inter-advent period.

It is my conviction after almost 30 years of study on this topic that the literal 1000 years is a concept some among the apostolic fathers borrowed from Judaism. Judaism thought that 7K of years were to transpire in history and that this seventh day was the "day of rest." They liked this because of its mystical quality and how neatly it fit in with the 'days' of creation in Genesis.

orthodox preterists tend to see the rapture as synonymous with the glorification of the saints at the last day - as part of the second advent of Christ, IOW, and not as a separate event.

Dispensational believers see the rapture as a specific catching away of the church and a specific appearance of Christ - a secret appearance - that takes place seven + years prior to the millennium.

Examine, at your leisure, all the statements our Lord makes on the "last day" -

I will contend for the orthodox preterist position because I believe it makes the most sense of the biblical data.

Dispensationalism is a new spin on the historic premillennial position and gained its audience popularity through the Scofield Bible, which interwove the notes of John Nelson Darby with the text of the KJV.

Dispensationalism has also gained audience through many evangelicals embracing its precepts because of mass marketing. There were great prophecy conferences in Niagra NY and elsewhere in the 19th century that spread the Darbyite thinking around the U.S. and evangelicalism has pretty much embraced this thinking since the first quarter of the nineteenth century.

Orthodox preterism has, however, with the historic school, been the majority view of Christianity since apostolic times. See Augustine and Clement of Alexandria on the orthodox position.

I hope that this helps. I am happy to answer questions should you desire. I highly recommend two books which can help your study:

Anthony Hoekema: Bible and the Future
Cornelius Venema: Promise of the Future

The Lord's blessings be with you.

neosnoia

July 25th 2006, 08:23 PM

That was awesome! Cut and pasted and saved! Pearls, pearls, pearls. Thank you. :thumb:

stevesherri

September 7th 2006, 06:38 AM

For those that believe all/most prophecy has been fulfilled .... what was the Beast with 7 heads 10 horns, what was the Mark OTB, what was Armageddon, what battle had 200,000,000 troops etc, etc.

AND WHY DO I SEE SIN ALL AROUND ME ????

stevesherri

September 7th 2006, 06:43 AM

Lizard

September 7th 2006, 10:49 AM

The Great Tribulation is the worst time that ever was or ever WILL be. WW2 (and Holocaust) was MUCH worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And the flood. Don't forget the flood. All the world wiped out except for eight people and two of every animal (7 for the clean). The tribulation is going to much worse than that!!!

Right?

Hitch

September 7th 2006, 02:50 PM

Applying logic to DF thinking is like painting water.

Geoffrey

October 28th 2006, 07:28 PM

I didn't vote because my belief is not represented in the poll. I believe that the Great Tribulation is the passion of Jesus. I am following Eugenio Corsini's The Apocalypse: A Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ in this.

stevesherri

November 1st 2006, 06:13 PM

I am Futurist. In fact, if the European Neighborhood Partnership happens to be the Confirmation of the Covenant, then on Jan 1, 2007 I will be a .... Presentist.

http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/2010.html

The Euro-Med agreement, however, failed in achieving its goals. So, the ENP is Solana's way of reviving and confirming his dying Euro-Med. Although the ENP is already being implemented to some degree, the so-called "new" ENP will begin on January 1, 2007. And, it will be financed by a new, seven-year funding instrument -- the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).

Mordac

February 5th 2007, 04:07 PM

dizzle

February 14th 2007, 08:48 PM

bumping for noobs

JonLanceBarker

June 12th 2007, 12:45 AM

since i believe Matt. 24 was addressed mainly to the disciples, i would agree with the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian, Titus & co. pretty much fulfilled it.

(where in the Bible does it say that the Tribulation had to have been worse than the Flood? :twitch: )

what did you expect? i'm a preterist!! :teeth:
chiquita banana :banana: :banana: :banana:

Storico

December 27th 2007, 08:46 PM

*bump*

I've looked into this enough now to feel comfortable with identifying as an orthodox/partial preterist. It makes sense to me.

paulnsilas

January 16th 2008, 10:00 PM

hullo.
i joined today.
nice to find this site.
kinda found myself in a thread about the age of the earth, and wanted to paste the following info, but couldn't find my way back.

so, here's the info i discovered that has resolved that issue for me...FWIW.

paulnsilas

...................................................................................

146. "THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."

To arrive at the true meaning of this expression, we must note there are two words translated "foundation" in the New Testament:

(1) themelios, and

(2) katabole.

The Noun, themelios, occurs in Luke 6:48, 49; 14:29. Acts 16:26. Rom. 15:20. 1Cor. 3:10, 11, 12. Eph. 2:20. 1Tim. 6:19. 2Tim. 2:19. Heb. 6:1; 11:10. Rev. 21:14, 19. It is never used of the world (kosmos) or the earth (ge). The corresponding Verb (themeliou) occurs in Matt. 7:25. Luke 6:48. Eph. 3:17. Col. 1:23. Heb. 1:10and 1Pet. 5:10. The verb is only once used of the earth (ge). Heb. 1:10. A comparison of all these passages will show that these are proper and regular terms for the English words "to found", and "foundation".

The Noun, katabole, occurs in Matt. 13:35; 25:34. Luke 11:50. John 17:24. Eph. 1:4. Heb. 4:3; 9:26; 11:11. 1Pet. 1:20. Rev. 13:8; 17:8; and the corresponding Verb (kataballo) occurs in 2Cor. 4:9. Heb. 6:1; and Rev. 12:10. A comparison of all these passages (especially 2Cor. 4:9,and Rev. 12:10) will show that kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow.

Consistency, therefore, calls for the same translation in Heb. 6:1,where, instead of "not laying again", the rendering should be "not casting down". That is to say, the foundation already laid, of repentance, &c., was not to be cast down or overthrown, but was to be left -- and progress made unto the perfection. Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from, and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated "disruption", or "ruin".

The remarkable thing is that in all occurrences (except Heb. 11:11) the word is connected with "the world" (Gr. kosmos. Ap. 129. 1), and therefore the expression should be rendered "the disruption (or ruin) of the world", clearly referring to the condition indicated in Gen. 1:2,and described in 2Pet. 3:5, 6. For the earth was not created tohu (Isa. 45:18), but became so, as stated in the Hebrew of Gen 1:2and confirmed by 2Pet. 3:6,where "the world that then was by the word of God" (Gen. 1:1), perished, and "the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word "were created (Gen. 2:4), and are "kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment" (2Pet. 3:7) which shall usher in the "new heavens and the new earth" of 2Pet. 3:13.

"The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the dispensations of the ages. In Gen. 1:1we have the founding of the world (Heb. 1:10= themeliou), but in Gen. 1:2we have its overthrow.

This is confirmed by a further remarkable fact, that the phrase, which occurs ten times, is associated with the Preposition apo = from (Ap. 104. iv) seven times, and with pros = before (Ap. 104. xiv) three times. The former refers to the kingdom and is connected with the "counsels" of God; the latter refers to the Mystery (or Secret. See Ap. 192) and is connected with the "purpose" of God (See John 17:24. Eph. 1:4. 1Pet. 1:20).

Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Gen. 1:2,that "the earth became tohu and bohu (i.e. waste and desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2Pet. 3:7).

..............................................................................................................

3. GENESIS
FINDS ITS COMPLEMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE.

1. Genesis, the book of the beginning. 1. Apocalypse, the book of the end.
2. The Earth created (1:1). 2. The Earth passed away (21:1).
3. Satan's first rebellion. 3. Satan's final rebellion (20:3, 7-10).
4. Sun, moon, and stars for Earth's government (1:14-16). 4. Sun, moon, and stars, connected with Earth's judgment (6:13; 8:12; 16:8).
5. Sun to govern the day (1:16). 5. No need of the sun (21:23).
6. Darkness called night (1:5). 6. "No night there" (22:5).
7. Waters called seas (1:10). 7. "No more sea" (21:1).
8. A river for Earth's blessing (2:10-14). 8. A river for the New Earth (22:1, 2).
9. Man in God's image (1:26). 9. Man headed by one in Satan's image (13).
10. Entrance of sin (3). 10. Development and end of sin (21, 22).
11. Curse pronounced (3:14, 17). 11. "No more curse" (22:3).
12. Death entered (3:19). 12. "No more death" (21:4).
13. Cherubim, first mentioned in connection with man (3:24). 13. Cherubim, finally mentioned in connection with man (4:6).
14. Man driven out from Eden (3:24). 14. Man restored (22).
15. Tree of life guarded (3:24). 15. "Right to the Tree of Life" (22:14).
16. Sorrow and suffering enter (3:17). 16. No more sorrow (21:4).
17. Man's religion, art, and science, resorted to for enjoyment, apart from God (4). 17. Man's religion, luxury, art, and science, in their full glory, judged and destroyed by God (18).
18. Nimrod, a great rebel and king, and hidden anti-God, the founder of Babylon (10:8, 9). 18. The Beast, the great rebel, a king and manifested anti-God, the reviver of Babylon (13-18).
19. A flood from God to destroy an evil generation (6-9). 19. A flood from Satan to destroy an elect generation (12).
20. The Bow, the token of God's covenant with the Earth (9:13). 20. The Bow, betokening God's remembrance of His covenant with the Earth (4:3; 10:1).
21. Sodom and Egypt, the place of corruption and temptation (13, 19). 21. Sodom and Egypt again: (spiritually representing Jerusalem) (11:8).
22. A confederacy against Abraham's people overthrown (14). 22. A confederacy against Abraham's seed overthrown (12).
23. Marriage of first Adam (2:18-23). 23. Marriage of last Adam (19).
24. A bride sought for Abraham's son (Isaac) and found (24). 24. A Bride made ready and brought to Abraham's Son (19:9). See Matt. 1:1.
25. Two angels acting for God on behalf of His people (19). 25. Two witnesses acting for God on behalf of His People (11).
26. A promised seed to possess the gate of his enemies (22:17). 26. The promised seed coming into possession (11:18).
27. Man's dominion ceased and Satan's begun (3:24). 27. Satan's dominion ended, and man's restored (22).
28. The old serpent causing sin, suffering, and death (3:1). 28. The old serpent bound for 1,000 years (20:1-3).
29. The doom of the old serpent pronounced (3:15). 29. The doom on the old serpent executed (20:10).
30. Sun, moon, and stars, associated with Israel (37:9). 30. Sun, moon, and stars, associated again with Israel (12).

................................................................................................

198. THE ETERNAL PURPOSE (Eph. 3:11).
THE DISPENSATIONAL PLAN OF THE BIBLE.

A. THE PRIMAL CREATION. HEAVENS AND EARTH.
"The world (Gr. kosmos) that then was." Gen. 1:1, 2-. 2Pet. 3:6.

B. SATAN'S FIRST REBELLION.
The earth became waste and a ruin (Heb. tohu va bohu).
Gen. 1:2-. God created it not a ruin (Isa. 45:18,
Heb. tohu) nor waste ("confusion").

C. THE EARTH RESTORED AND BLESSED.
"The heavens and the earth which are now."
Gen. 1:2-2:3. 2Pet. 3:7.

D.SATAN ENTERS AND THE CONSEQUENCE. Gen. 3.

E. MANKIND DEALT WITH AS A WHOLE. Gen. 4-11:26.

F. THE CHOSEN NATION CALLED AND BLESSED.
Gen. 11:27-Mal. 4:6. (Jehovah and His kingdom rejected.
Israel scattered.)

G. THE FIRST ADVENT. (Micah 5:2. Zech. 9:9).
The Four Gospels (Rom. 15:8).
The King and the kingdom proclaimed
and rejected, and the King crucified.

H. THE KINGDOM RE-PROCLAIMED. Acts 3:19, 20,&c.
The church of God called and taken out, Acts 13and on,
and earlier Pauline Epistles. The kingdom again rejected
and Israel again scattered.

H. THE KINGDOM POSTPONED AND IN ABEYANCE.
"Not yet" (Heb. 2:8).
The later, or Prison Epistles (Pauline).
The MYSTERY revealed and proclaimed.
Eph. 3:2-11. Col. 1:25; 2:2, 3. 1Tim. 3:16.
THE NEW HOPE. Phil. 3:11, 14. Titus 2:13.
"The church which is His body "called, and taken up.
Phil. 3:11, 14.

G. THE SECOND ADVENT.
"The first resurrection."
The kingdom established. The King enthroned.
"The day of the Lord." Matt. 24; 25:31. Luke 19:11-27.
Isa. 2:11-19. Joel 2; &c.

F. THE CHOSEN NATION RECALLED AND BLESSED.
Rom. 11:11-36. Acts 15:16. Isa. 60, 61, 62. Jer 30, 31.
Zech. 12:13, 14; &c.

E. MANKIND DEALT WITH AS A WHOLE.
Joel 3:2. Matt. 25:31-46. Acts 15:17. Rom. 15:8-12. Rev. 4-19.

D.SATAN BOUND AND THE CONSEQUENCES. Rev. 20:1-3.

C. THE EARTH RESTORED AND BLESSED. Rev. 20:4-6. Isa. 35; &c.
The Millennium.

B. SATAN'S FINAL REBELLION. Rev. 20:7-10.
Followed by the second resurrection and
the judgment of the "great white throne".
The destruction of "all things that offend". Rev. 20:11-15.

A. THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH.
The day of God.
Rev. 21, 22. 2Pet. 3:12, 13. Isa. 65:17; 66:22.

The above Structure shows the respective dispensations in which God has been and is dealing with the Jew, the Gentile, and the church of God. (1Cor 10:32) The "church which is His body" occupies the central position, and its present standing is seen to be separated from its future destiny and hope. The two rebellions of Satan also are seen to be in direct correspondence; suggesting the necessity why he must be loosed, and the loosing, for a little season (Rev. 20:3, 7).

All things were created by Him "Who is before all things and by Whom all things consist" (lit. hang together, Col 1:17); Who is now "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3). The Structure shows in almost pictorial form the great lesson that God sets before us from Genesis to Revelation, viz. that no created being can stand (upright) apart from Christ the Creator. Hence the necessity for a "new heaven and a new earth" wherein abideth righteousness, inhabited by a "new creation" of beings who have by grace been made "partakers of the Divine nature" (2Pet. 1:4).

Further, it will be seen that it is not God's purpose to bring in the new heaven and new earth by means of the "church". The new creation will be full of physical marvels, brought about by physical means and not "spiritual agencies". These means and their results are set before us in Revelation. Well may we exclaim with Paul, --
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to WHOM BE GLORY FOR EVER. AMEN."

http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append198.html

paulnsilas

January 16th 2008, 10:04 PM

oops.
i meant to post A COUPLE of ARTICLES DEBUNKING THE SILLY AND DANGEROUS PRETRIBULATION RAPTURE THING.

HERE'S A GOOD ONE FOR STARTERS:

The Saints And The Wrath Of God
by Ed Tarkowski

There will be saints in the tribulation, and these saints will be the same ones who see the beginning of the tribulation:

They offer prayers:

(Rev 5:8 KJV) And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
The prayers are the saints on earth as "they ascend up before God":

(Rev 8:3-4 KJV) And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. {4} And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
After the Lord delivers God's final wrath, the saints are rewarded, not seven years before or near the end of the tribulation as other doctrines propose:

(Rev 11:18 KJV) And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
The antichrist makes war with the saints during the tribulation:

(Rev 13:7 KJV) And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
The saints must persevere during the tribulation:

(Rev 13:10 KJV) He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
The saints must have patience during the tribulation:

(Rev 14:12 KJV) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
The blood of the saints is shed during the tribulation:

(Rev 16:6 KJV) For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
The blood of the saints is shed during the tribulation:

(Rev 17:6 KJV) And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
In Babylon is found the blood of the saints:

(Rev 18:24 KJV) And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
ALL the saints are in the holy city at the end of the millennium, which, if you think about it, are saints just like those in the tribulation because there are no classifications of saints. Saints are saints:

(Rev 20:9 KJV) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

SAINT (Strong's) sacred (phys. pure, mor. blameless or religious, cer. consecrated):--(most) holy (one, thing), saint.

Jew or gentile, male or female, rich or poor can all be saints ONLY BY the shed blood of Christ. So MUST BE the saints in the tribulation. The unbelieving Jews in the tribulation are not saints. The unbelieving Gentiles in the tribulation are not saints. Those who are saints belong to Christ and are members of the church. Any doctrine that says the saints are raptured and God saves more saints to be in the tribulation have to create a new, biblically undefined species of "saint" and come under the warnings of Revelation 22:17-20. Why people nullify the word of God by following the perverted teachings of men and jeapordize their spiritual inheritance in the Rev 22 verses, I don't understand. They would deny the saint's presence in the tribulation by verbal gymnastics when it clearly says they are present within it. There is nothing to distinguish the saints in tribulation from any other saint. They pray during it, they are martyred during it, the persevere during it, they keep their garments pure during all their trials and Jesus addresses encouragement to them in it:

Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Only a saint can do these things, a saint who is committed to Jesus with his very life's blood. How ridiculous the theories that deny God's word.

I would love to hear a TRUE definition of what distinguishes the blood-bought saints of the tribulation saints from those who are supposedly raptured before the tribulation.

I don't understand why pretribbers don't understand that they're going to be present when the wrath is poured out? The church returns with Jesus when He treads out the wrath in Revelation 19. All the saints will be there and witness it and the glory of our salvation will be seen: that wrath will not hurt us having been raptured just before it WITH THEIR BODY CHANGED TO BE IMMORTAL WHICH WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTION OR CORRUPTION. The wrath won't hurt us one bit.

The seven bowls of wrath, poured out before these events, are on the kingdom of the antichrist and won't harm the saints because they are not of his kingdom (just as Israel didn't experience the plagues of Egypt).

The Wrath Of Revelation In Relation To The Saints

The first bowl is poured out on those who have the mark of the beast and worship his image. The saints in the trib - AND THERE ARE SAINTS IN THE TRIB - are exempt from this bowl:

Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
The second and third bowls are poured out upon the waters of earth as a judgment ON THOSE WHO KILLED GOD'S SAINTS AND PROPHETS (v. 6). The saints naturally are exempt from this bowl:

Rev 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man; and every living soul died in the sea.
Rev 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
Rev 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
Rev 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
The fourth bowl is poured out on the sun to scorch UNREPENTANT MEN (v. 11) with fire. The saints in the trib are exempt from this bowl:

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
The fifth bowl is poured out on the kingdom of the beast and its inhabitants because they REPENTED NOT. The saints in the trib are exempt from this bowl:

Rev 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
Rev 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.
The sixth bowl is poured out to bring the kings of the east (which are definitely not the saints) and evil spiritual forces call the world's armies to Armageddon. The saints are exempt from this bowl:

Rev 16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.
Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
As these forces gather for Armageddon, what follows is the rapture of the Church (the saints on earth included). The saints are exempt from this bowl. In fact, Jesus tells the saints in the next verse:

Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Rev 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
We are deep into the tribulation with the kingdom of darkness falling into pieces, the evil armies gathering to Armageddon, and Jesus saying He is about to come. The saints are raptured as He descends and the gathered, evil armies destroyed in that descent with ALL the saints, those raised and those changed:

Rev 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
Rev 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
Rev 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
Rev 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Rev 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Notice in verse 16:21 the verse no longer adds "and they repented not." The time of repentance is over, Christ has come with His saints and the millennial reign begins.

None of these bowls have anything to do with the church. The pretrib argument that the church won't be in the tribulation because they are not meant for wrath is a useless defense BECAUSE THE BOWLS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM even if they are present. In fact, the saints find themselves smack-dab in the middle of the outpouring of God's wrath in the person of Christ because they return with Him when He pours out that wrath after the first six bowls:

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
REV 19:14 AND THE ARMIES WHICH WERE IN HEAVEN FOLLOWED HIM UPON WHITE HORSES, CLOTHED IN FINE LINEN, WHITE AND CLEAN.
REV 19:15 AND OUT OF HIS MOUTH GOETH A SHARP SWORD, THAT WITH IT HE SHOULD SMITE THE NATIONS: AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON: AND HE TREADETH THE WINEPRESS OF THE FIERCENESS AND WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
The pretribulation doctrine absolutely destroys this glorious picture of the completion of the salvation of the saints!!!! We are changed to be like him and are changed incorruptible while the birds of the air pluck at the bodies of the unrepentant slain. This scene is further described in Zechariah:

Zec 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
THE SAINTS OF GOD RETURNING WITH CHRIST NOW CHANGED TO BE LIKE HIM STAND WITH HIM IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THIS WRATH. The pretrib argument destroys the glory and power that is due Christ.

You can respect men, but respected men have fostered great apostasy in the church because men don't read their bibles but look for implications or suppositions to prove their point and for someone else to do their thinking for them. This kind of garbage has been in the Church for decades and has increased and the devil is deceiving more men more than ever. The time is very short I would say.

There are BLOOD-BOUGHT saints in the trib who will see all of this wrath of God on the evil of this world and they will not be affected because they are in Christ. NO PRETRIBBER has been able to explain WITH SCRIPTURE why God pulls out the entire Church before the trib because that is His pattern and then saves some more to go through the trib. EXPLAIN WHY GOD BROKE HIS PATTERN BY SAVING MORE SAINTS TO GO THROUGH THE TRIBULATION??????????????? The answer is simple to those who have eyes to see.

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/SaintsWrath.htm

stop posting articles from other websites. read the rules

TyRockwell

January 17th 2008, 12:45 AM

You've got quite a number of things right. But I hesitate to encourage you. Already your zeal is overloading your presentation.

Ty

gharfish

January 17th 2008, 03:33 AM

...and popping in between flown in articles is not good presentation. He had me and lost me at "...DEBUNKING...SILLY AND DANGEROUS...THING."

abu njoroge

February 19th 2008, 02:47 PM

I believe the time of the Pale horse has already past.

John Goddard

February 21st 2008, 05:30 AM

Jesus withered the fig tree which meant destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matthew 21:19).

Then forward to the times before the Last Trumpet, the withered fig tree is restored and Jews are back in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:32).

Jerusalem is Aholibah the Harlot (Ezekiel 23:4) whose lover is Babylon (Ezekiel 23:17) so she has power in the world with the Gentile Beast (Revelation 17:2). Together they are the 2 Horns of the False Prophet (Revelation 13:11) which acts like Messiah restoring Israel (Isaiah 49:6) but speaks like a Dragon saying "ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5) and thus a secular coalition of Jews and Gentiles that doesn't think they need God to rule the world like a Messiah.

So if a person can see all these things happen in a lifetime (Matthew 24:33-34) then we start in the 20th century and end in the 21st.

Which then with a day as 1000 years (2 Peter 3:8) we see:

Hosea 6:2 After two days (2000 years) will he revive us:...

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Hosea 6:2 ...in the third day (3000 years) he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

With the First Sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:39) the Temple of his body rises after 3 days. With the Second Sign of Jonah (Matthew 16:4) Jesus is the Temple of New Jerusalem after 3000 years.

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

2000 years for Jesus to return, 1000 years when Satan is bound, 3000 years to eternity.

TyRockwell

February 21st 2008, 11:05 AM

Cherith

February 21st 2008, 12:26 PM

Good grief, this thread is still alive!? The great tribulation didn't last this long!

John Goddard

February 21st 2008, 01:40 PM

the withered fig tree is restored and Jews are back in Jerusalem

The fig tree was never, and never will be, 'restored.' "No man eat fruit from you ever again." Then, Matthew 24:32 told us that the seasons would be known by their signs. Jerusalem is still being trampled underfoot by gentiles, some of whom are descended from Jacob.

The fig tree is restored from being withered, it puts out leaves again, still no fruit. Jews are at the wall now.

You are taking the Ezekiel reference out of context: Jerusalem is Aholibah the Harlot (Ezekiel 23:4) whose lover is Babylon (Ezekiel 23:17).

It's quite in context, Jerusalem has always been the harlot carried away to Babylon, drunk on the blood of prophets.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

No, Israel was going after false gods at the time and was being warned of the judgment that would come with the Babylonian invasion, and Israel's dispersion and captivity, AT THAT TIME. It is a violation of the context to make that scenario apply past then, because Israel was restored into their covenant relationship with God, and became even more blessed than they had been, before, even under the reigns of David and Solomon. That is foretold in Ezekiel 36.

They wouldn't have lost the Temple again if that was true. Now there is a secular Israel raised when only Messiah is supposed to do it, one that doesn't claim Jesus as its king. So here we go again.

Your Ezekiel citations have no application to the Rev. 17 or the Rev. 13 references. The rest of that paragraph is also twisting and craming Isaiah and Genesis incorrectly into Revelation.

You should show how they are incorrect, not just say they are. Which I think will be hard for you to do because they fit quite well. The NT is also "crammed" with prophecies of the Tanach as the authors thought they applied to Jesus, I'm doing nothing different.

There were no 'two signs' of Jonah. Both mentions refer to the same three days and three nights in the belly of the earth.

There are two adulterous generations, one in the first century, one now. So we have two signs before destruction of Aholibah.

TyRockwell

February 21st 2008, 03:37 PM

J G: They wouldn't have lost the Temple again if that was true. Now there is a secular Israel raised when only Messiah is supposed to do it, one that doesn't claim Jesus as its king. So here we go again.

You obviously didn't read Ezekiel 36, as it pertains to Israel's return from Persia and Babylon.

You are just like a million and one other prophecy spouters who never see the Daniel prophecies fulfilled in Jesus time. Why don't you?

You always claim that the old testament prophecies of Israel's return from Babylon didn't happen in 500 BC and the years that followed, up till the invasion of Rome.

You jump from Rome, taking the prophecies of that time with you into the future. You are wrong to do that. Don't you know Daniel was sealed? or do you choose not to believe God's word?

John Goddard

February 21st 2008, 04:09 PM

J G: They wouldn't have lost the Temple again if that was true. Now there is a secular Israel raised when only Messiah is supposed to do it, one that doesn't claim Jesus as its king. So here we go again.

You are just like a million and one other prophecy spouters who never see the Daniel prophecies fulfilled in Jesus time. Why don't you?

Rome wasn't smashed, neither was the Jewish kingdom rejecting Jesus. It's all right here again in the State of Israel ruling with the west. You claim prophecies were completely fulfilled in the first century in defiance of reality.

dizzle

February 21st 2008, 07:19 PM

this isn't a debate thread

Timothy Leary

February 24th 2008, 09:43 PM

Good grief, this thread is still alive!? The great tribulation didn't last this long!

We're experts at dragging things here :tongue:

MetalMark

July 31st 2008, 06:54 PM

Preterist!!!
What's a "Complete double fulfillment?"

TyRockwell

July 31st 2008, 10:54 PM

Preterist!!!
What's a "Complete double fulfillment?"

Double Mint Chewing Gum
and "Two, Two, Two mints in one!"

dizzle

August 1st 2008, 12:00 AM

Interesting, first time that preterists have been ahead of futurists.

MetalMark

August 4th 2008, 05:27 PM

Let's keep it that way!

brainout

October 10th 2008, 04:03 PM

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.

Yikes, I checked "double fulfillment" but my definition is vastly different. Idea is that Israel is literally owed the years, 7+1000+50 year voting period, because I can prove that from Genesis forward, Bible's dating system is really bald and really unknown in Christendom. But the insertion of Church is to BRIDGE to that time, since Israel was the only one PROMISED Time, and when she rejected Christ in 29AD and He died a year later, His 29AD unilateral commitment to pay for Church as Father would have it (Matt16:18), saved time.

Now the "double" comes in. Christ dies 7 years short of the 37AD deadline (based on 1000th anniversary of David's death which scholars but not Bible, misdate). So that EXTRA seven plays from 64-70AD (or 66-73AD if you prefer), to take down the Temple. That was already in the original schedule, so the 7 of Daniel 9:27 was RESERVED post-Messiah for it to occur. However, the reservation was the accounting piece for had Israel ACCEPTED Messiah. So now, paying double, the extra seven is used instead, playing out still on time. For 57 years were supposed to elapse after Israel's ACCEPTANCE, at which point the Mill would begin (Pentecost is where you get the 50). That would take you to 94AD.

So, we have this hanging chad of the original seven which did NOT get used up because of the rejection. And, of course the Mill didn't yet begin. When Church finally matures, Eph4:13 criterion, Eph1:10 purpose -- then the Rapture hits, and the timeline resumes.

See, it's very prosaic. The goofy drooling Tribbers have no idea this is a Trial rule about Time which is precedented in Adam.

Preterist264

November 26th 2008, 01:16 AM

A guess anyone? :tongue: :wink: :lol:

TyRockwell

November 26th 2008, 09:07 PM

Lizard

November 26th 2008, 09:21 PM

No. :no: You are a typical example of how most people derive their beliefs regarding eschatology. They learned their take on the subject from someone they know and trust. Thereafter they cling to it from a sense of loyalty to truth, because they can't imagine that their loved one and/or trusted teacher was not right.

Another thing that happens, is that other interpretations are not investigated with an open mind. Usually, their only approach to another view is in an effort to discredit it.

How many really take an unbiased look to see what The Lord might show them? Or do they look to find what they have been taught is there?

And, what if Daniel really was still sealed until, say, 1994?

Ty, you couldn't be more wrong.

Most preterist I know, myself include, were taught pre-trib, pre-mil, growing up. I was taught this by a man I consider very dear to my heart and, next my father, the biggist influence on my life.

This position is the position that was the position that I was loyal to.

I began studying eschatology in earnest because there were some things about dispy pre-mil that didn't make sense to me. My goal was for those things to make sense, not to abandon my deeply held beliefs.

Well, I stumbled across preterism (never heard of it before). It made sense of the things that premil didn't. My reaction. This preterist stuff is liberal crap. I studied long and hard to find a good counter to preterism. A dispy pre-mil counter. I didn't want to believe the preterism was true.

However, the more I studied, the more I became convinced that preterism was the proper eschatology as revealed in Holy Scripture.

So your assertion is just plain wrong. There are those of us who do seek out scritpural understanding and are willing to toss aside cherished beliefs. Just because we do not agree with you, does not make that impossible.

Hate to deflate your ego that way.

TyRockwell

November 26th 2008, 10:53 PM

Ty, you couldn't be more wrong.

Most preterist I know, myself include, were taught pre-trib, pre-mil, growing up. I was taught this by a man I consider very dear to my heart and, next my father, the biggist influence on my life.

This position is the position that was the position that I was loyal to.

I began studying eschatology in earnest because there were some things about dispy pre-mil that didn't make sense to me. My goal was for those things to make sense, not to abandon my deeply held beliefs.

Well, I stumbled across preterism (never heard of it before). It made sense of the things that premil didn't. My reaction. This preterist stuff is liberal crap. I studied long and hard to find a good counter to preterism. A dispy pre-mil counter. I didn't want to believe the preterism was true.

However, the more I studied, the more I became convinced that preterism was the proper eschatology as revealed in Holy Scripture.

So your assertion is just plain wrong. There are those of us who do seek out scritpural understanding and are willing to toss aside cherished beliefs. Just because we do not agree with you, does not make that impossible.

Hate to deflate your ego that way.
I said "How many?" not "everybody," or "nobody." I think preterists got a number of important details right. But they got some things very wrong.

Your testimony on eschatological upbringing sounds a lot like mine. My grandmother had a five-foot long chart on her wall that illustrated the dispy, premil, pretrib rapture teaching. It started with "Eternity Past" to the Garden of Eden and through all the dispensations, Daniel, Olivet Discourse, and Revelation scriptures, to the Eternal Future.

I understood it all, but I always had doubts, but I kept them to myself. When I was about 11 years old, I was sitting in church reading, and at Daniel 11:45, I had a brief vision, only a split second view of Jesus hanging on the cross. I didn't mention it to anybody, and forgot about it until years later. I didn't realize the significance of it, or understand it, because it didn't fit in, there, with what I had been taught about that verse.

Meanwhile, I started asking when Daniel was unsealed, or when would it be unsealed. Most people thought it was not yet unsealed, because they didn't think it was "the time of the end," yet. But they were expecting that when it was unsealed, we would be able to understand it, and it would help us understand The Revelation of Jesus Christ. These same people thought that Israel's nation-state's status in 1948 was 'a sign.' They didn't see a contradition in that. A few supposed it 'might have been' unsealed when Jesus spoke of it.

So I remained open-minded and studied the Bible and waited. I investigated amil, post-mil, no mil, but withheld making up my mind. I prayed every so often to know and understand, "just because I'd like to know." In 1981, I began to experience the overflowing fullness of the Holy Spirit. I learned so much more than I could have known before that experience. Yet the vast majority of the teachers I was hearing still held to the dispy, pre-trib rapture, tenaciously.

Suddenly, and unexpectedly, in 1994 God started to show me, by His Spirit, not from any human teacher, and I had a very strong perception of His presence, then, and on too many other occasions to count since then, when He has added more, and He still has continued to add more, even recently. Ego has nothing to do with it.

Peace and Truth,
Ty