Preterism questions

[PLCJ58]

I've converted to partial preterist in the past 18 months or longer but the last few months because of illness, job changes, new babies, etc I haven't been able to keep my studies up as much as I wanted. So I have lost some of my knowledge and "edge" in terms of dealing with futurists, or just in the subject from a real IN DEPTH point. Today I had lunch with a family and one of the women there, an obvious futurist, begin talking about how I was "missing it" because she says there will be a time in which God will remove his spirit from the Earth and there won't be any good AT ALL left. All gone. No more goodie goodies. I don't seem to remember any part of revelation or Daniel or anything in the Gospels really outright saying this. I asked her where this was from and she said there was "1 verse that states he who lets, will let...." and she couldn't remember the rest. It's from 2 Thessalonians 2:7, but essentially this whole chapter deals with what they believe is an assault on the Church.

But back to the crux of the matter. Does anyone know exactly what she might be referring to when she says that God will remove his spirit? Her take is that after the rapture, there will be nothing but evil on Earth since God's spirit is removed, and God's spirit is what is currently keeping "good" on Earth.

Second, does anyone have a link that might spell out all of the issues with preterism. In other words, almost like a study Bible for us preterists? It would be nice to be able to go through the Chapters as I read and just use a footnote instead of having to read 19 pages explaining what 1 verse means. After a while that becomes a grind.

And one last take. Could someone PLEASE give me a SIMPLY explanation of the 70 weeks (preterist and futurist points of view) of Daniel????? Everytime I look it up it's like a giant novel of an article. Anyone have a high level overview from both sides of the street?

Thanks in advance!

[Hitch]

I've converted to partial preterist in the past 18 months or longer but the last few months because of illness, job changes, new babies, etc I haven't been able to keep my studies up as much as I wanted. So I have lost some of my knowledge and "edge" in terms of dealing with futurists, or just in the subject from a real IN DEPTH point. Today I had lunch with a family and one of the women there, an obvious futurist, begin talking about how I was "missing it" because she says there will be a time in which God will remove his spirit from the Earth and there won't be any good AT ALL left. All gone. No more goodie goodies. I don't seem to remember any part of revelation or Daniel or anything in the Gospels really outright saying this. I asked her where this was from and she said there was "1 verse that states he who lets, will let...." and she couldn't remember the rest. It's from 2 Thessalonians 2:7, but essentially this whole chapter deals with what they believe is an assault on the Church.

But back to the crux of the matter. Does anyone know exactly what she might be referring to when she says that God will remove his spirit? Her take is that after the rapture, there will be nothing but evil on Earth since God's spirit is removed, and God's spirit is what is currently keeping "good" on Earth. (you got it)

Second, does anyone have a link that might spell out all of the issues with preterism. In other words, almost like a study Bible for us preterists? It would be nice to be able to go through the Chapters as I read and just use a footnote instead of having to read 19 pages explaining what 1 verse means. After a while that becomes a grind. ( I can recommend some titles but I really believe you might be better served asking open question here and looking through the menay threads on these pages. Some of the best preterist explanations are right here. )

And one last take. Could someone PLEASE give me a SIMPLY explanation of the 70 weeks (preterist and futurist points of view) of Daniel????? Everytime I look it up it's like a giant novel of an article. Anyone have a high level overview from both sides of the street? ( I reckon you already know,, the preterist believes in seventy sevens,weeks of years. The DF inserts a GAP, nowhere to be found is Scripture)

Thanks in advance! It s hard to deal with nonsense logicaly, but bless you for trying.


I use a lens to see what the Scriptures are saying, especially wrt the differences between DF and preterism. The lens is entirely comprised of what our Lord said wrt the resurrection.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


What ever cant fit here should be discarded. And it makes a great starting place to question futurists and their loud claims of 'literalism'.

Take care

H

[dizzle]

I've converted to partial preterist in the past 18 months or longer..

Welcome to sanity.

Today I had lunch with a family and one of the women there, an obvious futurist, begin talking about how I was "missing it" because she says there will be a time in which God will remove his spirit from the Earth and there won't be any good AT ALL left. All gone. No more goodie goodies. I don't seem to remember any part of revelation or Daniel or anything in the Gospels really outright saying this. I asked her where this was from and she said there was "1 verse that states he who lets, will let...." and she couldn't remember the rest. It's from 2 Thessalonians 2:7, but essentially this whole chapter deals with what they believe is an assault on the Church.

But back to the crux of the matter. Does anyone know exactly what she might be referring to when she says that God will remove his spirit? Her take is that after the rapture, there will be nothing but evil on Earth since God's spirit is removed, and God's spirit is what is currently keeping "good" on Earth.

She is referring to Thessalonians and the "restrainer" who must be taken out of the way before the son of perdition can be revealed. You might ask her if it is possible to get saved in the Tribulation, and if so, how in the world can someone get saved without God's Spirit?

From my POV the restrainer was "Claudius" who's name ironically means...... restrainer. Nero could not rise to power until Claudius was taken out of the way.


Second, does anyone have a link that might spell out all of the issues with preterism. In other words, almost like a study Bible for us preterists? It would be nice to be able to go through the Chapters as I read and just use a footnote instead of having to read 19 pages explaining what 1 verse means. After a while that becomes a grind.

Nothing out there at present like what you describe. The hyperprets are working on something like that but a great deal will have to be dedicated to defending a denial of the resurrection so I suspect it will be useless as well. Unfortunately good theology cannot be reduced to footnotes. What I can recommend is just for Matthew 24 and it would be my commentary. Though it is well over a hundred pages it goes verse by verse and is hyperlinked by verse so you can jump right to where one specific verse is dealt with and just read that section. It can be found here:

It's Not the End of the World! (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html)


And one last take. Could someone PLEASE give me a SIMPLY explanation of the 70 weeks (preterist and futurist points of view) of Daniel????? Everytime I look it up it's like a giant novel of an article. Anyone have a high level overview from both sides of the street?

Preterist overview: The first 69 weeks deal with the time of decree of Ezra 7 until the baptism of Christ which is the beginning of the 70th week. In the middle of the 70th week, Christ is crucified. The end of the 70th week isn't as clearly defned but I am comfortable stating it is the stoning of Stephen/conversion of Paul. The destruction of the Temple is a result of the 70 weeks, got gives a generation of grace to repent. It does not fall within the 70 weeks.

Futurist (dispensational only): The first 69 weeks deal with the time of the decree in Nehemiah 2 until the triumphal entry. The 70th week has yet to start and it is in the 70th week that the Tribulation occurs, specifically it is the second half of the 70th week after the antichrist desecrates the temple in the middle of the 70th week.

Ironically you couldn't have two opposite views - and whichever one is wrong is so wrong that it borders on the worst kind of blasphemy.

How so? Well from my point of view the dispesensationalist ascribes work that is Christ's to the antichrist. And it would be the opposite if dispy is correct.

[PLCJ58]

So Dee how is it that we can have such large gaping theories when dealing with prophecy? I came to being a partial preterist from Matthew 24 as well. As I started really getting into my study those two little words "this generation" jumped out at me like a large blinking sign. I find that futurists never do offer a good explanation for it, and like today, will make up all sorts of stuff to avoid answering it. She told me "well the apostles didn't understand everything, they didn't even understand the tearing down of the temple in 3 days thing, so they may not have understood this either". And I sat confused by how in the heck that answer had anything to do with Christ saying "this generation" or "shall not taste death". Christ knew the apostles weren't the smartest of dudes at times, so he only said it in about 20 different ways "the end will be VERY SOON! IT'S AT THE DOOR!"

I need to get back more intesely into my study but the shock and horror I get from futurists when I tell them I don't believe in a rapture never fails to make me smile. LOL

[dizzle]

PLC I really don't know how it happens. IMHO dispensationalism and premillenialism are so clearly in error.

[David_A_Reed]

And one last take. Could someone PLEASE give me a SIMPLY explanation of the 70 weeks (preterist and futurist points of view) of Daniel????? Everytime I look it up it's like a giant novel of an article. Anyone have a high level overview from both sides of the street?
Please don't overlook the historicist view. After all, it was the Protestant view for hundreds of years. An historicist approach is presented simply at http://www.1260days.com/70weeks.htm

David

[PLCJ58]

PLC I really don't know how it happens. IMHO dispensationalism and premillenialism are so clearly in error.

I agree, however, why is it that futurism is the big boy in church doctrine now? When I found preterism it opened up so many areas that seemed confusing to me before. Yet the majority of Christians I talk to, if not all, believe in the rapture. It's frustrating at times to say the least.

[Hitch]

I agree, however, why is it that futurism is the big boy in church doctrine now? When I found preterism it opened up so many areas that seemed confusing to me before. Yet the majority of Christians I talk to, if not all, believe in the rapture. It's frustrating at times to say the least. Are you thinking more, and more clearly, now wrt your overall view of the Scriptures? Most believers willingly trade insight for the latest inside info on why it really is soon this time. It a lot easier. Now you're stuck, you see the mistakes and serious errors coming out all the time and ya cant go back.


H

[dizzle]

I agree, however, why is it that futurism is the big boy in church doctrine now? When I found preterism it opened up so many areas that seemed confusing to me before. Yet the majority of Christians I talk to, if not all, believe in the rapture. It's frustrating at times to say the least.

I honestly do not know. Some very great churches here are futurist, and I know many pastors that are totally and sincerely devoted to God, I just don't know why they can't see it.

[dizzle]

Paul the historicist and preterist view on the 70 weeks is pretty much identical. Ted Noel on this forum is a historicist but his writing on the 70 weeks is one of the best I have read. It is pretty much only dispies that mangle the 70 weeks. Most nondispy futurists hold the same POV as preterists on the 70 weeks as well.

[PLCJ58]

Are you thinking more, and more clearly, now wrt your overall view of the Scriptures? Most believers willingly trade insight for the latest inside info on why it really is soon this time. It a lot easier. Now you're stuck, you see the mistakes and serious errors coming out all the time and ya cant go back.


H

Well I had no idea what preterism was until about a year and a half ago I think. I just found more and more confusing scriptures concerning the return of Christ and the second coming not to fit when using a "literal" reading of the Gospels. After that I talked to Dee Dee and JP about these issues. I had heard the term before but never looked deeper into it. I always find it funny how futurists now tell me they read the bible "literally" yet when you bring up Matt 24:34 they freak out. "No no no he meant race of people!" :blush:

I just know that preterism has given me alot of peace in my scripture study and even my Christian walk.

[eschaton]

Well I had no idea what preterism was until about a year and a half ago I think.

It shows.

I just found more and more confusing scriptures concerning the return of Christ and the second coming not to fit when using a "literal" reading of the Gospels. After that I talked to Dee Dee and JP about these issues. I had heard the term before but never looked deeper into it. I always find it funny how futurists now tell me they read the bible "literally" yet when you bring up Matt 24:34 they freak out. "No no no he meant race of people!" :blush:

I just know that preterism has given me alot of peace in my scripture study and even my Christian walk.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

[PLCJ58]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?????????

[eschaton]

Welcome to sanity.



She is referring to Thessalonians and the "restrainer" who must be taken out of the way before the son of perdition can be revealed. You might ask her if it is possible to get saved in the Tribulation, and if so, how in the world can someone get saved without God's Spirit?

From my POV the restrainer was "Claudius" who's name ironically means...... restrainer. Nero could not rise to power until Claudius was taken out of the way.



.



Here are eight requirements of the Man of Sin
described is 2nd Thessalonians that exclude anybody on your list. We
have historical information on how they died, or on what they said
that contradicts what is in scripture.

1. The description requires
that we should look, not for a system or abstraction,
but an individual, a `man'.

2. He is evidently
not a private, but a public person. The powers with
which he is invested imply this.

3. He is Jewish. The title implies that he will be like Judas in
treachery.

4. He claims divine names, prerogatives,
and worship.

5. He pretends to exercise
miraculous power.

6. He is characterised by enormous
wickedness. He is `the man of sin,' i.e. the incarnation and
embodiment of evil.

7. He had not yet arrived at the
fulness of his power when the apostle wrote

8. The `lawless one,' the `man of sin,' was doomed to
destruction. He is `the son of perdition,' `whom the Lord
shall slay.' The Lord shall destroy him with the
brightness of his coming.'

There is no one in
history that fulfills these requirements.

[eschaton]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?????????

It means I joined this forum in June 2003, and before that I moderated a futurist vs. preterist forum for several years. Before that I spent about forty years looking at Bible prophecy. In that time I haven't seen one shred of evidence that preterism is correct.

Preterism is an idea that started as an interpretation of the book of Revelation in the 18th century. It started becoming more popular in the late 19th century.

None of the church fathers were preterists, although a few had ideas that could be considered preteristic. None of the church fathers interpreted Matthew 24:34 like preterists do today. If they did then somebody needs to show it to me and we'll start tallying how many did interpret that way.

[St Catherine]

It means I joined this forum in June 2003, and before that I moderated a futurist vs. preterist forum for several years. Before that I spent about forty years looking at Bible prophecy. In that time I haven't seen one shred of evidence that preterism is correct.

Preterism is an idea that started as an interpretation of the book of Revelation in the 18th century. It started becoming more popular in the late 19th century.

None of the church fathers were preterists, although a few had ideas that could be considered preteristic. None of the church fathers interpreted Matthew 24:34 like preterists do today. If they did then somebody needs to show it to me and we'll start tallying how many did interpret that way.
Has anyone else here studied 'Amillienialism'?


SC

[eschaton]

Do you mean anyone besides me?

[St Catherine]

Do you mean anyone besides me?

Oh I'm sorry I meant anyone here, not just you :)

Have you?


SC

[eschaton]

Oh I'm sorry I meant anyone here, not just you :)

Have you?


SC

I know a little bit about amillennialism. I consider myself an amillennialist. To me it means no millennium. By that I mean the opposite of what most premiillennialist believe. Most of them believe there will be a literal 1000 years of Christ ruling on earth with His saints.

Some amillennialists would attach more specific beliefs and definition to what an amillennialist is. In fact, I would suppose that most amillennialists are preterists today. You may have guessed from my previous messages in this thread that I am not a preterist.

[St Catherine]

I know a little bit about amillennialism. I consider myself an amillennialist. To me it means no millennium. By that I mean the opposite of what most premiillennialist believe. Most of them believe there will be a literal 1000 years of Christ ruling on earth with His saints.

Some amillennialists would attach more specific beliefs and definition to what an amillennialist is. In fact, I would suppose that most amillennialists are preterists today. You may have guessed from my previous messages in this thread that I am not a preterist.


I was raised in a 'rapture' Church still can remember the 'left behind' type movies they showed in Church while I was growing up.


Here's a handy explaination of the 'a-mill' position...at least the one I hold to.


Amillennialism



The amillennial view interprets Revelation 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianized, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through his Church. This was the view of the Protestant Reformers and is still the most common view among traditional Protestants, though not among most of the newer Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups.

Amillennialists also believe in the coexistence of good and evil on earth until the end. The tension that exists on earth between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. The golden age of the millennium is instead the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming.

Amillennialists point out that the thrones of the saints who reign with Christ during the millennium appear to be set in heaven (Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4, 11:16) and that the text nowhere states that Christ is on earth during this reign with the saints.

They explain that, although the world will never be fully Christianized until the Second Coming, the millennium does have effects on earth in that Satan is bound in such a way that he cannot deceive the nations by hindering the preaching of the gospel (Rev. 20:3). They point out that Jesus spoke of the necessity of "binding the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house by rescuing people from his grip (Matt. 12:29). When the disciples returned from a tour of preaching the gospel, rejoicing at how demons were subject to them, Jesus declared, "I saw Satan fall like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Thus for the gospel to move forward at all in the world, it is necessary for Satan to be bound in one sense, even if he may still be active in attacking individuals (1 Pet. 5:8).

The millennium is a golden age not when compared to the glories of the age to come, but in comparison to all prior ages of human history, in which the world was swallowed in pagan darkness. Today, a third of the human race is Christian and even more than that have repudiated pagan idols and embraced the worship of the God of Abraham.

http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp

[eschaton]

I was raised in a 'rapture' Church still can remember the 'left behind' type movies they showed in Church while I was growing up.


Here's a handy explaination of the 'a-mill' position...at least the one I hold to.


Amillennialism



The amillennial view interprets Revelation 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianized, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through his Church. This was the view of the Protestant Reformers and is still the most common view among traditional Protestants, though not among most of the newer Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups.

Amillennialists also believe in the coexistence of good and evil on earth until the end. The tension that exists on earth between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. The golden age of the millennium is instead the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming.

Amillennialists point out that the thrones of the saints who reign with Christ during the millennium appear to be set in heaven (Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4, 11:16) and that the text nowhere states that Christ is on earth during this reign with the saints.

They explain that, although the world will never be fully Christianized until the Second Coming, the millennium does have effects on earth in that Satan is bound in such a way that he cannot deceive the nations by hindering the preaching of the gospel (Rev. 20:3). They point out that Jesus spoke of the necessity of "binding the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house by rescuing people from his grip (Matt. 12:29). When the disciples returned from a tour of preaching the gospel, rejoicing at how demons were subject to them, Jesus declared, "I saw Satan fall like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Thus for the gospel to move forward at all in the world, it is necessary for Satan to be bound in one sense, even if he may still be active in attacking individuals (1 Pet. 5:8).

The millennium is a golden age not when compared to the glories of the age to come, but in comparison to all prior ages of human history, in which the world was swallowed in pagan darkness. Today, a third of the human race is Christian and even more than that have repudiated pagan idols and embraced the worship of the God of Abraham.

http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp

I think that is a traditional definition. It sounds like what Augustine taught, although sometimes Augustine is classified as post-millennil and sometimes amillennial. The line between post-illennialism and amillennialism gets sort of blurred. I'll leave it to those who are better at definitions to spell it out. I don't accept everything in the definition above for myself. Like I said, some attach more specific doctrines and definitions than I do.

But I'm more concerned with what preterism is. What is preterism? Asking what preterism is is kind of like asking what pornography is. One judge said he couldn't define pornography, but he knows it when he sees it.

I'm not trying to say that preterism is pornography. I'm saying that the definition is somewhat elusive. It means that prophecy has been previously fulfilled, but partial preterists don't believe it has all been fulfilled. To me the best way of identifying preterism is to say that it doesn't believe in a future tribulation and individual antichrist. This is a belief that is totally contrary to traditional Christianity. Augustine may have been amillennial or postmillennial, but he certainly believed in a future period of persecution by the antichrist, as did all of the early church.

[PLCJ58]

When you say early church that makes me think of Paul and Peter. And they believed in a very soon and quick return (maybe because Christ said it would be soon MANY times maybe?). Not some two thousand years later.

Obviously John wrote....
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass."

And this is why dating revelation actually is important, unlike your take that it isn't. Does shortly mean 2000+ years? Or do you want to change the meaning of the word?

You almost come across like the Church leaders of post 1st century (if that is who you are refering to) are somehow infalliable. I honeslty don't care if they were preterists or not. It's liken to that of people who think the Kings James Bible is somehow superior to every other translation. why? "Because well, it's older." :ahem:

[dizzle]

I deleted my post as it wasn't worth raising my ire. Eshaton all I will say is that if you are so condenscending to actually say you have not found one shred of evidence (I find that theologically dishonest), then please do not deign to speak to this poor stupid person who believes something that there is not one shred of evidence for. I don't even think that poorly of hyperpreterism - and I will not have discourse will someone who thinks I am that stupid. Good day.

PS: to the thread starter, if you don't mind your thread being thrown off topic in such a way, I will take my leave of this thread. If you do, you have the right to control your own thread topic.

[eschaton]

I deleted my post as it wasn't worth raising my ire. Eshaton all I will say is that if you are so condenscending to actually say you have not found one shred of evidence (I find that theologically dishonest), then please do not deign to speak to this poor stupid person who believes something that there is not one shred of evidence for. I don't even think that poorly of hyperpreterists - and I will not have discourse will someone who thinks I am that stupid. Good day.

Hi Ms. Dee Dee,

I read what you said before you deleted it Dee Dee. Don't try to deny it.

I find preterism theologically dishonest. If I were you I wouldn't degrade myself like that. Just remember, you said it not me.


Your avatar looks pretty mad. Did you take that picture after you read my post?

[PLCJ58]

By all means Dee Dee say what you have to say.

[eschaton]

By all means Dee Dee say what you have to say.

I don't think you have to tell her that.

[dizzle]

Hi Ms. Dee Dee,

I read what you said before you deleted it Dee Dee. Don't try to deny it.

I find preterism theologically dishonest. If I were you I wouldn't degrade myself like that. Just remember, you said it not me.


Your avatar looks pretty mad. Did you take that picture after you read my post?

It is still preserved - I don't deny it. I changed my mind as not being worth my time. It can be restored at the click of a button. This avatar is old so don't flatter yourself that I spent that much time on something you said.

[PLCJ58]

Hi Ms. Dee Dee,

I read what you said before you deleted it Dee Dee. Don't try to deny it.

I find preterism theologically dishonest. If I were you I wouldn't degrade myself like that. Just remember, you said it not me.


Your avatar looks pretty mad. Did you take that picture after you read my post?

I find futurism to be dishonest. When believers use words completely out of context to try and fit their belief into the scripture rather than read what the scripture says that is theologically dishonest. Are you really saying you don't believe Christ when he said in Matt 24:34 that "this generation will not pass"? Do you also believe it means a race of people or something other than "this generation"?????

[dizzle]

I don't think you have to tell her that.

I think he was stating he doesn't want his thread turned into a debate - it didn't start out that way, you drug it in that direction. If that is indeed what he is saying, are you going to respect that? If that is not what he was saying, since you have totally now insured that I will likely never debate you - I don't debate people who say such ignorant things such as that because life is way too short for such nonsense - if he didn't intend that, I will take my leave as that is not what I posted in this thread for. Good day. I will not return the insult that I find your position without any shred of evidence because that would not be true. I happen to think people who disagree do so because of some reason. I may not find it persuasive but I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is so stupid that they walk into walls face first.

[PLCJ58]

I don't mind if it's turned into a debate so long as he explains himself. By all means explain why you don't see any truth in preterism.

[dizzle]

No problem PLC, see ya around. I don't debate partners that there is no a minimal amount of respect for going in both directions. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I think you will find most preterists in this forum have been done that road as well and don't waste their time.

[PLCJ58]

That's fine. Then close the thread. I didn't like his tone to begin with. Someone who can't disagree in an agreable manner isn't worth discussing it with anyway.

[dizzle]

PL - don't close it on my account - if it were a debate in the beginning I would never have posted because I know I don't have the time for a debate, and even if I did, I don't debate people who cannot concede that their opponent is not dumb as a rock and has good reasons for their position. There is no point.

I apologize to you for going off like a firecracker - but such utter disrespect sets me off - I too with that lambast am responsible for taking your thread to the gutter, please accept my apologies.

[dizzle]

PL - I added to my post above.

[eschaton]

When you say early church that makes me think of Paul and Peter. And they believed in a very soon and quick return (maybe because Christ said it would be soon MANY times maybe?). Not some two thousand years later.

Obviously John wrote....
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass."

And this is why dating revelation actually is important, unlike your take that it isn't. Does shortly mean 2000+ years? Or do you want to change the meaning of the word?

You almost come across like the Church leaders of post 1st century (if that is who you are refering to) are somehow infalliable. I honeslty don't care if they were preterists or not. It's liken to that of people who think the Kings James Bible is somehow superior to every other translation. why? "Because well, it's older." :ahem:

There are other passages in the NT that would seem to indicate a
first century end of the world. (Acts 2:17, Rom 13:12 16:20, 1 Cor
7:29, 1Pet 4:7, Phil 4:5, , Heb 1:2 10:25, James 5:8,9 1 John 2:8,
Rev 1:1-3, 22:6,10 ) Although shortly or soon in our every day speech
today would probably mean a few minutes or hours, it might be argued
that it would more likely mean a few years rather than a few thousand
years.

So were Jesus and the apostles simply wrong? Some would say no
because the NT is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
when it speaks about the end of the world in an imminent way. The
problem with that is there is little or no evidence that the early
church looked at it that way.

If the predictions of the NT are merely wrong as some skeptics claim,
were Jesus and the NT writers pretty much discredited? Did
Christianity disappear after a short time of popularity? The answer
of course is no. Christianity grew continuously until it became the
world's biggest religion. Many accepted persecution and even
martyrdom rather than abandon their faith.

How did the early church understand these seeming inconsistencies?
The answers are in the scriptures themselves. He is a God that speaks
of those things that are not as though they were.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many
nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the
dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

The early church understood that prophecy spoke in a timeless way.
Justin Martyr said:

Sometimes He [the Holy Spirit] uttered words about what was to take
place, as if it was then taking place, or had taken place. And unless
those who read perceive this art, they will not be able to follow the
words of the prophet as they ought. For example's sake, I shall
repeat some prophetic passages, that you may understand what I say.
When he speaks by Isaiah, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,
and like a lamb before the shearer," He speaks as if the suffering
had already taken place (5).
5. Dialogue with Trypho 114.1 (ANF, 1:256).

Augustine also wrote about the scripture speaking of a future event
as though it were past:

And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me." It was Himself who
was speaking as the Lord God; and yet we should not have understood
that it was Jesus Christ had He not added, "And now the Lord God and
His Spirit hath sent me." For He said this with reference to the form
of a servant, speaking of a future event as if it were past, as in
the same prophet we read, "He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter, "not "He shall be led;" but the past tense is used to
express the future. And prophecy constantly speaks in this way. Book
XX, Ch. 30

Isa 46:13 I bring near my righteousness: it shall not be far off, and
my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for
Israel my glory.

Isa 51:5 My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and
mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and
on mine arm shall they trust.

Isaiah spoke as if the righteousness of God when spring fourth in his
own day. But we see the fulfillment hundreds of years later in the NT.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The fact that the scriptures speak this way sometimes makes prophecy
hard to understand. Prophecy often refers to what Augustine calls the
continual coming of Christ in the Church. The Gospel is represented
in the believer's life in an idealistic sense. As the believer seeks
to follow seeks to follow the example of Christ's Gospel and live his
own life according to the Word, the believer faces his/her own
temptations and tribulations. Christ is coming in His church by the
Holy Spirit's work within the believer. Peter referred to this as the
daystar arising in your heart (2 Pet 1:19). Augustine tried to
delineate between verses that prophesied about the continual coming
and those that referred to the last judgment.

Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last
judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous,
or to allude rather to some other event,-whether to that coming of
the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His
members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since
the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly
Jerusalem. For when He speaks even of this, He often uses language
which is applicable to the end of the world and that last and great
day of judgment, so that these two events cannot be distinguished
unless all the corresponding passages bearing on the subject in the
three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are compared with one
another,-for some things are put more obscurely by one evangelist and
more plainly by another,-so that it becomes apparent what things are
meant to be referred to one event. It is this which I have been at
pains to do in a letter which I wrote to Hesychius of blessed memory,
bishop of Salon, and entitled, "Of the End of the World." Book XX Ch.
5

This is a principle the early church understood well, and it gave
them courage in the face of persecution and martyrdom.

[eschaton]

I find futurism to be dishonest. When believers use words completely out of context to try and fit their belief into the scripture rather than read what the scripture says that is theologically dishonest. Are you really saying you don't believe Christ when he said in Matt 24:34 that "this generation will not pass"? Do you also believe it means a race of people or something other than "this generation"?????

I'm saying that it is dishonest and ignorant for Christians to take this verse out of the context that Christianity has always understood it until the last couple of centuries.

[eschaton]

PL - don't close it on my account - if it were a debate in the beginning I would never have posted because I know I don't have the time for a debate, and even if I did, I don't debate people who cannot concede that their opponent is not dumb as a rock and has good reasons for their position. There is no point.

I apologize to you for going off like a firecracker - but such utter disrespect sets me off - I too with that lambast am responsible for taking your thread to the gutter, please accept my apologies.

It's good to see a little humility around here. Oh, I'm not talking about myself. I'm commending you Dee Dee. However, I do think it is a little less than straight forward to make absurd assertions about 2nd Thessalonians when the subject has been discussed here many times before. It's not nice to be misleading.

[PLCJ58]

There are other passages in the NT that would seem to indicate a
first century end of the world. (Acts 2:17, Rom 13:12 16:20, 1 Cor
7:29, 1Pet 4:7, Phil 4:5, , Heb 1:2 10:25, James 5:8,9 1 John 2:8,
Rev 1:1-3, 22:6,10 ) Although shortly or soon in our every day speech
today would probably mean a few minutes or hours, it might be argued
that it would more likely mean a few years rather than a few thousand
years.

So were Jesus and the apostles simply wrong? Some would say no
because the NT is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
when it speaks about the end of the world in an imminent way. The
problem with that is there is little or no evidence that the early
church looked at it that way.

If the predictions of the NT are merely wrong as some skeptics claim,
were Jesus and the NT writers pretty much discredited? Did
Christianity disappear after a short time of popularity? The answer
of course is no. Christianity grew continuously until it became the
world's biggest religion. Many accepted persecution and even
martyrdom rather than abandon their faith.

How did the early church understand these seeming inconsistencies?
The answers are in the scriptures themselves. He is a God that speaks
of those things that are not as though they were.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many
nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the
dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

The early church understood that prophecy spoke in a timeless way.
Justin Martyr said:

Sometimes He [the Holy Spirit] uttered words about what was to take
place, as if it was then taking place, or had taken place. And unless
those who read perceive this art, they will not be able to follow the
words of the prophet as they ought. For example's sake, I shall
repeat some prophetic passages, that you may understand what I say.
When he speaks by Isaiah, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,
and like a lamb before the shearer," He speaks as if the suffering
had already taken place (5).
5. Dialogue with Trypho 114.1 (ANF, 1:256).

Augustine also wrote about the scripture speaking of a future event
as though it were past:

And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me." It was Himself who
was speaking as the Lord God; and yet we should not have understood
that it was Jesus Christ had He not added, "And now the Lord God and
His Spirit hath sent me." For He said this with reference to the form
of a servant, speaking of a future event as if it were past, as in
the same prophet we read, "He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter, "not "He shall be led;" but the past tense is used to
express the future. And prophecy constantly speaks in this way. Book
XX, Ch. 30

Isa 46:13 I bring near my righteousness: it shall not be far off, and
my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for
Israel my glory.

Isa 51:5 My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and
mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and
on mine arm shall they trust.

Isaiah spoke as if the righteousness of God when spring fourth in his
own day. But we see the fulfillment hundreds of years later in the NT.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The fact that the scriptures speak this way sometimes makes prophecy
hard to understand. Prophecy often refers to what Augustine calls the
continual coming of Christ in the Church. The Gospel is represented
in the believer's life in an idealistic sense. As the believer seeks
to follow seeks to follow the example of Christ's Gospel and live his
own life according to the Word, the believer faces his/her own
temptations and tribulations. Christ is coming in His church by the
Holy Spirit's work within the believer. Peter referred to this as the
daystar arising in your heart (2 Pet 1:19). Augustine tried to
delineate between verses that prophesied about the continual coming
and those that referred to the last judgment.

Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last
judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous,
or to allude rather to some other event,-whether to that coming of
the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His
members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since
the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly
Jerusalem. For when He speaks even of this, He often uses language
which is applicable to the end of the world and that last and great
day of judgment, so that these two events cannot be distinguished
unless all the corresponding passages bearing on the subject in the
three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are compared with one
another,-for some things are put more obscurely by one evangelist and
more plainly by another,-so that it becomes apparent what things are
meant to be referred to one event. It is this which I have been at
pains to do in a letter which I wrote to Hesychius of blessed memory,
bishop of Salon, and entitled, "Of the End of the World." Book XX Ch.
5

This is a principle the early church understood well, and it gave
them courage in the face of persecution and martyrdom.

You're quoting Augustine of apocrypha fame? Sorry. No need to go any further with you.

[PLCJ58]

I'm saying that it is dishonest and ignorant for Christians to take this verse out of the context that Christianity has always understood it until the last couple of centuries.
You mean like when futurists say "Christ meant a race of people" when he said "this generation"? Yeah the futurists never take things out of context. :ahem:

[eschaton]

You're quoting Augustine from the apocrypha? Sorry. No need to go any further with you.

No, I am not quoting him from the apochrypha. I guess I understand why you've adopted preterism.

[eschaton]

You mean like when futurists say "Christ meant a race of people" when he said "this generation"? Yeah the futurists never take things out of context. :ahem:

Ditto to my previous remark. I'll leave this thread to the preterist ladies that are so knowledgable.

[Gromit45]

That's fine. Then close the thread. I didn't like his tone to begin with. Someone who can't disagree in an agreable manner isn't worth discussing it with anyway.
Personally, I'd like the thread to remain open for a while longer since I may have questions over the next few weeks as the senior pastor is doing an "End Times" series into March. From tektonics.org, I find myself leaning toward preterism more and more. The Broewer/Hannegraaf fiction novel was helpful also (despite its disturbingly over abundance of "rape threats" in the plot). From the first few weeks, the pastor looks to lean pre-trib, pre-mill. In a couple of weeks, we get <bows head solemnly> Tim LaHaye (!) <slowly lifts eyes>, plus other "fun" stuff. (DON'T ASK) I may have questions as they come along. Of course, if you want to close this thread, I can start my own

[PLCJ58]

typo........................fixed

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Personally, I'd like the thread to remain open for a while longer since I may have questions over the next few weeks as the senior pastor is doing an "End Times" series into March. From tektonics.org, I find myself leaning toward preterism more and more. The Broewer/Hannegraaf fiction novel was helpful also (despite its disturbingly over abundance of "rape threats" in the plot). From the first few weeks, the pastor looks to lean pre-trib, pre-mill. In a couple of weeks, we get <bows head solemnly> Tim LaHaye (!) <slowly lifts eyes>, plus other "fun" stuff. (DON'T ASK) I may have questions as they come along. Of course, if you want to close this thread, I can start my own

Speaking of LaHaye, I strongly recommend his "non-fiction" (notice the quotes) book [i]Revelation Unveiled[/i/]. Reading that book was the Catalyst that turned me from a confused Dispensational Futurist, to a clear thinking preterist.

[PLCJ58]

according to eschaton there is no such thing.

[eschaton]

according to eschaton there is no such thing.

Now you're starting to get the picture.

[dizzle]

It's good to see a little humility around here. Oh, I'm not talking about myself. I'm commending you Dee Dee. However, I do think it is a little less than straight forward to make absurd assertions about 2nd Thessalonians when the subject has been discussed here many times before. It's not nice to be misleading.

I was speaking in a conversation initiated by a fellow preterist. A non-debate conversation. I do not barge into futurist discussions or historicist discussions that are not debates to begin with. If you wished to take issue with my post you should have started your own thread.

Now - I just had a doctor's appointment and had a bit of time to think and stew over your previous comment. Over the past years I have made a concerted effort to be much more gracious to my orthodox brethren and to stay out of foolish disputes. I more than know how to disembowel with my tongue in debate, and for the most part I have determined not to do that any longer. However, on the other hand, lately I have gotten several messages from folks who's views and faith have been drastically changed as a result of my beating my head against the wall with opponents that said and do things just as you did.

So - the choice is yours eschaton - do you really want to play rough? I didn't earn the name Tertullina the Flame-Thrower for nothing. I have decided in my ruminations that I would respond to some of your assertions, not for you - but for the readers who I often forget is my primary audience because precious few opponents who want to debate ever have any chance of changing their mind - and the chance is near zero for those who make remarks such as you did. The ball in is your court.

Now some may say, "Hey wait a minute - you started it - in this thread you said to PL 'welcome to sanity'" Yes I did. I was my dry humour. If you came at me with genuine offense, I would not have stuck to my statement at all prideful costs and would have apologized. When I confronted you with a belittling comment you made, you had a choice. You chose to defend it at all costs. So now you have a choice. You can continue in your pride and smear of your brethren or you can retract that statement and not only earn from me a retraction of the three prior attributes I attributed to you and an avoidance of the one I am attributing to you now (pride) but also my respect as someone worthy of debate because they are not too proud to admit when they said something inappropriate.

The ball is in your court. We can do this the right way or the hard way. I don't enjoy the hard way but I am more than capable of it - and though I no longer enjoy that kind of debate, it has assisted persons in clarifying issues.

So what is it Eschaton? Are you going to continue in your statement which you defended that assigns your brethren to the ranks of the infinitely stupid? Or are you going to back down from that?

I await your choice before proceeding. And while you are thinking please tell me who the "preterist ladies" are? I was the only female in this thread, and why is my gender relevant? You see I think once again you were trying to be condescending, but I will not assume you were. Explain yourself.

[dizzle]

No, I am not quoting him from the apochrypha. I guess I understand why you've adopted preterism.

That was unnecessary as well.

Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

[dizzle]

Personally, I'd like the thread to remain open for a while longer since I may have questions over the next few weeks as the senior pastor is doing an "End Times" series into March. From tektonics.org, I find myself leaning toward preterism more and more. The Broewer/Hannegraaf fiction novel was helpful also (despite its disturbingly over abundance of "rape threats" in the plot). From the first few weeks, the pastor looks to lean pre-trib, pre-mill. In a couple of weeks, we get <bows head solemnly> Tim LaHaye (!) <slowly lifts eyes>, plus other "fun" stuff. (DON'T ASK) I may have questions as they come along. Of course, if you want to close this thread, I can start my own

By the time you have your questions you might want to start your own. It keeps things more tidy.

[eschaton]

I was speaking in a conversation initiated by a fellow preterist. A non-debate conversation. I do not barge into futurist discussions or historicist discussions that are not debates to begin with. If you wished to take issue with my post you should have started your own thread.

Now - I just had a doctor's appointment and had a bit of time to think and stew over your previous comment. Over the past years I have made a concerted effort to be much more gracious to my orthodox brethren and to stay out of foolish disputes. I more than know how to disembowel with my tongue in debate, and for the most part I have determined not to do that any longer. However, on the other hand, lately I have gotten several messages from folks who's views and faith have been drastically changed as a result of my beating my head against the wall with opponents that said and do things just as you did.

So - the choice is yours eschaton - do you really want to play rough? I didn't earn the name Tertullina the Flame-Thrower for nothing. I have decided in my ruminations that I would respond to some of your assertions, not for you - but for the readers who I often forget is my primary audience because precious few opponents who want to debate ever have any chance of changing their mind - and the chance is near zero for those who make remarks such as you did. The ball in is your court.

Now some may say, "Hey wait a minute - you started it - in this thread you said to PL 'welcome to sanity'" Yes I did. I was my dry humour. If you came at me with genuine offense, I would not have stuck to my statement at all prideful costs and would have apologized. When I confronted you with a belittling comment you made, you had a choice. You chose to defend it at all costs. So now you have a choice. You can continue in your pride and smear of your brethren or you can retract that statement and not only earn from me a retraction of the three prior attributes I attributed to you and an avoidance of the one I am attributing to you now (pride) but also my respect as someone worthy of debate because they are not too proud to admit when they said something inappropriate.

The ball is in your court. We can do this the right way or the hard way. I don't enjoy the hard way but I am more than capable of it - and though I no longer enjoy that kind of debate, it has assisted persons in clarifying issues.

So what is it Eschaton? Are you going to continue in your statement which you defended that assigns your brethren to the ranks of the infinitely stupid? Or are you going to back down from that?

I await your choice before proceeding. And while you are thinking please tell me who the "preterist ladies" are? I was the only female in this thread, and why is my gender relevant? You see I think once again you were trying to be condescending, but I will not assume you were. Explain yourself.

I love it when you get angry. You're so cute. It's too bad we're married. I don't mean to each other.

If you'll put your Xena suit on I'll put my Barney suit on.

[dizzle]

I do not comprehend your response. Does that mean you are too prideful to admit you've slandered your brethren? I am very cute when I'm mad. However, I am not mad at this point - I am cool as a cucumber. Then I am dangerous.

And to be perfectly clear I said I would respond to some of what you said that I think is needful for the reader and nothing more.

[St Catherine]

I do not comprehend your response. Does that mean you are too prideful to admit you've slandered your brethren? I am very cute when I'm mad. However, I am not mad at this point - I am cool as a cucumber. Then I am dangerous.

And to be perfectly clear I said I would respond to some of what you said that I think is needful for the reader and nothing more.
Dangerous? Are you serious?


SC

[dizzle]

Dangerous? Are you serious?

No. That is what makes me dangerous. :wink: (you have to know me for some period of time to "get" this exchange - eschaton and most of the readers of this thread have known me for that long)


[i]being a fan of British comedy and satire also helps

[JSDileo]

Geezum petes, DeeDee. Calm down!:eek:

[dizzle]

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :xena:

[Hitch]

Personally, I'd like the thread to remain open for a while longer since I may have questions over the next few weeks as the senior pastor is doing an "End Times" series into March. From tektonics.org, I find myself leaning toward preterism more and more. The Broewer/Hannegraaf fiction novel was helpful also (despite its disturbingly over abundance of "rape threats" in the plot). From the first few weeks, the pastor looks to lean pre-trib, pre-mill. In a couple of weeks, we get <bows head solemnly> Tim LaHaye (!) <slowly lifts eyes>, plus other "fun" stuff. (DON'T ASK) I may have questions as they come along. Of course, if you want to close this thread, I can start my own
I have a suggestion for both of you.

You can in your OP ask that reasonable limitations be observed. It is common to ask that only futurists reply or only preterist etc. Just about anything reasonable will be enforced by the MODERATOR if the thread orginator requests. Please any such requirements should be in the opening post.

Take care

H

[Hitch]

No. That is what makes me dangerous. :wink: (you have to know me for some period of time to "get" this exchange - eschaton and most of the readers of this thread have known me for that long)


[i]being a fan of British comedy and satire also helps Did the sign fall down?

The one about feeding the troll?

[PLCJ58]

I do not comprehend your response. Does that mean you are too prideful to admit you've slandered your brethren? I am very cute when I'm mad. However, I am not mad at this point - I am cool as a cucumber. Then I am dangerous.

And to be perfectly clear I said I would respond to some of what you said that I think is needful for the reader and nothing more.

His reply is tap dancing, like he's done on everything else. While tossing out nothing in the way of substance. He's a guy that wants to laugh and point at everyone else but doens't want to put his own cards on the table.

If he had anything of substance to say (he doesn't) he would have by now.

[dizzle]

Did the sign fall down?

The one about feeding the troll?

You might be right. However, I know there are readers who might benefit. If I didn't regularly get correspondence from such readers I wouldn't even bother.

Still wondering who the knowledgeable preterist ladies are. In this thread. Heck even on the site. I can off the top of my head think of three more preterist females on this site - all three of which haven't posted in eschatology in well over a year AFAICR. I am also still wondering as the relevance of gender in this thread. Hitch you're not a knowledgeable preterist lady and didn't tell me are you?

[Hitch]

You might be right. However, I know there are readers who might benefit. If I didn't regularly get correspondence from such readers I wouldn't even bother.

Still wondering who the knowledgeable preterist ladies are. In this thread. Heck even on the site. I can off the top of my head think of three more preterist females on this site - all three of which haven't posted in eschatology in well over a year AFAICR. I am also still wondering as the relevance of gender in this thread. Hitch you're not a knowledgeable preterist lady and didn't tell me are you?I may live in the mountains , butt not BrokeBack Mountain.

[dizzle]

Okay just checking. Everyone else has a dude penguin. And Catherine is not a preterist AFAIK

[St Catherine]

Okay just checking. Everyone else has a dude penguin. And Catherine is not a preterist AFAIK


I hold to the 'a-mill' viewpoint.


SC

[dizzle]

An amil doesn't answer the preterist question - we have amill preterists here and amill nonpreterists. You and I would likely agree on most everything on the millennial question - I am postmill myself which overlaps quite a bit with amill. I do not think you were one of the knowledgeable preterist ladies referred to though and I am the only other female on this thread, though I am still wondering what anyone's gender has to do with anything.

[PLCJ58]

I'm still waiting on his answer as to why us preterists are all so coo coo for coco puffs and how he has all the answers regarding prophecy. Especially the part about Matthew 24:34 not REALLY meaning what we think it means. heh

[eschaton]

Still wondering who the knowledgeable preterist ladies are.

Yeah, me too. Hey, you really put your Xena suit on (#55). I was just trying to see if you would do it.

[A Cup of No]

Dee Dee: post
Eschaton: Non-answer
Dee Dee: post
Eschaton: Attempted witty comment, non-answer

*repeat daily*

[dizzle]

tell me about it

[eschaton]

tell me about it
# 3 Dee Dee post
# 13 PLCJ58 post
# 14 eschaton answer
# 15 eschaton answer
#22 PLCJ58 post
#23 Dee Dee non-answer
#24 eschaton post
# 25 PLCJ58 non-answer
#26 eschaton post
# 27 Dee Dee non-answer
# 28 PLCJ58 post
# 29 Dee Dee non-answer
# 30 PLCJ58 post
# 31 Dee Dee non-answer
# 30 PLCJ58 post
# 33 Dee Dee non-answer
# 34 Dee Dee non-answer
# 35 eschaton answer
# 36 eschaton answer
# 37 eschaton answer
#38 PLCJ58 typical preterist wisdom
#39 PLCJ58 non-relevant question PLCJ58 proves he doesn't have a clue with #38, #39
# 40 eschaton answer
# 41 eschaton answer
# 45 PLCJ58 answer
# 46 eschaton answer
# 47 Dee Dee non-answer
# 48 Dee Dee partial answer
# 49 Dee Dee non-answer
# 50 eschaton unappreciated joke
# 51 Dee Dee non-answer
# 52 St. Catherine post
# 53 Dee Dee non-answer
# 54 LakeDileoMan post
# 55 Dee Dee butt end of joke
# 56 Hitch post
# 57 Hitch post
# 58 PLCJ58 typical post
# 59 Dee Dee non-answer
# 60 Hitch funny joke
# 61 Dee Dee non-answer
# 62 St. Catherine post
# 63 Dee Dee answers St. Catherine post
# 64 another off-subject ignorable post
# 65 eschaton unappreciated joke
# 66 A Cup of No attempt to defend preterist buddy by slanting the facts
# 67 Dee Dee answer to preterist buddy, but not in response to the questions that arise from posts #14 and #15

[dizzle]

eschaton cut the crap and answer my questions to you so that I know how to respond to your earlier posts - which information I made clear I needed - you are playing games like a foolish troll - is that what you are trying to be? Either you have changed a great deal or my memory imputed undeserved favour to your account because I don't recall you behaving in this manner ever before. I may have always thought your eschatology wrong but I do not recall ever thinking you a jerk, a troll, or a generally arrogant and condenscending person - all of which you have been on this thread. If that is indeed your true colours, I shall respond as I see fit to edify the brethren that are actually listening instead of playing games - and promptly put you on ignore.

[eschaton]

eschaton cut the crap and answer my questions to you so that I know how to respond to your earlier posts - which information I made clear I needed - you are playing games like a foolish troll - is that what you are trying to be? Either you have changed a great deal or my memory imputed undeserved favour to your account because I don't recall you behaving in this manner ever before. I may have always thought your eschatology wrong but I do not recall ever thinking you a jerk, a troll, or a generally arrogant and condenscending person - all of which you have been on this thread. If that is indeed your true colours, I shall respond as I see fit to edify the brethren that are actually listening instead of playing games - and promptly put you on ignore.

Okay Ms. Dee Dee. I've been very patient these last couple of years, but no more Mr. Nice Guy for me. I've tolerated preterist jokes and misrepresentations in the past, but I don't see any need to continue. I'm going to go back and carefully re-read those earlier posts in this thread and see if there's any thing I need to respond to.

[eschaton]

Okay,

I went back and read the first three pages of this thread and didn't see anything that merited a response by me. If you think there is then please point it out. I'm going to go back and read again so I can re-phrase my two points in a concise way.

[eschaton]

From my POV the restrainer was "Claudius" who's name ironically means...... restrainer. Nero could not rise to power until Claudius was taken out of the way.

1. This is a totally absurd assertion by you. I pointed out why in why in #14. You didn't respond.

Unfortunately good theology cannot be reduced to footnotes. What I can recommend is just for Matthew 24 and it would be my commentary. Though it is well over a hundred pages it goes verse by verse and is hyperlinked by verse so you can jump right to where one specific verse is dealt with and just read that section.

2. The preterist view of Matthew 24 isn't consistent with that of the early church. I believe in Jesus and what He taught the disciples. They in turn traveled and sent letters to the early Christians, many of whom were tortured and martyred for what they believed. I haven't found evidence that they interpreted Mat 24:34 as preterists do. The preterist interpretation is just a return to dead literalism. Heretical hyper-preterists are actually more consistent in their interpretation of Mat 24, but they are also wrong. All orthodox believers in the early church believed in a future antichrist and persecution of the church. This is contrary to what preterists claim.

[dizzle]

Eschaton I will respond to what I think necessary over the next few days for the benefit of others. I have school and other obligations for the next few evenings. You have chosen to ignore my questions to your vis a vis your unnecessary smears and thus not a person of your word. I will not respond further directly to you, and am placing you on ignore after this post. I don't have time for your childish games.

PS: Those posts were not directed towards you and were not debate points. IOW it was an A and B conversation of which you should C your way out.

Sweet freedom you are on my ignore list. I haven't felt this good since I put Kendymer there.

[eschaton]

If I was clearly directed to leave this thread alone I didn't catch it, although I saw some discussion of it. I told you if you think you have questions that needed to be answered to point them out.

If I saw a Mormon or Jehovah Witness thread, and was instructed to leave it alone I would. I will do the same for any false doctrine, even though I won't be happy about it.

[dizzle]

I had intended upon returning to this thread and changed my mind - as women frequently due. It would be a singularly unenjoyable experience, and since there are a few other threads and discussions vying for my time which do not suffer from that handicap, I am going to devote myself to them.