Against preterism

[eschaton]

According to my research what we call preterism started with a Jesuit response to the reformation. Martin Lulther identified the Pope and the Roman Catholic church with the antichrist. The Jesuits offered alternative interpretations of the book of Revelation. Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. In 1878 James Stuart published The Parousia. As far as I know he is the first one in modern times to assert the simple literalist idea that "this generation" in the Olivet Discourse limited the fulfillment exclusively to the first century. I welcome new information on this.

There is evidence that such belief in the early church was considered heretical. Hippolytus argued with a heretic named Gaius who seemed to hold a position very similar to modern preterism. If any Primtive churches held a preterist view of Revelation I haven't found them, and they must have been isoloated sects.

As the apostles traveled, preached and wrote letters to the congregations in the first century the gospel was spread. Besides the writings there was an apostolic oral tradition. That's where we get the apostle's creed. It makes sense to examine the writings of the early church fathers to see how they understood the scriptures. If preterism was considered and orthodox belief it should show up there.

While the ECF aren't considered infallible, some of them met the apostles face to face, and others heard from them second hand. Many of them were tortured and martyred for their beliefs. I think moderns would do well to respect their views. Sometimes when the scriptures weren't specific they speculated even as we do today.

In Origen de Principiis Book III ch 6 it is written:

8. And now the point for investigation is, whether, when God shall be all in all, the whole of bodily nature will, in the consummation of all things, consist of one species, and the sole quality of body be that which shall shine in the indescribable glory which is to be regarded as the future possession of the spiritual body. For if we rightly understand the matter, this is the statement of Moses in the beginning of his book, when he says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."423 For this is the beginning of all creation: to this beginning the end and consummation of all things must be recalled, i.e., in order that that heaven and that earth may be the habitation and resting-place of the pious; so that all the holy ones, and the meek, may first obtain an inheritance in that land, since this is the teaching of the law, and of the prophets, and of the Gospel. In which land I believe there exist the true and living forms of that worship which Moses handed down under the shadow of the law; of which it is said, that "they serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things"424 -those, viz., who were in subjection in the law. To Moses himself also was the injunction given, "Look that thou make them after the form and pattern which were showed thee on the mount."425 From which it appears to me, that as on this earth the law was a sort of schoolmaster to those who by it were to he conducted to Christ, in order that, being instructed and trained by it, they might more easily, after the training of the law, receive the more perfect principles of Christ; so also another earth, which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the institutions of the true and everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect institutions of heaven, to which nothing can be added; in which there will be, of a truth, that Gospel which is called everlasting, and that Testament, ever new, which shall never grow old.

This means that the law was a shadow of Christ's first coming, and His first coming was a shadow of the "eternal gospel" of the heavenly kingdom. (Heb 10:1 Lam 4:20 Rev 14:6,7 ) The early church was unanamously futurist. They are the best reflection we have of the teachings of the apostles. It's true they believed that 70 AD was a fulfillment of prophecy, but they all believed in a future individual antichrist and persecution of the church that was associated with the "great tribulation."

They also believed in different levels of fulfillment, and that the scriptures spoke spiritually of Christ and the Church. Augustine called this the continual coming of Christ in the church.

When I say preterism I'm talking mainly about a belief that there is no "great tribulation" or "individual antichrist" in the future. This belief generally adheres to the idea that most of the Olivet discourse was finished in the first century and so were the prophecies of the Revelation.

Perhaps one of the plainest apostolic teachings in the NT that excludes a first century fulfillment is in 2nd Thessalonians.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

There is no person in history who fufills all of the requirements of this scripture, so it is obvious it hasn't happened yet. This is also the testimony of the church fathers. The description requires that we should look for an individual man. He is a public person. The title implies that he will be like Judas in some ways. He claims divine names and worship. He also claims miraculous power. He is characterised by enormous wickedness. He is `the man of sin,' i.e. the incarnation and embodiment of evil. He had not yet arrived at the fulness of his power when the apostle wrote, and was being witheld. 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.' This doesn't match anyone in history.

[Xavier]

[...] There is evidence that such belief in the early church was considered heretical. Hippolytus argued with a heretic named Gaius who seemed to hold a position very similar to modern preterism.

Citations please. Neither Wikipedia nor the Catholic Encycolpedia have mention of Gaius, let alone his position.

If any Primtive churches held a preterist view of Revelation I haven't found them, and they must have been isoloated sects.

I seriously doubt that they held a futurist view of Revelation that is identical with yours or several others around today.

As the apostles traveled, preached and wrote letters to the congregations in the first century the gospel was spread. Besides the writings there was an apostolic oral tradition. That's where we get the apostle's creed. It makes sense to examine the writings of the early church fathers to see how they understood the scriptures. If preterism was considered and orthodox belief it should show up there.

BY the same argument, If futurism was considered an orthodoxy belief, it should show up there. Ironically enough, the only eschatology mentioned in the creed is "THE resurrection of the body and the life everlasting".

While the ECF aren't considered infallible, some of them met the apostles face to face, and others heard from them second hand. Many of them were tortured and martyred for their beliefs. I think moderns would do well to respect their views.

I'm sure right up until they disagree with you... :wink:

I'll leave the rest to someone who has done some more research in the area of the ECFs. And yes, there have been threads on this before... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

[dizzle]

Interestingly - the idea of the continual coming of Christ in the Church is a very preterist one. I have been championing that for a few years now.

[eschaton]

Citations please. Neither Wikipedia nor the Catholic Encycolpedia have mention of Gaius, let alone his position.



I seriously doubt that they held a futurist view of Revelation that is identical with yours or several others around today.



BY the same argument, If futurism was considered an orthodoxy belief, it should show up there. Ironically enough, the only eschatology mentioned in the creed is "THE resurrection of the body and the life everlasting".



I'm sure right up until they disagree with you... :wink:

I'll leave the rest to someone who has done some more research in the area of the ECFs. And yes, there have been threads on this before... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

Hi Xavier,

Thank you for your reply. You could click on all my posts to find numerous citations and links, but I think the best summary of the churches eschatology can be found in a pdf file here:

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

Here is a link to Heads against Gaius:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_syrus_revelation_01.htm#C6

[eschaton]

Interestingly - the idea of the continual coming of Christ in the Church is a very preterist one. I have been championing that for a few years now.

Hi Dee Dee,

It's always good to hear from you. I got the term from Augustine, who believed in a future individual antichrist, and persecution of the church associated with the great tribulation. But I suppose it is compatible with preterism. It also explains such terms as "soon," and "shortly" in prophetic scriptures.

Thanks

[furay]

I'm sure right up until they disagree with you... :wink:

Ain't that the truth.

[dizzle]

And eschaton claimed this:

Hippolytus argued with a heretic named Gaius who seemed to hold a position very similar to modern preterism.

with a straight face.

Here is what his own source says:

Gaius rejected the Apocalypse on the ground stated above.

Oh yeah. Preterists don't believe Revelation to be part of the canon. He found us out.

But of course let us keep in mind that eschaton is so arrogant towards the brethren that he has admitted that he thinks preterists have NO reason at all for their beliefs. None. Zero. The only purpose to responding to such a person is to answer a fool according to his folly so that he should not be wise in his own eyes.

[eschaton]

And eschaton claimed this:



with a straight face.

Here is what his own source says:



Oh yeah. Preterists don't believe Revelation to be part of the canon. He found us out.

But of course let us keep in mind that eschaton is so arrogant towards the brethren that he has admitted that he thinks preterists have NO reason at all for their beliefs. None. Zero. The only purpose to responding to such a person is to answer a fool according to his folly so that he should not be wise in his own eyes.


Hey Dee Dee,

I was specifically trying to link to the section on Mat 24. Sorry it didn't link that way. Under this section:

HIPPOLYTUS ON ST. MATTHEW XXIV. 15-22.

[cbro]

According to my research what we call preterism started with a Jesuit response to the reformation. Martin Lulther identified the Pope and the Roman Catholic church with the antichrist. The Jesuits offered alternative interpretations of the book of Revelation. Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. In 1878 James Stuart published The Parousia. As far as I know he is the first one in modern times to assert the simple literalist idea that "this generation" in the Olivet Discourse limited the fulfillment exclusively to the first century. I welcome new information on this.
what does it mean for "Heaven and Earth to pass away". Does preterism think this has happened aready?

[eschaton]

what does it mean for "Heaven and Earth to pass away". Does preterism think this has happened aready?


The preterists can answer that question better, but it may be it depends on what kind of preterist. I don't think partial preterists believe that, but full preterists do. I'll let the preterists answer that themselves.

[cbro]

The preterists can answer that question better, but it may be it depends on what kind of preterist. I don't think partial preterists believe that, but full preterists do. I'll let the preterists answer that themselves.When they will not give ANY answer to 2 thess 2:3,4, I doubt they will give an answer I can use.

[dizzle]

Hey Dee Dee,

I was specifically trying to link to the section on Mat 24. Sorry it didn't link that way. Under this section:

HIPPOLYTUS ON ST. MATTHEW XXIV. 15-22.

Not in that link. However your link does give enough information about this person to see that his basic foundations are NOTHING like preterists. He rejected multiple books of the canon, including Revelation.

Also, I do note that your argument via the eschatology of the ECF has its teeth in your own nether-regions as the majority of ECF writing is premillennial. Which you aren't. Didn't they hear THAT from the apostles?

Xavier has sufficiently answered your baldly misleading (and for someone who touts themselves as knowledeagle on the early Church as you do, it is not something you can pass off as an error in ignorance, the closest you can come is a gross error in comprehension) assetion on the Apostle's Creed. It mentions nothing other than the future coming and future resurrection. Your statement that if a belief was considered "orthodox" it would be in the Creed is outright false. There were many things that the ECF thought was "orthodox" (including infant baptism) which was not in the Apostle's Creed. It is more accurate to say that the Creed contains those things which were both orthodox and NECESSARY - for which they are many eschatological candidates. They did not see fit to make it any more specific (implicitly acknowlegeably that there is good reason to disagree among Christians).

Again, remember this is the poster who s so arrogant towards the brethren that he has admitted that he thinks preterists have NO reason at all for their beliefs.

[dizzle]

what does it mean for "Heaven and Earth to pass away". Does preterism think this has happened aready?

Yes and no.

[cbro]

Yes and no.I will take that as also an answer to my other idea about getting a answer I can use.

[dizzle]

Perhaps. I am not interested in giving you something you can use however, I am interested in what my actual answer is. Whether or not you find it is useful is highly irrelevant to that equation.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

When they will not give ANY answer to 2 thess 2:3,4, I doubt they will give an answer I can use.

Claudius.

[cbro]

Perhaps. I am not interested in giving you something you can use however, I am interested in what my actual answer is. Whether or not you find it is useful is highly irrelevant to that equation. the use I meant was to see if preterism needs more Faith to believe it then other theologies because it has more obvious problems then the others do.

[dizzle]

Again your potential use or inability to use is irrelevant.

[cbro]

Again your potential use or inability to use is irrelevant.So the only way to accept preterism is by blind faith?

[dizzle]

Is the only way to make a statement to twist somebody's words? I didn't say that or anything near it. If you are going to be silly and arrogant talk to someone else please. I have enough of that with eschaton but at least he tries to say something more than a soundbite.

[cbro]

Is the only way to make a statement to twist somebody's words? I didn't say that or anything near it. If you are going to be silly and arrogant talk to someone else please. I have enough of that with eschaton but at least he tries to say something more than a soundbite.My question was "Does preterism say Heaven and Earth have already passed away?" You really think that is silly and arrogant?

[dizzle]

No, I didn't say that either. Try again.

[cbro]

No, I didn't say that either. Try again.Does Preterism say that Heaven and Earth have passed away? Will it save time to guess "Yes and No"

[David_A_Reed]

Perhaps one of the plainest apostolic teachings in the NT that excludes a first century fulfillment is in 2nd Thessalonians.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

There is no person in history who fufills all of the requirements of this scripture, so it is obvious it hasn't happened yet.Obvious?

It doesn't seem to have been obvious to Martin Luther and John Calvin and Roger Williams and John Knox and Cotton Mather and John Wesley and John Wycliffe and John Huss the authors of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith.

Debatable? Yes. Obvious? No.

David

[cbro]

Is the only way to make a statement to twist somebody's words? I didn't say that or anything near it. If you are going to be silly and arrogant talk to someone else please. I have enough of that with eschaton but at least he tries to say something more than a soundbite.What else are you giving me to accept preterism except blind faith in your saying it is yes and no true?

[dizzle]

goodbye cbro - meet LGM on my ignore list in the place recently vacated when I took eschaton off of my ignore lise

[dizzle]

Obvious?

It doesn't seem to have been obvious to Martin Luther and John Calvin and Roger Williams and John Knox and Cotton Mather and John Wesley and John Wycliffe and John Huss the authors of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith.

Debatable? Yes. Obvious? No.

David

Eschaton has a bad habit of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with him has NO good reason for not doing so. Can you please elaborate on your above statement?

[David_A_Reed]

Eschaton has a bad habit of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with him has NO good reason for not doing so. Can you please elaborate on your above statement?

Sorry, but I don't mean this to target Eschaton. There is a lot of that going around.

My point was simply that the identity of antichrists (or "the" Antichrist in some popular thinking) is not so obvious that it is an open-and-shut case. If it were so obvious that "the Antichrist" is 'a future individual' then we would not have so many great minds who thought otherwise.

For example, Luther, Calvin, Roger Williams, John Knox, Cotton Mathe, Wesley, Wycliffe, Huss the authors of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith all identified the antichrist with the pope -- the papacy rather than a single individual. Some of them also differentiated between the western "leg" or "horn" of the antichrist sitting in God's place in the institutional church, and the eastern "leg" or "horn" which they identified as Islam (which, by the way, sits in God's place on Temple Mount).

I happen to agree with them. And I don't think I am choosing an opinion that is 'obviously' wrong.

David

[dizzle]

Sorry, but I don't mean this to target Eschaton. There is a lot of that going around.

There are statements that brothers make that deserve to be targeted, especially when they are slanderous, demeaning, and dismissive of the brethren, do you not agree? Eschaton stated that preterists have NO reason for believing as they do. NONE. NADA. He on another thread conceded that is equivalent to calling preterists so stupid that they walk into walls face first. You do not think that such comments should be targeted until the brother repents of his extreme uncharity?

I do. And if you ever say something as utterly meritless, I would do the same.


My point was simply that the identity of antichrists (or "the" Antichrist in some popular thinking) is not so obvious that it is an open-and-shut case. If it were so obvious that "the Antichrist" is 'a future individual' then we would not have so many great minds who thought otherwise.

Are you saying they have REASONS for what they think? I agree with you. So do preterists.


I happen to agree with them. And I don't think I am choosing an opinion that is 'obviously' wrong.


And neither do I. Nor would I slander you with that either.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

When they will not give ANY answer to 2 thess 2:3,4, I doubt they will give an answer I can use.

Claudius.













__________________________________________________
(This is a repost of post #16, which apparantly got burried in the pile).

I felt so badly that you have never recieved "ANY" answer to 2 Thes. 2:3-4 from preterist that I felt compelled to give you one.

Now you can no longer say that.

That is all.

[eschaton]

Obvious?

It doesn't seem to have been obvious to Martin Luther and John Calvin and Roger Williams and John Knox and Cotton Mather and John Wesley and John Wycliffe and John Huss the authors of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith.

Debatable? Yes. Obvious? No.

David

That's an interesting point David. I guess I hadn't looked at it that way. I guess you are saying that the pope fulfills 2nd Thessalonians. Can you point to where these illustrious reformers explained how the pope fulfilled all the requirements set forth in 2nd Thessalonians? I guess the discussion as to wether the pope fulfills the prophecy could be a whole other thread. I don't think preterists believe the pope was the antichrist though, since they don't even believe the antichrist can be represented by a single person as Christian tradition teaches and the early church believed.

[eschaton]

Not in that link. However your link does give enough information about this person to see that his basic foundations are NOTHING like preterists. He rejected multiple books of the canon, including Revelation.

Also, I do note that your argument via the eschatology of the ECF has its teeth in your own nether-regions as the majority of ECF writing is premillennial. Which you aren't. Didn't they hear THAT from the apostles?

The link was at the top of the page when I linked to the chapter, so I don't know why it comes up like that. What I had in mind is that according to that chapter, the preterist belief that the Olivet discourse is the same as the heretic Hippolytus was arguing with. And I disagree with the idea that the early church was premillennial. Premillennialism is often mistaken for the six day, six thousand year doctrine that was taught in the early church. Irenaeus is often referred to as premillennial, but he taught the seventh day of rest is the kingdom state he referred to, as did Justin Martyr. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Xavier has sufficiently answered your baldly misleading (and for someone who touts themselves as knowledeagle on the early Church as you do, it is not something you can pass off as an error in ignorance, the closest you can come is a gross error in comprehension) assetion on the Apostle's Creed. It mentions nothing other than the future coming and future resurrection. Your statement that if a belief was considered "orthodox" it would be in the Creed is outright false. There were many things that the ECF thought was "orthodox" (including infant baptism) which was not in the Apostle's Creed. It is more accurate to say that the Creed contains those things which were both orthodox and NECESSARY - for which they are many eschatological candidates. They did not see fit to make it any more specific (implicitly acknowlegeably that there is good reason to disagree among Christians).

Okay. I think I accept your correction on this. I'll go back an re-read it.

Again, remember this is the poster who s so arrogant towards the brethren that he has admitted that he thinks preterists have NO reason at all for their beliefs.

I'll stand by this statement untill I see some evidence to make me change my mind. So why is it that nobody was a preterist like you believe until 1878?

[eschaton]

And if my link (the first one) doesn't show that the early church is futurist then I'll wait to hear why. Let's assume the early church was premillennial as Dee Dee asserts. Isn't premillennialism a futurist belief?

[eschaton]

Claudius.

Can you show how Caudius fulfills all the requirements of 2nd Thessalonians?

[eschaton]

What else are you giving me to accept preterism except blind faith in your saying it is yes and no true?

You're question is valid Cbro. It's the old divide and conquer tactic. Dee Dee wants to get you out of this thread so that I'm all alone.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Can you show how Caudius fulfills all the requirements of 2nd Thessalonians?
Yes I can.

However, my response was to Cbro who said he had not recieved ANY answer from preterist. He can no longer say that. (My guess is that he did get an answer, but he could not "use" it [whatever that means]. )

My point was that such broad, universal statements (very similar to your assertion that preterist have nothing to base our beliefs on) are silly and without merit.

If cbro has been at TWeb any length of time, he has heard the Claudius explanation of 2 Thes. (as I am sure you have). Yet he says he has not received any answer.

Now I will be happy to show the "things" I base my Claudius interpration of 2 Thes. if you will acknowledge that these "things" actually exist. As opposed to your typical response that there is no"thing" which the preterist base thier belifes on.

In essencs you have said that my arguments do not exist, so I really have no motivation to take the time an effort to explain my position to you, when you will dismiss it as "nothing" but a figment of my imagination.

So, if you really want me to discuss this issue with you, you will have to acknowledge that my reasons are more than a figment of my own imagination and are based on "something".

[eschaton]

Yes I can.

However, my response was to Cbro who said he had not recieved ANY answer from preterist. He can no longer say that. (My guess is that he did get an answer, but he could not "use" it [whatever that means]. )

My point was that such broad, universal statements (very similar to your assertion that preterist have nothing to base our beliefs on) are silly and without merit.

If cbro has been at TWeb any length of time, he has heard the Claudius explanation of 2 Thes. (as I am sure you have). Yet he says he has not received any answer.

Now I will be happy to show the "things" I base my Claudius interpration of 2 Thes. if you will acknowledge that these "things" actually exist. As opposed to your typical response that there is no"thing" which the preterist base thier belifes on.

In essencs you have said that my arguments do not exist, so I really have no motivation to take the time an effort to explain my position to you, when you will dismiss it as "nothing" but a figment of my imagination.

So, if you really want me to discuss this issue with you, you will have to acknowledge that my reasons are more than a figment of my own imagination and are based on "something".

When cbro asks for an answer I assume he means a reasonable answer, not just any silly answer.

For me to accept a "thing" it has to fulfill all the requirements of 2nd Thessalonians in a satisfactory manner. If you acheive that then I will admit that there is a shred of evidence for the doctrine you like. Then we have to deal with the other problems associated with that belief.

[eschaton]

For one thing, the information I've found on 2nd Thessalonians puts the authorship about 51 AD. Caudius died in 54 AD. That gives a short time for fulfillment.

http://www.happyheralds.org/2ThessaloniansIntroduction.htm

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

When cbro asks for an answer I assume he means a reasonable answer, not just any silly answer.

When cbro says he has not recieved ANY (emphasis his) answer. I assume he means what he says.

For me to accept a "thing" it has to fulfill all the requirements of 2nd Thessalonians in a satisfactory manner. If you acheive that then I will admit that there is a shred of evidence for the doctrine you like. Then we have to deal with the other problems associated with that belief.

I am not asking you to "accept" a thing. I am asking you to aknowledge that the things exist. Your statement that preterist have "nothing" to base our beliefs on. And I would like for you acknowledge that we have plenty of "evidence".

For example. I would never say you have nothing to base your escahtology. I would say that your escatology is based on a misunderstandign of the evidence you use, but I would never say that it is based on nothing.

Whether this evidence acuratly supports a preterist view or view is open to debate. To say that we have none is just silly.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

For one thing, the information I've found on 2nd Thessalonians puts the authorship about 51 AD. Caudius died in 54 AD. That gives a short time for fulfillment.

http://www.happyheralds.org/2ThessaloniansIntroduction.htm

Yes. And your point is.....




Especially when we consider 2 Thes. 2:6

[verse] 6And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.[/quote]

Whoever was being restrained was being restrained then (i.e. now). The text demands a "short time...fulfillment".


Edit to add: And FYI. I do not see Claudius as the man of lawlessness, but as the restrainer. Nero was the man of lawlessness. So when I say I can show "Claudius" was the fulfillment of 2 Thes. it is only the restrainer role that applies to him.

[eschaton]

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the man of sin. I think when most talk about a fulfillment of this part of second Thessalonians that is what they are talking about. I thought I made that clear in my original post.

So if Nero is the man of sin, when did he stand in the temple and claim to be above God? What kind of supernatural acts did He perform to deceive people? How did Jesus Christ destroy him with His breath? Etc, etc. Of course we need some kind of documentation of these things.

[eschaton]

When cbro says he has not recieved ANY (emphasis his) answer. I assume he means what he says.



I am not asking you to "accept" a thing. I am asking you to aknowledge that the things exist. Your statement that preterist have "nothing" to base our beliefs on. And I would like for you acknowledge that we have plenty of "evidence".

For example. I would never say you have nothing to base your escahtology. I would say that your escatology is based on a misunderstandign of the evidence you use, but I would never say that it is based on nothing.

Whether this evidence acuratly supports a preterist view or view is open to debate. To say that we have none is just silly.

Okay. Bring it on.

[dizzle]

Oh here (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html) is over a hundred pages of nothing. Repeat that claim again, and you are a liar, and yes, I will call you one. I cannot remember the last time I felt justified to do so, but you have more than earned such an appelation if you continue in your slander.

[dizzle]

Okay. Bring it on.

Do you even read the posts you are responding to? We are left with two options:

1. You have zero reading comprehension

2. You are purposefully misrepresenting what was said

Neither of those options are particularly attractive. I need to find what I used to be smoking to once have a good opinion of your posting

[eschaton]

Do you even read the posts you are responding to? We are left with two options:

1. You have zero reading comprehension

2. You are purposefully misrepresenting what was said

Neither of those options are particularly attractive. I need to find what I used to be smoking to once have a good opinion of your posting

I have looked over your pages several times in the past Dee Dee. Unfortunatly I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind.

[dizzle]

I have looked over your pages several times in the past Dee Dee. Unfortunatly I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind.

Here is where unfortunately I think you have NO idea how to accurately answer the inquiries of others for whatever reason.

What EXACTLY have you not changed your mind about? My prediction is that you will say something entirely irrelevant to the issue I raised.

[eschaton]

Here is where unfortunately I think you have NO idea how to accurately answer the inquiries of others for whatever reason.

What EXACTLY have you not changed your mind about? My prediction is that you will say something entirely irrelevant to the issue I raised.

Hi Dee Dee,

That there is any evidence that preterism is a valid doctrine.

And I'm very disappointed that you support people who direct slurs at others.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the man of sin. I think when most talk about a fulfillment of this part of second Thessalonians that is what they are talking about. I thought I made that clear in my original post.

If it is OK with you (and even if it's not) I would like to address this one question at a time. I would also like some clarification on where we agree and where we disagree so I know which points to argue and which points to leave out.

So if Nero is the man of sin, when did he stand in the temple and claim to be above God?

I will deal with this question (the first question you asked) in this post and deal with the others after we have "hashed out" this one.


Just so I am clear, what "temple" are you asking about. Do you believe that Paul, when he says "temple of God" is talking about a physical temple? If so why?

Or do you, like me, believe that when Paul used the phrase "temple of God" (naos theos in the Greek) he is using it the same way he uses it every other time he uses that phrase in scripture, to refer to the body of believers?

Also, are you aware of the many decrees Nero made declaring himself to be a god (or do we have to argue that point).

What kind of supernatural acts did He perform to deceive people? How did Jesus Christ destroy him with His breath? Etc, etc. Of course we need some kind of documentation of these things.[/QUOTE]

[eschaton]

If it is OK with you (and even if it's not) I would like to address this one question at a time. I would also like some clarification on where we agree and where we disagree so I know which points to argue and which points to leave out.

I will deal with this question (the first question you asked) in this post and deal with the others after we have "hashed out" this one.

Just so I am clear, what "temple" are you asking about. Do you believe that Paul, when he says "temple of God" is talking about a physical temple? If so why?

It is okay with me. It is my opinion that Paul is consistent with his reference to the temple of God. It is the church.

[Or do you, like me, believe that when Paul used the phrase "temple of God" (naos theos in the Greek) he is using it the same way he uses it every other time he uses that phrase in scripture, to refer to the body of believers?

Also, are you aware of the many decrees Nero made declaring himself to be a god (or do we have to argue that point).

I am vaguely aware of those.

[dizzle]

That there is any evidence that preterism is a valid doctrine.

That wasn't the question or the issue. You have proven my prophecy.


And I'm very disappointed that you support people who direct slurs at others.

Check your own mouth as you slur preterists consistently. I am sure there are many here that are disappointed that I "support you" (as in supporting your right to post). Second I said nothing one way or another so fight your own battles and don't be a manipulator. Debators are not moderators in the threads they are in, so please go play with your silly games with someone else.

Back to the question. I understand that YOU don't think there is valid evidence. That was never under dispute, and I don't care if you think that. You said that preterists believe what they do without ANY evidence, as if they make it up out of clear air. NOW while there isn't any question that you don't find the arguments or evidence persuasive (and judging by your lack of comprehension of basic conversations I am grateful you are not a preterist, please, for the love of all things sacred DON'T BECOME A PRETERIST PLEASE!!!!!) that isn't the issue - are you willing to be honest and concede that preterists DO IN FACT have evidence that THEY think is compelling, and thus are not believing something with NO evidence??? If you cannot concede that, you are a troll and a slanderer, simply put, and my goal for responding to you at all will be to show so. We have historicists here who do a fantastic job of proving their case, my problem with you isn't your doctrine, it is your attitude and slander.

[dizzle]

I am vaguely aware of those.

Interesting. You vehemently oppose someone's position and admit you are only "vaguely" aware of the substantation for their position. Duly noted.

[eschaton]

That wasn't the question or the issue. You have proven my prophecy.



Check your own mouth as you slur preterists consistently. I am sure there are many here that are disappointed that I "support you" (as in supporting your right to post). Second I said nothing one way or another so fight your own battles and don't be a manipulator. Debators are not moderators in the threads they are in, so please go play with your silly games with someone else.

Back to the question. I understand that YOU don't think there is valid evidence. That was never under dispute, and I don't care if you think that. You said that preterists believe what they do without ANY evidence, as if they make it up out of clear air. NOW while there isn't any question that you don't find the arguments or evidence persuasive (and judging by your lack of comprehension of basic conversations I am grateful you are not a preterist, please, for the love of all things sacred DON'T BECOME A PRETERIST PLEASE!!!!!) that isn't the issue - are you willing to be honest and concede that preterists DO IN FACT have evidence that THEY think is compelling, and thus are not believing something with NO evidence??? If you cannot concede that, you are a troll and a slanderer, simply put, and my goal for responding to you at all will be to show so. We have historicists here who do a fantastic job of proving their case, my problem with you isn't your doctrine, it is your attitude and slander.

I'm trying to remember what I said about you when you are mad? What was it?

[dizzle]

First...

I'm trying to remember what I said about you when you are mad? What was it?

That sentence made no sense. Did you mean to say that you are trying to remember what you said about me TO MAKE me mad? (I am not mad btw - don't flatter yourself regarding your sphere of influence over my moods)

If that is the question, again READ THE POST YOU ARE ALLEGEDLY RESPONDING TO. I have repeated it there for the zillioneth time. Are you really that incapable of carefully reading what others say? Or are you playing games?

Again - what you said that many people on this forum now consider you a troll for saying is that preterists have NO reason to believe what they do. None. Nada. That is false. You might find the reasons wrong, or incorrect, or not convincing to you, but the fact is that preterists argue and present a LOT of evidence for their view that THEY find convincing.

Care to try again?

[eschaton]

First...



That sentence made no sense. Did you mean to say that you are trying to remember what you said about me TO MAKE me mad? (I am not mad btw - don't flatter yourself regarding your sphere of influence over my moods)

If that is the question, again READ THE POST YOU ARE ALLEGEDLY RESPONDING TO. I have repeated it there for the zillioneth time. Are you really that incapable of carefully reading what others say? Or are you playing games?

Again - what you said that many people on this forum now consider you a troll for saying is that preterists have NO reason to believe what they do. None. Nada. That is false. You might find the reasons wrong, or incorrect, or not convincing to you, but the fact is that preterists argue and present a LOT of evidence for their view that THEY find convincing.

Care to try again?

I am playing games with you Dee Dee. I am playing games because I haven't seen anything meaningful from you to respond to. If my reading skills are too poor to comprehend what you are saying, then maybe you could pose you question in one or two short sentences that I am able to understand. And while you are at it maybe you could give me a concise answer to the question I asked you yesterday.

[dizzle]

I am playing games with you Dee Dee. I am playing games because I haven't seen anything meaningful from you to respond to.

You once again ignored the question you claim you want to respond to.

If my reading skills are too poor to comprehend what you are saying, then maybe you could pose you question in one or two short sentences that I am able to understand.

I did in the two posts above. Do you need it repeated?


And while you are at it maybe you could give me a concise answer to the question I asked you yesterday.

No thank you - you don't dictate my time, nor decide what I must answer or not answer. In fact, I want you not to be a preterist so bad that I likely will never try to convince you. Until you gained the ability to accurately represent the brethren I do not want you embarassing my point of view by agreeing with it. Please, please continue your opposition to preterism. Please.

Do you need the question that you indicated you wanted to address answer or are you going to troll some more? Right now you are simply a manipulative troll in my book. Prove me wrong, deal with the issue you claimed all innocently that you wanted to.

[dizzle]

I'm trying to remember what I said about you when you are mad? What was it?

Who believes that after all these posts that he really has no idea? I don't believe you eschaton.

[eschaton]

Who believes that after all these posts that he really has no idea? I don't believe you eschaton.

You're a good arguer Dee Dee. Could you repeat it once in a short direct format please?

[eschaton]

Sorry, I'm talking about the question.

[dizzle]

I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe you. I believe you know well what the issue is and I am satisfied that nearly anyone reading this thread does too. You are done wasting my time on this thread. You may find it amusing, but I am confident it merely shreds further your credibility.

[eschaton]

I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe you. I believe you know well what the issue is and I am satisfied that nearly anyone reading this thread does too. You are done wasting my time on this thread. You may find it amusing, but I am confident it merely shreds further your credibility.

Thank you for determining what shreds my credibility. Concerning shreds, is there a shred of evidence that preterism is a true doctrine? Obviously you think there is. I do not.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

It is okay with me. It is my opinion that Paul is consistent with his reference to the temple of God. It is the church.



I am vaguely aware of those.

So you believe that Paul was (or at the very least could have been) talking about the church when he mentions Temple of God in 2 Thes. 2. And you a vaguely aware of Nero making proclimations that he was to be worshiped as God.

Does the above constitute at least as a shred of evidence to support my beliefe that Nero passing edicts demanding that Christians (God's Temple) worship him as god, and Nero's subsequent persecution of the Church for thier refusal to dot this is what Paul was referring to as "Standing in God's Temple, demanding worship".

Note, I am not asking you to say that this is what you think Paul was saying. I am asking if the above basis for my beliefe is enough to make a "shred" of evidence.

Thanks.

[dizzle]

Don't hold your breath. Eschaton has claimed that I wrote over a hundred pages (http:www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html) without having not even one teensy shred of evidence.

[eschaton]

So you believe that Paul was (or at the very least could have been) talking about the church when he mentions Temple of God in 2 Thes. 2. And you a vaguely aware of Nero making proclimations that he was to be worshiped as God.

Does the above constitute at least as a shred of evidence to support my beliefe that Nero passing edicts demanding that Christians (God's Temple) worship him as god, and Nero's subsequent persecution of the Church for thier refusal to dot this is what Paul was referring to as "Standing in God's Temple, demanding worship".

Note, I am not asking you to say that this is what you think Paul was saying. I am asking if the above basis for my beliefe is enough to make a "shred" of evidence.

Thanks.

Thank you for your input Faramir. I actually do like serious and meaningful input into my threads, and yours is.

However, I don't consider it a basis for a shred of evidence. If you do then God bless you. For me to consider it a shred of evidence then it would have to meet all the criteria given in 2nd Thessalonians 2 in some way. For instance, even though I don't think it is about the literal temple, but somebody did and could provide all the historical details matching the scripture, then I would have to admit that it was a little more than a shred of evidence.

If someone believes it is the church, and could provide all the metaphorical evidence in a convincing fashion, then I would again have to admit it was more than a shred of evidence. However, it seems to me that it would then be historicism rather than preterism. I didn't say there wasn't a shred of evidence for historicism.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Don't hold your breath. Eschaton has claimed that I wrote over a hundred pages (http://http:www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html) without having not even one teensy shred of evidence.

But he acknowledge that Paul is consistant in his reference to the temple as being the Church, and he is "vaguely" aware of Nero demanding worship. So I don't see how he could possibly deny that this at the very least constitues a shred of evidence with any "shred" of integrity left.

I am sure he will do the right thing.

[dizzle]

I hope so. I don't enjoy pointing out his shortcoming in his refusal to do so and would prefer to get this behind everyone.

[eschaton]

But he acknowledge that Paul is consistant in his reference to the temple as being the Church, and he is "vaguely" aware of Nero demanding worship. So I don't see how he could possibly deny that this at the very least constitues a shred of evidence with any "shred" of integrity left.

I am sure he will do the right thing.

Nero standing in the church...

I'll consider it, but you have to get everything else to match. For instance;

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Man of lawlessness, lawless one in the NIV.

[dizzle]

Even if NOTHING else matches, that is A reason, A SHRED, which is all that Faramir is attempting to prove. Care to state ONCE AGAIN how I presented not ONE SHRED in over a hundred pages?

[eschaton]

Even if NOTHING else matches, that is A reason, A SHRED, which is all that Faramir is attempting to prove. Care to state ONCE AGAIN how I presented not ONE SHRED in over a hundred pages?

You're a wonderful person Dee Dee. If it's a shred of evidence to you then I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Faramir. God bless you.

It isn't plausible to me unless all the pieces fit.

[eschaton]

Actually, I would guess that it is more than a shred to you. Seeing the way you look at it, I would imagine it is proof positive.

[eschaton]

You're a wonderful person Dee Dee. If it's a shred of evidence to you then I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Faramir. God bless you.

It isn't plausible to me unless all the pieces fit.

Faramir,

I thought you said Nero was the restrainer, not the man of sin?

[eschaton]

Faramir,

I thought you said Nero was the restrainer, not the man of sin?

Another thing, I have to ask if Nero made those claims of deity after 53 AD, not before.

[eschaton]

Faramir,

I thought you said Nero was the restrainer, not the man of sin?

My mistake, you said Caudius didn't you.

[eschaton]

If you'll permit me to quote from my original post:

"The title implies that he will be like Judas in some ways."

Son of perdition is found only twice in the KJV, once in 2nd Thess and once to describe Judas. That's why traditional interpretations see him as a traitor, and historicism sees him as a pope. Nero would have to be a traitor in the church some way, like Judas was a traitor in the apostles.

[eschaton]

That would be only huios:G5207 . apoleia:G684 in two verses in my interlinear.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

That would be only huios:G5207 . apoleia:G684 in two verses in my interlinear.
apoleia refers to destruction, and I think "perdition" is an archaic term for us to use today. If Nero is the son of destruction, that answers at least one question. What did he try to do to the church?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

apoleia refers to destruction, and I think "perdition" is an archaic term for us to use today. If Nero is the son of destruction, that answers at least one question. What did he try to do to the church?
It has to be noted, of course, that preterism is in no sense committed to the claim that Nero is the man of lawlessness. Futurists often make an automatic connection between the beast and the man of lawlessness, but there's no reason to say they are the same. Nero may be representative of the beast, but I have no firm opinion on the man of lawlessness.

[dizzle]

My position is that it is Nero but other preterists have advanced other candidates. The evidence best first Nero to me - especially with the word-play with "restrainer"

[dizzle]

Another thing, I have to ask if Nero made those claims of deity after 53 AD, not before.

Are you kidding? Don't you have any knowledge of when Nero became emperor? Claudius was still alive in AD53 - he died in AD54. So once again you prove that you have rejected something with "vague" knowledge. I see.

[cbro]

Yes I can.

However, my response was to Cbro who said he had not recieved ANY answer from preterist. He can no longer say that. (My guess is that he did get an answer, but he could not "use" it [whatever that means]. )
I mean use it for understanding.

If cbro has been at TWeb any length of time, he has heard the Claudius explanation of 2 Thes. (as I am sure you have). Yet he says he has not received any answer. That is a false assumption. A true statement would have been "If he has spent much time here..."

[cbro]

Thank you for your input Faramir. I actually do like serious and meaningful input into my threads, and yours is.

However, I don't consider it a basis for a shred of evidence. If you do then God bless you. For me to consider it a shred of evidence then it would have to meet all the criteria given in 2nd Thessalonians 2 in some way. For instance, even though I don't think it is about the literal temple, but somebody did and could provide all the historical details matching the scripture, then I would have to admit that it was a little more than a shred of evidence.

If someone believes it is the church, and could provide all the metaphorical evidence in a convincing fashion, then I would again have to admit it was more than a shred of evidence. However, it seems to me that it would then be historicism rather than preterism. I didn't say there wasn't a shred of evidence for historicism.I agree that is an important difference.

[cbro]

When cbro says he has not recieved ANY (emphasis his) answer. I assume he means what he says.

I am not asking you to "accept" a thing. I am asking you to aknowledge that the things exist. Your statement that preterist have "nothing" to base our beliefs on. And I would like for you acknowledge that we have plenty of "evidence".

For example. I would never say you have nothing to base your escahtology. I would say that your escatology is based on a misunderstandign of the evidence you use, but I would never say that it is based on nothing.

Whether this evidence acuratly supports a preterist view or view is open to debate. To say that we have none is just silly.I mean what I say the way eschaton does when he said what you apparently missed in the reply below:

Thank you for your input Faramir. I actually do like serious and meaningful input into my threads, and yours is.

However, I don't consider it a basis for a shred of evidence. If you do then God bless you. For me to consider it a shred of evidence then it would have to meet all the criteria given in 2nd Thessalonians 2 in some way. For instance, even though I don't think it is about the literal temple, but somebody did and could provide all the historical details matching the scripture, then I would have to admit that it was a little more than a shred of evidence.

If someone believes it is the church, and could provide all the metaphorical evidence in a convincing fashion, then I would again have to admit it was more than a shred of evidence. However, it seems to me that it would then be historicism rather than preterism. I didn't say there wasn't a shred of evidence for historicism

[cbro]

Just so I am clear, what "temple" are you asking about. Do you believe that Paul, when he says "temple of God" is talking about a physical temple? If so why?

Or do you, like me, believe that when Paul used the phrase "temple of God" (naos theos in the Greek) he is using it the same way he uses it every other time he uses that phrase in scripture, to refer to the body of believers? If that were true then Nero would have to be in the Body of Christ as are believers, in order for him to be "in" the temple of God. Which you say is the body of believers.

Also, are you aware of the many decrees Nero made declaring himself to be a god (or do we have to argue that point).

What kind of supernatural acts did He perform to deceive people? How did Jesus Christ destroy him with His breath? Etc, etc. Of course we need some kind of documentation of these things.[/QUOTE]

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

If that were true then Nero would have to be in the Body of Christ as are believers, in order for him to be "in" the temple of God. Which you say is the body of believers.
[/QUOTE]

No he wouldn't.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

You're a wonderful person Dee Dee. If it's a shred of evidence to you then I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Faramir. God bless you.

It isn't plausible to me unless all the pieces fit.

So, are you saying that you do not differentiate between plausiblility and a "shred of evidence"?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I mean what I say the way eschaton does when he said what you apparently missed in the reply below:

So, if I understand you correctly. When you say you have never received ANY (emphasis yours) answer from a preterist regarding 2 Thes 2. What you really meant was that you have not received a plausable answer from preterist regarding this passage.

In other words you (and apparantly eschaton) use words differently than the rest of the English speaking world.

If that is the way you want to operate, I can't stop you. But is it any wonder people find it difficult to dialog with you.

[dizzle]

So, are you saying that you do not differentiate between plausiblility and a "shred of evidence"?

I am glad he never became a lawyer. BOTH sides of a case generally have evidence. The jurys do not generally declare that one side has NO evidence but that the evidence for one side was better, more complete, more convincing, etc than the other. Apparently these two would just say that despite weeks of testimony (in a murder trial) that the side that "lost" had NO evidence. That is not a proper use of the English language, nor is it giving the proper care to the other side to represent them properly - which should be of UTMOST concern for the Christian as misrepresentation (bearing false witness) is a serious charge.

It is also an extremely arrogant definition of one's own position - meaning only the positions that eschaton is convinced of have ANY evidence. That is incredible and a form of personal popery.

[eschaton]

apoleia refers to destruction, and I think "perdition" is an archaic term for us to use today. If Nero is the son of destruction, that answers at least one question. What did he try to do to the church?

What did Judas try to do to the church? How are they alike? That's my point.

[eschaton]

So, if I understand you correctly. When you say you have never received ANY (emphasis yours) answer from a preterist regarding 2 Thes 2. What you really meant was that you have not received a plausable answer from preterist regarding this passage.

In other words you (and apparantly eschaton) use words differently than the rest of the English speaking world.

If that is the way you want to operate, I can't stop you. But is it any wonder people find it difficult to dialog with you.

Here is the way I view it. Bible prophecy is like a puzzle. This is something like a solution we are looking for evidence of. So what is a shred of evidence? We have a piece of puzzle, but it may not fit. In may be part of another puzzle, like a history puzzle or something. Our piece of puzzle must fit the puzzle we're working on. If it doesn't belong to our puzzle, then I don't consider it a shred of evidence for the solution. Maybe it solves some other puzzle, but not the one we're working on. The piece of puzzle has to fit for it to be a shred of evidence. If the all the protrusions and intrusions don't match up, then it doesn't fit the puzzle. Just because some of the parts match doesn't help. The piece has to fit exactly. Then it is part of the solution and a shred of evidence.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Here is the way I view it. Bible prophecy is like a puzzle. This is something like a solution we are looking for evidence of. So what is a shred of evidence? We have a piece of puzzle, but it may not fit. In may be part of another puzzle, like a history puzzle or something. Our piece of puzzle must fit the puzzle we're working on. If it doesn't belong to our puzzle, then I don't consider it a shred of evidence for the solution. Maybe it solves some other puzzle, but not the one we're working on. The piece of puzzle has to fit for it to be a shred of evidence. If the all the protrusions and intrusions don't match up, then it doesn't fit the puzzle. Just because some of the parts match doesn't help. The piece has to fit exactly. Then it is part of the solution and a shred of evidence.

So, in order to have a "shred of evidence" according you your definition one would need a complete systematized theology with no questions left unanswered.

Then I guess you don't have a shread of evidence either since, by your own admission you are only vauguely aware of some of the "peices".

But I try very hard to use terms in ways that normal people understand them and in ways that do not require 25 post to explain why a perfectly normal phrase means something different than the way every other person who speaks English (with the possible exception of cbro).

If you require a disertation in order for you to consider my points a "shred of evidence" then I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to write a book for every response I make to you.

Good luck in finding someone who does. And it won't happen at TWeb as we have a 2400 character lenght per post limit.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

What did Judas try to do to the church? How are they alike? That's my point.

Judas tried and failed to destroy the church. Nero tried and failed to destroy the church. Good point.

[dizzle]

So, in order to have a "shred of evidence" according you your definition one would need a complete systematized theology with no questions left unanswered.

Then I guess you don't have a shread of evidence either since, by your own admission you are only vauguely aware of some of the "peices".

But I try very hard to use terms in ways that normal people understand them and in ways that do not require 25 post to explain why a perfectly normal phrase means something different than the way every other person who speaks English (with the possible exception of cbro).

If you require a disertation in order for you to consider my points a "shred of evidence" then I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to write a book for every response I make to you.

Good luck in finding someone who does. And it won't happen at TWeb as we have a 2400 character lenght per post limit.


Amen. Now we can happily say that by eschaton's standard that he doesn't have a shred of evidence. What horse patookey.

[eschaton]

So, in order to have a "shred of evidence" according you your definition one would need a complete systematized theology with no questions left unanswered.

Then I guess you don't have a shread of evidence either since, by your own admission you are only vauguely aware of some of the "peices".

But I try very hard to use terms in ways that normal people understand them and in ways that do not require 25 post to explain why a perfectly normal phrase means something different than the way every other person who speaks English (with the possible exception of cbro).

If you require a disertation in order for you to consider my points a "shred of evidence" then I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to write a book for every response I make to you.

Good luck in finding someone who does. And it won't happen at TWeb as we have a 2400 character lenght per post limit.

Excuse me. What were we talking about?
Well at least I understand now why preterists become preterists.

I think we were talking about 2nd Thessalonians and the man of sin (son of perdition). That's what I was talking about anyway. I talk about angels and all of a sudden people think I'm a racist.

My puzzle is Bible prophecy. My piece is the son of perdition. Specifically who or what he is. Do I need a whole systematic piece of theologly for that? Maybe I do for Bible prophecy. I dunno. But not for that one shred of evidence.

[eschaton]

That piece of the puzzle is one of three pieces I identified for why I cannot accept preterism, or why I am against preterism, which is the whole theme of my thread.

[eschaton]

Judas tried and failed to destroy the church. Nero tried and failed to destroy the church. Good point.

So is that why he went and hanged himself? Because he failed to destroy the church? How did he know he failed? Did he even know what the church was?

[eschaton]

Amen. Now we can happily say that by eschaton's standard that he doesn't have a shred of evidence. What horse patookey.

So are you against horse races? Is that racism?

[dizzle]

Who mentioned a race? Patookey is dung. I am not particularly in favour of dung. That is excrementism. But if you would like to make a royal fool of yourself, be my guest. I need to be amused.

[dizzle]

Well at least I understand now why preterists become preterists.

I doubt it. Pret-a-phobe. :rofl:

[eschaton]

I doubt it. Pret-a-phobe. :rofl:

I think I'm winning you over,

[dizzle]

I think you're looney

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think you're looneyI'm invincible!

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

So is that why he went and hanged himself?


I don't know.Because he failed to destroy the church?

I don't know. I doubt it?


How did he know he failed?

I never said he did.

Did he even know what the church was?

I doubt it.

What did any of that have to do with this thread?

[eschaton]

I don't know.

I don't know. I doubt it?

I never said he did.

I doubt it.

What did any of that have to do with this thread?

You said that Judas tried to destroy the church just like Nero. I was just trying to figure out if Judas really tried to destroy the church.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

You said that Judas tried to destroy the church just like Nero. I was just trying to figure out if Judas really tried to destroy the church.

I was being facetious.

The point is that Judas did take actions that were an attack on Jesus (you know, the head of the church). As did Nero.

The connection is tenuous at best I know. But I was trying to show how easy it is to simply declare a connection (or lack thereof).

I guess some people don't get facetious.

[eschaton]

I was being facetious.

The point is that Judas did take actions that were an attack on Jesus (you know, the head of the church). As did Nero.

The connection is tenuous at best I know. But I was trying to show how easy it is to simply declare a connection (or lack thereof).

I guess some people don't get facetious.

Okay. At least I can agree that it is tenuous at best.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Okay. At least I can agree that it is tenuous at best.

But you still miss my point. Your assertion that just because the phrase "son of perdition" is only used one other time in scripture to refer to Judas that there must be some connection is equally as tenuous.

Edit to add: You are comparing a phrase used only twice in the NT, by two different authors, and two different genres.

This is not the same as comparing the phrase "temple of God" used by Paul in all of his epistles.

[eschaton]

But you still miss my point. Your assertion that just because the phrase "son of perdition" is only used one other time in scripture to refer to Judas that there must be some connection is equally as tenuous.

Edit to add: You are comparing a phrase used only twice in the NT, by two different authors, and two different genres.

This is not the same as comparing the phrase "temple of God" used by Paul in all of his epistles.

I don't think Paul used "temple of God" in all of his epistles. I think he only used it in three of his epistles.

The assumption I make in connecting "son of predition" is that God is the inspirier of scripture. I believe scripture means something more than just the human thoughts of ancient men.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I don't think Paul used "temple of God" in all of his epistles. I think he only used it in three of his epistles.

You are correct. I should have said "every use of that phrase that he used in his epistles" for that is what I meant.

Not that it has any bearing on this discussion, other than I am starting to notice a pattern. Instead of addressing the real issues, you tend to focus on minor mistakes that have no bearing on the meat of matter and ignore the big picture issues.

For example I made a facetious comment about Judas and Nero which you responded to by asking a half dozen questions (note: I did not go back and count, that is a 'guestimate'. Please do not make an issue of my inexactidue regarding the number of questions you did or did not ask, it is not relevant) about Judas. All the while NOT addressing whether or not Nero could have been "standing" in the metaphorical temple of God (the Church) demanding worship.

The assumption I make in connecting "son of predition" is that God is the inspirier of scripture. I believe scripture means something more than just the human thoughts of ancient men.

I agree that God is the inspirer of scripter and that scripture means something more than just he human thoughts of ancient men.

However, that does not make your assertion that Judas is a type for the "future" son of perdition in 2 Thes. more than a "tenuous" connection. You see I believe the same thing, about the inspiration of scripture.

What you have done is to mistake a philosophy on inerrancy for an exegeitcal method.

The proof of this is that I can do the same thing.

I think the "man of lawlessness" is a first century person since Paul (inspired by God the Spirit) says "you know what restrains him now. And since I believe that "God is the inspirier of scripture. I believe scripture means something more than just the human thoughts of ancient men." It must be true.

Anyone can (and many, including heretics do) use that argument to justify poor exegisis.

The, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." argument is circular when debating among brothers. The debate is about what God actually said in His word. You can't (well you can because you did, but it is not very effective) claim that you are right simply because you believe in the inspiration of scripture, when your opponent believes the same.

Does any one else find it ironic that eschaton says that preterist do not have a "shred of evidence" for thier position, but the best evidence that he can come up with for his position is, "I believe in inerrancy just like you do."

[eschaton]

What would we have to do to establish a relationship between the only two times "son of perdition" is used in scripture. It would be easy enough to read through the writings of church fathers to see than they made the same connection I do. But let's look at it another way.

1. Paul and John would have to know each other.
2. They could see a similarity in Judas and the Antichrist.

How far-fetched is this? I am starting another thread that has a tenuous connection to this one.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

What would we have to do to establish a relationship between the only two times "son of perdition" is used in scripture. It would be easy enough to read through the writings of church fathers to see than they made the same connection I do. But let's look at it another way.

1. Paul and John would have to know each other.
2. They could see a similarity in Judas and the Antichrist.

How far-fetched is this? I am starting another thread that has a tenuous connection to this one.

Very far-fetched.

1. Paul and John would have to know each other. I'll give you that.
2. They could see a similarity in Judas and the Antichrist assumes your interpreation is right. For one. Paul never mentions the word Antichrist. And when John does, he never uses the phrase "son of perdition". So you have not one shred of evidence that they see a similarity between Judas and "the Antichrist" as it realates to the "son of perdition".

And you are still evading the issue I brought up of the word "now" in that passage regarding the restrainer.

[eschaton]

Very far-fetched.

1. Paul and John would have to know each other. I'll give you that.
2. They could see a similarity in Judas and the Antichrist assumes your interpreation is right. For one. Paul never mentions the word Antichrist. And when John does, he never uses the phrase "son of perdition". So you have not one shred of evidence that they see a similarity between Judas and "the Antichrist" as it realates to the "son of perdition".

And you are still evading the issue I brought up of the word "now" in that passage regarding the restrainer.

That's what I like about preterists. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (preterists) were born. Why don't you read through the link about the antichrist I gave early in the thread.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

That's what I like about preterists. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (preterists) were born. Why don't you read through the link about the antichrist I gave early in the thread.

That is what I like about non-preterist. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (non-preteirst) were born.


See, two can play at the cheap attack game. But I find it boring!

:boring:

[eschaton]

That is what I like about non-preterist. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (non-preteirst) were born.


See, two can play at the cheap attack game. But I find it boring!

:boring:

Can you find one person in church history who was a preterist, or looked at things like the modern preterist, before James Stuart Russell in the 1800's? Do you remember my first post in this thread? I don't think you can play my game, because my game is based on facts.

[dizzle]

So you have not one shred of evidence that they see a similarity between Judas and "the Antichrist" as it realate.....

:rofl:

Ouch.

Almost makes one wish for arguments the quality of Terral's.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Can you find one person in church history who was a preterist, or looked at things like the modern preterist, before James Stuart Russell in the 1800's? Do you remember my first post in this thread? I don't think you can play my game, because my game is based on facts.

Maybe I don't want to play your game. And to be honest, I see very few facts. And as much as I respect much of the ECFs, I put scripture first. That is the game I play. Are you up to it. (Hint: based on the very tenuous connection you make between Judas and Paul's "man of sorrows" I kind of doubt it. I don't think you have a shred of evidence to support your position)

I can play your game, but it is too easy for me. I like a challenge. Challenge me with scriputer (not ECF). Give me a "shred of evidence" I can refute.

It is really hard to argue against, "God is the inspirier of scripture. I believe scripture means something more than just the human thoughts of ancient men."

Dang. Almost all preterist believe that too. You have not provided one shred of evidence to show why something we both believe leads to two totally different conclusions.

I'm still waiting.

[dizzle]

Of course eschaton can't explain how the ECF were more than predominantly premill as well if they were so spot-on with eschatology.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Step 1) Notice that you agree with a number of the ECFs on one belief (even though your version of that belief misses out some clear features of their belief.
Step 2) Notice that you disagree with the ECF very clearly on several other issues.
Step 3) Pretend that 2) doesn't count.
Step 4) Declare that your faith is that of the ECFs.


Does this seem like a fair analysis?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Of course eschaton can't explain how the ECF were more than predominantly premill as well if they were so spot-on with eschatology.

I know full well that his awe of the ECF is "pick and choose" what is convenient.

I just see no reason to go there when scripture is primary, and we have not even touched on scripture. (well except that we both believe that "God is the inspirier of scripture. I believe scripture means something more than just the human thoughts of ancient men." and somehow the fact that we both beleive this makes him right and me wrong, and that this little ambiguous statement is more "evidence" than your 100 page comentary on Matthew 24.).


I'm still at a loss to figure out how he can say that with a straight face.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Step 1) Notice that you agree with a number of the ECFs on one belief (even though your version of that belief misses out some clear features of their belief.
Step 2) Notice that you disagree with the ECF very clearly on several other issues.
Step 3) Pretend that 2) doesn't count.
Step 4) Declare that your faith is that of the ECFs.


Does this seem like a fair analysis?

:yes:

[cbro]

Quote: Originally posted by cbro
If that were true then Nero would have to be in the Body of Christ as are believers, in order for him to be "in" the temple of God. Which you say is the body of believers.

QUOTE=Faramir
No he wouldn't.

quote=cbro
If we go by how most people speak english, you are contradicting yourself.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Quote: Originally posted by cbro
If that were true then Nero would have to be in the Body of Christ as are believers, in order for him to be "in" the temple of God. Which you say is the body of believers.

QUOTE=Faramir
No he wouldn't.

quote=cbro
If we go by how most people speak english, you are contradicting yourself.

No I'm not.

[eschaton]

Maybe I don't want to play your game. And to be honest, I see very few facts. And as much as I respect much of the ECFs, I put scripture first. That is the game I play. Are you up to it. (Hint: based on the very tenuous connection you make between Judas and Paul's "man of sorrows" I kind of doubt it. I don't think you have a shred of evidence to support your position)

I can play your game, but it is too easy for me. I like a challenge. Challenge me with scriputer (not ECF). Give me a "shred of evidence" I can refute.

It is really hard to argue against, "God is the inspirier of scripture. I believe scripture means something more than just the human thoughts of ancient men."

Dang. Almost all preterist believe that too. You have not provided one shred of evidence to show why something we both believe leads to two totally different conclusions.

I'm still waiting.

You seem to think that I can't compare scripture to scripture and come up with a conclusion. I do that because that's what the scriptures call for, and because God is the inspirer of scripture.

You may wait as long as you like. I'll wait for Dee Dee to start reading my posts. I said that I don't believe the early church was pre-mill, but even if we assume it was that is something different from preterism. I haven't had any of my original questions answered in this thread, so I'll just assume they can't be. All I'm getting is meaningless personal attacks, so I don't see any reason to continue in this thread.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

You seem to think that I can't compare scripture to scripture and come up with a conclusion. I do that because that's what the scriptures call for, and because God is the inspirer of scripture.

You may wait as long as you like. I'll wait for Dee Dee to start reading my posts. I said that I don't believe the early church was pre-mill, but even if we assume it was that is something different from preterism. I haven't had any of my original questions answered in this thread, so I'll just assume they can't be. All I'm getting is meaningless personal attacks, so I don't see any reason to continue in this thread.

:lol: It seems that some people have a very hard time differentiating between personal attacks (i.e. "That is what I like about non-preterist. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (non-preteirst) were born. " ) and attacks against arguments (or lack thereof).

Other than when I was directly mimicking your personal attack against preterist in general. I do no think I have made one remark about your person/character etc.

I have made plenty of attacks against your arguments (or more acurately your lack of arguments), but that is what debate is about.

And you have yet to provide anything other than a general statement on your theory of inerancy to support the connection you allege between Judas and the man of sorrow.

I can wait a long time (even though I am NOT a futurist who believes soon means 1000 years).

[eschaton]

:lol: It seems that some people have a very hard time differentiating between personal attacks (i.e. "That is what I like about non-preterist. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (non-preteirst) were born. " ) and attacks against arguments (or lack thereof).

Other than when I was directly mimicking your personal attack against preterist in general. I do no think I have made one remark about your person/character etc.

I have made plenty of attacks against your arguments (or more acurately your lack of arguments), but that is what debate is about.

And you have yet to provide anything other than a general statement on your theory of inerancy to support the connection you allege between Judas and the man of sorrow.

I can wait a long time (even though I am NOT a futurist who believes soon means 1000 years).

It's one thing to make an attack, and another thing to offer a sensible argument. I haven't seen any sensible arguments from you.

1. If the "this generation" argument held any water, then we would see it somewhere in Christianity before the late 1800's.

2. The early church believed the scriptures spoke on different levels. This shows that the literalist emphasis on such words as "shortly" can be explalined without resorting to a first century fulfillment.

3. There is no matching historical evidence for the fulfillment of 2nd Thessalonians 2 in history. Nero falls far short.

That's what I was writing about in the original post and I have yet to see a serious effort to address these questions. So unless I see it I don't feel I need to respond any further. A shred of evidence has to fit the puzzle, not just seem to be similar in some way.

[dizzle]

If amillennialism held any water we should see the first Christians who actually were the second generation, learning from the apostle's to teach it. Yet they were primarily premill. Go figure

[eschaton]

If amillennialism held any water we should see the first Christians who actually were the second generation, learning from the apostle's to teach it. Yet they were primarily premill. Go figure

All early orthodox Christians were amill, but I've explained that in another thread. That is not the subject of this thread. Stop trying to change the subject.

[dizzle]

All early orthodox Christians were amill, but I've explained that in another thread. That is not the subject of this thread. Stop trying to change the subject.

That is utterly and demonstrably false. Further you cannot have it both ways, if you can appeal to the ECF so can I - you can't manipulate a thread in that manner. You stop making assertions to the ECF and I will not. That is how it works.

[dizzle]

:lol: It seems that some people have a very hard time differentiating between personal attacks (i.e. "That is what I like about non-preterist. They don't believe any Christians knew anything until they (non-preteirst) were born. " ) and attacks against arguments (or lack thereof).

Other than when I was directly mimicking your personal attack against preterist in general. I do no think I have made one remark about your person/character etc.

I have made plenty of attacks against your arguments (or more acurately your lack of arguments), but that is what debate is about.

And you have yet to provide anything other than a general statement on your theory of inerancy to support the connection you allege between Judas and the man of sorrow.

I can wait a long time (even though I am NOT a futurist who believes soon means 1000 years).


He dodged your entire point.

[eschaton]

Dee Dee,

Why don't you try being honest for a change. Stop trying to change the topic and address the subject of this thread. If you can't then you really should butt out. If you want to discuss premill in the early church then start another thread and invite me to it.

[dizzle]

I leave it to the reader to dishonest who either incompetent or not honest (you should get a clue that nearly every one of your preterist opponents on this board seems to believe you are one of those two). If you try to appeal to the ECF I will. I am done mentioning them if you are.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

It's one thing to make an attack, and another thing to offer a sensible argument. I haven't seen any sensible arguments from you.


I give as I get.



This is a synopsis (rough paraphrase) of our actual "arguments" so far:

--------------------------------------------------------

Me: Nero is a possible candidate for Man of Lawlessness, here are a few reasons (sensible argument).



Eschaton: "It can't be Nero because he is not like Judas the 'other' son of perdition' ". (good start but when I asked for clarification i.e. "sensible argument in return from you, but see what I get.)



Me: Could you explain why you insist on such a connection between Judas and the Son of Perdition. (again sensible question/argument).



Eschaton: I believe that way, because I believe that God inspired the Bible.



Me: I believe that too. Can you give me a more substantive (i.e. sensible) argument to support that connection.



Eschaton: Preterist don't believe that Christians knew anything before 1865.



Me: Please show me why you insist on a connection between Judas and the Man of Sorrows.



Eschaton: Blah blah blah, I don't like getting personal insults.



Me: Please show me why you insist on a connection between Judas and the Man of Sorrows.



Eshcaton: Blah blah blah blah, I can't get a sensible argument from preterist.



Me: Please show me why you insist on a connection between Judas and the Man of Sorrows.







--------------------------



So is it any wonder that you have not received a "sensible argument" from me. At least not for several posts. I have not gotten any from you.



How many times do I have to ask:





Please show me why you insist on a connection between Judas and the Man of Sorrows.







1. If the "this generation" argument held any water, then we would see it somewhere in Christianity before the late 1800's.



2. The early church believed the scriptures spoke on different levels. This shows that the literalist emphasis on such words as "shortly" can be explained without resorting to a first century fulfillment.



3. There is no matching historical evidence for the fulfillment of 2nd Thessalonians 2 in history. Nero falls far short.



That's what I was writing about in the original post and I have yet to see a serious effort to address these questions. So unless I see it I don't feel I need to respond any further. A shred of evidence has to fit the puzzle, not just seem to be similar in some way.



Well, I am really only interested in #3. But is very hard to have a "sensible argument" when you ask your opponent many times why "Nero" would have to be a match with Judas and all you get is (paraphrase) "Because I hold to the same philosophy of inerrancy that you do" and when it is pointed out that I (and most other preterist) hold to the same belief, you just ignore my comments.



Why do you do that? Why do you ignore simple sensible questions? Is it because you (ironically) don't have a shred of evidence to support your assertion?

[eschaton]

You can keep your paraphases to yourself. You conveniently ignore all the arguments except for one tiny part of one discussion. You completely ignored my first criticism of Nero trying to destroy the church in post #66 of this thread, which is a requirement of verse 8. That would be Jesus destroying Nero with His breath. I offer you the same advice I offered Dee Dee. Stop trying to sway off into meaningless tangents.

[dizzle]

:rofl:

[cbro]

No I'm not.Just because you think you are the god of english use, does not mean you really are that god.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

You can keep your paraphases to yourself. You conveniently ignore all the arguments except for one tiny part of one discussion.
:rofl:

This is so ironic, if I didn't know better I would say eschaton is trying to be funny. :lmbo:

Please tell me how, "Please show me why you insist on a connection between Judas and the Man of Sorrows" is a "meaningless tangent" to this discussion.

Now if you concede that it really is meaningless and you are willing to abandone that portion of your argument, I will be more than willing to move on. I will be happy to deal with "Jesus destroying Nero with His breath", but there is not much point in doing so until we establish deal with the "son of man has to be like Judas" issue.

I have played the "Yet but, what about....." game with far too many dispensationalist to play it here with you now. (Is that what you meant by "playing your game").

I will make a deal with you. You give me an answer to "Please show me why you insist on a connection between Judas and the Man of Sorrows", or admit that it is not really relevant and I will address the Jesus destroying the Nero with His breath. :deal:




You completely ignored my first criticism of Nero trying to destroy the church in post #66 of this thread, which is a requirement of verse 8. That would be Jesus destroying Nero with His breath.

The difference between us is that I wil admit that I have ignored your objection.

In fact, I made it perfectly clear in post #48 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1427859&postcount=48)(which by the way is well before your post #66) that I was only going to deal with one question at a time. A fact that you completely ignored.

I stated from the get go that I was not going to deal with more than one question at a time. And for most of that time I have been, and still am, waiting for you to answer one question.

In other words, I gave you every indication prior to your vaunted post #66 that I would not address your question there until you addressed the question at hand. The fact that you even asked that knowing that I would only address one question at a time is an idication to me that you may not really be interested in "sensible arguments" at all.

I do exactly what I tell you I would do (deal with one question at a time), and you get you undies all bunched up and accuse me of "conviently ignoring" the arguments when it is in fact you that refuses to answer my question.

I did not conveniently ignore anything. I deliberately focused on one question at a time. Just like I said I would. I did this to keep you from trying to evade questions by asking additional questions. Something you are clearly trying to do. As we say in the South, "that dog won't hunt."

Trying to turn it around on me will not work.


I offer you the same advice I offered Dee Dee. Stop trying to sway off into meaningless tangents.

I will give you the same advise I give [most, not all] dispensational futurist, stop trying to evade answering a question by asking another one. Preterist have seen it all before and are not going to bite.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Just because you think you are the god of english use, does not mean you really are that god.

Just because you are the god of making assertions without substantive support does not mean that others can not respond in kind.

You start responding in something other than blank asserrtions without any support, and I will do the same. But until then, don't get all bunched up when I respond in kind to you.

[eschaton]

If you're going to deal with one question at a time why don't you deal with them in order instead of skipping those you can't answer? Dealing with one question at a time doesn't mean skipping around to me. That's why I consider the Judas question irrelevant, because you want to skip around rather than deal with the facts straight up.

The difference between us is that I wil admit that I have ignored your objection.

I did not conveniently ignore anything.

How does the above make any sense?

The "son of perdition" only occurs twice in scripture. This is the kind of thing you look for to understand difficult verses. Please take a look at the lectionary study at:

http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/FacultyForum/JohnRevelationProject/index.html

You look for key words and phrases. Since the "son of perdition" only occurs twice in scripture it has in meaning, and you will see these phrases linked in many study Bibles. However, I will drop the emphasis on this phrase if you can answer why those such as Irenaeus, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Tyconius, Augstine, and Martin Luther felt the antichrist would be a traitor in the church. This is going off on a tangent, but since you want to deal with one aspect of 2nd Thess, I feel we need to look at its interpretation in a historical aspect.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

If you're going to deal with one question at a time why don't you deal with them in order instead of skipping those you can't answer? Dealing with one question at a time doesn't mean skipping around to me. That's why I consider the Judas question irrelevant, because you want to skip around rather than deal with the facts straight up.

That makes no sense. Either I am skipping around or only dealing with one question at a time. Which is it?



How does the above make any sense?

If you would read and respond (rather than skim and react) it would make perfect sense. I did ignore your "Jesus" breath question, but it was not out of convenience. Hello. It is not that difficult to grasp.

The "son of perdition" only occurs twice in scripture. This is the kind of thing you look for to understand difficult verses.

Yes it is. But that fact alone is not enough. You need a "shred" of evidence to suggest that there is a type/archetype connection. You have yet to show that.

Plus, IIRC 2 Thes. was written before the Gospel of John, so maybe John was saying that Judas was like Nero not the other way around like you suggest. In other words you need more than just the fact that that phrase is only used twice in scripture.

Please take a look at the lectionary study at:

http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/FacultyForum/JohnRevelationProject/index.html


1. Argument by web link is not allowed at TWeb. You can use web link but you must expound on what the web site offers.

2. I saw nothing on that page that dealt with the issue at hand.

You need to quote at least a portion (but no more than two paragraphs as that would violate TWeb's copy right rules) of the relevant text and then expound upon it.

Even if it were not against the rules at TWeb I am not interested in a "links" battle.
You look for key words and phrases. Since the "son of perdition" only occurs twice in scripture it has in meaning, and you will see these phrases linked in many study Bibles.

I agree it has meaning. What I want to know is why do you think it has the meaning that you assign to it. You can't answer that question.

How do you the "meaning" is that "Son of Perdition" was once a common phrase but had gone out of fasion, by the late first century but was occasionally used for emphasis at that time so it would be perfectly natural to see it only twice in a collection of first century Jewish works. (FYI, I just made that up. It is not true. It was just an example. But it is just a plausable as yours IMO without any reason other than "the phrase only occurs twice in the NT.)

However, I will drop the emphasis on this phrase if you can answer why those such as Irenaeus, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Tyconius, Augstine, and Martin Luther felt the antichrist would be a traitor in the church. This is going off on a tangent, but since you want to deal with one aspect of 2nd Thess, I feel we need to look at its interpretation in a historical aspect.

That was not part of the deal. The deal was you either answer the question or drop the issue of the connection between Judas and the Man of Sin.

I do not care why Irenaeus, et al thought that. I care what scripture says.

Now if you want to reproduce on one of their arguments as to why they thought that and expound upon it, that is fine. That is genuine debate. But to throw up a link and a bunch of dead theologians is a diversion. One I am not going to fall for.

[eschaton]

That makes no sense. Either I am skipping around or only dealing with one question at a time. Which is it?

I don't see why you don't deal with one question at a time in order. That would truly be dealing with one question at a time.



If you would read and respond (rather than skim and react) it would make perfect sense. I did ignore your "Jesus" breath question, but it was not out of convenience. Hello. It is not that difficult to grasp.

Seems like either you admit you ignored me or you didn't ignore me.

Yes it is. But that fact alone is not enough. You need a "shred" of evidence to suggest that there is a type/archetype connection. You have yet to show that.

The evidence is that Judas and the subject in 2nd Thess, have the same title. Satan isn't called Satan in Genesis. He is called the serpent. We can find other places he is called a serpent in scripture and make the connection.

Plus, IIRC 2 Thes. was written before the Gospel of John, so maybe John was saying that Judas was like Nero not the other way around like you suggest. In other words you need more than just the fact that that phrase is only used twice in scripture.

Judas was like Nero? And you think my ideas are off the wall.



1. Argument by web link is not allowed at TWeb. You can use web link but you must expound on what the web site offers.

2. I saw nothing on that page that dealt with the issue at hand.

You need to quote at least a portion (but no more than two paragraphs as that would violate TWeb's copy right rules) of the relevant text and then expound upon it.

Even if it were not against the rules at TWeb I am not interested in a "links" battle.

You probably didn't even look at the lectionary study. It wasn't on page one. I was using it as an example, not as argument.


I agree it has meaning. What I want to know is why do you think it has the meaning that you assign to it. You can't answer that question.
I already have.

How do you the "meaning" is that "Son of Perdition" was once a common phrase but had gone out of fasion, by the late first century but was occasionally used for emphasis at that time so it would be perfectly natural to see it only twice in a collection of first century Jewish works. (FYI, I just made that up. It is not true. It was just an example. But it is just a plausable as yours IMO without any reason other than "the phrase only occurs twice in the NT.)

Give me the evidence.



That was not part of the deal. The deal was you either answer the question or drop the issue of the connection between Judas and the Man of Sin.

I do not care why Irenaeus, et al thought that. I care what scripture says.

Now if you want to reproduce on one of their arguments as to why they thought that and expound upon it, that is fine. That is genuine debate. But to throw up a link and a bunch of dead theologians is a diversion. One I am not going to fall for.