Ep. 42- And Every Eye Shall See is now up!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ep. 42 http://www.preteristpodcast.com/inde...eye-shall-see/is the fifteenth of an ongoing verse by verse study of the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Matthew 24 and is intended to be an audio companion to the written commentary It’s Not the End of the World located at http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html. The topic in this episode is continuing with Matthew 24:30:

Matthew 24:30: Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

[Michelle]

I love your podcasts. This episode, as usual, holds a wealth of information, but I especially liked your discussion of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. It reminded me of a brief discussion you and I had hear a few years ago.

[Dee Dee Warren]

gracias guapa

[Christian><>]

Dear sister Dee Dee, or Karen,

I am becoming a fan of The Preterist Podcast. I found it last week and have listened to several episodes so far. The first two introductory, all of the announcements, three of the Kicking some Left Behinds (LOL), and Welcome Back Potter.

I can identify with your sense of humor and your testimony greatly. I too was raised Roman Catholic and then turned to atheism for a time before getting saved… Even my journey towards embracing preterism and hyper preterism for a time were very similar.

I also want to say how sorry I am for your divorce. I am praying for you and hate that you had to go through that.

I have to say that your critique of the Left Behind series, although humorous, has been somewhat petty and picky. And I hope this doesn’t come off wrong, but you have even been a bit elitist. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but I am by no means any sort of literary expert. I read a great deal, mostly non-fiction. And I do agree that there was much about the LB series was that was… cheesy, for lack of a better term. But I have to say that I found the first book, in which you have focused your criticisms, very entertaining (perhaps I am a male chauvinist too). I believe in the first episode against it, you said that it wasn’t evangelistic, but I actually accepted Christ and was born again while reading the first book (yes, I recognize that this causes me to be a little biased).

I don’t want to address every issue you brought up and rebut or anything, but there are a few things you said about the writing that stick with me and I have to say something. For starters, you take issue with Rayford’s description of Irene always talking about Jesus all the time, and said that normal Christians don’t do this. But, if you consider that Jenkins was writing Rayford’s perspective, I’d say he nailed it. When I was lost, there were Christians who from my perspective did this. I also have heard of similar situations. I know of an instance where a Christian was asked to go golfing (how boring) with a few other men, and one was a non-believer. At the end of the day, when the Christian had left, the non-believer commented on how annoying that Christian was talking about Jesus the entire day and cramming it down everyone’s throat. His friend responded that the Christian hadn’t said one word about faith, religion, or Jesus the entire day. You also seem bothered by the simplistic sexual references regarding everyone’s opinion to Hattie. Men are visual. And the emphasis that no one’s panties are ever seen after the rapture? If I recall, both the instances where you pointed that out, the women where wearing a nurses outfit or a night gown. So it doesn’t seem that striking to me that the “panties” would be somewhere inside the other garments when they hit the floor and therefore, not visible.

I was a bit shocked that you started referring to the depictions of the rapture as heretical, especially after you said that you don’t throw that word around lightly. You even read 1Corinthians 15 and 1Thessalonians 4. From what I know if LaHaye’s eschatology, he does believe that the dead in Christ rise first. What is happening in those instances is that he combined both passages – the resurrection of dead believers and the transformation of living believers to glorified bodies along with the meeting in the air is “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” I don’t see how that’s heretical. He is saying that the same bodies are resurrected/transformed. There is biblical president for this. When Philip baptized the eunuch, the Spirit “snatched Philip away.” The eunuch no longer saw him, and Philip suddenly “found himself” at Azotus (Acts 8:39-40). The Greek word used here is the same as in 1Thessalonians 4. And you keep poking fun at the fact that everyone is suddenly naked. Even in your view of the resurrection, do you believe that we will keep our earthly garments on? Are we not given heavenly robes?

Okay, I’ve said my piece. I look forward to listening to your commentary on the Olivet Discourse. Though I may write you a note about Welcome Back Potter later as well. I believe that I have a satisfactory answer to your question that stumped you.

Blessings sister,

Christian (yes, that’s my real name).

PS, sorry if this is not the appropriate place to post this. I tried to send this via the email address on your website (preteristpodcast@gmail.com) and it was kicked back...

In case of rapture, my email account will be unmanned ;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

I will respond in more detail when I get time, but I have to say you didn't listen carefully as you really mischaracterized some thing I said. I gave specific reasons for my charge of heresy. Thank you for your encouragement on the other episodes.

I have no idea why the email would be kicked back, did you get a specific error message?

Oh, and that question in Welcome Back Potter didn't leave me stumped, as you put it. I believe it is unanswerable. No offense seriously, but I have looked into the answers given by the great minds of Arminian thought today, and some from the past, and have found them wanting. I do not have much hope that anyone is going to say anything on that question that I have not already heard and rejected. This is not a new question or issue in theology, and those who have gone before us have hashed it out. I realize you may have an answer you find satisfying to you.

[Christian><>]

Goodness. Get some sleep, girl. I appreciate the quick note though.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't sleep.

[Christian><>]

Oh, I am really sorry. I just read http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2828. I apologize for using your personal name (and spelling it way wrong). I had heard it on one of the episodes and thought it was no big deal. Anyway, I hope that I didn't offend you, sister. I also hope to be able to call you friend some day and earn the right to use your real name. ;)