Originally posted by grahamcracker
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Eschatology 201 Guidelines
This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Was Titus the Man of Sin
Collapse
X
-
That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
-
Originally posted by grahamcracker View PostI'm not sure how persuasive that would be. People's interpretation implies a background of context. If I view all of the words through a Preterist mindset, how would that change my mind?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSo? It was an indication of what the early church believed. If Titus were the "world-deceiver", and the early church knew it, why would such a section of a popular document even exist? That would be like saying that you don't care what Athanasius said about the Trinity, or what Irenaeus said about the Marcionites. Dismissing it because it isn't scripture is pure laziness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostDid you even look? How about approaching the text with the determination to understand it in context, and adjusting your mindset in accordance with that? I am a preterist, by the way.
If I reach a dead end, I will change my methods of searching. Right now, I don't even know what all of the Preterists think. But I keep getting people trying to steer me in one direction or the other. I just had a series of emails with an internet friend who did not know anything about my eschatology. We were talking about certain ministries and he suggested that I go look and seek what kinds of "kooks" Preterist threads were producing. I had to tell me that I was leaning Preterist and definitely not a futurist. And before I knew it, I was telling him why I didn't agree with futurism. I wasn't even trying to defend Preterism necessarily
Look. I started this thread with one primary question and no one has even attempted to answer it. They are attempt to steer me one direction or another. Not helpful at all. I think I'll go eat worms.Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-23-2014, 04:44 PM.
Comment
-
Tektonics and others persuaded me to postmillennialism for a while. Now I am flirting with historicism. I find that some preterist interpretations -- including those regarding the Man of Sin passage -- are incredibly weak. Titus was not the man of sin. That's simply a dumb idea. I think Titus was actually a relatively good guy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by grahamcracker View PostNo, and you are entitled to your opinion.
Heresies were abundant in the early church as the Book of Galatians demonstrates.
The Galatians were falling into legal heresy before the death of the apostles.
You don't think that the Didache could be mistaken on something?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by grahamcracker View PostLook. I started this thread with one primary question and no one has even attempted to answer it. They are attempt to steer me one direction or another. Not helpful at all. I think I'll go eat worms.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostTektonics and others persuaded me to postmillennialism for a while. Now I am flirting with historicism. I find that some preterist interpretations -- including those regarding the Man of Sin passage -- are incredibly weak. Titus was not the man of sin. That's simply a dumb idea. I think Titus was actually a relatively good guy.
And you never heard of Roman emperors being worshiped. It's not far-fetched a all. It might be erroneous but not far-fetched.
Insofar as Titus being a "good guy," most of what we have came from Josephus. And Josephus was adopted into Titus' family, as I understand it. Therefore, Titus was his patron. Would he really say anything bad about him? Most who review Josephus' history believe there was a bias.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThat is a flat out lie. I answered your question, and provided early church evidence WHY the answer is no. You rudely dismissed the evidence with no attempt at rebutting the answer I gave.
I asked for source material that wasn't secondary. How was the the Didache source material I asked for? I don't want anything that late, not at this point. Maybe later.Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-23-2014, 05:11 PM.
Comment
-
2 Thessalonians 2
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?
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:
In what way did God/Jesus destroy Titus with the spirit of his mouth?
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Titus did not perform any signs and wonders.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View Post2 Thessalonians 2
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?
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:
In what way did God/Jesus destroy Titus with the spirit of his mouth?
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Titus did not perform any signs and wonders.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View Post[B]2 Thessalonians 2....If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?
In what way did God/Jesus destroy Titus with the spirit of his mouth?
Titus did not perform any signs and wonders.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWouldn't the preterist solution here just to argue it's all symbolism and then interpret it as such?
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment