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
See more
See less

False Christs or False Christians?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I don't see what is on face implausible about it given that Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Tim 2:18 are on record as having ruined the faith of others by claiming the second coming had already taken place. The implications of this claim are not all that dissimilar from what is under the discussion; certainly, from our perspective, accepting the claim seems similarly implausible. Yet enough people were fooled by it that Paul said the heresy had spread like gangrene.
    You're talking about a whole different animal here. Obviously there were heated disputes, especially between Paul and the "judaizers," that he denounced as fake brethren. A dispute over a theological issue (which, btw, sounds very eerily similar to the dispute about pre and post millennialism of today), is a whole different animal than someone claiming he's the Christ. That just sounds like an impossibility to me during that time, and there's no mention of this as an issue anywhere in any early records I know of. I don't even recall any ECF writing about this as an issue during the apostolic age. They all even acknowledged a type of "antichrist" they were expecting to come.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      You're talking about a whole different animal here. Obviously there were heated disputes, especially between Paul and the "judaizers," that he denounced as fake brethren. A dispute over a theological issue (which, btw, sounds very eerily similar to the dispute about pre and post millennialism of today), is a whole different animal than someone claiming he's the Christ. That just sounds like an impossibility to me during that time, and there's no mention of this as an issue anywhere in any early records I know of. I don't even recall any ECF writing about this as an issue during the apostolic age. They all even acknowledged a type of "antichrist" they were expecting to come.
      I don't see how the notion of the second coming having (secretly?) occurred falls under a separate category altogether, as this would imply that somebody presently on earth was Jesus. This just possibly shifts the identity from the speaker elsewhere. The analogy of the different stripes of millennialism seems inapplicable as both still place the second coming in the future as opposed to the specific heresy here.

      Ultimately, your argument appears to be an argument from incredulity, which is especially unconvincing coming from a cultural difference of two millennia.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        I don't see how the notion of the second coming having (secretly?) occurred falls under a separate category altogether, as this would imply that somebody presently on earth was Jesus. This just possibly shifts the identity from the speaker elsewhere. The analogy of the different stripes of millennialism seems inapplicable as both still place the second coming in the future as opposed to the specific heresy here.

        Ultimately, your argument appears to be an argument from incredulity, which is especially unconvincing coming from a cultural difference of two millennia.
        It definitely is an argument from incredulity, and why shouldn't it be? The eyewitnesses, including the original disciples, couldn't possibly be fooled by a fake christ since they obviously knew what Jesus looked like. We know at least some them were still around up to (or at least close to) 70 AD. Don't you think an impostor claiming to be christ and being endorsed by folks in the church during that time would have been scrutinized by them? These were folks that saw a man rise from the dead, walk on water, raise the dead, calm the storm, or at least heard those stories from eyewitnesses themselves, so it's even less probable Judeo-Christians who never even laid eyes on Jesus would have believed a false christ with an objective to overthrow the Roman Empire. Argument from incredulity is strong here.

        Then there's also a strong argument from silence. They said nothing about individuals claiming to be christ in any of the letters. When you couple that with the fact Paul taught of such a false christ who had yet to appear and even claim himself God, yet said nothing of any such present impostors posing problems of this nature, adds more weight to the fact there were no issues about Judeo-Christians being swayed by these people. Not even John mentions this. He mentions "antichrists" believing false doctrines only who were apparently promptly expelled for such beliefs.

        Rev 20 teaches there is a resurrection ("first resurrection"), which includes a preliminary judgement, before the main resurrection ("second death") after a thousand year period. Post/A-mills believe the first is spiritual, thus we're currently in that period where a resurrection already occurred in a sense -- on a spiritual level. This is pretty eerily close to what Hymenaeus and Philetus believed. I don't think there's any reason to suspect they believed this occurred physically. It would be interesting to do a study of ECFs to pinpoint where Pre/Post/A-mill belief came from in church history and their interpretations of Rev 20, because then maybe we could get a clearer point of historical contact.

        Comment


        • #19
          What's also interesting is that to assume pre-70 Judeo-Christians were susceptible to false christs, you'd have to believe a certain environment of disarray and disorganization with the early church, and this is a popular argument skeptics make when attacking the historical validity of the early faith. But we know as apologists who have studied this closely that the early period of the church prior to 70 AD had firm controls in place that kept the original traditions of the eyewitnesses sound.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            Fair enough.

            I guess this takes me back to the likelihood first century Christians, in an apostolic era, would have been fooled by this, and the necessity of Jesus' warning to them vs. the clear necessity of his warning to future generations of the church instead.
            The Paulician sect, an adaptation of adoptionism, worshiped its priests as Christ. Adoptionism was an early heresy which would admit of the possibility of others being Christ.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            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


            • #21
              Originally posted by Darfius View Post
              You do know Christian means "little Christ", right?
              No, it doesn't. Christianoi = people of Christ, like Romaioi = people of Rome.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                The Paulician sect, an adaptation of adoptionism, worshiped its priests as Christ. Adoptionism was an early heresy which would admit of the possibility of others being Christ.
                I think it would be quite the stretch to say this occurred prior to 70 AD. Is there any proof of this? And I hope you realize this is a belief of the second century skeptics use to try and explain the "evolution" of theology in the early Christian church. They even try and argue Paul was an adoptionist. And false doctrine still doesn't quite cut it in how Jesus described individual false christs that would appear and fool many. It really sounds you're grasping at straws here, OBP, to try and MAKE it fit within a 70 AD context.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  I think it would be quite the stretch to say this occurred prior to 70 AD. Is there any proof of this? And I hope you realize this is a belief of the second century skeptics use to try and explain the "evolution" of theology in the early Christian church. They even try and argue Paul was an adoptionist. And false doctrine still doesn't quite cut it in how Jesus described individual false christs that would appear and fool many. It really sounds you're grasping at straws here, OBP, to try and MAKE it fit within a 70 AD context.
                  There is certainly someone grasping at straws here. Given our extreme paucity of evidence, it is hardly a stretch to posit that a belief known in the second century could have been around a century earlier. I am aware that some skeptics try to paint Paul as an adoptionist, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to refute the idea that adoptionism was around then. How is it a stretch to posit that false christs might have false doctrine?
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    There is certainly someone grasping at straws here. Given our extreme paucity of evidence, it is hardly a stretch to posit that a belief known in the second century could have been around a century earlier. I am aware that some skeptics try to paint Paul as an adoptionist, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to refute the idea that adoptionism was around then. How is it a stretch to posit that false christs might have false doctrine?
                    Well, if this is the argument you're presenting as a preterist to defend your belief, that's pretty sad.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      Well, if this is the argument you're presenting as a preterist to defend your belief, that's pretty sad.
                      Your opinion is duly noted. As it happens, I'm not arguing "as a preterist"; I'm presenting what I've learned about the early church in my reading, which happens to be compatible with a preterist viewpoint. I'm not the one coming up with novel interpretations of scripture in some attempt to bolster my point of view.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        Your opinion is duly noted. As it happens, I'm not arguing "as a preterist"; I'm presenting what I've learned about the early church in my reading, which happens to be compatible with a preterist viewpoint. I'm not the one coming up with novel interpretations of scripture in some attempt to bolster my point of view.
                        I wasn't arguing a point of view of Matthew 24:5 to bolster anything. I still think that's a correct interpretation, but I also conceded that it's very speculative, and I can take it or leave it as just an interesting caveat. It does nothing to bolster my overall stance as a futurist. As I've shown, just the idea of false chrsists, as per Jesus' warning, appearing in the first century does enough to discredit a preterist stance.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          No, it doesn't. Christianoi = people of Christ, like Romaioi = people of Rome.
                          It's hard to tell if you were lying or just an idiot here. The word translated Christian in Acts 11:26 is "Christianous", which is Greek, not hybridized Greek and Latin like you gave.

                          Suffix
                          -ιανός • (-ianós) m
                          Added to nouns (chiefly neuter) to give a diminutive form, expressing small size or affection.
                          ‎Χριστός (Christós) + ‎-ιανός (-ianós) → ‎χριστιανός m (christianós, “Christian”)
                          ‎Χριστός (Christós) + ‎-ιανός (-ianós) → ‎χριστιανή f (christianí, “Christian”)

                          https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ιανός

                          It was a derogatory term by the pagans calling followers of Christ "little Christs" the same way a liberal might call a conservative a "little Hitler". But what began as mockery became a badge of honor, since:

                          Scripture Verse: 2 Corinthians 3

                          18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          and:

                          Scripture Verse: 2 Chronicles 7

                          14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                            It's hard to tell if you were lying or just an idiot here. The word translated Christian in Acts 11:26 is "Christianous", which is Greek, not hybridized Greek and Latin like you gave.

                            Suffix
                            -ιανός • (-ianós) m
                            Added to nouns (chiefly neuter) to give a diminutive form, expressing small size or affection.
                            ‎Χριστός (Christós) + ‎-ιανός (-ianós) → ‎χριστιανός m (christianós, “Christian”)
                            ‎Χριστός (Christós) + ‎-ιανός (-ianós) → ‎χριστιανή f (christianí, “Christian”)

                            https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ιανός

                            It was a derogatory term by the pagans calling followers of Christ "little Christs" the same way a liberal might call a conservative a "little Hitler". But what began as mockery became a badge of honor, since:

                            Scripture Verse: 2 Corinthians 3

                            18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            and:

                            Scripture Verse: 2 Chronicles 7

                            14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            That actually sounds even more plausible than my theory. I don't think Jesus would have said "Many will come in my name" if he wasn't associating them to the church somehow.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." - Matthew 24:5.

                              I believe the common argument here is individuals rising up and claiming that they themselves are Christ. An example would be Charles Manson who directly claimed he was Christ (note that there aren't that many individuals that directly claimed they were Christ, as a lot of so-called Christ claimants of religious cults didn't actually claim they were Christ, though they were dubbed that way by the mainstream media).

                              I contend that this is not the case and not how it should be translated. I believe Jesus was actually referring to the fake Christians of Matthew 7:21-23.

                              I have a few reasons to support this, but the main reason is that the passage doesn't make sense as false Christ claimants. How can they come in the name of Christ at the same time declaring that they themselves are Christ? In order to get the meaning of a person claiming to be Christ themselves, you'd have to assume the phrase "in my name" should really mean something like "in my disposition," which doesn't seem to support the words used.

                              I think it should instead be translated "For many shall come in my name, professing I am Christ; and shall deceive many." He was referring to false Christians (faith healers, prosperity teachers, outright Christian scam artists... typically the ones that get the most national attention), and he was referring to the generation of the 21st century where the word "many" has the most meaning, because of, once again, our communication technology.

                              As an aside, can preterists demonstrate there was even one individual (let alone "many") who claimed to be Christ prior to 70 AD and fooled many?
                              IMO, the passage is a warning against false claimants to Messiahship. If that is correct, it would fit right in with the very strong emphasis in Saint Matthew’s Gospel upon the Davidic Kingship and Messiahship of Jesus. Just my guess. Might He be thinking of the events of the Jewish War against Rome ?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                No, it doesn't. Christianoi = people of Christ, like Romaioi = people of Rome.
                                It’s analogous to “Pompeiani”, “partisans of Pompey”, or to “Caesariani”, “partisans of Caesar”.

                                IOW, it is a political epithet - a “Christianus” is a “partisan/adherent of Christus”. Which might cause difficulties for Christians. Quite apart from the fact that Christus had been (1) crucified (2) put to death by Roman Imperial authority.
                                Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 04-21-2020, 11:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X