Originally posted by DesertBerean
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
Special place in hell (for preterists)
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostHellenization, however, had its limitations. For example, areas of southern Syria that were affected by Greek culture entailed mostly Seleucid urban centres, where Greek was commonly spoken. The countryside, on the other hand, was largely unaffected, with most of its inhabitants speaking Syriac and clinging to their native traditions.[12]
Archaeological evidence alone gives only an incomplete picture of Hellenization; it is often not possible to state with certainty whether particular archaeological findings belonged to Greeks, Hellenized indigenous peoples, indigenous people who simply owned Greek-style objects or some combination of these groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenization
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Fair or not, my impression of the currently fashionable evangelical scholar, Michael Heiser, is that he does the same thing as Darfius is doing in this thread - correctly sheds light on the background of some of what is referenced in the Bible; in this case, the Greek background of Tartarus, but then uses that to then smuggle in the assumption that the Bible then affirms as true what is said about these other things. The same thing could be said about 1 Enoch; people notice that it is cited in Jude, but then extrapolate from this that everything else said in that book must be true. For starters, no serious scholar that I'm aware of thinks that 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch, but rather that it was written several millennia after Genesis takes place."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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostFair or not, my impression of the currently fashionable evangelical scholar, Michael Heiser, is that he does the same thing as Darfius is doing in this thread - correctly sheds light on the background of some of what is referenced in the Bible; in this case, the Greek background of Tartarus, but then uses that to then smuggle in the assumption that the Bible then affirms as true what is said about these other things. The same thing could be said about 1 Enoch; people notice that it is cited in Jude, but then extrapolate from this that everything else said in that book must be true. For starters, no serious scholar that I'm aware of thinks that 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch, but rather that it was written several millennia after Genesis takes place."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostFair or not, my impression of the currently fashionable evangelical scholar, Michael Heiser, is that he does the same thing as Darfius is doing in this thread - correctly sheds light on the background of some of what is referenced in the Bible; in this case, the Greek background of Tartarus, but then uses that to then smuggle in the assumption that the Bible then affirms as true what is said about these other things. The same thing could be said about 1 Enoch; people notice that it is cited in Jude, but then extrapolate from this that everything else said in that book must be true. For starters, no serious scholar that I'm aware of thinks that 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch, but rather that it was written several millennia after Genesis takes place.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIs that what I said in the post you initially responded to?
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostIf you believe as Darfius does that unless you're a futurist, you're going to hell, then you will also be mostly ignoredOriginally posted by Darfius View PostYes, this response has become popular since I began arguing futurism here with gusto again. "I don't have the ability to defend my arguments, Darfius, but wait(!), I don't even need to because I'm always ready to meet my Maker, whether I believe and act on the truth or not." Fraid not, Piglet.
I did a Bible search for "signed by the seal of the cross" and came up emptyhanded. Mind citing the chapter and verse for me? Or is that another one of those "holy" phrases that sounds nice but is not the sort of worship the Father seeks because while you honor Him with your lips, your heart is far from Him?
I meant that your preterism is merely a half-hearted belief that is reactionary to "the traditions of your fathers". You did not actually seek out the truth either way but were content with secondhand information. Because you are a decent enough person to wish to identify as Christian, but not good enough to actually be one. You "have a form of godliness, but deny its power."
Originally posted by seanD View PostYou can ignore me all you want, bro. No skin off my nose. It's a free country (so far)Last edited by Littlejoe; 04-01-2020, 04:29 PM."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostFair or not, my impression of the currently fashionable evangelical scholar, Michael Heiser, is that he does the same thing as Darfius is doing in this thread - correctly sheds light on the background of some of what is referenced in the Bible; in this case, the Greek background of Tartarus, but then uses that to then smuggle in the assumption that the Bible then affirms as true what is said about these other things. The same thing could be said about 1 Enoch; people notice that it is cited in Jude, but then extrapolate from this that everything else said in that book must be true. For starters, no serious scholar that I'm aware of thinks that 1 Enoch was actually written by Enoch, but rather that it was written several millennia after Genesis takes place.
Obviously that doesn't mean Christians should therefore consider Phaenomena, Thais, Agamemnon and whichever of Epimenides' works are therefore divinely inspired
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostI asked the question because I said:
As he clearly states here:
to which you responded:
I thought it was clear ignoring you would be tied to that belief that preterist were not in the "saved" camp. If that's not what you believe that it's safe to say you will not be ignored (at least by me). But, I'm not keen on the fight anymore. I believe what I believe, based on where I believe God led me...it's going to be hard to dissuade me otherwise and I know you feel the same so...
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostIf you believe as Darfius does that unless you're a futurist, you're going to hell, then you will also be mostly ignored.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostYes, this response has become popular since I began arguing futurism here with gusto again. "I don't have the ability to defend my arguments, Darfius, but wait(!), I don't even need to because I'm always ready to meet my Maker, whether I believe and act on the truth or not." Fraid not, Piglet.
I did a Bible search for "signed by the seal of the cross" and came up emptyhanded. Mind citing the chapter and verse for me? Or is that another one of those "holy" phrases that sounds nice but is not the sort of worship the Father seeks because while you honor Him with your lips, your heart is far from Him?
I meant that your preterism is merely a half-hearted belief that is reactionary to "the traditions of your fathers". You did not actually seek out the truth either way but were content with secondhand information. Because you are a decent enough person to wish to identify as Christian, but not good enough to actually be one. You "have a form of godliness, but deny its power."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
-
If there ever was a case to make that preterists are destined to hell, I think Matthew 24:30-31 would be a pretty strong case, only because I honestly don't believe preterists actually believe that that DOESN'T represent Jesus' return and that it instead represents the 70 AD war. There's just no way I can believe they can make that logical leap and actually truly believe that. In fact, that's the one passage that convinces me beyond doubt preterism is false and its adherents are being totally disingenuous and even bordering on lying.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIf there ever was a case to make that preterists are destined to hell, I think Matthew 24:30-31 would be a pretty strong case, only because I honestly don't believe preterists actually believe that that DOESN'T represent Jesus' return and that it instead represents the 70 AD war. There's just no way I can believe they can make that logical leap and actually truly believe that. In fact, that's the one passage that convinces me beyond doubt preterism is false and its adherents are being totally disingenuous and even bordering on lying.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
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI actually believe that it represents the AD 70 war, in which Jesus came "on the clouds with power". I am not lying or being the slightest bit disingenuous when I say that; there are quite valid reasons for believing so (Dee Dee laid out the case quite clearly in her commentary). Your post says rather more about you than it does me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostAssuming I believe you (and that's a real stretch for me to do because it's just totally illogical to believe that about that passage), what makes you think Jesus was using symbolism there? The OD is not at all like Rev, which is arguably rife with at least some metaphor and symbolism. There's no indication anywhere in the entire discourse he was using coded words or symbolism as opposed to telling it straight forward and just how things would happen. Why should I believe he all of a sudden switches to symbolism only at that moment?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 One Bad Pig View PostAgain, you're showing rather more about you than me with this post. There is plenty of symbolism in the Olivet Discourse (it is, after all, referred to as "the little apocalypse", even by non-preterists). That you're too ignorant to see it doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe try fixing your ignorance rather than spouting off willy-nilly?
And btw, I'll also add, it makes it even more disingenuous to me to assume you believe Matthew's description is not the same event as described in 1 Thess. I mean it's practically the same description, albeit with a little more detail on Paul's part.Last edited by seanD; 04-03-2020, 01:45 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThat's what I thought.
And btw, I'll also add, it makes it even more disingenuous to me to assume you believe Matthew's description is not the same event as described in 1 Thess. I mean it's practically the same description, albeit with a little more detail on Paul's part.
There are two events described in 1 Thess; the end of chapter 4 is a different literary unit than the beginning of chapter 5, raising a different subject (note that 4:9, 4:13, and 5:1 use identical language in introducing their new subject). The beginning of chapter 5 is describing the same event as the OD, yes. What does that have to do with your ignorance?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
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment