Our Featured Member Article: Raising Cain and Abel By Dee Dee Warren

[Dee Dee Warren]

Etc - I have a suggestion. Can you wait until I post something short that has to do with your theory and not to do with the Olivet/Thess issue? I think it is necessary because I think what I will post makes your theory impossible - and while you may thinik my position on Olivet/Thess is unlikely - it is not impossible, ie there is nothing that blatantly contradicts something that is very clear nor does it create an absolute contradiction. I think if I am allowed to deal first with this major problem I see with your theory which is directly on point to my article (while this Olivet/Thess is more of a veer a bit off the main point) it will show how such things MUST govern our evaluation of the possibilities with the remaining passages. This may be a bit though with my health and my schedule - but that is what I would like to see.

I don't have an issue with you quoting our private correspondence - the only hesitation I have is that I did not deal with issues in that correspondence in isolation but as part of a very large argument which presumes knowledge made in points made throughout so that the argument would be phrased (maybe) differently if I were dealing with Thess/Olivet as a stand-alone issue.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

...the only hesitation I have is that I did not deal with issues in that correspondence in isolation but as part of a very large argument which presumes knowledge made in points made throughout.

Understood. I am trying to be very careful with quotations. And I am open to having it pointed out that I have misunderstood you.

Can you wait until I post something short that has to do with your theory and not to do with the Olivet/Thess issue? I think it is necessary because I think what I will post makes your theory impossible.

I have a couple of passages in mind right now that I see as terribly inconvenient, perhaps even fatal, for my theory. You may be thinking of the same points, or you may have something else in mind that I have missed, but the major obstacle to my view, as I see it, is the transformation of the living in 1 Corinthians 15.51-53. The resurrection of the dead I can (with some difficulty) read as a private event that went unnoticed. The transformation of the living is, of course, a problem of a different order of magnitude. One would have to take the attached resurrection literally, but the transformation symbolically. And that would, I think, make Paul see red.

If you have spotted another fatal flaw, go ahead and post it. I will wait. Well, even if it is the same flaw, or closely related, I will wait till you tell me that it is before proceeding.

What this will do, if it holds, is push my position into something like a basic futuristic premillennial view. I do not see that view as my final resting place, as it were, but it would be the position with which I would most closely identify at present.

Which will force me to warp a few timing statements, of course, but what I hope to show is that the preterist view, too, warps timing statements. The only view that would appear not to is the hyperpreterist one, but it warps the meaning of resurrection, a much more fatal flaw, historically speaking, than the ignoring of any timing statement.

Awaiting your mini-post.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

To better explain myself on warping timing statements, I actually do not fudge any of them. I do not understand them all, but I hold them in tension with other concepts till such time as I can make sense of it all. Sort of a holding pattern.

Just to clarify.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I may see now the source of at least some of our confusion:

Actually I spent about two of those 56 pages on that issue [Matthew 8.11 and Luke 13.28-29].

The issue that I meant was only the synthesis of these two passages, not the whole fabric of the regathering. You did not seem to address what I perceived to be the main issue. But, then, I was probably not clear enough on that. There is one spot in which I know of a distinct misunderstanding. At one point I said: Notice that the patriarchs are already in the kingdom, with the gentiles coming to join them. You took that to mean that the patriarchs were already there when Jesus spoke those words. I in fact meant that they were there by the time the gentiles got there. We were speaking past each other on that and probably other points.

Your answer is a little bit confusing, probably partly because of our mutual confusion overall. You seem to take these two passages as referring to the same thing as Matthew 24.31, which you seem to place in 70, yet you think that any potential gathering of patriarchs would have happened at the resurrection of Jesus 40 years earlier. I am just not seeing how the trumpet could blow both in 30 and in 70, yet it all be the same event.

But it was your insistence on harmonizing that seemed to me to skirt the issue. Luke has patriarchs and prophets being gathered in, and your answer made it sound like: Well, if you insist on reading Luke that way, then try the resurrection as the time of gathering. Which would make the Lucan passage no longer parallel at all to the others, or at least Matthew 24.31, yet you did seem to regard it as such.

Hence my confusion. Do you regard those three passages as parallel, and what actual event(s) to you link them with? The destruction of Jerusalem? The gentile mission? Hudson Taylor in China? (Just kidding on that last one, though I am sure that there is some relationship.)

Thanks.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Etc it is going to be a bit. I am actually getting worse health wise and am trying to see the doctor.

[Etcetera]

By the way, Dee Dee, not to sound flaky or anything, but I have pretty much already given up on the Terry idea. Which puts me right back in eschatological limbo.

About the only thing that I can say for certain right now is that I am not a dispensationalist, and not a hyperpreterist. Everything else is fair game.

If your fatal flaw was a different one than mine, I would still like to hear it, just to see how the passages come together.

Thanks again.

Etcetera.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Etc, the fatal flaw was what you came up with plus one other concept. I would like to still address it for the sake of the readers.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Our posts crossed.

Sorry to hear about your ill health. What kind of sickness is it? (If it is not too personal....)

My prayers go with you.

Etcetera.

[gsmoluk2002]

Dee, Dee said:

As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.

This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6…

Some how I grabed the wrong Thread this is the correct one. @gsmoluk2002

It is not your fault you were niave and laid all of your trust in a church and not in the Holy spirt. I Pray you have learned a lesson and now have your faith in Jesus alone! @gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

[QUOTE=gsmoluk2002]Dee, Dee said:

As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note  that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.
 
This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6… 

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak! I have yet to see any pudding? Simple to prove? All talk and no pudding! Dee, Dee. @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

[QUOTE=gsmoluk2002]

Dee, Dee said:

 As a former lock, stock, and barrel dispensational premillennialist Christian of the Calvary Chapel school of thought, I used to believe the necessary fiction (to make premill coherent) that there were multiple physical resurrections of the dead. For those unfamiliar with this schema, it is believed that the righteous dead are raised at the Rapture after which time Christ will set up His earthly Millennial Kingdom, but that the unsaved dead have to wait until the end of the Millennium at which point they are raised, along with the righteous who died during the Millennium, and then the Final Judgment takes place. Note that this involves at least two distinct resurrection events separates by a thousand years or so (a pre-tribber would add an additional seven years and a mid-tribber would add an additional three and one-half years to this figure). With the popularity of the Left Behind series (you know, the 67th book of the Bible – don’t get worked up, that was satirical), this has become an increasingly popularized view. But is it Biblical? The answer is a resounding, and astonishingly simple to prove, NO.
  
 This can be done in much greater detail, but I will try to extract and dismantle a few common arguments. First, the premillennial believer will inevitably turn to Revelation 20:4-6… 

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak! I have yet to see any pudding? Simple to prove? All talk and no pudding! Dee, Dee. @gsmoluk2002

an d of course your reply is just dripping with pudding.

[gsmoluk2002]

an d of course your reply is just dripping with pudding.

It is evident to me! You (studyhound) have a problem with me, and thats ok but if you think your aragance, and sarcasim is going to be ofensive to me you are wrong"Studyhound." @gsmoluk2002

[studyhound]

It is evident to me!

well good for you.

You (studyhound) have a problem with me

Nope not a one.

and thats ok but if you think your aragance, and sarcasim is going to be ofensive to me you are wrong"Studyhound."

Ooh that’s a big charge, I point out that your post is lacking in any kind of proof and you call me arrogant, and if I recall you also used sarcasm in your post, with all your pudding comments, so please be so kind to dismount your high horse.



TY

[gsmoluk2002]

well good for you.

Nope not a one.

[/font]


Ooh that’s a big charge, I point out that your post is lacking in any kind of proof and you call me arrogant, and if I recall you also used sarcasm in your post, with all your pudding comments, so please be so kind to dismount your high horse.



TY

First of all Proof is in the Pudding is a "reference" to something! Secondly I have no high horse in which to sit upon, nor do I choose to sit upon one! Thirdly you have been sarcastic on a few ocasions and in the next post I will put your comments on the line for you to meditate over! Forth if you choose to continue in your sarcasim, and aragance it will be most "Juvenial' of you! Have a good night.

@gsmoluk2002

[gsmoluk2002]

Enough with the jibber-jabber, either bring it or ….

Yay I think I found my own personal troll!!!

Dee Dee had Troy
X and Ezraarah

I fell special......

Well if we're nice I sure who ever wrote the bot program can write another.

I can just see it.....No he's mine .....no he's mine.......

Did we run him off??

Faramir!?! Did you scare him off??

(I know we could use a few more futurists to trounce ))

I don't know about redy, but I am ready.

So here is the proof in the pudding! @gsmoluk2002