Tribulational Flavors

[Athanasius]

Dee Dee,

I have a new article that will soon be published on my website explaining why I don't believe Mat 24:34 limits the scope of the OD to the time of the apostles. I'll let you know when it is up.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sure thing.

/ot Dan sent me a fantastic preview of a new article.

[Glenn P]

Today @ 03:47 PM post located here
Athanasius:

Hi Theonomy,

I can see why you would say that, and I would agree with you were it not for the fact that there are such differences between the Olivet account in Luke and the account in Matthew (see http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm). One seems to point to a 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, and the other to an as yet unfulfilled seige of it.

There is a simple explanation for this, which does not require any recourse to speculation about another future fulfilment. When Matthew wrote about it, it was unfulfilled, but when Luke wrote about it, he could do so with greater clarity in referece to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, since Luke wrote after 70AD.

Glenn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Glen, I had never heard that reason before. Interesting. I will add that to my databank, LOL, but I think even if Luke wrote before 70AD that there is no such problem at all. I never saw it, and I heard Tommy Ice try to explicate it and it was a bramblebush.

[Glenn P]

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Glen, I had never heard that reason before. Interesting. I will add that to my databank, LOL, but I think even if Luke wrote before 70AD that there is no such problem at all. I never saw it, and I heard Tommy Ice try to explicate it and it was a bramblebush.

De De,

I agree fully. Even things were different, and Luke had been written before 70AD, there would be no issue between Matthew and Luke, and neither would require a delayed futurism (i.e. double fulfilment).

I only made that point because Athanasius rested his case on the differences between matthew and Luke, so i was just offering a reason for these differences.

(thanks for the Dean's pick, btw )

[Dee Dee Warren]

It is an interesting thing to consider for sure. I am very interested in Athanasius' article that he alluded to. He is one of the best futurist discussion partners that I have encountered. He will make an argument worth reading and refuting.

Your post on double fulfillment though really struck me as very good. No one is so tenacious on double fulfillments of numerous other passages, why this one?

[Bill the Cat]

Dee Dee, don't be surprised if you see some of Ath's arguments in the wrestlefest

[Dee Dee Warren]

I won't be surprised, in fact I will be glad because I really am tired of some of the inane arguments of past debates.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now Theonomy, you had better be rooting for me in the Wrestle Fest :)

[Athanasius]

Dee Dee,

Is it true that orthodox preterists were booted off of another Theology Forum site? Which one was it? They did not bother to distinguish between heretical and orthodox preterists?

Some of my best friends are orthodox preterists, so if it is true, I think that is very unfair! I also think it is a mistake for churches to write premillennialism into their statements of faith, although I myself am a premillennialist.

[Bill the Cat]

Well, I'm gonna stay away from the goof balls in our camp...

Sorry, I knew how much you were waiting for quotes from the Omega Code and all. :tom:

[RevSteve45]

Dee Dee,

You said,

I can barely describe my first reaction when I firs heard of preterism, but suffice it say I thought it was one of the nuttiest things I had ever heard until I really examined the foundations, and well... the rest is history. I came kicking and screaming but here I am.

Dee Dee, I still DO think Preterism is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard. I find it absolutely AMAZING that people can think the Tribulation has already happened, considering the cataclysms that are described in Revelation. But then again, my FIRST exposure to Preterism, has been on this site.

Believe it or not, about the only doctrine held by "orthodox" Christians that I think is nuttier, is Hyper-Dispensationalism or Acts 9 Dispensationalists.

At least Preterists limit their views to Eschatology.

In His Service,
Steve

[Dee Dee Warren]

08-04-2003 @ 05:15 PM post located here
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

Dee Dee, I still DO think Preterism is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard. I find it absolutely AMAZING that people can think the Tribulation has already happened, considering the cataclysms that are described in Revelation.

You'll get used to us and our totally amazing quirk of believing what the Bible says about the timing of events. That is just a little pet peeve of us preterists.

But then again, my FIRST exposure to Preterism, has been on this site.

Lucky you. But that was obvious by the way you did not,and still do not, seek to understand the view you are criticizing. Learn first, speak later is a good lesson. It is one I have had, and still do, learn the hard way, as you have with some of the embarassing statements you have made. But now at least you are beginning to understand another view within Christianity. Maybe one day you will be reasonable enough to say with the likes of Jaltus that while he disagrees he thoroughly understands how a reasonable person comes to this conclusion.

Believe it or not, about the only doctrine held by "orthodox" Christians that I think is nuttier, is Hyper-Dispensationalism or Acts 9 Dispensationalists.

What about Open View? We have a bunch of those nuts here. Egad, one of them is a co-owner.

At least Preterists limit their views to Eschatology.

We are working to take over the whole Bible in my new cult of DDism.

[RevSteve45]

Dee Dee,

It is not true that I do not seek to understand the views of Preterists. However, the information that I have found so far, mostly concentrates on FULL Preterism, which you say you are not. So I am still looking for a full exlanation of what Preterists like you believe.

Where could I find out what Open View is? That is another theological position I have never heard of.

In His Service,
Steve

[studyhound]

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

It is not true that I do not seek to understand the views of Preterists. However, the information that I have found so far, mostly concentrates on FULL Preterism, which you say you are not. So I am still looking for a full exlanation of what Preterists like you believe.

Where could I find out what Open View is? That is another theological position I have never heard of.

In His Service,
Steve

Hey Rev.

R.C. Sproul Does a great job in explaing the view Of a O.P. (orthodox Preterist) In his book the last days according to Jesus. Pick it up it is not to diffuclt to read.

<><