Tribulational Flavors

[Dee Dee Warren]

Steve, actually I would recommend Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar or End Times Fiction by Gary DeMar (which is a very easy read).

For Open View, it is the belief that God does not know the future exhaustively. It has many variations but that is the short summary.

[gooner]

that was a great nights read....I voted futurist but then regretted it when the double fulfillment option was embraced by a number of posters although I do not believe in "double fulfillment " but double reference..ie rather than a passage having two seperate fullfilments a passage contains two prophecies each having its own fulfillment.The Virgin in Is 7 is a good example.
BUT
Luke written post 70?uuuummm don't think so.Acts follows Luke and knows nothing of Pauls martyrdom....I can not concede that Luke would omit such a glorious event from the Acts as Pauls martyrdom.

[Spiritus Naturae]

:rockon: The future...ahhh yes, the future...any Steve Miller Band fans out there? Hmmm, wonder what his stand is on the Tribulation?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Spirit I accidentally deleted your PM. For a definiton of NeoHymeaneanism see www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

[Spiritus Naturae]

<snif> ...that's ok...deletion can happen to the best of us, I suppose...<snif>

[ryanedwards]

Hey Dee Dee,
Did you really say Hymenaeanism (Full Preterism) is heresy? If so, why? If not, what did you say is?
ryan

[Dee Dee Warren]

I will PM you ryan. This forum is not for the discussion of unorthodox eshcatology.

[Glenn P]

Today @ 10:37 AM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I will PM you ryan. This forum is not for the discussion of unorthodox eshcatology.

Huh? But there dispies are here discussing eschatology aren't there?

[Socrates]

09-14-2003 @ 08:58 AM post located here
gooner:

I voted futurist but then regretted it when the double fulfillment option was embraced by a number of posters although I do not believe in “double fulfillment” but double reference. Ie rather than a passage having two seperate fullfilments a passage contains two prophecies each having its own fulfillment. The Virgin in Is 7 is a good example.

Yeah, double reference is right. Dr Fruchtenbaum teaches this.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Taught nowhere in the passage.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:46 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Taught nowhere in the passage.

:soc: Is this referring to the previous post on the previous page?

gooner:

I voted futurist but then regretted it when the double fulfillment option was embraced by a number of posters although I do not believe in “double fulfillment” but double reference. Ie rather than a passage having two seperate fullfilments a passage contains two prophecies each having its own fulfillment. The Virgin in Is 7 is a good example. ”

:soc: Yeah, double reference is right. Dr Fruchtenbaum teaches this.

:soc:Why not taught, if that's what you mean? There is a double reference in Isaiah 7 to both the coming Messiah in the future and Isaiah's own son for the benefit of Ahaz himself. As the AiG article The Virginal Conception of Christ says:

Scripture Verse:

Isaiah 7:1–18:24

1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

2 Now the house of David was told, ‘Aram has allied itself with Ephraim’; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, ‘Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smouldering stubs of firewood — because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 ‘Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.’

7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

‘It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.

9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’’

10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 ‘Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.’

12 But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.’

13 Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria.’ (NIV)

The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural form of ‘you’ in the original Hebrew of v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who was present, v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would be destroyed (vv. 15–17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated by a the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew) and the house of David as a whole (indicated by the plural form). Some anti-Christians, starting with the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimhi, have failed to understand this and misinterpreted the child Immanuel as a sign to Ahaz, possibly Ahaz’s godly son Hezekiah.

The word for virgin here is ‘almah. Some liberals and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means ‘young woman’, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young woman’s bearing a son should be a sign — it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates it as παρθενος (parthenos), the normal word for virgin. Later Jews, such as Trypho, Justin Martyr’s (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi (11th Cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that ‘almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos.

However, even Rashi admitted that the word could mean ‘virgin’ in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. In the KJV, the word is translated ‘virgin’ in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), ‘maid’ in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and ‘damsels’ in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of ‘almah in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage). Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, betûlah, ‘emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).’ It is qualified by a statement ‘neither had any man known her’ in Gen. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to ‘almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of bet&ucirc;lah is used of a married woman. The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of ‘almah in Is. 7:14 as ‘virgin’, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Please read more carefully. I said taught nowhere in the passage. And it isn't. If you wish to say it is possible to have a double fulfillment or double reference in principle I would not necessarily disagree, but it is not necessary for there to be one, and I would prove that other passages rule it out. The comparison with the Isaiah passage is completely apples and oranges, and there are other ways to view it other than the way you presented above as well. To dogmatically state that the Olivet must have a double fulfillment is unwarrented, for it is taught nowhere in the passage whatsoever.

[Paul]

I voted Historicist :)

It looks like I am a small minority here.

I understand Historicist to be someone who opines that the prophecies extend throughout the history of the Church or salvation history until the 2nd Coming or Last Judgment.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes that would be correct. That is one long generation though.

[Paul]

Here's an interesting outline still in progress from a Catholic:

http://www.trumpet7.com/end_times.htm

Aspects of this are very appealing to me right now, though some parts I definitely disagree with -- at least at the moment.

The generation mentioned in the Gospels ... I don't know what exactly to think about that. But I was thinking of not just the prophecies in the Gospels but also the prophecies in the Apocalypse.