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

Post-trib futurist view.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I believe they were inspired and that their statements were true and accurate based on Ps 90:4. How were they to know the Lord, other than the Lord himself, wouldn't come for 2,000+ finite years?
    I'm glad that works for you...seriously! It just does not work for me.

    How do you square this with verse 1:7?

    Rev 1:7 - "...Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen....

    Where are they watching from?
    "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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
      I'm glad that works for you...seriously! It just does not work for me.

      How do you square this with verse 1:7?

      Rev 1:7 - "...Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen....

      Where are they watching from?
      You'll have to be specific as to the furturist problem because I don't see a problem with that verse. It hardly works from a preterist view. Not only do I have a problem seeing the Lord's "coming" as representing the 70 CE war (which is an issue unto itself), but this was 40 years after Christ's crucifixion, when many of the leaders of the Sanhedrin (i.e. Caiaphas) that oversaw Jesus' trial had probably passed away.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
        Well, it was a long slow process of study and prayer. Specifically it was the preponderance of evidence, not just one specific thing. It started with Hank Hanegraaff's Book "The Apocalypse Code" . This book got me to thinking about and reading up on the whole genre of Preterist end times prophecy. Then, I read a book from Dee Dee's website (the website no longer exists) but it was an old book that detailed all the atrocities of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. I think the pieces just all fell into place. Then the verses in 1 John and Revelation make more sense:

        1 John 2:18 - "Little children, it is the last time*: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time*..."
        *King James in in a minority here with "Last Time", most translations say "Last Hour".
        1 John 2:22 - "... Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. ... "

        1 John 2:18 - "... even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time ..."

        Ok. If before hand it was "the last hour?" what is it now? The argument, "now there are many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last hour."

        According to v.22 there are yet antichrists today, according to the argument it therefore "the last hour."

        What is it I'm not understanding here?

        Rev 1:1 - "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;..."
        Rev 1:3 - "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand..."
        It is my persuasion Rev 1:1 should really read, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must suddenly come to pass;..."


        Paul Says in 2 Thessalonians: 2 Thess 2:1,2 - "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
        2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand...."
        James said: 5:7,8 - "7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh..."

        Peter said: 1 Peter 4:6,7 - "6 For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 7But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer..."

        When you take all these into consideration with the Olivet discourse, it seems odd to think all these Apostles got the timing that wrong.
        The Apostles did not get it wrong. The second coming of Christ has been and still is within God's reach, as it was then, even now. [As there are still antichrists 1 John 2:18.]

        Thank you, though, for giving your thinking on this.
        Last edited by 37818; 07-05-2015, 02:51 AM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          You'll have to be specific as to the furturist problem because I don't see a problem with that verse. It hardly works from a preterist view. Not only do I have a problem seeing the Lord's "coming" as representing the 70 CE war (which is an issue unto itself), but this was 40 years after Christ's crucifixion, when many of the leaders of the Sanhedrin (i.e. Caiaphas) that oversaw Jesus' trial had probably passed away.
          How in the futurist position do those who pierced him see him return? Just because some or many of the leaders are gone doesn't mean all. The Preterist view would see this verse and the Olivet discourse and understand that the divine Revelation in this passage from Christ Himself, was the answer to his prophecy in Matt. 24:34. The language is pretty much identical.

          Matt. 24:34 - "34 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. "

          So, please explain how it fits in the futurist paradigm.
          "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


          • #20
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            1 John 2:22 - "... Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. ... "

            1 John 2:18 - "... even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time ..."

            Ok. If before hand it was "the last hour?" what is it now? The argument, "now there are many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last hour."

            According to v.22 there are yet antichrists today, according to the argument it therefore "the last hour."

            What is it I'm not understanding here?
            The specific language that John is writing in.
            The Bible was never written to us...it was specifically written to the people who rec'd it. The first rule of proper exegesis of any scripture is to recognize...it's not written to us. Proper exegesis would start there and realize that John was talking about a specific group of people who had left this particular church and (was probably, but not necessarily) indicative of churches around Asia at the time. It was a spirit that was prevalent at that time. That doesn't mean we can't learn from and use Scripture and be obedient to it's precepts...



            It is my persuasion Rev 1:1 should really read, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must suddenly come to pass;..."
            Well... you almost have to in order to remain a futurist... do you have a basis for that rendering? I couldn't find a single version that renders it this way. Also, how do you render Rev 1:3 and 1:7...was the time not near? How do the ones who pierced Him see him?


            The Apostles did not get it wrong. The second coming of Christ has been and still is within God's reach, as it was then, even now. [As there are still antichrists 1 John 2:18.]
            I would say that you need to show that they are the same ones John was talking about

            Thank you, though, for giving your thinking on this.
            Your very welcome!
            "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


            • #21
              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
              How in the futurist position do those who pierced him see him return? Just because some or many of the leaders are gone doesn't mean all. The Preterist view would see this verse and the Olivet discourse and understand that the divine Revelation in this passage from Christ Himself, was the answer to his prophecy in Matt. 24:34. The language is pretty much identical.

              Matt. 24:34 - "34 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. "

              So, please explain how it fits in the futurist paradigm.

              "This generation" is a different issue dealt with by futurists which I won't get into now because I want to focus on Rev 1:7. The verse in Rev 1:7 that you quoted from your previous post…


              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
              Rev 1:7 - "...Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen....

              ... is worded in a way that it doesn't necessarily say every eye will see his actual coming in the clouds, but will see him at some progressive point during this event, presumably as his judgment commences (as per Matthew 13:41, Romans 14:11).

              However, we should also note that many of the Jewish leaders that had some participation in Christ's crucifixion undoubtedly converted after the resurrection. We can infer this from John 12:42 and Acts 6:7, thus will resurrect as saints during his return, and these could be the crucifixion perpetrators ("even those who pierced Him"), or at least in association Rev is referring to.

              Or we could say that those who passed away will see this from the spirit world (Rev 6:9-10 implies they can see earthly events since they somehow know they had not been avenged yet), and thus the phrase "every eye will see him" can only work in a literal sense in both the spirit world and a modern physical world with access to global media technology at the time of his return. One way or another, I don't see it as a difficulty from a futurist perspective.

              As I said earlier, it's actually much worse for preterism, as many of the members of the Sanhedrin at the time of his crucifixion were likely dead before 70 CE. We know for a fact Caiaphas died thirty years before the event. According to this source, members had to be of an "advanced age." So not only is it a stretch to speculate even some of the perpetrators of the crucifixion saw the event unfold forty years later, but we also know that "every eye" that wasn't in Jerusalem at the time didn't see this event either. And I highly doubt those who were in Jerusalem mourned over Christ as these events were taking place. So, if one views Rev 1:7 as problematic for futurism, from a preterist perspective, I don't see any explanation that can make it at all compatible with Rev 1:7.

              Comment


              • #22
                A note from my friend Ken Gentry (which I received late last evening): "I usually point out that Peter specifically declares that a day is a thousand years to God, but John says nothing of the sort anywhere in Revelation. The people to whom John writes are suffering (Rev 1:9; 6:9; etc) and he tells them in several different ways and in several different places that the events are near (Rev 1:1, 3; 6:10; 10:6; 22:7, 10; etc)."

                Ken recently completed writing, and has sent to his publisher, the manuscripts of a two-volume commentary on the Greek text of Revelation, which is expected to be in book stores by the first of next year, if not by Christmas.

                Comment


                • #23
                  For me, the resurrection of Rev. 20:4-5 and the expectations of the early church wrt the Didache (which I agree with the 90 A.D. dating) are strong proof that the world deceiver had not appeared and that the thousand years had/has not commenced
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  - Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The appearing of Christ in His second coming is "as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west."

                    "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." -- Revelation 1:7.

                    I am also of the persuasion that means even the yet unresurrected dead will at that suddenness of His appearing see Him too.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      "This generation" is a different issue dealt with by futurists which I won't get into now because I want to focus on Rev 1:7. The verse in Rev 1:7 that you quoted from your previous post…





                      ... is worded in a way that it doesn't necessarily say every eye will see his actual coming in the clouds, but will see him at some progressive point during this event, presumably as his judgment commences (as per Matthew 13:41, Romans 14:11).

                      However, we should also note that many of the Jewish leaders that had some participation in Christ's crucifixion undoubtedly converted after the resurrection. We can infer this from John 12:42 and Acts 6:7, thus will resurrect as saints during his return, and these could be the crucifixion perpetrators ("even those who pierced Him"), or at least in association Rev is referring to.

                      Or we could say that those who passed away will see this from the spirit world (Rev 6:9-10 implies they can see earthly events since they somehow know they had not been avenged yet), and thus the phrase "every eye will see him" can only work in a literal sense in both the spirit world and a modern physical world with access to global media technology at the time of his return. One way or another, I don't see it as a difficulty from a futurist perspective.

                      As I said earlier, it's actually much worse for preterism, as many of the members of the Sanhedrin at the time of his crucifixion were likely dead before 70 CE. We know for a fact Caiaphas died thirty years before the event. According to this source, members had to be of an "advanced age." So not only is it a stretch to speculate even some of the perpetrators of the crucifixion saw the event unfold forty years later, but we also know that "every eye" that wasn't in Jerusalem at the time didn't see this event either. And I highly doubt those who were in Jerusalem mourned over Christ as these events were taking place. So, if one views Rev 1:7 as problematic for futurism, from a preterist perspective, I don't see any explanation that can make it at all compatible with Rev 1:7.
                      yeah, well....it's obvious we're just rehashing old arguments and neither of us are going to change our minds based on what the other posts so...nice talking to you. You futurists carry on!
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        For me, the resurrection of Rev. 20:4-5 and the expectations of the early church wrt the Didache (which I agree with the 90 A.D. dating) are strong proof that the world deceiver had not appeared and that the thousand years had/has not commenced
                        I love you Bill, and we have been through this before; but since you repeat your points I'll repeat mine.

                        1. There is no single "world deceiver" = a single Antichrist mentioned in the Bible. The concept is a myth with which certain terms in the Bible have been associated, such as "the man of lawlessness", etc. F. F. Bruce, who believed in the concept, notes, in his commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC) ― in an excursus on the subject ― that the rise and development of the expectation of Antichrist was examined in 1895 by Bousset (The Antichrist Legend). Bousset concluded, from a study of the relevant literature, that the Christian expectation was adapted from an existing Jewish conception [Note: not from Jesus' teaching]. I bought and read Bousset's book and was appalled by the nonsense that was included in countless versions of the myth that were believed by masses of people throughout many generations before and after the time of Jesus. I wish I could find my copy of the book so I could post examples of what to my mind is so outlandish about versions of the myth throughout centuries,

                        Jesus never mentioned a singular "Antichrist", and neither did any of his Apostles, except John's cryptic mention in passing of what the Christians to whom he was writing had "heard" ― not what they had been taught. The Antichrist myth was prevalent at that time as it was in various forms before and after; but is was not a part of dominical or apostolic teaching. That's my conclusion from reading the relevant literature. I'll grant you that most scholars disagree with me, of that I am well-aware.

                        2. With regard to the Didache, I find John A. T. Robinson's six-page exegesis to be persuasive. Six pages is too much for me to transcribe all at once, given the severity of my Stasis Dermatitis. I may lay it out in serial paragraphs in BL301 after I have finished Robinson's Can We Trust the New Testament. Likewise, perhaps, excerpts from The Antichrist Legend, if I can find my copy.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                          yeah, well....it's obvious we're just rehashing old arguments and neither of us are going to change our minds based on what the other posts so...nice talking to you. You futurists carry on!
                          Personally, I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind (I realize that may be a futile endeavor here at tweb). I engage in these discussions to see how both sides of the argument hold up to scrutiny (if anything, just for myself and my own belief), in case I might have missed something or in case I'm not up to date on the latest arguments.
                          Last edited by seanD; 07-06-2015, 02:36 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                            I love you Bill, and we have been through this before; but since you repeat your points I'll repeat mine.
                            I've investigated Robinson's dating, and I find it presuppositional of the 70AD tribulation. Much of what he says argues circularly around that disputed connection.

                            1. There is no single "world deceiver" = a single Antichrist mentioned in the Bible.
                            Actually, there is, technically.

                            New American Standard Bible
                            Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.


                            The concept is a myth with which certain terms in the Bible have been associated, such as "the man of lawlessness", etc. F. F. Bruce, who believed in the concept, notes, in his commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC) ― in an excursus on the subject ― that the rise and development of the expectation of Antichrist was examined in 1895 by Bousset (The Antichrist Legend). Bousset concluded, from a study of the relevant literature, that the Christian expectation was adapted from an existing Jewish conception [Note: not from Jesus' teaching]. I bought and read Bousset's book and was appalled by the nonsense that was included in countless versions of the myth that were believed by masses of people throughout many generations before and after the time of Jesus. I wish I could find my copy of the book so I could post examples of what to my mind is so outlandish about versions of the myth throughout centuries,
                            I firmly believe that the tradition of a world deceiver CAN be gleaned from scripture. and was by the early church. Calling it a "myth" is question begging.

                            Jesus never mentioned a singular "Antichrist", and neither did any of his Apostles, except John's cryptic mention in passing of what the Christians to whom he was writing had "heard" ― not what they had been taught.
                            I did not mention "antichrist". I mentioned the "world deceiver" of the Didache, who the writer equates with Paul's "man of sin" and Jesus' "abomination that causes desolation."

                            The Antichrist myth was prevalent at that time as it was in various forms before and after; but is was not a part of dominical or apostolic teaching. That's my conclusion from reading the relevant literature. I'll grant you that most scholars disagree with me, of that I am well-aware.
                            And I have come to a different conclusion, which may or may not be because I lend more credence to the early church fathers I don't mind admitting that. I feel that their closeness to the events and their high context speaks far louder than modern scholars trying to analyze their words 2000 years removed from their society.

                            2. With regard to the Didache, I find John A. T. Robinson's six-page exegesis to be persuasive.
                            WRT dating?

                            Six pages is too much for me to transcribe all at once, given the severity of my Stasis Dermatitis. I may lay it out in serial paragraphs in BL301 after I have finished Robinson's Can We Trust the New Testament. Likewise, perhaps, excerpts from The Antichrist Legend, if I can find my copy.
                            Please take your time dear friend. I am trying to get my hands on The Didache A Commentary by Kurt Niederwimmer so I can perhaps be either persuaded more or dissuaded a bit.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thanks for your articulate response, Bill.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              I've investigated Robinson's dating, and I find it presuppositional of the 70AD tribulation. Much of what he says argues circularly around that disputed connection.
                              What did you read? Certainly not Robinson's Redating the New Testament?

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              New American Standard Bible
                              Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
                              ??? Are you equating the devil and Satan with the Antichrist? Perhaps I misunderstood you rather badly when I thought your reference to the world deceiver was a reference to Antichrist; I assumed your comments were related to the texts in 1 John.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              I firmly believe that the tradition of a world deceiver CAN be gleaned from scripture. and was by the early church. Calling it a "myth" is question begging.
                              If the world deceiver is the devil and Satan as your quote above seems to indicate, I thought that guy was always at work in every generation, without being a being that is supposedly waiting to be manifest in some future time.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              I did not mention "antichrist". I mentioned the "world deceiver" of the Didache, who the writer equates with Paul's "man of sin" and Jesus' "abomination that causes desolation."
                              I am not that familiar with the Didache, as it is not Scripture and therefore has never been of interest to me.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              And I have come to a different conclusion, which may or may not be because I lend more credence to the early church fathers I don't mind admitting that. I feel that their closeness to the events and their high context speaks far louder than modern scholars trying to analyze their words 2000 years removed from their society.
                              I could not care less about modern scholars analyzing the words of the early church fathers. It is Scripture that is my focus of interest.

                              Originally posted by John Reece
                              2. With regard to the Didache, I find John A. T. Robinson's six-page exegesis to be persuasive.
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              WRT dating?
                              I misspoke when I used the word "exegesis". I was not referring to exegesis, nor is Robinson's 6-page commentary exegesis: it is about nothing other than dating.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Please take your time dear friend. I am trying to get my hands on The Didache A Commentary by Kurt Niederwimmer so I can perhaps be either persuaded more or dissuaded a bit.
                              I would be interested to see his exegesis of the "world deceiver".

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I should have known better than to put up a post just before my bedtime when my geriatric brain and memory are at their weakest. I am referring to my having totally forgotten the text of revelation 20:1-3, which did not occur to me until I had gone to bed and could not sleep after the memory of the text belatedly came to mind. I just had to get out of bed and come back to the computer to correct such an embarrassing failure of memory.

                                Back to bed...

                                Comment

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