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

Awkward questions, especially for preterists

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by DeaconZ View Post
    It is the Rome of John's era.

    Tacitus describes Rome as "where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

    Next.
    How was Rome the mother of abominations if abominations existed before Rome? Why would John be astonished at seeing Rome? If Rome was the harlot, who do you think the beast was?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Darfius View Post
      How was Rome the mother of abominations if abominations existed before Rome?
      I think Tacitus's quote says it all, and he was a Roman who was not friendly to Christians from what I read.

      Why would John be astonished at seeing Rome?
      He was astonished by the vision itself. It was a disgusting and disturbing antithesis to the Lamb.

      If Rome was the harlot, who do you think the beast was?
      The beast is secular power that continues to rise up again and again throughout history to oppose God's people: secularism. Particularly for John, it involved the deification of the secular government in the edicts to worship the false god Caesar. He is coming again even now, just as he has throughout history.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by DeaconZ View Post
        I think Tacitus's quote says it all, and he was a Roman who was not friendly to Christians from what I read.
        Then you think wrong. A pagan historian giving his opinion doesn't adequately prove a fulfillment of prophecy. Besides, you don't seem to be grasping that the "mother" of abominations entails the origin of abominations. And as I said, abominations existed long before Rome.

        He was astonished by the vision itself. It was a disgusting and disturbing antithesis to the Lamb.
        Nope.

        Scripture Verse: Revelation 17

        6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

        When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.

        © Copyright Original Source



        He was not astonished until he saw the harlot and specifically her.

        The beast is secular power that continues to rise up again and again throughout history to oppose God's people: secularism. Particularly for John, it involved the deification of the secular government in the edicts to worship the false god Caesar. He is coming again even now, just as he has throughout history.
        It sounds like you're saying that Rome was both the harlot and the beast, which we can all agree would be ridiculous. You also need to look up the definition of secular. A government issuing religious edicts is not a secular government.

        I can't believe I even have to respond to this crap. "The beast is secularism!" Which verse in particular convinced you of that? That was sarcasm. You clearly haven't read the Bible.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Darfius View Post
          Besides, you don't seem to be grasping that the "mother" of abominations entails the origin of abominations. And as I said, abominations existed long before Rome.
          It doesn't say "Mother of ALL abominations." Rome is indeed the mother of many abominations. DeaconZ makes sense in following the comments of Tacitus. If not Rome itself, perhaps the system of idols that make up the Roman religion. Or do you think it's the "Great and Abominable Church"? (1 Nephi 13:5-6, 8, 26; 14:3, 15-17 etc.)


          Originally posted by Darfius View Post
          If Rome was the harlot, who do you think the beast was?
          Obviously Rome. The seven-hilled city. The seven kings. I hope you're not going to twist that also.

          Originally posted by Darfius View Post
          I can't believe I even have to respond to this crap.
          Nobody said you had to; it's your choice to respond. You're the one posting these supposedly "awkward questions". And it's not that we haven't read the Bible. We just haven't read whatever has been filling your mind with all this nonsense.
          When I Survey....

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
            I can't believe I even have to respond to this crap. "The beast is secularism!" Which verse in particular convinced you of that? That was sarcasm. You clearly haven't read the Bible.
            Then don't respond.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Faber View Post
              It doesn't say "Mother of ALL abominations." Rome is indeed the mother of many abominations. DeaconZ makes sense in following the comments of Tacitus. If not Rome itself, perhaps the system of idols that make up the Roman religion. Or do you think it's the "Great and Abominable Church"? (1 Nephi 13:5-6, 8, 26; 14:3, 15-17 etc.)
              So when the text says mother of abominations, you think what is implied is not all, but rather "many?" You're dumb. You don't even agree with Deacon, you're just content to let prophecy mean anything and nothing, just so long as you never have to see its fulfillment.

              Obviously Rome. The seven-hilled city. The seven kings. I hope you're not going to twist that also.
              How can Rome be both the beast and the woman riding the beast? Do you preterists even try anymore or does your hermeneutic just involve spinning a giant wheel of interpretations?

              Nobody said you had to; it's your choice to respond. You're the one posting these supposedly "awkward questions". And it's not that we haven't read the Bible. We just haven't read whatever has been filling your mind with all this nonsense.
              It's my duty to respond to nonsense in the thread I created to deal with nonsense. And no, you clearly haven't read the Bible if you think Rome can be both the beast and the woman riding the beast. That's so stupid that I feel dumber just repeating it.

              Comment


              • #67
                Darfius, I reserve the right to disagree with you, and to express my opinions about your views. I try to be careful not to make any personal attacks on your person. If I have, I ask your forgiveness.

                But likewise, I would expect you to do the same with respect to me and the others who strongly disagree with you.
                When I Survey....

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Faber View Post
                  Darfius, I reserve the right to disagree with you, and to express my opinions about your views. I try to be careful not to make any personal attacks on your person. If I have, I ask your forgiveness.

                  But likewise, I would expect you to do the same with respect to me and the others who strongly disagree with you.
                  Fair enough. I personally don't care what people call me, so long as I am right and they're wrong, but I can respect this request.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Scripture Verse: Daniel 12

                    At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    When did this happen?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                      I am a firm believer in the Socratic method of asking awkward questions to one's opponent until they are forced to admit to the contradictions and/or inaccuracies in their position. And because I want to be able to pose these questions in no particular order, I will simply pose them as I think of them in this thread.

                      First question: Is Isaiah 14 eschatological? If so, was it fulfilled in the past or will it be fulfilled in the future? Who is the King of Babylon/Assyria? What does God mean when He says this man will "be destroyed on the mountains of Israel?"
                      3. Nothing is said in Isaiah 14 about anyone "be[ing] destroyed on the mountains of Israel" - Ezekiel is no more Isaiah than Billy Graham is John Knox. It would be endlessly confusing to treat Billy Graham as though he were John Knox - and the same goes for the Prophets. We have to respect the individuality of each, and not treat them as though they were interchangeable.

                      2. Three possibilities at least:

                      a. an unnamed world-conqueror. I think that is too vague to be likely to be who is meant.

                      b. Cyrus the Great (559-29). He has the advantage of being killed in battle, as the text requires. There is a difficulty in that he is well-spoken of elsewhere in Scripture, though this objection is not insuperable. There is also the difficulty that the oracle would then be 150 years later than Isaiah - though that is not insoluble either.

                      c. Sargon II (721-05). He was Assyrian, which fits the anti-Assyrian tone of parts of Isaiah. He was killed in battle. He was a great conqueror. He was king of Babylon, in that he was the overlord of the kings of Babylon, who were under Assyrian control from the 720s to the fall of Assyyria in 609. I think he is a much more impressive *Helel ben Shachar* than Cyrus the Great. Another detail in favour of c., is that the Assyrian war-goddess Ishtar was associated with the planet Venus; so if *Helel* = Venus, the oracle might then contain a dig at the goddess of war.

                      3. I think the passage is adequately accounted for if it is an oracle directed against a fallen Assyrian king. I don't see that this understanding of it makes it any less Holy Scripture. As for its being eschatological, I see no hint of that.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Faber View Post
                        Actually that was a Mormon that suggested Sennacherib. But they can't always be wrong.

                        Take another look at Isaiah 14:25. It didn't say anything about the king being destroyed on the mountains of Israel. It said that the Lord would break (לִשְׁבֹּ֤ר, or crush) Assyria (אַשּׁוּר֙, or Asher) and trample (אַשּׁוּר֙) him (pronoun implied) on God's mountains.

                        This actually took place during the lifetime of Isaiah and King Hezekiah. Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, where he was eventually assassinated by two of his sons. Read 2 Kings 19:20-36.

                        Unless you believe that "the Assyrian" is symbolism for the king of Assyria. Just remember that carelessness with accurate interpretations can be a source of error.
                        Assyria, like Babylonia, contained zikkurats - temple-towers that were artificial mountains of the gods. That might give extra point to Isaiah 14.25.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          3. Nothing is said in Isaiah 14 about anyone "be[ing] destroyed on the mountains of Israel" - Ezekiel is no more Isaiah than Billy Graham is John Knox. It would be endlessly confusing to treat Billy Graham as though he were John Knox - and the same goes for the Prophets. We have to respect the individuality of each, and not treat them as though they were interchangeable.

                          2. Three possibilities at least:

                          a. an unnamed world-conqueror. I think that is too vague to be likely to be who is meant.

                          b. Cyrus the Great (559-29). He has the advantage of being killed in battle, as the text requires. There is a difficulty in that he is well-spoken of elsewhere in Scripture, though this objection is not insuperable. There is also the difficulty that the oracle would then be 150 years later than Isaiah - though that is not insoluble either.

                          c. Sargon II (721-05). He was Assyrian, which fits the anti-Assyrian tone of parts of Isaiah. He was killed in battle. He was a great conqueror. He was king of Babylon, in that he was the overlord of the kings of Babylon, who were under Assyrian control from the 720s to the fall of Assyyria in 609. I think he is a much more impressive *Helel ben Shachar* than Cyrus the Great. Another detail in favour of c., is that the Assyrian war-goddess Ishtar was associated with the planet Venus; so if *Helel* = Venus, the oracle might then contain a dig at the goddess of war.

                          3. I think the passage is adequately accounted for if it is an oracle directed against a fallen Assyrian king. I don't see that this understanding of it makes it any less Holy Scripture. As for its being eschatological, I see no hint of that.
                          Scripture Verse: Isaiah 14

                          24 The LORD Almighty has sworn, “Surely, as I have planned , so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen. 25 I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          What was that you were saying about nothing being said about the oppressor being destroyed in Israel? When God says "my land", where do you think He means?

                          Sargon did less to oppress Israel than both his predecessor Shalmanesser and successor Sennacherib. And he did not die in Israel. And the world did not rejoice at his death. Try again.

                          I also note that you have no problem with Cyrus fulfilling the prophecy two centuries later, but there is "no evidence" for a future, eschatalogical fulfillment. We contradict ourselves when we are being stupid.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                            Scripture Verse: Isaiah 14

                            24 The LORD Almighty has sworn, “Surely, as I have planned , so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen. 25 I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            What was that you were saying about nothing being said about the oppressor being destroyed in Israel? When God says "my land", where do you think He means?

                            Sargon did less to oppress Israel than both his predecessor Shalmanesser and successor Sennacherib.
                            What I said was: "Nothing is said in Isaiah 14 about anyone "be[ing] destroyed on the mountains of Israel". Nor is anything said about "the oppressor being destroyed in Israel". Not even in verses 24-27, though they come close. A defeat can be "crushing", yet be survived, even reversed.

                            Are we entitled to think that Isaiah took the same view of Sargon II as we might ? We, with the advantage of hindsight, know he was, in fact, less of a danger than those two were - it need not follow that his Jewish contemporaries did not see him as a threat.
                            And he did not die in Israel. And the world did not rejoice at his death. Try again.
                            ##The only references to Israel in Isaiah 14 that I can see occur in verses 1 and 2, 25 and 32 - the last of these being a reference to "Zion". Not in the oracle against Helel/the king of Babylon - and certainly not as descriptions of him. So why does it matter that Sargon II did not die in.Israel, when Isaiah 14 nowhere says the "king of Babylon" did or would do so ? Nothing is said in Isaiah 14 about anyone "be[ing] destroyed on the mountains of Israel", or anywhere else in Israel - so Sargon II's failure to do so is not an objection to the identification of him as the "king of Babylon" - not, that is, unless v. 25 is referring back to the "king of Babylon"; but does it, and what grounds are there to think that it does ? "Destroyed" is a stronger term than "crushed". One allows for no recovery, the other leaves some room for the possibility.

                            The chapter seems to be divided into 4 parts: Verses 1-2 - an oracle of comfort to Israel

                            Verses 3-23 - a lament over the "king of Babylon"

                            Verses 24-27 - an anti-Assyrian oracle

                            Verses 28-32 - an anti-Philistine oracle of woe. Part of the difference between is that we divide the text differently.

                            More importantly perhaps, the Philistines no longer exist. The Assyrian Empire, like that of Babylon, is no more; those great cities that Isaiah may have known of are not only no more, they are utterly desolate. But in Isaiah's day, and later, they were formidable threats to Israel & Judah. So it makes sense for Isaiah to have lifted up his voice against both Assyria & Babylon. How would it make sense for the Prophet to denounce a king of Babylon who has neither kingdom nor throne, nor armies nor kingship nor even existence ? It is the Prophet's text that speaks of the "king of Babylon" - so what else would he mean, if not a king of Babylon ?

                            Is 14.25 part of the same oracle as the lament over Helel ? Do the words "I will crush the Assyrian in My land" refer to the "king of Babylon", "Helel" ? ISTM that the words are unspecific. Verse 24 is: "The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand" - this looks like the beginning of a different oracle from the preceding; if that is correct, verse 25 need be no objection to the identification of "Helel", the "king of Babylon", with Sargon II. "[T]he Assyrian" is translated "Assyria" in the commentary of Hans Wildberger (Isaiah 13 to 27, p.78).

                            "And the world did not rejoice at his death." That is from verse 26 - so, is the passage about a named Assyrian ruler ? No; all the text says by way of identification is "the Assyrian", which is not very helpful. There is also the question of whether this oracle refers to the lament over the "king of Babylon".

                            That part of the world that mattered for the purposes of the four compositions that make up Isaiah 14 - IOW, the region of the Middle East affected by Assyrian attempts to expand the Assyrian Empire - probably did rejoice. That the Maoris & Eskimos did not did so, does not matter; Isaiah's world - like that of Homer, & of the Assyrians themselves - was much smaller than that familiar to modern cartographers. If a Near Eastern text of the OT period refers to "the whole earth", "the four quarters", or uses similar expressions, such expressions ought to be understood according to the meaning the first readers would have taken them to have; not according to the meaning that we moderns might take them to have. Isaiah's ministry was not passed among us, but among the Jews of the 8th & 7th centuries BC.

                            It needs to be shown that the oracles in Isaiah 14 has anything to do with eschatology - IMHO, such a reading of it is unnatural. A passage may seem unfulfilled from our POV - but is our POV the right one ?
                            I also note that you have no problem with Cyrus fulfilling the prophecy two centuries later, but there is "no evidence" for a future, eschatalogical fulfin llment. We contradict ourselves when we are being stupid.
                            ## Yes, that's what I said. What do you mean by "eschatology" ? AFAICS, the word refers to events at the end of the world, like the Last Judgement. The death of Cyrus took place as an historical event, over 2,500 years ago, and the world went on as before - so how his death can with any propriety be called eschatological, I don't see. And where is the contradiction ? So why not explain what his death has to with eschatology ? I wish you would, because if we are using the same word in different senses, without knowing we are doing so, the only result will be confusion and misunderstanding. At the same time, perhaps you could explain why the passage is to be understood eschatologically; I don't suppose I would be alone in appreciating an explanation. The only appearance of any support for such an idea that I can see, is that parts of the oracles in Isaiah 14 have not been fulfilled. That STM rather weak support for the inference that the entire (?) chapter awaits a future fulfilment. I think the idea creates more difficulties than it solves. Given that Isaiah 13 is an oracle against Babylon, it would make a lot of sense if the editors of the book annexed the equally anti-Babylonian oracles of 14 to it.
                            Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 08-24-2016, 12:40 AM.

                            Comment

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