PDA

View Full Version : Dee Dee, convert me to preterism! (HOF thread)



Gavin
December 11th, 2002, 07:59 PM
I know next to nothing about end times prophecy. I understand vaguely the different positions of preterism and futurism. I agree with just about everything you post, but I am not sure what to make of preterism.

If you can convince that preterism is biblical, I will convert. I know this is something you have thought a lot about so I will look forward to reading anything you have to say. Will you walk me through a straightforward case for preterism?

I will keep an open mind, but I will not convert to preterism if it is not taught by Scripture.

Futurists feel free to chime in as well.

Calvinist
December 11th, 2002, 08:02 PM
This is just not right...

Dee Dee Warren
December 11th, 2002, 08:04 PM
Wow!!! How did you know that title would get my attention!! Man, am I dreaming?? Okay, Gavin no problem, but let's go slow okay? Give me a bit of time.. I am finishing up a response to Smilax right now but I will get back with you soon.... or maybe you have a specific question/issue you would like to talk about?

Dee Dee Warren
December 11th, 2002, 08:06 PM
What you are whining about Cal... you are a preterist too.

smilax
December 11th, 2002, 08:16 PM
Gavin, it might help if you list your objections to the (brief) case I made for it in our debate on the sign gifts. That way, we won't have to reinvent the wheel.

Calvinist
December 11th, 2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
What you are whining about Cal... you are a preterist too.

I am whining because, generally speaking, it's better to come to a doctrinal position based on reason and study instead of what appears to be "puppy-love"... aawww... :p

smilax
December 11th, 2002, 08:26 PM
That has to be the most out-of-character post of Calvinist's ever.

Dee Dee Warren
December 11th, 2002, 08:26 PM
That was a really stupid thing to say.. but then again, you're a Calvinist.

Gavin
December 11th, 2002, 08:27 PM
Sure, Dee Dee, just take it slow and walk me through it. Maybe you could start by explaining the difference between full-preterism (neo-hymenwhatever) and your view. Just remember that I will be gone for a few weeks during Christmas, starting early next week.

Smilax, was I arguing against preterism in "informal debate II"? I did not even realize it! :D

Gavin
December 11th, 2002, 08:30 PM
I am whining because, generally speaking, it's better to come to a doctrinal position based on reason and study instead of what appears to be "puppy-love"... aawww...
Just for the record, I am asking a well-read preterist to give her case for preterism, so that, by reason and study, I can make a decision about it. Its just a form of education, Calvinist, not "puppy love".

I would like you to give me your thoughts on futurism, too, Calvinist. My motivation for starting this thread is just to learn about an issue I know nothing about, thats all.

So don't be jealous.;)

Calvinist
December 11th, 2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
That was a really stupid thing to say.. but then again, you're a Calvinist.

I am with Mark Twain in thinking that any time you feel the need to modify an adjective you shouldn't.

Dee Dee Warren
December 11th, 2002, 08:32 PM
Yeah, you're right. The word "calvinist" summed it up nicely.

Calvinist
December 11th, 2002, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Gavin

Just for the record, I am asking a well-read preterist to give her case for preterism, so that, by reason and study, I can make a decision about it. Its just a form of education, Calvinist, not "puppy love".

I would like you to give me your thoughts on futurism, too, Calvinist. My motivation for starting this thread is just to learn about an issue I know nothing about, thats all.

So don't be jealous.;)

The irony is that I am a fellow preterist...

Gavin
December 11th, 2002, 08:38 PM
The irony is that I am a fellow preterist...

Really? What was all that in the back alley about debating DD about preterism?

I can never tell if people are being facetious or not! :doh:

Calvinist
December 11th, 2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Gavin


Really? What was all that in the back alley about debating DD about preterism?

I can never tell if people are being facetious or not! :doh:

No, see I am studying to debate her on postmillenialism (heresy)

vs. Amillenialism (Truth).

Gavin
December 11th, 2002, 11:10 PM
No, see I am studying to debate her on postmillenialism (heresy)

vs. Amillenialism (Truth).
Wow, three preterists. This could be pretty interesting . . . .

drbrumley
December 11th, 2002, 11:49 PM
Oh Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gavin, for the record my friend, the best bet is to study scriptures for yourself and let the holy spirit lead you. One thing you must understand is if your a good debater, you can prove just about anything and Dee Dee is a good debater. No question about that. But when you study preterism (even the kind Dee Dee promotes) Which is what I consider partial preterism, you will find that spiritualizing the scripures as they do, tend to get things pretty warped. You will see this after I take care of her in our debate. So hold off making a leap of faith in this manner.

Thank you and Dee Dee, I meant no ill will with this post, but I cannot allow someone to be swayed (even if they are willing) to subscribe to any form of preterism.

smilax
December 12th, 2002, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley
But when you study preterism (even the kind Dee Dee promotes) Which is what I consider partial preterism, you will find that spiritualizing the scripures as they do, tend to get things pretty warped.Daniel ii, 39: "And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth."

John vi, 51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Hebrews x, 21: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."

No spiritualizing here! A literal bear will take over the world, Jesus's body turned into Wonderbread, and after He ascended, He sat down on top of God's right hand.

Gavin, if you'd like, I can give you the basics to relieve Dee Dee of the burden. I have all the time in the world.

Solly
December 12th, 2002, 02:10 AM
Gavin,

I have also been looking into praeterism (I am the President of the DDW fan club after all), and post millenialism - related but not equal issues. See DD's thread "Greetings from an orthodox priest [not, :eek:] praeterist"

While you are learning praeterism, you should try pushing DD to a Reformed view!!

peace in Him

Dee Dee Warren
December 12th, 2002, 03:09 AM
Hey DrB... No offense taken at all. I snatch compliments whereever I can, and I notice that you acknowledged my debating prowess. Thanks... you are about to learn just how good of a debater I actually am ;)

efta777
December 12th, 2002, 03:43 AM
Wow, three preterists. This could be pretty interesting . . . .
Make that four.

I don't claim to be as strong on the subject as the others, but if I find a place where I can add anything, I'll do my best.

Dee Dee Warren
December 12th, 2002, 03:58 AM
Dear Gavin:

Here is where I would like to start if that is okay, and that is by asking you to consider a few verses, and let's talk about them. Our discussion is going to focus now almost solely on the Olivet Discourse and we we can work out to more difficult passages from there. So I have an assignment for you. Please read Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. These are going to be our foundational passages.

After you read those passages, I want you to focus on and give some good thought to Matthew 24:34 and its parallels and Matthew 16:27-28 and its parallels.

With regards to your question about my view and Hymenaeanism.. it short it is this. Hymeneans deny any future phsyical coming of Christ, future physical resurrection event (there are many different species of this denial), and future final judgment. Thus, they are creedally heterodox, but more importantly, Scripturally denounced in their denial of the resurrection. Please see the link in my signature line for more information.

Dee Dee Warren
December 12th, 2002, 04:42 AM
Dear Smilax:

Did you get that file okay (eat your heart out Cal, you amillennial wimp)?? And look for my response on 2 Peter 3 to up later this morning... or after work this evening. I am off to the gym.

cirisme
December 12th, 2002, 01:38 PM
Hey, Dee Dee, didn't you and I do something like this a while ago? :confused: ;)

Gavin
December 12th, 2002, 02:25 PM
Dee Dee, I have read the requested material. Here are some initial thoughts.

1) I do not know how to account for Matthew 24:34 (and the parrallel Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32) under a futurist model. My initial thought was that if the word can mean "race" instead of "generation" then that solves the problem, but then you still have to account for Matthew 16:27-28:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

So I am not really sure how to deal with these verses is futurism is true.

Further discussion of the word "generation" would be appreciated. Also, are there people who claim that these verses were added later by copiers? I heard that once. What do most futurists do with these verses?

2) If Christ returned in 70 AD, when was Revelation written? Can you prove it was before this? If Revelation was written AFTER Christ's return, it seems very strange for Jesus to say, "I am coming soon" repeatedly in it (22:7, 12, 20, etc.). And yet I have always been told John wrote this book about 90 when he was on Patmos.

3) When I read Matthew 24, I get the sense that the coming of Christ is a really big deal. I read that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places" (7). I read that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (14). And most of all, I read:

"29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[3]
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call , and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other" (29-31, cf. I Thessalonians 4:16-17).

So the obvious question is, did all this stuff happen in 70 AD, or does the version of preterism you hold to leave room for all this to happen in the future? If the former, I will need some pretty heavy proof. If the latter, how can Matthew 24:34, in context, refer to 70 AD while the preceding verses do not? I need some help here.

4) Finally, I would be curious what age we are in now if Christ has already returned. Is he coming a third time now? What are we still doing here? Are we in the thousand year time?

Thanks for any info you can provide. All preterists (and futursts)are welcome to chime in along with Dee Dee.

Gavin
December 12th, 2002, 02:28 PM
Gavin, for the record my friend, the best bet is to study scriptures for yourself and let the holy spirit lead you.

I think there is a place for communal learning, DrB, especially within the body of Christ. I once read that "growth in isolation tends toward distortion". I am just trying to learn about preterism by dialoguing about it with preterists. Don'd panic, I won't convert unless it is totally clear from Scripture. And you are welcome to post here as well.

Dee Dee Warren
December 12th, 2002, 02:29 PM
Dear Gavin:

Great questions!! Do you mind if I ask everyone who participates if we can take it one point at a time and exhaust those points first?? I will post soon on the first of your points.

Gavin
December 12th, 2002, 02:32 PM
thats fine

efta777
December 12th, 2002, 02:37 PM
1) I do not know how to account for Matthew 24:34 (and the parrallel Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32) under a futurist model. My initial thought was that if the word can mean "race" instead of "generation" then that solves the problem, but then you still have to account for Matthew 16:27-28:

just an interesting note: One of my study Bibles I've noticed tends to interpret verses in a futuristic interpretation generally, but it's interesting what happens in this verse: it says this:



This is one of the hardest veses in the gospels to interpret. Various views exist for what 'generation' means. 1) some take it as meaning "race" and thus as an assurance that the Jewish race will not pass away. But it is very questionable tha the Greek term (genea) can have this meaning. Two other options are possible. 2) Generation might mean "This type of generation" and refer to the generation of wicked humanity. Then the point is that humanity will not perish because God will redeem it. 3) Generation may refer to "The generation that sees the signs of the end" (v. 30), who will also see the end itself. In other words, once the movement to the return of Christ starts, all the events connected with it happen very quickly, in rapid succession.

What you'll notice, is that a) it pretty much disqualifies the use of "race" as a translation and b) of the three interpretations it offers, it fails to mention the obvious literal translation.

smilax
December 12th, 2002, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Gavin
1) I do not know how to account for Matthew 24:34 (and the parrallel Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32) under a futurist model. My initial thought was that if the word can mean "race" instead of "generation" then that solves the problem, but then you still have to account for Matthew 16:27-28:That would be "genos," not "genea." There are forty-two references in the New Testament. Here is a great example of its use:

Matthew i, 17: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."Yay.
So I am not really sure how to deal with these verses is futurism is true.You could say that Psalms xii, 7 proves the generation is eternal. On one of the other threads, this sleight of hand was attempted.
Further discussion of the word "generation" would be appreciated.http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html.
Also, are there people who claim that these verses were added later by copiers? I heard that once.Check your sources. The same people probably came up with JEDP and Q. Actually, come to think of it, it was probably the Jesus Seminar, with their question-begging assumption that Jesus could not have said anything eschatological, and therefore, everything eschatological is a redaction. (And what are you left with after you finish cleaning up your colored beads? Jesus the Holy Hippy.)
What do most futurists do with these verses?http://www.conservativeonline.org/articles/preterism/preterism_has_prophesy_been_fulfilled.htm is an excellent attempted (that's the key word) refutation by Thomas Ice himself.

Dee Dee Warren
December 12th, 2002, 02:57 PM
Ice falls flat. I personally would not hesitate to debate him.

smilax
December 12th, 2002, 03:01 PM
Where's that picture of the penguins?

Dee Dee Warren
December 12th, 2002, 03:19 PM
"What’s happening is that Preterism is challenging futurism. Idealism is not a factor out there and Historicism is not a factor. Preterists are rising up, coming mainly out of the Reconstructionist Movement, to do this. What is their theme verse? Does anybody know? Let’s all say it together, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” So, when you talk to a Preterist, get ready to hear the words, “this generation” at least eight dozen times if you have an extended conversation.

We’ll have to have some Christian sociologists do an analysis of how frequently Preterists in an average hour discussion of Preterism say “this generation” and report back. That would be a good thing for the Christian Ed department to do. That way we could have some probability rates on these kinds of things."

--Tommy ICE
The Conservative Theological Journal, 48, Volume 3,
in an article entitled "The Destructive View of Preterism," pg 393

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 06:46 AM
Dear Gavin:

Okay let’s start our discussion of “this generation.” Ciris had mentioned that he and I had a similar discussion a little while’s back, and he will certainly recognize some of the same material I had posted back then… but I don’t see a need to reinvent the wheel. Our conversation will become unique as we interact with each other. I intend upon presenting four proofs for my contention that this phrase squarely places the intended fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse within the first century. There are more proofs which may be touched upon as we converse. I was hoping this could be a good foundational springboard.

Each time the phrase “this generation” is used in the NT, it ALWAYS means the generation then living. I will list them for you, but I wanted to say something first. What I just said is not controversial. Even those people who believe that it refers to something else in the Olivet Discourse concede that they are making a case of special pleading since it means the contemporaries of Christ elsewhere it is used. But here they are: Matthew 11:16; 12:41; 12:42; 23:36; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:30; 11:31; 11:50; 11:51; 17:25. (omitting Matthew 24:34; Luke 21:32; Mark 13:30 because they are the very verses under question). Make careful note of the use of the near demonstrative identifier “this”…. If Jesus had wanted to carefully make sure that his words were not referring to His contemporaries, He could easily have used the far demonstrative identifier… “that.”

The Discourse does not appear in a vacuum. The immediate backdrop which gives us our context to interpret Christ’s words, including the timing statement, is Matthew 23. I would go even further and state that Matthew builds up to Chapter 24 even way before Chapter 23…. Matthew presents a mounting sense of doom and destruction upon the first century apostates like threatening and looming thunder clouds.

Almost all commentators agree that Matthew is the most “Jewish” of the Gospels. As such, he arranges his material with a very definite and Jewish purpose in mind. The Gospels are not exhaustive biographies of everything Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers said what they did where they did in the text for important reasons. The order and arrangement of the Gospel narratives is purposeful. The whole context and arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew lends tremendous weight to the preterist position.

Matthew’s Gospel is uniquely focused on judgment and condemnation of the Jewish apostates, and in fact so much so, that critics and Jewish anti-missionary types argue that it is anti-Semitic to the core!! Matthew also portray Gentiles in favorable lights to again shed judgmental light upon the apostates. Here are some very brief highlights:

Chapter 1 – Christ is presented as the Messianic heir.

Chapter 2 – It is the non-Jewish magi who seek the Christ child but Jerusalem is troubled (verse 3)

Chapter 3 – The ministry of John the Baptist who with great vitriol condemns the Jewish leadership of his day and warns the people of the wrath to come and that the ax is NOW laid at the root of the tree. He warns that the Kingdom is AT HAND. The winnowing fork is ALREADY in God’s hand.

Chapter 8 – Jesus commends a Gentile’s faith and rebukes and warns Israel saying that the Gentile nations shall come and feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the “sons of the kingdom shall be cast out in to the outer darkness…”

Chapter 11 – Jesus rebukes the unbelief of that apostate Jews and calls infamous pagan cities of old in judgment against them.

Chapter 12 – Jesus refers to His contemporaries as an evil and adulterous generation, a wicked generation

Chapter 13 - Jesus then begins to speak to them in parables so that they cannot understand in order to fulfill prophecy about their blindness.

Chapter 15 – Jesus continues to rebuke His contemporaries using the words of Isaiah in judgment against them.

Chapter 17 – Jesus declares them to be a faithless and perverse generation.

** notice the deliberate repeat of the phrase “this generation” almost as an epithet against the apostates of Jesus’ day

And then things worsen considerably beginning in Chapter 21 where the contemporary judgment references are more explicit and frequent.

Chapter 21 – Jesus cleanses the Temple and very shortly later permanently curses the fig tree which in context obviously represents barren Israel. There is the parable of the two sons, and then the parable of the landowner in which Jesus tells them that the Kingdom of God will be wrested from them and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Chapter 22 – The parable of the wedding feast demonstrating Israel’s resistance to God’s call which results in fiery judgment when “the king was enraged and sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire…” (a clear reference to 70AD) and God gathers Gentiles to the wedding feast.

Chapter 23 – Jesus pronounces seven woes upon the corrupt spiritual leaders….
Let’s look at some of the concluding verses to Chapter 23 which bring this all together:

Verses 31-38 – “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate.

That is astounding. Jesus lays the guilt of the ages at their feet. But there are some repeated themes here which are not accidental.

Matthew 23:34 –Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city…

Compare with

Matthew 24:9 – Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.

and with

Luke 21:12 – They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake.

and with

Mark 13:9 – But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them.

Next item…

Also,

Matthew 23:36 – Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

**[what things?? – all the woes and the pronouncement of the desolation of the Temple]

Compare with

Matthew 24:1 – Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

**(inquiring about the desolation (destruction) of the Temple just prophesied to them and also to the Pharisees as judgment upon them… the two chapter are intimately related on that fact alone)

and with

Mark 13:3 - Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives
opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?”

and with

Luke 21:7 – So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

And along the same lines.. tying in “all these things” with the “this generation” of Matthew 23:36....

Matthew 24:34; Luke 21:32; Mark 13:30 – Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

I will give pause for you to comment before I present the next proof.

Yxboom
December 14th, 2002, 06:59 AM
NEWSFLASH: I have been converted by DDW.

cirisme
December 14th, 2002, 10:00 AM
Are you serious?

Yxboom
December 14th, 2002, 12:28 PM
serious

Gavin
December 14th, 2002, 02:36 PM
ok, DD, I will get back to you after i have read that through carefully.

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 02:45 PM
Dear Gavin:

Okay, great... I have the other three points ready... so let's discuss and then we can move on.

Yxboom
December 14th, 2002, 02:46 PM
<===worships DDW in a non-flirtatious way

Gavin
December 14th, 2002, 03:06 PM
DD, very interesting post. I especially liked the point about the Jewishness of Matthew.

I agree, generally, under my first point, that Matthew 24:34 is hard to account for under a futurist model.

My only question about your post is about all the blood of the ages coming on that generation. Does that mean that in 70 AD Jesus punished those Jews? Is that the argument for preterism? Couldn't all the blood of the generations precednig them come upon them even if Jesus returned, in, say, 3000 AD, just in the final judgement? I am not sure to what extent 23:26 really argues for preterism.

In any case, lets do as much as we can on my other questions before I go out of town on tuesday. (we can resume after I get back if you want.)

I am going to study for a greek final now, but feel free to post more and I will catch up.

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 03:16 PM
<<====== First of all..... graciously accepts Boom's nonflirtatious worship..... LOLOLOLOL (before the hypnotism wears off of him)

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 03:21 PM
Dear Gavin:

If it is alright.. I am not going to post the rest of the proofs or on your other questions until we finish discussing each point, if that is okay. I think the discussion will be most fruitful that way. Your question on Matthew 23:36 is very important and pivotal. I will address that first before proceeding on.... i don't mind taking breaks while you are on vacation.

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Yxboom
NEWSFLASH: I have been converted by DDW. NEWSFLASH: There is only room for ONE TheologyOnLine preterist moderator. ;)

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 03:52 PM
NEWSFLASH : ANOTHER PERSON HAS BOUGHT INTO THE " I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN THEOLOGY.

What a shame and a tragedy. How many more will be sucked into this theology that can't add two plus two? Boom, for your sake, I would reconsider.

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
NEWSFLASH : ANOTHER PERSON HAS BOUGHT INTO THE " I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN THEOLOGY.

What a shame and a tragedy. How many more will be sucked into this theology that can't add two plus two? Boom, for your sake, I would reconsider. 2 of 3 Dr.'s agree! :thumb:

Yxboom
December 14th, 2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Knight
2 of 3 Dr.'s agree! :thumb: :crackup:

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 04:00 PM
Knight,


2 of 3 Dr.'s agree!

Thanks for that! This is just mind boggling as to how this turn of events has happened. I just can't believe anyone would fall for this, but hey, some fell for Gnosticism and such.

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 04:02 PM
Some real meat for Gavin to chew upon. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4440)

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 04:03 PM
Knight,

Excellent choice if I say so myself.

Yxboom
December 14th, 2002, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
Knight,



Thanks for that! This is just mind boggling as to how this turn of events has happened. I just can't believe anyone would fall for this, but hey, some fell for Gnosticism and such. Ouch.

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 04:13 PM
Brother Boom,

All kidding aside now, I am not intentionally trying to hurt anyone, But I will not stand still and let someone (esp. people I respect and like) to be swayed from total truth to half the truth. And that is what this preterism vs. dispensationalism fight is all about. Preterism ONLY tells half the story. Then they rant about covenant theology and the church is Isreal and we live in a pretty good time. What nonsense. Just think about it first before falling off the bridge.

God Bless,
DRBrumley

Gavin
December 14th, 2002, 04:17 PM
DD,

that is fine. Go ahead and give me your thoughts on Matthew 23:36 when you are ready. I will read the Bob Hill article Knight posted while I wait.


members of the futurist camp at TOL are dropping like flies. . . .:noid:

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
Brother Boom,

All kidding aside now, I am not intentionally trying to hurt anyone, But I will not stand still and let someone (esp. people I respect and like) to be swayed from total truth to half the truth. And that is what this preterism vs. dispensationalism fight is all about. Preterism ONLY tells half the story. Then they rant about covenant theology and the church is Isreal and we live in a pretty good time. What nonsense. Just think about it first before falling off the bridge.

God Bless,
DRBrumley DR. Wouldn't you agree that the whole Preterist vs. Futurist debate tends to sweep over the fact that there is a much more logical biblically consistent THIRD option in dispensationalism?

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 04:27 PM
Knight,


DR. Wouldn't you agree that the whole Preterist vs. Futurist debate tends to sweep over the fact that there is a much more logical biblically consistent THIRD option in dispensationalism?

Yes, I would agree with that. If this is in reference to Ephesians and Galatians passages as to the Body of Christ and when it started. (The Church)

The thing with Preterism and Futurism, to me anyway, is they oversimplify the plain verses in scripture. They MUST by neccessity spiritualize almost every passage to come to their respective theologies. More so with Preterism I think though. You agree with that?

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
Knight,



Yes, I would agree with that. If this is in reference to Ephesians and Galatians passages as to the Body of Christ and when it started. (The Church)

The thing with Preterism and Futurism, to me anyway, is they oversimplify the plain verses in scripture. They MUST by neccessity spiritualize almost every passage to come to their respective theologies. More so with Preterism I think though. You agree with that? Yes I would CERTAINLY agree with that.

Futurists get into trouble dealing with the verses in Matthew that the Preterists base their entire theology on. But Preterists get into far more trouble not understanding the "big picture" of the Bible. Which in my opinion is a far larger mistake (impacting theology) than the mistake the Futurists make.

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 04:52 PM
Knight,


Futurists get into trouble dealing with the verses in Matthew that the Preterists base their entire theology on.

That is so true. I used to believe in the Great Tribulation was future according to how most futurists taught it. (Lindsey, VanImpe,etc.....)and it made no sense to me at all, but I believed it anyway. Which is probably the case for 95% of all dispensationalists. Then I leaned toward Preterism. And that didn't make sense either. Then for some reason, I prayed for understanding and a settlement to these issues I was dealing with. God has put a few very good teachers in my life and the ability to understand. And Enyart is one of those. I don't beleive every word he says, but test what he says according to much study and prayer. If it is true, there will be no doubt and this is one of those "no doubts." Dee Dee has got some truth in her words, but she knows very little when it deals with this issue. I know she WILL disagree, but I don't care. I know to much now that God has shown me.

One thing I am very thankfull for is Dee Dee is not a full preterist. As you said and you are dead on target:


But Preterists get into far more trouble not understanding the "big picture" of the Bible. Which in my opinion is a far larger mistake (impacting theology) than the mistake the Futurists make.

Thats why I say they have half the picture.

God Bless,
DRBrumley

P.S. I didn't mean to get on a rant there but this issue can be deeply troubling and get some people into loads of trouble.

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 05:09 PM
Of course after reading this a couple times, I think Boom is making a joke here.

Gavin
December 14th, 2002, 05:10 PM
perhaps Knight or another would care to explain the dispensational view. I was not aware there was a third option.

Yxboom
December 14th, 2002, 05:13 PM
drbrumley,

Bro....you guys know you really took the fun out of it since I was looking for reaction by Knight. DDW and I had an extensive discussion on absolutism and lying. I yielded to her argument and thus gave my word to announce I was converted by DDW. As for her preterism cult she has yet to defeat the Acts 9/12 out OV position which I firmly stand.

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 05:13 PM
Gavin,

I would love to, but I have a date tonight so I can't be on much longer till tomorrow morning.

I do need to ask one question though. When did the Body of Christ begin? In your opinion or study. I will get back with you tomorrow.

God Bless,
DRBrumley

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 05:15 PM
Boom,

Oops!!!!!!!! My bad!!!!!!!

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 05:18 PM
More meat for your potatoes.... (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4741)

drbrumley
December 14th, 2002, 05:19 PM
Get off the milk..........

Knight
December 14th, 2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Yxboom
drbrumley,

Bro....you guys know you really took the fun out of it since I was looking for reaction by Knight. DDW and I had an extensive discussion on absolutism and lying. I yielded to her argument and thus gave my word to announce I was converted by DDW. As for her preterism cult she has yet to defeat the Acts 9/12 out OV position which I firmly stand. Sorry bro... but its been a long week.

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 08:03 PM
I HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY AMUSED. THANKS GUYS!!!

And DrB we shall see how little I know eh? LOLOLOLOL.. and thank you for giving me some time to post my response.. as Knight has said, it has been a long week.

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 08:51 PM
I will get back with you tomorrow.


If that is a futurist tomorrow, Gavin, you'll be waiting quite a while.

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 10:33 PM
Dear Gavin:

First of all, you will notice that DrB made some very strong comments against my position… I don’t mind that at all. The one thing though that was not accurate is his statement that I am ignorant of dispensationalism. As a general statement, that is simply not true, for I used to be a dispensationalist, though admittedly, I was not the same kind of dispensationalist that he currently is. I invite you to follow the Back Alley debate between DrB and I to judge for yourself.


DD, very interesting post. I especially liked the point about the Jewishness of Matthew.

Thank you. The Jewishness of Matthew does play an important clue and role in interpreting the Discourse, and helps to account for some of the distinct differences found in the Lukan account of the Discourse.


I agree, generally, under my first point, that Matthew 24:34 is hard to account for under a futurist model.

You have a knack for understatement ;)


My only question about your post is about all the blood of the ages coming on that generation. Does that mean that in 70 AD Jesus punished those Jews?

Yes.


Is that the argument for preterism?

Part of it… a very strong part of it, when coupled with Matthew 24:34.


Couldn't all the blood of the generations preceding them come upon them even if Jesus returned, in, say, 3000 AD, just in the final judgment? I am not sure to what extent 23:26 really argues for preterism.

Let me see if I understand your question, for if I do, you have unwittingly proven my point for me. You are asking if it would be possible for that verse to be fulfilled at the final judgment rather than something that must happen in their natural lifetimes. In a vacuum, of course. But notice what you have proven for me. “This generation” means THEM… not some future generation, not the race of Jews as a whole. I agree that this verse by itself does not mention the timing of the judgment to come upon them, but it does indicate upon whom the judgment would come. The generation of Jews then living. That is the meaning of “this generation”… and if you then go on to read Matthew 24 which immediately follows this verse, Jesus goes on to describe the punishment that will befall them, and caps it off using the same phrase “this generation” and makes an explicit timing reference…. They will not all die until all the things He just prophesied happen. Most futurists concede that “this generation” means the then living generation in Matthew 23:36 but suddenly, in the same context, this same phrase switches referent in Matthew 24:34 in a highly forced exercise IMHO. There is no compelling reason to do so other than the fact that the obvious reading (the one that shaves best with Ocam’s razor) does not fit in with their system.

Here are some comments by DeMar which may prove instructive in setting the context that I had elucidated upon before:
Why did Jesus treat this first century generation of Jews so harshly? Why was their generation destined for destruction? They made up the generation that had to make a choice either to accept or reject the promised Messiah who became flesh and dwelt among them. Certainly every generation must make a decision about Jesus. But no other generation will ever have the chance to turn Him over to the Romans to be crucified. Jesus came to His own, and they did not receive Him. No other generation will be given such an opportunity. The Lord of Glory was in their midst, and they crucified Him, choosing a murderer in place of God’s only begotten Son. The following verses are Biblical descriptions of “this generation” that is, the generation that Jesus addressed:

“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.”

Of course these indictments had been heard before. John the Baptist uttered very close to the same words, indicating a brood of vipers and a wrath to come TO THEM.

“But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying: ‘We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

Not long after this indictment the religious leaders accused Jesus of being in league with Satan because He cast out demons. Jesus once again called them a brood of vipers. They were condemned by their words (Matt 12:37). The scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign and Jesus informed them that “en evil an adulterous generation craves for a sign.” Jesus warned the unregenerate of His day that “the men of Ninevah shall stand up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah.” Judgment was certain to come upon “this generation” because “something greater than Jonah is here.” Jesus compared “this generation” to that of “unclean spirits” who occupy a man’s house, exacerbating the man’s spiritual condition. “That is the way it will also be with this evil generation,” Jesus said. This all took place in one of their synagogues (12:9). Is this the “house” that will be occupied by “unclean spirits” which the Book of Revelation describes as “the synagogue of Satan”?

Jesus told them on another occasion, “The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls [THE SON COMETH!!!], it will scatter him like dust.” There is no mistaking the audience, the context, and the time of judgment, the generation with whom Jesus spoke would be destroyed within forty years, along with the temple and the city. “And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parable, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THEM.” Too bad modern interpretations don’t understand at least that much.

The “woes” of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, chief priest regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they did not repent. “All these things,” Jesus said, “shall come upon this generation.” It is after hearing about the desolation of their house (i.e. the temple) that the disciples asked about the “temple buildings”. Jesus answered the disciple’s questions relating to the times and signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background of Matthew 234 in view, since His comments in that chapter had raised the questions (24:3). The Old Covenant order would ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be the “sign” of the “end of the age”, the age of the Old Covenant.

Since the events described in Matthew 23 precipitated the questions of Matthew 24, we should expect to see some connection between the two chapters. If Matthew 24 is an elucidation and expansion of Matthew 23, then we should expect the events of both chapters to describe the same period o time. We only assume this to be true because we have Biblical cause to make the connection. The two chapters contain two verse that speak of time.

“Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” (23:36)

“Truly I say to you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.” (24:34)

These verses form eschatological bookends for determining when the predicted events that occur between these two time markers are to be fulfilled.

Dee Dee Warren
December 14th, 2002, 10:54 PM
On a side-note Gavin... an added benefit to preterism, in addition to making eschatolog sensible, is that it bolsters Trinitarian debate for it can decimate the whole name-bearing argument that the current rhetoric seems to rest so heavily upon.

Gavin
December 15th, 2002, 12:58 AM
DrB,

Since dispensationalism AND preterism are probably a bit much for one thread, I have opened another one in the dispensationalism section. If you want to discuss it there, that would be spantastic.

DD,

Okay, I get it. The use of genos in 23:36 favors the translation "generation" instead of "race" in 24:34. Cannot really disagree with that.

So I agree that genos in Matthew 24:34 refers to the actual generation that was there listening.

I still have some more questions. For one, we know from John that Jesus died in 30 AD. If you disagree, let me know and I will show you why I think so. So the latest these words could have been uttered was 30 - thats a whole forty years earlier than 70. Considering that the average life span was considerably less around Jesus' time, and that these men he was speaking to were already adults, would many of them have been alive still to be punished? I suppose so, but I would still appreciate a comment here.

Also, maybe you could just briefly just DEFINE preterism? I guess I had just assumed that it meant that Jesus physically returned in 70 AD, but I just heard somewhere that he only returned SPIRITUALLY.

And then my other questions as well remain, if you think we are done with the first.

Gavin
December 15th, 2002, 12:59 AM
On a side-note Gavin... an added benefit to preterism, in addition to making eschatolog sensible, is that it bolsters Trinitarian debate for it can decimate the whole name-bearing argument that the current rhetoric seems to rest so heavily upon.
Please clarify, specifically on what the name-bearing argument is.

smilax
December 15th, 2002, 02:49 AM
Note: though we might not take the Bible "literally," dispensationalism does not take the Bible in historical context.
Originally posted by Gavin
So the latest these words could have been uttered was 30 - thats a whole forty years earlier than 70. Considering that the average life span was considerably less around Jesus' time, and that these men he was speaking to were already adults, would many of them have been alive still to be punished? I suppose so, but I would still appreciate a comment here.Programmatically, a generation was defined by forty years. Think of God dealing with Israel in the wilderness. Then check Psalms xcv, 10. The length of life really has limited application to this.
Also, maybe you could just briefly just DEFINE preterism?The belief that the majority of end-times prophecy has been fulfilled.

Dee Dee Warren
December 15th, 2002, 07:29 AM
I still have some more questions. For one, we know from John that Jesus died in 30 AD. If you disagree, let me know and I will show you why I think so.

I have no problem with accepting a date of Christ's death at that time. I am not dogmatic on the specific year... anywhere from 30AD to 33AD is fine with me.


So the latest these words could have been uttered was 30 - thats a whole forty years earlier than 70. Considering that the average life span was considerably less around Jesus' time, and that these men he was speaking to were already adults, would many of them have been alive still to be punished?

We know for a fact of history that many of that then current generation was still alive, both wicked and righteous. The Apostle John lived well past AD70, and Peter and Paul certainly would have if they were not martyred. The average life span statistics can be tricky... they were considerably lower for women because of childbirth but it was nowhere unheard of for men (especially Jewish man who because of the law avoided a lot of diseases and other health issues through fastidiousness) to live long lives.


Also, maybe you could just briefly just DEFINE preterism? I guess I had just assumed that it meant that Jesus physically returned in 70 AD, but I just heard somewhere that he only returned SPIRITUALLY.


Sure.. orthodox preterism is the belief that a majority of eschatological events were fulfilled in and surrounding the events of the Jewish was in 67-70AD. However, we do not deny the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection, and the future final judgment... we do however deny that a lot of texts that are used to support those three events are about them at all, but rather are past (i.e. preter means past).


And then my other questions as well remain, if you think we are done with the first.

Well, if you don't mind Gavin... I want to present the other three proofs on "this generation" becuase you need the background for some of the other stuff we will be discussing.

Dee Dee Warren
December 15th, 2002, 07:30 AM
Please clarify, specifically on what the name-bearing argument is.

ais66 uses it heavily in the trinity thread.... AVMetro would be the best to really define the argument for you, and explain how preterism defeats it since he has seen me use if against them before. Perhaps you can PM him?

Dee Dee Warren
December 15th, 2002, 07:34 AM
Dear Gavin:

Okay… on to the next “proof.”

To recap:

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

In the Olivet Discourse, the disciples ask Jesus certain questions, and these were not asked in a vacuum. The questions were prompted as follows (my commentary will be placed in italics and in parenthesis)

First using Mark as a source:

Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( they are asking about the Temple that existed back then)And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the Temple that existed back then!)

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be?….” (it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple would be destroyed)

Next using Luke as a source:

Then, as some spoke of the temple, (the Temple that existed back then)how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, “These things which you see—(the Temple that was before their very eyes right then) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? (again, part of “these things” MUST include the destruction that He just prophesied that prompted their questions to begin with)

Lastly using Matthew as a source:

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. (the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? (the Temple that existed back then) Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word “here” it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

All these of the Synoptics of the Olivet Discourse contain the very solemn declaration by Jesus, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:31)

Now we know when the city and Temple were destroyed. It was in 70AD. If that is “one” of “all these things,” then ALL of the rest of that passage, at least up to Matthew 24:33, Luke 21:31, and Mark 13:31 happened in the first century as well. It is inescapable. The destruction the then existing Temple is a completely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. If the prophecy was not primarily fulfilled in the first century, it can never be.

Gavin
December 15th, 2002, 01:45 PM
all right . . . continue

Dee Dee Warren
December 15th, 2002, 02:18 PM
To recap:

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

Now continuing:

PROOF NUMBER THREE: The other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23

Okay continue to let build upon this puzzle. If it is possible that Matthew 24:34 can mean something else, and even though the context is clearly first century, what other texts illuminate this? The clincher for me is when we compare

Matthew 24:33-34 –So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

with

Luke 21:31-32 – So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

And then add in

Matthew 16:27-28 – For the Son of Man will come in the
glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame Matthew 24:34 is referring to. Let me explain….. Matthew 24:33 mentions that when all these things happen “it” is near. What is “it”? Luke equates “it” with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS.

Matthew 16:28 tells us that there were some standing there that would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. The parallels are inescapable.

And Matthew 16:28 gives us then the definition of “this generation not passing away,” it means “some of those standing there.”

And this cannot mean the Transfiguration as some futurists try to do to avoid the obvious implications here. Why? Two reasons at a minimum. Verse 28 does not stand alone. It is intimately connected with verse 27 which cannot be said to refer to the Transfiguration.

Second, the Transfiguration happened only 6 days later. Can you imagine that Jesus would say something so inane as “some of you standing here will still be alive in six days”? I bet ALL of them were still alive. Jesus introduced this prophesy with His most solemn…. “Most assuredly I say.” That ALWAYS introduces very heavy and profound stuff, not inane prophecies that even Jean Dixon would have a shot at getting right. He must have been speaking about an event that was far enough in the future that many of his listeners would be dead, but not so far away that all of His listeners would be dead.

Not enough? Well here is some more circumstantial evidence from the Gospels. Jesus made an intriguing comment at the end of the Gospel of John insinuating that out of the disciples, John would live to see His coming. Isn’t it ironic that tradition holds that only John lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem and lived passed it? Or how about

Matthew 10:21 – For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

The time was short for Israel.

And

Mark adds more to the context,

For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.

Not as an appeal to authority, but I thought you might be interested in some notable commentators that also saw this connection (so you can see that I am not some lone nut!!):

**and I have to apologize but I know that I get some of the following information from another source that I failed to document… I am not trying to purposely plagiarize (I believe some may be from DeMar actually)

Henry Hammond (1605-1660) gives this harmony of Matthew 16:27-287, John 21:18-23, and Matthew 24 and their relationship to Jesus’ judgment on Jerusalem: The nearness of this story of Christ’s transfiguration makes it probably to many that this coming of Christ is that transfiguration of His, but that cannot be, because the 27th verse of the Son of Man’s coming in His glory with His angels to reward etc (to which this verse is clearly connected) cannot be applied to that. And there is another place, John 21:23 (which may help the understanding of this) which speaks of a real coming, and one principal person (agreeable to what is here said of some standing here) that should tarry, or not die, till that coming of His. And that surely was fulfilled in John’s seeing … famous destruction of the Jews, which was to fall in that generation, Matthew 24, that is, in the lifetime of some there present, and is called the Kingdom of God and the Coming of Christ and by consequence here most probably the Son of Man’s coming in His Kingdom, …. That is, His coming in the exercise of His Kingly office, to work vengeance on His enemies, and discriminate the faithful believers from them.

Hammond’s view is not unusual. In fact, most evangelical commentaries prior to the rise of dispensationalism applied these passages to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Henry Alford states that this passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity. The Dutch commentator S. Greijdaus offers a helpful summary of Matthew 16:27-28 in his comments on the parallel passage in Luke: “Then this coming of God’s dominion cannot refer to our Lord’s resurrection nor to the gift of the Holy Spirit which were to be realized within the year… Nor can it refer our Lord’s coming in [final] judgment which is yet even now in abeyance… Nor can the powerful spread of the Gospel be meant, for this already came about within comparatively few years… We shall have to think of the destruction of Jerusalem… In it God revealed His kingly dominion in His judgment, a precursor of His judgment on the last day.”


Evangelicals have done a poor job in reconciling these time texts with other parts of the Bible and with history, which have been fodder for modern skeptics. Their argument goes something like this, “It [I]seems like Jesus was predicting that He would return before the last disciple died, but He didn’t really mean to leave that impression.” Various authors (Archer, Lewis, Laney, Richards, Torrey) try to state that this verse (16:28) was fulfilled in alternatively the transfiguration or Pentecost, but fail to deal with the clear time indicators in the text. This time indicator in the passage precludes either an immediate fulfillment (transfiguration, Christ’s resurrection, or Pentecost) or a distant fulfillment (the Final Advent of Christ). This language is similar to the way YHWH came to “the sons of Israel” under the Old Covenant in Deut. 33:11-2.

Jude presents a similar picture in the NT. But his is a description of God’s coming in judgment. “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” The language is almost identical to that of Matthew 16:27. In addition, Jesus alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 and thus applies OT language for God as judge to Himself (Ps 62:12, Pro 24:12, Jer 17:10; 321:19; Ezek 18:30). The reference to angels is probably from Zechariah 14:5 though it also fits the context of the image in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus assumes the OT apocalyptic language referring to YHWH’s coming and applies it to Himself. A similar pattern is found in Revelation 2:5: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.” [and notice that the condition for removal of judgment is repentance] Similar “coming” language is used in Revelation 2:16, neither of which refer to Christ’s Final Advent.

Gavin
December 15th, 2002, 07:17 PM
you are kind of beating a dead horse here, but continue

Dee Dee Warren
December 15th, 2002, 07:19 PM
The background is necessary Gavin....

Dee Dee Warren
December 16th, 2002, 03:39 AM
To recap:

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

PROOF NUMBER THREE:The other “near”
temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23.

Now continuing:

PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the “end of the world” it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.

And it is very apparent that the Olivet Discourse is not about the “end of the world” or the consummation. So, let’s start with why I don’t believe its about the end of the world. I am not going to give all of the reasons, just some of the major ones.

First of all, the disciples do not ask Jesus when is the end of the world. They asked him “when is the end of the age?” That is very important. And the context of their question must be taken into consideration. In other words, what prompted that question from them in the first place?

It was Jesus’ startling predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Nothing at all in the context gives any whiff of a hint that the end of the whole world, as we understand it, to be in view. The entire context of the passage is limited to Jerusalem. Here are some examples:

Matthew 24:15-16 – Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

If this was worldwide destruction, fleeing to the mountains would not do anyone any good. It is obviously a destruction limited to Judea from which the elect must flee.

Luke 21:23 – But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

This wrath is limited to the “land,” and idiomatically Jewish way of saying “Israel” and “this people,” i.e. the Jewish apostates. It is not a wrath upon the whole planet or upon all the unsaved peoples of the planet. The whole context leading up to the Discourse is the pronouncement of doom upon the Jewish apostates (see Matthew 23). There is nothing at all in the context speaking of the end of the whole world.

One must also keep in mind the distinctly Jewish cultural context. The Jews regarded their time as divided into two great ages. The Age of Moses and the Law, and the Age of Messiah. The disciples understood that the destruction of the Temple was a momentous event and would inaugurate the Messianic age as the Law would not be possible after that point. They were basically asking when the “next age,” the Messianic age would begin. They did not believe that the age in which they were currently living was the same age that would see the “end of the world.”

Also there are also clear first century time indicators that I will just briefly list here.

The Sabbath laws including the very strictly enforced travel restrictions are in effect

Travel is anticipated with greater difficulty if it is in the winter or for pregnant/nursing women indicating first century modes of travel, most commonly, by foot for the common man (Matthew 24:19-20)

First century life, including a great deal of time spent on the housetops is indicated (Matthew 24:17)

Synagogues are flogging people (Mark 13:9)

I could go on but you have expressed an interest in moving on to the next point so I will leave it here.

Dee Dee Warren
December 16th, 2002, 03:48 AM
Dear Gavin:

That finishes up the "this generation" portion of my explanation. If you are, I am ready to move on to your next question which was:


2) If Christ returned in 70 AD, when was Revelation written? Can you prove it was before this? If Revelation was written AFTER Christ's return, it seems very strange for Jesus to say, "I am coming soon" repeatedly in it (22:7, 12, 20, etc.). And yet I have always been told John wrote this book about 90 when he was on Patmos.

Revelation was written somewhere around 64-67AD. The scholarly consensus has swung both ways over the course of time, but today a great deal of even nonpreterist scholars are swinging back towards the early date. The evidence for this can be quite complex. Dr. Gentry wrote his doctoral dissertion on this subject, and his book "Before Jerusalem Fell" is a great book proving the early date.

However, in order to satisfy your initial curiosity... the best thing I can do for you is to refer you to this article on the subject:


Apocolypse Now or Later? (http://www.tektonics.org/revdate.html)

Dee Dee Warren
December 16th, 2002, 03:50 AM
Dear Gavin:

Let me know if you are ready, and then I will proceed onto your next question:


When I read Matthew 24, I get the sense that the coming of Christ is a really big deal. I read that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places" (7). I read that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (14). And most of all, I read:

"29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[3]
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call , and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other" (29-31, cf. I Thessalonians 4:16-17).

So the obvious question is, did all this stuff happen in 70 AD, or does the version of preterism you hold to leave room for all this to happen in the future? If the former, I will need some pretty heavy proof. If the latter, how can Matthew 24:34, in context, refer to 70 AD while the preceding verses do not? I need some help here.

Gavin
December 16th, 2002, 01:20 PM
I am ready, Dee Dee. Shoot.

Knight
December 16th, 2002, 09:56 PM
I am moving this thread to the "Eschatology " forum. OK?

Dee Dee Warren
December 16th, 2002, 09:58 PM
Thank you Knight... that sounds good. I don't think Gavin will mind.

Gavin
December 17th, 2002, 12:40 AM
thats fine. DD, I will look forward to continuing this discussion in early/mid January. Make sure and bump it from time to time. :)

Dee Dee Warren
December 18th, 2002, 06:47 AM
Dear Gavin:

I understand that you are going to be away for a little while. I hope you don't mind then if I respond to Lion before answering your question that was next.

Dee Dee Warren
December 22nd, 2002, 12:54 AM
Dear Gavin:

Okay I am going to answer your next question:


When I read Matthew 24, I get the sense that the coming of Christ is a really big deal. I read that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places"

The coming in Christ in judgment upon apostate Israel was a big deal. All of those things did in fact happen. Now think about it, how in the world can wars, specifically, be a sign? We have always had wars, which can be part of the reason this section of Scripture is so easily abused by end-times prognosticators since this “sign” fits almost any time. The fact is that “wars” can only really be a “sign” if they break out after a time of relative peace. It is interesting to note that when Christ gave this prophecy, Rome was still in the tail-end of a period of time known as the Paux Romano (the Roman Peace) which had began in about 17BC. However soon afterwards, this Roman peace began to be shattered. Josephus reports records that in AD40 there was an uprising which claimed 50,000 lives and then in AD49 another incident in Jerusalem claimed up to 20,000 lives. Also consider that frictions in Caesarea, Scythopolis, Seleucia and Damascus claimed the lives of almost 130,000 Jews (10,000 in one hour’s time), 20,000 other Jews were killed by Syrians, with thousands killed in other various places. History records that while Judea struggled with Rome, the military might of Gaul, Germany, Illyricum, Spain, and Syria conspired in Italy in schemes to overthrow Nero and Rome. As the end of the age drew near, Rome witnessed the death of four emperors within two years as the Empire was not only dealing with the Jewish uprising but with its own civil war. This period has been described by the Roman historian Tacitus with descriptives such as “disturbances in Germany,” “commotions in Africa,” “commotions in Thrace,” insurrections in Gaul,” “intrigues among the Pathians,” “the war in Britain” and “the war in Armenia.” Most certainly there were “war and rumors of war” and “nation rising against nation” just as Christ predicted.

Christ also predicted famines and earthquakes. One need not look farther than the Book of Acts to see that such things did in fact occur.

Acts 11:28 – Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.

The effects were so severe that collections were taken up to be sent to the brethren suffering from the effects (Acts 11:29, 1 Corinthians 16:1-5, Romans 15:25-28). The entire Roman Empire felt the effects of this great famine. Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus record these condition in Rome in AD51, “This year witnesses many prodigies… repeated earthquakes… Further portents were seen in a shortage of corn, resulting in famine… It was established that there was no more than fifteen days’ supply of food in the city. Only heaven’s special favor and a mild winter prevented catastrophe.” History records many earthquakes just prior to AD70 in such places as Crete, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colosse, Campania, Rome, Pompeii, and Judea.

Okay, your next point questioned….


I read that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come"

Well at first this seems to present an insurmountable obstacle to preterism, but if we let the Bible, and not our modern presuppositions, interpret the Bible for us, the resolution is surprisingly easy.

Colossians 1:5-6 – because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

Colossians 1:23 – if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Paul says that the Gospel was even preached to every creature under heaven at the time he wrote to the Church at Colosse and was even bearing fruit in the whole world.

Paul told the Romans that their faith was being proclaimed to all the nations and throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:5-6 - Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ

Romans 16:25-26 - Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations , according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith

When the Gospel was preached at Pentecost… who was there to hear it??

Acts 2:5 – And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.

You may ask how this could possibly be… well even if I could not explain it, it would still be true because that is how the Bible defines “the Gospel being preached to all the nations” and the Bible must be allowed to interpret the Bible. The word for “world” in Matthew 24:14 is “oikoumene” which means the “inhabited earth” which very often in the NT simply means the Roman Empire. We forget that Rome was the “world” of that time, made up of many, many nations. This same word is used in Luke 2:1 about the census that was ordered that caused Joseph and Mary to have to go to Bethlehem. No one teaches that even the Indians on the American continent were ordered to be censused as well….but that is the same word used in Matthew 24:14 – oikoumene.

Also we must remember that the Jews were, and still are, a very colorful and passionate people. Their idioms and means of communication often employed hyperbole and exaggeration for effect. It was part and parcel of that culture. We are being horribly anachronistic when we try to hyper-literalize such things. The Bible must tell us how to interpret the Bible even if it means we must topple the idol of “literalism” that we have erected today. Biblically literal means that we interpret things literally in the sense that they were intended to be understood.

If you were to say that “it is raining cats and dogs outside,” you would literally mean that it is raining very hard. I would not be taking you literal in a proper way if I insisted that you meant that canines and felines were walloping down on our heads.

Dee Dee Warren
December 22nd, 2002, 12:58 AM
Please keep in minds these points as we move on to your next point….


And most of all, I read:

"29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[3]
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call , and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other" (29-31, cf. I Thessalonians 4:16-17).

So the obvious question is, did all this stuff happen in 70 AD, or does the version of preterism you hold to leave room for all this to happen in the future? If the former, I will need some pretty heavy proof. If the latter, how can Matthew 24:34, in context, refer to 70 AD while the preceding verses do not? I need some help here.

First the shocker. All of this stuff (properly interpreted) did happen in the events surrounding 70AD. You are correct that if Matthew 24:34 means what it so apparently does, then EVERYTHING, at least up to verse 33 happened within that generation. First I will deal with what I call the “collapsing universe” language of the sun, moon, and stars.

First a bit on literalism. The futurist often prides himself on being “literal” as if that were a badge of honor. Well, then give the woman at the well a prize who thought Jesus was speaking of literal water, or the Pharisees who thought that Jesus was going to raise up the literal Temple in three days, or the disenchanted wanna be disciples who thought they had to eat Jesus’ literal body and drink his literal blood and don’t forget Nicodemus who thought he supposed to crawl back into his mother’s womb. The Bible itself give rules for how to interpret it. Here is an interesting passage that demonstrates my point:

David is here describing how God delivered him from Saul, and he says,

Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken, Because He was angry. Smoke went up from His nostrils, and devouring fire from His mouth; Coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub, and flew; and He was seen upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness canopies around Him, dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him coals of fire were kindled.

This passage, and others like it, bear remarkable similarities to the Olivet Discourse. Now, no one believes that YHWH actually saddled up a cherub and rode on it to Dodge to rescue David. No one believes that the heavens bowed down and the whole wide world shook. No one. However, these very same futurists who recognize Hebrew idiom and hyperbole in the OT all of a sudden turn daffy when the exact same language is used by a Hebrew prophet in the NT!!! The Bible interprets the Bible. Throughout the whole OT, “collapsing universe” language is used to describe God’s temporal judgments.

So asking if a text is taken literally is not the issue at all. In fact there is a cardinal principle of Biblical interpretation called the “literal principle,” which states that text are not be taken in a wooden literal fashion but in the sense in which it was intended considering the context, both textual and cultural. No first century Jew would have taken those passages in the wooden way we take them today. The question is not taking passages literally but rather Biblically.

It is the preterist position which is in fact the Biblical model. We take time texts literally which are never taken in any other way throughout the OT, which continues into the NT. We take apocalyptic imagery as what it is, symbolic imagery. The futurist turns this ridiculously on its head by defining away time texts and literalizing imagery. This is not the way the Bible itself teaches us to interpret it. By explaining away time texts, it defeats the whole test God gave us to determine a false prophet from a true one.

I ask, why aren’t the self-proclaimed literalists so literal when it comes to the time texts?
Back then to the “decreation” imagery used in Jesus’ descriptions. Again, the disciples would immediately have recognized almost the exact same words used of past judgments as stated before.

Thus proceeding, using the Bible to interpret the Bible, Jesus is clearly making an allusion to God’s historical past judgments on nations described in the OT and telling His astonished disciples that that is exactly the fate of Jerusalem. The language is identical, to things happened to ancient Babylon, Egypt, and Edom:

Isaiah 13:9-10 – Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

The context makes it clear that this is a description of a past judgment on Babylon. The language is almost identical to Jesus’ words in the Discourse, and the NAS even has the Jesus’ words indicated as being a direct quote from this passage WHICH IS A MAJOR INTERPRETIVE CLUE.

Also

Ezekiel 32:7-8 – [I]When I put out your light, I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of the heavens I will make dark over you, and bring darkness upon your land,’ Says the Lord GOD.

Again, this is a past judgment on Egypt. Did all this LITERALLY happen back then?

Isaiah 34:4-5 – All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; all their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree. “For My sword shall be bathed in heaven; Indeed it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse, for judgment.

And this is a past judgment on Edom. Did I miss the dissolution of the universe back then?

Jeremiah 4:23-26 (go back to verses 14 and 16 to see the context)

I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens, they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, and all the hills moved back and forth. I beheld, and indeed there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, by His fierce anger.

This is a historical judgment on Israel.

Thus… Jesus’ words are no different. He is describing a cataclysmic judgment to occur upon the nation of Israel.
Now I will deal with the “coming” language contained in Matthew 24:30-31.

We must keep in mind that the disciples were having a hard time even understanding that Jesus had to go, much less come back in the sense that futurism is requiring of this passage. Why did Jesus’ pronouncement of judgment upon the Temple prompt the disciples to ask of His “coming”?? Because they understood such an event to be the definitive establishment of the Messianic Kingdom and Christ’s acting as Messianic judge. Jesus words to them in response were a direct allusion to Daniel 7:13-14 which passage would have immediately come to a Jewish mind steeped in the OT:

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.

Notice the direction of this “coming” is not down but UP!! This is not speaking of the Final Advent, but of Christ’s coming up to the Father to receive His Kingdom and rule from heaven. This is a painfully obvious fact that is merely glossed over by many futurists.

This then makes perfect sense of Jesus’ words to the then-living High Priest that he would from that point on see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:63). Notice the “sitting” (in heaven) and the “coming” are intimately connected. This dovetails perfectly with the scenario above.

Again, remember that the disciples would have interpreted Jesus’ words in light of their OT imagery and context. Jesus had just used typical cosmic imagery used to describe severe judgment, and then used coming language from a passage speaking of His receiving of the Messianic Kingdom. The OT is replete with language of YHWH “coming” in judgment, and not once did it mean that He literally set foot on earth. For example:

Isaiah 19:1 – The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.

Even in Revelation, Jesus threatens to “come” and visit judgment upon real historical first century churches if they did not repent, but certainly He was not threatening a bodily visitation or the end of the world (Revelation 2:16, 3:3). The examples could be multiplied, which I will be glad to do if you require.

If we were to interpret this passage the way that futurism does the Discourse, we would be forced to believe that YHWH actually sat atop a cloud, rode on into Egypt, dismounted, and then started kicking over idols. Why don’t the literalists do this? Why aren’t they consistent?

For some other passages connecting clouds and judgment, see 2 Samuel 22:12; Jeremiah 4:13; Ezekiel 30:3; Nahum 1:3; Zephaniah 1:14-15.

Dee Dee Warren
December 22nd, 2002, 12:59 AM
ps: I did not deal with the issue of "gathering" as I think we have bit off enough to talk about for while.

Pandora
December 26th, 2002, 09:36 PM
Preterism: A Christian belief system in which some or all of the end-time events specified in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) are believed to have already been fulfilled. They were accomplished in the past, particularly during the Roman-Jewish war of 66 to 73 CE.

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology that holds that all the prophecies in the Bible about 'the last days' were fufilled in the first century after the birth of Jesus Christ. The name is derived from the term preterit, or past perfect tense. Adherents of this view are known as Preterists.

Christian eschatology concerns final events and ultimate purposes (from Gr. eskhatos, last). In Christian theology, eschatology concerns the conclusion of God's purposes, and therefore the concluding destiny of created things and especially of Man and of the Church, according to the purposes of God.

The "last things" are important issues to Christian faith, although as a formal division of theology eschatology is a relatively recent development.

cirisme
January 8th, 2003, 02:19 PM
So, has Gavin converted yet???

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 02:20 PM
The operative word is yet.... he has been away for some time.

cirisme
January 8th, 2003, 02:23 PM
You scared him away? :shocked: :mad:

:nono:

Gavin
January 8th, 2003, 07:15 PM
I am finally back.

I will read through the debate between lion and dd. In the meantime, these questions still stand to dd.


2) If Christ returned in 70 AD, when was Revelation written? Can you prove it was before this? If Revelation was written AFTER Christ's return, it seems very strange for Jesus to say, "I am coming soon" repeatedly in it (22:7, 12, 20, etc.). And yet I have always been told John wrote this book about 90 when he was on Patmos.

3) When I read Matthew 24, I get the sense that the coming of Christ is a really big deal. I read that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places" (7). I read that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (14). And most of all, I read:

"29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[3]
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call , and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other" (29-31, cf. I Thessalonians 4:16-17).

So the obvious question is, did all this stuff happen in 70 AD, or does the version of preterism you hold to leave room for all this to happen in the future? If the former, I will need some pretty heavy proof. If the latter, how can Matthew 24:34, in context, refer to 70 AD while the preceding verses do not? I need some help here.

4) Finally, I would be curious what age we are in now if Christ has already returned. Is he coming a third time now? What are we still doing here? Are we in the thousand year time?

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 07:17 PM
Dear Gavin:

A good portion of those questions have been answered a little ways back?? Did you not see it?? I had said that I would wait for your comments on those answers thus far before proceeding. If you don't find it, let me know and I will find the exact page.....

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 07:21 PM
Hey Gavin... look on page 8... and let's go from there... I posted an answer to you there.

Gavin
January 9th, 2003, 05:16 PM
oh, I see it. I will be in touch.

Dee Dee Warren
January 9th, 2003, 08:25 PM
Cool beans.

AVmetro
January 14th, 2003, 03:12 AM
Yoo hoo! I'm here! :eek: Here to relax and forget about all the nasty CDs. :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 14th, 2003, 04:25 AM
Hey AV! Welcome to the discussion. This will be a break for you for a while. I do not know how you do it, but bless you for your tireless defense of the deity of Christ. You will see that Gavin raised some excellent points. Have you read through the thread yet?

Dee Dee Warren
January 14th, 2003, 10:41 AM
Dear Gavin (and AV):

I have been doing most of the talking... but where are you guys coming from? Specifically what position do you currently hold if any, and why the interest in this point of view?

Yxboom
January 14th, 2003, 10:43 AM
The Lion and DDW debate has been moved to:

The Easter Debate ~ Lion and DDW on Eschatology (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5379)

rustyb
January 15th, 2003, 11:11 AM
Where's all the historicist folks at? Historicism seems to be the safest medium, in that it states that prophecies are BEING fulfilled and have been fulfilled. I myself am about 90% preterist and 10% historicist. I believe not all of Revelation has been fulfilled (while matt 24 has been). Careful exgesis can lead someone to the correct interpretation that John conveyed the fact that the then churches were "brothers" in tribulation, and the revelation would soon(1st century soon) be fulfilled. Also, another thing that must be examined is the symbolism in revelation itself (no offense to Jack van Impe and other dispensationlist who try to create fictional scenarios of End Times). I would love to share my research in this manner if someone would like me to!

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to
His bond-servants, the things which <i>must soon take place</i>; and He
sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for <i>the time is near.</i>

I just thought I'd chime in and break up the argument and animosity ;)
Providential blessings! (I am also of the Reformed Faith and an amillenialist)

Under His Grace,

Rusty B.

Dee Dee Warren
January 15th, 2003, 11:15 AM
Dear Rusty:

I think you may have misunderstood some of the tone (I see you have not posted much on TOL) , but all in all the discussion is pretty much devoid of any animonisty. Passion yes, but true animosity no.

And I too do not believe that ALL of Revelation has been fulfilled. No orthodox preterist does.

And what is "safe" and what is "medium" is not a good litmus test for what is "right." All in all though judging from you post, except for your amill error (smile), we are in a lot of agreement.

Dee Dee Warren
January 15th, 2003, 11:16 AM
And oh, if you have not met Calvinist, he is another amill preterist, and obviously, a Calvinist, thus the name.

Gavin
January 15th, 2003, 11:26 PM
DD, sorry for the delay, my life has been swamped with business.

On Revelation's date, I will have to do some independent research I think.

On Matthew 24 being fulfilled:

I can accept that all the language in this passage is not "literal".

The reference to Agabus in Acts 11 establishes the famines from the bible, not some other source like Josephus, which is pretty impressive.

Acts 2:5 and the other passages in Colossians 1 and Romans, combined with the definition of oikoumenos mitigate 24:14.
(If you have any further support for your view of the word oikoumenos, I would appreciate it.)

I am still unsure about this verse though. My dictionary does list "roman empire" as one possible translation of oikoumenos, but it also lists "inhabitated earth" as more frequent. Also, what do you do with "pasin tois ethnesin"? I don't know how this could not apply to all nations, and I don't remember that you discussed it. If you did, sorry I must have missed.

Most of this about the wars going on and so forth will simply be a matter of historical research for me. I will keep you posted on how my research is going.

I still have some questions if you do not mind:

1) What practical relevance does belief in preterism have? Does it effect my life? (Obviously this does not affect its truth or falsehood, I am just curious.)

2) "30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

I thought this was the rapture. Has the rapture already happened then? I would appreciate further discussion of these verses.

thanks again DD

:)

Dee Dee Warren
January 16th, 2003, 03:11 AM
Dear Gavin:

Just posting to acknowledge yours!! I will get back to you as soon as possible... probably taking one issue at a time.


On Revelation's date, I will have to do some independent research I think.


I cannot remember if I told you this already but the seminal work on this issue is Dr. Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation." If you do read that book, be absolutely sure it is the latest edition because the newest edition contains a very lengthy preface dealing with rebuttals of his work that have come out since it was published.


On Matthew 24 being fulfilled:

I can accept that all the language in this passage is not "literal".


I am writing something right now to DrB on the issue of "literal," which we demonstrate that using Biblical hermeneutics, that my interpretation is indeed "literal" i.e. taking passages in the sense in which they were intended. But I know what you mean, you can accept that Matthew 24 is not woodenly literal, and I am so glad you can see that because then a major obstacle has been overcome.

And I wanted to say this right away, though the further explanation will take some time. The Rapture has not happened yet! There is a heretical flavor of preterism which teaches that it has, but such a belief places them way, way outside the pale of orthodoxy, and IMHO into the realm of potentially damnable heresy. Please see the link in my signature line for the reasons why.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:22 PM
Dear Gavin:

To continue:


1) What practical relevance does belief in preterism have? Does it effect my life? (Obviously this does not affect its truth or falsehood, I am just curious.)


You asked what difference it makes on one’s worldview or life to embrace preterism. Well that is a very good question, and recognizes that all doctrines have effects upon us, whether realized or not. It is difficult for me to isolate the answer to just preterism for with me, preterism led to posmillennialism and an abandonment of dispensationalism. But in short, preterism has caused me to view the Bible with much more confidence as I find I no longer have to explain away nagging and clear timing verses that bothered me from the first moment I read them. And I have great optimism and hope for the future and for the long range. The passages predicting fearful judgments and wrath are in our past. We are moving towards consummation. Christ is reigning now and will certainly put all of His enemies under His feet. We are seated together in the heavenly places now and ruling with Him. The Gospel will be victorious. I do not view the future as a time where it is inevitable that the world will wax worse and worse. I do not believe that social activism and change is merely polishing the brass on the Titanic. I take the dominion mandate seriously. The Bible has come alive for me in a way that it did not before. I am not awaiting the antichrist or the mark or the inevitable apostasy. When I hear a sermon motivating us to go out and change the world for Christ I believe that it is not Mission Impossible, and that it can be done….. Just as surely as Christ put the first century apostates under His feet and vindicated Himself and His Church, He will put the twenty-first century enemies under His feet and beyond…..

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:25 PM
And Gavin... here is an article on the subject that also states it very well....

SOURCE: http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-2eschaton.php

Volume 9, Issue 2: Eschaton

Does Eschatology Matter?

Jack Van Deventer

Have you ever heard someone say that studying eschatology is a waste of time? It is not uncommon for evangelicals to dismiss the biblical teachings of prophecy as irrelevant or unimportant. "It doesn't affect one's Christian life one way or another, so why should I bother with it?" Often the unspoken implication of such a statement is "Why should you bother with it either?"

Why is the study of eschatology important? First, the Bible is given to us that we might know God and His will. Anything God has chosen to reveal to us is certainly worth studying. It seems odd, therefore, that Christians would opt to downplay certain parts of God's revelation as irrelevant. Second, while eschatology may not be among the essential doctrines of the faith, neither is it unimportant. Barton Payne estimated that 38% of the Bible deals with prophecy, which is not an insignificant amount. Third, eschatology deals with God's plan in human history. How can anyone say that God's plan for the human race has no effect on one's life?

Sometimes one hears a conversation that goes something like this:
Person A: "Oh, I see that you are convinced of (fill in the blank: Pre-,Post-, or A-) millennialism. That's all well and good, but why do you waste your time?"

Person B: "Oh . . . what is your eschatological persuasion?"

Person A: "I'm a panmillennialist."

Person B: "Huh?"

Person A: "I believe God will make it all `pan out' in the end."

There are those who use the "panmillennial" line innocently enough. They are eschatological agnostics who have not adopted an eschatological position. There are others who use the phrase in a scoffing sense. They are the ones who have concluded that God's course for human history is unknowable and, as such, they believe that those who hold to a particular millennial view are naive and lacking perspective. Or perhaps the panmillennialist believes the subject matter is too unimportant for his attention. In either case there can be an air of superiority on the part of the panmillennialist. I tend to have greater respect for a brother who can articulate a particular millennial viewpoint from the Scriptures (even if I disagree with his use of the Bible) than I do for those who presume that God has left us in the dark on such issues.

In general, I find those who claim that eschatology has no effect on one's lifestyle to be those with a pessimistic view of the future. This claim seems to me a form of denial, like an investor who denies the possibility of loss in the stock market or a Californian who disregards the possibility of a major earthquake. In contrast to the denial that eschatology has no effect on lifestyle, other pessimists believe the increasing evil will result in unprecedented temptations away from godliness and they have resolved to remain obedient despite the cost. One pastor told me, "We're going down, but we'll go down fighting!" Even here the presumption of inevitable doom, despite the well-intended obedience, has deep implications.

Knowing that prophecy affected the way people behaved, the leaders of the fledgling dispensational movement in the 1800's intended to use premillennial eschatology as a club to wake up the backslidden church and to call sinners to repentance. Despite believing in an irreversible decline in society, they had hoped that preaching an "any moment" return of Christ would awake a moribund Church. The result, as described by a premillennialist, is more of the same: "twentieth-century premillennialists tend to be pessimistic, fatalistic, nonpolitical, and nonactivist."

It is hard to imagine an area of life that is not touched by eschatology. A pessimist will plan for the short term, an optimist for the long term. Do you disciple your children in such a way that they will know how to disciple their children? Or do you believe as many do that we are in the "terminal generation"? Do you educate your children the same way? Do you save your money with your children's children in mind (Prov. 13:22)? If you believe the end is near, why should you save? (How many churches and individuals, convinced of an imminent rapture, have accumulated indebtedness believing they will never have to pay back their debt in full?) Do you work toward progressive sanctification in your life, in your family, in your work, in your neighborhood, in your community, in your church? Or have you abandoned any hope of God-ordained revival, believing instead that irreversible decline is inevitable?

Eschatology affects one's perseverance. Not long ago a premillennialist confronted a postmillennialist undergoing a series of trials. "I would think these injustices would cause you to become a premillennialist."

"On the contrary," said the other, "If I were a premillennialist I would
have given up in despair long ago."

The eschatological presuppositions of pessimism or optimism affect virtually every decision a Christian makes. The more a decision is affected by time, the more one's eschatological persuasion will influence his decision. Eschatology has a very profound effect on one's life. As a man thinks, so is he (Prov. 23:7).

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:28 PM
And lastly....

you said


2) "30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

I thought this was the rapture. Has the rapture already happened then? I would appreciate further discussion of these verses.


Okay, I had already posted a great deal on the 'coming' of the Son of Man so I am not sure what issues or questions you had with that. I am guessing then you would like to begin to discuss the "gathering" verse, so here it goes....

Matthew 24:31 – And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

I want you to take a look at how Young’s Literal Translation renders the verse:

and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

Okay first things first. This passage appears in verse 31 which is before verse 34 in which Jesus unequivocally says that ALL the preceding events will take place prior to the death of that then-living generation. This it happened or Christ was wrong.

First, I think one problem with approaching this passage is that we automatically assume that the word translated as “angels” MUST mean heavenly beings. The fact is that the Greek word “angelos” simply means messenger and is used throughout the NT to refer to mere men such as John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10) and others (Luke 9:52, James 2:25). Now it is possible that angelic beings are being referred to here, but I have another view. I believe that our focus needs to be on the idea of “gathering” and see how the Bible instructs us to view that concept…..

Consider this passage:

John 11:49-52: And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

Both of these passages are allusions to:

Isaiah 27:12-13: In that day the Lord will start his threshing from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt, and you will be gathered up one by one, O sons of Israel. And it will come about in that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.

See also

Ephesians 1:7-10: In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

The “gathering” is a gathering into the community of faith of all true believers. The word used in some of these passages are variants of “sunago” which is where we get the word “synagogue.” You can see this idea in ….

Hebrews 10:25 – not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

The word here for “assembling” is the same word found in our passage under discussion.

While Jerusalem was still intact, it was still the center of the Christian faith as the daughter was still tied to her mother – apostate Judaism. But when Jerusalem was destroyed the Christians were thoroughly scattered throughout the world and began the gathering of God’s elect into His Kingdom. That process continues through our day.

All of these are a reference to the gathering of the true Israel of God from all nations in fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is made especially clear in that the New Testament nowhere even hints at the restoration of a “fleshly” Jerusalem or earthly centralized place of worship to be restored, in fact, it teaches the opposite (John 4:21, Galatians 4:25, Revelation 3:12).

The mention of the great trumpet is simply the call of the gospel. It is an allusion to the Isaiah passage already mentioned above and to Numbers 10:1-10 where trumpets are used to summon the people for worship and battle. Notice the symbolic use of trumpets in describing the call of God’s messengers for repentance (Isaiah 58:1, also Jeremiah 6:17).

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:30 PM
Now related to this is the proofs that the resurrection was not at all expected to be soon to the first century disciples. I would recommend that you take a quick look at my article on that subject located here: www.tektonics.org/soon.html


I will stop here and see where you want to go next in our discussion.....

Gavin
January 17th, 2003, 09:04 PM
I don't buy that stuff on 31, I don't think it gives enough credit to the strong language. But then I don't know what to do with 34 still.

I am really busy, but I will try to keep in touch and throw you some more questions.

Thanks again for taking the time educate me.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 09:10 PM
Dear Gavin:

That is fair. When you get a chance articulate for me if you can exactly what you think is so strong about that verse. That is not usually the one that people have problems with, and you have correctly identified the conundrum of verse 34. That is the kicker ain't it? :) I think if you take a look at my article and see that the "rapture" was not expected for at least another age, that will remove some of your obstacles to seeing that verse as referring to the first century. I will also post here for your benefit a more complete defense on proving that the rapture was at least an age away for the first century believers and if their age has not yet ended, it would still be an age away for us which NOBODY believes. Is that cool??

Gavin
January 18th, 2003, 02:41 PM
very cool :thumb:

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 09:41 PM
Hey Gavin, first I just read this today, and I wanted it to add it to my prior answer on what difference does it make to believe this particular pov....

Excerpt from Eschatology and Gospel by Patch Blakey

Although varied in many aspects, each of the three major millennial views (other than postmillennialism) is alike in that they each see the world growing over time more morally corrupt, with the eventual triumph of sin over all cultures, until at the very end of history, Christ returns to conquer evil and save the world. Those who subscribe to one of the first three views find themselves in a contradictory situation – obligated on the one hand to proclaim the saving grace of God through preaching the Gospel, yet simultaneously firmly convinced that despite the best efforts of the Church, the world will still sink in moral decrepitude because of the triumph of evil in history…. Therefore in preaching the Gospel of hope and of a victorious Christ, do we simultaneously find ourselves guilty of contradicting that Gospel with an eschatology of pessimism? Are we deprecating the efficacious atoning work of Christ on the cross by teaching that Christ only managed to save just a few as the world speeds on its downward spiral toward the victory of sin over history? How does your eschatology stack up with the saving gospel of Christ?

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 09:44 PM
I can believe that I can prove that the “end of the age” mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse MUST have already come unless one is going to believe in a future “millennium” which is clearly unbiblical on other grounds but this is going to take some collation of passages. Ready? :up: :D

When Christ ascended to the Father He sat at His right hand and is in the process of having all enemies put under His feet. Many passages tell us this, but the most important for this discussion is Ephesians 1:15-22 since it has some very important timing verses which I am asking that you pay very close attention to.

Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, NOT ONLY IN THIS AGE BUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

This passage is very important. It tells us that during the age in which Paul was writing, Christ was having all things put under His feet. Hebrews 1:13 equates this idea with sitting at the right hand of the Father. Paul also tells this that this special position will be occupied by Christ in the age in which he was writing but also in the age which is to come.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:20:28 – But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This passage tells us that all enemies will finally and completely be put under Christ’s feet at the resurrection with the destruction of the last enemy, death, and at that point, Christ’s special Messianic reign ends. Yet Paul tells us that this special reign lasts through the age in which he was writing and through the end of the age to come. Now unless we are in that age to come, meaning that the age in which Paul was writing has ended, then there is yet a whole age to come before Christ can return to resurrect the saved and the damned.


Ephesians 1:20 tells us that there are two ages in view when Paul was writing that passage. The age in which he was writing and the age to come. Paul knew that there was more than one age to come since in Ephesians 2:7 he mentions the ages to come. Now if the final age for us is the eternal state, and it is, it has to be the last of the ages to come, and thus, cannot be the “age to come” in Ephesians 1:20 since there is one more age after that one. Also remember that Christ is over all rule and authority and power and might in the age in which Paul was writing and the age to come. At the time of the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:24 (and surrounding verses) He will have DESTROYED all rule and authority and power and might. Then obviously, the resurrection has to take place at the end of the age to come described in Ephesians 1:20 which would then put in the last of the AGES to come mentioned in Ephesians 2:7. This ties in perfectly with Revelation 20 as well. We are in the millennium, the age to come from Paul’s perspective, we are spiritually reigning and ruling and sharing in the First Resurrection (Christ’s resurrection). When the thousand years are done (this age is finishing, which is the age to come from Paul’s perspective), Christ will put all rule and authority and power under His feet (described as Gog and Magog in Revelation 20), He will resurrect the just and the damned (the second resurrection), and THEN the eternal state begins. The chronology is tight and inescapable.

If the “end of the age” described in the Olivet Discourse has not come and gone, then there is still an entire age to go before the resurrection can happen.

Solly
January 21st, 2003, 08:23 AM
DD, I have come to have a gander as requested.

I have to admit here and now that this is THE sticking point for me, and until I have had time to look into it in depth, I am unable to progress further. There is a very good case made here, but cognitive dissonance hinders me from jumping straight in and saying THIS IS IT. You'll know that yourself. Unless I can answer this with a clear scriptural rejection or acceptance, then all the other matters are immaterial.

----

Re the previous post, this is the position I hold at the moment. All previous ages - the Ante-Diluvian, the Sodom-Gomorran (if one can call it an age), the Egyptian thralldom, the end of the kingdom of Israel, and the end of the Jewish order in 70ad ended in misery, wrath and judgment. It is my expectation that this world will end also in such a way. Does this lead to pessimism? Not for me; the Gospel is still to be preached - flee from the wrath to come, for the Lord knoweth them that are his, and will maintain his remnant.

The giveaway in the paragraph quoted is the implicit idea that "the world" will be saved by...

the best efforts of the Church, [without which] the world will still sink in moral decrepitude sic transit gloria mundi: it already is because of the triumph of evil in history…. Therefore in preaching the Gospel of hope and of a victorious Christ, do we simultaneously find ourselves guilty of contradicting that Gospel with an eschatology of pessimism? - God is very pessimistic about the world's future apart from his grace. We preach the pessimism of mankind's final goal in its present state, and the judgment to come - this is very real, despite any intervening Shangri-La of a Christianised world: sin will be judged. Are we deprecating the efficacious atoning work of Christ on the cross by teaching that Christ only managed to save just a few contradicting scripture, that a Great Multitude will be saved as the world speeds on its downward spiral toward the victory of sin over history? the victory of sin over history, whatever that may mean, is overcome by the victory of grace over sin. This is mankind's doom, and only hope. Whether this takes place in this world now, or the next is obviously the question in dispute.

As a Calvinist, I believe that the Gospel will be sent to those that need to hear it, that men will be sent to take it, that those that hear and are "ordained to salvation" shall be saved, in spite all, wherever they are. It was Calvinist Carey and friends that went to India, Calvinist Paton to the New Hebrides, Calvinist McCheyne to the Jews and Hungary - from whose work the church received Edersheim and Saphir, Calvinist Whitefield to America, etc, so we are obviously not that pessimistic about the power of the Gospel, though we are of a sinful world and its future.

There is too much of the "Oh, the world is heading to hell, and only the church can stop it, but we are all fiddling while Rome burns, come on Church get your act together, or millions will be lost" idea in this and similar articles I have seen elsewhere, reflecting more a man oriented gospel-means view derived from Finney and Moody rather than that which is current amongst the Reformed churches.

be blest in Him :cool:

Gavin
January 21st, 2003, 08:29 PM
Dear Dee Dee:


That is fair. When you get a chance articulate for me if you can exactly what you think is so strong about that verse. That is not usually the one that people have problems with, and you have correctly identified the conundrum of verse 34.

31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It just sounds too rapturish (I love inventing words). Cf. with I Thessalonians 4:
16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Both have angels, trumpets, and the elect being gathered. I am assuming here, of course, that you agree that I Thessalonians 4 is speaking of the rapture.

I am not yet convinced that angels going down with the sound of the trumpet is just messengers with the gospel. If so, what messengers? What does the proclamation of the gospel have to do with the destruction of the temple? The gospel was being preached through God's messengers far before 70 AD. I guess it is possible, but it is not what I would have naturally come away from the text with.

Also contextually the "gathering" here seems to be different from the gathering of Jew and Gentile together into Christ with all believers. The gathering of the people of God together as the one church took place before 70 AD.

I hope I am not misrepresenting your position here, DD, but that is how I understood your comments on verse 31.

I go back and forth. Sometimes the force of the language in Matthew 24, like the talk about "all nations" and the severity of this occurence makes me skeptical, and sometimes other things in the passage like, say, verse 34, or the way it sounds like it is talking about the PRESENT disciples, and other things make me lean the other way. On the whole I think I am definitely leaning toward and open to preterism, but again I will need to do a lot of historical research.

I think one of the really strong aspects of your position is the OLD TESTAMENT passages of judgement which you frequently allude to which use similar hyperbolic and figurative language as Matthew 24, and which definitely are in the past.

Plus as I read through the New Testament with a preterist framework in mind, a lot of small things start to make more sense, like the whole idea of first century Christians WAITING fpr the second coming (I Corinthians 1:7, "so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ"). It is just weird to "eagerly wait" for something two thousand years in the future.

But I still need to do research so don't jump to conclusions.

Thanks again, Dee Dee. You are a refreshing and sincere poster, and a great debater too. God bless you!

:)

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 08:46 PM
Hey Gavin.. I have added your comments to my pile (smile). You know I am faithful to get to them.


But I still need to do research so don't jump to conclusions.



Cool! And listen, I have no overriding need to convince or convert anyone to my view. If we ultimately disagree, that is fine. It was refreshing having such a nonconfrontional exchange of thoughts. And I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 11:45 PM
Gavin have you read....

The Pretribulation Rapture (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4440)

and....

Second Coming Confusion (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4741)

Gavin
January 22nd, 2003, 12:33 AM
no I will look into it knight

take your time dd

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 04:00 AM
Dear Gavin:

I too highly recommend those articles. They are good presentations of an opposing view.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 04:06 AM
Dear Solly:


DD, I have come to have a gander as requested.

Thank you!


I have to admit here and now that this is THE sticking point for me, and until I have had time to look into it in depth, I am unable to progress further. There is a very good case made here, but cognitive dissonance hinders me from jumping straight in and saying THIS IS IT.

Hey that is emminently fair and one of the better answers that I have got thus far. You know that I am looking for a good and straightforward rebuttal that actually interacts with the verses I brought forward instead of just brining in other verses to create a contradictory mess without harmonization. No one has yet been able to do that... but I appreciate that you do not want to shoot from the hip. That is way cool.

Now onto the philosophical postmill stuff I posted, well a lot of lot is subjective, and thus not really appropos for "debate." It is an accurate description of how I have personally experienced a worldview shift, but I understan your differing point of view.

But....


Re the previous post, this is the position I hold at the moment. All previous ages - the Ante-Diluvian, the Sodom-Gomorran (if one can call it an age), the Egyptian thralldom, the end of the kingdom of Israel, and the end of the Jewish order in 70ad ended in misery, wrath and judgment. It is my expectation that this world will end also in such a way.

I am sure you can appreciate that I deny that this age will end in such a way, and that has to in some way make an impact on my outlook? See, that is what preterism has done for me, it has removed all the inevitable really nasty stuff to the past. While we may certaining, and certianly will, encounter future nasty stuff, it is not inevitable to fulfill prophecy.

Knight
November 23rd, 2004, 05:03 PM
This thread has been inducted into the Hall of Fame as of 11-23-2004.