ECT Are We Now In the Time of the prophecy of Luke 17: 26-29?

Interplanner

New member
Did you ever decide if the text intended to reach beyond 1st century Judea?

I have problems with people who 'double' Jesus' sayings, like STP. They think they've got the meaning but needed to spend much more time in the original milieu.

After all, it ends with a line about vultures. You have to dig pretty deep for a 1st century meaning on that, and it may not transfer to modern times.
 

northwye

New member
Matthew 24: 28 in the KJV has eagles for αετοι. Luke 17: 37 has eagles for αετοιin the KJV.

The NIV has vultures in Matthew 24: 28 - and also vultures for Luke 17: 37. Vultures is right because Christ is talking about dead bodies.

To some extent Luke 17 is a version of Matthew 24 which has verses that apply to the First Century. But Luke 17: 24 starts talking about the appearing of Christ as in I Corinthians 15: 51-56. Then in Luke 17: 25 it starts to describe things that happen to Christ, that he will be rejected by this generation. This does not necessarily mean that the time setting for fulfillment of the prophecy of Luke 17: 26-27 is the generation alive in the First Century. It looks like a church theology - preterism - though a minority one, is saying the time of fulfillment of Luke 17: 26-27 is in the First Century. That is not the traditinal Protestant interpretation and the text does not clearly support the preterist view.

John Gill says of Luke 17: 26 that "the times of Noah's flood, of Jerusalem's destruction, and of the end of the world, bear a great resemblance to each other: and when the son of man comes in either of these senses."

Matthew Henry says of Luke 17: 26-27 that "Thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. When Christ came to destroy the Jewish nation by the Roman armies, that nation was found in such a state of false security as is here spoken of. In like manner, when Jesus Christ shall come to judge the world, sinners will be found altogether regardless; for in like manner the sinners of every age go on securely in their evil ways, and remember not their latter end. But wherever the wicked are, who are marked for eternal ruin, they shall be found by the judgments of God."

"Geneva Study Bible
{10} And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

(10) The world will be taken by surprise with the sudden judgment of God, and therefore the faithful ought to continually watch."
 

Interplanner

New member
Prophecy via typology?





OK, but a reader should still stay as close to what Jesus was targeting to begin with. Not as close (far) as STP where Acts 7:13 is about the 2nd coming, of course! lol WOW! LITERALISM!!!

In answer to several people here who have turned up their noses at scholarship. Let's go back to Luke 17's vultures. I am inclined to go with eagles, the mascot of Rome. So I would like to know why the NIV for ex. has gone with vultures, because it then places Jesus in the rebel mindset, and the whole force of Luke-Acts was to show that neither Christ nor Paul were a concern to Rome. Even retaliation for Christ's death was not going to be a concern, but Judaism's terrorists were.

So if there were a piece of literature out there that settled this and was found in a lexicon (a book that 'stores' key citations of ancient words), it would be a more accurate reading of the Bible than not.

That is what scholarship is supposed to do. It is not supposed to perpetuate the madness of people like Chafer who developed a whole 'system' of understanding the Bible because he thought it was confused.
 

northwye

New member
From I Timothy 6: 20-21 the concern of scripture with the dialectic is first of all on the opposition to the Truth, the Whole Gospel of Christ. This is why Paul in I Timothy 6: 20 uses the word αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis, and does not use διαλεκτική, or dialectic. The anti-thesis is an opposition to the Truth.

in Genesis 3: 2-6, "And the woman said unto the serpent of the fruit of the trees in the garden we may eat
3 but of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden (said God) see that ye eat not and see that ye touch it not: lest ye die.
4 Then said the Serpent unto the woman: trust ye shall not die:
5 But God doth know that whensoever ye should eat of it your eyes should be opened and ye should be as God and know both good and evil."
6 And the woman saw that it was a good tree to eat of and lusted unto the eyes and a pleasant tree for to make wise. And took of the fruit of it and ate and gave unto her husband also with her and he ate."

The Serpent is teaching doctrine in direct opposition to that taught by God. Eve said God told them not to eat of the fruit of one tree and if they did so they would die. But the Serpent contradicted this and offered his own doctrine totally opposing that of God.

In John 8: 31-33, 44, 52-53, the Pharisees were making an argument in direct opposition to what Christ was teaching, that "If ye continue in my word then are ye my very disciples
32 and shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free." In the dialogue with Jesus the Pharisees opposed the doctrine of Christ and said to him, "We be Abraham's seed and were never bound to any man: why sayest thou then ye shall be made free...."

The serpent and the Pharisees both told lies in opposing the Truth from God. In John 8 the Pharisees were telling a lie in saying they were then Abraham's seed and not bound to any man - because Christ the Messiah had arrived and had changed Abraham's seed from the physical to the spiritual or faith. The serpent in Genesis 3 told Eve lies in saying she and Adam would not die from disobeying God.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Christ told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil, and that he is a liar and the father of lies. Is not Satan the father of the anti-thesis used by the false prophets in opposition to the doctrines of Christ?

And there are many specific tactics of the use of the dialectic as opposition to some truth or moral, some tactics being more dishonest than other tactics.

One point in the use of the dialectic as an attitude and belief changing procedure is the repetition of the use of anti-theses. Those skilled in the use of a succession of anti-theses rather than the use of one single anti-thesis can keep at it and so gradually move the target person's beliefs toward that of the "facilitator."

The serpent can be said to be the "Grand Facilitator," That would be beyond the understanding of most unless they were aware that the leader of encounter groups back in the sixties and seventies was called the facilitator.
 
Last edited:

northwye

New member
See: https://www.redstate.com/diary/FMee...rs-the-church-at-the-end-of-the-20th-century/

"An Analysis Of Francis Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End Of The 20th Century”

"Francis Schaeffer has been characterized as an Elijah to the late twentieth century. Though not as inspired in the same direct sense as his Biblical forebears, Francis Schaeffer did articulate a vision of the future remarkable in its accuracy and a message startling in its relevancy. Schaeffer was able to accomplish this by extrapolating from the cultural situation of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and projecting these trends into the future where the implications of these assumptions would have the time necessary to fester over into a comprehensive dystopian milieu. Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End 20th Century”, from a standpoint a tad less than nearly a half century in the past, explored a world not unlike our own where Western society has abandoned its Judeo-Christian foundations and stands poised to lose not only its order but also its liberty as a consequence."

Schaeffer was interested in the Counterculture of the sixties. He died in May of 1984 and the Counterculture years were mostly from 1962 until 1980. I corresponded with him briefly in 1983 when he was working on his last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. I had found resistance to my manuscript on the Counterculture from conservative Christian book editors. Schaeffer said he understood what I was wrestling with.

I used the writings of three social scientists on the Counterculture, Herbert Hendin. The Age of Sensation, 1975, Christopher Lasch. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life In An Age
of Diminishing Expectations, 1978, and Daniel Yankelovich. New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulfillment In A
World Turned Upside Down, 1981. From these authors from my my own experience with the Counterculture in Madison, Wisconsin I found a number of traits of people in the Counterculture, and grouped these traits into four general categories to describe the Counterculture. These General Traits were Selfishness,he Revolt Against Christian Morality. the Lowering of Man to His Desires, Feelings and Conditioning, and The Denial of Objective Reality. I also used scripture to characterize and criticize the Counterculture.

The book was self-published, but was distributed by a mail order Christian outfit. At the time I wrote the book I was not aware of the role of the Frankfurt School Marxists in their helping to create the Counterculture. I did know then that Theodore W. Adorno in his 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality had used questionnaires - the F Scale especially - to claim to measure the potential of people for following fascism and authoritarianism.

Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Civilization says "Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, 1955, is a book by the German philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse, in which the author proposes a non-repressive society and attempts a synthesis of the theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud......Eros and Civilization has been compared to books such as Norman O. Brown's Life Against Death (1959). Eros and Civilization helped shape the subcultures of the 1960s."

"The Marxist writer Paul Mattick reviewed Eros and Civilization in Western Socialist, writing that Marcuse "renews the endeavor to read Marx into Freud", following the unsuccessful attempts of Wilhelm Reich.[4] Brown, a classicist, commended the work in Life Against Death (1959), calling it "the first book, after...Reich's ill-fated adventures, to reopen the possibility of the abolition of repression."

But wikipedia does not make it clear that Herbert Marcuse was a major member of the Frankfurt School and one of the Marxists who came to the U.S. and became highly influential university professors.

The Frankfurt School Marxism influenced the Counterculture not only through the New Left which was allied with the Counterculture but also Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School had an influence upon the Hippie and LSD drug movement, which in the sixties, was a big part of the Counterculture. The Hippies were interested in drugs, an anti-Christian attitude and sex.

The sexual liberation movement of the sixties - in the watering holes of the Counterculture, the Haight- Ashbury, The Lower East Side and on the campuses at Madison and Ann Arbor - was a stepping stone to Transformational Marxism. Some would say that the sex lib movement was part of Transformational Marxism and that the Second Wave Feminism which got going by 1969-1970 in the Counterculture was Marxist.

Anyway, Transformational Marxism of the Frankfurt School got going in the United States during the purple decades of the Counterculture. And Francis Schaeffer knew before he died that the Counterculture was to change the culture of the country.

Remember - Selfishness,the Revolt Against Christian Morality. the Lowering of Man To His Desires, Feelings and Conditioning, and the Denial of Objective Reality were themes of the Counterculture in the sixties and seventies while Schaeffer was alive.
 
Last edited:

1Mind1Spirit

BANNED
Banned
"Somewhere within the process there lies a switch that confuses men's minds, numbs their feelings, and freezes their responses. Aware that something is gaining control over them and not able to explain or define what it is, they are unable to develop any response that will stop the process. This trigger shuts off man's awareness of impending danger (past history or depth history; depth perception) and freezes his ability to resist the process (indecision). The numbness one experiences comes from the fear of potential alienation and loss of respect because of the inability to explain the differences between what one says he believes (black and white) and what he does or desires to do (gray zone). This produces feelings that are not based on God's Word, but that are instead based upon the fear of losing respect in the eyes of others. This kind of fear prevents one from making an immediate or effective response. This fear is not from God, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Tim 1:7). "

A lot to do with why Adam followed eve. :sigh:
 

Interplanner

New member
See: https://www.redstate.com/diary/FMee...rs-the-church-at-the-end-of-the-20th-century/

"An Analysis Of Francis Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End Of The 20th Century”

"Francis Schaeffer has been characterized as an Elijah to the late twentieth century. Though not as inspired in the same direct sense as his Biblical forebears, Francis Schaeffer did articulate a vision of the future remarkable in its accuracy and a message startling in its relevancy. Schaeffer was able to accomplish this by extrapolating from the cultural situation of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and projecting these trends into the future where the implications of these assumptions would have the time necessary to fester over into a comprehensive dystopian milieu. Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End 20th Century”, from a standpoint a tad less than nearly a half century in the past, explored a world not unlike our own where Western society has abandoned its Judeo-Christian foundations and stands poised to lose not only its order but also its liberty as a consequence."

Schaeffer was interested in the Counterculture of the sixties. He died in May of 1984 and the Counterculture years were mostly from 1962 until 1980. I corresponded with him briefly in 1983 when he was working on his last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. I had found resistance to my manuscript on the Counterculture from conservative Christian book editors. Schaeffer said he understood what I was wrestling with.

I used the writings of three social scientists on the Counterculture, Herbert Hendin. The Age of Sensation, 1975, Christopher Lasch. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life In An Age
of Diminishing Expectations, 1978, and Daniel Yankelovich. New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulfillment In A
World Turned Upside Down, 1981. From these authors from my my own experience with the Counterculture in Madison, Wisconsin I found a number of traits of people in the Counterculture, and grouped these traits into four general categories to describe the Counterculture. These General Traits were Selfishness,he Revolt Against Christian Morality. the Lowering of Man to His Desires, Feelings and Conditioning, and The Denial of Objective Reality. I also used scripture to characterize and criticize the Counterculture.

The book was self-published, but was distributed by a mail order Christian outfit. At the time I wrote the book I was not aware of the role of the Frankfurt School Marxists in their helping to create the Counterculture. I did know then that Theodore W. Adorno in his 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality had used questionnaires - the F Scale especially - to claim to measure the potential of people for following fascism and authoritarianism.

Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Civilization says "Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, 1955, is a book by the German philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse, in which the author proposes a non-repressive society and attempts a synthesis of the theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud......Eros and Civilization has been compared to books such as Norman O. Brown's Life Against Death (1959). Eros and Civilization helped shape the subcultures of the 1960s."

"The Marxist writer Paul Mattick reviewed Eros and Civilization in Western Socialist, writing that Marcuse "renews the endeavor to read Marx into Freud", following the unsuccessful attempts of Wilhelm Reich.[4] Brown, a classicist, commended the work in Life Against Death (1959), calling it "the first book, after...Reich's ill-fated adventures, to reopen the possibility of the abolition of repression."

But wikipedia does not make it clear that Herbert Marcuse was a major member of the Frankfurt School and one of the Marxists who came to the U.S. and became highly influential university professors.

The Frankfurt School Marxism influenced the Counterculture not only through the New Left which was allied with the Counterculture but also Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School had an influence upon the Hippie and LSD drug movement, which in the sixties, was a big part of the Counterculture. The Hippies were interested in drugs, an anti-Christian attitude and sex.

The sexual liberation movement of the sixties - in the watering holes of the Counterculture, the Haight- Ashbury, The Lower East Side and on the campuses at Madison and Ann Arbor - was a stepping stone to Transformational Marxism. Some would say that the sex lib movement was part of Transformational Marxism and that the Second Wave Feminism which got going by 1969-1970 in the Counterculture was Marxist.

Anyway, Transformational Marxism of the Frankfurt School got going in the United States during the purple decades of the Counterculture. And Francis Schaeffer knew before he died that the Counterculture was to change the culture of the country.

Remember - Selfishness,the Revolt Against Christian Morality. the Lowering of Man To His Desires, Feelings and Conditioning, and the Denial of Objective Reality were themes of the Counterculture in the sixties and seventies while Schaeffer was alive.





Have I mentioned DEGENERATE MODERNS to you? Michael Greene, Temple U. @1980. Quite a shocking piece that would never get published today. Although one friend said it was simply a Catholic trying to deal a death blow to Luther for sexual misconduct. Desire vs. truth, in the modern era.
 

northwye

New member
Selfishness,a Revolt Against Christian Morality, the Lowering of Man To His Desires, Feelings and Conditioning, and the Denial of Objective Reality are all traits of the culture that Luke 17: 26-28 is talking about, and that Dean Gotcher ties to what he calls the dialectic mind. Remember that some have talked about a Hive Mind.

I knew that the Dallas Theological Seminary Library had a copy of my book on the Counterculture, and I found out yesterday that so does the Main Library at the University of Wisconsin.

But the people in what was called the New Left, which was Marxist, in the sixties and seventies on some of the campuses then were more intelligent and their leaders were much more articulate than the Marxist Left today in 2016-2017, who get their talking points from the mainstream TV, newspaper and magazine media.

And the Left as it was in the sixties has lost its Art Bohemian, Beat Poet, and LSD Drug-Plus Far Eastern Religion influence. But that loss does not account for the loss of cognitive ability in the Left. I suspect that the Marxist Left in 2016-17 has more of a Hive Mind than the New Left in the sixties on the campus of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. And the Hive Mind is in part created in the major universities now.
 

Interplanner

New member
Have you seen AGENDA; GRINDING AMERICA DOWN. by Idaho state rep Curtis? Bower. It has a 'map' of the Left you will want to navigate from Marx to Obama. It is a doc that was produced about 10 years ago.
 

northwye

New member
The Counterculture led to what was called the Me Generation of the later 20th century, which comes out of the several influences upon the counterculture and can be seen as a fulfillment of Paul's prophecy in II Timothy 3: 1-4.

The political Left, from Marxism, was not as important in the counterculture until the very late sixties and early seventies. I remember than in Madison, Wisconsin one of the leaders of the political left in about 1968 wrote an article in the University newspaper, The Daily Cardinal, talking about the possible merging of the Hippie movement with the political Left. And Morris Edelson, editor of a Madison little literary magazine, Quixote, opposed the arrival of what was called Women's Liberation in 1969-70.

But Marxism did merge with the bohemianism of the earlier counterculture and led to the political correctness movement which took over the Democratic Party and played a big role in the rise of the Alternative Media and the rise of the nationalist-populist movement as a reaction against it.

The Saul Alinsky Marxism of Obama, and Hillary to some extent, is a different form of the Left than the background for political. correctness which was the Frankfurt School's more psychologized Marxism.

Christopher Lasch may have died before it became evident that the later Counterculture and the Me Generation, based in part on the Frankfurt School psychologized Marxism, was to play a role in the national political scene, which was to evoke an opposition by 2016. Trump was the first national figure to make political correctness an issue and to expose it.

Dean Gotcher, for example, has connected the self psychology of Carl Rogers and A.H. Maslow, as social engineers, to the influence in America of the Frankfurt School Marxism.

But maybe Lasch, the historian, did have some understanding of the role of the later counterculture and Frankfurt School Marxism within it to the conflict which emerged after his death, especially in the 2016 election between Hillary's Leftist ideology, and "Boss" mentality, and a new "Conservative Counterculture" and cognitively sharper opposition movement.

For example, this new Alternative Media brings up the role of the Eugenics movement, the medical monopoly's failures, the pedophile evil within the elite, etc, all of which the more traditional political dialogue never touched. And this ignoring of these evils is part of the problem of the Christian Church today, that following I Timothy 4: 1 many in it speak "...lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." Their conscience seared with a hot iron is a metaphor, meaning they have lost Christian morality.
 
Top