Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Patriarch Kirill

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    Hrm... where did the Second Ecumenical Council (a.k.a. First Council of Constantinople) condemn chiliasm? I looked at the canons of the Second Ecumenical Council and I see no condemnation of a thousand-year reign of Christ, not even in the disputed canons. It does mention Apollinarius, but only as part of a list of heretics without going into any detail as to what his heresy was. It's far more likely this was a reference to his Christological beliefs than anything else, given that from what I can tell, that was what he was most known (and criticized) for. Perhaps they also took a dim view of his chiliasm, but to use the Council as evidence of chiliasm condemnation is simply reading assumptions into the text.
    You're ignoring other possible sources of information about the Council (i.e., early church historians Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret who subsequently covered the event) and the line from the Creed - not sure what else that could possibly have been addressing.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by QuantaFille View Post
      To be fair, it's not made clear whether he believes the internet is already structured that way, or if he's warning that we shouldn't head towards such a configuration. Context would be helpful and none is provided.
      The video was provided. Yes, it is in Russian, but you can read the subtitles in English.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        I don't know that I entirely trust the accuracy of translations of cherry-picked quotes from a source which seems hostile to the Moscow administration.
        The video was provided as well. The quotes are a fair representation of the thrust of Patriarch Kirill's views, IMO.

        I agree that smartphones can be dangerously addictive.
        They can be addictive. Taming that addiction can be a great way to exercise self-control. Patriarch Kirill is sensationalizing things, IMO.

        Given it's the first time I've heard anything like this in 11 years, I'd lean toward "no".
        Perhaps that might be partly attributed to modern Orthodox believers regarding how it will happen as "not especially important"?

        Nope. Orthodox bishops are not popes.

        In Eastern Orthodoxy, what is stressed is that we should be prepared for His return. How exactly it will happen is not especially important, though chiliasm (pre-mil) was condemned as heretical around the 4th century. The conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in AD 70 is widely held to have fulfilled eschatological prophecy, but as the general resurrection is universally held to be yet in the future, hyperpreterism is ruled out.
        So partial preterism is the dominant view in EO, but are a plurality of eschatological views present in EO?
        Last edited by Scrawly; 05-15-2019, 03:02 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Darfius View Post
          Look into A.I. and bitcoin as a precursor to a beast-like control grid. Throw in 5G and it's a heady mix of doom. Skynet anyone?
          To make such theories accord with the biblical description of the Antichrist and his activities will surely make your head spin!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
            The video was provided. Yes, it is in Russian, but you can read the subtitles in English.
            Do you trust that the video was translated accurately and was not edited? I'd rather read a transcript anyway. Maybe I'll watch the video when I get home from work.
            Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
              To make such theories accord with the biblical description of the Antichrist and his activities will surely make your head spin!
              Not really. "He" almost accomplished it at Babel, which is why God Himself had to forestall things a few thousand years. But making it so that no man can buy or sell save with government permission will require integration with the Internet and it's clear that a universal consciousness is where that is headed.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                So partial preterism is the dominant view in EO, but are a plurality of eschatological views present in EO?
                I don't think I'd characterize it as the dominant view in EO, but that the dominant view in EO is largely in accord with partial preterism. I'd venture to say that neither camp is especially aware of the other.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  You're ignoring other possible sources of information about the Council (i.e., early church historians Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret who subsequently covered the event) and the line from the Creed - not sure what else that could possibly have been addressing.
                  I don't see anything about Apollinarius in Socrates' or Sozomen's Church History. Theodoret mentions Apollinarius in his Church History (Book 5), but discusses only his christological views.

                  I'm not sure what line from the Creed you're referring to. The only one that seems to be even mildly related to chiliasm is "whose kingdom shall have no end" but I do not see the contradiction, given that chliasm does in fact believe that, even if the understanding is slightly different from an amillennial viewpoint. But more importantly, it is not clear at all that it had anything to do with Apollinarius's chiliasm (a belief it's not fully clear he held). Various sources I've found assert that it was actually meant to refute a christological heresy. For example:
                  http://www.francisgumerlock.com/wp-c...0Gumerlock.pdf

                  Now, I'm not sure how accurate its assertions are, but it does seem that the idea that chiliasm was being condemned is at best a possibility, but not a certainty.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by seanD, 03-26-2020, 12:05 PM
                  44 responses
                  4,934 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post eschaton  
                  Started by KingsGambit, 07-29-2018, 07:36 PM
                  73 responses
                  13,107 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post eschaton  
                  Started by hamster, 07-05-2015, 01:07 PM
                  116 responses
                  31,418 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post ReformedApologist  
                  Working...
                  X