Originally posted by Darth Executor
View Post
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
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
Special place in hell (for preterists)
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostNo it doesn't, and it takes an especially low IQ to say something this stupid. I thought you were dusting off your feet? Buzz off.
Comment
-
So now we know that there are angels imprisoned in a "special place in hell" awaiting "the day of judgement". But this cannot mean the judgment following the resurrection before the throne of Christ, because they are said to be released to kill a third of mankind. The "day of judgment" spoken of can only mean the "Day of the Lord", the proverbial "day" that God judges the nations/Gentiles/members of Daniel's "statue" for their rebellion to His rule. This period is also knows as the tribulation. And this period most certainly did not occur in the first century, at the least because angels did not ascend from hell to slaughter a third of mankind.
Good luck spiritualizing this away, preterists.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
As far as spiritualizing goes, why does Paul say:
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eschaton View PostIf the "day of judgement" is the tribulation why does Hebrews say:
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
As far as spiritualizing goes, why does Paul say:
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
By "spiritualizing", I meant the preterist tendency to "interpret" Scripture privately (despite Peter's injunction against doing so) with whatever flight of fancy appeals to them that day. The truly spiritual encompasses whatever is true, whether it be literal, figurative or some classification that currently eludes us because His ways are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThe idea that the early followers who heard Jesus say all that were even still alive around 70 AD is itself highly debatable.
If the average follower was in their 20s, they would have been 60-70s during the event. What was a generation back then? What was the average life span -- 40-50 years? That gets pretty shaky.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostJohn, at least, would have most likely lived well past that, given the various writings that explicitly or implicitly describe him as living into the late first century.
Well, if we don't count those who died in childhood (which drags the average lifespan a lot and is what contributes to the misleading idea that people back then usually died in their 20's or 30's), I believe the average lifespan back then would have been more like 50-60. But even if we go with 40-50, the thing about an average lifespan is that it's average. People can live decades longer than that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostEmphasis on "day" of judgment. That immediately separates it from the eternal judgment. This is a "day" of judgment within time. And unlike the "days" of Gentile rule which precede it and the "day" of millennial rule which follows, this "day" is judgment on said Gentile nations and brings about the conditions for the "day" of the Lord's reign on earth.
By "spiritualizing", I meant the preterist tendency to "interpret" Scripture privately (despite Peter's injunction against doing so) with whatever flight of fancy appeals to them that day. The truly spiritual encompasses whatever is true, whether it be literal, figurative or some classification that currently eludes us because His ways are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth.
As you know Jesus taught in parables. He described the end of the world in several places, and he actually says the "end of the world" in the parable about the tares (13:39-40, 49). In his description, I don't find an earthly kingdom on earth for a thousand years. There are the growing seasons (earthly life), the harvest, and the judgment. I find that consistent with the rest of the Bible's teachings. Revelation is a highly symbolic book and I find it consistent with the rest of scripture, including Matthew 13 and the Olivet Discourse. I don't take the OT promises to Israel literally either. As you say, "His ways are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth."
Comment
-
Originally posted by eschaton View PostThe problem I have with this is that to me, you resort to the "letter" rather than to the spirit of prophecy (2 Pet 1:20). I don't really disagree with you about preterism. I was originally a premillennialist before I switched a-millennial idealism. Preterism has never made any sense to me. IMO, the heretical form of preterism is more consistent in its interpretation than the partial type, which seems to jump around depending on the interpreter's subjective opinion. But I don't see where premillennialism is any better. I've always been fascinated with Bible prophecy since I used to listen to Southwest Radio Church and Dr. Webber out of Oklahoma City. That was at my dear sweet Dispensational grandmother's house some sixty years ago. In the last few years, I've read about 300 books related to the subject. I still have to find the verse where Jesus says we must take the scriptures literally.
As you know Jesus taught in parables. He described the end of the world in several places, and he actually says the "end of the world" in the parable about the tares (13:39-40, 49). In his description, I don't find an earthly kingdom on earth for a thousand years. There are the growing seasons (earthly life), the harvest, and the judgment. I find that consistent with the rest of the Bible's teachings. Revelation is a highly symbolic book and I find it consistent with the rest of scripture, including Matthew 13 and the Olivet Discourse. I don't take the OT promises to Israel literally either. As you say, "His ways are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth."
It comes down to accepting that this world is still run by Satan--the "god of this world"--with God for the past couple of thousand years "only" intervening to keep a hedge of protection around His individual people and even then sometimes lifting that so they can be witnesses of Christ. The evidence that the devil still controls this world is legion, beginning with the untold number of deaths in the 20th century alone, a horror that is easily forgotten by most, but not all. There is no evidence whatsoever that the kingdom of Christ has "conquered" the world.
That being the case, God foretells in both the OT and NT how He will one day regather "His" people (a second time, to quote Isaiah) to form a nation that is His. Not a nation "without borders", but a nation like other nations, unlike only in that it will be "founded in righteousness" and the knowledge of God will flow out to the nations "from His mountain".
The reason the Antichrist feels compelled to disrupt the services in the rebuilt temple is because it is perceived as an unacceptable affront to his master, the devil, and to himself. I know of no way to make sense of Paul's direct claim that this will happen by "spiritualizing" it. He gives the scenario as a specific time marker, to my mind specifically to avoid any assertion that it can be "symbolic" and some sort of "eternal principle." "That day cannot come until..." and "when you see...spoken of by Daniel the prophet...flee!"
The proper literal interpretation will always be superior to any "spiritual" interpretation because it includes, informs, manifests and gives discernible bounds to the spiritual. We can only come to the Father through the Son.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostYou're pretty much grasping at straws though. He didn't say "a few of you" or "some of you won't pass away," he said a generation. I interpret that as a population age. The question is, what is considered a generation back then? From 1 BC to 50 AD? Hmm, that's iffy. 1 BC to 70 AD, you're stretching it. I believe today we consider 30 years a generation. Why would the ancients consider anything longer than that? 30 years doesn't even come close to the interval between Jesus and the event itself (the actual culmination of the event lasted to 73 AD). Sure, anything's possible, and you might be able to twist it a certain way to make it remotely possible, but you're really stretching it. As opposed to a future situation where these things could be fulfilled within a decade and that information received worldwide just as quickly.Last edited by Littlejoe; 04-08-2020, 03:29 PM."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostIt's pretty much agreed on that Christ died somewhere between 30 AD and 33 AD. (Not 1BC) As to how long a generation was considered to be, the answer varies greatly. When I was a futurist, I always heard a generation was 40 years, but I've seen as little as 27 years to as much as 100 years. If Christ died in 33 AD, then the war in 70 AD fits in perfectly with the 40 year number.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIt definitely fits. You could come up with any number to make it fit perfectly. Like I said, "you might be able to twist it a certain way to make it remotely possible, but you're really stretching it." I guess a study on what the ancients considered a generation would be appropriate here, but I would imagine that's not an endeavor a preterist would be that enthused to tackle.
Why is it only a preterist endeavor? If you want to know so bad, study it yourself. I've always stuck to the 40 year rule myself and didn't really think it needed to be studied."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostNo Sean, that's a nice hand wave but it's only a stretch in your mind because you're predisposed to reject it outright.
Why is it only a preterist endeavor? If you want to know so bad, study it yourself. I've always stuck to the 40 year rule myself and didn't really think it needed to be studied.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI'm honestly not hand waving it because, as a futurist, I have no skin in the game. What constitutes a generation doesn't affect futurism one way or the other. It affects preterism, and I don't see how you can fit that whole fulfillment into a generation. Let's assume a generation began at the point Jesus spoke those words in the OD and not around the time Jesus himself was born or the birth of his audience (and that's a HUGE assumption!), where's your proof ancients considered a generation 40 years when they didn't even live as long as we do, nor did they have children as late on average as we do? It sounds like it's just a convenient number to stretch it to 70 AD. I'm just being honest.
Also, you're ignoring what Terraceth post earlier about the life expectancy was shorter because of high infant mortality rates. That skews the number way down. So, yes, you're are hand waving it.
I'm not trying to conveniently stretch anything, I'm using what I've always been taught. If you have evidence to the contrary present it or concede it's plausible."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment