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

Special place in hell (for preterists)

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

  • Darfius
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    No 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.
    Planned to, but then you said nothing the Lord said applied to us now, so I had to correct you to honor Him. In other words, you went from merely stupidly denying my help to blasphemously insulting the Lord. What, in your mind, differentiates this speech of the Lord's "given to peasants 2,000 years ago" to any other He gave? I'd have more respect for you if you admitted you spoke in foolish haste, but again, being fundamentally dishonest is why you're not a futurist and woefully unprepared for what is already upon us, to say nothing of what is coming.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    The issue is the timing. All of that has to happen within a generation. That works for preterists but not futurists.
    I don't understand why you think that. The 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. It also fits better in the future (especially where we are now) because of our communication technology. We get reports about all these events taking place all around the world much faster and more cumulatively, thus all these things can easily be fulfilled within a future generation. Look how much anxiety this pandemic event alone is causing the world over in just a matter of a few months. That would have never even been remotely possible just a few decades ago, much less in the ancient world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    In all honesty, "coming in the clouds" as meaning judgement can be a futurist stance. The disagreement is what the judgement is. From a futurist stance, Matthew 24:30-31 is the rapture, and the rapture happens after the tribulation (contrary to what pre-trib futurists believe) but before God's wrath (not detailed in the OD), which is his direct judgement on the earth in the end times. The book of Rev adds the detail. Chap. 6 is the tribulation. Chap. 7 is the rapture. Chap. 8-9 is God's wrath where God literally unleashes the supernatural hounds on earth to torment and kill mankind. So, yeah, "coming in the clouds" could definitely be interpreted as judgement (Rev 6:16-17), just that the details aren't the same.
    The issue is the timing. All of that has to happen within a generation. That works for preterists but not futurists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Darfius View Post
    Taken to its logical end, what you just said would mean that nothing Jesus said should matter to us now.
    No 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    That's not quite how I remember it. Jesus coming with the clouds = judgement = 70AD war and destruction of Jerusalem.

    And I'm still not sure on how FUTURISTS think all those things happened in a generation given that futurists claim they haven't happened yet and Jesus's speech given to a bunch of random peasants 2000 years ago was actually meant for an audience x thousand years into the future.
    In all honesty, "coming in the clouds" as meaning judgement can be a futurist stance. The disagreement is what the judgement is. From a futurist stance, Matthew 24:30-31 is the rapture, and the rapture happens after the tribulation (contrary to what pre-trib futurists believe) but before God's wrath (not detailed in the OD), which is his direct judgement on the earth in the end times. The book of Rev adds the detail. Chap. 6 is the tribulation. Chap. 7 is the rapture. Chap. 8-9 is God's wrath where God literally unleashes the supernatural hounds on earth to torment and kill mankind. So, yeah, "coming in the clouds" could definitely be interpreted as judgement (Rev 6:16-17), just that the details aren't the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darfius
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    That's not quite how I remember it. Jesus coming with the clouds = judgement = 70AD war and destruction of Jerusalem.

    And I'm still not sure on how FUTURISTS think all those things happened in a generation given that futurists claim they haven't happened yet and Jesus's speech given to a bunch of random peasants 2000 years ago was actually meant for an audience x thousand years into the future.
    Taken to its logical end, what you just said would mean that nothing Jesus said should matter to us now. After you backpedal from that, stop being stupid. Being a better person would help with that, as most stupidity is a result of iniquity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    No. They argue "This generation" designates it as their generation, therefore Matthew 24:30-31 (obviously his return) can't possibly be his return, because that would mean Jesus was wrong, therefore it has to instead be a symbolic meaning of the 70 AD war instead.
    That's not quite how I remember it. Jesus coming with the clouds = judgement = 70AD war and destruction of Jerusalem.

    And I'm still not sure on how FUTURISTS think all those things happened in a generation given that futurists claim they haven't happened yet and Jesus's speech given to a bunch of random peasants 2000 years ago was actually meant for an audience x thousand years into the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darfius
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    You call that a "definitive refutation"?
    Can't argue with a laughing emoji. When you refute my refutation, I'll stop referring to it as definitive.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I don't know why you appear unable to follow my arguments. You could, perhaps, ask for further explanation rather than completely ignore that I'm providing support for a point. I'll freely admit that I tend to err on the side of brevity, but I provided more support for my argument than you did (I had to essentially re-read all of 1 Thessalonians and figure out what the heck you were referring to). Here, I'll spell it out in more detail:

    My NKJV denotes paragraph breaks in the Greek, though those merely confirm the evidence I already provided. It also has subject headings in the same places, which also merely confirm the evidence I provided.

    1 Thes. 4:1-8 is a discrete subject.

    Verse 9 starts "But concerning brotherly love....", introducing a new subject; vv. 9-12 are a different topic.

    Verse 13 starts "But I do not want you to be ignorant....", introducing another subject; vv. 13-18 are a literary unit.

    Chapter 5, verse 1 starts, "But concerning the times....", introducing another subject; vv. 1-11 are a literary unit.

    Thus, the end of chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5 are different subjects. It is 5:1-11 which is parallel with the Olivet Discourse; 4:13-18 do not appear in the Olivet Discourse at all.
    So I did understand you correctly, so what was the flak about? I don't agree they're separate subjects. That's ridiculous considering they're in the same context of Paul's discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    You are really bad making your points clear. You're the only one on this forum I have that problem with.
    I don't know why you appear unable to follow my arguments. You could, perhaps, ask for further explanation rather than completely ignore that I'm providing support for a point. I'll freely admit that I tend to err on the side of brevity, but I provided more support for my argument than you did (I had to essentially re-read all of 1 Thessalonians and figure out what the heck you were referring to). Here, I'll spell it out in more detail:

    My NKJV denotes paragraph breaks in the Greek, though those merely confirm the evidence I already provided. It also has subject headings in the same places, which also merely confirm the evidence I provided.

    1 Thes. 4:1-8 is a discrete subject.

    Verse 9 starts "But concerning brotherly love....", introducing a new subject; vv. 9-12 are a different topic.

    Verse 13 starts "But I do not want you to be ignorant....", introducing another subject; vv. 13-18 are a literary unit.

    Chapter 5, verse 1 starts, "But concerning the times....", introducing another subject; vv. 1-11 are a literary unit.

    Thus, the end of chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5 are different subjects. It is 5:1-11 which is parallel with the Olivet Discourse; 4:13-18 do not appear in the Olivet Discourse at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Darfius View Post
    I linked him to my thread where I gave a definitive refutation to the "this generation" prooftext. I'll take this as a tacit admission that your head is a fair ways up your butt.
    You call that a "definitive refutation"?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Yes, but isn't this the basic preterist position (which you were arguing against)?
    No. They argue "This generation" designates it as their generation, therefore Matthew 24:30-31 (obviously his return) can't possibly be his return, because that would mean Jesus was wrong, therefore it has to instead be a symbolic meaning of the 70 AD war instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I'm not sure if this is what Darfius was arguing but the way I look at it, Jesus wasn't specifying a particular generation, he was underscoring the span of time it would take for the signs to unfold and be fulfilled. Wars (plural) and rumors of wars, along with all the other signs and events might have given them the impression this would happen over the course of many generations in an ancient world. To the contrary, all these things would be fulfilled over a span of one generation. A clearer way to put it would be: "This generation seeing the signs I'm describing will not pass until they're all fulfilled."
    Yes, but isn't this the basic preterist position (which you were arguing against)?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Give me the cliffs' notes version (also Jesus says quite a bit more than just "this generation" to make it clear who He is talking to).
    I'm not sure if this is what Darfius was arguing but the way I look at it, Jesus wasn't specifying a particular generation, he was underscoring the span of time it would take for the signs to unfold and be fulfilled. Wars (plural) and rumors of wars, along with all the other signs and events might have given them the impression this would happen over the course of many generations in an ancient world. To the contrary, all these things would be fulfilled over a span of one generation. A clearer way to put it would be: "This generation seeing the signs I'm describing will not pass until they're all fulfilled."

    And I don't deny the OD was stated in way it would benefit the early Christians and help them avoid getting tangled in the war, though I think Luke's version is much more relevant in that regard.



    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Next time, attempt to comprehend my argument before responding. Thanks.
    You are really bad making your points clear. You're the only one on this forum I have that problem with.
    Last edited by seanD; 04-04-2020, 02:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darfius
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    As if you were interested in dialogue in the first place. You don't even know that DE is a preterist; he merely has the temerity to ask for further explication. I'll take this as tacit admission that you can't provide it.
    I linked him to my thread where I gave a definitive refutation to the "this generation" prooftext. I'll take this as a tacit admission that your head is a fair ways up your butt.

    Leave a comment:

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