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

Was Titus the Man of Sin

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
    I don't care. The Didache wasn't inspired.
    So? It was an indication of what the early church believed. If Titus were the "world-deceiver", and the early church knew it, why would such a section of a popular document even exist? That would be like saying that you don't care what Athanasius said about the Trinity, or what Irenaeus said about the Marcionites. Dismissing it because it isn't scripture is pure laziness.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
      I'm not sure how persuasive that would be. People's interpretation implies a background of context. If I view all of the words through a Preterist mindset, how would that change my mind?
      Did you even look? How about approaching the text with the determination to understand it in context, and adjusting your mindset in accordance with that? I am a preterist, by the way.
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        So? It was an indication of what the early church believed. If Titus were the "world-deceiver", and the early church knew it, why would such a section of a popular document even exist? That would be like saying that you don't care what Athanasius said about the Trinity, or what Irenaeus said about the Marcionites. Dismissing it because it isn't scripture is pure laziness.
        No, and you are entitled to your opinion. Heresies were abundant in the early church as the Book of Galatians demonstrates. The Galatians were falling into legal heresy before the death of the apostles. You don't think that the Didache could be mistaken on something?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Did you even look? How about approaching the text with the determination to understand it in context, and adjusting your mindset in accordance with that? I am a preterist, by the way.
          One thing at a time. I'm not being closed minded. I do not have a prejudiced mindset. I have to do this my way. Not your way or everyone else's way. Why is it that people who don't even know me think they can tell me how to conduct a search? Do I have to do everything people suggest?

          If I reach a dead end, I will change my methods of searching. Right now, I don't even know what all of the Preterists think. But I keep getting people trying to steer me in one direction or the other. I just had a series of emails with an internet friend who did not know anything about my eschatology. We were talking about certain ministries and he suggested that I go look and seek what kinds of "kooks" Preterist threads were producing. I had to tell me that I was leaning Preterist and definitely not a futurist. And before I knew it, I was telling him why I didn't agree with futurism. I wasn't even trying to defend Preterism necessarily

          Look. I started this thread with one primary question and no one has even attempted to answer it. They are attempt to steer me one direction or another. Not helpful at all. I think I'll go eat worms.
          Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-23-2014, 04:44 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Tektonics and others persuaded me to postmillennialism for a while. Now I am flirting with historicism. I find that some preterist interpretations -- including those regarding the Man of Sin passage -- are incredibly weak. Titus was not the man of sin. That's simply a dumb idea. I think Titus was actually a relatively good guy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
              No, and you are entitled to your opinion.
              So, basically, your mind is made up and you don't give a crap about any dissenting information. Got it.

              Heresies were abundant in the early church as the Book of Galatians demonstrates.
              But Chiliasm was not one.

              The Galatians were falling into legal heresy before the death of the apostles.
              Which has nothing at all to do with the validity of the Didache, which received support such as the Apostolic Constitutions Canon 85, John of Damascus and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It is also quoted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

              You don't think that the Didache could be mistaken on something?
              Of course it could. But, if it were something of such monumental proportion, such as whether the world-deceiver had arrived or not, according to the teachings of the Church, I would be highly skeptical of it being wrong.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
                Look. I started this thread with one primary question and no one has even attempted to answer it. They are attempt to steer me one direction or another. Not helpful at all. I think I'll go eat worms.
                That is a flat out lie. I answered your question, and provided early church evidence WHY the answer is no. You rudely dismissed the evidence with no attempt at rebutting the answer I gave.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                  Tektonics and others persuaded me to postmillennialism for a while. Now I am flirting with historicism. I find that some preterist interpretations -- including those regarding the Man of Sin passage -- are incredibly weak. Titus was not the man of sin. That's simply a dumb idea. I think Titus was actually a relatively good guy.
                  Thanks. But why? I looked at some Preterist web sites but I had trouble with their source material. I don't think it's outrageous at all. It might be wrong, but not outrageous. We know Titus' men destroyed the temple. We know Titus became emperor. And one web site says he learned of his father's death while in Jerusalem during the Judean campaign. That should be historically verifiable, without question, one way or other.

                  And you never heard of Roman emperors being worshiped. It's not far-fetched a all. It might be erroneous but not far-fetched.

                  Insofar as Titus being a "good guy," most of what we have came from Josephus. And Josephus was adopted into Titus' family, as I understand it. Therefore, Titus was his patron. Would he really say anything bad about him? Most who review Josephus' history believe there was a bias.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    That is a flat out lie. I answered your question, and provided early church evidence WHY the answer is no. You rudely dismissed the evidence with no attempt at rebutting the answer I gave.
                    Nope, not a lie at all. At most I wasn't clear. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

                    I asked for source material that wasn't secondary. How was the the Didache source material I asked for? I don't want anything that late, not at this point. Maybe later.
                    Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-23-2014, 05:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      But Chiliasm was not one.
                      It's kind of hard to prove a negative. The Thessalonians were certainly confused about Jesus' coming. I'm not sure what Chiliasm was.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        2 Thessalonians 2
                        6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
                        7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


                        If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?

                        8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

                        In what way did God/Jesus destroy Titus with the spirit of his mouth?

                        9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
                        10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


                        Titus did not perform any signs and wonders.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          2 Thessalonians 2
                          6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
                          7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


                          If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?

                          8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

                          In what way did God/Jesus destroy Titus with the spirit of his mouth?

                          9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
                          10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


                          Titus did not perform any signs and wonders.
                          Wouldn't the preterist solution here just to argue it's all symbolism and then interpret it as such?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                            [B]2 Thessalonians 2....
                            If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?
                            Not sure. But surely that problem is not unique to Preterism.

                            In what way did God/Jesus destroy Titus with the spirit of his mouth?
                            Not sure, but he died of a fever. How is it not?

                            Titus did not perform any signs and wonders.
                            Not trying to be a contrarian here, but some Preterists would say he did or at least faked them. I don't want to dismiss him off hand any more than any other idea. I'm just looking at this one for right now. One thing at a time.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              Wouldn't the preterist solution here just to argue it's all symbolism and then interpret it as such?
                              There is symbolism and there is symbolism. Preterism refers to "apocalyptic language." There is certainly figurative language and idiomatic language. That part is clear enough. In order to say something is "symbolic" or "literal," it suggests merely two alternative uses of language. It is not certain (at least to me) that these are the only ones.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Not sure. But surely that problem is not unique to Preterism.
                                Yes it is

                                Not sure, but he died of a fever.
                                Lame

                                Not trying to be a contrarian here, but some Preterists would say he did or at least faked them.
                                Who says that?

                                Comment

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