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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    Question: If Titus is the man of sin, then who was taken out of the way?
    Respose: Not sure. But surely that problem is not unique to Preterism.
    Retort: Yes it is.

    Response: Is too. Nyah, nyah. No, seriously. For years I was taught that the restrainer is the HS and that in the future the HS would be removed out of the world. It was built on the premise that you seem tied to, that it is a "who." But, I remembered that some versions (like the NASB) translate it as a "what." So, the problem is that futurism built an answer on a false premise. That doesn't mean that it cannot be a person, like the HS. But it is not bed rock solid that it has to be a person. So my rejoinder is that futurism hasn't solved the problem either. Ergo, it's not unique to Preterism.
    Not sure, but he died of a fever.
    Lame
    Lame is not much of an answer. Frankly, I don't know what "destroyed with the spirit of his mouth" means. What? Shout curses until he withers into dust like in the movies?
    Not trying to be a contrarian here, but some Preterists would say he did or at least faked them.
    Who says that?
    There's a whole web site dedicated to Preterism. I'm surprised you haven't seen it. I haven't digested it because some of it seems to be hyperpreterist and I don't care for that. But for example, regarding calling fire from the sky, it is suggested that it was Roman catapults raining burning objects over the walls of Jerusalem. I'm not saying I buy that but just pointing out what they say.

    http://www.preteristarchive.com/

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
      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?
      You were asking for help. It's not our fault if you reject it. What I was asking you do takes only a few minutes, and I initially gave no indication of what you might expect from doing it, leaving you quite free to draw your own conclusions.
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        You were asking for help. It's not our fault if you reject it. What I was asking you do takes only a few minutes, and I initially gave no indication of what you might expect from doing it, leaving you quite free to draw your own conclusions.
        Thank you for giving me permission. I was looking for something specific, not changing direction.
        Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-24-2014, 07:33 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by GrahamCracker
          It was built on the premise that you seem tied to, that it is a "who." But, I remembered that some versions (like the NASB) translate it as a "what." So, the problem is that futurism built an answer on a false premise. That doesn't mean that it cannot be a person, like the HS. But it is not bed rock solid that it has to be a person. So my rejoinder is that futurism hasn't solved the problem either.
          Futurism HAS solved the problem. And I am not even a futurist. Your logic sucks. Futurism has an answer to the question, and you do not. (Historicism has the best answer that I've seen, though.)

          And you're telling me that there is someone who seriously claims that Titus referred to his catapults as miraculous? You still haven't pointed me to anywhere specific.

          Comment


          • #35
            Obsidian, I don't understand how you're interpreting 2 Thess 2 as historicism. How is that even possible?
            "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
              That assumes there is only one, or depending on one's futurist persuasion, two. But "coming" language appears several times in the OT, if I am not mistaken. And it usually preceded and referred to some sort of impending judgment. Maybe I am wrong, but I would not be surprised if those other "comings" were translated with the word "parousia" in the LXX.
              That is for you to show. Paul speaks of "the" parousia, not "a" parousia. There is no reason to assume that because certain words are translated as "coming" in the English that they would be semantically identical in the Greek.

              Question: If you know your gospels, remember that the disciples were puzzled and apparently unaware of Jesus suffering, death and resurrection--- even though Jesus mentioned it several times. That said, what sort of coming were they asking about in Matthew 24:3? ("What will be the sign of your coming...?") Did they actually expect Jesus to depart and return visibly in the sky? Or, if they did not understood "coming" language in terms of judgment, what sense would question make? But if they DID understand His coming in the context of judgment, they could still ask it in the way they said it and be completely unaware of the Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection.
              Don't use "coming", use parousia. They considered Jesus the Messiah who would defeat the pagans, and thus be ruler of all the nations. Now parousia was a technical expression for the royal visit of a king, or emperor. What do you then think parousia means in this context?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                That is for you to show.
                Are you asking me to prove something I am not yet convinced of myself?

                Paul speaks of "the" parousia, not "a" parousia. There is no reason to assume that because certain words are translated as "coming" in the English that they would be semantically identical in the Greek.
                1) There's no indefinite article in the Greek.
                2) I know that the word "coming" in English might be another word. I only said I would not be surprised if it turned out to be "parousia." That's all.

                Don't use "coming", use parousia. They considered Jesus the Messiah who would defeat the pagans, and thus be ruler of all the nations. Now parousia was a technical expression for the royal visit of a king, or emperor. What do you then think parousia means in this context?
                It doesn't matter whether the disciples thought Jesus would defeat the Roman pagans or the Jews. They understood parousia in a judgment context. In chapter 23, Jesus had just pronounced judgment upon the house of Israel.

                Now parousia was a technical expression
                No other meanings? None?
                Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-24-2014, 03:48 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                  Futurism HAS solved the problem. And I am not even a futurist. Your logic sucks. Futurism has an answer to the question, and you do not. (Historicism has the best answer that I've seen, though.)
                  That's why I'm asking. Can't you be a little nicer? Has it ever occurred to you that people have to come to their own conclusions? If you answer the questions that I'm actually asking and not the ones I haven't thought about yet, the conversation might be easier.

                  And you're telling me that there is someone who seriously claims that Titus referred to his catapults as miraculous? You still haven't pointed me to anywhere specific.
                  I don't remember how they phrased it. "Fire from heaven" could mean from overhead. I'm just pointing out that I came across it.

                  I didn't think it was important at this stage to keep that information. I cannot find it at this point.

                  http://planetpreterist.com/content/m...ion-antichrist

                  You obviously don't buy it. I cannot say that I do either. If both of us don't particularly care for that answer, why the challenge?
                  Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-24-2014, 08:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by grahamcracker View Post
                    Are you asking me to prove something I am not yet convinced of myself?
                    You can easily reference the Septuagint.
                    1) There's no indefinite article in the Greek.
                    Yes, I made a careless mistake here. Let's put it this way: Paul speaks of the parousia, and says it is when the general resurrection will occur. If there is another prior parousia, why does he not distinguish between the two?

                    It doesn't matter whether the disciples thought Jesus would defeat the Roman pagans or the Jews. The understood parousia in a judgment context. In chapter 23, Jesus had just pronounced judgment upon the house of Israel.
                    This doesn't demonstrate that they(? the disciples?) understood parousia in a judgment context.

                    No other meanings? None?
                    Of course there are others; I used what to me seemed the most relevant one.
                    Last edited by Paprika; 05-24-2014, 10:07 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      You can easily reference the Septuagint.
                      I know. I used to have it in my book marks but that was with another computer. When you Google the Septuagint, you have to distinguish between those who are selling books and web sites where you can look for free. I found it the other day and I have not gotten around to doing a search.
                      Yes, I made a careless mistake here. Let's put it this way: Paul speaks of the parousia, and says it is when the general resurrection will occur. If there is another prior parousia, why does he not distinguish between the two?
                      Good question. I have thought about that. I don't have the answer. Personally, I believe there is more than one parousia. But doing some looking while answering this post, I found another word erkomai (2064). It certainly could be interchangeable or partially interchangeable with parousia, or not at all.

                      This doesn't demonstrate that they(? the disciples?) understood parousia in a judgment context.
                      No. But it shows that whatever they thought it was, they were not thinking about a second appearance. But in light of Matthew 23, where there was a scathing pronouncement of judgment upon Jerusalem and Israel, it makes contextual sense to think of it as judgment. Matthew 23:35-36 leads right into Matthew 24:2. It was pointed out in a Youtube audio last night, that the disciples could easily have been shocked by Jesus' pronouncement of desolation upon Jerusalem (23:37-38) and considered desolation somewhat unlikely in view of the beautiful ornamentation and massive engineering involved in the 2nd Temple.

                      If they considered Jesus "coming" to be "coming in judgment," it makes sense. Because they could not think He was going to suffer, die, and resurrect, much less depart--what was the sense of their question????????

                      No other meanings? None?
                      Of course there are others; I used what to me seemed the most relevant one.
                      Okay. This is not my first rodeo. And for the last 15 years, I have intentionally avoided eschatology. I am sure it shows. I have been doing bible discussions on the internet since the 90s, just not on Theologyweb. Often, a discussion breaks down and each participant goes to his Greek dictionary, bible, etc and starts looking up stuff to support his position. THEN, someone will often say, "Word X means blah, blah, blah. My lexicon gives that definition. Therefore, it cannot mean the same as Word Y or Word Z." I have noticed a trend in the last few years that people start slinging the word context as if they are experts in context. Like it was a magic word or something.

                      Words have multiple meanings. We don't get to pick the ones we like best just because it is in the dictionary. I see that a lot.

                      Sorry. I digressed there for a bit. Eventually, I will get around to surveying the meanings of parousia.
                      Last edited by grahamcracker; 05-24-2014, 04:12 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yes, Titus was the man of sin and Josephus was his false prophet. And John and Polycarp were the two witnesses. And Jerusalem was the "mother of Abominations" and responsible for all of the blood of the saints from the beginning of time until then. That's right, you heard me. Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of Abel, because the Jews, that's why. I think that says it all. The Jews.

                        But let's leave all this nasty business of rightly discerning the Scriptures behind us. All we need to know is that everything bad in the Bible was meant for the Jews and everything good for us noble, beautiful, infallible Gentiles, as per Romans 11.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The Two prophets are in Jerusalem. Joh lived in Asia Minor and eventually got exiled to Patmos, so he can't be one of those witnesses but simple location. I also have never heard of time during the events around the Temple where there was gifting giving because they are dead and their message is no more, plus also we are told after 3 and a half days they are resurrected and ascend into heaven. We know that both John and Polycarp both died naturally and never ascended into heave. It is just a flight of fancy to call

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            It says they are in Jerusalem but it also says that the outer part of the temple is overrun by the gentiles for 3.5 years. That latter part did not literally occur, so I'm not sure that the part about Jerusalem is necessarily literal, either. But don't ask me for my solid opinion, because I am still confused.
                            Last edited by Obsidian; 06-15-2014, 10:51 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              It says they are in Jerusalem but it also says that the outer part of the temple is overrun by the gentiles for 3.5 years. That latter part did not literally occur, so I'm not sure that the part about Jerusalem is necessarily literal, either. But don't ask me for my solid opinion, because I am still confused.
                              Well, this one I think I can answer. The Jewish War that Josephus talked about lasted how long? From 66-70 AD, depending upon when you start your calendar timing--3 to 4 years fits.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                But Daniels 70th week is 7 years long, not 3-4 years long. Plus if the events of Revelation have happened, why is the Millennium treated so differently to the rest of the book, since it is not treated as being historical, since we are well over 1000 years since the events in AD70.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seanD, 10-15-2021, 07:32 PM
                                77 responses
                                450 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 10-15-2021, 01:04 PM
                                74 responses
                                487 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Working...
                                X