eschatology continued

I was taught not to be careless with the English Language.
PTR = Pre tribulation rapture.

Someone said England and America are two nations divided by a common language. So we are likely to have some misunderstandings.

 

What did you learn from the books?

 

David, none of those things was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. the prophecies have been fulfilled through the destruction of J 7 the temple, war & rumor of war, persecution of Christians, the trampling of J underfoot by gentiles, etc. but NONE of the eschatological events have yet been fulfilled.

NO beast ruling the world

NO marka the beast (Only now possible thru the use of microchips)

NO great trib

And certainly, NO glorious returna Jesus, SEEN BY ALL, as He said it'll be.

The LITERAL fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies, especially those of the Olivet Discourse that'been fulfilled so far, proves the rest will be fulfilled JUST-AS-LITERALLY.

Now, what fell on the Jews of "that generation" was the "days of vengeance" prophesied by Jesus upon them, holding them responsible for the murders of all righteous up through that time, beginning with Abel. And a MUCH-GREATER punishment fell upon the Jews a coupla generations later, beginning 135-136 AD when Hadrian kicked them outta their land & gave it to the Philistines & others who'd not rebelled against Rome. that punishment lasted til 1945 when the nazis fell.

 

No, Jesus did NOT return in 70 AD. That's hogwash. His return will be the MOST-GLORIOUS sight men will ever see on earth, and will be SEEN BY ALL & not mistaken for anything else.

You're trying to use the pret dodge of reducing "inconvenient" Scriptures to "figurative/symbolic/apocalyptic" language to try to cover the gaps between pret pronouncements and REALITY. Well, it WON'T WORK!

The LITERAL fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies so far proves the rest of'em will be fulfilled JUST-AS-LITERALLY.

And Josephus was not always the most-honest of authors. Remember, he'd been arrested as a rebel leader, & knew better than to say or write anything the least bit offensive to the Flavius family who'd adopted him. And he'd remained a Jew by religion.

Tacitus only wrote what he'd heard. He was not a witness to any of these events that were supposed to have happened. And the Midrash contains many fables & legends by various authors.

Time for you to face reality and stop believing man-made myths & legends.

 

Then I apologize. Don't know why you asked someone on another forum to read my posts, though.

If you're trying to lay a guilt trip on me, it's not working. You've done nothing but debate since you got here. And that's perfectly fine with me, because you've been posting on debate threads.

 

Be that as it may, the fact remains that he was clearly premil in position--and certainly not a dispensationalist, so you can't accuse him with your Catholic source.

 

Yes I agree with you there. Although I have seen many dispies say that he was a dispensationalist, I think you can get most, or all, of his sermons online. Or on the Online Bible. If you get the Online Bible.on the DVD and not a download, It comes with them as standard.

 

Anyone, dispensationalist or otherwise, who says Spurgeon was a "dispy" (hate that word) doesn't understand dispensationalism or Spurgeon, either one. On the other hand many who argue against or for dispensationalism don't understand it either.

For example, what is a dispensation?

 

"Mr. Literal." You see that? That's confrontational, that's sarcasm, that's not a humble, willing-to-learn attitude that you say you have. It's not at all respectful towards your opponent, robycop, who can teach you some things if you'll listen to him.

 

Saying "yeah" is not careless in modern American English. However, I have to say that growing up, I was not allowed to say "yeah" to my parents. It was "Yes sir, no sir"--English honorifics, if you don't mind a reference to Japanese (which has tons of honorific words).

 

Well you and I will disagree on this. If you don't understand history, you will never know which prophecies have been fulfilled. Dispensational teaching, or it was when I was under it, is that the church is not mentioned in the OT, To use your words, I try not to descend to such but. HOGWASH. The disciples said that the OT prophecies were about their days.
And far from all the Prophecies in Olivet were end times. Or for that matter Daniel 9.

 

Your OP does not mention the Antichrist. I don't know what you mean by "that part" of futurism. Your OP is so broad that almost anything in Daniel or Revelation or the Olivet Discourse will fit. I'm not really excited about discussing all of that with you. If you want to ask me specific questions about the Antichrist I'll do my best to answer them.

 

Was not Augustine also pre-mil before he changed his mind when Rome was conquered?

Polycarp was pre-mil.

 

I'm not sure about Augustine, but you're right about Polycarp.

 

It is important that there are those who outline the historical aspects of the Scriptures into eras, scocial interactions, economies, dispensations, covenants, or other schemes.

No single scheme is without weakness or detractors.

Such are at best tools to use when approaching any great work which encompasses millennium of histories.

Just like any great work, there must be a away to concisely point to a period of time.

As it pertains to the Scriptures, there are natural divisions that can be employed. Such would perhaps include:
The creation and The Garden
Pre Noah
Pre Moses
Pre Saul
Pre Christ
Pre Mill
Pre eternity