Search results

Left Baptist Board as of September 21, 2022.

What problem do you see in whether or not I believe Gentry and other Biblical scholars who promote Preterism vs other authors (or even yourself) who promote the Futurist view? It doesn't change our salvation. In a response to @Silverhair, you said this view keeps a "foot in the door to allow...

For that, I must commend you. We do get way too involved in the weeds of issues that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Once again, you've done nothing but provide your opinion of how the "End Times" events will play out. You are inserting your views and making up support for them instead of an unbiased study of prophecy to see what Christ said would happen. This made up scenario might work for the "Left...

You misunderstand the sign. The 1st Century Christians & Jews saw (i.e. understood) the sign of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, destruction of the Temple, etc. as Christ "coming" in judgment. You "futurists" speak of things that have already happened as if they are in our future...

I can see where you might call my view confirmation bias. However, I believe it's an objective view based on arguments presented by supporters of both views. IMHO, Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" presents the strongest view for an early date writing by far.

Good article. I really like Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell". Long book, but great support for early date authorship.

Right - Jesus never mentioned two comings. In Matthew 24:30, Jesus told His disciples that "the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven". This does not say that Christ came...

I CAN and I HAVE gotten past the fact that Jesus did return IMMEDIATELY after the Great Tribulation. As I've explained many times, He "came" in judgment. That doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Coming is still future. You don't have any new arguments, so you revert back to accusing me of...

Agreed. People try to give evidence for a late date writing, but that evidence is weak at best, and relies heavily on external evidence. Those who believe the early date is correct rely on the ton of internal evidence within the book of Revelation itself. The "early date" authorship hurts the...

As a Preterist, I firmly believe the entire New Testament - including Revelation, Gospel of John, and his Epistles - were written prior to AD 70. Still, when it comes down to it, our views of the "End Times" are secondary issues. It's good to study, and we should know why we believe our...

The other leaders of the group and I had a meeting a few days later. We think the best thing is to try to steer the disrupter back to the topic. At the very least, we should invite him to some private time - say over a cup of coffee or buy him lunch. If he is agreeable, great. One of the...

And my view on the falsehood of the futurist view is based upon careful study of Scripture and history, while yours is based on false interpretations of Scripture. I don't want to rehash our differences again. I have found the answers to those preterism questions, and I am fully convinced of...

I used to know a guy who liked to come in barefoot and sit on the floor at the back. I must admit that I thought he was weird, so I never went up to him. Someone must have, though. He attended for most of that Summer. A teenage son of one of my friends visited our weekly Bible Study a couple...

This makes me think of "In His Steps", a book by Charles Sheldon. A homeless man is shunned by a church. Ultimately, the pastor feels led to challenge his congregation to commit a full year to asking "what would Jesus do?". This has been made into a movie at least a couple of times, but the...

That, my friend, is the only statement in your post where I wholeheartedly agree. We come at this from completely different views, and neither of us is likely to change the other's mind. You believe my view is flawed, and I believe your view is flawed. We are at an impasse, and that's okay...

To be completely honest, I mostly use "proven" in my discussions with Roby because he uses that term so freely. My point with him is that I've no more "proven" it to him than he has to me. If any view of eschatology could actually be proven, we wouldn't have so many disagreements. You are...

Interesting article, but nothing I hadn't run across before. Ken Gentry answered those objections quite thoroughly in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation". This is 478 pages, and well worth reading to clear up the misconceptions about the late date writing of...

@robycop3, you said "No, He DOESN'T ! The NKJV & KJV read "shall come". The NIV reads "will come". You're proven WRONG yet again !" Of course it reads "shall come". Since this was written before that "hour of testing" came upon the oikumene, it was still future to John's original audience...

In Revelation 3:10, Jesus speaks of the hour of testing that is about to (meaning "this is going to happen really soon") come upon the oikumene, which always refers to the Roman Empire when used in the New Testament. It's not a question of the scope of the tribulation, but of its uniqueness...