What about Jesus' statements that He was going to prepare a place for us? I don't think you have to believe all the details of Revelation to accept that basic point.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Continuing the eschatology
- Thread starter prophecy70
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, that's what I tried to tell prophecy70, but I guess he's like Thomas--has to actually hear from original sources. So that's what I'm doing.
More tomorrow.
Why not believe?
If one doubts one part and another another part, soon there is nothing left but doubtful disputation.
I'm sorry. I don't understand your point. I do believe Jesus' statements. As far as Revelation is concerned, it must be recognized that the end times descriptions are symbolic and not necessarily to be taken literally.
prophecy70
Active Member
How did I make out in the judgment?
Yes everyone will be judged by the lord.
Yes there is a heaven.
Yes the old covenant was solely for the Jews, and now is for everyone.
Certainly there are symbolic statements, but that does not occur out of fantasy. Such statements are as an artist tapestry, descriptive of actual events.
There is no fantasy in Revelation, but symbolic that is based upon what literally occurs.
1) the scriptures teach the unbeliever is already condemned.
2). The old covenant is not for the believers. It isn’t for the Jews either.
Jeremiah said,
1“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
This has not been fulfilled.
prophecy70
Active Member
John you tell me to read them books of Futurism and not to be one sided, I have a whole library of books on it. I was a futurist for since I was 15, I was a prophecy nut, everything that dealt with the end times. I have only switched teams this past year.
Im not here to debate. Im not your student....Im not raising my Hand saying teacher, why is this so, and excepting your answer. Yes I refute you, yes I say things, to get you to reply, and then I look it up, to see WHY your side says what it does. I did the same thing to the Preterists, and actually most of them were so pleasant in their answers to me, on other forums when I didn't believe it. And look where I am now. So its unnecessary to keep pointing out your assumption that I don't want to learn. Take this for example, you told me polycarp and ECF were clearly Premill, So today I researched it and found this. Yes I found things to back you up as well and I read them! Don't assume my MOTIVE on my METHOD.
Polycarp
1 "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ"; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil: and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord for his own lusts, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, -- this man is the first-born of Satan. 2 Wherefore, leaving the foolishness of the crowd, and their false teaching, let us turn back to the word which was delivered to us in the beginning, "watching unto prayer" and persevering in fasting, beseeching the all-seeing God in our supplications "to lead us not into temptation," even as the Lord said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Mathetes — 90 A.D. Not premillennial
Clement of Rome — 96 A.D. Not premillennial
Hermas — 99 A.D. Not premillennial
Didache — 100 A.D. Not premillennial
Ignatius — 110 A.D. The eschatology of Irenaeus is nearly identical to that of Barnabus. Like Barnabus, Irenaeus is falsely touted as being premillennialist. Both fathers held to the 6000 year “day is a thousand years” theory concerning the history of the world, but neither equates the seventh day with a millennium. Instead, like Barnabus, Irenaeus has the world ending after 6,000 years,Regarding Judaism, Irenaeus, like nearly all church fathers, was clearly a proponent of “replacement theology”, viewing the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ. This is a recurring problem for any modern premillennialist who seeks to build support for his eschatology from the study of patristics.
Papias — 115 A.D. He is premillennial (but it is unclear what his specific views were). In any case, his view is inconsistent with modern premillennialism.
Barnabas — 130 A.D. Probably not premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history.
Justin Martyr — 150 A.D. Clearly believed in a 1,000 year millennium. But his ideas about the conditions in the millennium would horrify modern premillennialists.
Irenaeus — 150 A.D. Probably not premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong.
Polycarp — 155 A.D. No end-time writings except to confirm the resurrection and eternal state.
Aviricius Marcellus — 163 A.D. He is clearly premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong. Has an allegorical style of interpretation which would horrify premillennialists (it horrifies me).
Tatian — 110-172 A.D. Says nothing one way or the other.
Hegesippus — 170 A.D. Not premillennial
Apollinaris — 175 A.D. No end time writings.
Melito — 180 A.D. No end time writings.
Theophilus — 181 A.D. He teaches nothing about a 1,000 year millennium.
Tertullian — 206 A.D. He is clearly premillennial but his concept of the 1,000 year millennium is nothing like modern premillennialists. And he asserts that the Church = Israel which is an amillennial idea.
Clement of Alexandria — 215 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium.
Origen — 232 A.D. No one considers Origen to be a premillennialist. Origen himself refutes the idea of a physical millennium.
Hippolytus — 236 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium. However, he made two serious mistakes: (1) refers to 6,000 years of human history and (2) stated that the end would come in 500 A.D.
Julius Africanus — 245 A.D. Says nothing one way or the other.
Cyprian — 258 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium. However, he made two serious mistakes: (1) refers to 6,000 years of human history and (2) believed that the end of the world would come soon (which it didn't).
Victorinus of Pettau — 270 A.D. An amillennialist.
Nepos — 280 A.D. He is premillennial.
Coracion — 280 A.D. He was premillennial but changed his opinion after a debate with Dionysius.
Caius — 296 A.D. Unclear what his view was.
Methodius, Bishop of Tyre — 300 A.D. Although he uses the word "millennium" he uses it figuratively to mean "life after salvation.
There are a few aspects of Justin’s Millennium that differ from that of modern premillennialism, most notably Justin’s “replacement theology”. In fact, Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho is full of replacement theology.
So if you hold to fact of historical premillennialism, you must agree to fact of the ECF replacement theology.
Im not debating the premillennialism position, As I have told JOJ, even though im amillennialist.
Im debating the whole science fiction future world leader and teachings of Darby.
Im not here to debate. Im not your student....Im not raising my Hand saying teacher, why is this so, and excepting your answer. Yes I refute you, yes I say things, to get you to reply, and then I look it up, to see WHY your side says what it does. I did the same thing to the Preterists, and actually most of them were so pleasant in their answers to me, on other forums when I didn't believe it. And look where I am now. So its unnecessary to keep pointing out your assumption that I don't want to learn. Take this for example, you told me polycarp and ECF were clearly Premill, So today I researched it and found this. Yes I found things to back you up as well and I read them! Don't assume my MOTIVE on my METHOD.
Polycarp
1 "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ"; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil: and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord for his own lusts, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, -- this man is the first-born of Satan. 2 Wherefore, leaving the foolishness of the crowd, and their false teaching, let us turn back to the word which was delivered to us in the beginning, "watching unto prayer" and persevering in fasting, beseeching the all-seeing God in our supplications "to lead us not into temptation," even as the Lord said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Mathetes — 90 A.D. Not premillennial
Clement of Rome — 96 A.D. Not premillennial
Hermas — 99 A.D. Not premillennial
Didache — 100 A.D. Not premillennial
Ignatius — 110 A.D. The eschatology of Irenaeus is nearly identical to that of Barnabus. Like Barnabus, Irenaeus is falsely touted as being premillennialist. Both fathers held to the 6000 year “day is a thousand years” theory concerning the history of the world, but neither equates the seventh day with a millennium. Instead, like Barnabus, Irenaeus has the world ending after 6,000 years,Regarding Judaism, Irenaeus, like nearly all church fathers, was clearly a proponent of “replacement theology”, viewing the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ. This is a recurring problem for any modern premillennialist who seeks to build support for his eschatology from the study of patristics.
Papias — 115 A.D. He is premillennial (but it is unclear what his specific views were). In any case, his view is inconsistent with modern premillennialism.
Barnabas — 130 A.D. Probably not premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history.
Justin Martyr — 150 A.D. Clearly believed in a 1,000 year millennium. But his ideas about the conditions in the millennium would horrify modern premillennialists.
Irenaeus — 150 A.D. Probably not premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong.
Polycarp — 155 A.D. No end-time writings except to confirm the resurrection and eternal state.
Aviricius Marcellus — 163 A.D. He is clearly premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong. Has an allegorical style of interpretation which would horrify premillennialists (it horrifies me).
Tatian — 110-172 A.D. Says nothing one way or the other.
Hegesippus — 170 A.D. Not premillennial
Apollinaris — 175 A.D. No end time writings.
Melito — 180 A.D. No end time writings.
Theophilus — 181 A.D. He teaches nothing about a 1,000 year millennium.
Tertullian — 206 A.D. He is clearly premillennial but his concept of the 1,000 year millennium is nothing like modern premillennialists. And he asserts that the Church = Israel which is an amillennial idea.
Clement of Alexandria — 215 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium.
Origen — 232 A.D. No one considers Origen to be a premillennialist. Origen himself refutes the idea of a physical millennium.
Hippolytus — 236 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium. However, he made two serious mistakes: (1) refers to 6,000 years of human history and (2) stated that the end would come in 500 A.D.
Julius Africanus — 245 A.D. Says nothing one way or the other.
Cyprian — 258 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium. However, he made two serious mistakes: (1) refers to 6,000 years of human history and (2) believed that the end of the world would come soon (which it didn't).
Victorinus of Pettau — 270 A.D. An amillennialist.
Nepos — 280 A.D. He is premillennial.
Coracion — 280 A.D. He was premillennial but changed his opinion after a debate with Dionysius.
Caius — 296 A.D. Unclear what his view was.
Methodius, Bishop of Tyre — 300 A.D. Although he uses the word "millennium" he uses it figuratively to mean "life after salvation.
There are a few aspects of Justin’s Millennium that differ from that of modern premillennialism, most notably Justin’s “replacement theology”. In fact, Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho is full of replacement theology.
So if you hold to fact of historical premillennialism, you must agree to fact of the ECF replacement theology.
Im not debating the premillennialism position, As I have told JOJ, even though im amillennialist.
Im debating the whole science fiction future world leader and teachings of Darby.
Last edited:
prophecy70
Active Member
That sounds exactly like what many Judaism websites say. Besides not being for the Jews
I haven't involved myself much in these eschatology threads because I am neither preterist nor premil and therefore haven't really had a dog in the fight. Also, I've made my views known before, but not while you've been around.
However, I do believe that preterism is demonstrably refuted by Acts 1:11. The Lord Jesus is returning the same way He left.
He left visibly (v.9): He will return visibly.
He left in a 'flesh and bones' body (Luke 24:39): He will return in a flesh and bones body.
He was taken up from the earth: He will return to the earth.
Clouds took Him out of the apostles' sight: clouds will part to reveal Him.
When studying the Olivet discourse, it is important to note that according to Matthew, the disciples ask our Lord three questions.
1. When will these things (the destruction of the Temple) be?
2. When will be the end of the age?
3. What will be the accompanying signs?
The Lord Jesus answers all three of these questions. Without going into an exposition of the whole thing, let me draw your attention to verses 32-44. There is an event coming of which there will be signs (v.32-33). The current generation would not pass away before this occurred. But thgere is another event coming of which there will be no sign. It will be like the Flood or the destruction of Sodom (v.39; cf. also Luke 17:26ff). In 1 Thessalonian 5:2-3 we are told that it will come like a thief in the night at a time when men are saying "Peace and safety!" It is this event, not the other, that is described as the coming of the Son of man (v.44).
Here's a blog article I wrote a few years ago: Suffering and the Return of Christ
prophecy70
Active Member
What do you consider your self if not a preterist nor premill?
I may seem to have a preterist viewpoint. But only towards the olivet discourse is where I am set in my ways. Towards The resurrection and revelations i'm still unsure. I believe Jesus came in judgement in ad 70 yes. But thats the extent of it. Im leaning towards Preterism yes, because I haven't heard enough evidence against it. The main thing I don't believe in is the "antichrist and tribulation in the future"
Yes, some people take Verse 36 as a transition to the "end of the world"
Me im not to sure on that one way or another. Verses 1-35 though are about the Destruction of the Temple. The disciples, asked 3 questions correct, but to them it was only ONE question. They didn't understand Jesus was leaving, how did they ask about a coming back if they didn't know he was going anywhere?
"The Preterist view or word for word view of this verse is that the phrase “will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” reflects the opposite side of the same event. From the ground perspective the Apostles watched Jesus until he became invisible (a cloud took him out of their sight) to them as stated in verse 9 while from inside heaven the angels watched Jesus come in to heaven. One part of the phrase reinforces the other part so the reader can be reassured that when Jesus left the view of the Apostles the angels then testified that Jesus did indeed come in to heaven."
Im not sure how I take that actually. Some one more experienced can you elaborate on acts 1:11?
If Acts 1:11 says like manner, He didn't go into a heaven with a shout of a trumpet, not every eye seen him. The only like manner is the physical coming? Ive heard futurists, say this proves a secret coming and then some say a "every eye will see him coming".....
Last edited:
Why?
There's no legitimate reason to not believe them literally, except what's plainly symbolism, such as the beast coming from the sea, in which further reading of Rev. 13 shows this beast represents a man.
No, it wasn't just for the Jews. It was for ALL ISRAEL. The Jews are only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, & Levi.
First of all, in like manner is not exact manner. He left the earth by simply ascending, til He vanished into a cloud, same as an aircraft does now. He left without fanfare or ceremony, in the same body He'd been resurrected into. But He will return in His GLORIFIED body, in great power & glory as He said in the Olivet D, & will be accompanie by His saints, & by His angels, whom He will send all over earth yo round up the still-living saints. And He will "touch down" on the Mount of Olives, as per Zechariah. And His return will be SEEN BY ALL, as He said. (Some prets absurdly say this is impossible, but they forget that such events as the Super Bowl are seen all over the world as they happen, all at once. So, if MAN can do as much, how much more can JESUS do?)
He did NOT say anything about MULTIPLE returns. You have yet to justify with Scripture that He returned in judgment in 70 AD.
Again, the bottom line is:
"The prophesied eschatological events have NOT yet occurred!"
There's just NO getting by that fact. No other reason needed to label preterism false.
Now, while the destruction of J & the temple were national catastrophes for the Jews, sent upon them as punishment, that event pales beside the much-greater catastrophe that came up[on them in 135-135 AD, a coupla generations removed from that of Jesus, when Hadrian decided to boot the Jews from their land & give it to their old enemy, the Philistines, among others. From that time onward, the Jews were despised & persecuted wherever they went, & it's only by God's power that they survived as a distinct people. This punishment lasted til 1945, when the nazis fell. I believe the destriction of J & the temple were part of the "days of vengeance" Jesus pronounced against that generation of Jews.
Remember, "Palestine/Palestinian" is simply Latin for "Philistia/Philistine". That's why the Jews & Pals are at loggerheads, as both sides believe they own the land.
Now, Jesus didn't say J would be rebuilt, but it obviously was, of course. And He DID mention it in later prophecies, saying it would be trod underfoot til the fullness of the gentiles was complete. This is still going on right now.
The fairly-recent events of world history - the re-establishment of a Jewish sovereign nation, with Jerusalem as its capital, the growing power & wealth of Israel, the fear of israel in Egypt (As per Isaiah 19), the "great falling away" worldwide, with acceptance of same-gender marriages, etc. should convince any Christian that the main eschatological events are still future, are literal, and are not far-off.
"The prophesied eschatological events have NOT yet occurred!"
There's just NO getting by that fact. No other reason needed to label preterism false.
Now, while the destruction of J & the temple were national catastrophes for the Jews, sent upon them as punishment, that event pales beside the much-greater catastrophe that came up[on them in 135-135 AD, a coupla generations removed from that of Jesus, when Hadrian decided to boot the Jews from their land & give it to their old enemy, the Philistines, among others. From that time onward, the Jews were despised & persecuted wherever they went, & it's only by God's power that they survived as a distinct people. This punishment lasted til 1945, when the nazis fell. I believe the destriction of J & the temple were part of the "days of vengeance" Jesus pronounced against that generation of Jews.
Remember, "Palestine/Palestinian" is simply Latin for "Philistia/Philistine". That's why the Jews & Pals are at loggerheads, as both sides believe they own the land.
Now, Jesus didn't say J would be rebuilt, but it obviously was, of course. And He DID mention it in later prophecies, saying it would be trod underfoot til the fullness of the gentiles was complete. This is still going on right now.
The fairly-recent events of world history - the re-establishment of a Jewish sovereign nation, with Jerusalem as its capital, the growing power & wealth of Israel, the fear of israel in Egypt (As per Isaiah 19), the "great falling away" worldwide, with acceptance of same-gender marriages, etc. should convince any Christian that the main eschatological events are still future, are literal, and are not far-off.
prophecy70
Active Member
The beast out of the sea is symbolic but the moon turning to blood is literal?
I'm not sure how helpful these terms are, but I suppose I must be some sort of historicist amil.
prophecy70
Active Member
I would like to know more about what you believe at least we are on the Amil side.
I apologize. I also don't believe there's any fantasy in the Bible. The whole Bible is useful for instruction. I simply think different passages need to be interpreted in different ways. In fact, one of my favorite passages in the Bible which I read at my mother's funeral is:
[Rev 21:1 KJV] And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
[Rev 21:2 KJV] And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
[Rev 21:3 KJV] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
[Rev 21:4 KJV] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
[Rev 21:5 KJV] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
[Rev 21:6 KJV] And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
[Rev 21:7 KJV] He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Maybe you were reading the wrong books when you were young. Both my grandfather and the president of my Bible college came to a premil position strictly by reading the Bible. Someone heard my pres, Dr. Lee Roberson, preaching and said, "You're a premilennialist." He replied, "What's that?"
And I don't consider myself to be your teacher. I'm glad you've been checking things out. That's exactly what you should be doing. May I say, though, that you need to check more deeply? The list in this post of supposedly non-premil early church authors is by someone who believes some of the Bible is fiction, the Bible is lying about the 40 years of Israel in the wilderness, the Bible is lying about a worldwide flood, etc. Check him out at: Jesus Christ, Light of the World — Jesus 3:16. Also, I'm not impressed that he does not give his name on his website. I don't allow my students to use anonymous writings for their research papers.
You say that most preterists "were so pleasant in their answers to me." Son (I'm feeling fatherly), you need to get over this. Whether or not someone is nice to you has nothing to do with truth or whether or not they are helpful. Chances are someone who rebukes you is showing a lot more love than someone who is nice to you. My high school wrestling coach only said something nice to me twice in 3 years, but his rebukes had a huge, positive impact on my life to this very day.
Very good. Please give your sources, though. The way to source a quote from an ancient source is to give the translator's name, then the paragraph and/or line in the document.
This is a terrible source. First of all, as noted above, this man disbelieves major portions of Scripture, so he's not fit to comment on spiritual things. Secondly, he has no training in exegesis, so he often just gives his opinion about the source. Thirdly, he doesn't source any of his material. Fourthly, he is quite mistaken in some of his statements. For example, he claims Mathetes as author of the Epistle to Diognetes, but I have no idea where he got that. I have two different translations of the ECF on my shelves, and neither even mentions Mathetes in their intro to the document. Fifthly, he concludes these authors to be "non-premil," but frankly, his proof is all conjecture. He gives only negative opinions, meaning from the evidence he cannot really tell if they are premil or not. In other words, he never one time proves an alternate view, though he might say something like "I think this guy is amil." But no author until Augustine is provably amil.
This is plagiarism. You have taken this as is from someone else's website without sourcing it: christianityinhistory.blogspot.com/2007/11/. (That is, unless this is your own website--but then you should still source it.) We severely penalize students in our college who plagiarize, up to and sometimes including expulsion. It's not honest and it's not ethical.
Could have fooled me.
- Status