No, according to the greek terms used, and the context of the scriptures!
-
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!
eschatology continued
- Thread starter prophecy70
- Start date
- Status
Thank you. That's helpful.
Spurgeon was historical premil, and did see God bring the Jews back to Himself in the end!Here is a good presentation of famous Baptist Spurgeon's premil position going back to 1865: Spurgeon's Millennial View.
If anyone would know Spurgeon's view it's this author, Bob Ross, since he is the publisher of Spurgeon's sermon sets.(I was in his store once, and he kindly gave me a copy of the volume to which my dear grandpa had written the foreward.)
A majority of the ECF were preMils, and would not have seen a large shift towards AMil views until Augustine made popular and the right thing to do, when he shifted towards a spiritualized view, with the Rome Church as the Kingdom of God here upon earth.
Not unless you are a full pretierist!
prophecy70
Active Member
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.
I wasn't doing that, I wanted him to see it. and post, but he can't because he listed as non baptist. He is a former Futurist as well, so I thought that would be very interesting.
prophecy70
Active Member
I am not denying, the Pre Mill Amill positions, Im saying the Future one world Government, antichrist, 7 year tribulation, was not taught in early church history. Thats what I want to see in a early writing before the Catholic Doctrine.
Daniels 70 weeks, find an EARLY commentary that throws a HUGE time gap within a prophecy of 490 years.
The HE is the messiah in that chapter, because earlier the Prince isn't the subject, The people of the prince are. So that can not make them a he? I am no Hebrew scholar, But I do understand english.
So Jesus confirmed a covenant.
I don't see how a prophecy about the jewish people, and Jesus, can just be thrown Into the future, with a world leader 7 year tribulation all over one verse, unless you are told that before hand. I had my wife read it with no knowledge of it, and she sure didn't come up with a 7 year tribulation in the future. She pretty much said what covenant did the messiah make?
עַ֣ם the people
נָגִ֤יד of the prince
There has been over 1000 failed futurist predictions, Remember when Jack Van Impe said the soviet flag was going to flying over the white house and that it was going to be armageddon?
Daniels 70 weeks, find an EARLY commentary that throws a HUGE time gap within a prophecy of 490 years.
The HE is the messiah in that chapter, because earlier the Prince isn't the subject, The people of the prince are. So that can not make them a he? I am no Hebrew scholar, But I do understand english.
So Jesus confirmed a covenant.
I don't see how a prophecy about the jewish people, and Jesus, can just be thrown Into the future, with a world leader 7 year tribulation all over one verse, unless you are told that before hand. I had my wife read it with no knowledge of it, and she sure didn't come up with a 7 year tribulation in the future. She pretty much said what covenant did the messiah make?
עַ֣ם the people
נָגִ֤יד of the prince
There has been over 1000 failed futurist predictions, Remember when Jack Van Impe said the soviet flag was going to flying over the white house and that it was going to be armageddon?
Actually, it is found.
The Apostle John wrote the Revelation, Polycarp was his student, and was pre-mill. Justin Martry and others influenced by John reflect that same thinking.
Did not John warn of the Antichrist in John 2?
What of Paul’s statement in 2nd Thessalonians?
Certainly the early church was taught about Antichrist, and recognized the type fulfilled in those of power in their day.
One of the reasons there was a need for further clarification in the letters and teaching was the confusion by some in early church, not unlike that in this discussion thread.
I will, if you can ***PROVE*** the prophesied eschatological events have already occurred. Any other discussion of preterism without such proof is moot.
I likely know world history better than you, as I have some 60 years of studying it. And I have Encyclopaedia Britannica & Collier's Encyclopedia right in fronta me as well as a whole Internet fulla intel.
And I have the knowledge of some 40 years of Scripture study. Thru this, I have learned that Scripture is MOSTLY-LITERAL. (However, I readily admit there's SOME symbolism in it here-n-there, but mosta it is explained by other Scriptures or its meaning discerned by hindsight & our overview of ALL Scripture.)
The destruction of J & the temple in 70 AD is recognized by all readers of history, Christian & secular alike. However, Jesus prophesied other events surrounding His return, which have obviously NOT happened yet, and no amount of distortion of history now Scripture-twisting & re-defining will fill in the gaps between pret pronouncements and HISTORY/REALITY. Those events MUST cometa pass exactly as Jesus caused toem to be written down, to the last letter. Nothing else is their fulfillment.
Thanx, John, but I consider the SOURCE. The PROOF of the literality of Jesus' prophecies is right before us, in war, rumor of war, etc. There's absolutely NO valid reason to believe the rest won't be fulfilled just-as-literally.
OTOH, "Prophecy" offers NO PROOF that the eschatological events have already occurred, except to repeat someone else's guesswork & imagination. Without ACTUAL PROOF those events have already occurred, any other discussion about the validity & truth of preterism is vapor.
prophecy70
Active Member
Robycop3 did you read Hal Lindsey's book countdown to Armageddon? When is that ufo going to land and demons come out saying they created man?
You can't make this stuff up. It's laughable.
Your literalism is flawed. You have a preconceived theology dictating what is literal and what's not.
You can't make this stuff up. It's laughable.
Your literalism is flawed. You have a preconceived theology dictating what is literal and what's not.
prophecy70
Active Member
So you honestly believe Jesus is going to ride down here and Stand on the mount of Olives and Spilt it in two?
Revelations 13 And I saw a beast coming out of the sea with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
Literally thats not a man so how is it the antichrist?
Revelations 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
Man, how can something double or more in size of the earth actually fall to earth?
Isaiah 19:1-2
Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt;
The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence,
And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
Did God actually ride cloud?
How is anyone going to provide Actual proof of anything, if you won't read history. I can't take you in my time machine back there. Maybe Hal Lindsey's UFO can give you a ride back in time.
The truth of Preterism is vapor because I can't use history? Prove the Holocaust happened, without using any history books which is someones guesswork and immgination, Ill be waiting.
I agree. One of our opponents remarked that I was on here to spread my pretrib premil views. Actually I'm on this thread, as you are no doubt, to combat the heresy of full preterism and the false doctrine of preterism.
It might have been interesting if (1) he was honest about what religion he is; (2) he had not been insulting when he approached me; (3) if I discerned from his language that he had a scholarly approach; (4) if it wasn't a PM. He could have asked me nicely in a PM to debate him on the non-Baptist forum, but I'm certainly not going to hide a debate on a PM thread.
I did not see anywhere that you directly asked me about the antichrist.
Pity your studies didn't include English spelling.
That is great coming from you.
Are you able to give an actual answer or just the intellectual equivalent of "am not, are too!"?
And Scofield
- Status