Eschatology

[Artimaeus]

Preterist
Futurist
Idealist
Historicist
A combination of more than one
Unsure
Dispensational Premillennial
Historical Premillennial
Postmillennial
Amillennial
A combination of more than one
Unsure

It's really kind of peculiar. If Paul, James, and John were here and wanted to join in on this conversation, they couldn't. If I had the entire Bible memorized and could discuss accurately EVERY single statement in it, I couldn't join in on this conversation. Unless someone has spent a good number of years studying the expanded vocaulary of what was once a simple gospel and scripture written in the language of the common people to whom it was directed, they, too, could not join in on this conversation. Since I left my PhD in my other pants, I will leave you savants to the inricacies of visitatorial sophistries. I prefer the Bible as my vade mecum and not a dictionary.

 

[Stratiotes]

Artimaeus, you are welcome to stay or go but I don't know that I agree with you on your analysis of first centuries people. People of that day were familiar with philosophy and discussions of theology were not unusual. They did not have television and many of the other entertainment distractions of our day...they were not too mentally lazy to enjoy some depth to a subject. I fear you grossly underestimate them. They too discussed this very subject a great deal but just had not fully developed the shorthand taglines we have to label the subject matter.

So, I hope you change your mind and stick around.

 

[Daniel David]

Artimaeus falls into the theological agnostic for eschatology category. Lots of people do. Sad.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

There is no other way to interpret Matthew 10:23. That is why Daniel David is not answering the question.

 

[Craigbythesea]

They would be instructed in the way of truth.

I would rather be in a state of pursuing the truth than in the state of mistakenly believing that I have already learned it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

There is no other way to interpret Matthew 10:23.

A most brilliant observation.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Stratiotes:
but just had not fully developed the shorthand taglines we have to label the subject matter.
So, I hope you change your mind and stick around.

Stratiotes, thank you for your more than kind response to my somewhat less than kind post. I was attempting to make a point rather than being emotional. The concept of fully developed shorthand seems to be an oxymoron. I was not disparaging the 1st century Christians, by any means, I was disparaging 21st century Christians. It just stuck me odd that we actually think we are more advanced because we can use technical jargon that would be totally foreign to the real experts, the human authors themselves, and which was, apparently, totally unnecessary to the Real Author. BTW, I would be a Futurist and of the Dispensational Premillennial persuation.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
[QBtheological agnostic for eschatology [/QB]

I love that phrase. I'm pretty sure that it is either a great compliment or a great putdown.

All kidding aside, I am not agnostic, I am merely opposed to the idea that unless one is fluent in the jargon of the day that one is also ignorant of the pertinent question.

 

[Grasshopper]

There is no other way to interpret Matthew 10:23. That is why Daniel David is not answering the question.

Thats why Pope DD does not respond to many questions.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I am merely opposed to the idea that unless one is fluent in the jargon of the day that one is also ignorant of the pertinent question.

Amen! One does not need to be familiar with all the eschatological trash being written today to know what the Bible teaches.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Thats why Pope DD does not respond to many questions.

Does anybody know where I can find a Christian message board?

 

[Stratiotes]

I said before that I was probably an amill leaning occasionally postmill believer but I like what a particularly gracious friend of mine is fond of saying - that he is a panMillenialist, that he believes its all going to pan out in the end.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Thats why Pope DD does not respond to many questions.

Does anybody know where I can find a Christian message board? </font>[/QUOTE]You mean this isn't a Christian board ?

 

[Daniel David]

Pinoy, there are at least 6 potential interpretations of that text alone. Any other {snip} statements that prove YOU don't know the issues well enough to know even that? Hellllloooooo.

This is what you do:

You take one possible understanding of the time references as literal, and then prostitute the rest of the words that describe actual events by making words mean something than what they normally mean.

I on the other hand also take a literal understanding of the time references AND (now write this down or something) I don't have to make words mean something they don't. In other words, I can take the plain meaning of words that describe events AND the time references. Oooooohhhhh. Big concept here. Alas, some just prefer to stay in shadow.

[ August 08, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[TomVols]

Bring the level of discourse up folks. This is ridiculous. And this is a warning.