Let Jesus be Jesus and Preterism Rings and Reigns all through the Bible

[Bronconagurski]

Please consider that in Acts 1:11 we are dealing with an adverbial phrase, not an adjective. "In the same way" =/= "in the same form". In your quoting of the Acts 1 you left out the actual crucial point of commonality between Christ's ascension and His return - and that is that He was hidden from their sight. He was in the cloud before the angel had made this announcement.

The promise does not concern Christ's nature (including His visibility), but the manner of His coming; how He will come.

Here is the larger context:

"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.



And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:9-11

I don't know how many times I have read this very single verse - I mean the 11th verse only - quoted in isolation. I rarely see the preceding two verses included, which mentions the cloud making Christ invisible. Yet in almost every judgment of God passage - and in almost all "Second Coming" passage in the NT - there is also mention of clouds.

Thus, any appeal to these passages must also deal with these clouds, not ignore them as being beside the point.

It is also "plain as day" that many to whom Christ was speaking would actually see His return. He had promised this.


Once again, you would have done well to consider the greater context.

First of all the phrase "in that day" occurs 19 times in these last chapters of Zechariah. Some of them are, admittedly by all - futurists included - referring to the time of Christ's Incarnation. But the futurists are forced to essentially make two days out this one "in that day". Two widely separated (about 2000 years!) "days". This is contrary to the straightforward language of the Bible.

Now getting to your 14th chapter: There are actually two dividings asunder. First we have the one you mentioned. Then we have the one you didn't get to, in verse 8-9:

"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." - Zech. 14:8-9. This is the same event that is revealed to us in Rev. 11:15.

Now, when did "living waters" "go out from Jerusalem"?

Before we go further we need to ascertain this. Do we have anything similar to this, like in the Gospels? We certainly do.

To answer this question well and thoroughly is necessary to understand the rest of this chapter with all of its apocalyptic and symbolic imagery.

The gist of the prophetical scripture is not about Antichrist, but about Christ.

"[T]he testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." - Rev. 19:10

Of course he became invisible when he got out of their sight, sheesh, and he will be invisible until he gets into a place where he may be seen. That has nothing to do with my point that he is coming back to the same place. This same Jesus means in the same form. You have told me nothing to dissuade my views.

And Zechariah, as did a lot of O.T. prophets, mixed things happening in their day with prophecy. It was very common. The Mount of Olives is still standing, so it is a future event. If it were symbolic language, the scripture would have said something like, "it was as if the mountain split in half", or something of the sort. Sheesh.

 

[asterisktom]

Jesus did not say he is coming soon, he said he is coming "quickly", that is, in the twinkling of an eye.

Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Jesus was not saying he is coming soon here, he is saying he will come suddenly.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This is what Jesus meant, that he will come suddenly, in a moment. There will be no time for an unbeliever to repent. This is shown in many of his parables, such as the five wise, and five foolish virgins, Jesus will come suddenly and catch many unawares.

The problem is that many of the MVs have translated the word "quickly" to read "soon".

NIV- Rev 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

ESV- Rev 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.

Just more evidence that the KJB and the MVs do not say the same thing and give a completely different understanding. Preterists use these verses to constantly argue Jesus promised to come "soon". Jesus did no such thing, Jesus said he would come "quickly" which means in a moment, very suddenly.

ταχύ
tachu
takh-oo'
Neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb); shortly, that is, without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication of ease) readily: - lightly, quickly.


This is only part of the evidence that answers your contention, the definition of ταχύ - a word that is not even in your Cor. verse.

You also ignore the other verses that speak of soonness like the opening verses of Rev., words from Christ himself.

So, yes, Christ did say He was coming soon.

 

[asterisktom]

This same Jesus means in the same form. You have told me nothing to dissuade my views.

You missed my point entirely. I even put it in red. It is not about Christ's form, but about how He would come.

I have told you nothing because you have (apparently) read nothing of my main point.

And Zechariah, as did a lot of O.T. prophets, mixed things happening in their day with prophecy. It was very common. The Mount of Olives is still standing, so it is a future event. If it were symbolic language, the scripture would have said something like, "it was as if the mountain split in half", or something of the sort. Sheesh.

You are just making this up. Scripture never uses that language. Instead it gives us many figurative images that we - through study and constant exposure to this form of writing - come to understand as figurative.

Two common features of those who oppose a Preterist interpretation of Acts 1:11 are:
1. Ignoring of the cloud - even though it is a necessary component of the evidence, found in almost all other coming/apocalyptic passages.
2. Mistaking the focus of the prophecy. It is all about how Christ was to return - "in like manner" -, not in the form He would take.

 

[Winman]

You have to compare Rev 3:11 and other verses where Jesus said he is coming quickly to determine the correct meaning of this word.

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus taught that he would come in an abrupt, sudden moment, like a flash of lightning.

Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Jesus taught that he will come suddenly when a person least expects it.

Mat 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Jesus did not say whether he would come soon or delay, but stressed that a person must always be ready, because he comes suddenly, and there is no time to repent. The oil represents the Holy Spirit. The wise virgins believed and had the Spirit, they had oil. While the foolish virgins went to buy oil, the bridegroom came suddenly, and they were refused entry.

Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

Here Jesus implies there could be a delay, and that the evil servant would beat his fellowservants, and eat and drink with drunkards, and that Jesus would return when he was unawares.

Mat 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Here, Jesus actually said "after a LONG TIME the lord of those servants cometh".

So Jesus is not saying he will come soon, he in fact implies that it will be a long time, but that he is coming suddenly when we least expect it.

 

[asterisktom]

You have to compare Rev 3:11 and other verses where Jesus said he is coming quickly to determine the correct meaning of this word.

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus taught that he would come in an abrupt, sudden moment, like a flash of lightning.

Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Jesus taught that he will come suddenly when a person least expects it.

Mat 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Jesus did not say whether he would come soon or delay, but stressed that a person must always be ready, because he comes suddenly, and there is no time to repent. The oil represents the Holy Spirit. The wise virgins believed and had the Spirit, they had oil. While the foolish virgins went to buy oil, the bridegroom came suddenly, and they were refused entry.

Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

Here Jesus implies there could be a delay, and that the evil servant would beat his fellowservants, and eat and drink with drunkards, and that Jesus would return when he was unawares.

Mat 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Here, Jesus actually said "after a LONG TIME the lord of those servants cometh".

So Jesus is not saying he will come soon, he in fact implies that it will be a long time, but that he is coming suddenly when we least expect it.

No sense in my continuing here with you, Winman. You keep ignoring my previous points, so why should I bring up more? Or answer yours?

Take care.

 

[Winman]

No sense in my continuing here with you, Winman. You keep ignoring my previous points, so why should I bring up more? Or answer yours?

Take care.

See how easy that is folks, just stick them with the word of God.

 

[asterisktom]

See how easy that is folks, just stick them with the word of God.

Umm. Now, that is exactly my point. I gave the Word as my evidence - and you ignored it. Quit beating your chest like a teenager. It is unbecoming.

I don't at all doubt the passages that you quoted. I doubt the connections between those passages that come from Winman's mind. I could just as easily cut-and-paste twenty times as many verses as you, and then claim you were ignoring the Word of God.

My passage that I referred to was Rev. 1

"Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

The first underlined phrase employs ---, a term that you did not do justice to. The second underlined phrase uses the term ἐγγύς.

eggus
eng-goos'
From a primary verb ἄγχω agchō (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of G43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time): - from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready. - Strong's


This is a very good topic to discuss further, but not with you, Winman. At least not when in you are in your current chest-beating mode.

Decide which you want, intelligent and mutually-respectful discussion - or grandstanding bluster.

 

[Winman]

Umm. Now, that is exactly my point. I gave the Word as my evidence - and you ignored it. Quit beating your chest like a teenager. It is unbecoming.

I don't at all doubt the passages that you quoted. I doubt the connections between those passages that come from Winman's mind. I could just as easily cut-and-paste twenty times as many verses as you, and then claim you were ignoring the Word of God.

My passage that I referred to was Rev. 1

"Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

The first underlined phrase employs ---, a term that you did not do justice to. The second underlined phrase uses the term ἐγγύς.

eggus
eng-goos'
From a primary verb ἄγχω agchō (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of G43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time): - from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready. - Strong's


This is a very good topic to discuss further, but not with you, Winman. At least not when in you are in your current chest-beating mode.

Decide which you want, intelligent and mutually-respectful discussion - or grandstanding bluster.

What would there be to discuss? I believe that Revelation was written well after 70 A.D.. That is what most scholars teach, and I have no reason to doubt them. You will argue Revelation was written before 70 A.D..

I have already posted scripture from Zechariah that did not happen in 70 A.D.. When the Lord returns it will be to fight against the nations that come against Israel. Jesus will deliver the Jews, not destroy them. We had Logos make the ridiculous argument that Jesus actually fought with the Romans, based on one version of scripture only (Darby). All other versions agree with the KJB which is the only version I read. Jesus will destroy these nations that come against Israel and save it. This did not happen in 70 A.D..

 

[asterisktom]

What would there be to discuss? I believe that Revelation was written well after 70 A.D.. That is what most scholars teach, and I have no reason to doubt them. You will argue Revelation was written before 70 A.D..

I have already posted scripture from Zechariah that did not happen in 70 A.D.. When the Lord returns it will be to fight against the nations that come against Israel. Jesus will deliver the Jews, not destroy them. We had Logos make the ridiculous argument that Jesus actually fought with the Romans, based on one version of scripture only (Darby). All other versions agree with the KJB which is the only version I read. Jesus will destroy these nations that come against Israel and save it. This did not happen in 70 A.D..

Now you are changing the topic. And still avoiding my point. I had hoped for better from you.

OK. Moving on...

 

[Logos1]

C'mon Man

Now where is the scripture that says Christ did return?............Sorry, friend, but this has not happened yet.

Since all the bible was written before 70 AD when he did return it framed the answer to that question in the future tense promising his soon return. Even God’s Gift to Debaters (or is that God’s Gift to Preterists) has acknowledged the inspired Word promises His soon return. So if you would like to quarrel with the promises of Divine Scripture your quarrel is not with me, but with the Holy Spirit and the Triune God Head.

So should I trust you or the Holy Spirit on His return. I’d really love to vote for you, but I’m going to have to go with the Holy Spirit on this one and plant my flag solidly on 70 AD and the Holy Spirit.

As to your scripture reference in Zechariah you guys are throwing me such softballs it is laughable—it’s like you aren’t even trying any more. It’s almost embarrassing for you. I feel guilty like I’m beating up on unarmed prophets.

C’mon man.

“Now Jesus departed from the Mount of Olives and to the Mount of Olives this same Jesus will return. It's right there plain as day. And the book of Zechariah tells us what will happen when Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives:”

LOL we’ll ok have it your way Big Guy if you want to say Jesus’s return is based on Zechariah then have it your way—Zechariah is defacto Preterism par excellence!

Everyone can plainly see the events of Zechariah pertain to Jerusalem and the Jewish people and the only way they would merit writing about is if they were still in a special-covenant relationship with God and that of course ended with the Temple’s destruction in 70 AD. At one quick glance we automatically know all the events of Zechariah have to be contained within the time frame of the Old Covenant—hence their latest possible date of fulfillment is 70 AD. So as you have laid it out yourself Jesus did in fact return no later than 70 AD.

Thank you kind sir for making the Preterist case for our Lord’s return.

No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it…….Heir of Salvation

 

[Logos1]

Since Bronko Nagurski (love that name) and HOS addressed Blasphemy

Blasphemy—from merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it…….Heir of Salvation

1 a. If you admit that Christ did say he was coming back soon and then you deny he did –how does that not show contempt and lack of reverence for God?

1 b. Given that 1a is true then you by default are setting yourself up higher than God by disputing what he said so you are making yourself higher than God—making yourself a deity.

2. I think the divine Holy Spirit authored Word of God – easily meets the definition of something considered sacred and inviolable so given 1a is true you are demonstrating irreverence for the Word of God.



I rest my case--guilty of Blasphemy. And, not directed as an insult HOS—simply pointing out the facts bro.

Now HOS can also probably make a good case that he is guilty of heresy also—but I’ve never called anyone on this board a heretic (despite all the times I’ve been called one here) and I won’t start tonight.

No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it…….Heir of Salvation

 

[Logos1]

Excuse me Bronko Nagunski but...

I am saying that 6 million Jews slaughtered is worse than A.D. 70. Any logical human being would see that.

Uh excuse me—but where in the bible did it say to measure worst ever tribulation by number of people killed instead of the circumstances of their end life, torture, and form of death not being the standard for worst tribulation. Any logical person could see dying a dragged out, tortuous death is worse than a relatively quick death with more limited suffering.

 

[Logos1]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you HOS

Logos.....The term "soon" is a relative term, not a concrete one. You obviously think that 2,000 years renders something as no longer being "soon"...Others simply may not. Maybe you consider a man who is 6'2" as "tall", but it would not be false or "wrong" for someone else to not really consider a man "tall" unless he topped 6'4"... See what I mean?

Thanks to HOS who made this the relevance post possible--I had to save it for a long time before a futurist gave me a good opportunity to use it.

HOS, I mean before you set yourself up as the Great Debater, I think of you more like God’s Gift to Preterists and your mainly here to make me look good, I hate to have to point out that most futurists on this board dispy or not are too smart to run head long into the relevance argument like you just did face first.

This is like taking candy from a baby, I’m starting to feel guilty about beating up on you.

Most futurists shy away from the relevance line because if you claim God talks to us in language regarding time either long or short being of different relevance to God than man then you destroy every tenant of Christianity.

If God speaks to us about time in God language that only he understands the intended relevance and frame of reference and we are uncertain of its meaning then we can’t be sure of any other meanings in Christianity either.

For example, was Christ raised from the dead as we understand being raised from the dead—by your logic maybe he wasn’t really dead—how would we know if only God understands the true meaning and our frame of reference is not relevant to God’s meaning.

Are we saved by faith alone and not by works—how would we know since God’s point of reference on saved by faith could be different than ours.

Is Jesus the only way to heaven—how would man really know since God’s reference point on the language is different than our own.

Now I know you will not do the wise thing and back off this point but dig your heels in and dig the hole deeper on your next post so let me spare you some embarrassment before you cite 2 Peter 3:8 (ESV) But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter was not making a literal statement—he was referring to the poetic statement in Psalm 90:4 (ESV) For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

You should read three verses further in 2 Peter when he tells them you are waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of the Lord and we are waiting for New Heavens and a new Earth. Note he didn’t say a future generation would see those things he used the terms “you” and “we” are waiting—language that denotes in their life time.

You should also keep in mind when you distort the thousand years as a day it could also mean Christ would rise 3,000 years in the future not 3 days later which would mean we are still waiting on His resurrection. That of course ignores the testimony of those who saw him after His death and burial 3 days later—but then you ignore the other time statements on His coming after you acknowledge they are there so for you maybe it is natural to claim He will rise 3,000 years later.

It just gets better and better with you HOS—you are truly God’s Gift to Preterism and I thank you for your help in providing proof to the superiority to preterism over futurism.

Don't be a victim of futurism!

No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it…….Heir of Salvation

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Logos: I am finished with this...I knew better than to post to begin with after the second or third response you gave....so, it's partially my fault. Most people on this board seem to have the wisdom to have ignored your thread altogether...and I now see their wisdom in having done so. You are apparently permitted somehow to continuously call others "blasphemers" and for no reason whatsoever. I cannot fathom how you are permitted to do this, and moreover, how you seem to have no problem with your actions whatsoever. It legitimately does not seem to bother you one whit that you speak needlessly like that to people, that is not a word to throw around willy-nilly as you do. I should have known better than to keep responding to you, I really don't blame you, you are vicious as a snake; and I should have realized that from the get-go. I blame myself. Take care of yourself.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Logos1, your assertions are judgemental and ludicrous.

Blasphemy—from merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it…….Heir of Salvation

1 a. If you admit that Christ did say he was coming back soon and then you deny he did –how does that not show contempt and lack of reverence for God?

1 b. Given that 1a is true then you by default are setting yourself up higher than God by disputing what he said so you are making yourself higher than God—making yourself a deity.

2. I think the divine Holy Spirit authored Word of God – easily meets the definition of something considered sacred and inviolable so given 1a is true you are demonstrating irreverence for the Word of God.



I rest my case--guilty of Blasphemy. And, not directed as an insult HOS—simply pointing out the facts bro.

Now HOS can also probably make a good case that he is guilty of heresy also—but I’ve never called anyone on this board a heretic (despite all the times I’ve been called one here) and I won’t start tonight.

No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it…….Heir of Salvation

There are many fine Christians on both side of this issue, yet you say those not on your side are blasphemous. You will face those words one day, I would be careful. What goes around comes around. So all the great preachers down thru the years, many of them way more spiritual and scholarly than you, and were used by God, I might add, are guilty of blasphemy? I think not. Jesus rebuked his disciples for thoughts like that, and if you haven't been rebuked, maybe you should check up and see just how much you are walking in the Spirit, no offense.

If a thousand years are as a day with the Lord, how is 2000 years not soon?

2 Peter 3:3-9 (HCSB)
3 First, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, living according to their own desires,
4 saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? Ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation.”
5 They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God.
6 Through these waters the world of that time perished when it was flooded.
7 But by the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8 Dear friends, don’t let this one thing escape you: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.

Furthermore, I have asked for the scripture that proves Christ came back already, specifically in A.D. 70 as your ilk asserts, but I have read none. Now maybe I missed it, but I ask you again: where is the scripture? Also, why didn't John tell us about Jesus coming again in A.D. 70 in the book of the Revelation? It was more than likely written after A.D. 90, yet John tells us about the things that WILL come to pass, which includes, btw, the coming of Christ.

Finally, I am not saying there are not problems with any eschatological view, and there are with dispensationalism as well. But don't be so smug as to think that you have it all figured out, and everyone else is blasphemous. That is utterly ludicrous.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Finally, I am not saying there are not problems with any eschatological view, and there are with dispensationalism as well. But don't be so smug as to think that you have it all figured out, and everyone else is blasphemous. That is utterly ludicrous.

This is where I come from too....it is fine (even admirable in a weird way) to be utterly conviced and confident of a debateable Theological position....but dismissive (against the Godly witness of some VERY admirable men who are gifted with the Word)...is short-sighted at least. I have no problem, although I disagree vehemently, with "Pre-terism", but to then call all adherents of an alternative P.O.V. ..."Blasphemers" is to miss the fundamentals of Scripture and it's Spirit IMO. I am not a Calvinist for instance (Tom is) I am not a Preterist either (Tom is), but I appreciate and respect his opinion on issues, and can only be strengthened by them.

To throw around the term "blasphemer" willy-nilly as he does, is worthy of reproof at minimum...it is Satanic, and accusatory of the brethren at worst...I sincerely wish that others of his Theological bent would back us up on this...it would increase my confidence in them immensely. They should, on some level, "police their own"...we can't do it for them.

Yes...all Eschatalogical views leave questions...we see through a glass darkly, and do not understand all things. And while a certain level of confidence may be admirable, to call all non-adherents "blasphemers" by default is not in the Spirit of Christian Love or Unity or Exhortation whatsoever.

 

[Bronconagurski]

This is where I come from too....it is fine (even admirable in a weird way) to be utterly conviced and confident of a debateable Theological position....but dismissive (against the Godly witness of some VERY admirable men who are gifted with the Word)...is short-sighted at least. I have no problem, although I disagree vehemently, with "Pre-terism", but to then call all adherents of an alternative P.O.V. ..."Blasphemers" is to miss the fundamentals of Scripture and it's Spirit IMO. I am not a Calvinist for instance (Tom is) I am not a Preterist either (Tom is), but I appreciate and respect his opinion on issues, and can only be strengthened by them.

To throw around the term "blasphemer" willy-nilly as he does, is worthy of reproof at minimum...it is Satanic, and accusatory of the brethren at worst...I sincerely wish that others of his Theological bent would back us up on this...it would increase my confidence in them immensely. They should, on some level, "police their own"...we can't do it for them.

Yes...all Eschatalogical views leave questions...we see through a glass darkly, and do not understand all things. And while a certain level of confidence may be admirable, to call all non-adherents "blasphemers" by default is not in the Spirit of Christian Love or Unity or Exhortation whatsoever.

Well said, brother. I am a Calvinist, but not fatalistic. One preacher put it succinctly, "what we call free will, God calls election. "

 

[Yeshua1]

This is where I come from too....it is fine (even admirable in a weird way) to be utterly conviced and confident of a debateable Theological position....but dismissive (against the Godly witness of some VERY admirable men who are gifted with the Word)...is short-sighted at least. I have no problem, although I disagree vehemently, with "Pre-terism", but to then call all adherents of an alternative P.O.V. ..."Blasphemers" is to miss the fundamentals of Scripture and it's Spirit IMO. I am not a Calvinist for instance (Tom is) I am not a Preterist either (Tom is), but I appreciate and respect his opinion on issues, and can only be strengthened by them.

To throw around the term "blasphemer" willy-nilly as he does, is worthy of reproof at minimum...it is Satanic, and accusatory of the brethren at worst...I sincerely wish that others of his Theological bent would back us up on this...it would increase my confidence in them immensely. They should, on some level, "police their own"...we can't do it for them.

Yes...all Eschatalogical views leave questions...we see through a glass darkly, and do not understand all things. And while a certain level of confidence may be admirable, to call all non-adherents "blasphemers" by default is not in the Spirit of Christian Love or Unity or Exhortation whatsoever.

All depends WHICH pretierism is held, as partial has been allowed/seen as being a viable option, but Hyper/full version ALWYS seen as being outside 'bounds of orthodoxy", and NOT to be held!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well said, brother. I am a Calvinist, but not fatalistic. One preacher put it succinctly, "what we call free will, God calls election. "

Are you another like me, in the ole "Sotierology calvinistic/eschatology is Dispy?"

 

[Logos1]

I’m giving HOS two points for creativity on the vicious snake comment

Logos: I am finished with this...I knew better than to post to begin with after the second or third response you gave....so, it's partially my fault. Most people on this board seem to have the wisdom to have ignored your thread altogether...and I now see their wisdom in having done so. You are apparently permitted somehow to continuously call others "blasphemers" and for no reason whatsoever. I cannot fathom how you are permitted to do this, and moreover, how you seem to have no problem with your actions whatsoever. It legitimately does not seem to bother you one whit that you speak needlessly like that to people, that is not a word to throw around willy-nilly as you do. I should have known better than to keep responding to you, I really don't blame you, you are vicious as a snake; and I should have realized that from the get-go. I blame myself. Take care of yourself.

LOL, HOS—I’m grateful to be insulted in a new way that no one has used on the board before. Touché and jolly good for you ol’ boy. I’m giving you two points for creativity on the vicious snake insult.

Of course 10 pages into this post and your still batting .000 on scriptural support for argument.

You seem to excel at putting words in my mouth. I haven’t called you personally a blasphemer—I have used a highly respected dictionary and compared your position to blasphemy. Me thinks the sting you feel is one of conviction and you don’t like it.

It is a good thing you are a futurist because you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to be a preterist. I know every day the sun comes up in the east that futurist are going to be calling me heretic, blasphemer, and all manner of other things and I never let it bother me.

You started out representing yourself as the great polished debater and I ever the humble guy that I am simply used scripture day after day figuratively slicing and dicing you six ways to Sunday.

You have gone from the great debater to whining about why other preterist don’t come rescue you from me, crying about why I’m allowed to post on the boards, and pouting like a whipped puppy.

I’m not upset that you called me Satanic and a vicious snake—I’m not being a cry baby that somebody should censor you and shut you up and having a pity party that I can’t find scripture to support my position—I’m laughing at your flailing away and your meager attempts at insults.

You’re like a gnat on an elephant to me. I don’t need anybody to save me from your satanic and vicious snake comments, LOL—I’m mildly amused at your bent to whining and I’ll just spend my time posting more scripture to prove the truth of preterism over futurism thank you very much.

I agree with you that you should be finished with this and take a break from posting. Spend some time studying the scriptures, spend some time learning how to interpret prophecy and come back in here when you can defend yourself. When you are ready to man up and put on your big boy pants come on back.

Regardless of how mad you are at me—I’m not the least big angry with you. If I let the boards get me all mad and upset and subject to having a cardiac arrest I would not be on the boards.

So “so long” HOS. In your absence I’ll hope the best for you and wish you a good life. No hard feelings from me any way. God Bless.