He is tiresome. He's heard it all and ignored it all. Reminds me of Wnman.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
new book on Covenant Theology
- Thread starter thomas15
- Start date
- Status
He is tiresome. He's heard it all and ignored it all. Reminds me of Wnman.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
*tom, I don't know what to say! A while back you said that I was going on your iggylist and I was just taking you at your word that's all.
Anyway, if Babylon is Jerusalem in the book of Revelation then how could Babylon not be Jerusalem in the other 65 books of the Bible? Would there not be a lack of continunity of Jehovah had a such a change of plan?
The book of Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery and symbols ("signs"). The reader is apprised of this in the very first verse. Not all books in the Bible use this device. You have historical books as well. These tend to be more literal.
You cannot argue that a word means the same thing throughout the Bible. I can't believe you really believe this. The pillars that Samson leaned against were literal. The pillars of the Angel of Revelation - one on the land, one on the sea - were not.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
So what I'm learning from you this fine evening (where I find out I'm off your iggy list! = Joy!) is that in places where apocalyptic literature is used Babylon = Jerusalem. Places such as Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and a few of the minor prophets and the book of Revelation. But every other time in non-apocalyptic language it could be that Babylon = Babylon, Jerusalem = Jerusalem.
Or maybe as our reformed a-mil brethern think Rome = Babylon which is also confusing. Perhaps Babylon could = Jerusalem SOMETIMES, and other times Babylon could = Rome. Do I need to get a special guide book to know when this apocalyptic rule kicks in?
And while you are at it please explain to this dim bulb why Jehovah has no problems in the apocalyptic Hebrew Scriptures telling Jerusalem that it will be judged but cannot (for apparently political reasons) do the same in the early church age?
thomas15
Well-Known Member
And *tom, explain this apocalyptic language which the dispies say is pointed right at the church, in Rev ch 2. I quote vs. 19-24 but the whole of ch 2 & 3 Could apply:
"'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.
But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.
I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.
Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works,
and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden.
Rev 2: 19-24
"'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.
But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.
I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.
Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works,
and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden.
Rev 2: 19-24
Yes, MorseOp, I am Full Preterist. Although I would use that term conditionally, since I see Hebrews 9:27 still to come to each one of us.
But thanks for asking me.
I am not sure you really want an answer. I think you just want to hear yourself talk. Carry on without me.
If I find the promise of something from you both substantive and respectful then, by all means, we can discuss this. I am super-busy right now. I am willing to squeeze in a post here or there, but not going to waste my time on a post that is drenched in sarcasm.
Your call.
Tom,
Thank you for answering plainly. I am a partial-preterist, although I admit that I hold on to my eschatological convictions loosely.
What about the resurrection? New heavens and new earth?
thomas15
Well-Known Member
And Hebrews 9:28; yes, no partial?
Amy, I think you are asking a question that will start an intense sidebar. Full preterism is considered heretical by some major denominations. Full preterism basically teaches that you die and then you are judged. You either go to glory or eternal destruction. I like the way Tom posts, but I consider full preterism to be an eschatology devoid of hope.
If it denies the resurrection, then yes it is heretical just as Paul taught.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Reformed Covenant A-mil hero Kim Riddlebarger holds preterism of any stripe in almost as much contempt as the dispies.
Thomas, I am looking forward, not only to my own resurrection, but a literal and bodily second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
As per 2 Thessalonians Ch 2
Being rescued from all the miseries caused by my sin, eternal life with Christ, all the joys of true fellowship and communion - plus many more blessings we cannot even put into words. How is my belief one "devoid of hope"?
Just curious.
It does not deny the resurrection. I have gone into great detail on that subject, especially as it is found in passages like 1 Cor. 15. Just check the archives.
But whatever we believe it must always be according to the Bible. Everything else is substandard. Even the creeds.
Tom, this is what you said:
This is what prompted me to ask about the resurrection and the new heavens and earth. You seem to be saying that the only unfulfilled event is the judgement. When do you believe the resurrection takes place and do you believe there will be a new heaven and earth?
This is what prompted me to ask about the resurrection and the new heavens and earth. You seem to be saying that the only unfulfilled event is the judgement. When do you believe the resurrection takes place and do you believe there will be a new heaven and earth?
I have to get ready for school, so let me answer the last one first. We are right now in the new heavens and the new earth. Please look for that phrase as it is found throughout the Bible, especially in Isaiah and then work your way through Paul's and John's use of the same phrase and - in Paul's case - some of the same OT passages.
For the first part, I will have to just point you to what I have written here before and on Xanga.
Today, on top of teaching, we will be moving to a new apartment here in the China.
- Status