Prophecy concerning Israel

[Eagle]

Indeed I do Jedi. I try to make a habit of reading the bible straight up and not twist it to suit my views.

Should we expect an answer about "those who pierced him" or will we have to wait till the second coming as they say for that as well?

It is sad what the non preterist miss out on. We preterist can celebrate the victory of Christ over (sin) death and our redemption back into the presence of God upon death now, but non preterist have to wait till they die to find out they were wrong.

Not to worry I promise not to gloat on the other side we all meet there.

First of all, my response to this post is - huh? Secondly, my response to the part I think I understand is, as I have alluded to previously, that you must be able to answer this - but cannot:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Christ's coming is at the end, when He ends His reign from the right hand of the Father, and the last of His enemies is destroyed - namely death. Death still reigns all around us Logos1, so clearly, the end, and the return (singular not plural "returns") of Christ has NOT occurred. Therefore, it must be "yet" in the future.

 

[Logos1]

Sin Death not physical Death

Greetings Eagle,

What is referred to here is sin death--eternal separation from God not physical death.

In the Old Testament when someone died they went to Sheol, a holding tank of sorts, which separated them from God's presence.

After the atoning work of Christ we have been redeemed and allowed back into the presence of God.

Christ has already achieved victory over sin death which allows us to go to heaven when we die instead of waiting in Sheol or the pit or some other such place till the return of Christ. When Christ returned in 70 AD the Old Covenant was completely destroyed and the New Covenant was completely ushered in.

 

[Eagle]

Greetings Eagle,

What is referred to here is sin death--eternal separation from God not physical death.

In the Old Testament when someone died they went to Sheol, a holding tank of sorts, which separated them from God's presence.

After the atoning work of Christ we have been redeemed and allowed back into the presence of God.

Christ has already achieved victory over sin death which allows us to go to heaven when we die instead of waiting in Sheol or the pit or some other such place till the return of Christ. When Christ returned in 70 AD the Old Covenant was completely destroyed and the New Covenant was completely ushered in.

Greetings Logos1,

I completely disagree with the "holding tank" idea, but more importantly - you still haven't answered the fact that Christs return (singular not plural returns) is in fact tied to the destruction of "physical" death, and the end of His current reign at the right hand of the Father, and the "end" of the world. The world still stands, death still reigns, and Christ is still on His throne at the right hand of the Father.

 

[RAdam]

In the OT, when God's people died they went to heaven.

 

[Logos1]

Greetings RAdam,

Your comment that when they died in the Old Testament they went to heaven shocked me. Not only is the concept of not going to heaven until being redeemed by Christ which can't happen till he returns (in 70 AD) and fully brings in the new covenant pretty standard knowledge among Baptist--just read John 3:13:
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.
If my word on the matter is not sufficient maybe the apostle John's is.

Greetings Eagle,

May I suggest a little study on the concept of sin death and separation from God. I think it may clear up the confusion on Christ's redeeming work and our then being allowed through Christ's propitiation for our sin being cleansed by him and allowed back into the presence of God upon physical death.

 

[Eagle]

Greetings Eagle,

May I suggest a little study on the concept of sin death and separation from God. I think it may clear up the confusion on Christ's redeeming work and our then being allowed through Christ's propitiation for our sin being cleansed by him and allowed back into the presence of God upon physical death.

Again...huh? Quit spiritualizing and dodging the question before you. How do you answer the clear facts relative to Christ's actual, singular, physical return - which has to be future, based on the facts in evidence? There is no doubting that 1 Cor. 15 is very much about actual physical bodies, changes, death, and resurrections.

 

[asterisktom]

There is no doubting that 1 Cor. 15 is very much about actual physical bodies, changes, death, and resurrections.

Do actual physical bodies (referring to believers) include flesh and blood? (I guess you know where I am heading with this.)

 

[Logos1]

Please be more specific Eagle

Greetings Eagle

1 Cor. 15 refers to the resurrection, but what part has you thinking it is in our future let alone physical. Please specifically note verse 50

Brothers, I tell you this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God

That should remove all doubt about our getting our physical body back. We will get a glorified body, but not a physical one.

Christ had a physical body at least part of the time he was on earth before the ascension, but then he was God and still had unique work to do on earth. We don't have any more work to do on earth after we die so we don't have any need of a physical body.

The resurrection was future to them at the time of its writing, but is not future to us now.

Regards,

Logos1

 

[percho]

What kind of bodies did the three men talking with Abraham in Genesis 18 have?
Who do you all think they might have been? After two left for Sodom the one left was called the LORD. Were they spirit beings and yet how did they appear?
Did they eat and drink with Abraham?

 

[Winman]

Greetings Eagle

1 Cor. 15 refers to the resurrection, but what part has you thinking it is in our future let alone physical. Please specifically note verse 50

Brothers, I tell you this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God

That should remove all doubt about our getting our physical body back. We will get a glorified body, but not a physical one.

Christ had a physical body at least part of the time he was on earth before the ascension, but then he was God and still had unique work to do on earth. We don't have any more work to do on earth after we die so we don't have any need of a physical body.

The resurrection was future to them at the time of its writing, but is not future to us now.

Regards,

Logos1

When Jesus rose from the dead he had a physical body. He allowed the disciples to touch him and he ate food in front of them. He declared he was not a spirit.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Notice Jesus said "flesh and bones". He did not mention blood, because he poured out his blood at Calvary. The scriptures do not say flesh and bone cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, they say flesh and "blood". That is a HUGE difference you have overlooked.

When he ascended, angels said he would come in like manner.

Acts 1:11 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.

Jesus ascended to heaven in a physical body, and these angels said he would return in the same manner. The disciples saw him ascend in a physical body, and he will return in a physical body.

In 1 John 4:2,3 it says that Jesus is come in the flesh. The word "come" is shown to be:

Middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] eleuthomai {el-yoo'-thom-ahee}, or [active] eltho {el'-tho}, which do not otherwise occur)

I am no expert on grammar, but the imperfect tense is defined as "a verb for an action or a condition as incomplete, continuous, habitual, or coincident with another action."

It is also said to have an imperfective aspect which means:

aspect without regard to the beginning or completion of the action of the verb

In other words, when it says Jesus is come in the flesh, it is a continuous action. He will also return in the flesh.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


Maybe there are some here more knowlegeable of grammar that can comment on this.

 

[Eagle]

Greetings Eagle

1 Cor. 15 refers to the resurrection, but what part has you thinking it is in our future let alone physical. Please specifically note verse 50

Brothers, I tell you this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God

That should remove all doubt about our getting our physical body back. We will get a glorified body, but not a physical one.

Christ had a physical body at least part of the time he was on earth before the ascension, but then he was God and still had unique work to do on earth. We don't have any more work to do on earth after we die so we don't have any need of a physical body.

The resurrection was future to them at the time of its writing, but is not future to us now.

Regards,

Logos1

Greetings Logos1,

We so often get caught up in our own little ways of looking at doctrine that we really have trouble seeing the obvious, exegeting it out, and accepting the simplicity of what it says. No problem, I will walk you thru this passage from 1 Cor. 15. Once again:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

As exegetes, we see established here that the occasion referenced, is Christ's "coming." We know from many other places (thru exegesis) that there is only one (1) second coming - ergo "second" coming. We then, thru exegesis, correctly establish that "the end" follows immediately after (read Matthew 24 also). Now, we also, exegetically, determine that this is also the occasion for the death of "death," if you will. Death is destroyed at this time. Actual, obvious, physical death. We also, see that this is the occasion for which the Christ has waited to leave His throne on high - from which He is currently reigning (Acts 2:34,35).

Now, from Acts, we have Peter saying that the Christ will reign from the right hand of the Father until his enemies are made His footstool. From Paul, here in 1 Cor. 15, we see that the last enemy is actual death, and that the end of the world also coincides with this event. All of which perfectly meshes with Matthew 24, and the Lord's direct answer to the question in verse 3 which was, "...what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Now, we have exegetically and empirically (what our own experience tells us) established that:

1) "The end" has not yet happened.
2) "Death" still reigns on this earth.
3) Therefore, the Lord has not yet come for the one and only "second" time.

Simple exegesis. Hard to see it sometimes thru the "fog" of our pre-suppositions and forced interpretations to make something fit what we think it should. Since Christ "comes" at the end, any and all prophecies/events yet to be unfolded - must happen first, or prior to, this time.

You must give satisfactory answer to these simply established facts - in order to believe what you believe. In other words - just ignore them or spiritualize them as you have been doing all along. :BangHead:

 

[Logos1]

Wow

Edit here (note this is in response to Winman's post above #110) [I'll absorb all the wisdom and knowledge Eagle has generously shared with us from a futurist view and acknowledge his superior harmonic convergence of the scriptures as soon as time permits]

Reading this was great entertainment. And, it's pretty typical of how many futurist have debated me in the past. It's like Winman just scooped my post up on a drive-by kidnapping as an excuse to retaliate against somebody.

So Winman is trying to argue that "flesh and bone" can reconstitute a physical body and go to heaven, but "flesh and blood" is different and it doesn't matter that the bible says "flesh and blood" can't enter heaven to make the point that physical bodies don't enter into heaven. Yet there is not a verse that says "flesh and bone" is different and thereby can reconstitute and go to heaven as a physical body. (Was I coming or going with this) I could go on here a bit, but I might make somebody dizzy.

Would it be mean spirited of me to suggest Winman take a break and then come back later and reread this then try to follow this logic as if someone else wrote it and see if it made sense to him then?

Oh gosh I could have so much fun with this post--but it would look rather petty to pursue it I guess.

Let me just say thanks for the entertainment Winman and God bless you old buddy.

(At some level the right side of my brain is still swimming--and the left side doesn't want to get off the merry-go-round)

 

[Logos1]

Ergo etc

Greetings and salutations Eagle,

As soon as I recovered from being impressed with Eagle's vastly superior exegeting prowess. I remembered author Alex Haley remarking to a young man in an audience he was speaking to one evening “I don't know what you were saying, but wooooo wouldn't your grandmammy be proud if she knowed you knew all dem big words"

I'm just a simple country preterist and thar be a right many so-fisticated verbiages here to de-cipher and ruminate upon.

Eagle: “As exegetes, we see established here that the occasion referenced, is Christ's "coming." We know from many other places (thru exegesis) that there is only one (1) second coming - ergo "second" coming.“

I'm so dumb I thought Eagle and I were discussing sin death vs. physical death and past or future coming of Christ and now I find out its something to do with there being only one (1) second coming of Christ--I guess I better get with the program.

Ergo (I just love saying ergo it make me sound so scholarly) #1. Acts 9:5 Jesus came to Saul on the Damascus road where they all heard the voice say "I am Jesus"...but what's a Damascus road visit between old friends. Let's give Eagle a mulligan on this one.

Ergo #2. 2 Corinthians chapter 12 Paul says I knew a man in Christ more than fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell)...Such a one caught UP to the THIRD HEAVEN. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell)...4 How that he was caught UP into PARADISE, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

Perhaps this is a Jesus visit of sorts to Paul to carry him to the 3rd heaven, but then Paul is not sure if it's physical or spiritual so let's toss this one ergo we have to debate the whole subject of spiritual vs. physical again and again on this passage alone.

Ergo #3. Jesus comes to John to give him the Revelation...Oops let's just call this one spiritual since it is a vision--can't count that as coming since spiritual visits aren't official tsk, tsk.

Ergo # 4. Acts 7:55 Stephen had his own personal coming of Christ just before his death. Well let's just call this one a personal visit between Christ and Stephen and disallow as too personal for inclusion in the official visit/returns count.

I get it now and it’s darn simple too. All I needed to do was apply futuristic math to Jesus visits and there is only one (1) second coming. Ergo my little pea picking brain.

While I'm still wondering around in the "fog" of my pre-suppositions and forced interpretations I’m guessing The Great Exegeting Eagle has laid some wicked exegeting calculus on me about how physical death still reigns on this earth. It's just a guess-what do I know. But if I were an exegeting man myself I would say these verses exegete this point.

Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die (This would be spiritual death, they didn't die physically).

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have built barriers between you and your God, and your sins have made Him hide [His] face from you so that He does not listen.

Does it not sound like sin separates man and God?

Galatians 2:19 - 21
19: For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Ergo When Jews lived under the Law they were still separated from God (still in a state of Sin Death), but through Christ's atoning work we are reconciled back to God. Ergo Christ has victory over sin death.

John 5:24 I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life.

Meaning Jesus reconciles us back into the presence of God. Big ergo here: The Law couldn't redeem us it foreshadowed Christ. The law ended completely with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Since the Law is gone in 70 AD--what are we left with--If Christ didn't return and achieve victory over the final foe--sin death in 70 AD then we are still not reconciled back to God. Where do we go when we die? Can't go to heaven if Christ hasn't achieved victory over sin death.

Fortunately for us Christ tied his return to the end of the age (Old Covenant Age)
Matthew 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Not just one but all the provisions of the law passed in 70 AD. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and obviously this means reconciling us back to God. Ergo victory over sin death.

Matthew 24:34 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.

All these things included the destruction of the temple which is when the Jews stopped observing the Law which forces a coming whether second, third, fourth or whatever of Christ at that time.

And, we believers now go to heaven when we die a physical death, because Christ claimed victory over spiritual death and our separation from God. We have been redeemed back into the presence of God. Our Sin debt paid.

It’s a beautiful plan simple enough for a preterist and manageable even for a futurist to exegete their way thru the "fog" of their pre-suppositions and forced interpretations to see
the glorious work of Christ.

One of the odd things about futurism is that instead of celebrating and rejoicing in the victory we have in Christ’s return in 70 AD over sin death which allows us to be reconciled back to God upon physical death and enter into his presence in heaven. They deny the victory and oppose Christ on his greatest triumph. They put off their victory to some unknown future date waiting on Christ’s return.

Blessings to you Eagle


Could you do a PERT chart next time Eagle?

 

[Eagle]

Greetings and salutations (big word there!) yourself Logos1!

Your post took up too much room to quote in full for my response - let me just say that it is far from simple - as you try to say it is.

You apparently (and tellingly) took great offense to a very sparse use of what you call "so-fisticated verbiages." I am attempting to have intelligent, enlightened debate with fellow Baptists. I do not believe in "dumbing down" conversation because so many of us poor ole simple country bumpkins that are created in the very image of God for His glory "cain't handle" a little intellectual language. Besides, you really thought that the use of "ergo" was high-fallutin' - seriously?

I think rather that all 'yer protestin' 'bout 'dem big ole werds' is just another attempt to dodge the issues at hand - this time thru obfuscation - oh wait, here's a definition fer dat big ole werd: (from Dictionary .com)

to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

You know very well that the phrases "the return of Christ" or "Christ's second coming" are accepted Biblical/Theological terminolgy for that specific event - period. To refer to so many other possible Christophanies (definition: theological term for possible physical[?] appearances of Christ) as being a part of the same discussion is intellectual dishonesty on your part. "The return of Christ" is obviously what you claim happened in 70 A.D. - and the basis of our ongoing discussion. I think you are better than this - quit obfuscating. Quit dodging the issue and answer it.

The point to emphasizing the singular return of the Lord is of course to force us to properly apply, interpret, or exegete the implications of this passage with all other known and relevant scriptures - nothing else.

Also, as previously stated in my last post, you once again try to "spiritualize" the passage, to make it refer to spiritual death - when clearly physical death is what is being discussed.

To this you actually have already agreed, I quote from your post #108: "1 Cor. 15 refers to the resurrection."

The resurrection of what - our "spirits" or our physical bodies? The fact that 1 Cor. 15 refers to physical bodies and physical death is ridiculously irrefutable. Your constant attempts to make it contrary - similar to butting your head against a brick wall - notwithstanding. Is it really necessary to quote and exegetically walk thru the entire chapter to establish this fact with you? Would it do any good?

Finally, forgive my ignorance, not being on the same intellectual level with you and all - what's a PERT chart?

 

[Winman]

I thought your posts were excellent Eagle. :thumbsup:

That Jesus will return in the flesh, and that we will be resurrected with a physical body is shown in Job.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job says here that even though worms destroy his physical body when he dies, he will see God in his flesh. Doesn't get much clearer than this.

 

[Eagle]

I thought your posts were excellent Eagle. :thumbsup:

That Jesus will return in the flesh, and that we will be resurrected with a physical body is shown in Job.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job says here that even though worms destroy his physical body when he dies, he will see God in his flesh. Doesn't get much clearer than this.

Thank-you Winman, and I say Amen to what both you and Job say!

 

[Grasshopper]

1) "The end" has not yet happened.

End of what? Peter said this "end" was "at hand":

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

2) "Death" still reigns on this earth.

Yet Jesus told the Jews they would NEVER die:


Joh 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Joh 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

John Owen wrote a book about it:

3) Therefore, the Lord has not yet come for the one and only "second" time.

Why then did Jesus threaten to come in Revelation 2:

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Was this an idle threat? Why did James say it was near in his day:


Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

Why did Jesus tell Caiaphus he would see it:

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

John Gill certainly didn't hold to a 1 coming theology:

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

Carry on Logos1:thumbs:

 

[Logos1]

Hi Eagle,

Well I can tell by the speed and ferocity of that last post that I have stepped on some raw nerves so let me start by offering an apology for all offenses.

I guess I’m too quick to assume everyone comes into these forums like me. I enjoy the give and take and tit for tat of the forums. I enjoy mixing it up with others and I never take offense at what happens in here or other forum sites. I never take any of it out of here or loose sleep over it. I’m a full preterist so realize most people still disagree with that position and I’ve been called enough names like devil and antichrist that I expect some people will get pretty upset with me at times when I challenge their positions.

I think most of us in these forums agree the only path to heaven is through acceptance of Christ as our savior. We have enough common ground there to take and defend different positions on other subjects. I think we all have to put on our big boy pants to step into the forum and laugh with others and at ourselves. We can disagree with vigor and never loose site of our common ground, take competing positions and hold to the same faith, and challenge each other on many points and still realize our redemption comes through Christ.

I grew up a dispensational premillennialist—believed in the rapture and the whole bit. No one was a more ardent futurist than me so I fully understand where futurists are coming from. After I realized the Apostles expected and taught Christ’s return in their generation and given I take the bible in its original manuscripts to be divinely inspired and inerrant I realized I need to align my position with the bible’s teachings. It was me that needed to change.

As a preterist you have to develop thick skin real quick. I enjoy healthy debate and I welcome honest questioning of my positions and even when I encounter real rancor I don’t get upset—if I ever get to that point I will just leave the forums and do something else. I don’t expect even odds and don’t need quarter. If you want to be a preterist you have to make peace with minority status—it’s not for everyone.

So I don’t get offended by what people say and if they make valid points they can change my mind. I don’t expect anybody to easily give up their position and beliefs because of what I say, but if they are honestly seeking truth I think over time and honest soul searching aided by the Holy Spirit many will eventually come to see the beauty of full Preterism just like I did. It can be hard to embrace at first, but opens up much understanding of biblical teaching.

When I was a futurist there was much of the bible I couldn’t understand, defend well, or explain. I just took it on blind faith; however, after embracing preterism those difficult positions fell in place in a wonderful way. I find normal language now explains all those former difficult puzzles and illogical contradictions now align themselves in consistent ways that allow the bible to reinforce itself from one passage to the next, one book to the next and between Old Testament and New.

May we have many more ideological sparring matches as friends and may the Holy Spirit convict one of us to change his position instead of both of us just digging in our heels in blind, fearful, and stubborn allegiance to an impossible position.

God bless you Eagle.

 

[Eagle]

Hi Eagle,

May we have many more ideological sparring matches as friends and may the Holy Spirit convict one of us to change his position instead of both of us just digging in our heels in blind, fearful, and stubborn allegiance to an impossible position.

God bless you Eagle.

Greetings Logos1,

To the above quote I can gladly agree. Just to let you know - you struck no nerve - I was simply returning in kind - striving for progress. From your testimony in this last post you are obviously someone who can, and will, change their position when you see it. Maintain this, and you can be used of God, for His glory, I trust.

I too have made changes in theology - any true student of God's Word (who's lived a few years!) would probably say the same. I was originally a dispensational pre-millennialist as well - it was what I was taught. Not content with that, I decided to study out the whole she-bang and see how all the pieces fit and the big picture was arrived at. The problem was - they didn't fit. Me being young in the Lord, I was content to accept that greater men than I saw it and understood it and to leave it alone - for a while.

I then stumbled onto some post-millenial writings - and my eyes were opened. The pieces fit (at least to a much greater degree!) and were much simpler. The gobbledy-gook that is usually associated with post-mill that states that they believe they will "usher" in the millenium is nonsense. There are various nuances of belief, as you are well aware I'm sure, among pre-mill, post-mill, preterist, etc. Mine is probably different from what you have come across before.

As you can see, I hope, from what I have set forth in this thread, and others, I maintain a very simple post-millenial eschatology based on what I believe are irrefutable rock-solid passages of scripture. Perhaps, just perhaps, in your justified flight from pre-mill -- you missed the boat on post-mill, and landed in something just as un-tenable in many of its aspects. Food for thought!

Till next time.

 

[webdog]

Guys, I'll help to end the debate...Logos and Eagle are both wrong, the apostle Paul is right