• 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!

Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

Logos1

New Member
Whining as a debating tactic

As usual, I'm deleting the extraneous material and the insults.

This is empty rhetoric, not a rebuttal to my assertion that preterism also has a time problem. Rebuttal is necessary for this to be a debate. There are various ways you could approach that: (1) refer to a dictionary definition of "soon" or "quickly" which would allow you to call 10 years "soon." (2) Show contemporary usage (a book, article, Internet, etc.) in which "soon" means up to 10 years.
Again, for this to be a debate, you have to prove this. Give me a dictionary definition (English or Greek) or contemporary usage in which "quickly" means what you say it means. Otherwise, give me grammar--I said it is an adverb. Do you disagree?

Um, no. I never said that and I don't believe it. I do believe that Jesus flew into the air. That is what "ascension" means, and you said you believed in the physical, bodily ascension of Christ, so you must believe just as I do, that Christ flew. For this to be a real debate, you would now have to give the post # and quote where I said what you accuse me of.
The Biblical term "last days" refers to the current age, what is called the Age of Grace or Church Age (I prefer this term) in dispensational theology. For you to be actually debating you would have to prove your asseration that "last days" is a reference to the last days of the Old Covenant, something you simply state with no proof.
I disagree. Prove this assertion and convince me you know how to debate.
Now that is a really strange interpretation. Can you give facts to support your interpretation? Can you actually exegete the passage so someone will be convinced?

I could put for this to be a debate you have to do “so and so “ at the end of each sentence, but I’ll just put “As usual, I'm deleting the extraneous material and the insults.”

One of the differences between you and me John is that I don’t bother or care about your insults and you whine to no end about what you choose to take insult at. As I was saying you have very thin skin and you whine a lot.

If you don’t think it is a debate no one is holding a gun to your head and making you answer—you do so own on your own so why lace each comment with whining. It is a good thing DHK doesn’t consider whining to be a bad thing or you would be in really big trouble. LOL.

I use the divinely inspired scriptures to supply my definition of quickly in this instance meaning something that will soon happen. There is no honest way to say quickly means things will happen quickly once they begin to happen instead of being imminent. This exposes your true intent as not being an honest understanding of scripture, but creating a smoke screen to hide the error of your preconceived notions.

Rev 1:1 HCSV states: 1 The revelation of[a] Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it[c] through His angel to His slave John,

Footnote B says: or soon

The ESV says: the things that must soon take place

21st Century KJV: things which must shortly come to pass

ASV: even the things which must shortly come to pass

NASB: the things which must soon take place

NIV: to show his servants what must soon take place.

KJV: to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;

Darby: to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place

YLT: to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly;

NRSV: which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place

And, I could continue in this vein with more translations, but there is simply no honest way to greek your way around the inspired word of God flatly saying that the events in Revelation are soon going to take place—there is no putting them off for thousands of years.

This would also prove Revelation was written before 70 AD since those events from a historical account fit perfectly with the events described in Revelation as about to happen. No such events happened soon after 70 AD.

If you can’t accept the definition of quickly supplied here then the definition supplied by divinely inspired scripture is not good enough for you. Which doesn't seem to ever stop futurists from denying it.

So John I’ve given you 10 different interpretations of greek which support my position instead of yours.

I might add that you didn’t support your position with any citations you just issued a blanket denial, declared victory, and took insult that I would disagree with you.

In your book this is what always demonstrates superior debating tactics, LOL.

Why don’t you put your proof where your mouth is and support your position.

You didn’t supply a single verse of scripture to support your position—you just issue blanket denials and whine.

I think before I move on to my next point I’ll just wait for you to put some proof on the table and actually support your position.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As usual, I'm eliminating all the extraneous material, the insults and the trash talking.
I think before I move on to my next point I’ll just wait for you to put some proof on the table and actually support your position.
I have said that there is a time problem in futurism. Logos1 won't accept that in a reasonable way but continues to demand that I admit to what I've already admitted. (Premillenianism solves the problem, but it would take a whole thread to do that, and I see no need to do that until Logos1 deals with my unanswered points on this thread.)

I have also said that preterism has a time problem. Rather than interact with that and prove that preterism does not have a time problem, Logos1 prefers tiring repetition of his previous point, insults and trash talking. I'll not stoop to that.

So we are at an impasse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
... you whine to no end.

... you whine a lot.

... whining.

... whining
Does anyone on the thread or lurking realize how genuinely humorous these insults are to a missionary who has spent 31 years standing for Christ in a Gospel-resistant country with only 1% Christian? :laugh:

I think DHK and C4K understand, both being missionaries in difficult countries. (I won't even go into 40 years serving God with the martial arts, and the injuries and bruises I've had in that. )
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Does anyone on the thread or lurking realize how genuinely humorous these insults are to a missionary who has spent 31 years standing for Christ in a Gospel-resistant country with only 1% Christian? :laugh:

I think DHK and C4K understand, both being missionaries in difficult countries. (I won't even go into 40 years serving God with the martial arts, and the injuries and bruises I've had in that. )

You realize don't you that word-1 will accuse you of "whining" again!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You realize don't you that word-1 will accuse you of "whining" again!
That is because he does the same. One must be careful that when he points the finger he has three pointing back at himself. He doesn't even answer some of the posts directed at him, but rather "whines" instead.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As usual, I'm eliminating all the extraneous material, the insults and the trash talking.

I have said that there is a time problem in futurism. Logos1 won't accept that in a reasonable way but continues to demand that I admit to what I've already admitted. (Premillenianism solves the problem, but it would take a whole thread to do that, and I see no need to do that until Logos1 deals with my unanswered points on this thread.)

I have also said that preterism has a time problem. Rather than interact with that and prove that preterism does not have a time problem, Logos1 prefers tiring repetition of his previous point, insults and trash talking. I'll not stoop to that.

So we are at an impasse.


Pretierism big problem is that ALL the Apostles looked forward to the Second coming, and John saw it in a future light for jesus had not yet returned, and Revealtion written after time the pretierists claimed he actually did!

Also, there would have been SOMETHING recorded when that happened, as John also states all eyes shall see Him!
 

HisWitness

New Member
Pretierism big problem is that ALL the Apostles looked forward to the Second coming, and John saw it in a future light for jesus had not yet returned, and Revealtion written after time the pretierists claimed he actually did!

Also, there would have been SOMETHING recorded when that happened, as John also states all eyes shall see Him!

Sure it was future to them BUT SHORTLY to come as the bible teaches :)
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Pretierism big problem is that ALL the Apostles looked forward to the Second coming, and John saw it in a future light for jesus had not yet returned, and Revealtion written after time the pretierists claimed he actually did!

Also, there would have been SOMETHING recorded when that happened, as John also states all eyes shall see Him!

Mu personal opinion is that the dating of Revelation has no bearing on the doctrine of Full Preterism, rather it is a red herring. I believe Full Preterism must and can be refuted by the Scripture dealing with the resurrection of the dead, many of which I have posted. Perhaps one of the more significant Scripture is the words of Job:

Job 19:25-27
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mu personal opinion is that the dating of Revelation has no bearing on the doctrine of Full Preterism, rather it is a red herring. I believe Full Preterism must and can be refuted by the Scripture dealing with the resurrection of the dead, many of which I have posted. Perhaps one of the more significant Scripture is the words of Job:

Job 19:25-27
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.

IF John penned revelation though ad 90's. then the full pretierism doctrine comes crashing down, DOA!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
IF John penned revelation though ad 90's. then the full pretierism doctrine comes crashing down, DOA!

Depends on your interpretation of the Book of Revelation. I don't interpret that book as the dispensationalist does, therefore, to me it is irrelevant in the Full Preterism debate!
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pretierism big problem is that ALL the Apostles looked forward to the Second coming, and John saw it in a future light for jesus had not yet returned, and Revealtion written after time the pretierists claimed he actually did!

Also, there would have been SOMETHING recorded when that happened, as John also states all eyes shall see Him!
Exactly right! No preterist here on the BB (and no doubt elsewhere on the Internet) has answered how "every eye" saw Him in 70 AD.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sure it was future to them BUT SHORTLY to come as the bible teaches :)
Maybe you can deal with what Logos1 absolutely refuses to. If Revelation was written in 60 AD as you preterists think, then how is 10 years to 70 AD called "shortly"? How is it a "soon coming" from 60 to 70, ten whole years?
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
His insults are not even creative! He's very repetetive not only in his insults but in his posts and it's boring. :rolleyes:

This Full Preterism is probably worth having. And frankly I may have done Logos a disservice by not more carefully reading his posts. But in all honesty all I ever saw in his posts were "cutsey" or snide remarks. Any serious argument was simply lost in the clutter.
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Exactly right! No preterist here on the BB (and no doubt elsewhere on the Internet) has answered how "every eye" saw Him in 70 AD.



It's been answered many times, it's just ignored. Anyone who knows nothing about preterism knows it has been dealt with.*

Adam Clark Commentary

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=re

Verse 7
Behold, he cometh with clouds - This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the enemies of his religion; perhaps to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to them that pierced him, which must mean the incredulous and rebellious Jews.

And all kindreds of the earth - Πασαι αἱ φυλαι της γης· All the tribes of the land. By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.

Even so, Amen - Ναι, αμην· Yea, Amen. It is true, so be it. Our Lord will come and execute judgment on the Jews and Gentiles. This the Jews and Romans particularly felt.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's been answered many times, it's just ignored. Anyone who knows nothing about preterism knows it has been dealt with.*

Adam Clark Commentary

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=re

Verse 7
Behold, he cometh with clouds - This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the enemies of his religion; perhaps to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to them that pierced him, which must mean the incredulous and rebellious Jews.

And all kindreds of the earth - Πασαι αἱ φυλαι της γης· All the tribes of the land. By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.

Even so, Amen - Ναι, αμην· Yea, Amen. It is true, so be it. Our Lord will come and execute judgment on the Jews and Gentiles. This the Jews and Romans particularly felt.
Um, no, Clarke's commentary does not answer me. He simply states with no proof that Rev. was written before 70, not saying how 60 to 70 is "soon." And the preterists on the BB have ceretainly not answered me. I've made the point over and over on this thread, and preterist extrordinaire Logos1 won't even touch it.

So you tell me, how is ten years "soon"?
 

HisWitness

New Member
Maybe you can deal with what Logos1 absolutely refuses to. If Revelation was written in 60 AD as you preterists think, then how is 10 years to 70 AD called "shortly"? How is it a "soon coming" from 60 to 70, ten whole years?

if you think thousands of years is shortly then i can say nothing that will cause you to believe otherwise :)
 
Top