Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where in the bible does it say He was coming back soon in the first century?
While it is true that they all had the expectation He was coming back soon, the fact is that there was a secret administration God brought about. There was a pause. Israel was set aside.
Then a door of faith was opened to the nations in spite of Israel being set aside . . . until . . . until the complement of the nations may be entering and thus all Israel shall be saved when Christ arrives out of Zion (Romans 11).
So Christ's arrival is put on hold until the complement of the nations enters.
Let me answer that........limited perception of who God is, says He is coming back in the "first century and the first century only!!". (Does not time itself belongs to Him?)
That He can't dare come again, when He is God Almighty, able to come again and again and again, if He so wishes...................is nothing short of blasphemy! To which I rebuke in the name of the Lord Jesus!
He is coming again, just like He said He would! There's a sure way for anyone to KNOW for themselves, talk to Him, commune with Him. Don't take my word for it go a step further and "step out of your box" of unbelief. You'll see, HE IS A WONDER!! A WONDER TO BEHOLD!!
This is your HOPE and do not let any devil in hell ........steal your joy!
How? Because of this statement I saw first thing on a preterism web site:
"Preterism is the belief that all Bible prophecies, including those concerned with the return of Christ, resurrection of the dead, rapture, judgment, and arrival of the kingdom of God, came to complete fulfillment in a.d. 70......"
I don't agree with that. As for your question why I believe anything I believe, the answer is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
As I said before, I do not believe in a secret rapture, but really.... if someone is trusting in Jesus for their salvation and is truly God's child, does it really matter what they believe about end times? Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and God will take care of His own. All this endless debate and attacking each other serves no good purpose. That's the way I see it.
Yes it does matter what people believe about the end times. The teaching that we are in the end-times leads to a very pessimistic worldview. We cannot have an optimistic, kingdom worldview without a proper eschatological view. The kingdom was established, and of the increase of the kingdom there will be no end (Isa.9:7). To say it doesn't matter what people believe is untrue. Our faith affects our actions and our mindset. Christians, for the most part, are negative and pessimistic concerning the earth and the future. Many have been taught everything is winding up, and the Antichrist, and Tribulation, are about to happen. It is all "doom and gloom." Only a proper eschatological understanding will give us hope for the future, and release hope to generations to come. The kingdom is advancing, and the earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the. We have made Christianity a "last days" religion, when in fact Old Covenant Judaism was a "last days" religion. Christianity is not a "last days," religion. This is the age of Christ, and we a living in the days of the kingdom (Psalm 72)
See, this gets near to being a perfect example of what I tried to make pre-tribbers recognize in this thread. Third Party freely admits he's never seen "pre-tribulation" in the Bible. Yet he's been so indoctrinated by the movie script that hucksters have sold all the pre-tribbers that he can't even admit the whole scenario might be phony. Notice I didn't say, "is phony" I said "might be phony" because there is always the chance it is. From a therapeutic POV I want all readers to notice that this is post #22; I've had numerous responses from a few pre-tribbers, yet not one chose to honestly answer my question: what would you have to see to make you consider, not change your mind, just consider that you might be wrong in your belief. Instead, they all started to "deflect", which is to keep the subject matter intact, yet try to turn the focus from them possibly being wrong to trying to convince the OP that he, not "might be" wrong, but definitely "IS" wrong. They gave no consideration to the fact that I rose to my own challenge and freely admitted that if I saw certain things as outlined by LGPE, I would change my mind in a hurry. Not one pre-tribber here was willing to do the same thing, and I can tell you why: because the fear of missing the rapture because of their momentary lapse of faith in it is so terrifying to them that they switch to tunnel vision when the question comes up and just forge straight ahead, never daring to look side to side (think about whether or not the pre-trib rapture could be a sham) because to do so in their minds is to acknowledge they have doubts about it and that could cause Jesus to leave them behind to face the wrath of the antichrist and being beheaded for their faith. I mean I've seen Christians literally quake in their boots when we talked about what might happen if the rapture came and we got left behind. Get-rich-quickers like HL, JVI, GJ, & especially TLH exploit this fear to the nth degree to get pre-tribbers to lap this stuff up because they know pre-tribbers are their meal ticket--they number in the millions and are suckers for parting with their money to read about the rapture. How many pre-tribbers actually know, I wonder, that 98% of these authors' audience ARE pre-tribbers. Nobody outside of the close-knit Christian pre-tribber crowd actually went to see any of the Left Behind movies or bought the books, maybe a few critics and some curious onlookers, but that was it. The vast pool of millions of dollars all this stuff earned came from the pre-tribbers who didn't need convincing about the theory of the rapture--they're sold hook, line and sinker on it--it's just that every so often they need a fix, like a drug addict needs some drug before going into withdrawls. If pre-tribbers don't get that fix via supporting each other's waning confidence like over at RITA ("come on, hang in there, Kelly, don't get discouraged; the rapture's gonna happen any day now"), or reading a volume of Left Behind to bolster their flagging enthusiasm, then actually confronting the reality of the rapture never getting here as the weeks and years grind on might crush them like a pancake. Come on, tell me honestly: was it really necessary to write THIRTEEN--count 'em--THIRTEEN VOLUMES to get what most Christian critics called a third-rate storyline told?? What defenders of the series conveniently forget is that each volume represents an additional couple of million $$$'s in royalties for the authors. You think they're stupid enough to give up a cash cow like that by limiting themselves to just three or four novels??? And so that's why pre-tribbers don't dare respond honestly to my question. They're not psychologically capable of it. They could't actually type the words out. Their hands would freeze on the keyboard. So I'm not surprised no one bothered to reply except to try to point out that I'm the one who's wrong and that I'd better change my POV real quick or I'll get "left behind". Sometimes the truth hurts, even for Christians, but it has to be told. If anyone replies, I just hope they reply in Christian love.
I tried to read but my eyes began to cross. I will come back later, but next time will you break things up in paragraphs to make reading easier.
In hindsight, Miss Shawn, it's probably not worth the effort. Also, read my post, "Matthew 24 vs. Luke.." in which I alter my stance on the rapture (a little).
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,203 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
Greetings, Blueberry: I find it disconcerting that no one can ever justifiably find fault with the blatant lack of study skills prominent in the Church today without being labeled arrogant. Blueberry, you have falsely represented my assessment of Bible prophecy as though it was grasped out of then air with no foundation in truth whatsoever. I speak from 60-years experience and from the fact that I was once numbered among those I now challenge concerning their improper approach to Scripture!
I sincerely apologize, Preterist, for the message you received from the post quoted. It seems you read something into it that I never intended, so I will blame myself for not making myself clearer. I want to reiterate that not all of my comments were necessarily directed at you but, rather, at the tone I find in many threads on this forum. I never meant to imply that you (or anyone else) grasped your beliefs out of thin air. Again, I'm very sorry for any offense given.
You are absolutely right about the blatant lack of study skills in today's church. I don't think it's at all arrogant to point to that basic fact. Proper biblical exegesis requires the reader to first look at a verse in context, then in the framework of the book, then in light of the author's other writings (if any), then the testament in which it's found, then in light of the whole canon of Scripture. That process is sorely lacking in many discussions and debates. Asking the average Christian to do more than that, however, is unrealistic.
A very small percentage of Christians throughout history have been called to do the type of study you have done. Most Christians will never learn biblical Greek or Hebrew, so expecting them to be able to draw out more than they learn from a lexicon or dictionary is, in my opinion, unfair. I think Christians should be applauded for at least trying to understand the correct meaning of a word or text. No, they aren't experts. They have to rely on others to help them out, just as you had to rely on your teachers to train you. What I take issue with is the arrogance often displayed when a writer claims to have superior knowledge because he/she knows Greek and/or Hebrew, thus implying that the poor uneducated oaf challenging his/her stance can't possibly know what a particular verse or word actually means. I will stand by my assertion that God is sovereign and is capable of ensuring that His Word is accurately and adequately translated so it can be understood by the common man.
Most people can be adequately trained in the Scriptures by simply reading the Bible--over and over and over again. The more one reads, the more one makes connections from one precept to another and the more one discards error for truth. The Holy Spirit is the teacher, not some "expert" who may have flawed understanding himself or teaches his own biases (purposely or unintentionally).
Although I encourage others to study history, science, culture, etc., I do so with a great deal of caution. Many of today's modern teachers are blatantly biased and present information with the intent to undermine biblical precepts. The older teachers were usually more honest in their approach to hermeneutics, but some of them had their biases, also. If a teaching goes against the plain reading of Scripture, the student is best advised to approach with caution to ensure he's listening to the Holy Spirit rather than the "wisdom" of man. Any time one interprets Scripture in light of his emotions or modern culture, he's treading on dangerous ground. (I'm not saying you do this. Please understand I'm speaking in generalities throughout this post.)
Quote:
How do we recognize when someone has not done "pertinent study?"
When I go through great lengths to investigate the background of a passage of Scripture to ascertain its historical setting, the authorship, the purpose of the author, and the meaning his words would have had on his original readers, I have every right to question the "pertinent study" of those who counter me with a string of verses taken out of context which they themselves compiled, or much more commonly, they copied and pasted. Why is that arrogance, Blueberry? You have brought into question my motivation. Let me restate it once again. We will never get at the truths of the Scripture unless and until we are taught how to study them. I place the blame less on those who post here and more on the leadership of our churches.
I'm sorry, but this sounds dangerously like the claim of "superior knowledge" that I talked about earlier. How do you know the purpose of the author without reading his words in the Bible? Who provided the information on the historical setting, and did that person have any biases? How do you know what meaning the words had on the original listeners? Extra-biblical study sources have their place in aiding understanding, but one must be careful in relying on them to the detriment of the plain words of the Bible.
I suppose you and I will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "pertinent study." That phrase, to me, simply means correct exegesis, without reliance on man's wisdom to "correctly interpret" the Scriptures. I'll use extra-Biblical sources to aid my understanding, but I draw the line at being dogmatic on any issue where I have to rely on such sources to support my position.
Quote:
Am I not to challenge those who do not do that--those who simply rip a verse or oftentimes many verses out of their contexts or copy and paste the thoughts of their favorite author or teacher to prove me wrong?
If they're quoting their favorite author or teacher, you have every right to challenge them to study the issue for themselves. Perhaps they have, though, and that author can answer your question more efficiently than the poster. If the author is using proper biblical exegesis, I don't necessarily have a problem with citing him. If, however, the author is simply spouting opinion designed to persuade the listener, I have a BIG problem with it. I myself have challenged people to quit relying on what man says and to start reading the Bible instead.
The problem with prophecy, Universalism, or any other contested area of Scripture is that an adequate reply usually means dissecting the argument step by step. Sometimes, a single verse is sufficient as long as its reading can stand alone without needing context to correctly understand it.
Personally, I don't find the format of this forum conducive to debating such meaty topics, which is why I would encourage someone who has an interest in a particular topic to study it for himself. By "going to the source," one will usually get a much better understanding of the true teaching. At the same time, one should "go to the opposing source" to look at dissenting arguments. Most proponents of any ideology are adept at presenting their positions in such a way as to sound reasonable and irrefutable. Oftentimes, though, a dissenting opinion can shred the position that looks oh-so-good on first glance. The trick is determining who is being honest and genuine, with correct facts, verses the shyster who is good at pulling the wool over another's eyes.
Quote:
All I have asked is that we clear our minds, step back from everything others have taught us, and look at the words of the Scriptures--as though we had never seen them before. THEN, if we find that they actually support what we have believed all along, we retain with confidence our positions. But, if we find that the Scriptures do not support what we have believed, we willing relinquish any wrong beliefs we have held.
Amen!
Part of renewing our minds is throwing out incorrect beliefs/teachings and replacing them with the truth. As long as that purge takes place through the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Bible, we agree. If, however, a person is throwing out one indoctrination for another, he's still indoctrinated.
Quote:
Sadly, Blueberry, I have found that while I take the time to understand the beliefs of dispensationalism (an easy thing since I once held that perspective), those who disagree with me quickly judge what I say without really understanding what I am saying because they are not as open-minded as they claim to be. They pre-judge me to be wrong simply by the name I call myself. Their teachers have told them that preterism is heresy. With their minds already predisposed to that, whenever someone claims that a Bible prophecy they believe to be yet future has already been fulfilled, they attack like a mama lion protecting her cubs! [emphasis added]
On the surface, I agree with you Preterist. When people judge without truly understanding or when they mis-represent your words or beliefs, they're wrong. However . . .
Perhaps you're mistaken about their actions. The sentence I bolded speaks volumes. While I've no doubt that is true at times, you're painting with a broad brush. It just might be possible that someone disagrees with you because he doesn't think your position is accurate in light of Scripture he has read for himself.
I don't think anyone needs to attack preterism like a mama lion protecting her cubs. I say that because I don't think one's view of prophecy is relevant to salvation and holy living. If preterism is incorrect (only time will tell), then its message will hinder the warning people are trying to sound about the danger on the horizon. I suppose people are trying to shout over the "noise" of your opposing claims so people will heed the warning. Personally, I think time would be better spent proclaiming the gospel message. Those who are blinded to the times might not be blinded to their need of salvation.
Quote:
Furthermore, Blueberry, just because a majority of "scholars" declare something to be true does not make it so. . . . Also, Blueberry, your assumption that I am wrong about the dating of the Revelation because it is the minority rule, demonstrates that you also have not taken the time to really understanding that position.
I absolutely agree with the first part! I've said the same myself on many occasions.
I didn't say you were wrong about the dating of the Revelation. I said no one knows for sure the correct dating. There is disagreement amongst Bible scholars.
What I took issue with is you proclaiming the early date as fact. It seems you do so to bolster the accuracy of preterism. I take very seriously the biblical warning that teachers will be judged more harshly, so I am very careful to distinguish fact from opinion or supposition. A big red flag goes up in my mind whenever I see someone falsely claim something as fact. If a person can't handle the facts accurately, chances are they aren't handling other things accurately either.
Since you believe your reading of the first and last chapters of Revelation proves the early date, you obviously consider the early date as fact. Still, sincere and very educated people disagree with you, so I don't consider it as fact. Even if I agreed with you, I would let others know there is much disagreement over the dating and encourage them to study the matter for themselves.
Quote:
When one willingly and openly accepts the clear time frame for the content of the Revelation found in both the first and last chapters of the book, he CAN know that it was written prior to the events of A. D. 70! Regardless of when one believes it was written, he MUST acknowledge that some time "shortly" after it was written, the events of the book transpired because the time for their fulfillment was THEN near! The entire contents of the book fit the Jewish world of that day not ours!
We're going to have to agree to disagree. This is one of those areas that cannot be handled adequately in a forum such as this without going back and forth, line by line. There are much easier ways to get the same information. I'll leave it to someone else to debate the issue.
~~~~~
Preterist, I think we agree on far more than we disagree on.
Luvvarkansas: That's your answer--"you don't agree with that? I also use the Bible and the Holy Spirit as the basis for my beliefs. Do you not think that you should spell out exactly why you disagree with the preterist statement by expounding on the Bible? Prove from the Bible wher preterism is wrong?
Let's start with just one verse, Luvvarkansas. What did Jesus mean when He said directly to His disciples standing right there with Him--
"When YOU see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet . . . " (Mat. 24:15). Please use only the context of Matthew 24 for your interpretation!
Thanks!
Preterist
I disagree because I don't see the beliefs of preterism in the Bible. But I see no reason to argue and foam at the mouth about it because....well, I already said it once..."if someone is trusting in Jesus for their salvation and is truly God's child, does it really matter what they believe about end times? Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and God will take care of His own. All this endless debate and attacking each other serves no good purpose. That's the way I see it."
When someone picks a certain topic of Christianity and dwells on it, constantly arguing with other Christians about it, focusing on it almost to the exclusion of any other doctrine, I wonder why. I don't know why people do that, but I do know it's not the right thing to do (unless it pertains to how we obtain salvation, where an error in doctrine could cause someone to miss salvation).
I sincerely apologize, Preterist, for the message you received from the post quoted. It seems you read something into it that I never intended, so I will blame myself for not making myself clearer. I want to reiterate that not all of my comments were necessarily directed at you but, rather, at the tone I find in many threads on this forum. I never meant to imply that you (or anyone else) grasped your beliefs out of thin air. Again, I'm very sorry for any offense given.
You are absolutely right about the blatant lack of study skills in today's church. I don't think it's at all arrogant to point to that basic fact. Proper biblical exegesis requires the reader to first look at a verse in context, then in the framework of the book, then in light of the author's other writings (if any), then the testament in which it's found, then in light of the whole canon of Scripture. That process is sorely lacking in many discussions and debates. Asking the average Christian to do more than that, however, is unrealistic.
A very small percentage of Christians throughout history have been called to do the type of study you have done. Most Christians will never learn biblical Greek or Hebrew, so expecting them to be able to draw out more than they learn from a lexicon or dictionary is, in my opinion, unfair. I think Christians should be applauded for at least trying to understand the correct meaning of a word or text. No, they aren't experts. They have to rely on others to help them out, just as you had to rely on your teachers to train you. What I take issue with is the arrogance often displayed when a writer claims to have superior knowledge because he/she knows Greek and/or Hebrew, thus implying that the poor uneducated oaf challenging his/her stance can't possibly know what a particular verse or word actually means. I will stand by my assertion that God is sovereign and is capable of ensuring that His Word is accurately and adequately translated so it can be understood by the common man.
Most people can be adequately trained in the Scriptures by simply reading the Bible--over and over and over again. The more one reads, the more one makes connections from one precept to another and the more one discards error for truth. The Holy Spirit is the teacher, not some "expert" who may have flawed understanding himself or teaches his own biases (purposely or unintentionally).
Although I encourage others to study history, science, culture, etc., I do so with a great deal of caution. Many of today's modern teachers are blatantly biased and present information with the intent to undermine biblical precepts. The older teachers were usually more honest in their approach to hermeneutics, but some of them had their biases, also. If a teaching goes against the plain reading of Scripture, the student is best advised to approach with caution to ensure he's listening to the Holy Spirit rather than the "wisdom" of man. Any time one interprets Scripture in light of his emotions or modern culture, he's treading on dangerous ground. (I'm not saying you do this. Please understand I'm speaking in generalities throughout this post.)
I'm sorry, but this sounds dangerously like the claim of "superior knowledge" that I talked about earlier. How do you know the purpose of the author without reading his words in the Bible? Who provided the information on the historical setting, and did that person have any biases? How do you know what meaning the words had on the original listeners? Extra-biblical study sources have their place in aiding understanding, but one must be careful in relying on them to the detriment of the plain words of the Bible.
I suppose you and I will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "pertinent study." That phrase, to me, simply means correct exegesis, without reliance on man's wisdom to "correctly interpret" the Scriptures. I'll use extra-Biblical sources to aid my understanding, but I draw the line at being dogmatic on any issue where I have to rely on such sources to support my position.
If they're quoting their favorite author or teacher, you have every right to challenge them to study the issue for themselves. Perhaps they have, though, and that author can answer your question more efficiently than the poster. If the author is using proper biblical exegesis, I don't necessarily have a problem with citing him. If, however, the author is simply spouting opinion designed to persuade the listener, I have a BIG problem with it. I myself have challenged people to quit relying on what man says and to start reading the Bible instead.
The problem with prophecy, Universalism, or any other contested area of Scripture is that an adequate reply usually means dissecting the argument step by step. Sometimes, a single verse is sufficient as long as its reading can stand alone without needing context to correctly understand it.
Personally, I don't find the format of this forum conducive to debating such meaty topics, which is why I would encourage someone who has an interest in a particular topic to study it for himself. By "going to the source," one will usually get a much better understanding of the true teaching. At the same time, one should "go to the opposing source" to look at dissenting arguments. Most proponents of any ideology are adept at presenting their positions in such a way as to sound reasonable and irrefutable. Oftentimes, though, a dissenting opinion can shred the position that looks oh-so-good on first glance. The trick is determining who is being honest and genuine, with correct facts, verses the shyster who is good at pulling the wool over another's eyes.
Amen!
Part of renewing our minds is throwing out incorrect beliefs/teachings and replacing them with the truth. As long as that purge takes place through the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Bible, we agree. If, however, a person is throwing out one indoctrination for another, he's still indoctrinated.
On the surface, I agree with you Preterist. When people judge without truly understanding or when they mis-represent your words or beliefs, they're wrong. However . . .
Perhaps you're mistaken about their actions. The sentence I bolded speaks volumes. While I've no doubt that is true at times, you're painting with a broad brush. It just might be possible that someone disagrees with you because he doesn't think your position is accurate in light of Scripture he has read for himself.
I don't think anyone needs to attack preterism like a mama lion protecting her cubs. I say that because I don't think one's view of prophecy is relevant to salvation and holy living. If preterism is incorrect (only time will tell), then its message will hinder the warning people are trying to sound about the danger on the horizon. I suppose people are trying to shout over the "noise" of your opposing claims so people will heed the warning. Personally, I think time would be better spent proclaiming the gospel message. Those who are blinded to the times might not be blinded to their need of salvation.
I absolutely agree with the first part! I've said the same myself on many occasions.
I didn't say you were wrong about the dating of the Revelation. I said no one knows for sure the correct dating. There is disagreement amongst Bible scholars.
What I took issue with is you proclaiming the early date as fact. It seems you do so to bolster the accuracy of preterism. I take very seriously the biblical warning that teachers will be judged more harshly, so I am very careful to distinguish fact from opinion or supposition. A big red flag goes up in my mind whenever I see someone falsely claim something as fact. If a person can't handle the facts accurately, chances are they aren't handling other things accurately either.
Since you believe your reading of the first and last chapters of Revelation proves the early date, you obviously consider the early date as fact. Still, sincere and very educated people disagree with you, so I don't consider it as fact. Even if I agreed with you, I would let others know there is much disagreement over the dating and encourage them to study the matter for themselves.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. This is one of those areas that cannot be handled adequately in a forum such as this without going back and forth, line by line. There are much easier ways to get the same information. I'll leave it to someone else to debate the issue.
~~~~~
Preterist, I think we agree on far more than we disagree on.
Blueberry: You seem to be saying that it is all right for people to simply throw verses around that they have grabbed from here and there simply because there is some similarity in terminology. I have no right to challgenge them to do proper Bible study or else people like you will accuse me of having "superior knowledge." That is a ridiculous charge, my friend. You are again accusing me of claiming to be superior to other Christians after you just said you weren't. Do you not see that my motive is to get people to rise to a superior knowledge and handling of the Scriptures. If that comes across as my thinking I have superior knowledge, than I guess I'll take that chance. IF someone disagrees with me AFTER doing proper Bible study (things that aren't hard and don't required "superior knowledge"), I will respect that. But few if any ever challenge my beliefs in this way.
What I have been suggesting and which you have now missed twice is that everyone with normal intelligence can understand God's Word, BUT they must approach it with the proper diligence and principles of study. When did I ever require other Christians to do more than that? When did I ever suggest that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is necessary to a proper understanding of God's Word?
Blueberry, you flatter me unnecessarily and unjustifiably. I never ever suggested that I am anything but usual and typical. Yes, I have studied Greek and Hebrew, but I have never implied that such study is necessary for understanding the Scriptures. The context of my statements concerning Greek was that people should be careful about using Lexicons and Dictionaries. I myself rarely bring up the Greek or Hebrew in my posts unless I am very confident that I am correctly understanding how the languages are used and then NEVER simply to let people know how "smart" I am. It is done ONLY when it is extremely relevant and pertinent. Anyone who uses a knowledge of Greek on these boards to lord it over others is being arrogant. Many of my close friends don't even know my education background. It is not relevant. They can learn as easily as I can.
Again, there are many good students of the Word who do not know Greek and Hebrew. My problem is with people who copy and paste technical Greek studies that THEY THEMSELVES have no clue about what they mean. That so-called expert they are quoting, even though he is considered a Greek scholar, may just be wrong! They are not infallible! My point is this: we should not post things we ourselves have not personally studied and approved of and we should not post Greek studies when we ourselves do not understand what the author is saying! I have only challenged people to do their own work!
I do not indiscriminately and unjustifiably disagree with people, Blueberry. When people merely toss out a list of verses out of context to "prove" their position--yes, I will challenge that. But it is not done out of my claiming to have superior knowledge. You say that we should be careful about calling ourselves teachers. I agree. For years I taught the errors of dispensationalism by employing the same inadequate, lazy Bible study techniques I am now challenging on these boards. I have repented of that. I stand with a clear conscience before God when I claim that the Revelation was written prior to A. D. 70. You think that there is danger only on one side of the aisle concerning these things? What about those who should know better (as I should have) and teach Christians to look for things that have already taken place? What about those who fill the heads of young Christians with "left behind" theology, so that do not get involved in a world from which they are soon to be "raptured." Why vote, why get involved--everything is just going to get worse and worse and worse. In fact, if we seek to change that, we must just be thwarting God's plan! What about the position in which such "end-times" theology unnecessarily puts the Church? Skeptics, who even in their reprobate minds understand what Jesus and the Apostles were saying concerning His soon return, accuse our Lord and the inspired writers of lying. Christ said He was returning in that generation--according to the Church, He has not even yet returned. He lied; He is a false prophet! His disciples lied; they are false teachers! The Bible is full of errors; Christianity is a false religion! Futurists throw out their pathetic dual fulfillment and postponement theories or they say, "What do we care what unbelievers think?" The only satisfactory response against these assaults of nonoccurrence is occurrence! Jesus came as He and His apostles said He would--in that first-century generation. The Revelation concerns those things that were shown to John which were to happen "shortly"--the time for fulfillment was THEN "near." That IS a fact, Blueberry. I make no apologies for that. We CAN KNOW when the Revelation was written. Attempting to walk in the middle of this debate and state that no one can absolutely know is a cop out!
We do not agree on more than we disagree, Blueberry. Frankly, I am not upset with you about it, but your post in which you sought to gently correct me for teaching error and putting myself above others, seems to evidence the same things of which you falsely accused me. It always amazes me when people claim that they are making "general" statements when, in fact, they are indeed making specific accusations against a specific person--as you did in your recent post. If it was a general admonishment, why did you implicate me personally when you stated that it was not just I who was misbehaving? What motivated you to post what you posted? Was it just an accumulation of general posts by everyone here, or was it mine in particular? The entire post, despite what you claim, is directed at me. That's fine. But why not admit it? I am glad that you are careful about what you teach, but don't you see that I could now accuse you of taking some high ground over the rest of us? After one does intense, in-depth, thorough Bible study (through much prayer and guidance), there is absolutely nothing wrong with him boldly proclaiming "I KNOW!" If that is not the case, Blueberry, we cannot KNOW anything!
Jesus was born in Bethlehem just as it was prophesied that He would--FACT. Jesus did many miracles while on this earth in fulfillment of prophecies--FACT. Jesus died, was buried and rose again, and prophecies were fulfilled--FACT. You consider these facts and fulfillments of prophecy, do you not, Blueberry? Are you wrong to state them as FACT? No! In the same way, there is nothing different about this--Jesus came again in that first century generation as He and His Apostles clearly and boldly declared He would--FACT. The Book of Revelation CLEARLY spells out the time frame for the things contained within it--things which were to "shortly" take place because the time was then "near!" Jesus plainly and openly said, in the Revelation which contains those things John was shown which were in his day to "shortly" take place,--"Behold, I am coming SOON!" And He did--FACT! Is not ignoring the plain time words here going against "the plain reading of Scripture?" Should not the student be cautious about those who ignore or redefine these terms lest they find themselves following the teachings of men rather than the Spirit?
We should and must be bold where the Scriptures are bold--without apology!
Sincerely, in Christ, Preterist
Last edited by Preterist; 06-20-2009 at 03:14 PM..
I disagree because I don't see the beliefs of preterism in the Bible. But I see no reason to argue and foam at the mouth about it because....well, I already said it once..."if someone is trusting in Jesus for their salvation and is truly God's child, does it really matter what they believe about end times? Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and God will take care of His own. All this endless debate and attacking each other serves no good purpose. That's the way I see it."
When someone picks a certain topic of Christianity and dwells on it, constantly arguing with other Christians about it, focusing on it almost to the exclusion of any other doctrine, I wonder why. I don't know why people do that, but I do know it's not the right thing to do (unless it pertains to how we obtain salvation, where an error in doctrine could cause someone to miss salvation).
jeapostle I do not think i have read anything by you that i disagree with , but i agree in part with luvvarkansas on what we should be dwelling on.
8For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things [are] true, whatsoever things [are] noble, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] amiable, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue and if any praise, think on these things.
jeapostle I do not think i have read anything by you that i disagree with , but i agree in part with luvvarkansas on what we should be dwelling on.
8For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things [are] true, whatsoever things [are] noble, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] amiable, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue and if any praise, think on these things.
I receive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'll see, HE IS A WONDER!! A WONDER TO BEHOLD!!
However . . .
