ARCHIVE: The "Great tribulation" and the Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

[Jerry Shugart]

The following is the testimony of several of the early church fathers in regard to the “great tribulation” and the coming of the antichrist.First,we will examine the teaching of Irenaeus,who studied under Polycarp,who was a pupil of the Apostle John.

Surely Polycarp knew whether or not the “great tribulation” had come to pass,especially considering the fact that he studied directly under the man who wrote the Revelation.And if Polycarp knew,then we can rest assured that Irenaeus also knew.And by the words of Irenaeus it is clear that he believed that the “great tribulation” remained in the future,as well as the coming of the antichrist.This means that he did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70:

“…in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:’But when you see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),thenlet those who are in Judea flee into the mountains…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2).

“Daniel too,looking forward to the end of the last kingdom,i.e.,the ten last kings,amongst whom the kingdom of those men SHALL be partitioned,and upon whom the son of perdition SHALL come…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.3).

Although the testimony of the early church fathers was not inspired,it is clear that Irenaeus was certain that the “great tribulation” had not yet occurred,and he was writing at a point in time that was less than one hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!

In fact,almost all of the early church fathers were of the opinion that the coming of the antichrist remained in the future.Therefore,they did not believe that the “great tribulation” happened in AD70.

Tertullian (AD 145-220): “And that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet MAY wage war on the Church of God…”(“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,Chapter 41).

Hippolytus (170-236): “Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary,John also speaks this: ‘And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven…’ That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days [the half the week] during which the tyrant IS to reign and persecute the Church (“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 60,61).

Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a whose who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyr il of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?

In His grace,--Jerry

[knee-v]

I'm not trying to equate the early church fathers with the pharisees, but how did they miss the coming of the Messiah when they were living in the very time that Daniel said he would be around. It can happen.

I know you realize that men's opinions, creeds, etc. take a back seat to scripture. But as close as those men were to the first century, I can't help but see a 3 1/2 year triulation for those in Judea corresponding to the destruction of the Temple in AD70.

If I'm not mistaken, in at least one place the trib is said to be 42 months long. Let's see here. March of 67 through September of 70. Carry the 1. Um... Ah! 42 months. Now I know that that doesn't conclusively prove anything, being only one example, but the testimonies of scripture and history seem to scream preterism, church fathers or not.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Someone conveniently forgot about Eusebius and the fact that nearly all of the early church fathers appropriated the promises to Israel to the Church. Ooops, sorry that this snake bites you too. Some people should know better than to wield two-headed vipers.

[Knight]

Jerry your post is so valuable and it has been something I have been thinking much about lately. Had the tribulation happened in 70AD all of history would reflect the event as such.

Of all the reasons that preterism falls totally bankrupt (and trust me there are MANY reasons (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5379) ) the reason you have brought up is possibly one of the most damaging to preterism.

In no objective compelling way does history account for the tribulation as happening in 70AD.

Plain and simple! It didn't happen! Clearly had the tribulation happened as the way it was described by God Himself in the Bible history would have forever reflected it that way (or at least reflected in that way in a major way).

But then again there are actually people out there who deny the Holocaust actually happened and have wasted their entire life crafting reasons and explanations as to why we should all take them seriously. Likewise we have other people claiming the tribulation DID happen!Go figure!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

I have a question, and it is a sincere and honest one, what event described in the Olivet Discourse (up to verse 34) do you believe did not happen prior to or including AD70?

Jerry I would also sincerely ask that you refrain from answering this question. I would really like to hear Knight's opinion on this.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I have a question, and it is a sincere and honest one, what event described in the Olivet Discourse (up to verse 34) do you believe did not happen prior to or including AD70?

Jerry I would also sincerely ask that you refrain from answering this question. I would really like to hear Knight's opinion on this. I am not sure I understand your question, or maybe I just dont understand why you are asking what your asking. :confused: :confused:

By the way....

The tribulation didn't happen. It didn't!

Off to my weekend trip.... hope to be online as much as possible!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

I am not sure I understand your question, or maybe I just dont understand why you are asking what your asking.

Sure that is fair, so I will clarify both. First my question is asking you to look at Matthew 24:1-34, the passage from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation," and for you to give me a few specific examples of things you do not possibly believe came to pass. My reason for asking is simple... you have said that it did not happen, and I say that it did, and you have by kind of implicit comparision compared my belief with the beliefs of those who deny that the Holocaust happened. I am wondering if there are specific events described in that passage that you say could not possibly have occured, or if other factors outside of the passage have predetermined your belief without the need to get into this text. I believe that I can prove that the events did indeed happen but to narrow such an endeavor I was asking for specific verses from you to address. It is easy to say something that groups me in with a group of deluded people, but I would like to get specific, if you are willing. If not, alright, no offense taken, I know you too well to take it personally, I just would like to rap with you.

By the way....

The tribulation didn't happen. It didn't!

It did!! It did!!! Now we are even :p

Off to my weekend trip.... hope to be online as much as possible!


Have a great time and remember you are taking all of TOL with you....

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Someone conveniently forgot about Eusebius and the fact that nearly all of the early church fathers appropriated the promises to Israel to the Church. Ooops, sorry that this snake bites you too. Some people should know better than to wield two-headed vipers.

No one FORGOT about anything.There is an explanation as to why some of the early church fathers mistakenly appropriated the promises to Israel to the church.And if you will go to the thread "The MYTH that the Church is "Spiritual Israel" on the Eschathology Forum you will see exactly how that mistake came into being.

Now perhaps someone will explain why the early church fathers were in error when they taught that the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" remained in the future and were not fulfilled in 70AD.

After all,they were living at a time not too long after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.Surely if that event represented the "great tribulation" and the coming of the antichrist,they would be aware of such a fact!

So perhaps someone could explain how they could have been in error when they taught that the "great tribulation" and the antichrist did NOT happen in 70AD and remained in the future.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jerry I saw your thread you referred to and it is a classic case of question begging. But if we say you are right for the sake of argument, you then have proven that close proximity to apostolic teachings does not insure against what you would believe is being gravely mistaken. I have no vested interest or great desire to convince you. It would take much more time than I have which I have to decide where to spend with multiple conversations. I await Knight's reply if he does want to rap about this, otherwise, that is cool with me too. I have a lot of other irons in the fire.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I see that Jerry has posted selected passages from selected Church fathers. The fact is that the early church had quite an ecclectic and at times highly confusing eschatolgy that was far from developed into any level that would allow such dogmatic statements from either of us. I have abundant testimony that the early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

For example, and with more to follow.....

Chrysostrom - "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." ( A.D. 347)

Origien - "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (3rd Century)

[Knight]

Dee Dee correct me if I am wrong... but don't you believe that the events foretold in the book on Revelation happened in 70AD? (or there abouts) :)

[Knight]

Dee Dee your not really going to try to make the case that just as many people or church leaders or historians OR ANYBODY for that matter believed the Great Tribulation already happened as those that believed it hadn't happened already... are you?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

No you are not wrong. I do believe that the majority of the events in Revelation were fulfilled by 70AD or thereabouts. I also believe (as do you I think) that the Olivet Discourse is a parallel account to Revelation. But since the title of this thread was the "Great Tribulation" and that phrase is commonly taken from Jesus' words in Matthew 24, I was focusing on there.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee your not really going to try to make the case that just as many people or church leaders or historians OR ANYBODY for that matter believed the Great Tribulation already happened as those that believed it hadn't happened already... are you?


Well as you should know, holding to a very minority position yourself, that head counts do not decide who's theology is right. So no, I would never try the vain exercise of trying to prove my point by a majority vote. But I can prove that there have been notable and significant adherants to the view that the Great Tribulation is past from the dawn of Christian history through the present. In fact, the commentaries of prominent scholars in the centuries preceeding the rise to popularity of dispensationalism held this view in the majority (by the way). This is not something that is generally disputed in the scholarly community.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And another -

Eusebius – It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events. His words are as follows: "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain. But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground." And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, "For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, it is not necessary to add anything to the account of the historian. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better than do better than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work. (A.D. 325)

[Dee Dee Warren]

I could post tons of stuff that Eusebius wrote in his Ecclesiastical History but I think what I have posted suffices to prove my point with him. He had quite a well developd preterism for the time... considering the nascent state of eschatological formulations in general at that time.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Athanasius – "And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:231; and shortly after He says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly.”

"He was like those sent by the householder to receive the fruits of the vineyard from the husbandmen; for he exhorted all men to render a return. But Israel despised and would not render, for their will was not right, nay moreover they killed those that were sent, and not even before the Lord of the vineyard were they ashamed, but even He was slain by them. Verily, when He came and found no fruit in them, He cursed them through the fig-tree, saying, "Let there be henceforth no fruit from thee" [Matt. 21:191; and the fig-tree was dead and fruitless, so that even the disciples wondered when it withered away.

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet: "I will take away from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the scent of myrrh, and the light of a lamp, and the whole land shall be destroyed" [Jer. 25:10]. For the whole service of the law has been abolished from them, and henceforth and forever they remain without a feast."

"So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, "A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself." And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming "The law and the prophets prophesied until John." So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about?.. What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the Goddenyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. (296-372)


I have more quotes to prove my point from Cyprian (250AD), Hyppolytus (2nd-3rd century AD), Justin Martyr (150AD), Lactantius (3rd century AD), Tertullian (200AD - which quote says that the 70 weeks are fulfilled) - Do I need to post them or has mine point been sufficiently proven - the point being that there is very early testimony to prophetic fulfillment significance of the destruction of Jerusalem as it relates to the Discourse, to Daniel, and secondarily to Revelation.

[OMEGA]

DDWARREN , You asked for a scripture on something that

did Not happen .

Here it is .

Does this not meet your parameters?

(Mat 24:30 KJV) "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

(Mat 24:31 KJV) "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

:thumb:

[OMEGA]

I cannot find the last part of your scripture of Jer 25:10 .

Where did you get that Verse from ??????

" For the Service of the Law has been abolished and henceforth

and Forever they remain without a Feast.

I cannot find it in any of my bibles .

----------------------------------------------

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet: "I
will take away from them the voice of joy and the voice of
gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the
bride, the scent of myrrh, and the light of a lamp, and the
whole land shall be destroyed" [Jer. 25:10]. For the whole
service of the law has been abolished from them, and

henceforth and forever they remain without a feast."


---------------------------------------

(Jer 25:9 KJV) "Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations."

(Jer 25:10 KJV) "Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle."

(Jer 25:11 KJV) "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

:angel:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Omega:

Actually my question was directed specifically to Knight if he has the time or interest to rap. I know he is very busy and that eschatology is not his primary interest.

[Dee Dee Warren]

On Jeremiah 25:10, what I posted was a quote from Early Church Father Athanasius, not my own thoughts. And if you read what he wrote carefully, he is not claiming that sentence is a part of Jeremiah 25:10 he is saying his own thought there, apparently conflating several Biblical principles. Interesting though I find, is that his method of interpretation of these events is highly similar to mine in a lot of respects, and Athanasius is certainly a respected ECT who's tireless and zealous defense of the Trinity we are much indebted to.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I see that Jerry has posted selected passages from selected Church fathers. The fact is that the early church had quite an ecclectic and at times highly confusing eschatolgy that was far from developed into any level that would allow such dogmatic statements from either of us. I have abundant testimony that the early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

For example, and with more to follow.....

Chrysostrom - "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." ( A.D. 347)

Origien - "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (3rd Century)

Dee Dee refuses to even answer why the EARLIEST church fathers did not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD represented the "great tribulation".

Instead,she quotes Chrysostrom,who lived more than TWO HUNDRED years AFTER the men I quoted,and Origen,who lived more than ONE HUNDRED years after the men I quoted.

She would assign equal weight to the testimony of these men,and this despite the fact that some of those who I quoted were the pupils of those who had studied under the author of the Revelation himself,the Apostle John.

Again,Dee Dee did not even attempt to explain how it is possible that those who lived the closest in time to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not believe that that event was the "great tribulation" nor did they believe that the antichrist came at that time either.

Just think about it.If the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the "great tribulation",then is it not the strangest thing in all recorded history the fact that those who were the closest in time to that event were not even aware that it was the "great tribulation"?

Those who teach the "preterist" method of interpretation would have us throw our reason to the wind and believe their unbelievable idea that an event described as "great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world,no,nor shall ever be" came and went and the earliest church leaders were not even aware that it had come!

And this despite the fact that some of them were pupils of one who had studied directly at the knee of the Apostle John--the very author of the Revelation!

The following event came and went,and even those who had received their teaching from one who had studied directly under John were not even aware that it had already happened:

"...and there shall be time of trouble,such as never was since there was a nation"(Dan.12:1).

How can that be?

None of the preterists have even attempted to answer!And who could blame them?

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh. I did not post all of the quotes that I have... but since Jerry did quote Tertullian.. here is an interesting nugget from him (and notice he says that the 70 weeks are over):

"Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin."(7) And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader,(8) must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

"Therefore, when these times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place "libations and sacrifices," which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place celebrated; for "the unction," too,(6) was "exterminated" in that place after the passion of Christ. For it had been predicted that the unction should be exterminated in that place; as in the Psalms it is prophesied, "They exterminated my hands and feet."(7) And the suffering of this "extermination" was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April,(8) on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses.(9) Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children;"(10) and, "If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Caesar;"(11) in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And notice this error of Jerry...

Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a whose who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyr
il of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?


Notice that he included Chrystom and Cyrprian but I have quotes from them that agree with me. When I quote Chrystom... he lived too late, but when Jerry refers to him he is allegedly on of the creme de le creme. Jerry cannot have it both ways. I also quoted now Terullian... the fact is that the early church had a very confused and muddled eschatology which is demonstrated by the fact that Jerry and I can quote the very same people for both of our views. The fact is that men from the very same period of time had beliefs similar to mine and similar to futurists. The Church then was diverse as is the Church now.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And the fact is also that I do assign equal weight to most of them.. as uninispired though interesting sources. My weight is assigned to the Scriptures.

[Jerry Shugart]

Of course Dee Dee EVADED the words of Tertullian where he clearly expressed the idea that the Antichrist and his false prophet was not even in existence in 70AD.Instead,she posts some of his words that in no way nullifies his idea.

She just evades the question by using an obscurant argument and hopes that no one will notice.

She even demonstrates how blind she is in this matter when she admits that she assigns equal weight to the teaching of those who were taught directly by John´s disciples with the teaching of those who lived hundreds of years later.

And she has the nerve to say that her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures".

In fact,what she means is that her weight is assigned to her PERVERTED interpretation of the Scriptures.For instance,take the following verse,which is clearly in refernce to the "great tribulation":

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

A few verses later we see Him doing exactly that:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when he fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

I provided Dee Dee with these verses,and I stated that in 70AD that "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."

In reply,Dee Dee said,"Really??Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

Has anyone ever read such a nightmare exegesis of Holy Scripture in their lives?The Lord says that He will fight against all the nations that come against Jerusalem and destroy them,but yet in order for her to cling to her false teaching she has the nerve to say that the Lord Jesus fought and lost in Jerusalem in 70AD!!!

So we can see that she will not answer how Irenaeus,who studied under a pupil of John,could have been in error.Instead,she wants us to believe that her final authority is the Holy Scriptures.

And it is obvious that she will TWIST the Scriptures to make them say anything,no matter how profane.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

Terullian had as I clearly stated a jumbled eschatology as did almost all of the ECF. Both Jerry and I can find support for our positions in his writings as well as the writings of others. An honest dealing with historical sources will yield no other conclusion. Tertullian clearly stated that he believed that the 70 weeks were over. I did not quote him to show that he was consistent, I quoted him to show that he and I shared some similar ideas as did I and many of the earliest church fathers. Spin-doctoring has no place in honest debate.

[Dee Dee Warren]

So we can see that she will not answer how Irenaeus,who studied under a pupil of John,could have been in error.Instead,she wants us to believe that her final authority is the Holy Scriptures.


This is just stupid. Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died at fifty years old.....

For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old) and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle? (Against Heresies, 2:22:5)

So obviously being a student of John did not preserve him from error.

And again, almost all of the ECF assigned all of the promises to Israel to the Church. Now Jerry has an excuse for that in that he claims that they assigned such great weight to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD that they thought that God permanently cut off Israel. Now anyone with half a noodle can see how this undercuts the argument on this thread. If need be I can painfully point it out......

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes,it is obvious that none of the early church leaders were without error.But it is a huge difference between knowing the age of the Lord when He dies and knowing if the antichrist had come already.

We are supposed to believe that the following things occured,but yet those who studied under the ones who John taught were not even aware that they had already happened:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

We are supposed to believe that all of these prophecies came to pass,yet those who were so closely connected to the very man who wrote these prophecies were not even aware that they had already taken place!In fact,they were sure that they had not happened!

But some people will people will believe anything.Perhaps Dee Dee,who says that her final authority is the Scriptures,will tell us when these events took place.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

We are supposed to believe that the following things occured,but yet those who studied under the ones who John taught were not even aware that they had already happened:


Jerry has got his dancing shoes on, but nothing is new. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus really died in his thirties yet someone who studied under John denies that. Yes. I provided ECF testimony supporting my view. None of them agreed with me completely, and none of them agreed with futurism completely. The ECF had nothing near a developed eschatology and this is the honest, straw-free, assessment of history.

I have clear up this historical spin-doctoring which was my sole goal in bringing up the ECF.

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee now says that nothing the early church leaders said can be trusted.She says:

"My weight is assigned to the Scriptures."

That being the case,perhaps she will tell us when these following events took place.Now we can really see if her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures" or not:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I have consistently told you Jerry that my substantial in depth Scriptural wrangling with you is over since you do not hold me to be a sister in Christ. You have mishandled the historical sources and I have proven that which was my sole goal in dealing with this thread of yours. And please provide the quote where I say that nothing the early Church Fathers said can be trusted.

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee previously said that her eschatology was not derived from the early church but instead she says that her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures".Earlier she said,"the fact is that the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology."

So since the teaching of the early church in these matters cannot be trusted,I asked her to put her money where her mouth is.I asked her (since her eschatology is derived from the Scriptures) to give us her interpretation of the following verse:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious that the events described in these verses have not yet taken place.And since Dee Dee has no place for these events in her eschatology,then she must somehow explain away these verses.

But now she refuses to do this.If her eschatology was based on the Scriptures,then it is obvious that she would have an explanation for these verses.

But instead of answering,she runs away as fast as she can!

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

And please provide the quote where I say that nothing the early Church Fathers said can be trusted. Having a confused and muddled eschatology is nothing new, and would describe a great many Christians today. An honest assessment of the historical sources shows that both futurism and preterism have ancient adherents, sometimes within the same person. Thus the argument of history does not work that well against preterism, and I advise against using it. That point has been proven. Contra their muddled eschatology, the ECF were united in assigning the promises of Israel to the Church, including the student of John, Ireaneaus.

And the fact is that I have answered that question to numerous people here at TOL. The truth is that I do not have substantive Scriptural discussions with those who deny that I am saved.

[Jerry Shugart]

When I used the word "nothing" in regard to what the early church fathers taught it was in reference to the subject of this thread--eschatology.

You yourself say that "the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology."

But if you want to argue that their doctrine was NOT muddled,I can quote many statements which demonstrate that their "doctrine" was also muddled.

But that does not change the fact in the least that you say that your eschatology is based on the Scriptures.And when you are given the chance to prove it,you run like a scared rabbit.

You say that you have previously answered the verses I provided.Well,I have never seen an explanation of those verses,and I am sure that others reading this thread now have likewise never read your explanation.

But since you refuse to give an answer,I will provide an example of your "muddled" explanation of the words of prophecy as recorded by Zechariah.The Lord Himself says:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."(Zech.12:9).

And verses that follow show Him doing just that:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;and the city shall be taken...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

You say that these verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (since you have no place for them in your eschatology).You would have the Lord saying that HE will fight against all the nations,but you would have Him fighting in a loosing battle.In response,I said that in 70AD "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."

In your response,you demonstrate your UNBELIEF in what the Holy Scriptures actually say and said:

"Really??Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

So we can see that in order to cling to your false eschatology you are willing to make the words where the Lord Jesus is seen fighting against the nations that came against Jerusalem into a TOTAL AND COMLETE DEFEAT!!!

You would rather cling to your false teaching,even if it is at the expense of the integrity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And now you are given an opportunity to give us your interpretation of other Scriptual passages that do not fit into your little man-made eschatology and you refuse.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

I thank you then for revising your statement in order to correct your incorrect assertion that I said that NOTHING the ECF said could be trusted. But you still are inaccurate because I never said their eschatological statements could not be "trusted" either. I said that they were muddled, and thus could not be dogmatically used to support either preterism or futurism. So your spin is still incorrect, but at least you are moving closer to an accurate assessment of history. I am satisfied knowing that I smacked it down enough that you will not hastily use that very poor argument again in the future.

And yes I refuse to get into substantive Scriptural debate with you since you do not view me as a sister in the Lord. What part of that sentence do you find unintelligible?

[Jerry Shugart]

Let me see.You will discuss some things with me,such as the testimony of the early church fathers,but you ill not discuss substantive Scriptual issues with me!

You now say that you never said that the teaching of the early church fathers cannot be trusted,even though you did say that their teaching was "muddled".So all I can get out of this is the fact that in the future you will TRUST the part of their testimony that fits your ideas and discard the rest.Seems about in line with the way you operate.

You take the Scriptures which you think support your views and discard those which are in direct conflict with your teaching.You only prove that you will say anything in order to AVOID discussing these issues.

And you say that you smacked down my argument,when in fact you did no such thing.You only demonstrate that you an turn a "victory" into a defeat,just as you did in regard to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures where the Lord Jesus said:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

That event is the same event which Paul describes in the following verse:

"And so all Israel shall be saved;as it is written,There shall come out of Zion a Deliverer,and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"(Ro.11:26).

But according to your misguided teaching,the time when the Lord DELIVERED the Jews was no DELIVERANCE at all.You say that this refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was totally and utterly destroyed.

Repent from your false teaching,Dee Dee.Turn from your man-made theology and turn to what the Scriptures actually say.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes, Jerry it is a judgment call. You mishandled history and I cleared that up. That is not that difficult. Your semantical games with the ECF are not worth any more of my time. You continually misrepresent people who do not agree with you and that is just sad. I do not just "trust" the part of the ECF that agree with me, any honest reader of my posts will see that I gave equal recognition to both their preterist and futurist views, and did not emphasize one to the total expense of the other as you did. And I did not clear it up for you benefit but for the benefit of the readership since this is a common argument, and I do not think I ever really dealt with it at TOL before so it was worthwhile. You need to repent of your unjust judgment of the salvation of your sister in Christ. That is a serious, serious sin indeed.

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe that it is no "sin" to rebuke those who deny the plain words of Holy Scripture and pervert them so that they match their false theology.After all,is not the Christian told to do just that?:

"Preach the word;be diligent in season,out of season;reprove,REBUKE,exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,but,after their own lusts,shall the heap to themselves teachers,having itching ears;and THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH,AND SHALL BE TURNED INTO FABLES"(2Tim.4:2-4).

And one of the FABLES that these preople teach is the idea that the following prophesised events have already come to pass:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious that this event has not yet come to pass.But those who teach the FABLES say that it has.However,when asked to give their interpretation of these verses,THEY REFUSE!!!

They just go about their merry ways pretending as if these verses do not even exist.They attempt to find any EXCUSE in order that they can IGNORE those Scriptual passages so that they can continue to teach their false eschatology.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Jerry Shugart]

Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

In His grace,--Jerry

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


Well as you should know, holding to a very minority position yourself, that head counts do not decide who's theology is right. So no, I would never try the vain exercise of trying to prove my point by a majority vote. But I can prove that there have been notable and significant adherants to the view that the Great Tribulation is past from the dawn of Christian history through the present. In fact, the commentaries of prominent scholars in the centuries preceeding the rise to popularity of dispensationalism held this view in the majority (by the way). This is not something that is generally disputed in the scholarly community. Dee Dee, with all due respect I think you are grossly missing the point.

Holding a minority position regarding theology is one thing. Indeed a minority position could be just as "right" or just as "wrong" as a majority position.

But that really isn't what is up for debate here.

We are talking about an event that is not solely theological in nature.

Had the Great Tribulation happened it wouldn't be only noticed by theologians. All of the world would had been forever changed from that point on.

For instance.... It would be very difficult for any person to make a compelling argument that WWII DIDN'T happen. Mainly because WWII effected almost every major nation and society on earth. The evidence for WWII is overwhelming in a multitude of forms (physical evidence, historical, traditional, lore etc.)

How Much more would have the Great Tribulation effected the world?

Just imagine.... had the Great Tribulation ACTUALLY HAPPENED in 70AD the events that would have transpired would have been recorded in a variety of ways by every culture and society on the planet! Just as the events and evidence from the great flood are available to this very day in a variety of forms from almost EVERY SINGLE society on the face of this planet! (not just the Jewish and Christian societies - as you well know).

Clearly an event such as the Great Tribulation transpiring would get noticed by more than a handful of Preterists.

This is not JUST a theological debate. The Great Tribulation didn't happen. It didn't! And it is silly and embarrassing to think otherwise.

P.S. Some of those arguments about us not landing on the moon are pretty clever when you don't step back and look at the "Big Picture".

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Knight!! I hope you had a fantastic trip... and if you really took all of TOL with you, why don't I feel like I got away for the weekend :noid: I will get back with you as soon as I can on your points.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
why don't I feel like I got away for the weekend You were still working hard deep within my laptop.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

In His grace,--Jerry Great point and excellent question.

[Solly]

This is the problem I have here.

Firstly I should say I am not praeterist as DD is; while I believe that most of Matt 24 was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, I am not conviced that Rev refers primarily to 1st cent issues.

So, Matt 24.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The end of the world was Rome. The Gospel was preached there. Ever read Asimov's Foundation trilogy, where they are looking for the Second Foundation at Star's End? Stars End turned out to be Trantor, the Capital Planet of the Empire. All roads lead to Rome, and all roads have two ends.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

A case has been made for this being the Roman assualt on Jerusalem, and the events in the temple re the insurgent factions.

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Now DD makes a great deal about time delimiters. Well here we have a space delimiter: Judea. And local conditions relevant to an escape from Jerusalem.

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

And so we have our phrase. Which obviously, in the context of the passage refers to events in Judea; before you go on to any other matter, be it the events themselves, or cross references to Revelation, this fact has to be recognised. The reference is to events in Judea. Therefore the term Great is relative; there is no definite article in the greek, it reads: "tribulation great".
And of course nothing had been seen like it: the Jewish administration brought to a resounding end, in bloodshed and wrath, greater even than when Israel was taken into exile, for at least a people were left in the land, and administered from Babylon. This is final: computer, end programme.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

DD has dealt elsewhere with the fact of where Jesus is coming to.

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Eagles? Just coincidence that the Roman legions used Eagles as mascots I suppose.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Again, any reading of OT texts will show that this is justified hyperbole, along the lines of mountains melting, trees clapping, and hills skipping. Also justified imagery, in referring to powers and authorities among men as hills and mountain, and trees of lebanon, etc.

From this point, I am of the opinion that the text moves into teaching relevant to the end of the age before Christ's return, but I can follow the argument that even this is for 70ad.

In conclusion, the Disp system has taken the phrase "Great Tribulation" and filled it with a lot a theological content re the End of the World. Having done so, it tries to place this now bloated phrase back into its position, but finds that it is like trying to get a quart into a pint pot as afar as 70ad is concerned, so - ah ha! -it must fit elsewhere, and does so dragging Matt 24 with it.
This is wrongly dividing scriputure.

I am led to the conclusion that the DispFut system leaves you so left behind, that you cannot see right ahead.

peace in Him

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Solly... would you be interest in quick little rap with me about the "end of the age"? We started this once but never really followed through. Can you go over to the "Dee Dee convert me to preterism" thread and read (I think it is my last post) on the chronology of the ages and tell me where you would shoot my chronology down? No one has yet to mount a coherent argument against it, but rather just brings in "yeah but" verses that never interact with mine. That is quite frustrating.

[Jerry Shugart]

All I hear are the crickets and the footsteps of those running away as fast as they can so that they will not have to address the following SCripture passages.

Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

They woulod rather remain confused and lead others to their same confusion state than to face the verses which prove that their teaching is in error.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.

In His grace,--Jerry Jerry I would like to correct you if I may.

One wouldn't need "spiritual understanding" to determine these things have NOT happened. As I have stated before.... had the Great Tribulation happened its events would have been woven into world history in a dramatic way regardless of a societies religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Preterism painfully fails biblically (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5379) but far more damaging to preterism is its complete absence in world history.

The Great Tribulation didn't happen. It didn't! :)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Dee Dee, with all due respect I think you are grossly missing the point.

And I am glad for you starting in that manner for I hope that my response is also filled with the same mutual respect that we share.

We are talking about an event that is not solely theological in nature.

Agreed.

Had the Great Tribulation happened it wouldn't be only noticed by theologians. All of the world would had been forever changed from that point on.

Ah but here is where I believe that you are grossly missing the point. You obviously believe that the Great Tribulation is planet-wide in scope, and then have taken your presuppositions to judge the alleged incredulity of my position that the Great Tribulation has already happened as being equivalent to someone who holds that that Holocaust did not happen. This is completely illegitimate, and is very similar in principle to the misconceptions that some perpetrate about the OV. Let me explain. I often hear the uninformed say that OV limits the power of God from knowing the future, and turn the argument into one soley based on whether or not God is omnipotent. But you and I both know that is a complete straw man. The argument is not soley over whether or not God could know a knowable future, but whether the future exists to be known in any meaningful way. Thus the argument is not about the nature of God per se, but about the nature of the future. Thus the nonOV attempts to make the OV look silly and ridiculous soley on those grounds are founded on complete beds of straw.

By analogy that is what you are doing to me, though I believe it is inadvertent due to misunderstanding. I do not believe that the Great Tribulation was planet-wide in scope for the very reasons that Solly has articulated and I will articulate again. Thus, you cannot right judge me as an ignoramus of the sort that would deny that the Holocaust happened because I allegedly can accept the absence of worldwide testimony to this catastrophe, when I don’t believe it was worldwide to begin with!! You need to start from my presuppositions to judge whether or not I am being realistic about the amount of evidence required. Since I believe it is a catastrophic judgment limited to Judea…. I do have ample historical evidence contained within the writings of the ECF and more particularly Josephus’ Jewish Wars which reads in many place like it was written straight out of Matthew 24. Thus the issue is not over the lack of worldwide evidence, the issue is over the nature and scope of the Great Tribulation which is a Scriptural issue, and not one of how historically gullible that I allegedly am.

Now briefly to recap why I do not believe it is a planetwide catastrophe…..

I am not going to give all of the reasons, just some of the major ones. First of all, the disciples do not ask Jesus when is the end of the world. They asked him “when is the end of the age?” That is very important. And the context of their question must be taken into consideration. In other words, what prompted that question from them in the first place?

It was Jesus’ startling predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Nothing at all in the context gives any whiff of a hint that the end of the whole world, as we understand it, to be in view. The entire context of the passage is limited to Jerusalem. Here are some examples:

Matthew 24:15 – Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

If this was worldwide destruction, fleeing to the mountains would not do anyone any good. It is obviously a destruction limited to Judea from which the elect must flee.

Luke 21:23 – But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

This wrath is limited to the “land,” and idiomatically Jewish way of saying “Israel” and “this people,” i.e. the Jewish apostates. It is not a wrath upon the whole planet or upon all the unsaved peoples of the planet. The whole context leading up to the Discourse is the pronouncement of doom upon the Jewish apostates (see Matthew 23). There is nothing at all in the context speaking of the end of the whole world.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:
Now briefly to recap why I do not believe it is a planetwide catastrophe?..
LOL! Of course you have to minimize the Great Tribulation!

Your entire theology relies on such minimization!

- We DID land on the moon.
- The Holocaust DID happen.
- The earth isn't flat.
- Crop circles are an admitted hoax.
- The Great Tribulation DIDN'T happen (yet).

Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

One would think an event such as described above might get more than a one sentence description in a common encyclopedia. :D

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight -

Hey I am running out the door...... But I think you now see my point that the comparision is unjust. The issue is not over the scope and nature of my allegedly historical gullibility but over the scope and nature of the Great Tribulation. The precise defining of issues in dispute is critical to fair exchange and debating. But on the verse you posited....

Okay, you had objected that Jesus said that the Tribulation of those days was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say “nor shall ever be.” This is obviously an event in the stream of normal history.
Jesus was speaking in the prophetic “language” of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that “language.” Jesus’ language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9-

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

That is describing a PAST event. If we are going to be woodenly literal here a large contradiction has just been unearthed in Scripture. Now the context of this passage is the Jews and Jerusalem. But even the futurists believe that the future Great Tribulation will be worse than that. This is explained through prophetic hyperbole and proverbial. This same language is used in Exodus 11:6 - even the futurists believe that there will be a greater anguish and cry in Egypt in the Great Tribulation.

Josephus also describes the loss of Jerusalem in similar language (proving it is common first century idiom) – “The war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been he greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of.”

Additionally, it is the reason and repercussions of this judgment that make it the greatest ever. “Greatest” is not measured solely in terms of lives lost, but in terms of eternal significance. This was the greatest loss that could ever happen to the Jewish people. They recognized that the removal of the Temple was the ultimate sign of God’s judgment and the worst possible calamity that could ever happen to them. This was the ultimate judgment upon ethnic Israel, it has never been worse, and it will not never be worse. It was God’s covenant lawsuit against them. The culmination of the curses of Deut. 28.

[Knight]

P.S. Dee Dee if you would like to debate God's foreknowledge with me just say so! :D

[Dee Dee Warren]

LOLOL!!! Maybe some day Sir Knight, maybe some day. :D

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight -

Hey I am running out the door...... But I think you now see my point that the comparision is unjust. The issue is not over the scope and nature of my allegedly historical gullibility but over the scope and nature of the Great Tribulation. The precise defining of issues in dispute is critical to fair exchange and debating. But on the verse you posited....OK if that paragraph made sense to anyone please send me a translation. ;)

You continue....Okay, you had objected that Jesus said that the Tribulation of those days was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say ?nor shall ever be.? This is obviously an event in the stream of normal history.
Jesus was speaking in the prophetic ?language? of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that ?language.? Jesus? language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9- That is a completely flawed line of thinking! I am shocked I even read it! Totally illogical! The Great Tribulation was described as an event without equal.... there is no reason to think otherwise. There is no logical reason that after the event was over another event like it would never happen again for an eternity.

In fact... for this very reason... preterism fails miserably! Since we know for a fact that many events have happened since the the destruction of Jerusalem that have been FAAARRRRRR worse in every respect.

Furthermore....
Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!

The figure of speech wouldn't mean the event was a minor blip in the radar of world history.

Clearly an event such as....Revelation 9:18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed' by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths.Would be noticed by more than a handful of preterists.

Oh... maybe "a third of mankind was killed" is another figure of speech?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
LOLOL!!! Maybe some day Sir Knight, maybe some day. :D Oh please.... bring it on.. bring it on!

In the meantime answer Jerry's question. :D

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

I am at work but I will further get to your response to my last post soon. On the one passage brought up by Jerry that you referenced, I have answered that one in the past... and I am not going to go round and round with Jerry at this point. Perhaps when I have more time not dedicated to other issues (and life in general), but I do have to make choices in some places. This one discussion with you however, I am finding very interesting.

[Jerry Shugart]

Actually,the early church did not think that the descruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the "great tribulation".It was not until "the crushing defeat in the later Bar Kokhba war...the early church began to speak of the hand of God´s judgment on Judaism.Little reference to this idea is found in Christian writings following the first revolt in A.D. 66-70"(Richardson,"Israel in the Apolostic Church",p.36).

The following is a description of the events concerning the Bar Kokhba War:

"The Bar Kokhba revolt marked a time of high hopes followed by violent despair. The Jews were handed expectations of a homeland and a Holy Temple, but in the end were persecuted and sold into slavery. During the revolt itself, the Jews gained enormous amounts of land, only to be pushed back and crushed in the final battle of Bethar.
When Hadrian first became the Roman emperor in 118 C.E., he was sympathetic to the Jews. He allowed them to return to Jerusalem and granted permission for the rebuilding of their Holy Temple. The Jews’ expectations rose as they made organizational and financial preparations to rebuild the temple. Hadrian quickly went back on his word, however, and requested that the site of the Temple be moved from its original location. He also began deporting Jews to North Africa.
The Jews prepared to rebel until Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah calmed them. The Jews then satisfied themselves with preparing secretly in case a rebellion would later become necessary. They built hideouts in caves and did shoddy work building weapons so that the Romans would reject the weapons and return them to the Jews.
The Jews organized guerilla forces and, in 123 C.E., began launching surprise attacks against the Romans. From that point on, life only got worse for the Jews. Hadrian brought an extra army legion, the "Sixth Ferrata," into Judea to deal with the terrorism. Hadrian hated "foreign" religions and forbade the Jews to perform circumcisions. He appointed Tinneius Rufus governor of Judea. Rufus was a harsh ruler who took advantage of Jewish women. In approximately 132 C.E., Hadrian began to establish a city in Jerusalem called Aelia Capitolina, the name being a combination of his own name and that of the Roman god Jupiter Capitolinus. He started to build a temple to Jupiter in place of the Jewish Holy Temple.
As long as Hadrian remained near Judea, the Jews stayed relatively quiet. When he left in 132, the Jews began their rebellion on a large scale. They seized towns and fortified them with walls and subterranean passages. Under the strong leadership of Shimon Bar-Kokhba, the Jews captured approximately 50 strongholds in Palestine and 985 undefended towns and villages, including Jerusalem. Jews from other countries, and even some gentiles, volunteered to join their crusade. The Jews minted coins with slogans such as "The freedom of Israel" written in Hebrew. Hadrian dispatched General Publus Marcellus, governor of Syria, to help Rufus, but the Jews defeated both Roman leaders. The Jews then invaded the coastal region and the Romans began sea battles against them.
The turning point of the war came when Hadrian sent into Judea one of his best generals from Britain, Julius Severus, along with former governor of Germania, Hadrianus Quintus Lollius Urbicus. By that time, there were 12 army legions from Egypt, Britain, Syria and other areas in Palestine. Due to the large number of Jewish rebels, instead of waging open war, Severus besieged Jewish fortresses and held back food until the Jews grew weak. Only then did his attack escalate into outright war. The Romans demolished all 50 Jewish fortresses and 985 villages. The main conflicts took place in Judea, the Shephela, the mountains and the Judean desert, though fighting also spread to Northern Israel. The Romans suffered heavy casualties as well and Hadrian did not send his usual message to the Senate that "I and my army are well."
The final battle of the war took place in Bethar, Bar-Kokhba's headquarters, which housed both the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) and the home of the Nasi (leader). Bethar was a vital military stronghold because of its strategic location on a mountain ridge overlooking both the Valley of Sorek and the important Jerusalem-Bet Guvrin Road. Thousands of Jewish refugees fled to Bethar during the war. In 135 C.E., Hadrian's army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of Av, the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead.
Following the battle of Bethar, there were a few small skirmishes in the Judean Desert Caves, but the war was essentially over and Judean independence was lost. The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country's name from Judea to Syria Palestina.
In the years following the revolt, Hadrian discriminated against all Judeo-Christian sects, but the worst persecution was directed against religious Jews. He made anti-religious decrees forbidding Torah study, Sabbath observance, circumcision, Jewish courts, meeting in synagogues and other ritual practices. Many Jews assimilated and many sages and prominent men were martyred including Rabbi Akiva and the rest of the Asara Harugei Malchut (ten martyrs). This age of persecution lasted throughout the remainder of Hadrian's reign, until 138 C.E.

Sources: Encyclopedia Judaica. "Bar Kokhba". Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem."

So we can see that the early church did not even consider the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD as God´s final judgment on Jerusalem.Therefoe,it is obvious that the early church did not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "great tribulation".

But perhaps they were all wrong,and Dee Dee is right.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I am at work but I will further get to your response to my last post soon. On the one passage brought up by Jerry that you referenced, I have answered that one in the past... and I am not going to go round and round with Jerry at this point. Perhaps when I have more time not dedicated to other issues (and life in general), but I do have to make choices in some places. This one discussion with you however, I am finding very interesting. OK... since you claim you have already answered Jerry's question.... how about you copy and paste your previously written answer here.

Or you could point me DIRECTLY to the previous answer so I can review it.

Or... maybe another preterist would like to answer it.

I think at this point simply saying "it has already been answered" is about as close as one can get to throwing the towel as I have ever seen.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

I will try and find where it is posted at.. I suspect it is somewhere in the tortuously long "Greetings" thread, and unfortunately I did not save it as a text file. But, if I cannot find it, when I catch up with other obligations I will provide that answer to you.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I will try and find where it is posted at.. I suspect it is somewhere in the tortuously long "Greetings" thread, and unfortunately I did not save it as a text file. But, if I cannot find it, when I catch up with other obligations I will provide that answer to you. Very nice.

[Knight]

Any other preterists want to chime in on this stuff? Or is Dee Dee our lone crop circle hold out?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Cool. I will let you know. And if I cannot locate it, I will write something. I need to have something at hand as a text file anyways so this is useful for me to do.

[Knight]

Since Dee Dee is very busy I am curious as to what other preterists might say in response to this post of mine which was getting lost in the shuffle.....

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight -

Okay, you had objected that Jesus said that the Tribulation of those days was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say ?nor shall ever be.? This is obviously an event in the stream of normal history.
Jesus was speaking in the prophetic ?language? of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that ?language.? Jesus? language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9- That is a completely flawed line of thinking! I am shocked I even read it! Totally illogical! The Great Tribulation was described as an event without equal.... there is no reason to think otherwise. There is no logical reason that after the event was over another event like it would never happen again for an eternity.

In fact... for this very reason... preterism fails miserably! Since we know for a fact that many events have happened since the the destruction of Jerusalem that have been FAAARRRRRR worse in every respect.

Furthermore....
Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!

The figure of speech wouldn't mean the event was a minor blip in the radar of world history.

Clearly an event such as....Revelation 9:18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed' by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths.Would be noticed by more than a handful of preterists.

Oh... maybe "a third of mankind was killed" is another figure of speech?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Knight, that one is in my pile to get to somewhat soon.... it will not take much time. But by all means, I would love to hear the opinions of other preterists on that.

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Knight, that one is in my pile to get to somewhat soon.... it will not take much time. But by all means, I would love to hear the opinions of other preterists on that.

Well Dee Dee, I was going to let you take this (because you do it so well :D), but I will be glad to chime in. Right now I am in the middle of cooking supper and can't stay long enough to give the question the treatment it deserves.

When I am finished with supper (and if my wife lets me
:o ), I will try to make the time to answer this question.

[Faramir]

Knight:

While I have a little time let me make sure what question you want answered. I assume that you want an explanation of how something that sounds as devastating as the Great Trib. could be the simple destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If I don't hear otherwise from you, I will assume this is the issue to be discussed.

Thanks,

Faramir
Fellow Steward of Christ

[Knight]

People will travel so far to purchase a lemon. And when they do.... they scream and argue that it really isn't a lemon. Generally people feel so bad that they bought the lemon in the first place they spend the rest of their life attempting to convince everyone else to buy a lemon just like theirs. ;)

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Knight
People will travel so far to purchase a lemon. And when they do.... they scream and argue that it really isn't a lemon. Generally people feel so bad that they bought the lemon in the first place they spend the rest of their life attempting to convince everyone else to buy a lemon just like theirs. ;)

Yes, but some of us finally admit we have a lemon, and find something solid and dependable :p

Maybe there is hope for you yet :D

Former Dipensationalist,
Faramir

[Knight]

Originally posted by Faramir
Knight:

While I have a little time let me make sure what question you want answered. I assume that you want an explanation of how something that sounds as devastating as the Great Trib. could be the simple destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If I don't hear otherwise from you, I will assume this is the issue to be discussed.

Thanks,

Faramir
Fellow Steward of Christ You can answer these two points....

When did the following events occur:

"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed "

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"

Oh and just so you know.... when your done spiritualizing the above two passages I have about 8 thousand other reasons why The Great Tribulation has not already occurred. Happy hunting! :D

[Knight]

Originally posted by Faramir
Former Dipensationalist,
Faramir Isn't odd that every preterist claims to be a former "dispensationalist"? Yet not a single preterist I have run into even knows what dispensationalism is really all about? (no offense Dee Dee but its painfully obvious)

Kinda like every atheist I run into claims to be a former Christian. :rolleyes:

[jpholding]

Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

weblinks deleted...

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP

[jpholding]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knight
Isn't odd that every preterist claims to be a former "dispensationalist"?

Not really, considering the strangehold that dispensationalism has on popular literature -- fiction and non-fiction alike. Er, if the latter can truly be said to exist for that point of view...at any rate it's bound to be the view people hear first and believe first as a whole.

JP

[Knight]

Originally posted by jpholding
Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

weblinks deleted....

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP Oh goody another super informative post from Mr. Holding.

I have already warned you before on two other occasions that we do not allow people to simply send our visitors to another website (especially when its their own). If you have a point to make, please make it. If you don't have a point to make please spare us the bandwidth. If you would like to add your web links along with your point as a further reference then that is fine.

[Knight]

Originally posted by jpholding
Originally posted by Knight
Isn't odd that every preterist claims to be a former "dispensationalist"?

Not really, considering the strangehold that dispensationalism has on popular literature -- fiction and non-fiction alike. Er, if the latter can truly be said to exist for that point of view...at any rate it's bound to be the view people hear first and believe first as a whole.

JP Further proving my point that preterists haven't a clue as to what dispensationalism is all about. Thanks for the demonstration JP!

[Faramir]

Originally posted by jpholding
Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

links deleted

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP

Thanks JP you da man!!!

Like I said I will try to answer the best I can. Revelation isn't really my forte, neither is Daniel, but I will attempt an answer tonight if I have time.

And before anyone accuses me of making an excuse, I have said elswhere on this board (one of my very first post) that I am weak in Revelation, but the best way to get strong is to work out. :thumb:

[Knight]

Just so ya'all know I will continue to delete the shameless plugs for other websites.

And if this offense continues with certain individuals they will be banned from TOL.

You can use weblinks as references to the points you make HERE (at TOL) but you cannot simply let a weblink speak for you. That isn't how TheologyOnLine works. TheologyOnLine is a point vs. counter point debate forum that has been in place since our inception.

Isn't that right Dee Dee? TOL moderator?

[Lion]

I find it interesting how the preterists are strictly and woodenly, word for word, literalist on some issues (the ones they have to read into them to make their points), and yet vastly liberal with spiritualizing others, that don’t go along with their theology?

[Faramir]

Well here goes.

Originally posted by Knight
You can answer these two points....

When did the following events occur:

"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed "

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"

Oh and just so you know.... when your done spiritualizing the above two passages I have about 8 thousand other reasons why The Great Tribulation has not already occurred. Happy hunting! :D

I think that Dee Dee as already answered this earlier in this thread:

Jesus was speaking in the prophetic “language” of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that “language.” Jesus’ language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9-

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

That is describing a PAST event. If we are going to be woodenly literal here a large contradiction has just been unearthed in Scripture. Now the context of this passage is the Jews and Jerusalem. But even the futurists believe that the future Great Tribulation will be worse than that. This is explained through prophetic hyperbole and proverbial. This same language is used in Exodus 11:6 - even the futurists believe that there will be a greater anguish and cry in Egypt in the Great Tribulation.

Josephus also describes the loss of Jerusalem in similar language (proving it is common first century idiom) – “The war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been he greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of.”


The Revelation is written with apocalyptic language which is characterized by symbolism, hyperbole, and superlative language (just like much of OT prophecy). Any first century Jew would recognize that. And since it was written by a first century Jew, maybe we should try to read it through the eyes of one.

The Josephus quote above, is similar to Jesus' description of the tribulation. Could it be possible that they are describing the same event. This use of apocalyptic language is also clearly found in Revelation.

I hate to have most of my post being a quote of Dee Dee, but she said what I would have said (only much better). The above quote applies equally to Revelation as it does to the OD. This was brought up by Dee Dee, but never really addressed by any Dispensationalist.

This post is already to long. I will continue with a new post.

[Faramir]

Continued from last post:

Knight in an earlier post you claimed that the Preterist "spiritualized" Revelation. Like "spirtualizing" is automatically bad.

When reading anything, it is important to take the work in context. Revelation was written by a first century Jew, largely in apocalyptic language. A style that is characterized by hyperbole, superlative language, and symbolism (although some things like time indicators are intended to be taken literally when used in context with apocalyptic writing :p) . So what you refer to as "spirtualizing" is actually reading the text as it was intended to be read.

Do you believe that all OT prophecies that talk about stars falling, and the sun going dark are referring to future events? If not, then you must not take those literally. If you do not take those literally, than why do you insist on taking Revelation (which is written in a similar style) literally.

I really hoped to give a more detailed response, but I really need to see to family matters. I will try to respond further tomorrow.

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Lion
I find it interesting how the preterists are strictly and woodenly, word for word, literalist on some issues (the ones they have to read into them to make their points), and yet vastly liberal with spiritualizing others, that don’t go along with their theology?

And this is different from futurist how?:confused:

[Lion]

Now I believe, according to the preterists, that the idea is that the whole Revelation thing was God’s judgment against just the ethnic, unbelieving Jews of the first century?Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Oh wait a minute, that isn't unbelieving, ethnic Israel? What gives?Rev 13:4-8 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.The saints? Now dog-gone-it the only saints at that time should have been believers of Christ. What about those poor neglected unbelieving, ethnic Jews?

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Knight
Oh goody another super informative post from Mr. Holding.

I have already warned you before on two other occasions that we do not allow people to simply send our visitors to another website (especially when its their own). If you have a point to make, please make it. If you don't have a point to make please spare us the bandwidth. If you would like to add your web links along with your point as a further reference then that is fine.

FYI I did not need a link to JP's web site. I am already very familiar with it. It was a link from his web site that introduced me to TOL (Everyone give JP a big thank-you:D )

It was also JP's writing (and Dee Dee's on his site) on preterism that turned me from a former dispy leaning toward preterism to a full fledged preterist. :thumb:

(It was Tim LeHay's writing that initially turned me from a dispy into a former dispy. My how that man can twist scripture;) )

[Dee Dee Warren]

Just so ya'all know I will continue to delete the shameless plugs for other websites.

And if this offense continues with certain individuals they will be banned from TOL.

You can use weblinks as references to the points you make HERE (at TOL) but you cannot simply let a weblink speak for you. That isn't how TheologyOnLine works. TheologyOnLine is a point vs. counter point debate forum that has been in place since our inception.

Isn't that right Dee Dee? TOL moderator?



Yes that is correct Knight. As you know JP is a good friend of mine, so I emailed him and asked him not post links in that fashion.

Now on another note in general, it is quite easy to keep bringing up question after question, and a good game of bombardment can wear anyone out, but I am not sure that is the best way to have a mutually edifying conversation/discussion/and yes debate. I am planning on answering further Knight's very specific Tribulation question, and then I will move on from there as time permits between cyber-world and real world.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Faramir


And this is different from futurist how?:confused: Let me guess....

You have been misinformed that futurism is the only alternative to preterism?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Faramir
Well here goes.

I think that Dee Dee as already answered this earlier in this thread:

The Revelation is written with apocalyptic language which is characterized by symbolism, hyperbole, and superlative language (just like much of OT prophecy). Any first century Jew would recognize that. And since it was written by a first century Jew, maybe we should try to read it through the eyes of one. Oh I get it.... apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists.

Tell us Faramir.... how can you tell the following verse isn't "apocalyptic language"? Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. - Matthew 24:34Fair question?

As soon as you appeal to "apocalyptic language" you throw out the best argument the preterists have again the futurists (which by the way I am not a futurist - pre se)

[Knight]

Originally posted by Faramir
(It was Tim LeHay's writing that initially turned me from a dispy into a former dispy. My how that man can twist scripture;) ) Again... it is painfully obvious that preterists have no clue as to what dispensationalism is all about.

Let me clue you in a little Faramir... Dee Dee doesn't know much about Dispensationalism, JP doesn't know much about Dispensationalism and Tim LeHay doesn't know much about Dispensationalism. If you would like an ultra quick overview... click here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=440)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight and Faramir:

Hey to clear something up and set the record straight on one thing. I was in fact a dispensationalist, but..... I was not at all the type of dispesenatiolist that Knight or Lion is, and I have readily conceded that I never heard of a lot of the distinctives of their particular flavor of dispensationalism until rather recently. But that does not mean I was not a dispensationalist for dispensationalism is not monolithic. But as I said before on another thread, compared to the type of dispensationalism that Knight is advocating, I was certainly dispenational lite.

Now onto to their being alternatives to preterism besides futurism, sure there are. They are called historicism and idealism. Now I know that Knight does not consider himself to be a futurist, and certainly people are free to choose their own designations, but I would respectfully submit that for all practical purposes he is indeed a futurist. He has some different reasons one some passages for projecting events into the future, but the whole concept of the passages being in the future is the heart and sole of futurism, not the reason for them being there.

In simple language a futurist is something who believes that the events of the Discourse and Revelation are to find fulfilment in the future. That is what Knight believes, thus, simply put he is a futurist. However, with the Discourse and Gospels, as discussed with Lion both Knight and Lion are exegetical preterists in that they accept that Jesus was clearly teaching that a major eschatological event was to happen in the lifetimes of the disciples, but it was postponed. However, neither Knight or Lion, quite arbitrarily I believe, accept the near timing references that appear in the epistles but rather claim the fictious imminency doctrine just as any futurist would. That is why I said to Lion.... "it is at this point that you morph into a typical futurist, and claim that the apostles did not know when God would resume working with Israel so they treated it as if it could happen any minute. "

[Solly]

I might equally point out, that a full working knowledge of dispensationalism, in whatever brand, is not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is an understanding of scripture. The truth will out, as they say. How many of us have a deep understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Communism, marxism, Existentialism, PostModernism, Nihilism, Wicca, 1001 subChristian cults, Arianism, Nesotianism, Modalism, Arminianism, Calvinsim, OVTism, Dispensationalism Unitarianism, Liberalism, etc etc etc.

So that as far as using the "you don't understand ****-ism properly" argument is concerned, I think I could just as easily use it against those who continue to caricature Calvinism as determinism. Such statements do not forward the discussion at all, but rather prejudice it. I have refrained from caricaturing Arminianism, for instance. Neither is anything gained by the resort to "Oh, but HE doesn't understand MY dispensationalism, so that isn't a valid comment".

There seems to be a lot of thrashing one particular view, while giving very little in return in a lot of the debates on TOL. I have given up on a lot, because having answered a question, I am immediatly presented with another six excerpts from scripture to comment on, and yet none of my questions have been addressed, as if I am on trial for heresy.

If you think your view is being misrepresented, then represent it, in the debate.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Knight
Oh I get it.... apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists.

As soon as you appeal to "apocalyptic language" you throw out the best argument the preterists have again the futurists (which by the way I am not a futurist - pre se)

Oon the same common sense basis of discerning diferent text styles, you would expect us to take the following passage as part apocalyptic symbolism and actual event. Unless a bit Mutha monster IS going to rise out of the sea, followed by another out of the earth? there is such a thing as taking apocalyptic imagery literally as apocalyptic imagery.

Chapter 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

And on another matter, it is only the dispie schema that has a problem with reconciling Matt 24 and Rev because of its predetermined idea that there will be an event called The Great Tribulation at the end of the age, and that Rev is wholly futurist in scope. They smash them together like badly joined threads on a bbs, instead of taking note of the fact that Mat 24 refers to Judea and the events there - as has been clearly pointed out, and ignored, because the idea of the Great Tribulation affects your judgment, whereas Rev can quite easily refer to events in the Roman Empire under Nero, and the persecution of the Christians during his reign.

it is not an argument to say: the Trib did not happen, it did not. that is merely begging the question, because you have yet to prove there is such an event as disp'ism characterises it.

[Solly]

More thoughts fo