Post-mill, Pre-mill, A-mill

[QGator2414]

What say you?

I believe we have a strong preterist in Dreamliner who may want to chime in...

I tend to lean A-mill but this long discussion is quite good on the subject if you have the time.

[MichiGator2002]

I take no position. I reject the preterism because, frankly, I think it is implausible that a) Christ already returned as promised and nobody saw fit to actually document this orally or in writing, in contrast to the apostolic tradition, and b) that the past 19 centuries are the best He could do.

As for the pre-post-quasi-millennial thing, I just decided it really isn't my concern. What will happen, will happen. Test the spirits. Don't be fooled. I do believe that guys who think that the "plain language" of Revelation gives them enough data by which they can draw up detailed maps and battle maneuvers and such *cough*LaHaye*cough* are pretty full of it, though, not to mention playing with fire regarding that book's last paragraph.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I take no position. I reject the preterism because, frankly, I think it is implausible that a) Christ already returned as promised and nobody saw fit to actually document this orally or in writing, in contrast to the apostolic tradition, and b) that the past 19 centuries are the best He could do.

As for the pre-post-quasi-millennial thing, I just decided it really isn't my concern. What will happen, will happen. Test the spirits. Don't be fooled. I do believe that guys who think that the "plain language" of Revelation gives them enough data by which they can draw up detailed maps and battle maneuvers and such *cough*LaHaye*cough* are pretty full of it, though, not to mention playing with fire regarding that book's last paragraph.

I am pretty much in full agreement with you. This is definitely a tertiary issue for the church IMO. That said I think it can be an interesting issue for discussion...

[JamminGator]

My very simple answer is that I believe that Jesus will rapture the church and return to the earth in one event that will begin at the sound of the seventh trumpet.

He will then establish the nations in righteousness to prepare for the restoration of God's original design -- God and man dwelling together forever, heaven and earth being one.

[reformedgator]

I'm pan mill. In the end it will all pan out.

[Dreamliner]

Strong preterist chiming in here. To the objection commonly termed the 'Historical Attack (why did nobody ...), notice that the New Testament ends abruptly and that there is a virtual 'window of silence', in terms of Christian literature for another decade. Notice too that the writings of the Patristics then begin to emerge and they are nice people but total whacko whose writings only seem remotely Christian.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Strong preterist chiming in here. To the objection commonly termed the 'Historical Attack (why did nobody ...), notice that the New Testament ends abruptly and that there is a virtual 'window of silence', in terms of Christian literature for another decade. Notice too that the writings of the Patristics then begin to emerge and they are nice people but total whacko whose writings only seem remotely Christian.

That answers an Nth of the historical attack. Forget writings that were incorporated into scripture -- are there even disavowed writings that recite a history of the preterist interpretation? Seems I would have heard of those for all the obvious reasons, because academia loves nothing more than direct attack on the substance of prevailing Christian theology.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

That answers an Nth of the historical attack. Forget writings that were incorporated into scripture -- are there even disavowed writings that recite a history of the preterist interpretation? Seems I would have heard of those for all the obvious reasons, because academia loves nothing more than direct attack on the substance of prevailing Christian theology.

None, but there is ample evidence that whereas we know that Jesus was real, and sublime, what we call 'Christianity' is little more than an accident of History. Think about it: Christianity got bizarre early in the game. I mean bizarre. What we are today is essentially Sixteenth Century European Christians who have also incorporated American Iconcography. We're wacky syncretists.

The Patristics, for example, knew that the Olivet Prophecies pertained to the Fall of Jerusalem. Yet, somehow, contemporary Christians still want to reserve them for the future.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

None, but there is ample evidence that whereas we know that Jesus was real, and sublime, what we call 'Christianity' is little more than an accident of History. Think about it: Christianity got bizarre early in the game. I mean bizarre. What we are today is essentially Sixteenth Century European Christians who have also incorporated American Iconcography. We're wacky syncretists.

The Patristics, for example, knew that the Olivet Prophecies pertained to the Fall of Jerusalem. Yet, somehow, contemporary Christians still want to reserve them for the future.

Sure. Crazy bizarre. Like proclaiming to eat the actual flesh and blood of Christ Jesus... wreaking of cannibalism*. That's just bizarre as hell...

...and yet that is exactly what the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Saints, and martyrs believed...

...and exactly what the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Yeshua himself founded--otherwise known as 'the Catholic Church'--teaches...

Bizarre stuff man...but THAT'S Christianity--

--what you're referring to regarding '16th century European [perversion of] Christianity', is protestantism.

His Holiness, Martin Luther the Great, and HIS disciples--John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, et. al.---thought themselves awfully enlightened in teaching that the Eucharist was merely symbolic--but that was nothing more than the what was prophesized--the disciples who 'turned away, and walked with him no more'--whom St. John described in John 6:66 (<--coincidence??)--directly in response to Yeshua announcing that "...unless you eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the son of man, you have not life in you"--to which he was challenged, asked to clarify, offered an out...yet instead of taking said out, he re-iterated, clarified, and doubled down.

That's Christianity.

According to Yeshua (via St. John), anyway.

...at least before *the prophet Martin Luther* came along, to *set the record straight*.

* NOTE: pre-emptively, re. 'cannibalism'--the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the Risen Christ--and therefore of divine substance--and therefore not cannibalism.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Sure. Crazy bizarre. Like proclaiming to eat the actual flesh and blood of Christ Jesus... wreaking of cannibalism*. That's just bizarre as hell...

...and yet that is exactly what the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Saints, and martyrs believed...

...and exactly what the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Yeshua himself founded--otherwise known as 'the Catholic Church'--teaches...

Bizarre stuff man...but THAT'S Christianity--

--what you're referring to regarding '16th century European [perversion of] Christianity', is protestantism.

His Holiness, Martin Luther the Great, and HIS disciples--John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, et. al.---thought themselves awfully enlightened in teaching that the Eucharist was merely symbolic--that was nothing more than the what was prophesized--the disciples who 'turned away, and walked within no more'--whom St. John described in John 6:66 (<--coincidence??)--directly in response to Yeshua announcing that "...unless you eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the son of man, you have not life in you"--to which he was challenged, asked to clarify, offered an out...yet instead of taking said out, he re-iterated, clarified, and doubled down.

That's Christianity.

According to Yeshua (via St. John), anyway.

...at least before *the prophet Martin Luther* came along, to *set the record straight*.

* NOTE: pre-emptively, re. 'cannibalism'--the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the Risen Christ--and therefore of divine substance--and therefore not cannibalism.

Yes, American Christians are Protestants, at least those who do not hew to the decidedly wacky practice of Catholicism where people go to hear an old man mumble once a week.

[brainstorm]

I tend to agree with Dream on this.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Yes, American Christians are Protestants, at least those who do not hew to the decidedly wacky practice of Catholicism where people go to hear an old man mumble once a week.

This. Actually, THIS.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

None, but there is ample evidence that whereas we know that Jesus was real, and sublime, what we call 'Christianity' is little more than an accident of History. Think about it: Christianity got bizarre early in the game. I mean bizarre. What we are today is essentially Sixteenth Century European Christians who have also incorporated American Iconcography. We're wacky syncretists.

The Patristics, for example, knew that the Olivet Prophecies pertained to the Fall of Jerusalem. Yet, somehow, contemporary Christians still want to reserve them for the future.

Of all scenarios, the one that seems least plausible on its face is that, while there is well settled teaching history and written histories -- even retrospective, even hearsay -- for everything about Jesus up to and including the most important detail, that He was resurrected, going up to heaven, and would be back, that that very event could have happened and nobody would have designed to write it down or pass along so much as a single tale of that wondrous and world-changing supernatural event that made it into permanent form. Pretty much conclusively wipes preterism from the board before even addressing the "... and this the best He could do?" of it. Your mileage can and clearly does vary, though.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Of all scenarios, the one that seems least plausible on its face is that, while there is well settled teaching history and written histories -- even retrospective, even hearsay -- for everything about Jesus up to and including the most important detail, that He was resurrected, going up to heaven, and would be back, that that very event could have happened and nobody would have designed to write it down or pass along so much as a single tale of that wondrous and world-changing supernatural event that made it into permanent form. Pretty much conclusively wipes preterism from the board before even addressing the "... and this the best He could do?" of it. Your mileage can and clearly does vary, though.

Also plausible is that nearly two-billion Muslims and 1,300 years of history can't be wrong.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Yes, American Christians are Protestants, at least those who do not hew to the decidedly wacky practice of Catholicism where people go to hear an old man mumble once a week.

Jab though it may be, the 'old man mumbling once a week', betrays a the greater Truth--that the homily/sermon is secondary to the Eucharist--which IS, Christ Jesus, in the flesh--body, blood, soul, and divinity...

...some old man's take on the Gospel reading--even some flamboyant, vibrant, sexy, handsome, articulate, refined, well-spoken young pastor's take on the Gospel--is table scraps compared to what is the essense of the Mass--the Eucharist.

So believed the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Saints, the martyrs...

It is not dependent on the flamboyance of the "Master of Ceremonies" de jure.

(unlike protestantism)

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Jab though it may be, the 'old man mumbling once a week', betrays a the greater Truth--that the homily/sermon is secondary to the Eucharist--which IS, Christ Jesus, in the flesh--body, blood, soul, and divinity...

...some old man's take on the Gospel reading--even some flamboyant, vibrant, sexy, handsome, articulate, refined, well-spoken young pastor's take on the Gospel--is table scraps compared to what is the essense of the Mass--the Eucharist.

So believed the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Saints, the martyrs...

It is not dependent on the flamboyance of the "Master of Ceremonies" de jure.

(unlike protestantism)

Catholic churches can vary greatly from the more contemporary to the more traditional. I belong to the traditional northeastern catholic and find it anything but flamboyant. I was in a contemporary recently quite honestly found it a little odd.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Jab though it may be, the 'old man mumbling once a week', betrays a the greater Truth--that the homily/sermon is secondary to the Eucharist--which IS, Christ Jesus, in the flesh--body, blood, soul, and divinity...

...some old man's take on the Gospel reading--even some flamboyant, vibrant, sexy, handsome, articulate, refined, well-spoken young pastor's take on the Gospel--is table scraps compared to what is the essense of the Mass--the Eucharist.

So believed the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Saints, the martyrs...

It is not dependent on the flamboyance of the "Master of Ceremonies" de jure.

(unlike protestantism)

The Mass is weird. So is touching little boys. "Suffer the children to come unto me ...", so they can suffer, I guess.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Also plausible is that nearly two-billion Muslims and 1,300 years of history can't be wrong.

This is responsive... somehow... I bet. Like I said, your preference. While I am all for taking things on faith, I have typically thought of the challenge of faith being to accept that there is supernatural truth behind the historical facts. It would be too far for me to sincerely believe that Jesus Christ returned to earth and nobody felt it worth recording, or even telling anyone about.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Catholic churches can vary greatly from the more contemporary to the more traditional. I belong to the traditional northeastern catholic and find it anything but flamboyant. I was in a contemporary recently quite honestly found it a little odd.

Concur. Frankly, I find it a bit disappointing when I find Catholic priests attempting to emmulate protestant ministers, and trying to compete with the cult of personality that drives protestantism. Unfortunately though, I undertand why they do it; but I think it's a weak response--selling short--rather than hammering Truth, and sticking to their guns.

I'm zoned for a contemporary parish--but I continue to attend an old-school Traditional parish--kind of grandfathered in--because I used to be zoned for it, and jst therefore continued to attend.

...and they're grateful to have me and my family--because the contemporary church is booming--much more so that the traditional one which I continue to attend.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

This is responsive... somehow... I bet. Like I said, your preference. While I am all for taking things on faith, I have typically thought of the challenge of faith being to accept that there is supernatural truth behind the historical facts. It would be too far for me to sincerely believe that Jesus Christ returned to earth and nobody felt it worth recording, or even telling anyone about.

No Muslim could have said it better. And you know, since preterism is so far outside the mainstream, I used to believe that the burden was on the preterist. I no longer believe that this is the case. For starters, I have noted that Protestantism is very much similar to the Catholicism that Protestants find so alien, artificial and off-putting.