Post-mill, Pre-mill, A-mill

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by JamminGator

I just want to re-post my original post now that the thread has a little more going on. The second part is the important part, specifically the bolded:

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.

To think Jesus has returned because He dwells in our heart or that prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD -- while both are true in themselves -- misses the fullness of the whole story God has written and is fulfilling.

... or perhaps there are some that are missing the fullness already established. It is consistent with human nature, as was the case with the ancient Jews, that people are never satisfied and are always clamoring for more.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Add: by extension (D) turns out that Jesus was banal.

No, it adds that there is no rational basis for preterism. Preterism asserts the second coming as a fact of history, which puts it under the rubric of reason and proof, not of faith. I mean, you don't even attempt to account for history's total indifference to the event. You act as though there isn't even anything peculiar about the fact that the world knows more about Stonehenge than it does the Second Coming. Or, more to the point of the silliness here, more about the FIRST than the second, when by every account, including Jesus' own, the second is the more impressive.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

No, it adds that there is no rational basis for preterism. Preterism asserts the second coming as a fact of history, which puts it under the rubric of reason and proof, not of faith. I mean, you don't even attempt to account for history's total indifference to the event. You act as though there isn't even anything peculiar about the fact that the world knows more about Stonehenge than it does the Second Coming. Or, more to the point of the silliness here, more about the FIRST than the second, when by every account, including Jesus' own, the second is the more impressive.

To the contrary, preterism simply amounts to taking Jesus at his word, that he would return and establish all that was promised withing the lifetime of certain of his hearers.

Futurists are multi-taskers in that they thumb their noses at preterists and then proceed to live like them.

[cocodrilo]

It's amusing that there's so much debate on Christian eschatology when the simple fact is that the guy who wrote the book of Revelation was high on something.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

It's amusing that there's so much debate on Christian eschatology when the simple fact is that the guy who wrote the book of Revelation was high on something.

Or maybe just lazy, seeing as how it's basically the language of Isaiah and Ezekiel and others transferred to the New Testament.

I never have understood why so many Christians I've known get the heebie-jeebies about Revelation but have no qualms about studying the Old Testament.

Same apocalyptic language. Same eschatological references.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

To the contrary, preterism simply amounts to taking Jesus at his word, that he would return and establish all that was promised withing the lifetime of certain of his hearers.

Futurists are multi-taskers in that they thumb their noses at preterists and then proceed to live like them.

So you seriously find it not the least bit strange at all that nobody noticed it, wrote it down, told their villages and families, etc. Or just don't consider any theological explanation for the strangeness worth sharing with the class.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

So you seriously find it not the least bit strange at all that nobody noticed it, wrote it down, told their villages and families, etc. Or just don't consider any theological explanation for the strangeness worth sharing with the class.

I'm afraid we don't have a record of much of anyone writing anything down between 70 AD and 110 AD. Then, much of what begins to crop up is patently wacky.

*cue Twilight Zone theme and allow imagination to run rampant*

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I'm afraid we don't have a record of much of anyone writing anything down between 70 AD and 110 AD. Then, much of what begins to crop up is patently wacky.

*cue Twilight Zone theme and allow imagination to run rampant*

On any subject, in any part of the world, in those 50 years? Because we are again talking about the Second Coming here. It is of global and not strictly local concern or impact. It should be historically evidenced in even non-religious histories. It should be evidenced in contrary religious histories that describe and denounce the supposed occasion. But there is just... nothing. Nobody cared, in other words, not pro or con. How consistent is that reaction to the descriptions Jesus provided? How likely an outcome? That isn't something that can be answered with a wan "nobody was writing down much of anything" as though it were just another neighborhood barbecue that could be forgotten in the shuffle.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

So you seriously find it not the least bit strange at all that nobody noticed it, wrote it down, told their villages and families, etc. Or just don't consider any theological explanation for the strangeness worth sharing with the class.

And moreover, the advocate for this position admits, for "those (of his Disciples) standing here . . . . " that would have allegedly witnessed the second coming (the, "why are you gawking at the heavens, He will come again just like that" promise made to the same bunch of folks), THEY never bothered to mention the minor fact that Christ the King had returned. They never breathed it to anybody, Gospel writers - including John (the spiritual Gospel) - as well as The Revelation . . . before they would go to their deaths as witnesses for the resurrected - but not yet returned - Christ the King.

Unexplained, logic gap, spoiler alert.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

On any subject, in any part of the world, in those 50 years? Because we are again talking about the Second Coming here. It is of global and not strictly local concern or impact. It should be historically evidenced in even non-religious histories. It should be evidenced in contrary religious histories that describe and denounce the supposed occasion. But there is just... nothing. Nobody cared, in other words, not pro or con. How consistent is that reaction to the descriptions Jesus provided? How likely an outcome? That isn't something that can be answered with a wan "nobody was writing down much of anything" as though it were just another neighborhood barbecue that could be forgotten in the shuffle.

I'm sorry, no help, basically nothing. People like yourself are simply left to ponder why Jesus didn't come back when he said he would. This has led to the preposterous Postponement Theory.

So, I like where I am better than where you are. You have to explain why no explanation has been given for why Jesus said he would return *within the lifetime of certain of his hearers* and here we are, 2,000 years and waiting.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

And moreover, the advocate for this position admits, for "those (of his Disciples) standing here . . . . " that would have allegedly witnessed the second coming (the, "why are you gawking at the heavens, He will come again just like that" promise made to the same bunch of folks), THEY never bothered to mention the minor fact that Christ the King had returned. They never breathed it to anybody, Gospel writers - including John (the spiritual Gospel) - as well as The Revelation . . . before they would go to their deaths as witnesses for the resurrected - but not yet returned - Christ the King.

Unexplained, logic gap, spoiler alert.

We get that you feel short-changed by Jesus and the Apostles.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

We get that you feel short-changed by Jesus and the Apostles.

Not a bit.

And because I don't, I don't have to make up anything to compensate . . . like . . .

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

We get that you feel short-changed by Jesus and the Apostles.

And it is increasingly clear through your deflection that the incongruity does trouble you, actually. And unlike what you call the "Futurists", who have to leave what they don't understand about a mysterious and miraculous future event down to faith, you can't rely on mysteries of faith to explain an absense of fact about our world's most important historical event.

Did anyone read the Gospel and get an impression that Jesus was telling us that, between the two, His second coming would be the more intimate and understated affair?

Law, good catch that the very people referenced in the quote Dreamliner hangs it all on (aside from ignoring plenty of others) don't bother to verify the event he believes they were promised to literally, bodily witness in their lifetimes. I was staring right through that.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Not a bit.

And because I don't, I don't have to make up anything to compensate . . . like . . .

... reading the Bible ?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

And it is increasingly clear through your deflection that the incongruity does trouble you, actually. And unlike what you call the "Futurists", who have to leave what they don't understand about a mysterious and miraculous future event down to faith, you can't rely on mysteries of faith to explain an absense of fact about our world's most important historical event.

Did anyone read the Gospel and get an impression that Jesus was telling us that, between the two, His second coming would be the more intimate and understated affair?

Law, good catch that the very people referenced in the quote Dreamliner hangs it all on (aside from ignoring plenty of others) don't bother to verify the event he believes they were promised to literally, bodily witness in their lifetimes. I was staring right through that.

Well, of course I'd like to know more than I do. Who wouldn't ? Preterism no doubt leaves questions. Futurism leaves arguably more and more troublesome questions. In brief: if Jesus has not returned, you cannot claim the promises you blithely claim. For starters, Jesus has to return to 'bring salvation.' Further, every 'jot and tittle' of the law remains. And guess what else ? You take a dirt nap when you die.

But to your question about the nature of Jesus' return, this is why you continue to deflect the timing of his return. Get the nature right and you get the timing right. Refuse to reckon with the clear language of scripture, as you do, and you're waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... and then you take a dirt nap.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by helix139

Because the Bible doesn't tell us everything about everything, just what God would have us know. It's perfect in its sufficiency, but we as humans have an insatiable desire to become all-knowing ourselves.

At its core, you'll find that the vast majority agree that mankind is sinful in nature and therefore separated from God, yet God loved man and wanted to end the separation so He sent Christ his Son to earth, who was fully God and fully man and free of sin. Christ willingly allowed his own unjust death, taking God's wrath for all sin ever, and then rose again as death has no power over the holiness of God. This provides salvation for all who submit themselves to God and acknowledge their inability to save themselves and accept the salvation that is offered. Jesus then ascended, and left behind the holy spirit, which is how Christians can come to know Christ/God.

That's the core of it, which 99% of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree on. the rest is merely window dressing that is secondary or tertiary to the main point. It's fun to talk about and discuss, but ultimately doesn't affect one's salvation.

+1

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

... reading the Bible ?

and to you . . . understanding the Bible.

But do, keep trying.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

and to you . . . understanding the Bible.

But do, keep trying.

Well, call me crazy, but to me 'soon' means, well, soon.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Well, call me crazy, but to me 'soon' means, well, soon.

And "soon" became a foundational plank of the faith.

For . . . the literal when we need to and metaphorical otherwise . . . gang.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

And "soon" became a foundational plank of the faith.

For . . . the literal when we need to and metaphorical otherwise . . . gang.

You left out the crowd who wants God to literally destroy the world, for once, when all the other world-destroying passages were clearly symbolic.