Post-mill, Pre-mill, A-mill

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

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.

Just want Him to destroy evil, once and for all. Which - in case you haven't noticed - is yet to be done.

We are in the redemptive "phase" still, for those who will partake of the atonement offered to all. In other words, God is still redeeming good out of evil. The justice and judgment "phase" is next.

So, this too, will pass.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Just want Him to destroy evil, once and for all. Which - in case you haven't noticed - is yet to be done.

We are in the redemptive "phase" still, for those who will partake of the atonement offered to all. In other words, God is still redeeming good out of evil. The justice and judgment "phase" is next.

So, this too, will pass.

I think you just need to find another religion. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that evil will ever be destroyed.

Ex: read Revelation 21. Oh, right, you're not really interested in actually reading the Bible.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I think you just need to find another religion. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that evil will ever be destroyed.

Ex: read Revelation 21. Oh, right, you're not really interested in actually reading the Bible.

I would say you are already in "another religion."

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I would say you are already in "another religion."

I suppose you could say that I am. Several years ago I left Churchianity, where Bible be damned (just make sure you've got your doctrine on straight).

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I think you just need to find another religion. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that evil will ever be destroyed.

Ex: read Revelation 21. Oh, right, you're not really interested in actually reading the Bible.

I encourage you to read and reflect on these three verses:

Revelation 20:10
Revelation 21:1-4
Matthew 13:40-43

I think that far too often people perceive the Bible to be a book about getting rid of things (i.e homosexuality, adultery, foul language, idolatry, etc...), but the New Testament gives us the hope that Christ adequately fills us up and supplies us with all things. So, getting rid of homosexuals isn't the answer; the blood of Christ is. Fooling college kids (like Michigan's AD) to pass along what appears to be a great lesson of being careful, appears-on the surface-to be intellectually stimulating; but it was vain attempt to solve a problem that only a relationship with Christ can.

Now, to tie all that into this discussion, I look at the absense of evil in the same light. It will be eliminated when Christ returns. However, it's not the elimination of evil that people should soley rejoice in; but the everlasting joy of knowing our loving Creator on an intimate level, and knowing that we will eternally know nothing but kindness, love and compassion to a degree and understanding that we can't comprehend at this time.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by NoahBeanBizzel

I encourage you to read and reflect on these three verses:

Revelation 20:10
Revelation 21:1-4
Matthew 13:40-43

I think that far too often people perceive the Bible to be a book about getting rid of things (i.e homosexuality, adultery, foul language, idolatry, etc...), but the New Testament gives us the hope that Christ adequately fills us up and supplies us with all things. So, getting rid of homosexuals isn't the answer; the blood of Christ is. Fooling college kids (like Michigan's AD) to pass along what appears to be a great lesson of being careful, appears-on the surface-to be intellectually stimulating; but it was vain attempt to solve a problem that only a relationship with Christ can.

Now, to tie all that into this discussion, I look at the absense of evil in the same light. It will be eliminated when Christ returns. However, it's not the elimination of evil that people should soley rejoice in; but the everlasting joy of knowing our loving Creator on an intimate level, and knowing that we will eternally know nothing but kindness, love and compassion to a degree and understanding that we can't comprehend at this time.

Fills US up. Because he HAS returned, the promises you claim having been attached to his return.

The same passages you prescribe contain a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations implying the continuation of evil, hence the need for healing. And the dogs are on the outside, implying that a new spiritual arrangement has been availed to us that apparently to fail to appreciate to the fullest.

Lastly, you yourself live like a preterist in order to claim the promises you do while, at the same time, deny that Jesus returned when he said he would.

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Fills US up. Because he HAS returned, the promises you claim having been attached to his return.

The same passages you prescribe contain a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations implying the continuation of evil, hence the need for healing. And the dogs are on the outside, implying that a new spiritual arrangement has been availed to us that apparently to fail to appreciate to the fullest.

Lastly, you yourself live like a preterist in order to claim the promises you do while, at the same time, deny that Jesus returned when he said he would.

So, you're saying that Christ has already returned?

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by NoahBeanBizzel

So, you're saying that Christ has already returned?

That is the nuts and bolts of preterism (which more and more seems a school of Gnosticism to me) -- that the Second Coming took place in 70 AD, that we are loving God's promised kingdom right now, and that nobody saw fit to produce any reference to that in written or oral history, not even to dispute, reject, or denounce it.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by NoahBeanBizzel

So, you're saying that Christ has already returned?

Yes, that has been my argument all along.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

That is the nuts and bolts of preterism (which more and more seems a school of Gnosticism to me) -- that the Second Coming took place in 70 AD, that we are loving God's promised kingdom right now, and that nobody saw fit to produce any reference to that in written or oral history, not even to dispute, reject, or denounce it.

The irony, coming from people who hew to johnny-come-lately, cobbled-together religions derived from old-man-mumbling sects which coelesced centuries after Jesus.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

The irony, coming from people who hew to johnny-come-lately, cobbled-together religions derived from old-man-mumbling sects which coelesced centuries after Jesus.

The difference is, all of us whom you so dubiously describe can make arguments from Scripture and a reliance on faith to support our belief. You... can't. Or at least shouldn't. An argument from scripture is an argument to prove a future event. Your whole belief is that we are now talking about a past event. So you can't make honest arguments based on predictive texts, and ignore that you should be arguing based on historical fact.

It would be like me trying to prove that the iPhone exists by only documents announcing the planned release of it, but none that establish the actual release of it. The Second Coming of Christ is a subtle thing? A fact of history completely overlooked, even to disparage and discredit it? Manifestly impossible. As a Catholic, it is far easier to defend even the truly challenging doctrines like transubstantiation than to defend that.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

The difference is, all of us whom you so dubiously describe can make arguments from Scripture and a reliance on faith to support our belief. You... can't. Or at least shouldn't. An argument from scripture is an argument to prove a future event. Your whole belief is that we are now talking about a past event. So you can't make honest arguments based on predictive texts, and ignore that you should be arguing based on historical fact.

It would be like me trying to prove that the iPhone exists by only documents announcing the planned release of it, but none that establish the actual release of it. The Second Coming of Christ is a subtle thing? A fact of history completely overlooked, even to disparage and discredit it? Manifestly impossible. As a Catholic, it is far easier to defend even the truly challenging doctrines like transubstantiation than to defend that.

To the contrary. Hold-on-to-heaven types like yourself CANNOT make arguments from scripture. You can only make arguments AGAINST scripture. Ex: Jesus clearly informs his disciples that he will return before some of them die. Futurists like yourself then proceed to argue, in effect, that Jesus is not to be taken at his word because they are deeply unhappy with what he delivered. In this they are very much like the Pharisees they love to disparage.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

To the contrary. Hold-on-to-heaven types like yourself CANNOT make arguments from scripture. You can only make arguments AGAINST scripture. Ex: Jesus clearly informs his disciples that he will return before some of them die. Futurists like yourself then proceed to argue, in effect, that Jesus is not to be taken at his word because they are deeply unhappy with what he delivered. In this they are very much like the Pharisees they love to disparage.

Y'know what? I think your Scriptural argument is pants, too, I think you cherrypicked your favorite and ignore a bunch of others. But you are missing my point. The Gospel is an account of Jesus' first coming. By definition, EVERY scriptural argument about his Second Coming is an argument about the nature of a future event, something that had not yet happened.

But, your belief is that the Second Coming is now a past event. Logically, it should no longer be necessary to make a Scriptural, i.e. predictive argument to prove it. In fact, the Gospel should be moot, because you believe that we have been getting a new and steady stream of good news for the better part of two millennia.

So where is it? All your best evidence would be the evidence of history to confirm that what you say the Gospel predicted actually came to pass. Why not use it? On his first visit, we have reams of historical evidence and argument, for and against Jesus, His nature, and the events of His life. Where is any of that for the second visit? I mean, surely some Jews of the day would have been vocal about denouncing His return as a sham, and by which at least lending credence to the claim it happened?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Y'know what? I think your Scriptural argument is pants, too, I think you cherrypicked your favorite and ignore a bunch of others. But you are missing my point. The Gospel is an account of Jesus' first coming. By definition, EVERY scriptural argument about his Second Coming is an argument about the nature of a future event, something that had not yet happened.

But, your belief is that the Second Coming is now a past event. Logically, it should no longer be necessary to make a Scriptural, i.e. predictive argument to prove it. In fact, the Gospel should be moot, because you believe that we have been getting a new and steady stream of good news for the better part of two millennia.

So where is it? All your best evidence would be the evidence of history to confirm that what you say the Gospel predicted actually came to pass. Why not use it? On his first visit, we have reams of historical evidence and argument, for and against Jesus, His nature, and the events of His life. Where is any of that for the second visit? I mean, surely some Jews of the day would have been vocal about denouncing His return as a sham, and by which at least lending credence to the claim it happened?

I think it's incredible that you appeal to the Gospels which basically begin with his First Coming and then fairly center on his soon-to-occur Second Coming. Indeed, fairly two-thirds the New Testament is eschatological and you somehow (how is it possible ?) miss the imminency of scores and scores of passages that have Jesus returning within the lifetime of certain of his contemporaries.

The bonus for me is that if you need even more persuasive arguments, I can promise them 'soon' and then take 2,000 years to produce them.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

To the contrary. Hold-on-to-heaven types like yourself CANNOT make arguments from scripture. You can only make arguments AGAINST scripture. Ex: Jesus clearly informs his disciples that he will return before some of them die. Futurists like yourself then proceed to argue, in effect, that Jesus is not to be taken at his word because they are deeply unhappy with what he delivered. In this they are very much like the Pharisees they love to disparage.

Dream, why not take a paragraph or two and tell us what things Jesus delivered to the world in 70 AD.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Dream, why not take a paragraph or two and tell us what things Jesus delivered to the world in 70 AD.

Sure, in short: everything he promised. To summarize: everything the futurist claims now, but only as he functions as one who believes that the Christ has already returned. Jesus can be taken at his word. No more scriptural gymnastics required to explain away an apparent, huge postponement. No more law. Salvation has come. Victory over sin. Relationship with God. Jesus with us (how can he be with us if we're still waiting for him ?). Go to heaven when we die, etc.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

That is the nuts and bolts of preterism (which more and more seems a school of Gnosticism to me) -- that the Second Coming took place in 70 AD, that we are loving God's promised kingdom right now, and that nobody saw fit to produce any reference to that in written or oral history, not even to dispute, reject, or denounce it.

Not necessarily. That's the essence of Dream's preterism--classical preterism however, teaches that while many of the events of which Jesus spoke were realized in 70 AD, and that is what he was referring to with many of those passages (e.g.--'...this generation shall not pass..."), it still maintains that Christ will come again for Final Judgment--and that has not occurred.

I don't mean to hold myself out as any kind of an expert on the subject, but Dream's posting over the years, has prompted me to look a bit 'under the hood', and get an idea about it. Here is a pretty good summary:

Will the Real Preterism Please Stand Up?
by Steve AtkersonPlain Text/Printer friendly Version

Lately I have spoken with several folks who, when they heard the word "preterism," automatically thought of the end time heresy that the actual second coming of Jesus was in A.D. 70. These same people were surprised to learn that there are really two types of preterism.

The one most talked about today is that which proposes that the second coming was in A.D. 70 and is an already past event, never to be repeated. This form of preterism is highly controversial. In fact, it is heretical. It is a relatively new kid on the theological block. This fact alone should sound a heresy warning alarm. Those who advocate it prefer to call it full preterism. It began in earnest in the 1870s with the writings of a congregational pastor in England named Charles Stuart Russell. He chose to publish his heretical preterist book anonymously, and not until after his retirement from the pastorate did he allow his name to appear on a subsequent edition.

The other type of preterism is much older, and not nearly so controversial. This older view holds that *many* of the prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but that the actual second coming of Jesus is still a future event. Thus, this older preterism is within the bounds of orthodox Christianity (as defined by the historic creeds and confessions of literally every denomination). Perhaps this older view could be called classical or orthodox preterism. In fact, in many theological works it is often even spelled differently, as "praeterism." http://preteristsite.com".

Throughout the past 2,000 years there have always been Christians who understand some of the prophecies of the New Testament to have been fulfilled in A.D. 70. Yet all of these believers all still looked forward to the second coming as a future event. None of them taught that the actual second coming was in the first century. One of the first people to advocate heretical preterism was Russell back in the 1870s. Throughout history, the overwhelming majority of preterists held to the classical preterist view.

What are the origins of preterism in general? Trace elements of preterism can be found back in the earliest days of Christianity. However, as a fully developed eschatological system, classical preterism dates only from the time of the Reformation. Men such as Wycliffe in England, Zwingli in Switzerland, Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, Knox in Scotland, and Calvin in France all taught that the Roman Catholic papacy was the Antichrist of Scripture. (This system of end time beliefs is called historicism.*) So convincing were these Protestants in identifying the office of the Pope with the little horn of Daniel's prophecy and also the beast of Revelation with the Catholic Church that Rome lost one-half of its followers. In an effort to begin to deflect some of this highly effective criticism, Rome, in 1545, convened a special council that met in Trent, Italy. The Council of Trent's job was to strategize a "Counter Reformation." Biblical prophecies concerning the man of sin, the little horn and the beast needed to be reinterpreted. A Spanish Jesuit priest named Luis de Alcasar proposed a scheme to do this. His idea was for the Catholicism to teach a first century fulfillment of biblical prophecies concerning the anti-Christ and the beast. The advantage of this for the Catholics was that they could then claim that the application of end times biblical prophecies were in no way possible referring to the Vatican. Thus was the development of preterism as a systematized theology of end times. Modern Preterism has its origins as an anti-Protestant Counter Reformation theory. The Preterist School was developed by the Jesuit priest Alcasar.

The next big push for preterism came from Protestant theological liberalism in the 1800s. These unbelieving academicians were rationalists. They had little room in their belief system for the supernatural. A literal fulfillment of many end times prophecies would require the supernatural, clearly miraculous intervention of God into human history. Since classical preterism takes many spectacular aspects of biblical prophecy allegorically (as opposed to literally), an A.D. 70 fulfillment of these prophecies fit in nicely with their anti-supernatural presuppositions. The Roman invasion of Judah and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple could easily be explained apart from anything miraculous. Not even the Roman army that destroyed the city realized that they were pawns in executing God's judgment upon a sinful people. Because there was no obvious miraculous intervention of God into history regarding the fulfillment of many New Testament prophecies, the preterist interpretation made the Bible seem more like a natural book of human origin. Thus, the liberals latched onto preterism.

...

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/atkerrealpret.html



And for more sources to early Christian preterism:


http://www.preteristarchive.com/Chur...ory/index.html

[92gator]

^^^Worth noting--the Catholic Church has never made a dogmatic declaration as to the claims of classical preterism--one way, or the other--not even the preterism championed by Father Alcasar. IOW: that is, the natural inference to be drawn, is that the Church confesses a natural ambiguity in the Faith which Yeshua handed down to His Apostles, and which they handed down to their successors, on down the line.... it simply isn't ours to know specifically--and this would be consistent with Christ's admonition when He expressly stated that the hour is not known (read: to be known) by Man.

[Dreamliner]

^ Thanks, bro. I think it's interesting that most if not all of the Early Christian Writers were preterist with regards to the Olivet Prophecy, but, as you point out, still held out hope for a Future Consummation.

Interestingly, the various creeds reserve the Olivet Prophecies for the future. So, they pay no heed to the early writers.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by 92gator

^^^Worth noting--the Catholic Church has never made a dogmatic declaration as to the claims of classical preterism--one way, or the other--not even the preterism championed by Father Alcasar. IOW: that is, the natural inference to be drawn, is that the Church confesses a natural ambiguity in the Faith which Yeshua handed down to His Apostles, and which they handed down to their successors, on down the line.... it simply isn't ours to know specifically--and this would be consistent with Christ's admonition when He expressly stated that the hour is not known (read: to be known) by Man.

All due respect, Bro, but although we don't know the specific hour of His coming . . . he is coming again, just like he left. Unless, of course, the Bible is not "true."

Acts 1:10-11

New International Version (NIV)

¹⁰ They were looking intently up into the sky as he [the resurrected Christ] was going [ascending into heaven], when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. ¹¹ “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”