It has come to may attention that several of the respected preachers in our brotherhood have taken a pre-millennial view. I have always said I am a pan-millinnialist. It will all pan out. But the Lord is convicting me to study it further. I am in the process of forming my view but want some your opinions too.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Answers

Scott,

I would agree with you to a point about not making it a test of fellowship.

However, as you are well aware of (magnificant scholar that you are)....some DP's.....

1) Make it a test of one's orthodoxy. 2) Extremist DP's actually offer two forms of salvation...i.e., one for us Gentiles, and then.....one for the Jews which does not include repentance and/or a need for Christ.

To me, that is a perversion of the Gospel that has some serious soteriological consequences.

So yes, in general it is a "non-issue." But, some of it does carry the potential for perverting the gospel.

As you also know, oh wise one, DP has often been a seedbed for cultism.

Just a friendly reminder Scotty!!!

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Has anyone noticed, that every single prediction made by Hal Lindsey in the book "Late Great Planet Earth"....has failed?? Every one of them.

Everyone remember....."88 Reasons Why the Rapture Was Going to Occur in 1988??" Remember the world was going to end in September 1988?? The one thing I could never figure out was why the guy who wrote the book, after selling a million copies bought a new ranch house in Tennessee in August of 1988. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Remember during the Gulf War...."Babylon was being rebuilt?"

How many more Millerites will the world produce?? How many more Armstongs?? ect..etc...etc.

Remember, the unforseeable future has a way of becoming the undeniable past.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

I said all the above to say this.....books on prophecy sell and people are gullible enough to buy them.

I mean....let's face it, the Apostle Paul would not make it as a prophecy writer in today's market. When Paul was asked about the Lord's coming, all he could respond was....."As to the times and seasons you have nothing for me to write you for you know full well that the Lord is coming as a thief in the night." (That would take up what....maybe a half a page. Not much of a best seller.)

Even Hal Lindsey continues to write books and people buy them.

I guess I shouldn't be surprise. 1000 people showed up for the first sermon at Jimmy Baker's new church.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Sorry Connie,

But as a "typical" woman, why must you always resort to the term "unloving?"

Must I again remind you that "Love rejoices in the truth??"

Never do you scripturally critique anything, you simply throw out the words "unloving" which in logic is called, "a straw man."

I can turn your words right around..."When I show from Scripture where something falls short of the truth, all you do is respond in an unloving way." You see, it can cut both ways.

I would refer you also back to my thread on "The Two Greatest Commandments in Perspective."

Calling someone who believes in "one truth"....as unloving, is quite common and quite un-Christlike.

If you can't stand the heat of debate, then don't participate. But don't resort to name calling.

Everything I said was fact. Now disprove the facts.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie,

Paul was an Apostle, the highest office there has ever been in the church, and as such, a receiver of divine knowledge. If there was any prophecy that needed to be delivered, we can bet, Paul would have received it from the Lord, and delivered it.

As far as the Prophets of Old.....I take the words of Jesus literally when He said, "I came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets."

The Greek word for "fulfill" means "to fill up until it can't be filled no more."

Therefore, there are no O.T. prophecies to look to the fulfillment of. They were all fulfilled in Christ and in His kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ.

Thus, when Paul was asked about "signs of the times" he said, "There are none. The Lord will come like a thief in the night."

Add to that what Jesus said, "When you least expect it."

Therefore, be ready at all times.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie,

I most certainly do not discount Revelation. I've taught it through around 4 times now.

But, I do not consider it a "book of prophecy" for the following reasons....

1) For the most part, historically, it was not considered as such until the advent of D.P. in the 1600's.

2) The book is written in apocalyptic language which was always seen by the Jews as a "language of encouragement." That is, this type of symbolic language would be used by an author to encourage people during difficult times. Thus, for instance, we have Daniel written in apocalyptic language during the Jews time of captivity in Babylon, in order to encourage them to be faithful and to realize in their struggle, that God had not forgotten them.

Revelation is the same thing. It was written by the Apostle John in 96 A.D. during the persecution of the Roman Emperor Domitian. Domitian for the first time declared Christianity illegal and began the first offical Roman "search and destroy" mission against Christianity.

The church thought God had forsaken them. However, through the encouraging message of Revelation, John assures them that in spite of what appears to be going on God is still in control. Theirs was but one struggle in the eternal struggle between the forces of Satan and the forces of God. However, as the book of Revelation reveals in the end, Satan will ultimately be destroyed and the church will be triumphant.

The key to understanding the book of Revelation is not understaning prophecy. The key is understanding what the apocalyptic language meant to the people of the day in which it was written. Because, this much we can be sure, the people of John's day knew exactly what he meant.

And Connie, to further underscore that.....take note of Revelation 1:1..."The revelation (Greek "apokalupis") of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show his servants WHAT MUST SOON TAKE PLACE."

Notice the words "soon take place".....not at some unforeable time in the distant future.

So, the message of Revelation was written primarily to the people of John's day. It's message is relevant to us today to help us to remember, that regardless of world events, and regardless of the appearance that Satan is winning, ultimately, God is in control.

Hope this helps you understand this position.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

THIS FORUM IS FOR DEBATE!!!

If you can't stand the rhetoric, or the discussion, or being challenged, then don't participate.

But don't sound off with pious, holy, sounding language that claims the spirit of this age...."Caccacacan't we all just get along!!"

Let me quote the verse again...."Contend (Greek...literally "brawl") for the faith once delivered."

Really, the whining is very pathetic sounding.

If you disagree with something, say so...present your arguments and move on. But please stop with the "Can't we all just get along rhetoric." That does absolutely nothing to contribute to the learning process. All it does it show lack of evidence for one's own position.

I've already made it clear.....I do not make it a test of fellowship. You can believe Jesus is coming back on the Good Ship Lollypop if you want to....but at least present some tangible Scriptural evidence.

Connie, I'm sorry....you are just plain wrong. We know very well what the meaning of apocalyptic language is.

For instance, in apocalyptic language.....

The number 7 represents.....moral perfection The number 10 represents....completeness. The number 6 represents....man.

Each one of the colors of the horses has specific meaning.

As I said in the past....there is A truth and it CAN be known.

Connie, you and I are never going to see eye to eye and the biggest reason is your Calvinistic view of illumination. Because you believe the Holy Spirit illumines you and teaches you, you, therefore, are not going to be open to anything you don't feel the Spirit is leading you to believe.

I do not believe, neither do the Scriptures teach illumination to the believer. We are told to "Study to show thyself approved unto God".....not wait for the Spirit to move on us.

So again, you study Scripture through Calvinistic glasses.

As per the generalities concerning D.P.'s, the fact is, that when the church is viewed as the "Bandaid" solution to the first rejection of Christ by the Jews, what other view is there of the church than a "low view?"

Let's quit with the lovey, dovey, talk.

In my opinion it is a subtle way of claiming greater spirituality over someone else and thereby trying to gain a foothold on the thinking of others. Kind of the, "Listen to me....I'm the nice guy" mentality."

I may criticize someone's argument...but so far I've been criticized of being unloving, chauvistic, and dogmatic. In debate, that's called an "ad hominem."

So the question really becomes, is that a subtle way of undermining my position without having to give evidence or proof for your assertions?? I think it is.

Stick to the issues and quit making judgments which no one on this board has a right to do.

Really, I sometimes wish there were more athiests on these boards. At least they would stick to the issues.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Oh....and concerning the remark about Jim Baker repenting, etc.....yeah right.....like maybe Jimmy Swaggart??

Tell you what.....if Jimmy Boy has repented, let him start by paying back the untold millions he bilked from people who placed their trust in him, especially older folks who now have a lot less to live on.

Yeah, let him do that, then we talk about whether or not he deserves a hearing.

Othewise, the only thing I'm sure Jimmy is sorry about is the fact that.....he got caught.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Phillip....

What mission do you work for?? I need to make sure my money stays away from there.

There wasn't one thing wrathful in a single thing I said.

But you continued one long diatribe of "ad hominems."

And sir....as long as you are on this forum and you espouse any view, I will be the first in line to show where your thinking is both illogical and unScriptural if it is such. If it is line with Scripture, then I will be the first to commend you.

And I might point out that you sir, are the newcomer that stepped into the forum and started making demands about what attitudes we should or should not have.

Not once did I question your character. Rather, I questioned your right to make such demands.

Again, rest assured, neither my money or any other I have influence over will make it to any work that you do. Your attitude of venom speaks volumes.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Philip.....

One of my favorite shows is "Hannity and Combs." It is a debate show over various hot button news topics of the day. I love it when Sean Hannity says, "Alan Combs gets the last word."

So here you go Philip.....gracious person that I am.....you have the last word.....unrequited by me.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Don't ya'll be takin' bout my mama!!!

ROFL!!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Next to yourself...right Scott??

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

For more in depth study, be sure to check out the Historical and Preterist Scriptural analyis. It will get you thinking, and into a more overall Prophetic understanding of how various Prophet words are used without bending them to support some preconceived ideas. God bless your efforts.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Good luck. All the views have at least some truth and scripture to back it up. I used to be a, then pre with a pre rapture, then a later rapture, then no rapture, and now have moved into a mongrel view. I have pulled things from all over and have my own opinion. I sure am glad that this has nothing to do with our salvation.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Personally, I have a view which I call "pre-pre". I notice that a lot of prophecies have an immediate fulfillment to the people they are spoken to, then a future, ultimate fulfillment. For instance, in Isaiah chapter 7: "This shall be a sign to you: a virgin (or young maiden) shall bear a child, and shall call his name Immanuel." I am sure that in that immediate time a young woman had a child whom she named Immanuel, an immediate fulfillment of the prophecy for Ahaz, and an ultimate Messianic fulfillment. I see the Revelation as a similar thing: an immediate (preterist) fulfillment and an ultimate (Pre-Millenial) fulfillment. IMHO.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

I am also a "pan"-tribulationist: no matter what happens, it will all pan out in the end. =)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Although I do not view this issue as a matter of salvation, I would certainly make it a matter of leadership. The dispensational premil view ignores the clear teachings of Scripture about the Church being the Kingdom of God and looks to some future Kingdom. It also ignores much of history by using fulfilled prophetic events and trying to impose them into the future.

Christ reigns now (read the Great Comission, the Church is His Kingdom, when He comes again it will all be over. Case closed.

The "pan" position is old and not very studious{:o) as well as not very funny anymore.

This could be a very interesting thread.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

One of my very favorite books, from all those I've read throughout my life, is "The Autobiography of Malcolm X". Not that I agree with or espouse most of what is written there, but because it was written over a span of years. And during those years, Malcolm was going through a long process of growth and change, in his thought, in his spirituality, in his outlook on life and his views of how it should be lived. In the first half of the book, you are confronted with an angry young man, filled with bitterness and hatred. But you see his gradual conversion toward more open thinking, more forgiving attitudes, more understanding of others' struggles, and more openness to the value of other people and their ideas and ways.

Of course, I put no great spiritual value in another man's conversion to the true spirit of Islam (as opposed to the way it is usually practiced). My point is this -- that it is fascinating to see that process of growth and change in a man, even as he begins to understand it himself. The Malcolm who writes the last few chapters is only physically related to the one who began the book -- his mind has undergone almost complete transformation. It is truly aa wonder to watch it happen. I don't think I've ever read any other book quite like it.

Why am I boring you with all this? Because I can't at this time give a definitive answer to what I think about the millenial teachings. But I hope to soon be qble to do so. I have begun teaching through the book of The Revelation in Sunday School. It took three weeks of introductory stuff, and now it's taken four weeks to get through the first chapter. My view on the millenium has been a general "a- millienial" approach, although I've never studied it deeply enough to strongly defend it, so I mostly tried to avoid arguments about it. But by the time the end of June rolls around, I intend to have grown in my understanding of the book, I pray, in such a way that the study will have been a blessing to those in class with me. And I will have taken a much stronger stand about what I believe concerning the end times, the Tribulation, the millenium, etc.

Until then, be warned that any scholarly light that any of you shed here will be fodder for my classtime! Thanks in advance.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

SamLoveall:

You will appreciate the Biblical scholarship evident on this site:

www.tip.org

It will further your study greatly.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

It helps to understand that prophecy in the Revelation is presented in cyclic form, rather than sequential; and that the divisions of chapters and verses were added later. I am an a-mill, because the only clear statement that supports the pre-mill position is in Rev. 20, and that seems to have been misinterpreted by the pre-mill advocates. They force other passages to fit their interpretation of Revelation 20, rather than adjusting their interpretation of Revelation 20 to be consistent with the rest of the Bible. The post-mill position has been largely discredited.

I agree that it is a good thing this is not a saving faith issue, because good Christians have very different views.

In your study, do not leave out Systematic Theology by L. Berkhof, pages 661 - 738 "The Doctrine of the Last Things". A section reviews each of the millennial positions in light of their biblical support, and points out the problems associated with them.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

Pre-Mill? Post-Mill?

Do you mean Pre-Trib and Post-Trib? Christ has to return before the Millennium, because that is when we will be caught up with Him in the air and reign for the thousand years with Him - - after the Trbulation events are ended. I thought the diverse positions were over when and whether the believers will go through the Tribulation.

Check out (please):

www.tip.org

It is VERY helpful to all who are interested in this subject.

In Him

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

No Connie, the terms being used are correct. Post-trib etc., are all versions of dispensational premillennialism (dp). There are different views as to what the millennium is, hence pre-mil, post-mil and a-mil.

The site you recommend begins with the assumption of a DP position and goes ahead from there.

BTW, your above post is full of preconceptions of what all of these eschatological terms mean. For example,in my view, the Tribulation passage, at least in Matthew 24 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. and has no significance to a millennial viewpoint. Also, according to the Great Commission, Christ is reigning right now - He said, "all authority" had been granted to Him.

It's these differing viewpoints that, I believe, will make this particular thread very fun indeed to discuss. Unlike many of the other threads on this forum, this one is definitely NOT a matter of salvation. If I remember correctly, I already stated that I would consider it a matter of leadership, but not salvation. Why leadership, because I strongly believe the pre-mil view has a very weak view of the Church. And if a leader in the Church holds a weak view of the Church, then he shouldn't be leading, IMO.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Okay everyone. I almost fell out of my chair. I read dbvz's post (the one above Connie's) and saw that we actually agree. Will wonders never cease!!! Thanks you dbvz for for making my day. I must have overlooked it earlier.

You know, you can buy a vowel for, I think, $5. I'm sure a couple of us here in the forum would pitch in to contribute. Just a thought;o)

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Danny,

Point taken. I should have said, "not necissarily a matter of salvation but definitely a matter of leadership."

Thanks for the recognition. I only wish my own scholarship were as good as you make it sound.

I am currently in a study with my Bible School class dealing with eschatology. As we were beginning a study concerning "antichrist" I asked them if they felt this was a balloon bursting class. Many of them came into the class with preconceived ideas (the balloons) and then when you actually study what the Scriptures say, well, there goes the preconceived notions (pop). It's been a fun class. Lot's more ground to cover. Next week, the man of lawlessness - and yes Danny, I still believe what I used to.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Great scholarship, huh? It should be "necessarily."

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

To all of you on this thread:

As a missionary to Mexico on behalf of the Christian Churches (independent), I have traditionally held an amillennialist view of the Second Advent of our Lord. I would be amiss to even question its powerful logic and solid Biblical exegesis. It has unquestionable interpretive merit. Nevertheless, even honest and outspoken amills like Russell Boatman have acknowledged that certain preterist conclusions are problematic and highly speculative at best. Leading amills and preterists are forced to wax eloquent in their treatment of certain prophetic passages, because their conclusions don't always fully harmonize with the larger context. This is not to say that pre and postmillennialists don't have struggles of their own. One thing all prophetic schools of thought agree on, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that the symbolic nature of prophetic and apocalyptic passages lends itself to much speculation. None have a watertight foolproof argument either way!

This is not a new debate. It has been going almost since the first century. What is relatively new on the eschatological scene is pre- trib dispensationalism (although they would probably argue to the contrary). All serious eschatological schools that uphold the authority of the Scriptures would claim to a literal grammatical- historical method of interpretation. All would agree that some things are symbolic and some are not. As to what is symbolic and what is not, that's an entire different story. Furthermore, even in the areas where there is agreement on what is symbolic, there is disagreement on what the symbols mean.

Now, allow me to just speak for myself at this juncture. Generally speaking, I would tend to be in a favor of a strict preterist or amillennialist interpretation. However, I have grown to honestly appreciate the strengths of prophetic interpretations other than my own. On the one hand, I am a determined post-tribulationist. I do not see a pre-trib rapture anywhere in the Scriptures. On the other hand, I am not so sure that Israel's reconciliation (meaning believing Jews) is not yet future and that God has a distinct plan in mind for His chosen people. I do not entirely subscribe to the Kingdom=Church theory. The Church on Earth certainly is one aspect of the Kingdom but it definitely is not the entire Kingdom, otherwise Paul's admonition to the gentile believers in Romans chapter 11 makes very little sense (in my mind at least). Both the righteous Hebrews of old as well as the Jewish believers of today and tomorrow are most certainly a part of the Kingdom. Furthermore, gentile and Jewish believers alike will inhabit the heavenly kingdom, including the Old Testament saints. Whether or not God has some kind of special future provision in store for the remnant of Israel is up to Him. I don't have as much of a problem with that than I do with some of the unfounded dogmatism that plagues eschatological debate in our day.

In any case, I'm open for correction. God bless you all!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Matthew 24: 29 - 42

29: Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the starsshall fall from heaven, and thepowers 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.

...

...

34:Verily i say unto you, "This generation shall not pass, 'til all these things be fulfilled.". (The 'Sebat' generation)

Jesus stated that 'all' the prophesied milestone events leading up to His second coming will occur within the life span of one generation. Christ's plainly spoken statement immediately demands that 'this generation' n=must in some unique way be positively identified. If this generation could not be identified at the time of the end, then how could they be convinced that Christ was talking to them and of what earthly value would Christ;s parable be of value to anyone?

The prophesied events prior to the regaining of Jerusalem by the Jews in 1967 in the six-day war, preceded by the forming of the State of Israel in 1948, and the inventions of the 20th century which enabled men to go 'to and fro in the earth' and for 'knowlege to increase' in 'the end times' could not be understood until this generation. Ezekial's, Zechariah's, and Jeremiah's prophesies (among others)can be understood now that the scrolls are being opened.

We've all heard of strange vehicles (wheels within wheels, for example) described by the prophets and had no understanding of their meaning.

Has anyone noticed the huge numbers of Jews returning to Israel from 'the north' (Russia) in recent years? This was prophesied in 550 + - B.C.!

Prior to the advent of the technologically advanced era, Bible prophecies descibing modern day inventions were simply beyond the reach of human understanding.

Many religious writers, nevertheless, presented various interpretations of a number of prophetic texts that were written expressly to the technically advanced nations of our era. With the passing of time these earlier misinterpretations became stumbling blocks in the paths of today's Bible scholars, causing them to miss prophecies addressed to our age.

This should be an interesting thread!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Danny,

You have an attitude that is unloving, in my opinion. When someone says something with which you disagree, you immediately have a sublte put-down.

I am not a 'Millerite' - - I'm a Christian. But when I read the material from Charles Miller's book (free on the Internet - - and he sells the book for $5.00 in his classes - -they cost $5.26 to produce) I was thrilled because it is information I've been waiting for since becoming a Christian and learning that Christ will return almost 40 years ago.

He makes his living as a computer analyst for Michigan National Bank, but is a devout Christian who wanted to reach his generation for Christ. He has the Biblical, technical and financial knowlege to write this book, and I would be much more likely to recommend HIS take than yours on end-of-age prophecy.

Why did God tell the prophets what he did? Are we not to try to understand these things? I personally can study and determine by comparing what is said from Scripture whether a person is from God or from Satan. 'Test the spirits, whether they be of God'. Niller's attitude is much more in line with what what I see in Scripture than your attitude is. (I hope that I said that in a spirit of love, as I don't want to offend you, my brother in Christ.

Reading different materials, from all different sources, will not harm us. We have to be discerning and ask for the light which God gives us to understand.

If you disdain the message which Charles Miller has spent his adult life digging out from an exhaustive study of Scripture, so be it. It is your loss.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

By the way: I've never read a Hal Lindsay book, and now I'm glad, although I might read them now, so I can see the error myself. (I'll get them from the library or someplace like a used book store.)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Sorry for the third post. (and the typos in the last one)

Paul didn't claim to be a prophet, if I'm not mistaken. He was an evangelist, a different office. (Gift)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Connie,

The Miller that Danny refers to is William Miller who died in 1849. He made sevral conclusions thru his own Bible studies that were false. He believed there was no Hell, he believed in soul-sleeping and he twice predicted the Lord's return, first in 1843 and then in 1844. His followers got all dressed up in white robes and went to the nearest mountaintop so they could be first to see Jesus. He was wrong both times and his group of followers split up. However, his followers took up some of his methodologies. Ellen G. White was a Millerite and began the Seventh Day Adventists who have a long history of date-setting. Charles Taze Russell was another follower and he founded the Jehovah's Witnesses, who also have a long history of date-setting. HW Armstrong's wife (I can't remember her name) got hold of his writings and thru her, HW founded the Worldwide Church of God, also known for their date-setting. The Miller you spoke of is one I don't know about, but the teachings of William Miller have been and is known as Millerism.

Concerning Matthew 24 and the tribulation, in Matthew 24 there is a clear distinction between "those days" which refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, and "that day and hour" refering to the Second Coming of our Lord. Jesus said, "immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." It was immediately after "those days" that the sun, moon and stars would do their thing, i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem. The events concerning the Sun, Moon, and Stars are apocalyptic language signifying the fall/destruction of a great nation. This kind of language was used in Isaiah 13:10 concerning Babylon; Isaiah 34:4, 5 concerning Idumea; Ezekiel 32:7, 8 concerning Egypt; and Acts 2:19, 20 concerning the judgment upon Jerusalem (it is a quote of Joel 2:30, 31). It was not a literal event, but instead was a very picturesque way of showing the greatness of the fall from power.

Jesus does not begin talking about His 2nd Coming until verse 36. In verse 34 He states that THAT generation would not pass away until everything He had been speaking of was fulfilled. So no matter what your millennial viewpoint, everything previous to verse 36 must be understood in light of the events of THAT generation (i.e., the generation of the apostles), and I believe it can be done quite easily. All we have to do is give up pre-conceived ideas.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Presumably, then, you discount all of Revelation?

Christ fulfilled the Law, but there is prophecy which has not been fulfilled.

I am praying for wisdom, and understanding.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Thank you for clarifying that, Scott.

The Miller I am referring to is Charles Miller.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Danny:

Of course, I know that Paul was an Apostle! Can you deny he was an evangelist? He bore the message of the good news of Christ - - the euvangelion (sp?) Thomas was also an Apostle, who doubted who Christ was without proving it for himself; so was Peter, who denied Christ three times, I think James and John who argued over who would sit at Christ's right hand were also, and of course Judas!

All fallible men.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

See. I think you're the one with the pre-conceived ideas.

Daniel 12: 4

But thou,O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12: 8 - 13, especially 8 and 9:

And I heard, but I understood not; then said I, "O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?"

And He said: "Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up till the time of the end.'

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

I want to get my tongue (and fingers) under control.

I appreciate your instructing me, especially about some of the details about what different ones have proposed.

The thing is, the apocalyptic language was not understandable until the time of the end and we are there. But I am not setting any dates.

I wouldn't listen to anyone who is. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! You and any of the people you have mentioned simply could not have known what the words meant, because they have been sealed till the time of the end. The inventions of this century have accomplished their task for this purpose. And there will be more.

A lot of error has ensued. One is the naming of who the different animal symbols referred to in Daniel's vision of the four beasts.

Anything written before this time has to be reevaluated. It has become a stiumbling block for eschatological study.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

I am the one who posted the origional meassage. I have not had time to read all the reponses until now. I've been doing an exhaustive study on the relationship between Salvation, Faith, Baptism, and the Holy Spirit. It turned out very interesting. Maybe I'll post it one day. Anyway, I would like to make a few comments to the responses. One, Danny was not being unloving, sarcastic-yes, a chauvinist-yes because there is no such thing as a "typical" woman. Also, Danny why should you be surprised that 1,000 people showed up to hear Jimmy Baker. Can't he be forgiven of his sins, turn back to God, and make a good impact for Christ in the right way. Let him without sin cast the first stone. People relate to those who admit they are sinners. They know they are sinners themselves. And people love hope stories. They love to know that they can overcome the traps of sin (no matter how awful the sin is) and become victorious and free in Christ and live a righteous Christ-filled life. Sometimes we who have been Christians for a long time forget that wonderful first recognition of what it means to have a real relationship with Jesus. Also, one prophecy can be fulfilled "filled up until it can't be filled no more" while other prophecies remain unfulfilled. I don't say that to disagree with you though. I think Jesus did fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies that were meant for Him to fulfill. I'm just leaving open the possibility that Connie could be right. I'm still studying. Everyone needs to be careful not to be to dogmatic. I haven't met anybody yet that is right on everything. I understand where a few of you get it from. I graduated from FCC too and had Roger Chambers as well. However, I will say in the Escatology class that Dr. Chambers taught that I took. He said, He leaned toward A but presented the others to be considered too. It has been fun and interesting to read these comments. And I will consider much that has been said and will do some follow up.

Dragonslayer

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

To all concerned:

This is the first time that I have taken part in a discussion forum with U.S. brethren, on the net, and in English. Please excuse any errors in syntax or typos; English is my second language.

I can't help but think of the impression seekers or newcomers to this sight must have as they witness our self-righteous vaudeville regarding hot topics like this one. I was invited to this forum by Brother Scott (whom you have already met), but I was somewhat taken back by the tone of the rhetoric going back and forth. I think we definitely need to tone down our sarcasm and bombastic innuendoes if we want to go anywhere with this thing. We need to stop this ad hominem attacks and character assassinations right now! I MEAN IT! Generalizations are out as well!!!!

All amills do not have a "low view" of Scripture; all premills do not have a "low view" of the Church; all premills are not dispensationalists; all dispensationalists are not pre-trib rapturists. Postmills are a horse of a different color all together. As our beloved Mark Twain stated, "Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are always delightful. . . . Get your facts first, and . . . then you can distort `em as much as you please". Have we lost all civility to the point of automatically disqualifying another believer's viewpoint on prophecy just because it differs from our own? Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree anyway? Over the years, I have learned to be patient with those who hold convictions different from my own without compromising a single iota. I am convinced that a sane person, one who has even minimum amount of intelligence, will eventually come to know the truth on any given subject if given sufficient facts. It's only the die-hard dyed-in-the- wool fanatics that are almost impossible to deal with. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those in the Church.

Can we have a truce guys (and gals)?

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Well, well, dear Sir (whoever you are, since you didn't bother to sign your name), you really told me off didn't you? Thank you so much for proving my point by sounding off a mouthful of absurdities.

The same Bible that says "contend", also says, "be slow...to wrath" (James 1:19). In Mexico we have a little saying, "he who angers first looses". Well, it looks like you lost out. You say, "If you can't stand the rhetoric, or the discussion, or being challenged, then don't participate." I certainly can stand someone disagreeing with my view, and at the same time engage in civilized discussion and/or debate. What I can't stand are pig-headed fanatics who get on the net forums just to prove how macho they think they are - nothing more, nothing less.

You say, " don't sound off with pious, holy, sounding language that claims the spirit of this age....'Caccacacan't we all just get along!!' " If anyone is acting at the behest of the spirit of this age, dear sir, it is you. It is precisely people like you that are stabling block for the Gospel. What in heavens name do you know about me anyway to make such a gratuitous judgement of my character? Furthermore, who are you to limit my freedom of expression? I have just as much of a right as you do to express my views as I please. If anyone needs to leave this forum it is YOU!

Again you say, "Really, the whining is very pathetic sounding". If anyone is whining it is you - just listen to yourself! And yes, I do disagree with something: YOUR ATTITUDE! I haven't even begun to state my position yet, and I will not until I see some minimal decorum and some ground rules being carried out and respected. Don't give that bologna that "I do not make it a test of fellowship" well at the same time you write me off as some poor devil without a spine. Until you have faced the possibility of death for the cause of Christ, you do not have any idea of what it means to be faithful to the end. The Scriptures are the final authority in the true Church, not your vociferous opinion.

Connie, we may not agree 100% on all things pertaining to the last days but I certainly hope we can enjoy a forum where we can discuss these concerns without having to put up with this sort of verbal abuse."

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Philip and dragonslayer:

Amen!

I'm going to have to get off now, but I'll be back.

With my message on the 'Restoration' thread, I typed it around 3:30, and it took me 'til now to submit it.

Shalom! ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Philip:

This forum is maintained by the Campbellites of the Church of Christ.

They say in their on-site material that they don't hold conventions, annual meetings, or official publications, but they also say they have over forty colleges and secondary schools, as well as seventy- five orphanages and homes for the aged.

They have magazines and periodicals and a nationwide radio and TV program, so they must get together for some meetings, unless they do all of their business over the Internet. ;-)

I am going to hope that the majority who post here are actually a minority in their fellowship, for several have a very unChristlike attitude, and tongues like fires.

I can see why someone like Barry would leave.

I probably will, too, eventually.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Philip:

As I read back over some of these posts, it seems as though you are also from the Church of Christ, albeit a more reasonable person than a few who post here.

Since you brought into the discussion (I think) some of these different terms, I wonder if you could tell me from your standpoint what they mean:

Pre-Mill

Post-Mill

A-Mill

I have heard of Amillennialism, but don't really know its meaning.

I think I know the meanings of these following, but what is your definiton?

Pre-Trib

Mid-Trib

Post-Trib

If you have time, I would appreciate your definitions.

Also, thank you for your kind attitude.

In Him

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Hey Connie,

As I recall, the Bible says that on the day of Pentecost the Apostles too had tongues like of fire - I'd say that puts us "Campbellites" in pretty good company, don't you think?

I tire of your personal attacks on people you have never met. I've known Danny personally for several years and a more "loving" & "caring" person you will not find. I've seen him sacrificially put his own neck on the line for others and back people when all others turned on them (exactly in the way Barnabas backed Paul and John Mark in the Book of Acts). By turning to character assassinations, you hurt only your own reputation.

But, at the same time, when one steps out of line by perverting God's truth - he will confront. Praise God that there are still men in the world and in the Pulpit that feel this strongly for the truth!! This isn't done in anger or spite, it is done out of the desire to stop false teaching before it causes more damage to the church and causes souls to be condemned for believing & promoting such heresy.

Aren't you glad that God was never so "loving" that he let His people throughout the ages get away with just doing and saying what they pleased? If he had, what we would be discussing in this forum would be: "which is the proper stone idol to worship, which temple prostitute is the "best", and whose child was going to be passed through the fire tonight in honor of Molech".

Bottom line - true "Love" confronts when necessary. Who would ever come to Christ if they were never "called on the carpet" for their sin? As ministers of the Gospel of Christ, Danny, myself, Micheal, Scott, Lee, and many others here on the Forum are bound by morals, obligations, and most importantly - Scriptural Directive to confront sin where ever we find it in order to bring about repentance & Salvation. THAT is Biblical Love. DEAL WITH IT !

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Connie --

This forum is maintained by the Campbellites of the Church of Christ.

I, along with the vast majority of folks in the Christian Churches & Churches of Christ, are not and have never been "Campblellites." The Campbells, along with many others who stand tall in the Restoration Movement, did quite a bit for Christianity ... but never did so over or above Jesus Christ. As I recall, Alexander Campbell disliked people to call themselves Campbellites. And I will take the liberty of speaking for the forum moderator, Duane Schwingel, to say that neither is he a "Campbellite."

They say in their on-site material that they don't hold conventions, annual meetings, or official publications, but they also say they have over forty colleges and secondary schools, as well as seventy- five orphanages and homes for the aged.

I've never seen it published anywhere where "we" say we don't hold conventions or annual meetings. I do know that it is published that we don't hold annual meetings or conventions that "oversee" us as most denominations do. We have local, state, and national conventions that provide workshops of interest to people, as well as an avenue for preaching. These conventions are not held to hold votes, or to make decisions that affect the brotherhood. As far as magazines or publications, there are hundreds (thousands if you count local congregational newsletters). Yet none of these publications claim to speak for the Christian Churches & Churches of Christ as a denomination.

You might be confusing us with the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ. They are a denomination, and hold annual voting meetings, and have a number of "official" denominational publications.

They have magazines and periodicals and a nationwide radio and TV program, so they must get together for some meetings, unless they do all of their business over the Internet. ;-)

Connie -- I have been a part of this movement for a number of years now, and have never seen a "nationwide TV program" or have heard a "nationwide radio program." Again, there may be a variety of such programs on various stations throughout the US and the world, but none are "official" programs of the brotherhood. They just don't exist! And praise the Lord that we do get together as needed to work out the financing and other support of colleges, orphanages and homes for the aged.

I am going to hope that the majority who post here are actually a minority in their fellowship, for several have a very unChristlike attitude, and tongues like fires. I can see why someone like Barry would leave. I probably will, too, eventually.

Again, I can't speak officially for anyone else, and I am sorry if you feel there is an unChristlike attitude here. I have noted in past posts and threads that many times those who have posted here have explained their position biblically, and that is the way it should be. I am truly sorry that Barry felt the need to leave, and I would be sorry to see you leave as well, but we certainly have the free will to make those types of decisions for ourselves. I am certain there are any number of forums (check out www.onelist.com) that deal with Christian and theological matters from any variety of backgrounds. If you think this one is "tough" you shold see some of the others I have visited.

I do not always agree with everything stated here, and may not always agree with the way some things are said, but I know that those who have been accused of being "mean spirited" et.al. are Christian men and women who love the Lord and would do ANYTHING to further the Gospel and the Kingdom of God.

Just my 2c worth!

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

The information I posted is from the Churches of Christ website.

It is:

http://church-of-christ.org/church-of-christ/coc.html

I think, as I ponder what I've learned here this week, is that perhaps the people who post here are mostly preachers of your group who are 'letting their hair down' among people of like mind.

Sort of like women in gossip sessions.

The only problem is, that with a title of 'The Christian Church' you will get people of other groups, who have not been indoctrinated with your theology.

Immediately these other posters are attacked by a phalanx of rude rebutters. You should title it: 'Support group for disaffected Church of Christ Preachers'.

I'm still angry, I see, but I still have 'til sundown to get over it!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Connie,

You should be angry - not at us, but at yourself.

You have allowed yourself to be taught, duped, or whatever, into believing in some of the basic heresies that the Church has faced since the 1st Century. You have now been confronted by the truth of the Scriptures and that has to hurt.

After being "pierced to the heart", you now face the same situation as those who heard Peter's Sermon on the day of Pentecost - "What shall I do?" You can accept the scriptures at face value (as written) or you can continue to believe in and promote that which you now know is incorrect and un-Biblical.

You may think we are full of ourselves (and other things), but is the risk worth it? After all, the only thing at stake is the immortal souls of yourself and of those you come into contact with.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Connie, you said:

They say in their on-site material that they don't hold conventions, annual meetings, or official publications, but they also say they have over forty colleges and secondary schools, as well as seventy- five orphanages and homes for the aged.

They have magazines and periodicals and a nationwide radio and TV program, so they must get together for some meetings, unless they do all of their business over the Internet,

I went to the site you cited. I read it. Connie, either you didn't bother to read it very closely, in which case you are simply mistaken thru negligence, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what it says. I will assume the first to be true.

Here are the two paragraphs you specifically refer to above, as they appear on the site:

Members of the church of Christ conduct forty colleges and secondary schools, as well as seventy-five orphanges and homes for the aged. There are approximately 40 magazines and other periodicals published by individual members of the church. A nationwide radio and television program, known as "The Herald of Truth" is sponsored by the Highland Avenue church in Abilene, Texas. Much of its annual budget of $1,200,000 is contributed on a free-will basis by other churches of Christ. The radio program is currently heard on more than 800 radio stations, while the television program is now appearing on more than 150 stations. Another extensive radio effort known as "World Radio" owns a network of 28 stations in Brazil alone, and is operating effectively in the United States and a number of other foreign countries, and is being produced in 14 languages. An extensive advertising program in leading national magazines began in November 1955. There are no conventions, annual meetings, or official publications. The "tie that binds" is a common loyalty to the principles of the restoration of New Testament Christianity.

Note well what it says, Connie. It says nothing about the "denomination" having colleges, or magazines, or orphan's and aged homes, or radio programs, or anything of the kind. It says, "MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST conduct...colleges" and homes for the prhaned and aged. It talks of magazines and periodicals "published by INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of the church." It speaks of a nationwide tv and radio program sponsored by AN INDIVIDUAL CHURCH in Abilene, which is helped by FREE-WILL GIFTS FROM INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES.

You have mis-represented us, here and in other threads. Did you do so mistakenly, or did you do so knowingly?

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

HTML fix.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

All:

My soul is safely in the care of Jesus.

I imagine the Holy Spirit is groaning with sadness that He no longer has your ears.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Danny:

I think I've figured out why you are so rude.

Either you are VERY young, or you didn't have a mother.

I have continually used only Scripture to support my positions, but you completely ignore them. I will quit throwing my pearls before swine.

A BROTHER OFFENDED IS HARDER TO BE WON. You make the Word of God of non effect by your traditions.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Connie,

He don't Need my ears, because He already has my mouth the speak the glories of his Salvation.

Oh for a thousand tongues to sing.......................!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Connie,

With your comment about Danny's mother, you have just crossed the line of good morals, human decency, and Biblical love. It has now occured to me, you are not here to promote heretical doctrine, you must be Satan incarnate !

If insulting someone's mother is the best you have, all I can say to you is "get thee behind me, Satan".

After this escapade, it is time to stop giving ear to your garbage. Like Jesus told His Disciples, "don't cast your pearls before swine"(Matt 7:6).

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Connie: You say --

All: My soul is safely in the care of Jesus.

I imagine the Holy Spirit is groaning with sadness that He no longer has your ears.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 08, 2000.

So, does this mean that you cannot, or will not, answer my direct question? That would say a lot about your argumentation method.

I find more than a couple of things to be common between you and Barry and Mark. First, you change the definitions of things that we say, and make them to say things we never did. That's a pretty easy way to justify one side of an argument, but it is not honest. For instance, Barry says that we claim to add to the finished work of Christ on the cross, when we actually do no such thing. But that doesn't seem to matter to him. He says it anyway.

Second, you assert that you give scriptural backing for the argumants you make, and that we don't bother answering them. That is as far from the truth as it can be. The fact that you don't like the scriptural arguments we make to you doesn't mean that we don't make them. In fact, we can say exactly the same about you and Barry and Mark. We send toward you our best understanding of the whole counsel of God. Your disagreement doesn't negate the fact that we have answered, some of us in pages and pages of scripture reference. To say that we don't is dishonest.

Third, when we classify your arguments as wrong-headed and scripturally deficient, or when we put labels on the arguments, such as Calvinistic or racist or Faith Only or just plain silly, you all claim to have been terribly injured. You say that we are name- callers. And yet, in one thread, you classify our positions as "heretical". The labelling of argument by what it is does not equal denigrative name-calling. To say that someone is a Calvinist is to say that they follow or proclaim teachings identical or closely similar to John Calvin. Truth in labelling is not denigrating, except as far as the label correctly describes error.

So if you want to shy away from argument, fine. This is a place for the discussion, sometimes heated, of what is true. If that's not for you, there are manyu other forums you would surely enjoy. You are more than wlecome to stay and participate, as far as I have any say (which I really don't). But if you do, expect that when you say something that someone else believes is not true, you will be directly challenged to show scripturally why you say what you say, and you will be expected to allow others to do the same. We are all required to live by those standards here.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Dragonslayer:

I agree that repentant people should be forgiven - - and the last I looked, so does God!

I heard Jim Baaker's testimony and how he now knows he was wrong, and apparently his life is complerely changed. He did, however, insist that he didn't defraud anyone, and that his defense lawyer did not present all of the evidense he could have; also, the Judge in his case was biased against him. But he was wrong (and I condemned his behavior, very forcefully) concerning the adultery, but believe him in regard to the fraud.

He was very repentant and very humble when I heard him on some television show; he was working in some mission, and had almost no belongings. He said he absolutely did not know that what he was teaching was in error - - the 'name-it-and-claim-it', prosperity gospel. until he was isolated and could only talk to God and read his Bible.

I was never an admirer of his before, but he seems to have been refined by fire.

I have no respect for Tammie, however. If she was repentant, I never heard her say so.

If the sinner is repentant, forgiveness is at the crux of our faith. I cannot understand such a hard, unforgiving attitude. I'm sure glad my Savior is not like that!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

I can see that things have really heated up since my contribution to this thread. With all the different accusations that have been flying I decided to reread all the threads. Here are my observations for what they are worth.

First, Scott, I disagree with you that our view of the end times has anything to do with leadership. I may not understand much about all the different views yet, but one thing I have studied is leadership. Leadership is strictly influence. I know men who are spiritual scoundrels and yet they have a tremendous following. I know men who are spiritual giants and can't grow a church because they don't understand leadership. What Biblical views we hold very rarely has anything to do with the fact of whether or not we can lead a group of people or if a group of people are willing to follow our leadership. Did you know that most churches take on the characteristics and personality of the minister within five years or the minister is gone within five years. I've known doctrinely sound men who have been let go because they could not lead the church. I believe that our view on the end times when presented with credibility strengthens us as a person in our congregation's eyes and in that sense it does strengthen our leadership. You also said that a person with a weak view of the church should not be leading. I would venture to say that everyone who is in a leadership position in the church has weaknesses that would cause some to think that we have no business leading. That's part of leadership.

Second, Connie, I have several things I want to say to you but above all I want you to understand that I am speaking the truth in love. You would not get angry if you understood the debate style that many of those who contribute to this thread have. One of our professors, the late Dr. Roger Chambers, was a master at debating by using sarcasm and the I call it as I see it philosophy. Several of those who debate in this forum use that style. They are not being UnChrist like and having tongues of fire or sharp tongues is a part of debate. The only personal attacks were by you, Philip, me, and Mark which came later because he was defending his friend. I will address my comments about Danny in a minute. I know that you felt offended and lashed back because of that. But let me remind you that Jesus taught us up on the cross not to retaliate even when we have been wronged. I also like the analogy of words are like toothpaste, once they've been squeezed you cannot put them back in. I also want you to understand something about the Christian Church. All Christian churches are different. You can attend one Christian Church and it can be completely different from another one that you attend. I admit touched some of our churches still lean toward legalism but many of them do not anymore. We are nondenominational and have a loose brotherhood. Each church has its own personality and doctrinal slants. You also said a brother offended is hard to win. I don't believe any of these men who have contributed to this forum are trying to win other brothers. They all want to win the lost. When it comes to fellow Christians they are just debating their position and giving others something to think about and research in the Scriptures. I want to make one last comment concerning your last entry to me. The facts you gave me about Jimmy Baker were interesting. John Maxwell, my guru, told about a time that he and Jimmy were speaking at the same conference. He said he was touched by Jimmy's sincerity of repentance. However, we are to forgive people even if they are not repentant. Only God is to bring wrath and he will only do that to those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. However, that does not mean we have to let them walk all over us again or even respect them. We are just to forgive male and let God handle the punishment.

Third, Danny, I first want to say that you are correct in saying that you have not attacked anyone, except Jimmy Baker. I apologize for calling you a chauvinist. However, I do think your remark about a typical woman was a chauvinistic remark. And when I called you dogmatic I thought you would consider that a complement as Dr. Chambers did so often. I to struggle with chauvinistic remarks at times and there are things I am dogmatic about as well. In Dallas a few years ago at a leadership conference the Lord ripped my heart out and stuff it back in making me realize there is a fine line between self confidence and humility which we are instructed to have in Scripture. I do have a question for you however, from your post on March 7th do you believe that there is no unfulfilled prophecy in the book of Revelation? I believe even Prof. Bourne in his commentary that tower of truth says there are a few prophecies in Revelation. I have another question. In your comments about the Holy Spirit are you saying that the Holy Spirit does not guide us at all? If so, then you need to do hominem Scriptural study on the Holy Spirit which I just did. Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit lives inside of us and guide us in all aspects of our lives. The Scriptures are food for the Holy Spirit and the the Holy Spirit will never lead us against any teaching in the Bible. If you have never experienced the Holy Spirit working and moving in your life, then you don't know what you're missing because it is incredible when he works and you know that it is Him. I know for me the Holy Spirit guide to me as I prepare my messages and make important decisions in my life.

Fourth, Philip, I tell you what I told Connie I have some things I want to say to you and I want you to know I am speaking the truth in love. I found it humorous that you forcefully tell everyone to tone down the sarcasm, the bombastic innuendos, the ad hominem, character assassination's and then say whoever doesn't agree with this nice guy philosophy is not a sane person and doesn't even have a minimum amount of intelligence and are died in the wool fanatics. You were doing what you asked everyone to stop. And then you expect no one to challenge your words. Danny wasn't angry or wrathful. He was telling it like he sees it. That's called debating. And he is right that he never attacked anyone except Jimmy Baker of course. And he never attacked your character or anyone else's. Yet, you called Him a pig headed fanatic that just want to be macho. As a male myself I know how hard it can be not to be a little macho sometimes. If a man is going to error, I would rather him be macho then this new efimenate man. And when did he write you off as some poor devil without a spine. I never read that. Honestly, the only verbal abuse I saw was yours to him. I don't agree with all of Danny's assertions and positions and I can see how his straightforward talk can be taken as a lack of tact and portrayed as offensive if you do not understand that is a debate style.

Fifth, Mark, I think you are pushing it a bit to challenge someone's salvation. Only God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Our job is to plant and water. God gives the increase. You say Connie stepped over the line and she did not so did you by calling her Satan incarnate. And the Holy Spirit does want you're ears and mouth. He wants us to listen and speak for him. I know you were defending a friend and I admire your loyalty but don't attack others as you are defending your friend.

Sixth, Sam, is not the site you pulled up talking about non- instrumental Church of Christ? Also, who is Barry and Mark? And where were their claims posted? And what you had to say was very good.

Seventh, Darrell, what you had to say was excellent as well.

Now that I have put my two cents worth in, I would like for you to do something for me. I would like an Amill to briefly tell me their position and give Scriptures to support it. And I would like a Pre- mill to give me their position and Scriptures to support it.

Dragonslayer

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Sorry for the type o's and if something seems jumbled in the above thread. I tried a new program where I speak and it types but it still has some bugs. Sorry!

Dragonslayer

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Dragonslayer, I must respectfully disagree with you on this matter of Danny being a chauvinist or at the least making a chauvinist comment. Let me preempt my remarks by saying that I make this comment not in defense of Danny because he needs no such defense, but because of my observations of 40 some yrs in the church (Lest you think I'm really old that includes my childhood.) Danny has heard me say over and over how embarrassed I am at how women operate on emotion rather than logic. Unfortunately it manifests itself like the arguements by some women on this forum and worse yet the problems women create in the church. I have already discussed this at length on an old thread but suffice it to say this happens when women usurp their God given roles as one of support and try instead to lead. There's not a soul on this forum who can vouch for Danny's respect for women more than me, his wife of 23 yrs. It might be an interesting thread this idea of operating on emotion rather than logic and the whole idea of biblical submission. But then again I'd probably get the same "Deer in the headlight look" I always get when discussing this issue.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2000

Jenny, I'm so glad you responded. Your explaination helps me to understand where Danny's comment was coming from. And besides your support of Danny tells me alot. My favorite defintion of success is from John Maxwell, "When those closest to you love and respect you the most!" It appears as though Danny is a blessed and successful man. Now, about this emotion rather than logic thread. I think that would be very interesting. You say many times woman operate on emotion rather than logic. I think I would take that a step further. I think most people, male and female, operate on emotion rather than logic. But I think God created us to be emotional beings. So the question to me is where is the proper balance between logic and emotion. A question Dr. Spock(Star Trek not the no discipline guy) and many others need to think about. And on Biblical Submission that part of the thread could be very interesting. I have books on my shelf that say everything from a woman is to be silent and do nothing to a woman can do anything and everything and they all give tons of Scripture to support their view. If you create a new thread on this let me know. Dragonslayer

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Jenny;

You wrote:

Danny has heard me say over and over how embarrassed I am at how women operate on emotion rather than logic. Unfortunately it manifests itself like the arguements by some women on this forum and worse yet the problems women create in the church.

Perhaps this is why Paul said women shouldn't speak in church? >GRIN<

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Very Funny John(also with a grin,) I haven't decided if I want to be "goaded" into a discussion of this. It is funny that Dragonslayer brings up the "logic vs emotion" issue, it was a topic in SS last week. Women and biblical submission is a totally different can of worms though. I'll think about it and decide if I have the energy to take you guys on. HA!

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Scott,

Concerning Matthew 24 and the tribulation.

You say ... "Jesus does not begin talking about His 2nd Coming until verse 36. In verse 34 He states that THAT generation would not pass away until everything He had been speaking of was fulfilled. So no matter what your millennial viewpoint, everything previous to verse 36 must be understood in light of the events of THAT generation (i.e., the generation of the apostles), and I believe it can be done quite easily. All we have to do is give up pre-conceived ideas."

I'm having a little trouble here concerning verses 30-31. Am I correct in understanding you...that these verses also refer to "THAT generation"? "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect form the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

Please look at verse 36... "No one knows about THAT DAY hour, not even the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father." What day or hour is Jesus referring to? It seems to me that when He says "that day" He is referring back to verses 30-31... the day/hour when they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

It is not so easy I think to give up pre-conceived ideas, we all bring baggage to the table.

Thanks

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

D. Lee,

This is a lot easier than the last question you asked of me (which, when I complete what I am writing on it will send you a copy. I am still unsettled in my conclusions but most definitely have a better understanding).

To start with, I would suggest that when doing serious Bible study, avoid the NIV unless you have access to understanding the Greek. Because of their translation (?) method, it lends itself to a great deal of interpretation rather than translation. This may be another good idea for a discussion thread. The NIV does not try to stay close to the original wording of the Greek. They take whats called a dynamic equivalence approach, which means that they tried to communicate the thoughts or the writer rather than his words. This opens itself right up to interpreting by the translators.

Verse 34 is a hard verse to get around, 34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.(NASB) Jesus said this AFTER (not yelling, just emphasizing) He spoke of the heavenly sign.

Also, verse 30 has reference to Daniel chapter 7:13, I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. Here we see Jesus (the Son of Man) is coming to the Father. This is not the Second Coming. It is the Ascension. The Tribes are the 12 tribes of Israel and they mourn because their time as Gods only people is over. With the Ascension of Jesus and 10 days later the events at Pentecost, the Old Covenant came to an end with an exclamation mark.

As per v. 31, And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. The word angels simply means messenger and the context determines what kind of messenger it is. His angels are messengers (i.e., Christians following the Great Commission) who have a great trumpet which is the Gospel. They will convert people from all over the world (the four winds). The word sky is literally heavens (Gr. = ouranos)

32 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;"

Just as you can tell when summer is near, you need to be watchful of when this destruction of Jerusalem will occur.

33 "So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door." 34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

Verse 34 is key to understanding this passage. Everything He has discussed so far will occur to the generation that was then living. But do not despair for 

35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. What He is telling the disciples is that the fall of Jerusalem is not the end of everything.

36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Notice the shift from those days (vv. 19, 22, 29) to that day and hour. Jesus now begins to answer the second question that the apostles asked Him back in verse 3. The first part was Tell us when these things will happen and then Jesus spends the next 32 verses explaining the remark about not one stone on top of another. Then He shifts to talking about part 2 of the question, What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age? Im certain that the apostles/disciples thought they were asking one question which is probably what prompted Jesus to say what He did in v. 35. But, of THAT DAY and hour no one knows. He then goes into three parables about being prepared for the Master/Bridegroom to come. No signs, no warnings  the only warning is, BE PREPARED!

I highly recommend a book called An Eschatology of Victory by Marcellus Kik. He spends the whole book exegeting Mathew 24 and Revelation 20. And he does a much better job than I do here. Hope this helps. I look forward to the response.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Scott:

Just one observation :

I believe the 'this generation' reference is to the generation which will see these things (ours).

Gotta Go! I LOVE this thread!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

And John:

That's why I said on an earlier thread that no less an authority than the Apostle Paul said that: 'there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, MALE OR FEMALE but we are all one in Christ'.

Also, I will not try to teach our pastor or elders or talk in th e worship services. And I am submitted to my husband, and just as important, prefer him over any other man.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Scott;

Good answer! Good answer! (clapping inanely like a Family Feud contestant)

I always try to keep an open mind on these things, and, quite frankly, the "this generation" thing always really bugged me. I too noted the switch in tense in verse 36. Your take on it makes a lot of sense.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Mr. Batman,

Thanks for the kind words. As I told you before, you can call me Capt. America, but don't tell anyone else - secret identity and alter ego stuff, you know.

Connie,

I am not trying to be unkind here (really) but if we all just approach the Scriptures with the same attitude as you state above then a lot of things are not going to be true because I/we choose not to accept it. To just come out and say "I believe ..." without offering any reason for doing so doesn't cut it in the art of persuasion. Quite frankly, I don't care what you believe unless you can show from the Word of God why. You may believe you are a turnip for all I know (I am being facetious) and unless you give me reasons to believe I will not accept it.

This is exactly what I meant by leaving pre-conceived ideas out of the discussion. I have given several reasons for understanding this particular Scripture as I do and offered reasons for it. Whether I be right or wrong is to be determined, but there were reasons given. I did not just tell D. Lee that "I believe ..." without offering reasons.

I'm not trying to jump on you, just getting it straight.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Exactly the problem everyone has with Nelta. She says "I believe ..." but then she says "I can't show you from the word of God why I believe it, I just do." Or words to that effect.

Unfortunately we have become an opinion-driven society rather than a fact-driven society. Whatever I "think" must be true, regardless of whether there are any facts to back it up or not. One person's opinion is just as valid as another's. All "truths" are relative in today's world.

It is a kind of intellectual suicide; people just don't want to be bothered with taking the time to think through the reasons why they believe the way they do, they just "feel" it in their heart and that makes it so. Its kinda like the Mormon's "burning in the bosom." You can give all the reasons from scripture why they are dead wrong, and they will say, "oh, but I have my testimony, I have my 'burning in the bosom,' so I know its true!" As the saying goes, "I believe what I believe, don't confuse me with the facts."

I really enjoy spending time at the "Stand to Reason" website (www.str.org). Even though the guy's a Calvinist! LOL! Because the whole point of the website is to train Christians to THINK! To use their gray matter for something other than trivial pursuit. To reason through apologetic syllogisms, philosophical conundrums, to get your brain working and stand up for the Christian position on important issues of the day. As he says, Christianity is "worth thinking about." And that's something that, sadly, most Christians today just don't do.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Scott:

I was in a hurry, but I

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

That's what I call a hurry

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Scott:

I was in a hurry, but I do have Scriptural reasons. I am still in a hurry, but I will get back to you.

I considered your response respectful. I don't mind honest confrontation, but put-downs (which I resorted to a couple of times after I had been insulted and ridiculed) and snide insinuations have no place in a public discussion; but then it's not my forum.

I am still committed to responding to Lee's questions, but feel that Benjamin is correct on that issue. Some things are paradoxical.

Every time I have stated my position, I have given multiple Bible references. Go back and print the threads. I was attacked first, as well; but I want to relegate that to the past.

I mentioned that because I wanted to throw it out so the sharks could attack it. Sort of like a 'troll' post.

I didn't say I was right. I said 'I believe thus-and-such.'

Show me where that is wrong. I have had to change ideas I've held for 40 years, as proof has come to me that I should. I am sure I am still wrong about a lot of things.

God has my ear. He'll let me know what those things are.

In a hurry. (I'm checking the threads, 'cause I've been gone - I have to find my references to answer your question.)

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

"I was in a hurry, but I ..."

LOL @ Connie! Hahaha!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Connie,

Jesus spent the first 33 verses of Mt 24 speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem that would occur roughly 38 years later. Then He said that "This generation" is who would see these things.

You said you'd get back to me about a question I asked you, but I do not remember asking you one. But here is one: How do you get from the generation that saw the destruction of Jerusalem to today's generation outside of just plain wanting to? Again, no disrespect is to be implied - I am dealing strictly with the issue, but it is a valid question.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

NASB Matthew 24

24:1 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 24:2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what {will be} the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...THE END OF THE AGE?....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24:4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no ones misleads you.

24:5 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. 24:6 "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for {those things} must take place, but {that} is not yet the end. 24:7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 24:8 "But all these things are {merely} the beginning of birth pangs. 24:9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 24:10 "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 24:11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 24:12 "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. 24:13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM SHALL BE PREACHED IN THE WHOLE WORLD AS A TESTIMONY TO ALL THE NATIONS, AND THEN THE END WILL COME".

THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS NOT THE WHOLE WORLD; IT WAS JUST A REGIONAL, THOUGH LARGE AREA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24:15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 24:16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 24:17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.

24:18 "Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 24:19 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 24:20 "But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 24:22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 24:23 "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There {He is,}' do not believe {him.}

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DO NOT BELIEVE HIM.

[THIS MEANS HE HASN'T COME YET].

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

24:24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 24:25 "Behold, I have told you in advance. 24:26 "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, {or,} 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe {them.}

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24:27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24:28 "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. 24:29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[HAS THIS HAPPENED? WHEN? WHO WROTE ABOUT IT?] 24:31 "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

[Capitalized in the NASB] 24:32 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24:33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 24:38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 24:39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 24:40 "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.

24:41 "Two women {will be} grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. 24:42 "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 24:43 "But be sure of this, that if R1314 the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 24:44 "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think {He will.} 24:45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 24:46 "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 24:47 "Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 24:48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 24:49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 24:50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect {him} and at an hour which he does not know, 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AND EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was an interesting thread.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Well Connie,

It took you over a year to get back to my question, which you have yet to answer. How do you get from the generation that saw the destruction of Jerusalem to today's generation outside of just plain wanting to?

Your comments concerning the whole world are easily answered. You must not try to apply 20th, I mean 21st century uses of speech to Jesus' 1st century wording. In Romans 1:8 Paul says, "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world." Was Paul mistaken or exagerating? No he was not. He was speaking the same kind of speech that Jesus used.

He says in Colossians 1:5 & 6 that "because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;" According to Paul, the Gospel message had already been preached throughout the would within 30 years of Pentecost. I said it a year ago and I still say it, we must lose our pre-conceived ideas.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Scott

If you have time, I need help with 24.30

Faris

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Hello, Scott,

Well, we wil probably never agree on this since you are a preterist- amillennialist and i am a pre-wrath to post-trib pre-millennialist.

One has to suspend reason to agree with the preterist-amillennialist position, not the least of which is the dating of the writing of the Revelation ~ 96 A.D., by th e historical record.

According to your theory, Revelation would have had to have been wriitten much before 70 A.D.

Most of the early church fathers had a post-tribu;ation, pre- millennial view. They, for the most part, were still looking for the 'epiphaneia', the 'apokalusis' and the 'parousia':

24:29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Typos:

'will'

'I'

'the'

'post-millennial'

Didn't proof-read. :-(

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Most of the early church fathers had a post-tribu;ation, pre- millennial view. They, for the most part, were still looking for the 'epiphaneia', the 'apokalusis' and the 'parousia':

'post-tribulation'

'apokalupsis'

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Faris - I'll respond to you later tonight when I have more time.

Connie - You're barking up the wrong tree. I am not a preterist. I am an amillinnialist. Might I suggest that you go back and reread this thread. I believe that Revelation was written @ 96-98.

The early Church fathers believed a lot of stuff, as I do. Just because they, you, or I believe it don't make it so (improper grammar used only for emphasis). Plus, they were not in agreement most of the time about most issues. You are painting with a broad brush.

You still have yet to answer my question I asked over a year ago: How do you get from the generation that saw the destruction of Jerusalem to today's generation outside of just plain wanting to? I took myself off of my self-imposed exile from the forum just so that you might answer this question.

Also, quoting the verse in it's entirety does not answer the question about what it means. I'm sure that Faris had already read the verse and that is why he asked the question.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

He was speaking to the generation which would see all these things ~ the final one of history.

If Revelation was written in 96-98 A.D. and the destruction of the temple was in 70 A.D., how could the Revelation verses apply to the destruction of the temple?

And to Danny: Where is there any comfort in Revelation until the end when Mystery Babylon, the Red Dragon beast of a government, and the false prophet are defeated and thrown into the abyss (chaos-Greek)? Up until that time, the only comfort people will have will be in Christ.

Up until that time, there are many very grave occurrences.

I am also a futurist, as you can tell. So were most of the early church fathers.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

From another forum:

A Pearl Of Great Price ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hey y'all! I just couldn't pass this up. I was studying and came across this great "pearl" about the Apostle Paul and his views on eschatology. This is a quote from Nelson's Bible Dictionary on the Apostle Paul. I thought it was awesome

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- PAUL THE APOSTLE Paul originally held the views of eschatology which were taught in the Pharisaic schools. When Paul became a Christian, he found no need to abandon the eschatological teaching which he had received at the feet of Gamaliel. But his experience of Christ did bring about some important modifications of his views.

The distinction between the present age and the age to come was basic to this teaching. The present age was subject to evil influences which affected the lives and actions of men and women. The God of righteousness and truth, however, was in control of the situation. One day He would bring in a new age from which evil would be banished.

The Pharisees taught that the end of the present age and beginning of the new age would be marked by the resurrection of the dead. Whether all the dead would be raised or only the righteous among them was a matter of debate. In Paul stated before the governor, Felix, that he shared the hope "that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." In his letters he spoke only of the resurrection of believers in Christ, perhaps because it was to such people that his letters were written.

An important question was the relation of this framework to the messianic hope. When would the Messiah, the expected ruler of David's line, establish his kingdom? His kingdom might mark the closing phase of the present age; it might be set up with the inauguration of the age to come; or it might occupy a phase between the two ages. There was no general agreement on this question.

Another question on which there was no general agreement concerned the extent to which the Messiah would revoke or replace the law of Moses.

When Paul was confronted with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road, he realized that the Messiah had come and that in Him the resurrection had begun to take place. Having been raised from the dead, Christ had now entered upon His reign. The age of the Spirit for His people on earth coincided with the reign of Christ in His place of exaltation in the presence of God. There "He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet" <1 Cor. 15:25>. The present age had not yet come to an end, because men and women, and especially the people of Christ, still lived on earth in mortal bodies. But the resurrection age had already begun, because Christ had been raised.

The people of Christ, while living temporarily in the present age, belong spiritually to the new age which has been inaugurated. The benefits of this new age are already made good to them by the Spirit. The last of the enemies which are to be subdued by Christ is death. The destruction of death will coincide with the resurrection of the people of Christ. Paul wrote, "Each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming" <1 Cor. 15:23>. The eternal kingdom of God will be consummated at that time.

The resurrection of the people of Christ, then, takes place at His coming again. In one of his earliest letters Paul said that, when Christ comes, "the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" <1 Thes. 4:16-17>.

Further details are provided in <1 Corinthians 15:42-57>.

When the last trumpet announces the Second Coming of Christ, the dead will be raised in a "spiritual body" replacing the mortal body which they wore on earth. Those believers who are still alive at the time will undergo a similar change to fit them for the new conditions. These new conditions, the eternal kingdom of God, are something which "flesh and blood cannot inherit"; they make up an imperishable realm which cannot accommodate the perishable bodies of this present life <1 Cor. 15:50>.

The assurance that the faithful departed would be present at the Second Coming of Christ was a great comfort to Christians whose friends and relatives had died. But the question of their mode of existence between death and the Second Coming remained to be answered. Paul's clearest answer to this question was given shortly after a crisis in which he thought he faced certain death <2 Cor. 1:8- 11>.

Paul answered that to be "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" <2 Cor. 5:8>. Whatever provision is required for believers to enjoy the same communion with Christ after death as they enjoyed before death will certainly be supplied <2 Cor. 5:1-10>. Or, as he put it when the outcome of his trial before Caesar was uncertain, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain," for to die would mean to "be with Christ, which is far better" .

The church as a whole and its members as individuals could look forward to a consummation of glory at the Second Coming of Christ. But the glory is not for them alone. In a vivid passage, Paul describes how "the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God" . This will liberate it from the change and decay to which it is subject at present and allow it to obtain "the glorious liberty of the children of God" . In man's first disobedience brought a curse on the earth. Paul looked forward to the removal of that curse and its replacement by the glory provided by the obedience of Christ, the "second Man" <1 Cor. 15:47>. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

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

Awesome! I especially like the part that said "when the last trumpet announces the Second Coming of Christ"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Great, Scott! I never can see how intelligent, reasonable people can be preterists, or even partial preterists.

And, if you will notice, I answer questions the way I want, not the others may want me to. ;-) ;-)

Affectionately,

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Connie, there are intellegent Preterists - many of them. I disagree with them, but that does not mean that they do not have their reasons for holding to their position. I see much more sense in the Preterist view than I do the Dispensational Premillinnial (DP) view. The Preterist interprets through history, as does the Amillennial position. The DP view interprets through the daily newspaper headlines, which is why the view changes every few years. But I have even known some intellegent DP's; some, but not many.

Just because someone disagrees does not make them unintellegent - unless they hold a view simply because they want to rather than examining the facts.

COncerning the date of Revelation: How does the date of the Book of Revelation affect what Jesus was speaking about in Matthew 24, which has been the passage under discussion? You seem to have the tail wagging the dog (which I find is not uncommon among DPs) by demanding that Jesus must mean the same as your interpretation of Rev or it must be wrong. You should be interpreting Rev by what Jesus said in Matthew and other places. Also, just because similar wording is used in places does not mean that it has the EXACT same meaning.

I have to go to Bible Study tonight. Later.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Well, I consider dispensationalism to be pure nonsense.

So don't paint me with your broad brush, either.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Faris,

Mt 24:30 has a quote of Daniel 7:13 in it. Daniel is speaking of the ascension where Jesus, the Son of Man, is coming to the Ancient of Days. Jesus is not earthbound, He is heavenbound. With that in mind,"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky (literally "heavens" Gr=ouranos), and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn" 30a

Notice that it says "tribes" and not "nations." "Nations" always refers to the Gentiles. They would not be the ones to mourn, it would instead be "the tribes" meaning the Jews (aka 12 tribes of Israel). Why would they be mourning? Several possibilities: 1. With the sign of Christ (and the Kingdom it brings forth, i.e., the Church), the Jews are no longer God's special people. 2. The sign of Christ is a guarentee of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem; and there may be several other possibilities.

The sign of the Son of Man is the same thing as "they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with great glory" which is the ascension. Don't forget that the ascension was as glorious an event as the 2nd coming will be. It was said that "This Jesus, Who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come IN JUST THE SAME WAY as you have watched Him go into Heaven" (Acts 1:11). If the 2nd Coming WILL BE glorious, so too WAS the Ascension.

Notice too that in verse 31 that the Son of Man would send forth His angels (messengers) with a Great Trumpet (the Gospel message) and they will gather together His elect from the four winds . . .(i.e., from all over the world). That is exactly what happened at the ascension. He gave the Great commission just before going. "Go therefore and make disciples (the trumpet) of all nations (the four winds), baptizing . . .

I do not believe that this passage is necessarily in chronological order. The ancients just didn't write that way. Instead what we see are events occuring during the 40 year time period of the destruction of Jerusalem (i.e., the time between the cross and the destruction, Acts 2:40).

However in verse 36 Jesus gets very specific, dealing only with a particular hour and day, THE day, and it is one where no signs are given except to be prepared.

If I remember correctly I have broken down this passage somewhere above on this thread.

BTW, according to Eusebius, when Jerusalem fell, he says that not a single Christian perished due to a prophecy of Jesus. I am convinced that this is the prophecy he is refering to. As my favorite Bible College prof used to say, "I can't prove it so it's a good thing I'm right." ;o)

Let me know if I can do or say anything more. I am flattered that you asked, thank you very much.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

BTW, the Eusebius reference is his History of the Church 3.5

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Faris, I received your email on my computer at my office and left the email address there. I am now home so I thought I would reply here.

You are way too kind. I truly appreciate what you said. I do not put out a newsletter although Oscar and I are talking about putting one together. Trying to make one that is worth putting out AND bi-lingual is a difficult task. It sounds a lot easier than it is. In the meantime, feel free to visit our web site at www.CCCflorida.org. There are a lot of studies and articles there. Most, but not all of them are by me. You would especially enjoy the articles by Roger Chambers. He was the most brilliant man I've ever known.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Depends on what mood I'm in :o)

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

I put a quote in the old "Left behind " thread from Justin Martyr. he believed that Christ woudl return and that Christians would be in Jeruslaem with the prophets for a thousand years. He considered those who held different views to be off on their doctrine. He treated the issue as if it were the standard belief of the church of his day. Amillinealism seems to have been a later development. It probably got such a loyal following in later centuries because Augustine supported that view. Some think Augustine was quite a theological innovator.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

Justin may have felt that way, I've not looked into it. Depending on which of the "Church fathers" you look to, you will get a different angle on things. Each felt their viewpoint was, or else should be, the orthodox position. We all do that in discussing things. The majority of them were post-millenialists. What does that prove? Are we going to determine truth by a hand count?

Who believed what is not, nor should it ever be what our concern is. My concern (since I can only speak for myself) is for what is true. That's all! I am a part of the Restoation Movement, but only so far as it's purpose to restore the New Testament teachings to the Church. I do not hearken back to find out what Campbell or Stone, etc., may have believed to figure out what I believe. I have, and do, go back to see what they may add to my understanding, but what they believed about a particular issue does not sway me one way or the other. Neither does Justin, Turtullian, Ireneus, Clement, et al. Truth is the goal, not what others have said or believed.

Augustine was indeed an innovator. He conbined Greek mysticism with Christianity and came up with something new, yet old. When the Reformation began, first with Luther and later with Calvin, their goal was to go back to Augustine, not the 1st century Church. Both Lutheran doctrine and Calvinism are based on Augustinianism.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2001

I get your point. On the other hand, if a particular viewpoint or interpretation only came into being around, say, 300 AD, that information might be important.

I don't think most of the church fathers were 'postmillienalist.' Inthe 300's, there were some _amillinealists_. But I'm no expert on this. I got that from a secondary source.

Amil seems to have come from methods of allegorical interpretation- with the influence of Origen and later Augustine. Eusebius was amil, I think.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2001

Bump

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001