|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 23, 2003 17:04:17 GMT -5
I don't find the words of Revelation 3 as evidence of the 2nd Coming as already having happened. (the folks in Sardis woke up, repented, etc.) TarueBeliever I think the book of Revelation was written before the 2nd Coming not after. I also am confused by your reference to the folks of Sardis.. and what it is you are responding to. I may be a little slow tonight...
|
|
|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 23, 2003 17:06:02 GMT -5
oh and if my child tried to lead a lion around he would be eaten! I don't see what that has to do with living in New heavens and New earth.. Did I miss something? God gave Adam and Eve dominion over all the animals, why wouldnt we then have that same dominion? I believe we do but it is by unbelief and immaturity that we are not claiming our gifts of inheritance.
|
|
|
Post by AJoyfulHeart on Jul 23, 2003 18:41:14 GMT -5
so go romp and play with a lion play with a bushmaster or better yet if you have faith than you can send your child to do that right? I don't see what that has to do with living in New heavens and New earth.. Did I miss something? God gave Adam and Eve dominion over all the animals, why wouldnt we then have that same dominion? I believe we do but it is by unbelief and immaturity that we are not claiming our gifts of inheritance.
|
|
|
Post by parousia70 on Jul 23, 2003 19:38:08 GMT -5
givemelord, I don't find the words of Revelation 3 as evidence of the 2nd Coming as already having happened. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.Revelation 3:2-3 (NIV) Christ said, " if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief ... " This is a logical proposition, as in if -A then B. In such a proposition, B can be false even if the propostion is valid ... only A needs to be true (the folks in Sardis woke up, repented, etc.) TarueBeliever Tarue, I believe it was me you were responding to. Your explaination would work if the time (and fact) of the 2nd coming (the one and only coming as a theif taught in scripture) was dependant on whether or not human beings repented. The time of the 2nd coming was FIXED by God to ocourr only once in history, and it was FIXED before Christ was crucified. The "if" is simply referring to how that one and only coming would effect them. IF they repented, they would escape, IF they did not, they would be destroyed. The fact of the 2nd coming is not conditional upon repentance as you seem to be saying.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 24, 2003 8:08:45 GMT -5
parousia70,
Please forgive me, but I am totally lost in this discussion. I'm open minded but somewhat frustrated with the bits and fragments I've read here. I understand what I've read all my life (but I know much of that is based on some sort of interpretation at its heart) I get the gist of some of what you're trying to put forward (though it seems to conflict with historical facts). Is there a text or web site that explains this without using five-syllable words and and telling telling me that "of course everyone knows from the pottery uncovered from archeological digs in Southern Turkery in 1978 shows Gansushmdt's theory ...."
TarueBeliever
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 24, 2003 9:11:22 GMT -5
Yet you still maintain Jesus Lied to them? Also, please show your source that The Church at Sardis was not in existance in 68AD. No, I believe Jesus told the truth. It is your interpretation that I believe is wrong. You are rather caustic in your response, parousia, in claiming that I believe Jesus lied. My source for the church of Smyrna not being in existence in 68 A.D. is Polycarp - a disciple of John himself. It is in Polycarp's writings. And what is glaringly missing in Polycarps's writings, as well as other early Christian writers, are references to the Second Coming as having occurred. Instead, they are looking for the Second Coming.
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 24, 2003 9:25:50 GMT -5
Irenaeus' quote is listed below: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3) All belief in the late date rests upon this one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174. All those that hold to the late date do so because of this one uncertain phrase by Irenaeus, and it is highly controversial as to what Irenaeus said. Are posting a the quote as presented by Gentry? Because the quote itself does not include what you have in the parentheses. Those are additives. The quote is: "For we will not, however, incur the risk of prounoucing positively as to the name of the Antichrist; for it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have be announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For it was seen no long time ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of Dominitan's reign." See how Gentry conviently left out a part, and then tried to make "it" to a "he"? That is bad interpretation techinque!!! We should not be changing quotes so that they fit our desired eschatology!!
|
|
|
Post by parousia70 on Jul 24, 2003 20:32:07 GMT -5
parousia70, Please forgive me, but I am totally lost in this discussion. I'm open minded but somewhat frustrated with the bits and fragments I've read here. I understand what I've read all my life (but I know much of that is based on some sort of interpretation at its heart) I get the gist of some of what you're trying to put forward (though it seems to conflict with historical facts). Is there a text or web site that explains this without using five-syllable words and and telling telling me that "of course everyone knows from the pottery uncovered from archeological digs in Southern Turkery in 1978 shows Gansushmdt's theory ...." TarueBeliever Before I fire off a link or two, I'd like you to examine the ramifications of your stance that the 2nd coming was postponed 2000 years and counting, because the 1st century Christians at Sardis repented. Is it also your contention that the 2nd coming can be avoided entirely if every Human being repents?
|
|
|
Post by parousia70 on Jul 24, 2003 20:37:02 GMT -5
No, I believe Jesus told the truth. It is your interpretation that I believe is wrong. It's one thing to say my interpratation is wrong, and offer an alternative one, but I haven't seen you do that yet. Can you? Jesus promised the Church at Sardis he would come as a theif to them. Did he keep that promise or not? Your position demands Jesus Lied to those people. Can you quote one or two, or put up a link so I , and the rest of our readers, can check your sources? What is glaringly missing from ALL ECF WRITINGS, is ANY unanimity or consitsancy on eschatology.
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 24, 2003 22:57:05 GMT -5
Your position demands Jesus Lied to those people. Your position demands that GOD lied through repeatedly in prophecies that the lion would lie with the lamb, that those who died at 100 would be thought accursed, etc. and that Jesus lied to John when he received the Revelation. It makes light of the promises of God. AND it is not backed up and was not an eschatological viewpoint at all until the 1600's, and then it was not full preterism.
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 24, 2003 23:35:06 GMT -5
Can you quote one or two, or put up a link so I , and the rest of our readers, can check your sources? What is glaringly missing from ALL ECF WRITINGS, is ANY unanimity or consitsancy on eschatology. Actually they were consistent that the Second Coming was future. The earliest known extraBiblical church document, written about 50 years after 70 A.D., has the Second Coming as future, not past. I haven't found a preterist in the ECF. Regarding the church of Smyrna, Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and wrote a letter to the church in Phillipi in 110 A.D. (approx.). He tells them that Paul had boasted about them "in whose midst Paul labored" and that it was in a time before "we" (Smyrna) knew the Lord. Now add that to the statement by Iranaeus (120 - 202 A.D.) that "it", the Revelation, "was seen no long time ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of Dominitan's reign". That is weighty evidence. And there is no independent record of banishment of Christians by Nero, but Roman historian Dio pkmtyolcius did write that those who were unjustly banished by Dominitan were released in 96 A.D., which fits the statement by Iranaeus and Victorinus, and many others. Nero killed and tortured Chrisitans. He didn't banish them.
|
|
|
Post by parousia70 on Jul 25, 2003 8:46:19 GMT -5
I'll address your points later, but I must continue to press you to answer the one question you seem to be avoiding like the plague:
Regardless of when Revelation was written, Jesus Promised those at the 1st century Church of Sardis He would come to them as a theif.
Do you believe He kept that promise or not?
|
|
|
Post by parousia70 on Jul 25, 2003 14:50:33 GMT -5
Actually they were consistent that the Second Coming was future. The earliest known extraBiblical church document, written about 50 years after 70 A.D., has the Second Coming as future, not past. I haven't found a preterist in the ECF. Most of the ECF's were preterist, just inconsistant ones. Most taught that the great tribulation, indeeed all of Matt 24, was fulfilled in Jerusalems destruction, yet they still looked for a future return. In Contrast, Jesus and the apostles ALL BELIEVED AND TAUGHT that the 2nd coming would ocour in their lifetimes, synonymous with the destruction of the Old Covenant System and Judgement against apostate Israel, before that prersent generation had pkmtyolped. While the ECF's have been shown to err on several matters, eschatology cheif among them, Jesus and His His apostles could not have erred.
|
|
|
Post by parousia70 on Jul 25, 2003 14:58:57 GMT -5
Your position demands that GOD lied through repeatedly in prophecies that the lion would lie with the lamb, that those who died at 100 would be thought accursed, etc. Just so I am clear, you are referring to the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God right? Also you are referring to the Sinner who lives 100 years in the New Heavens and Earth, and then dies, right? Preterism affirms and upholds the promises made by God. Jesus did not Lie to John when He told John that the "Time was At Hand", Just as God did not Lie to Daniel when He said the time was Far off, not at hand. God dosen't lie, even about the timing of a prophesy's fulfillment. Your theology claims that 2500 years is "far off" but 2000 years is somehow "at hand"?
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 25, 2003 22:31:53 GMT -5
I'll address your points later, but I must continue to press you to answer the one question you seem to be avoiding like the plague: Regardless of when Revelation was written, Jesus Promised those at the 1st century Church of Sardis He would come to them as a theif. Do you believe He kept that promise or not? No, I am not avoiding any question. You responded to a post of mine last week where I had written that I was going out of town to visit family. I have only had alittle time on the computer at my father's house, and it is an old one that is slow. The 7 churches were chosen to represent 7 types of churches and each represents a dominant church of a given period in the history of the church. We are not saved as a church, but as individuals. Those who 'overcome' are not going to be surprized. Those who are surprized at the rapture will be those who are left behind. Now what you may be avoiding is that the church of Smyrna did not exist in Paul's time, and so could not have been addressed in a book written before 70 A.D. Also, do you think Jesus lied when He said that every eye would see Him when He came? Did God lie when He gave Isaiah the prophecy that the lion would lie with the lamb, that a person dying at 100 would be thought accursed (for short life), that peace would reign? Did God lie when He gave Zechariah the prophecy that at the capture of Jerusalem, He would then destroy those who came against Jerusalem? Read Zechariah 14:12-14. Were the Romans seized by a plague that rotted the eyes in the sockets and caused their flesh to rot where they stood? Have all nations sent people to worship at the Feast of Booths in Jerusalem every year since? Did Jesus lie when He said that when these things begin to happen, look up, for your redemption draws nigh? What exactly was the redemption that the Jews received? We are saved by Christ when we believe and accept....so why wait until certain things to look up and see redemption?
|
|