1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Preterism and "This Generation"

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 22, 2004.

  1. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    And the J.W.'s believe that the resurrection of Christ was a "spiritual" resurrection (perhaps one could say allegorical). In other words just his spirit rose not his body. Of course that is no resurrection at all. It is a denial of the resurrection. Every resurrection refers to a bodily resurrection. But for those that allegorize the Bible, like yourself, there is no end. Deny the resurrection. Deny the Millennium. Deny the sacrifice of Christ. Deny anything you want in the Bible. After all it is just a fable, now isn't it.

    Here is what you want to deny, right?
    Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

    Isaiah 11:6-9 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
    8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
    9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

    Just fables??
    DHK
     
  2. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    James Newman

    So, I gather that you believe that when God used the Assyrians (Is.23:13) to devastate the earth (Tyre)with these same type of portents (Is.24:1-4,19-23;34:4)that you see in Matt.24 and Revelation, and also the Assyrians against Babylon (Is.13:10), that you believe that these are literal? Then years later Jeremiah describes the attack and destruction of Judah by Babylon much the same way (Jer.4:23,28:10:2,10;15:9;Zep.1:15), against Egypt by Babylon as well (Ez.30:3;32:7). This type of Language is used throughout by the Old Testament prophets to describe the destruction of these nations and the lamentations that followed! How could you take these literal??? If you do then has the earth re-formed from utter destruction several times over? If you take these as being allegorical and symbolic language (as most sensible people do), then what justifies you to change this apocalyptical type language in the New Testament to fit your needs? Jesus does quote from these prophets several times and never once re-invents or re-interprets their original meaning! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow -- which would be applicable here to the meanings presented above. I have no qualms with you having the understanding that you believe in, James, I just don't understand the inconsistencies with your biblical hermeneutics! The Bible definitly is not all symbolic, nor is it all literal. Being able to understand and comprehend when and where to apply literal and symbolic is the key. In any event I would like to here your take on the OT passages that i presented above.
     
  3. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed

    So if "one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day"(2 Pet.3:8), then maybe the '1000 year reign in Revelation could be one day! Or was Jesus in the grave for three days or three thousand years? Maybe He was in the wilderness being tempted by Satan 40,000 years! You and I both know these are not the proper understandings of these passages, yet using 2 Pet. 3:8 as the model leaves interpretating time in the Bible wide open! 2 Pet. 3:8 was all about informing the people that God was not slow (bound by time). Although to those in which Peter was addressing, from the time of Noah until then was a very long time, it was NOT to God! So God would not be slow about His promises. In any event 2 Pet. 3:8 uses "with the Lord" to signify who this passage was using as the example. When He addresses us in His word, as being relevant to us, He uses mans time and measurements. It would be of little use to US to have time to be so abstract! Just as when Paul told Timothy that he hoped to see him soon (the same Greek word used in the beginning and end of Revelation), I am quite sure Timothy did not believe it would be thousands of years, or even hundreds of years, but would expect him relatively SOON!
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eschatologist: "2 Pet. 3:8 was all about informing the people
    that God was not slow (bound by time)."

    AMen, Brother Eschatologist -- Preach it!
    That is what i though i was saying.
    But i guess you said it better.
    So those verses you are having a hard time
    understanding are all true.
    This Generation is the whole Church Age that
    we live in. You know, the time between when
    Jesus was here, the Jews rejected Him,
    and when He returns again at the end of the
    Church Age to resurrect/rapture the saints
    before the Tribualtion period.

    One time someone asked me when I'd give up on looking
    for Jesus to come get me in the pretribulation rapture.
    1 day = 1,000 years
    There are 365 days in a year.
    So i'd say after 365,000 years i'll probably give
    up on on Jesus. But not until then ;)
     
  5. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all due respect Brother ED,

    Where do you get that "this generation" refers to the entire church age? I contend that whereever "this generation" is used it refers to the contemporary generation to which Jesus was referring, similar to Matthew 23:36!

    This could be where your labelling me as an "Iconoclast" might actually be true, because if I am a breaker and destroyer of images (especially false images and beliefs) and I am a attacker of cherished beliefs, and your cherished beliefs are in fact doctrines of man -- then let's break them down! Because I believe the fallacy of "this generation" being the "entire church age" is a false image and belief of what this term means and how our Lord used it! Although I welcome you to prove your case, though prove it with the Bible and with proper biblical hermeneutics!

    Also you did not elaborate on my comments on when and where you know to apply 2 Peter 3:8. Because I showed you that it is evident it can not be applied to ALL time stated passages. And if MAN must decide when and where this model is to be used, then this HAS to be in direct violation with biblical principles for interpreting the Word of God! Soon and near may be irrelevant to God but they are relevant and important to us!
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    echa...: "Also you did not elaborate on my comments on when and where you know to apply 2 Peter 3:8."

    Quick answer, use your mind more than
    eschatologist did.

    eschatologistWhere do you get that
    "this generation" refers to the entire
    church age?

    actually it depends of which "this generatioN"
    you speak of. I'm thinking of the one
    in the Mount Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-25
    and Mark something and Luke whatever)
     
  7. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,383
    Likes Received:
    23
    Eschatologist, I learned a while back that debating Ed is futile. He comes up with foolish statements like the one above. He avoids answering your questions and just reposts the same word file over and over again. Ed is your typical futurist, take all prophecy literal except the very clear time-indicators and just ignore or butcher those.

    I grew up in the pre-trib thinking, in fact its all I ever heard taught. When I started studying other views and seeing how important the OT is in understanding prophetic language it was rather easy to leave that view. Then when you understand what happened in AD70 to the Temple and Jerusalem it became quite clear that most if not all of Matt. 24 and Revelation was speaking to those events. It is quite frustrating trying to discuss these topics with people who have their mind closed. Most are unaware that many if not most of theologians pre-1900 understood prophecy from the preterist view.

    For anyone who wants to challenge themselves on their futuristic views read "Last Days Maddness" by Gary DeMar or "The Last Days According To Jesus" by RC Sproul. If these have no effect on your view then by all means keep looking for that rapture and watch the newspaper headlines.
     
  8. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey guys,

    I showed Bob the undeniable first century language and historical markers connected to "the great tribulation" - "holy place", "Judaea", "flee to the mountains", "on the housetop", and "sabbath day". Bob's response??? Nothing. I mean, what CAN he say? Such avoidance behaviour is very typical of futurists. They have no consistent exegesis of the key terms, no proper historical context, and no grasp of clear time statments made in the first century which demonstrate the NEARNESS of the Lord's return at that time. So, their only recourse is to scoff and mock and say "no one saw Jesus at that time.

    Bob and Ed need to deal with the the historical language associated with the great tribulation. How anyone can make the tribulation some Late-Great Planet Earth scenario that has yet to take place IN LIGHT OF THE FIRST CENTURY HISTORICAL MARKERS associated with the tribulation is beyond me.

    Revelation is all about the destruction of the whore - the same whore the prophets wrote about (JERUSALEM)- and the taking of a new wife (the Church)- in 70 A.D.

    Heb.10:37 says, "In just a very little while, he that shall come will come, and will not delay." Folks, 2000 years and running is NOT "a very little while". Futurists just don't want to be real about the time statements, and atheists are chewing them and their failed eschatology up and spitting them out.

    Warren
     
  9. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob is simply unwilling to give up his pride concerning "this generation", which the whole preterist/futurist debate hinges on. He asked for "proof" that "this generation" referred to the THEN-PRESENT generation of Jesus' day, and I gave that proof to him (Matt.23:36, Lk.11:51, Lk.17:25). His response? Again, nothing.

    Bob, your dilema won't go away by ignoring it. Clearly you have been proven wrong on the meaning of "this generation". It's time for you to repent of stubborness and pride. It isn't even close.

    Warren
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper: "He avoids answering your questions and just reposts the same word file over and over again."

    God gave a job that takes 10 hours a day.
    God have me 5 minutes to answer your tripe.
    Recommend you ignore my posts.
    You can always read something more exciting like
    Bro. DeafPosttrib. [​IMG]

    Grassphopper about pretirb: " ... in fact its all
    I ever heard taught."

    Then you realise i teach what the Holy Spirit
    revealed unto me and NOT "Left Behind"ism.
     
  11. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't mind debating Ed. I understand his satire and rhetoric! You got to appreciate the fact that he does do his very best when backed against his theological wall. He may not think too highly of me, but I got to still love the guy for giving me his very best. I know we are bound to disagree from now to eternity, and I am WELL acquainted with the futurist view and their cookie cutter reponses, yet I enjoy a lively debate with Ed nonetheless.

    Ed, as for you comment that Matthew's 23:36 and 24:34 "this generation" are relating to two different generations or time frames is not sound biblical hermeneutics, and even less will not hold up in a court of law!!! The evidence is stacked against you on this one! These two terms use the EXACT same words spelled EXACTLY the same way WITH the same articles of expression! Futurist's MUST maintain a difference here at all cost, so as to conceal the fact that they are carrying a pail of water with several small holes rather than one without a bottom! It is a SHAME that men as educated as some hold on to this deception with the same vigor as father holds on to his child as they are swept away by the flood waters! It is with the SAME high regard for a man-made doctrine that the Mormons hold on so vigorously to Joseph Smith's so called inspired writings. A compromise on these issues would eventually lead to the complete collapse of the futurist system.
     
  12. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consistency is a fine hermeneutical principle, ED! In every instance, without exception, Jesus was referring to the THEN-PRESENT generation. How would YOU understand that phrase if someone spoke it to you, Ed??? Bob???? Would ANYONE dare to think it referred to a generation thousands of years into the future? Surely NOT! You would INSTANTLY connect it with the generation of your own lifetime.

    I've said it several times - it isn't even close! Futurists haven't a leg to stand on. They would prefer to not discuss "this generation", especially after being shown other references that plainly show it meant the first century generation. That was the generation that saw the great tribulation, as evidenced by the unmistakeablke first century historical markers (holy place, Judaea, flee to the mountains, on the housetop, sabbath day). Futurists look real funny when they try to make these terms fit the present day generation. In fact, they look shocked when you show it to them, since they never thought about it! Most futurists just have never heard anything else than Schofieldism.

    And where's Bob on the first century terms?? He posted my post, but gave no response to it! Like I said previously, what can he say?? I guess it's always better to say nothing than to open wide and swallow half your leg. I think Bob is in retreat. Typical of futurists. They get cornered and then it's time to call names and make sarcastic remarks about preterism being "absurd" and "heretical". No exegesis, no exposition, and no rules of interpretation - only namecalling and sarcasm that only demonstrate how little they know on the subject.

    Warren
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Warren: "Would ANYONE dare to think it referred to a generation thousands of years into the future?"

    We did not say nor imply that.
    I said in Matthew 24 "this generation" refers to
    the Church age (33AD-2000AD and counting).
     
  14. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,

    "This generation" did not refer to a church age! What you are saying is that a generation can cover thousands of years. That simply is not true. A Biblical generation was equal to a lifespan. Read Matt.1:1-17. 42 generations are listed from Abraham to Jesus, with each of those generations defined by a given name, i.e., a generation is equal to a lifespan.

    What lifespan, or generation, did Jesus have in mind? That is the question. OBVIOUSLY, the THEN-PRSENT one! Surely that is how we understand the words "this generation" today.

    Ed, I have given you the truth and proved it with the word of God itself, not my opinion. It's the same Greek word - genea - in Matt.1:17 as in Matt.24:34. We MUST remain consistent.

    The question is: What are you going to do with the truth I have given you? Are you going to hold on to your dispensational views despite being shown that they are in contradiction to the words of Jesus? Or will you do like Dr. Bob and exit the discussion with namecalling?

    Your only option is to TAKE JESUS AT HIS WORD, and adjust your understanding about the nature of the kingdom accordingly.

    Bob has gone bye, bye on this because he has to recognize by now that he is wroing on his interpretation of "this generation".

    Warren
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Warren: "Your only option is to TAKE JESUS AT HIS WORD, ... "

    You have no idea how hyprocritical and self rightious
    that sounds. Recommend you not use it as an argument.

    If we have a self-rightious hypocrite contest, i can
    win hands down.

    Warren: //"This generation" did not refer to a church age!//

    I respect your opinion.


    Warren: "It's the same Greek word - genea - in Matt.1:17 as in Matt.24:34. We MUST remain consistent."

    Many places the Bible is translated using different words
    of English for Greek words and vica versa. Your fact
    isn't very factual. Nevertheless, i must respect your opinion.
    I will not, of course, agree with you.
     
  16. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never thought I would see the day on a biblical web-site where one considered it hypocritical to "take Jesus at His Word!!!"
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me simplify the discussion:

    Warren: I'm better than you are, ed,
    i TAKE JESUS AT HIS WORD.

    Ed: I'm better than you are, warren,
    i TAKE JESUS AT HIS WORD.


    I believe the Bible is the
    inerrant written words of God.
    It is nonsense for me to
    believe that my understanding
    of all the Bible is inerrant.

    You believe your Bible is the
    inerrant written words of God.
    It is nonsense for me to
    believe that your understanding
    of all your Bible is inerrant.


    Surely i have respect enough for my
    Brother in Christ that i will allow you your
    opinion. If further you believe your
    opinion, i will allow that also.
    But i will receive the same consideration
    for my opinion/belief.
    I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
    said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
    What the Bible said is true, what
    the Bible means is your opinion or
    is my opinion.
    Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
    get confused with what the Bible said.

    I'm a better Christian than the both of you
    put together [​IMG] I have learned to respect
    your opinion and to to tell the difference
    between your opinion and what Jesus said.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Warren: "Consistency is a fine hermeneutical principle, ED!"

    And your scripture proof is?
    "Consistency" is what i learned when i judged technical
    (software documentation) writing. I'm not real sure
    it a hermeneutical principle.

    Warren: //Bob has gone bye, bye on this because he has to recognize by now that he is wroing on his interpretation of "this generation".//

    2 Peter 2:10 (KJV1769):
    But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. F6 Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

    Dr. Bob is both the government here
    and is a dignity. Watch your step, two
    of five descriptors is 40% of them all.
    Anyway, he probably won't come back
    around as long as i'm winning the debate.
     
  19. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,

    What a term means on page one is what it means on page three. That's called being consistent. How can you make "this generation" to be a 2000 plus year church age in Matt.24:34 when the same term plainly referred to the one's Jesus was speaking to in Matt.23:35-36? And what about Lk.17:25, where "this generaion" referred to the generation that rejected Jesus??? I suppose you would blur that reference by saying that people over the last 2000 years have rejected Jesus. But surely that was NOT the intent of the passage. Jesus meant the generation which had rejected him while he walked the earth.

    You see, Ed, futurists have to first throw out all rules of interpretation - then it's anything goes. They especially throw out original audience relevance when they examine a passage. In fact, they don't even consider it. The New Testament letters were written FOR us but not TO us. Big difference! Thus, when we today read a New Testament time statement we MUST consider what that word meant to the original audience, not what it means to us today. 2000 years is way beyond the parameters of "this generation", "near", and "shortly come to pass"! How do futurists get around this dilemma? I had one pastor tell me that the New Testament was written to "believers of all-time". Do you see what I mean? What stupidity! Other futurists just avoid the original audience factor altogether and hope no one brings it up. Others, like Dr. Bob, quickly exit the discussion because they know that they are wqrong and that anything they say just sounds goofier than goofy.

    Ed, "this generation" did not mean a 2000 year church age in any other reference. As I said in a previous post, a Biblcal generation was equal to a lifespan - read Matt.1:1-17, Lk.3, and several O.T. geneologies. But along comes Ed, who says it means a church age, presently at 2000 years and running. Sad.

    Warren
     
  20. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, I would ask that you repent of your stubborness on "this generation". It's as plain as can be. OBVIOUSLY, Jesus meant the THEN-PRESENT generation! OBVIOUSLY, a generation meant a lifespan, not a 2000 year church age! OBVIOUSLY, you are in utter denial. OBVIOUSLY, you need to be honest with yourself.

    Warren
     
Loading...