For about the last week we have been holding a conversation with Mike, a so-called historian. He has made some pretty large statements about Christianity, Jesus, the Bible and other things. Since GaryV (pictured above) is my Bible enforcer, he has written a posting to address some of the comments and statments put forth by Mike. Mike is now obligated to addresses the rebuttals or find someplace else to perpetrate his ramblings.
Just so you can recall what Mike said, I have included a reprint of the statement here.
No, I have no affiliation with the Nation of Islam my thoughts about African Americans are derived from the fact that Melvin normally addresses black ministerial issues. Beryle, encouraged me to study my bible, and that the lord would provide a ram in the bush (rhetoric), well if a ram in the bush shows up it will be in violation of our city ordinance (smile). I’m a student of history and, have studied the bible, Quran and law of the Jews (you consider this the Old Testament).
The only thing I’m attempting to communicate is this, the biblical Jesus never endorsed the writing of a so-called New Testament. If you claim to believe what you say you believe then this Jesus is the New Testament (Covenant) a book could never do this.
Now the book or bible came into existence thanks to the Emperor of Rome - Constantine. You suggested that I should study the scriptures. Apparently you are not aware that nothing from so-called Matthew to Revelation is considered scriptures. In fact you most likely quote from Matthew, Mark, Luke & John as if you have evidence as to its authorship.
This is why I refer to them as co-called, this is due to Bishop Papas assigning authorship in about 150 A.C.E. No one has ever known the authors of the so-called gospels. You probably think the Apostle Paul wrote the book of Romans. Look again. Should we receive any written text as having a divine origin without evidence. The Jews claim the Torah and await the Messiah, Christians claim the Bible and look for a second coming of Jesus and the Muslims claim the Quran and await the Madhi and they equally claim the written word of God. The only reason we here in western culture consider the Bible to be the word of God is contributed to our birth location. Beryle, first your hell fire issues should be taken in question of your Romans 11:33,How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways pass finding out,” it is amazing to me that you exercise so much authority over this hell fire. You suggested that I should read so-called John 1:1-5, well isn’t Jesus addressing his Jewish brethren and not me personally. You also, suggested Colossians 2:8-10, this might apply to me if I was resident of Colosse. It is time for us to grow up and be honest with our selves and maybe, just maybe God will speak to us.
Melvin, I appreciate your question as to why I felt that the bible text did not apply to us. Well the evidence is in the text itself. The biblical Jesus often addressed that generation. He claims that it was an evil and perverse generation, and that all these things would come upon that generation. (SC-Matt 23:33-39). He then boldly claims that this generation, his generation not my generation would not pass away till these things be fulfilled. (SC-Matt 24:34).Melvin, you never shed the blood of the prophets. The followers of biblical Jesus were living in the last days, it was the last days of he Old Covenant. The biblical Jesus stated, some standing there that would not see death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (SC-Matt 16:28) The book of Revelation was purposely place in the back of the book to give the illusion the it was an end time story. However, one only has to read the first verse to understand its place, “to show John the things which must shortly come to pass.” (Rev 1:1) He claims that even those that pierced him would see him when he returned. (Rev 1:7) This book is only a mirror of the 23 & 24th chapters of SC-Matthew. The biblical Jesus promised to return in his generation, within a forty year time period. There is no way that any so-called New Testament prophecies apply to you & I today. I wish I had time to share more. I have tried with local ministers with very little results.
P.S, For the record, not a 7th Day Adventist or Jehovah Witness or even Mormon, I am just your brother.
The rest is GaryV’s response, point by point.
(Mike) The only thing I’m attempting to communicate
is this, the biblical Jesus never endorsed the writing of a so-called New Testament. If you claim to believe what you say you believe then this Jesus is the New Testament (Covenant) a book could never do this.
(Gary) Well, God never endorsed the writing of the Torah outside of explicit instructions to some prohets. Where did God command Moses to record the Exodus, or the wanderings?? Where did God endorse the writing of Ruth?? Where did God endorse the writing of Kings, or Chronicles??
Yet it’s ALL Scripture, isn’t it??
(Mike) Now the book or bible came into existence thanks to the Emperor of Rome - Constantine.
(Gary) Your grasp of history is faulty.
Constantine called the Council of Nicea (which was the first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.) primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, “There was when He was not.” This was in reference to Jesus and was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the following words about Christ in the Nicene Creed: “God from true God…from the Father…not made.”
Nicea was called as a response to heresy.
Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party’s document (about Christ being a creature) was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council (see Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology).
Constantine (and the Council of Nicea, for that matter) had virtually NOTHING to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea.
The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397 (60 years after Constantine’s death). However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical (Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.)
Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out; but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397) BECAUSE THE BOOKS THAT WERE TRUSTED, the ones that had been handed down, were ALREADY WIDELY ACCEPTED.
The Carthage Council DID NOT DECIDE CANON, and NEITHER DID CONSTANTINE (who was a pile of dust by that time). The Council simply AFFIRMED officially what the church ALREADY ACCEPTED. There were only TINY pockets of believers that accepted the spurious Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphical books. Those books were eliminated by litmus tests as to Apostolic authorship, internal consistency with known Scripture, and references to the books by other authors of Scripture.
They didn’t pick Scripture…….they simply set the stamp of approval on the nearly UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED canon, and used their time to test the canonicity of the FEW books in question (Apocryphal, etc).
(Mike) You suggested that I should study the scriptures. Apparently you are not aware that nothing from so-called Matthew to Revelation is considered scriptures.
(Gary) Really?? Hmmmmmmmm.
2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the OTHER scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter here plainly calls Paul’s writings Scripture, unless you have a unique definition for “other”. Perhaps Clinton can help you there. It’s amazing what he was able to do with “is”.
(Mike) In fact you most likely quote from Matthew, Mark, Luke & John as if you have evidence as to its authorship.
(Gary) You forget the Early Church Fathers. There is a huge amount of writing in the generation after Christ that we have access to.
The Testimony of Papias (late 1st century AD).
We are told by later writers that there was a man named Papias, who knew the aged Apostle John, and was acquainted with men who had known the other Apostles. Thus he lived towards the end of the 1st century AD. He wrote a series of books in which he said, “If anyone who had attended on the elders (the Apostles) came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip (he knew Philip’s daughters) or by Thomas, or by James or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice”. (Eusebius, from whom we learn this, had a copy of Papias’ books in front of him).
These words are interesting in that they show that the Apostles were known as ‘the Elders’ by their followers, (compare John ‘the Elder’, 2 John 1.1; 3 John 1.1), that he knew of books which had been written about Jesus and His teachings (compare Luke 1.1), but liked to hear things ‘first hand’, and placed great store on what was passed on by word of mouth as long as he was sure it had been received first hand and expressed the very words of the Apostles.
What Papias Wrote About Mark
Papias wrote about ‘Mark who wrote the Gospel’, saying, “And the elder (he always refers to John as the elder) said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord not accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to he necessities of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them.
What Papias Says About Matthew
With regard to Matthew, Papias made the following statement, “Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could”.
If the palaeographic evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was in writing by 60 AD proves accurate there is really even less reason to throw any doubt on the tradition.
Luke
Luke wrote a two part account which we know as Luke’s Gospel and the Acts, and there is no reason to doubt his authorship. He was not an especially prominent figure in the early church and there is absolutely no reason why authorship would be imputed to him unless it were true. The false Gospels all claim authorship by Apostles. Why would someone writing a false Gospel here attribute it to a relative unknown like Luke?? It defeats the purpose of attempting to be seen as authoritative.
John
This authorship of John the Apostle is confirmed by the constant testimony of the early church, which is that John gave out the Gospel at Ephesus ‘in his old age’.
We must also remember that Polycarp was trained by John, yet in his writings he NEVER disputes that John wrote the Gospel with his name on it.In fact, NONE of the early church writings question the authorship assigned to the Gospels, and MANY of those writers either KNEW the Apostles or were trained by those who did?? It wasn’t until centuries later that the authorship of the Gospels was questioned. I’d personally rather believe those who were there.
(Mike) This is why I refer to them as co-called, this is due to Bishop Papas assigning authorship in about 150 A.C.E.
No one has ever known the authors of the so-called gospels.
(Gary) Wrong again, as the evidence above shows. Papias KNEW JOHN and knew others who ALSO knew the OTHER APOSTLES. That is clear from his own testimony.
Also, tell me this: Did Papias live in a vacuum?? When he wrote his works clarifying how he KNEW who wrote the Gospels (from personal acquaintance with the authors themselves or with those who KNEW them) he must have been among others who had his experiences as well. Why did NO ONE for CENTURIES ever dispute authorship?? If what Papias wrote was false, why didn’t anyone write to the churches disputing it, especially since we have MANY MANY documents that call out the falsehood of various other writers??
(Mike) You probably think the Apostle Paul wrote the book of Romans. Look again.
(Gary) I’ve looked many times. It is authored by Paul, and NO ONE WHO ACTUALLY WAS THERE ever disputed that fact. In fact, it took centuries for numbskulls to believe that they knew better than those who were there. Who do YOU think wrote Romans??
Rom 1:1 PAUL, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
(Mike) Should we receive any written text as having a divine origin without evidence.
(Gary) The NT HAS evidence of Divine origin………the prophesies of Christ that you yourself admit are true in the Gospels. Not to mention the prophecies of Revelation, which if one believes in preterism (as you do) are clearly talking about fulfilled prophesies. Is this not evidence of Divine origin?? God Himself calls fulfilled prophecy a sign of His Divine Hand…….
Isa 46:9 - 10 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
(Mike) The Jews claim the Torah and await the Messiah, (GV And He came)Christians claim the Bible and look for a second coming of Jesus(GV And He’s coming) and the Muslims claim the Quran and await the Madhi and they equally claim the written word of God.
(Gary) There is NO internal evidence that the Quran is inspired.There is NO specific predictive prophecy………only generalized “At the end it will be pretty bad……..” kind of pablum. The Bible over thousands of years has proven true with prophesy after prophesy fulfilled. No thoer “sacred” text does this……….because only God knows the end from the beginning.
(Mike) The only reason we here in western culture consider the Bible to be the word of God is contributed to our birth location.
(Gary) I’ll be sure to let the believers in Iraq, the Phillipines, China, Japan, Africa, etc know that.
(Mike) Beryle, first your hell fire issues should be taken in question of your Romans 11:33,How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways pass finding out,” it is amazing to me that you exercise so much authority over this hell fire. You suggested that I should read so-called John 1:1-5, well isn’t Jesus addressing his Jewish brethren and not me personally. You also, suggested Colossians 2:8-10, this might apply to me if I was resident of Colosse. It is time for us to grow up and be honest with our selves and maybe, just maybe God will speak to us.
(Gary) The human condition, and the human heart, have not changed. The principles gleaned from the Collosian letters are as applicable to us today as they were when Paul wrote them. The cultural issues may differ, but the struggles of life and faith remain, therefore these addressed issues are STILL relevant.
BTW……….John was addressing Christians, not Jews. Therefore, being Christians, Beryle is right. It applies to us.
(Mike) Melvin, I appreciate your question as to why I felt that the bible text did not apply to us. Well the evidence is in the text itself. The biblical Jesus often addressed that generation. He claims that it was an evil and perverse generation, and that all these things would come upon that generation. (SC-Matt 23:33-39). He then boldly claims that this generation, his generation not my generation would not pass away till these things be fulfilled. (SC-Matt 24:34)
(Gary) Wrong…..and evidence of shallow study. As I stated in another post, Jesus spoke to the crowds in Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word translated “generation” means “Race” or “People”. So, He was assuring the disciples that they need not fear the extinction of their people even though the Temple be destroyed and Israel be scattered under the whole earth. They as a peole will endure, and not be cut off.
.(Mike) Melvin, you never shed the blood of the prophets. The followers of biblical Jesus were living in the last days, it was the last days of he Old Covenant.
(Gary)Mat 23:34 - 36 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
(Gary) Here again, Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic………..the word translated “generation” here is the Aramaic word for “race”. Jesus is simply saying that all the blood of the prophets will come upon this RACE(Jews).
(Mike) The biblical Jesus stated, some standing there that would not see death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (SC-Matt 16:28)
(Gary) Help me here Mike………..does Matt 16 come before or after Matt 17?? Because, immediately AFTER He says that SOME there would not taste death until they saw Him come In His Kingdom, SOME saw Him come in His kingdom.
Mat 17:1- 7
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
The word “kingdom” is the Greek word basileia. Here is the definition from Strong’s Biblical Concordance…..
1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom
So SOME (Peter James and John) just DAYS later saw Him coming in his “basileia”………his royal power, kingship and dominion. You must go beyond the translation and access the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE or one winds up with false doctrine. Basileia DOESN’T mean kingdom as in a physical city or country. It means ROYAL POWER. And that is EXACTLY what Peter, James and John saw……….just as Jesus said.
(Mike) The book of Revelation was purposely place in the back of the book to give the illusion the it was an end time story. However, one only has to read the first verse to understand its place, “to show John the things which must shortly come to pass.” (Rev 1:1)
(Gary) Once again, you cherry-pick a verse out of context to prove your point. Try again…….
Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which ARE, and the things which shall be HEREAFTER;
TWO classes of revelation…………the things which are (and must shortly come to pass) and things HEREAFTER the things which must shortly come to pass.
(Mike) He claims that even those that pierced him would see him when he returned. (Rev 1:7)
(Gary) REALLY?!?!? More cherry-picking…….
Here’s the verse in question……..
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.
(Gary)Now…………WHEN HAVE THE JEWS MOURNED FOR JESUS?? Never………..yet you say this happened in 70 AD. Odd……..
Now, let’s not perpetuate your errors by following your cherry-picking example. Chapters 12-14 all deal with the day of Christ’s return, which you cliam happened in AD 70. So………..all the things in the verses below ALREADY HAPPENED according to you. Let’s see, shall we??
Zechariah - Chapter 141 , 19:
Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; (When were all nations against Jerusalem?? Only Rome came in 70 AD)
and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west (Hmmmmmmmm……I don’t recall the Mount of Olives cleaving in two, do you?? It’s all in one piece even today.Anyone?? Beuller?? Beuller??)
[and there shall be] a very great valley;(Nope……..no great valley ever opened up)
and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.(Never happened)
And ye shall flee [to] the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, [and] all the saints with thee. And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the light shall not be clear, [nor] dark:
But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, [that] at evening time it shall be light.(One would think that Josephus would have mentioned the fact that it stayed light around the clock. He didn’t. Never happened)
And it shall be in that day, [that] living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.(Nope………..no river goes out from Jerusalem. Check it out for yourself on Google Earth. Get a satelite map. Never happened)
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.(What happened?? Seems the world is still worshipping false gods……..but on that day it was supposed to cease. Why didn’t it?? I know……….Never happened. Not yet anyway)
All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem:
(Odd………..the land described here around Jerusalem proper is VERY hilly. I though it was going to become a plain in 70 AD. Hmmmmmm……Never happened)
and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin’s gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and [from] the tower of Hananeel unto the king’s winepresses.(Nope……..all hill country too. Never happened)
And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.(Oh YEAH…….Jerusalem is safely inhabited alright……..unless you count the SCUDS, car bombs, sniper attacks, etc. In fact, after 70 AD Jerusalem was NEVER safely inhabited right up until this day. Never Happened)
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.(I don’t recall this happening to the Roman armies……..do you?? In fact, Rome WON. Their eyes never consumed in their sockets, nor their tongues, nor their flesh . Never Happened)
And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.
Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.(Uh………NO. Just the opposite. In Rome today the Arc of Titus still stands with carvings depicting the fact that Rome TOOK AWAY the Jews wealth. This verse says the wealth of Jerusalem’s ATTACKERS would be left behind for Israel. Never Happened)
And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.
And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.(OK………when did this happen?? Did we miss something?? When have all nations begun coming up to Jerusalem every year to worship and keep the Feat of Tabernacles?? Never Happened)
And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (Errrrr…….Never Happened)
(Mike) This book is only a mirror of the 23 & 24th chapters of SC-Matthew. The biblical Jesus promised to return in his generation,
(Gary) Already exploded that myth……….
(Mike) within a forty year time period.
(Gary) Huh………I can’t find that 40 year thing in the verses?? Anyone else see it?? Beuller?? Beuller??
(Mike) There is no way that any so-called New Testament prophecies apply to you & I today.
(Gary) Why not………we’ve just seen that they NEVER HAPPENED in 70 AD, that you make up 40m year timespans out of thin air, that you have no understanding of the original languages. So, you see……..since they NEVER HAPPENED, unless God is a liar, they must happen SOMEDAY FUTURE. And God is NOT a liar.
(Mike) I wish I had time to share more. I have tried with local ministers with very little results.
(Gary) Little wonder……..I tried to convince folks that Elvis was living in my basement. I had little results too. Boy are they ignorant…….
(Mike) P.S, For the record, not a 7th Day Adventist or Jehovah Witness or even Mormon, I am just your brother.
(Gary) That remains to be seen. What is your view of the atoning death of Christ upon the cross?? What is your view of your sinful state before God?? Have you accepted the Blood of Christ as the atonement for your sins?? Those are the criteria. It seems you put the Quran on the same level as the Bible………and the quran states that God has no Son, that there is no Trinity,Jesus is not God, and that Christ’s death upon the cross payed for no one’s sins. Our brotherhood is in grave doubt.
Gary,
Your post is duly noted, however I was not expecting to respond to everyone whom I’d communicated with.This is quite a lot to respond to. I will get back to you sometime tomorrow. Thank you, and good night!
Translation of Mike’s comment??
“CRAP!!! Let me get to Google!!”
While you’re there, please look up the satellite maps that show the Mount of Olives cleaved in two, and a river running out of it, and all the surrounding hills for miles laid flat as a plain..
I’ll give you a prophecy………..I see in the Spirit that Mike will return with a load of excrement spiritualizing and allegorizing the plain words of Scripture, trying to explain why they don’t REALLY mean what they obviously say.
PS Mike……….if Jesus came back in AD 70, can you explain this?? After all, you said that Revelation had fulfilled prophecy in it, so I assume you accept it’s Divine authorship.
Rev 1:7 “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
How did EVERY EYE see Him?? That was of course impossible for millenia. Of course, technology has solved that today,no?? But you say every eye saw Him return in 70 AD………funny there’s no written account of so momentous an event.
Also……….if you will note the TENSE here (…..every eye SHALL [future tense] see Him…….) it clearly references an event AFTER John wrote this Book.
Well……….Titus took over for his father Vespasian at the head of the Roman legions and decimated Jerusalem in 70 AD, as you noted. That is when you say Jesus returned.
HOWEVER……….the Book of Revelation was penned on the Isle of Patmos sometime between the year 81 AD and 96 AD. That’s 11-26 years AFTER Rome destroyed Jerusalem, and the time you say Jesus returned.
How do we know this?? Iranaeus……….
“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 (in Revelation) the apocalyptic vision (John). For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 30
Well, Domitian reigned from 81 AD to 96 AD.
And unless the new math has passed me by, that’s AFTER 70 AD. So, AFTER 70 AD, we have John describing Jesus’ return in the FUTURE tense, not the PAST TENSE as would be applicable had Jesus returned 25 or so years before.
Perhaps this one will tax your in-depth religious studies…….
In your BELOVED 24th Chapter of Matthew (which you are so fond of quoting as authoritative) we have Jesus’ Words to THIS effect (which I couldn’t help but notice you “forgot” to scribble as you were referring repeatedly to this chapter to “prove” your points)……..
Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not.”
But Mike……you expect us to believe that Jesus came back in SECRET in AD 70. No one saw Him come back, right?? This verse tells us NOT to believe in a secret return.Therefore,NOT to believe you.Let’s continue…
Mat 24:27 “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
Now Mike…………is lightning secret, or is it seen with the eye?? Better yet, not just seen with the eye, but seen from East to West. Everyone sees THIS lightning. Yet you insist Jesus came back secretly, and no one saw Him.
Perhaps then you could explain this……..
Act 1:9 ΒΆ And when he (Jesus) had spoken these things, while they beheld(WITH THEIR EYES), he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight (AGAIN……..EYES).
Act 1:10 And while they looked(WITH THEIR EYES) stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing(WITH THEIR EYES) up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come IN LIKE MANNER as ye have seen(WITH THEIR EYES) him go into heaven.
Now………how did they see Jesus ascend into Heaven?? That’s right………..with their eyes. Curious then, in light of your contention that Jesus returned and no one saw Him, that the Angels said THIS…….
“This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come IN LIKE MANNER as ye have seen (WITH THEIR EYES) him go into heaven.”
The words LIKE MANNER are translated from the Greek words “hos tropos”, which means
1) a manner, way, fashion
a) as, even as, like as
So, the angels are telling the disciples that Jesus will return in the like (or same) fashion as he ascended. How did He ascend?? IN HIS BODY, where HE could be observed WITH THE EYES. Physically………..NOT spiritually, as some sort of Caspar the Friendly Saviour.
Again……….the secret return of Jesus is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
?,
So far I have been awarded with titles of idiot, silly & without even reading my comments crap. This is truly in the spirit of christianity. Gary was given a day to respond to what I said. Is it not fair to afford me just a little time? Let me communicate this in your language, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, LONGSUFFERING, GENTLENESS,goodness, faith, meekeness, TEMPERANCE..” or was this written to the followers of Jesus. (smile)
(MN: You have all the time you need. Just don’t repeat the same foolishness you have been plying for the last week until you do. )
Hey you can’t quote a passage of scripture that you don’t believe is relevant anymore. If It aint relevant to you, then you shouldnt use it, especially tryin to use it to your advantage. Let’s hear the response, and continue to work on your salvation.
binks
Hi Mike!!
I’m really hoping for a civil exchange………..
I wasn’t given a day to respond Mike………..I posted my rebuttal, and Melvin sat on it for a day to see what direction the dialogue would take.
Still no problem though………..take what time you need. All I ask is that you stick with the rebuttals I raised. Either prove them wrong, or admit that you have no evidence to support your claims.
If you would like to move on to other topics after that, that’s fine.
gary,
thank you for your post, you brought out some points that will make for a very interesting discussion in my home.
GARYV—Thank you for this lesson which I have just cut, pasted, and printed to help while studying my new, beautiful, all-white, hardback, 2004 Edition of Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible! I am still reading through pages i through xix. Am making note of all words and terms new to me so as to acquire a solid understanding of definitions and culture(s) wherein they were used. One “gold bar” has blown my mind already:
“The Hebrew writers often express the certainty of a thing taking place by putting it in the past tense, though the actual fulfillment may not take place for ages. This is easily understood and appreciated when the language is used by God, as when He says, in Gen xv. 18…”
Any language used by God is good enough for me! Myriads thanks again, GaryV! Love to you and yours, B
How are you liking that Young’s Translation Beryle??
I told you it was cool!!
GaryV: It is dunamis, geburah, chesen, koach, izzuz, shilton, taatsumoth, toqeph, dabar, etc.!
MIke,
You may not be welcomed here but I am sure that your views will be more than welcome at coast to coast AM with Art Bell……………………. LOL!
Kyle
(MN: He’s welcomed as long as he doesn’t natter on pointlessly. But I suspect he won’t “feel” especially welcomed since few of us are willing to roll over and accept the things the so-called historian says. It will be interesting to see his so-called response to GaryV’s rebuttal. Anyone care to take odds on whether or not he actually addresses the response? Or does he go the way of our Thanksgiving visitor, ignoring what has been said and chasing down another rabbit trail? Or even sayig the same thing again as though it wasn’t addressed the first time. Notice that once Binks and others began responding, he started in with different, unrelated statements. It should be interesting. )
No my friend–I have to be honest and tell you that “YOU” lacked an appropriate and intelligent response–let’’s not get it twisted-you and “your boy” Gary was so far in left field that ya’ll had to fabricate fathom relationships and request for artciles that Beryle really thinks is me! lol
And to top it of–you put me in a thread I had nothing to do with1 lol
I don’t expect to get this posted-and to be honest-I don’t care-but you get the message and you know, that I know, that you know! lol
I told you–this board is just toooo funny! lol
(MN: In other words - Post this, I double dog dare you to post this.
Righter, how many times have I said that I will post things. You are on probation, but as long as you don’t natter on endlessly, your comments will generally get posted. Most of the time, you and some of the others are far too valuable a visual aid to simply cut loose. Of course the VA stuff only works in small doses. )
Righter is not debating–but I gotta tell you when you are just plain ole putting out misinformation–which you have done an excellent job of in the past–it’s a New year–tell the truth as it happened!
(MN: Which information is bad? It’s easy to fling generalized accusations. Be specific. )
well-I figured if you have gotten as of yet-it won’t be gotten so let it go–it really aint that serious–
(MN: Ah yes. The old “If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you” defense. I understand. I suppose that as long as you postings are as short as this one I will permit you to continue to post. As I said: you are far too valuable a visual aid to simply dismiss. )
lol
PS–I am “the law”! How u gone put me on probation! lol
This is going to be a good year–turn around and tell your neighbor! lol
Righter…………the “left field” dweller among us can be easily spotted by anyone who reads the posts. You could not, and still cannot, support your positions from Scripture.
That’s because I didn’t feel the need to “prove” anything to you–it’s between me and God–I stopped being concerned with what “man” thinks a long, long time ago…
and that’s “right” field my friend–:-)
(MN: Then stop commenting, or at a minimum, don’t expect me to publish your silly comments if you are not willing to at least defend them. Remember, there is no right to comment on Pulpit-pimps.org. )
comments are stopped-I don’t defend anything-to anyone…
going back to the corner
(MN: Not a problem. Keep reading and enjoying. )
Righter, do you claim salvation? I am very new to this board, but it seems that you said that this is between you and God with a capital G, so I can only assume that you are talking about the same God. Why then won’t you provide something…anything that will support your points?
The word of God says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (I Peter 3:15) If this is what you believe, then Scripture instructs you to give a reason. If Bush and Gore were having a debate and Bush brought reasoned, documented evidence of his claims and Gore said, “I like cotton candy”, you would consider him a fool…
GaryV, you made me smile with your response. We need more people like you. Thank God for your scholarship.
Righter owes no man nothing-and yes-it is between me and God–it really makes me no difference what man’s opinion is for he/she lacks the ability to justify me–and besides-man is just being nosey–there is no genuine concern so with that said-none of yur business–God knows-and with that–I’m happy!!!
My salvation is not a topic for debate–and besides-I’ve been relished to silence! lol–I have no “right” to speak! (LOL)
Righter, you don’t owe any man anything as long as you read………..but once you comment, you owe those who read your comment an explanation based upon Scripture. This is a discussion board………..it’s purpose is discussion, which necessitates a DIALOGUE.
If that is more than you are willing to engage in(and that’s perfectly OK too), and you really believe these issues are strictly between you and God……….then keep them between you and God. Once you put them out HERE, they are no longer strictly between you and God………..YOU have made them between yourself and the members of the MB.
Well Mr. V, for once, I “half” way agree with you. I have never once discussed my salvation since coming to this board so I’ll hold my piece–it was then and still is none of no one’s business. I said that from the onset–it is ridiculous to ask people to prove their salvation.
For example, let’s say I do–then what? The person who is asking will be satisfied, but who cares about another’s satisfaction when it comes down to a relationship with God? This is a control mechanism–whether or not someone “believes” in another’s salvation has no bearing on that which is being discussed; salvation. So, I leave it alone–recheck all my post and you will not find one instance where I attempted to prove my standing with God because I really don’t feel it is necessary and it truly is a waste of time from my point of view for it does not lead to a tangible end result, and I am results driven
Now concerning the comments that I made on “some” discussions, yes, I defended my stance. As far as me defending anything that you wrote-I didn’t like your style and thus, you were ignored. But that’s my style-I demand a certain approach and if it aint “right” it is met with silence.
Now my responses may not have been defended according to someone else’s standard but then again, so??? Now what??? Am I going to hell because I failed to satisfy someone else’s curiosity, which is basically all this debate stuff is from what I can see…but, I guess we all got to do what we got to do–and actually-I like a good debate, when it lacks malice and is actually helpful
I mainly commented on tone and grammar–never have been interested in commenting on “so called” (lol) doctrinal issues (even though I allowed my self to be drawn into discussions one or two times) because honestly Gary, I just don’t see the point…
Thanks for the time
Thanks also Gary, I will be cutting and pasting this as well for some good study. It was well thought out.
binks
My sentiments exactly.
Great posting GaryV.
To GaryV, “The Enforcer”, thanks a lot for the insight & understanding that you display. From reading the responses & comments from other posters, you have caused a lot of us to pursue a deeper understanding of the Word of God!
To Mike, we all await your response! I sinced a bit of smugness in your posts but I dont believe you truly believe all that you were spewing. If so, why don’t you go ahead and blaspheme the Holy Spirit in this open forum so that we can all realize you truly mean your words and we can move on with further discussion of the Word of God, pimps, etc. without your presence.
hi t,
i don’t know this fellow mike at all- but because you don’t agree w/ or like what he’s been saying is no reason to make such an abominable, UNGODLY, and heinous suggestion that he publically blaspheme the Holy Ghost.
smh, that you would even form this sentence is unbelievable.
i believe there is hope for him. as i said earlier- he is an unbeliever and is speaking as such- but there are a number of unbelievers i know and love who at this present time are rejecting the truth of the Word of God and hold to other views and false doctrines. (as we once did before God so graciously opened up our eyes) perhaps one day, God will open up the eyes of his understanding. please don’t be so rash w/ your mouth- you really need to reconsider your words.
pray for him.
blessings&peace 2u
To Mike & all concerned, let me clarify my statement, as it might not have been read as I intended; what I was saying is that I think Mike is the type that searches out disagreement for entertainment value. By saying “without your presence”, it was meant your presence on this forum, definitely not on this Earth, if that’s how you interpreted or read it. For those of you that were offended, do realize that “offences will come” all though none was intended.
T, it also says, but to that man by whom the offence cometh woe to that man by whom the offence comes, you need to ask Mike to forgive you, you will then be forgiven.
I agree mrs mav–have a pork rind–:-)
hi righter,
no thank you- i’ll pass. but you’re welcome to my nice rice cakes. i left some out on the table since new years but no one seems to want them -even tweets hasn’t taken any. and to think i went thru all that trouble to get her the flavored ones.
oh- and just so u know- gary’s bride nancyboo now makes the popcorn. -:-)
mrs. mav–I thank you ever so much for your intent to share–however, I like “flava”–:-)
Speaking of flava–they like BBQ skins (cause it’s where its at) in MD too because I got my co worker hooked and he got mad ’cause all they had in the store were the plain ones! lol (but he bought them anyhow) lol
Last comment before my response, a christian provoking a non-believer to blaspheme the holy spirit?. What about, “Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works”. More evidence why you are not a follower of Jesus the Christ. mrs. maverick displays the closes representation of this Jesus than any of you.
(MN: Except of course, that so called verse applies to so-called believers in their relationship with each other.
I think my man was a little over the top as well. It’s evidence that he was upset, not that he is not a Christian. But then again, you keep using a lack of perfection in His followers to attempt to nullify the whole thing. It was an invalid argument the first time you used it. It is an invalid argument now.
I suspect Binks was saying “Just say you reject Jesus Christ and the whole Christian schtick. Then we will at least know where you stand.” )
No I wasnt saying that at all, I’m usually very straight to the point like i’m about to be now. I noticed that you said you didnt have time to deal with gary’s rebuttal, but you have time to work on the not so hard nit pick arguments. I find that interesting. But just for the record, it is my desire to see you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, but we can’t even cross that bridge, until you are open to the validity of the New Testament Scriptures.
binks
Oh sorry mel, I thought mike was misquoting me. But I do believe it was someone else that said just let us know where you stand, you can strike my last comment.
binks
No excuse-emotions should not have a part in good, healthy dialog-remember???
However, I do respect him because at least he was man enough to admit his fault–some of us have a hard time doing that…which is why many of us really can’t move forward..
(MN: You’re still being general. Who? What fault? )
uhm–nevermind–:-)
Don’t know if what Mike said equated to “Crap”. Maybe Mike is just “Wacko Jacko”.
“CRAP! Let me get to Google!”
(LMBO)
I think GaryV was presenting it as an exclamation made by Mike. As in: “Oh crap! I better get myself over to Google to look for some more information.”
Mel,
I was kinda “messin” with the statement a bit (crap). But I did understand what Garywas saying Mike’s reaction was……”Crap! I need more info!”
That was hilarious to say the least.
Hi Mike!!
I’m really hoping for a civil exchange………..
Precisely………..thanks Mel. Sorry for any misunderstanding Mike. I wasn’t calling your posts crap. I WAS however not-so-subtly getting a dig at your scholarship. Much of what you posted has been errata…………from the misuse and misplacement of the Gap Theory to your misunderstanding of relativism, to your statement that Constantine decided the canonicity of Scripture.
That tells me that you likely haven’t done your homework, and are citing others rather than doing your own homework. Nothing inherently wrong with that, unless it’s done to the exclusion of investigating the truth-claims made by looking at both sides of a question. It seems you’ve simply parroted the work of others without due consideration to the valid counterpoints.
Gary, Who wrote immediately after A.D. 70 on what happened or didn’t happen? When is the next time we hear a response from anyone about God’s Word.
(Gary)HOWEVER……….the Book of Revelation was penned on the Isle of Patmos sometime between the year 81 AD and 96 AD. That’s 11-26 years AFTER Rome destroyed Jerusalem, and the time you say Jesus returned.
(DTG) That my friend, is a futurist assumption. However, there are those who believe that it was penned from A.D. 67-70. Once again, who said anything immediately after A.D 70. Why was there a void for that time?
Derrick, here are some other testimonies that place the exile of John on Patmos during the reign of Domitian (81 AD-96AD), making preterism impossible.
Quoting Eusebius”It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos(where he wrote Revelation) in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.”
Tertullian…….. ‘Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.’ But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s horrors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at THIS time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.”
Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw (Italy), agreed with Irenaeus. That Victorinus did not rely on Irenaeus for his information is clear from the fuller details of his statement not referenced by Irenaeus. “‘And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.’ He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.”
Tertullian again……..”The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba.”
The Didache (Somewhere between 50-160 AD)
Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord. Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for YOU KNOW NOT THE HOUR IN WHICH OUR LORD WILL COME. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. ForIN THE LAST DAYS false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead — yet not of all, but as it is said: “The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.” Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.”
Justin Martyr (100-165)
“For the Spirit which was in the prophets anointed your kings, and established them. But after the manifestation and death of our Jesus Christ in your nation, there was and is nowhere any prophet: nay, further, you ceased to exist under your own king, your land was laid waste, and forsaken like a lodge in a vineyard; and the statement of Scripture, in the mouth of Jacob, ‘And He shall be the desire of nations,’ meant symbolically His two advents, and that the nations would believe in Him; which facts you may now at length discern. For those out of all the nations who are pious and righteous through the faith of Christ, look for His FUTURE appearance.”
Clearly a futurist perspective.
Not to mention, there is the issue that the church world has CONSISTENTLY taught a future fulfillment of Christ’s coming. We must, in order to accept your view, believe that this tiny, miniscule minority (preterists) are correct, and the vast, nearly unanimous view of the church through the ages has been wrong.
The very same thing we are told by such bastions of doctrine as the Mormons, Branch Davidians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.
It’s never solid ground to position yourself against the historic beliefs of the orthodox church through the ages. Preterism has NEVER been an orthodox view. It has NEVER been accepted by more than a tiny minority. Those points are something to consider my friend.
hi gary,
i am only going to respond to 2 things you said in your post. but before i do, i will tell u that i have recently began to study preterism. up until last year, i had never heard the term before. but a friend had brought up the subject of Jesus’ return to my husband, which at first, my husband dismissed. but being that this was his buddy challenging him to prove all things, he too began to reexamine the Scriptures in light of what the people living in Jesus’ day were facing and how they may have taken Jesus’ Words. admittedly, i haven’t delved into the subject as thoroughly as my husband has- and frankly, i really wasn’t that concerned one way or the other. i believe the Lord knows them that are His and our view on whether he returned already or is soon to come made no difference in our standing w/ Him. i figured, if i’m truly His, and He already came, (but i’m still expecting his return), would God reject me when i died based on my flawed understanding of eschatology. likewise- if i’m truly His, and am not awaiting His return, and He does come (whether pre-mid-or post trib.)or i died before His return- would God reject me and not catch me away (if i’m still living) or not resurrect me to life because of flawed eschatology? i don’t know.
i am examining Heb. 9:28(among other Scriptures) in light of whether our salvation is predicated apon the belief of His already return or His soon coming. i know that Christ’s return is a part of many congregation’s tenets and they list them as “what we believe” for others to know their doctrinal position. God is faithful to be sure- and He will confirm to me His truth as i continue to seek Him for understanding.
at this present time, i have some questions that i never had before because now i have been introduced to another view that goes against what i was originally taught, and believed. so i am bringing them to the Lord. over the years, the Lord has used my husband to bring truth to me many times and for that i am thankful. our personalities are very different- he sometimes grasps things more quickly than i do- but in time, after much prayer and soul searching( to make sure that i’m being honest with myself and the Lord about WHY i believe or disbelieve something) i come to understand those things for myself and become fully persuaded on it based apon the Word of God. when i was still caught up in religion- it was my husband who taught me that a lot of the things i believed in were wrong. i didn’t immediately change my views because of what he said-(after all, the admonishment to let no man deceive you- applies to my husband as well) so i earnestly sought the Lord about it, and compared both sides of the issues, using only Scripture to interpret Scripture and dependency on the Holy Spirit to enlighten me.
i once believed in tithing- and found that to be wrong, i believed in having a pastor “cover” you- wrong. calling a building “church”-wrong, “slain in the spirit”-wrong. unbiblical tongues- wrong again! and likewise w/ many other issues believers divide over. (nevertheless, while others still onesidedly adhere to these beliefs- because
‘that’s what their church teaches” or they’ve been raised that way- i feel confident to give a well reasoned answer )with this in mind, i am studying the view that Christ has come already. i believe that i have a responsibility to prove all things; and hold fast that which is good. i often say- truth, if it is indeed God’s truth can stand up under the greatest amount of scrutiny- and yet remain. so i’m looking into this asking God to settle this thing for me- not for the satisfaction of my husband or the satisfaction of the majority of believers who hold to a futurist view-but to the satisfaction of God that i did my due diligence and studied to show myself approved to Him because when it’s all said and done- He’s the Only One i have to give an account to.
with this being said- it brings me to the first thing you said that i question-
(gary said to DTG): not to mention, there is the issue that the church world has CONSISTENLY taught a future fulfillment of Christ’s coming. We must in order to accept your view, believe that this tiny, miniscule minority (preterists) are correct, and the vast, nearly unanimous view of the church through the ages has been wrong.
paisano, i’m sure we can agree that just because the majority of people support something as valid, doesn’t necessarily make it true, and furthermore, i have found on my short time on God’s green earth, that often times, the majority isn’t right. just a few examples- were the majority who believed for centuries that the earth was flat- right? of course not, but thank God for the fearless souls who weren’t superstitious or afraid and went to test that “theory”. were the majority of the people in america during the centuries of slavery right to believe in the superiority/inferiority of races? of course not- but thank God for the bravery of the abolitionists who went against that wide held belief system to help africans to be free, and finally, was the roman catholic institution, which was the orthodox religion for years, right, when martin luther and his tiny, miniscule followers challenged them? we know the answer to that, and thank God for the protestant reformation. so i see that a unanimous view doesn’t really prove anything.
this leads me to the 2nd thing you said that i question:
(you said:)( it’s never solid ground to position yourself against historic beliefs of the orthodox church through the ages. Preterism has NEVER been an orthodox view. It has NEVER been accepted by more than a tiny minority. Those points are something to consider my friend.) again, I refer back to martin luther.
since i’ve been wrong about so many other things i once accepted as true- it behooves me to examine other views before the Lord to see if perhaps i’m in error and have blinders on. you obviously believe in our Savior coming any day- i used to FIRMLY hold to this view but now i’m not as certain as i used to be. but as i earnestly seek God, i’m confident that the Holy Spirit will settle this in my heart as He has the other matters. pray for me brother.
melville, i know i said alot, (thank you for the time and space) but this was important to me and i needed to get this out. i feel compelled to search it out for myself since i know i’ve been wrong countless other times. and i’d rather live w/ truth (even if it contradicts my cherished beliefs) than to stay a coward by not even attempting to investigate the ‘other sides’ claims.
again, pray for me.
blessings & peace 2u
Hi Mrs Mav!!
I agree entirely that eschatology isn’t necessarily determinate of salvation. It’s something I’ve discussed before when approached, but I never make a huge fuss over it.
Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib,Post-Trib, Partial preterist, Full Preterist………..unless it is a part of a broader set of doctrinal errors, I don’t make a huge fuss over it. These are not essentials…….as long as the essentials are intact (as they certainly are with you) these are not issues that concern salvation or fellowship.
You may have noticed how late I entered into the fray with Mike on the issue……….I’m just generally not going to argue eschatology with anyone. It was only after it became apparent that Mike’s preterism was only a small part of some really poisonous doctrine that I decided to wade in.
Now to my points about the historicity of the futurist model of eschatology as I addressed my friends DTG and Michael.
It’s not simply about consensus, though that cannot be discounted itself. It’s more exactly about originalist consensus. Allow me to explain……
Your point about Luther seems valid unless you take originalist considerations on board.
It is true that by the 16th century the Catholic church and her errors held sway, and were the majority view. BUT…….you have to consider the fact that the reason this was so is due to the active SUPPRESSION of the Truth by papists, and the widespread illiteracy of the population as a whole (also due to the papists as a means of holding power).
In other words, the error ran rampant because the populace could not read the Bible for itself, nor could it access the records of the early church and see the Truth.
Luther’s revolt was NOT a revolution of new ideas (like preterism)………it was a restoration of the original faith. Luther wasn’t bringing anything new theologically. His theology was in line with the original theology presented by Christ and His disciples, which could be proven by the Bible and historical records.
So you cannot compare the minority with Luther and the minority of preterism, because ONE is simply a return to the historic position (Luther) with evident PROOF in the Bible and church h writings, and ONE is a departure from the historic position (preterism) which CANNOT be supported by the historic position.
I can go back to the writings of the Early Church Fathers and find Luther’s faith. I cannot go back to the Early Church Fathers and find preterism………in fact it’s not even suggested until 300+ years AFTER Christ.
I can go back to the Creeds of the Early Church and find Luther’s faith. I cannot go back to the creeds and find preterism.
You cannot safely discount the fact that the church historically rejected preterism and embraced futurism.
These men were acquainted with the Apostles and their disciples. They had recourse to those who directly heard the Lord. They affirmed what they knew from such contact in their writings and creeds and hymns. And they rejected preterism.
Eusebius is the first to mention the preterist position, but he, as I said, is almost 300 years after the last Apostle was gone.
It is the equivalent of me coming out with a book today claiming that I have discovered that the Pilgrims came to America to find gold rather than escape religious intolerance (the time frame between the Pilgrims and I is similar to the time frame between Eusebius and the Apostles).
Now, if I came out with my theory about the Pilgrims, I would run into some VERY strong resistance almost immediately. The scholars would retort “But the journals of William Bradford (who was there) clearly state their purpose for coming to America as religious in nature. What sources are you using to deny that??”
And I reply,”Why, it’s right there in Bradford’s journals.”
They would say, “But for 300 years these journals have been read and interpreted by historians universally to mean exactly what they say clearly.”
To which I reply ” Yes, but they were all wrong. If you look in the text Bradford says that they were traveling toward their golden dream of God. It’s right there.”
Historians……”No one for 300 years has EVER interpreted that passage in this way.”
Me……..”I know. You were all wrong.”
Historians…….”But all those who were there WITH Bradford interpreted these passages as we do……….and they actually talked to Bradford and those Bradford trained.”
Me…………”I know………they all missed it. It took 300 years, but I now know the real truth.”
Historians……..”But for these 300 years, historians have consistently rejected such allegorical interpretations as yours. The evidence is that there is no need to allegorize what is plainly understood from the text.”
Me……..”Silly………I know the REAL truth.”
You would immediately draw the conclusion that I had lost my marbles. How could I dispute 300 years of universal teaching based upon nothing but a novel in