Curious

[Rev20]

These trolls seem to be dedicated to the prevention of any rational discussion of end time prophecy.

Your self-righteousness is noted, Biblewriter.

 

[Rev20]

These trolls seem to be dedicated to the prevention of any rational discussion of end time prophecy.

I forgot to mention, Biblewriter, that any rational discussion of end-time prophecy would exclude dispensational doctrine.

 

[Biblewriter]

Your self-righteousness is noted, Biblewriter.

??? What is self-righteous about observing that every time anyone tries to discuss anything said by any Bible prophet, half a dozen or so people jump in and say that we should not even be considering what he said.

 

[KrAZeD]

I forgot to mention, Biblewriter, that any rational discussion of end-time prophecy would exclude dispensational doctrine.

that is exactly the type of irrational comments and attitudes he is referring to.

Their are dispensations in the bible, one is hard pressed to honestly refute that. The extreme of what one will go with a "dispensational" view is no different than your preconceived notion that the writings josephus scripted are proof of fulfillment making your view supposedly correct. While ignoring the fact that several of his writings contained known errors, you and others similar with your view over rely on his thoughts and writings as if they were written while he was under the guise of the Holy Spirit instead of respecting his writing as coming from himself. Forgetting that he could have made it more dramatic than it really was or could have purposely omitted details.

When one such as yourself attempts to shut down a conversation with "it's already fulfilled in ad70", "that's not what scripture says" , "you don't understand "x" verse" etc. your not engaging in a rational or healthy dialogue. Instead your pushing your ideals and beliefs as if their what's right regardless of how wrong you may G or they might G. Instead of taking time to hear the view out and how one can properly come to that conclusion, and going from their.

Yes a different board regarding "futurist" would at this stage seem more productive, though I'm not niave enough to think that would remain better than what is currently happening with this eschatology forum.

 

[Rev20]

??? What is self-righteous about observing that every time anyone tries to discuss anything said by any Bible prophet, half a dozen or so people jump in and say that we should not even be considering what he said.

Who said that, Biblewriter? I have seen those who dispute your interpretation of prophecy. Is that what you are referring to?

 

[Rev20]

that is exactly the type of irrational comments and attitudes he is referring to.

You don't get out much, do you? The entire purpose of this thread by Biblewriter was to marginalize those who disagree with him.

Their are dispensations in the bible, one is hard pressed to honestly refute that.

Where can I find the Church Age?

The extreme of what one will go with a "dispensational" view is no different than your preconceived notion that the writings josephus scripted are proof of fulfillment making your view supposedly correct. While ignoring the fact that several of his writings contained known errors, you and others similar with your view over rely on his thoughts and writings as if they were written while he was under the guise of the Holy Spirit instead of respecting his writing as coming from himself. Forgetting that he could have made it more dramatic than it really was or could have purposely omitted details.

I will gladly debate my understanding of the scripture with you, any time.

When one such as yourself attempts to shut down a conversation with "it's already fulfilled in ad70", "that's not what scripture says" , "you don't understand "x" verse" etc. your not engaging in a rational or healthy dialogue. Instead your pushing your ideals and beliefs as if their what's right regardless of how wrong you may G or they might G. Instead of taking time to hear the view out and how one can properly come to that conclusion, and going from their.

How exactly does one shut down a conversation by claiming a prophecy was fulfilled in AD70? Would that be similar to shutting down a conversation by claiming that same prophecy is to be fulfilled in the future? Help us out on that one . . .

Yes a different board regarding "futurist" would at this stage seem more productive, though I'm not niave enough to think that would remain better than what is currently happening with this eschatology forum.

Are you complaining that you will most likely not be able to preach to the choir in a futurist forum?

LOL! Now I have heard it all.

 

[BABerean2]

These trolls seem to be dedicated to the prevention of any rational discussion of end time prophecy.

Please give us your definition of a "troll" so we will know to what degree some of us should be offended.

Is anyone who does not agree with Dispensational Theology a "troll"?

Would it be your understanding that calling someone a "troll" would violate forum rules? Yes or No ?


I love you, Brother.



.

 

[Interplanner]

And then there's the question of what a prophet actually said. If they actually said there were 70 consecutive "weeks" but that conflicts with BW, then it's not what the prophet actually said.

If they actually said their audience would see the city and temple destroyed but that conflicts with BW, then it's not what they actually said.

That's how we know what rational means to BW.

The thing that would be the most clear to do is to have a safehouse for "agree with BW" people.

Let's not forget the helpful masthead statement of L'Abri Fellowship: Christianity is objectively true; therefore it is open to all questions. (Ie, safe houses are not needed).

 

[Rev20]

The thing that would be the most clear to do is to have a safehouse for "agree with BW" people.

LOL! So true.

 

[Manasseh_]

??? What is self-righteous about observing that every time anyone tries to discuss anything said by any Bible prophet, half a dozen or so people jump in and say that we should not even be considering what he said.

, you can A.Agree, B. Disagree and defend your position, or C. Ignore them, that's what an open forum is all about, but referring to them as 'trolls' imo doesn't seem appropriate simply because they disagree


personally I feel you're really saying (without saying it outright) that the preterists on this forum disagree with you and for some reason it's really frustrating you , I'm post trib and there's been quite a number of pretribbers disagree with my position in this section but I haven't felt a need to start a thread that in a sense says "it's not fair", please BW correct me if my observation is wrong,...

 

[Biblewriter]

, you can A.Agree, B. Disagree and defend your position, or C. Ignore them, that's what an open forum is all about, but referring to them as 'trolls' imo doesn't seem appropriate simply because they disagree


personally I feel you're really saying (without saying it outright) that the preterists on this forum disagree with you and for some reason it's really frustrating you , I'm post trib and there's been quite a number of pretribbers disagree with my position in this section but I haven't felt a need to start a thread that in a sense says "it's not fair", please BW correct me if my observation is wrong,...

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am rather saying that there are about a half dozen or so individuals here that seem to be dedicated to disrupting and derailing any and every discussion of the ins and outs of Bible prophecy.

Disagreeing about how to interpret the details of Bible prophecy is vastly different from claiming that it the things contained in these prophecies will never happen at all, and claiming, as some do, that we should be studying other parts of the Bible instead of these parts.

 

[Rev20]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am rather saying that there are about a half dozen or so individuals here that seem to be dedicated to disrupting and derailing any and every discussion of the ins and outs of Bible prophecy.

Disagreeing about how to interpret the details of Bible prophecy is vastly different from claiming that it the things contained in these prophecies will never happen at all, and claiming, as some do, that we should be studying other parts of the Bible instead of these parts.

Biblewriter, will you please provide some examples so we can (maybe) understand you? I believe I have requested this before (#3, #13); but so far you have provided nothing that might clue us in.

If you avoid this question, again, I will assume this thread is nothing more than a whine session.

 

[Juelrei]

Deleted by poster

 

[BABerean2]

I understand your point. For any post given, there could be someone to disagree. For instance: Pre-Trib (my position) vs Post-Trib (other). It seems that the disagreements are informal rather than availing themselves of the Formal Debate Section.

Not that I am so knowledgeable as you, but I do have responders of the opposite view.. Should we indicate on the post we write that what we write is not an invitation to informally debate it? Else take the challenge and make it a Formal Debate?

Such things you've probably already considered. As it is there are already "Safe-houses" for those who do not want their posts to be even informally debated.

Some movie trivia now that seems to me to be applicable to make my point:

The movie "Matrix", when Neo is facing the computer representative who's only purpose is to stop him. And Neo holds up his hand and wiggles his finger. "Come at me."

The movie "Sudden Impact" where Dirty Harry says to the thief. "Go ahead, make my day."

Of course there's also the other movie "Lord of the Rings" where Gandalf bangs his magical staff on the rock and yells "You shall not pass!"

Either way I suppose a person has to communicate their position.

I apologize if this is viewed as inappropriate.

You make some very good points here, Sister.

It has always been my understanding that this forum was open to all viewpoints.

The one thing that keeps all of us on the correct path here is others who know what is written in God's Word and are willing to challenge anything they view as an aberration.

Unfortunately, our Flesh does not like correction. Sometimes that produces the name-calling.

So, far I have been called...

liar, blind, fool, antiBerean, and now troll.

All of those have been forgiven. I have no choice, based on scripture.



We are to love the Brethren, and the Sisters, even when they become frustrated.

 

[parousia70]

Disagreeing about how to interpret the details of Bible prophecy is vastly different from claiming that it the things contained in these prophecies will never happen at all, and claiming, as some do, that we should be studying other parts of the Bible instead of these parts.

I'm with Rev 20... show us some specific examples of this.

Clearly claiming that certain eschatoloy has already been fulfilled is not the same as saying the prophesies are not true... no one here that I have seen has ever claimed the prophecies are not true and correct prophesies, we just differ on the timing of their fulfillment.

Just to be clear, according to the RULES of this forum, it is entirely acceptable and reasonable to express the belief in the past fulfillment of those prophesies, and those of us who do are not trolls, liars, unchristian, thread derailers or prophesy deniers but are to be considered ON EQUAL FOOTING and are to be given an EQUAL CHANCE to express those views with those who hold opposing, Futuristic eschatological views :

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748609/

III. Eschatological Viewpoints Allowed on CF
Futurism: Futurism is the eschatological viewpoint that interprets portions of the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, and other prophecies, as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.

Pre-tribulation: The pre-tribulation position advocates that the rapture will occur before the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period, while the second coming will occur at the end of the seven-year tribulation period. Pre-tribulationists often describe the rapture as Jesus coming for the church and the second coming as Jesus coming with the church.

Mid-tribulation: The mid-tribulation position espouses that the rapture will occur at some point in the middle of the tribulation period, or during Daniel's 70th week. The tribulation is typically divided into two periods of 3.5 years each. Mid-tribulationists hold that the saints will go through the first period (Beginning of Travail, which is not "the tribulation"), but will be raptured into Heaven before the severe outpouring of God's wrath in the second half of the tribulation.

Post-tribulation: The post-tribulation position places the rapture at the end of the tribulation period. Post-tribulation writers define the tribulation period in a generic sense as the entire present age, or in a specific sense of a period of time preceding the second coming of Christ. The emphasis in this view is that the church will undergo the tribulation even though the church will be spared the wrath of God.

Pre-wrath Tribulation: The pre-wrath tribulation position states that Christians will be raptured sometime during the tribulation that occurs in the second half of the 70th week of Daniel, and before the day of the Lord's wrath. The pre-wrath position emphasizes the biblical distinction between tribulation (which Christians have been promised) and the wrath of God (which Christians have been promised deliverance/salvation from).

Historicism: in Christian eschatology is a method of interpretation which associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events and identifies symbolic beings with historical persons or societies. The main texts of interest are apocalyptic literature, such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation.

Idealism: (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as symbols.

Partial Preterism: Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70 or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero. The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.


Perhaps ChristianForums.com is not the best venue for you BW if you disagree with their rules for the discussion of eschatology.

 

[ebedmelech]

I'm with Rev 20... show us some specific examples of this.

You won't get them parousia70! Biblewriter, simply thinks he has the proper view of the end times, and it pains him to be challenged on his view.

The church I attend is quite large, and SBC, but I can tell you I know many members who are amill or partial preterist. Like me, they stay because of the outreach and the fellowship. They realize eschatology is NOT the test of one's faith, and they fellowship without causing schism.

The flat fact is many Christians that heeded to futurism, (particularly dispensational eschatology), are finding the problems with it.

I think what has really caused them to read the scriptures more when it comes to eschatology is Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series! They see things they question and because they go to the word, they find problems with what they've been believing.

As we can see even in this forum, the growth of those who have become amillennial or partial preterist because the simply started searching for answers.

 

[bibletruth469]

Are you discouraged because there are saints who don't hold the same view that you do?


This is not the reason that I have been discouraged. It is fine to disagree, but to attack others is not what Christians should do.
As Christians we have all been misled or mistaken by the teachings of others at one time or another. I believe if an opposing view drives one back to the word of God it's not a bad thing.


I agree.

This is going to be an issue until the Lord returns. The problem I would see is in those who would wish to challenge whether one is a Christian because they have a different view of eschatology.


I also agree.

What I know is this...when the Lord returns there is NO DOUBT we all are going to find out we where wrong at some particular point in what we believe about the end times.

The main issue : what is ones relationship with Jesus Christ and what one does while on this earth to bring others to him!

 

[Interplanner]

bible...469
that's why it helps for the Gospel event itself to be very central even one's eschatology. I doubt very much the scenarios I hear about battles in the middle east and rapture etc, but none at all that the preaching of the cross remains as the passion of the NT and of what they thought the OT was moving toward.

 

[Biblewriter]

I am not going to bother to go back through multiple threads to dig out proof quotes.

The fact is that the objections to what I write have been filled with comments such as "he has nothing but Ezekiel," "you need to study the New Testament," "show me that in the New Testament," and such drivel.

 

[Interplanner]

The upshot, though BW, is that you don't sound like the NT. You are very much on a mission that is driven by a few OT places (I mean the ones way back), that exhibit no adaptation of themes, motifs, images (FF Bruce's expression) to Messiah and his Gospel its role in the (then) coming age (which would be found in later prophets).

That is why 95% of your reference point is late Ezekiel. And every-other line in Zechariah 14 (the ones the NT doesn't use). Now just think: if you spend 95% of your time in those sources, with your own and/or Judaistic understanding of those OT passages, without the NT way of doing and saying things, what do you expect but comments like: you don't sound like the NT, you should maybe read it more, or 'show us where you get this in the NT?' It is entirely logical, not drivelous.

And then you go 100 years in to the ECFs instead of what matters most: the "moments" right after the DofJ when it was clear that the total end of this world was not going to take place (as allowed by Christ's teaching). Logically, that "moment" is what matters most in finding the meaning of NT eschatology.