Left Behind a superstition? Armageddon a myth?

[dmpeace]

You're conservative bias is showing.

I've studied eschatology for about six years now, and he's spot on. Your approval/disapproval of the article, however, is of no consequence to me.

Not conservative, biblical. Nice you've studied eschatology- is of no consequence to me and that doesn't really show much for when listen to the likes of Rob Bell,, oh and non sense articles. Maybe you like to sound smart.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

Ooh, the old ad hominem!

 

[Gnarwhal]

Ooh, the old ad hominem!

Init great?

 

[dmpeace]

It is quite that simple and very vivid and clear and for discussing it you would have to take down this thread because the nature of the op topic.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

No, this thread does not depend on the traditional view of Hell; it only depends on whether or not Hell exists.

If we were to discuss how weak the Traditional View is in light of biblical evidence to Conditionalism or Restorationism, that would be the violation of CF policy.

 

[dmpeace]

The op mentions the traditional view of hell which isn't weak its as plain as day and as common as sense.

 

[SarahsKnight]

SarahsKnight, I applaud you for beginning this quest into the Apocalypse; you have now discovered another eschatology than Futurism exists.

If I may make a recommendation, I think Revelation: Four Views may be quite helpful to you. It is a commentary which goes through each verse and gives each of the four views' interpretations, those four views being Futurist, Preterist, Historicist, and Idealist. The link I gave is for the revised second edition in paperback, but the older edition is in hardcover and is cheaper if you're buying on the used market.


Kudos to Matt's post. I contend that apocalyptic literature is one of the among least understood genres of literature in the Bible. It's not a genre that was ever meant to be taken very literally.



Originally Posted by dmpeace

A full Preterist view think all prophesy was fulfilled in the 1st century and its a heretical one.
​

That's why not very many people lock themselves into full preterists viewpoint.


Originally Posted by dmpeace

Jesus often spoke of hell has eternal punishment so there is no misinterpreting any of that nor making it mythical.
​

If only it were that simple. But it isn't. And discussing this is against CF rules, so there it is.

Thanks for the encouragement and the link to get me started on understanding all this, Forest Lord. It wasn't easy for me to suddenly begin walking down a path away from orthodox Christianity, to realize that many of the things I'd been taught as Biblical and Godly all me my life and is mainstream doctrine just may not be the truth. Anyone who claims to know it all about God and rejects all opposing interpretations to a certain theological subject as heretics or false or whatever is just fooling themselves, but I eventually got over my fear of opposition and decided to start looking and studying for myself. There are reasons I've found so far to think the whole Armageddon idea might be true, and also reasons why it might in fact be false and the point of Revelation and God's Kingdom has been entirely missed. I don't know for certain (who can truly know for 100% certain? We are human mortals beneath God, after all), and I want to know, or at least get a good foundation in believing one way or another. I don't want to just be led by carrots and sticks anymore. Because when the stuff I believed to be Biblically true just because everyone else I knew did came back to ruin my life with religious OCD for nearly a year a short time ago, I realized that Jesus Himself wasn't a mindless follower; He was both a servant and a leader, and He dared to question. (And of course, being Christ, He not only questioned, He told it how it really was to people, and it often shocked them.) And I need to try to be a servant and a leader, too.

I will tell you all one thing, though. One thing that's not making it look so good for the Left-Behind-esque rapture and anti-christ-battling viewpoint is some of the fruit I've seen as a result. Take the Left Behind game that was based off of the books, for example. Have you heard of it? LB: Eternal Forces? The concepts presented by its developers, all the criticism toward it for its inclusion of violence carried out by the Christian side against those who do not convert.

Left Behind

Critics: 'Left Behind' game glorifies violence - USATODAY.com

Something is wrong here. And very fishy to me. I don't care WHAT is really going to happen Biblically in the future, we believers should NEVER promote violence in the name of our God in any way, form, or fashion, not even through interactive media in the form of pure fiction. God takes care of judgment if it need be done, and He alone. It's a subject that I really don't think we have any business coming up with our own pictures of. Christian parents would commonly object to violence in video games (and indeed I myself agree that it can reach disturbing levels sometimes in video games), but what, sticking a Christian label over it and advertising it as a method of teaching kids and preparing "their souls" for Christ's return suddenly makes the violence okay? It doesn't matter whether you cut out graphical blood and gore, at the end of the day the player is still shooting people in the face in the name of God. And no amount of preaching is going to get me to accept that that sort of thing is good and righteous.

 

[SarahsKnight]

OP:

(and I find eternity pertaining to both the saved and unsaved nowhere spelled out in the Bible myself, but that's another story),

dmpeace:

The op mentions the traditional view of hell which isn't weak its as plain as day and as common as sense.

Okay, look, dmpeace, sorry if that part of my OP got you thinking I was trying to start slamming on the traditional hell or those who hold it. I did not mean it that way. I only meant it as a passing statement to exemplify how I have changed lately in wanting to begin investigating all sides of a theological subject.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Thanks for the encouragement and the link to get me started on understanding all this, Forest Lord. It wasn't easy for me to suddenly begin walking down a path away from orthodox Christianity, to realize that many of the things I'd been taught as Biblical and Godly all me my life and is mainstream doctrine just may not be the truth. Anyone who claims to know it all about God and rejects all opposing interpretations to a certain theological subject as heretics or false or whatever is just fooling themselves, but I eventually got over my fear of opposition and decided to start looking and studying for myself. There are reasons I've found so far to think the whole Armageddon idea might be true, and also reasons why it might in fact be false and the point of Revelation and God's Kingdom has been entirely missed. I don't know for certain (who can truly know for 100% certain? We are human mortals beneath God, after all), and I want to know, or at least get a good foundation in believing one way or another. I don't want to just be led by carrots and sticks anymore. Because when the stuff I believed to be Biblically true just because everyone else I knew did came back to ruin my life with religious OCD for nearly a year a short time ago, I realized that Jesus Himself wasn't a mindless follower; He was both a servant and a leader, and He dared to question. (And of course, being Christ, He not only questioned, He told it how it really was to people, and it often shocked them.) And I need to try to be a servant and a leader, too.

I will tell you all one thing, though. One thing that's not making it look so good for the Left-Behind-esque rapture and anti-christ-battling viewpoint is some of the fruit I've seen as a result. Take the Left Behind game that was based off of the books, for example. Have you heard of it? LB: Eternal Forces? The concepts presented by its developers, all the criticism toward it for its inclusion of violence carried out by the Christian side against those who do not convert.

Left Behind

Critics: 'Left Behind' game glorifies violence - USATODAY.com

Something is wrong here. And very fishy to me. I don't care WHAT is really going to happen Biblically in the future, we believers should NEVER promote violence in the name of our God in any way, form, or fashion, not even through interactive media in the form of pure fiction. God takes care of judgment if it need be done, and He alone. It's a subject that I really don't think we have any business coming up with our own pictures of. Christian parents would commonly object to violence in video games (and indeed I myself agree that it can reach disturbing levels sometimes in video games), but what, sticking a Christian label over it and advertising it as a method of teaching kids and preparing "their souls" for Christ's return suddenly makes the violence okay? It doesn't matter whether you cut out graphical blood and gore, at the end of the day the player is still shooting people in the face in the name of God. And no amount of preaching is going to get me to accept that that sort of thing is good and righteous.

I wish I could find a way to get the recording my New Testament professor have about the rapture/tribulation, but I can't figure out how to do so.

 

[dmpeace]

OP:


dmpeace:



Okay, look, dmpeace, sorry if that part of my OP got you thinking I was trying to start slamming on the traditional hell or those who hold it. I did not mean it that way. I only meant it as a passing statement to exemplify how I have changed lately in wanting to begin investigating all sides of a theological subject.

Those Left behind books are bogus, I read them for some reason. You don't have to believe the rapture or sweat over it I haven't got a view of it myself. Nobody know everything about God and the word. Jesus death on the cross is clear though and it was for our sin to save us from what. Scripture makes it clear and the words of Jesus make it clear not mythical he saves us from hell. Though we will never understand all of God or His word, He gave us His word to grow in it understand it and know God or else why have it and people and cults come and try to twist it and muddy it and then you get so called intellectuals that say they have studied so much this and that except the word. Here is what Luke wrote in Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

And 1 John 5:13

13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,[a] and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Scripture is not vague it is written say we may know the truth and it will set us free. Jesus said that He is the truth. Some don't like the idea of hell so they try and make all scripture vague or mythical or this and that.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

Some don't like the idea of hell so they try and make all scripture vague or mythical or this and that.

They don't make it vague, the Greek language makes it vague.

There's been continued debate on what the words aion and aionios mean in the context of hell for over 1500 years. There are also good arguments put forth by all sides, I might add.


I'd better go.... It's too easy for me to go chasing rabbits in these threads.

 

[dmpeace]

Run along.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Well this thread got off topic fast.

OP - I apologize, this thread was supposed to be eschatological, not soteriological. Hopefully we can get back on track!

 

[Rhamiel]

the idea that before the End of the World, that Jesus is going to come along and take all the Christians away before things get bad is an idea that was made up in the 1830's

it has no connection to traditional Christian belief

did God "rapture up" St. Stephen before he could be stoned to death?

Jesus reminds us that the servant is not greater then the master

 

[Saucy]

1) Just because God didn't rapture any early Christians doesn't mean He won't later.

2) Why is it that only traditions can be right? If it's not thousands of years old, it must not be true? God cannot reveal new knowledge to people? It must always be traditions of old?

 

[KingCrimson250]

Back on topic...

I'm a partial preterist (which means I view that all prophecy except for the last 2-3 chapters of Revelation have already been fulfilled - apparently full preterists believe that all the prophecies have been fulfilled, but I've never met one, and I don't understand the view, besides. How anyone can look around at the world today and say "Yep, this is the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven, in all its glory" is beyond me) because to me, that seems to be the most natural reading of the Revelation text. However, I believe that it speaks to the fall of both Jerusalem and the Western Roman Empire, and I also concede that it is theoretically possible that it could be speaking typologically to some sort of greater apocalypse.

 

[Rhamiel]

1 I think that the idea of a pre-trib rapture shows a shallowness, a focus on the individual, on avoiding pain
the message of Christianity is not "believe in God and only good things will happen"

this goes against Luke 14:27
And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

2 Christianity is a faith that has been handed down through the ages
you might get deeper into some ideas, but there should not really be anything "new"

the cannon of scripture is closed, we are not going to get new books in the Bible, we are not going to get new teachings

 

[Saucy]

I don't believe in the rapture because I want to escape the tribulation. I think someone really interpreted things the way they did and I can see how they did because I agree when I read it myself. It does say we will be 'caught up' (raptured, whether or not it's pre, mid or post trib).

Are there not several verses in Revelation that describe a mark on the forehead of the Christians and they did not receive the punishment the non-believers did during the tribulation?

 

[Gnarwhal]

1) Just because God didn't rapture any early Christians doesn't mean He won't later.

2) Why is it that only traditions can be right? If it's not thousands of years old, it must not be true? God cannot reveal new knowledge to people? It must always be traditions of old?

That's not what Rham is saying, God's not going to rapture anybody because that's not what the text says is going to happen. In addition to that, the prevailing pattern in the biblical narrative is that God walks with his people through tribulation, he doesn't exempt them from it.

The view that has dominated Christianity since the beginning is that the tribulation essentially began when Christ left the tomb, it has and it will suffer such tribulation all the way until Christ's second coming. There won't be some special period set aside from just a few short years. For the last 2,000 years Christians in different parts of the globe have endured varying degrees of persecution.

The thing is, many Americans—especially Americans with a strong evangelicali/non-denominational background—believe that "tradition" is a dirty word. It's really not. Tradition shows us the tracks that Christianity has safely followed theologically, what's kept us on the straight and narrow and protected Christianity from straying into heresy.

There's a beautiful saying from Vincent of Lérins that I think captures what this is all about, he says, "...we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, always and by all."

 

[Saucy]

Yeah because tradition is man-made. Someone interpreted XYZ and this tradition started. The only difference is it lasted a long time, so it's held as true. Like, the tradition that priests cannot marry. That's not a biblical idea, but only done because married priests were passing down their church authority to their children and the church wanted to stop that. Mary being perfect and sinless wasn't an early belief because it wasn't mentioned once in scripture...it wasn't even something that came up until 100 or more years later. But it's a tradition someone started and held as truth today.

That is just an example...I'm not debating those ideas. But just because something is a tradition and been held a long time doesn't make it true.