you tell me
the futurists
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
you tell me
Interplanner
Well-known member
You would want to check what the NT says would accompany the 2nd coming. Mt24B says that the angels gather believers from all corners, even the heavens, as this world is destroyed. Likewise 2 Peter 3, in which there are no details in or about Israel.
The 'prophetic details' about Israel in Mt24A and similar are about the events of the horrible revolt of the 6th decade that ended with a completely destroyed Israel. Israel was destroyed as he said. Believers were already out of there and continued in his mission.
are you suggesting the second coming has already happened?
Epoisses
New member
You can't have a rational dialogue with them on this. Their minds just won't accept that Jesus was speaking to the last generation.
how can you have a rational dialogue with anyone if they don't understand what you are saying?
Epoisses
New member
Just fake it.
so I should pretend to understand what you are saying?
-sorry
-I don't understand what you are saying
-can you understand that?
Epoisses
New member
I have some bad news for you. Daniel and Revelation are not history lessons. They contain important information so that you will be able to stand in the day of the Lord and not fall away. All the world will worship the beast and his image except for those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Futurism (especially Dispensationalism) is the most allegorical and figurative of all the eschatology views, including Idealism.
The entirety of the Revelation has to be made into future figurative metaphors that are not literal in any sense, yet demanding that some (not all) numbers are literal.
But the worst thing is their scathing double standard-driven attack on Amillennialism, which embraces the non-tangible as literalism along with the tangible.
References to 144,000 and 1,000 are "literal" (tangible and quantifiable), but the 7 spirits of God is symbolic or some "literal" division of the Spirit of God.
Forged blades coming out of the front of a head is allegedly not "literal", but other things are. It's a selective hodge-podge of picking and choosing what is "literal" (tangible), with almost everything representing other things by metaphor but still being considered "literal" in the same way that other idiomatic things are recognized as such.
Futurism is the most self-impuging and inconsistent anthropocentric approach possible, when it's the revelation of Jesus Christ rather than the revelatin of stuff that's gonna happen in "my" lifetime because I'm so important and it was written all about me and my timeframe on earth.
Considering that Futurism was introduced by a Jesuit during the Counter-Reformation, and the formatted into a 19th-century heresy by several deluded and insignificant men; it's not even tenable based on its own inconsistencies with itself and in false criticism of other views.
Full Preterism suffers from the same lack of credibility from a late introduction by a similar Jesuit source.
Idealism is usually employed in the manner of insisting actual historical people and places and events were purely non-existent and allegorical, then that extreme of that view is no more tenable to Futurism or Full Preterism (wherein there is no remaining bodily return of the Lord as the Second Advent).
Historicism is varied, but is too often a parallel of Futurism; always looking for historial events to be the fullfilment of figurative things in the text.
And any denial of Amillennialism denies that Believers are in the kingdom NOW. The only "literal" view is Amillennialism.
historicism actually forces your interpretation of the apocalypse
-and
-there is nothing wrong with that
-if
-it fits
-you have to make all the pieces fit
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
That's why the valid eschatological view is appropriately Ecclectic, with the authentic address of Preterist (Partial), Idealist, Historicist, and Futurist tenets properly applied, and with an Amillennial basis.
Last edited:
how can you ignore a thousand year christian empire?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
They don't. You can't make them fit without sacrificing details.
... and there I thought I invented it ... :doh:
I guess it's true ... there is no new thing under the sun ...
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It's a perversion of Chiliasm, which was a very early view within the pre-Nicene period. Nothing new. Just more jacked up.
Well, you see, I never had the benefit of all this wonderful extra-biblical scholarship when I set forth to understand the Bible. I just read it for a few years and tried to understand it as best I could. So, in more colloquial terms, "If I'm wrong, I came by it honest."
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, fzappa, many Christians are taught that the Bible is a rather accessible, direct, today's market communication, without anything historical to consider.
Take a phrase like '...and the truth will set you free.' While it can be true in many circumstances, he was talking to and about Judaism, to start with.
This idea that there is absolutely direct and unqualified communication in the Bible, without any homework, is worst when it comes to eschatology and the Rev. As you know, there are millions of attempts by many people with a background in fast-food service or oil-changing to dive into the thing 2000 years, 8000 miles and 1 religion away from its original audience. Do we do this with anything else out there with similar features--like Tacitus' Histories? And there are a million books out there claiming to have the "key" to the Rev (but none of them seem to know they are the millionth attempt).
I'm perfectly aware that the same thing/book can be summarized as a love letter from God, and it is, but let's not be too quick to use catchy, juicy phrases, like 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' unless they are things Christ really wants done.
Epoisses
New member
The day of the Lord is the day of the Lord's appearing broken up into the 1st and 2nd comings. Prophecy is not all about the 1st coming and not all about the 2nd. The Olivet discourse is a great example.