Phil I believe your title alone disqualifies this thread as “ecumenical.” Ecumenical threads to my knowledge are a low flame environment and by attributing “error” to an opposing view tells me one cannot argue their view on its own merits. I have seen your posts and others from the prederist view and as with other groups you can only point out alleged errors of others to present parts and pieces of your own views.
If you cannot present your case without comparison or multiple web links to the ideas of others then why bother? I have yet to see a prederist lay out their view without starting with why futurists are wrong. Perhaps your ecumenical thread should cover your prederist theory.
In all honesty when you post you use the same approach the JWs use to “prove” the trinity wrong. They find out of context verses, switch hermeneutics within a passage from literal to symbolic to allegory and back to literal again to stuff their arguments neatly in the kit bag. Yet when asked for their unadulterated view in opposition all they give is more “proof” why the other view is wrong. This goes on for hundreds of posts and you never find out what they stand for other than they think the other side is in error. Frankly that is your approach as well.
So my advice is to present your case for prederism and see if it can stand without trying to compare it to other views. That would be a first. But I don’t think it can be done. The theory relies on so many shifting hermeneutics within passages and denials of centuries of historic external evidence.
It's probably not a coincidence that he actually denies the Trinity too.
>>>>If you cannot present your case without comparison or multiple web links to the ideas of others then why bother? I have yet to see a prederist lay out their view without starting with why futurists are wrong. Perhaps your ecumenical thread should cover your prederist theory.<<<
First, I am not a preterist, so I will not be able to explain that theory in a manner like a preterist might do. About the only thing I know about the doctrine of the preterist is that they believe all prophecy—old and new testament—was fulfilled by about 70 A.D. I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. I personally cannot see it. I can only see the old testament prophecy as being fulfilled, as is written.
I would recommend you browse back through my posts and you will find my doctrine is defined by the scripture I post.
Philip
>>>Phil I believe your title alone disqualifies this thread as ecumenical. Ecumenical threads to my knowledge are a low flame environment and by attributing error to an opposing view tells me one cannot argue their view on its own merits.<<<
I see what you mean. Labeling the other guy a heretic is so common on this forum I assumed it would be a popular topic. My mistake.
Philip
>>>In all honesty when you post you use the same approach the JWs use to prove the trinity wrong. They find out of context verses, switch hermeneutics within a passage from literal to symbolic to allegory and back to literal again to stuff their arguments neatly in the kit bag.<<<<
LOL! I have been accused of a lot of things, but never before have I been accused of watering-down the trinity. That is what you are accusing me of, aren’t you?
Philip
If you cannot present your case without comparison or multiple web links to the ideas of others then why bother? I have yet to see a prederist lay out their view without starting with why futurists are wrong. Perhaps your ecumenical thread should cover your prederist theory.
A non-trivial percentage of Dispensational Caucus threads go that very way.
>>>So my advice is to present your case for prederism and see if it can stand without trying to compare it to other views.<<<
The more I read your responses, the more I am convinced you have never bothered to read my posts. Otherwise you would know that I always post scriptural references in support of my views.
This is what I believe, in a nutshell:
Christ fulfilled all of the old testament prophecies (Luke 21:22, John 5:39.) He also inherited all the old covenants (Gal 3:16.) He was only sent to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (Mat 15:24,) and those were also the only ones to whom he sent his disciples (Mat 10:5-6,) until much later: around the 10th Chapter of Acts, when they were also sent to the Gentiles, along with the new apostle, Paul. Christ said his apostles would not have gone over the cities of Israel until his first coming (Mat 10:23.) He also said some would not taste death before his coming (Mat 16:28,) and that it would occur in the generation of his disciples (Matt 24:34.)
That paragraph, with references, provides the foundation for the interpretation of other parts of the New Testament.
The reason Christ was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was because they were his elect. It fulfilled the O.T. prophecy were he bound up Judah and Israel into one fold. Those lost sheep, along with the disciples and apostles, were resurrected around A.D. 70, in the generation in which Jesus said they would be resurrected. That was the First Resurrection, spoken of in Rev 20. They are also identified as the 144,000 in Rev 7 and 14, and as the firstfruits, redeemed from among men. They were all from the children of Israel: the faithful remnant. In other words, Israel was, and will always be, the chosen people; but only those of the first resurrection. Since their resurrection they have served as priests to Christ, the high priest, in his holy temple, as indicated in Rev 20. The disciples sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28,) and are partially identified in the first clause of Rev 20:4.
The destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in the generation that Christ said it would occur, was mentioned in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, along with various references in the Revelation in which the city is named, Babylon the Great. John wrote the book of Revelation around 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia: hence the four references to the seven churches in Asia. The Revelation was written primarily for the seven churches, but also for the other servants of Christ.
The Revelation has five main themes: the destruction of Jerusalem; the rise and fall of the beast, Nero; the first resurrection; the binding, loosing and eventual destruction of Satan; and the second coming, aka, the final judgement. The destruction of Satan and final judgement have not occurred, to date. I do believe Satan has been loosed upon us already, and he is coming after the Church, world-wide (e.g., the breadth of the earth.)
I have no scriptural support for the statement I made about Satan being loosed already. Just call it a hunch; but I have plenty for the other statements.
The First Resurrection carried to heaven, at a minimum, all who had received the awesome power of the holy ghost, and chose to remained faithful (there was a falling away prior to the resurrection.) The rest of us are saved by hearing the Word by preachers that He sends (Rom 10:13-15,) which is exactly the way I was saved about 40 years ago.
There you have it. My super-brief, nutshell version of post-millennialism. Nothing fancy.
Philip
>>>Phil I believe your title alone disqualifies this thread as ecumenical. <<<
What ecumenical thread are you referring to?
LOL. I asked the moderator to remove the ecumenical label.
Philip
And in this case it can become a tangent, while the lost head to Hell and while we need more holiness, and thus not be ashamed at His coming. And He is.