Post by stormcrow on Aug 17, 2011 11:35:49 GMT -5
Well, as some of you may know, I was a contributor here for a while then left. I'm back now because - while I still refuse to call myself a "preterist" (STILL hate labels) - I'm more convinced than ever that all prophecy has been fulfilled: the last of it (the Law) being completely and irrevocably fulfilled in 70 AD with the passing of "heaven and earth" (Old Covenant Israel and the Temple which represented it.)
I left here for a while because some pretty heavy stuff was being thrown my way and I needed time to investigate these issues myself. I have been studying long and hard to understand some things, and while I still don't get it all, I am more convinced than ever of the need to interpret everything we read about the "end times" in light of Christ's words to His disciples:
With that in mind, I have been trying to get other people to see just how serious this issue is, and made this post last night, on another board, when told I wasn't interpreting "last days" and "last hour" correctly. Here is that exchange:
I think the words and ideas they express are clear and simple. I believe our understanding of what these words mean has been corrupted by false doctrine and false teaching.
What part of "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." isn't perfectly clear?
What part of "things which must soon take place" isn't clear?
What part of "the time is near" isn't clear?
What part of "be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near." isn't clear?
What part of "behold, the Judge is standing right at the door." isn't clear?
Do the words "soon" and "near" mean something different today than they did 2,000 years ago?
If a first century wife sent her son into the fields to tell her first century husband that "dinner would be ready soon", would he expect it in a few minutes or a few thousand years?
What would you expect?
The problem is to accept certain doctrines regarding the end-times requires people to ignore these words, or create a whole new class of meaning for them that simply doesn't exist in any other context.
This whole issue goes to the question of whether we are going to take Christ at His word or not. If there is a conflict between what He says and what we believe based on certain doctrines, then it seems fairly clear to me that we need to rethink doctrine based on His word and not the other way around.
What finally brought me to reject any "dispensationalist/futurist" position altogether, was a series of posts from a user on another board, reposted here for emphasis:
When any doctrine forces a Christian into suggesting that Christ's words were for mere "appearances", or that He was a liar or didn't know what He was talking about, or that the NT contains what has to be the biggest "contradiction" of them all, then it's clear that such a doctrine cannot be supported rationally or scripturally.
I left here for a while because some pretty heavy stuff was being thrown my way and I needed time to investigate these issues myself. I have been studying long and hard to understand some things, and while I still don't get it all, I am more convinced than ever of the need to interpret everything we read about the "end times" in light of Christ's words to His disciples:
{27} "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. {28} "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)
With that in mind, I have been trying to get other people to see just how serious this issue is, and made this post last night, on another board, when told I wasn't interpreting "last days" and "last hour" correctly. Here is that exchange:
Last hour, last days....there is more than your interpretation of what those phrases encompass.
I think the words and ideas they express are clear and simple. I believe our understanding of what these words mean has been corrupted by false doctrine and false teaching.
What part of "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." isn't perfectly clear?
What part of "things which must soon take place" isn't clear?
What part of "the time is near" isn't clear?
What part of "be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near." isn't clear?
What part of "behold, the Judge is standing right at the door." isn't clear?
Do the words "soon" and "near" mean something different today than they did 2,000 years ago?
If a first century wife sent her son into the fields to tell her first century husband that "dinner would be ready soon", would he expect it in a few minutes or a few thousand years?
What would you expect?
The problem is to accept certain doctrines regarding the end-times requires people to ignore these words, or create a whole new class of meaning for them that simply doesn't exist in any other context.
This whole issue goes to the question of whether we are going to take Christ at His word or not. If there is a conflict between what He says and what we believe based on certain doctrines, then it seems fairly clear to me that we need to rethink doctrine based on His word and not the other way around.
What finally brought me to reject any "dispensationalist/futurist" position altogether, was a series of posts from a user on another board, reposted here for emphasis:
Jesus said it would all occur in that generation and yet it has not all occured in that generation.
Christ will return when the Father says so, however the NT makes it appear that Jesus would probably return at least within 100 years of the resurrection, though no date was given.
There is a contradiction,according to the NT, Christ should have returned in the first century, but He did not...The actual truth is that the NT teaches a very soon return of Christ that has not happened in 1900 years.
Christ will return when the Father says so, however the NT makes it appear that Jesus would probably return at least within 100 years of the resurrection, though no date was given.
There is a contradiction,according to the NT, Christ should have returned in the first century, but He did not...The actual truth is that the NT teaches a very soon return of Christ that has not happened in 1900 years.
When any doctrine forces a Christian into suggesting that Christ's words were for mere "appearances", or that He was a liar or didn't know what He was talking about, or that the NT contains what has to be the biggest "contradiction" of them all, then it's clear that such a doctrine cannot be supported rationally or scripturally.
