Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128162 | ||
Hello again Tim. The questions were to provoke to edification. I read the thread of posts with no bias one way or another. I saw a lot of opinions and explanations going both ways, and zero contemplation on either side. How can truth be determined if the group of you discussing a topic cannot be objective? Better a poor and wise youth than an old king beyond correction, right? I know that in my early walk, I was absolutely premillialist. Then someone showed me some things. Because of my firm stance on the one side, I didn't hear what he said. After a few days of contemplation on what he had to say, considering the logic and soundness of his words, I was pursuaded to seek his logic. After a while, I realized that neither theory was sound, and that it was a futile effort to attempt to sway anyone to your particular persuasion. All you can do is offer food for thought and try to provoke those seeking such truths to do so objectively. While I again say that I am of neither persuasion, I can most definitely assert that premillenialism is not based on facts, but the lack of them (i.e. no evidence of the return, no documentation of the tribulation as understood, no documentation on whose name added up to the dreaded number, etc.), and because of predisposed bias, they do not see or hear the preterist argument. They also have a tendency to assign metaphoric meaning to plain passages to support a theory that makes more sense to them than the alternative. The preterist on the other hand base their argument on many historical facts, but they fail to prove the return without spiritualizing it, they are unable to explain pertinent aspects of the Revelation (which require explanations if they truly understand it as they assert), they spiritualize the 1000-year reign because there is no such history to support a time of peace as described in the passages pertaining to the reign. Further, they fail to explain why the persecutions continued beyond 70 AD if Christ had come back to establish his kingdom. So all in all, I'm just trying to provoke the discussion by offering a nonbiased series of questions to make everyone think and edify one another. It is all I have to offer on this subject without provoking instead a measure of strife, which is certainly not my desire or goal, I want to be a part of this community if you would all care to have me. Xerxes |
||||||
2 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128171 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! Everyone who follows the forum rules is welcome my friend! :-) I do have to point one thing out though. You say that you are offering a nonbiased series of questions, but that is not entirely accurate. You believe both positions to be wrong, which is your bias. :-) I would also disagree that a premillenialist's position is based entirely upon a lack of evidence. I came to my understanding as a young Christian from reading Scripture alone. :-) I didn't come from a Christian family, so I had no preconceived notions at all. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128190 | ||
Hey Tim, Good point. You're absolutely right that my bias is that I adhere to neither, but I am willing and prepared for both. About the "lack of evidence" comment: I am not saying that the premillenialist theory has no foundation or is not credible. I'm saying that its credibility is in the fact that many of the stated things seem not to have happened yet, and this perception allows for unsubstantiated substantiation. *laugh* Get my drift? Now, are you truly telling me in all honesty that you had no preconceived notions whatsoever? Because I find that hard to believe. I know complete heathens that believe "Jesus is coming back," or have at least heard the concept. If you heard the concept prior to picking up the book, you would have a natural affinity for taking the scriptures in that sense. Also, the liklihood of you being well versed in history at that stage in your Christianity, while not impossible, is not likely, so you would not have any idea that some of the things mentioned COULD have already happened. Xerxes |
||||||
4 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128220 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! I was only six when I accepted Christ. By the time I was 14, I was already called to preach. So, I really didn't have any preconceived notions at all. I had no one to teach them to me. My family knew nothing about the Bible except that is protects the coffee table from dust! :-) As far as history goes, I was pretty well versed as a young age. I was reading Isaac Asimov when I was six years old, so I was into heavy reading even as a child. By the time I got to college, I was well read on the issue from all sides. I know the positions. I just don't agree with the preterist postion and I do not believe that the Bible makes a very strong case for it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128223 | ||
Good job Mr. Tim *laugh* You and I are in the same boat regarding the preterist position. I don't know that I agree with it either. Nor am I sure I agree with the premillenial position. Thus, I am undecided. I see holes in both cases, and I am content to continue exploring until I learn the truth or see Christ return. Thanks for the debate. Peace and prosperity to you in the Lord Jesus Christ, Xerxes |
||||||
6 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128252 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! No problem my friend! I always enjoy an interesting and polite discussion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||