You may profit from reading what is written at these links when you get time.
Essays on Eschatology James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html
Eons ago I recall getting from a "turn or burn" relative one of those
neat brochures that outlined an interpretation of the book of
Revelation with pictures of people being "raptured" and trucks and
cars and planes crashing as souls flew out of the driver's/pilot's
places. I have of course read my Hal Lindsey, but since taking a more
scholarly bent to my studies, haven't thought much about it. I have
said to others, if the parousia comes in my lifetime, it shall find
me either asleep or in a library somewhere. The subject was of that
little concern to me.
But it has become clear that certain questions dealing with
eschatology, in particular the questions, "Did Jesus predict a soon
return? Did the Apostles expect a soon return?", have become grist
for the skeptical and critical mill. Of course we know well that
skeptics of the caliber of say, Farrell Till, are about as likely to
understand what they are reading as they are to understand quantum
physics. But I have corresponded with at least one person who has
said that they were "losing their faith" over this very question, and
I am sure others exist as well.
<http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.html>The Big Picture -- what
preterism is all about, basically
Issue #1: OT Background Data
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/dayofl.html>"The Day of the
Lord": An OT Judgmental Precursor
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html>The Book of Daniel
and the Son of Man Precursor
* The Evidence of Other OT Prophets
*
<http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/demar-gary_pp_01.html>Zechariah
14 and the Coming of Christ [Off Site]
Issue #2: Does the NT teach a "soon" return of Jesus?
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/timepret.html>Preterism and
Ancient Present-Orientation -- a backdoor defense of preterism based
on a social orientation of the ancients
* The Evidence of the Gospels --
<http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html>The Olivet Discourse and
Miscellaneous Synoptic Passages -- see also
<http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html>here [Off Site]
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/paulend.html>The Evidence of the
Pauline literature
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hcesh.html>The Evidence of the
Catholic epistles and Hebrews
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html>The Evidence of Revelation
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/kingpret.html>The Kingdom of God
in Preterist Eschatology
* On <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/ddwplace.html>the location of
Christ's reign by Dee Dee Warren
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/raisecain.html>Raising Cain and
Abel -- against views on resurrection, by Dee Dee Warren
Responses to Preterism
* From the <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschback01.html>In
Depth Bible Studies site
* A <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/tolpret.html>debate between
Dee Dee Warren and a dispensationalist
* From a very, er,
<http://www.tektonics.org/esch/dovtail.html>peculiar website
* From (HA HA, HEE HEE HEE)
<http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillpfft.html>Skeptic X (please control
yourself)
* From Evangelical scholar
<http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretice.html>Thomas Ice (ah -- now
that's better!)
* From Ice and Tim LaHaye in
<http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretice2.html>The End Times
Controversy (wish this were better, but it isn't). Analysis by Gary
DeMar as well,
<http://www.americanvision.org/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=94>here.
Responses to "Full Preterism"
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hythere.html>On the error of Hymenaenism"
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/smithst01.html>Stephen Smith on
"Spiritual Israel"
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/rezwreck.html>Eschatology.org on
resurrection
* <http://www.tektonics.org/esch/wyngaar01.html>"Dualistic
Eschatology" by Tracy VanWyngaarden
~ Janice
At 09:01 AM 4/19/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>Thanks Jack. I was imprecise in my question. If I understand "full
>preterism" correctly, it would essentially say we are now in
>"heaven" in some sense. But if I understand you right, you're
>taking something of a "partial preterist" view.
>
>My background and upbringing are dispensational. When I was a kid,
>we went to "Bible Conference" with the occasional "end times"
>preacher who saw the European Union as the 10-nation confederacy
>that would support the Beast, and stuff like that.
>
>If I had to characterize myself now, it would be as "progressive
>dispensational" or "historically premillenial" but perhaps open to
>"amillenial." I don't think historic premillienialism or
>amillenialism require the exacting Biblical literalism of classic
>dispensationalism, and either could and do coexist with OEC or TE
>types of views on beginnings.
>
>Still, my "spiritual DNA" is unsettled by many TE ideas in
>particular, not so much for how they interact with various creeds
>and confessions (being raised in an independent dispensational
>church, we didn't deal much in confessional statements), but for how
>they interact with the "big picture." The
>"creation-fall-restoration" paradigm seems like the right broad
>outline, however one envisions the timing and details of the
>restoration. But what is being "restored" if Adam was pretty much
>just a regular neolithic guy living a regular neolithic life?
>
>On 4/19/06, jack syme
><<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>What is restored after Christ's return, is the relationship between
>Man and God.
>
>There are conflicting preterist views about "the afterlife". But,
>the traditional preterist views are the same as mainstream protestant views.
>
>After we die, we will be raised into a perfect, immortal, spitirual
>body, and reside with God. We preterists are not expecting a
>resurrection of physical bodies out of the grave. Those that died
>prior to 70 AD were raised at that time. Since then each person
>that dies is raised in a spiritual body, immediately after death, to
>join Christ that day "in paradise."
>
>No one in the preterist camp really knows what is going to happen
>with the Earth, and the physical realm. The Bible says nothing
>about that. The Earth can continue for millenia, or it could end
>now. We just dont know.
>
>But yes, the preterist view is not a literal hermenutic, as is the
>old earth, and TE view. That is why, imo, they are compatible.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>David Opderbeck
>To: <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>Bill Hamilton
>Cc: <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>drsyme@cablespeed.com ;
><mailto:Philtill@aol.com>Philtill@aol.com ;
><mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>dickfischer@verizon.net ;
><mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:54 PM
>Subject: Re: The wrong horse in evolution education
>
>
>I think the two go hand in hand because they both seek to apply a
>"literal" hermeneutic. So I don't think the dispensational slant
>influences the YEC slant so much as they both are influenced by a
>particular approach to the Bible. Although, many early
>dispensationalists, following the Scofield Bible notes, believed the
>gap theory.
>
>But surely the choice isn't only between dispensationalism and
>preterism. I can't accept a preterism that says there is no real
>hope of "heaven." And I think that is one of the underlying fears
>of folks who are drawn to YEC -- if we starting talking about things
>like pre-Adamic humans and death before the fall, what is being
>"restored" after Christ returns?
>
>
>On 4/18/06, Bill Hamilton
><<mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I have from time to time wondered whether the Dispensationalist interpretation
>of Revelation influences those who hold it to apply a young earth
>interpretation of Genesis.
>
>--- <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
>
> > I think that our understanding of the beginning is related
> > to our understanding of the end.
> >
> > Without getting into a lot of detail, I personally hold a
> > preterist view of eschatology. I am not expecting a
> > literal new heaven and earth. The old heaven and earth
> > was the law, the old covenant. The new heaven and earth
> > is the new covenant.
> >
> > So, not only does that interpretation change ones
> > understanding of what a new heaven and earth means, but it
> > also changes the time of its fulfillment. In the
> > preterist view, the new heaven and earth is here now, it
> > is not something to be expected.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:47:13 -0400
> > "David Opderbeck" <<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There's a broader theological question that's been
> > >nagging me regarding some
> > > of this discussion: how do our views of Adam through
> > >Babel relate to
> > > eschatology? By eschatology I don't mean to open up
> > >cans of worms
> > > concerning views of the millenium and such -- I mean the
> > >very basic concept
> > > that our future in Christ involves a new heaven and new
> > >earth, where
> > > "[t]here will be no more death or mourning or crying or
> > >pain, for the old
> > > order of things has passed away." (Rev. 21:4). If we
> > >demythologize, so to
> > > speak, Adam through Babel, what does that say about our
> > >mythos concerning
> > > the new heaven and new earth? I think this broad
> > >question is more critical
> > > at a gut level for many folks than the specifics of how
> > >we translate certain
> > > words or understand certain names in Genesis.
> > >
> > > On 4/17/06, <mailto:Philtill@aol.com>Philtill@aol.com
> <<mailto:Philtill@aol.com> Philtill@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In a message dated 4/17/2006 5:08:43 PM Eastern
> > >>Daylight Time,
> > >>
> <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com writes:
> > >>
> > >> Phil wrote
> > >>
> > >> >The momentousness of the occaision makes sense only if
> > >>there was a long
> > >> period
> > >> of time had elapsed >when men **weren't** calling on the
> > >>name of the Lord.
> > >>
> > >> This means there must have been a very long >gap between
> > >>Adam and Enosh,
> > >> perhaps between Adam and Seth.
> > >>
> > >> Suppose by "men" the Scriptures mean pre-Adamites? IOW
> > >>the covenant
> > >> family's
> > >> mission finally begins to bear fruit.
> > >>
> > >> Hi, Bill!
> > >>
> > >> That's a very interesting idea, and I hadn't thought of
> > >>it before.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, as I think this through, I feel there is
> > >>another reasonable
> > >> explanation for this verse, one which doesn't
> > >>necessarily imply a gap
> > >> (although I still believe there was a gap). I think the
> > >>statement is part
> > >> of the stream toward fulfillment of God's promises to
> > >>Eve to bring the Seed
> > >> of the woman, the one who will crush the serpent's head.
> > >> After A&E were
> > >> kicked out of the garden, at least Abel was calling on
> > >>Yahweh's name. But
> > >> when Eve sees that Abel is dead and Cain has gone bad,
> > >>then there seems to
> > >> be no hope of fulfillment. But then God opens her womb
> > >>and brings another
> > >> child, which represents renewed hope that the promise
> > >>will be fulfilled. So
> > >> the birth of Seth and Enosh represents the renewal of
> > >>hope that a savior
> > >> will come through Eve. Hence her statement how God has
> > >>replace Abel, and
> > >> hence also the comment that then men began [again] to
> > >>call on the name of
> > >> the Lord. This statement "men began to call on the name
> > >>of the Lord" would
> > >> thus mean that there was a renewed path of descendency
> > >>toward the Messiah,
> > >> not just the evil ways of the world represented by the
> > >>line of Cain.
> > >>
> > >> By the way, it's an interesting study to write down the
> > >>meanings of the
> > >> names in Seth's line and the parallel names in Cain's
> > >>line, to see how the
> > >> latter are twisted versions of the former, giving them a
> > >>sinister meaning.
> > >> The overall picture of the names in Seth's line is that
> > >>they are waiting on
> > >> God, hoping in God, trusting and praising him. The
> > >>overall picture of names
> > >> in Cain's line is that they are building cities,
> > >>fighting among the cities,
> > >> living under judgement. This is brought to fulfillment
> > >>in the parallel
> > >> statements of Lamech in each line, where Seth's Lamech
> > >>talks of how Noah
> > >> will bring the promised rest, and Cain's Lamech talks
> > >>how the effects of the
> > >> curse have become worse and worse, 70 times 7.
> > >>
> > >> So after the Bible goes all through Cain's line with the
> > >>increasing curse
> > >> as humans build cities and develop civilization, then it
> > >>tells how Eve bore
> > >> another child and praised God that the hope has been
> > >>restored. It could be
> > >> that there was no gap and it was just presented in this
> > >>order to emphasize
> > >> the point, or it could be that there was really a gap
> > >>and Seth came late
> > >> after men had developed all this civilization. The idea
> > >>is that Adam came
> > >> before all this civilization development, though.
> > >>
> > >> God bless!
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
>Bill Hamilton
>William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
>248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
>"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
><http://mail.yahoo.com/>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 19 11:44:21 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 19 2006 - 11:44:21 EDT