Thread: Gorbachev....the beast?

Way to cut and paste.

Hm. Let's assume for the moment that a)I am convinced of the prophetic nature of the Bible and b)I agree with these people's interpretations of the prophecies. Even so, the evidence surrounding me would suggest that sin's reign over mankind has not been defeated. I have trouble imagining that if sin's power were defeated there'd still be so many infants thrown in dumpsters and gangs shooting the hell out of innocent passers-by and people beating the @@@@ out of their families. And that's just the local news. On this basis I dismiss the theory out of hand. Sorry, bud. This theory sounds like it was cooked up by people who live on the moon. Or possibly in the suburbs.

For 150 years here in America we have constantly been told we were living on the threshold of the end of the world and Christ's return. Prediction after prediction has failed to materialize, and false hope after false hope has been foisted upon the Christian community. Many Christians have been disillusioned, and are already looking for more reasonable explanations. Some have been so disillusioned they left the faith altogether. And the secular media (who are always looking for an excuse) are further discrediting Christianity because of it.

In a word - stupid. Again, assuming that Jesus was "the Christ" to begin with, you still have to admit that God waited a REALLY EFFING LONG TIME to get around to sending him in the first place. WTF has made or makes any Christians think that he's coming back any time soon?

Some of the great theologians and scholars of the last 300 years have suggested the preterist view for consideration, but traditional Christianity was too caught up with the idea that the Pope was the Antichrist or some other such Futurist notion.

So "traditional Christianity" doesn't include Catholicism, then. That's...pleasant.

F. W. Farrar said Russell's book was "full of suggestiveness."

Vaguest. Endorsement. Ever.

Well that is the biggest load of Preterist Catholic bull I ever saw. 70 AD had nothing to do with Gods plan since the temple became obsolete at Christs death. You know,..... when the earthquake happened and the temple veil was torn from TOP to Bottom indicating the end of the temple system. You spout the same bull that the church in Rome spouted after the true Christian church was hijacked by pagan, politics and Rome. They changed the sacred day from Saturday to Sunday and preached that in order to be forgiven they(the people) had to come up with a certain amount of livestock or money to give to the church.

True Christians had already spread up into Britian and into Russia before the Preterist/Pagan Roman church could stop them thoiugh. It is evident that the people living in Russia at that time still held to the original sacred day by the Russian word for Saturday meaning Sabbath, before St Cyrill got there. The church of Rome smashed and destroyed every vestige of the early Christians they could find across Europe. They burned them tortured them and even pushed the last of those holding to the truth, off the cliffs in Switzerland (the Waldensians). Thats rright, pushed them of the cliffs women and babies too. The Pope rejoiced! And what was there crime? They dared to keep and distribute copies of the scriptures. Something that was forbidden by the church under penealty of death. Aparrantly enlightenment was a sin in the churchs version of the KINGDOM OF GOD. The ancient Britons were already Christianized before the popes priests got there too, all the way into Scotland. For over 1200 years the church of Rome suppresed the truth and killed any one who stood in its way, preaching that the church was the Kingdom of God fullfilled. Over 70,000 people were massacred by the church in the "St Bartholomews Massacre" and what did the pope do? He put on his best clothes and had a parade through the streets of Rome to celebrate.

Your preterist theory is so full of holes. You (the Preterist) completely leave out the entire book of Revelations and no wonder since it condenms you and Rome. Why hell, Preterists couldn't make heads or tails out of Revelations. And no, I didn't just swear when I said "hell". God doesn't torture people by continually burning them alive without even the releif of dying, for all eternity. That is another Roman pagan lie along, with Purgatory. The havoc that Rome wrought in the middle ages will be nothing to what is to come and........I'm afraid... your Preterist revival just may be the catalyst to open the door for the real end time when the worlds religions combine into one. And the main religions of the world are already speaking of this and that includes the Pope. Not only that certain priests in Israel are being trained to perform sacrifices again and the Red Heifers are also being bred. Perhaps there will be a Third Temple after all.

It is no wonder that so many people have turned away from God today, they have had such a "fine" example set by our most influential church haha! And most of the protestant churches have not protested very much at all, apparantly. They are not much better.

I would respond to your Catholic-bashing, DDT, except that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This preterism goes entirely contrary to Catholic teaching, and has nothing to do with the Church.

If it is "catholoic Bashing" to speak of historical facts, what does that say about thr catholic church? And I'm afraid your knowledge of such things is sadly lacking, you would be nothing short of foolish to try to debate me.

Originally Posted by DDT

If it is "catholoic Bashing" to speak of historical facts, what does that say about thr catholic church? And I'm afraid your knowledge of such things is sadly lacking, you would be nothing short of foolish to try to debate me.

I'm not referring to your use of historical facts, which were few and far between in your tirade. I'm referring to your conflation of preterism and Catholicism. The two have nothing to do with one another. I venture to say that Preterism would fall under the category of heresy according to the Church.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

[
I'm not referring to your use of historical facts, which were few and far between in your tirade. I'm referring to your conflation of preterism and Catholicism. The two have nothing to do with one another. I venture to say that Preterism would fall under the category of heresy according to the Church.

My entire post is factual. If you needed dates I can only conclude you don't know enough on this. As far as preterism goes, modern day preterism has its roots in the doctrines of Catholicism. It goes back to Flavious Josephus's writings to which Eusebious subscribed (a Roman Catholic church father). The apostate church in Rome pretty much had to adopt a preterist attitude in order to justify their own heretical actions. For if the prophecies of Daniel were seen to be in the future at the time of Christ then the Roman church would easily be recognized as a main contender for the title of The Beast

Then Magic went on the radio,
And everybody said,
"What a way to go!"
He started out playing mostly rap,
But everybody said,
"Nobody's into that!"
Well they all turned out to be wrong,
'Cause rappin' on the mike had caught on strong!

Some still say it's not what's happenin',
After "Rapper's Delight" went triple platinum!
The record world was in for a smash,
Sugar Hill, Kurtis Blow, and Grandmaster Flash!
Blondie, Stevie Wonder, Tina Marie,
They even made a rapper out of me!
In no time at all, a star was born!
And to think he owes it all to his Magic wand!

Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong
Under the shade of a coolibar tree.
Three cheers for any sheep rustler who refuses to be taken alive!!

Point Taken Pravit.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

This preterism goes entirely contrary to Catholic teaching, and has nothing to do with the Church.

Wrong, the Spainish Catholic theologian Alcazar proposed a preterist doctrine in refuting the so-called "historical" theories of Protestants like Luther.

There have been preterist thought in Catholicism, sadly the amillienialism of Augustine is whats predominated.


Btw, I am Catholic.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

Way to cut and paste.

And you'll also noticed I gave my own synopsis and used that site to further explain my viewpoint. So yourself!

and b)I agree with these people's interpretations of the prophecies. Even so, the evidence surrounding me would suggest that sin's reign over mankind has not been defeated. I have trouble imagining that if sin's power were defeated there'd still be so many infants thrown in dumpsters and gangs shooting the hell out of innocent passers-by and people beating the @@@@ out of their families.

As I said before,sin itself has not been eliminated.....but its reign over mankind has. Christ's victory has guaranteed our salvation.....even in the Book of Revealation itself there is no final battle between good and evil because THE BATTLE IS ALREADY OVER!

Sorry, bud. This theory sounds like it was cooked up by people who live on the moon. Or possibly in the suburbs.

Actually thats more true with people who think the world is going to end anytime soon than preterism.

Originally Posted by Bandera

Originally Posted by Линдзи

Way to cut and paste.

And you'll also noticed I gave my own synopsis and used that site to further explain my viewpoint. So yourself!

and b)I agree with these people's interpretations of the prophecies. Even so, the evidence surrounding me would suggest that sin's reign over mankind has not been defeated. I have trouble imagining that if sin's power were defeated there'd still be so many infants thrown in dumpsters and gangs shooting the hell out of innocent passers-by and people beating the @@@@ out of their families.

As I said before,sin itself has not been eliminated.....but its reign over mankind has. Christ's victory has guaranteed our salvation.....even in the Book of Revealation itself there is no final battle between good and evil because THE BATTLE IS ALREADY OVER!


[quote:2jgf62vo] Sorry, bud. This theory sounds like it was cooked up by people who live on the moon. Or possibly in the suburbs.

Actually thats more true with people who think the world is going to end anytime soon than preterism.[/quote:2jgf62vo]
You say last week you met the perfect guy
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
And he promised you the stars in the sky
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
He said his Cadillac was gold
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
But he didn't say it was ten years old!
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
He took you out to the Red Coach Grill
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
But he forgot the cash, and you paid the bill!
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
He told you the story of his life!
(That's the breaks! That's the breaks!)
But he forgot the part...about his wife! Huh! Huh!

Just noticed this thread and was slightly astonished. Very curious thing is this Preterism, but, as Lindzy wrote, it doesn't settle the problem of sin (as it is formulated in Christianity). Even if Bandera says "THE BATTLE IS ALREADY OVER" no one — no catholic, no protestant or orthodox — would deny that the situation after the Christ coming has changed and that people nowadays have the possibility of choosing the right way to salvation. But it doesn't intrinsically mean that all are saved by deafult (or the moment they beleive in the historical evidence of Christ, as some of the most odious Protestants say). But if they are not saved and if they don't live in the heaven's kingdom (as far as I see things around me I'm sure they don't), then what is the difference here from Catholic or Orthodox worldvew? The only point is the second coming of Christ. Surely there must be something that marks the transition from this mortal world to the more perfect and immortal one. That is what Christianity is about, and if it is omitted, it is not Christianity then as such.
And there's something ambiguous in this doctrine. It is more honest to adhere to the traditional religion dogmas or to think that all this is about history and psychological and cultural metaphors rather then discard what is not convenient to you from scientifical point of view and to retain what is convenient to you from religious and psychological point of view.

Originally Posted by Propp

Just noticed this thread and was slightly astonished. Very curious thing is this Preterism, but, as Lindzy wrote, it doesn't settle the problem of sin (as it is formulated in Christianity). Even if Bandera says "THE BATTLE IS ALREADY OVER" no one — no catholic, no protestant or orthodox

Alright mister.....this is exactly what my Bible(The New American Bible, which is officially used by American Catholics) states clearly in its commentary on the Book of Revealation:

"Though the perspective is eschatological - ultimate salvation and victory are said to take place at the end of the present age when Christ will come in glory at the Parousia - the book presents the decisive struggle of Christ and his followers against Satan and his cohorts as already over."

Im not pulling this out of my ass......almost every scholarly comments on the question agree with this. Even the series Mysteries of the Bible in its episode on Revelation explained this is what seperated the Bible's story from other apocolyptic stories of the era; the battle is described as already over.

Also I have yet to see any commentation stating that Revelation can be seperated from the particular time it was written....the early persecutions of the church. I can even post an article from the Russian Orthodox Church stating this.

So trying to seperate the writing of Revelation from the historical context of Nero's persecutions(Nero is clearly named the Beast) and the destruction of the Temple is by far poor judgement, because most Biblical scholars agree on this.

would deny that the situation after the Christ coming has changed and that people nowadays have the possibility of choosing the right way to salvation.

Then you go against every traditional christian teachings on the question. Even those Christians who deny the Preterist view still maintain that Christ's death and resurrection has given mankind the possibility for salvation. Only Calvinism denies this, since your fate is predermined.

Also, you need to remember Christ's kingdom is not of this world.....he literally had to drill this into the heads of the Apostles(Mathew and I believe John as well wanted high positions of power in Christ's kingdom).....and yet people still dont understand this. Instead they think Christ's kingdom will be some utopia here on earth......and we've seen where such thinking leads us to(ie schemes like communism). Christ was going against the convention thought of the day, which declared that the Messiah must bring about a physical reign over Israel(and of course hopefully drive out the Romans);in fact this was what the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing and demanded Pilate execute him. Yet Christ made clear to Pilate his kingdom is not of this world, or else his followers would have fought to prevent his arrest. Pilate understood this, the Pharisees did not. And frankly Im going any more with this, cause then it'll degrade into "Who killed Jesus" and "somebody watched the Passion too many times" type nonsense.

What changed was in the spiritual realm not the physical. Christ makes this clear many times.

And there's something ambiguous in this doctrine. It is more honest to adhere to the traditional religion dogmas or to think that all this is about history and psychological and cultural metaphors rather then discard what is not convenient to you from scientifical point of view and to retain what is convenient to you from religious and psychological point of view.

Im not denying history here, I have yet to read one commentation on Revelation that doesnt speak of the strong influence that historical events like Nero's persecutions and the destruction of the Temple had on its writing. Even those denying the Preterist view agree Revelation must be understood within the context of those historical events, otherwise you're missing much of what the Book is trying to address. Again, if you want I can provide an Orthodox article on the question that backs up much of my view.

Originally Posted by Bandera

would deny that the situation after the Christ coming has changed and that people nowadays have the possibility of choosing the right way to salvation.

Then you go against every traditional christian teachings on the question. Even those Christians who deny the Preterist view still maintain that Christ's death and resurrection has given mankind the possibility for salvation. Only Calvinism denies this, since your fate is predermined.

It seems our conversation goes like this:
1: "Is this black or white?"
2: "Yes. It is red"
1: "Is this green?"
2: "No, this is green".


By the way, in case you don't know,
"no one would deny..." = "they all agree..."

Also, you need to remember Christ's kingdom is not of this world.....

I also agree with this. Only the question is following — do you beleive 1) it is of supernatural reality and those who will ressurrect from the death will live there for ever or 2) it is psychological idea, like you know, "all people are brothers and sisters, make love not war" etc. But bear in mind that in the second case it won't be Christianity in traditional sence; rather a "J. Christ-oriented thinking" or a kind of modern world-view "with elements of Christian rhetoric".

I am not a specialist, so I cannot say something for sure, but I think that the Revelation had played a great role in forming the traditional Christian (Orthodox and Catholic) beleife in the afterlife. So it cannot be discarded as "just history" for them. At the same time many of them also agree that many elements of the Revelation are connected with historical facts, that "the beast" is Nero etc. Only the single fact may convey several meanings, I don't remember now who invented the theory of 4 meanings, but he assigned historical, analogical, anagogical (?) and moral meanings to each fact written in the Bible. So it happens that the beast at the same time may be Nero in the Past and Antichrist in the Future.

On the other hand if you say that all that was written in the Revelation is already done then the whole theory of "resurrection and living in the Christ's kingdom ever after" is put in doubt. I don't think that majority of Christians would easily consent to this.

Yes, I believe 'anagogical' is the right term. At least that's the word Dorothy Sayers used in her sublime notes to Dante's even more sublime "Divine Comedy".