Freethought & Rationalism Archive

08-11-2004, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l-bow

Anybody here read theollogyweb.com here? The moderator there, Dee Dee Warren, is a preterist.

Also, there's this guy Bob Enyart, that believes that Christ was supposed to return early, IF Israel repented, but because they didn't, everything changed.

I read it from time to time, but other than a few articles I've read on tektonics.org I haven't seen much of her material. As for preterism, Farrell Till has a series of replies to J.P. Holding on the issue that I think are good, however they are a bit long.

I'm fairly sure there is a scriptural basis for God changing his mind about prophecy (for instance Ninevah), but I don't think you can apply that here. To my knowledge, Jesus never said anything that would give the idea that the prophecy was conditional on Israel's repentance. He clearly stated that it was to occur during the lifetime of his contemporaries, but it did not happen.

CJD · 08-11-2004, 06:16 AM

Sven, I have no ill will, just intensity. I'm Italian; I can't help it.

I have garnered my own views from all over the place. But there is one fellow who argues succintly certain aspects of this point of view. In the book, When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism (it is a critique of preterism, which they like to distinguish from "partial" preterism), pages 121–154, Dr. Richard Pratt argues in much the same way as I have, only better.

A general overview of this position (it doesn't deal, however, with NT texts) can be found here.

Quote:

I'm fairly sure there is a scriptural basis for God changing his mind about prophecy (for instance Ninevah), but I don't think you can apply that here. To my knowledge, Jesus never said anything that would give the idea that the prophecy was conditional on Israel's repentance. He clearly stated that it was to occur during the lifetime of his contemporaries, but it did not happen.

Precisely because this is the most obvious objection, the very argument I propose is that prophetic utterances presuppose conditions—even those utterances where the conditions themselves are not explicitly stated. Jonah is the classic example. All he did was ride into town and say "In 40 days this place is going down." No conditions. The response of the king and the people was repentance in hopes that God would change his mind ("Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish," Johnah 3:9). They didn't know for sure. But they did know that YHWH was a "gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster" (Jonah 4:2).

Regards,

CJD

Jinksy · 08-19-2004, 05:51 AM

Has anyone been keeping up with the debate? I have a hard time reading Jason's disingenuous ad homs, and I'm curious as to whether this is worth persevering with for the replies.

Sven · 08-19-2004, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

I don't think Jon Promnitz is on the right track with his latest respone. Trying to prove to a Christian that all the signs were fulfilled in the generation of Jesus is simply futile.
[...]
So either way, I don't think that Jon will be able to defend this point against any Christian. I think he should drop all arguments on this and proceed to the more obvious problems - which he hopefully will do in the following rounds of he sticks to the layout he laid out in the beginning of his post.

OK, I have to admit that I was entirely wrong here. In his latest response, Jon turned what appeared to be his weakest points around and actually made a great victory out of them! :notworthy :notworthy

He simply pointed out (with verses from the bible), that the apostles themselves claimed that the signs were fulfilled. So Jason has little options left:
(1) Claim that the apostles got it wrong - despite being inspired etc.
(2) Claim that the writers of the bible got it wrong - no real option for Jason.
(3) Claim that the plain meaning of words is wrong and they actually mean the exact opposite.

Since he essentially used (3) from the start (see, for example, the meaning of "genea"), I'll bet on this option.

With Jon's latest post, the debate is essentially over and Jason got his severest beating of all his debates here up to now (IMHO). Not that I think that this debate was anything else but pathetic from the start.

CJD · 08-19-2004, 07:17 AM

I, too, think Jason will be left with option #3. What bothers me more, however, is that he probably does think his views constitute the majority opinion throughout church history.

As an aside, after having agreed with Jon on most of his rebuttals (which were essentially taken from the partial-preterist handbook), what about the Parousia? I have already alluded to this above: "Also, I am not saying that prophecy (2 Pet. included) is now conditioned and non-imminent; rather, I am saying that prophecy is always conditioned. And 2 Peter does speak of an imminent return. If the return itself has conditions, then the return itself will always be potentially imminent."

What say you, Jon? Having left Jason little room to wiggle, why not come over here and take a stab?

Sven · 08-19-2004, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

"Also, I am not saying that prophecy (2 Pet. included) is now conditioned and non-imminent; rather, I am saying that prophecy is always conditioned. And 2 Peter does speak of an imminent return. If the return itself has conditions, then the return itself will always be potentially imminent."

Well, how about answering my last post in the thread "Are biblical prophecies always conditional?" first to demonstrate that this is indeed a rational point of view?

Quote:

What say you, Jon? Having left Jason little room to wiggle, why not come over here and take a stab?

He is not allowed to participate in this thread until the debate is over. You'll have to wait a few more weeks to get an answer from him.

Jack the Bodiless · 08-19-2004, 09:59 AM

I get the impression that Jason has assumed he's debating a preterist:

Quote:

It has already been made clear that Jesus was addressing a future generation. The list of things that had to be accomplished before His return had not been completed in the 1st century. Therefore, we know that verses 32 and 33 weren’t simply directed to His disciples...

...There are a lot of verses here and I hope the readers take a minute to read them. You’ll need to prove that all of those things happened in the lifetime of Jesus’ followers, OR you’ll have to prove that Jesus intended for those things to happen. Neither position is tenable, though.

He goes on to talk of the impossibility of visiting the Americas etc, but fails to explain why the alternative (that Jesus/the apostles/the Bible was simply wrong) is "untenable".

From Jon's profile:

Quote:

Basic Beliefs:
Just recently I have concluded that the Bible is not inerrant, inspired, or divine. Skeptic.

...And this IS, of course, Internet Infidels. Did Jason forget this?

As far as I can see, given the verses Jon has supplied, Jason's only hope is to attempt to argue that the apostles were mistaken or to twist what the Bible says: he apparently hasn't realized that the "signs weren't actually fulfilled" argument is closed to him.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 08-20-2004, 08:35 AM

Peter's response to Jesus' failure to arrive is just like the doomsday cults you'll find today.

They predict a day the world will end, and they prepare for it.
The day comes, and the world doesn't end.
Cult leader: "Good job everybody! Through our repentance and faith, we have saved the world from destruction!"

Peter does the same idea, in reverse:

They predict a time the world will end, and prepare for it.
The time passes, the world doesn't end.
Peter: "Bad job, everybody! You didn't repent enough, or have enough faith! Jesus would have come if you didn't screw up!"

It seems pretty evident that it's a post hoc excuse.

-B

Jack the Bodiless · 08-31-2004, 05:44 AM

Well, Jason's next post is up.

It appears he is still firing at the wrong target: forgetting that he's not debating a preterist, but a Bible-skeptic...

Quote:

This was a mouthful to say nothing. You supposed to be supporting the resolution of the debate which is Jesus claimed to be returning within the lifetime of His followers in the 1st century. You haven’t given us any proof that the gospel went to all nations or that Christians were hated in all nations. In fact, you’ve admitted that you have no proof.

Jon doesn't have to provide any proof that this actually happened. He isn't claiming that it did!

Quote:

Historical: There is no way to fully prove something such as this through ancient secular records. We will have to turn to the Biblical record to inspect this sign.

Do you really need to raise the white flag so quickly? Surely, there would be some kinds of proof somewhere. Are you really saying that you think the gospel reached Australia and South America in the 1st century?

...Nope.

Quote:

24:24-false christs/prophets arise and deceive elect
Historical: No evidence can be produced to show that Jesus performed actual supernatural wonders, yet you claim I must produce proof that others did!?

Absolutely! You must. You chose to debate this issue, so you need to present your case. Why are you upset about having to present your case? I think the answer is clear. You do not have one.

The misunderstanding continues!

Quote:

Let me give you a few more prophecies from Jesus that obviously aren’t referring to the 1st century church. I’m looking forward to how you can try and apply them to the 1st century AND how you can prove that they CAN’T refer to a future generation.

1. Revelation 16:18-20 reads...

Revelation isn't 1st century, nor is it a "prophecy from Jesus". This is a waste of space.

Jason also doesn't seem to appreciate that "double reference" and "double fulfillment" are NOT "rules of prophecy": they are apologetics. There is no evidence that any prophet, or any actual God, intended prophecies to be ripped out of context like this.

Jason also has a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes "victory" and "defeat" in a debate:

Quote:

The debate I’m referring to is the one with Sean McHugh. It took some time, but I wrote that chronology and used it in my debate. It helped win that debate...

I prophesy that Jason will be defeated (again), but will claim victory...

DetectedDestiny · 09-19-2004, 04:50 AM

Oh man. How can anyone still take Jason serious after reading his last post?

There are 5 year olds that argue better then this man. :wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2004, 05:51 AM	#33
Jinksy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Melbourne, Oz Posts: 1,635	Has anyone been keeping up with the debate? I have a hard time reading Jason's disingenuous ad homs, and I'm curious as to whether this is worth persevering with for the replies.

08-19-2004, 07:17 AM	#35
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	I, too, think Jason will be left with option #3. What bothers me more, however, is that he probably does think his views constitute the majority opinion throughout church history. As an aside, after having agreed with Jon on most of his rebuttals (which were essentially taken from the partial-preterist handbook), what about the Parousia? I have already alluded to this above: "Also, I am not saying that prophecy (2 Pet. included) is now conditioned and non-imminent; rather, I am saying that prophecy is always conditioned. And 2 Peter does speak of an imminent return. If the return itself has conditions, then the return itself will always be potentially imminent." What say you, Jon? Having left Jason little room to wiggle, why not come over here and take a stab?

08-20-2004, 08:35 AM	#38
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	Peter's response to Jesus' failure to arrive is just like the doomsday cults you'll find today. They predict a day the world will end, and they prepare for it. The day comes, and the world doesn't end. Cult leader: "Good job everybody! Through our repentance and faith, we have saved the world from destruction!" Peter does the same idea, in reverse: They predict a time the world will end, and prepare for it. The time passes, the world doesn't end. Peter: "Bad job, everybody! You didn't repent enough, or have enough faith! Jesus would have come if you didn't screw up!" It seems pretty evident that it's a post hoc excuse. -B

09-19-2004, 04:50 AM	#40
DetectedDestiny Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Netherlands Posts: 141	Oh man. How can anyone still take Jason serious after reading his last post? There are 5 year olds that argue better then this man. :wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.