ARCHIVE: The "Great tribulation" and the Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

[smilax]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
He was never "sainted" by the church at Rome!

... What? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm calls him "St. Irenaeus." Solly was talking about Origen.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Now Smilax, you are not expecting Jerry to be consistent are you? That has never been his strong point.

Then again, this is the guy who used Isaiah i, 18 (yay, English translations) to attempt to prove Aristotlean logic was a Biblical mandate while trying to show that already/not yet was self-contradictory. And now he tells us we're exalting reason over Scripture. Right.

 

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Exhibit Two in the Case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart:



Solly was speaking of Origien not Irenaeus. Bzzztt!!!!

No fair Dee Dee you got to do point one. I wanted to get point two. You know it was so obvious that I would have seen it as soon as I saw it.


Whispers to Jerry: Hey Jerry. Slow down, breath. Speed reading is not your forte.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Faramir:

Don't you fret, there is enough to go around.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There is a big difference from making errors in regard to some of the doctrines of Christ and not knowing whether or not an event described as "great tribulation,such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time" has come to pass or not.

We are suppose to delude our mind into believing that these events happened but yet not a one of the members of the church in the second century were even aware that they had happened.

Dee Dee brings up the point about Irenaeus´belief that the church is Israel,and I have already started a thread that explains exactly how that error came into being.And there was not even one preterist that even attempted to disprove what I said.But here they are now protesting!Well,go to that thread and you can find out exactly how that error came about.

And the verse you quoted could just as easily be understood to refer to the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,that same baptism where we are given life when we are baptized into the Body of Christ.

Again,the preterists expect us to believe that the greatest destruction of all time came and went,but all those in the church in the second century were unaware of that fact.The antichrist had come and gone,but they remained in the dark and continued to believe that his coming remained in the future.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And all of the above blather has been soundly refuted but of course there has been no interaction with the arguments presented.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee brings up the point about Irenaeus´belief that the church is Israel,and I have already started a thread that explains exactly how that error came into being.

Yes, please do, it is laughable. The ECF thought the destruction of Jerusalem was the end of the Jews, and yet then the argument is made that they did not think the destruction of Jerusalem was a big deal at all. One cannot have it both ways. They clearly saw the destruction as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in the Discourse and... since Jesus was clear that the Tribulation was focused on the Jews... anyone here will be hard pressed to then say that these same ECF saw the Tribulation on the Jews as yet future and at the same time believing that AD70 was the end of the Jews. Jerry has posed what is called in the legal profession mutual exclusively arguments. He cannot be right on both threads.... for his point on that one, defeats his points here. He is actually wrong on both threads... but let's not get too picky.

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
And the verse you quoted could just as easily be understood to refer to the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,that same baptism where we are given life when we are baptized into the Body of Christ.

Obviously not. The Catholics don't think so, either. Check the next thing he writes:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:21:2: "They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, 'And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it.' Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?' Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms."

Jerry, the Bible doesn't mention "the antichrist."

And I'm waiting for your response on the thread about spiritual Israel.

The errors about the efficacy of baptism for salvation, of course, are even more important than whether this great tribulation occurred, because it affects salvation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Exhibit Two in the Case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart:



Solly was speaking of Origien not Irenaeus. Bzzztt!!!!

Dee Dee,

You have not yet even given your "evidence" in case one.Perhaps you believe that no one will notice.

And yes,I did overlook the fact that Solly was speaking of Origien and not Irenaeus.

I just never even imagined that he would even present such a pitiful answer.He uses a Christian who lived in the third century in his unsuccessful effort to discredit the testimony of a Christian who lived in the second century.

That is the best he could do,and it still remains a few notches above anything that you have said.

I am glad you see now that the OT was not just wriiten in Hebrew.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
I am glad you see now that the OT was not justwriiten in Hebrew.

Relevance... Pretty please with a cherry on top?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Relevance... Pretty please with a cherry on top?

He's got plenty he has a picked from the ECF.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

You have not yet even given your "evidence" in case one.Perhaps you believe that no one ill note.

I most certainly did. And not to be picky, but it was Exhibit One in the case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart. I could be a real bugger and make this Exhibit Three, but I will let it slide.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Faramir:

Don't you fret, there is enough to go around.

Oh give me a break....... is it any wonder why people accuse preterists of acting like a bunch of immature goofballs. Never in my life have I seen a group of people make such mountains out of such molehills.

It isn't like any of you haven't made an error here or there.

I think Jerry is doing a great job in bringing to light one of the most flawed aspects of preterism.

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
And not to be picky, but it was Exhibit One in the case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart. I could be a real bugger and make this Exhibit Three, but I will let it slide.

He should just plead insane and be done with it.

Originally posted by Knight
It isn't like any of you haven't made an error here or there.

If he made a mistake, he should just say so instead of trying so very gracefully to turn it into another argument in his favor.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by smilax
He should just plead insane and be done with it.If he made a mistake, he should just say so instead of trying so very gracefully to turn it into another argument in his favor.

Consider this an official warning. Jerry DID say he made a mistake. If you wish to debate the issues then fine.... otherwise please take your innappropriate comments to another website.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think Jerry is doing a great job in bringing to light one of the most flawed aspects of preterism.

And each of those arguments within arguments have been soundly dealt without much of anything in the way of counter-rebuttal from the oppositon.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

You must have overlooked the fact that the ECF based their beliefs that ethnic Israel had been forever cast away because of the events that happened in the Bar Kokhba war of 132-135 A.D.

This has nothing t all to do with the desctruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

And I have previously posted that fact on this thread also,and at that time you did not say even one word.But here you are now again misrepresenting what I wrote.And not a one of the ECF ever said that the things which transpired at that time represented the "great tribulation" and the coming of the antichrist!

That only exists in your imagination.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

And each of those arguments within arguments have been soundly dealt without much of anything in the way of counter-rebuttal from the oppositon.

I COMPLETELY reject that assertion.

I would say that the basic premise of this thread has never been "dealt with" in that not a SINGLE ECF believed that the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD.

But that is the nature of debate. People sometimes have different definitions of "dealt with".

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jerry:

You are correct in that I did misunderstand your argument on the other thread as referring to 70AD. I stand corrected in that assumption, though that makes little difference to my final analysis which I will demonstate.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by smilax
He should just plead insane and be done with it.If he made a mistake, he should just say so instead of trying so very gracefully to turn it into another argument in his favor.

smilax,

If you will look at a post of mine that I wrote BEFORE you wrote your words,you will see that I did admit that I made a mistake.

Is that not enough for you?Perhaps you didn´t see it.But the fact remains that I did admit that I misread the words.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
If you will look at a post of mine that I wrote BEFORE you wrote your words,you will see that I did admit that I made a mistake.

Yes. I didn't see it because I was typing up my reply before you had edited yours.

In any case...

I'm waiting for some answers, especially on the relevance of what the church fathers had to say.