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

[Dee Dee Warren]

It's funny... when you read this thread from top to bottom you are left with this overwhelming feeling that the preterists believe that the Great Tribulation was not so great.

And that answers the exegetical data I provided in what way? Oh, that's right. It doesn't :doh: And I thought the Vogue went out in the eighties.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight and Faramir:

Yes that rights Knight... but, why in the world did you make this statement to begin with. Faramir already knew and acknowledged that by stating:

However Daniel's time reference (the 70 weeks) is dead on the money literal. And with the exception of the last two or three weeks most preterist and dispensationalist agree as to when those weeks took place.

Thats an acknowledgment? How so?

I bring this up because we are talking about the Great Tribulation. Preterists claim the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD. Yet also claim that the 70th week of Daniels prophecy ended at Paul's conversion.

Faramir might not be aware of that interesting tid bit of information.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Faramir, I sense you are mocking me.

Ah, I see Calvinist's super-perception powers have rubbed off on our fearless leader

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear JP:



Yes I have answered that question multiple times, but it is not the one that was going to take some searching or writing again from scratch that I alluded to before. And so that you have it handy I will repost it here, but first I need to add some things to it to correct Jerry's poor reading comprehension of the answer the first, second, third, and fourth times since he keeps misrepresenting what my answer meant. But strawman are so easy to knock down.

I have given Dee Dee´s interpretation of the prophecis of Zechariaia many times,but it is only NOW that Dee Dee says that I misrepresebted her view.

How convenient for her!

I await the words where she says that I have "poor reading comprehension" and therefore I misrepresented what she said.This should not take long,since she knows EXACTLY where she can find those words--"Battle Royale III".The first answer Dee Dee gave can be found at her post dated 08-30-2002 10:33 AM.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Sigh, just when I thought you were paying attention..

Thats an acknowledgment? How so?

I bring this up because we are talking about the Great Tribulation. Preterists claim the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD. Yet also claim that the 70th week of Daniels prophecy ended at Paul's conversion.

Faramir might not be aware of that interesting tid bit of information.

Faramir is well aware of that interesting bit of information, but you are doing what you have been doing quite frequently in this thread, and assuming what you must prove and then pointing to your assumptions, and saying, "Ah ha!!"

Your statement was correct. Your implied charge of a contradiction is incorrect. Your assumption is that the 70th week of Daniel is by necessity the Great Tribulation. It is not. Thus, foisting your timeline unto the preterist interpretation and then claiming an internal inconsistency is illegitimate. All you have proven is that the preterist and futurist timelines do not agree with each other and are mutually exclusive, which is of course is obvious before any of us even open our mouths.

 

[Faramir]

While I have a moment between meeting and chruch

While I have a moment between meeting and chruch

Dee Dee Said:

Dear Knight:

Sigh, just when I thought you were paying attention..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Said:
Thats an acknowledgment? How so?

I bring this up because we are talking about the Great Tribulation. Preterists claim the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD. Yet also claim that the 70th week of Daniels prophecy ended at Paul's conversion.

Faramir might not be aware of that interesting tid bit of information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dee Dee Said:

Faramir is well aware of that interesting bit of information, but you are doing what you have been doing quite frequently in this thread, and assuming what you must prove and then pointing to your assumptions, and saying, "Ah ha!!"

Your statement was correct. Your implied charge of a contradiction is incorrect. Your assumption is that the 70th week of Daniel is by necessity the Great Tribulation. It is not. Thus, foisting your timeline unto the preterist interpretation and then claiming an internal inconsistency is illegitimate. All you have proven is that the preterist and futurist timelines do not agree with each other and are mutually exclusive, which is of course is obvious before any of us even open our mouths.

WOW Knight I had no idea (oops there I go mocking you again:doh: )

Once again Dee Dee shows her amazing ability to read what I said. Way to go Dee Dee.

Of course I am aware that the great trib took place in AD70 outside of Daniel's 70 weeks. That is what the bible clearly says

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

And that answers the exegetical data I provided in what way? Oh, that's right. It doesn't :doh: And I thought the Vogue went out in the eighties.

Oh come on Dee Dee be reasonable....

You have to admit its pretty damaging to the preterist view that the events of 70AD went by without being recognized as the Great Tribulation by the world and more specifically the early church leaders.

You can brush it off if you like but I would say it stands as an insurmountable obstacle to the preterist view.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Hey Faramir:

Oh no you forgot a step. Let me revise the usual scenario u (not meant to represent every dispensationalist or futurist of course)....

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: But what about these ten other questions that will take up every waking of your day to answer so I can throw ten more at you without ever really dealing with the ones you have already answered. Oh, I see, you won't answer now. Chicken!!

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist, why don't you answer my first question?

Preterist: Here is my answer yet again

Faramir and Dee Dee I want to comment on your above mocking of me with serious suggestion. When you hold a view that greatly differs from the mainstream thought you have to expect that others will want to investigate with question upon question. I find that very reasonable. As Dee Dee already knows I hold views myself that are hardly "mainstream" and I welcome question upon question! In fact..... I love to answer those questions upon questions. I even like to answer those questions with a super brief answers so I can more quickly get to their next question. More ground gets covered that way.

And sometimes you may need to answer a question with more or less detail a second time just for clarification purposes.

Just a suggestion for you folks to ponder.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Faramir and Dee Dee I want to comment on your above mocking of me with serious suggestion.

I want to be perfectly clear here Knight. I (speaking for myself) was not referring to you in that comment. That is why I added this parenthetical comment - (not meant to represent every dispensationalist or futurist of course).... When I mean to mock you specifically I will make it really clear. So in this instance, I apologize for the mistaken impression.

But I too have a suggestion for you to ponder.. while I admit that is funny (I can appreciate a good slam), because you also have such a minority view, you might not keep comparing me to someone who believes that the holocaust never happened, or that men did not land on the moon. I have explained why the comparison falls completely flat and is illegitimate.

PS: I was definitely mocking you here...

Ah, I see Calvinist's super-perception powers have rubbed off on our fearless leader

And I was half-way mocking you here:

And that answers the exegetical data I provided in what way? Oh, that's right. It doesn't And I thought the Vogue went out in the eighties.

:kiss:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I have explained why the comparison falls completely flat and is illegitimate.

And I disagree that the comparison falls flat. (And just where did you explain that? Could you point me in the direction of where that occurred?)

 

[jpholding]

Jerry's Kids

Jerry's Kids

Call the Boredom Police...

Are you not aware that "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God"(2Tim.3:16)?

Yep. Contraily, Jerrily, very little of your decontextualized exegesis of Scripture could even remotely be called "inspired" unless you have been dipping to heavily into the port...

You seem to do your very best to disparage any Scripture that does not fit your misguided beliefs.For example,you quote 1Sam.15:8 and Dan.12:1 and say that these words "are ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

It is disparaging and disrespectful to place the text in its proper literary and historical context? Au contraie, mon Jerri. It is ye of the Western-literalist mindset who disrespects the Scriptures by imposing upon them your uglified, anachronistic interpretations that would never have been imagined by persons living in the time of their writing.

And you say that if you remember correctly you agree with Dee Dee´s interpretation of the inspired words of God as recorded at Zechariah 12:9 and 14:2,3.

Yep. And you WILL wait and stop using that as a a diversion. You obviously have no answer at all to the general argument that the content of the texts of 1 Sam. and Dan. fit the pattern of the ancient war oracle -- "trash talk" in the common vernacular -- other than sticking carrots in your ears and singing about how "disrespectful" it is to read the text as people in the ancient world would read it, rather than as it would be read by the Church of Christ preacher yelling from and banging on the pulpit.
You sure you're not related to Farrell Till yourself?

And since the plain meaning of these words

Plain meaning! Defined: "A head in sand approach to exegesis that assumes the text was written yesterday and for you personally."

Instead of quoting any Scripture to support Dee Dee´s "fables",you say,"I have read Ben Witherington"!!!Woop-te-do!!! Give the man a hand.He has read Ben Witherington.

Who I'd bet you don't know from Fat Albert -- do you, Jerry? If you did know, you'd know just how much of a clown you're making of yourself here.

And he puts so much faith in what that man says that he just ignore the inspired writings that declare that the Lord Jesus will deliver Jerusalem and His people in the moment of their greatest peril:"And so all Israel will be saved;as it is written,There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer,and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"(Ro.11:26).

Ooh, threats. Next I'm going to Hell, right? Have you signed your KJV Only Club card yet? Unfortunately that is also a badly decontextualized reading of Rom. 11:26, which has zip to do with military deliverance. And as an aside, forget not this passage:
Rom. 9:6b For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel...
Get a clue from what follows in Romans 9. Jerry, it is ostriches like you who do the most damage to the Christian faith in this world -- more damage even than atheists. It's people like you who cause apostasies with your sorrowful attempts at rationalizing and decontextualizing the Scriptures into yesterday's newspaper.

Baaaa,

JP

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Sure to point you in the direction where I (and also Solly) demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy:

Ah but here is where I believe that you are grossly missing the point. You obviously believe that the Great Tribulation is planet-wide in scope, and then have taken your presuppositions to judge the alleged incredulity of my position that the Great Tribulation has already happened as being equivalent to someone who holds that that Holocaust did not happen. This is completely illegitimate, and is very similar in principle to the misconceptions that some perpetrate about the OV. Let me explain. I often hear the uninformed say that OV limits the power of God from knowing the future, and turn the argument into one soley based on whether or not God is omnipotent. But you and I both know that is a complete straw man. The argument is not soley over whether or not God could know a knowable future, but whether the future exists to be known in any meaningful way. Thus the argument is not about the nature of God per se, but about the nature of the future. Thus the nonOV attempts to make the OV look silly and ridiculous soley on those grounds are founded on complete beds of straw.

By analogy that is what you are doing to me, though I believe it is inadvertent due to misunderstanding. I do not believe that the Great Tribulation was planet-wide in scope for the very reasons that Solly has articulated and I will articulate again. Thus, you cannot right judge me as an ignoramus of the sort that would deny that the Holocaust happened because I allegedly can accept the absence of worldwide testimony to this catastrophe, when I don’t believe it was worldwide to begin with!! You need to start from my presuppositions to judge whether or not I am being realistic about the amount of evidence required. Since I believe it is a catastrophic judgment limited to Judea…. I do have ample historical evidence contained within the writings of the ECF and more particularly Josephus’ Jewish Wars which reads in many place like it was written straight out of Matthew 24. Thus the issue is not over the lack of worldwide evidence, the issue is over the nature and scope of the Great Tribulation which is a Scriptural issue, and not one of how historically gullible that I allegedly am.

And Solly addressed the issue in his post - 01-22-2003 06:57 AM

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Knight you still have not dealt with the exegetical evidence I gave RE the term "Great Tribulation," but keep pointing proudly to your presuppositions as if the case is closed by you merely stating your point without interacting with my defense.

I dealt in my defense with each of your restated objections i.e. why didn't the WORLD recognize it as such, and much earlier I demonstrated that the ECF DID recognize it as such an event, but were at times self-contradictory and that neither side could wave them about as their trump card.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

Sure to point you in the direction where I (and also Solly) demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy:

And Solly addressed the issue in his post - 01-22-2003 06:57 AM

Oh yea the ol' "localized tribulation" explanation - LOL! Sort of like the "localized flood" theory.

Explaining something is far different than explaining AWAY something. You did the latter. Sorry!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dee Dee please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

In other words....
The destruction of Jerusalem was obviously recorded, but in NO WAY was it recorded as being the Great Tribulation described in the Bible.

If anything...
As Jerry has so fantastically documented the early church documented the destruction of Jerusalem was anything BUT the Great Tribulation.

And please don't appeal to one or two late 3rd century references because with all due respect.... that just aint gonna cut it.

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to preterism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And again Knight, sorry but I am not impressed or persuaded by your Ex Cathedra pronouncements. I provided exegetical evidenced that you have totally failed to even attempt to deal with. Attempting to divert attention away by somehow associating this position with a local flood is no better than your illegitimate attempt compare me with those who deny the holocaust.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Were you really paying attention when Jerry and I did the ECF dance? But I did appreciate this statement:

There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

You really might want to take you own advice. And by the way, you totally veered down a different alley where I pointed you, at your request, to the place where I demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy. Are you going to deal with the foundational bait and switch you do with your completely unfair and inflammatory analogy?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This post was too important to be at the bottom of the last page

Dee Dee please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

In other words....
The destruction of Jerusalem was obviously recorded, but in NO WAY was it recorded as being the Great Tribulation described in the Bible.

If anything...
As Jerry has so fantastically documented the early church documented the destruction of Jerusalem was anything BUT the Great Tribulation.

And please don't appeal to one or two late 3rd century references because with all due respect.... that just aint gonna cut it.

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to preterism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hmm how does the shoe feel on that foot?

Hmm how does the shoe feel on that foot?

Knight please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually started in 30AD but was INTERRUPTED but this fact went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the ECF and by even some lamo 2nd, 3rd, 4th century church writers...

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to Acts 9 pruturism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh Knight, I did see it at the bottom of the last page and addressed this latest rabbit trail in Wonderland in the post directly preceeding your repost.

Oh, and on another note... I had been meaning to tell you, there is really no further word about my job. It is still quite up in the air. I still would appreciate your prayers for me.