…but this is for anyone — you, me or the next person; why make some theologians your whipping boy? And to say some are “deceived” is totally disingenuous… have you never strongly held a position that upon greater or more effective argument or reasoning subsequently changed your mind about? Would it be reasonable to claim you were previously “deceived”? There may be a sense of safety in narrow-mindedness, but it hardly engenders an open spirit of discovery.
NO… THEY had at that time i.e., “in latter times” <ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς> the latter times THEY were in, NOT your ‘subsequent eras’ — this was no open-ended, never-ending declaration. Not only that but the CONTEXT (something you mishandle at your own convenience) shows what Paul was referring to by “doctrine of demons” i.e., verse 3 — the very problem he tackles elsewhere in his epistles.
I guess I would say that you (Eusebius) are searching for truth, as well as we all are. And what David (Davo) is trying to say is that as we move along this road to knowing what (who) Christ is and how we are suppose to react… give a little leeway to others. You may well learn something. If you think you have it all figured out, God Bless You, for you are in for a torrent of kick butt.
I see your point. There are doubtless a number of metaphors that could be gleaned from this parable (or most of them), but metaphoric readings are generally considered to ‘step beyond’ the author’s meaning, and grammatical historical methodology is held in pretty high esteem among evangelicals today. What I was actually thinking of when I wrote this was a response by Allan S re parable of wheat and tares, where he seems to compare the concept of wheat and tares to good and evil within us. Not saying I disagree with this, it makes sense. This sort of thinking is where it seems to me universalism does better from a mystical standpoint than her siblings (ET and Anni). The problem is one of justification for any highly metaphoric reading of Scripture. I’m coming to disdain grammatical historical literalism and feel there’s power in the Bible as metaphor, but there’s precious little acceptance for this sort of thing from the rank and file on up through the powers that be in traditional Christianity.
As to your presentation of Eph 2:2 and Col 2:13, as noted earlier I understand and accept the notion of spiritual death in non-destructive contexts, I think nearly all Christians do.
Agreed. Though agreeing on what the “core principles” of the faith are might pose some difficulties.
I have not. Is it fiction? I haven’t read any fiction for about 30 years now.
True. Parables themselves generally stand outside the methodology. I mean that GH method tends to impose restrictions that generally force readers to stay within a limited range of meaning. For example, GH likes to impose the ‘one meaning only’ rule. Thus, reading multiple metaphors–especially where something is explained by the parable giver–is disallowed. The more hardcore proponents of GH like to rule with an iron fist.
One would think, yet Calvinists are happy to ignore or explain away passages that support the Arminian paradigm and vice versa. Universalists, Annihilationists and eternal punishment folks tend to reject or gloss over those passages that don’t support their doctrine, etc.
Complicated topic for me, suited for another discussion at another time maybe.
Actually, I don’t think that is true. Why?. Because folks from the competing camps (i.e annihilation, Universalism, ECT., Exile, etc.), will bring up objections and competing passages, for them to explain away. Just observe this phenomena, in folks here - with competing universalism scenarios.
For example, is the devil tormented forever and ever, in Revelation 20:10? That’s a sticking point for those embracing annihilation, who feel the devil and evil angels - are also annihilated. Here’s a response I gave, from the annihilation viewpoint:
So I’m really just a “hang around”, with the Universalist Motorcycle Gang. If I wanted to go deeper, then I need to show, that I embrace their cause of universalism fully. Then someone here could “sponsor” me and make me a “prospect”. Then eventually, I would be voted in, as a “full patched-in member”.
I really don’t say anything against universalism here, as I hope it is true. But I do bring up related theological and philosophical questions and/or objections. Or inject some Holy Fool humor - like Shakespeare does, in his serious plays. Hopefully, it helps someone here, to build a stronger case.
And sometimes, I like to look at things pragmatically. Christian Science, for example, is definitely “theologically far out and unorthodox”. But looking into their healing ministry and healing results, could be quite a beneficial endeavor.
Sorry but you are not allowed to re-define “in subsequent eras” to mean it meant in their day. In fact, we see it today. Here, I’ll prove it to you:
Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;" forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth,
(1Ti 4:1-3)
“Eras” is “kiros” in Greek. “Times” is “chronos” in Greek. They are two different critters.
“Subsequent: coming after something in time; following.”
There was something coming after Paul’s day which he was warning believers.
Paul also said that after he left, grievous wolves would enter not sparing the flock.
The context is Paul prophesying of what was to come later.
You lost me. Sounds like you’re saying my claim that folks tend to defend their particular doctrine despite passages that don’t agree isn’t true because [essentially] folks tend to defend their particular doctrine despite passages that don’t agree. * Did I miss your point?
Hi qaz,
Again, this seems essentially the point I made in different words. I’m puzzled by what you feel you’re disagreeing with.
With equal due respect, you certainly have the option to end this or any discussion you wish for any reason at any time qaz. I’ll just remind you that I started this thread, that the subject of the thread–despite the fact that it has long ago been breached in lieu of numerous other topics (not unusual on message boards)–has nothing to do with laying out core principles of the Christian faith, and as such will have to admit: I don’t feel compelled to abide by unnecessary requirements for discussion imposed by contributors here.
Other than that, thanks for your contributions to this point my friend, God bless.*
The “latter days” / “end times” / “latter times” were ALL synonymous with the age wherein they lived, as per…
Those “times” were THEN… we are beyond “the end times/latter days/end of the age/s” — BECAUSE all those designations referred to THE OLD COVENANT AGE/WORLD — all of which came crashing down in the conflagrations of CE 66-70.
Lol Eusebius… I love the way you use that word “context”
Let me quote that AND the NEXT verse… you know, context
Remember… Paul died somewhere around 62-64 CE. Thus “subsequent” to him, “some” indeed would be “falling away” — just as he said would occur elsewhere (2Thess 2:3).
The torrent of KB’ing is starting.
Gosh, just ask someone what they think… Why they think it, and go from there.
You may learn something, and we may learn from you
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Davo, From what I understand, no matter what era we live in, the truth remains the same. It is said that history repeats itself, and in looking at it, I would say this is true. Inquisitions and witch hunts are examples of such “teachings of demons”, and there were many that were deceived by them.
I’m not so much arguing against that ideal, BUT words actually have to mean something to those to whom such words were directed… else all that Jesus and the apostles said, not only went straight over their heads (and genuinely in some cases it did, BUT, “to him who has ears” etc), BUT was meant to go straight over their heads BECAUSE Jesus and Co’ weren’t speaking to THEM… but US. I reject that notion out of hand because it makes a mockery out of Jesus’ and the apostles’ words, in fact makes them LIARS, and all prophetic words and otherwise simply become an endless-loop being made to FIT whatever generation so decides to claim such for their own — and THAT has been the sorry saga of futurist’ history down through Christendom. IOW… the prophetic scriptures are willy-nilly massaged into ANY contemporary context.
The *historical-narrative *wherein the Scriptures were laid HAS TO count for something, and IMO needs to be that through which we read the bible; NOT the other way around of reading 20-21th century mindsets BACK INTO the bible. But that’s just my opinion.
Besides which… don’t forget what I also wrote further back up the thread HERE.
By all appearance, the apostles thought they were living in the end times.
But God revealed a secret to Paul not given to any of the other apostles, that Israel was to be set aside and all the Old Testament promises put on hold until this:
For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come,** until the complement of the nations may be entering**. And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob." And this is my covenant with them Whenever I should be eliminating their sins. As to the evangel, indeed, they are enemies because of you, yet, as to choice, they are beloved because of the fathers. For unregretted are the graces and the calling of God. For even as you once were stubborn toward God, yet now were shown mercy at their stubbornness, thus these also are now stubborn to this mercy of yours, that now they also may be shown mercy. For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all." (Rom 11:25-32)
When Christ returns, Israel picks up where they left off.
Davo, I see what you are saying here, and I agree that Jesus was addressing the people at that time. But, as you mentioned, He was also addressing “any who have ears to hear”. To me, this means that these words were meant for people in any given generation, anywhere in the world. As long as man has existed and continues to exist, there will be sin in the world. Since this is the case, there will always be spiritual warfare of good against evil as well as the kingdom of men vs. the Kingdom of God.
I reject the idea of the Apostles thinking that the Second Coming would occur at time X.
The idea that one knows when the Second Coming will occur, or even approximately when it will occur, is nonsensical. We can never, ever know beforehand the time of the Second Coming. We can’t even estimate it to the nearest billion years.
Given that, the Apostles would not make such an elementary error.
No offence, But I reject the idea that the NT writings are* NOT *filled with verbiage that indicates that they had an expectation of something happening soon (second coming). Jesus himself had many written accounts of saying things would happen soon. I don’t think an error was made. And we have to ask if they were liars? Paul’s verbiage was the same.
I think they knew God was going to take care of business soon.
Yes qaz… and there was very good reason for the apostles to securely hold such expectations i.e., the words of their Master. Jesus was unequivocally CLEAR as to the times and seasons, i.e., the conditions to look for, AND THE FACT that at least some of them standing there were to witness these things…
On Jesus’ prophetic word some there present with him would indeed live to “see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” — AND Jesus’ declaration assuredly links the preceding verse to this where…
Now whatever can be said of the extremely soon to occur transfiguration six days hence, it was NOT what Jesus just spoke of, i.e., of “angels” or to reward each per works. Such things were pertinent to the Parousia NOT the transfiguration.
And now speaking to said conditions Jesus said this…
Jesus came to fulfill ALL the Law, Prophets and Psalms (Lk 24:44), i.e., ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN!
IF the apostles believed ONLY Jesus’ words THEY had good reason to BELIEVE these things were written of and spoken to and about to be consummated for THEM and their (Israel’s) redemption…
There was NO pathetic postponement of the promises per dismal dispensationalism… Jesus came to fulfill ALL, and ALL would come to fruition upon Jesus’ own generation then living…
Whether priests, pastors or pew-sitters… there is no excuse for explaining away these clear teachings of Jesus.
Yeah I hear what you’re saying Paidion, but it is also possible, well more than possible as it happens with regularity, where the historical context is read right over and summarily written off AND THEN any degree of contemporary interpretation supplemented as its rightful understanding; THAT IMO does great violence to the text/s where we develop whatever proposition suits our needs — which THEN can have the text/s saying more than was ACTUALLY intended; or to quote Paul… “…learn in us not to think beyond what is written…”
