The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Hitler Dilemma

I think we all have a tendency to think in terms of this terrestrial realm of time and space as thought that’s all there is or as though heaven is like the earth. Paul said "But as it is written, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (1 Cor 2:9). So we should lift our eyes to the heavens and realize that there is a reality far more glorious and amazing than this material world. The laws of nature only apply to the nature they were written for. This lower realm. Who can say what awaits us? Its so exciting!

2 Likes

wmb, you have to go back in time to understand why I and others here don’t believe anyone today is condemned. The context is the real issue. Jesus was indeed talking to the first century Christians… Good luck.

When Jesus announced in Matthew 24:34 that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled,” he was prophetically addressing that yet future generation, those who will be alive when the events are finally being completely fulfilled.

Why didn’t Jesus say “that generation” instead of “this generation?”

Because up to 25.35 Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem so he did mean “this generation” at that time but at 25.35 or 36 he was talking about the second coming far in the future, not 70AD. IMO Mathew put together different discourses.

Sounds contrived. Is there any hard evidence that this is so?

Here’s a relevant principle discussed by Prof. Bloomfield that I mentioned elsewhere:

Poor Paul, he was sooo confused… NOT!!

With prêterism you have… biblically historic prophetic pronouncement followed by biblically historic prophetic fulfilment — as then witnessed in biblical history.

With futurism you have… biblically historic prophetic pronouncement followed by unbiblical hysteric prediction — beyond the biblical story and endlessly so.

And yet none of the Church Fathers realised that the parousia had already taken place. How confused everybody was until centuries later when preterism reared it’s head.

2 Likes

REALLY??

How about the likes of Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea (AD. 264-339) — he didn’t just collate his views in a vacuum — seems he was less confused than you are willing to credit on these things John…

Yes.
I’m still waiting for any evidence that the Church Fathers acknowledged that the parousia had taken place. I have already given you plenty of evidence that they still awaited the parousia (but you totally ignored that last week).
Thanks for confirming my point.
Oh, and BTW

So there are more? Lets see them, I’m interested.

2 Likes

You can choose not to believe the obvious, but the fallout is catastrophic, most of the gospel is filled with 'soon will happen vocabulary ’ and unfortunately the soon to happen has never happened from the evangelical view point. The idea that the parosia has not happened from the evangelical perspective is both sad and unfortunate, for most of Christianity today could be living in a mindset that God has indeed done what he both said he would do and and has accomplished through His son Christ. There is a unfortunate schism between evangelicals looking forward to a coming and the actual gospel text.

That is simply not true.

No, it is true. your view is simply a view. You continue to contend that the evangelical mindset of a yet coming Christ is totally true, when much factual evidence has been given that the parousia has indeed taken place. Yes you have numbers on your side but it is in forums like this that truth starts to be put forth.

Good luck…

Thanks

How about the resurrection of the dead? Did this all happen in the first century, too? Some of it did—yes. But I Corinthians 15 seems to indicate that some will be raised at the coming of Christ. I know some think that happened in the first century also. But what about verse 24? Did “the end” come in the first century? Did Jesus destroy every rule and authority and power? Did He put all His enemies under his feet? Did He destroy death itself in the first century?

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:20-26 ESV)

1 Like

You get so pissed at me… Yet every thing you have said could have and very well happened in the first century. The coming of Christ, the last enemy destroyed is death… It could be that you (Don and many others) want to live forever in the state you are in. That is kind of what man is all about. But destroying death could mean the place where man (Adam) was separated from God. And Jesus (second Adam) returned Man to a righteous state with the Father.:wink:

It’s amazing how a person can cling to a belief in spite of scripture to the contrary.

As for the rest of your post, I can’t make any sense of it.

1 Like

You and I are as usual, at a loggerhead. You continue to ignore the obvious idea that I do not view the validity of scripture in the same regard as you. I realize the forum pretense, but also acknowledge the admin’s obvious allowance of contradictory views, so we are at this point allowed to fight it out.

So good luck… We’ll fight it out.

I’m not interested in “fighting out” anything with you, Chad.

If you don’t regard the words of Jesus and the apostles as valid, then what is the basis for disagreement? Philosophy?

That is my very point… I see all of the words of Jesus and the Gospel writers as valid, but you see those words as different than I do. Don, you are pandering… You know my view as well as I know yours. Quit being a stinker. I will accept you believe and have your view… and I understand it. The question is, will you do the same for the preterist/ pantelist view?