Questions for the non-full preterist

[steve]

You would know this if you had read my replys. But then, your time is too valuable.

On this, we finally find ground for agreement.

By the way, I apparently hurt your feelings. I do apologize. I did not mean my criticisms of your arguments as a personal attack. If you found anything in particular in my posts to be personally insulting, please let me know what they were, and I will go back and edit them out.

[Allyn]

Steve, my feelings are not hurt. yes, the insults are there and I have seen those same jabs and put downs in many of your posts to others you have been in conflict with. I certainly do not appreciate them at any time. Since you have brought it up I think you will do well to go back and read your own post as if you were me being addressed and see if you might see those areas that you may need to work on. My responses to those insults should have been enough for you to have removed them without asking me to point them out in a new post.

In my view it would have so much more enjoyable if you would have addressed my questions with not only your opinion but how your opinion came about in light of you current understanding. it does not require dozens of paragraphs in one setting. I have found that a better discussion takes place when the response to a post is confined to the subject of that persons post with maybe a thought or two extra in order to keep the discussion going forward. You did that in part but it was in book book form making it very difficult to respond to all points made. At some point you need to stop being a teacher and start being a participant in the search for truth.

[steve]

It seemed to me that your original post, entitled "Questions for the non-full preterist" was inviting answers. I provided answers without rancor or a controversial spirit. You then responded with what appeared to be nonsensical responses. I pointed this out, though it is difficult to do this without embarrassing the person being corrected. If you had made such statements in a private forum, rather than in public, it would have been uncharitable and unnecessary for me to correct them publicly.

It seems to me that you are the one who initiated the discussion, and engaged me personally to give further defense of my original answers. How exactly would you like for me to answer "questions" without wearing a teacher's hat?

There is a way to shut me up. That is to give a valid answer that makes enough sense that I can respect it. I do not insist on having the last word in a discussion. But I do think the last word, if there is to be one, should be one that makes sense. I will gladly allow another person to make that contribution.

[Allyn]

It seemed to me that your original post, entitled "Questions for the non-full preterist" was inviting answers. I provided answers without rancor or a controversial spirit. You the responded with what appear to be nonsensical responses. I pointed this out. It seems to me that you engaged the discussion, and even invited further defense of my original answers. How exactly would you like for me to answer "questions" without wearing a teacher's hat?

Yes I invite answers but I don't expect personal attacks in those answers. If this continues from you I will simply ignore the content of your post.

How exactly would you like for me to answer "questions" without wearing a teacher's hat?

How exactly I can't say for you. For me it has more to do with taking what others have to say as of having value. That's not to say I need to accept the points being made or the view being expressed but it is to say that whatever my response is that I do it with respect and with an attitude that demonstrates that I do not think more highly of myself then I ought to.

[Allyn]

There is a way to shut me up. That is to give a valid answer that makes enough sense that I can respect it. I do not insist on having the last word in a discussion. But I do think the last word, if there is to be one, should be one that makes sense. I will gladly allow another person to make that contribution.

Steve,
I am not looking for a way to shut you up. I am here to share what I believe. there is already anomosity between eschatological groups and maybe it is because we want to shut up the mouth of the other. Not so for me - in fact I learn better from people who share their views respectfully in light of mine.

Steve,I gave answers to all of your comments but you have not given mine enough regard to respond except to resort to other tactics that truly do show your lack of respect for those who disagree with you. In fact you had such low regard that by your own admission you did not read what I said. Other than that I can't see anything you need to improve on.

[steve]

I cannot respond to points that are unintelligible to me. I seldom find myself in this position with any correspondent, but I have not been able to discern any logic in your points. This may be a defect in my ability to understand, but I can not give a reasonable response to a point that makes no sense to me whatsoever. I also have great difficulty continuing to read arguments that do not sound honest. Sorry.

My distinct impression is that you are arguing without thinking, just to be able to sound like your points may be in some way defensible. I am not trying to insult you. I am just more willing to debate with one who gives honest and well thought-out answers. For example, I go to the trouble to back up my points with multiple scripture references. Your responses come back so quickly that I do not believe you have bothered even to read those scriptures before responding. This appears to exhibit a desperation to appear to have an answer rather than a willingness to examine the scriptural merits of the arguments that disagree with you. That's my take. I wish I could insist that, appearances notwithstanding, I really did respect your arguments. But with arguments, as with other things, respect must be earned.

[Allyn]

I cannot respond to points that are unintelligible to me. I seldom find myself in this position with any correspondent, but I have not been able to discern any logic in your points. This may be a defect in my ability to understand, but I can not give a reasonable response to a point that makes no sense to me whatsoever. I also have great difficulty continuing to read arguments that do not sound honest. Sorry.

Ok, Steve, then give me an example of one of my points that make no sense to you. This is how a discussion works at times. Clarification is sometimes required. so pick one that makes no sense to you and allow me to explain it.

[steve]

Here are a few examples:

1. You have not made any argument that I can make sense of to support your belief that the Thessalonians in Greece had somehow been spared, as a result of being Christians, from God's wrath that was poured out on Jerusalem.

2. You further insist that we are to impute to the writings of Paul an error-proof inspiration that he does not claim and which his letters do not exhibit. Why are we to do this? Because "Christianity" (which can only mean, in this instance, "traditional religion") has always said that we must. Why not trust Paul's own statements about this (which you would have encountered had you looked up the passages I referenced).

3. You claim that Paul, in saying "we who are alive and remain" does not include himself in his statement, but that he necessarily does include Timothy, in a statement of the same sort, as one who will live until the Lord's appearing.

4. You have not explained why Timothy should keep the commandment blamelessly until AD 70, but not after.

I asked all of these questions on the first page of this thread, and you addressed them without giving an intelligible answer. Instead, you begged the question throughout—assuming that the "wrath" and the "appearing" referred to in the passages under consideration must be AD 70, despite the nonsensical implications that this involves. Can you read your own answers and believe that you have shown reverence for scripture and for truth in the way you have conducted this dialogue? If you can, then we may simply be unable to discuss our differences, because I expect more reverence for these things in a theological discourse.

[Allyn]

1. You have not made any argument that I can make sense of to support your belief that the Thessalonians in Greece had somehow been spared, as a result of being Christians, from God's wrath that was poured out on Jerusalem.

I looked back to see how this got so sidetracked and I found it is because you did not even attempt to answer my question but instead you felt it necessary to ask me a question based on an assumption you made.

2. You further insist that we are to impute to the writings of Paul an error-proof inspiration that he does not claim and which his letters do not exhibit. Why are we to do this? Because "Christianity" (which can only mean, in this instance, "traditional religion") has always said that we must.

But still you avoid the original question. And you are misrepresenting what I did say - but then you have to read it to know that.

3. You claim that Paul, in saying "we who are alive and remain" does not include himself in his statement, but that he necessarily does include Timothy, in a statement of the same sort, as one who will live until the Lord appearing.

Never said that. I said the "we" may or maynot include him. It does not need to include him to be valid nor does it need to exclude him to be valid.

4. You have not explained why Timothy should keep the commandment blamelessly until AD 70, but not after.

Yes I did - you just ignored it.

I asked all of these questions on the first page of this thread, and you addressed them without giving an intelligible answer. Instead, you begged the question throughout—assuming that the "wrath" and the "appearing" referred to in the passages under consideration must be AD 70, despite the nonsensical implications that this involves. Can you read your own answers and believe that you have shown reverence for scripture and for truth in the way you have conducted this dialogue?

This is your mantra and you're sticking to it - right?

Originally you said that the thessalonians were in no need to be spared from the wrath of God.

Lets start over. In your view what was the wrath of God Paul spoke of and how do you support that view?

[steve]

Originally you said that the thessalonians were in no need to be spared from the wrath of God.

If you think I said anything like this in any of my posts, then all further attempts at communication are apparently futile.

Lets start over. In your view what was the wrath of God Paul spoke of and how do you support that view?

If you don't know what I said about this, who was it who cut and pasted my thoughts on it into one of your responses? Sorry, you and I have very different standards of communication as well as honesty in exegesis. We will just have to live with the differences.