Thanks, Mike.
Some time back, I tried to listen to and load Schwertley V. Preston but couldn't. I have an ancient computer that doesn't accept their built-in player and I couldn't download from the site. I couldn't find the debate anywhere else for free {regular mp3 download}. Know where I can?
Eschatology Audio Links
Re: Eschatology Audio Links
These are the real links called by that websiteRickC wrote:Thanks, Mike.
Some time back, I tried to listen to and load Schwertley V. Preston but couldn't. I have an ancient computer that doesn't accept their built-in player and I couldn't download from the site. I couldn't find the debate anywhere else for free {regular mp3 download}. Know where I can?
http://covenantradio.hamptonroadsradio. ... rtley).mp3
http://covenantradio.hamptonroadsradio. ... rtley).mp3
I thought these were good to hear since there was a discussion of resurrection. Preston's arguments seem odd and unpersuasive, though there were a few useful points. Schwerley had some good ideas but also seemed to have many flaws.
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com
Re: Eschatology Audio Links
Thanks, Mike!
How do you make those links?
I may need a "how to" for the future.
Btw, if anyone's noticed; I give links to pages from where people can load. Reason being, so they know what they're getting in advance {background info, and not something they may not want}! But I know I can trust you, Brother Mike. Thanks.
Also, the Schwertley series I linked to before is "okay" but not what I'd call "great." Much of his presentation goes something along the lines of, "Full-preterism is false because I think so and so have many others." Subjective opinions or feelings and "The Appeal to Popularity" {the logical fallacy that something is true, or false, simply because many people think so} won't do.
Schwertely does have some good arguments, but they took a lot of listening time to hear....
Thanks, again, Mike!
How do you make those links?
I may need a "how to" for the future.
Btw, if anyone's noticed; I give links to pages from where people can load. Reason being, so they know what they're getting in advance {background info, and not something they may not want}! But I know I can trust you, Brother Mike. Thanks.
Also, the Schwertley series I linked to before is "okay" but not what I'd call "great." Much of his presentation goes something along the lines of, "Full-preterism is false because I think so and so have many others." Subjective opinions or feelings and "The Appeal to Popularity" {the logical fallacy that something is true, or false, simply because many people think so} won't do.
Schwertely does have some good arguments, but they took a lot of listening time to hear....
Thanks, again, Mike!
Re: Eschatology Audio Links
To get the links for those files, you have to go to the original link that plays automatically.
Then right-click on the web page --that will show a pop-up menu. Select the "View source" and then search for mp3. when you see the whole name before that, copy the link and you can paste to someplace like the TNP forum. I have used a variation of this in the past where it was hard to save instead of play or read a file.
Then right-click on the web page --that will show a pop-up menu. Select the "View source" and then search for mp3. when you see the whole name before that, copy the link and you can paste to someplace like the TNP forum. I have used a variation of this in the past where it was hard to save instead of play or read a file.
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com
Re: Eschatology Audio Links
*bump*
I've been "amillennial by default" for a long time. Over the last two years or so, Ive been reconsidering my beliefs (including being a believer in "conditional immortality by default," etc., etc.).
Since last Fall or so, I've been reading & posting a little on Andrew Perriman's blog - p.ost. Andrew writes really interesting stuff about interpreting the text in-historical-context. I initially thought he may be a full-preterist, but he isn't. He "leans" toward the Historicist School of interpretation. I don't know if he would claim that label, but he believes similarly as Historicists. (I personally think he might be reading into the text a bit much along these lines at times, but his blog articles are still thought provoking).
Also, and by way of Andrew's recommendation, is an eschatology podcast series by a fellow named Martin Scott - Perspectives. The podcasts are about 20 minutes long and are a great overview of all views in eschatology (after-life, millennium, rapture, hell, etc.). Talk number 31 presented me with a new way at looking at Revelation 20. Martin suggests that it might be better understood "minus" any millennial view we may have. If I'm not mistaken, it may have been he who said that Rev 20 is a kind of "repeat" of Rev 19 (and this stuff gets incredibly deep)!
I mentioned on the forum a year or two ago that "I'm a partial preterist, but seem to be more preterist than most partial-preterists, without becoming a full-preterist." I'm now seeing some texts--(such as Matt 10:28, which I used to use to support CI)--as having been fulfilled in 70AD. I'd still say Matt 10:28 could "support" CI. However, if it was about escaping the destruction of Jerusalem? Well, I'm still studying!
Thanks
p.s. For the "Notes" on Martin Scott's numbers 1-16, you have to click around (as they aren't displayed).
I've been "amillennial by default" for a long time. Over the last two years or so, Ive been reconsidering my beliefs (including being a believer in "conditional immortality by default," etc., etc.).
Since last Fall or so, I've been reading & posting a little on Andrew Perriman's blog - p.ost. Andrew writes really interesting stuff about interpreting the text in-historical-context. I initially thought he may be a full-preterist, but he isn't. He "leans" toward the Historicist School of interpretation. I don't know if he would claim that label, but he believes similarly as Historicists. (I personally think he might be reading into the text a bit much along these lines at times, but his blog articles are still thought provoking).
Also, and by way of Andrew's recommendation, is an eschatology podcast series by a fellow named Martin Scott - Perspectives. The podcasts are about 20 minutes long and are a great overview of all views in eschatology (after-life, millennium, rapture, hell, etc.). Talk number 31 presented me with a new way at looking at Revelation 20. Martin suggests that it might be better understood "minus" any millennial view we may have. If I'm not mistaken, it may have been he who said that Rev 20 is a kind of "repeat" of Rev 19 (and this stuff gets incredibly deep)!
I mentioned on the forum a year or two ago that "I'm a partial preterist, but seem to be more preterist than most partial-preterists, without becoming a full-preterist." I'm now seeing some texts--(such as Matt 10:28, which I used to use to support CI)--as having been fulfilled in 70AD. I'd still say Matt 10:28 could "support" CI. However, if it was about escaping the destruction of Jerusalem? Well, I'm still studying!
Thanks
p.s. For the "Notes" on Martin Scott's numbers 1-16, you have to click around (as they aren't displayed).
Re: Eschatology Audio Links
I forgot another link....
Which I accidentally came across via youtube -
"Revelation Theology And Bible Studies" by Tom.
I'd be interested what other amillennialists think (or any input from anyone).
That is, after listening to Martin Scott's Number 31 and watching "Tom's" four short vids, above (he has a youtube site with other vids too). 'Not sure if I'll start a new thread on this stuff, but it might be best (I may not have time for that for a while). I'll still accept replies here though!
Which I accidentally came across via youtube -
"Revelation Theology And Bible Studies" by Tom.
I'd be interested what other amillennialists think (or any input from anyone).
That is, after listening to Martin Scott's Number 31 and watching "Tom's" four short vids, above (he has a youtube site with other vids too). 'Not sure if I'll start a new thread on this stuff, but it might be best (I may not have time for that for a while). I'll still accept replies here though!