Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If you want a thread on preterism, just look for asterisktom. It seems to be his favorite topic.
I believe that many of the verses the preterist alludes to are partially fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. However, I also believe the complete fulfillment is found in the futurist, dispensational belief.
I don't see how a bible believer can see the scripture concerning Israel and the miraculous intervention of God on behalf of His choses people, both past and present and not see that God is not through with Israel.
Wow, Robert we may not agree politically but I agree with you here. There is an agenda and I espeically like you last statement.
God is not through with the people of Israel. The door of salvation is open, eternal in Jesus Christ the Messiah. What could be better than that?
God is through with the nation of Israel. There is no more purpose for it. We, redeemed Jews and Gentiles are now the holy nation, a kingdom of priests, the heavenly Zion. The people who want a future for Israel as a nation would require them to return to sacrifices (that have to do with sin). That is better? No way. That is actually anti-Semitism, relegating them to a return to obsolete sacrifices and observances that were only meant to point to Christ.
Christ broke down the middle wall of partition. Why would He need to build it up again?
The scripture say they will return and offer sacrifices, that's good enough for me. I know this goes against your call in life: converting us all to preterist, but I will decline the offer.
BTW, I don't see how a sacrifice looking back would be any different than a sacrifice looking forward. But, I can see how it would bother you; it stops your preterism in it's tracks. Too bad!
Matthew 10 has a very interesting evangelistic story.
You most likely know that story. Jesus tells His disciples to preach to the lost sheep of Israel. They are pointedly sent to them, not to the Gentiles, preaching that the kingdom is "at hand" (That sounds pretty immediate, don't you think?). Authenticating miracles accompany their efforts. But here is the interesting part- vs.23:
"When they persecute you in this city, I say to you, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
Note:
The ones being persecuted are the ones who are to flee to another city.
These ones fleeing will not run out of cities of Israel to go through.
The reason is that the Son of Man will come before they are able to exhaust all the cities to go to.
When did this happen?
Or are they still running?
Are these persecuting cities of Israel still in existence?
Where is there room for a gap so as to still salvage this prophecy for the futurist view?
Or is it a different coming we are looking at here?
Back to the OP, if your conclusions are correct, then Jesus should have returned well before 70 A.D.. The scriptures show a great persecution under Saul (Paul) in which Christians were scattered "everywhere". In fact, some Christians had fled Israel altogether and sought refuge in other countries, this is why Saul went to Damascus, to arrest Christians who had fled there.
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Notice it says believers were scattered abroad "throughout" the regions of Judaea and Samaria. If your interpretation of Matthew 10 is correct, then Jesus should have come at this time.
Why? Are you assumming that because Paul went throughout the Roman Empire that that necessarily means all the cities of Israel had recieved the Gospel?
In Matthew 10 Jesus says Christians will be hated for "my name's sake".
They were, ever read Acts?
The Romans did not come against Israel in 70 A.D. because of Christianity whatsoever, they did not come against Israel because of Jesus's name, they came against the Jews because they revolted against the authority of Rome.
So? What is your point?
However, in Acts 8, these persons are being persected for Jesus's sake, matching what Jesus said in Matthew 10 perfectly.
Matt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Yes! You have read Acts.
I have never heard this theory put forth, but I have wondered if Jesus appearing to Saul (Paul) was actually the fulfillment of this prophesy.
Was Jesus talking to Paul in Matthew 10?
In my opinion, Acts 8-9 fits Jesus's prophesy in Matthew 10 much better than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. in every way. And it is documented in scripture, not conjecture.
Not conjecture? You just said this:
I have never heard this theory put forth, but I have wondered if Jesus appearing to Saul (Paul) was actually the fulfillment of this prophesy.
I notice none of you Preterists have responded to my last post.
Does Acts 8-9 fulfill Jesus's prophesy in Matthew 10?
If not, why not?
I noticed you never answer my questons...such as do you take the time-statements of the Bible literally?
Why? Are you assumming that because Paul went throughout the Roman Empire that that necessarily means all the cities of Israel had recieved the Gospel?
They were, ever read Acts?
So? What is your point?
Was Jesus talking to Paul in Matthew 10?
I noticed you never answer my questons...such as do you take the time-statements of the Bible literally?
As a returning member, I wish to second Winman's observation about the use
of "mello" for what is "about to occur" because it anticipates the passing of a
thousand years in God's sight as being no more that a single day in our sight.
This word for "about" to occur refers in Matt.16:27 at Christ's second coming.
But I believe the next verse puts the "death of some of those (not some of 'you') standing here (meaning standing 'there' when He is about to appear with the angels to reward every believer)...'they' will not taste death until they see Him having come (perfect participle) in His kingdom", i.e., "in His kingdom POWER" according to Mark 9:1 and Rev.12:10.
Why did Robert Stephanus (in 1550) separate Mark 9:1 from what occurred a week earlier when Jesus actually made the prophecy of His coming in Kingdom POWER? Was it because he thought the experience on the Mt. of Transfiguration fulfilled His coming in POWER? Or was it because, even today, we fail to see that Jesus had in mind His coming in "Kingdom Power" during the 1260 Endtime days of Rev.12:10-14? Note especially Rev.12:10. Mel
"Jesus did not say they would be alive when he comes in his power, he said they would not die until they 'see' it. That is a HUGE difference in meaning.
This might have been Jesus telling us ahead of time of 'The Revelation' to be revealed to John".
Winman,
Thank you for responding; but I am wondering if you see Mark 9:1 having been fulfilled through the predictions of Rev.12:10-14 that have NOT yet
occurred relative to the coming of "God's Kingdom Power and Christ's own
Authority" which the chiasm of Rev.12:10-14 places during a "kairos" (appointed) Endtime period of 3.5 years or 42 months or 1260 days.
Your quote seems to point to a first century fulfillment:
The Book of Revelation contains the prophecy of "those who will love NOT
their life unto death" to the very End of Chronos-Time! Indeed, some will
still taste death until the last one "who must be killed has been killed AFTER" they see the Two Prophets finish demonstrating God's Kingdom Power for 1260 days!! Only at the deaths of these two, and with just 3 days remaining until the 7th Trumpet sounds that "chronos-time of 1260 days has been completed" (Rev.10:6-7; Rev.11:6-7)...only then will the "kairos-time to judge and reward the Prophets and Saints have come"!!! Rev.11:18.
I do not see how the Preterist advocates of prophecy can support their position by using Mark 9:1 as a part of an "inverse parallelism" to an alleged terminal point in AD 70 when Rev.12:10 clearly puts what is "about to occur" as of Matt.16:27-28 with the terminal point of the Chiasmus still to occur at the future S. C. of Christ to "reward all the Saints at the 7th Trumpet".
Mel Miller
Jesus did not say these persons would be alive when he
comes in power, he said they would not die till they have "seen" the
kingdom of God come with power.
So, we see in Matthew 16 that Jesus was speaking to his disciples when he said there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they "see" the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
It is really not that complicated, John saw Jesus coming in his kingdom when Jesus revealed this to him on the isle of Patmos. This was probably around 90-96 A.D. when John was very old, but quite alive.
You do not seem to grasp what I am saying. Jesus did not say that some of the disciples would still be living when he came in his kingdom, he said they would not die until they SEE it.
Thanks for your patience; but your response seems to make "these persons"
refer to the Disciples rather than to those who will see "all these things that
happens" on the Day of Christ's Presence (parousia) AS WELL AS the Day He
comes (erchomai) to destroy all those who are gathered to Armageddon