Featured new book on Covenant Theology

When did the earth become new? We live on a dying, decaying planet among evil people, murderers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, sodomites. How can you possibly believe this is our reward???? And when did God destroy the old earth with fire?

This is why people say Preterism offers no hope. If this is all there is, then I would rather just die and be worm food.

 

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I do not believe that is our reward.

 

I inadvertently erased my longer post.

I don't know why you think Preterism offers no hope? It only offers no hope to those who want to cling the physicl things of this world. But our real blessings are spiritual and invisible. Paul wrote:

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." 2nd Cor. 4:17-18

As far as "When did the earth become new?": Like I wrote earlier, you need to understand how the Bible uses a phrase. Study out the occurrences of "new heavens and earth". You may be surprised. Of course, you will not be surprised if just superimpose upon that phrase what we have been taught to think about it.

Notice especially the cross-references between Isaiah and Revelation.

 

I'm quoting Paul, not Plato.

Of course I pray for people's physical needs, as well as spiritual.

I think I'll just forget this thread. I can see already it will be a tiresome one where I will have to parry asinine asides like yours.

 

Out of all the "New Jerusalem" passages, the only one that describes dimensions is in the same book that has an Angel with pillars for legs.

 

being a full pretierists, He would hold to Jesus return in AD 70, by ushering in the new heavens/earth in a spiritual sense, when god judged isreal, and destroyed the temple, so that ever since than be in age of messiah, in the Millinium so to speak, andonce we die now, ALL have a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one!

 

I did. Thanks. Every day here is blessed.

 

I've not read AsteriskTom's posts to which you are referring to but I do say that Plato's influence is very strong particularly in Calvinistic thought.

 

I think more accurate to say pauls influence hugh in it!

 

Yes, the time was indeed near - almost 2000 years ago. It can either be "near" now or "near" then. It cannot be both, or words cease to have meaning.

And to whom was this message of nearness written? The seven churches, as the very next verse tells us. None of those churches exist anymore. Yet the message they were given was that the time was "near" that He would "come with the clouds".

Were, say, the Thyatirans lied to? Misled? No, they were given the gospel truth.

 

Where do get any of this about the seven churches that they were judged - all of them - for not making disciples of all nations? Certainly not the Bible.

Christ said that it would be "near", not "near if" or "not near if". The supposed failure of all seven churches is a fiction, not found in the Bible.

And for Preterism lulling people to sleep, this is also bogus. We say that Christ's kingdom is now, that we are citizens of heavenly Zion.

Half the virgins slept when they waited. None of them slept when the Bridegroom had come. None were lulled to sleep.

 

Post #61 concerning the coming of Christ, you provided no rebuttal. Christ DID come in judgment upon 'that generation' AD66-70. The passage you quote most likely was written between 52-54 AD, 20 plus years earlier.

I appreciate the ponit made here:

"The mistake the Thessalonians made was not in thinking the day of the Lord was about to come; rather, it was in thinking it had already come. How could this be? Paul taught clearly that the day of the Lord and the parousia were essentially simultaneous (2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:1-8). The fact that the Thessalonians believed the day of the Lord had come indicates that Paul’s teaching on the Second Coming differed significantly from that of most present-day eschatological scenarios. For example, if Paul were a current-day pre-tribulation dispensationalist, he would have corrected the Thessalonians in a very different manner than he did. He might have argued that if the day of the Lord had already come, they all should have been physically raptured to heaven by now (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16-17). Since this had not happened then obviously the day of the Lord had not arrived yet.

Instead of answering in the above manner, Paul simply provides two events that needed to transpire before the Second Advent occurred. First, a falling away (“rebellion,” NRSV) had to take place. In response to this, the man of lawlessness—the Antichrist—would be revealed (2 Thess. 2:3). Soon thereafter, the parousia would happen (2 Thess. 2:8). Again, Paul nowhere makes the argument that the saints would have already been raptured to heaven if the day of the Lord had begun."

Read the article, it might do you some good.

[edit to add] This article is as good as any I've read concerning this 'man of sin'. John of Gischala was one of the tyrants that wrecked so much destruction upon his own people, and he and his cohorts did indeed take over the temple and used it as a base to wreck their havoc upon the people. What transpired among them was literally pure lawlessness and mayhem.:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/2002_noe_man-of-sin.html

Who the restrainer was is not clear to me. It could well have been an angel such as Michael who restrained that 'band of angels of evil' until the time came, or it could have been a man as this article suggests (See http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1701486&postcount=58 )

 

Well... Who is the restrainer who kept him from coming?

Who was the Antichrist that appeared, and when did jesus destroy him at His second coming/his presense doing that?

Either he did it spiritually, alal JW and jesus returning, or else it happened in history, but no one was around to record it?