Futurists cannot prove their assertions.

Yes, there's one man coming who'll be more-antichrist than anyone before or after him. He will be Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Alexander the great all rolled into one super-charismatic man who will be indwelt by Satan & will rule most of the world. He will do his best to stamp out ALL other religions but the worship of himself.

 

Domitian was less the beast than Nero was.

And, as you & your gurus, he was wrong as well.

[/quote] I personally hold to the early date (65-67) authorship. I've run across an intriguing theory that the Beast could be better understood as Rome, and "personalized" in Nero. Since Nero committed suicide in 68, the "Rome" theory makes sense to me. (Not sure how my fellow Preterists might view that.)[/QUOTE]

The FACT that Nero DIED shoulda told you he was NOT the beast! Again, let SCRIPTURE show you!

Rev. 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast aliveinto the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Again, SCRIPTURE & HISTORY prove preterism wrong!

 

If you check out the Blue Letter Bible or Strong's Concordance, you will see that "image" (Strong's # 1504) has several definitions. One of the definitions is "applied to man on account of his power or command". You keep saying that Scripture is proving me wrong, but all you've done is present your view of what the Scripture means.

Your bias toward the Futurist view clouds your facts to make you see what you want to see. While I read a lot from DeMar, Gentry, et al, my primary source of Biblical interpretation is Scripture itself.

I've presented historical support many times, but you refuse to accept the proof. Yes, Scripture does shape history, which is why I am so adamant that the events in the Olivet Discourse and most of Revelation have already happened.

I've yet to run across a Bible prophecy which I believe has been fulfilled that I can't support from Scripture. You should admit that it's at least possible that you may be mistaken in your interpretation.

 

I personally hold to the early date (65-67) authorship. I've run across an intriguing theory that the Beast could be better understood as Rome, and "personalized" in Nero. Since Nero committed suicide in 68, the "Rome" theory makes sense to me. (Not sure how my fellow Preterists might view that.)[/QUOTE]

The FACT that Nero DIED shoulda told you he was NOT the beast! Again, let SCRIPTURE show you!

Rev. 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast aliveinto the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Again, SCRIPTURE & HISTORY prove preterism wrong![/QUOTE]
Well, we do agree that Nero was more of a "beast" than Domitian.

In the course of our discussion, I've come to realize that the Beast is actually Rome. Of course, Nero is the man of sin, and 666. The Roman Empire was dealt an almost fatal blow with Nero's death. As a historian, I'm sure you are familiar with the "year of the 4 emperors". Anyway, Vespanian's rise to power restored the Roman Empire, which fits the "rising from the dead" description. Finally, I'll admit that I don't fully understand the details of Rev. 19:20. However, I won't let the fact that I don't understand all of this cause me to abandon Preterism for the man-made fantasies of the Futurist view.

 

Scripture is straightforward, not coded. Scripture plainly says the false prophet will have men make an image TO the beast. Thus, we know that image will likely be a statue. The FP will supernaturally make it speak. If he made it speak with electronix, men wouldn't marvel.

What I see is REALITY. What YOU see is imagination fed to you by those quax whose bunk you read.
If your ACTUAL source was Scripture, you'd KNOW Nero wqas NOT the beast.

No, you haven't. Josephus' "chariots in the sky" is fiction. (Funny, no one but Josephus saw/heard them, & he wasn't even a Christian.) All you've presented is imagination & guesswork.

Then, how come they're NOT in history??????????????????????????????????????????????

Then, you SHOULD be able to tell us when all life in the sea died & when all green grass was burned up.

 

Agreed, Scripture is not coded. However, it was written in Hebrew and Greek. Since we are dealing with other languages, we have to consider all the possible meanings of words we translate. Most are pretty straightforward, but some may have multiple applications. It makes a lot more sense for "the Image" to be a representative, not an artificially constructed device. Whether Titus or someone else, they would have carried something that shows they have authority from Rome. Why complicate this issue when the answer is so simple?

OH, BROTHER!!!!

Since I haven't read Josephus for myself, I really can't answer that one. However, I tend to agree with you on this. As you say, if this really happened, it should be in history books and encyclopedias.

Then, how come they're NOT in history??????????????????????????????????????????????
Then, you SHOULD be able to tell us when all life in the sea died & when all green grass was burned up.[/QUOTE]
As I've tried to explain to you before, you are looking for literal events to match symbolic visions.

 

As I've tried to explain to you before, you are looking for literal events to match symbolic visions.[/QUOTE]


Again - "That Scripture is inconvenient to my pret hooey, so it's gotta be SYMBOLIC!"

HORSE FEATHERS!

I should leave you wallering in your apostasy, but someone else might believe that tripe if no one posts against it & proves it's tripe.

 

You keep saying that you've shown me proof. You haven't provided anything but your views and parroted "futurist" nonsense. Your comments only serve to reinforce those who already hold to the "futurist" view. My comments will only reinforce those on this forum who are already preterists. Maybe there are some few watching this dialogue who will be intrigued, and research it for themselves. If so, and if done without any bias from pre-conceived ideas, they may discover that the Preterist view makes a lot of sense.

It's been obvious from the beginning that you believe my views are wrong, and I believe your views are wrong. Since neither of us are saying anything new, and neither of us is likely to convince the other, I'm about ready to move on. We are just going around in circles.

 

I'm trying to figure out how you got "applied to man on account of his power or command" but I cannot find that on Blue Letter Bible or in Strong's (which I almost never use because it is so out of date). Would you care to tell me how to find this definition?

My go to basic lexicon (Mille, Friberg, the Anlex) has:

"(1) as an artistic representation, such as on a coin or statue image, likeness ( MT 22.20); (2) as an embodiment or living manifestation of God form, appearance ( CO 1.15); (3) as a visible manifestation of an invisible and heavenly reality form, substance (HE 10.1)."

P.S. As long as you use terminology like "parrot futurist nonsense" I am not attracted to interacting with you about prophecy (which I teach), but I just had to find out where you got this linguistic faux pas.

 

My apologies, John. I guess I let Roby get my goat with his responses, and I responded out of anger. I really don't have anything against the "futurist" view of eschatology, but I get tired of people who act as if only an idiot would believe in any form of preterism.

But, I digress. Here is a link to the Blue Letter Bible entry that I looked up. Genesis 1:1 (NASB)
I used item "B", 2nd entry. Based on your comment, I may need to switch to the lexicon you are using. Take care.

 

Again - "That Scripture is inconvenient to my pret hooey, so it's gotta be SYMBOLIC!"

HORSE FEATHERS!

I should leave you wallering in your apostasy, but someone else might believe that tripe if no one posts against it & proves it's tripe.[/QUOTE]

Note - Second reply to this thread. Roby, I want to apologize for my rude comments to you during our discussion. Even though we disagree, there was no excuse for the way that I belittled your views. Take care.
Also, a note of thanks to @John of Japan for calling me out on this.

 

Apology accepted

Here is one problem. As you know, Gen. was written in Hebrew. There is never a one to one equivalence between a word in two languages. The Hebrew word for "image" is not a match for the Greek words used in the NT for "image."

Here is the second problem. You did not quote from a definition of "image," but from what the BLB calls an "Outline of Biblical Usage." So, what you are using as a source is some anonymous person's opinion of the usage, not a definition of either the Greek or Hebrew words.

 

You make some very good points, Sir. I stand corrected. Even though the idea made sense to me, it's no good if I can't use Scripture to back it up.

 

You can find any and every heresy in secular history. However, the Bible clearly and explicitly predicts a yet future visible return of Jesus Christ. A future resurrection of the just and and unjust. A future judgement. A future new heaven and earth. These are indisputable clear explicit bible facts.

One may argue over the Daniel 9 interpretation. One many argue over how much of the olivet discourse was accomplished in 70 A.D. I am not a pre-tribber. But even worse than the Pre-trib view is the soft clay Preterist views.

 

Both are explicitly taught in the word of God.

 

Please elaborate about "soft clay Preterist views.

 

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. I think both may be implicit at best.

 

I am not a pre-tribber but I would rather be a pretribber than the plastic Preterist views. What do you mean by "futurist ideas"? The second visible coming of Christ is absolute fact. The future resurrection of the dead is an absolute fact. The future new heaven and earth is an absolute fact. If you dispute any of these, I won't even waste time discussing it with you as these are indisputably and explicitly clear futuristic biblical doctrines.

I take it you are disputing lesser futuristic doctrines as the pre-trib view, Daniel 9 and the relevance of Olivet discourse to the yet future second coming of Christ.

 

Anyone who has read a sampling of Preterist literature knows Preterists do not agree with each other about many many many different applications of Revelation to historical people and events. Let's not waste time disputing that because if anyone disputes it it only proves they have not done much reading.