Looking for info: Partial Preterism

I've seen Tommy Ice's arguments destroyed by Gary DeMar. I'm sure that Hanegraaf will have a great defense for the early dating of Revelation, just as Gentry does. I can't recommend his "Before Jerusalem Fell" highly enough. To be fair and balanced, I will take a look at the videos you have posted. However, I can't promise to watch them all the way through, as they are about an hour each. Well, time to get back to work. Time flies when you are having fun.

 

I just feel bad for people caught up in this movement. It's truly intellectual suicide. Kind of like the ordeal with Jesus' use the the word kosmos. When you thought he didn't use the word it was everything. When you found out he did, it meant nothing. It's disingenuous. Hank argues very much the same way.

 

The way I see it, hanging on the "Futurist" view is the intellectually suicidal view. Too many holes, too many things you have to read into Scripture, making up gaps in time, etc. However, I will take the comparison to Hanegraaf as a high compliment, even though he is far more intelligent than I.

Since you brought it up, you never did address the real issue I was talking about the other day. I don't deny that Matthew used "kosmos", but you seem to deny that Luke used "oikumene" in the exact same event. What do you find disingenuous in my argument?

 

As soon as you address your argument about kosmos. You've been dishonest ever since, destroying your own credibility. Until you come clean i cannot take you seriously on this subject. Kosmos used to matter to you until you discovered Jesus used the word. That is intellectual dishonesty.

 

I used to automatically believe the late 90s date for Revelation I first came across the alternative view of the 60s date when I was going through Schaff's History of the Christian Church. He had changed his view in between publication of editions of his History. That took guts!

It got me to investigate more thoroughly and convinced me of that earlier date.

All of this was before I became preterist.

 

Intellectual suicide definitely takes guts, though there are some other names for it.

 

I addressed that right away, when I confessed that I was thinking of Matthew's version of the OD instead of Luke's. I've been up front the entire time. On the other hand, you have never addressed the oikumene question, except to claim this is from a different setting. It's well known that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are parallel accounts of the Olivet Discourse, so that argument doesn't hold.

 

I know. But you didn't. You deflected and pretended that the use of kosmos was never a big deal. Disingenuous.

 

That's not true, Brother. I acknowledged that Matthew used kosmos, but you totally disregarded Luke's use of oikumene. Then you decided to focus on my quotation mistake instead of addressing this question.

 

I see you have run out of cogent, intelligent responses. It takes chutzpah (not guts) to dismiss a scholar like Trench as you did.

I suppose my putting you on ignore will also be intellectual suicide.

 

No, it was a fair response. You stated categorically that it took guts to hold a certain unpopular view. You didn't make an argument, just stated your opinion. I'm merely gave mine, that it could also indicate some other things. Yeah, a little sarcasm to bring it home, but nothing wrong with that.

 

Yes, but then abandoned your argument that kosmos actually proved something and continue to pretend you never believed it did. Your answer was scripture hopping. You're still doing it. I cannot take you seriously after that.

 

Let's take a Mulligan on this. So, to start again, in Matthew's account of the Olivet Discourse, the word for "world" is "kosmos", which indicates that the events that Jesus is speaking of will be worldwide. However, in Luke's account, the word for "world" is "oikumene", which indicates a localized event. In other places where oikumene is used, it indicates the Roman Empire. How would you reconcile this seeming contradiction?

 

This is truly how Preterists argue and think. This is why it's so difficult to take them serious.

Your argument now is that Scripture contradicts. That is pathetic. It's also not true. Words get their meaning from context and Matt. 24 is context to every other word he spoke.

If Jesus said clearly in Matt. 24 this would be a worldwide event, then it will. Period. The question is, do you have the faith to believe him?

 

So your answer is to totally ignore Luke? Not even a discussion about it? And you expect us to take YOU seriously?

 

Even this response assumes Luke contradicts Matthew. I'm merely pointing out the ridiculous conclusion you've made that Scripture contradicts. If this is where you're forced to go, you're now arguing for inerrancy.

 

There are two different words used, one word in Matthew and another in Luke. Luke clarifies the meaning for those outside Judaism. It is not a contradiction and I haven't seen any evidence that Lodic claims such a thing. You are simply throwing out accusations instead of dealing with scripture.

 

The indignation of the LORD has never been upon ALL nations or upon all armies. The only armies that could be implied here is the Assyrians or the Edomites. NOT ALL ARMIES. However, verse 2 implies the LORD makes war against these armies and destroys them! He never destroyed ALL armies!

For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

This passage, like many others in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, has BOTH appears to have, (and may have) historical allusions, but when things are indicated to have NEVER happened, it has a future fulfillment.
Verse 8 says, " For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

So there will be a day of his vengeance coming. It is the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

The translation your using doesn't use the word STARS in verse 4. It uses the word HOST. So does the Textus Receptus….

ְצָבא tzba host-of
ַהָשַּׁמִים e·shmim the·heavens

The word STAR isn't used in the text. There are two words for STAR in Hebrew. They are 3598 Kiymah kee-maw' and 4264 machaneh makh-an-eh'. The word HOST (NOT STAR) in Isaiah 34:4 is the word tsaba', so right off the bat you're barking up the wrong tree.

Isaiah 34:4 is also repeated by John in Revelation 6:14...

"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
Here too in 2 Peter...

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

The "scroll" may imply that there's so much debris emitted into the atmosphere that it appears like a scroll.

Isaiah has a HOST of chapters that I believe futurist typically interpret as fulfilled whereas I believe are NOT.