Featured THE MARK OF GOD AND BEAST

You can't prove they HAVE happened. Your guru's assertion that "Nero/Rome=the beast" is proven completely false by Rev. 19.

 

You gave literal events. Then claim Revelation is not about literal events.

You did not quote any historical facts. All you did was asign "your" cherry picked literal events. Any one can point out most wars over the last 1900 years and they would fit the same loosely placed symbolic points you gave. It is about as bad as the daily astrological projections in the newspaper. You are just applying history loosely to the alledgedly overly symbolic writings of John.

Then when it gets too specific, you revert to an even looser application. For instance the Euphrates River is an historical River. Yet you say the River does not dry up, and it would not have to any way in today's scenario. Then you just change a specific point about a specific historical River, and declare it symbolic and then just appoint your own private daily newspaper headline instead of God's Word as the news headline: "Titus sacks Jerusalem". Titus came from Europe which is northwest. You did not even get the direction correct. It dried up for those coming from the east.

It would seem to me that if the specific Euphrates River dried up, then we would have an army representative of Persia, India, and China coming to join Titus from Rome. See how taking a specific point, and just declaring mere symbolism just turns God's Word into your own history news headline. When any war in the last 1900 years could loosely fit your same declaration, since symbolism can basically say anything you want it to say, to fit your historical news headlines.

If you argue that Revelation 16 did not name any names, then you refuted your own added kingdom; Rome. Rome was not named, so that would eliminate Rome as a candidate in Revelation 16.

"And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath."

How can 70AD be the historical fulfillment of all the cities of all nations destroyed? Not even Rome was destroyed on that day. Jerusalem is supposed to be symbolic of every city and nation?

 

Repeating the reasons for our opposing views doesn't change the fact that each of us are expressing our views. If it was something either of us could just point to like Perry Mason, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As far as you are concerned, the Preterist view is false and the Futurist view is correct. As far as I am concerned, it's the other way around. Each of us are convinced of the "proofs" of our view. I don't see the point in dragging this out when there is nothing new to say.

 

What if the left behind series was a reaction to preterism? Preterism has been around before any left behind movies or books.

I still see you use this generation loosely when it had specific connotations. Can you point out what was to be soon, and what would happen after the Gospel was heard by every human ever born? Birth by the way is an ongoing phenomenon and the Gospel cannot stop until birth itself stops. As far as I know, billions of people have been born since 70AD, so the Gospel did not stop in 70AD. The church did not close her doors in 70AD, and put up a sign: "That's All Folks".

What generation can this "soon" apply to? Not just mere generalization based on too much symbolism. On some bases in historical fact where a generation actually has some relative meaning to the attached point?

 

Not quite so, Brother. I've never claimed that Revelation is not about literal events. I claim that it's filled with symbolism that points to literal events. Specifically, I believe it's mostly about the events of the Jewish Wars ending with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If you look closely at my post, you see that I am pointing to historical facts. I don't cherry pick prophecy. The "time indicators" in Revelation, the Olivet Discourse, and other prophetic passages in the NT are some of the strongest reasons I believe these events were fulfilled in the 1st Century, and are not in our future.

The point about the Euphrates is that its drying up would have no affect on modern warfare, so this actually supports the Preterist view.

At the risk of repeating myself, Revelation 16 is about the Bowl (or Vial) judgments that came upon the land (of Israel). The "kings of the earth and of the whole world" (verse 14) is most certainly the Roman Empire. This wouldn't make sense from a "Futurist" perspective, but it makes perfect sense from the Preterist perspective.

Jerusalem's AD 70 destruction was only the destruction of that city and the final end of the Old Covenant system. Nothing symbolic there except the language used to describe the events.

 

I think Preterism was the original eschatological interpretation. Dispensationalism (especially the Rapture) was not around before 1830.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem that their generation would see. Every time Jesus refers to "this generation", it means the generation then living. It never refers to another generation, certainly not one that is 2,000 years in their future. Jesus specifically said "when you see these things". This is not about anything except the end of the Old Covenant system and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. That wouldn't make sense, especially considering that Jesus gave His disciples (and future disciples) the Great Commission. I'm wondering if you are confusing my Partial Preterist views with those of Full Preterism, which sees all prophecies as being fulfilled. Clearly, Jesus has not physically returned to Earth yet.

 

Did the Euphrates River dry up in 70AD?

Rome was not the only nation at that time. You have no historical record China and India joined up with Rome to unite against Christ the Prince.

Sorry, but Revelation points out all cities were destroyed. Jerusalem was not destroyed by an army, but an Earthquake. Your changing alledged "symbolism" to make 70AD fit is not how to interpret words that do not need explanation.

The Euphrates drying up is the Euphrates drying up.

The OT was finished at the Cross. That is God's time line. You see humans doing human things in 70AD. Revelation is about Jesus Christ as Prince, not humans doing human things.

 

Not every time Jesus said this generation, was He referring to the first century. Jesus also mentioned the generation who saw the symbolic fig tree blooming.

 

I don't think the Euphrates literally dried up in AD 70. Rather, this is an allusion to when the Euphrates was literally dried up to prepare the way for literal kings from the east (in fulfillment of Jeremiah 50:36 & Isaiah 44:27-28). According to the famous Greek historian Herodotus, and confirmed in modern times by the Cyrus Cylinder, Babylon was overthrown when the Persian king Cyrus diverted the Euphrates River that runs through the center of Babylon, allowing the Persians to wade into the city unexpectedly. (Side note - In Jeremiah 51:24-26, the prophet says God will make Babylon a "burnt out mountain". This is very similar to Revelation 8:8-9 and the 2nd Trumpet judgment.)

Of course neither China, India, nor any other literal nation joined Rome to come against Israel in the Jewish Wars. The "nations" refers to Rome's imperial provinces.

I must disagree, Brother. The only city destroyed in Revelation was Jerusalem. History confirms that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Rather than changing symbolism to make AD 70 fit the prophecies, I am showing how the prophecies were fulfilled in the Jewish Wars of AD 66-70.

I agree that the OT was finished at the Cross. However, the Old Covenant system of animal sacrifices was still in place. The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was the final "nail in the coffin" that ended the Old Covenant system.

Yes, Revelation is about Christ Jesus as Prince. Prophecy is, by definition, all about God's time line. He used humans (Nero, Vespasian, Titus, et al) to fulfill those events.

Again, I must disagree. Every time Jesus spoke of "this generation" He meant the generation then living. The popular "Left Behind" view maintains that Matthew 24:32-34 is a prophecy of Israel becoming a nation in 1948. This is reading a pre-conceived idea into the text. The NT does not predict Israel's restoration, but only its destruction. Jesus was using an illustration from nature to let His disciples know how to recognize the signs of the coming judgment just as surely as they know Summer is near when the leaves of the fig tree put forth their leaves. Note that in the parallel account found in Luke 21:29, Jesus says "Behold the fig tree and all the trees".

I'm not here to convert anyone to the Preterist view. Rather, I am pointing out why I don't believe in the claims of the "Futurist" view, and explaining why I believe the Preterist view is the only valid interpretation of the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, etc. Whether or not you accept this view is up to you. It's not a "salvation" issue, but it does make for a great discussion.

 

I know what your prob is.
There are a number of skilled authors out there, who are good 'Rabble Rousers' & can get some people to believe their writings. Once they establish a fan base, such authors can write anything & their homeboys will accept it as "gospel". We see examples of such in Hal Lindsey with "The Late Great Planet Earth" and several diet fad boox/authors that have come out over the years. Actually, most of what these authors write is garbage, but their proselytes believe it anyway.

Your beloved Dr. Gentry is one such author . Scripture, history, & reality debunks what he writes, but you, being in thrall to his stuff, believe it anyway. Until you sit down & take the time to really study history closely, with your Bible open, you'll continue to believe the trash he writes, & keep him smiling all the way to the bank.

 

You are assuming that I have a problem. While there are lots of authors who can get their followers to believe crazy things (such as Lindsey), I assure you that Gentry, DeMar, Rogers, Sproul, etc. are not "Rabble Rousers". To the contrary, they present very sound Biblical support for their views.

I don't just accept the writings of Gentry, et al without prayer and study. Each of us should follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Note two things about them: 1) they were open-minded enough to consider different views; and 2) they examined the Scriptures to verify whether the teachings were sound doctrine.

 

Sorry, Sir, butcha didn't pray/study hard enough or you'd easily see preterism is false.

 

I'm sure TTF will reply, but in the interim, I shall:
Well, actually, the means now exist to dry up the WHOLE Euphrates now exists. The kings of the east will be the Chinese 200-million-person army & its cohorts. (Remember, several years ago, China bragged it could field a 200-million man army.)

But there was no beast, false prophet, marka the beast or great trib then.

The only prophecies fulfilled then were Jesus' pronouncement of the "days of vengeance' against that generation of Jews, when everything written against them earlier, plus Jesus' Olivet prrophecies against J & the temple came to pass.

The Orthodox Jews have never abandoned it completely. They'll renew the animal sacrifices when they build their new temple.

I am simply astounded that you still claom to believe that bunk when it was VERY-PLAINLY PROVEN that Nero could NOT POSSIBLY have been the beast!

Let's say, for discussion's sake, that Rev. 19:11-21 is half-symbolic. Now, even YOU admit that Jesus will physically, visibly return, and mthose verses prove the beast will be in power when He does. So, if Nero had been the beast, Jesus woulda returned then &would still be here now! THERE'S SIMPLY NO getting by that fact! ! No matter what, you cannot avoid it! No amount of imagination& guesswork can get you by it! SO, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN CLEARLY, INDISPUTABLY PROVEN WRONG????????????????????????????????

 

I feel like the guy who has led the horse to the water, but the horse is afraid to take a drink because it's not from a familiar stream.

I don't mind at all when you jump in. This is an open discussion, after all. You are correct in that the means to dry up the entire Euphrates does exist today. For many years, I also thought China's 200-million man army was going to be at the center of the "End Times" events. Now I realize that this was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The "Days of Vengeance" from Luke 21 is exactly the same as the events Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This is also the same events revealed to St. John in Revelation.

I must disagree, Brother. The Book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Old Covenant system is finished. Why would God allow the Jews to renew their sacrifices when Jesus was the final sacrifice? On the Cross Jesus announced "It is finished".

We've pretty well beaten that poor horse to death. You haven't proven anything except your ability to repeat your arguments.

You simply fail to understand the prophecy in the passage. Of course Jesus has not literally returned yet. That does not affect the passage. I've explained what Rev 19:11-21 means at least a couple of times. Since you didn't accept my explanation earlier, I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same argument. To your question, if you could indisputably prove Preterism wrong, I would drop it like a bad habit. Instead, I believe Preterism has indisputably been proven to be true. It comes down to which "proof" you are willing to accept. I was open-minded enough to consider the claims of Preterism, then I prayed and studied about those claims, then I embraced those claims when I realized those claims are true.

 

You should feel like the dude who led the horse to brine & wonders why it won't drink.

 

Sometimes the Baptist Board doesn't separate our individual quotes, so I will try to answer your points.
You said "Balderdash! There weren't anywhere near 200 million people involved altogether in the destruction of J."

The original language of Revelation 9:16 referred to a "double myriad", which our Bibles translate as 200M. The double myriad describes the overwhelming Roman army.

You said "Not at all. Several Jewish factions rebelled against Rome, so the Romans came to wipe them out. J was besieged by Vespasian, but the replacement of Nero by Galba prompted Vespasian to take his army & head to Rome. Remember, Jesus had said when J was surrounded by an army, it was time to vamoose immediately. That siege was NOT that event, as there was some 8 months between V's leaving, ending the siege, & Titus coming with an army to begin a new one, which was successful. So, at that time, the Christians & others had plentya time to flee J. Now, in the future, when an army comes against J, Christians should flee at once, as that army will be mechanized & fast-moving. That's, of course, a future event."

Of course this is not a future event, but happened in AD 70. It would not be possible to flee from worldwide tribulation, but those Christians were able to flee to Pella to escape the Great Tribulation when the armies unexpectedly left.

You said "God has allowed the Jews to continue that system as much as they're able, still rejecting Jesus as Messiah, same as he's allowed the whopping worldwide increase in immorality, sexual sin, theft, murder, & many other sins. They fully intend to resume animal sacrifices when their new temple is built. They're already breeding the animals for it, & have consecrated an altar to be set up in that temple."

That argument doesn't even make sense. God brought judgment upon Israel with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Why would He let them go back to doing the very sin that He already judged them for? Furthermore, there is absolutely no Scriptural support for a 3rd temple.

Your problem is that you are like an owl. The more light you shine upon them, the less they see.

 

No, it describes a future army The Roman army of Titus was perhaps 75,000.

You said "Not at all. Several Jewish factions rebelled against Rome, so the Romans came to wipe them out. J was besieged by Vespasian, but the replacement of Nero by Galba prompted Vespasian to take his army & head to Rome. Remember, Jesus had said when J was surrounded by an army, it was time to vamoose immediately. That siege was NOT that event, as there was some 8 months between V's leaving, ending the siege, & Titus coming with an army to begin a new one, which was successful. So, at that time, the Christians & others had plentya time to flee J. Now, in the future, when an army comes against J, Christians should flee at once, as that army will be mechanized & fast-moving. That's, of course, a future event."

You ignore the fact that Jesus warned to flee at once without bothering to go back for so much as a clothing change. That refers to a future attack, of course.

You said "God has allowed the Jews to continue that system as much as they're able, still rejecting Jesus as Messiah, same as he's allowed the whopping worldwide increase in immorality, sexual sin, theft, murder, & many other sins. They fully intend to resume animal sacrifices when their new temple is built. They're already breeding the animals for it, & have consecrated an altar to be set up in that temple."

He let OT Israel go back to idol worship several times, punishing them each time. Seeing as we have free will, we can CHOOSE to sin. But all sin will be accounted for one way or the other.

And there's plenty of Scriptural implication for a 3rd temple, mainly that the AOD hasn't yet occurred, which makes a new temple necessary for it to occur in.

Your guru's "light" is infrared, which has "burned" you into believing whatever garbage those quacks produce.

Just face it-You cannot deal with the Rev. 19 prob, which proves preterism false. Not trying to be smart-aleck, but your "explanation" for those verses is so convoluted, imaginary, & out of touch with Scripture, history, & reality that it'd be hilarious if the subject wasn't so serious. Simple fact is, the pret myth is false!

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Those whom He warned didn't know how much time they would have before the Roman army returned. Thus, get out while you can.

The "free will" argument only applies to our salvation. Doesn't really fit allowing Israel to return to Temple sacrifices after Jesus came as the final sacrifice.

For instance??? You need a 3rd temple for your Futurist Fantasy to work, but Scripture doesn't support this view.

I have dealt with the Revelation 19 "problem", but you refuse to accept my answer. It's not going to change. The simple fact is that Futurism is just a bunch of "Left Behind" science-fiction stories.

Since neither of us will ever convince the other to change their eschatological views, we will continue our debate until the Lord returns or calls one of us home. Or we could just drop it as this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

 

Yep, long as you believe that false pret jive.

DON'T BE RIDICULOUS! They knew the Romans wouldn't return in an hour.

We have free will in all our actions & beliefs, or else there'd be no sin.

I just showedya why. The Jews have an altar ready, the tools for use in the temple ready, suitable animals bred, & the building materials gathered. With modern equipment & a vast labor force, they can build it in a few days.

You've only guessed at it, or repeated Gentry's hooey. it doesn't even BEGIN to match what those Scriptures say, or what's happened in history. So, don't change your "explanation" & continue in error.

I provided evidence for my view & you provided imagination & guesswork for yours, gathered from a gang of quack book sellers.

 

Surely you don't believe that by "hour" Jesus meant a literal period of 60 minutes!!!! Now that would be ridiculous.

Quite true. However, that still applies to individuals. It does not apply to God allowing Israel to bring back sacrifices.

Regardless of what the Jews have ready, this will not happen. This is refuted by Hebrews 8:1-13. Note verse 13: "When He said "a new covenant", He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Since the Old Covenant is obsolete, and it has disappeared, God is not going to allow it to return. Additionally, Hebrews 10:10 tells us "By this we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The author continues in verse 12 "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time sat down at the right hand of God". I believe this speaks very strongly against the notion that Israel will be allowed to return to an obsolete system.

Your "evidence" is about as real as Darwin's "evidence" to prove Evolution. The "Futurist" view is filled with poor exegesis and a lot of imagination. Your view requires you to add words to Scripture - e.g., "this generation" has to become "the generation that sees these things". Likewise, your view requires you to change the meaning of words to twist them into your narrative - e.g., "soon" means "when these things start happen, but it won't be until the distant future". That, Brother, is why I reject your view in favor of Preterism. To paraphrase Joshua, Choose for yourself what you will believe. As for me, I choose to believe what Scripture actually teaches.