5 reasons why the Preterist and/or semi-preterist position is impossible

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You still didn't spell it out, O unkind one. Why is that?

Please tell the board members why you did not spell out 'bs' for us...in detail...just before you join OR in the ranks of the non-existent.

So, "I love you" somehow qualifies as a proper Christian response in the same sentence as '...go take a flying leap for yourself.' Got you.

Where I come from that's called, 'attitude'.

Make it good for this will be the last comment of yours I will be reading.

Really......oh thank you .....my prayers have been answered....God is good. :godisgood:

 

[Calypsis4]

Really......oh thank you .....my prayers have been answered....God is good. :godisgood:

Yes, He is, even to mockers who have a bad attitude and seek to cover their corrupt language by the use of initials.

You never did attempt to answer my points in the O.P. That's because you can't.

P.S. Enjoy your time in the can with OR.:wavey:

P.S.S. "earth, wind, and fire'...three of the five points of witchcraft power (earth, wind, fire, water, and spirit).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, He is, even to mockers who have a bad attitude and seek to cover their corrupt language by the use of initials.

You never did attempt to answer my points in the O.P. That's because you can't.

P.S. Enjoy your time in the can with OR.:wavey:

OR has more going on upstairs than you would ever
wish to be given....even at his advanced age.....but you might just figure that out as he beats the snott out of you between naps.....so as Deputy Dog used to say (that's a Hanna Barabarra cartoon)...."Son, don't go away mad.....just go away!" :laugh:

 

[HankD]

OK we all know (except those who grew up on planet Mars) what the two aforementioned letters stand for.
Besides - It's mentioned in the bible in a very surprising way. See 4:15 Ezekiel. For something more shocking see Malachi 2:3.


And anyway in a moment of weakness Peter used vulgar language.
It doesn't help EWF by throwing it back at him, why not give him a break?

To : OR
And OR can we give it a rest? We know the teachings of Darby, Chafer and Ryrie, etc... you have taught us that fact over and over concerning "parenthesis" and "intercalation".

I really don't believe they meant that the church was an "afterthought" by the use of the words "parenthesis" or "intercalation".

None of these men supported Open Theology or denied the Sovereignty of God which would have been necessary for them to believe that the church was an "afterthought" on God's part. They knew that all of the world's history was aimed at the incarnation and the planting of the church on planet earth by the Son of God for the salvation of humankind.

These terms were IMO unfortunate choices of words.

The idea that they were focused upon by the use of these terms is that the church (apart from OT hints such as the Song of Solomon) was not to be fully revealed (a Mystery) until the Incarnation. That was Jesus mission to shed His blood for it, explain, architect and build it in the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant that Abraham's Seed was to be a blessing to Jew and Gentile alike. What's even more the church would be the institution whereby Jew and Gentile would be one in the inheritance of that blessing. Jesus destroyed the wall of Partition which separated us and rent the veil into the Holy of Holies whereby we could enter together with the high priest Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek.

I can assure you that no dispensationalist believes the church to be an afterthought of God even if they do use these terms (which is unfortunate if they do use them).

HankD

 

[Calypsis4]

OK we all know (except those who grew up on planet Mars) what the two aforementioned letters stand for.
Besides - It's mentioned in the bible in a very surprising way. See 4:15 Ezekiel. For something more shocking see Malachi 2:3.


And anyway in a moment of weakness Peter used vulgar language.
It doesn't help EWF by throwing it back at him, why not give him a break?

To : OR
And OR can we give it a rest? We know the teachings of Darby, Chafer and Ryrie, etc... you have taught us that fact over and over concerning "parenthesis" and "intercalation".

I really don't believe they meant that the church was an "afterthought" by the use of the words "parenthesis" or "intercalation".

None of these men supported Open Theology or denied the Sovereignty of God which would have been necessary for them to believe that the church was an "afterthought" on God's part. They knew that all of the world's history was aimed at the incarnation and the planting of the church on planet earth by the Son of God for the salvation of humankind.

These terms were IMO unfortunate choices of words.

The idea that they were focused upon by the use of these terms is that the church (apart from OT hints such as the Song of Solomon) was not to be fully revealed (a Mystery) until the Incarnation. That was Jesus mission to shed His blood for it, explain, architect and build it in the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant that Abraham's Seed was to be a blessing to Jew and Gentile alike. What's even more the church would be the institution whereby Jew and Gentile would be one in the inheritance of that blessing. Jesus destroyed the wall of Partition which separated us and rent the veil into the Holy of Holies whereby we could enter together with the high priest Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek.

I can assure you that no dispensationalist believes the church to be an afterthought of God even if they do use these terms (which is unfortunate if they do use them).

HankD

Thanks again for your opinions, Hank.

There is a big difference in the expression 'cow dung' as inspired by the Holy Spirit than the meaning of the words he was using which was pure slang. He knows it.

But he/they don't care about your assurances nor do they care about the real truth of this matter, neither biblically nor historically. So, quite honestly I would rather communicate with those who are at least open to the truth and not waste time on those whose minds have been run through a ringer by some extremist 'scholar' who was adept at leading people away from common sense doctrines of the Bible as it concerns prophecy.

The preterist position is horrible and they are even worse on prophecy than the Watchtower in all of its ugly, twisted notions about the coming of the Lord.

Best wishes and keep hanging in there for the Lord.:flower:

 

[OldRegular]

OK we all know (except those who grew up on planet Mars) what the two aforementioned letters stand for.
Besides - It's mentioned in the bible in a very surprising way. See 4:15 Ezekiel. For something more shocking see Malachi 2:3.


And anyway in a moment of weakness Peter used vulgar language.
It doesn't help EWF by throwing it back at him, why not give him a break?

To : OR
And OR can we give it a rest? We know the teachings of Darby, Chafer and Ryrie, etc... you have taught us that fact over and over concerning "parenthesis" and "intercalation".

I really don't believe they meant that the church was an "afterthought" by the use of the words "parenthesis" or "intercalation".

None of these men supported Open Theology or denied the Sovereignty of God which would have been necessary for them to believe that the church was an "afterthought" on God's part. They knew that all of the world's history was aimed at the incarnation and the planting of the church on planet earth by the Son of God for the salvation of humankind.

These terms were IMO unfortunate choices of words.

The idea that they were focused upon by the use of these terms is that the church (apart from OT hints such as the Song of Solomon) was not to be fully revealed (a Mystery) until the Incarnation. That was Jesus mission to shed His blood for it, explain, architect and build it in the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant that Abraham's Seed was to be a blessing to Jew and Gentile alike. What's even more the church would be the institution whereby Jew and Gentile would be one in the inheritance of that blessing. Jesus destroyed the wall of Partition which separated us and rent the veil into the Holy of Holies whereby we could enter together with the high priest Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek.

I can assure you that no dispensationalist believes the church to be an afterthought of God even if they do use these terms (which is unfortunate if they do use them).

HankD

Hank,

What have I said on this thread to warrant the following snotty remarks from Calypsis4:

Yes, He is, even to mockers who have a bad attitude and seek to cover their corrupt language by the use of initials.

You never did attempt to answer my points in the O.P. That's because you can't.

P.S. Enjoy your time in the can with OR.:wavey:

But this is the common response from all but a few dispensationalists on this Forum.

 

[OldRegular]

Thanks Calypsis,

Another scripture which is virtually unexplainable according to preterists is
2 Peter 3

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 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.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 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?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I believe preterist still insist that this passage was fulfilled and we were/are unaware of it because it was a "spiritual" thing.

But Peter says "But the heavens and the earth, which are now" not the "new heavens and new earth" comparing the the literal and material pre-deluvian world to the literal and material post-deluvian world and its scoffers to be judged by fire.

HankD

Hank,

I agree the passage from Peter refutes "full preterism" but that passage also clearly refutes both pre-trib and pre-mil doctrines.

 

[Greektim]

You never did attempt to answer my points in the O.P. That's because you can't.

I did... looking forward to hearing your response.

I will say though that your OP assumed so much w/out really proving it was true.

 

[Calypsis4]

Greektim;I thought this thread was for partial preterist too??? So much for the most obvious.

What? Where did I say otherwise? Here is my reply...

According to 1 John, many antichrists have already gone out in the world.

So? Of course there are many antichrists but only one that the entire world will wonder after and enforce the mark of the 'beast' with the number 666 placed upon the right hand and/or the foreheads of every citizen who complies with his demands.(Rev. 13)

I wonder if you know where the sources for the external witness come from and if they are reliable. Yes, Ire. and Poly. were close to John the apostle, but how about the guy who is recording them?

How about this from one who seems to hold a similar view?

Here’s the quote from Adversus Haereses by Irenaeus regarding the date of the book of Revelation in the context of the Apostle John’s life:

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [it or he] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

– Saint Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5, 30, 3

I went and checked the Greek text preserved by Eusebius and it’s ambiguous. The part about “being seen” could be translated in three ways:

Option #1
For it, that is the vision, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

Option #2
For it, that is the written book, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

Option #3
For he, that is the Apostle John, was seen no very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.


Those three quotes, no matter which one you choose, cannot help your position.

http://taylormarshall.com/2008/09/irenaeus-on-date-of-book-of-revelation.html

Nevertheless, if this is true, what does it say about all the words in Rev. that talk about "soon" and "not long"?

The time from the viewpoint of heaven's perspective is far different from our perception of time on earth.

You assume the genre of Rev is prophecy. That is a mistake.

Are you absolutely kidding me? Quote: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book..." Revelation 22:18.

You won't even believe the plainly revealed words of John in Revelation much less the confirmed timing of its writing.

It is an apocalyptic. And they weren't about tell the future but rather talking about end of world symbolism to talk about their present day.

That is an utter untruth and you did not establish that ANY of the prophecies I mentioned above (the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials of wrath, the 3 woes,etc.) actually happened in or about A.D. 70. That's because you cannot.

Again, how does this relate to the partial preterist?

Are you a 'partial preterist'? Define it for us.

And if Jesus has triumphed as the Lion of the Tribe of David the root of Jesse sitting in the middle of the throne of God, then I would say the kingdom has been established. The King has overcome and is enthroned. Sounds like the beginnings of a kingdom to me. And that is just in Rev. This is taught throughout the NT.

No, because the promise that Messiah will sit on the throne of David (Isa. 9:6-7) has not been fulfilled.That throne will be ON EARTH for a thousand years...and while He reigns there death, famine, and curses will still exist: Isaiah 65:19-20. But there is no death, nor curse in heaven. So his reign on the throne of David cannot be in heaven.

Pretty weak stuff in my opinion.

Your arguments are more than 'pretty weak' stuff in my opinion. It amounts to an outright denial of both the scriptural past and the scriptural future of our world.

 

[Grasshopper]

What? Where did I say otherwise? Here is my reply...


So? Of course there are many antichrists but only one that the entire world will wonder after and enforce the mark of the 'beast' with the number 666 placed upon the right hand and/or the foreheads of every citizen who complies with his demands.(Rev. 13)



How about this from one who seems to hold a similar view?

Here’s the quote from Adversus Haereses by Irenaeus regarding the date of the book of Revelation in the context of the Apostle John’s life:

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [it or he] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

– Saint Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5, 30, 3

I went and checked the Greek text preserved by Eusebius and it’s ambiguous. The part about “being seen” could be translated in three ways:

Option #1
For it, that is the vision, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

Option #2
For it, that is the written book, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

Option #3
For he, that is the Apostle John, was seen no very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.


Those three quotes, no matter which one you choose, cannot help your position.

http://taylormarshall.com/2008/09/irenaeus-on-date-of-book-of-revelation.html



The time from the viewpoint of heaven's perspective is far different from our perception of time on earth.


Are you absolutely kidding me? Quote: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book..." Revelation 22:18.

You won't even believe the plainly revealed words of John in Revelation much less the confirmed timing of its writing.


That is an utter untruth and you did not establish that ANY of the prophecies I mentioned above (the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials of wrath, the 3 woes,etc.) actually happened in or about A.D. 70. That's because you cannot.



Are you a 'partial preterist'? Define it for us.



No, because the promise that Messiah will sit on the throne of David (Isa. 9:6-7) has not been fulfilled.That throne will be ON EARTH for a thousand years...and while He reigns there death, famine, and curses will still exist: Isaiah 65:19-20. But there is no death, nor curse in heaven. So his reign on the throne of David cannot be in heaven.



Your arguments are more than 'pretty weak' stuff in my opinion. It amounts to an outright denial of both the scriptural past and the scriptural future of our world.

You need to educate yourself on preterism, if you don't even know what a partial preterist is you certainly don't know their arguments. These have all been answered over and over again.

 

[Calypsis4]

You need to educate yourself on preterism, if you don't even know what a partial preterist is you certainly don't know their arguments. These have all been answered over and over again.

No they haven't. Not one of them.

But rather than just tooting your horn why don't you involve yourself in 'answering' what was said...both in the O.P. and what you just quoted.

 

[Grasshopper]

No they haven't. Not one of them.

Check the archive, they've been answered over and over and over again.

1. The most obvious: Jesus did not return to earth in A.D. 70 nor any other date of that time. He is to return to earth physically, visibly, and to establish a visible kingdom. The prophecies of Revelation therefore, could not have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 because John didn't even write that blessed book until well over two decades after Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans.

a: A partial preterist would also hold to a visible coming. Again, educate yourself on the terms.

b: Dan.2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

What is the 4th Kingdom? Is it not Rome? Was the Kingdom not established? Was Daniel wrong?

c: Prove Revelation was written in the 90s. More on that later.

2. There was no antichrist (world dictator) as was prophesied I Thess.2, I John, and Revelation. There was no 'mark of the beast', no '666' and no world government in which a dictator would rule over the whole earth for 42 months. Nero could not have been the antichrist for he was Roman Emperor from A.D. 54 to 68.(14 years).

Dispies see the AntiChrist everywhere, the problem is Antichrist is only found in 1John, and speaks of many. Yet you see him in Thess. and Revelation and build your entire eschatology around him.

3. the Revelation was written by John in approx. A.D. 96 as testified by external evidence of the highest quality.

I can come up with numerous scholars who disagree:https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/writers-who-date-revelation-pre-70-a-d/

Great book on the dating of Revelation and it's free:http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.html

4. None of the prophecies of Revelation have been fulfilled yet. That includes the 7 seals, the 7 trumpet judgments, the 7 vials of wrath, and including the 3 woes. None of them as depicted by John on a world-wide scale occurred on or near A.D. 70 nor any other time in human history.

According to your forced literal interpretation no, but once again read preterist materials and you can see how they were fulfilled. Let's walk through the book of Revelation and see who is the first to abandoned the "literal interpretation". I'll win that in the first verse.

5. John said that when Jesus returns that 'He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see'(Rev. 1:7...but the fact is that NNE saw Jesus return in A.D. 70. Neither was the kingdom that the prophets spoke of established at that time in any way, shape, or form.

(By Gentry) "In fact, one of the finest intellects of the Westminster Assembly was a strong preterist: John Lightfoot (1601-1675). In his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (1674; rep. 1989) Lightfoot offered a fine preterist exposition of Matthew 24 (2:308-321), with allusions to 2 Thessalonians 2. Of the Thessalonian passage he argued that the "restrainer" therein "is to be understood of the emperor Claudius enraged at and curbing in the Jews" (2:312).

Lightfoot even adopted the view that Revelation 1:7 speaks of "Christ's taking vengeance on that exceeding wicked nation" of Israel (2:319 and 422). There he interpreted Christ's coming as a providential judgment upon "those who pierced him" (the Jews) from among "all the tribes of the land literally" (Israel). This committed Lightfoot so strongly to preterism that he suggested Revelation's overall theme is Israel's judgment: "I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the author of the Book of the Revelation" (3:210). This led him to conclude that the "judiciary scene set up in Rev. 4 and 5, and those thrones Rev. 20:1" speak of "the throne of glory" and "is to be understood of the judgment of Christ to be brought upon the treacherous, rebellious, wicked, Jewish people. We meet with very frequent mention of the coming of Christ in his glory in this sense" (2:266)." (Back to the Future)

"1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered," &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c.

2. That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord." See Psalm 1:4; Malachi 3:1,2, &c.; Joel 2:31; Matthew 16:28; Revelation 1:7, &c. See what we have said on chapter 12:20; 19:28." (Lightfoot, vol. 2, p. 319).

"The destruction of Jerusalem is phrased in Scripture as the destruction of the whole world; and Christ's coming to her in judgment, as his coming to the last judgment. *Therefore, those dreadful things, spoken of in Matt. 24:29,30 and 31, are but borrowed expressions, to set forth the terms of that judgment the more.. v.30 - "then shall they see" - not any visible appearance of Christ, or of the cross, in the clouds (as some have imagined); but, whereas *Jews would not own Christ before for the Son of Man, or for the Messias, then by the vengeance that he should execute upon them, they and all the world should see an evident sign, and it was so. *This, therefore, is called "his coming," and his coming in his kingdom." [A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Rev. John Rogers Pitman (London: J.F. Dove, 1825), p.141]

 

[Calypsis4]

Grasshopper;Check the archive, they've been answered over and over and over again.

No, there have been sorry attempts using twisted logic by people who were influenced by perterist 'scholars' who don't have a clue about timing, prophetic fulfillment and details which make for a huge difference in determining conclusions about prophecy. Quite frankly, it's pitiful.

a: A partial preterist would also hold to a visible coming. Again, educate yourself on the terms.

Stop with the condescending attitude. All positions on preterism are adequately described in such places as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

https://www.probe.org/four-views-of-revelation/

...and I have been studying prophetic issues for over 30 years including the preterist positions.

b: Dan.2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

But it hasn't happened YET. Those kingdoms still exist and have not been brought down...YET.

What is the 4th Kingdom? Is it not Rome? Was the Kingdom not established? Was Daniel wrong?

No, it is not ancient Rome...it is the revived Roman Empire of the coming world dictator. That empire is described as two legs and ten toes. You left that out of the picture. Daniel was not wrong. You are.

c: Prove Revelation was written in the 90s. More on that later.

I just did, by two of the ancient church fathers who indicated that John died during the time of Domitian, A.D. 96.

Dispies(sic) see the AntiChrist everywhere, the problem is Antichrist is only found in 1 John, and speaks of many. Yet you see him in Thess. and Revelation and build your entire eschatology around him.

I don't 'see Antichrist everywhere'. He hasn't come yet and I do not know who he is. Furthermore you are flat wrong about I John:

Quote: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. I John 2:18.

Do you know the difference between singular (ἀντίχριστος) and plural (ἀντίχριστοι)?

I can come up with numerous scholars who disagree:https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/writers-who-date-revelation-pre-70-a-d/

That's human opinions and spiritual truth is not determined by them.

Great book on the dating of Revelation and it's free:http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.html

It doesn't really make any difference if Revelation was written during or before A.D. 70 because the prophecies (7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials of wrath, 3 woes, Antichrist, 666, world government and an entire world affected by all of that and NOT just the Roman Empire. What happened in A.D. 70 was not even known by most of the rest of the world until months and/or years later. At the end, the entire planet will be affected and not just Israel and Rome.

According to your forced literal interpretation no, but once again read preterist materials and you can see how they were fulfilled. Let's walk through the book of Revelation and see who is the first to abandoned the "literal interpretation". I'll win that in the first verse.

You won't win anything. There is no 'forced' literal interpretation. Every single symbol of scripture stands for something real, including the devils that come out of the pit in Rev. 9 that look like locusts with scorpion stingers that will torment men for five months during the tribulation. If you don't think that was literal then tell the readers just what it meant. Please don't miss this point because I want to see your reply.

The trouble is that those of your persuasion treat the scriptures like a rubber band that you can stretch or shrink any way you can in order to perserve your unbelief about what it really says.

(By Gentry) "In fact, one of the finest intellects of the Westminster Assembly was a strong preterist: John Lightfoot (1601-1675). In his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (1674; rep. 1989) Lightfoot offered a fine preterist exposition of Matthew 24 (2:308-321), with allusions to 2 Thessalonians 2. Of the Thessalonian passage he argued that the "restrainer" therein "is to be understood of the emperor Claudius enraged at and curbing in the Jews" (2:312).

He was wrong, just like you are. That's a crazy interpretation that has no merit.

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (restrains) will let(restrain), until he be taken out of the way.

That is almost certainly the Holy Spirit holding back the completion of Antichrists coming kindgom...not some pagan emperor persecuting the Jews.

Lightfoot even adopted the view that Revelation 1:7 speaks of "Christ's taking vengeance on that exceeding wicked nation" of Israel (2:319 and 422). There he interpreted Christ's coming as a providential judgment upon "those who pierced him" (the Jews) from among "all the tribes of the land literally" (Israel). This committed Lightfoot so strongly to preterism that he suggested Revelation's overall theme is Israel's judgment: "I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the author of the Book of the Revelation" (3:210). This led him to conclude that the "judiciary scene set up in Rev. 4 and 5, and those thrones Rev. 20:1" speak of "the throne of glory" and "is to be understood of the judgment of Christ to be brought upon the treacherous, rebellious, wicked, Jewish people. We meet with very frequent mention of the coming of Christ in his glory in this sense" (2:266)." (Back to the Future)

Christ did not...return! He is sitting on the throne of glory now...but He will sit upon the throne of David after His second coming (Isa. 9:6-7) AND that has to be an earthly throne over an earthly kingdom because Isaiah tells us that while He reigns there were be death, curses, and famine, & new moons. Isa. 65:20, 66:22-23, Zech. 14:17.But there is no death in heaven and no curse. There will be no 'new moon' in the eternal reign, in fact, no moon at all.

"1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered,"

Yet, as I just quoted from Isaiah....the first stage of that 'new heavens and new earth' will include death and curses. Read it for yourself. That refers to the coming millenial kingdom and not to the eternal state that comes later in perfection (no death, no curse, no sun, nor moon).

2. That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord." See Psalm 1:4; Malachi 3:1,2, &c.; Joel 2:31; Matthew 16:28; Revelation 1:7, &c. See what we have said on chapter 12:20; 19:28." (Lightfoot, vol. 2, p. 319).

You are so confused. You believe Lightfoot over scripture. For example:

"The destruction of Jerusalem is phrased in Scripture as the destruction of the whole world; and Christ's coming to her in judgment, as his coming to the last judgment.

The destruction of Jerusalem was just the BEGINNING of the 'days of vengeance'....but it proceeded througout history and is still in effect to this day and will be until the visible, literal return of Christ. There will be another destruction of Jerusalem in the future just before Christs second coming and the details of that event are found in Zechariah 12...

Quote: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. vs 9.

Friend, that DID NOT happen in A.D. 70 for the Romans were not crushed by the Lord and He did not appear visibly as John said he would (Rev. 1:7).

Your sense of timing is very poor.

You, friend, are playing fast and loose with scripture and that is very, very inappropriate and leads to serious error ...and as I mentioned, unbelief.

 

[Greektim]

No, there have been sorry attempts using twisted logic by people who were influenced by perterist 'scholars' who don't have a clue about timing, prophetic fulfillment and details which make for a huge difference in determining conclusions about prophecy. Quite frankly, it's pitiful.



Stop with the condescending attitude. All positions on preterism are adequately described in such places as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

https://www.probe.org/four-views-of-revelation/

...and I have been studying prophetic issues for over 30 years including the preterist positions.



But it hasn't happened YET. Those kingdoms still exist and have not been brought down...YET.



No, it is not ancient Rome...it is the revived Roman Empire of the coming world dictator. That empire is described as two legs and ten toes. You left that out of the picture. Daniel was not wrong. You are.



I just did, by two of the ancient church fathers who indicated that John died during the time of Domitian, A.D. 96.



I don't 'see Antichrist everywhere'. He hasn't come yet and I do not know who he is. Furthermore you are flat wrong about I John:

Quote: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. I John 2:18.

Do you know the difference between singular (ἀντίχριστος) and plural (ἀντίχριστοι)?



That's human opinions and spiritual truth is not determined by them.



It doesn't really make any difference if Revelation was written during or before A.D. 70 because the prophecies (7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials of wrath, 3 woes, Antichrist, 666, world government and an entire world affected by all of that and NOT just the Roman Empire. What happened in A.D. 70 was not even known by most of the rest of the world until months and/or years later. At the end, the entire planet will be affected and not just Israel and Rome.



You won't win anything. There is no 'forced' literal interpretation. Every single symbol of scripture stands for something real, including the devils that come out of the pit in Rev. 9 that look like locusts with scorpion stingers that will torment men for five months during the tribulation. If you don't think that was literal then tell the readers just what it meant. Please don't miss this point because I want to see your reply.

The trouble is that those of your persuasion treat the scriptures like a rubber band that you can stretch or shrink any way you can in order to perserve your unbelief about what it really says.



He was wrong, just like you are. That's a crazy interpretation that has no merit.

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (restrains) will let(restrain), until he be taken out of the way.

That is almost certainly the Holy Spirit holding back the completion of Antichrists coming kindgom...not some pagan emperor persecuting the Jews.



Christ did not...return! He is sitting on the throne of glory now...but He will sit upon the throne of David after His second coming (Isa. 9:6-7) AND that has to be an earthly throne over an earthly kingdom because Isaiah tells us that while He reigns there were be death, curses, and famine, & new moons. Isa. 65:20, 66:22-23, Zech. 14:17.But there is no death in heaven and no curse. There will be no 'new moon' in the eternal reign, in fact, no moon at all.



Yet, as I just quoted from Isaiah....the first stage of that 'new heavens and new earth' will include death and curses. Read it for yourself. That refers to the coming millenial kingdom and not to the eternal state that comes later in perfection (no death, no curse, no sun, nor moon).



You are so confused. You believe Lightfoot over scripture. For example:



The destruction of Jerusalem was just the BEGINNING of the 'days of vengeance'....but it proceeded througout history and is still in effect to this day and will be until the visible, literal return of Christ. There will be another destruction of Jerusalem in the future just before Christs second coming and the details of that event are found in Zechariah 12...

Quote: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. vs 9.

Friend, that DID NOT happen in A.D. 70 for the Romans were not crushed by the Lord and He did not appear visibly as John said he would (Rev. 1:7).

Your sense of timing is very poor.

You, friend, are playing fast and loose with scripture and that is very, very inappropriate and leads to serious error ...and as I mentioned, unbelief.

Just what the BB needed... another know-it-all who is unwilling to learn from others but rather feels it incumbent upon himself to teach the world his 30 years of knowledge.

I'm not sure it is even worth the trouble to debate you. You appear to be about as closed to the issue as a locked door.

I'm curious, do you think we could actually discuss the issues you raised and the counterpoints I offered or will you continue in the snobbish pontification that you seem to be accustomed to?

PS-no one likes to read long posts, so you may want to think about shortening yours.

 

[Greektim]

Actually, there are more than 5 reasons but this is for starters:

1. The most obvious: Jesus did not return to earth in A.D. 70 nor any other date of that time. He is to return to earth physically, visibly, and to establish a visible kingdom. The prophecies of Revelation therefore, could not have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 because John didn't even write that blessed book until well over two decades after Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans.


Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east...

Zech 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

The angel confirmed this to Jesus disciples at Jesus ascension into heaven and that he would return visibly:

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

12 ¶ Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet...

2. There was no antichrist (world dictator) as was prophesied I Thess.2, I John, and Revelation. There was no 'mark of the beast', no '666' and no world government in which a dictator would rule over the whole earth for 42 months. Nero could not have been the antichrist for he was Roman Emperor from A.D. 54 to 68.(14 years).

3. the Revelation was written by John in approx. A.D. 96 as testified by external evidence of the highest quality.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23)

4. None of the prophecies of Revelation have been fulfilled yet. That includes the 7 seals, the 7 trumpet judgments, the 7 vials of wrath, and including the 3 woes. None of them as depicted by John on a world-wide scale occurred on or near A.D. 70 nor any other time in human history.

...and like the Russian nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in the 80's (the Hebrew word for it is 'Wormwood'), notwithstanding; the details did not agree with Revelation 8:11. Therefore, the prophecies of Revelation are yet future and apply to that period of time Jeremiah referred to as 'the time of Jacob's trouble' and what Daniel called the 'seventieth week' (Dan. 9:24-27.)

5. John said that when Jesus returns that 'He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see'(Rev. 1:7...but the fact is that NNE saw Jesus return in A.D. 70. Neither was the kingdom that the prophets spoke of established at that time in any way, shape, or form.

I also love how Dispies will use these church fathers when it suits them but ignore the fact that the way they interpreted Revelation was far closer to the preterist approach than the futurist. Irenaeus especially did not take the futurist approach you want so badly. One wonders if you rail against his interpretive viewpoints so harshly the way you do other preterists, what makes you think you can trust his dating for John? What makes you think that he was right about the author of Rev. being John the apostle??? Why lean on him so heavily in one regard but completely ignore him in another??? Seems to be inconsistent at best.

And back to the genre thing... just b/c the word "prophecy" is used doesn't determine the genre. The first words in the book is "apocalypse" not "prophecy". But you don't hear me bangin' away at that drum. And it is the form, content, and function that determines the genre of a book. Revelation is the quintessential apocalyptic work. And this is why futurists struggle w/ Rev. They have never really considered the genre of apocalyptic much beyond Rev. They haven't stopped to consider that the genre isn't about forecasting future... no more than the genre of prophecy is about forecasting the future. Those are common misunderstandings. Thus the part that is prophetic is not about future foretelling but immediate forthtelling and encouragement. You would know that if you read the prophets in the OT. Very little future telling... mainly preaching to the people.

 

[HankD]

Hank,

I agree the passage from Peter refutes "full preterism" but that passage also clearly refutes both pre-trib and pre-mil doctrines.

You know my answer to that. I showed that more than one opinion was that verse 8 is in support of the millennium as both a day and of a 1000 year endurance Verse 10 gives a description of its entirety from beginning to end. The 2 events - the beginning (as a thief in the night) and the end (destruction by fire) and how they will happen - "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" - Rev 21:6;22:13.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

You know my answer to that. I showed that more than one opinion was that verse 8 is in support of the millennium as both a day and of a 1000 year endurance Verse 10 gives a description of its entirety from beginning to end. The 2 events - the beginning (as a thief in the night) and the end (destruction by fire) and how they will happen - "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" - Rev 21:6;22:13.

HankD

The following Scripture cannot be simply ignored!

2 Peter 3:3-4
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.


Obviously Peter is NOT talking about the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church since that is supposedly done in secret. Furthermore, if the so-called-pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church had happened in the previous 7 years or less Peter could not have made the above statement.

Peter cannot be talking about the end of the 1000 year earthly reign for the simple reason that Jesus Christ is supposedly reigning in all the Glory of the Godhead from Davids throne. Again in total conflict with the verses presented above.

That means Peter is talking about the Second Coming since he states: Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. The new heavens and new earth follows the Second Coming!

 

[percho]

I think I am going to just, hide and watch,

 

[Calypsis4]

Greektim;

I also love how Dispies

'Dispies'...well, I see the contempt. But that attitude will change the very moment Jesus returns for His bride as he promised; at the midnight hour (Matt. 25). Your attitude does nothing to engender respect for your position.

...will use these church fathers when it suits them but ignore the fact that the way they interpreted Revelation was far closer to the preterist approach than the futurist. Irenaeus especially did not take the futurist approach you want so badly.

No, that is not true. How many times must we present their views that clearly say otherwise for you to understand that they expected the coming of the Lord for his people BEFORE the terrible tribulation period to come? But that did not happen in A.D. 70 and the Jews did not repent as Paul told us they will at that time.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

One wonders if you rail against his interpretive viewpoints so harshly the way you do other preterists, what makes you think you can trust his dating for John?

Because I quoted TWO....count them: TWO church fathers who mentioned John's death during the reign of Domitian (A.D.) --- PLUS the fact that even if John wrote Revelation during or just before A.D. 70 it doesn't help your cause. Why? Because the prophecies of Revelation were NOT fulfilled during that time. No one has yet proven in this thread that any of the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials of wrath, the 3 woes, antichrist, world government, or the 666 mark of the beast has ever happened in world history, let alone the period preceding A.d. 70.

What makes you think that he was right about the author of Rev. being John the apostle??? Why lean on him so heavily in one regard but completely ignore him in another??? Seems to be inconsistent at best.

Oh, gee, golly,...I wonder why?:thumbsup:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

So did the Holy Spirit inspire all scripture as Paul told us or are we all deceived into thinking that everything from Genesis to Revelation is inspired? But what you just said is the second example I have seen in this debate of the unbelief that is a common result in those who promote the preterist view.

'Seems to be"? That's pitifully weak.

And back to the genre thing... just b/c the word "prophecy" is used doesn't determine the genre.

By whose rule? Should we believe John or should we believe you? His word on this matter is NOT obscure:

..."the words of the prophecy of this book." vs 10

The first words in the book is "apocalypse" not "prophecy".

So? Apocalypse means 'a revealing'. How does that help you? How does that negate what John said about the prophecy in the last chapter? Quite frankly, your position is dishonest and it amounts to unbelief.

But you don't hear me bangin' away at that drum. And it is the form, content, and function that determines the genre of a book.

No, it is the direct, plain-spoken words of the apostle John that determine such things. Not your 'interpretation'.

Revelation is the quintessential apocalyptic work. And this is why futurists struggle w/ Rev. They have never really considered the genre of apocalyptic much beyond Rev. They haven't stopped to consider that the genre isn't about forecasting future... no more than the genre of prophecy is about forecasting the future. Those are common misunderstandings.

You and those of your persuasion are without understanding on this matter. You were told by John what the book is and warned not to add nor to subtract from the prophecies he wrote....but you do it anyway.

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Thus the part that is prophetic is not about future foretelling but immediate forthtelling and encouragement. You would know that if you read the prophets in the OT.

I have both read them and preached on them for over three decades. I love those prophecies and look forward to their fulfillment with joy.

Four times in the last chapter John tells us that what he wrote is prophecy (vss 9,10, 18,19)and yet you still don't believe it.

Very little future telling... mainly preaching to the people.

All of it is future...with the exception of the first four chapters.

The whole key to this matter is in the throne of David, the promise that Messiah will sit upon the throne of David some day and rule with a government that will have NO END...but... that during that time there will be death, curses, old age, and famine. Isaiah 65, 66, Zechariah 12, & 14. THAT is the death knell to preterism because Jesus has never yet sat on the throne of David in Jerusalem and the fact is that in heaven there is no death, curses, old age, and famine. Therefore, Christ sitting upon the throne of David must be (1) on earth...and (2) yet future.

 

[Calypsis4]

Greektim;

Just what the BB needed... another know-it-all who is unwilling to learn from others but rather feels it incumbent upon himself to teach the world his 30 years of knowledge.

That is an arrogant attitude and I will dismiss it. Telling others that I have 30 years of experience in studying this matter only suggests that I am not a novice and/or unfamiliar with the subject. But your attitude is so horrible you won't even grant me that much.

I'm not sure it is even worth the trouble to debate you.

Then why did you bother?

You appear to be about as closed to the issue as a locked door.

Those three decades of careful study and comparisons in scripture did much to lock that door to the unbelief of preterism. As far as I am concerned it is just as evil as Watchtower theology.

I'm curious, do you think we could actually discuss the issues you raised and the counterpoints I offered or will you continue in the snobbish pontification that you seem to be accustomed to?

'snobbish pontification' is purely in your imagination. Why the personal attack? I did not do this to you nor to your comrades. The only thing I did was to call a spade a spade, nothing more.

Jesus upbraided his disciples for their unbelief. But you don't like being upbraided for the same thing.

PS-no one likes to read long posts, so you may want to think about shortening yours.

Then you might advise your companions that they have the option of not reading mine. I had five original points. But I could have had about twenty with no problem.