All Israel Will be Saved. Romans 11:26

[Covenanter]

Afternoon Ian. Every time I encounter this argument I think about how people who make this argument need to re-study bible prophecy. Have you ever read Ezekiel 12? People were complaining back then that "near" must have meant a lot sooner than they thought!

Ezekiel 12:21-28 NET
21The word of the LORD came to me: 22“Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel, ‘The days pass slowly, and every vision fails’? 23Therefore tell them, ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: I hereby end this proverb; they will not recite it in Israel any longer.’ But say to them, ‘The days are at hand when every vision will be fulfilled. 24For there will no longer be any false visions or flattering omens amidst the house of Israel. 25For I, the LORD, will speak. Whatever word I speak will be accomplished. It will not be delayed any longer. Indeed in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and accomplish it, declares the sovereign LORD.’” 26The word of the LORD came to me: 27“Take note, son of man, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for distant days; he is prophesying about the far future.’ 28Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: None of my words will be delayed any longer! The word I speak will come to pass, declares the sovereign LORD.’”​

Verses 15-16 were fulfilled in AD70!

Ezekiel 12:15-16 NET
15“Then they will know that I am the LORD when I disperse them among the nations and scatter them among foreign countries. 16But I will let a small number of them survive the sword, famine, and pestilence, so that they can confess all their abominable practices to the nations where they go. Then they will know that I am the LORD.”
​

These arguments are just like those made by the enemies of Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:19 NET
They say, “Let him hurry, let him act quickly, so we can see; let the plan of the Holy One of Israel take shape and come to pass, then we will know it!”
​

Not to mention 2 Peter 3:3-4!

Ezekiel is prophesying the imminent exile to Babylon:

12:12 ‘The prince among them will put his things on his shoulder at dusk and leave, and a hole will be dug in the wall for him to go through. He will cover his face so that he cannot see the land. 13 I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not see it, and there he will die. ​

It happened - in their day.

2 Kings 25:7 Then they killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon.
Eze. 12:25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay. For in your days, you rebellious people, I will fulfil whatever I say, declares the Sovereign Lord.”’​

The rebellious Jews were mocking God & his prophets, & saying that previous warnings were spurious:

21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 ‘Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: “The days go by and every vision comes to nothing”? 23 Say to them, “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel.” Say to them, “The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled.​

The "coming" Peter refers to was prophesied by the Lord Jesus in Mat. 24 & Rev. 1 - very similar expressions:

2 Peter 3:3 this first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on,
4 and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;'

Mat. 24:30 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth (land) smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;

Rev. 1:7 7 Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen! Young's literal translation.​

In his longsuffering, Jesus gave this generation 40 years to repent before the destruction would take place. Notice the use of elements in Gal. 4:

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
....
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
​

Elements are the physical items of the Law that were about to be burnt up.

 

[Covenanter]

The word translated "soon" is the Greek prepositional phrase en taxei, which in this passage doesn't refer to elapsed time but to the actual speed of an action. John is not saying, "These events will happen very soon" (eg, AD 70), but, "They will happen speedily." Compare the same phrase in Acts 12:7 and 22:18, where time until the action is not in view, but the speed of the action required.

Festus uses en taxei (shortly) to mean very soon:

Acts 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.​

 

[John of Japan]

Festus uses en taxei (shortly) to mean very soon:

Acts 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.​

My post was not to indicate the impossibility of the near in time interpretation, but to show the possibility of the "speedily" interpretation. Therefore, the preterist attack on the literal interpretation of prophecy which says, "The term soon means that it has to be AD 70" is very iffy.

 

[Jope]

Ezekiel is prophesying the imminent exile to Babylon:

12:12 ‘The prince among them will put his things on his shoulder at dusk and leave, and a hole will be dug in the wall for him to go through. He will cover his face so that he cannot see the land. 13 I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not see it, and there he will die. ​

It happened - in their day.

2 Kings 25:7 Then they killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon.
Eze. 12:25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay. For in your days, you rebellious people, I will fulfil whatever I say, declares the Sovereign Lord.”’​

The rebellious Jews were mocking God & his prophets, & saying that previous warnings were spurious:

21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 ‘Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: “The days go by and every vision comes to nothing”? 23 Say to them, “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel.” Say to them, “The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled.​

The "coming" Peter refers to was prophesied by the Lord Jesus in Mat. 24 & Rev. 1 - very similar expressions:

2 Peter 3:3 this first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on,
4 and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;'

Mat. 24:30 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth (land) smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;

Rev. 1:7 7 Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen! Young's literal translation.​

In his longsuffering, Jesus gave this generation 40 years to repent before the destruction would take place. Notice the use of elements in Gal. 4:

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
....
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
​

Elements are the physical items of the Law that were about to be burnt up.

Ezekiel 12:15-16 describes the Jews being dispersed into plural nations and countries. Was the Babylonian exile really the fulfillment. Also, did they experience the sword, like the verse states, besides zedekiah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

The word translated "soon" is the Greek prepositional phrase en taxei, which in this passage doesn't refer to elapsed time but to the actual speed of an action. John is not saying, "These events will happen very soon" (eg, AD 70), but, "They will happen speedily." Compare the same phrase in Acts 12:7 and 22:18, where time until the action is not in view, but the speed of the action required.

Jesus is saying that whenever the events that is spoken of here in revelation start to happen in the future, then they will be quickly happening!

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus' coming for general resurrection & judgment, & the new heaven & new earth, have yet to happen, but that has nothing to do with understanding Revelation.

It does, as much of it is still futuristic!

 

[Covenanter]

Rev. 1:1 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: 2 who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.​

Jesus is saying that whenever the events that is spoken of here in revelation start to happen in the future, then they will be quickly happening!

The word translated "soon" is the Greek prepositional phrase en taxei, which in this passage doesn't refer to elapsed time but to the actual speed of an action. John is not saying, "These events will happen very soon" (eg, AD 70), but, "They will happen speedily." Compare the same phrase in Acts 12:7 and 22:18, where time until the action is not in view, but the speed of the action required.

You major on shortly/soon but please explain how the time is at hand means anything other that the near future. Obviously meaning AD 70. Nothing was prophesied for AD 100.

 

[John of Japan]

Rev. 1:1 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: 2 who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.​

You major on shortly/soon but please explain how the time is at hand means anything other that the near future. Obviously meaning AD 70. Nothing was prophesied for AD 100.

The problem here is that you are using a modern English idiom "at hand" (granted, from a translation) to define a first century Greek word. Now, if you say that the KJV (and any other version that translates with "at hand") has to be right, then you are ignoring the range of meaning that the first century Greek word (eggus) has. Thus you are being anachronistic.

The word eggus can also mean "imminent" as the Friberg Anlex (accessed through BibleWorks) has it, and that is my preferred meaning. Similarly, Abbot-Smith (Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 127) points out the metaphorical use of the word in Eph. 2:17, "And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh."

Again, the authoritative BAGD lexicon (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p. 214) quotes Rom. 10:8 in support of the idea of metaphysical nearness (as opposed to spatial or time nearness): "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart." The truths of the Second Coming are very near to my heart.

 

[kyredneck]

Festus uses en taxei (shortly) to mean very soon:

Acts 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.​

JoJ also tries this same lame sort of spin to 'genea', when the context is clearly pertaining to that particular generation of Christ's day:

The Meaning of "parousia" in Greek

 

[Covenanter]

Rev. 1:1 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: 2 who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.​

You, JoJ, major on shortly/soon but please explain how the time is at hand means anything other that the near future. Obviously meaning AD 70. Nothing was prophesied for AD 100.

The problem here is that you are using a modern English idiom "at hand" (granted, from a translation) to define a first century Greek word. Now, if you say that the KJV (and any other version that translates with "at hand") has to be right, then you are ignoring the range of meaning that the first century Greek word (eggus) has. Thus you are being anachronistic.

The word eggus can also mean "imminent" as the Friberg Anlex (accessed through BibleWorks) has it, and that is my preferred meaning. Similarly, Abbot-Smith (Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 127) points out the metaphorical use of the word in Eph. 2:17, "And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh."

Again, the authoritative BAGD lexicon (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p. 214) quotes Rom. 10:8 in support of the idea of metaphysical nearness (as opposed to spatial or time nearness): "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart." The truths of the Second Coming are very near to my heart.

It must be wonderful to be able to quote non-Biblical authorities to establish your own ideas & contradict the plain meaning of Scripture. Snatch one word from a complex, multi-clause sentence & you can prove whatever you want.

Notice the THREE words - γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς - for the time is at hand.
That should suggest to you the idea that TIME nearness as opposed to metaphysical nearness is the inspired intention.

JoJ also tries this same lame sort of spin to 'genea', when the context is clearly pertaining to that particular generation of Christ's day:

The Meaning of "parousia" in Greek

Thanks to the Blue Letter Bible & its use of Strong's numbering we can all look at key words in Greek or Hebrew & their use throughout Scripture.
For ἐγγύς G1451 see: Blue Letter Bible G1451

 

[John of Japan]

It must be wonderful to be able to quote non-Biblical authorities to establish your own ideas & contradict the plain meaning of Scripture. Snatch one word from a complex, multi-clause sentence & you can prove whatever you want.

This is a false attack, therefore disobeying the Decalogue about bearing false witness.

I am interpreting the New Testament literally according to the Greek language, in which it was written and which I teach in a Bible college. Deal with it. The lexicons I quote are Greek-English dictionaries of the New Testament, and only stand without authority unless you believe that we can only interpret the KJV with itself as its own dictionary, like the heretical Gail Riplinger. Words have meanings. I deal with the Greek meanings.

Notice the THREE words - γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς - for the time is at hand.
That should suggest to you the idea that TIME nearness as opposed to metaphysical nearness is the inspired intention.

Well yes, it suggests that possibility--as well as metaphorical or metaphysical nearness. I stand by my post. The preterist interpretation is not the only possible one. My point was that there is an interpretation other than yours that is entirely valid. Do you say that your preterist interpretation is authoritative over that of a non-preterist? That would be arrogance of the first degree.

Thanks to the Blue Letter Bible & its use of Strong's numbering we can all look at key words in Greek or Hebrew & their use throughout Scripture.
For ἐγγύς G1451 see: Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Oh, wait, didn't you just attack me for using "non-biblical authorities"? Don't you know that Strong's is just a dictionary, like the ones I quoted only not nearly as good? No one who teaches the Biblical languages uses Strong's. In fact, I forbid its use in my classes. It is well over 100 years old, and thus way out of date, especially in the Greek.

Furthermore, a news flash: the OT is in Hebrew, not Greek. So eggus does not appear in Gen. 1.

Edited in: Okay, you corrected the "Genesis 1" reference. Good for you. But take a look at your link again. It has the possibility "of times imminent" for eggus. I win.

 

[Covenanter]

JoJ, Strongs stands as a primary authority, NOT for its dictionary meanings, but for its numbering system that shows the Greek words in context for every occurrence.
Looking at all 30 occurrences, 13 are time, 11 space & 6 metaphysical. The context makes the meaning clear.
There is no need to impose a preterist interpretation on Rev. 1:3, the proximity of TIME leaves us in no doubt that the TIME is near/at hand.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, Strongs stands as a primary authority, NOT for its dictionary meanings, but for its numbering system that shows the Greek words in context for every occurrence.

Looking at all 30 occurrences, 13 are time, 11 space & 6 metaphysical. The context makes the meaning clear.

Be honest. Do you look at the meanings Strong's gives? If you do, you need to apologize for your attack on my use of lexicons.

Secondly, Strong's is deceptive here, in that there is also a cognate verb, eggizo, which occurs in the TR NT in 42 verses. Now, unless you include these usages in your analysis, it is deeply flawed. As they used to say, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." I've done similar word studies 100s of times.

There is no need to impose a preterist interpretation on Rev. 1:3, the proximity of TIME leaves us in no doubt that the TIME is near/at hand.

Sure there is the need to impose a preterist interpretation in 1:3. Your presupposition is that the book was written before AD 70. If I held to that presupposition I might interpret it just like you do. But I don't. My presupposition (which does guide my interpretation) is that it was written in the year 96. And yes, I fully admit it is a presupposition.

Having said that, I have some definite facts to back up my presupposition, namely, that when one interprets literally (as the early church always did for hundreds of years), one finds many, many prophecies in Revelation that were by no means fulfilled in 70. Ergo, Revelation is future.

On the other hand, preterists (including you) absolutely insist that it was written pre-70, and therefore they must be correct. It's circular reasoning which depends on your insistence that we must interpret spiritually.

And by the way, twice on different threads I have pointed out to you without rebuttal that all--yes all--of the prophecies of Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. So what or who gives you the right to spiritualize prophecies about His 2nd coming?

I have a list of 60 literal fulfillments of Christ's first coming. And there are others. Your spiritualizing of the Word of God makes you the authority on prophecy--not God.

 

[Yeshua1]

JoJ, Strongs stands as a primary authority, NOT for its dictionary meanings, but for its numbering system that shows the Greek words in context for every occurrence.
Looking at all 30 occurrences, 13 are time, 11 space & 6 metaphysical. The context makes the meaning clear.
There is no need to impose a preterist interpretation on Rev. 1:3, the proximity of TIME leaves us in no doubt that the TIME is near/at hand.

John is giving to you what recognized Greek authority have to say on this issue, and you also realise that there is NO evidence in the scrpitures, which can be shown historical to been written after AD 70, for the Second Coming to have already happened?

 

[Yeshua1]

Be honest. Do you look at the meanings Strong's gives? If you do, you need to apologize for your attack on my use of lexicons.

Secondly, Strong's is deceptive here, in that there is also a cognate verb, eggizo, which occurs in the TR NT in 42 verses. Now, unless you include these usages in your analysis, it is deeply flawed. As they used to say, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." I've done similar word studies 100s of times.
Sure there is the need to impose a preterist interpretation in 1:3. Your presupposition is that the book was written before AD 70. If I held to that presupposition I might interpret it just like you do. But I don't. My presupposition (which does guide my interpretation) is that it was written in the year 96. And yes, I fully admit it is a presupposition.

Having said that, I have some definite facts to back up my presupposition, namely, that when one interprets literally (as the early church always did for hundreds of years), one finds many, many prophecies in Revelation that were by no means fulfilled in 70. Ergo, Revelation is future.

On the other hand, preterists (including you) absolutely insist that it was written pre-70, and therefore they must be correct. It's circular reasoning which depends on your insistence that we must interpret spiritually.

And by the way, twice on different threads I have pointed out to you without rebuttal that all--yes all--of the prophecies of Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. So what or who gives you the right to spiritualize prophecies about His 2nd coming?

I have a list of 60 literal fulfillments of Christ's first coming. And there are others. Your spiritualizing of the Word of God makes you the authority on prophecy--not God.

It is a shame that some lean upon sources such as strongs, and ignore superior ones, and totally reject solid historical evidence fora later dating!

 

[John of Japan]

It is a shame that some lean upon sources such as strongs, and ignore superior ones, and totally reject solid historical evidence fora later dating!

That was kind of a nasty attack on me for just using lexicons--dictionaries for crying out loud! And then he links to a page with--guess what--Strong's dictionary! And Thayer's lexicon, also out of date of course.

 

[Yeshua1]

That was kind of a nasty attack on me for just using lexicons--dictionaries for crying out loud! And then he links to a page with--guess what--Strong's dictionary! And Thayer's lexicon, also out of date of course.

Wonder what translators and theologians use for sources, and bet not strongs!

 

[John of Japan]

Wonder what translators and theologians use for sources, and bet not strongs!

As you know, I'm a Bible translator, and I never use Strong's meanings when I have to research a verse. Strong's is just too old, as is Thayer's, both done well before the flood of discoveries of papyri in the early 20th century.

I've never thought of myself as a theologian, but they have me teaching theology here, so I guess I sort of am. (I'm getting ready to teach eschatology in the seminary.) And I still don't use Strong's!

 

[Covenanter]

Be honest. Do you look at the meanings Strong's gives? If you do, you need to apologize for your attack on my use of lexicons.
I look at Strongs for the words NOT his definitions, though obviously I see them. The context gives the particular meaning, not the dictionary.

Secondly, Strong's is deceptive here, in that there is also a cognate verb, eggizo, which occurs in the TR NT in 42 verses. Now, unless you include these usages in your analysis, it is deeply flawed. As they used to say, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." I've done similar word studies 100s of times.
Yes - I have now looked it up - the BLB I linked to has that facility. In almost all cases it referred to being near a place.

Sure there is the need to impose a preterist interpretation in 1:3. Your presupposition is that the book was written before AD 70. If I held to that presupposition I might interpret it just like you do. But I don't. My presupposition (which does guide my interpretation) is that it was written in the year 96. And yes, I fully admit it is a presupposition.
We have to understand Scripture in its context BEFORE we interpret. Preterism is not an imposed interpretation. It is a recognition that at the time of writing, the time was near, so that the prophesied events would occur in the lifetime of John & his readers. The great unfulfilled prophecy at that time was the destruction.

Having said that, I have some definite facts to back up my presupposition, namely, that when one interprets literally (as the early church always did for hundreds of years), one finds many, many prophecies in Revelation that were by no means fulfilled in 70. Ergo, Revelation is future.
Literal interpretation is oxymoronic - we can take it literally OR interpret to make it read as different to what is written. Dreams & parables & some prophecies need interpretation.

On the other hand, preterists (including you) absolutely insist that it was written pre-70, and therefore they must be correct. It's circular reasoning which depends on your insistence that we must interpret spiritually.
Yes. Spiritual interpretation is a Scriptural method of right understanding - but of course that must be restrained by the guidance given by Jesus & the Apostles.

And by the way, twice on different threads I have pointed out to you without rebuttal that all--yes all--of the prophecies of Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. So what or who gives you the right to spiritualize prophecies about His 2nd coming?
Spiritualizing is not licence to make up our own interpretations - like the RCs & Scofield etc did.

I have a list of 60 literal fulfillments of Christ's first coming. And there are others. Your spiritualizing of the Word of God makes you the authority on prophecy--not God.
How literal are those prophecies in detail, in context? We see the fulfilment in terms of the inspired record. I do not impose a spiritual fulfilment but a fulfilment guided by way the Apostles interpret.

 

[John of Japan]

I look at Strongs for the words NOT his definitions, though obviously I see them. The context gives the particular meaning, not the dictionary.

Wow. So you don't believe in dictionaries. I have to ask: are you King James Only? Because that's just what the radical KJVO types say.

I've taught three different languages and studied others, and let me tell you, when you study a language you'd better have a dictionary.

Yes - I have now looked it up - the BLB I linked to has that facility. In almost all cases it referred to being near a place.

There are several usages of both the noun and the verb. As I said, it can be physical nearness, time nearness, metaphysical or metaphorical, or imminent.

We have to understand Scripture in its context BEFORE we interpret. Preterism is not an imposed interpretation. It is a recognition that at the time of writing, the time was near, so that the prophesied events would occur in the lifetime of John & his readers. The great unfulfilled prophecy at that time was the destruction.

Sure it is. Preterism is absolutely an imposed interpretation.

Literal interpretation is oxymoronic - we can take it literally OR interpret to make it read as different to what is written. Dreams & parables & some prophecies need interpretation.

I've taken both undergrad and grad hermeneutics, and my son teaches it so we talk about it all the time. And what you have written in this paragraph makes no hermeneutical sense whatever. Tell you what, next week I'll do a thread on this issue over Spring break. I hope you'll join me there, because I'd like to know just where in the world you are coming from.

Yes. Spiritual interpretation is a Scriptural method of right understanding - but of course that must be restrained by the guidance given by Jesus & the Apostles.

Yeah, well you'll have to fill me in on that next week. If the prophecy is right there before you, and there is no interpretation in the text as there is many times in Biblical prophecy, then it is presuming on the Lord to interpret it spiritually.

Normal interpretation is literal. In Japan for 33 years, I never had a Japanese try a "spiritual interpretation." It has to be taught. It's not natural.

Spiritualizing is not licence to make up our own interpretations - like the RCs & Scofield etc did.

I believe it is. You'll have to walk me through the process, because if it isn't in the text, you have to get it from somewhere--either the Lord (Who speaks literally) or your own brain.

Do you interpret spiritually when you go to the doctor? "Doc, tell me the truth. What do I have?" Doc--"I'm sorry, it's cancer." You--"Oh, great, that just means I've been sinning. I knew that, so I'm okay, then."

How literal are those prophecies in detail, in context? We see the fulfilment in terms of the inspired record. I do not impose a spiritual fulfilment but a fulfilment guided by way the Apostles interpret.

This is not rocket science. I mean really, just about His birth: the actual year of His birth, the virgin birth, His birth as a Jew, the descendent of Abraham, Davidic lineage, of the tribe of Judah, descendent of Jesse, born in Bethlehem, the gifts of the Magi, Herod killing the children. All of these were prophesied and then literally fulfilled. Even preterists (except you?) and others who interpret allegorically admit this.