Looking for info: Partial Preterism

[blacksheep]

I see you have been posting your nonsense on there recently. But if you keep posting non KJV quotes on there you are not likely to last long as some of us know.
Since when?
They didn't see it, they fled at Jesus' command to flee to the hills.

That was in response to what robycop3 said here...

"If they saw the great trib, then Jesus' words in Matt. 24:30 are not true. Can't be both ways!"

They didn't see what? The tribulation or the Lord's return? If they fled to the hills they had to see something, right? If you're talking about Christ return, we are told every eye shall see him, right? Jesus said in Mathew 24:33-34, "So likewise ye, when ye shall SEE all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

I know you're going to say that the generation of AD70 is the generation Jesus is talking about, however my point is whatever generation he IS talking about SEES the events PASS mentioned between verses 3-31!

MT. 24:30...
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall SEE the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

MT 24:33-34 So likewise ye, when ye shall SEE all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Daniel says nothing whatsoever about the image being set up in the temple.

When one author mentions thing another doesn't it becomes an excuse to interpret things differently. Every author in the bible records thing differently. Daniel did mention the abomination and mentions is being "set up."

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate SET UP, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Jesus...
"When ye therefore shall SEE the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

Regardless if you're referring to the tribulation or return of Christ the KJV says THEY WILL SEE BOTH!

The sun moon and stars refer to the rulers of Jerusalem being overthrown, falling from power., The next thing that the Jews will see of the messiah is when he comes again.

Absolutely not, the sun, moon, and stars are LITERAL! I'm amazed at some of the outrageous claims preterist make.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

The word HEAVEN Jesus used is 'ouranos' and it refers to the literal sky and universe...
ouranos...
the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
the universe, the world
the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
the sidereal or starry heavens
the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings
___________________________________________________________

Yes you keep repeating that nonsense, as well as Online Baptist and CF. It gets monotonous.

I don't remember what Christian forum it was but some of them are now inundated with Preterist and it destroys the eschatology section.

A slight misquote again from you. But first we need to know what the temple is, Paul tells us plainly.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Paul uses the exact same term to describe the seat of the man of sin.
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

A slight misquote from who? How about a major fabrication from you.
Simple hermeneutics help us determine if a passage is literal or figurative. It really isn't that difficult. You always seem to interpret the word temple figuratively, however, CONTEXT is usually what determines whether a word is interpreted figuratively or literally. If it makes no sense literally, it's figurative and vice-versa.

The pope sat in the outer court of that temple till Martin Luther excommunicated him and did not include the RCC as part of the church.
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar,
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Now you've confused me. As a Preterist, I don't know where you're coming from.

 

[blacksheep]

PHONY AS A CHEVY MUSTANG




Matthew 11:16 But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates.

Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Matthew 12:42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

Matthew 23:36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


Mark 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”


Luke 7:31 “To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like?

Luke 11:29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.

Luke 11:30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.


Luke 11:32The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with thisgeneration and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Luke 11:50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation.

Luke 11:51
from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

Luke 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.


Notice anything? the Bible is pretty clear what "This Generation" Means!

According to the Preterist movement, Revelation NOT was NOT written between 90-95 AD but in 65-70 AD, and Mathew was NOT written between 80-90 AD, but 60-65 AD.

It makes no sense that John would write a prophetic book (in 65-70 AD), that we've broken down into 22 chapters, that had no time to be distributed, copied, read, preached or remotely understood throughout the inhabited world before its fulfillment. Even IF they were written before 70 AD, that makes Revelation and Mathew 24 USELESS to the generation of that time. Little to NOTHING was understood in the book of Revelation in 70 AD. (It wasn't even written at that time anyway)

The entire context of Mathew 24 between V. 3-51 is Christ' answer to the question.... "WHEN shall these things be. (one stone on top of another) WHAT shall be the sign of thy coming. WHAT shall be the sign of the consummation of the age." Not one word in verse 3 or the entire passage suggest that "the consummation of the age" ended in 70 AD, and not ONCE does the passage suggest Jesus is deviating from talking about "the end of the AGE/AION."

The generation Jesus is referring to is the one that SEES and endures ALL of the events he mentions between verses 3-33.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Duu-h-h, maybe I'm just a dumb country hick, but "see the Son of man" looks pretty obvious to me.

"See the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky/heaven..." is different than simply seeing the Son of man. That is a Hebrew way of referring to divine judgment.

 

[Lodic]

Except...There AREN'T any pret proofs!

So you keep trying to tell us. Except, the proof is in their fulfillment.

 

[Lodic]

Except...those that HAVEN'T yet been fulfilled.
You've been repeatedly asked to provide some proof that the eschatological events of the Olivet Discourse have already been fulfilled, and haven't shown us a thing.

You reject what I present as undeniable proof, just as I reject what you view as proof.

 

[Lodic]

Still hoping you will see the TRUTH & realize preterism is wrong. The facts you've been presented with couldn't be any plainer.

We'll just hafta see what Gorship says.

There's simply NO truth to preterism, and it WON'T grow. More & more people are actually studying history on their own, & realizing Preston, Gentry, etc. are quacks.

The more that people study history - especially the history of the Jewish Wars, the more they will realize the preterist view makes perfect sense. @Gorship is a smart guy, and I'm sure he will make up his own mind. Whether or not he sticks to the preterist view, at least he is giving this an honest and unbiased evaluation. That is really all we can ask of anyone.

 

[Lodic]

I would have never thought a Baptist would be a partial or full Preterist. I'm actually very surprised about that.

As a partial preterist, even I am surprised at that. I wonder if this has just started. Personally, I am hopeful that it catches on in the Baptist circles. For that matter, throughout all of Christendom.

 

[Lodic]

According to the Preterist movement, Revelation NOT was NOT written between 90-95 AD but in 65-70 AD, and Mathew was NOT written between 80-90 AD, but 60-65 AD.

It makes no sense that John would write a prophetic book (in 65-70 AD), that we've broken down into 22 chapters, that had no time to be distributed, copied, read, preached or remotely understood throughout the inhabited world before its fulfillment. Even IF they were written before 70 AD, that makes Revelation and Mathew 24 USELESS to the generation of that time. Little to NOTHING was understood in the book of Revelation in 70 AD. (It wasn't even written at that time anyway)

The entire context of Mathew 24 between V. 3-51 is Christ' answer to the question.... "WHEN shall these things be. (one stone on top of another) WHAT shall be the sign of thy coming. WHAT shall be the sign of the consummation of the age." Not one word in verse 3 or the entire passage suggest that "the consummation of the age" ended in 70 AD, and not ONCE does the passage suggest Jesus is deviating from talking about "the end of the AGE/AION."

The generation Jesus is referring to is the one that SEES and endures ALL of the events he mentions between verses 3-33.

If Revelation was written in the 60s, as we preterists believe, there is no reason the book would not have reached the majority of Christians in the Roman Empire before its fulfillment. At the very least, this would have reached the 7 churches that John specifically addressed the "letter" to. It's only our modern generation that has so much trouble with understanding the prophecies in this book. The original readers, being very familiar with their particular situation (Roman persecution, etc.) would have understood this very clearly. Remember, John told his original audience that they would be able to calculate who the number of the Beast pointed to. This wouldn't be possible unless it was someone they knew about, one of their contemporaries.

The disciples' question in Matthew 24:3 is specifically about the end of the age. The KJV incorrectly uses the phrase "end of the world". The Greek word in question is "aeon", not "kosmos". History shows that Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed exactly as Jesus described in this passage. In Matthew 24:34, He said that "this generation" would not pass away until all these things take place. "This generation" always means those alive at the time of the speaker. If Jesus meant a future generation, He would have said "that generation". While some argue that He meant "race", that really doesn't make sense in this context. The generation He was speaking of did see and endure all the events He spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, which culminated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.

 

[David Kent]

We hold those views because they're the PROVEN TRUTH. Calminian, John of Japan, and I have presented FACTS, not imagination and/or guesswork.

No you haven't you have all shown you ignorance of scripture by keep repeating what you have been indoctrinated with, the teaching of the heretic Scofield

 

[David Kent]

Either Mid trib, as can see the 2 witnesses as being types of the Church, or else post trib, as God preserved Israel during Plagues in Egypt can keep us!

You are getting there.

The seven candlesticks were the seven churches. So we know that candlesticks are churches. The seven churches represent the whole church. The two candlesticks represent the witnessing church in its reduced state during the tribulation imposed by the RCC, two or three being the minimum number of legal withesses. They were fed by the oil of the spirit represented by the two olive trees.

 

[David Kent]

The one thing you give up with those views is the doctrine of immanency. When the 7 years start, you can then count down 3.5 years to the rapture. The rapture can't come now or at any moment, because the tribulation period has to start first. While you don't know the day or hour, you know the rapture won't be today, and once the clock starts you will know the day.

That is what the Irvingites believed, except they taught it waould happen in the summer of 1833.

 

[David Kent]

Yes there's the mention of back to back 3.5 year periods in Revelation. The covenant of Daniel 9 is also a big clue, prophesying a future 7 year covenant, sometime after the destruction of the city, broken at the midpoint.

The seventieth week was completed by the Lord Jesus by his eartly ministry. According to Paul.

• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

What promises could they be but the covenant?

 

[David Kent]

One thing that we do agree on is that Gorship does realize that most Baptists reject all forms of Preterism. He would have to be blind to miss that. I won't drop it because I do understand the truth of this view. Hopefully, the Preterist view will continue to grow throughout the entire Christian world.

US baptists maybe. Here most baptists that I know would beleiev in some sort of a-mil historicism. Liberal baptists like thos in the Baptist union may accept anything, but then thet accept women ministers, and RC docrines like Lent, some even transubstantiation.

 

[Lodic]

US baptists maybe. Here most baptists that I know would beleiev in some sort of a-mil historicism. Liberal baptists like thos in the Baptist union may accept anything, but then thet accept women ministers, and RC docrines like Lent, some even transubstantiation.

I must confess that I know very little of Baptist doctrine outside of the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm not familiar with the Baptist union, but they certainly do sound very liberal. Are they "wannabe Methodists", or trying to go "mainline" Protestant?

 

[robycop3]

That was in response to what Robycop said here...
"If they saw the great trib, then Jesus' words in Matt. 24:30 are not true. Can't be both ways!"
David, they didn't see what? The tribulation or the Lord's return?

MT. 24:30...


Daniel says nothing whatsoever about the image being set up in the temple.



The sun moon and stasr refer to the rulers of Jerusalen being overthrown, falling ftom power., The next thing that the Jews will see of the messiah is when he comes again.



Yes you keep repeating that nonesense, as well as Online Baptist and CF. It gets monotonous.



A slight misquote again from you. But first we need to know what the temple is, Paul tells us plainly.

• 1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
• 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
• 2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Paul uses the exact same term to describe the seat of the man of sin.

• 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The pope sat in the outer court of that temple till Martin Luther excommunicated him and did not include the RCC as part of the church

• 1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar,
• 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

No, the Scriptures are LITERAL. Mr. Kent finds them inconvenient, so he tries to reduce them to "symbolic' status. That's simply not true. Proof? Those parts of the Oliver Discourse which HAVE been fulfilled were done so LITERALLY, AS WRITTEN.
Rev. 13 says the image will be set up in the temple

 

[robycop3]

US baptists maybe. Here most baptists that I know would beleiev in some sort of a-mil historicism. Liberal baptists like thos in the Baptist union may accept anything, but then thet accept women ministers, and RC docrines like Lent, some even transubstantiation.

In the past, the British worked vigoroulsy against the Baptists, namely the "Anabaptists". 'Tis no marvel that aberrant doctrines are common among British Baptists, including YOURSELF.

 

[Calminian]

The seventieth week was completed by the Lord Jesus by his eartly ministry. According to Paul.

• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

What promises could they be but the covenant?

This makes no sense. There's nothing in the verse to support your assertion. If fact, that's kind of a pattern for you.

 

[robycop3]

According to the Preterist movement, Revelation NOT was NOT written between 90-95 AD but in 65-70 AD, and Mathew was NOT written between 80-90 AD, but 60-65 AD.

And, of course, the preterist movement is wrong about those things, same as they are about many others.

It makes no sense that John would write a prophetic book (in 65-70 AD), that we've broken down into 22 chapters, that had no time to be distributed, copied, read, preached or remotely understood throughout the inhabited world before its fulfillment. Even IF they were written before 70 AD, that makes Revelation and Mathew 24 USELESS to the generation of that time. Little to NOTHING was understood in the book of Revelation in 70 AD. (It wasn't even written at that time anyway)

It was written between 90-96 AD, during Diocletian's reign.

The entire context of Mathew 24 between V. 3-51 is Christ' answer to the question.... "WHEN shall these things be. (one stone on top of another) WHAT shall be the sign of thy coming. WHAT shall be the sign of the consummation of the age." Not one word in verse 3 or the entire passage suggest that "the consummation of the age" ended in 70 AD, and not ONCE does the passage suggest Jesus is deviating from talking about "the end of the AGE/AION."

The generation Jesus is referring to is the one that SEES and endures ALL of the events he mentions between verses 3-33.

And that generation hasn't yet come unless it's this one.

 

[robycop3]

I must confess that I know very little of Baptist doctrine outside of the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm not familiar with the Baptist union, but they certainly do sound very liberal. Are they "wannabe Methodists", or trying to go "mainline" Protestant?

I myself am IFB; our church does nor believe ANY man-made doctrine of faith/worship.

 

[Lodic]

I myself am IFB; our church does nor believe ANY man-made doctrine of faith/worship.

What are the differences between the different Baptist churches? I only know SBC views.