Looking for info: Partial Preterism

[Lodic]

The debate I posted will debunk this as well. The 65AD date, when you look at the evidence, is intellectual suicide. It's not even close. I feel very bad for all the people caught up in this false movement. It will rob them of the blessing promised in the first chapter.

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

 

[Calminian]

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

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

 

[Lodic]

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

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

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

 

[Calminian]

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

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

 

[asterisktom]

Hm. The date of the writing of revelation does seem to be... A problem lol hm. More to study tonight.

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

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

All of this was before I became preterist.

 

[Calminian]

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

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

 

[Lodic]

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

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

 

[Calminian]

I addressed that right away....

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

 

[Lodic]

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

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

 

[asterisktom]

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

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

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

 

[Calminian]

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

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

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

 

[Calminian]

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

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

 

[Lodic]

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

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

 

[Calminian]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lodic]

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

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

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

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

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And that's just in Great Britain.

Now I feel as though I've led a sheltered life. I had no idea there were so many.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 6:30 PM Pacific.

 

[Calminian]

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

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

Even this response assumes Luke contradicts Matthew. I'm merely pointing out the ridiculous conclusion you've made that Scripture contradicts.

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

 

[blacksheep]

I don't necessarily agree with everything that David Kent believes, but why do you demand a literal interpretation when this sort of description is used in the prophets to describe the calamity of divine judgment on a place?

For instance, Isaiah 34 -- a passage that would be very familiar to Jesus and His hearers -- uses the following language regarding the coming judgment of Edom:

Isaiah 34:1-10
Come near, you nations, and listen;
pay attention, you peoples!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
the world, and all that comes out of it!

The Lord is angry with all nations;
his wrath is on all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.

Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will stink;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.

All the stars in the sky will be dissolved
and the heavens rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.

My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom,
the people I have totally destroyed.

The sword of the Lord is bathed in blood,
it is covered with fat—
the blood of lambs and goats,
fat from the kidneys of rams.
For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.

And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.

For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.

Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!

It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.​

Notice the key phrases I have highlighted in red.

Last time I checked, the stars are still in the sky, the heavens have not been rolled up, and there is no smoke "rising forever" from the site of ancient Edom.

I learned this lesson as a young Christian teenager when we studied this passage in Sunday School. I asked the teacher if he had a modern photo of this burning sulfur and the smoke plume reaching into the sky. (I grew up in the midst of refineries and a sulfur extraction plant, so this was not an obscure image.) The teacher stammered and didn't know how to answer the question since he suddenly had his faith rocked. Over time, I read more of the prophets and realized that they were using extreme imagery that is quite different than what we would use in a post-Enlightenment Western culture. It would actually be quite surprising if they thought and spoke using the same metaphors we use.

If we are going to interpret scripture by scripture, we can know that there is an extremely high probability that this is metaphorical language, not literal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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