Preterists Cannot Prove Their Assertions !

[Lodic]

The disciples had asked Jesus some questions, and He answered them matter-of-factly. And we see those parts of the Olivet Discourse that HAVE come to pass have done so LITERALLY, EXACTLY, TO-THE-LETTER. I pointed out those things in the OP of this thread. Thus, there's no reason to believe the rest of the OD isn't as literal as the parts that are fulfilled.

While you seemtabee a bright fellow, you need to learn that preterism is all man-made and false. The jeezits invented it to protect the pope from being called the antichrist.



That's for the simple, obvious reason that it HASN'T HAPPENED YET! The sun & moon will be partially obscured by the smoke & dust from the cosmological disturbance Jesus prophesied in Matt. 24:29-30 & that Joel mentioned as well. Remember, Joel mentioned columns of fire as well.



Well, actually, the "dispy explanation" is supported by reality and actual history. And Jesus said that when the "abomination of desolation" was seen, it'd be time to skeedaddle at once! (Matt. 24:16-17) He didn't say anything in Matthew about armies surrounding J, but He did in Luke 21:20-24. Putting these Scriptures together, we see that the destruction of J & the temple was part of the "days of vengeance" Jesus had prophesied against the Jews for all the murders of the righteous up til that time, from Abel onward. BUT THE PROPHESIED ESCHATOLOGICAL EVENTS SIMPLY HAVEN'T YET HAPPENED!

Now, why do I believe my view of Biblical prophecy is correct? As I said earlier, I have three encyclopediae, Britannica, Collier's, & World Book, in fronta me, among many other boox. And NONE of them have the slightest hint of any of these events having already occurred. Remember, SCRIPTURE SHAPES HISTORY, not vice versa, so a reality check shows those prophesied events are still future. Prets attempt to "symbolize" any "inconvenient" Scriptures of prophecy that's yet to be fulfilled, as their doctrine is more important to them than the TRUTH is.

As I said, you seemtabee a bright fellow, so isn't it time for you to take another closer, detailed, in-depth look at preterism and realize it can't possibly be true?

First, I'd like to thank you for the compliment. Though we disagree on this topic, I can see that you know your Scriptures and your history quite well. As you say, Scripture shapes history, not vice versa.

Getting back to the passage in Acts 2, Peter explained to his audience that what was happening right in front of their eyes was in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. No way around that. We need to interpret all Scripture according to the sense in which it was written. If we were to take Isaiah 55:12 in a literal sense, we would expect to see mountains and hills singing and trees clapping their hands. Obviously, the prophet used poetic language in this passage. I don't mean to come across as condescending, but we interpret poetry one way, history another, and prophetic symbolism yet another. I'll look up some examples of prophetic symbolism shortly.

Doctrine must never trump TRUTH. That is why I don't believe the "dispy" view - because it simply is not true. You are looking for a literal fulfillment of events that have symbolic descriptions. The "cosmic calamities" of the Olivet Discourse will never come to pass in a literal sense, but they have already come to pass in a symbolic sense.

 

[Revmitchell]

You are looking for a literal fulfillment of events that have symbolic descriptions. The "cosmic calamities" of the Olivet Discourse will never come to pass in a literal sense, but they have already come to pass in a symbolic sense.

The symbolic represents something literal

 

[Lodic]

Again, can you give us ONE GOOD REASON why the unfulfilled parts of the Olivet Discourse should be viewed as symbolic, when the rest has been fulfilled LITERALLY, TO-THE-LETTER, as I pointed out in the OP of this thread?

One good reason - Jesus was following the example of the prophets, who often used symbolic language. Remember, Jesus was referring to Isaiah 13:10, which was a proclamation of judgment against Babylon. In Revelation 14 and 18, spiritual Babylon (Jerusalem) is "fallen, fallen". In Rev. 17, we see Israel is called "Babylon the Great".

Consider Isaiah 19, an oracle against Egypt. If we were to take the prophecy literally, we would expect that God rides a cloud (vs. 1). Isaiah 24:19-23 has very similar language to what Jesus used. The prophet used symbolism to describe an impending judgment on Israel. Every prophecy of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled to the letter.

 

[Lodic]

The symbolic represents something literal

We agree on that, Brother. What we disagree on is what the literal meaning is.

 

[robycop3]

First, I'd like to thank you for the compliment. Though we disagree on this topic, I can see that you know your Scriptures and your history quite well. As you say, Scripture shapes history, not vice versa.

Getting back to the passage in Acts 2, Peter explained to his audience that what was happening right in front of their eyes was in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. No way around that. We need to interpret all Scripture according to the sense in which it was written. If we were to take Isaiah 55:12 in a literal sense, we would expect to see mountains and hills singing and trees clapping their hands. Obviously, the prophet used poetic language in this passage. I don't mean to come across as condescending, but we interpret poetry one way, history another, and prophetic symbolism yet another. I'll look up some examples of prophetic symbolism shortly.

Doctrine must never trump TRUTH. That is why I don't believe the "dispy" view - because it simply is not true. You are looking for a literal fulfillment of events that have symbolic descriptions. The "cosmic calamities" of the Olivet Discourse will never come to pass in a literal sense, but they have already come to pass in a symbolic sense.

Sorry, Sir, there's simply NO GROUND for "taking" the prophesied events of the Olivet Discourse any way but LITERALLY. Remember, in the OP,I pointed out the parts of it that have already cometa pass, and they did so LITERALLY. Remember, when Jesus gave it, it was ALL future then. But Jerusalem & the temple were LITERALLY destroyed, most of the apostles were LITERALLY persecuted, with most of them being murdered, there was, and still is, war & rumor of war, Jerusalem is still being trod underfoot by gentiles, etc. etc. It's undeniable that all those things have occurred, and are still occurring, LITERALLY.

Jesus said that when the AOD was seen, the great trib was coming on its heels. And in Rev. 13, the mark of the beast was included in the AOD. Again, there's NO VALID REASON to not believe these will be LITERAL events!

Sir, I suggest you discard any junk you may have from Preston, Gentry, or their likes, as it's all false propaganda. I suggest you comb some works of history to see the prophesied eschatological events have NOT yet occurred, and to see that all Biblical prophecy that's been fulfilled so far has been LITERALLY fulfilled.

There's a time gap between Acts 2:18 & 19. We see that part of Joel's prophecy was LITERALLY fulfilled at that "first pentecost", but the rest has NOT yet come to pass. And, same as the Olivet Discourse, there's simply no valid reason to believe the rest of Joel's prophecy won't cometa pass as literally as that which HAS already cometa pass.

Again, preterism seex to reduce "inconvenient Scriptures to "symbolic" status because prets' false doctrine is more-important to them than the TRUTH is.

The pret attitude seemstabee "Hmmm...That verse of prophecy didn't cometa pass in 70 AD or thereabouts, so it's symbolic!" That's simply INCORRECT.

 

[Lodic]

Sorry, Sir, there's simply NO GROUND for "taking" the prophesied events of the Olivet Discourse any way but LITERALLY. Remember, in the OP,I pointed out the parts of it that have already cometa pass, and they did so LITERALLY. Remember, when Jesus gave it, it was ALL future then. But Jerusalem & the temple were LITERALLY destroyed, most of the apostles were LITERALLY persecuted, with most of them being murdered, there was, and still is, war & rumor of war, Jerusalem is still being trod underfoot by gentiles, etc. etc. It's undeniable that all those things have occurred, and are still occurring, LITERALLY.

Jesus said that when the AOD was seen, the great trib was coming on its heels. And in Rev. 13, the mark of the beast was included in the AOD. Again, there's NO VALID REASON to not believe these will be LITERAL events!

Sir, I suggest you discard any junk you may have from Preston, Gentry, or their likes, as it's all false propaganda. I suggest you comb some works of history to see the prophesied eschatological events have NOT yet occurred, and to see that all Biblical prophecy that's been fulfilled so far has been LITERALLY fulfilled.

There's a time gap between Acts 2:18 & 19. We see that part of Joel's prophecy was LITERALLY fulfilled at that "first pentecost", but the rest has NOT yet come to pass. And, same as the Olivet Discourse, there's simply no valid reason to believe the rest of Joel's prophecy won't cometa pass as literally as that which HAS already cometa pass.

Again, preterism seex to reduce "inconvenient Scriptures to "symbolic" status because prets' false doctrine is more-important to them than the TRUTH is.

The pret attitude seemstabee "Hmmm...That verse of prophecy didn't cometa pass in 70 AD or thereabouts, so it's symbolic!" That's simply INCORRECT.

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus told His disciples that their generation would "not pass away until ALL these things take place". In context, we see that "all these things" refers to everything He has been telling them from verse 1. You agree that the first part of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem. When He said "all" He literally meant ALL the things He had prophesied in the discourse. Remember, you are the one claiming that we need to take everything literally.

Just as you believe that Jesus didn't switch from speaking in literal terms to symbolic terms, I suggest that He didn't start out talking about events that would happen in their near future and then switch to talking about their distant future. His frequent use of "you" points to His immediate audience. I find it odd that you want to apply a literal interpretation to symbolic descriptions, but you want to change the meaning of terms like "near", "soon", "you", and others when they clearly point to a close-at-hand fulfillment. When Jesus said "you will see", let's take Him literally and in context.

You are the one who says we are to take prophecies literally, then you suggest the idea of a time gap between Acts 2:18-19. That is absolutely absurd. That's even more of a stretch than the supposed gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. Completely unsupportable from Scripture. You have to fit that "gap" into the verse in order to make it fit your eschatological view. It's ironic that you suggest that Preterist make"inconvenient" Scriptures symbolic when you have to change the meaning of passages to make them say what you want them to say. When you have to make things up to fit them into your view, it's time to reevaluate the "prophecy" junk from John Hagee, Thomas Ice, etc.

 

[37818]

Jesus told His disciples that their generation would "not pass away until ALL these things take place"

No. The generation which sees the signs, Matthew 24:32-34, ". . . when ye shall see all these things . . . ."; Matthew 24:29.

 

[Lodic]

No. The generation which sees the signs, Matthew 24:32-34, ". . . when ye shall see all these things . . . ."; Matthew 24:29.

Jesus was telling His immediate audience that they were the generation who would see those signs, and so they did when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem and with the events of the Jewish Wars from AD 68-70. If Jesus meant a future generation, He would have said "when they see all these things". We must take His literal meaning here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus was telling His immediate audience that they were the generation who would see those signs,

You keep making this claim but have yet to support it

 

[Lodic]

You keep making this claim but have yet to support it

Since Jerusalem was actually invaded by the Roman army, and these things did come to pass, I suggest the burden of proof is on the Dispensationalists. Can you prove Jesus meant a future audience when so much of what He prophesied came to pass within 40 years of when He spoke? After all, He did say that the generation He was speaking to would see these things, and history shows they did.

 

[Revmitchell]

Since Jerusalem was actually invaded by the Roman army, and these things did come to pass, I suggest the burden of proof is on the Dispensationalists. Can you prove Jesus meant a future audience when so much of what He prophesied came to pass within 40 years of when He spoke? After all, He did say that the generation He was speaking to would see these things, and history shows they did.

Now you need to also prove the destruction in ad 70 was exactly what He was talking about. By the way I never said a future audience I said generation is speaking to the nation of Israel not the people living at that time.

 

[Lodic]

Now you need to also prove the destruction in ad 70 was exactly what He was talking about. By the way I never said a future audience I said generation is speaking to the nation of Israel not the people living at that time.

My apologies - you never did say that. Since the events did happen exactly as Jesus described in the Olivet Discourse, I'd say that "the proof is in the pudding". Not sure what other kind of proof you could find. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...".

 

[Revmitchell]

My apologies - you never did say that. Since the events did happen exactly as Jesus described in the Olivet Discourse, I'd say that "the proof is in the pudding". Not sure what other kind of proof you could find. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...".

I think you are mistaken when you say they happened as Jesus described. You have been shown otherwise a couple of times by robocop. In fact it looks like you literized portions of it and spiritualized others. Not consistent.

 

[Lodic]

I think you are mistaken when you say they happened as Jesus described. You have been shown otherwise a couple of times by robocop. In fact it looks like you literized portions of it and spiritualized others. Not consistent.

I haven't literalized anything, but I obviously do recognize portions where "prophetic language" is used. Robycop has disagreed with me, but that doesn't mean that I am mistaken. Some of the early church historians (e.g. Eusebius) held the view that the events of AD 70 were in fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse prophecy.

 

[Revmitchell]

I haven't literalized anything, but I obviously do recognize portions where "prophetic language" is used.

I have no idea what this means

 

[robycop3]

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus told His disciples that their generation would "not pass away until ALL these things take place". In context, we see that "all these things" refers to everything He has been telling them from verse 1. You agree that the first part of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem. When He said "all" He literally meant ALL the things He had prophesied in the discourse. Remember, you are the one claiming that we need to take everything literally.

Just as you believe that Jesus didn't switch from speaking in literal terms to symbolic terms, I suggest that He didn't start out talking about events that would happen in their near future and then switch to talking about their distant future. His frequent use of "you" points to His immediate audience. I find it odd that you want to apply a literal interpretation to symbolic descriptions, but you want to change the meaning of terms like "near", "soon", "you", and others when they clearly point to a close-at-hand fulfillment. When Jesus said "you will see", let's take Him literally and in context.

You are the one who says we are to take prophecies literally, then you suggest the idea of a time gap between Acts 2:18-19. That is absolutely absurd. That's even more of a stretch than the supposed gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. Completely unsupportable from Scripture. You have to fit that "gap" into the verse in order to make it fit your eschatological view. It's ironic that you suggest that Preterist make"inconvenient" Scriptures symbolic when you have to change the meaning of passages to make them say what you want them to say. When you have to make things up to fit them into your view, it's time to reevaluate the "prophecy" junk from John Hagee, Thomas Ice, etc.

Sir, you're trying very hard to support the unsupportable. I appreciate your polite response, but it has a very basic and huge prob - those prophesied events haven't happened yet! THEY SIMPLY HAVE NOT YET HAPPENED ! ! ! There's NO substituting anything else for them!

Besides the encyclopediae I mentioned, I have many other worx of history before me, and the occurrence of those events is NOT even hinted at in any of them! Now, I'll sit back and wait for you to consult any unbiased professor or scholar you want and bring back some EVIDENCE that any of those events have occurred already!

Now we agree that everything Jesus said is 100% true, so what's wrong isn't what Jesus said, but some people's private interps of what He said. For example, I recommend you consult a professor of Koine greek about the various meanings of the word genea to see what Jesus meant by "this generation". It's quite-obvious those events did NOT occur while the body of people alive when Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse was still living.

And remember, to GOD, a thousand years is as a day, etc. so to GOD, "shortly" or "soon" means something different from what it means to men.

And there was no vast disaster shortly after the "first pentecost", showing there IS a gap between the verses as I pointed out.

Again, I shall wait-n-see if you can provide any **PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION** that the "beast' has already come & gone, along with the AOD, marka the beast, great trib, etc. etc. those are huge events, so if they have already occurred, they should be well-documented in history. There were plenty of literate civilizations in the 1st century, so there should be a complete and concise account of those events, if they've already happened. the jews should have a thorough record of the profaning of the temple by the beast & the false prophet, if it's indeed already happened. there should be vast records of the marka the beast. We should know when all life in the seas died & their water became as a dead man's blood, etc.etc.

So, please provide some evidence, or do the Christian thing & admit you were deceived by those quacks Preston, Gentry, Alcazar, etc. & that preterism is false!

 

[Lodic]

I have no idea what this means

Again, my apologies, Brother. I mean that I can see that a part of the discourse is in symbolic language, just as the OT prophets used a lot of symbolism.

 

[Revmitchell]

Again, my apologies, Brother. I mean that I can see that a part of the discourse is in symbolic language, just as the OT prophets used a lot of symbolism.

And?

 

[Lodic]

Sir, you're trying very hard to support the unsupportable. I appreciate your polite response, but it has a very basic and huge prob - those prophesied events haven't happened yet! THEY SIMPLY HAVE NOT YET HAPPENED ! ! ! There's NO substituting anything else for them!

Besides the encyclopediae I mentioned, I have many other worx of history before me, and the occurrence of those events is NOT even hinted at in any of them! Now, I'll sit back and wait for you to consult any unbiased professor or scholar you want and bring back some EVIDENCE that any of those events have occurred already!

Now we agree that everything Jesus said is 100% true, so what's wrong isn't what Jesus said, but some people's private interps of what He said. For example, I recommend you consult a professor of Koine greek about the various meanings of the word genea to see what Jesus meant by "this generation". It's quite-obvious those events did NOT occur while the body of people alive when Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse was still living.

And remember, to GOD, a thousand years is as a day, etc. so to GOD, "shortly" or "soon" means something different from what it means to men.

And there was no vast disaster shortly after the "first pentecost", showing there IS a gap between the verses as I pointed out.

Again, I shall wait-n-see if you can provide any **PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION** that the "beast' has already come & gone, along with the AOD, marka the beast, great trib, etc. etc. those are huge events, so if they have already occurred, they should be well-documented in history. There were plenty of literate civilizations in the 1st century, so there should be a complete and concise account of those events, if they've already happened. the jews should have a thorough record of the profaning of the temple by the beast & the false prophet, if it's indeed already happened. there should be vast records of the marka the beast. We should know when all life in the seas died & their water became as a dead man's blood, etc.etc.

So, please provide some evidence, or do the Christian thing & admit you were deceived by those quacks Preston, Gentry, Alcazar, etc. & that preterism is false!

I really appreciate this type of discussion. You, RevMitchell, and the others have been very gracious even while we disagree. I appreciate that you know (and love, I suspect) history so well. For historical support, I would have to look at guys like Eusebius, who believed that the events leading up to AD 70 were in fulfillment of Christ's prophecies.

As you say, Jesus is 100% true, so the problem lies in the interpretation. The "genea" and "one day is as a thousand years" are weak arguments. We can't change the meaning of "shortly", "soon", etc. Even Hebrews 1:1 shows that that generation was living in "these last days". You misunderstand what "last days" refers to, though. It's not about the literal end of the world, but about the end of the Old Covenant system.

Since Scripture doesn't make it clear that there is a gap where Peter quotes Joel's prophecy in Acts, and Peter himself doesn't allude to it, there is no gap. That simply doesn't make sense. Let's go with the simplest explanation here - Peter was quoting Joel to show that the entire prophecy was being fulfilled.

It's ironic that the book titled "Revelation" is the hardest to understand. If you are looking for a literal fulfillment of the disasters described in the book, you will never see them. However, if you understand that John is using symbolic language, you can easily see their fulfillment in the events of AD 68-70.

 

[Lodic]

And?

Compare the language of Matthew 24:29 with the language of Ezekiel 5:9, Isaiah 13:9-10, or Judges 5:19-20. Heavenly bodies often symbolize earthly rulers and governments. Clouds are often symbolic of judgment. As we've established, Jesus clearly described the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in AD 70. Since He went on to say "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (v. 34), He meant everything He had described from the beginning of the Discourse.