No. But I want an explanation.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Revelation 1:7 and Partial-Preterism
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
No. But I want an explanation.
Two things come to mind,
1) I am too old to chase after much reading. I do well enough, but I have no interest in much words. So, no.
2) visual aids are generally helpful in putting a great amount of information on a single or a few pages. However the problem with putting a great amount of information in a chart is that it by default must leave out a great amount of information.
Then I suggest you read through the threads. You will find language work done, timelines discussed, myths debunked, historical evidences quoted...
In short, the truth of the Scriptures held as presented in the NT does not conform to preterist thinking.
Of course the typical preterist will disagree, hence the extensive threads.
Calypsis4
Member
If you are given a clear-cut explanation to the literal demands of the text but won't accept it then what can be done for you?
The pharisees and other Jews who were responsible for Jesus death were all dead by A.D. 96 when John wrote Rev. 1:7 and A.D. 70 did NOT see Jesus come...so this can only mean that they will see Him whom they pierced at the 2nd coming...from the vantage point of hell. So, friend, when the Holy Spirit provides you with the answer to your question then be humble enough to say, "Amen. Let it be so."
Best wishes to you and keep preaching the truth, brother.
Interpreting the later chapters of Zechariah in terms of history is challenging, particularly if one tries to be "literal."
As there are many specific allusions to Zechariah in the Gospels particularly in the last week, I suggest we look for interpretation in those events & the aftermath leading up to the destruction. In particular, in the Acts period we see two Jerusalems developing, earthly & heavenly, as taught in Galatians 4 & Hebrews 12. The Jerusalem wars in Zec. should be understood as carnal vs spiritual cities.
I won't dwell on that. The Scripture referred to in the OP is:
Zec. 12:10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem,
.........................
13:1 “In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.
John quotes that Scripture:
Just as the blind man could see that Jesus was the son of David, when the Pharisees could not, so at Pentecost the hearers saw & were cut to the heart, mourning for the One they had pierced, & responded by baptism in the opened fountain.
Those who refused to repent for piercing their Messiah, all the tribes of the land, would finally see who they had rejected, & mourn as the One they had pierced came on clouds of judgment & destroyed them, their city & their temple.
As there are many specific allusions to Zechariah in the Gospels particularly in the last week, I suggest we look for interpretation in those events & the aftermath leading up to the destruction. In particular, in the Acts period we see two Jerusalems developing, earthly & heavenly, as taught in Galatians 4 & Hebrews 12. The Jerusalem wars in Zec. should be understood as carnal vs spiritual cities.
I won't dwell on that. The Scripture referred to in the OP is:
Zec. 12:10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem,
.........................
13:1 “In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.
John quotes that Scripture:
John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”
Just as the blind man could see that Jesus was the son of David, when the Pharisees could not, so at Pentecost the hearers saw & were cut to the heart, mourning for the One they had pierced, & responded by baptism in the opened fountain.
Those who refused to repent for piercing their Messiah, all the tribes of the land, would finally see who they had rejected, & mourn as the One they had pierced came on clouds of judgment & destroyed them, their city & their temple.
I don't think it would be helpful to look through a thousand posts.
The argument for Preterism (partial - Jesus will come again for the final resurrection & judgment) is simply that the physical events prophesied by Jesus on Olivet - Mat. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 - all happened as prophesied. The "heavenly" events parallel judgments in OT times without a personal bodily presence of the LORD.
The argument against Preterism is that the events weren't seen as physical, historical events, therefore they are still future. Therefore "this generation" must mean the Jewish race. The Greek experts confused themselves in trying to prove "this generation" should be translated "this race" & apologised for looking at the wrong Greek words.
See: Matthew 24:34 - this generation or this race?
Also another verse is Matt 26:64 (NIV)
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[a]
Jesus was speaking to the high priest so surely he was speaking of a AD 70 fulfillment.
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[a]
Jesus was speaking to the high priest so surely he was speaking of a AD 70 fulfillment.
Of course you being so knowledgeable in the original language can make that determination?
What about the More than Conquerors? book?
Actually, Jesus stated that it would happen from now on, so at the time of His ascension, correct?
His literal second coming yet to happen!
I agree. However even partial-preterists agree that his second coming is yet future.
That is why they are not holding to heresy as full blown pretierists do!They are just really misunderstanding eschatology!
Ok, why I even try is bothersome to me, but here goes.
1) The desire to have the passages confined to “human (earthy) eyes is unfounded.
2) “Seeing the Son of Man” sitting next to the Father takes place at the final judgment. There is no other time the ungodly will face the God of Heaven but that time.
3) “coming in the clouds of heaven” was NOT done in 70AD. Any thinking that it did occur, in 70AD, violates other prophetic statements such as: everyone in the world will see Him, the valley of dry bones, the battles of the valley of Megiddo, the stripping of humans to the bone before they even fall dead, the return of the saints, the direct act of God in physically crushing all evil throughout the whole world (the only time direct vengeance by God’s own force is used in Scripture), the destruction of a huge portion of the earth, and so forth.
4) actual historical evidence does not support preterist view(s) of prophecy neither in assuming of allegory nor in assuming the temple destruction was the final temple.
5) a violation of the incarnation takes place if Christ is said to have some out of body return. It is a violation of redemption and the glorification of the saints, much less that of the Christ.
But then, typically on the B.B. there is very little change in views, even when the truth is presented as properly supported with Scriptures, and presented as literal and consistent in the balance of all Scriptures.
The Second Coming event was be earth shattering, as History as we know of it will end at that time, and all on earth will know that it happened, not just those in Israel, nor just a spiritual coming!
Nope, already been through all that, and found your thinking unsustainable in the light of the balance of Scriptures.
There are only 2 posts in that link - you could just read the second one by John.
No need, I was present in all that transpired.
Was I present in spirit without my body?
Or, was I present in both?
Present without your understanding.
The second post by John reads:
Yes, I made mistakes. I admit it. And I'm glad Covenanter and prophecy70 were able to catch them and let me correct them. It shows they are doing their own research.
Okay, the raison detre for this thread is accomplished.
Okay, the raison detre for this thread is accomplished.
Admitting to a mistake, is not accepting a mistaken view.
Often, an assignment was turned in that had a wrong to, two, too, there, their, they’re, by, buy, ...
The Greek the same.
Simply put, you glee about a false victory.
Scholarship has been given on the threads by folks who actually work in the languages, not just readers and casual understanders, but those that are skilled translators.
You rejected them.
Scholarship by others of note were given, you rejected them.
Even clearly shown inconsistencies and misapplication of Scriptures were pointed out, yet you continue to pursue what is not true.
I may be obstinately non-compliant, but there is a time when I (as did John of Japan) make a mistake and own up to it, taking steps (as he did) to admit and restate.