Spiritual Interpretation....pt4

[Yeshua1]

This has nothing to do with the issue.

How so? AD 70 did not mean that God totally rejected the Jewish people, as he is dealing with them in time of Jacob troubles at end of this Age!

 

[Yeshua1]

Its called also the day of the Lord, and is yo Israel, right before the Messiah returns!

 

[Iconoclast]

How so? AD 70 did not mean that God totally rejected the Jewish people, as he is dealing with them in time of Jacob troubles at end of this Age!

Paul says the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost...1thess2:14-16
Now show your verses that link the time of Jacobs trouble past that point...the end of the age was the end of the Jewish theocracy...

 

[Iconoclast]

Its called also the day of the Lord, and is yo Israel, right before the Messiah returns!

Show it from scripture or do not post....mindless tweets prove nothing.

 

[Covenanter]

What's with all the red? Are you trying to make me see red? Anyway....

I replied in red as I was quoting a number of posts - yours & mine - & showed my new posts in red. Thought it would help you understand.

I would understand your points if your logic held together. It doesn't.

My logic is very simply. The 70 weeks are 490 years. As the prophecy concerns the saving work of Christ, FINISHED at Calvary, the 490 years must also finish soon after - in the 30s AD. Whether we date the end of week 69 as Jesus' baptism/anointing or the last week of his life.

So then you don't believe in grammatical-historical interpretation, is that correct or not? Because the literal history of Daniel's prophecies being fulfilled is important.

The literal history of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy is recorded in the Gospels & Acts. Some aspects, AFTER the 70th week are the subject of NT prophecy.

Of course. And your point is what, in regards to the OP?

That is historically wrong. The 69 weeks ended with Christ's crucifixion. That leaves the last week, mentioned separate in Daniel. Historically, there is no one week period after the cross that fits it, certainly not the AD 70 date.
So you say. And I disagree.

The 69 weeks brings us to Messiah the Prince, the anointed Prince, logically his baptism/anointing. So the 70 th week covers Jesus earthly ministry, his cutting off for sinners (in the midst of the week) and the first 3 years of the Gospel age, after which the Jews totally rejected their Messiah & faced the consequences.

The consequences - the destruction by "the people of the prince who is to come" are clearly prophesied by Gabriel, the Lord Jesus, by Moses & Peter (Acts 3:22-23), by Paul in Acts & Epistles, & John in Revelation.

That's not strange. What I can't figure out is your interpretation.
Your view simply doesn't hold together logically. I haven't even figured out from your posts if you're a partial or full preterist. I really don't mean to be offensive here, but I've graded many student papers in my 30 years teaching in two countries, so I should be able to figure out the logic of a position.

It is your problem if you do not understand that the beginning & end of a period of 490 years will be 490 years apart, rather than 2,500 & counting.

So then, to repeat myself, if you don't care whether or not the Jewish week was 30 days, than you do not follow grammatical-historical interpretation. Is that correct? I don't want to misrepresent you.
And once again, I disagree. And you haven't proved your point, but merely pontificated, expecting agreement without proof.

I do care that the Jewish week was 7 days, not 30.

My interpretative method is primarily grammatical-historical, with reference to the fulfilment of prophecy in the NT. The literal understanding is straightforward. The objective of the 70 weeks declared in v. 24 was fulfilled in the ministry & death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Separation of week 70 from weeks 1-69 defies all logic & grammatical reading. I suggest you read the bit in between Scofield's notes.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Hogwash. I wish you could see the idolatrous Israel worshipping, war mongering Zionism that placing all these prophecies (plainly presented as IMMINENT to that generation) in the future has produced. Preterism is benign compared to the misery and grief brought about by the political clout (in the mightiest nation on earth) of the CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS.

You don't know what you're talking about. Christian Zionism is dangerous. Preterism is benign.

I am not affiliated with nor do I endorse Christian Zionism in any way. Are you attempting to use the association fallacy to divert the issue?

 

[Covenanter]

The ECF held on the whole though to pre mil, and I am not speaking to a rapture of the church, just that God does state that right before the Messiah returns, Israel will have the time of Jacobs Folly/troubles, preparing them to meet their returning God!

God says no such thing - but if you are thinking of Jeremiah 30:5-7 then it was written when Judah was in exile in Babylon. The dreadful event that would threaten the existence of the Jews, & their deliverance, is recorded in Esther.

 

[kyredneck]

I am not affiliated with nor do I endorse Christian Zionism in any way.

I never even insinuated that.

Are you attempting to use the association fallacy to divert the issue?

No. I'm attempting to enlighten you as to what the REAL danger is, relegating fulfilled prophecies to the future.

You stated "Preterism is very dangerous", which shows you don't know what you're talking about. It is in fact harmless. The religious fanaticism (not at all unlike that which brought about the Crusades) that has it's roots in misapplied prophecies is very dangerous.

 

[John of Japan]

I replied in red as I was quoting a number of posts - yours & mine - & showed my new posts in red. Thought it would help you understand.

It's actually distracting, but thanks for the effort.

My logic is very simply. The 70 weeks are 490 years. As the prophecy concerns the saving work of Christ, FINISHED at Calvary, the 490 years must also finish soon after - in the 30s AD. Whether we date the end of week 69 as Jesus' baptism/anointing or the last week of his life.

So far so good. This is better. Thanks for the clarification.

The literal history of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy is recorded in the Gospels & Acts. Some aspects, AFTER the 70th week are the subject of NT prophecy.

Okay.

The 69 weeks brings us to Messiah the Prince, the anointed Prince, logically his baptism/anointing. So the 70 th week covers Jesus earthly ministry, his cutting off for sinners (in the midst of the week) and the first 3 years of the Gospel age, after which the Jews totally rejected their Messiah & faced the consequences.

I find this to be a real stretch, since the early ministry of Jesus is unanimously agreed to be either 3 or 3 1/2 years. And I have no idea where you get the 3 year cutoff for the Jews totally rejecting their Messiah. Many Jews were saved in the latter chapters of Acts.

The consequences - the destruction by "the people of the prince who is to come" are clearly prophesied by Gabriel, the Lord Jesus, by Moses & Peter (Acts 3:22-23), by Paul in Acts & Epistles, & John in Revelation.

I do agree that the destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied.

It is your problem if you do not understand that the beginning & end of a period of 490 years will be 490 years apart, rather than 2,500 & counting.

Well, I have other problems, so adding one more is not a problem.

I do care that the Jewish week was 7 days, not 30.

My mistake. I meant the Jewish month. But previously you said it didn't matter, or something like that.

My interpretative method is primarily grammatical-historical, with reference to the fulfilment of prophecy in the NT. The literal understanding is straightforward. The objective of the 70 weeks declared in v. 24 was fulfilled in the ministry & death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So then, are you a partial preterist, a full preterist, or not a preterist?

Separation of week 70 from weeks 1-69 defies all logic & grammatical reading. I suggest you read the bit in between Scofield's notes.

Since I almost never read Scofield's notes....

 

[kyredneck]

I wish you could see how placing all these prophecies in the past should drastically affect your theology. That is why I believe Preterism to be very dangerous.

Do us a favor. Elaborate exactly how Preterism is "very dangerous".

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

I have been doing that since the very first thread on this issue! One cannot be a Preterist and consistently believe in the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. I have consistently demonstrated that by comparing scripture with scripture and bringing together related passages of scripture. I think denying these are very dangerous as it places one outside the faith. Perhaps that would be inconsequential for you since you would only lose your "time salvation."

 

[kyredneck]

I have been doing that since the very first thread on this issue! One cannot be a Preterist and consistently believe in the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead.

"Are you attempting to use the association fallacy to divert the issue?"

I have consistently demonstrated that by comparing scripture with scripture and bringing together related passages of scripture.

So have we.

I think denying these are very dangerous as it places one outside the faith.

Wrong. My faith and love for the Lord and His people and confidence in His word is as strong as ever.

Perhaps that would be inconsequential for you since you would only lose your "time salvation."

Hmmm. Who are you?

Are you insinuating Preterists are hell bound? Explain please.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

"Are you attempting to use the association fallacy to divert the issue?"



So have we.



Wrong. My faith and love for the Lord and His people and confidence in His word is as strong as ever.



Hmmm. Who are you?

Are you insinuating Preterists are hell bound? Explain please.

I am not using the association fallacy to divert the issue. I have demonstrated why Preterists like you are inconsistent in your interpretation of scripture. J. Stuart Russell, on the other hand, was consistent. The Parousia is as much a refutation of your inconsistent Preterism as it is an attempt to refute Futurism. I think Partial Preterism is a good term to identify those who are partial in their interpretation and application of scripture. I never accused you of denying the coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead, but that is the only consistent position you can take. You may believe in both, but you do so in spite of your eschatological views. My previous post concerning Dan. 12:1, 2 and Mt. 24.15 is just one of many examples I have presented. Instead of replying to it, you chose rather to discuss Christian Zionism. One cannot be a Christian and deny the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. Preterism naturally and consistently leads to that conclusion. That is why it is dangerous.

 

[kyredneck]

you chose rather to discuss Christian Zionism.

You chose to grossly malign Christians that hold to a benign eschatology. I chose to point out to you REAL danger.

So, who are you? How is it you throw "time salvation" in my face?

 

[Covenanter]

It's actually distracting, but thanks for the effort.
So far so good. This is better. Thanks for the clarification.
Okay.
I find this to be a real stretch, since the early ministry of Jesus is unanimously agreed to be either 3 or 3 1/2 years. And I have no idea where you get the 3 year cutoff for the Jews totally rejecting their Messiah. Many Jews were saved in the latter chapters of Acts.

Hmmm - I saw a article where they had tested comprehension of the "red letter Bible" & found lower understanding. Perhaps I should have used bold black.

The Jews were declared "uncircumcised" by the Holy Spirit - Acts 7:51. Many continued to be saved - not least Saul/Paul. Zechariah 13:9 indicates that 1/3 of the Jews will be saved before the destruction. Jesus quotes v. 7 about the disciples being scattered at his arrest. John makes the number from the tribes of Israel as 144,000.

Jews were & are saved by repentance & baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't know the dating of the Acts events, but 3 1/2 years is indicated by Gabriel. That's the second half of the 70th week.

I do agree that the destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied.

Well, I have other problems, so adding one more is not a problem.

My mistake. I meant the Jewish month. But previously you said it didn't matter, or something like that.
So then, are you a partial preterist, a full preterist, or not a preterist?
Since I almost never read Scofield's notes....

The idea of an end time 7 year tribulation, & cutting week 70 off from the 69 is from Scofield. And Scofield got into the Bible colleges as a free one-volume commentary, so his teaching became standard in the US. You may not read him, but generations of Bible college students - a generation of college lecturers have been influenced to this day.

His Bible fundamentalism was a bulwark against the rise of modernism & his Genesis "gap" theory gave an argument against evolution. In my student days Scofield was often quoted.

I hold a 'partial' Preterist position.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Denying the resurrection of the dead or holding to an interpretation that logically and necessarily leads one to do so is not benign.

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. -1 Co. 15.12-19

Are you now going to demonstrate how you can believe Mt. 24-25 was fulfilled historically and how you can still believe in the resurrection of the dead in light of Dan. 12.1, 2? I would also be interested in your interpretation and application of 1 Th. 4.15-5.10 and how they relate to Mt. 24-25.

 

[Yeshua1]

Show it from scripture or do not post....mindless tweets prove nothing.

Zechariah 13:8 2/3 of isarael dies at Day of the Lord, but rest remaining will see the Messiah!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have been doing that since the very first thread on this issue! One cannot be a Preterist and consistently believe in the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. I have consistently demonstrated that by comparing scripture with scripture and bringing together related passages of scripture. I think denying these are very dangerous as it places one outside the faith. Perhaps that would be inconsequential for you since you would only lose your "time salvation."

IF you see AD 70 as being time of the Second Coming, now outside the faith on that issue!

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Hmmm - I saw a article where they had tested comprehension of the "red letter Bible" & found lower understanding. Perhaps I should have used bold black.

The Jews were declared "uncircumcised" by the Holy Spirit - Acts 7:51. Many continued to be saved - not least Saul/Paul. Zechariah 13:9 indicates that 1/3 of the Jews will be saved before the destruction. Jesus quotes v. 7 about the disciples being scattered at his arrest. John makes the number from the tribes of Israel as 144,000.

Jews were & are saved by repentance & baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't know the dating of the Acts events, but 3 1/2 years is indicated by Gabriel. That's the second half of the 70th week.



The idea of an end time 7 year tribulation, & cutting week 70 off from the 69 is from Scofield. And Scofield got into the Bible colleges as a free one-volume commentary, so his teaching became standard in the US. You may not read him, but generations of Bible college students - a generation of college lecturers have been influenced to this day.

His Bible fundamentalism was a bulwark against the rise of modernism & his Genesis "gap" theory gave an argument against evolution. In my student days Scofield was often quoted.

I hold a 'partial' Preterist position.

Irenaeus and Hippolytus lived long before Scofield. At any rate, the historical data is against the seventieth week having been fulfilled in and around the time of the crucifixion.

 

[John of Japan]

Hmmm - I saw a article where they had tested comprehension of the "red letter Bible" & found lower understanding. Perhaps I should have used bold black.

Just use regular letters, please. I read well, thank you.

Jews were & are saved by repentance & baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't know the dating of the Acts events, but 3 1/2 years is indicated by Gabriel. That's the second half of the 70th week.

Absolutely wrong. No one was ever saved by repentance and any kind of ceremony, including baptism. It's salvation and faith in all ages and dispensations.

The idea of an end time 7 year tribulation, & cutting week 70 off from the 69 is from Scofield. And Scofield got into the Bible colleges as a free one-volume commentary, so his teaching became standard in the US. You may not read him, but generations of Bible college students - a generation of college lecturers have been influenced to this day.

Never said I never read Scofield. I seldom read him nowadays, but grew up with various reference Bibles.

His Bible fundamentalism was a bulwark against the rise of modernism & his Genesis "gap" theory gave an argument against evolution. In my student days Scofield was often quoted.

Don't remember Scofield being quoted in my student days, but he probably was. My grandfather quotes him occasionally in his books, but disagreed with his dispensationalism.

I hold a 'partial' Preterist position.

Okay, thanks for the info. I hold an anti-preterist position.