Watch for the beast!

[kyredneck]

Jesus warned His immediate that when THEY see this happen, those in Judea must flee to the mountains. This shows it was a localized event, not worldwide tribulation. The one on his housetop must not come down to take things out. Pray your flight not happen in winter or on a Sabbath. These were warnings for their society.

Audience relevance is irrelevant to dispies. It kills the buzz.

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.

2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

 

[Reformed1689]

Audience relevance is irrelevant to dispies. It kills the buzz.

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.

2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

But the pret view makes Jesus a false prophet.

 

[robycop3]

Audience relevance is irrelevant to dispies. It kills the buzz.

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.

2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

All the pret arguments are trumped by the fact that the prophesied eschatological events haven't yet happened. The Holy Spirit makes that very plain thru history.

 

[Lodic]

No, YOU'RE mis-interpreting what Jesus actually meant. Proof: the prophesied events haven't yet occurred. Since Jesus is always 100% right, they WILL happen just as He said.

Hard to mis-interpret words that are so clearly spoken. Your "proof" is more like circular reasoning - it hasn't happened yet because you don't believe it's happened yet.

The harlot represents Rome. Proof: Rev. 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

The "great city" of Rev 17:18 is the same "great city from Rev 11:8 - Jerusalem.

...Except that Christ did NOT return then. If He had, history would NOT have missed it! Remember, Jesus said the WHOLE WORLD will see His return, and that's the ONLY return of Himself He mentions!

Rev 1:7 says "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth (land) will mourn over Him". In context, the Jews would understand the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple to be His return in judgment.

There's only ONE possible interp for this:Rev. 19:19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

If there were only one possible interpretation for much of what we are debating, we would not disagree in the first place. The time indicators in the rest of Revelation, the Olivet Discourse, and other NT prophecies prove these events were to take place in the 1st Century. While I'm not positive as to what Rev 19:19 does mean, I am positive as to what it cannot mean.

Your "proofs" are nothing more than your opinions and interpretations.

 

[Lodic]

The generation is the generation of the Great Commission. Jesus commanded the Apostles to go preach and baptise to all the nations. This is the Apostolic generation. Once each man knows God and needs no teacher, this will be the end of the apostolic generation. The ones who are sent.

Every generation from the Ascension until the return of Jesus is to carry out the Great Commission. This doesn't affect the prophecies of the Great Tribulation, Abomination of Desolation, etc.

 

[Lodic]

First, not all who heard those words saw all of those things come to pass so your interpretation is wrong from the gate. You ignore other uses of the word in Greek that make more sense in light of this fact. Race or Kind.

Jesus did not say that all who heard His words would see those things happen, but that their generation would see those events fulfilled. Certainly some were dead before AD 70. That doesn't affect my interpretation. I am fully aware of other Greek words that some people try to apply to the Olivet Discourse. What truly gives a word its meaning is the context. In context, "race" or "kind" makes even less sense than trying to change Christ's words to mean "that generation" instead of "this generation". There is no place in the NT where "genea" is translated as "race". Imagine changing "genea" to mean "race" in Matthew 1:17. All the "races" from Abraham to David were 14 "races". Obviously that means "generation".

Also, @Lodic I am sure you agree that a large part of Revelation are referring to the same events just in more detail? That being the case, if Jesus meant his disciples would all see it, what would John write Revelation years after many of them were already dead? Unless you argue an early writing date which is bogus.

Yes, I do agree that much of Revelation simply provides more details to describing the same events. Jesus told His disciples that their generation would see those events take place. I do believe Revelation was written in the 60s, before the fall of Jerusalem. Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" provides very compelling arguments for this view. Well worth the 400 page read.

 

[Lodic]

But the pret view makes Jesus a false prophet.

I'm sure @kyredneck won't mind my jumping in here. Earlier I posted why I believe the "futurist" view would make Jesus a false prophet. Why do you think the Preterist view would make Him a false prophet?

 

[Reformed1689]

I'm sure @kyredneck won't mind my jumping in here. Earlier I posted why I believe the "futurist" view would make Jesus a false prophet. Why do you think the Preterist view would make Him a false prophet?

For one thing, he has not returned.

 

[Reformed1689]

Jesus did not say that all who heard His words would see those things happen, but that their generation would see those events fulfilled. Certainly some were dead before AD 70. That doesn't affect my interpretation. I am fully aware of other Greek words that some people try to apply to the Olivet Discourse. What truly gives a word its meaning is the context. In context, "race" or "kind" makes even less sense than trying to change Christ's words to mean "that generation" instead of "this generation". There is no place in the NT where "genea" is translated as "race". Imagine changing "genea" to mean "race" in Matthew 1:17. All the "races" from Abraham to David were 14 "races". Obviously that means "generation".


Yes, I do agree that much of Revelation simply provides more details to describing the same events. Jesus told His disciples that their generation would see those events take place. I do believe Revelation was written in the 60s, before the fall of Jerusalem. Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" provides very compelling arguments for this view. Well worth the 400 page read.

LOL there are absolutely no compelling arguments for the early date. None. Historical evidence also shows the later date. As far as all, I was not suggesting all had to see it, there was something you had said that made me write it that way but I can't remember what it was at the moment. My main point is that the events have not happened. They haven't. There is no amount of twisting you can do to say that they have. They have not. Christ has not returned to this earth. He hasn't. Anyone who says he has is either delusional or dishonest. That alone shows there must be a different understanding of what generation is being discussed.

 

[robycop3]

Hard to mis-interpret words that are so clearly spoken. Your "proof" is more like circular reasoning - it hasn't happened yet because you don't believe it's happened yet.

It's OBVIOUS it hasn't happened yet. If it had, Jesus would physically be here now.

The "great city" of Rev 17:18 is the same "great city from Rev 11:8 - Jerusalem.

No, it's not. Remember, it's the great city that RULES OVER THE KINGS OF THE EARTH. And THAT, of course, was ROME.

Rev 1:7 says "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth (land) will mourn over Him". In context, the Jews would understand the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple to be His return in judgment.

And, of course, He HASN'T yet returned.And He WON'T, of course, til the beast is in power, as per Rev. 19.

If there were only one possible interpretation for much of what we are debating, we would not disagree in the first place.

There's only one possible CORRECT interp.

The time indicators in the rest of Revelation, the Olivet Discourse, and other NT prophecies prove these events were to take place in the 1st Century.

...Except that they DIDN'T!

While I'm not positive as to what Rev 19:19 does mean, I am positive as to what it cannot mean.

You'd know EXACTLY what it meant if you didn't believe Gentry over JESUS.

Your "proofs" are nothing more than your opinions and interpretations.

...which are solidly backed by indisputable Scripture & history, while YOURS are backed by the blather of Gentry & some other snake oil salesmen.

Same as all other prets, you CANNOT answer the paramount question which renders preterism false.

IF THE PROPHECIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED, HOW COME JESUS ISN'T PHYSICALLY HERE, RULING THE WORLD ????????????????????????????????

 

[Lodic]

For one thing, he has not returned.

His 1st Century audience saw the sign of His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem.

LOL there are absolutely no compelling arguments for the early date. None. Historical evidence also shows the later date. As far as all, I was not suggesting all had to see it, there was something you had said that made me write it that way but I can't remember what it was at the moment. My main point is that the events have not happened. They haven't. There is no amount of twisting you can do to say that they have. They have not. Christ has not returned to this earth. He hasn't. Anyone who says he has is either delusional or dishonest. That alone shows there must be a different understanding of what generation is being discussed.

To the contrary, there is much more evidence for an early date than there is for a late date. Rather than digress into a debate about that, I'll follow your lead. The main point is that those events have happened. I don't have to twist Scripture to make my point. The actual, physical 2nd Coming of Christ is definitely in our future. As you say, anyone who says otherwise is mistaken or lying.

 

[Lodic]

There's only one possible CORRECT interp.

Yes. You just need to realize it's the Preterist interpretation instead of the Futurist Fantasy.

Same as all other prets, you CANNOT answer the paramount question which renders preterism false.

You Futurists cannot provide a Biblical to refute the fact that the "time indicator" texts all point to a 1st Century fulfillment of the Great Tribulation, AOD, etc. "Soon" means soon - unless Jesus said it. "Near" means near - unless Jesus said it. "This generation" means this generation - unless Jesus said it when discussing future events. You would be wise to stop trying to change what Jesus meant, and try to understand HOW these events were fulfilled.

 

[robycop3]

Yes. You just need to realize it's the Preterist interpretation instead of the Futurist Fantasy.

No, he pret guesswork is completely incorrect, as has been shown on several threads here.

You Futurists cannot provide a Biblical to refute the fact that the "time indicator" texts all point to a 1st Century fulfillment of the Great Tribulation, AOD, etc. "Soon" means soon - unless Jesus said it. "Near" means near - unless Jesus said it. "This generation" means this generation - unless Jesus said it when discussing future events. You would be wise to stop trying to change what Jesus meant, and try to understand HOW these events were fulfilled.

Jesus said EXACTLY what He meant-and the events will be fulfilled as He said they'd be.

 

[Lodic]

Jesus said EXACTLY what He meant-and the events will be fulfilled as He said they'd be.

Precisely my point. This exactness included the prophecy that all those events would be fulfilled within the generation of His immediate audience. Either they were not fulfilled exactly as He said and He actually meant something else, or the events did come to pass.

 

[Reformed1689]

His 1st Century audience saw the sign of His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem.

But with all due respect, that was only part of what Jesus prophesied. The destruction that is, that was not him coming.

The Coming of the Son of Man
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mt 24:29–31.


When have these things happened? Please be specific.

 

[Reformed1689]

You Futurists cannot provide a Biblical to refute the fact that the "time indicator" texts all point to a 1st Century fulfillment of the Great Tribulation, AOD, etc. "Soon" means soon - unless Jesus said it. "Near" means near - unless Jesus said it. "This generation" means this generation - unless Jesus said it when discussing future events. You would be wise to stop trying to change what Jesus meant, and try to understand HOW these events were fulfilled.

Sure we can and have. You have the bigger problem of the events not having taken place.

 

[Lodic]

But with all due respect, that was only part of what Jesus prophesied. The destruction that is, that was not him coming.

I really appreciate the fact that truly do argue your points with respect, and not just with me.
Having said that, I must disagree, Brother. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus told His disciples "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

When did the tribes of the earth (land) mourn? When did they "see" the Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven? When did He send out His angels with the trumpet call? The time for each of those events is the same, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. I believe Jesus was using symbolic language with the "clouds of heaven" and "sending out His angels". I believe that passage refers to the spread of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Sure we can and have. You have the bigger problem of the events not having taken place.

I don't see where the Partial Preterist view has a problem at all. These events were fulfilled within the generation of Christ's immediate audience. The "time indicator" texts support this view perfectly.

 

[Reformed1689]

I really appreciate the fact that truly do argue your points with respect, and not just with me.
Having said that, I must disagree, Brother. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus told His disciples "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

When did the tribes of the earth (land) mourn? When did they "see" the Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven? When did He send out His angels with the trumpet call? The time for each of those events is the same, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. I believe Jesus was using symbolic language with the "clouds of heaven" and "sending out His angels". I believe that passage refers to the spread of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem.


I don't see where the Partial Preterist view has a problem at all. These events were fulfilled within the generation of Christ's immediate audience. The "time indicator" texts support this view perfectly.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Our main points of disagreement:

1. The meaning of generation.
2. The literalness of the event of Christ's coming.

 

[robycop3]

Precisely my point. This exactness included the prophecy that all those events would be fulfilled within the generation of His immediate audience. Either they were not fulfilled exactly as He said and He actually meant something else, or the events did come to pass.

No, JESUS wasn't wrong, of course. Your(or Gentry's) interp of His words is wrong.

For example, "this generation" in Matt. 24. You were asked to study the meanings of the Greek word 'genea'. Just ONE of its meanings is "all the people born at or near the same time, mentioned collectively". It can also mean "a people, tribe, etc." Have you considered THAT mighta been what Jesus meant, especially as the prophesied events didn't then occur, & Jesus included events that are still going on today?

And you admitted you didn't understand Rev. 19. It's VERY EASY to understand. Jesus comes from heaven in great power & glory, accompanied by His saints, & the beast & his allies send their armies to attack Him. But the beast & the false prophet are captured & cast alive into hell. Now, Jesus said He'd return IMMEDIATELY AFTER the great trib ended, so if the trib has already happened, He's 'WAY overdue! TRUTH is, the trib hasn't yet occurred, or Jesus would be here physically, ruling the world.

Also, Rev. 19 makes it plain that the beast will be in power when Jesus returns. Thus, it's undeniably OBVIOUS that the beast hasn't yet come.

And the notion that Rome was the beast & Israel the FP is MORE-THAN ABSURD! Neither of them was, nor will be, cast alive into hell! They'll be individual men.

So, Rev. 19 **PROVES** that the prophesied eschatological events haven't yet occurred. There's simply no way prets can get around the reality of history & the truth of Scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

For one thing, he has not returned.

It was a return in judgment....not the second coming.