The Pros & Cons of Preterism

[freeway]

Wow, I'm reading warhorse and thinking it warforg then realize its warfrog and thinking its warhorse,or was warfrog and thinking it warhorse, warfrog, warhorse... forget it.. that hurts.

 

[freeway]

Stormcrow;541165]We'll see.
Show me the passage where Christ is crucified on Golgotha again and the
Jews are faced with God's wrath again.

Not sure why you would want that scripture, I never alluded to a second Crucifixion only a second future coming of Jesus?

Here's what my Bible says:
{22} because these are days of vengeance,
so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. Luke 21:22
(NASB)
All things written regarding God's vengeance appear in Leviticus 26:14-46.
It's part of the Mosaic Covenant. Read it sometime. Note these words:
{27} 'Yet if in spite of this you do not obey
Me, but act with hostility against Me, Leviticus 26:27
(NASB)
What does He say He'll do???
{31} ~'I will lay waste your cities as
well and will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your
soothing aromas. {32} ~'I will make the land
desolate so that your enemies who settle in it will be appalled over it.
{33} ~'You, however, I will scatter among the
nations and will draw out a sword after you, as your land becomes desolate and
your cities become waste. Leviticus 26:31-33 (NASB)
{36} "Truly I say to you, all these things will
come upon this generation. Matthew 23:36 (NASB) The desolation God visited upon them for rejecting Christ – literally acting
with hostility toward Him – happened (most recently) in 70 AD. Jerusalem
remains desolate to this day: the Temple is gone. The priesthood is gone. The
sacrifices are gone. The last vestige of the Mosaic Covenant – the
punishment Jerusalem and the tribes of Israel would suffer – was fulfilled in 70
AD. The Mosaic Covenant ended with that generation. There is no further
punishment which awaits Israel except that which awaits any of us who disbelieve
in Him. Therefore, your “interpretation” - which fails to account for
this – fails. Epically.

Stromcrow, I am not saying that these thing did not happen to the Jews. No not at all. Why can there not be a dual prophecy the near, time on Christ crucfixion and then a latter, 7 yr tribulation. Now if you are trying to tell me you have the bible figured out so as there are no more questions, nothing is hidden from you, you cannot be wrong... well then your wrong. I never said these things you list has not befell the Nation of Israel. I only say that it does not take a Coming of Jesus before the death of John, or 70 Ad to make these prophecies work.

Again, you're ignoring an important point about all this:
{1} The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take
place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His
bond-servant John, Revelation 1:1 (NASB)
{3} Blessed is he who reads and those who hear
the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it;
for the time is near. Revelation 1:3 (NASB)
"Soon" and "near" clearly refer to the time, place, and people to whom
John was writing these things. In other words, he was not writing this to or
for you!
Just four verses later, John – at Christ's behest – wrote this:
{7} Behold, he comes with the clouds, and
every eye shall see him, and they which have pierced him, and all the
tribes of the land shall wail because of him. Yea. Amen.
Revelation 1:7 (Darby)
Hmmm...why would they do that??
{41} When He [Christ] approached
Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, {42} saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the
things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. {43} "For the days will come upon you when your enemies
will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every
side, {44} and they will level you to the ground
and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon
another, because you did not recognize the time of your
visitation." Luke 19:41-44 (NASB)

Not sure what your driving at here, but, Is not he story of Joesph a mirror of Jesus, three days in the ground etc etc. Israel was surrounded by emenies in 70 ad, and will be again.. just look at the news..

If you're going to play "gotcha" with me, you'd better heed this timely advice:
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

No problem.........................I'll bring my sword!:D

 

[Stormcrow]

The four "contexts" of successful apocalyptic hermeneutics:

Literary: the actual text itself;
Socio-Cultural: the people to whom and for whom it was written;
Spatial: place;
Temporal: time or timeliness.

Very few people understand the importance of all four of these working together for proper Bible study. It is possible to accurately quote the text literally, but still misinterpret a given passage by taking the verse out of one or more of the other three contexts in which it must be seen.

A perfect example of this is the recent spate of posts citing Revelation 1:1:

{1} The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, Revelation 1:1 (NASB)

The first interpretive test is the literary one: is there any reason to believe that the word "soon" in 65 AD means something other than "soon" as we understand it?

To understand this in the proper literary context, we look for other passages in the Bible itself that might define "soon" as meaning - for instance - 2,000+ years from the time John wrote it.

If no such definition exists, we then ask, did "soon" mean something different to the people John was writing than it does to us, i.e. if a man were working in the field and his wife sent their son to tell him, "dinner will be ready soon", would he expect an imminent meal, or would he expect to wait 2,000+ years for it? Would we?

If "soon" conveys imminence to the hearer or reader of a given culture, then we next ask if "soon" meant something to people from different cultures or places.

Does the word "soon" convey to the Greek the same sense of imminence that it does to the Canadian, or would the Canadian expect the word to mean something completely different (no Canadian jokes here, please!)?

If not, does the word "soon" change over time, for instance meaning 2000+ years in 65 AD, but conveying a sense of imminence now?

If not, then we are left to conclude that the word "soon" - when taken in all these proper contexts - means that the readers of John's letters in middle 1st century Asia (Turkey), were lead to believe that the words written in Revelation were for them, written in and for the time and place where they were, and that any attempt to interpret these words to mean something else is sophistry.

Now, if "soon" meant the same to them as it does to us, but people either ignore it or try to put a different "spin" on it, then they are purposely misinterpreting the Bible. Wouldn't that be the definition of a "false teacher?"

Put the words of the "puzzle" known to be literally true and easily defined in place first, then use them as the foundation on which to build the rest. In other words, if "soon" means "imminent" for the churches of the first century, start building an understanding of the word from that, instead of either throwing "soon" away or trying to force it into a doctrine where it can't possibly fit.

Take it for what you paid for it. :

 

[Stormcrow]

Why can there not be a dual prophecy the near, time on Christ crucfixion and then a latter, 7 yr tribulation.

Because the Bible does not support a seven year tribulation, as addressed here, here, here, and here.

I summarized the post in that last link with these words:

The covenant of David - confirmed with Christ's earthly ministry - was fulfilled in the middle of this 70th week with the death of Christ that forever put an end to the need for the atoning sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant. His sacrificial and substitutionary death forever placed Christ on David's throne, seated at the "right hand of the Father."

It was a covenant "confirmed with many" (Dan. 9:27a) that both established Christ's kingdom forever - a kingdom NOT of this world - and sealed with His own blood our redemption: "poured out for many." (Matt. 26:28)

The covenant itself is an eternal covenant "confirmed with many" for one week but fulfilled in the midst of it! That's how Daniel 9:27 really reads.

Even the Book of Revelation indicates the "great tribulation" would be - at most - 3.5 years!

So if Daniel 9 doesn't support a 7-year covenant; if Revelation specifically refutes it, and from church history and world events we KNOW that the tribulation of the church has been on-going since the martyrdom of Stephen, then there is no Biblical support for a 7-year trib. And since there is not, why do you continue to believe it and promote it? It's a false teaching.

Now if you are trying to tell me you have the bible figured out so as there are no more questions, nothing is hidden from you, you cannot be wrong... well then your wrong.

I've never written or insinuated any such thing! However, I do believe I have a better understanding of the fundamentals of Biblical hermeneutics than you.

What I've learned of the scripture since I took the doctrinal blinders off and began reading it as written is a wonderful harmony to it across all books and ages: a harmony that doesn't require me to throw half of it out to believe someone else's interpretation of it. That's where I see most people are in their understanding today. It's unfortunate.

Israel was surrounded by emenies in 70 ad, and will be again.. just look at the news.

That's exactly where we differ, because while you see Israel being destroyed, I see her being restored:

{21} "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; {22} and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. Ezekiel 37:21-22 (NASB)
​

I believe the news you see today: Turkey, Libya, Persian (Iran) and Ethiopia - all Islamic states - portend of Israel's coming salvation, not destruction.

But that's just me.

Jerusalem has already been judged for her disobedience in rejecting Messiah. I believe God is working - through the church and world events - to bring Israel back into His fold, for the sake of His promises to them.

{39} "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" Matthew 23:39 (NASB)

That's why I can say with certainty, that Jesus' coming in the clouds happened in 70 AD as judgment against Jerusalem. Jerusalem won't see Him again until they accept Him as an act of faith - as must we all.

For what it's worth.

 

[jasoncran]

Wow, I'm reading warhorse and thinking it warforg then realize its warfrog and thinking its warhorse,or was warfrog and thinking it warhorse, warfrog, warhorse... forget it.. that hurts.

i will change mine to battlefrog

 

[Sam21]

The four "contexts" of successful apocalyptic hermeneutics:

Literary: the actual text itself;
Socio-Cultural: the people to whom and for whom it was written;
Spatial: place;
Temporal: time or timeliness.

Very few people understand the importance of all four of these working together for proper Bible study. It is possible to accurately quote the text literally, but still misinterpret a given passage by taking the verse out of one or more of the other three contexts in which it must be seen.

A perfect example of this is the recent spate of posts citing Revelation 1:1:

{1} The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, Revelation 1:1 (NASB)

The first interpretive test is the literary one: is there any reason to believe that the word "soon" in 65 AD means something other than "soon" as we understand it?

To understand this in the proper literary context, we look for other passages in the Bible itself that might define "soon" as meaning - for instance - 2,000+ years from the time John wrote it.

If no such definition exists, we then ask, did "soon" mean something different to the people John was writing than it does to us, i.e. if a man were working in the field and his wife sent their son to tell him, "dinner will be ready soon", would he expect an imminent meal, or would he expect to wait 2,000+ years for it? Would we?

If "soon" conveys imminence to the hearer or reader of a given culture, then we next ask if "soon" meant something to people from different cultures or places.

Does the word "soon" convey to the Greek the same sense of imminence that it does to the Canadian, or would the Canadian expect the word to mean something completely different (no Canadian jokes here, please!)?

If not, does the word "soon" change over time, for instance meaning 2000+ years in 65 AD, but conveying a sense of imminence now?

If not, then we are left to conclude that the word "soon" - when taken in all these proper contexts - means that the readers of John's letters in middle 1st century Asia (Turkey), were lead to believe that the words written in Revelation were for them, written in and for the time and place where they were, and that any attempt to interpret these words to mean something else is sophistry.

Now, if "soon" meant the same to them as it does to us, but people either ignore it or try to put a different "spin" on it, then they are purposely misinterpreting the Bible. Wouldn't that be the definition of a "false teacher?"

Put the words of the "puzzle" known to be literally true and easily defined in place first, then use them as the foundation on which to build the rest. In other words, if "soon" means "imminent" for the churches of the first century, start building an understanding of the word from that, instead of either throwing "soon" away or trying to force it into a doctrine where it can't possibly fit.

Take it for what you paid for it. :

What you wrote is absolutely true,now practice that same kind of truthfulness and admit the truth, that those things described in the book of Rev and by Jesus about His return to gather the believers,HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. Christians are between a rock and a hard place, they know that the NT tells us that all the end times things were about to occur and they also know that 1900 years has went by and they have not occured. So one side says that "shortly" does not mean shortly as we know it(dishonest), but you are saying all the events took place when we all know that in fact they have not(dishonest). Instead of writing about that soon means soon,instead explain why we are not in the new heaven and earth since that happens after the return of Christ,why pain is still here,why death is still here,why evil is still here,why the sun did not go black and all the people of the earth mourn at His return.

 

[Hitch]

What you wrote is absolutely true,now practice that same kind of truthfulness and admit the truth, that those things described in the book of Rev and by Jesus about His return to gather the believers,HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. Christians are between a rock and a hard place, they know that the NT tells us that all the end times things were about to occur and they also know that 1900 years has went by and they have not occured.

That should tell you something about confusing 'end times' with the 'last days ' of ancient Israel

So one side says that "shortly" does not mean shortly as we know it(dishonest), but you are saying all the events took place when we all know that in fact they have not(dishonest). Instead of writing about that soon means soon,

God's choice of words was perfect

instead explain why we are not in the new heaven and earth since that happens after the return of Christ,why pain is still here,why death is still here,why evil is still here,why the sun did not go black and all the people of the earth mourn at His return.

Do you really think what is termed in scripture as 'heavens and earth' are unchanged from Noah's day to our own? Futurism (DF) often demonstrates a low view of the cross&resurrection some going so far as to say the church is a mere interruption in God's plan. You seem to know better while still grasping vines of misplaced literalism.

But please, the question, Is all the same in the cosmos as before the Resurrection ?

 

[warhorse]

I do and I think Storm agrees but he and I have never discussed the matter. You can fairly say I take a strict literal stance in R 1-3.

Taking pains to note Warhorse is the questioner lol

So you assert that Rev 1-3 must be complete, but not all of revelation is complete, is that correct.

 

[Stormcrow]

What you wrote is absolutely true,now practice that same kind of truthfulness and admit the truth, that those things described in the book of Rev and by Jesus about His return to gather the believers,HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE.

Hmmm...must've struck a nerve with that one.

Tell me: do the words "soon" and "near" mean the same thing now as they did back then?

If so, you need to adjust your thinking around what some of the other words in Revelation mean. You can find those other words defined in the OT. Time to dust off that part of the Bible you never use!

 

[Sam21]

That should tell you something about confusing 'end times' with the 'last days ' of ancient Israel God's choice of words was perfect Do you really think what is termed in scripture as 'heavens and earth' are unchanged from Noah's day to our own? Futurism (DF) often demonstrates a low view of the cross&resurrection some going so far as to say the church is a mere interruption in God's plan. You seem to know better while still grasping vines of misplaced literalism.

But please, the question, Is all the same in the cosmos as before the Resurrection ?

If you have scripture of something changing in the cosmos after the resurrection then present it please.

 

[Hitch]

So you assert that Rev 1-3 must be complete, but not all of revelation is complete, is that correct.

I assert that the bulk of the Apocalypse is concerned with the eschatological destruction of ancient Israel rather than the 'end times' or Second Advent of Christ.

 

[warhorse]

wait till we have a warfrog and warhorse and a warpig!

I choose warhorse for my gamertag a few years ago once i discovered that my old gamertag (lobo rocks) was often mistaken for a gay band named LOBO.
Warhorse was a referance to Prov 21v31... A warhorse is a dumb animal that runs into battle, as he is guided by his master, unarmed and totally dependant on the masters lead. Strong in faith, but dependant on Gods protection and provision is who i aspire to be.

 

[Hitch]

If you have scripture of something changing in the cosmos after the resurrection then present it please.

• Matthew 27:51
  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
  Matthew 27:50-52 (in Context) Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter)
• Mark 15:38
  And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
  Mark 15:37-39 (in Context) Mark 15 (Whole Chapter)
• Luke 23:45
  And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
  Luke 23:44-46 (in Context) Luke 23 (Whole Chapter)

22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

• 
  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
  
  

None of this was true before Christ appeared.

 

[Sam21]

Hmmm...must've struck a nerve with that one.

Tell me: do the words "soon" and "near" mean the same thing now as they did back then?

If so, you need to adjust your thinking around what some of the other words in Revelation mean. You can find those other words defined in the OT. Time to dust off that part of the Bible you never use!

Of course "soon" and "near" mean the same thing now as they did back in the first century, also coming in the sky where every eye will see and gathering the believers off the earth, means the same thing now as it did back then. The apostles were not gathered off the earth,they died,so one would think that that event has not yet happened. You are applying literal interpretation of 'soon&near' but you refuse to apply the same literal interpretation to 'coming in the sky where every eye will see and gathering the believers', why the double standard,it makes your position look very bias.

 

[warhorse]

I assert that the bulk of the Apocalypse is concerned with the eschatological destruction of ancient Israel rather than the 'end times' or Second Advent of Christ.

The Bulk but not all, is that correct?

 

[Hitch]

The Bulk but not all, is that correct?

What part(s) concerned with the Second advent obviously remain future, but I doubt much of it does.

Any event thousands of years removed from the original audience cannot be assumed, despite tradition, to be included.

 

[Hitch]

Of course "soon" and "near" mean the same thing now as they did back in the first century, also coming in the sky where every eye will see and gathering the believers off the earth, means the same thing now as it did back then. The apostles were not gathered off the earth,they died,so one would think that that event has not yet happened.

7Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen



Twice above you include a gathering, this is your selected text and I dont see any mention of a 'gathering' in this verse or anywhere in the entire first chapter.

You are applying literal interpretation of 'soon&near' but you refuse to apply the same literal interpretation to 'coming in the sky where every eye will see and gathering the believers', why the double standard,it makes your position look very bias.

It has already been mentioned and Storm has already put up the OT reference.

You ,so far as I 've seen , are yet to deal with the OT reference or the more obvious redundancy, if we apply strict literalism to 'evry eye' why include 'even those who pierced him". ? This repetition rather than strengthening the 'every eye' literalist approach , points to the importance of the original reference,and it is plain the emphasis here in on Israel not the planet as a whole. The righteous of Israel mourned at the cross, the apostates mourn at the destruction. Im sure you woud not insist that Jesus is literally a part of the Greek alphabet.

*

• Zechariah 12:10
  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
• 
  
  

 

[warhorse]

What part(s) concerned withe Second advent obviously remain future, but I doubt much of it does.

Any event thousands of years removed from the original audience cannot be assumed, despite tradition, to be included.

Ok i just wanted to clarify, because it was the entire revelation given to John that was pronounced to be shortly to come. Not just a part.

Rev1v1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Reminds me of an old joke. A man gets on an airplane and as he sets down he notices that the women seated next to him is very attractive, after talking to here for some time he makes an indescent proposal, he says i am a very wealthy man and will pay you one million dollars for you to spend one night with me. she thinks about it and accepts, then when she arrives at his room he says, before we start i have to admitt i dont have a million dollars will you accept a hundred dollars instead. She says why sir! what kind of woman do you take me for! And he says ma'am we have allready established that !!! now we are just negotiating the price...

You see both of our positions deem some of Rev complete and some not. Now we are haggling over what happened shortly by our standards and what did not. Both positions accept that not all of revelation was completed by our own interpretation of shortly. So quit demanding that my position fit into standards that your own position does not. Gods version of shortly is simply longer than we expect, no suprise there, as God has shown over and over again that he has far more patience than i do. Hundreds to thousands of years between prophacy and its fullfillment would be the norm.

 

[Hitch]

Ok i just wanted to clarify, because it was the entire revelation given to John that was pronounced to be shortly to come. Not just a part.

Rev1v1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Reminds me of an old joke. A man gets on an airplane and as he sets down he notices that the women seated next to him is very attractive, after talking to here for some time he makes an indescent proposal, he says i am a very wealthy man and will pay you one million dollars for you to spend one night with me. she thinks about it and accepts, then when she arrives at his room he says, before we start i have to admitt i dont have a million dollars will you accept a hundred dollars instead. She says why sir! what kind of woman do you take me for! And he says ma'am we have allready established that !!! now we are just negotiating the price...

You see both of our positions deem some of Rev complete and some not. Now we are haggling over what happened shortly by our standards and what did not. Both positions accept that not all of revelation was completed by our own interpretation of shortly. So quit demanding that my position fit into standards that your own position does not. Gods version of shortly is simply longer than we expect, no suprise there, as God has shown over and over again that he has far more patience than i do. Hundreds to thousands of years between prophacy and its fullfillment would be the norm.

. Gods version of shortly is simply longer than we expect,


The' God's time is different bit' is so weak I m surprised any body still tries to use it. But if it made sense we could apply it to every word in the entire book.

What you are attempting is to make God's plain statements unknowable as though He were incapable of communication the notion is patently ridiculous and smacks of desperation.

You can do better.

 

[Sam21]

. Gods version of shortly is simply longer than we expect,


The' God's time is different bit' is so weak I m surprised any body still tries to use it. But if it made sense we could apply it to every word in the entire book.

What you are attempting is to make God's plain statements unknowable as though He were incapable of communication the notion is patently ridiculous and smacks of desperation.

You can do better.

It can be applied to much of the bible,have you ever noticed that God told Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit he would die,Adam ate the fruit and in fact he did not die for another 900years! So the bible starts off with a strange and huge time lapse between the time when God told Adam he would die and the day he actually died