Fear of Preterism

[Back To The Future]

I would like to know why there is so much fear and down right nasty answers sometimes to the preterists that are here?

I didn't believe this way for most of my life. But knew instantly that what preterism teaches is the truth when I started to read and learn for myself. (I don't bite)

I may not agree with what others think or believe, but I don't get mean about it.

I suppose this will get moved somewhere. So please just let me know where :P

Nancy :wave:

[armothe]

It seems most of the conflict arrives from the fact that Preterists believe Christ already came.

Hence, Preterists deny that He is yet to come.

When fellow christians hear that Preterists deny that He is yet to come, they tend to become quite emotional and start quoting verses that he promised to come again.

It seems that most are uneducated about the Preterist position and make inaccurate assumptions.

-A

[gwyyn]

What I don't understand is if christ has already came, then why is Revelation in the bible???

[jenlu]

gwynn...

Revelations is God being Judge, Jury and Executioner, of His Word...Showing His might which cannot be comprehended for us to know and believe that in Jesus Christ we are more than conquerors with Him...

Now on the parts about what would seem to be Judgement Day, I am not at the point that I would say this has occured...so if that is true...it also gives you something to look forward too...but if Judgement Day truly has passed then it still shows you victory in Jesus...

[jenlu]

franklin

Don't you think you're being a bit harsh...I don't know if you were ever a dispensationalist or the like, but when you came to this "truth" weren't there a lot of questions...this I believe is just one of those...

[armothe]

Revelation was meant for us, today, to read, and realize that all end time events (as recorded in Revelation) have been fulfilled; and that we are now living in God's new kingdom.

-A

[franklin]

Originally posted by Back To The Future
I would like to know why there is so much fear and down right nasty answers sometimes to the preterists that are here?

I didn't believe this way for most of my life. But knew instantly that what preterism teaches is the truth when I started to read and learn for myself. (I don't bite)

I may not agree with what others think or believe, but I don't get mean about it.

I suppose this will get moved somewhere. So please just let me know where :P

Nancy :wave:

Hi Nancy, When I first learned about preterism I started sharing what I found out with some of my fellow Christian friends and all I got was negitive answers and responses and I really believe that is what drove me to dig in even more to learn and find out what this new truth was all about! So far I've only shared preterism with a few people I am close to but I am seriously going to be coming out of the closet very soon whenever I attend another Bible study. I think the more you learn about preterism the Lord will give you the boldness to share the truth with others and that is one thing I'm praying for Him to give me more of everyday that goes by. I think it is pretty evident with what they think of us by how they have moved us around in this forum. As for your comments you are in the right forum (spirituality) at least for now anyway. So be of good cheer and don't let anything or anybody steal your joy!!!! :clap:

[Back To The Future]

I'm glad I am in the right place anyway. I got called on the carpet today for braking rule number6?? I have just been so confussed about where we are allowed and where we are not.

I learned today that people are really afraid of preterism. I am not considered a Christian because I don't fit all the rules about being one. I believe CHrist came and fulfilled all his prophecy that counts me out I guess.

I wonder what the Lord would say to me?
down but not out.
Blessings
Nancy :angel:

[franklin]

Originally posted by Back To The Future
I'm glad I am in the right place anyway. I got called on the carpet today for braking rule number6?? I have just been so confussed about where we are allowed and where we are not.

I learned today that people are really afraid of preterism. I am not considered a Christian because I don't fit all the rules about being one. I believe CHrist came and fulfilled all his prophecy that counts me out I guess.

I wonder what the Lord would say to me?
down but not out.
Blessings
Nancy :angel:

Nancy, Stand firm girl and don't let these people intimidate you! You have all the support you need not only from me but from some of the other veteran pret's in this forum, Parouisa, GW, Armoth, just to name a few right guys? Let's lift up this new convert in Christ who has had her heart pierced with the light of God's truth of the scriptures!! Do I hear an amen out there??? come on now! let's have church here!! I wanna hear some shouting and praising going on in this room! Nancy, I believe the Lord is saying to you right now, well done thou good and faithful servant! You know why? Because you believe every single word his precious Son Jesus said to His followers would come to pass and you are not making any excuses about His word not being fulfilled!! What do think about that? Jesus confronted the Pharisee's and called them a bunch of vipers and snakes and they hated Him for it and set out to kill him. He told them they were full of dead mens bones and they had no life in themselves!
He also told them they would see the destruction of their holy er that thou temple! Was that future for them? You betcha! So just lift up your head and praise His holy name! :clap: :clap: can I get some witnesses out there or what??? :clap:

[Defender of the Faith 777]

I know, I'm left out. What exactly is preterism? I hear it a lot, and I'm absolutely ignorant to this concept.

[ZiSunka]

If I'm not mistaken, preterists believe that most of the Bible is bunk. Since we are Bible-believing Christians, we are outraged when someone says the Bible is bunk. That's why we get mad at preterists. Makes sense, doesn't it?

[franklin]

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
I know, I'm left out. What exactly is preterism? I hear it a lot, and I'm absolutely ignorant to this concept.

Hi Defender, Welcome aboard brother! I was just like you when I first discovered preterism on the internet last year! I couldn't belive what I was reading! Is that how you felt? I read something like the second coming has already happened! I thought, ooookaaay! This is a joke right? I read on a little more and these folks were not joking bro! Preterism is the total fulfillment of all the prophecies that Jesus predicted would come to pass to the generation of believers during His lifetime. I could go into a lot of detail but by that I mean all the prophecies, Jesus second appearing, satan's defeat, the gospel preached to all the world, all the judgements, white throne, judgement seat and everything in Revelation all came to pass just as Jesus and all the inspired writers of the NT proclaimed! Some of the other members have more knowledge then I and can explain things a lot better then I since I still consider myself new also.
If your looking for some good info and books on the subject go to: www.bibleprophecy.com there will find some books on preterism by some great Godly men. I would recommend books by Gene Fadeley, "REVELATION:Kingdoms in Conflict" That was the first Preterist book I read and have been reading books by other authors as well.... John Noe is another one. I would highly recommend you looking into his writings also. He has a very good down to earth approach to the reality of past fulfillment as opposed to the doctrine of imagination of futurism that has been deceiving the minds of so many over the years.
Cheers
franklin

[Back To The Future]

Thank you Franklin for those kind words. I know I am not at the level of a lot of other preterists, but I am trying to hold my ground.

I can not explain how I felt when I first grasped what preterism even was. I felt like the Lord just did a miracle for me. I laid in bed for weeks and just looked toward the shy and said, this is so awesome. Blessed be the name of the Lord. My mouth hung open for days. I must have been a site!!

Praise be to God who did what he said and we can believe that with our entire heart.
Those that don't understand can break my heart but not my spirit.
I give thanks for the truth and for other preterists who have gone before me, that take the time to help me further my knowledge.

Thank you again
Nancy :wave:

[parousia70]

Originally posted by lambslove
If I'm not mistaken, preterists believe that most of the Bible is bunk. Since we are Bible-believing Christians, we are outraged when someone says the Bible is bunk. That's why we get mad at preterists. Makes sense, doesn't it?

C'mon Lambslove, can you provide a quote from any preterist tht even remotely resembles what you just said??

Of course you can't, because it is blatantly false, and yes you are horribly mistaken. All preterists believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and you will not find a single one who disagrees with it.

At least be honest will ya?
Just admit you can't explain why you are angry at preterists instead of making something up that has absolutely zero truth.

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
What I don't understand is if christ has already came, then why is Revelation in the bible???

Revelation was written to warn specific 1st century Churches about what was to come to pass upon them "shortly" at the parousia of Christ.

It is preserved for all time for us to learn about how God wants us to live our lives in the kingdom.

Revelation was not written to the saints in Tidewater Virginia, or Fargo N. dakota, or Eugene Oregon in 2002, but to the 7 Churches in Asia Minor in the 1st century.

The Bible was not written to us, it was written for us.

Hope this helps.

[Josephus]

Would preterists be willing to conceed to the precedent of God using prophecy in double-fulfillments? Such as, the Davidic Psalms, the Feasts, and Israelogy?

If such precedents are a given in looking at biblical prophecy, I submit that the prophesies Jesus made were fulfilled in his day AND are meant to be fullfilled for another generation at the Last Day. I make this claim because we have precedent already God using prophecies for one situation to be a prophecy for something seperate and different in the further future!

I believe both Preterists and Futurists are right and correct, since both can be proven. What they don't realize is, that they both have just one piece of the larger puzzle, and that together, they both have the answer.

[davo]

Originally posted by lambslove
If I'm not mistaken, preterists believe that most of the Bible is bunk. Since we are Bible-believing Christians, we are outraged when someone says the Bible is bunk. That's why we get mad at preterists. Makes sense, doesn't it?

G'day lambslove :wave:

I'm happy to inform you that you are absolutely "mistaken" about "Preterism" -which I prefer to call "Covenant Eschatology, or "pantelism" -but that's another story. We don't believe ANY of the Bible is "bunk."

It is human nature to fear and reject what we don't understand or feel threatened by. Now you will not find one pret that has posted on this board that says anything like "parts of the are bunk" -you will read where some ill informed or plain mischievious "futurists" -of whatever persuasion, have said we say that -but without basis.

If a prophecy being fulfilled equals bunk then what do folk do who say Israel coming back into Palestine was the fulfillment of prophecy??? Bet they don't see their pet scriptures they say predicts this as bunk -hummm.

davo

[Mike Beidler]

Heck, while people are giving their preterist conversion testimonies, I figure I might as well give mine. Here's what www.planetpreterist.com (http://www.planetpreterist.com) posted on 13 May 2002:

Hi, everyone. My name is Mike Beidler and I … am a future preterist. Until early 2000, I was firmly entrenched in pre-tribulation dispensationalism. It was about that time that my best friend, a devout Roman Catholic, challenged me to defend the pre-tribulation rapture viewpoint using Scripture. Fancying myself fairly knowledgeable in all things Bible, I took his challenge to heart with a smug smile on my face.

I began to write a personal commentary on all passages in the NT dealing with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and to develop a timeline of eschatological events from scratch to see if I came up with the same conclusions the Tim LaHaye crowd does. I never did finish that commentary; I never got around to completing the timeline either. I began to see that I had been inserting my own views on eschatology, the nature of the church, current events, etc., into the Scriptures.

Just prior to my daughter’s birth in early 2000, I came across a used book titled The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, by Marvin Rosenthal. Skimming through the book, I was surprised to see that the argued viewpoint didn’t accept any of the major tribulation/rapture viewpoints as wholly correct. Figuring a good laugh was worth a few bucks, I bought the book and began to read. The “truth” presented in this book hit me like a Mack truck and I was forced to abandon a pre-tribulation rapture for a pre-wrath rapture viewpoint, which is essentially a synthesis of all the “truths” found in pre-, mid-, and post-tribulationism. The biggest “truth” I found in this book (as well as Robert Van Kampen’s The Sign and The Rapture Question Answered Plain and Simple) was that the “signs of the end” detailed in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse paralleled the opening of the seals of Revelation 6. (Allow me to digress for a moment and give you preterists a piece of advice: if you want a pre-tribulation rapturist to eventually convert to preterism, get him to become a pre-wrath rapturist first. It’s a real nice stepping-stone. The pre-wrath rapture viewpoint puts most of the eschatological events in the right chronological order, with the only problem being its futuristic timing.)

For the most part of two years, I preached the pre-wrath viewpoint and began to associate myself with The Sign Ministries (now a part of Sola Scriptura: www.solagroup.org (http://www.solagroup.org)). Then I asked a new friend of mine what he thought of the End Times, thinking he was a pre-tribulation rapturist, and that I could divide and conquer this man’s eschatological heart. He straight up told me: “Mike, you’re not ready for what I believe.” Refusing to back down, he directed me to R. C. Sproul’s The Last Days According to Jesus and David B. Curtis’ Berean Bible Church website (www.bereanbiblechurch.org (http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org)). I wasn’t particularly convinced of Sproul’s position and I thought Curtis was a heretic.

But the seed was planted … Several months ago, I was surprised to find a member of my Sunday School class teaching on what he believed to be the correct eschatology: partial preterism. He had not thoroughly researched the topic (and I was more informed on the finer points than he was), but he simply wanted to present the ideas he had come across in his search for “the truth.” He relied primarily on Sproul’s The Last Days … companion video series for his information. I asked to borrow them and, suffice to say, I was floored. (Another piece of advice: don’t have a potential convert to preterism start with Sproul’s book; have him or her start with Sproul’s superior video series.) After viewing this series, I rushed out to buy Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell, Jonathan Seraiah’s The End of All Things, and J. S. Russell’s The Parousia. Starting with Russell’s book, the seed began to sprout. In this case, the seedling was a bamboo shoot. (Have you ever seen bamboo grow???) As I began to research the partial preterist position (because, as you all know, consistent preterism is “heresy”!), I was still uncomfortable with some logical inconsistencies relating to issues such as a “Third Coming” of Jesus, two separate resurrections of the righteous and the wicked (whereas Daniel and John speak only of one general resurrection), etc. I began to wonder what the full preterist thought of these things. I was pleasantly surprised to find those inconsistencies resolved. I also discovered that the consistent preterist position was not heretical or offensive to my spirit, and I've begun to tread down this path to see where it takes me …

The reason I call myself a future preterist is because I know in my heart of hearts that preterism is the most hermeneutically correct eschatology, but I am still searching for answers.

...

Thanks in advance, everyone, for humoring my questions and being patient with me during my trek into this unknown country known as preterism.

Sincerely,

Mike Beidler, future preterist

[franklin]

Originally posted by parousia70


C'mon Lambslove, can you provide a quote from any preterist tht even remotely resembles what you just said??

Of course you can't, because it is blatantly false, and yes you are horribly mistaken. All preterists believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and you will not find a single one who disagrees with it.

At least be honest will ya?
Just admit you can't explain why you are angry at preterists instead of making something up that has absolutely zero truth.

Yoh Par, Franklin here.... Ya think we should report this Lambslayer dude to the task master for coming into our cell and disrupting our Bible study here? It sounds like he is breaking some of the rules such as maybe lack of respect for his fellow breathren in the Lord. Can you imagine the PM's we would get if we dropped in on the Eschatology forum on the other side of this place and said that futurists and dispensationalists believe the Bible is Bunk? hmmmm! We Pret's wouldn't say that because we have respect for our futurist brothers regardless of their beliefs!

[TheBear]

I was going to say that there is a huge difference between someone misunderstanding a belief system, and someone attacking an individual......huge difference. But, I see that someone closed this thread. :scratch:


John

[TheBear]

Not knowing who closed this thread, I will re-open the thread, with a final warning:

I am not taking any sides on the issues in this thread, what I will be doing is watching for anyone mistreating another. Differences of opinions, different interpretations of scripture, and strong belief in one's own belief system is one thing, but I have no more patience with personal attacks, by anyone!

The next person who resorts to personal attacks in this thread, will be banned for 48 hours.


John

[Acts6:5]

Would preterists be willing to conceed to the precedent of God using prophecy in double-fulfillments? Such as, the Davidic Psalms, the Feasts, and Israelogy?

If such precedents are a given in looking at biblical prophecy, I submit that the prophesies Jesus made were fulfilled in his day AND are meant to be fullfilled for another generation at the Last Day. I make this claim because we have precedent already God using prophecies for one situation to be a prophecy for something seperate and different in the further future!

I believe both Preterists and Futurists are right and correct, since both can be proven. What they don't realize is, that they both have just one piece of the larger puzzle, and that together, they both have the answer.

Hi Josephus! Excellent question; would preterists concede to the precedent of God using prophecy in double-fulfillments? I think GW or someone else has gone into depth about this in the past, but I'll see what I can add. We recognize that God has used Old Testament shadows to speak of New Testament realities. In that sense there is a "double-fulfillment" of sorts (and I use that term hestitantly). In some prophecies (certainly not all of them) there was an application in OT times and an application in NT times. An example of this would be Psalm 16, in which David spoke of himself and Christ.

So "double-fulfillment", in a sense, can be applied to certain passages from the OT (and I still hesitate to use that term). But the NT times were to be the fulfillment of those OT shadows, not the beginning of a new era of types and shadows. Preterists do not believe in triple or quadruple fulfillments. We believe in an OT shadow and a NT reality for certain prophecies. There is no biblical precident, for example, in taking Isaiah 13 concerning the destruction of ancient Bablyon by the Medes and applying a "future fulfillment" to America, Russia, and the end of the universe. There is no biblical principle in which there was to be an Old Testament Anti-Christ (Antiochus), and then two or three NT Anti-Christs (Nero, and some yet-to-be-known future guy).

Preterists do not believe that when Jesus warned His disciples "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh (Luke 21:20)" that there is any room for multiple fulfillments, as if every time Jerusalem is surrounded by armies over the next 2000 years Christ's disciples are supposed "flee to the mountians". If Luke 21 was not meant specifically for the 1st Century Discples Jesus spoke to, and if it was meant to have one or two or three fulfillments before the final, real fulfillment, then how can this passage truly be understood and obeyed? For an example of this, on the Eschatology forum I read a post in which someone stated that Jerusalem could be "surrounded by armies" now simply because Palestinians and other Arab neighbors are enemies of Israel, and they have countries that border Israel. Do you see the problem with this? "Armies surrounding Jerusalem" can now mean sporadic attacks by suicide bombers and neighboring enemy countries who are not even invading Israel at this point.

So who has the authority or the ability to discern for the entire Christian world if the final fulfillment has come rather then some multiple fulfillment? I would be very interested in finding out how many Christians today would actually be willing to abandon their homes, forever leaving their former lives behind them, and fleeing to the mountains to live the remainder of their lives the very next time Israel is invaded or Jerusalem is attacked.

I personally have a problem with this kind of futurist exegesis because other Christian offshoots (like Mormonism) apply this interprative process to justify their own existance. Isaiah 29:1-13 speaks of apostate Jerusalem (Israel) in the OT, but the LDS Church declares a "double fulfillment" of the passages, saying they also speak of an ancient civilization of Israelites in the Americas some 400 years after Christ, and of the coming of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. Christians are aghast at this kind of interpretive process used by Mormons, and yet these very same Christians use the exact same interpretive principle to find Russia, apache helicopters, and nuclear war in various biblical passages. Something's wrong here.

I've recently bought a book called Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period by Richard Longenecker that investigates the hermenuetical principles Jesus and the Disciples used when applying OT passages to the NT times. It should shed a great deal of light on the subject of "double fulfillments" and such. I'll try to remember to get back to you when I'm done reading it and give you my impressions.

If some other preterists would like to add to this, please feel free.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[jenlu]

Mike Beidler,

Hey...about 4 or 5 years ago, I started my journey into (though I didn't know at the time it was called preterism) this eye-opening way of reading the Bible...For years I was a mind blowing dispensationalist...I once even had the audacity to tell one of my brothers that his son(4 at the time) would never see age 20...I've apologized since...towards the last 2 or 3 years of my dispensationalist leanings I started seeing things that didn't quite add up in scripture for dispensationalist viewpoint...time texts were a big one...I'd always sluff it off in my own mind and not really deal with it...it took a couple of years, but I finally started reading the Bible correctly...Well anyway...I've just heard of the full preterist view just a couple weeks ago and I don't buy the 2nd coming/Judgement Day/Resurrection Day has already past yet...What about you?...anyway, welcome to the journey...it's long and tough, but so worth it...

[jenlu]

Acts 6:5
Very nice response ;)

[Acts6:5]

Thanks, Bro. :)

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Josephus
Would preterists be willing to conceed to the precedent of God using prophecy in double-fulfillments?

Hi Josephus,
Thanks for joining the discussion.

Acts5 did a great job of addressing you question, and I find myself in agreement with him.

I'd like to add a question to you that I have posed to everyone I have come across who champions the "double fulfillment" theory. I have yet to get an answer Perhaps my wait is over!:

Should we be expecting another Virgin Birth? Another Crusifixion? another ascention?

Why not?

If, as you say, double fulfillment is the rule, then we should absolutely expect to see these events fulfilled again.

If not, could you show which prophesies the Bible tells you to take as single fulfillment and which to take as multiple?

Is the crusifixion a mere "type" of some future greater redemption from sin?
No?

Then why is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a mere "type" of some future destruction of Jerusalem?

Where does the Bible tell you to make such a distinction?

Thanks in Christ,
P70

[Acts6:5]

Then why is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a mere "type" of some future destruction of Jerusalem?

Where does the Bible tell you to make such a distinction?

Good stuff, Parousia.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[gwyyn]

OK, does the destruction of the temple occur during the futurist view of the tribulation?

[franklin]

Originally posted by parousia70


Hi Josephus,
Thanks for joining the discussion.

Acts5 did a great job of addressing you question, and I find myself in agreement with him.

I'd like to add a question to you that I have posed to everyone I have come across who champions the "double fulfillment" theory. I have yet to get an answer Perhaps my wait is over!:

Should we be expecting another Virgin Birth? Another Crusifixion? another ascention?

Why not?

If, as you say, double fulfillment is the rule, then we should absolutely expect to see these events fulfilled again.

If not, could you show which prophesies the Bible tells you to take as single fulfillment and which to take as multiple?

Is the crusifixion a mere "type" of some future greater redemption from sin?
No?

Then why is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a mere "type" of some future destruction of Jerusalem?

Where does the Bible tell you to make such a distinction?

Thanks in Christ,
P70

Hey Par, I have no doubt within my military mind that most futurists will be able to answer your questions and try to prove a double fulfillment! For them to use the scriptures as the final authority to back up their claims is yet to be seen and proven! Their premise doesn't have much merit!

[jenlu]

Those are some good questions parousia...I especially am interested in the distinction between a dual fulfillment prophecy and a singular one...

gwynn...who are you asking this question to...my belief... the temple destroyed in the tribulation was the temple Jesus was looking at when describing the tribulation...That's why after the disciple's made a fuss over the majesty of the temple they were actually looking at...He said (don't have my bible, but)... as for the the temple which you are looking at, days are coming that there will be not one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down...

Those days came and could have only come in 70 AD...the temple was utterly destroyed just as Jesus said...that also fits right in with what Jesus said towards the end of this prophecy...this generation shall not pass till all these things take place...so Jesus (to me at least) wants to make it very clear, so much so, that He bookends the tribulation discussed with time texts...

[gwyyn]

ty jenlu for answering my question, without degrading me. I really appreciate it.


ps there's not supposed me any sarcasm here either, just being nice :D

[Mandy]

Originally posted by gwyyn
OK, does the destruction of the temple occur during the futurist view of the tribulation?

No, that occurred in 70AD.
The futurist view is that during the tribulation the anti-christ will set himself up as God in the temple. It is referred to as the abomination of desolation.

[jenlu]

Mandy...
Since the futurist view is that there has to be a rebuilt temple, doesn't it seem to you that a rebuilt temple would be and offense to God, who in the person of Jesus Christ, already laid down his life as THE SACRIFICE...Rebuilding of a temple by jews in these days would be nothing more than another afront to Jesus being the true sacrifice and the REAL high priest as described in Hebrews...Besides those points no Jewish Temple built today inhabited by any anti-christ would be able to claim Godhood very easily...and people buying it...

[Mandy]

We as Christian see Jesus as The Sacrifice, but the Jews do not. There are many during the tribulation that will be deceived by the anti-christ.


Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

From Chuck Smith's commentary:
v.27 The seventieth seven will begin when the Antichrist makes a covenant with Israel for a 7-year period (Isaiah 28:14-17). There are several hints in the Bible that tie Caesar Nero to the Antichrist. It appears that the same demon that controlled Nero will enter the European leader who will arise from the ten nations, and he will be the Antichrist (Revelation 17:8-11, 13:17-18).

Some Bible teachers believe that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation. They feel that God is through with the nation Israel and all the prophetic references that deal with Israel actually refer to the Church. This misinterpretation of Scriptures has led to confusion over prophecies that are actually quite clear and simple (Matthew 24:15-22, Romans 11:1).

This 7-year period will not start while God is still working in the Church to bring forth a Bride for Christ. Once the Church is complete, God will take it up to heaven. Then He'll turn to Israel and make the Jews His special people once again.

After three and one-half years the Antichrist will put a stop to the daily sacrifices and prayers in the rebuilt temple. 1,290 days from this day Jesus will come to earth with His Church to establish His Kingdom and to fulfill the other prophecies concerning the Messiah that haven't yet been fulfilled (Matthew 24:15-22, II Thessalonians 2:4, Revelation 12:14, Isaiah 16:1-4).

[gwyyn]

I agree with Mandy, it's the Jews who do not see Jesus as the messiah who will rebuild the temple.

[parousia70]

...but scripture clearly states that the "Man of Sin" sits in God's Temple and proclaim himself to be God.

Please explain how a brick and mortar building built today by Christ rejecting, Gospel denying people can possibly be considered by God to be "His Temple"?

The way I see it, a future to us rebuilt Jewish Temple can be no more "Gods Temple" in Gods eyes than the Mosque that stands there now.

[Acts6:5]

Great point, parousia! I never really thought of that before; how could the temple possibly be God's now that His abode is within the hearts of His people? Why would God chose to return to the house of the Old Covenant?

[gwyyn]

ok then what about daniels vision of the week and the covenant and the covenant being broken??

[jenlu]

gwynn,

Let me fist state...there is no where in the Bible a call for a rebuilt temple...the temple to be destroyed during the tribulation, with the abomination of desolation and everything else involved, was standing or already built at the time of it's foretold destruction by Jesus...

But to go along with this line of thinking...How, if a rebuilt temple, built by jews that do not believe Jesus was/is the Messiah, could that be a temple where the LIVING GOD actually dwells...It would actually be anti-GOD to even build something like that...so He of course would certainly not dwell there, like HE did in the past...and How could an unholy anti-GOD temple be defiled anymore by any anti-christ...there is also no need to split the 69th week with the 70th...it flows very nicely with the 70 AD fulfillment...

Also the Jews will never be God's "special people" again...that is entirely against the scripture in the N.T. ...there will be a grafting back in of the natural vine, but solely through the blood of Jesus, which means ALL that come to God through Jesus Christ are joint-heirs(read as equal in the sight of God) with Jesus Christ...It would go against His word to reclaim the Jews alone as His "special people"...

[Mandy]

Who says that God will consider it "His" temple? It is a fact that the Jews are anticipating a new temple as they are preparing tools, etc and have even gone so far as to start checking into who is from the line of the tribe of Levi.

[jenlu]

The Bible says it's His Temple...not only that...you're gonna have to find the same exact stone's of the temple standing at the time of the indictment...

[gwyyn]

ok let me ask this question first before i go on here

The preterist view is that the antichrist has already reigned, am i correct?

[jenlu]

gwynn...
It's not just a preterist view first of all...The Anitchrist is a sticky subject...antichrist is defined in 1John as anyone(that's right anyone) who denies the Son(Jesus Christ) as the Christ is in fact antichrist...

Now if you are talking about the character(by this I mean actual person) discussed in Revelation as the Beast...(which is always mistaken as THE ANTICHRIST, while anyone from Hindu's to Moorman's to Jews today are antichrist)...then yes he did reign...Nero...

[gwyyn]

i don't mean to ask tons of questions here, i'm just having a hard time with understanding that the prophesy has been fullfilled? I just don't understand where you stand on the tribulation, ect. basicly the rest of revolation?

[jenlu]

gwynn

I love the question's, just so long as you show that your understanding what I'm saying...I'll try to make it clearer if you reask about whatever I didn't make clear...The Beast was a roman emperor named Nero...that's what I think you were asking, even though he is not the antichrist since antichrist can mean anyone who deny's the son...

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Mandy
Who says that God will consider it "His" temple?


...uhhhh, the apostle Paul says, and he wasn't wrong.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

There is not now, nor ever shall be again a brick and mortar building that is the "temple of God" for we are now the "more perfect tabernacle", His temple made without hands, The temple of God today.

Since it is impossible for this prophesy to be fulfilled in our future, This prophesy must have been fulfilled while Herods temple still stood.

[gwyyn]

ok so let me ask this, who is the beast of the earth, and the beast of the sea? From what I read and understand the beast of the sea is the false prophet who will make people worship the beast of the earth. I think the beast of the earth is the "ultimate antichrist", but I can understand when you say anyone who deny's christ is an antichrist (wasn't hitler considered one). So to your understanding and the point of view who is the beast of the earth? do believe it was Nero?

[parousia70]

Another, and I believe fatal, flaw in the "multiple fulfillment" theory is that there can be no terminus. There can be no point when "Final fulfillment" can be declared for any particular prophesy, for something could always come along that could fulfill it in an even greater way than the time previous.

Jesus, in contrast, places an absolute terminus on the fulfillment of every prophesy about Him.


Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

And ealrlier, Jesus places the time of that terminus at the time of Jerusalems destriction:


Luke 21:20-28
20 "But when you [the apostles to whom Jesus was speaking] see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

The "all things written" of Luke 21 cannot be divorced from the "all things written" of Luke 24. They are the same.

The way I see it, Either they were indeed fulfilled as and when Christ said they would be, or our faith is in vain.

[davo]

If you're talking bricks and mortar, then that temple is long gone -if one is rebuilt, it has NOTHING to do with any bible prophecy.

Scripture is CLEAR -WE now in the New Covenant ARE the Temple of God, we ARE His dwelling place. Paul says so on a number of occasions -and what did Jesus say:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

How can we be God's Temple? By being Christ's Body, which Scripture says we are. Christ returned as He promised -believers ARE His Body in this world -it's all there in the NT, as prophesied in the OT. Jesus was only to return once, and that He did -no multiple fulfilments.

davo

[davo]

Originally posted by parousia70
Another, and I believe fatal, flaw in the "multiple fulfillment" theory is that there can be no terminus. There can be no point when "Final fulfillment" can be declared for any particular prophesy, for something could always come along that could fulfill it in an even greater way than the time previous.

Exactly P70, it begs the question: How many times is a prophecy fulfilled before it is fulfilled -it becomes an endless loop [or should I say noose]. Not only that, but what criteria is put in place to determine this -it certainly isn't the scriptures. As Paul wrote: "do not go beyond what is written" and elsewhere "what saith the Scripture?"

davo

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by jenlu
Mike Beidler,

Hey...about 4 or 5 years ago, I started my journey into (though I didn't know at the time it was called preterism) this eye-opening way of reading the Bible...For years I was a mind blowing dispensationalist...I once even had the audacity to tell one of my brothers that his son(4 at the time) would never see age 20...I've apologized since...towards the last 2 or 3 years of my dispensationalist leanings I started seeing things that didn't quite add up in scripture for dispensationalist viewpoint...time texts were a big one...I'd always sluff it off in my own mind and not really deal with it...it took a couple of years, but I finally started reading the Bible correctly...Well anyway...I've just heard of the full preterist view just a couple weeks ago and I don't buy the 2nd coming/Judgement Day/Resurrection Day has already past yet...What about you?...anyway, welcome to the journey...it's long and tough, but so worth it...

Honestly, Jenlu, up until a few months ago, I thought the full preterist view was heretical. But remaining time-reference inconsistencies in the partial preterist view forced me to take another close look at full preterism.

I highly recommend David Curtis' online sermons at www.bereanbiblechurch.org. He's got a real irenic spirit and a lot of what he teaches makes sense. The problems I had with the Second Coming/Judgment Day/Resurrection Day all began to make sense, without resorting to hermenuetical gymnastics like Kenneth Gentry and others need to do. (Don't get me wrong, Gentry's a great scholar, but I believe he's mistaken on this point.) Notice that R. C. Sproul still has not taken a stand on full preterism ... he says he's still working out some issues, but I fully expect him to "come around." Even David Chilton, who was a die-hard partial preterist, converted to full preterism just before he died.

I am the last person I ever thought would become a preterist. For a long time, I preached against it. It's been an interesting journey ...

[davo]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
It's been an interesting journey ...

G'day Mike :wave: -that's one thing it definitely is, a journey :)

davo

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
ok then what about daniels vision of the week and the covenant and the covenant being broken??

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The first question is Who is The Prince?
A big argument is over who this prince is. In the 1769 KJV, the first prince is capitalized - Prince and the second is not. Unfortunately, not knowing the Hebrew, folks err and make a doctrine based on the translators' take. What they may not know is that the 1611 KJV had both of them as "Prince." It was changed later. The YLT (a really good word-for-word translation of the Textus Receptus/Masoretic) has this:


Daniel 9:25-26
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader is seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.

Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end is with a flood, and till the end is war, determined are desolations.

Clearly, in the word for word, he equates Messiah the Prince with the Prince that shall come.

In the KJV, we find that "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city." Does the prince destroy the city? No, the people of the prince. In 70 AD, the people of the prince rebelled and went against the Romans. What happened? The city was destroyed. Did they do it directly? Well, no one knows exactly who torched the temple. But, either way, the actions of the Jewish people in Jerusalem brought down the fury of the Roman armies. Whether the Jews burned it or the Romans did is rather a moot point.

Look at this from Dan 9:26.
"...and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Desolations are determined to the end of the war. At the end, when Jerusalem was destroyed is when the desolation ended

And now from the YLT....

Daniel 9:27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and in the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'

now from the KJV...

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
Jesus' ministry to the Jews alone was seven years...one week. the first 3.5 years through his 'in the flesh' earthly ministry, the 2nd 3.5 years through his apostles exclusive ministry to the Jews."Confirm" as shown by the YLT, means "strengthen." This says "Covenant." Not treaty. Covenant. What covenant?

Look at Daniel 9 again...
Daniel 9:3-4

Daniel 9:3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

Daniel 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Note that Daniel does not say to all Israel. He says to them that love him and that keep his commandments. So again, what covenant? It's a covenant that Jesus merely strengthened. It is the covenant that He gave to Abraham.

Genesis 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

How would all nations be blessed through Abraham's seed? Through Jesus the Christ.


Jesus Strengthened the Covenant.
Jesus strengthened the covenant that God had already made. Those believers in the Old Testament believed that God would do as He promised and provide His salvation, though they knew not the name of Jesus. Those who have believed since Jesus cmbelieved that Jesus' death, burial and resurrection paid the price for their (our) sins. It has always been the same. God has not changed. His mercy and grace has been extended in the same way, most folks, however, saw the physical or fleshly side and not the spiritual side and I must admit that I find it difficult somedays to see the spiritual too. I know we all do. The flesh wars against the Spirit all the time. Jesus confirmed the covenant that God had made with Abraham. In thee shall all nations be blessed. See also Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20.

He shall cause the sacrifice to cease...
In Daniel 9, we find that "he shall cause the sacrifice to cease." If this were the antichrist, as is taught by dispensationalists, then he has already been here because there has been no sacrifice in the temple for a long time. Not since 70 AD. Instead look at what Jesus' death meant. It meant that the covering of sins that the sacrifices did was no longer needed. He took all our sins upon Himself and once we accept that free gift, then ours sins are removed as far as east is from west.

The sacrifice ceased literally in 70 AD, but the need ended at Calvary.

And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Indeed, the city was made desolate. The Romans overran the city, destroying all that was in their wake. This has been done. History proves it.

[gwyyn]

Ok you mentioned verses 3 and 4 of Daniel chapter 9, where Daniel is praying to God about he disturbing vision he had. Then the angel Gabriel comes to explain the vision cause Daniel had asked. So my question is about Daniel chap 9:24
"Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish trangession, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy."

what does this verse mean to you?

and also Daniel Chap 9:25
Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

And how does this verse apply? From this verse I think Jerusalem would have to be rebuilt, so was it destroyed before Nero destroyed it? And if so when?
I think it refers to the rebuilding after Nero destroys it?


oh and locating where the orginal temples were is easy since it is believed to be where the Muslim holy site of the Dome rock is at. Or atleast that is where it's percieved to be at.

[jenlu]

good questions...

Well let's start with the beast from the sea...it was the Roman Empire personified by the emperor which at that time was Nero(Neron Kesar)...Let's look at some of the symbols of the beast from the sea..."ten horns and seven heads...in the image of the dragon(who we know is satan himself) who give this beast from the sea it's "power and his throne and great authority"...the 10 horns are described as governors of the ten provinces of the empire...the seven heads are the seven mountains and there are seven kings; five have fallen (Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius)...one is (Nero) one other has not yet come(Galba...reigned for 7 months)

The beast from the land is the false prophet...I believe this to the Jewish religious leaders at the time...which you lead you back to what Jesus foretold about false prophets that would come and do miraculous signs and wonders(Act records instance of this during the first century)...the reason I think this is because the religious leaders tried to make their people submit to the emperor of Rome(the sea Beast)...How many times in the N.T. do you read of Jewish persecution of Christians...many in the book of Acts...Read how Paul describe's "those of the circumcision" in Titus 1:10-16

[jenlu]

Mike,
So you would consider yourself as a full preterist...That's fine, I just assumed you hadn't worked that stuff out just yet...wouldn't mind conversing on those time texts and inconcistencies...really trying to look for a reason to believe it and can't yet...

[jenlu]

BTW, Mike...let me know if you get my PM...can't tell if it's working right...

[franklin]

Originally posted by jenlu
Mike,
So you would consider yourself as a full preterist...That's fine, I just assumed you hadn't worked that stuff out just yet...wouldn't mind conversing on those time texts and inconcistencies...really trying to look for a reason to believe it and can't yet...

Hi Jen, I would have to ask you, what is holding back? Someone recently told me they used to read the Bible through a filter.... a futurist filter.... that's exactly how I used to read my Bible Jen.... now I read it through a past fulfilled filter! A preterist filter.... we need to read the scriptures through first century eyes.... not 21st century eyes.... we need to let the scripture speak for itself! Scripture interpret scripture! I've seen your posts and guess what? You don't sound like a futurist at all! By the way I like your posts!

Cheers

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
Ok you mentioned verses 3 and 4 of Daniel chapter 9, where Daniel is praying to God about he disturbing vision he had. Then the angel Gabriel comes to explain the vision cause Daniel had asked. So my question is about Daniel chap 9:24
"Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish trangession, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy."

what does this verse mean to you?

Why are 70 weeks determined? To do these things:
1. to finish the transgression
2. to make an end of sins
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness
5. to seal up the vision and prophecy
6. to anoint the most Holy

1. Finish the Transgression.
Recall that to begin with, the Jews were in captivity for 490 years because of not honoring the Sabbath - they didn't give the land rest every seven years. The 70 years of capitivity in Babylon gave the land its rest. This is in 2 Chronicles 36- it's a whole lot of verses. Then God gives them another 490 years - maybe this time is their last chance.

2. Make an End of Sins.
Though we still sin, our sins no longer have power to prevent us from salvation. Jesus, by fulfilling the Law, ended sins strength. Sin is now utterly powerless.

3. Make Reconciliation for Iniquity.
Only Jesus could do this. He came to make reconciliation for us.

4. Bring in Everlasting Righteousness
Jesus Himself said that He fulfilled all righteousness.

5. Seal up the Vision and Prophecy
Contrary to what most teach about this passage, "seal up" doesn't mean to hide it from men's understanding until the last days. From Strong's, seal is [2856] chatham: meaning to close up, make an end of, stop. So Jesus made the end of this vision and prophecy. It doesn't say "all visions and prophecies" for you naysayers. It says "the vision..."

6. Anoint the Most Holy
Again, Jesus was anointed at His baptism in Mark 1. He is the Most Holy.

Originally posted by gwyyn
and also Daniel Chap 9:25
Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens'. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

And how does this verse apply? From this verse I think Jerusalem would have to be rebuilt, so was it destroyed before Nero destroyed it? And if so when?
I think it refers to the rebuilding after Nero destroys it?


Yes it was destroyed before Nero destroyed it. The temple destroyed in 70Ad was actually the 3rd temple built in Jerusalem. It is called the 2nd temple because it was a renovation of the 2nd temple, but the renovation was so vast that it really constituted a unique structure itself, 3rd in succession.

Daniel prophesied in verse 25 that from the commandment to restore and rebuild Israel to the coming of the Messiah is 483 years. The question comes to "which decree is it?"

Here are the decrees:

The Decree of Cyrus - about 536 BC
* Ezra 1:2-4 Cyrus sends folks out to build the temple.
* The math: 536 - 483 = 53 BC.
* Guess what? No Messiah in 53BC.

The Decree of Artaxerxes - about 534 BC
* Ezra 4:17-22 Artaxerxes' decree here is actually to stop building and wait, not to start.
* Scratch that one.

Haggai and Zechariah Prophesy
* Ezra 5:1-3 Here Zerubbabel and Jeshua build, but no decree is mentioned.
* Scratch that.

Darius quotes Cyrus - about 520 BC
* Ezra 6:1-5 Darius simply quotes Cyrus, but in vv. 6-12, Darius sends out a decree.
* The math: 520 - 483 = 37 BC (some say 33BC...it's close enough I reckon).
* Maybe this was when Theudas popped up?
* Scratch this one, no Messiah.

Ezra 6:14
* "According to the commandment of God, of Cyrus, of Darius, and of Artaxerxes they builded and finished it."
* But look carefully at the decree above of Artaxerxes. His decree was to stop building and wait.
* So they couldn't have been talking about his decree.

Decree of Artaxerxes - 458 BC
* Ezra 7:12 - 26 Artaxerxes makes the decree.
* The math: 483-458 = 25, but there was no 0 AD nor 0 BC, so that makes 26 AD.
* What happened in 26 AD?

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Messiah the Prince came and the Spirit, like a dove, descended upon Him. So began the ministry of Jesus Christ.
What is 483 + 7? 490 years. Simple.

Jesus' first coming and ministry on this earth, through to His death, burial and resurrection and subsequent 3.5 year ministry to the Jews exclusively by the apostles, fulfilled the 70th week of Daniel completely.

[jenlu]

RE: First Century eyes

I definitely try to read the Bible that way...I used to read it wholy futuristically, but now totally (I try) with first century eyes...Like I say, I believe some of the time text full preterists use for the Judgement Day/Resurrection Day may be up for debate, although I've yet to hear a concise view on many of those verses...

[franklin]

Originally posted by jenlu
RE: First Century eyes

I believe some of the time text full preterists use for the Judgement Day/Resurrection Day may be up for debate, although I've yet to hear a concise view on many of those verses...

Hi Jen, I have to say that the full preterist view is the most consistant answer to all prophecy fulfillment and that would include all judgements. Why do you feel the judgements are still up for debate? I think from reading your posts, you seem pretty convinced about the judgement on Jerusalem in AD70.... this is where all the judgements have taken place.... As far as the kingdom of God is concerned, it is a present reality.... Jesus said, 'the kingdom of God is within you'
Full Preterism teaches a world without end which means there are no future judgements.

[jenlu]

franklin, I hear what you're saying...

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by jenlu
Mike,
So you would consider yourself as a full preterist...That's fine, I just assumed you hadn't worked that stuff out just yet...wouldn't mind conversing on those time texts and inconcistencies...really trying to look for a reason to believe it and can't yet...

My "handle" on the www.planetpreterist.com website is "FuturePreterist." I liked the tension.

But concerning the things I haven't worked out yet, the list is getting smaller and smaller every day. I'm quickly shifting my paradigm, so to speak.

Zechariah 14 was a big hurdle. When I read the passage, I just couldn't reconcile it with the "bigger" truths of preterism. But when I asked for help from other preterists, I was pleasantly surprised with the answers.

The physicality of the "rapture" was a big hurdle. But digging a little deeper into the Greek text, I found the full preterist view of a non-physical rapture at death to work. Additionally, I discovered that the rapture of the "dead in Christ" and the rapture of those who "are alive and remain" need not be subsequent to each other as it appears in modern English translations.

Taking the Millennium down to 40 years was hard. But when I compared the events described in the Millennium to NT events and 70 AD, I was convinced I had to un-literalize the number 1000 (which is what partial preterists do) and view it as simply "a long time" per Mt 25:19.

But the more I study, the more I become convinced.

What would work best is if you give us a particular troublesome passage and we'll try our best to help you understand the full preterist take on it. :idea: (Just remember that not even all full preterists agree on some passages.)

[gwyyn]

Revalation was written in 95 AD, after Nero had destroyed Jerusalem! So why is it in the bible then, why cause it is prophesy that has not all yet taken place.l

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. Rev 1:3

I know this was written to the 7 churches, but maybe it was written to us too, since the rest of the bible is the written Word of God that we read and take to heart and know to be true!


Ok these are the verses that state the the Jesus still hasn't came!!! (IMHO)

"Behold I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." Rev. 22:7
:clap:
"Behold I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to evyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Rev 22:12

Notice on that last verse Jesus sais he is the Beginning and the END, so if your view was right, then wouldn't we be in the millenial reign and had already gone through judgement day, and eating freely from the tree of life!

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will ad to him the plagues described in this book, And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city which are describe in this book Rev. 22:18

Ok I just threw that last verse in to get some thinking.
My main reason due to the dates that you use to support that the 2nd coming as already happened. I still am trying to understand how someone can think this has already happened, cause if it had already happened in Nero's times, then why was John directed to write Revalation????? :confused:

I have gone to the preterist websites and read through some and found something quite disturbing! At the website planetpreterist, I clicked on preterist outline, and one thing on this page that stuck out at me was that preteristism (sp sorry) was created as a solution to a dilema. I may have read it wrong but it sure did stick out like a sore thumb to me! maybe someone could explain that to me!

[davo]

Some good thoughts there Mike :)

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
...and view it as simply "a long time" per Mt 25:19.

Have you ever noticed that in all the gospels where Jesus gives some account of the "Boss" going away and coming back at some later time, and then recompencing according to the situation of the story -that he always comes back to the very same people that he gives his charge to -i.e., to his [or should I say "this"] generation. :idea:

davo

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by davo
Some good thoughts there Mike :)

Have you ever noticed that in all the gospels where Jesus gives some account of the "Boss" going away and coming back at some later time, and then recompencing according to the situation of the story -that he always comes back to the very same people that he gives his charge to -i.e., to his [or should I say "this"] generation. :idea:

davo

BINGO. :D

[jenlu]

gwynn,

First of all...it's plain to me that Revelations was written before 70 A.D. Look at those verses you used...the word soon does not mean imminent...it means soon...Now as for the planet preterist site...from what I understand there are many differing opinions in preterism just like dispensationalism, so don't take what any person or people say and assume it for all preterists...

Now Mike...
talk to me about the millenium...what comparison's do you make with it and the period from 30-70AD...we'll deal with Zecharia later...

[gwyyn]

Umm no, John was exiled to the Island of Patmos in the year 90 AD by the Roman Emperor Dimitian!!
Which is where he was when he wrote the book of Revelation.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by gwyyn
Umm no, John was exiled to the Island of Patmos in the year 90 AD by the Roman Emperor Dimitian!!
Which is where he was when he wrote the book of Revelation.

What is your evidence? Please provide patristic quotes to the effect.

[gwyyn]

I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom an dpatient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos becasue of the word of God and the testiomony of Jesus. Rev 1:9 NIV

ok this verse tells me he wrote it from the island of Patmos. My study bible provides a timeline as to when each book was written and unless those who translated my bible were totally wrong, they give the date as about 95 AD. Here's what's written under the title setting:
Most scholars believe that the seven churches of Asia to whom John writes were experiencing the persecution that took place under Emperor Domitian (AD 90-95). It seems that the Roman authorities had exiled John to the island of Patmos (off the coast of Asia). JOhn, who had been an eyewitness of the incarnate Christ, had a vision of the glorified Christ. God also revealed to him what would take place in the future-judgment and the ultimate triump of God over evil.

this is taken from my Life Application Bible, NIV

and I took so long replying cause I was doing searches on the internet of Biblical History and nearly all sites show the time of Revelation to be written is between 90-97 AD. I'm not sure which date is the absolute truth, but they all give the same time frame. I encourage you to do the same search, and if you come up with a different date, let me know.

I'm not totally sure how to put links on here or i would have ok!!!!

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by gwyyn
[B]I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom an dpatient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos becasue of the word of God and the testiomony of Jesus. Rev 1:9 NIV

ok this verse tells me he wrote it from the island of Patmos.


I have no problem with this.


My study bible provides a timeline as to when each book was written and unless those who translated my bible were totally wrong, they give the date as about 95 AD. Here's what's written under the title setting:
Most scholars believe that the seven churches of Asia to whom John writes were experiencing the persecution that took place under Emperor Domitian (AD 90-95). It seems that the Roman authorities had exiled John to the island of Patmos (off the coast of Asia). JOhn, who had been an eyewitness of the incarnate Christ, had a vision of the glorified Christ. God also revealed to him what would take place in the future-judgment and the ultimate triump of God over evil.

this is taken from my Life Application Bible, NIV


Here's your first problem: you're using a secondary source. Go to the primary sources, i.e., quotes from early Church fathers regarding the date of writing of Revelation. Check them out and tell me what you find.


I was doing searches on the internet of Biblical History and nearly all sites show the time of Revelation to be written is between 90-97 AD. I'm not sure which date is the absolute truth, but they all give the same time frame. I encourage you to do the same search, and if you come up with a different date, let me know.

Here's a great example of scholarship being affected by a mass paradigm. Seeing as "most biblical scholars" believe the Second Coming of Jesus to be future, they have no problem setting the date of composition to AD 90-100, thus allowing their bias to affect their interpretation and/or ignoring of the evidence.

The only quote that I know of that *possibly* supports a post-AD 70 composition is one from Irenaeus, and even that's not a quote from the original Greek, which was lost. However, the reconstructed Greek text (I'll let you do a little digging to find the Latin quote) allows for a pre-AD 70 composition.

From what I've seen, the overwhelming evidence points to a pre-AD 70 composition. If Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" doesn't convince you of this, I don't know what will. His book is absolutely astounding.

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

If Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" doesn't convince you of this, I don't know what will. His book is absolutely astounding.



Mike,

Your preterist brother's don't like Gentry at all. They gave me a ton of grief because I posted a quote from Gentry.


Auntie.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um


Mike,

Your preterist brother's don't like Gentry at all. They gave me a ton of grief because I posted a quote from Gentry.


That's because he's a partial preterist. But they can't discount his scholarship in the area of Revelation's date of composition. Just ask them. ;)

[jenlu]

gwynn,

The reason why it's plain to me that it was written before 70 AD, is because it is about a period from 66-70AD...Most of the signs of that book were fulfilled in what occured in 70AD...The words used by John(God) about the urgency of the Coming of the Lord are not mistakable in my mind anymore...Jesus told people in the first century, He was "coming" soon..."the time is at hand"...you are living in the last days...He was not mistaken...

[gwyyn]

Jesus also said he did not know when he would return, that only his Father knew the hour!

is Jesus contradicting himself then!

[armothe]

Originally posted by gwyyn
Jesus also said he did not know when he would return, that only his Father knew the hour!
is Jesus contradicting himself then!

What a red herring if I ever saw one.

I could say that I plan to go to the grocery store sometime, but I'm not sure exactly when.

That doesn't mean I can never go to the grocery store. OF course I'll know when I went *after* the fact!

-A

[jenlu]

gwynn...
It's easy to see that Jesus knew what would lead up to His "Coming"...see Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13...He also knew He was "Coming" in the generation then living...see Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, or Mark 13:30...that is in no contradiction to the exact time(day and hour) of His "Coming"...Many of his disciple's also figured he was "Coming" soon as you read the N.T., but they did not know the exact time...

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
Jesus also said he did not know when he would return, that only his Father knew the hour!

is Jesus contradicting himself then!

While Jesus didn't know before he left, when he would return, the Bible makes it clear that after he left, but before he returned, he knew, because the father told him:

Revelation 1:1-31
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God [The father] gave Him [The Son] to show His servants[1st century Christians]--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

It is crystal clear that at the time Revelation was written, Jesus knew when He would return, and He said it would be soon in human understanding. This is evidenced by the 100% consistant fact that when the Bible attaches a time limit to prophetic fulfillment, it is always given to be understood by how time relates to man, and not how time relates to God.

Every time, without fail, always.
When God says "soon" He really means "soon".

[Acts6:5]

Jesus did not say "I don't know when I'll return", - the only thing He said was that He did not know the "day or hour". The Lord certainly knew that it would be within the apostles generation, and there is no contradiction in that.

I used this example before; if I told you that I would visit you within your generation (40 years), but at the moment I did not know the exact day or hour, how would that be contradictory? I can know that within 40 years I will visit you without knowing the day or hour. But when Christ ascended to the Father's right hand you better believe He was made aware of the time table. That's why He instructed His apostles so well over the next 40 years, and why Revelation is called the "The Revelation of JESUS CHRIST, which the Father GAVE unto Him,to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass".

While in the flesh Jesus was unaware of the "day or hour". After He ascended He was made aware and guided His apostles with revelation (not just the book of Revelation) in order to lead the Church to that marvelous day.

Hope that helps.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[jenlu]

Parousia
I really like how you worded that last line...so true...

[gwyyn]

XXXIX.
Christ,(4) who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fulness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, who were under the power of sin, presenting us as pure sons to His Father, if we yield ourselves obediently to the chastisement of the Spirit. And in the end of time He shall come to do away with all evil, and to reconcile all things, in order that there may be an end of all impurities.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/irenfrag.html

ok I found these lost fragments of Ireneaus, and I pasted on part that I found quite interesting in the fact that he refers to the end of time!!

what's your thought on this??

ps gonna go look for some more (geez)

[jenlu]

You must admit...Just as I may be wrong (in your mind)...Irenaeus may be wrong....

Let me guess, you say well He's a early church father, so I'll go with him over any low life message board punk...

But wait...you quote Irenaeus...I quote Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. etc. etc. which in turn means I quote God himself...

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
ok I found these lost fragments of Ireneaus, and I pasted on part that I found quite interesting in the fact that he refers to the end of time!!

what's your thought on this??

ps gonna go look for some more (geez)

He was wrong.

If indeed "Fullness of time" = "end of Time", and I do not believe it does.

The bible teaches that the Kingdom, generations of man and the earth itself are all to continue forever. Time has no end.

PS: if i'm not mistaken, Ireneaus also said Christ Lived to be 50 and was never crucified!

[gwyyn]

this guy also thought Jesus lived till the age of 50 :rolleyes:

to tell you the truth i don't understand bunk of what he's saying :scratch:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm#TopOfPage


ok check out this site, it gives his books and actually kinda breaks it up in chapters, but still hard to understand. :sleep: in the preface they say it's cause of the orginal language but i don't know,, check it out for yourselves and tell me what you think!

[gwyyn]

ok where does it say time won't end, have never heard that before!!

[gwyyn]

ok i was told to look to the early church fathers, are they not who came up with the theory that the second coming has already happened!!

i was looking for the date revelation was written

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
ok where does it say time won't end, have never heard that before!!

Ephesians 3:21
"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

[gwyyn]

ok this is how the verse is in my NIV

to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations for ever and ever Amen Eph 1:21(NIV)
Far above all principality, and power,and might, and dominion adn every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come Eph 1:21 (KJV)

and this was a prayer to God about the ephesians from Paul.

and if you look at the corresponding verses give you will see that these are all praises given to our Saviour Jesus Christ and God

examples

NIV corresponding verse is
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen Romans 11:36

the KJV corresponding verse is

For I am persuaded, that niether death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers,nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 9:38,39

so not only praise but maybe also to illustrate that nothing can ever separate us from God's Love.

[Ozarkpreterist]

Brother Manifestation1*AD70 gave an outstanding summery of the reasons for a pre-AD70 dating of Revelation on another forum over at Yahoo. I don’t think he will mind me quoting him. Preterists, this one is a keeper!

Manifestation wrote:

"The dating of the book of Revelation is a kind of issue that needs to be studied (as a whole). The futurist approach that we have all been taught in the past has simply not communicated well. It is like a picture puzzle. If one studies the pieces separately, he will not see the whole picture.

Those who oppose the early dating of the Book of Revelation are looking at a part of the puzzle without dealing with the whole. The "inner evidence" problem. John was witting within the historical setting "of his own time." The problem that many have in not understanding Revelation is because they try to interpret it through a futurists view.

One important "literal part" of the puzzle that is over looked is that the temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!

2- And John called himself their brother and companion in tribulation (Revelation 1:9). The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the
church.

3- According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD.

4- There were "other apostles who were not of Christ" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the died before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.

5 - The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic.

6 - The second century Syrian version of the book has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.

7 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666. This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find another person's name in that time frame that would do this!

8 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius,(4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only
a little while . . Galba, 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

9 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

10 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This would be completely ridiculous. This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.

11 - The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.

12 - In Revelation there seems to be only 7 churches in Asia. Historically, there seems to be many more than that after 70 AD as Christianity began to grow very rapidly.

13 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.

12- There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that in itself is not, a pretty surprising fact? We do not expect to see John writing of these particular Jewish centered world ending events because they did not happen yet pre-70 AD.

There is other evidence. There are spiritual considerations involved in the book as well. These points need to be taken into consideration to see the whole picture. Once a person catches a glimpse a light will turn on.

1- Jesus speaking to the religious leader of that day who insisted they were the seed of Abraham "the true Jews" John 8:33. You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44).

John witting of these Jews had this to say. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. insidious (Revelation 3:9).

2-In the Old Testament, Israel is viewed as the wife of the Lord; (see Jer.3) The once faithful city became an harlot sleeping with anyone who came by (Isa. 1:21; Jer 2:20, 3:13). Israel enlisted the help of Nero to stop the Church and John describes her as a harlot riding the beast (Revelation 17).

3- This harlot woman, or Babylon (city, claimed to be the true wife of the Lord (18:9), and the true holy city (11:2, 8). Such a claim could not be made after 70 A.D.

4- John identifies the enemies of God as Gog and Magog whose number is as the sand of the sea. (Revelation 20:8). A clue is given to us by God in their numbers it was as the "sand of the sea." This too can only apply to a pre-70 AD date. The only people who ever received that promise was Abrahams descendants. No other people received that
pomise.

5-The blood flowing as high as the horses' bridles would portray the gravity of judgment (Revelation 14:20). The distance of 1600 stadia (about 180 miles) just happens to be the approximate length of the land of Palestine. The "inner evidence" for a early date into the book of Revelation goes on and on. I hope that has helped."

[jenlu]

gwynn...What? it's written in the Bible...

parousia...is there anyway you could break that verse down in greek..?

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn


i was looking for the date revelation was written

here's a couple links you might find helpful:

The dating of Revelation

Link #1 (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/kiser-greg_p_02.html)

Link # 2 (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/ogden-arthur_p_01.html)

and here is an exerpt from yet another:

From David Curtis, bereanbiblechurch.org, introduction to Revelation:

The most important issue that confronts the interpreter of Revelation is the date that it was written. Two views compete for validity: the late date view (AD 95-96) which is the current evangelical opinion and the early date view (AD 65-66). The early date view says that Revelation speaks of the birth pangs of the Kingdom, the beginning of Church history. The late date view allows for a wide variety of interpretations; it views the book as the end of the kingdom and of Church history. Does Revelation speak of a looming great tribulation which will bring worldwide chaos upon the scene of contemporary history? Or did it inform the first century Christians of grave and trying times that they would face which would demonstrate that Christianity could weather the storms? This is a very practical matter.

The late date view comes exclusively from external evidence based on a statement made by Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202). Irenaeus is the only source for this late dating of Revelation; all other sources are based on him. There are other early writers whose statements indicate that John wrote Revelation much earlier. Our safest course, therefore, is to study the Revelation itself to see what internal evidence it presents regarding the date of its writing.

The text of Revelation provides a self-witness for the date it was written.

Revelation 11:1-2 (NKJV) Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

These verses refers to a temple standing in a city called the `holy city'. Based upon Old Testament Scripture, we can surmise that a Christian Jew such as John would have had the historical Jerusalem in mind when he spoke of the holy city.

Isaiah 52:1 (NKJV) "Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean Shall no longer come to you."

Nehemiah 11:1 (NKJV) "Now the leaders of the people dwelt at Jerusalem; the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem, the holy city, and nine-tenths were to dwell in other cities."

For further identification of this city, Revelation 11:8 tells us:

Revelation 11:8 (NKJV) And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

This city is the site of our Lord's crucifixion; this can only be the historical Jerusalem. What temple stood in Jerusalem? Obviously the Jewish temple which was ordained of God, known as Herod's Temple. Herod the Great came to power in 37 B.C. and determined that he would please his Jewish subjects and impress the Romans with his kingly qualities by making the Jerusalem Temple bigger and better than it had ever been.

This reference to the temple must be the historical structure for three reasons. First of all, it was located in Jerusalem. Secondly, according to Revelation 11:2 it was to be under attack for 42 months. Nero commissioned Flavian Vespasian, a Roman general, to engage Israel in war in February AD 67. He actually entered the Promised Land and engaged in battle that spring so that the Jewish war with Rome lasted from spring AD 67 until the temple fell in August AD 70, forty-two months later. Luke 21:20 contains Jesus' prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near." The time from Revelation 11 fits with what history tells us of the Jewish war. Finally, the structure of Revelation 11:1&2 parallels Jesus' statement in His Olivet discourse found in Luke 21:20-24. In Luke 21:5-7 the disciples point to the temple and ask about its future. Jesus tells them it will soon be destroyed, stone by stone. In Luke 21:24 He speaks in terms which are echoed in Revelation 11:2. These two passages speak of the same event, the destruction of Jerusalem.

When was Revelation written? Is the late date view or the early date view correct? We know from historical and archaeological evidence that the temple was destroyed in August of 70 AD. If this temple was still standing when John wrote, he must have written before 70 AD.

Revelation 17 is the second major piece of internal evidence for the early date view of Revelation. In Revelation 17 a vision of the seven-headed beast is recorded. This vision offers clear evidence that Revelation was recorded before the death of Nero Caesar. We know that Nero committed suicide on June 9, 68AD.

Revelation 17:1-6 (NKJV) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 "with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication." 3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Revelation 17:9 (NKJV) "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

Verses 1, 3, and 6 of Revelation describe a vision and verse nine gives us clues to the meaning of the vision. Almost all scholars recognize that the seven mountains of Revelation 17:9 represent the seven hills of Rome. John points out that the wise one will understand; the recipients of this letter lived under the rule of Rome which was universally distinguished by its seven hills. How could the recipients of this letter who lived in the seven historical churches of Asia minor under Roman imperial rule understand anything else by this geological reference?

Revelation 17:10 (NKJV) "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.

Revelation 17:10 says that the seven heads also represent a political situation: "There are also seven kings." Revelation 17:10 shows how the seven heads also correspond to the line of the Caesars. "Five have fallen", (past tense): The first five Caesars were Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. "One is", (present tense): Nero, the sixth Caesar, was on the throne as John was writing the Revelation. Nero reigned from October 54 AD until June 68 AD, when he committed suicide because his empire was in civil war. "And the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time," (Future tense): Galba, the seventh Caesar, reigned for less than 7 months (June, 68 AD to January, 69 AD).

In Revelation 17:7 the angel says, "Don't wonder--I'll show you what it means"; in verses nine and ten the vision is explained. The seven heads refer to a historical place, Rome, and the political scene, Nero's reign. Revelation must have been written before Nero committed suicide in 68 AD. The internal evidence points clearly to the early date view.

[parousia70]

As far as eph 1:21 goes, you'll notice that in the Greek, the word for "world" is "Aion" which means Age or period of time. Aion never means physical planet earth. Never.

The YLT, word for word rendering of the greek gives us a clear reading:
Eph1:21
far above all principality, and authority, and might, and lordship, and every name named, not only in this age, but also in the coming one;

Nowhere does the Bible teach that the planet earth we live on today will come to an end. In fact scripture teaches the exact opposite:

Psalms 78:69
And He built His sanctuary like the heights, Like the earth which He has established forever.

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn
ok this is how the verse is in my NIV

to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations for ever and ever Amen

Right!
So tell me, how do you reconcile your belief that the world will end when the above verse says "all generations for ever and ever"?


Where does this verse indicate anything other than generations of humans on earth will come and go forever?

[gwyyn]

ok and what about those that reigned after galba

and also what of the ten horns/kingdoms
also with explaining the above explain these verses from your viewpoint

And the beast that was,and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have recieived no kingdom as yet; but recieive power as kings one hour with the beast Rev 17 11-12 KJV

perdition 684 apoleia, ruin or loss

[gwyyn]

i said that verse was in praise to God, in that his love for us was unending, did you not look at the corresponding verses, yet look at the ones given in your own bible

[jenlu]

Parousia...how bout Rev. 10:6...

gwynn...whether it was a praise or not(which it is) it is truth or it would not be in the Bible...so if it does indicate the world(read age) without end...then it's age without end...

gwynn...about revelations...the beast that was and is not is the land beast...which of course is Israel...it's in cahoots with Rome(symbolized as the sea beast, which had the seven emperor's as stated above) to destroy the early church for different reasons but the same end...the ten kings are governors of the ten provinces of Rome...

[gwyyn]

Ok Isaiah 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, and Rev. 21:1 all refer to a new earth and heaven.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

heaven's here to means the sky

i looked up bare, in strongs and well unless you want me to list them all, we can all asume that it was 6209 to bare; to demolish

[parousia70]

Originally posted by gwyyn

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

heaven's here to means the sky



How do you figure Heavens in this passage means sky?
And what do you propose the word "elements" refers to in this passage?

What about the "heavens and earth" God created "After" he parted the sea and brought the hebrew people out of Egypt?
(Isaiah 51:16.)

Either God created a new Planet and sky after he brought the hebrews out of Egypt, or "Heavens and Earth" means something else here.

What do you think?

[gwyyn]

ok here's a verse from Jesus himself

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

Mark28:20

[davo]

Originally posted by gwyyn
ok here's a verse from Jesus himself

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

Mark28:20

Again in Matt 28:20 the word "world" in the Greek means "age" -a period of time, not "terra firma."

davo

[kern]

Parousia:

Re the date of Revelation, you have set up a false dilemma -- the entire book of Revelation need not have been written at the same time. Every scholarly opinion I have read of Revelation's date says that parts of it were possibly composed before 70 AD but that the final form of the book is 90+. It seems that you require an early date on Revelation for preterism to be valid at all (although I might be wrong on this), so you would have a vested interest to ignore opinions to the contrary. You will understand if I don't take your word about the dating.

-Chris

[davo]

Originally posted by kern
Every scholarly opinion I have read of Revelation's date says that parts of it were possibly composed before 70 AD but that the final form of the book is 90+.

Chris, I'd be interested in some references -which scholars are you refering to.

davo

[parousia70]

Kern,

ALL proponents of the "Late Date" base their premise on one questionable statement by Ireneaus.

He is the ONLY source for the Late date.

Since He was wrong about so much else,(Jesus lived to be 50 and was never crucified) You will understand if I don't take his word about the dating of Revelation.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by parousia70
Kern,

ALL proponents of the "Late Date" base their premise on one questionable statement by Ireneaus. He is the ONLY source for the Late date. Since He was wrong about so much else,(Jesus lived to be 50 and was never crucified) You will understand if I don't take his word about the dating of Revelation.

Parousia70 is right.

However, it's also important to point out that the statement by Irenaeus is a "second generation" quote. Irenaeus' statement that John's vision was seen during the reign of Domitian only exists in Latin and not the original Greek. Most scholars, totally apart from any eschatological argumentation, state that the Latin text is either poor in quality or corrupt. The liklihood is great that Irenaeus was speaking of John (not his vision) being seen during the reign of Domitian. Not only does this work better in context, but it is also supported by Irenaeus' statement that John lived to the time of Traijan, who was emperor after Domitian. A "reconstruction" of the Greek text from the Latin can allow for the change of subject from "it" to "him."

Thus, scholars of futurist bent are relying on a corrupt quote. That, or Irenaeus was just stupid. There are many things in his writings that contradict themselves.

Anyhoo, Irenaeus also stated that the canon of Scripture was completed during the reign of Nero. That would support the early date of Revelation's composition.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


Parousia70 is right.

However, it's also important to point out that the statement by Irenaeus is a "second generation" quote. Irenaeus' statement that John's vision was seen during the reign of Domitian only exists in Latin and not the original Greek. Most scholars, totally apart from any eschatological argumentation, state that the Latin text is either poor in quality or corrupt. The liklihood is great that Irenaeus was speaking of John (not his vision) being seen during the reign of Domitian. Not only does this work better in context, but it is also supported by Irenaeus' statement that John lived to the time of Traijan, who was emperor after Domitian. A "reconstruction" of the Greek text from the Latin can allow for the change of subject from "it" to "him."

Thus, scholars of futurist bent are relying on a corrupt quote. That, or Irenaeus was just stupid. There are many things in his writings that contradict themselves.

Anyhoo, Irenaeus also stated that the canon of Scripture was completed during the reign of Nero. That would support the early date of Revelation's composition.

It's been several days since my last posting and no one's refuted me yet! Dang, I'm good. ;)

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


It's been several days since my last posting and no one's refuted me yet! Dang, I'm good. ;)



Must be that Jedi Knight thing.:D

:help:

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um


Must be that Jedi Knight thing.:D

:help:

:::Mike waves his hand:wave:::: "You are a preterist ..."
:::Mike waves his hand again:wave:::: "You believe the Second Coming is a past event ..."
:::Another subtle wave:wave:::: "Josephus is Scripture ..."

[Auntie]

:D rofl :D

Auntie has invisible sheild, which protects her from all preterist persuasion....hee hee. :D

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
:D rofl :D

Auntie has invisible sheild, which protects her from all preterist persuasion....hee hee. :D

An invidsible sheild that protects you from the truth of scripture?

I have an atheist friend that claims to have one of those too!

hehehe, preterism is proving to be the 'pinhole' in that balloon however.........

[kern]

Originally posted by parousia70
Kern,

ALL proponents of the "Late Date" base their premise on one questionable statement by Ireneaus.

He is the ONLY source for the Late date.


Not according to what I've read. But I will admit that discussion on this point is futile. You're not about to accept a late date for Revelation unless you also somehow accept that John was writing about already fulfilled events.

-Chris

[parousia70]

Originally posted by kern


Not according to what I've read. But I will admit that discussion on this point is futile. You're not about to accept a late date for Revelation unless you also somehow accept that John was writing about already fulfilled events.
-Chris

I'll accept ANY date for Revelation that carries with it a preponderance of evidence, and that is why I accept the early date, at this time. I believe the weight of evidence for a pre 70Ad date is overwhelming, however, I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

Perhaps you would care to share some of what you have read about the late date that dosen't use Ireneaus as a source.
I would be most interested.

P70

[kern]

OK, you will have to give me some time on this. I'm not at college anymore and I don't have access to the same materials I did a few weeks ago. I'll visit a local library sometime soon and see what I can turn up, and then I'll start a "date of revelation" thread.

-Chris

[parousia70]

Bump

[prodigal]

Bump? Bump what? There is nothing else to talk about, preter is wrong, period.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by prodigal
Bump? Bump what? There is nothing else to talk about, preter is wrong, period.

Eh, you're just afraid of the monster called Proper Hermenuetic that's making noise under your bed at night when you begin drifting into half-awake dreams about the world ending before another day begins. ;)

[franklin]

If Jesus returned within His generation, then the futurist view is a lie.

If Jesus didn't return within His generation, then Christianity is a lie.

[gwyyn]

:::Another subtle wave::: "Josephus is Scripture ..."


tell me you don't really believe this guys interpretation over what the bible sais!!! :confused:

Josephus was not even a christian. Yea he was for the Jews until they lost, and then he goes and lives the with roman royality! He even adopted a Roman name.

http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html

this is where i got my reading to assume my opinion :eek:

[seebs]

Franklin: That's like saying that, if the earth doesn't have four corners, the Bible is a lie. Sometimes we don't understand things correctly, or they need to be taken in context