Inconsistencies in the preterist view? [Archive]

npetreley

19th June 2002, 03:08 AM

I wasn't very familiar with preterism, so I looked it up and found this (among other sites):

http://www.lvcm.com/preterism/preteristview.htm

Preterists here will have to chime in and say if they think this is a valid presentation of the preterist view. I have no way of knowing. And this page lacked a lot of information I feel is necessary to fully evaluate the preterist view.

But I felt that this presentation was filled with inconsistencies in hermeneutics and exegesis. For one thing, much of the argument tends to pivot on this verse:

Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

The point made is that Jesus would have had to return before some of those standing there died.

Then the presentation goes on to explain how it could be possible that there would be no more death...

Most believers today reading John's words speaking of the conditions in the New heaven and earth, "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death", understand "death" to be physical. Therefore, they look for a future fulfillment of this verse. But the immediate result of man's sin was not physical death but spiritual death -- separation from God. The Lord said to Adam, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." He didn't die physically that day, but he did die spiritually. Time-- in the day, defines nature-- spiritual death! It is spiritual death that is destroyed in the New Covenant not physical death.

IMO, this seems to undermine the first argument. Why is it necessary to interpret the first as physical death, but permissible to explain away the second reference to death as spiritual?

Jesus could easily have been saying that some of those standing there (those who were saved) would not taste death before they saw Jesus coming into His kingdom because they were now alive spiritually once more and would not die again -- they were going to "fall asleep" (often used to described the saved who die physically).

That's just one example, but the whole argument seems to jump back and forth between literal and symbolic interpretation of the text. In general, however, it seems to take a literal view of the text to establish the foundation and then invokes a symbolic interpretation whenever it is needed to explain the contradictions and problems. IMO that's usually a dead giveaway that you have to start over and see if your premise is flawed.

So am I missing something here, or is this page simply an inadequate presentation?

GTX

19th June 2002, 03:29 AM

They will find a way to explain it away. I am hoping for a non automated response.

gwyyn

19th June 2002, 03:46 AM

LOL GTX you are right,

BigEd

19th June 2002, 07:38 AM

I see two major differences between furturism and preterism.

Futurism
Views timing metaphorically
Views events literally

Preterism
Views timing literally
views events metaphorically

In my mind this is truely a paradox.

I will just keep praying and keep searching the word. Either way The LORD is control of all, including the fufillment of profacy.
Just like Christ shocked the establiment of religion during his first coming, maybe he'll shake us up again.

jenlu

19th June 2002, 08:33 AM

npetreley...

That's a very good question...I'm not a preterist and I don't account that verse for the Second Coming (yet)...but I do account that verse for those standing there...but you bring up a very good point on why? Death there is physical and the defeat of death at the ressurrection is spiritual...Great question...There may be some Greek to help explain, but I do not have my concordance...You see...the word we may interpret world...in the Greek it may really mean: land, age, world, etc...sometimes it depends on prefixes and other times they are different words altogether...I suggest if you really are interested...find out what the greek words used in that verse and compare it to other verse's that have the same greek words and try to deduce what is meant by death there...

This is why I account that a many other verse's to the (including the tribulation verse's) first century...the indictment Jesus lays down is not just on some random nation or people for a future generation...it is on the Jewish hierarchy...I believe this is obviously shown in Matthew 23...then his disciple's talk to him about the temple then standing and he says to them, that the temple they are talking about will be utterly destroyed...That temple...not a future one...that temple was destroyed in 70AD...to me that is the only possible fulfillment of that scripture...Right after his indictment of the temple that is right before them they ask him about the end of the "age"...here is a place where many Bible's put world...but the word in Greek is "aion" meaning age...he goes on to give sign's of the end of the "age" and then boxes it all in saying "this generation shall not pass till all this takes place"... My belief is that the first generation saw the tribulation that would not be equaled...and all the signs leading up to it described in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13...

davo

19th June 2002, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
So am I missing something here, or is this page simply an inadequate presentation?

I would say you are missing something, and what you have presented is indeed inadequate, to this degree, you have linked together two separate thoughts to say one thing so creating a "straw-man" that logic blows over -not the an adequate way to challenge something without bringing your own case, IMO. You then went onto say:

Originally posted by npetreley
That's just one example, but the whole argument seems to jump back and forth between literal and symbolic interpretation of the text. In general, however, it seems to take a literal view of the text to establish the foundation and then invokes a symbolic interpretation whenever it is needed to explain the contradictions and problems. IMO that's usually a dead giveaway that you have to start over and see if your premise is flawed.

What you fail to recognise or at least acknowledge is that absolutely every school of eschatology uses both "literal and symbolic interpretation of the text" and it would be showing one's own flawed premise in denying this. The above quote is indicative of the usual hypocritical charge brought by futurists against the preterist eschatological approach, [npetreley, I am not calling you a hypocrite].

The question is, which school has the more consistant biblical balance -I believe futurism is well lacking in this area.

I won't speak for the authors of the page you quoted from, however you can [for consistancies sake] approach both those quotes from a literal perspective. If, as most futurists pride themselves, you take Matt 16:27-28 literally then Jesus had to return in the "this generation" time frame for His statement to be true, [unless one does what what is charged of Preterists -you spiritualise it away] -now as I said, all schools literalise and spiritualise, but which is more honoring to the text -I believe the "fulfilled prophecy" approach is. Some futurists seeking to explain away the literality of these verses say: the "Coming" here mentioned was the "Transfiguration" -this however lacks credibilty as verse 27 clearly shows the Lord giving "rewards," which elsewhere in scripture is indelibly linked with the Parousia -it was promised, some would not die before... This was fulfilled in 70AD.

As for the issue of "death in the garden" you have a choice to literally believe God or Satan -God said: "on the day you eat of it you shall die!" -Satan said: "you shall not!"

npetreley, who do you believe told the truth, God or Satan? Who do you say was fathering a lie, God or Satan? Again, God said "on the day..." -did this happen as God said? YES!! Adam died "spiritually" or more precisely "covenantally." The moment Adam bit into the fruit of self determination he sinned, he separated himself from relationship with God; and broken relationship with God the Bible make plain and clear IS DEATH! The bible is chock-full of the redemptive plan of God in bringing separated humanity back to spiritual life i.e., resurrection -this He did in Christ -and it IS a completed salvation.

Again, some would hanker after a "literal" rendering of "death" in Paradise, noting a footnote in the NKJV on Gen 2:17 which says: "dying you shall die" -and consequently explain it as the literal process of physical death begining at that instant. This again is faulty [the explanation, not the NKJV footnote]. The literal Hebrew renderering reads "die die" -the is a Hebraism, a Hebrew idiom [a form of expression having a significance other than the literal one]. In the Hebrew, when a word or series of words [cf Jer 7:4] is sequentially repeated it "intensifies" that word's meaning, giving it an unequivocal definitive position of certainty.

Physical death is the manifestation of the spiritual reality.

Jesus said: "he who believes in Me shall never die," Jesus literally meant what He said -however, He didn't mean it literally -this was Nicodemus' stumbling block [and the stumbling block of many who make ignorant charges].

davo

parousia70

19th June 2002, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

Jesus could easily have been saying that some of those standing there (those who were saved) would not taste death before they saw Jesus coming into His kingdom because they were now alive spiritually once more and would not die again -- they were going to "fall asleep" (often used to described the saved who die physically).

Here's one "inconsistancy" with that interpratation.

To say that some of those standing there would taste "spiritual" death before they say they saw Jesus return, is oxymoronic in that spiritual death (the 2nd death) comes "after" the Judgement, After Christ returns.

Now, it could be argued that the unsaved are already spiritually dead until they accept Christ, and I agree, but that throws another wrench in your argument. Jesus was speaking directly to His disciples. How many of His disciples do you believe never got saved? Remember it has to be "Some" of them, not just 1 (Judas).

Jesus is speaking of Physical death here

parousia70

19th June 2002, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by BigEd
I see two major differences between furturism and preterism.

Futurism
Views timing metaphorically
Views events literally

Preterism
Views timing literally
views events metaphorically

In my mind this is truely a paradox.

Big Ed, that is an excellent, although simplified take on the basic difference.

Which does the Bible support?

The Bible always uses prophetic time literally.
Any and all Time limits ordained by God for a prophesy's fulfillment are always given to be understood by how time relates to man, and not how time realtes to God.
every time, without fail, always.

In Contrast, the Bible, over and over and over and over and over, uses apocalyptic language (Stars falling, moon bleeding, earth splitting, etc..) as mataphore for disruptions in, and judgements against nations, kingdoms and principalities.

Your "paradox" really isn't, when scriptural precident is taken into account.

Therefore:

Futurism
Views prophetic timing metaphorically,
Views apocalyptic events temporally
Thereby throwing out scriptural precident to the contrary.

The Bible, and therefore Preterism
Views prophetic timing literally
Views apocalyptic events metaphorically.

One of the easiest things to do is let the Bible speak for itself.

One of the most difficult things to do is let the Bible speak for itself.

npetreley

19th June 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by davo

What you fail to recognise or at least acknowledge is that absolutely every school of eschatology uses both "literal and symbolic interpretation of the text" and it would be showing one's own flawed premise in denying this.

I wouldn't deny that at all. That's how I approach hermeneutics, as well. And as you've indicated elsewhere in your post, there are times when only one interpretation is logically possible (at least from our limited perspective -- we can think only one is possible and be wrong).

But I didn't see that presentation as exegesis based on what the text seemed to communicate. What it read like (to me, at least) was an arbitrary selection of certain texts to be literal, after which any problematic texts were resolved by treating them as symbolic or spiritual. As I said in my original post, I don't necessarily see the necessity for the first reference to death to be physical (it could be, but I don't see why it is absolutely necessary). And once you get past that point, you no longer have to adjust the other references to mean spiritual death in order to harmonize the scriptures.

But my overall point is that whenever someone does this -- starts with a debatable "necessity" of interpreting something one way or another, and then jumps back and forth between literal and spiritual to resolve the remaining conflicts, it raises a red flag for me that the premise could be flawed.

npetreley

19th June 2002, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

Here's one "inconsistancy" with that interpratation.

To say that some of those standing there would taste "spiritual" death before they say they saw Jesus return, is oxymoronic in that spiritual death (the 2nd death) comes "after" the Judgement, After Christ returns.

I really just tossed that out as an example of an alternate interpretation, but since I already did it, let me run with it just to see how far it can go.

Look at John 11:25-26

The context of John 11 is the death ("sleep") of Lazarus. Jesus says that Lazarus will rise again, and when Martha interprets this to mean Lazarus will rise again in the resurrection at the last day, Jesus CORRECTS her. "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die."

It seems as if the only way to understand "...he who believes in me will live even though he dies..." must be that he will live spiritually even though he dies physically. But what about the next part? "...and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." If Jesus is talking strictly from a spiritual perspective, isn't this redundant? It seems more likely to me that he's saying that, as the example of Lazarus shows, you don't really die physically in the same way that the unbeliever dies physically.

What's the difference? Having never died physically, I can't say. ;) It would be interesting if we could ask Lazarus if he "tasted death" when he fell asleep.

My point, however, is that there may be more to this whole issue of tasting death than simply spiritual/physical.

Originally posted by parousia70

Now, it could be argued that the unsaved are already spiritually dead until they accept Christ, and I agree, but that throws another wrench in your argument. Jesus was speaking directly to His disciples. How many of His disciples do you believe never got saved? Remember it has to be "Some" of them, not just 1 (Judas).

Actually, the "Some" refers to those who would NOT taste death, not to the one who would. So this is not a problem.

By the way, for the benefit of others, here's the section in question, from Young's literal:

24 Then said Jesus to his disciples, `If any one doth will to come after me, let him disown himself, and take up his cross, and follow me,
25 for whoever may will to save his life, shall lose it, and whoever may lose his life for my sake shall find it,
26 for what is a man profited if he may gain the whole world, but of his life suffer loss? or what shall a man give as an exchange for his life?
27 `For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work.
28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

franklin

19th June 2002, 03:38 PM

All of the inconsistencies in prophesy are found in futurism. The only consistant answer to all fulfilled prophesy is Preterism. So I believe the title of this thread should read, "Inconsistencies in the futurist view". And there is no need for a question mark! It is fact! Biblical fact! Futurism is the condition known as deferred hope and non-occurence. The only solution to this problem of non-occurrence is occurrence – everything Jesus promised happened exactly as and when He said it would. Preterism is the only biblically consistent view that offers this solution. What does futurism have to offer? To the un-believer it says that Christ was a failure! Preterism, Biblical teaching, proclaims that Christ was victorious!

jenlu

19th June 2002, 04:05 PM

Since "some" refers to those who would not taste death...If it was referring to spiritual death then by way of reasoning "most" would taste spiritual death and Parousia's claim still stands...in my opinion of course...

The Lazarus question is a good one...allow me to ponder...

davo

19th June 2002, 05:29 PM

Lets get a little logical and literal: "there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till..."

Is there any good reason for any of Jesus' followers to have thought Jesus meant anything other than the stated obvious -as per Jesus' words? Or do you all suppose that Jesus' crowd were merely His sounding board for some 2000+ years, and counting, audience. In other words, Jesus spoke straight over their heads, straight past them to somebody else. Wouldn't you think that just a little rude -I mean these were His followers.

If you were in a meeting with the boss and he said "there are some standing here who will not..." I'm seriously thinking common sense might suggest you would more than likely assume the probability that he was in all likelyhood, referring to YOU! -unless of course you're a gymnast.

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

19th June 2002, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by franklin
All of the inconsistencies in prophesy are found in futurism. The only consistant answer to all fulfilled prophesy is Preterism. So I believe the title of this thread should read, "Inconsistencies in the futurist view". And there is no need for a question mark! It is fact! Biblical fact!

Aman franklin. Anyway you mix it the futurist view has all the inconsistencies in prophesy. They try to say that Jesus did not mean this, or that, in one verse while they wilfully use their self-imposed blindness to forget what Jesus said to his disciples in another verse. "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man come.""

God seems to know before hand that men would say he did not mean what he said in Matthew 16:27-28 so He said it again in another way Matthew 10:23. :o

God is always a thousand steps ahead of the lies of men :clap:

Didaskomenos

19th June 2002, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
It seems as if the only way to understand "...he who believes in me will live even though he dies..." must be that he will live spiritually even though he dies physically. But what about the next part? "...and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." If Jesus is talking strictly from a spiritual perspective, isn't this redundant? It seems more likely to me that he's saying that, as the example of Lazarus shows, you don't really die physically in the same way that the unbeliever dies physically.

I'm not looking at the text here, but based on your quotes, why isn't it sorta obvious that Jesus is saying, "...he who believes in me will live [eternally] even though he dies [physically]..." and "...whoever lives [i.e., anybody physically alive] and believes in me will never die [spiritually]." Why does this have anything to do with a different kind of death for believers?

Manifestation1*AD70

19th June 2002, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos

I'm not looking at the text here, but based on your quotes, why isn't it sorta obvious that Jesus is saying, "...he who believes in me will live [eternally] even though he dies [physically]..." and "...whoever lives [i.e., anybody physically alive] and believes in me will never die [spiritually]." Why does this have anything to do with a different kind of death for believers?

Very very good didaskomenos :clap:

franklin

19th June 2002, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

Aman franklin. Anyway you mix it the futurist view has all the inconsistencies in prophesy. They try to say that Jesus did not mean this, or that, in one verse while they wilfully use their self-imposed blindness to forget what Jesus said to his disciples in another verse. "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man come.""
God seems to know before hand that men would say he did not mean what he said in Matthew 16:27-28 so He said it again in another way Matthew 10:23. :o
God is always a thousand steps ahead of the lies of men :clap:

Thankyou for the uplifting and encouraging words there brother Manifest! You have said it very well in this post!
I pray that our futurist brothers that pay us a visit in our assigned forum will all be on the same page of biblical teaching one day soon! Did I say soon? :D

npetreley

19th June 2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by jenlu
Since "some" refers to those who would not taste death...If it was referring to spiritual death then by way of reasoning "most" would taste spiritual death and Parousia's claim still stands...in my opinion of course...

You've lost me completely. Most of the disciples, to whom He was talking?

npetreley

19th June 2002, 11:56 PM

parousia70

20th June 2002, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

I really just tossed that out as an example of an alternate interpretation, but since I already did it, let me run with it just to see how far it can go.

Look at John 11:25-26

The context of John 11 is the death ("sleep") of Lazarus. Jesus says that Lazarus will rise again, and when Martha interprets this to mean Lazarus will rise again in the resurrection at the last day, Jesus CORRECTS her.

He "Corrects" Her?

He never denies or corrects her belief that Lazarus will rise on the "last Day", He just helps her to understand that that the resurrection isn't something Jesus "Does", the resurrection is something Jesus "Is".

He is not contradicting or correcting any notion of a "last Day" resurrection.

npetreley

20th June 2002, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by parousia70

He is not contradicting or correcting any notion of a "last Day" resurrection.

He was correcting her misunderstanding of what He meant at the time when He said Lazarus will rise again -- that day.

parousia70

20th June 2002, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

He was correcting her misunderstanding of what He meant at the time when He said Lazarus will rise again -- that day.

Oh, OK, My misunderstanding, however she (and Lazarus) would still look for a "Better Resurrection" than the one Lazarus received that particular day.

Jesus never contradicts that.

GTX

20th June 2002, 02:15 AM

I still see inconsistencies. I am completely unconvinced.

Why in the world would a model Christian who is also awaiting the end times not be enlightened to the fact that this is Christs Kingdom? Why are you the only ones enlightened?

I truly believe you guys believe this, but aren't you just a tad disappointed? I mean doesn't it sound much nicer and more glorious knowing Christ is going to come and reign on earth?

Please your own words, no scripture. :)

davo

20th June 2002, 03:35 AM

GTX

20th June 2002, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by davo

"Please your own words, no scripture" -I believe this says it all when it comes to your end-time understanding, or lack thereof. You said it perfectly, thankyou. :(

davo

How can you say that? I asked for an explaination in a preterists own words! I am on your side, I too believe Christ hasn't returned yet. :confused:

unworthyone

20th June 2002, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by GTX
How can you say that? I asked for an explaination in a preterists own words! I am on your side, I too believe Christ hasn't returned yet. :confused:

Don't feel bad. Paul probably didn't use only scripture to write scripture.

davo

20th June 2002, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by GTX
How can you say that? I asked for an explaination in a preterists own words! I am on your side, I too believe Christ hasn't returned yet. :confused:

Sorry for the misunderstanding -Preterism, also known as fulfilled prophecy or covenant eschatology, and also Transmillennialism(tm) or pantelism, all acknowledge that Christ returned in His generation as He promised, in the destruction of Jerusalem -being the end of the Old Covenant, in AD70. This I believe. I am not a futurist. :)

davo

GTX

20th June 2002, 04:25 AM

Oh, I didn't realize that, thanks for the explaination. I haven't seen Christ yet though, and our world is a mess.

davo

20th June 2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by GTX
Oh, I didn't realize that, thanks for the explaination. I haven't seen Christ yet though, and our world is a mess.

That's ok -keep reading your Bible with an open heart and most likely the eyes of your understanding will be opened.

davo

GTX

20th June 2002, 04:40 AM

You must have doubts about that sometimes though.

davo

20th June 2002, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by GTX
You must have doubts about that sometimes though.

Not sure I'm following -what doubts are you thinking of.

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

20th June 2002, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by franklin

Thankyou for the uplifting and encouraging words there brother Manifest! You have said it very well in this post!
I pray that our futurist brothers that pay us a visit in our assigned forum will all be on the same page of biblical teaching one day soon! Did I say soon? :D

Hi brother franklin. Lest all pray that it is not soon, because we all know soon can mean 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 or 5.000 years from now. :)

franklin

20th June 2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by unworthyone
Don't feel bad. Paul probably didn't use only scripture to write scripture.

unworthyone, In other words Paul wasn't inspired by God when he wrote most of the NT? Your statement presents many problems! I once heard a lady in my usual dispensational sunday school class say that Paul used escape clauses when he was writting about the rapture in 1Thess! I went bolt upright out of my seat when she said that! Scripture should be allowed to be it's own interpreter, scripture must be allowed to speak for itself!
BTW, Paul isn't even talking about a rapture anyway as is so commonly taught!

20th June 2002, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by GTX

I still see inconsistencies. I am completely unconvinced.

Why in the world would a model Christian who is also awaiting the end times not be enlightened to the fact that this is Christs Kingdom? Why are you the only ones enlightened?

I truly believe you guys believe this, but aren't you just a tad disappointed? I mean doesn't it sound much nicer and more glorious knowing Christ is going to come and reign on earth?

Please your own words, no scripture.

Yo GTX,
When I became a Christian I was taught that I was entering into the Kingdom(of God, of heaven, of Christ all the same). Some churches don't teach this concept, but I don't know why. Study it for yourself and you will see that we are part of God's Kingdom now(if we are a Christian).

As far 'doesn't it sound much nicer' my answer is no. Knowing that Jesus fulfilled what he promised when he promised and that he reigns now, gives me the confidence to face this world. I have the joy of knowing I am in the Kingdom and nothing can take that from me.

GTX, when I first noticed some of your posts they were a bit defensive, but lately I noticed you are more open, keep it up brother. Search the scripture for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

C-Ya, IB

Manifestation1*AD70

21st June 2002, 07:17 PM

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

Hi GTX. May I sak you another question? Where in the Bible does it say that Christ is going to come and reign on earth?

I realize you weren't asking me, but here are some:

Psalm 2:

6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of the Lord : He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father.

Revelation 14:1 implies it, since the reference is to Mount Zion and the 144,000 with Him are those protected during the time of wrath (in other words, they are living people on earth).

Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

Isaiah 9:

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness

Can you interpret these spiritually? Sure. But they could also be literal.

Brian45

23rd June 2002, 06:26 AM

Satan said : I will .

Jesus said : Not my will , but the will of him who sent me .

So to live we must first die , we must take up our cross and follow Christ . We must crusify ourselves and cast down our lives ( Our self will ) . It is our self will that makes us followers of satan . He who believes in me will live even though he dies .

Brian45

23rd June 2002, 06:37 AM

Sorry , I stuffed up again . I was replying to npetreley on the first page . Would somebody like to teach me how to do that quote thing , cause i'm having problems . Thankyou .

parousia70

23rd June 2002, 08:21 AM

Sure thing Brian!
Just Look at the top of the post you wish to quote, and click the button that says "quote"

parousia70

23rd June 2002, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

Revelation 14:1 implies it, since the reference is to Mount Zion and the 144,000 with Him are those protected during the time of wrath (in other words, they are living people on earth).

Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

Isaiah 9:

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness

Can you interpret these spiritually? Sure. But they could also be literal.

How do you define the difference between "literal & spiritual"?
Isn't a spiritual fulfillment Literal?

Do you not believe The spiritual realm is just as literal a reality as the temporal?

I'd argue it is even more literal than the temporal.

When you look for a "literal" fulfillment of Revelation 14:1, how "Literal" do you get?
Does a Literal "Lamb" stand on mount Zion? or is that to be understood as spiritual? according to a literal view, dosen't there have to be a literal lamb standing on Mt Zion before the prophesy can be fulfilled?

Please show me how a "spiritual" fulfillment is somehow not a "literal" fulfillment.

Thanks.

Manifestation1*AD70

23rd June 2002, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by npetreley

I realize you weren't asking me, but here are some:

Psalm 2:

quote:
6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of the Lord : He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father.

Revelation 14:1 implies it, since the reference is to Mount Zion and the 144,000 with Him are those protected during the time of wrath (in other words, they are living people on earth).

quote:
Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

Isaiah 9:

quote:
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness

Can you interpret these spiritually? Sure. But they could also be literal.

[QUOTE]

Hi npetreley :wave: Well not according to my Bible. My Bible says that Mount Zion is the city of the Living God the [B]heavenly Jerusalem But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jesusalem, to an innumerable company of nagels (Hebrews 12:22). It looks like you futurist have pie on your face again. There is just no way you can interpret this language to be literal.

gwyyn

23rd June 2002, 06:57 PM

PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent failure of these prophesies to come true has led to skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by maintaining that these prophesies did, in fact, have a first century fulfillment.

Hmm this above statement sais it all to why preterist are wrong in my opinion. It was pulled off the below link, on the outline of preterism.
http://www.planetpreterist.com/

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70
[QUOTE]Originally posted by npetreley

Hi npetreley :wave: Well not according to my Bible. My Bible says that Mount Zion is the city of the Living God the [B]heavenly Jerusalem But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jesusalem, to an innumerable company of nagels (Hebrews 12:22). It looks like you futurist have pie on your face again. There is just no way you can interpret this language to be literal.

You're right - there is no way to interpret Hebrews 12:22 as literal. And IMO there is no way to interpret the Mount Zion in Revelation 14:1 as anything but literal. I doubt if you'll agree, but that's how I see it.

But what strikes me odd about your rebuttal is that it makes it sound like if you can find one place in the Bible that refers to Zion as symbolic or a heavenly dwelling, then ALL references to Zion must be interpreted that way. Surely you don't mean that, do you?

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 07:19 PM

Manifestation1*AD70

23rd June 2002, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

You're right - there is no way to interpret Hebrews 12:22 as literal. And IMO there is no way to interpret the Mount Zion in Revelation 14:1 as anything but literal. I doubt if you'll agree, but that's how I see it.

But what strikes me odd about your rebuttal is that it makes it sound like if you can find one place in the Bible that refers to Zion as symbolic or a heavenly dwelling, then ALL references to Zion must be interpreted that way. Surely you don't mean that, do you?

Let me mack sure I understand you right here. Are you saying there are two Mount Zions in the Bible. One literal and the other spiritial if so where is the scripture for that? My scripture clearly proofs it is heavenly. Where is your proof that it is earthly :scratch:

Remember anyone can point to a verse and say it means this, or that, when in fact, there is not one word about the earth.

Manifestation1*AD70

23rd June 2002, 07:38 PM

Didaskomenos

23rd June 2002, 07:38 PM

Mount Zion is a real place. It's the one of the hills on which Jerusalem was built. It was and is still used to refer to Jerusalem itself. Look it up.

Manifestation1*AD70

23rd June 2002, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Mount Zion is a real place. It's the one of the hills on which Jerusalem was built. It was and is still used to refer to Jerusalem itself. Look it up.

We are talk about Mount Zion that is in the Bible. God's Mount Zion. The one that Abraham long for.

Didaskomenos

23rd June 2002, 11:01 PM

Um, yeah...that's the one. Didn't you know that "Zion" is an idealized concept based on a real place? So it is undeniably firstly an earthly place, although it also has ideological connotations as well. The Bible doesn't say anywhere, "Mount Zion is a geographical location," but then again, it doesn't state that Israel is a geographical location - you're just supposed to know that. You did, didn't you? :)

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Um, yeah...that's the one. Didn't you know that "Zion" is an idealized concept based on a real place? So it is undeniably firstly an earthly place, although it also has ideological connotations as well. The Bible doesn't say anywhere, "Mount Zion is a geographical location," but then again, it doesn't state that Israel is a geographical location - you're just supposed to know that. You did, didn't you? :)

Well, it comes pretty close to saying it's a geographical location. In several places it refers to Zion, the city of David, in a context that lets you know it's not talking about a heavenly Zion.

2 Samuel 7

"Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David."

Auntie

24th June 2002, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by gwyyn

PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent failure of these prophesies to come true has led to skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by maintaining that these prophesies did, in fact, have a first century fulfillment.

Hmm this above statement sais it all to why preterist are wrong in my opinion. It was pulled off the below link, on the outline of preterism.
http://www.planetpreterist.com/

Gwyyn,

I remember reading those words at that site a few weeks ago, and it does say a lot about the "seed" of preterism. We reep what we sow. Preterism is the harvest of doubters.

If a preterist can be convinced that Christ did NOT return in 70AD, then that same preterist will tell you Jesus was a false prophet and deny Christ. They're entire faith in Jesus is based solely upon their eschatology. Take away their eschatology, and you have robbed them of the very foundation of their belief. A foundation built upon skepticism.

" 1st Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Mandy

24th June 2002, 09:41 AM

Auntie, I agree completely!

jenlu

24th June 2002, 11:26 AM

Sounds to me like there entire faith is based solely on the Word of God...If one could convince a preterist that Christ did not return in 70 AD then they would have had to done it with scripture which would in turn confirm their consistency with the Word...I've heard some try to poke holes in their beliefs, and some have done it a little, but not to a point that I (as an outsider to both beliefs looking in) would completely disregard anything they say...they make points that are rational and convincing on many fronts...

I think it's funny...If they were to argue without scripture as back up, people would slam them for not being scriptural in their argument, but since they use scripture to provide evidence for their argument, people bash them for twisting it...as long as it doesn't line up with what one believes...

Acts6:5

24th June 2002, 12:20 PM

Preterism is the harvest of doubters.

If a preterist can be convinced that Christ did NOT return in 70AD, then that same preterist will tell you Jesus was a false prophet and deny Christ. They're entire faith in Jesus is based solely upon their eschatology. Take away their eschatology, and you have robbed them of the very foundation of their belief. A foundation built upon skepticism.

Nope, nope, and nope. You guys just don't get it.:( :)

Our entire faith in Jesus is based solely upon what Jesus said and did. That's the bottom line. The skeptics are found in the ranks of atheists and unbelievers; preterists are neither.

Good stuff, Jenlu!

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Auntie

24th June 2002, 12:23 PM

Jenlu,

Don't the Jehovah Witnesses back up their beliefs with scripture?

Don't the Mormons back up their beliefs with srcipture?

Don't the Moonies back up their beliefs with scripture?

I can list others, if you are interested...

jenlu

24th June 2002, 12:29 PM

Don't YOU back up your beliefs with scripture Auntie?...

Auntie

24th June 2002, 12:42 PM

Read some of the other threads, Jenlu, where I have stated the dangers of interpreting scripture on our own, apart from the authority of the early church and the Holy Spirit.

jenlu

24th June 2002, 12:53 PM

Auntie...your beginning to make little sense...

Let me ask this....Doesn't the early church use scripture to back up their beliefs...and in turn, since you believe what supposedly early church people believed, you back up your beliefs with scripture...at least I hope so...

also...

doesn't the Holy Spirit use scripture...

I would sway one from depending on any man (including organized religion of any kind) for their interpretation of anything let alone scripture...

Acts6:5

24th June 2002, 12:56 PM

Auntie,

Unless you are a member of a religious group claiming "apostolic authority" (RCC, LDS, etc.) then you are interpreting the scriptures on your own. The "authority" of the early Church concerning some teachings can be tested and revised over time (ask Martin Luther). And of course I agee that no interpretation should take place apart from the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Auntie

24th June 2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by jenlu

Let me ask this....Doesn't the early church use scripture to back up their beliefs...and in turn, since you believe what supposedly early church people believed, you back up your beliefs with scripture

I depend upon the early churches INTERPRETATION of scripture, Jenlu. Mainly the Nicene Creed, which was written to clear up a lot of false interpretations.

When people divorce themselves from the very basics of the Nicene Creed, they are walking on thin ice.

jenlu

24th June 2002, 01:11 PM

How did the early church come up with the Nicene Creed Auntie...They used the Bible...my guess is if you were around then and there were message boards about the Nicene Creed and you asked a question about where they came up with it...I dare say they would use scripture...then you would have to disregard there teachings...because the Jehovah's Witness, Moormans, etc. etc. etc. use scripture...I'm just trying to point out your flaw in deciding anyone who uses scripture to defend their views is not twisting, even according to you...if you think about it...

parousia70

24th June 2002, 01:20 PM

Auntie.
Simple question:

Do you believe the Nicene creed is infallible?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thanks

Auntie

24th June 2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by jenlu
I'm just trying to point out your flaw in deciding anyone who uses scripture to defend their views is not twisting, even according to you...if you think about it...

I never said that, Jenlu, you are misinterpreting me.:P

Anyone can use scripture to back up their views, yes. Read some of goodnewsinc posts, he uses scripture to PROVE that God has a WIFE!

The question is, WHOSE INTERPRETATION of scripture do you believe??? The Nicene Creed, written around 350AD I think, lists the BASIC beliefs of most Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant alike.

franklin

25th June 2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
I depend upon the early churches INTERPRETATION of scripture, Jenlu. Mainly the Nicene Creed, which was written to clear up a lot of false interpretations..
AuntieBelle, I depend on the authority of the scripture and the inspired writers of the NT and let scripture speak on it's own! The Nicene Creed is not infallible, it is fallible and it is not inspired by God, so it is subject to error. Scripture was written so as to be it's own interpreter with the purpose of clearing up a lot of false interpretations of men.
[i]
When people divorce themselves from the very basics of the Nicene Creed, they are walking on thin ice. [/B]
When people divorce themselves from the authority of the scripture and place their trust in a creed over scripture they are more prone to adopt false teachings resulting in apostecy.