Preterist interpretation of events? [Archive]

npetreley

21st June 2002, 02:58 AM

G'day davo!

I found several interesting items using your link.

Here's a baffler. The article "When did miracles cease?" has as its logical pivot point the assertion that, "This is the Jewish age which lasted until 70 A.D." This harmonizes with the preterist view that Luke 21 (and the parallel passage in the other gospels) is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

But let's have a look at Luke 21:20-28...

20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

How did the "times of the gentiles" become the Jewish age?

davo

21st June 2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
How did the "times of the gentiles" become the Jewish age?

npetreley, good question. The Jewish age was the age of the Old Covenant and Paul refers to it a number of times as "this age":

1Cor 2:8 "which none of the rulers [Jewish hierarchy] of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Gal 1:4 "who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father."

This is also reflected in what Jesus said about the times:

Matthew 12:39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

This "time" or "age" was the biblical "last days" or as Paul says in Gal 4:4 "the fulness of time."

It was in the 'end-game' of the old covenant that the Gentiles were coming to fulfilness -fulfilness has nothing to do with numerics, numbers are not the is, maturity is the issue -fulness speaks of maturity:

Gal 4:19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you [they were already saved -this speaks of maturation. Eph 4:13-14]

Israel being trodden down until the time of the Gentile is fulfilled speaks both of the Roman captivity and destruction against Israel, along with the maturing work of the Holy Spirit in Gentile believers until the end, when being fully grafted in "all Israel would be saved" Rom 11 -it was the Gospel of Christ that grafted the Gentiles [aliens to the covenants of promise] into the Commonwealth of Israel. Without Israel the Gentiles remained lost, for salvation was of [by way of the covenants] the Jews.

davo

parousia70

21st June 2002, 09:13 AM

If I may interject...

A quick comparason of scripture should tell us just how long the "times of the gentiles" was.

Luke 21:24b
"Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

compare to:

Revelation 11:12

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.

Unless somebody can show that these two verses are not speaking of the "same event", the inescapable conclusion is that the 'times of the gentiles' were fulfilled 42 months after Jerusalem was given over to them to trample.

History confirms that the Roman-Jewish war lasted exactly 42 months, exactly as prophesied.

The "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled.

npetreley

21st June 2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

History confirms that the Roman-Jewish war lasted exactly 42 months, exactly as prophesied.

Actually, the Roman-Jewish war lasted far longer than that. The seige against Jerusalem alone lasted from 66-73AD, which is longer than 42 months. There was another uprising later that was finally squashed about AD 130, after which Israel was pretty much a non-entity until the 1940s.

The temple was destroyed AD 70 Av, which may be what you're thinking, but I don't know exactly which month in AD 66 the seige started, so it's hard for me to confirm or deny that it was exactly 42 months. Nevertheless, the "Jewish Age" seems to have lasted at least until AD 130, and seems to be starting over again now.

GTX

21st June 2002, 05:25 PM

I agree with that npetreley. Don't you P70 and davo?

Manifestation1*AD70

21st June 2002, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
Can anyone point me to a site/article/series/whatever that describes how preterists assign various prophecies to actual events or even spiritual/symbolic interpretation?

I'm looking for explanations of things like (assuming it's all past) when the sun went dark and the moon turned the color of blood -- when the two witnesses manipulated weather, were killed, and people of the world celebrated by giving each other gifts -- when every living creature in the sea died -- when the Euphrates dried up, and that sort of thing.

You can also check out this site http://www.1newjerusalemministries.com/index.html

davo

21st June 2002, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
The temple was destroyed AD 70 Av, which may be what you're thinking, but I don't know exactly which month in AD 66 the seige started, so it's hard for me to confirm or deny that it was exactly 42 months. Nevertheless, the "Jewish Age" seems to have lasted at least until AD 130, and seems to be starting over again now.

"Nevertheless, the "Jewish Age" seems to have lasted..." Actually npetreley "covenantally speaking" no it didn't. From a biblical perspective Israel covenantally was cut-off in the midst of that week 66-73AD i.e., 42 months etc.

davo

Patmosman_sga

21st June 2002, 11:45 PM

Here is why systematic approaches to eschatology are so wrought with difficulty. For every argument "proving" that "events" happened exactly as prophesied, there is always a counter-argument "proving" inconsistencies in the timeline. This is true of preterism as well as historicism and futurism.

If the systematic approach were the only one available, preterism would be the only valid option because it is the only interpretation which has a real, rather than a contrived, point of reference. If God's plan for the redemption of the world were confined to history, then we would have no choice but to say that plan was completed in the events which took place roughly between 4 B.C. (birth of Christ) and A.D.70 (fall of Jerusalem).

But God's plan of redemption is no mere temporal reality. It is an eternal reality and, as such, transcends history while, at the same time, encompassing and consummating it. Historical "events" point us to the final "end," but are not the "end" in themselves. Ultimately, all prophecy is fulfilled, all things are restored, and all creation is redeemed not in "events," but in a Person, Jesus Christ, who has been revealed in history as the eternal King of kings and Lord of lords.

The validity or usefulness of any eschatological system is determined by whether or not its aim and goal is to lead people to a deeper understanding of God's ultimate victory in Jesus Christ, who is King of kings and Lord of lords right now. If anyone denies this basic truth, their problem lies not in their eschatology, but in their Christology and, most likely, in their whole doctrine of God.

davo

21st June 2002, 11:53 PM

James, thankyou for your insightful and balanced post -and yes indeed it is the testimony of Jesus that is the spirit of prophecy.

davo

GTX

22nd June 2002, 02:09 AM

The validity or usefulness of any eschatological system is determined by whether or not its aim and goal is to lead people to a deeper understanding of God's ultimate victory in Jesus Christ, who is King of kings and Lord of lords right now. If anyone denies this basic truth, their problem lies not in their eschatology, but in their Christology and, most likely, in their whole doctrine of God.

This sounds great and I agree doctrine is the MOST important thing, but is Christ returning in the flesh in the future?

And I hope this doesn't say that futurists have a problem with doctrine.

Manifestation1*AD70

22nd June 2002, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by GTX

This sounds great and I agree doctrine is the MOST important thing, but is Christ returning in the flesh in the future?

And I hope this doesn't say that futurists have a problem with doctrine.

GTX you are starting to remind me of one of those birds that men have taught to repeat their words. Before anyone in our day and time can assign verses in the New Testament about the Lord's return to our future, they must first prove that the (Old Testament Prophets ) clearly distinguished between two different coming of Christ.

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

GTX you are starting to remind me of one of those birds that men have taught to repeat their words. Before anyone in our day and time can assign verses in the New Testament about the Lord's return to our future, they must first prove that the (Old Testament Prophets ) clearly distinguished between two different coming of Christ.

That should be pretty easy, since there are prophecies of the Christ being humiliated, stricken, and hated, and there are prophecies of the Christ as the eternal King, etc. You'd have to say the former is literal and the latter is spiritual to see them as a single coming. Then you'd have to explain why Jesus Himself said He was returning, and explained how He would return (Matthew 24):

30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

I keep checking my history books, but I still haven't found that event recorded anywhere, and that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing people would gloss over and forget to write about. ;)

Patmosman_sga

23rd June 2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by GTX

This sounds great and I agree doctrine is the MOST important thing, but is Christ returning in the flesh in the future?

If by "in the flesh" you mean to imply Christ taking on again the likeness of sinful humanity, then your expectations concerning the second coming are way too low. The second coming is not about Christ lowering himself again to our level. It is, rather, about Christ raising us up (that is, resurrecting us) to his level--the perfect image and likeness of God, reflecting his glory in every aspect of our being.

Manifestation1*AD70

23rd June 2002, 02:23 PM

Manifestation1*AD70

23rd June 2002, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

That should be pretty easy, since there are prophecies of the Christ being humiliated, stricken, and hated, and there are prophecies of the Christ as the eternal King, etc. You'd have to say the former is literal and the latter is spiritual to see them as a single coming. Then you'd have to explain why Jesus Himself said He was returning, and explained how He would return (Matthew 24):

I keep checking my history books, but I still haven't found that event recorded anywhere, and that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing people would gloss over and forget to write about. ;)

If it is so easy, as you said please show my as I have asked where does the OT prophets distinguish between "a coming in redemption" versus "a coming in judgment?" This king of language is not used by the Jewish prophets. (see Isa. 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2, 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16; Zech. 14; and Mal.4:1-6) Since it is so easy fore you please show me from the Old Testament.

GTX

23rd June 2002, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga

If by "in the flesh" you mean to imply Christ taking on again the likeness of sinful humanity, then your expectations concerning the second coming are way too low. The second coming is not about Christ lowering himself again to our level. It is, rather, about Christ raising us up (that is, resurrecting us) to his level--the perfect image and likeness of God, reflecting his glory in every aspect of our being.

Christ will return in sinless Glory to claim his bride, Christ will not return in "sinful" flesh.

Actually my expectations are much higher than the preterists, preterists believe Christ is already here.

This is an ugly world, when Christ returns it will be an obvious glorious event which all men will witness, not just a select few, also we will not have to give in to the fact that the second coming has already happened and believe if you pray to be enlightened to the fact Jesus has already returned.

When Christ returns, every man, woman and child will physically see this event, this clearly VERY CLEARLY hasn't happened. Jesus will decend from the heavens so every eye will see him. To reduce this promise to return to only being visible to preterists is not right.

It will be a physical event, no one will have any doubts, the fact that people have doubts now, is a clear indication this second coming hasn't happened yet.

Sorry, I will humble myself and say that I am not as armed with self interpreted scripture as some of the preterists here, I know my scripture but I have not dissected it and decided I have the divine wisdom to make the assumption that Jesus' return will be spiritual. I believe it as I see it, and the way I see it, it will be a physical return.

The day I see humbleness in a preterist, and see that a preterist can consider that Christ has not returned yet, is the day I will consider seeing this from a preterist angle. And stop seeing preterism as 1 dimensional misinterpretation.

Most of the preterists are so high and mighty they believe their word is infallible and any other view is folly.

Patmosman_sga

23rd June 2002, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by GTX

When Christ returns, every man, woman and child will physically see this event, this clearly VERY CLEARLY hasn't happened. Jesus will decend from the heavens so every eye will see him. To reduce this promise to return to only being visible to preterists is not right.

Here is a classic example of the interpretive error known as apocalypticism, that is, in the words of N.T. Wright, the exploitation "of apocalyptic language to express a non-biblical dualism in which the heavenly world is good and the earthly bad." In its proper biblical context, apocalyptic language is used (by Paul, Peter, John and the synoptic authors) to draw attention to the heavenly significance of earthly events. In other words, the full significance of seemingly ordinary "events" is often explained with the language of cosmic cataclysm. For what fallen human beings may see as ordinary or mundane, God sees as literally shaking the earth and the heavens to their very foundation.

For instance, when the seventy-two returned to Jesus proclaiming, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!" (Luke 10:17), Jesus responded, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (v. 18). In other words, in preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, healing the sick and casting out demons, the seventy-two were participants in the ongoing cosmic battle of which, from the foundation of the world, Jesus is the victor and Satan is the vanquished. The actual "events" themselves may have looked rather tame (although casting out demons can cause quite a stir), but the ultimate reality behind these temporal "events" was and is the final victory of God in Christ over Satan and the forces of evil--a victory decreed from eternity and seen in the temporal sphere every time a sinner repents, every time a disease is healed, every time a demoniac is delivered. That is, every time the Gospel of God's kingdom of redemption and wholeness is proclaimed, Satan's kingdom of bondage and brokenness is destroyed.

When Scripture employs apocalyptic language to describe "the coming of the Son of Man," it should likewise be understood to be describing an ultimate reality from the perspective of heaven. Indeed, if we read Matthew 24-25 as a complete unit we find, in the parable of the Last Judgment (25:31-46), that "the Son of man" will judge each and every one of us according to how we responded to his "coming" to us as one of "the least of these." To be "ready" for his coming is not to have our eyes fixed permanently on the sky (the Apostles were rebuked for this very thing), but to train our eyes so as to be able to see his glory in the face of a beggar asking for food and drink or the stranger seeking shelter for the night. We must look for the parousia in the minutiae of everyday life. We dare not risk standing in judgment only to find that the One sitting on the throne is that poor stranger we turned away one cold winter night.

GTX

23rd June 2002, 05:58 PM

Here is a classic example of the interpretive error known as apocalypticism, that is, in the words of N.T. Wright, the exploitation "of apocalyptic language to express a non-biblical dualism in which the heavenly world is good and the earthly bad." In its proper biblical context, apocalyptic language is used (by Paul, Peter, John and the synoptic authors) to draw attention to the heavenly significance of earthly events. In other words, the full significance of seemingly ordinary "events" is often explained with the language of cosmic cataclysm. For what fallen human beings may see as ordinary or mundane, God sees as literally shaking the earth and the heavens to their very foundation.

Which book in the bible did N.T. Wright author again? Your non apocalyptic contention is not consistent with the magnitude in which God says these events will be witnessed.

Even if Jesus will not be seen by every eye literally, He will be seen by many and the Bible is clear that Jesus will return physically in glory. He wouldn't need to return "spiritually", because we have the Holy Spirit.

Mandy

23rd June 2002, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga

Here is a classic example of the interpretive error known as apocalypticism, that is, in the words of N.T. Wright, the exploitation "of apocalyptic language to express a non-biblical dualism in which the heavenly world is good and the earthly bad." In its proper biblical context, apocalyptic language is used (by Paul, Peter, John and the synoptic authors) to draw attention to the heavenly significance of earthly events. In other words, the full significance of seemingly ordinary "events" is often explained with the language of cosmic cataclysm. For what fallen human beings may see as ordinary or mundane, God sees as literally shaking the earth and the heavens to their very foundation.

For instance, when the seventy-two returned to Jesus proclaiming, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!" (Luke 10:17), Jesus responded, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (v. 18). In other words, in preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, healing the sick and casting out demons, the seventy-two were participants in the ongoing cosmic battle of which, from the foundation of the world, Jesus is the victor and Satan is the vanquished. The actual "events" themselves may have looked rather tame (although casting out demons can cause quite a stir), but the ultimate reality behind these temporal "events" was and is the final victory of God in Christ over Satan and the forces of evil--a victory decreed from eternity and seen in the temporal sphere every time a sinner repents, every time a disease is healed, every time a demoniac is delivered. That is, every time the Gospel of God's kingdom of redemption and wholeness is proclaimed, Satan's kingdom of bondage and brokenness is destroyed.

When Scripture employs apocalyptic language to describe "the coming of the Son of Man," it should likewise be understood to be describing an ultimate reality from the perspective of heaven. Indeed, if we read Matthew 24-25 as a complete unit we find, in the parable of the Last Judgment (25:31-46), that "the Son of man" will judge each and every one of us according to how we responded to his "coming" to us as one of "the least of these." To be "ready" for his coming is not to have our eyes fixed permanently on the sky (the Apostles were rebuked for this very thing), but to train our eyes so as to be able to see his glory in the face of a beggar asking for food and drink or the stranger seeking shelter for the night. We must look for the parousia in the minutiae of everyday life. We dare not risk standing in judgment only to find that the One sitting on the throne is that poor stranger we turned away one cold winter night.

Luke 10:18 is referring to when Satan will be cast out of heaven. Many of us do not keep our eyes trained to the sky, because we believe in the rapture and do not know when He will take us up, and furthemore, we believe in occupying until He does. I find it rather fascinating how plain Scripture, can be so misunderstood and made into confusing and illogical doctrine. Scripture is not quite as symbolic as the preterists make it. Do you not consider that God knew that people today would be reading His word and wouldn't make everything as difficult as the preterists do? Yes there are symbolisims, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a physical reality to them, like Luke 10:18.

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

If it is so easy, as you said please show my as I have asked where does the OT prophets distinguish between "a coming in redemption" versus "a coming in judgment?" This king of language is not used by the Jewish prophets. (see Isa. 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2, 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16; Zech. 14; and Mal.4:1-6) Since it is so easy fore you please show me from the Old Testament.

I'll give it a shot later when I've got time to gather the references. I doubt if you'll agree, but I have no problem with that if you don't.

Patmosman_sga

23rd June 2002, 07:28 PM

Those who are fixated on apocalypticism (the denigration of apocalyptic language) draw a false dichotomy between "physical" and "spiritual" reality. Scripture draws no such dichotomy. Rather, it draws a dichotomy between the "natural" and the "spiritual." That which is "spiritual" is no less "physcial" than that which is "natural." The difference is that the "spiritual" is oriented toward God and the things of his kingdom while the "natural" is oriented toward the flesh and the things of this world.

To interpret the Scriptures from a "spiritual" perspective means to interpret them in a posture of absolute yieldedness to the same Holy Spirit who inspired them to be written. It is to inquire into the very mind of God, seeking his wisdom so as to understand his Word as he intended it to be understood.

Our "natural" inclination, however, is to force upon Scripture our own mindset and worldview, assuming that we 21st century Westerners are somehow better qualified to interpret the Scriptures than were the Spirit-inspired 1st century Easterners who originally wrote them. This is a shortcoming of both futurists and preterists.

Contemporary writers such as N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington are reminding us of the necessity of getting back in touch with the original biblical worldview before we, on the one hand, go out proclaiming that the earth is "soon" to be destroyed or, on the other hand, that the final consummation has "already happened" and everything is hunky dory with the world. We would do well to consider their caveat, whatever our eschatological opinion may be.

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga

To interpret the Scriptures from a "spiritual" perspective means to interpret them in a posture of absolute yieldedness to the same Holy Spirit who inspired them to be written. It is to inquire into the very mind of God, seeking his wisdom so as to understand his Word as he intended it to be understood.

Our "natural" inclination, however, is to force upon Scripture our own mindset and worldview, assuming that we 21st century Westerners are somehow better qualified to interpret the Scriptures than were the Spirit-inspired 1st century Easterners who originally wrote them. This is a shortcoming of both futurists and preterists.

Very well said, although I'm not sure the western/eastern thing is that big of an issue.

Mike Beidler

23rd June 2002, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
I keep checking my history books, but I still haven't found that event recorded anywhere, and that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing people would gloss over and forget to write about. ;)

Interesting you mention historical records. Isaiah 13 predicts the destruction of the kingdom of Babylon, which was accomplished by Cyrus the Persian in 539 BC. Here is a description of that event:

Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, cruel, with fury and burning anger. The make the land [of Babylon] a desolation; and He will exterminate its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not flash forth their light; the sun will be dark when it rises and the moon will not shed its light. ... Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place at the fury of the LORD of hosts in the day of His burning anger. (Isaiah 13:9-10, 13)

As I mentioned above, this destruction of Babylon occured over 2500 years ago; yet, strangely enough, there is no record of eclipses, falling meteors, and earth-shattering quakes to accompany this event. "This is still future," you might say. Well, verse 17 ("Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes [i.e., Medo-Persian empire] against them ...") mitigates against that view.

What say you? These events (as described) don't appear in any history book I've ever read ...

Auntie

23rd June 2002, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Mandy

Do you not consider that God knew that people today would be reading His word and wouldn't make everything as difficult as the preterists do?

Exactly, Mandy. The scriptures were written for us to understand, without having a PHD in Bible Studies. Even little children in Sunday School can memorize and understand scripture, because they take the Word as it is written.

Mike Beidler

23rd June 2002, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um

Exactly, Mandy. The scriptures were written for us to understand, without having a PHD in Bible Studies. Even little children in Sunday School can memorize and understand scripture, because they take the Word as it is written.

Name for me one 5-year-old that can fully explain dispensationalist End Times chronology. "Jesus is coming back and sending that bad, bad Anti-Christ :mad: to Hell" won't cut it.

If dispensationalist End Times chronology is so easy to pull (read: tear) out of Scripture, why has Tim LaHaye been reduced to writing an End Times book with pictures? Isn't quoting Scripture enough for us adults? Or should I just ask my 2-year-old daughter for help? :help:

(On a more serious note, she already knows that Jesus is God. The stranger thing is this: we never taught her that. She's gonna be Daddy's little theologian ... :D )

davo

23rd June 2002, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga
Those who are fixated on apocalypticism (the denigration of apocalyptic language) draw a false dichotomy between "physical" and "spiritual" reality. Scripture draws no such dichotomy. Rather, it draws a dichotomy between the "natural" and the "spiritual." That which is "spiritual" is no less "physcial" than that which is "natural." The difference is that the "spiritual" is oriented toward God and the things of his kingdom while the "natural" is oriented toward the flesh and the things of this world.

I would say this "false dichotomy between "physical" and "spiritual" reality" is rife in our modern church -this idea that 'the spirit is good and the flesh is evil' -it was once called gnosticism. As for the inclination toward either God -"the Spirit" or "the flesh" and how that fits with "this world," I think if we look at it through 1st century eyes, much of what Paul wrote about "the flesh" and its incumberances he in fact wrote about The Law i.e., the Old Covenant, the dead 'body' of Judaism -that which the 1st century believers were being raised out of [that progressive work of "Christ being formed in you"].

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga
Contemporary writers such as N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington are reminding us of the necessity of getting back in touch with the original biblical worldview before we, on the one hand, go out proclaiming that the earth is "soon" to be destroyed or, on the other hand, that the final consummation has "already happened" and everything is hunky dory with the world. We would do well to consider their caveat, whatever our eschatological opinion may be.

"and everything is hunky dory with the world." This is an oft assumed impression of what covenant eschatology teaches, it is a misunderstanding and quite wrong. The preteristic approach denies none of the "earthly trouble" etc and has no "rose-coloured glasses." It simply declares that salvation is complete through Christ's literal [read: NOT physical] Parousia as He promised in the 1st century generation. We reject as unbiblical the notion that after His Return the world was to take on a re-made utopic state devoid of the presence of sin or evil. Rev 22 should be evidence enough of this. The "New Heaven and Earth" wherein dwells righeousness has "leaves of healing for the nations" -presupposing sickness, therefore sin, therefore death. This healing is obviously for those "outside" the city [outside of covenant with God] -the gates being open 24/7 to recieve the repentant always -hence the Gospel being "everlasting" Rev 14:6 -no limited tenure! And not forgetting the "last enemy to be destroyed is death" is already cast long into the Lake of Fire. There is NOTHING that separates one from God EXCEPT one's decision not to accept His restoration.

The New Heaven and the New Earth is apocalyptic covenantal language of the New Covenant IN CHRIST:

2Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

davo

npetreley

24th June 2002, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

As I mentioned above, this destruction of Babylon occured over 2500 years ago; yet, strangely enough, there is no record of eclipses, falling meteors, and earth-shattering quakes to accompany this event. "This is still future," you might say. Well, verse 17 ("Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes [i.e., Medo-Persian empire] against them ...") mitigates against that view.

What say you? These events (as described) don't appear in any history book I've ever read ...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that because Babylon was destroyed once that it cannot be destroyed again? Did you know that Israel did not exist for nearly 2000 years? If I had posed to you 100 years ago the idea that some prophecy regarding Israel was in the future, you would have chuckled over my stupidity because there was no Israel for the fulfillment of any such prophecy. Yet here it is today.

Or are you saying that the destruction of Babylon predicted in Revelation and sandwiched between events that preterists say occurred in 70AD actually occurred a half millenium earlier but somehow waited to be fulfilled in 70AD?

Auntie

24th June 2002, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

On a more serious note, she already knows that Jesus is God. The stranger thing is this: we never taught her that.

Mike, that's amazing! Your little precious one proves my point! The things that are important, the things that matter, God will write those things upon our heart! Your daughter is proof of that! Praise God, only the Holy Spirit could have told her that.

GTX

24th June 2002, 04:10 AM

Mike, and preterists,

Its an easy thing to understand that Jesus is coming back in Glory and every eye shall see it. Your pure spirituality and Jesus has already came is far more complicated. I don't think it is supposed to be that complicated.

Mike Beidler

24th June 2002, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that because Babylon was destroyed once that it cannot be destroyed again? Did you know that Israel did not exist for nearly 2000 years? If I had posed to you 100 years ago the idea that some prophecy regarding Israel was in the future, you would have chuckled over my stupidity because there was no Israel for the fulfillment of any such prophecy. Yet here it is today.

Or are you saying that the destruction of Babylon predicted in Revelation and sandwiched between events that preterists say occurred in 70AD actually occurred a half millenium earlier but somehow waited to be fulfilled in 70AD?

In your first paragraph, you've completely sullied the futurist doctrine of the imminent return of Christ. "Israel has to be reborn in order for Christ to return." So there are things that have to be fulfilled for Christ to return again??? All these millennia, people have been deceived into thinking Christ could return at any moment???

As for the destruction of Babylon in Revelation, I'm saying to you that Babylon in that book is not the literal Babylon, but rather a derogatory term used of Jerusalem. If you'd like, I can take the time to prove without a doubt that the Babylon referenced in Revelation is, indeed, Jerusalem. (Just don't expect anything soon. I may be leaving for another week of at-sea training tomorrow.)

Mandy

24th June 2002, 09:35 AM

Mike, I for one will be waiting for this "proof" that Jerusalem is Babylon.

Patmosman_sga

24th June 2002, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Name for me one 5-year-old that can fully explain dispensationalist End Times chronology. "Jesus is coming back and sending that bad, bad Anti-Christ :mad: to Hell" won't cut it.

If dispensationalist End Times chronology is so easy to pull (read: tear) out of Scripture, why has Tim LaHaye been reduced to writing an End Times book with pictures? Isn't quoting Scripture enough for us adults? Or should I just ask my 2-year-old daughter for help? :help:

Dispensationalists are the true architechts of confusion in the Church. They don't even agree with each other on some of their most "fundamental" points. Tim LaHaye is in hot water with other dispy's because he says people can be saved "after" the rapture. I thought all good dispy's knew that was impossible! :D

jenlu

24th June 2002, 12:25 PM

Mandy...

I don't have proof, but from the description of the babylon of Revelation...it appears it could be no other but Jerusalem(Israel)...

We begin with John(Jesus) describing Babylon as the "great Harlot...with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication." Jerusalem in the O.T. is described as God's wife or bride turned to harlotry..."You spread your legs to every passerby to multiply your harlotry" Ezekial 16:25...There are other places in Ezekial and Isaih the describe Jerusalem as a whore...this may not convince you, but another description is the clincher for me...

First "Mother of harlots...drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus" and Second, "in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth"...this could only be Jerusalem in my opinion...and it coincides with one of Jesus' condemnations/indictments he laid down during his time on earth as a human...
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall ALL the righteous blood shed on the earth...Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!"

npetreley

24th June 2002, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

In your first paragraph, you've completely sullied the futurist doctrine of the imminent return of Christ.

I hope so. ;) I don't see any evidence whatsoever for that doctrine, myself.

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

"Israel has to be reborn in order for Christ to return." So there are things that have to be fulfilled for Christ to return again??? All these millennia, people have been deceived into thinking Christ could return at any moment???

Yes, if that's how long it's been. IMO the doctrine of imminence is more recent than most people think. A hymn comes to mind, for example (It is well with my soul) that describes the fact that we'll see the celestial events of the Day of the Lord. This not only contradicts pre-trib rapture, it contradicts imminence. So not everyone has believed that for all time.

And by the way, I'm not saying Israel had to be reborn for Christ to return. All I'm saying is that prophecy states that Israel would be scattered to all the nations (which happened about 130AD) and that they would be regathered (which is happening now). So prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes. I personally think that this has to happen before Christ returns, but that's not what I was saying.

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

As for the destruction of Babylon in Revelation, I'm saying to you that Babylon in that book is not the literal Babylon, but rather a derogatory term used of Jerusalem. If you'd like, I can take the time to prove without a doubt that the Babylon referenced in Revelation is, indeed, Jerusalem. (Just don't expect anything soon. I may be leaving for another week of at-sea training tomorrow.)

You may be right that Babylon is not the literal Babylon. But it may not be Jerusalem, either. (I don't see at all how it could be Jerusalem, but I could be wrong.) But for the umpteenth time, why is it that you think it is being consistent to take words like "GENERATION" and "YOU" and say that you can only interpret them ONE way, yet you can assign just about any meaning you want to words like "SEE" and "BABYLON"? I'm not asking you to see things my way, just to consider the possibility that there are...well, other possibilities! ;)

parousia70

24th June 2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

All I'm saying is that prophecy states that Israel would be scattered to all the nations (which happened about 130AD) and that they would be regathered (which is happening now). So prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

All the prophecies about the dispersion and return of the Jews to their own land were fulfilled at the end the Babylonian Captivity in 457 B.C.,— not 1948 when the State of Israel was formed.

"In all your dwelling places the cities shall be laid waste, and the high places desolate . . . ye shall be scattered among the countries . . . among the nations whither they shall be carried captives . . . all the house of Israel shall remove and go into captivity . . . I will scatter them among the nations" (Ezekiel ch. 6–12).

This was the Diaspora. . . . And now the re-gathering of the Jews to their own land 70 years later:

"For thus saith the Lord, that after 70 years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you . . . and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations . . . and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive" (Jeremiah. 29: 10-14).

Not one single verse in the Old Testament, or New, written after the Babylonian Captivity mentions any other dispersion and re-gathering of the Jews.

npetreley

24th June 2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

All the prophecies about the dispersion and return of the Jews to their own land were fulfilled at the end the Babylonian Captivity in 457 B.C.

...

Not one single verse in the Old Testament, or New, written after the Babylonian Captivity mentions any other dispersion and re-gathering of the Jews.

No? How about this one? (Luke 21)

23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

There are prophecies about the regathering of Jews to their land, but the various prophecies have one very distinct difference. Some of them speak about the regathering of Judah and Israel to their former states, and other prophecies talk about the regathering of Judah and Israel into ONE state where there is no distinction between Judah and Israel. The latter NEVER happened until 1948. When what we now know as Israel was destroyed in 130AD, there were still two states (provinces, whatever you want to call them), Judah and Israel. Today there is only one -- Israel, and there is no distinction anymore.

So the "plain and simple meaning" of these prophecies makes it pretty clear that there is more than one regathering from dispersal -- there are at least two.

parousia70

24th June 2002, 03:21 PM

As I said,
Not one single verse in the Old Testament, or New, written after the Babylonian Captivity mentions any other dispersion and re-gathering of the Jews.

Luke 21 indeed mentions a dispersion.

What is the scripture that prophesies the regathering in 1948 from the dispersion in Luke 21??

npetreley

24th June 2002, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by parousia70
As I said,
Not one single verse in the Old Testament, or New, written after the Babylonian Captivity mentions any other dispersion and re-gathering of the Jews.

Luke 21 indeed mentions a dispersion.

What is the scripture that prophesies the regathering in 1948 from the dispersion in Luke 21??

I already told you. All of the scriptures in the OT that refer to the regathering of the Jews into a union where Judah and Israel were no longer separate could not have been fulfilled before 1948, because the last time there was an Israel before that, Judah and Israel were separate. They are now one and the same -- there is no distinction between Judah and Israel. That was predicted in some of those regathering prophecies in the OT.

parousia70

24th June 2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

I already told you. All of the scriptures in the OT that refer to the regathering of the Jews into a union where Judah and Israel were no longer separate could not have been fulfilled before 1948, because the last time there was an Israel before that, Judah and Israel were separate. They are now one and the same -- there is no distinction between Judah and Israel. That was predicted in some of those regathering prophecies in the OT.

Ok, but could you Humor me with a chapter and verse of just "one" of those "regathering" prophesies you believe could only have been fulfilled in 1948?

Telling me they are there isn't of much help if you can't point me to them specifically.
Thanks.

Patmosman_sga

24th June 2002, 07:22 PM

Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant by coming in the flesh and giving his life for the sins of humankind on the cross.

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high pirest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:49-52)

If there are any Old Testament prophecies yet to be fulfilled, then Jesus is not who he said he was and his sacrifice did not fulfill its purpose.

The promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant are inherited by the Church under the New Covenant.

As this broken bread was scattered over the hills
and then, when gathered, became one mass,
so may Thy Church be gathered
from the ends of the earth in to Thy Kingdom.
(The Didache, 9.4a)

npetreley

24th June 2002, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

Ok, but could you Humor me with a chapter and verse of just "one" of those "regathering" prophesies you believe could only have been fulfilled in 1948?

Telling me they are there isn't of much help if you can't point me to them specifically.
Thanks.

Sorry - I thought you'd be familiar with these verses, but that was my mistake (and I'm honestly not being critical or sarcastic, in case you suspect that).

There's at least one or two other places in the OT which make it more clear that Judah and Israel will be united (if I recall correctly, one used a metaphor of a stick that is joined together). But I like this one because it not only predicts that Judah and Israel will be united under one head, but it also places that event AFTER the time of the gentiles. (See Romans 9:26, which quotes from verse 10 to illustrate that although the Jews hadn't expected it, the Bible always said that the gentiles would be saved.)

10 "Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, "You are not My people,' There it shall be said to them, "You are sons of the living God.'

11 Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel Shall be gathered together, And appoint for themselves one head; And they shall come up out of the land, For great will be the day of Jezreel!

Whoops - I forgot to tell you where this is from! Hosea 1:10-11.

npetreley

24th June 2002, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga

The promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant are inherited by the Church under the New Covenant.

I hope you're not saying that the church replaced Israel and the Jews will no longer receive these promises.

parousia70

25th June 2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

I hope you're not saying that the church replaced Israel and the Jews will no longer receive these promises.

When the fleshly covenant-nation was disinherited as God's covenant people in 70, God's wrath against her was finished. After that day, the Jews became --covenantally speaking-- simply one of the many ethnic classes in the family of man (Eph. 3:15). And there is not one class (or "race") of man today that is in any sense acepted or rejected by God because of DNA, but all are freely accepted in Christ.

God is not denying one single Jew free access to the promise, through Jesus Christ. All are accepted.

The Chuirch did not replace Israel, The Church always was "Israel". True Isreal was always the believing remnant.

davo

25th June 2002, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga
Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant by coming in the flesh and giving his life for the sins of humankind on the cross.

If there are any Old Testament prophecies yet to be fulfilled, then Jesus is not who he said he was and his sacrifice did not fulfill its purpose.

The promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant are inherited by the Church under the New Covenant.

Right on the money!

Originally posted by parousia70
God is not denying one single Jew free access to the promise, through Jesus Christ. All are accepted.

The Chuirch did not replace Israel, The Church always was "Israel". True Isreal was always the believing remnant.

Hence: "This is He, that was in the church in the wilderness" [God has always had His believing people -the just, finding LIFE through faith]

davo

npetreley

25th June 2002, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by parousia70

When the fleshly covenant-nation was disinherited as God's covenant people in 70, God's wrath against her was finished. After that day, the Jews became --covenantally speaking-- simply one of the many ethnic classes in the family of man (Eph. 3:15). And there is not one class (or "race") of man today that is in any sense acepted or rejected by God because of DNA, but all are freely accepted in Christ.

God is not denying one single Jew free access to the promise, through Jesus Christ. All are accepted.

The Chuirch did not replace Israel, The Church always was "Israel". True Isreal was always the believing remnant.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

According to plain, simple, clear reading of this passage in Romans, Israel isn't the same thing as the church, or else Paul wouldn't be speaking of them separately. And it also seems like there is an unfulfilled prophecy right here.

davo

25th June 2002, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
According to plain, simple, clear reading of this passage in Romans, Israel isn't the same thing as the church, or else Paul wouldn't be speaking of them separately. And it also seems like there is an unfulfilled prophecy right here.

They certainly were separate, and as for your: "seems like there is an unfulfilled prophecy right here" -you are correct. What you probably may not have considered is this -it was at THAT time in the process of being fulfilled -and in His Parousia was.

Rom 11:25-29: 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance..

The Church came in and completed Israel -so all Israel being saved. They were [the Gentiles] not a people, yet when they joined Christ they joined the commonwealth of Israel -inheriting ALL the promises. Now futurists tend to poo-hoo this as "spiritualising" [yet do all the same themselves, variously], but the epistles are full of this. Abraham waited for a city whose builder is God -this speaks of nothing other than salvation -"Abraham saw My day and rejoiced" etc etc etc. This IS the substance [reality-fulfillment] to the shadows prefigured under the old regime.

When Christ came in His Parousia this was the "turning away ungodliness from Jacob" -salvation complete i.e., RESTORATION. Israel was elected to be the way or mean of salvation in the sense that the Christ was promised through them -they were to be the light to the Gentiles -as Jesus said: "salvation is of the Jews" -Israel Fulfilled her calling for the REMNANT which included the Gentiles was saved.

The temporary hardening of Israel's heart was working salvation for the Gentiles which in turn was working jealousy for Israel -prompting many Jews to turn to Christ [just read through Acts and note how many were responding in faith -especially from the hierarchhy]. Jesus had said: "I have flock from another fold that I must gather that there be one flock and one Shepherd" -making out of the two ONE NEW MAN.

Christ's Cross worked salvation for Israel which in turn worked salvation for the whole world. The families of the earth are blessed through BELIEVING [noun] Abraham. While temple sacrifices were being offered [though post cross meaningless] the way into the Holiest of All [SALVATION] was not yet complete. When the Temple came down this would be THE sign ["what will be the sign of thy coming and the end of the age?" -the old covenant age] that so had Christ -filling his Body, the Church with His fulness -God filling all in all.

davo

Mandy

25th June 2002, 09:22 AM

Has anyone read Ezekiel 37? It shows perfectly the regathering of the Jews and is I believe the Scripture npetreley is referring to.

Mandy

25th June 2002, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Patmosman_sga

Dispensationalists are the true architechts of confusion in the Church. They don't even agree with each other on some of their most "fundamental" points. Tim LaHaye is in hot water with other dispy's because he says people can be saved "after" the rapture. I thought all good dispy's knew that was impossible! :D

How is it impossible, when Revelation makes it clear?

Mandy

25th June 2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by jenlu
Mandy...

I don't have proof, but from the description of the babylon of Revelation...it appears it could be no other but Jerusalem(Israel)...

We begin with John(Jesus) describing Babylon as the "great Harlot...with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication." Jerusalem in the O.T. is described as God's wife or bride turned to harlotry..."You spread your legs to every passerby to multiply your harlotry" Ezekial 16:25...There are other places in Ezekial and Isaih the describe Jerusalem as a whore...this may not convince you, but another description is the clincher for me...

First "Mother of harlots...drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus" and Second, "in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth"...this could only be Jerusalem in my opinion...and it coincides with one of Jesus' condemnations/indictments he laid down during his time on earth as a human...
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall ALL the righteous blood shed on the earth...Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!"

Babylon is not Jerusalem. God isn't through with Israel as stated in the Scriptures. The 144,000 Jews from the 12 tribes in Revelation shows this, as does Romans. Look at the woman with the Child in Revelation, the woman is Israel. Read Ezekiel 37-39, too. After the rapture, God will deal with Israel again, this is when the fulness of the gentile will be complete.

davo

25th June 2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Mandy
Has anyone read Ezekiel 37? It shows perfectly the regathering of the Jews and is I believe the Scripture npetreley is referring to.

Ezekiel 37 is in deed the "regathering of the Jews" in the "Resurrection" through their acceptance of the New Covenant in Christ -the Remnant. "The Gathering" in Scripture is in fact "The Resurrection."

davo

jenlu

25th June 2002, 10:18 AM

Mandy,

Who is the child described in Revelations in your opinion? I also have another question. How come Jesus(answer to the previous question) described Jerusalem as having all the righteous blood shed on their necks...then Revelation(Jesus) says that Babylon has all the blood of the prophets etc etc. and there is no possible way in your mind you can connect those two?

Also what do you mean "God will deal with Israel again"...if He were to allow the Jewish system to be re-instituted(by that I mean, look at it as He used to...because they can re-institute it if they want to) it would go against everything He did in Jesus Christ. He is THE sacrifice that is worthy. He is THE Lamb that brought redemption to you and I. If He annoints any kind of ritualistic offering again in any Temple of God He goes against Himself which we both know can't happen.

Now I do agree God is dealing with Israel, but I don't believe He ever STOPPED. Israel, the real Israel, continued on after Jesus which one can be a part of not by circumcision of the flesh, but of the spirit. Which includes you and I and anyone else that is born again. The N.T. discusses this metamorphises(sp) time and time again.

Patmosman_sga

25th June 2002, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Mandy

How is it impossible, when Revelation makes it clear?

Since I reject the whole premise of "pre-trib rapture" (and also the whole premise that Revelation is a "roadmap of history" or a "blueprint of the future"), I'm not the one to ask.

Ask, instead, one of your radical dispensationalist friends who disagrees with LaHaye's position concerning post-rapture salvation.

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 01:16 PM

As I continue to read through the Bible in a year, I've come to the prophet Amos.  Interesting things here, from a preterist perspective.

Amos 1:2 -- "Amos said: 'The LORD comes roaring out of Zion; from Jerusalem he comes bellowing!  The shepherds' pastures wilt; the summit of Carmel withers.'"

In context, the LORD is coming in judgment against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and ultimately Judah and Israel. Interestingly enough, all of the judgments contained in Amos 1-2 were fulfilled in the past.  Of this there is no dispute between eschatological camps.

But here's the kicker: the LORD is said to "come" and his "coming" results in pastures wilting and the mountaintop withering.  Is there any historical record of these things actually happening, or are we to assume that the language is exaggerative and metaphorical?  What are we to think of this "coming" language?  Can we apply the same hermenuetical principle to Christ's description of His own coming, which uses similar language?

(Remember, hermenuetical principles should not have to change when going to and from the Old and New Testaments.  The same culture, which was extremely familiar with eschatological language, is involved here.)

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 01:57 PM

Here's another interesting passage:

 

Amos 5:2 -- "The young lady Israel [10 northern tribes] has fallen down and will not get up again."

Any comments?

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 02:20 PM

Another good one:

Amos 5:18 -- "Those who wish for the LORD's day of judgment are as good as dead!  Why do you want the LORD's day of judgment to come?  It will bring darkness, not light."

This is obviously a reference to a "Day of the LORD."  Since the prophecies in Amos were fulfilled before the time of Christ, is it not reasonable that God has "come" many times to many nations?  Is it not reasonable that each "coming" of God is considered a "Day of the LORD"?

From the study notes of the NET Bible (p. 1647):

"The origin of the concept of the LORD's day of judgment is uncertain.  Perhaps it originated in the ancient Near Eastern idea of the sovereign's day of conquest, where a king would boast that he had concluded an entire military campaign in a single day (see D. Stuart, "The Sovereign's Day of Conquest, BASOR 221 [1976]: 159-64).  In the OT the expression is applied to several acts of divine judgment, some historical and others still future (see A. J. Everson, "The Days of Yahwh," JBL 93 [1974]: 329-37).  In the OT the phrase first appears in Amos (assuming that Amos predates Joel and Obadiah), where it seems to refer to a belief in the northern kingdom that God would intervene on Israel's behalf and judge the nation's enemies.  Amos affirms that the LORD's day of judgment is indeed approaching, but he declares that it will be a day of disaster, not deliverance, for Israel."

Amos 6:14 is also interesting in that the literal, physical method by which the "Day of the LORD" is fulfilled is through the use of another nation's armies.

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 03:14 PM

Amos 7:2 -- "When they [the locusts] had completely consumed the earth's vegetation, I said, 'Sovereign LORD, forgive Israel!  How can Jacob survive?  He is too weak!"

Does this mention of "earth" encompass the entire world, or is it localized?  If so, what about those passages in the Olivet Discourse and other places where the "earth" is mentioned in the context of the spreading of the Gospel or the mourning of the tribes of the earth?

In the same context as the rest of Amos' prophecies, this is said of the "earth":

Amos 8:8 -- "'Because of this the earth will quake, and all who live in it will mourn.  The whole earth will rise like the River Nile, it will surge upward and then grow calm, like the Nile in Egypt.  In that day,' says the sovereign LORD, 'I will make the sun set at noon, and make the earth dark in the middle of the day.'" 

Note the apparent universality here in reference to the earth and "all," even though the prophecy was local according to the context and biblical history!  Note also the sun darkening!!!  Sound familiar?

Look at this:

Amos 9:5 -- "He touches the earth and it dissolves; all who live on it will mourn."

Wow!  All this poetic, apocalyptic language to describe the simple act of judging the 10 northern tribes of Israel, an accomplished act in history wrought by the armies of Assyria (722 BC) and Babylon (605 BC) ...

I know of no futurist who argues that these prophecies I've mentioned have not yet been fulfilled.  Futurist John Walvoord, in Every Prophecy of the Bible (pp. 290-296), admits that they were fulfilled in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.  Think about this.

Although it's probably coincidence, it's interesting to note that Amos prophesied c. 760 BC.  The acts of judgment against Israel began in 722 BC ... less than 40 years from Amos' predictions ... the length of a biblical generation.

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 04:31 PM

Now I'm reading Hosea ...

Can God reject physical Israel as the chosen people? Certainly: "... you are not my people and I am not your God." (Hosea 1:9)

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 04:49 PM

My goodness ... I've never read Hosea through preterist glasses, but I'm seeing so much of this book fulfilled in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, that great day when Christ returned for His Bride!!!  Hallelujah!!!  :clap:

Mike Beidler

29th June 2002, 04:59 PM

Interesting ... Hosea's prophecy about the imminent judgment of Israel for her idolatry contains the following:

"Therefore the land will mourn, and all its inhabitants, the birds of the sky, and even the fish in the sea will perish."  (Hosea 4:3)

Did this literally happen?  Were the entire population of the northern 10 tribes of Israel completely destroyed?  Or is this simply another example of apocalyptic, exaggerative language common in the Near East?

npetreley

30th June 2002, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
Amos 7:2 -- "When they [the locusts] had completely consumed the earth's vegetation

It would be more accurate to translate this as "the grass of the land." The Hebrew word is more often used as "land" than "earth." The same word is used in Amos 8:8 and 9:5.

0776 'erets {eh'-rets}
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; TWOT - 167; n f
AV - land 1543, earth 712, country 140, ground 98, world 4, way 3,

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
If so, what about those passages in the Olivet Discourse and other places where the "earth" is mentioned in the context of the spreading of the Gospel or the mourning of the tribes of the earth?[/B]

You can't make a direct word-for-word comparison because it's Hebrew vs. Greek. The root word used in Luke 21:35, where Jesus wraps up the prophecy by saying it will be a snare for the whole earth, is "ge." It's the same root for "Gaia," or "mother earth" to the Greeks. This alone wouldn't force it to mean the whole earth. But Luke 21:35 precedes the word with "pas" which means "all." So it would be exceedingly hard to argue that this does not mean the whole earth.

1093 ge {ghay}
contracted from a root word; TDNT - 1:677,116; n f
AV - earth 188, land 42, ground 18, country 2, world 1, earthly + 1537 + 3588 1; 252
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place

davo

30th June 2002, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
It would be more accurate to translate this as "the grass of the land." The Hebrew word is more often used as "land" than "earth." The same word is used in Amos 8:8 and 9:5.

Absolutely

Originally posted by npetreley
You can't make a direct word-for-word comparison because it's Hebrew vs. Greek. The root word used in Luke 21:35, where Jesus wraps up the prophecy by saying it will be a snare for the whole earth, is "ge." It's the same root for "Gaia," or "mother earth" to the Greeks. This alone wouldn't force it to mean the whole earth. But Luke 21:35 precedes the word with "pas" which means "all." So it would be exceedingly hard to argue that this does not mean the whole earth.  

I think there isn't too much difference between your Amos scriptures and Luke 21:35 they both contain:

Amos 8:8, 9:5 ths ghs   =the land

Luke 21:35 ths ghs   =the land 

pas indeed means "all" -as you have 'Pan-American' i.e., all-American etc. So Luke IS simply saying the whole Land.

davo

Mike Beidler

30th June 2002, 02:29 PM

Ah! Nice to see someone with the LXX at their fingertips! Are there any interlinear Old Testaments out there with Hebrew, Greek, and English?

npetreley

30th June 2002, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by davo

I think there isn't too much difference between your Amos scriptures and Luke 21:35 they both contain:

pas indeed means "all" -as you have 'Pan-American' i.e., all-American etc. So Luke IS simply saying the [i]whole Land.

davo

Wow. You'll take a Greek translation of the Hebrew, compare another greek word to Pan in Pan-American, and use these third cousins twice removed from the original languages to explain away the problematic words "pas" and "ge" translated as "the whole earth."

And why do you do this? In order to protect your private interpretation of words like "this" and "you" which you claim OTHERS have twisted and explained away.

I never thought I'd say this, but I can see why this board gave up on preterists and booted them out of the eschatology forum. I give up, too.

Didaskomenos

30th June 2002, 03:50 PM

Actually, pas does mean "all" or "every" depending on the word modified. In the case of the singular noun ge, it would mean "all the earth," or "the whole earth."

Patmosman_sga

30th June 2002, 05:53 PM

Considering the context, "the whole earth" is apocalyptic jargon for the fallen realm, that is, "all those who dwell on the face of the earth" means, literally, the whole company of the rebellious. It is those whose hearts are "weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life" who will be surprised by "that day." Jesus' instructions to his disciples are very clear: they are not to be numbered among such persons. They are to "be always on the watch and pray that [they] may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that [they] may be able to stand before the Son of Man."

The contrast between the rebellious and the redeemed is even more stark in Revelation, where such phrases as "the whole earth" and "those that dwell upon the earth" are consistently used in a negative context. As M. Robert Mulholland has observed:

"Earth" is one of the consistent terms for the entire realm of rebellion. Even in the introduction (1:7), all the tribes of "the earth" will wail at the appearance of Jesus. "Earth" is the dwelling place of Satan (12:9), and "all the earth" follows the Beast with wonder (13:3). The "earth" worships the Beast (13:12). The saints are those redeemed "from the earth" (14:3). The wrath of God is poured out into "the earth" (16:1). The Harlot corrupted "the earth" with her fornication (19:2). "Earth" flees from the presence of the One who sits upon the throne (20:11). From these examples it is clear that "earth" represents the realm of the rebellious order.

"Those who dwell upon the earth" is a constant phrase for the citizenship of Fallen Babylon. The martyrs were slain by "those who dwell upon the earth" (6:10); the woes are directed to "those who dwell upon the earth" (8:13); "those who dwell upon the earth" rejoice at the death of God's two witnesses (11:10); "those who dwell upon the earth" worship the Beast, and in a parallel statement are identified as those whose names have not been written in the Lamb's Book of Life (13:4); the gospel is proclaimed to "those who dwell upon the earth" (14:6), implying that they are not part of the redeemed order in Christ; "those who dwell upon the earth" have become drunk with the wine of th Harlot's fornication (17:2).

This is a glimpse of the dynamics that lie behind John's description of Jesus as the "ruler of the kings of the earth," a preview of the magnitude of the victory that God has achieved in Jesus' death and resurrection. ([i]Revelation: Holy Living in an Unholy World, pp. 72-73)

This does not mean that the alternate translation, "land," is altogether invalid. Apocalyptic writing, in particular, often utilizes such linguistic tricks as using words with more than one meaning. In this way, neither its original meaning to its original audience nor its meaning for ongoing history at any particular moment is lost or confused. The "land" upon which first century Jerusalem stood was corrupted by sin and thus bore the brunt of God's wrath. Likewise, the sins of "those who dwell upon the earth" have, over the course of history, called down the wrath of God in numerous times and places. The message to the first century Church, however, is the same message to us today: we have been "redeemed out of the earth" and are to have nothing to do with its corruption, for it leads only to death and destruction. Rather, we are to be the ongoing incarnation of the presence of Christ in the world, proclaiming to "those who dwell upon the earth" that there is a better way, the way of Christ, which leads to life and wholeness.

Mike Beidler

2nd July 2002, 11:28 PM

Now on to Micah ...

Here, the prophet is foretelling the destruction of Samaria that occurred in 722 BC by the armies of Assyria.  What's interesting is the language used to describe this destruction.  Futurists, pay attention ...  ;)

Micah 1:3-4

For, look, the LORD is leaving his dwelling place and he will descend and march on the earth’s mountaintops.  The mountains will disintegrate beneath him, and the valleys will be split in two.  The mountains will melt like wax in a fire, the rocks will slide down like water flows down a steep slope.

Wow!  Sounds like a "coming" of the LORD in judgment!  This passage also possesses similar language to that given in the NT when describing the return of Christ.

So, did history record the physical fulfillment of these things???  Or is this language simply figurative of God's judgment?  If the answer is "yes," then why interpret similar language in the NT differently?

Acts6:5

3rd July 2002, 06:42 AM

I never thought I'd say this, but I can see why this board gave up on preterists and booted them out of the eschatology forum. I give up, too.

You misunderstand, npetreley. Our removal from the eschatology forum was not for disciplinary reasons. It was because the administrators designed the eschatology forum to discuss futurist issues, not preterist issues. It wasn't because they "gave up" on us or wanted to "boot" us (clearly, because they allow preterists and futurists to discuss the same issues here).

Davo's whole interprative process does not hinge on his "Pan-American" example, so I hope you're not to hard on him for that.

Mike, I think I need a smack;  I've been pronouncing your name incorrectly. :eek: 

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Mike Beidler

3rd July 2002, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Mike, I think I need a smack;  I've been pronouncing your name incorrectly. :eek: 

 

I'll let it slide ... once.   :(

Next time, you won't be so lucky!!!  :mad:

Acts6:5

3rd July 2002, 08:22 AM

Whew -  thanks for the leniency.  Although, as a Marine, I don't think I'd allow a squid or a flyboy to lay the smackdown on me...regardless what kind of jedi powers you think you have. :mad:

In Christ,

Acts6:5 

Mike Beidler

3rd July 2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Whew -  thanks for the leniency.  Although, as a Marine, I don't think I'd allow a squid or a flyboy to lay the smackdown on me...regardless what kind of jedi powers you think you have. :mad:

In Christ,

Acts6:5 

Is it just me, or is the above boasting totally contrary to Acts' closing "In Christ"???  :scratch:

He he he he he ... :wave:

... "little brother" ...  ;)

Acts6:5

3rd July 2002, 09:54 PM

He he he ;)

How's this...

In Christ AND the Marines

Acts6:5

rainbow promise

4th July 2002, 02:00 PM

npetreley,

I am not a preterist in no way shape or form.

Matt. 24:29... Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:....There are referrences to this event all thru the old testament.

Immediately after what tribulation. from 538 AD to 1798 AD. The Papacy ruled the conscience of man. During this time they persecuted people in the most horrible ways, that didn't follow their teachings. This went on for 1260 years. It ended when it received its deadly wound, when the Pope was captured and died in captivity.

Matt. 24:29 says this will happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days. No matter when this event was prophecied it was prophecied in the same exact order.
Under the 6th seal of Rev. 6:12, 13 we read the same event. One extra thing is added. A gian earthquake. It is listed before the sun and star thing. Meaning it would happen first, right after the TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS.

Following the reformation in 1755 the Lisbon earthquake ocurred. This was the largest one ever recorded and covered 4,000,000 million miles. It shook Europe, Africa, and North America. There has not been one that big ever in history even up to this day. ..

In May 19, 1780 was the DARK DAY. This covered all of New England. In the day the sun became suddenly dark and it was like night out. After nightfall the darkness was quite terrifying. After midnight the darkness left and the moon was blood red.

November of 1833 a very intense meteor shower ocurred. Meteor showers aren't all that unusual. What made this one so different is the intenseness of it. The most intense one ever recorded. Nearly all of North America witnessed it.

These I happened to run accross yrs. ago when I had encyclopedias. I used to just leaf thru the pages till I ran across something that caught my eye. I didn't really pay them any attention at the time. It wasn't until I had started studying the Bible that my mind went back to what I had read.

Besides filling the prophecy about them, they also happened in the exact order. .(The rest of the 6th seal by the way is still future as it relates to the events at the return of Jesus).

There is still, according to other chapters of Rev., prophecies that have to be fulfilled before the return of Jesus. ...... Jesus said after those signs would be the sign of the Son of Man in heaven.....Matt. 24:30...He doesn't tell exactly how long after tho. It could be next year or somewhere in the next thousand or 10 thousand( tho I don't believe we actually have to awful long for that day to come) As soon as the rest of the Prophecies fulfill He will be here.

parousia70

4th July 2002, 03:15 PM

Yeah Rainbow, I read that book too. the one that spells out all of what you just posted, almost verbatim

A co-woker of mine lent it to me...isn't it SDA in origin?

One thing stuck out to me.

Where in the Bible does it say  New England would be the only place of "darkness"?

 

If it was indeed the fulfillment of Bible prophesy, what prophesy did it fulfill?

Manifestation1*AD70

4th July 2002, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
As I continue to read through the Bible in a year, I've come to the prophet Amos.  Interesting things here, from a preterist perspective.

Amos 1:2 -- "Amos said: 'The LORD comes roaring out of Zion; from Jerusalem he comes bellowing!  The shepherds' pastures wilt; the summit of Carmel withers.'"

In context, the LORD is coming in judgment against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and ultimately Judah and Israel. Interestingly enough, all of the judgments contained in Amos 1-2 were fulfilled in the past.  Of this there is no dispute between eschatological camps.

But here's the kicker: the LORD is said to "come" and his "coming" results in pastures wilting and the mountaintop withering.  Is there any historical record of these things actually happening, or are we to assume that the language is exaggerative and metaphorical?  What are we to think of this "coming" language?  Can we apply the same hermenuetical principle to Christ's description of His own coming, which uses similar language?

(Remember, hermenuetical principles should not have to change when going to and from the Old and New Testaments.  The same culture, which was extremely familiar with eschatological language, is involved here.)

Hi Mike   The question would be what culture, was extremely familiar with the eschatological language that is involved here?  Everyone christian today knows the Bible was only written to me, me, me, me, me, me, me, us, us, us, us, us, us, us, me.

And you know there was on such people in the first century called christian, who know about any of these things.  And what about this principle call hermenuetical, Will you also know I don't know how to us it, so there is no such thing in the Bible to me.   So all your good biblical proof in Amos 1:2 means nothing to me. :P

Does this sound like people we all love and know?

davo

4th July 2002, 04:53 PM

One thing is for sure, when prophecy is reefed and ripped out of its biblical time frame and context and crassly applied according to our world view and time in history, then indeed it can and does [look at all the evidence] mean anything. In the days of Oliver Cromwell they were living, as they believed and interpreted, in the "Fifth Monarchy" of Daniel.

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

4th July 2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by davo
One thing is for sure, when prophecy is reefed and ripped out of its biblical time frame and context and crassly applied according to our world view and time in history, then indeed it can and does [look at all the evidence] mean anything. In the days of Oliver Cromwell they were living, as they believed and interpreted, in the "Fifth Monarchy" of Daniel.

davo

Hi davo

Why I am so amazes is the Bible, is the only book, they ripped out of its biblical time frame.  When they read any other book about our history no one rips the pages out of there intended context and runs around says that is me, me, me.  

They have no idea, that the Bible is God's story to us, to show us, how men sinned and was put out of His presence.  And how Christ Jesus placed us back into the very presence of God.  Sadly all they can see in the Bible is the traditional teaching of men which rips the scripture out of it biblical time frame, and places it in the newspaper head lines and world views.

Mike Beidler

4th July 2002, 06:04 PM

One of the biggest problems Christians, in general, have today is that they forget there is such thing as the Old Testament, that the OT is completely irrelevant to the interpretation of the New Testament.  They erroneously think that while the OT can use poetic, exaggerative language with voluminous amounts of metaphoric language, the NT does not.

People fail to realize that the NT authors borrowed from, alluded to, quoted from, and saw typological fulfillments in the OT, and that the borrowed language needs to be read in the same light as it was originally used.

Little do Christians understand that Revelation borrows so heavily from the OT that you very well could stick it amongst the Prophets and not realize the difference if it weren't for the mention of Jesus Christ.  Once the key to the OT is turned, Revelation opens itself so wide you can't help but fall through the door!

Instead, people rip headlines from the news and paste them amongst the words of Christ and the Apostles.

Manifestation1*AD70

4th July 2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
One of the biggest problems Christians, in general, have today is that they forget there is such thing as the Old Testament, that the OT is completely irrelevant to the interpretation of the New Testament.  They erroneously think that while the OT can use poetic, exaggerative language with voluminous amounts of metaphoric language, the NT does not.

People fail to realize that the NT authors borrowed from, alluded to, quoted from, and saw typological fulfillments in the OT, and that the borrowed language needs to be read in the same light as it was originally used.

Little do Christians understand that Revelation borrows so heavily from the OT that you very well could stick it amongst the Prophets and not realize the difference if it weren't for the mention of Jesus Christ.  Once the key to the OT is turned, Revelation opens itself so wide you can't help but fall through the door!

Instead, people rip headlines from the news and paste them amongst the words of Christ and the Apostles.

I agree Mike Another thing Christians, in general, have forget is that Jesus was a Jew who was familiar with Jewish prophetic thought (Matt. 5:17, 13:17; Luke 2:41-47, 24:27).  And your right his disciples also borrowed heavil from the OT.

The first thing one must understand about Revelation is that it is a book composed almost entirely of symbols-symbols that a first century Jew would have found immediately recognizable. These symbols were used before in such books as Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah.

When a "mark" is spoken of, it should bring to mind a previous reference to a mark, found in another place in the Old Testament. The "mark" received upon the right hand or the forehead, is a Jewish typological picture (as is virtually all of Revelation), not to a "physical" mark on a persons body, but to the fact that in Jewish thought form (which is where John was coming from).

But how did one, receive "the mark" and what did it mean in Jewish thought? It means that those who "took the mark" willingly, on their "right hand" (the Jewish picture of action and power), did whatever they did under the control of Rome, and they acted in accordance with that ungodly religious system (Pantheism).

The "mark" on the foreheads, was referring to the fact that Rome and their ideologies/ religions etc, were controlling the "minds and thoughts" of those who willingly followed this mind set. A perfect picture of this action in see in John. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, Behold you King!" But they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priest answered, "We have no king (but Caesar!") John 19:14-15.

This is the meaning of the "mark of the beast." Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. Then the chief priest and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, What shall we do’ For this Man works many signs. "If we let Him alone like this everyone will believe in Him, (And the Romans will come and take away both place and nation).

Those who "took the mark" in the foreheads, were referring to the fact that Rome and their ideologies/ religions etc, were controlling the minds and thoughts of those who willingly followed this mind set. All the Jews understood this typological picture. Since John was a Jew he used numerous Jewish allusions out of the Old Testament in his book of Revelation. John writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of express."

The same language of John’s Revelation when a "mark" is spoken of, should bring to mind a previous reference to a "mark" found in Ezekiel 9:3-6.  In that context, Jerusalem was also about to be besieged and destroyed (by the Babylonians). The Lord commanded an angel to place "a mark on the foreheads" of those that lamented the wickedness of the city. This angel is described as having "a writer’s inkhorn at his side" (9:3), with which he was to mark the righteous. It is clear from the context that this was not to be taken literally, as if an angel needed to carry a pen around with him and an inkhorn in which to dip it.

This was a figurative (symbolic) way of showing that there was a specific class of people within the doomed city that were being set apart for preservation (9:6). In Revelation, a similar "mark" is placed on those whom God wishes to preserve (7:3, 14:1). A "mark" is also received by those loyal to the beast, one which sets them apart for destruction (14:9-11). The mark is an emblem of ownership (John 19:14-15.)

We must allow Scripture to interpret itself whenever possible. Whether or not it or its fulfillment conforms to the unbiblical traditions we have been taught of what it should be like, is irrelevant! Most people today jump into the book of Revelation with the brazen assumption that it speaks of our times or a time yet future.

This ignores the book’s clear statements regarding the time of its fulfillment. To the readers of the first century, not the 20th, it was written that these were "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev.11), and that the time for its fulfillment was "at hand" (Rev.1:3). And just in case they missed the point, it was reiterated at the end of the book that these were "things which must shortly be done" (Rev. 22:60.

davo

4th July 2002, 06:39 PM

G'day chaps! :wave:

Yes exactly right. "The Scriptures" as mentioned in the NT are the OT writings -these were those that: He, having opened their minds, comprehended the Scriptures Lk 24:45, they were: ...the Scriptures ...which testify of Me Jn 5:39, which is seen in: Philip opening his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture [Isaiah], preached Jesus to him Act 8:35, and as Paul said: what saith the Scripture? Rom 4:3, Gal 4:30 etc etc etc.

Lk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

davo :)

Mandy

4th July 2002, 07:46 PM

So do you deny that the NT is the word of God?

Mike Beidler

4th July 2002, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Mandy
So do you deny that the NT is the word of God?

 

I'm genuinely shocked you asked that question, Mandy. :scratch: :confused:   The answer is:  OF COURSE NOT!!!!  Peter clearly refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture, and Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to remembrance all the things that he said and did, implying that any "memoirs" of the Apostles would be "inspired."

But in the verses Davo quoted above referred only to the OT, not the NT.  To imply that they refer to the NT would be anachronistic.

Even in 2 Timothy 3:16, the Scriptures referred to there are the OT, and don't include the NT.  Of course, that's not to say that the NT doesn't meet Paul's definition and description of Scripture.  Although only an understanding of the OT was required to bring one into a saving knowledge of the Messiah, once the NT was written, Paul's definition and description of Scripture could be applied just as equally to the NT.  In fact, once one had a knowledge of the traditions enscripturated in the NT, the responsibility to respond favorably to the Messiah became greater.

davo

4th July 2002, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Mandy
So do you deny that the NT is the word of God?

Mandy, are you fair dinkum :scratch: or just needing to say something?

2Tim 3:15-16 [NKJV] 15and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures [OT], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2Pet 1:19-20 [NKJV] 19And so we have the prophetic word [of which the prophets of old searched] confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

Rom 16:25-26 [NKJV] 25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to [I]all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith--

The Prophetic Scriptures included the Old Testament and that of the New Testament which was in the process of being written in that generation. Notice also that the "commandment of the everlasting God" [Matt 24:14, 26:18-20] is now made known to all nations -already.

davo

jamieluther

5th July 2002, 12:38 PM

a question to preteriest what does the future look like to the bride of jesus christ? are what you all looking for? i am confused. any help would be appreciated.

Hoonbaba

5th July 2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by jamieluther
a question to preteriest what does the future look like to the bride of jesus christ? are what you all looking for? i am confused. any help would be appreciated.

Hi Jamieluther,

The preterist view is one of 4 major interpretations of Christian eschatology.  However, preterists look at the book of Revelation as depicting a shift in covenant from old to new.  I know it may sound strange, but Heb 8:7-13 and Gal 4:21-31 make it clear that during their day the old covenant didn't fully pass away.  Preterists also believe that the early Christians were living the last days (Heb 1:2, 1 John 2:18).  Preterism is also known as covenantal eschatology.  I actually prefer that term more than preterism.

So anyway, getting back to the topic, we look forward to our heavenly dwelling (2 Cor 5:2).  Preterists do not believe in a physical resurrection of believers (1 Cor 15:50) and that we won't know what our bodies will be like in heaven (1 John 3:2).  So the hope that we have is heaven. 

Also, I personally look forwards to many other things in the future: getting married, raising children, adopting a child, seeing believers of various denominations coming together to worship, seeing Christians actively involved in politics and many other wonderful things pertaining to Phil 4:8 =)

Now there's something to look forward to =)

-Jason

Hoonbaba

5th July 2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by parousia70
Yeah Rainbow, I read that book too. the one that spells out all of what you just posted, almost verbatim

A co-woker of mine lent it to me...isn't it SDA in origin?

One thing stuck out to me.

Where in the Bible does it say  New England would be the only place of "darkness"?

 

If it was indeed the fulfillment of Bible prophesy, what prophesy did it fulfill?

Hi P70,

Is SDA, Seventh Day Advent?  And that 'book' sounds like a historicist approach to Revelation.

-Jason

Hoonbaba

5th July 2002, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by npetreley
Can anyone point me to a site/article/series/whatever that describes how preterists assign various prophecies to actual events or even spiritual/symbolic interpretation?

I'm looking for explanations of things like (assuming it's all past) when the sun went dark and the moon turned the color of blood -- when the two witnesses manipulated weather, were killed, and people of the world celebrated by giving each other gifts -- when every living creature in the sea died -- when the Euphrates dried up, and that sort of thing.

Hi npretley,

This might help =)

http://www.liberty.edu/courses/theo250/preterism.html

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/index.html

God bless!

-Jason

parousia70

5th July 2002, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Hoonbaba

Hi P70,

Is SDA, Seventh Day Advent?  And that 'book' sounds like a historicist approach to Revelation.

-Jason

 

Yes, 7th day adventist it is, and yes it is an historical aproach. My futurist co- worker lent the book to me because he was so excited about some of the things it said, placing the fulfillment of many prophesies he'd once expeted to be yet future, in the past, although recent past.(last few hundred years).

I, in turn, lent him Noe's BEYOND THE END TIMES and a coulple of David Curtis' sermons I have on CD.

I told him, "you're looking int he right direction, just not far enough!"

Needless to say, He's was blown away!

It's really cool to see the light go on in someone after experiencing it yourself!

 

 

Hoonbaba

6th July 2002, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by parousia70

 

Yes, 7th day adventist it is, and yes it is an historical aproach. My futurist co- worker lent the book to me because he was so excited about some of the things it said, placing the fulfillment of many prophesies he'd once expeted to be yet future, in the past, although recent past.(last few hundred years).

I, in turn, lent him Noe's BEYOND THE END TIMES and a coulple of David Curtis' sermons I have on CD.

I told him, "you're looking int he right direction, just not far enough!"

Needless to say, He's was blown away!

It's really cool to see the light go on in someone after experiencing it yourself!

 

 

Praise God!

Actually, what sermons are you referring to?  I think I might want to listen to them myself and share with some friends =)

God bless!

-Jason

davo

6th July 2002, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Hoonbaba
Actually, what sermons are you referring to?  I think I might want to listen to them myself and share with some friends =)

G'day Jason :)  how are ya mate! Try this link for some of David Curtis' sermons, and a few others.

www.audiowebman.org/bbc/audios.htm (http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/audios.htm)

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

6th July 2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Mandy
So do you deny that the NT is the word of God?

Another thing that I am aways amazed at is how the futurist always us all kinds of elaborate devices to try and defend their unbiblical views of end time events. 

One of the easiest thing for preterist is letting the Old Testament and New Testament speak for itself.   One of the difficult thing for futurist is letteing the New Testament and Old Testament speak for itself.   And you question here shows that is a fact.

Hoonbaba

7th July 2002, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by davo

G'day Jason :)  how are ya mate! Try this link for some of David Curtis' sermons, and a few others.

www.audiowebman.org/bbc/audios.htm (http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/audios.htm)

davo

Hi Davo,

Thanks for the link I really appreciate it! =)

-Jason

SetOnEdge

10th November 2002, 01:48 PM

Sorry, I will humble myself and say that I am not as armed with self interpreted scripture as some of the preterists here, I know my scripture but I have not dissected it and decided I have the divine wisdom to make the assumption that Jesus' return will be spiritual. I believe it as I see it, and the way I see it, it will be a physical return.

The day I see humbleness in a preterist, and see that a preterist can consider that Christ has not returned yet, is the day I will consider seeing this from a preterist angle. And stop seeing preterism as 1 dimensional misinterpretation.

Most of the preterists are so high and mighty they believe their word is infallible and any other view is folly. [/B][/QUOTE]

SetOnEdge

10th November 2002, 01:49 PM

I'm sorry -- that last post was not actually mine but a quote from someone elses.  I just thought it ironic that a post could be so dogmatic and sound so much like the very thing it was criticizing.

That's all

parousia70

10th November 2002, 04:43 PM

Very Ironic indeed!

I was just about to lay into ya for posting such drivil, then I saw it was but a quote.

I guess I'll lay in to whoever wrote it:

I know my scripture but I have not dissected it and decided I have the divine wisdom to make the assumption that Jesus' return will be spiritual.

Divine wisdom to make the assumption?

Isn't that oxymoronic?

Jesus' return, whether you view it past or future can only be accomplished and understood by it's inherantly spiritual nature.

How else do you suppose 1 billion Christians will get to be "face to face" with Jesus for eternity?

Or do you think we'll all have to wait in line in Jerusalem to get some "face time" with Christ, which we would have to do if Jesus returned in the same 6 foot physical frame He left in. (as I understand you are suggesting)

Lets see, a line of 1 billion in Jerusalem to see Christ "face to face" (as we are promised).

If each Christian gets 5 minutes "face to face' with Christ before moving on, you'd still be standing in line for over 1000 years.

...or perhaps you are suggesting we'll all get our own personal physical savior who'll be a our beck and call.
...or perhaps a Physical Jesus on every street corner.

Why don't you share how you are able to "De-spiritualize" an event that can only be understood and  explained by it's spiritulal nature?

The day I see humbleness in a preterist, and see that a preterist can consider that Christ has not returned yet, is the day I will consider seeing this from a preterist angle.

Here's the thing about that,

preterists, by and large, already did consider that Christ has not returned, many, like me, even  believed it with all their heart.

Preterists have been down that road, and saw the dead end, turned around, and sought a clear path.

You' ve yet to even look down this road, yet you have the gaul to claim "it must go nowhere". (humble indeed)

If you really want to attempt a lucid refutation of preterism, you might want to immerse yourself in preterist theology first. You might be suprised where the road leads ;)

 