Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 184011 | ||
Tom, My wife and I have a 16 month old grandson and he has changed our lives. As a parent I never imagined being a grandparent could be so exhilarating. Thanks again for your encouragement. Like you the Scriptures opened up to me anew after discovering preterism. I'm aware of the amount of time it must have taken you to post your well researched and well written responses. I am in awe of your insight and your writing abilities. I intend to check back now and then to see what advice is being given here. I'll definetly check back tomorrow. The frustrating part for me has been the non-response to specific questions. I tried to focus on the time-frame as you know since it's so clear. I thought the refutation would be easy for the futurist. I thought there must be someone out there who had the key to refute it. I do appreciate the time and effort spent by those opposing preterism, but I really expected more insightful responses. On one hand it's frustrating yet on the other it's somehow gratifying. To be castigated for being too well versed on preterism was unexpected to say the least. When one chooses to change the subject, make personal attacks, or "take their ball and go home" so to speak, it gives me a little more confidence. I'm more convinced than ever of a first century second coming. The only other option is that Jesus was not who he claimed, and as Paul said, "our faith is in vain". And that is not an option as far as I'm concerned. Thanks again and I look forward to reading whatever you have to report. Coper |
||||||
2 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184033 | ||
Coper, As discovered in our first exchange we are both appreciative of Russell's Parousia. To me it is the most enlightening - and most importantly - thought provoking commentary I've read. Although I agree all prophesy fulfilled in 70AD I see much more of the supernatural than many full preterists. Just one example: The view that Nero was the beast is logical to me, but consider Rev. 13:13-15. This speaks not of Nero but of the two horned beast that spake as a dragon.Unlike Nero he had real power to work miracles including giving life to the image of the first beast. Many see beast and man of sin as synonomous but I think this may be in error. I think it possible this person could be possessed by Satan or maybe even Satan in the flesh. "Spake as a dragon" leaps off the page. Here is a thought I had while reading his commentary on Rev. 20, with which he concedes some difficulty. To me a stumbling block to full preterist view is proposition that the 1000 years Satan was bound somehow occurred in the 40 years prior to 70AD. John 12:31; "Now is the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out." Spoken by Jesus on the way to Jerusalem a few days before His death. This verse is one used by full preterists to show the 1000 year binding of Satan as being fulfilled between the time of Jesus ministry and just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but I beleive it more likely that "cast out" refers to Satan being loosed instead of bound. To match Revelation's account of Satan's confinement, one would think cast down (into the pit) would be more appropriate. Some definitions of cast out (ekballo) are; sent away, driven out, deprived of power and influence in the world. But also included are; to command or cause one to depart in haste, to cause a thing to move straight on its intended goal, to draw out, extract, to bring out of, to draw or bring forth. Seeing these last definitions it seems possible that this verse refers not to Satan's bondage, but to his being "loosed a little season" - drawn out or extracted from the pit to fulfill his prophesied mission. I had accepted being being loosed as coincident with Nero's reign because of the extreme persecution he inflicted, but there was condiderable and increasung persecution from the crucifixion until 70AD. A prime example being Saul/Paul's persecution of Christians before his conversion, and the dangers, assaults and ultimate execution he endured after. The New Testament as well as various historians record the persecutions and executions of Christians during this period culminating in the judgement that ended the Mosaic age. While a thousand years can can be symbolic of longer or shorter time periods, it could also be literal, so I wondered what significant event may have been a thousand years prior to Christ. About 1000 years prior to Christ's crucifixion was the reign of Solomon and beginning of the temple (about 940BC by Anstey's OT chronology). Could this have been when the devil was bound? I really don't know but find it interesting. Regardless of exactly when he was bound, I beleive the "released for a little while" must refer to persecution of the Saints, deception and gathering of nations in years between crucifixion and 70AD. These are speculations, food for thought, I beleive in accordance with Acts 17:11. Tom |
||||||
3 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 184060 | ||
Tom, Thanks for your most recent post. It was worth returning for. I do believe that God is sovereign and that he is in control of opening hearts and minds. As I remind myself of that the frustration begins to fade. While I have never heard anyone express the idea of a pre-incarnation binding of Satan as thouroughly as you have I think you're on the right track. I actually thought along the same lines previously but was never able to develop it at length. I'm sure there's even more you've discovered but haven't shared, right? So, who do you think the man of sin was? Is it possible that Nero was the first beast of Rev. 13 and Satan the second? There is no historical record of Nero coming back to life, but that does not necessarily preclude it. Since he died by the sword its possible that his wound was healed and he lived again (Rev. 13:14). Then both Nero and Satan were destroyed at the coming of the Lord (II Thess. 2:8, Rev. 20:9,10). Rom. 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. When considering Rom. 16:20 along with Rev. 20:9,10 the idea of any post 70AD satanic activity is eliminated. I've also been uncomfortable with the 30AD-70AD millenium. I have told friends that its the one major weakness of preterism. I have wondered about a 900BC-1000BC binding of Satan and him being loosed for a little while during the tribulation period (64AD-70AD). The first 42 months Nero alone then the last 42 months both of them. This is the type of speculation I was trying to avoid while dealing only with the time-frame but its unavoidable as one tries to put the details in place. Also, since we're speculating, have you ever considered that the 30AD-70AD 40 year reign of Christ may be connected with the 40 year Rule of David 1005BC-965BC? I Cor. 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. It may be an answer to the futurist view that still looks for Jesus to literally sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple etc. Keep up the good work. I know its time consuming, but I look forward to reading more of your insights! Coper |
||||||
4 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184088 | ||
Coper, Your comments are appreciated. I do see the beast of Rev. 13:1 as Nero. I beleive there is much in this book that is spiritual in nature and thus there can be no historical verification. However in addition to verse 14 we have John's eyewitness in verse 3. Now here is what really stands out to me: "13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Unlike Nero who assumed deity and pretended powers, this two horned beast actually had miraculous powers and convinced the unbeleivers he was a diety. He even gave life to an inanimate image! This could be no mere mortal. I must persue this further sometime, but at this point I can think of none other that better matches the description "man of sin" than this two horned beast, Satan incarnate. I forgot to mention verse 11, he spake as a dragon. The beast with 2 horns identified in the personage of Gessius Florus by Russell. He was the governor of Judea under Nero and was said to have been the worst of all the Imperial governors of Judea. According to Josephus, beginning in May of 66 with the slaughter of 3600 peaceful citizens, he terrorized the Jews for 5 months, after which the Jews rebelled resulting in civil war, without which many say the Romans would never have been able to defeat them. Regarding Rev. 20, the many and varied interpretations of this chapter have resulted in much confusion. To me the verses don't seem to be in proper order, and I beleive that possible, but I'm not quite ready to go there yet. But let me note this one thing. The first sentence of verse 5 seems to interrupt the description of those that reigned with Christ. Many Bibles use parenthesis or footnotes indicating it was not in all manuscripts, and according to some, in some ancient manuscripts it was not in the main text but a note in the margin. Placing it after verse 6 makes more sense to me. I agree, as I think most do, that David as well as Moses were shadows of Jesus. Check out http://ecclesia.org/truth/40.html for an interesting article on the significance of the nuymber 40.Your note of dates reminds me of something I've found helpful. At http://www.prophecycorner.com/agee/chron.html is a chart of OT chronology that seems more accurate than that commonly used. For instance, according to Easton's dictionary; Cyrus' decree issued 536BC, but according to Martin Anstey's Bible Chronology, who computed chronology from the scriptures, it was 454BC. Easton's date does not compute in reference to Daniel's 70 weeks but Anstey's does. This chart primarily uses AH, Anno Hominis, Year of Man. 0AH is 4043BC. To convert AH to BC years, subtract from 4043, to convert BC to AH subtract 4043 from the BC year. Tom |
||||||
5 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 184093 | ||
Hi Tom Your preterism is certainly wonderful. It takes a Roman procurator and turns him into a two horned wild beast who makes fire come down from heaven in the sight of men (a picture indicating a false Elijah) and works great signs so as to deceive those who dwell on earth. (Perhaps you are unaware that two horns means two rulers? compare 17.12) And I never realised before that Gessius Florus did such things. Then you can take an inconvenient verse and move it to another place to suit your theory. But best of all you can take the date of Cyrus, which is firmly fixed by external archaeological evidence and move it a hundred years. And while you are confidently stating that no onw has produced any time sequence which contradicts your theory I seem to remember that I suggested one to you to which you have not yet given a reply. I will repeat it again, 'when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,then know that its desolation has come near -- and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled -- and then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (Luke 21.2-0-27. Now what I would like you to do is explain it phrase by phrase, taking each word into account, and tell me what it is saying. For to me it appears to be saying first the destruction of Jerusalem then the scattering of the Jews, then a period following when Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles, and all this FOLLOWED by the coming in glory of Jesus Christ. What I am concerned with is the coming of Jesus Christ, not all the theories about it of which there are too many. And before you play around with the word glory perhaps you will note that in those days the idea of glory related to the visible appearance of God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
6 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184128 | ||
Jonp, If you read both of my last two posts, you'll note that I said, "These are speculations, food for thought, I beleive in accordance with Acts 17:11." Searching the scriptures to see if they are true is considered a noble thing. And how else is one to search without speculating, considering all possibilities? I did not say Florus was definitely the two horned beast, but quoted another who did. I mentioned it as a possibility to speculate about. Can you explain in detail how you see anything about 2 rulers in verse 12? My speculation about Re.20:5 was not to prove any escalotological point. Indeed, the argument had nothing to do with ones interpretation of the 2nd coming. Regarding chronology, many traditional futurists I have read, cite in multiple places errors in the commonly used dating system. Anstey's seems most accurate to me. At http://www.prophecycorner.com/agee/chron.html (not a preterist site) Agee cites scripture as validation, thus you can prove or disprove it yourself. Regarding Luke 21, your posts to me as well as others indicate our differences here are not reconcilable, so I think it pointless to revisit this. The primary difference in our views amounts to a period of about 2000 years. Not much - perhaps as little as 2 days - in God's infinite time. Tom |
||||||
7 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 184137 | ||
Hi, As I pointed out Revelation often gives its own key to what it is saying. In Revelation 17.12 the horns of a wild beast are declared to be rulers. Thus it seems clear that the same is true in chapter 13. The wild beast with two horns like a lamb probably indicates religious authorities who supported the wild beast (Caligula? Caligula's reign fits the details). They no doubt used conjuring to imitate the wonders described in Scripture. The two horns of a lamb contrast with the Lamb in Revelation 5. They are false prophets, even false Messiahs. Caligula especially had it in for the Jews, as he did for aristocrats. Both refused to worship him. In interpreting Revelation we must let it interpret itself not try to fit it into our theories. I note your surrender on the question of Luke's sequence of events. I did not expect that you would be able to answer it. I have never met any full preterite who could answer it in detail. That is why I am not a preterite although no doubt some would call me part preterite. With cordial best wishes Jonp | ||||||
8 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184185 | ||
Jonp, I see in 13:1 a beast, the 7 heads of which represent the Roman emperers. 2This beast gets it's power, etc. from the dragon (drakon: dragon, serpent, name for Satan). 11The 2nd beast of this chapter is introduced. He spake as a dragon. I see in 13,14, and 15 plain statements of supernatural powers with no suggestion of conjuring. I beleive the entity described here to be the real drakon. The verses in 17 prior to verse 12 describe the first beast in 13 whose wound was healed. I beleive in 12 a new subject is introduced, the explanation of the 10 kings or rulers. Some have said they represent the rulers of the surrounding nations that aligned with Rome in their assault. Your note of my "surrender" is greatly exaggerated. You have often demonstrated an uncanny knack to read into my words that which was not said. Surrender? Never! Let me rephrase, you are adamant in your interpretation and I in mine so further debate is pointless.There is no surrender but an impasse. Since this thread is restricted from the home page I will now exit this thread. Jonp I beleive you to be sincerely devoted to the Lord. God bless you and best to you. Tom |
||||||