Results 1 - 20 of 20
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tomret Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184094 | ||
Coper, I emailed Lockman to see what temporarily suspended from the home page meant. I got a reply that said, "This is done when the content or discussion is not productive." I see the possibility of this thread's termination. If you would like, contact me at tcase@carolina.rr.com. Normally I would be hesitant to post my email address but I'm about to change my ISP and this one will be invalid in a few days. Tom |
||||||
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 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184056 | ||
Hello jonp, I recalled an article I had read on this. Took me a while to find it again. I urge you to take a look at http://ecclesia.org/truth/covenants.html . I beleive you will find much much agreement with the points you have made, except of course with the timing. I sincerely urge you to read this with an open mind. How would those living at the time have understood the verses refered to? Best to you, Tom |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 184009 | ||
Hello Coper, I saw this post earlier but didn't have time to respond as I was getting ready to leave to go play with my grandaughters. Had a great time - one was Catwoman, the other Flash, and I was Batman. We trekked out in the woods to the land of the supers! It is with much regret that I see that you may be leaving. I certainly understand your frustration but may I suggest your time here has not been wasted. You have indeed received an answer to your original question and that answer is "NO." I notice you have made a few posts today and I appreciate the support. If this is perhaps to be your last day may I ask you to postphone for one more. I've been wanting to share some things we have in common and will do so tomorrow. Tom |
||||||
8 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183970 | ||
Hello again jonp, My explanations of how I understand Luke 21 while bareboned took me several hours. So, I must defer to a later time more detailed analysis. In the meantime, may I suggest we determine if the 70AD judgement was all inclusive or if there is yet another judgement. The simplest test is: Are we under the New Covenant or the Old? The Old was not to pass until ALL prophesy fulfilled. What say you? Tom |
||||||
9 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183966 | ||
Hi Brian, Whew that's a lot! I attempted a similar request from jonp on Luke 21 today and it took hours. So I ask first that you take a look at that ( ID# 183945 on 2-17 ). You might also want to check out "A Study of Matthew 24" at http://ecclesia.org/truth/preterism.html This the first preterist site I went to and there's a lot of good info there, but there's a lot of the webmaster's view I do not accept, so be a Berean. Tom |
||||||
10 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183964 | ||
Great to have you back Coper. I welcome your insight. Tom |
||||||
11 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183963 | ||
Thanks stj for your generous comments. Your observations are very insightful. First let me note the Septuagint version of this verse: "8:21 And the Lord God smelled a smell of sweetness, and the Lord God having considered, said, I will not any more curse the earth, because of the works of men, because the imagination of man is intently bent upon evil things from his youth, I will not therefore any more smite all living flesh as I have done." The only difference I wish to note here is that instead of "said in His heart," He only "said" here indicating the words were spoken not communicated telepathically as I previously suggested. Promise does not appear in Gen. 8:21. As you noted previously, chapter 9 is a continuation and elaboration of verse 21 thus they are linked together. You correctly note the word destroy does not appear here. Indeed the flood did not destroy the earth but the inhabitants of it save those on the ark. As for the comma you mention, the original Hebrew had no punctuation - or vowels for that matter.Now, I arrived at these verses seeking evidence that the NT interpretations of many futurists indicating vaporization of the earth and dissolving of the heavens is in error. Even though I admitted for ever could be a long time as well as eternal, I still take Ecc. 1:4 to mean eternal. I agree about OT events being twofold foretelling the final judgement, but the question is when. I think on 1 Thess. 4:16-17 we will have much agreement. I beleive this absolutely describes the saints being taken up to be with the Lord. But, again we will have differences on when. Indulge me for a moment and consider the possibility that the 2nd coming occured in 70AD as you read the following: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/stevens-ed_p_01.html : Silence Demands a Rapture, which brought me back to the first question I had when first exposed to the preterist view - why did no one make any mention of the judgement after the fact? For several decades after 70AD virtually nothing was written. It even occured to me then that a literal rapture would account for it, but all that I read from the modern preterist writers saw being caught up as symbolic. Now this writer has convinced me the rapture, being caught up in the air, was literal. If all true Christians were taken up, there was no one left to explain the scriptures, so succeeding generations were left to try to interpret them. With those that were left being of the persuasion that their Messiah - a worldly warrior king - was yet to come, how long was it until anybody even tried to understand the Gospels and words of the Apostles? Did this future expectation influence their interpretation? And consider their plight - the NT was not in a book form. They had no concordance or commentaries or internet. This could explain the multitude of interpretations we have. Now to your last point, does not "all prophesy" include the coming in judgement? If we are under the new law, does that not verify the judgement is past? Tom |
||||||
12 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183962 | ||
Thanks stj for your generous comments. Your observations are very insightful. First let me note the Septuagint version of this verse: "8:21 And the Lord God smelled a smell of sweetness, and the Lord God having considered, said, I will not any more curse the earth, because of the works of men, because the imagination of man is intently bent upon evil things from his youth, I will not therefore any more smite all living flesh as I have done." The only difference I wish to note here is that instead of "said in His heart," He only "said" here indicating the words were spoken not communicated telepathically as I previously suggested. Promise does not appear in Gen. 8:21. As you noted previously, chapter 9 is a continuation and elaboration of verse 21 thus they are linked together. You correctly note the word destroy does not appear here. Indeed the flood did not destroy the earth but the inhabitants of it save those on the ark. As for the comma you mention, the original Hebrew had no punctuation - or vowels for that matter.Now, I arrived at these verses seeking evidence that the NT interpretations of many futurists indicating vaporization of the earth and dissolving of the heavens is in error. Even though I admitted for ever could be a long time as well as eternal, I still take Ecc. 1:4 to mean eternal. I agree about OT events being twofold foretelling the final judgement, but the question is when. I think on 1 Thess. 4:16-17 we will have much agreement. I beleive this absolutely describes the saints being taken up to be with the Lord. But, again we will have differences on when. Indulge me for a moment and consider the possibility that the 2nd coming occured in 70AD as you read the following: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/stevens-ed_p_01.html : Silence Demands a Rapture, which brought me back to the first question I had when first exposed to the preterist view - why did no one make any mention of the judgement after the fact? For several decades after 70AD virtually nothing was written. It even occured to me then that a literal rapture would account for it, but all that I read from the modern preterist writers saw being caught up as symbolic. Now this writer has convinced me the rapture, being caught up in the air, was literal. If all true Christians were taken up, there was no one left to explain the scriptures, so succeeding generations were left to try to interpret them. With those that were left being of the persuasion that their Messiah - a worldly warrior king - was yet to come, how long was it until anybody even tried to understand the Gospels and words of the Apostles? Did this future expectation influence their interpretation? And consider their plight - the NT was not in a book form. They had no concordance or commentaries or internet. This could explain the multitude of interpretations we have. Now to your last point, does not "all prophesy" include the coming in judgement? If we are under the new law, does that not verify the judgement is past? Tom |
||||||
13 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183947 | ||
( continued) But here is the kicker. How many times I've looked at the definition of cloud without seeing it's significance! (Nephele; a cloud, used of the cloud which led the Israelites in the wilderness.) As the cloud led the Israelites they never literally saw God, but their mind's eye perceived and "saw" His presence. Nephele is the only word used for cloud in the NT. When used in describing Jesus coming there was no concern about whether it was about to rain, so I beleive this must be the same cloud as in Exodus. As Jesus and the Father are one it would seem most likely that this judgement would be conducted in the same manner as all the prior ones. I beleive those present at the 2nd coming would no more literally see God than those in the Exodus. Do you see what I'm saying? (Pardon the pun. I couldn't resist). I beleive verse 28 literally refers to first the risen dead then the rest of the saints being changed and taken up to meet the Lord. Verses 29-31: He compares the truth of all that He has said to a constantly recurring natural event, a truth of narure. In the modern vernacular we might say. " You can count on all that I have said as surely as you can count on the sun rising tomorrow. You can take it to the bank!" Notice the end of 31, "at hand": (eggus; of time, of times imminent and soon to come pass.) Then verse 32 while not specifying the day or hour, limits it to the generation of those to whom He is speaking. "Verily (Amen; verily, amen; at the beginning of a discourse - surely, truly, of a truth; at the end - so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled.) I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Verily in this verse applies to the following verses indicating they are of special importance. Hope this has been helpful, Tom |
||||||
14 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183945 | ||
Hi jonp, I'll be glad to give it a shot. I'm confident Luke's words are are divinely true. Our task is to discern that truth from our English translation. I think it highly probable the person that coined the phrase "lost in the translation" was a Bible student. Even if we were fluent in Greek there would still be difficulties. Remember a few decades ago when all of a sudden "bad" meant good? Fortunately, that withered away. Luke 21:7; And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? In verse 8-17 He explains the things that will happen and the persecutions they will endure during the time period "these things" come to pass. In verses 18 and 19 He gives them assurances. Then in verse 20 He gives them the sign they had asked for: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (nigh: eggizo; to bring near, to join one thing to another, to draw or come near to, to approach). Verse 21, they're told that when they see this sign they must flee to the mountains, etc.Verse 22; Jesus affirms these coming days to be the judgement. "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written (grapho; writing in general but also used of those things which stand written in the sacred books of the OT) may be fulfilled." Verse 23 notes how especially hard it will be for pregnant women. The distress and wrath will not be on every person on the planet (people: laos; a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the same stock and language). Verse 24, 25, 26: Jesus continues His prophesy to the disciples. 24 "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." Verse 25 Could this refer to astrological signs perhaps? "Distress of nations:" (ethnos; a tribe, nation, people group, in the OT foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians). Although the war was local to Judea and especially Jerusalem, I beleive this refers to great distress in all the surrounding nations in the years immediately prior to the start of the war. Verse 26 continues describing this horrid anticipation. From the time Jesus spoke until His coming things went from bad to worse in an exponential manner. To the beleivers it had to be frightening but imaginine the unbeleivers absolute horror. Josephus describes this period with unbelievable horror. Verse 27:"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." I'm not sure I understand your comment on this verse. If you are saying His coming in glory at Pentecost and in judgement of Jerusalem are separate events, I completely agree. I see this coming in glory as a separate event. The word for glory (doxa) has many meanings depending on context. The one applicable here would seem to be; a thing belonging to Christ, the kingly majesty of the Messiah, the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ. This verse and similar ones are cited as a "proof " that Jesus did not come in 70AD because there's no record that He was seen. This verse does indeed seem to say He would be seen. It could argued, if they saw Him would they recognize Him? Abscent for 3 days, His disciples failed to recognize Him after His ressurection. But, I beleive examining Rev. 1:7 provides a better explanation. "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." (Eye: Ophthalmos; the eye, metaphorically the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing.) (See: Optanomai; to look at, behold.) So far this allows for the mind's eye to see Him, to understand He is coming in judgement. (Continued in next post) |
||||||
15 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183911 | ||
Hello again stj, Before I respond to your points, I'd like to note a couple things. First, this is the first time I've participated in a forum like this and I'm most impressed with the civility and respect shown by all those posting on this page. The thinking process and research involved in asking/answering questions is most educational. Specifically stj, your points cause me to revisit these verses again and I see things that I hadn't before. Gen. 8:21; And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." What I see here now is that the LORD spoke this to no person but "said in His heart," but here we see it in black and white, apparrently divinely conveyed without anyone hearing it. Just an interesting sidelight. Now in chapter 9 God is speaking not to His own heart but to Noah, to whom the flood was a very personal and undoubtably stressfull event and He gave him multiple assurances that he nor anyone else would endure that again. When I first saw this I also thought this was an elaboration of promise in the previous chapter that ruled out another flood but not other means of destruction. That is why I searched to see if there was any confirmation of the seemingly all inclusive promise of 8:21. That brings me back to Psalm 104:5 where you point out something I had glossed over, namely the word foundations. "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Thinking this over I think this indeed refers to a literal foundation - namely the Divinely created forces of the universe that hold the earth and everything else in place. Now the question is what does the word "it" refer to, foundations or earth? I choose earth. Let me guess - you choose foundations, right? Since there's nothing in this chapter to verify which, I move on to the other verse I cited which you did not address: Ecc. 1:4; "1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." I can only see this much plainer statement as confirmation of the promise of Gen. 8:21. In all fairness I must admit there are places where "for ever" is used symbolically for a long period of time instead of perpetual existence. Indeed, Strong's definition allows for this. At any rate, our differing views on the nature and timing of Jesus' return likely preclude any agreement on this. Regarding 2 Peter 3:13 and Matt. 24:35, my point was that if annialation of heaven and earth was not to be part of God's Judgement - as I beleive - then taking them as literal would result in a contradiction. Most that beleive the 2nd coming to be future obviously take "passing of heaven and earth" in the literal sense. I used the excerpts from David Curtis to illustrate how so much of OT language is symbolic. You seem to agree when you say, " I would say all the prophetic writers used a great deal more figurative or metaphoric language than any of the other writhers of Scripture." Rereading my previous post, I failed to make my main point. That is, how is it that such language in the OT is recognized as symbolic, but in the NT similar language must be literal? I apologize if I sounded flippant. Let me repost the question rephrasing the last sentence. One final point stj, do you beleive you are subject to the law of the old covenant or the new? If your answer is the new then consider Matt. 5:: 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This says to me that the law (old covenant) could not pass until heaven and earth passed and all be fulfilled. If taken literally then we are apparrently still subject to the old covenant. But, I dare say every Christian considers themselves to be under the new covenant. For this to be true, "heaven and earth" must be taken symbolically, and the passing of them must be a past event. Your thoughts? Tom |
||||||
16 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183896 | ||
Hi Brian, good to hear from you again. If Jesus came in final judgement in 70AD - and yes, I beleive He did - It confirms His prophesies of that event throughout the Gospels, and it removes the argument of atheists, Jews, Muslims, and others that He was NOT the Messiah because the things He predicted didn't come to pass in the time frame indicated. You ask why are they teaching it? By "they" I assume you mean Preterists. Why does any denomination, creed, or faith teach their interpretation over another? Because they beleive it to be the Truth. I beleive Matt. 24:34 was a prophesy to the disciples that the generation living at the time He spoke would not pass until the things He had just described came to pass. And I beleive these things did come to pass culminating in His judgement in 70AD, confirming His prophesy. Let me ask you to mentally travel back in time and be one of those disciples. Leave your beleifs here because they didn't yet have a beleif system, they were learning one. Jesus had been describing the signs that would precede His coming and the end of the age. Then He said, "Verily (Listen up! What I'm about to say is important!) I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Would you have honestly thought He was talking about a people living thousands of years later? OK, I know you would like to stay there, but come on back to the present. If one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, then two of His days could be two thousand of our years, right? Amazing how the math works out. Now, allow me to digress a bit to give you some idea where I'm coming from. Although I became a Christian in my younger days I never became a serious student of the Bible. I read it from time to time but didn't get much out of it. Most of the OT may as well have been in Hebrew. The NT was easier to understand, but Jesus seemed to be telling the disciples and others that some of them would live to see His coming. That wasn't what I'd been taught. I couldn't tolerate the doubt this caused me so I had to conclude I was just too dumb to understand it. Keep in mind this was before I had heard of Preterism. After I retired 3 1/2 years ago I decided to make another attempt. I would sit and read and before long find myself nodding off. And I got about as much out of it while nodded off as when awake! I would hear something on a religious documentary and not knowing where to go in the Bible to see if it were true, I turned to the internet. Before long I stumbled upon a Preterist site. The more I read the more sense it made. Suddenly the NT came alive, and so did I. I've been studying intently - sometimes obsessivly - ever since. Now I'm by no means an expert - if what I know would fill a kitchen cupboard then what I don't know would fill a warehouse, but I hope this is helpful to you. Researching to try to answer your questions has been helpful to me. Tom |
||||||
17 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183878 | ||
stj, In Gen. 8 is God's promise after the flood, "21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." In 2 Pet.3:13 we find; "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." It would appear that Peter is contradicting God's promise. In Matt. 24:35 Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Here it appears God contradicts Himself. How can this apparrent contradiction be reconciled? Looking at God's promise in Gen. 8 again, verse 22 begins with "While the earth remaineth." Did God use a little doublespeak here to leave Himself an out? That argument negated by Psalm 104:5; "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." And Ecc.1:4; "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." God made an eternal promise and set the rainbow as a reminder. Our options have dwindled to one - new heavens and earth can't mean what they appear to mean. Defering to one more competent than I to explain this figurative language, following are some excerpts from a sermon by David Curtis of Berean Bible Church: "This idea is seen more clearly as we look at other passages where mention is made of the destruction of a state and government using language which seems to set forth the end of the world, as the collapse of heaven and earth. In Isaiah 13:1-13, this is not an oracle against the universe or world, but against the nation of Babylon. Notice verse 13, "Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place." Now remember, he is speaking about the destruction of Babylon, but it sounds like world wide destruction. In Isaiah 24-27 we see the invasion of Israel by Nebuchadnezzar. He carries them away to captivity. Notice the language that he uses in Isaiah 24:3-6 and Isaiah 24:19-20. What I want you to see in these verses is how God refers to Israel as the earth. He says the earth is "utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly...the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again" (Verses 1,3,4,19,20). Notice how many times God referred to Israel as the "earth." This is apocalyptic language speaking of the destruction of the people of Israel. In Isaiah 34:3-5, we have a description of the fall of Edom, notice the language that is used. "...and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down...For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment." This is Biblical language to describe the fall of a nation. It should be clear that it is not to be taken literally. In Nahum 1:1-5, the subject of this judgment is Nineveh, not the physical world. "The burden of Nineveh...the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers...The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein." This is the way God describes the fall of a nation. If this language describes the judgment of God on nations, why, when we come to the New Testament, do we make it be the destruction of the universe? It is only because we do not understand how the scripture uses this apocalyptic language." One final point stj, do you beleive you are subject to the law of the old covenant or the new? If your answer is the new then consider Matt. 5:: 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." If we are under the new covenant, "heaven and earth" have passed, no matter what you feel under your feet or see when you look up. Tom |
||||||
18 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183851 | ||
Hi Brian, Sorry, I misunderstood the focus of your question to be, why is the study of Jesus predictions and 70 AD of importance? Was John the only one left? Not long ago I searched for info on disciples' deaths and found a virtual void. What is your source for this? Of possible interest to you might be http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia/russell_parousia_03d.html : Opening of the Seventh Seal, continues Russell's commentary, Rev. 8 through 11. The last trumpet sounds, the Judgement is come. He says the two witnesses were Jesus brother James and Peter. He rejects as a fable the claim that Peter was crucified upside down - at his request so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus - in Rome by order of Nero. Cited as proof of Peter's crucifixion is Jesus' prediction of Peter's martydom at John 21:18, but the language does not indicate crucifixion as the means. And I think it highly unlikely that the evil despot Nero would find mercy to grant Peter's request. Now, this is not proof of course but the conclusions of the commentator, and to me a plausible scenario that would match the Truth spoken by Jesus. I beleive the disciples hearing Jesus say to them, "34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." could have had no other understanding than that their generation - them and others living at that time - were the ones meant, and that after all signs detailed from verse 4-33 were fulfilled, then would be His Coming. I agree He couldn't reveal more than the Father would allow and to do so would be to sin. Moreover, to say He didn't know if He did know would also be a sin. During His transformation to human form, He had to have had many of man's limitations. He truly didn't know the day and hour. And He was tempted, experienced the emotions of a man, and felt pain, oh what pain! No the Mt. of Olive has not split, nor has the sun went dark, etc. But if it were ever to happen, it would be the end of life on earth then eventually our solar system at the least. Wouldn't that mean that God has broken the promise made in Gen. 8:21,22? Since I don't see that as possible I have to conclude this type language is figurative or symbolic. Matt. 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." appear - phaino: can mean to be seen but also to appear to the mind, seem to one's judgment or opinion. tribe - phule: a tribe, in the NT all the persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch Jacob, a nation, people. earth - ge: can mean earth as a whole but also a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region. As far as I know no one has ever suggested OT descriptions of God coming in the clouds was a literal visible event. I beleive Jesus return in judgement happened in 70AD, but I agree it is still imperative we be ready to meet our Maker for we know not when that might be. Two days for us or for God? Tom |
||||||
19 | Why 70 AD. and why predictions? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183787 | ||
Brian, I hope I'm not out of line since you addressed Coper, but I would like to share a few thoughts on this. You have heeded the most important teaching in asking for and receiving the salvation of Jesus. Will all this discussion about what happened when or who did what have any bearing on your salvation? Of course not. But what about the lost person? He has heard of this salvation offered and it sounds much better than the alternative. He dives into the NT with zeal and encounters these very plain prophesies of Jesus regarding His parousia and judgement. He's confused - the Church says all this is still future. Was Jesus misquoted? Was He wrong? Did He deliberately deceive those He was speaking to so as to confuse them for some reason? Maybe starting with the OT will help clarify. Then he comes to the test of a prophet: Deut. 18:22, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Many atheists and others use these "failed" prophesies of Jesus (especially Matthew 24) to "prove" He was NOT the Messiah! Maybe this lost person will continue searching for the truth, or maybe he'll try some other religion. True, only the Father knew the day and hour but Matt. 16:28; 24:34 and others narrowed the time frame to a specific period - a generation, the ones to which He spoke. Finally, the Preterist view is important to me beause the Bible makes more sense. Before it frequently contradicted what I had been taught. I should have been looking for what I'd been taught to match the Bible, not vice-versa. I feel blessed to have found Preterism. God bless the internet - well, some of it! Praying for guidance in your quest, Tom |
||||||
20 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183690 | ||
Coper, I ran across this discussion recently and have followed it with much interest. I discovered the preterist view 3 years ago and have become convinced of it's basic truth. But, like other views, there are many and varied interpretations. So I would like to share with you and others what I consider a very comprehensive commentary on the NT from a preterist view. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia/russell_parousia_pref.html : The Parousia by 19th century writer J. S. Russell. He is classed as partial preterist only because of his views on the millenia. See the left margin of the website for links to his other works. Unlike many modern preterists, his interpretations do allow for the spiritual and supernatural. The plainest statements in the NT are those of Jesus about His coming in judgement. If something seems to contradict Him, we are misunderstanding it, or the translation is not what it seems to be. John didn't call Him the Word for nothing. Tom |
||||||