Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Coper44 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183589 | ||
BradK, I appreciate your timely response and your spirit of graciousness. However, I am still frustrated with the seeming lack of serious thought behind the opinions of those opposing preterism. I’m not speaking of you specifically but in more general terms (I’m in the process of reading as many futurist opinions supporting their theory, and opposing preterism, as possible). Most futurists I’ve read are content to quote commentaries or dismiss preterism as not possible because they see no evidence of the events being fulfilled in history. I think the best approach to pursuing truth is by comparing Scripture to Scripture. Not by referring back to commentaries, creeds or traditions (though they all have their place, they are clearly not inspired). Regarding the dating of Revelation, I have read the evidence that is most often quoted concerning Irenaeus. It is inconclusive at best. It is hardly enough to negate an earlier writing of Revelation and not enough to build an entire futurist doctrine on. The quote used by late-date supporters leaves plenty of room for an early-date theory. Some of the questions that remain regarding the late-date theory are: What events were impending “near” the proposed 95-96AD writing of Revelation, and what took place “soon” after? (Rev. 1:1-3, 3:10, 22:6,10) I have yet to run across anyone who believes Christ returned circa 100AD. The time-frame of Revelation, when considered along side audience-relevance and the internal evidence itself, makes no sense if John was writing in 95-96AD. On the other hand if John wrote in 65-66AD, the time-frame references make sense. It’s obvious that shortly after his writing (if 65-66AD), the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem were unprecedented in regards to bringing about the “end of the age” and also catastrophic as far as the entire Jewish economy was concerned. (The temple, priesthood, sacrifices etc. would be done away with, never to return!) These events are usually downplayed by those who support a yet future return of Christ. Concerning your answer regarding the Matt. 16:28 passage. You wrote that you “believe” the passage refers to the transfiguration. However, you did not address my earlier statement regarding that position (though you did quote commentaries, I would like to know how you think through this issue). I agree that the transfiguration was a remarkable experience for the disciples. It may even be considered a glimpse of the future kingdom as some assert. But again, do you really think Jesus would make a prophecy that included the fact that some of those standing before him would not die in the next six days? If you do, please explain the significance. The six day time period is the part of this prophecy that is being ignored by the futurist. The preterist would see verse 28 referring back to verse 27. When seen in this context, do you think that Jesus “came in the glory of his father with his angels, and repayed every man according to his deeds” at the transfiguration? If he didn’t, why do you think he would use eschatological language (v.27) just prior to informing them of events that would take place only six days later (v. 28 and 17:1-13)? And, by using the words “some standing here” wasn’t he implying that most of them would die before his coming (which was true by 70AD, but not within the next six days)? I hope you sense my frustration and realize that I mean no disrespect to you personally. I hope you can understand that I am trying to reconcile Scripture and my preconceived ideas. I was raised a pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensationalist. When confronted with the issues I’m raising here it turned my thinking upside down. And, I’m still trying to eliminate preterism as a viable alternative and as yet I’ve been unsuccessful. I really am trying to work my way through this issue and I won’t be satisfied until I can resolve the time-frame references and the audience-relevance as understood by the original writers and hearers of the Word of God. That, I believe, is the key to putting it all into its proper context and thereby discovering the truth. Thanks again for hearing me out, Coper |
||||||
2 | Preterism refuted by Scripture alone | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183374 | ||
BradK, Thanks for your response it was helpful. It seems from your quote of Spurgeon that he was possibly a partial preterist. However, I can't agree with the quote you used from The Bible Knowledge Commentary. I don't think Jesus could have been referring to the transfiguration because not enough time passed to make this prophecy, of some of the disciples not dying, relevant (six to eight days). I have a few more questions about this. Do you believe that Jesus could have been unsealing the previously sealed book of Daniel in Matt. 24:15 for that generation? If so, it would indicate that "this generation" was indeed living in the time of the end. Also, do you consider Matt. 24:32-34 and James 5:7-9 parallel passages? If the preterist is correct, Jesus was telling His 30AD audience that they would be able to recognize the signs of His coming when He, as Judge, would be standing "at the door". Then James tells his audience 20-30 years later that they should be patient because the coming of Christ was near and that the Judge was standing "at the door". A 70AD coming would certainly fit that scenario. Also, I have asked a few people to explain to me how the NT writers could be inspired by God to write to their audiences about the imminent coming of Christ (and they all did) if God didn't intend to send Christ back for thousands of years. Surely God could have used language like he used in Daniel and said that it wouldn't take place for long period of time. Thanks again for your time. |
||||||
3 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183345 | ||
I'm brand new to this forum so please let me know if I'm out of line with this question or if it's been asked and answered or if it's not allowed on this site. Most people that I've talked to about this verse (and related verses) either avoid it altogether or say that it refers to Christ's transfiguration which imediatlely follows in Matt. 17. I don't believe He is referring to His transfiguration since it took place only six or eight days later. It seems unlikely that Jesus would inform the disciples that some of them would not die in the next week. That's not much of a prophecy. My questions are: Is it possible that the coming of the Son of Man (The Second Coming) took place at the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem and fulfilled this prophecy and many others commonly thought to be yet future? Was the "end" spoken of in the New Testament simply referring to the end of the Old Coventant system rather than the end of the literal earth? I'm aware that this line of thinking is called Preterism. I've been introduced to it rather recently and I can't disprove it. It has become an obsession with me and I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this subject and redirect me back to a more proper understanding of Scripture. |
||||||