[MOVED] End of the world predictions are a dime a dozen and always wrong. :)

[Postvieww]

Does Christ have 7 horns seems to be a catch phrase around here well let’s look at the verse. Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. This verse is full of symbols Jesus is not a literal “lamb” but with just a little common sense one can figure out what is meant by the symbols, the same for the seven horns and seven spirit of God. ​

Glad you can at least recognise the symbols in this verse.

The problem here in this discussion is symbols on steroids. You made this comment: “people want to rob it of theological power to be a sermon relevant to all Christians in all ages, and turn it into a literalistic timetable for our very special generation. But in wanting it to be all about us, they're robbing it from having anything relevant to say to 2000 years of Christian”.​

And I stand by everything I said!

It appears to me preterism is designed to rob believers of the hope of a future resurrection, a literal return of our Lord, the ability to discern the signs of the times an know those promises are near.​

You've never heard of Partial Preterism, the respected theological position of most of the Reformers?

It is claimed the resurrection took place in 70 AD. ​

Show me where I said that?

Other that your aversion to anything in Revelation being literal, show me one scriptural or scientific fact, since you are a man of science, that says we cannot believe Revelation 13:16-17 can be taken literal.​

Um, the entire genre of the entire book says it is not literal! It's like reading parts of a book of Shakespeare's sonnets as love poems, and then half way through suddenly shifting gears and declaring it is an engineering manual. Sorry pal, but with Jesus as a 7eyed 7horned space-lamb, the burden of proof is yours. You have to prove anything in the book being literal! That does not mean I'm saying nothing in the book is TRUE, please learn the difference between truth and the different genres that can express that truth!

Your explanation of an arena ticket is about the worst attempt at undermining the validity of scripture I’ve ever witnessed. ​

Wow, you must not be reading much. There's far worse in these futurist forums right here!

This hopeless theory tries to have a literal ticket in hand and a symbolic mark in the forehead for ownership. How do you write this in good conscience? ​

Because Dr Paul Barnett, a man I have met, had a Phd in Ancient History, led tours of the Bible Lands, and was Bishop of North Sydney for many years. The symbolism here is about cowardly betrayers of the gospel who buy their way into the arena where the False Prophet, the Asia Minor leader of the Caesar cult, was killing Christians. Carrying that stone "ticket" bought them respect in the eyes of the Roman authorities, but pretending to cheer as their former Christian brothers and sisters were murdered before their eyes showed who they were really trusting, and really fearing, and really revering. Caesar! The mark on the forehead is a metaphor for being owned. (The irony here is they are owned by what they use to belong to the Roman society and own other things). How do we know the mark on the forehead is a metaphor? Because in the very next chapter, God's people are owned by Him, and marked on the forehead by him. So unless you're going to announce to us all that we're literally going to have 2 names written on our foreheads for all eternity, try to be consistent!

My brother, Jesus did not return in 70 AD as described 1 Thess 4 and Rev 19 . There was no resurrection of the dead in Christ in 70 AD. Jesus will return , literally, and bodily in our future. That is what scripture teaches. ​

You need to calm down a bit and read about Partial Preterism. Most Sydney Anglicans are Partial Preterists.

You speak as one who has great understanding of scripture and ask us to believe Rev 13 is about an arena ticket????? God help you and all of us to have wisdom, understanding and discernment.​

You speak as one who has great understanding, and ask us to believe John didn't mean SOON, TIME IS NEAR, and that he SHARED THEIR TRIBULATION? You want us to believe he basically said, "You guys think you have it rough? Wait till you hear what happens in 2000 years?" Really? Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells!

YES, Revelation shows us glimpses of the Lord's return. But it's a sermon of encouragement, not a timetable. It's reminding us of the FACT that the Lord will return, but in repeated images and metaphors, and from different angles. It was reminding the Roman Christians that one day the Lord would return and judge that great Babylon, Rome, along with all the other enemies of God down through the ages.



By the way, I know that, and they ARE real scientists, but they tend to be geologists or gynecologists or dental surgeons and NOT climatologists. It's very American Republican to doubt the settled science of climate change. It's a particular American and Australian right-wing problem. It's shameful.

Eclipsenow post #333

You've never heard of Partial Preterism, the respected theological position of most of the Reformers?

Parousia70 claims to be one and every coming of the Lord passage I posted he said was fulfilled. If I falsely accused you of claiming the Lord had already returned I publicly apologize right here. I do remember posting a list of coming of the Lord passages to you asking fulfilled or not and parousia70 answered and you did not, if you did and I missed it I apologize again. It would be helpful if you would clearly state your position on this topic, just list the reference to a few passages you believe show a future, literal, bodily return of Jesus and we can put this part to rest. While you are at it please clarify your position on the resurrection. Is that a literal resurrection of the dead in Christ in our future?

Um, the entire genre of the entire book says it is not literal! It's like reading parts of a book of Shakespeare's sonnets as love poems, and then half way through suddenly shifting gears and declaring it is an engineering manual. Sorry pal, but with Jesus as a 7eyed 7horned space-lamb, the burden of proof is yours. You have to prove anything in the book being literal! That does not mean I'm saying nothing in the book is TRUE, please learn the difference between truth and the different genres that can express that truth!

Are you sure you want to stand by the statement that nothing in the book is literal?

Because Dr Paul Barnett, a man I have met, had a Phd in Ancient History, led tours of the Bible Lands, and was Bishop of North Sydney for many years.

None of this proves he is correct. I still believe this is a very weak attempt at forcing history into a fulfillment of scripture. Then again when nothing is literal anything will work.

The symbolism here is about cowardly betrayers of the gospel who buy their way into the arena where the False Prophet,

Show me where this false prophet called fire down from heaven in the sight of men Revelation 13:13. What other miracles did this false prophet perform?

the Asia Minor leader of the Caesar cult, was killing Christians. Carrying that stone "ticket" bought them respect in the eyes of the Roman authorities, but pretending to cheer as their former Christian brothers and sisters were murdered before their eyes showed who they were really trusting, and really fearing, and really revering. Caesar! The mark on the forehead is a metaphor for being owned. (The irony here is they are owned by what they use to belong to the Roman society and own other things).

Show us where the people who refused this “stone ticket” or the metaphorical mark lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years, Revelation 20:4. When did that thousand years start and end?

How do we know the mark on the forehead is a metaphor? Because in the very next chapter, God's people are owned by Him, and marked on the forehead by him.

If God wants to put a mark on your forehead are you going to refuse?

So unless you're going to announce to us all that we're literally going to have 2 names written on our foreheads for all eternity, try to be consistent!

Where do you get 2 names? Revelation 22:4, those in Revelation 14:1 are a different group.

Maybe the burden of proof should be on you to prove these passages cannot be literal.

By the way, I know that, and they ARE real scientists, but they tend to be geologists or gynecologists or dental surgeons and NOT climatologists. It's very American Republican to doubt the settled science of climate change. It's a particular American and Australian right-wing problem. It's shameful.

Your facts are a little off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[Postvieww]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

It’s amazing, note the parallels between those that falsely predict a date for the return of Christ and the end of the world and those that do the same type thing pushing the false global warming agenda.

 

[parousia70]

We obviously are not sinless and God incarnate but we will have a resurrected physical body.

Philippians 3:11 & 21, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Which of those verses do you assert teaches a Physical resurrection?
Please quote the actual verbiage. I read them all and did not find "Physical Resurrection" in any of them.

As St Paul says, "it is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a spiritual Body"
"36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

We are clearly not raised in the natural Body that is sown as you contend, wee are raised in the Spiritual Body that "God Gives us", while our Natural Body "Returns to Dust" (Gen 3:19)

I understand what you are claiming I just strongly disagree!

It's Paul's Claim that I am simply affirming. You are of course free to disagree with Paul as strongly as you want.

Job disagrees with you as well.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Do you really believe your arguments would convince Job he would not one day have a physical resurrection?

One of my favorites!
Job's hope and faith was that God would indeed appear at the end and vindicate him, which is exactly how the story ends.

Go'el is not one who redeems one from their sins, but is one who vindicates one's case. Job knew that his case was correct and that his friends were wrong. He knew that he would be vindicated, and in the end God arises upon the dust and does exactly that.

Job's hope was for a day within his lifetime when God would vindicate and deliver him (Job 10:9; 23:10; 17:9; 23:10; 19:25-27). Although he could not know for certain what would happen until God shows up, he believed by faith that even once the burning boils had struck off his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happened.

Job's skin was destroyed by his boils from satan that covered his body from head to toe (Job 2:7; 30:30) and at the end Job's Vindicator did "rise upon the dust" and Job saw Him as he hoped and promised would happen (Job 38:1 and Job 42:5). His vindicator (Go-el) came and vindicated Job's cause (Job 42:7-10).

You'd be hard pressed to find a scholarly commentary to interpret Job 19:25-27 in any other way.

I hope you will enjoy this good scholarship on this matter, and reform your views accordingly:

(#1) "'I know that my redeemer lives' are familiar words to the Christian because of their adaptation to Christ in several hymns. However, the sense here is different from that which is usually understood when applied to Christ. The Christian idea of "Redeemer" is of one who is deliverer from sin. The Hebrew word "go'el" (#1350) should more appropriately be translated "Vindicator," i.e., one who delivers from affliction and wrong which is NOT due to sin. Job, unable to convince his friends of his innocence, was leaving it in God's hands to prove to them that he was NOT guilty of the sin of which they accused him. This is the high point in Job's stated trust in God and dependence upon him." (from Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible -- editor: Spiros Zodhiates, p. 689)

(#2) "[My Redeemer:] the language is legal: the redeemer is the 'vindicator' who will 'rise last to speak in court' (NEB). Job does not say expressly who he expects his vindicator will be; perhaps he knows, yet does not know, that it will be God. At the moment God is his enemy ... Yet on the other hand his hope is that he will see God 'on my side' (RSV) (26f.). Job is not necessarily thinking of vindication beyond death, though his language by no means rules that out. The destruction of his skin is what has happened already (there is no reference to 'worms' (AV) in the Hebrew), and his hope appears to be that in his flesh, i.e., while he is still alive, he will see his vindication." (International Bible Commentary -- editor F.F. Bruce, p. 533)

(#3) "[Redeemer] Heb. Go'el, from ga'al, 'to make a claim.' The Go'el was the next of kin whose duty it was to prevent land being sold out of the clan (Lev 25:25), and to avenge murder. Driver points out that the word means here the opposite to the Christian idea, viz. a deliverer, not from sin, but from affliction and wrong NOT due to sin. The best rendering here is 'Vindicator.'" (from the MacMillan One-Volume Bible Commentary -- editor: J.R. Dummelow, p306)

Job stated by faith that even once the burning boils had removed his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happened at the end of the book.

It was for this same error that Hymenaeus was also being condemned by Paul, for Hymenaeus claimed that the release of the OT dead from Hades occurred within the Mosaic Covenant era, instead of at the destruction of the Law Covenant at AD 70.

Disagree again, this release happened at the time of Christ’s resurrection, Ephesians 4:8-10

Ephesians 4:8 He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."

Incorrect. This is not referring to the OT Dead in Christ's release from the Hadean realm into the Heavenlies.

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Also disagree that Law covenant ended in 70AD. Matthew 27:51, Romans 10:4. That ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Just because some continued believing the law was their salvation does not mean it had not ended as far as God was concerned. Hebrews 8, 9 & 10

Someone forgot to tell that to Paul:
1 Cor 9:20
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

Someone also forgot to let the inspired writer of Hebrews in on that little factoid too:

Heb 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

As we can see, You are once again, Incorrect.
Long AFTER the Crucifixion and 3rd day Resurrection of Jesus, The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5). Therefore when Hebrews 10:9 says he "removes the first so that he may establish the second" we know that neither the first had yet been removed (Heb 8:13; Gal 4:24-25; 2 Cor 3:6-12) nor had the second been fully established. AD 30-AD 70 was the transition period under which they were in a process of coming out from underneath the Law. Converts to Christ were being circumcised and asked to keep the Law of Moses at least up until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That council only released the gentiles from the practice Law of Moses and Paul was present at the council.

Which brings me back to my question you skipped over:

"For verily I say unto you, Until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Postview, AGAIN, Besides the fact that you are currently holding 2 polar opposite views (1:The Law ended at the cross & 2: Heaven and earth have not yet passed, yet according to Jesus Christ, the law would not pass until Heaven and Earth passed) this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day.

Which one are you doing?

Nowhere in scripture is it taught that the timing of Christ's coming is a floating target based on the repentance or lack thereof of men. It is taught rather to happen at an "appointed time" Fixed before the foundation of the world.


Your view simply requires we toss out all those other scriptures.


I disagree with your assertion that any coming in the 7 letters to the churches is the same as 1 Thess 4, Rev 19, and others.

So you NOW agree Jesus "came as a thief" to First century Sardis? That IS Progress!

Now, can you show us where scripture teaches that the Thief in the night coming of Rev 3:3 is a different thief in the night coming from the others ?

The Bible does not teach Christ "comes as a thief in the night" multiple times. But since you need it to in order to support this claim, show us where you believe it does.

God doesn't have "soon" Postview. Nothing is "soon" to God, nothing is "far" to God. God doesn't have to wait "shortly" for anything, Just as He doesn't have to wait "a long time" for anything. God is Time-LESS.

Worth repeating.

GOD IS TIME-LESS.


"Near and Far" are HUMAN time indicators God uses to communicate accurate passages of Time to Men. even though God is timeless Himself, Contrary to your assertion God knows how to tell time CORRECTLY and know how to CORRECTLY communicate it's passing to Men.


Ok let’s play by your rules. In your mind just how long is soon, exactly, and how did you determine that?????

As I consistently say, I let scripture interpret scripture, and let that inform my view.

Jesus Himself affirms that terms like soon, at hand, near, about to take place etc are meant to be understood in literal human terms:

Matthew 24:33
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

Is it your contention that Jesus is using "near" as in "thousands of years away near to God" in this verse?
If not, can you answer your own question? How long does Jesus mean by Near in this verse and How do you determine that?
5 years? 10 years? 100 Years?

Concerning the "Days of Vengeance" (Luke 21:22) and the avenging of all righteous blood from the righteous apostles to righteous Able (Matt 23:33-38) it was said:

"the end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet 4:7);

"in a very short while he who is coming will come an will not delay" (Heb 10:37);

"the time is short" (1 Cor 7:29);

"there are now many antichrists by which we know it is the final hour" (1 Jn 2:18-19);

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show...the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand" (Rev 1:1,3);

"the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door (Jas 5:8-9);

"salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near" (Rom 13:11-12);

"this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt 24:34)."

"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" (Mt 23:36)

We can continue to cite countless "at hand" "near" and "soon" statements from the N.T. and list them all out -- they always speak of reliable shortness of human time. Never beyond the life expectancy of a Human being.
But will we bow to the testimony of scripture?

And not only does the bible say the events were at hand, it says they would ALL take place in their generation (Matt 24:33-34) and by the time of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22). Christ was to return before the apostles had all died (John 21:21-22;Matthew 16:27-28). The Thessalonians and Philipians would even be preserved in their human bodies unto that time (1 Thess 5:23; Phil 1:6,10).

The Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:22) that indeed avenged all the righteous blood from the apostles going back to righteous Able (Mt 23:33-38) happened at AD66-70 at at time "near," "soon," "at hand," and "in a little while" to the apostles. Those Days of Vengeance were the subject of the apostles' imminent time statements. As Matthew 21:40-45 clearly says, the Lord of the Vineyard came and took their kingdom from them and gave it to a new nation bringing forth the fruits of it (Matt 21:40-43). The STONE fell on them and did grind them to powder (Mt 21:40-45).

 

[Salem]

You've never heard of Partial Preterism, the respected theological position of most of the Reformers?

The problem there is, when it comes to eschatology, isn't this like you're telling the engineers at General Motors how they need to get with the respected technology of chariot makers, or the horse and buggy manufacturers? Augustine turns into a tree stump, if you look in a newspaper and see that, in fact, the literal nation of Israel is back, just as the Bible prophesied. Israel, the Jewish nation, not Churchrael, and those like Luther never disconnected all the Catholic feeding tubes.

Scripture prophecy, to date, has been literally fulfilled, hundreds of prophecies, and the rest will likewise be fulfilled, as well. Preterism was born of people who did not understand Bible eschatology, so allegorized large chunks of scripture away, literally went stupid to a mountain of clear, literal prophecy. Just to say future prophecy suddenly switched from literal to allegory, after Christ, is plain dumb.

It's 2016, time to look around you and get past the Reformers, that is if you're not Amish.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[parousia70]

The problem there is, when it comes to eschatology, isn't this like you're telling the engineers at General Motors how they need to get with the respected technology of chariot makers, or the horse and buggy manufacturers? Augustine turns into a tree stump, if you look in a newspaper and see that, in fact, the literal nation of Israel is back, just as the Bible prophesied. Israel, the Jewish nation, not Churchrael, and those like Luther never disconnected all the Catholic feeding tubes.

Ahhh. newspaper eisegesis. I prefer to let scripture interpret scripture and not rely on the Newspapers to do it. (I know, Ironic isnt it? the Catholic exhorting the protestant to stick to scripture and not let extra biblical sources formulate ones doctrine)

The current Nation of Israel is a multi ethnic secular democracy that has ZERO relationship to the pre-desolation Hebrew Theocracy that shares its name. Not genetically, not religiously, not politically and not covanentally.

But I'll play... where exactly does the Bible prophesy that Israel will "return" to the land as a a multi ethnic, secular, democratic, Nation State in unbelief and outside of covenant with God?

 

[Salem]

But I'll play... where exactly does the Bible prophesy that Israel will "return" to the land as a a multi ethnic, secular, democratic, Nation State in unbelief and outside of covenant with God?

Please take your horse and buggy to Google. There are many websites that lay out Israel in prophecy, prophecy awash in national Israel of that land and the future of national Israel. I'm not here to have that never ending argument with somebody who refuses to subscribe to the Bible meaning what it says. I'm not into arguing with Catholics or Googling for you, which you would do, if you were really interested, which we both know you're not. Or you would do just that, go off and study something that is at your fingertips.

Find somebody else to fight with or discuss moldered "theology" from the Dark Ages with. I won't be baited into painstakingly laying out scripture to somebody or entertain anybody here to continue promoting over a thousand years of error, when we both know you'll listen to nothing that isn't Catholic doctrine, were it on the cover of the Bible. I'll not play.

 

[parousia70]

Please take your horse and buggy to Google. There are many websites that lay out Israel in prophecy, prophecy awash in national Israel of that land and the future of national Israel. I'm not here to have that never ending argument with somebody who refuses to subscribe to the Bible meaning what it says. I'm not into arguing with Catholics or Googling for you, which you would do, if you were really interested, which we both know you're not. Or you would do just that, go off and study something that is at your fingertips.

Find somebody else to fight with or discuss moldered "theology" from the Dark Ages with. I won't be baited into painstakingly laying out scripture to somebody or entertain anybody here to continue promoting over a thousand years of error, when we both know you'll listen to nothing that isn't Catholic doctrine, were it on the cover of the Bible. I'll not play.

So you can't back up your claim with scripture.
Duly noted.

I'm certain the irony of The person here claiming "sola scriptura" can only point to extra biblical sources such as search engines and newspapers to support his claims when called to account for them, isn't Lost on our readers.

 

[Postvieww]

The problem there is, when it comes to eschatology, isn't this like you're telling the engineers at General Motors how they need to get with the respected technology of chariot makers, or the horse and buggy manufacturers? Augustine turns into a tree stump, if you look in a newspaper and see that, in fact, the literal nation of Israel is back, just as the Bible prophesied. Israel, the Jewish nation, not Churchrael, and those like Luther never disconnected all the Catholic feeding tubes.

Scripture prophecy, to date, has been literally fulfilled, hundreds of prophecies, and the rest will likewise be fulfilled, as well. Preterism was born of people who did not understand Bible eschatology, so allegorized large chunks of scripture away, literally went stupid to a mountain of clear, literal prophecy. Just to say future prophecy suddenly switched from literal to allegory, after Christ, is plain dumb.

It's 2016, time to look around you and get past the Reformers, that is if you're not Amish.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The quote from my post #341 (“You've never heard of Partial Preterism, the respected theological position of most of the Reformers?”) you attributed to me are the words of eclipsenow I quoted from post #333. I am not a preterist.

 

[Salem]

The quote from my post #341 (“You've never heard of Partial Preterism, the respected theological position of most of the Reformers?”) you attributed to me are the words of eclipsenow I quoted from post #333. I am not a preterist.

I see what you mean, now. To be honest, I wasn't following the whole conversation or exactly who I was responding to in this instance, was thrown by usually replying in quote blocks and reading replies to quote blocks. But it was only a reply to the comment about Preterism having credibility, my only interest that comment somebody else made, and sorry for any confusion.

 

[Postvieww]

Which of those verses do you assert teaches a Physical resurrection?
Please quote the actual verbiage. I read them all and did not find "Physical Resurrection" in any of them.



It's Paul's Claim that I am simply affirming. You are of course free to disagree with Paul as strongly as you want.



One of my favorites!
Job's hope and faith was that God would indeed appear at the end and vindicate him, which is exactly how the story ends.

Go'el is not one who redeems one from their sins, but is one who vindicates one's case. Job knew that his case was correct and that his friends were wrong. He knew that he would be vindicated, and in the end God arises upon the dust and does exactly that.

Job's hope was for a day within his lifetime when God would vindicate and deliver him (Job 10:9; 23:10; 17:9; 23:10; 19:25-27). Although he could not know for certain what would happen until God shows up, he believed by faith that even once the burning boils had struck off his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happened.

Job's skin was destroyed by his boils from satan that covered his body from head to toe (Job 2:7; 30:30) and at the end Job's Vindicator did "rise upon the dust" and Job saw Him as he hoped and promised would happen (Job 38:1 and Job 42:5). His vindicator (Go-el) came and vindicated Job's cause (Job 42:7-10).

You'd be hard pressed to find a scholarly commentary to interpret Job 19:25-27 in any other way.

I hope you will enjoy this good scholarship on this matter, and reform your views accordingly:

(#1) "'I know that my redeemer lives' are familiar words to the Christian because of their adaptation to Christ in several hymns. However, the sense here is different from that which is usually understood when applied to Christ. The Christian idea of "Redeemer" is of one who is deliverer from sin. The Hebrew word "go'el" (#1350) should more appropriately be translated "Vindicator," i.e., one who delivers from affliction and wrong which is NOT due to sin. Job, unable to convince his friends of his innocence, was leaving it in God's hands to prove to them that he was NOT guilty of the sin of which they accused him. This is the high point in Job's stated trust in God and dependence upon him." (from Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible -- editor: Spiros Zodhiates, p. 689)

(#2) "[My Redeemer:] the language is legal: the redeemer is the 'vindicator' who will 'rise last to speak in court' (NEB). Job does not say expressly who he expects his vindicator will be; perhaps he knows, yet does not know, that it will be God. At the moment God is his enemy ... Yet on the other hand his hope is that he will see God 'on my side' (RSV) (26f.). Job is not necessarily thinking of vindication beyond death, though his language by no means rules that out. The destruction of his skin is what has happened already (there is no reference to 'worms' (AV) in the Hebrew), and his hope appears to be that in his flesh, i.e., while he is still alive, he will see his vindication." (International Bible Commentary -- editor F.F. Bruce, p. 533)

(#3) "[Redeemer] Heb. Go'el, from ga'al, 'to make a claim.' The Go'el was the next of kin whose duty it was to prevent land being sold out of the clan (Lev 25:25), and to avenge murder. Driver points out that the word means here the opposite to the Christian idea, viz. a deliverer, not from sin, but from affliction and wrong NOT due to sin. The best rendering here is 'Vindicator.'" (from the MacMillan One-Volume Bible Commentary -- editor: J.R. Dummelow, p306)

Job stated by faith that even once the burning boils had removed his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happened at the end of the book.



Ephesians 4:8 He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."

Incorrect. This is not referring to the OT Dead in Christ's release from the Hadean realm into the Heavenlies.

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)




Someone forgot to tell that to Paul:
1 Cor 9:20
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

Someone also forgot to let the inspired writer of Hebrews in on that little factoid too:

Heb 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

As we can see, You are once again, Incorrect.
Long AFTER the Crucifixion and 3rd day Resurrection of Jesus, The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5). Therefore when Hebrews 10:9 says he "removes the first so that he may establish the second" we know that neither the first had yet been removed (Heb 8:13; Gal 4:24-25; 2 Cor 3:6-12) nor had the second been fully established. AD 30-AD 70 was the transition period under which they were in a process of coming out from underneath the Law. Converts to Christ were being circumcised and asked to keep the Law of Moses at least up until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That council only released the gentiles from the practice Law of Moses and Paul was present at the council.

Which brings me back to my question you skipped over:

"For verily I say unto you, Until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Postview, AGAIN, Besides the fact that you are currently holding 2 polar opposite views (1:The Law ended at the cross & 2: Heaven and earth have not yet passed, yet according to Jesus Christ, the law would not pass until Heaven and Earth passed) this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day.

Which one are you doing?




So you NOW agree Jesus "came as a thief" to First century Sardis? That IS Progress!

Now, can you show us where scripture teaches that the Thief in the night coming of Rev 3:3 is a different thief in the night coming from the others ?

The Bible does not teach Christ "comes as a thief in the night" multiple times. But since you need it to in order to support this claim, show us where you believe it does.



As I consistently say, I let scripture interpret scripture, and let that inform my view.

Jesus Himself affirms that terms like soon, at hand, near, about to take place etc are meant to be understood in literal human terms:

Matthew 24:33
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

Is it your contention that Jesus is using "near" as in "thousands of years away near to God" in this verse?
If not, can you answer your own question? How long does Jesus mean by Near in this verse and How do you determine that?
5 years? 10 years? 100 Years?

Concerning the "Days of Vengeance" (Luke 21:22) and the avenging of all righteous blood from the righteous apostles to righteous Able (Matt 23:33-38) it was said:

"the end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet 4:7);

"in a very short while he who is coming will come an will not delay" (Heb 10:37);

"the time is short" (1 Cor 7:29);

"there are now many antichrists by which we know it is the final hour" (1 Jn 2:18-19);

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show...the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand" (Rev 1:1,3);

"the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door (Jas 5:8-9);

"salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near" (Rom 13:11-12);

"this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt 24:34)."

"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" (Mt 23:36)

We can continue to cite countless "at hand" "near" and "soon" statements from the N.T. and list them all out -- they always speak of reliable shortness of human time. Never beyond the life expectancy of a Human being.
But will we bow to the testimony of scripture?

And not only does the bible say the events were at hand, it says they would ALL take place in their generation (Matt 24:33-34) and by the time of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22). Christ was to return before the apostles had all died (John 21:21-22;Matthew 16:27-28). The Thessalonians and Philipians would even be preserved in their human bodies unto that time (1 Thess 5:23; Phil 1:6,10).

The Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:22) that indeed avenged all the righteous blood from the apostles going back to righteous Able (Mt 23:33-38) happened at AD66-70 at at time "near," "soon," "at hand," and "in a little while" to the apostles. Those Days of Vengeance were the subject of the apostles' imminent time statements. As Matthew 21:40-45 clearly says, the Lord of the Vineyard came and took their kingdom from them and gave it to a new nation bringing forth the fruits of it (Matt 21:40-43). The STONE fell on them and did grind them to powder (Mt 21:40-45).

Which of those verses do you assert teaches a Physical resurrection?
Please quote the actual verbiage. I read them all and did not find "Physical Resurrection" in any of them.

Philippians 3: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

What is it about Paul’s use of the word body in this passage do you not think is not physical?

Then comparing scripture with scripture the description of Jesus’s resurrected body in:

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

What is it about Jesus’s description of His own resurrected body do you not believe is physical?

Since we are to have (future) a body fashioned “like unto His glorious body” and His is physical flesh and bone that can be physically touched is the model for ours to come, I am comfortable in my belief of a physical resurrection.

 

[parousia70]

I am not a preterist.

ALL Christians are Preterist. We only vary by degree.

 

[Postvieww]

ALL Christians are Preterist. We only vary by degree.

Well you and I must be polar opposites.

 

[parousia70]

Well you and I must be polar opposites.

No, it's clear there is much common ground for our views. You have said as much to me.

But even you believe at least SOME "last days" prophesy was fulfilled in the first century.
All Bible Believing Christians do.

And of course, believing that ANY last days prophesy was fulfilled in the first century is, by definition, a preterist belief.

 

[parousia70]

Philippians 3: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

What is it about Paul’s use of the word body in this passage do you not think is not physical?

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT! (hehehe)

Serioulsy though, I guess I had to go back in the chapter ask my self this question:
If the resurrection was going to be literal-physical, why did Paul have to explain to his readers that he had not “already attained” to the resurrection of the dead? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he was not already “perfect“? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he did not consider himself to have already “apprehended” (Phil. 3:12-13)?

Isn't the very basis of your argument that those things are so self evident that They would never need explaining and no one would ever need to be asking questions about it?

Philippians 3 portrays the contrast between the fading body of humiliation (the sinful old covenant life-work-world of God’s people) and the advancing, descending-out-of-heaven
body of Christ’s glory (the redeemed, new covenant life-work-world of God’s people).

The Old covenant =

* Fleshly circumcision (Phil. 3:5)
* The stock of fleshly Israel (Phil. 3:5)
* Human righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6, 9)
* Minding “earthly things” (Phil. 3:19)

= The earthly, fleshly, and merely human “body” of humiliation (Phil. 3:21)


The New covenant =

* Circumcision made without hands (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11)
* Worshiping God in the spirit (Phil. 3:3; Jn. 4:23-24)
* Righteousness “through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9)
* “the resurrection of the dead” / perfection (Phil. 3:11)

= The divine body of Christ’s glory, from out of heaven (Phil. 3:20-21)

This passage speaks of our Body in a community/covanental context, not an individual fleshly one.

Then comparing scripture with scripture the description of Jesus’s resurrected body in:

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

What is it about Jesus’s description of His own resurrected body do you not believe is physical?

Not one thing.
The Body that rose from the Grave was the self same exact physical Body that hung on the cross, with the only appreciable change being it could no longer be put to death.

I've told you that point blank before. Isn't that what you believe?

Why are you attempting to argue with me against a position you know I do not hold?

Since we are to have (future) a body fashioned “like unto His glorious body” and His is physical flesh and bone that can be physically touched is the model for ours to come, I am comfortable in my belief of a physical resurrection.

You are mixing your metaphors here in absence of any scriptural instruction to do so.

You have made 2 claims here that are wholly unconnected in scripture:

1) Our resurrected bodies are to be Fashioned like unto His glorious Body
I agree. (see, we agree on stuff)

2)His post resurrection/pre ascension body = His glorious Body
I disagree.

Where does the Bible teach that Christ's body was glorified after the crucifixion but before the ascension?

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Postvieww]

No, it's clear there is much common ground for our views. You have said as much to me.

But even you believe at least SOME "last days" prophesy was fulfilled in the first century.
All Bible Believing Christians do.

And of course, believing that ANY last days prophesy was fulfilled in the first century is, by definition, a preterist belief.

Let’s not kid ourselves. You appear to be to the left of even eclipsenow on the preterist scale.

 

[Postvieww]

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT! (hehehe)

Serioulsy though, I guess I had to go back in the chapter ask my self this question:
If the resurrection was going to be literal-physical, why did Paul have to explain to his readers that he had not “already attained” to the resurrection of the dead? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he was not already “perfect“? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he did not consider himself to have already “apprehended” (Phil. 3:12-13)?

Isn't the very basis of your argument that those things are so self evident that They would never need explaining and no one would ever need to be asking questions about it?

Philippians 3 portrays the contrast between the fading body of humiliation (the sinful old covenant life-work-world of God’s people) and the advancing, descending-out-of-heaven
body of Christ’s glory (the redeemed, new covenant life-work-world of God’s people).

The Old covenant =

* Fleshly circumcision (Phil. 3:5)
* The stock of fleshly Israel (Phil. 3:5)
* Human righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6, 9)
* Minding “earthly things” (Phil. 3:19)

= The earthly, fleshly, and merely human “body” of humiliation (Phil. 3:21)


The New covenant =

* Circumcision made without hands (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11)
* Worshiping God in the spirit (Phil. 3:3; Jn. 4:23-24)
* Righteousness “through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9)
* “the resurrection of the dead” / perfection (Phil. 3:11)

= The divine body of Christ’s glory, from out of heaven (Phil. 3:20-21)

This passage speaks of our Body in a community/covanental context, not an individual fleshly one.


Not one thing.
The Body that rose from the Grave was the self same exact physical Body that hung on the cross, with the only appreciable change being it could no longer be put to death.

I've told you that point blank before. Isn't that what you believe?

Why are you attempting to argue with me against a position you know I do not hold?



You are mixing your metaphors here in absence of any scriptural instruction to do so.

You have made 2 claims here that are wholly unconnected in scripture:

1) Our resurrected bodies are to be Fashioned like unto His glorious Body
I agree. (see, we agree on stuff)

2)His post resurrection/pre ascension body = His glorious Body
I disagree.

Where does the Bible teach that Christ's body was glorified after the crucifixion but before the ascension?

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

parousia70 said:
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT! (hehehe)


We should both try to stay within it!


Serioulsy though, I guess I had to go back in the chapter ask my self this question:

If the resurrection was going to be literal-physical, why did Paul have to explain to his readers that he had not “already attained” to the resurrection of the dead? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he was not already “perfect“? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he did not consider himself to have already “apprehended” (Phil. 3:12-13)?


Isn't the very basis of your argument that those things are so self evident that They would never need explaining and no one would ever need to be asking questions about it?


Philippians 3 portrays the contrast between the fading body of humiliation (the sinful old covenant life-work-world of God’s people) and the advancing, descending-out-of-heaven

body of Christ’s glory (the redeemed, new covenant life-work-world of God’s people).


The Old covenant =


* Fleshly circumcision (Phil. 3:5)

* The stock of fleshly Israel (Phil. 3:5)

* Human righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6, 9)

* Minding “earthly things” (Phil. 3:19)


= The earthly, fleshly, and merely human “body” of humiliation (Phil. 3:21)



The New covenant =


* Circumcision made without hands (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11)

* Worshiping God in the spirit (Phil. 3:3; Jn. 4:23-24)

* Righteousness “through the faith of Christ, the righteousness

which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9)

* “the resurrection of the dead” / perfection (Phil. 3:11)


= The divine body of Christ’s glory, from out of heaven (Phil. 3:20-21)


This passage speaks of our Body in a community/covanental context, not an individual fleshly one.


Can you imagine a world where there are no metaphors and all is literal then you would be “of all men most miserable”. (hehehe)


Then comparing scripture with scripture the description of Jesus’s resurrected body in:


Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


What is it about Jesus’s description of His own resurrected body do you not believe is physical?


Not one thing.

The Body that rose from the Grave was the self same exact physical Body that hung on the cross, with the only appreciable change being it could no longer be put to death.


I've told you that point blank before. Isn't that what you believe?


It is!


Why are you attempting to argue with me against a position you know I do not

hold?


Just trying to make my point.


Since we are to have (future) a body fashioned “like unto His glorious body” and His is physical flesh and bone that can be physically touched is the model for ours to come, I am comfortable in my belief of a physical resurrection.


You are mixing your metaphors here in absence of any scriptural instruction to do so.


How about defining what scriptural instruction you are using to define what is metaphor or not!


You have made 2 claims here that are wholly unconnected in scripture:


Opinion.


1) Our resurrected bodies are to be Fashioned like unto His glorious Body

I agree. (see, we agree on stuff)


2)His post resurrection/pre ascension body = His glorious Body

I disagree.


Where does the Bible teach that Christ's body was glorified after the crucifixion but before the ascension?


Maybe you should define what extra process of “glorification” you believe Jesus went through after His resurrection and show from scripture how you arrived at the conclusion?


I am convinced many of our difference are rooted in word definitions. Unless there is some kind of consensus on that you will always be talking apples while I’m talking oranges.


How do you arrive at that conclusion?


You remind me of someone whom I have had many debates on the pre and post rapture issue. I’m sure you know whom I’m talking about. I thought of him as the Houdini of debate. No matter what point anyone raised that was different from his beliefs, he could come up with some sort of answer based on the text of scripture or not. I only make that comparison because I believe you would be in a world of hurt with some of your doctrine without that trusty “metaphor”. To be fair we all do the Houdini routine to some degree, some just a lot more than others. Bottom line, I am more of a literalist, I come from a different Christian theological background than you. I will confess you make me dig, but you have not convinced me at all, to lean to the preterist side more that I already do, ha ha. You have been on this forum much longer that I, I would be curious to know if there have been any dramatic conversions of anyone’s belief system on any topic in your experience. I find most debaters here are always right (in their own eyes), we all claim to adhere strictly to the scriptures, follow the same Jesus, and listen to the same Holy Spirit, yet look at the myriad of beliefs. How do you explain that? I can’t.

 

[parousia70]

Let’s not kid ourselves. You appear to be to the left of even eclipsenow on the preterist scale.

I look at it this way...
The closer one gets to the "left" as you put it, on the scale, the better the view!

Think of it as the edge of a cliff... the furthur one gets toward the edge as they embrace their more and more of their partial preterism, the more clearly they are able to see the whole picture of Bible eschatology, the father away you are from the edge results in a more and more obstructed view.... of course, when one falls off the cliff into Full preterism, they end up horribly smashed on the rocks below and end up with no view at all..
But, the view from the edge where I'm standing is AMAZING!

 

[parousia70]

Can you imagine a world where there are no metaphors and all is literal then you would be “of all men most miserable”. (hehehe)

Well, as I imagine that world, I suppose that would be "most miserable" for you as well, right?

Seeing as you'd be forced to interpret "shortly, at hand, near, about to take place, in a very little while, this generation shall not pass, in these last days, it is the last hour..at the end of the ages, etc" as "literal." (hehehe)

The Body that rose from the Grave was the self same exact physical Body that hung on the cross, with the only appreciable change being it could no longer be put to death.

I've told you that point blank before. Isn't that what you believe?

It is!

It is???
Now I'm entirely unclear of your position... you are now saying His Body was Glorified BEFORE the Crucifixion?

How does that square with this?:
John 7:39
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

How about defining what scriptural instruction you are using to define what is metaphor or not!

Well, just like anything else and as I've said before, If a particular verse or passage is not explicitly explained to be metaphor in the passage itself, I look for the same or synonymous language elsewhere in scripture and see if it's used consistently metaphorically or not.

Isn't that what you do?
Isn't that what we're SUPPOSED to do?

I recommend the Book "Biblical Hermeneutics" by Milton Terry if you are genuinely asking about the proper way to determine such things...
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Hermeneutics-Treatise-Interpretation-Testament/dp/1610102002

Maybe you should define what extra process of “glorification” you believe Jesus went through after His resurrection and show from scripture how you arrived at the conclusion?

I contend that In Acts 1, when the cloud received Him out of their site, was the moment His body was glorified, and not a moment before, and it is unto THAT body that ours will be fashioned. It is the same Glorified Body which Jesus Had before the incarnation, at the foundation of the world.

John himself, who witnessed His post resurrection, pre ascension Body first hand with His own eyes, Indicates that He had still NOT seen His Glorified Body:

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

At this point, after the Ascension, John is clear that He had NOT seen Jesus "as He is" presently, so, some sort of Appreciable Change to Jesus' body took place AFTER John last saw Him in the flesh.

I contend that "appreciable change" was the Glorification of His Body, The returning of His body back to the condition it was in before the foundation of the world, and it took place the moment the Cloud received Him out of their sight.

Jesus was NOT resurrected in His Glorified Body, He was resurrected in the Self same Body that hung on the cross and Had no different powers or attributes to it than He had before the Crucifixion (save the fact it could no longer be put to death) - you have apparently agreed with me on this above, but again your seeming agreement poses a conundrum with your simultaneous view that Jesus rose in His Glorified Body, different from the one that hung on the Cross.

I'm interested in how you reconcile those two polar opposite views.

I believe you would be in a world of hurt with some of your doctrine without that trusty “metaphor”.

Interesting admonition coming from the Guy who needs "shortly" to be a metaphor for 2000 years....

I will confess you make me dig, but you have not convinced me at all, to lean to the preterist side more that I already do, ha ha. You have been on this forum much longer that I, I would be curious to know if there have been any dramatic conversions of anyone’s belief system on any topic in your experience.

Well, in all honestly, I don't debate with Futurists here on CF to change THEIR view per se, rather I debate for the lurkers, the readers, who outnumber the posters here 5 or even 10 to 1, to give them a Biblical alternative to ponder and dig into..

In fact, it is to the benefit of my position NOT to sway the futurist posters here so they will continue to offer up their opposing views. It draws out the contrast for the readers to dig for themselves and make an INFORMED decision with as much conflicting information as possible, plus it sharpens my view to have it continually challenged. Contrary to many posters here who'd rather preach to the choir and get upset when their views challenged, I really love being called to account Biblically for why I believe the way I do. It forces me to be more of a Berean and "search the scriptures to see if it is so", so to that end I thank you for calling me to account for the claims I make. I'm a better Christian for it.

That said in the 15 years Iv'e been posting here, maybe 2 or three Staunch Futurist posters I've engaged have eventually adopted a preterist position, but like I said, that's secondary for me.

 

[keras]

Well, in all honestly, I don't debate with Futurists here on CF to change THEIR view per se, rather I debate for the lurkers, the readers, who outnumber the posters here 5 or even 10 to 1, to give them a Biblical alternative to ponder and dig into..

In fact, it is to the benefit of my position NOT to sway the futurist posters here so they will continue to offer up their opposing views. It draws out the contrast for the readers to dig for themselves and make an INFORMED decision with as much conflicting information as possible, plus it sharpens my view to have it continually challenged. Contrary to many posters here who'd rather preach to the choir and get upset when their views challenged, I really love being called to account Biblically for why I believe the way I do. It forces me to be more of a Berean and "search the scriptures to see if it is so", so to that end I thank you for calling me to account for the claims I make. I'm a better Christian for it.

That said in the 15 years Iv'e been posting here, maybe 2 or three Staunch Futurist posters I've engaged have eventually adopted a preterist position, but like I said, that's secondary for me.

Exactly why I persevere here as well.
But what I find with you, Parousia, is you tend to ignore our refutations and just keep hammering your preterist notions, despite valid points against such nonsense. I have seen off Interplanner, Ebil-melech and others. Whether they have changed their stance or just got tired, I don't know. Are you sure those Futurists actually became preterists?

Re the 'soon' of Bible prophecy, the simple fact of the past 1987 years since Jesus was here, is proof that what was meant is God's timing; 2 days in His sight.
Now the Jewish people have been in the holy Land for 68 years, just short of the threescore and ten of a lifetime. Ezekiel 12:25 ....you rebellious people, in your lifetime, in your days, I shall do what I have said.... Ezekiel 33:33...be assured it will come....[the Lord's Day of wrath]
You believe that Jesus is yet to Return. Why should there not be the events as given by the prophets, to set the scene for the glorious Day? Do you expect to still be comfortably in your house when Jesus Returns?

As for predictions, those who have a Bible will know the day Jesus will Return, it will be exactly 1260 days after the Temple is desecrated, a time period given to us in seven prophesies. But the Day we don't know, the Day that will come unexpectedly, is the Lord's Day of vengeance and wrath, a worldwide devastation that will change everything and lead up to the eventual Return.

 

[parousia70]

Exactly why I persevere here as well.
But what I find with you, Parousia, is you tend to ignore our refutations and just keep hammering your preterist notions,

Care to provide an example of that? It's unintentional if I do... whenever I'm presented with a scripture and a futurist interpretation for that scripture, I go take that scripture, and compare it with others to show why I contend they do not mean what the futurist contends they do.

I'm not perfect at it, and sometimes I'll overlook an objection, but that's what I try to do and I believe the evidence contained in my thousands of posts attests to that.

Re the 'soon' of Bible prophecy, the simple fact of the past 1987 years since Jesus was here, is proof that what was meant is God's timing; 2 days in His sight.

No, that's you OPINION.. Stating your OPINION that because 1900+ years have passed Soon must mean 1900+ years is circular reasoning and does not in and of itself PROVE the contention.

You are claiming your Bias is the evidence that proves your Bias.

Soon meant soon, and I have shown countless Scriptural examples to support that. That you must rely on your perception of extra biblical information not found in any scripture to prop up your contention that soon does not mean soon, should give our readers pause, as they reflect on which of our views has more scriptural support.

Now the Jewish people have been in the holy Land for 68 years, just short of the threescore and ten of a lifetime.

But the Jewish People in the Holy land today have ZERO relationship to the pre desolation Hebrews.
Not genetically, not politically not religiously.

They are Talmudic Jews, not Mosaic Jews, and have just as much Abrahamic blood in them as you or I do for all anyone knows.

Plus, all the prophesies of a dispersion and subsequent re gathering of the Jews into the geographic region of Israel were fulfilled at the end of the Babylonain captivity. There is not one single prophecy About a dispersion AND RE GATHERING of Jewish people into the geographic area of Israel written AFTER the Babylonian captivity. Not even one.