Preterism ends now ...but futurists are not right either

[parousia70]

Maybe there is another eschatological view other than full preterist and futurist...

Yep. It's called Orthodox Preterism

like one where they don't pretend 70 A.D. didn't happen ...but also don't believe in a nonsense future mark of the beast. there is nothing but cons out there to make you think you can't Enter The Kingdom Today ...imputed righteousness is from satan

I did find it slightly amusing when you titled your thread "Preterism ends now" and then set about espousing beliefs exclusive to preterism.
Made me chuckle.

 

[David Kent]

Why does the Olivet Discourse Talk about an "abomination of desolation" in Matthew, but in Luke Say "Jerusalem compassed with armies"?

Matthew 24:15-16 KJV — When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

[Luke 21:20 KJV] And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

How was everyone in Judaea to see titus doing a sacrifice to roman gods ...after he already stormed The Temple?

i think JESUS was Saying we are The Temples ...yes 70 A.D. happened, but there is a double Meaning Here.

[Daniel 12:10 KJV] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
[11] And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
[12] Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Luke made the hidden meaning clear (Let the reader understand) As Luke makes us understand, so we have no excuse for inventing a future abomination of desolation. It is long gone.

 

[David Kent]

The 666 is the number of a man called the beast who will get cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns.

I do not know that man's name yet, and how 666 is the calculation of it.

What is the name of the beast man ? I don't think that the 666 years is the right key to knowing the name of the beast man.



.

I think it was Irenaeus who suggested that the name was LATEINUS, the
Latin Man, as it was the Latins who held the kingdom. The number of that name is 666. No one that I know of has come up with a better suggestion.

 

[iamlamad]

Is the Woman of Revelation 12 standing on a desolate moon because it represents the Old Covenant and Heaven/Earth passing away for the Jews?
The Moon is Mount Sinai.

The moon is the moon: you know, that globe in the sky we see at night. It is not written that the woman "stands" on the moon, only that at a certain moment in time, the moon is seen under VIrgo's feet. The woman here is Israel first, then Mary the virgin second. JOhn was shown what Virgo looked like when Jesus was born: she was clothed with the sun. At a certain moment, as the sun appears to move down her arm, just before daylight, suddenly her entire body lights up, and she is "clothed with the sun."

These first five verses of chapter 12 are written as a parenthesis with no bearing on John's chronology. They were a "history lesson" (God's words, not mine) to John. This chapter is about the Dragon (mentioned 32 times). God was introducing John to the Dragon, and in particular what the Dragon would be doing during the last half of the week, but Jesus chose to show John how the Dragon tried to kill Him as a young boy, using King Herod.

 

[SuperCow]

Of course not - I rely on how Christ defined it by quoting Daniel. Luke by inspiration interpreted Daniel's "abomination of desolation" as being "Jerusalem surrounded by armies". That's not my choice of words, but Christ's and Luke's.

Scripture lists many things that were considered an "abomination" to God, but that particular phrase "abomination of desolation" as used by Daniel was for armies to come surround Jerusalem. That's it. No more and no less than that. This happened under Antiochus once, and it would happen again in AD 66 with Cestius Gallus's Roman army squared off against the Zealot armies.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes did more than that. He removed the high priest twice and replaced them with someone not eligible by Mosaic law, because the replacement who bribed Antiochus was not a Levite. (and likely murdured the legitimate high priest) He erected a statue of Zeus in the second temple and forced Hellenization of Jerusalem, trying to eradicate Judaism. This, along with the oppression is what instigated the civil war with the Maccabees. The temple was not considered cleansed until after this statue was removed.

So, while the surrounding of Jerusalem in 66 AD had some similarities, it wasn't by itself an equivalent to the Greek oppression. If Caligula had pressed forward with his plan to erect a statue of himself in the temple in 40 AD, it would have been a better equivalent, though he changed his mind before his governor in Syria followed through. However, the 66 AD encirclement could be considered a warning of what was coming as war was certainly coming.

 

[SuperCow]

I will add to this discussion that if the events in Revelation happened in the past (relative to its writing by John), then it is an essentially useless book. Prophecies are not prophecies unless they predict the future. For this reason alone I think you can reject full preterism. I find partial preterism much more interesting, and some of the interpretations of of history (particularly in Revelation 6) make a lot of sense.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I will add to this discussion that if the events in Revelation happened in the past (relative to its writing by John), then it is an essentially useless book

I have heard this comment expressed frequently before. But I reject the assumption that fulfilled prophecy renders the Bible "useless". God tells His people frequently to consider the judgments which He has executed over the span of history. "The Lord is known by the judgments which He executeth".

In Ezekiel 39:21-23, God predicts that His judgments on Gog will cause the nation of Israel to "know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward." God said that "I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them."

Fulfilled prophecy brings glory to the God who performs what He has predicted to do, and especially in the very time frame in which He promised to perform it. Bringing glory to God is hardly a "useless" consequence of fulfilled prophecy.

 

[Jipsah]

Prophecies are not prophecies unless they predict the future.

Not true.

prophecy
prŏf′ĭ-sē
noun An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will

A prophecy is the word of God spoken through a prophet. It's anything that can properly be prefaced with "Thus saith the Lord God".

 

[David Kent]

Antiochus IV Epiphanes did more than that. He removed the high priest twice and replaced them with someone not eligible by Mosaic law, because the replacement who bribed Antiochus was not a Levite. (and likely murdured the legitimate high priest) He erected a statue of Zeus in the second temple and forced Hellenization of Jerusalem, trying to eradicate Judaism. This, along with the oppression is what instigated the civil war with the Maccabees. The temple was not considered cleansed until after this statue was removed.

So, while the surrounding of Jerusalem in 66 AD had some similarities, it wasn't by itself an equivalent to the Greek oppression. If Caligula had pressed forward with his plan to erect a statue of himself in the temple in 40 AD, it would have been a better equivalent, though he changed his mind before his governor in Syria followed through. However, the 66 AD encirclement could be considered a warning of what was coming as war was certainly coming.

If I remember correctly the temple was cleansed 3 years after antiochus sacrificed a pig on the altar.

 

[SuperCow]

Not true.

prophecy
prŏf′ĭ-sē
noun An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will

A prophecy is the word of God spoken through a prophet. It's anything that can properly be prefaced with "Thus saith the Lord God".

Put your definition together.

revelation
rev·e·la·tion
noun: revelation; plural noun: revelations

the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world.

will

am (is, are, etc.) about or going to

Therefore a prophecy is a supernatural disclosure about what a divine being will do. Seems like that is the future to me.

 

[David Kent]

Put your definition together.

revelation
rev·e·la·tion
noun: revelation; plural noun: revelations

the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world.

will

am (is, are, etc.) about or going to

Therefore a prophecy is a supernatural disclosure about what a divine being will do. Seems like that is the future to me.

Of course it is future when it is written. But prophecy becomes history when it is fulfilled just as it was in the old testament. Prophecies were sometimes understood when the were fulfilled, other times not understood. The Jews knew when the Messiah would come from the 70 weeks prophecy but they didn't recognise him as the were expecting one who would immediately restore the kingdom.

Likewise the church knew when the Antichrist would come, but didn't recognise him when he did, because they were expecting and individual and not a dynasty that would develop gradually.

 

[Jipsah]

Put your definition together.

So just saw off the first dictionary definition to arrive at the only thing most people think ther word means. Handy technique, that.

Rubbish, but handy.

Therefore a prophecy is a supernatural disclosure about what a divine being will do. Seems like that is the future to me.

JUst make it up as you go, why not?

 

[SuperCow]

So just saw off the first dictionary definition to arrive at the only thing most people think ther word means. Handy technique, that.

Rubbish, but handy.


JUst make it up as you go, why not?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prophecy

Here it says the definition of prophecy:

noun,plural proph·e·cies.

1. the foretelling or prediction of what is to come.
2. something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation.
3. a divinely inspired utterance or revelation: oracular prophecies.
4. the action, function, or faculty of a prophet.

All of these definitions imply imply prediction of the future. (Even #3 if you review my previous definition of revelation)

So I don't understand what you think I am making up. It seems you are making up extra meanings, not me.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Here it says the definition of prophecy:

noun,plural proph·e·cies.

1. the foretelling or prediction of what is to come.
2. something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation.
3. a divinely inspired utterance or revelation: oracular prophecies.
4. the action, function, or faculty of a prophet.

All of these definitions imply imply prediction of the future.

Isn't the Greek meaning for the word "prophesy" simply "to speak forth" something?

We also have this text in the OT about prophesying on instruments. 1 Chronicles 25:1 says, "Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals..." This was not predicting the future in this case, I should think.

 

[SuperCow]

Arguing about the actual definition of prophecy/prophesy is a useless digression anyway. My point (before @Jipsah decided to distract with his side argument), is that a book that is intended as a [future] prophecy is not useful unless it has been written before the events happen. Otherwise it is a historical facade.

All of the prophets can be demonstrated circumstantially (if perhaps not beyond all reasonable doubt) that they were written before the events they predict. Many occur relatively quickly after their prediction and some took centuries. If, as the full preterist believes they are all in the past, they still need to be written before that past event.

The two books that typically cause controversy are Daniel in the OT and Revelation in the NT. Daniel's story of origin draws the ire of secularists because the accuracy of chapter 11 defies their preset bias.

Revelation is cryptic enough that it is just dismissed by secularists, but it is the religious interpretations that can't be agreed upon. There are three choices:

1.) Revelation was written in 65 AD (or before), and describes events over the next decade. (full preterism)
2.) Revelation was written in 95 AD (+/- a couple of years), and describes events after 100 AD.
- a.) Partial preterists think it has partially been fulfilled, and part of it still is to come. (I think they can also be referred to as historicists)
- b.) Futurists think it's all in the future.
3.) Revelation was written after 70 AD, and it described events from 66-70AD.

If it is #3, then I think the book is useless. If it is #1 or #2, then it is valuable, but it still needs much work to understand.

 

[parousia70]

I will add to this discussion that if the events in Revelation happened in the past (relative to its writing by John), then it is an essentially useless book. Prophecies are not prophecies unless they predict the future.

God gave Noah the following prophesy:
"For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”".

Am I correct in understanding your position is that Genesis 7:4 is now an essentially usless passage since it's not future to us?

We can just toss it out of our Bibles?

I guess we can toss out all the prophesies of Christ's birth, death and resurrection as essentially useless too?

Or wait... maybe I read your post wrong.... is this an argument about the dating of Revelation?

 

[DavidPT]

God gave Noah the following prophesy:
"For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”".

Am I correct in understanding your position is that Genesis 7:4 is now an essentially usless passage since it's not future to us?

We can just toss it out of our Bibles?

I guess we can toss out all the prophesies of Christ's birth, death and resurrection as essentially useless too?

Or wait... maybe I read your post wrong.... is this an argument about the dating of Revelation?

What exactly is your point here? Did He or did He not disclose that to Noah before the fact? Obviously, God didn't cause the flood to happen first then tell Noah after the fact---Btw, Noah, For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made. My bad, I should have told you before the fact rather than after the fact.

That's the point I basically see @SuperCow making, since I fully agree that prophecies are not prophecies unless they predict the future. And if Revelation was written after 70 AD, but that some of you allege much of it is in involving 70 AD, this would be an example of a prophecy not predicting the future if 70 AD is already in the past when Revelation is initially written. Therefore, totally useless if the idea is to warn someone in the first century about this upcoming 70 AD event, except when Revelation is initially written, 70 AD is already in the past.

I don't know if Revelation was written before 70 AD or after 70 AD. Obviously, no one today can know that for certain. Therefore, it's 50/50 odds that it was written before 70 AD and it is also 50/50 odds that it was written after 70 AD. Even if it was written before 70 AD, that alone hardly undeniably proves that any of the events recorded in Revelation are involving 70 AD.

 

[parousia70]

What exactly is your point here? Did He or did He not disclose that to Noah before the fact? Obviously, God didn't cause the flood to happen first then tell Noah after the fact---Btw, Noah, For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made. My bad, I should have told you before the fact rather than after the fact.

That's the point I basically see @SuperCow making, since I fully agree that prophecies are not prophecies unless they predict the future. And if Revelation was written after 70 AD, but that some of you allege much of it is in involving 70 AD, this would be an example of a prophecy not predicting the future if 70 AD is already in the past when Revelation is initially written. Therefore, totally useless if the idea is to warn someone in the first century about this upcoming 70 AD event, except when Revelation is initially written, 70 AD is already in the past.

I don't know if Revelation was written before 70 AD or after 70 AD. Obviously, no one today can know that for certain. Therefore, it's 50/50 odds that it was written before 70 AD and it is also 50/50 odds that it was written after 70 AD. Even if it was written before 70 AD, that alone hardly undeniably proves that any of the events recorded in Revelation are involving 70 AD.

Thanks David. I believe it came to me by the end of my post that his was an argument assuming the late date.
As you pointed out, his argument is moot, since the late date can not be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[SuperCow]

God gave Noah the following prophesy:
"For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”".

Am I correct in understanding your position is that Genesis 7:4 is now an essentially usless passage since it's not future to us?

We can just toss it out of our Bibles?

I guess we can toss out all the prophesies of Christ's birth, death and resurrection as essentially useless too?

Or wait... maybe I read your post wrong.... is this an argument about the dating of Revelation?

No, future to the writer, not to us.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't know if Revelation was written before 70 AD or after 70 AD. Obviously, no one today can know that for certain.

Yes, we can know the date of Revelation's composition, going by various pieces of internal evidences from the book itself. It was written somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the AD 60 catastrophic earthquake in Laodicea.