Difference between amillennialism & preterism

[Copperhead]

So, are you saying that Anderson is wrong or that Daniel is wrong? Would seem that saying one is wrong is saying the other is wrong. Not placing Anderson and Daniel on the same level, but the prophecy is what it is. It is either accurate or it isn't. And since Messiah was resurrected on the very same day on the calendar that Noah and ark came to rest on the mountain (17th of Nisan) seems to suggest that God is a stickler for details. And that Jesus (our Passover lamb) died at the same hour the passover lamb was being sacrificed at the Temple seems to confirm that further. Up until Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey, He had said many times that His hour had not yet come. Yet on that day, He not only allowed Himself to be proclaimed as the Messiah (as per the hallel Psalm 118 that the crowd was chanting and only pertains to that day on the Jewish annual religious calendar cycle) but arranged it by telling His disciples to get the donkey for him to ride in.

All civilizations, prior to 701 BC had 360 day calendars. Mayan, Chinese, Israel, Persian, etc. The Roman calendar was adjusted by adding 5 days in March (where the concept of Lent came from... the lengthened month). The Jews adjusted by adding a month every 19 years, factoring in Jewish calendar leap years that occur every 7 years. Kinda goofy in a way, and Rabbis still debate why it was done that way. Either way, virtually all civilizations ditched the 360 day a year calendar idea after 701 BC, and there has been some speculation as to why they all needed to change things at all. The British observatory helped Anderson work out the details and took this into account.

Being associated with someone doesn't mean you conform to everything that other person adheres to. Two of my uncles are pastors of congregations that hold to significantly different theology than I do. We have our family gatherings with no conflicts.

 

[jgr]

This type of interpretation also ignores the fact that the prophecies that have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled literally

The first prophecy in Scripture:

Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Already fulfilled.

Literally or spiritually?

 

[Copperhead]

Before we get that far, we know what the seed of the woman is, in that it is a clear reference to the Messiah who indeed was physically manifested. Now, what is the seed of the serpent, or Satan? That question is rarely addressed. Quite probably the Son of Perdition, or Antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NKJV) Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

That Gen 3 prophecy has a future fulfillment. Both spiritually and literally.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 (NKJV) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

and finally:

Revelation 20:10 (LASB NKJV - Bible Text) The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

 

[jgr]

Before we get that far, we know what the seed of the woman is, in that it is a clear reference to the Messiah who indeed was physically manifested. Now, what is the seed of the serpent, or Satan? That question is rarely addressed. Quite probably the Son of Perdition, or Antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NKJV) Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

That Gen 3 prophecy has a future fulfillment. Both spiritually and literally.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 (NKJV) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

Wait a second...you're already spiritualizing the prophecy. The literal interpretation of the seed of that woman is the physical offspring of Eve i.e. Cain, Abel, et al. The literal interpretation of the seed of that serpent is all of its physical little serpent(s) offspring. Let us be literal.

I'm quite confident that God had no such interpretation in mind.

 

[Copperhead]

Ok, then, the Messiah is God, but was born of a virgin woman who was a descendent of Eve. You still have to determine then who is the seed of the serpent.

And let us be literal then. There is no such thing as seed of a woman in biology. Try and recall any basic biology text book you might have seen. The seed is always of the male, both in modern biology and as reckoned in the writings of antiquity, including all of scripture except as it pertains to the virgin birth of the Messiah. Eve's physical descendants were not her seed, but the seed of Adam. So who can really be the seed of the woman, but a child born of a virgin as the Messiah was! Therefore, the seed of Eve clearly is a prophecy of the physical virgin birth of the Messiah. Mary was a descendent of Eve.

So, who can be the seed of the serpent, but also a physical manifestation of an offspring of Satan, possibly is a similar fashion, using a virgin woman so as to mimic Messiah and enhance his proclamation of being the true messiah and deceiving mankind. And that is implied in the arrival of the false messiah, by him being labeled the Son of Perdition. Not some motorcycle gang called the Sons of Perdition. One could argue for physical little serpents I suppose, but that is clearly spiritualizing the passage by suggesting that Satan is running around generating little satans. But that is not logical as there seems to be a definite article in view based on the head crush going on. Thy head as opposed to their heads.

This could make the passage here a little more obvious.....

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NKJV) And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

"the lie" is a definite article. Not "a lie". Could this manifestation of a virgin birth of the false messiah be in view? That is pure speculation at this point. But we will find out one day.

 

[victorinus]

the fact that the prophecies that have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled literally

it is the only way they can be fulfilled and verified -
it cannot depend on your vague interpretation of scripture -
it must be based on a strict literal interpretation

 

[BABerean2]

So, are you saying that Anderson is wrong or that Daniel is wrong?

Anderson was a man like you and I. He was trying to make the scriptures fit his doctrine.

Daniel was a prophet who received a message from God, through the angel Gabriel and therefore cannot be wrong.

The starting point of the 70 weeks is 457 BC.
Anderson did not use this date.

The 70th week began when Jesus was placed in the waters of the Jordan and God anointed Him. (Acts 10:38)

He confirmed the New Covenant in His Blood at Calvary during the middle of the week. God ripped the temple veil in half to show that no more animal sacrifices were required. (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 8:6-13, Hebrews 10:16-18)

It was the week that the Gospel was taken "first" to Daniel's people before it was taken to the Gentiles. Christ commanded that the Gospel be taken first to His own people. Based on Galatians 1:18 Paul did not take the Gospel to the Gentiles until over 3 years after Stephen was stoned. Therefore the Gospel was taken to the Jewish people for at least 7 years before it was taken to the Gentiles.

Dr. Kelly Varner on Daniel chapter 9

Who Confirmed The Covenant?
James Lloyd
http://christianmediaresearch.com/node/1023


.

 

[jgr]

Ok, then, the Messiah is God, but was born of a virgin woman who was a descendent of Eve. You still have to determine then who is the seed of the serpent.

And let us be literal then. There is no such thing as seed of a woman in biology. Try and recall any basic biology text book you might have seen. The seed is always of the male, both in modern biology and as reckoned in the writings of antiquity, including all of scripture except as it pertains to the virgin birth of the Messiah. Eve's physical descendants were not her seed, but the seed of Adam. So who can really be the seed of the woman, but a child born of a virgin as the Messiah was! Therefore, the seed of Eve clearly is a prophecy of the physical virgin birth of the Messiah. Mary was a descendent of Eve.

So, who can be the seed of the serpent, but also a physical manifestation of an offspring of Satan, possibly is a similar fashion, using a virgin woman so as to mimic Messiah and enhance his proclamation of being the true messiah and deceiving mankind. And that is implied in the arrival of the false messiah, by him being labeled the Son of Perdition. Not some motorcycle gang called the Sons of Perdition. One could argue for physical little serpents I suppose, but that is clearly spiritualizing the passage by suggesting that Satan is running around generating little satans. But that is not logical as there seems to be a definite article in view based on the head crush going on. Thy head as opposed to their heads.

This could make the passage here a little more obvious.....

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NKJV) And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

"the lie" is a definite article. Not "a lie". Could this manifestation of a virgin birth of the false messiah be in view? That is pure speculation at this point. But we will find out one day.

I could find common ground in your observations.

Here, further, are some of mine:

The serpent is not only a creature of the field, but also a spiritual symbol of evil as a result of inhabitation by Satan.

When God addresses the serpent, He is in reality not addressing the creature, but rather Satan who inhabits it.

When God speaks of enmity between the serpent and the woman, He is not speaking of Eve's abhorrence of snakes, but rather of spiritual abhorrence by Eve of Satan because of his role in her disobedience and downfall.

When God speaks of enmity between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed, He is not speaking of Eve's offspring's abhorrence of snakes, but rather of spiritual enmity between Satan's spawn (however that might be understood) and Christ.

When God states that “it shall bruise thy head” He is not referring to a physical attack upon Satan's head, but to the ultimately permanent effect upon Satan of the ultimate seed of Eve, who is Christ, and His work on Calvary.

When God states that “thou shalt bruise His heel” He is not referring to a physical attack upon Christ's heel, but to the temporary physical and spiritual effect which God permitted Satan to have upon Christ (Isaiah 53:5,10).


It is evident that this prophecy is overwhelmingly symbolic and spiritual.

 

[parousia70]

Any sound prophecy or spiritual interpretation in the NT should be confirmed to in the OT.

Indeed.
Which is why when I see a prophesy like this one in Isaiah 13 about the 539 BC invasion of Babylon by the Medes, I know such language of universal cataclysm, when used in Prophesy, must me metaphoric in nature, as the OT confirms such language is used time and again by the prophets to describe the fall of an individual nation:

Isaiah 13:9-13 (NKJV) Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.

 

[parousia70]

This type of interpretation also ignores the fact that the prophecies that have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled literally

After David defeated Saul (which I hope we can agree is already fulfilled and not future to us) He described that Battle this way: (2 Samuel 22:8-16)

8“Then the earth shook and trembled;
The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken,
Because He was angry.
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew;
And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness canopies around Him,
Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
13 From the brightness before Him
Coals of fire were kindled.

14 “The Lord thundered from heaven,
And the Most High uttered His voice.
15 He sent out arrows and scattered them;
Lightning bolts, and He vanquished them.
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen,
The foundations of the world were uncovered,
At the rebuke of the Lord,
At the blast of the breath of His nostrils.

Do you believe these things LITERALLY happened?

Did God come down to earth at that time, visibly seen upon a cherub, riding a cloud, shooting actual arrows at Saul's armies, bowing the heavens and laying the foundation of the entire earth bare, as He kindled fire with the breath of His nostrils?

 

[Biblewriter]

I have a copy of the book.

Anderson mentions in the book that the Jews made periodic corrections in their calendar and then proceeded to ignore this fact in the rest of the book.

Anderson was also C.I. Scofield's friend.

Anderson "worked it out" to agree with the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Recent archeological data has revealed that Herod the Great died in 4 BC.

This fact has moved the date of the Cross to about 30 AD.

So much for the 360 day calendar...



.

The fact that the ancient Jews used a 360 day calendar is so well established that it is utter nonsense to debate it. But your imagining that this was done to defend the ideas of Scofield is utter nonsense. The basic concepts taught by Scofield, which more or less followed the concepts taught by Darby, were long established and well known in England long before either of these men was even born. And both the 360 day year used by the Jews and a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, were clearly taught in ancient Christian writings.

 

[BABerean2]

The fact that the ancient Jews used a 360 day calendar is so well established that it is utter nonsense to debate it. But your imagining that this was done to defend the ideas of Scofield is utter nonsense. The basic concepts taught by Scofield, which more or less followed the concepts taught by Darby, were long established and well known in England long before either of these men was even born. And both the 360 day year used by the Jews and a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, were clearly taught in ancient Christian writings.

Get a copy of the book "The Atonement Clock" by Christian Gedge, if you want to really understand the ancient Hebrew calendar.

If the Hebrews had used a 360 day calendar and not made periodic corrections, in less than 40 years the seasons would have been reversed. Planting crops during winter would have been disastrous.

It is utter nonsense to think that the Jews used a 360 day calendar, without periodic correction to adjust for the 5.25 day error each year.

5.25 days/yr x 40 years = 210 days of error in only 40 years


The other problem with Anderson and Scofield is that recent archeological findings have placed the death of Herod the Great during 4 BC.
Therefore, the starting point of the 70 weeks is 457 BC.
This puts the events of Calvary at 30 AD, which was one generation from 70 AD.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

The fact that some prophecies, both from the Old Testament and from the New Testament, are made in symbolic language has zero bearing on the many other prophecies that were simply statements of future events, made in plain, simple, language. When I set out to write a book on just that portion of Bible prophecy that was so stated, it ultimately grew to a length of more than 300 pages.

Although no scripture actually states it, there is some logic in claimingthat prophecies about Israel actually mean the church. But there is not even the slightest excuse to be found anywhere in the entire Bible, to make the same claims about the promises made to Judah, Ephraim, to the twelve tribes, to the sons of Zadoc, and to the physical land of Israel.

I must again stress that a claim that the ancient promises made to all these, as well as to the nation of Israel itself, were actually about the church, is a denial of the absolute reliability of a promise made by God. For if God could legitimately tell these people that He was not actually speaking of them, He could just as legitimately tell us that the promises He made to us were actually made concerning a different people at a different time.

If the promises made to these people were not literally true, then we have zero basis for out own faith. This doctrine destroys the very foundation of Christianity.

 

[BABerean2]

The fact that some prophecies, both from the Old Testament and from the New Testament, are made in symbolic language has zero bearing on the many other prophecies that were simply statements of future events, made in plain, simple, language. When I set out to write a book on just that portion of Bible prophecy that was so stated, it ultimately grew to a length of more than 300 pages.

Although no scripture actually states it, there is some logic in claimingthat prophecies about Israel actually mean the church. But there is not even the slightest excuse to be found anywhere in the entire Bible, to make the same claims about the promises made to Judah, Ephraim, to the twelve tribes, to the sons of Zadoc, and to the physical land of Israel.

I must again stress that a claim that the ancient promises made to all these, as well as to the nation of Israel itself, were actually about the church, is a denial of the absolute reliability of a promise made by God. For if God could legitimately tell these people that He was not actually speaking of them, He could just as legitimately tell us that the promises He made to us were actually made concerning a different people at a different time.

If the promises made to these people were not literally true, then we have zero basis for out own faith. This doctrine destroys the very foundation of Christianity.

The only way to make your doctrine work is to ignore New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

On the day of Pentecost Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", then as "men of Israel", and in Acts 2:36 as "all the house of Israel". On that day about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31. No one can deny that when the Church started almost all of its members were Israelites. However, many Dispensationalists continue to talk about the "Gentile Church", in an attempt to make their Two Peoples of God doctrine work.


James begins his letter by addressing it to the twelve tribes, who were his brethren.

Jas 1:1　 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.　
Jas 1:2　 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials,　
Jas 1:3　 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.


Our faith is built upon the fact that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel, as revealed in the first verse in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1) and confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:16.
He is the "chief cornerstone" rejected by one nation in Matthew chapter 21, but accepted by another "Holy nation" in 1 Peter 2:4-10.

Based on Galatians 3:16-29, there is no advantage to being a physical descendent of Jacob, without also being a spiritual descendant through Christ.

Your doctrine must ignore the warning about genealogy found below.

1Ti 1:4　 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.　


The New Covenant is about Grace, instead of race.

.


　

 

[Biblewriter]

Get a copy of the book "The Atonement Clock" by Christian Gedge, if you want to really understand the ancient Hebrew calendar.

If the Hebrews had used a 360 day calendar and not made periodic corrections, in less than 40 years the seasons would have been reversed. Planting crops during winter would have been disastrous.

It is utter nonsense to think that the Jews used a 360 day calendar, without periodic correction to adjust for the 5.25 day error each year.

5.25 days/yr x 40 years = 210 days of error in only 40 years


The other problem with Anderson and Scofield is that recent archeological findings have placed the death of Herod the Great during 4 BC.
Therefore, the starting point of the 70 weeks is 457 BC.
This puts the events of Calvary at 30 AD, which was one generation from 70 AD.


.

Yes, the fact that the ancients realized that their 360 day calendar had to be corrected from time to time, is also well known. But that has zero bearing on the two central questions of this discussion. The first is that they indeed used a 360 day calendar, and the very fact that they had to make these corrections actually proves this. But the second one which so far has not been mentioned at this time, is that, in every prophecy about the detailed timing of future events, God used terms that would obviously be understood the refer to the years of their calendars, He never, even once, said "years." In Daniel 9, He simply said "sevens" for the seventy weeks, and for the divisions of the period in question, and the last period is simply called a "seven."
In other places, he simply called years "times." Other statements of explicit timing used the words "months" or "days." And ALL of these interrelated statements of time work out precisely, when a year is taken as 360 days, and a week (literally "seven") is taken as seven periods of 360 days.

As to Sir Robert Anderson's calculations, he made some assumptions which I am not prepared to make. His assumptions are unquestinably logical, but are not unquestionably correct. And I do not know of even one historian who now believes that our Lord was actually born at the beginning of year 1 in our calendars. Most now believe that Jesus was actually born in about 4 BC.

 

[Biblewriter]

The only way to make your doctrine work is to ignore New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

On the day of Pentecost Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", then as "men of Israel", and in Acts 2:36 as "all the house of Israel". On that day about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31. No one can deny that when the Church started almost all of its members were Israelites. However, many Dispensationalists continue to talk about the "Gentile Church", in an attempt to make their Two Peoples of God doctrine work.


James begins his letter by addressing it to the twelve tribes, who were his brethren.

Jas 1:1　 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.　
Jas 1:2　 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials,　
Jas 1:3　 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.


Our faith is built upon the fact that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel, as revealed in the first verse in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1) and confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:16.
He is the "chief cornerstone" rejected by one nation in Matthew chapter 21, but accepted by another "Holy nation" in 1 Peter 2:4-10.

Based on Galatians 3:16-29, there is no advantage to being a physical descendent of Jacob, without also being a spiritual descendant through Christ.

Your doctrine must ignore the warning about genealogy found below.

1Ti 1:4　 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.　

.


　

This is simply factually incorrect, and its errors have been demonstrated more times than I can count.

 

[Yahchristian]

Could someone please tell me the differences between amillennialism and preterism (partial vs full as well)?

Amillennialism refers to the idea that there will NOT be a physical thousand year reign of Christ on Earth.

Preterism refers to the idea that most (Partial Preterism) or all (Full Preterism) Bible prophecies have been fulfilled already.

They are complimentary ideas since most who believe one also believe the other.

Here is a chart that represents their basic view...

Whereas Premillennialism refers to the idea that Jesus WILL come back and reign on Earth for a thousand years.

And Historicism refers to the idea that Bible prophecies are being fulfilled throughout all of Church history.

Here is a chart that represents the basic Historicist View...

 

[Yahchristian]

Sir Robert Anderson, along with some help from the British observatory, worked out the math on the 69 weeks and found that from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on the donkey was exact right down to the very day. The margin for error in the prophecy was zero.

Actually, you can prove that he was wrong mathematically, assuming you have some Math skills.

He just wanted it to work out so bad that he fudged the numbers a bit.

If you would like me to show you the Math, just let me know.


P.S.

I didn't just go ahead and post the Math, because you might prefer not to know that he was wrong. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually, you can prove that he was wrong mathematically, assuming you have some Math skills.

He just wanted it to work out so bad that he fudged the numbers a bit.

If you would like me to show you the Math, just let me know.


P.S.

I didn't just go ahead and post the Math, because you might prefer not to know that he was wrong. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Please elucidate.

 

[parousia70]

This is simply factually incorrect, and its errors have been demonstrated more times than I can count.

I can not find any error in what BAB has posted above, from any post of yours or anyone else's, and certainly not in any scripture.

But, go ahead and use the scriptures he has cited to show us why they do not mean what he contends.
Should be quite simple for you to do, no?

You can start with supporting your contention that the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was NOT shown to have been fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13.