Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Facts and truths that futurists turn a blind eye to my friend.
Isn't the date of the writing the single most important piece in determining whether or not it applied to 70 AD or our future?My position is not governed by an early or a late writing. I just don't buy the Preterist evidence. I find it forced.
Please don't accuse me of manipulating scripture. We're all just trying to figure it out here. If you disagree with me and have a different understanding, then please explain why.This is typical Preterism eisegesis. It manipulates Scripture to support a questionable doctrine.
I'm not sure about the witnesses but I think it makes good sense for the witnesses to be "the law and the prophets". It's also possible that they were two literal men because history tells us that two men in particular were trying to stop the war with the Romans. These were Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamaliel.So I take it that you mean the temple together with the city will be trampled by the Gentiles for 42 literal months. Can you answer one more question for me at this point please? Who do you say are the witnesses who prophesy for 1260 days (66 ad to 70 ad) during this same forty-two month period? Thanks.
Even if they died at age 60 it's still entirely possible that they witnessed the events of 70 AD. Besides, aren't we told that John himself lived well into his 90's? So I'm not sure if you think you just made a strong point against my position, but I really don't think you did.Pilate and the rest of those Romans all died before 70AD. That generation born before or after Jesus was not expected to live longer than 60 or 65 years.
Isn't the date of the writing the single most important piece in determining whether or not it applied to 70 AD or our future?
But it is mentioned in Revelation.The fact the temple in Revelation is never destroyed, should indicate it was not the temple destroyed in 70AD.
I'm not sure what your point is here.John then describes 2 witnesses who have the same length of time to witness as the 42 months given to Satan and the FP. The Gentiles trampling the temple coincides with the defeat of the saints that drives them from Jerusalem, to the sea of glass and Mt. Zion. Chapter 11 is still giving us facts of what transpires during the days of the sound of the 7th Trumpet. Up to the point later in chapter 11, the 7th Trumpet actually starts to sound. The 7th Trumpet's sound covers the next chapters till the end of 19 and the battle of Armageddon.
So are you saying that even if it was written prior to 70 AD, you can still claim it has nothing to do with 70 AD?To your position, yes. Not to mine, or any of the other views.
Isn't the date of the writing the single most important piece in determining whether or not it applied to 70 AD or our future?
So are you saying that even if it was written prior to 70 AD, you can still claim it has nothing to do with 70 AD?
But it is mentioned in Revelation.
Revelation 21:1
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
I realize you don't believe "heaven and earth" are representative of the temple, but because I do your argument is invalid. The way I see it, it makes perfect sense. You not seeing it the same way, does not change anything for me.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Please don't accuse me of manipulating scripture. We're all just trying to figure it out here. If you disagree with me and have a different understanding, then please explain why.
That is not talking about the physical temple. For one thing, John would not have called that temple "the temple of God". Also, you didn't read far enough in Revelation 11. The location of the temple of God mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2 is revealed here:Again, I urge you to consider the words of the book. In it John describes the temple as though it is still standing, and is told that it will be trampled underfoot by the gentiles for 42 months (Revelation 11:2). This is exactly the same thing that Jesus predicted would happen in Luke 21:24 saying "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". Now if the temple had already been destroyed by the time John received his vision, not only would he not have echoed the words of Jesus, but he also would've mentioned the most important fact that the temple was recently destroyed.
Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage:No offense, but I find the reasoning of "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective" to be both foolish and cheap. If the bible were written in such a way that we couldn't understand it would be entirely pointless, and for that same reason this amounts to nothing more than a cop out and the futurists standard response when they're presented with something they can't explain.
Obviously the words were given to John, who is not God, but a man, and it was written for him to present to his people who were also men and not God, so how could it possibly make any sense at all to say that the references to time in his vision were meant to be understood from "God's perspective" which we can not possibly do? You'd be essentially saying that the vision was not meant for mankind and that is foolishness.
So, you apparently believe everything written in the book of Revelation is fulfilled then? Are you a full preterist?Revelation 1
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.
I believe what Jesus said at the beginning of Revelation. He was talking about the generation of the Apostles, not thousands of years in the future.
No offense, but I find the reasoning of "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective" to be both foolish and cheap. If the bible were written in such a way that we couldn't understand it would be entirely pointless, and for that same reason this amounts to nothing more than a cop out and the futurists standard response when they're presented with something they can't explain.
Obviously the words were given to John, who is not God, but a man, and it was written for him to present to his people who were also men and not God, so how could it possibly make any sense at all to say that the references to time in his vision were meant to be understood from "God's perspective" which we can not possibly do? You'd be essentially saying that the vision was not meant for mankind and that is foolishness.
Settle down. I did not come up with this idea of heaven and earth being represented by the temple. This is well known and documented by scholars throughout history and I really don't understand why you'd have such a hard time with temple symbolism if you accept that Jesus is the new temple. Is that not also symbolic? Is that insane to you?This is spiritualization gone crazy! You could literally make the Bible say anything you wish. This is typical of Preterism. I presented strong biblical evidence previously to you that shows that when “heaven” and “earth” are used together throughout the Word they mean exactly that. There are no exceptions. I showed you the proof. You have not addressed the evidence. I have seen no rebuttal apart from you sidestepping the topic and you complaining about me refuting Preterism. The burden of proof is in your court to respond.
You have so far presented nothing to show how you have the authority, warrant or direction to change the “heaven” and “earth” into a physical temple in Jerusalem in AD70, apart from your own personal opinion. Frankly, that doesn’t cut it. With this type of ad-hoc hermeneutics, what would stop anyone imposing their own private speculation on any literal reality in Scripture? That is like me insisting on “heaven” and “earth” representing Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. It is insane!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?