Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?

[A New World]

The NASB and NKJV may be good translations. But I am not talking about what those or any other version says.

It's probably a good idea, if you want to communicate with those of us who speak, read and write using the English language, to use those "good translations."

The problem arises when people with less than honorable intentions start telling me "what the Bible really means" and surprise, surprise their explanation just happens to fit the doctrine of their particular group and it just happens to contradict what the original languages "really say."

So, your problem is with people telling you what the Bible really means?

But you have no problem telling them what the Bible really means?

And you already know what the Bible really means because you know what does and does not contradict the original languages?

And you think those who believe all Bible prophecy is fulfilled have not considered the original languages?

Why do you think I or any other poster here has less than honorable intentions?

I think you assume way too much.

...more often than not it is deliberate, because so many times they are only repeating what their leaders and teachers taught them. Present company not excepted!

By "Present company not excepted" are you referring to the Preterists here who just won't submit to folks like you who know what the Bible really means?

Please show us your ability to explain the Scriptures by interacting (not dictating) with us in our language.

Scholars don't translate scripture in a vacuum. While Greek and Hebrew scholars may have an agenda they stake their professional reputations on their work. Scholars don't just write something and put it in bookstores. Professional writing is peer reviewed by other scholars knowledgable in the field. If there are errors in professional writing, other professionals will find it and make it known. No professional wants his/her work being shown to have significant errors. Therefore such errors are very rare, and deliberate errors even rarer. And if they do make translational errors, those errors will be caught by other professionals not amateurs with no scholastic credentials on a forum like this.

Believe it or not I agree. Futurists and Preterists alike rely on good dependable translations produced by reliable scholars. But, their interpretations of Scripture will never be our standard of truth, nor should they be yours.

Why not focus our discussion using what we agree to be reliable English versions of Scripture? If we come across what you believe to be an error in the translation, we can discuss that and move on.

That would be much more productive here than coming to an impasse and you resolving it by telling us how ignorant we are.

On the other hand denominational leaders and teachers have no such motivation. They can and do say anything they want to and if someone says a certain scholar says something different, do they acknowledge their error? Oh no! They say something like "scholars who have dedicated many years learning the original languages misinterpret Scripture!"

Again, I agree. I make every effort to avoid denominational leaders and their agendas. Preterism is not a denomination, it is centered on a method of interpretation.

Anonymous posters on forums like this usually follow exactly what their denominational leaders and teachers tell them

As far as I know we are all anonymous posters and I have no denominational leader. I hope we're all here to discuss our understanding of Scripture.

and if someone like me quotes from an accredited scholar guess what happens? Just read your post to find out.

I only object if you're using that scholar as some kind of authority. I'd rather read about and discuss your defense of Scripture, the true and ultimate authority.

 

[Der Alte]

It's probably a good idea, if you want to communicate with those of us who speak, read and write using the English language, to use those "good translations."

Have you been reading my posts? Where have I ever quoted entire passages in Greek or Hebrew without also quoting a credible translation. I usually only review a word or two from accredited lexcicons.

So, your problem is with people telling you what the Bible really means?

Now you got it! Especially when they do so by trying to explain what the English really means.

But you have no problem telling them what the Bible really means?

I don't unilaterally tell people what the Bible really means. I usually quote lexicons or historical sources.

And you already know what the Bible really means because you know what does and does not contradict the original languages?

Many things I do but others I check them as they arise. For example I was attending a military chapel a few years ago. The chaplain said "The Greek word here means 'X.'" I was fairly certain that he was wrong. I took out my PDA and confirmed it. My wife and I left and never went back.

And you think those who believe all Bible prophecy is fulfilled have not considered the original languages?

Many have not. Many cite various current "authorities" for their views.

Why do you think I or any other poster here has less than honorable intentions?

Many do not.

I think you assume way too much.

I assume very little. I rarely say anything that I have not researched myself.

By "Present company not excepted" are you referring to the Preterists here who just won't submit to folks like you who know what the Bible really means?

I don't unilaterally try to tell people what the Bible really means. I do quote from accredited sources such as lexicons and concordances and historical sources such as the early church fathers.

Please show us your ability to explain the Scriptures by interacting (not dictating) with us in our language.

Bintherdunthatgotthetshirtdon'tfit. Have you ever read something like a lexicon? The scholars don't give a lot of unsupported opinions and arguments but they make an assertion and show how that assertion is supported by historical sources.

Believe it or not I agree. Futurists and Preterists alike rely on good dependable translations produced by reliable scholars. But, their interpretations of Scripture will never be our standard of truth, nor should they be yours.

They're not, that is why I have lexicons, concordances, and other sources in my library.

Why not focus our discussion using what we agree to be reliable English versions of Scripture? If we come across what you believe to be an error in the translation, we can discuss that and move on.

That is what I do. Read my posts

That would be much more productive here than coming to an impasse and you resolving it by telling us how ignorant we are.

I have never said anyone here is ignorant. I point out errors, if that makes someone feel ignorant whose fault is that?

Again, I agree. I make every effort to avoid denominational leaders and their agendas. Preterism is not a denomination, it is centered on a method of interpretation.

Maybe not but it has its share of people recognized as leaders who get quoted quite often.

As far as I know we are all anonymous posters and I have no denominational leader. I hope we're all here to discuss our understanding of Scripture.

Excellent. That is what I do.

I only object if you're using that scholar as some kind of authority. I'd rather read about and discuss your defense of Scripture, the true and ultimate authority.

I'm certainly not authority and I don't recognize very many people here who are authorities. A bunch of random opinions are not really worth very much.

 

[A New World]

Now you got it! Especially when they do so by trying to explain what the English really means.

How about when they explain logical conclusions from the Scripture using good, reliable, English translations?

I'm certainly not authority and I don't recognize very many people here who are authorities. A bunch of random opinions are not really worth very much.

I agree, Scripture is the only authority and standard of truth.

I know what you mean about random opinions. But the more familiar we are with the Word the easier it is to identify the level of absurdity. I think the benefit of Christians sharing their opinions of Scripture is the same as it's always been. We can learn from each other. In fact, I think one of the problems of the modern church is the lack of interactive study and critical thinking.

The more we study and understand Scripture for ourselves the less likely we are to fall prey to those who take advantage of ignorance.

From this point on I will try to respectfully respond to any direct scriptural point you make. I will do my best to resist responding when you refer to ancient thought, creeds, councils, confessions, traditions or anything extra-biblical.

May God bless

 

[Der Alte]

How about when they explain logical conclusions from the Scripture using good, reliable, English translations?

I agree, Scripture is the only authority and standard of truth.

I know what you mean about random opinions. But the more familiar we are with the Word the easier it is to identify the level of absurdity. I think the benefit of Christians sharing their opinions of Scripture is the same as it's always been. We can learn from each other. In fact, I think one of the problems of the modern church is the lack of interactive study and critical thinking.

The more we study and understand Scripture for ourselves the less likely we are to fall prey to those who take advantage of ignorance.

From this point on I will try to respectfully respond to any direct scriptural point you make. I will do my best to resist responding when you refer to ancient thought, creeds, councils, confessions, traditions or anything extra-biblical.

May God bless

I'm not interested in wild eyed Preterist speculation positing that virtually every event in the OT is an analogy of some event in the NT and that NT event "B" MUST be interpreted as corresponding exactly with OT event "A" because similar language is used. Since you reject all Biblical scholarship, consider me outta here, I'm not wasting my time discussing preterist assumptions/presuppositions and speculation.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I'm not interested in wild eyed Preterist speculation....

You're just interested in wile eyed Futurist speculation, yes?

 

[Der Alte]

You're just interested in wile eyed Futurist speculation, yes?

Where have I ever posted anything that was speculation? OTOH preterists speculate that NT event "B" is the same as OT event "A" because similar language is used

 

[Evergreen48]

Woops, I posted under the wrong comment. Sorry, Boxer.

 

[A New World]

I'm not interested in wild eyed Preterist speculation positing that virtually every event in the OT is an analogy of some event in the NT and that NT event "B" MUST be interpreted as corresponding exactly with OT event "A" because similar language is used. Since you reject all Biblical scholarship, consider me outta here, I'm not wasting my time discussing preterist assumptions/presuppositions and speculation.

You're not interested in anything that's not your own opinion it seems. You quote other's opinions but only as they fit your assumptions.

And no, we don't consider the OT an analogy of events in the NT. We understand that Messiah and His apostles preached the imminent fulfillment of OT prophecies. We also understand that the carnal mindset set on the flesh and a literal physical fulfillment of prophecy missed the spiritual realities. And, those following their example continue in their error by adopting their flawed methods.

I will do as you wish and consider you outta here. I wish you well and I hope we continue to pray for each other. May God continue to bless the pursuit of truth.

 

[Evergreen48]

I'm not interested in wild eyed Preterist speculation positing that virtually every event in the OT is an analogy of some event in the NT and that NT event "B" MUST be interpreted as corresponding exactly with OT event "A" because similar language is used. Since you reject all Biblical scholarship, consider me outta here, I'm not wasting my time discussing preterist assumptions/presuppositions and speculation.

I'll try again.

You should be honest, Der. You're leaving because you have run out of places in this thread to insert the words, "assumptions " and "presuppositions".

 

[Jack Terrence]

OTOH preterists speculate that NT event "B" is the same as OT event "A" because similar language is used

Futurists do the same thing. The difference is in the timing only. The Preterists are true to the timing set forth in scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

I'll try again.

You should be honest, Der. You're leaving because you have run out of places in this thread to insert the words, "assumptions " and "presuppositions".

That in itself is a false assumption. When someone rejects all scholarship, and only wants to discuss their opinions, there is no point in continuing. I can just imagine going to a Dr's office and instead of medical scholarship I get some dood who practices medicine based on his own opinions.

 

[Jack Terrence]

That in itself is a false assumption. When someone rejects all scholarship, and only wants to discuss their opinions, there is no point in continuing. I can just imagine going to a Dr's office and instead of medical scholarship I get some dood who practices medicine based on his own opinions.

Much of scholarship is guided by tradition and not by the scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

Much of scholarship is guided by tradition and not by the scripture.

Nonsense! What is driven by tradition are the theories which lack scholarship. See my Dr. example above. This is the only discipline where anyone can blow off all the scholarship, pick up a Bible and virtually proclaim themself as expert.

 

[A New World]

Nonsense! What is driven by tradition are the theories which lack scholarship. See my Dr. example above. This is the only discipline where anyone can blow off all the scholarship, pick up a Bible and virtually proclaim themself as expert.

Don't you think for yourself? When one asks you a question do you immediately research how others have answered a similar question in the past? Don't you have personal knowledge of God and His Word? Or do think you are the Dr. in your scenario and all of us unlearned Preterists should come to you for answers?

Scholars were men who formed an educated opinion and shared it with others. But they were just men. Did they agree amongst themselves? Obviously not. We have entire denominations established due to differences between scholars. I've seen numbers from twenty to forty thousand denominations in Christianity alone. And you try to project this false idea that you know and represent some unified scholarly truth. Now that's nonsense! Even those considered to be scholars were all over the place. Certainly not unified.

Each believer has a duty and a responsibility to study God's Word. Men like you have no right to try to intimidate and discourage people who love God and desire to devote their time developing their understanding of Him through the study of Scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

Don't you think for yourself?

Yes!

When one asks you a question do you immediately research how others have answered a similar question in the past?

No!

Don't you have personal knowledge of God and His Word?

Yes!

Or do think you are the Dr. in your scenario and all of us unlearned Preterists should come to you for answers?

No and no! Where did you get the absurd idea that I thought I was a Dr. in any scenario.

Scholars were men who formed an educated opinion and shared it with others. But they were just men. Did they agree amongst themselves? Obviously not.

Irrelevant.

We have entire denominations established due to differences between scholars. I've seen numbers from twenty to forty thousand denominations in Christianity alone.

And there are many different preterist POVs.

And you try to project this false idea that you know and represent some unified scholarly truth. Now that's nonsense! Even those considered to be scholars were all over the place. Certainly not unified.

No I don't project that I represent anything and that scholars have differing opinions is irrelevant!

Each believer has a duty and a responsibility to study God's Word. Men like you have no right to try to intimidate and discourage people who love God and desire to devote their time developing their understanding of Him through the study of Scripture.

I agree that "each believer has a duty and a responsibility to study God's Word." I have never said anything which could by the wildest speculation be considered as intimidating or discouraging anyone. I do what most reasonable people do on this forum I state what I believe and provide lexical, grammatical, and historical evidence for those beliefs. When people disagree with me and state their own beliefs I do not consider it intimidating and discouraging.

 

[Evergreen48]

That in itself is a false assumption. When someone rejects all scholarship, and only wants to discuss their opinions, there is no point in continuing.I can just imagine going to a Dr's office and instead of medical scholarship I get some dood who practices medicine based on his own opinions.

You have a big imagination. Scholarship has nothing to do with understanding spiritual truths, and Boxer is correct when he says: "Much of scholarship is guided by tradition and not by the scripture." .

There is no paucity in the scriptural references that you have been given which point to the truth of what is called "preterism".

 

[A New World]

No and no! Where did you get the absurd idea that I thought I was a Dr. in any scenario.

This scenario:

I can just imagine going to a Dr's office and instead of medical scholarship I get some dood who practices medicine based on his own opinions.

It appears to me since you think you're the resident scholar we're the ones who base everything on our own opinions.

We have entire denominations established due to differences between scholars. I've seen numbers from twenty to forty thousand denominations in Christianity alone.

Yes!And there are many different preterist POVs.

I'm not using Preterist scholars as the standard of truth. I rely on Scripture alone as the standard. You, however, are attempting to make opinions of men the test of truth. They are notoriously unreliable.

No I don't project that I represent anything and that scholars have differing opinions is irrelevant!

The differing opinions of the scholars is what makes their opinions useless in determining truth. It's interesting to read them and get an idea of their thoughts at various points in their growth but they are not authorities as you try to present.

I agree that "each believer has a duty and a responsibility to study God's Word." I have never said anything which could by the wildest speculation be considered as intimidating or discouraging anyone. I do what most reasonable people do on this forum I state what I believe and provide lexical, grammatical, and historical evidence for those beliefs. When people disagree with me and state their own beliefs I do not consider it intimidating and discouraging.

Do you read your own posts? You continually tell Preterists that what they believe is nonsense because it's not what the majority of scholars believed. I don't remember you dealing with the multiple texts that express the imminent return of Christ in the NT, for example.

I repeat:

Why not focus our discussion using what we agree to be reliable English versions of Scripture? If we come across what you believe to be an error in the translation, we can discuss that and move on.

 

[Der Alte]

This scenario:

You evidently are not familiar with the use of analogy. Since you object to my use of "Dr." Here is another analogy, I can't imagine myself going to a lawyer's office and instead of legal scholarship I get some dood who practices law based on his own opinions. Theology is the only field where anyone can pick up a Bible and/or a Strong's concordance and consider themself an expert.

It appears to me since you think you're the resident scholar we're the ones who base everything on our own opinions.

I think no such thing! What would you call it when someone says e.g. that God called Israel "heaven and earth" in Isa 51:16, so in Matt 24 when Jesus says "the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" it is referring to the destruction of Israel

I'm not using Preterist scholars as the standard of truth. I rely on Scripture alone as the standard. You, however, are attempting to make opinions of men the test of truth. They are notoriously unreliable.

Wrong! Please show me where I have quoted the opinions of scholars. What I have done is quote historical evidence such as the early church fathers and language evidence such as Hebrew and Greek lexicons. see e.g. [post=65956253]Post #261[/post] and [post=65843918]Post #30[/post] this thread.

The differing opinions of the scholars is what makes their opinions useless in determining truth. It's interesting to read them and get an idea of their thoughts at various points in their growth but they are not authorities as you try to present.

That is why I don't read or quote commentaries or scholars expounding on their opinions without historical evidence.

Do you read your own posts? You continually tell Preterists that what they believe is nonsense because it's not what the majority of scholars believed.

Wrong! I tell them their 19th century and later preterist speculations are not supported by historical evidence.

I don't remember you dealing with the multiple texts that express the imminent return of Christ in the NT, for example. I repeat:

I have dealt extensively with the texts beginning with post #2 in this thread. See e.g. posts #6, 7, 11, 14.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is why I don't read or quote commentaries or scholars expounding on their opinions without historical evidence.

Wrong! I tell them their 19th century and later preterist speculations are not supported by historical evidence.

.

Do you view Josephus as a reliable historian?

And how many other historians wrote about the divine prophecied destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

Josephus may have actually been the first Full Preterist

http://www.christianforums.com/t7033640/#post58600534
Is Josephus considered a reliable Historian?

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

This is a rather interesting site [which I used to help harmonize Daniel/Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation with]....FASCINATING!

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation, if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible."
(Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason)

...........Our Lord proceeded, "And fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven." [6]-
Josephus has collected the chief of these portents together, and introduces his account by a reflection on the strangeness of that infatuation, which could induce his countrymen to give credit to impostors, and unfounded reports, whilst they disregarded the divine admonitions, confirmed, as he asserts they Were, by the following extraordinary signs :.........

Luke 19:41 And as He nears being aware the City He laments upon Her
42 saying "that if thou knew and thou even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes.
43 That shall be arriving days upon thee and thy enemies shall be casting up a siege-work to thee and shall be encompassing thee and pressing thee every which place.

..............The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover.............
　
.......The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins............


.
​

 

[Jack Terrence]

To Der Alter,

Jesus said that the hour of the resurrection "NOW IS."

25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and NOW is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

"Now is" means "now is,"

23 But the hour is coming, and NOW is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Did the hour for the true worship which is in spirit and in truth begin? Or, is it in our indefinite future?



Btw, I just became a grandpa. Click on camera icon left above to see picture of my new born granddaughter Raven.