How I came to embrace Preterism.

[gort]

When Have I said that?



Again, you attribute this comment to me. Can you quote me on it?

P70 quotes:

.....The timing of the prophecy is just as important as the events of the prophecy. Think about that for a moment. What purpose would it serve if God gave a specific prophecy of judgment to a wicked nation, telling them that He would fulfill it within a specific time frame, and warned those people of the coming judgment, if the time passages (and the whole prophecy itself for that matter) were actually for some other generation of people? What purpose would the warnings serve the nation to whom it was originally given? To be quite honest, it wouldn’t serve any purpose at all. How would that nation interpret the character and nature of God? That is to say, how would those people view God if He swore that He would judge them at a certain time, and then He didn’t follow through with His judgment? What would they think of God? That He can’t be trusted? That He speaks empty words and threats? That He lied?

........ If the futurist is correct, then we might as well be atheists because God Himself cannot even be trusted, and then we are lost. Why? Because, if God is dishonest concerning when He would fulfill His word, how do we know He was honest concerning the doctrines of Grace? Or anything else for that matter? It’s simple. We don’t. So, again, this is much more than just a difference of interpretation. Our salvation depends on God keeping every aspect of His word. Including when He was to fulfill it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19344361&postcount=360

<><

 

[parousia70]

<><

Ahhh, you mean my quote of Jack Gillespie's article.

That was Jack writing, not me, but Fine. I did quote it.
You quoted a big chunk of his argument there.
What do you find wrong with His reasoning?

Would you agree the legitamacy of our faith is dependant on God keeping His word?

Would you say the Biblical record of the giving and fulfilment of prophesy is at 100% success?

Meaning, Where the Bible records the giving of, and ALSO records the fulfilment of, prophesy, Does God alter ANY aspect of the prophesy's details as He fulfills it?

Are there any prophesies that the Bible records as fulfilled, that were not fulfilled WHEN the prophesy stated they would be?

Where?

Where is your precident to say that a prophesy, given by God to come to pass within a certain period of time, is not bound by that God ordained time frame?

Do you disagree that the timing of a prophesy is equally important as the events prophesied?

Why?

I guess I'm unclear as to what you find so offensive?

Neither I (nor Jack) are saying you, or anyone who shares your view, is INTENTIONALLY calling Jesus/God a Liar/false prophet, we're merely asserting that those are the logical implications of your professed view, when held up to scriptural precident.

There IS a difference.
If you are unclear to the difference, I'd be happy to elaborate upon it.

Now, if you don't believe those implications can be rightly drawn from your view, why don't you take Jacks article, because it is a very thorough, step by step exegesis, and show just exactly which step(s) he takes you believe are off the mark and why.

That apporach WOULD be edifying.

 

[Tawhano]

Neither I (nor Jack) are saying you, or anyone who shares your view, is INTENTIONALLY calling Jesus/God a Liar/false prophet, we're merely asserting that those are the logical implications of your professed view, when held up to scriptural precident.

There IS a difference.
If you are unclear to the difference, I'd be happy to elaborate upon it.

I’d like to hear that difference in your view. So what you and Jack propose is that the logical implications of anyone who doesn’t see it your way is that they are calling Jesus/God a liar? Who defines this logical implication?

Now, if you don't believe those implications can be rightly drawn from your view, why don't you take Jacks article, because it is a very thorough, step by step exegesis, and show just exactly which step(s) he takes you believe are off the mark and why.

Which article is this please, I would like to read it myself.

 

[EchoPneuma]

I’d like to hear that difference in your view. So what you and Jack propose is that the logical implications of anyone who doesn’t see it your way is that they are calling Jesus/God a liar? Who defines this logical implication?



Which article is this please, I would like to read it myself.

Here tiz: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/Odyssey/o-gillespie_02.html

 

[EchoPneuma]

Ahhh, you mean my quote of Jack Gillespie's article.

That was Jack writing, not me, but Fine. I did quote it.
You quoted a big chunk of his argument there.
What do you find wrong with His reasoning?

Would you agree the legitamacy of our faith is dependant on God keeping His word?

Would you say the Biblical record of the giving and fulfilment of prophesy is at 100% success?

Meaning, Where the Bible records the giving of, and ALSO records the fulfilment of, prophesy, Does God alter ANY aspect of the prophesy's details as He fulfills it?

Are there any prophesies that the Bible records as fulfilled, that were not fulfilled WHEN the prophesy stated they would be?

Where?

Where is your precident to say that a prophesy, given by God to come to pass within a certain period of time, is not bound by that God ordained time frame?

Do you disagree that the timing of a prophesy is equally important as the events prophesied?

Why?

I guess I'm unclear as to what you find so offensive?

Showing the clear implications of disagreeing with Jesus.

Neither I (nor Jack) are saying you, or anyone who shares your view, is INTENTIONALLY calling Jesus/God a Liar/false prophet, we're merely asserting that those are the logical implications of your professed view, when held up to scriptural precident.

Exactly what I've been saying for pages now.

There IS a difference.
If you are unclear to the difference, I'd be happy to elaborate upon it.

Can I watch?

Now, if you don't believe those implications can be rightly drawn from your view, why don't you take Jacks article, because it is a very thorough, step by step exegesis, and show just exactly which step(s) he takes you believe are off the mark and why.

That apporach WOULD be edifying.

Yes, it indeed would be.

 

[gort]

P70 quotes:

Would you agree the legitamacy of our faith is dependant on God keeping His word?

Absolutely.

Would you say the Biblical record of the giving and fulfilment of prophesy is at 100% success?

Meaning, Where the Bible records the giving of, and ALSO records the fulfilment of, prophesy, Does God alter ANY aspect of the prophesy's details as He fulfills it?

Not that I can think of.

Where is your precident to say that a prophesy, given by God to come to pass within a certain period of time, is not bound by that God ordained time frame?

There are some prophecies that are within a time frame, and there are some that are not. Moses, speaking of the Christ, would be one that had no time frame.

Jesus, speaking of not knowing the day of His return would be another.

Neither I (nor Jack) are saying you, or anyone who shares your view, is INTENTIONALLY calling Jesus/God a Liar/false prophet, we're merely asserting that those are the logical implications of your professed view, when held up to scriptural precident.

Again, it goes to your interpretation of certain Scripture that I, or others cannot come to agreement upon. Add upon the disagreement with one liners, such as preterists being called "heretics", and the lines of communication are at a disadvantage from the get-go. Nothing fruitful come of these things.


Peace...

<><

 

[gort]

Rev 21:16 And the city lies four-square, and the length is as large as the breadth. And he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand stadia. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Rev 21:17 And he measured its wall, a hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel.
Rev 21:18 And the foundation of its wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass.
Rev 21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city had been adorned with every precious stone. The first foundation, jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald;
Rev 21:20 the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprasus; the eleventh, hyacinth; the twelfth, amethyst.
Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls. Respectively, each one of the gates was one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, as transparent glass.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.


Some have said here that the fulfillment of this prophecy has come true?

As there are measurements of walls and foundations, and the city being roughly 1500 miles cubed, I have to wonder, where is it?

One of the interesting aspects of it was when I learned that the Space Shuttle orbits about 250 miles above the earth.

Is this also a spiritual event?


<><

 

[parousia70]

There are some prophecies that are within a time frame, and there are some that are not. Moses, speaking of the Christ, would be one that had no time frame.

Fine.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerned with the prophesies that carry no God ordained time frame. I stipulate to the fact that not all do. However, The ones that do carry a time limit , or "expiration date" if you will, must conform to that time frame, correct?

Jesus, speaking of not knowing the day of His return would be another.

Can you explain How Jesus not knowing the day would necessarily prevent him from knowing the generation?

I see no reason for such an assumption.
Especially in light of His own clear testimony that He did know the generation.

Again, it goes to your interpretation of certain Scripture that I, or others cannot come to agreement upon.

And again I request you take Jack Gillespie's article (which is a very thorough, step by step exegesis describing, with great clarity, why and how these implications are deduced from the futurist view) and show where he is off the mark and why.

It can't be that difficult for you to do that,
Can it?

 

[parousia70]

Who defines this logical implication?

Scripture does.
If you want, substitute the word "scriptural" for logical.
It works the same in this context.

 

[parousia70]

I’d like to hear that difference in your view.

Sure,
We're being accused of claiming that futurists, with willfull premeditation, are purposely calling Jesus a Liar and False Prophet.

The difference is, we are actually claiming that futurists, without knowing they are implying it, either by being uninformed or misinformed, hold a view that, based on the scriptural and historical record, implies that Jesus did not tell the truth about the "when" of His coming when He spoke of the certainty of it's relative nearness to and for those alive in the apostolic generation.

Knowing the implications of a Jesus who lied, the futurist must champion the notion that time limits Jesus placed on His coming are not to be interprated literally, but instead are to be interprated with "spiritual elasticity", effectively rendering them meaningLESS.

The trouble is,(and Jack's article does a great Job spelling this fact out) the Futurist has no Biblical precident for this type of allegorization of prophetic time.

Again, THAT'S the difference.

 

[gort]

P70 quotes:

Fine.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerned with the prophesies that carry no God ordained time frame. I stipulate to the fact that not all do. However, The ones that do carry a time limit , or "expiration date" if you will, must conform to that time frame, correct?

Why limit the discussion? There are still many that do not specify a particular time. However, if God has said a certain date, then a certain date it is.

For instance, when Joshua led the people across the river, it is said then that all things were fulfilled at that time. How many can we count, and how many had actual dates applied to them? Rhetorical questions.

Can you explain How Jesus not knowing the day would necessarily prevent him from knowing the generation?

As Jesus said He did'nt know the day or hour, how do we know the exact generation? The term "This generation" could have referred to the current generation He lived in, and it could also have reference to a possible future generation.

I see no reason for such an assumption.
Especially in light of His own clear testimony that He did know the generation.

That is still your opinion. Evidence from absence still does'nt make opinions valid.

And again I request you take Jack Gillespie's article (which is a very thorough, step by step exegesis describing, with great clarity, why and how these implications are deduced from the futurist view) and show where he is off the mark and why.

I looked it over some. I'm sorry, but a lot of assumptions are there along with a proof texting. The article covered 2nd Peter only.

Unless the entire context of the bible is used, anybody can proof text to make anything seem valid.

The entire context of the bible shows the creation of man, mans fall into rebellion, God's plan for redemption, and in the end, the finality of all evil to be banished to the LOf.

But preterism shows no end to it, if I understand correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

How many White Throne Judgements are there going to be?

How many marriage banquets of the Lamb of God will there be?

How is it, if the devil, the false prophet and the beast have power to deceive today if they are in the LOF?

WHy is there still deception in the world if satan has no power from the LOF?

If all prophecy is complete, then when did Jesus really have all enemies as a footstool?

Have all created creatures bent their knees and proclaimed Jesus as Lord? Whether in joy or sorrow? When was this?

You really have no historical claim to much of this. While Josephus might be the holy grail for the preterist, the one paragraph written about strange things gives little verification for biblical truths.

Tacitus would have been 13 or 14 years old at 70ad. He was probably still in northern Italy with his mum and pops getting tucked into bed every nite after hot cocoa and toast . His story is'nt first hand. It's second hand, and embellished at that. It was'nt even written till about 105.

Where is the New Jerusalem? It has physical measurements. Where is it? Or are those "spiritual" too?




<><

 

[parousia70]

Why limit the discussion? There are still many that do not specify a particular time. However, if God has said a certain date, then a certain date it is.

Excellent

As Jesus said He did'nt know the day or hour, how do we know the exact generation?

Does the fact that a pregnant woman dosen't know in advance the day or hour she will give birth prevent her from knowing it'll surely happen within about 40 weeks form conception?

Sorry, I see no basis for your assumption.

The term "This generation" could have referred to the current generation He lived in, and it could also have reference to a possible future generation.

Not when held up to scriptural precident.
Every time Jesus used the term "this generation", He meant the then contemporary one. Every time.

That is still your opinion. Evidence from absence still does'nt make opinions valid.

Scriptural precident is not "evidence form absense".

I looked it over some. I'm sorry, but a lot of assumptions are there along with a proof texting. The article covered 2nd Peter only.

The article demonstrated, beyond question, that prophetic time is given to be understood in the plain, literal sense by how time relates to man.

The simple fact is, Jesus and the apostles all taught that His coming was to take place "soon, shortly", was "at hand, about to take place", would happen "before some of them had died", indeed before they had finished going through all of Israels cities... for a quick look at the tip of the iceberg of NT prophetic time statements concerning the 1st century coming of Christ in His fathers glory, see this Link.

But preterism shows no end to it, if I understand correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

I will next post... gotta hit the sack..
nitey nite

 

[Tawhano]

Scripture does.
If you want, substitute the word "scriptural" for logical.
It works the same in this context.

The trouble is,(and Jack's article does a great Job spelling this fact out) the Futurist has no Biblical precident for this type of allegorization of prophetic time.

So I was correct in assuming that you and Jack have the finally say in just what the scriptures say then?

 

[stauron]

If all prophecy is complete, then when did Jesus really have all enemies as a footstool?

Have all created creatures bent their knees and proclaimed Jesus as Lord? Whether in joy or sorrow? When was this?

You really have no historical claim to much of this. While Josephus might be the holy grail for the preterist, the one paragraph written about strange things gives little verification for biblical truths.

Tacitus would have been 13 or 14 years old at 70ad. He was probably still in northern Italy with his mum and pops getting tucked into bed every nite after hot cocoa and toast . His story is'nt first hand. It's second hand, and embellished at that. It was'nt even written till about 105.

Where is the New Jerusalem? It has physical measurements. Where is it? Or are those "spiritual" too?




<><

This is really the meat of the argument. The author of Hebrews addresses the New Jerusalem point. Notice that he specifically contrasts the ability to touch the old covenant with the reality that we have come to in the new covenant. Mount Zion, the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem and the saints are the same thing. It is the Body of Christ. So, it is "spiritual". I know you aren't trying to disparage the spiritual, but it is a valid and real fulfillment.

12:18 For you have not come to something that can be touched, to a burning fire and darkness and gloom and a whirlwind 12:19 and the blast of a trumpet and a voice uttering words such that those who heard begged to hear no more. 12:20 For they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.” 12:21 In fact, the scene was so terrifying that Moses said, “I shudder with fear.” 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the assembly 12:23 and congregation of the firstborn, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous, who have been made perfect, 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of something better than Abel’s does.

So, why is some physical, historically described event so critical to validating promises that most agree are spiritual in nature? How would secular historians even know? Not to mention the fact that most prophecies were not fulfilled in a way that the hearers expected at the time of the prophecy. Go ahead and point out a few prophecies that meet the requirement that you are claiming for these. In fact, some of the "prophecies" that the NT authors use to claim Jesus' messiahship are not even obvious prophecies. Is the requirement for fulfillment something inspired that says "this fulfilled this prophecy"? How many examples do you have of that?

My point is that 70ad and the consumation of the ages matches biblical patterns of fulfillment and the rest is just haggling.

 

[parousia70]

So I was correct in assuming that you and Jack have the finally say in just what the scriptures say then?

Of course not Taw, don't be silly.
I offer my understanding up for correction and reproof all the time.

On this thread alone I have repeatedly challenged those of you who disagree with my position (and the position spelled out in Jack's Article) to dissect it, step by step, and demonstrate which step(s) are off the mark and why.

So far , no takers.

You up to it?

 

[gort]

P70 quotes:

Does the fact that a pregnant woman dosen't know in advance the day or hour she will give birth prevent her from knowing it'll surely happen within about 40 weeks form conception?

Sorry, I see no basis for your assumption.

Then a correct understanding of the parable of the fig tree would be needed.

The article demonstrated, beyond question, that prophetic time is given to be understood in the plain, literal sense by how time relates to man.

The simple fact is, Jesus and the apostles all taught that His coming was to take place "soon, shortly", was "at hand, about to take place", would happen "before some of them had died", indeed before they had finished going through all of Israels cities... for a quick look at the tip of the iceberg of NT prophetic time statements concerning the 1st century coming of Christ in His fathers glory, see this Link.

If, as the preterist would like me to believe, that all these things had come to pass, then I am obliged to look at what some of the early church fathers had to say. I would look specifically at Polycarp and Ignatius. They were students of John. John would have certainly taught them correctly as to what had happened. I might also look to Clement.

Is it worth my time to do this?

thanx

<><

 

[parousia70]

The entire context of the bible shows the creation of man, mans fall into rebellion, God's plan for redemption, and in the end, the finality of all evil to be banished to the LOf.

But preterism shows no end to it, if I understand correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

No end to what?
the existance of Sin and Evil?

Are you an annhilationist or universalist?
Only through universalism or annhilationism do you come to an end game that includes the "end" of the existance of all sin and Evil.

Is that your position?

How many White Throne Judgements are there going to be?

When does Jesus relinquish his role as Judge?

How many marriage banquets of the Lamb of God will there be?

One, eternal.

How is it, if the devil, the false prophet and the beast have power to deceive today if they are in the LOF?

Again, universalism and annhilationism are the only viewpoints that allow the non-elect to share in Christ's victory over, and be free from Sin, Evil,the devil, etc.....

The rest of us must agree that the non-elect will never be free of the Devil's influence, no matter what location the devil resides.

WHy is there still deception in the world if satan has no power from the LOF?

See above.

If all prophecy is complete, then when did Jesus really have all enemies as a footstool?

I have not claimed all prophesy is complete, so I'll let someone who has answer that.

Have all created creatures bent their knees and proclaimed Jesus as Lord? Whether in joy or sorrow? When was this?

Show me the scripture that requires this to be a one time event instead of an eternal reality. Do not all eventually have to stand before the Judge? and what about amputees? How will they "bend their knees" when the time comes?, or, do you allow for a certain degree of "spiritual licence"?

You really have no historical claim to much of this. While Josephus might be the holy grail for the preterist, the one paragraph written about strange things gives little verification for biblical truths.

Josephus is indeed fascinating, but certainly not necessary for the preterist position to be correct.

The apostolic record is ample proof.

 

[gort]

Stauron quotes:

This is really the meat of the argument. The author of Hebrews addresses the New Jerusalem point. Notice that he specifically contrasts the ability to touch the old covenant with the reality that we have come to in the new covenant. Mount Zion, the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem and the saints are the same thing. It is the Body of Christ. So, it is "spiritual". I know you aren't trying to disparage the spiritual, but it is a valid and real fulfillment.

I'm not trying to disparage the spiritual at all. I understand the Kingdom of Heaven within us.

My point is that 70ad and the consumation of the ages matches biblical patterns of fulfillment and the rest is just haggling.

I'm not really disagreeing with prophecies stated that were fulfilled. If that is the definition of a partial preterist, then I are one.

But if I'm to believe that the consummation of all evil is complete at 70ad, then I have an entire world to look at and say, "nope, Has happened yet."

The best picture I can give of this is from Rev, where we have the New heaven and new earth physically there, and outside are the harlots....etc. The idolators and such are outside in the LOF, eternally tormented. There are no redeemed outside, no christians walking amongst the unregenerate.

That is where ALL things are rendered to God, His Justice complete, His Glory is praised, His great Mercy is shown to all creation, the enemies of Jesus are under His feet, and all knees are bent, either in joy or sorrow.

This is the meat of the arguement.



<><

 

[EchoPneuma]

If, as the preterist would like me to believe, that all these things had come to pass, then I am obliged to look at what some of the early church fathers had to say. I would look specifically at Polycarp and Ignatius. They were students of John. John would have certainly taught them correctly as to what had happened. I might also look to Clement.

Is it worth my time to do this?

thanx

<><

So the understanding of fallible men and their writings are more important to you than what Jesus and the apostles say?

What I find interesting is that before 70AD, pretty much ALL the apostles talked about in their epistles was for their readers to WATCH, LOOK FOR, PRAY FOR and EXPECT the second coming of Jesus. It's spoken of over and over again...telling them it was "at hand"..."close"..."quickly"...."near" etc.

Yet, AFTER 70 AD.....Polycarp NOR Ignatius even MENTIONS Jesus returning a second time. If it hadn't happened yet....why didn't they go on in the same way talking about it and urging their readers to look forward to it....just like the apostles did? If it was "near" and "at hand" when the apostles wrote before 70AD, wouldn't it have been even NEARER and CLOSER AT HAND when Ignatius and Polycarp wrote after 70AD? So if it hadn't happened yet, why didn't they go on and on about it...urging their readers to look forward to it and pray for it to come and telling them that it was even nearer than when the apostles spoke about it? Yet, they don't even speak of it.

WHY?

Because they knew it had already happened. So they speak like men who have realized that Jesus has already established His kingdom, is ALREADY living among them...has already gathered the elect, has already resurrected the OT saints. THey proclaim the spiritual realities that they know have already occurred. There would be no reason for them to go on and on about the second coming the way the apostles did....IF it was a past event.....but if it wasn't a past event.....then why didn't they ever talk about it as a future event?

Yet Ignatius says "The Son was with the father at the beginning and HAS APPEARED AT THE END". And he uses the PAST TENSE....".HAS appeared at the end"....not "will appear at the end". This doesn't sound like a man who is waiting for Jesus to appear a second time in the future. It sounds like a man who KNOWS that Jesus HAD ALREADY appeared at the END of the Jewish age.

 

[parousia70]

But if I'm to believe that the consummation of all evil is complete at 70ad, then I have an entire world to look at and say, "nope, Has happened yet."

Again, you are championing either a universalist or annhilationist view here.
I'm not sure which however.

The best picture I can give of this is from Rev, where we have the New heaven and new earth physically there, and outside are the harlots....etc. The idolators and such are outside in the LOF, eternally tormented. There are no redeemed outside, no christians walking amongst the unregenerate.

Who then are the "thirsty" that the spirit and the Bride are calling out to from inside the city to "come drink freely of the water of life", if, as I understand your view, no more can come in?