Inconsistencies in the preterist view?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by npetreley


I realize you weren't asking me, but here are some:

Psalm 2:

quote:
6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of the Lord : He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father.


Revelation 14:1 implies it, since the reference is to Mount Zion and the 144,000 with Him are those protected during the time of wrath (in other words, they are living people on earth).

quote:
Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.


Isaiah 9:

quote:
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness


Can you interpret these spiritually? Sure. But they could also be literal.


Hi npetreley :wave: Well not according to my Bible. My Bible says that Mount Zion is the city of the Living God the heavenly Jerusalem But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jesusalem, to an innumerable company of nagels (Hebrews 12:22). It looks like you futurist have pie on your face again. There is just no way you can interpret this language to be literal.
 
Upvote 0

gwyyn

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2002
632
1
45
Texas
Visit site
✟8,571.00
Faith
Christian
PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent failure of these prophesies to come true has led to skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by maintaining that these prophesies did, in fact, have a first century fulfillment.

Hmm this above statement sais it all to why preterist are wrong in my opinion. It was pulled off the below link, on the outline of preterism.
http://www.planetpreterist.com/
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70
Originally posted by npetreley

Hi npetreley :wave: Well not according to my Bible. My Bible says that Mount Zion is the city of the Living God the heavenly Jerusalem But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jesusalem, to an innumerable company of nagels (Hebrews 12:22). It looks like you futurist have pie on your face again. There is just no way you can interpret this language to be literal.

You're right - there is no way to interpret Hebrews 12:22 as literal. And IMO there is no way to interpret the Mount Zion in Revelation 14:1 as anything but literal. I doubt if you'll agree, but that's how I see it.

But what strikes me odd about your rebuttal is that it makes it sound like if you can find one place in the Bible that refers to Zion as symbolic or a heavenly dwelling, then ALL references to Zion must be interpreted that way. Surely you don't mean that, do you?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by gwyyn
PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent failure of these prophesies to come true has led to skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by maintaining that these prophesies did, in fact, have a first century fulfillment.

Hmm this above statement sais it all to why preterist are wrong in my opinion.

Yeouch.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley


You're right - there is no way to interpret Hebrews 12:22 as literal. And IMO there is no way to interpret the Mount Zion in Revelation 14:1 as anything but literal. I doubt if you'll agree, but that's how I see it.

But what strikes me odd about your rebuttal is that it makes it sound like if you can find one place in the Bible that refers to Zion as symbolic or a heavenly dwelling, then ALL references to Zion must be interpreted that way. Surely you don't mean that, do you?

Let me mack sure I understand you right here. Are you saying there are two Mount Zions in the Bible. One literal and the other spiritial if so where is the scripture for that? My scripture clearly proofs it is heavenly. Where is your proof that it is earthly :scratch:

Remember anyone can point to a verse and say it means this, or that, when in fact, there is not one word about the earth.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by gwyyn
PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent failure of these prophesies to come true has led to skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by maintaining that these prophesies did, in fact, have a first century fulfillment.

Hmm this above statement sais it all to why preterist are wrong in my opinion. It was pulled off the below link, on the outline of preterism.
http://www.planetpreterist.com/

That is just one blind opinion among many. It is your dilemma.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Mount Zion is a real place. It's the one of the hills on which Jerusalem was built. It was and is still used to refer to Jerusalem itself. Look it up.

We are talk about Mount Zion that is in the Bible. God's Mount Zion. The one that Abraham long for.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Um, yeah...that's the one. Didn't you know that "Zion" is an idealized concept based on a real place? So it is undeniably firstly an earthly place, although it also has ideological connotations as well. The Bible doesn't say anywhere, "Mount Zion is a geographical location," but then again, it doesn't state that Israel is a geographical location - you're just supposed to know that. You did, didn't you? :)
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Um, yeah...that's the one. Didn't you know that "Zion" is an idealized concept based on a real place? So it is undeniably firstly an earthly place, although it also has ideological connotations as well. The Bible doesn't say anywhere, "Mount Zion is a geographical location," but then again, it doesn't state that Israel is a geographical location - you're just supposed to know that. You did, didn't you? :)

Well, it comes pretty close to saying it's a geographical location. In several places it refers to Zion, the city of David, in a context that lets you know it's not talking about a heavenly Zion.

2 Samuel 7

"Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by gwyyn

PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent failure of these prophesies to come true has led to skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by maintaining that these prophesies did, in fact, have a first century fulfillment.

Hmm this above statement sais it all to why preterist are wrong in my opinion. It was pulled off the below link, on the outline of preterism.
http://www.planetpreterist.com/

Gwyyn,

I remember reading those words at that site a few weeks ago, and it does say a lot about the "seed" of preterism. We reep what we sow. Preterism is the harvest of doubters.

If a preterist can be convinced that Christ did NOT return in 70AD, then that same preterist will tell you Jesus was a false prophet and deny Christ. They're entire faith in Jesus is based solely upon their eschatology. Take away their eschatology, and you have robbed them of the very foundation of their belief. A foundation built upon skepticism.

" 1st Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
 
Upvote 0

jenlu

Active Member
May 29, 2002
246
2
Visit site
✟625.00
Sounds to me like there entire faith is based solely on the Word of God...If one could convince a preterist that Christ did not return in 70 AD then they would have had to done it with scripture which would in turn confirm their consistency with the Word...I've heard some try to poke holes in their beliefs, and some have done it a little, but not to a point that I (as an outsider to both beliefs looking in) would completely disregard anything they say...they make points that are rational and convincing on many fronts...

I think it's funny...If they were to argue without scripture as back up, people would slam them for not being scriptural in their argument, but since they use scripture to provide evidence for their argument, people bash them for twisting it...as long as it doesn't line up with what one believes...
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
49
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟22,170.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Preterism is the harvest of doubters.

If a preterist can be convinced that Christ did NOT return in 70AD, then that same preterist will tell you Jesus was a false prophet and deny Christ. They're entire faith in Jesus is based solely upon their eschatology. Take away their eschatology, and you have robbed them of the very foundation of their belief. A foundation built upon skepticism.


Nope, nope, and nope. You guys just don't get it.:( :)

Our entire faith in Jesus is based solely upon what Jesus said and did. That's the bottom line. The skeptics are found in the ranks of atheists and unbelievers; preterists are neither.

Good stuff, Jenlu!

In Christ,

Acts6:5
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jenlu

Active Member
May 29, 2002
246
2
Visit site
✟625.00
Auntie...your beginning to make little sense...

Let me ask this....Doesn't the early church use scripture to back up their beliefs...and in turn, since you believe what supposedly early church people believed, you back up your beliefs with scripture...at least I hope so...

also...

doesn't the Holy Spirit use scripture...

I would sway one from depending on any man (including organized religion of any kind) for their interpretation of anything let alone scripture...
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
49
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟22,170.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Auntie,

Unless you are a member of a religious group claiming "apostolic authority" (RCC, LDS, etc.) then you are interpreting the scriptures on your own. The "authority" of the early Church concerning some teachings can be tested and revised over time (ask Martin Luther). And of course I agee that no interpretation should take place apart from the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Acts6:5
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by jenlu

Let me ask this....Doesn't the early church use scripture to back up their beliefs...and in turn, since you believe what supposedly early church people believed, you back up your beliefs with scripture

I depend upon the early churches INTERPRETATION of scripture, Jenlu. Mainly the Nicene Creed, which was written to clear up a lot of false interpretations.

When people divorce themselves from the very basics of the Nicene Creed, they are walking on thin ice.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.