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.
Since my last one was not refuted, I thought I would go a different direction.
How is that unbiblical? You made the claim. Back it up.
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up n
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.
Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.
FWIW, you've mentioned Titus more than any pretrerist I've ever heard. I have to wonder who has the actual obsession.They are obsessed with speaking about Titus
Fairly significant year in Christian history, wouldn't you say?and AD70
LIke this one?Your posts are also devoid of Scripture.
Evasive? You’re the one who made claims about preterism, which is what the thread is about. Reread the OP, if you aren’t sure. My inquiries are simple. Defend what you say is true. If you cannot, then why should a preterist engage arguments with no substance?Your evasive posts are a classic case-in-point. They are obsessed with speaking about Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. Your posts are also devoid of Scripture. You reinforce my argument.
A charge that you you've often repeated but never shown to be true.Your evasive posts are a classic case-in-point. They are obsessed with speaking about Titus and AD70
What would you like to share on that topic? I'd be keen to hear it.instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world.
Here's some:Your posts are also devoid of Scripture.
A charge that you you've often repeated but never shown to be true.
What would you like to share on that topic? I'd be keen to hear it.
Here's some:
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Now, were these verses written for the edification of God, or for that of the "His servants", to whom the letter was sent?
If for God, why was the letter necessary, since God Himself must be the Author if we accept this Revelation as prophecy?
If for His servants, then why would He choose to tell them that the events of which He was to warn them "must shortly come to pass" and that "the time is at hand", since the events being warned of warning would not occur in their lifetimes.
It boots nothing to claim that it was written in God's reckoning of time, since "God's time" could have no meaning for mortal men whose reckoning of time is altogether different. But if the warning is given using God's reckoning of time, it was no warnng at all, since the events foretold would not actually occur until at least two thousand years had passed (which thing God would obviously know anyway.)
Right out the gate you have a serious problem if you insist that the Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return, and the "God's time" response is simply an attempt to evade that fact.
To attribute the coming of Titus in AD70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the "end of all things" is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”
Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”
As Eric said, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.
Peter informs us that “end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of ALL things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’ Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.
The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.
In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.
Ah yes, seems you’ve changed your Tune and acknowledge that “near” really does mean near or imminent. So you’ve now got to double down on the ol’ “God’s time” argument, effectively rendering the time statements given by Jesus and the apostles as completely useless.
At first your argument was “near” doesn’t mean “imminent” it means “approaching”. Now it’s, “near” means near in “God’s Time”……..
So when Jesus said “when you see all things know that he is near at the very door”, it means absolutely nothing because “near” could be thousands of years.
I have never insisted that Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return. Where did you get that?A charge that you you've often repeated but never shown to be true.
What would you like to share on that topic? I'd be keen to hear it.
Here's some:
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Now, were these verses written for the edification of God, or for that of the "His servants", to whom the letter was sent?
If for God, why was the letter necessary, since God Himself must be the Author if we accept this Revelation as prophecy?
If for His servants, then why would He choose to tell them that the events of which He was to warn them "must shortly come to pass" and that "the time is at hand", since the events being warned of warning would not occur in their lifetimes.
It boots nothing to claim that it was written in God's reckoning of time, since "God's time" could have no meaning for mortal men whose reckoning of time is altogether different. But if the warning is given using God's reckoning of time, it was no warnng at all, since the events foretold would not actually occur until at least two thousand years had passed (which thing God would obviously know anyway.)
Right out the gate you have a serious problem if you insist that the Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return, and the "God's time" response is simply an attempt to evade that fact.
This relates to the time preceding the coming of Christ - when heaven and earth will really pass away.
Right, but if near, In relation to eschatology, only ever means near in “God’s time” which could be thousands of years in human time, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:33 is completely useless.
Ah, so you're back to beinhg a partial preterist again?I have never insisted that Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return. Where did you get that?
Really? What information would "the time is at hand" impart to a human reader when it's based on a scale of time where it may mean "tommorow afternoon" or it may mean "in 2000+ years"?I don't agree.
We should all be partial preterists and partial futurists. Revelation, like other Scriptures, teaches about both past and future events. The problem is: most Preterists are so fixated with AD70 they fail to see the many references pertaining to Christ's coming and the end. That is all they want to talk about. Most Futurists fail to recognize fulfilled Scripture and dump it all at the second coming. The biblical balance is seeing both.Ah, so you're back to beinhg a partial preterist again?
Jesus gives an example of nearness from a human perspective in Luke 21:30-33. He gives an earthly illustration on nearness. The wording and context are clear and indisputable. He said in Luke 21:30-33: “Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.”Really? What information would "the time is at hand" impart to a human reader when it's based on a scale of time where it may mean "tommorow afternoon" or it may mean "in 2000+ years"?
Yes, most of them are talking about a certainty, but some of them are not even talking about the bodily return of Christ at the end of the age.How do you make the verses I quoted in the post #45 compatible with your view?
The statements there do not seem to be about just a possibility, at all. They seem certain.
Are you somehow not able to understand that scripture sometimes speaks of time from man's perspective and sometimes from God's perspective?Ah yes, seems you’ve changed your Tune and acknowledge that “near” really does mean near or imminent. So you’ve now got to double down on the ol’ “God’s time” argument, effectively rendering the time statements given by Jesus and the apostles as completely useless.
At first your argument was “near” doesn’t mean “imminent” it means “approaching”. Now it’s, “near” means near in “God’s Time”……..
So when Jesus said “when you see all things know that he is near at the very door”, it means absolutely nothing because “near” could be thousands of years.
You are mistaken about who Peter wrote his letters to. He was addressing both Jew and Gentile Christian exiles. It wasn't only Jewish Christians in Israel who were exiled. There were also Gentile Christians like Cornelius and his family who lived in Israel and were exiled out of the country. Peter was addressing them as well. Yes, Peter's priority was preaching to the Jews, but did you somehow forget that he did also preach to Gentiles like Cornelius and his family?Peter never said the scoffers didn’t understand near should be understood as “God’s time”. Peter compares them to the scoffers of Noah’s day. Just as the pre diluvian heavens and earth were destroyed by water, so too would their present heavens and earth be destroyed by fire. The prediluvian scoffers also scoffed at Noah. It is this that they overlook, as their present heavens and earth were to be destroyed by fire. This has nothing to do with the scoffers misunderstanding “near”
Peter, instead, exhorts his audience that 1,000 years is like a day, AND a day is like 1,000 years, for the purpose of more coming to repentance - ie the Hebrews coming to repentance. Audience relevance = Hebrews amongst the diaspora. To the Jew first. Peters audience, in his epistles, was the Hebrews. God was being patient so that the hebrews, his chosen people, would come to repentance. Was there possibly some huge event, literally near the timing of of 1st and 2nd Peter, where many Hebrews would be judged and even their children slayed for not recognizing the Timing of Christs first advent? Absolutely! And God had been patient with them for forty years, long suffering that they would turn to Christ and repent.
2 peter 3:1 this is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved
1 Peter 1:2 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised.
And they were in fact suffering around the world.
1 Peter 4:12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial that has come upon you, as though something strange were happening to you.
1 Peter 5:9 9Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.
The scoffers and persecutors correctly understood Peters belief that the “end of all things was literally near”. They Just overlooked the fact that just as in the days of Noah the scoffers world was destroyed by water, so too would their world be destroyed by fire.
Exactly. The context is clearly in relation to judgment day when all people will have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of themselves to Christ. That event, portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46, has clearly not yet happened.To attribute the coming of Titus in AD70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the "end of all things" is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”
Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”
Right. I see no reason at all that Peter could not have speaking in 1 Peter 4 in the same sense that he was speaking in 2 Peter 3:8-9, which was in terms of God's perspective, not man's. He had to be because the end of all things has not yet occurred! Jesus has not yet returned. The judgment of all mankind from throughout history has not yet occurred. The burning up of the heavens and the earth has not yet occurred!As Eric said, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.
Agree. No such event occurred in 70 AD.Peter informs us that “end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of ALL things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’ Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.
Agree.The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.
In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.
You are not sure what they are about, but you are sure they are not about second coming.... why? You gave no reasoning.These 3 all refer to the same thing, obviously. I simply believe that Jesus was referring either to His transfiguration here, which was described immediately following those verses. Or He could have been referring to the kingdom of God coming in power spiritually on the day of Pentecost. Either way, these verses have nothing to do with the Olivet Discourse and with the bodily second coming of Christ that scripture prophesies (Acts 1:9-11).
Such view quite erases the meaning of the "last days" phrase, if it already lasts 2x longer than the whole Mosaic Covenant. The point of the "last days" is that those days are last, not the first in many.I don't deny that the last days had already begun by the time the day of Pentecost occurred long ago. If you read all of Acts 2:16-21, you should see that the last days continue on while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. So, we are still in the last days today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord and being saved. The last days will continue until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4) at which point the heavens and the earth will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10-12).
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.Paul was referring here to the certainty of the end of time continually approaching. For all anyone knew, it could occur in the lifetimes of his readers at the time. The Greek word translated as "short" there is only used in one other verse, so it's hard to determine how the word could be used. I don't see that it has to be used in terms of referring to a literal short amount of time.
Because Paul says "we". And Timothy is not alive today.How are you concluding that any of the 3 above verses indicate that His coming was literally soon?
What reasoning is there to think that people will not be calling the name of the Lord to be saved "after the last days"?These last times probably should be understood in the same context as "the last days" which we're still in today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord to be saved.
Well, we cannot use "thousands years are a day" as some kind of a blank check. It would cover all prophecies ever.That was written by Peter who went on to indicate that the Lord was not being slow to come again and bring about the end of all things because it's not possible for Him to be too slow from His eternal perspective. I believe Peter was writing from the perspective in 1 Peter 4:7 as well. From the Lord's eternal perspective, the end of all things is always at hand.
Yes, everything in the book, because its both in the beginning and in the end of the book.What things exactly do you believe these verses are referring to? Everything in the book? If so, then what do you make of this verse:
Those who pierced Him are no longer alive. The point of mentioning them is quite clear and easily compatible with all other verses saying everything will happen in their generation. You will probably offer the explanation "they will be resurrected first", but such statement would have no actual meaning, in the context.This has clearly not yet happened, so what was your point in quoting this verse?
If somebody says to you "I will come quickly", you do not suppose he will come soon? In real life? I do not like explanations that are "possible", but obviously not how the language is commonly used.I believe in these verses Jesus was talking about how whenever He came, He would come quickly. As quickly as lightning shines from the east to the west (Matt 24:27). I don't believe these verses have anything to do with indicating the amount of time until He would come.
Another unsupported claim.We should all be partial preterists and partial futurists. Revelation, like other Scriptures, teaches about both past and future events. The problem is: most Preterists are so fixated with AD70 they fail to see the many references pertaining to Christ's coming and the end. That is all they want to talk about. Most Futurists fail to recognize fulfilled Scripture and dump it all at the second coming. The biblical balance is seeing both.
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?