Questions about preterism

[Justme]

Hi Free,

You wrote:
As you implying that the second return of Christ is simply the meeting of Christ after we die - one at a time? And that didn't start to happen til after 70 A.D. ? That is unscriptural!
*******************

It is very nice to see someone actually print that out. You wouldn't believe the way people on these boards come up with ways to avoid this.

Yes, that would be exactly it. (altho some saw Jesus before 70 AD for special reason it appears)And it isn't simply a meeting, it is the judgment and hopefully the admittance into the promised heavenly eternal life which is what the Holy Bible is all about.

Where is unscriptural?

REV 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

No, if the second coming of Christ is in the spiritual realm and occurs at the physical death of each individual, this would fit that verse. In fact that is about the only way it would fit that verse, there are many people over history who have not HAD eyes, yet in the spiritual they could SEE Jesus. Plus everybody dies.

1 Thess 4

15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

It fits here because after the parousia mankind can go directly to eternal/heavenly/invisible/spiritual life with Christ. Prior to that the physically dead only slept in the dust conscious of nothing.

17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Being with Christ in the clouds forever in a physical state would tax the law of gravity wouldn't it? In the clouds in a spiritual state(heavenly) is quite understandable.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The body came from dust and will return to dust and the spirit returns to the God who gave it.

2 Cor 4

Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

When the physical body is destroyed thru death we can live in the spiritual, heavenly eternal life.

1 Cor 15

49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

That would be this body...the spiritual body.
40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies;
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body....
46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

How do I know that the spiritual life carries on immediately after the earthly???

John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

How do I know Jesus comes after physical death?

Jesus alone judges...
John 5
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

When do receive our judgment?
Hebrews 9
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

How do I know that the meeting with Jesus after death is an ongoing situation?

Rev 14
13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."

That was said to John just as the coming on the clouds began.

For being unscripural it fits word for word with a lot of verses don't you think?

Justme

 

[OldShepherd]

As long as we agree that scripture trumps the traditions of men we are a-ok. If your response to preterist claims about scripture is "but Justin and Papias said...", then you are trying to selectively use traditions of men to trump scripture. That will not do.

Scripture trumps the later traditions of men. That's all that needs to be remembered. You cannot claim that your traditions are equal to scripture nor even consistent when measured against other then-contemporary traditions. For example, premillennialism and amillennialism grew up together, and they are entirely contrary to each other! So much for the "light" provided by the ECFs with regard to eschatology.

[size=+1]And again, twice in this post you imply that I have tried to use ECF writings to contradict scripture. Which is absolutely not the case. I have quoted several scriptures most of which you have ignored.

Preterism rests on a tissue of the logical fallacy of equivocation. ALL the scriptures which they cite can be logically, reasonably, and grammatically understood to NOT mean what Preterism claims. The logical, reasonable, and grammatical meaning of the disputed texts to which the church has consistently held for 2000 +/- is supported by the the united witness of the entire early church.

Preterism, which in its current incarnation, has only been around since the 18th century or so. Therefore none of the early church fathers support preterism.

And to repeat what I have already said the historical interpretation of the disputed verses, such as Mattew 24, by the church is reasonable, logical, and grammatical and is supported by the united testimony of the early church.[/size]

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
twice in this post you imply that I have tried to use ECF writings to contradict scripture. Which is absolutely not the case.

GW:
If you reject the clear, biblical, first-century timeframe for the return of Christ simply because of later Church traditions, then you are using ECF writings to contradict scripture. Plain and simple.



OLD SHEP:
Preterism rests on a tissue of the logical fallacy of equivocation. ALL the scriptures which they cite can be logically, reasonably, and grammatically understood to NOT mean what Preterism claims.

GW:
That is false. Preterism shows that not only did the aposltes and Christ teach WHEN the Parousia would take place, but they taught it plainly, uniformly, and in a consistent manner all through the New Testament writings. Futurists, flummoxed by the overwhelming support in scripture for a first-century timeframe for the return of Christ, must obfuscate and twist the plain testimony of Christ and the apostles so that it better fits their proud church traditions. Such futurist wresting of the scriptures is transparent to all unbiased seekers of truth.



OLD SHEP:
The logical, reasonable, and grammatical meaning of the disputed texts to which the church has consistently held for 2000 +/- is supported by the the united witness of the entire early church. Preterism, which in its current incarnation, has only been around since the 18th century or so. Therefore none of the early church fathers support preterism.

GW:
False again. The ECFs uniformly interpreted Matthew 24 as fulfilled up to the point where they believed the Great Tribulation was past! That early tradition fully contradicts your view, and yet you don't submit to the ECFs on their understanding. So, you are entirely selective in your use of the ECFs, picking and choosing only those traditions that conform to YOUR tradition.

Furthermore, the Reformers' commentaries of Matthew 24 interpret the chapter as mostly *OR COMPLETELY* fulfilled! Again, you refuse to submit to their tradition. Even the JFB commentary prefers this understanding. Yet you refuse to submit to this well-established tradition.


And so I resubmit that the historical interpretation of Matthew 24 has been uniformly PRETERISTIC in its bias, but that you reject this overwhelming testimony because it does not satisfy your personal tradition and bias.


By the way, is there any reason that your posts are always in all bold formatting and in unusual fonts and sizes? It is only your posts that appear that way, and the deviant formatting is hard on the eyes. Could I suggest to you that the standard board font might be easier on your readers? Just a suggestion.

 

[frost]

Amazing how both futurists and preterists can produce vast amounts of scripture and ECF evidence to support their position. I suppose if it were otherwise, there wouldn't be this and similar threads! I, for one appreciate everyone's input and have learned a lot about both sides. I have to lean to amillennialism or possibly partial preterism myself but admittedly have not done the research that you all have. Just wanted to step in here and say thanks for everyone's input thus far....you guys (and gals,) know a tremendous amount about your sides and have been very informative.

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
The next falsehood/misrepresentation is an out-of-context quote from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown commentary.

GW:
I never said that the JFB commentary officially prefers the early date evidence. Rather, it presents the early date evidence in a good, concise manner, and since most people are uneducated on the early date tradition, it is very instructional.

If you keep accusing me of dishonesty and manipulation I will report you to Erwin. Please retract your accusation, and know that I have preserved your accusation to send to the owners of this board.

[size=+1]I will not be intimidated by your threats, which I perceive to be calculated to prevent me from posting what I believe to be the truth. My post was well within the rules. I will report it myself and save you the trouble.

Your response seems to indicate that your primary reason for promoting an early date for Revelation is NOT to support a belief that the Parosuia occurred in 70 AD. It may not so state on the page which lists the cited reference but it is posted many places on your site. Such as these two articles. So please spare us the "it's only instructional" bit.[/size]

• Preterism 101
  by david a. green
  preteristcosmos.com
  
  The final destruction of Jerusalem came in 70 A.D. God's purposes and plans were all in place by this time. Nothing remained to be done.[/b]
  
  90. "...to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place." (Rev. 1:1)
  91. "The time is near." (Rev. 1:3)
  92. "Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come." (Rev. 2:25)
  93. "I also will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world." (Rev. 3:10)
  94. "I am coming quickly." (Rev. 3:11)
  95. "And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron." (Rev. 12:5)
  96. "And in her [the Great City Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth." (Rev. 18:24; Compare Matt. 23:35-36; Lk. 11:50-51)
  97. "...to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place." (Rev. 22:6)
  98. "Behold, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:7)
  99. "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10; Compare Dan. 8:26)
  100. "Behold, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:12)
  101. "Yes, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:20)
  
  Dating the Apocalypse - by Arthur M. Ogden
  
  Many of the great discussions about the book of Revelation concern the date of writing. Some think that if we could determine the date of writing, we could determine the subject matter of the book and make application accordingly. In some cases efforts to determine the date of writing take precedence over the substance and application of the book.
  
  Summary
  In these last three articles, I have labored to show that the internal evidence of the book of Revelation ties in with the rest of the Bible. Four arguments were made to prove conclusively that the book of Revelation centers around the desolation of the nation of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem. This article was designed to show that the entire substance of the Apocalypse supports our conclusions. If this line of reasoning is valid, we have conclusively proven what the book of Revelation is about and when it was written. I have been making these arguments for seventeen years and to date I have not had one person to deal forthrightly with the arguments. They are either true or false! If they are false would some one please prove them false.

 

[OldShepherd]

That is false. Preterism shows that not only did the aposltes and Christ teach WHEN the Parousia would take place, but they taught it plainly, uniformly, and in a consistent manner all through the New Testament writings. Futurists, flummoxed by the overwhelming support in scripture for a first-century timeframe for the return of Christ, must obfuscate and twist the plain testimony of Christ and the apostles so that it better fits their proud church traditions. Such futurist wresting of the scriptures is transparent to all unbiased seekers of truth.

[size=+1]Several false accustions in this statement. And because your views are so solid is that why you have refused to respond to any of my posts on Revelation 2-3?[/size]

By the way, is there any reason that your posts are always in all bold formatting and in unusual fonts and sizes? It is only your posts that appear that way, and the deviant formatting is hard on the eyes. Could I suggest to you that the standard board font might be easier on your readers? Just a suggestion.

[size=+1]I don't use bold. Click the "quote" button at the lower right of the window and you will see I use georgia font face and size +1. I do that because, when I was using bold there were complaints that I was shouting. The font and size I use is only slightly larger than the default font. And I use that font to make my words stand out a little from quotes, citations, etc. also so I can read my own posts a little easier. And don't you think that is a silly thing to be complaining about?[/size]

 

[Phoenix]

Hi Frost,

Here's a site where you could learn a lot about partial preterism and orthodox preterism. I dont know if those are the same or not. I believe the Millienial views are also discussed quite a bit. GW should check it out some time, he'd have his hands full though, i dont think full preterists are very welcome.

And i should add OS and GW are both fascinating to read. I wish i knew as much as these two have probably forgotten.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=16

Regards

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
The font and size I use is only slightly larger than the default font. And I use that font to make my words stand out a little from quotes, citations, etc...And don't you think that is a silly thing to be complaining about?

GW:
I am not complaining at all--I am offering a suggestion to you on how to attract more readers and make their experience mo' better (i.e., more pleasurable). Next, any good copywriter or print designer knows that erratic text formatting doesn't add anything to long blocks of text. Rather, it detracts from the message, making it hard on the eyes. The "no all caps" rule is just one example of how to avoid text that doesn't communicate well in the print medium, but other guidelines should be followed as well; using all bold, or using varied font sizes within the same paragraph, or using too much color are all distractions, and they lessen the impact of the content. Just my .02 on SOME of your formatting excursions. Whatever font you are using, it appears to be all bold on my monitor. Now, perhaps that is just my monitor. Yours, GW.

 

[frost]

Hi Frost,

Here's a site where you could learn a lot about partial preterism and orthodox preterism. I dont know if those are the same or not. I believe the Millienial views are also discussed quite a bit. GW should check it out some time, he'd have his hands full though, i dont think full preterists are very welcome.

And i should add OS and GW are both fascinating to read. I wish i knew as much as these two have probably forgotten.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=16

Regards

Thanks, Phoenix; looks like another juicy message board to sink my inquisitive teeth into!

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
I will not be intimidated by your threats, which I perceive to be calculated to prevent me from posting what I believe to be the truth. My post was well within the rules. I will report it myself and save you the trouble.

GW:
Accusing others of dishonesty and manipulation is "well within the rules"?



OLD SHEP:
Your response seems to indicate that your primary reason for promoting an early date for Revelation is NOT to support a belief that the Parosuia occurred in 70 AD. It may not so state on the page which lists the cited reference but it is posted many places on your site.

GW:
My quotation of JFB on the date of Revelation is not at all to suggest that they prefer the early date tradition. Rather, the JFB commentary summarizes the early-date tradition concisely, and such is useful when introducing the early-date tradition to those uneducated on the issue (such as most futurists). If you continue to characterize me as engaging in dishonesty and manipulation, I will promptly report you to the owners of the board. Such a personal smear campaign will not be tolerated at Christian Forums, I'm sure.

 

[GW]

PHOENIX:
Here's a site where you could learn a lot about partial preterism and orthodox preterism. I dont know if those are the same or not. I believe the Millienial views are also discussed quite a bit. GW should check it out some time, he'd have his hands full though, i dont think full preterists are very welcome.

GW:
Hiya Phoenix.

That board is run (or shall I say overrun) by one Dee Dee Warren, an inconsistent partial preterist who thinks that labelling consistent preterists over and over as "wretched heretics" and "vile hymenaeans" wins debates against them. She is deceived in that regard, of course. The use of ad hominem only serves to expose the inherent weakness in one's own argument, and it is employed by the weak in hopes that the general public won't take time to examine the substance of an opponent's strong case.

I debated her at CARM for a while and exposed her errors (her so-called "orthodox preterism") in a simple and systematic way that others could easily follow. Namely, Ms. Warren claims that the Day of the Lord Paul mentions to the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:1-12 is entirely fulfilled. So far so good! But then she turns around and says that the Day of the Lord Paul mentions to the Thessalonians at 1 Thess 4:15-5:9 is a DIFFERENT event altogether, one yet future to us. *Gasp* My six-year-old could probably figure out why that is impossible. Where did the Thessalonians learn about the Day of Christ to begin with, so that they came to think it had happened as of the time Paul's second letter to them was written? You guessed it: they learned it from Paul's FIRST LETTER TO THEM AT 1 THESS 4:15-5:9! The two passages (1 Thess 4:15-5:9 and 2 Thess 2:1-12) clearly speak of one and same event, yet Dee Dee Warren tries to divide the two passages (1 Thess 4:15-5:9 and 2 Thess 2:1-12) by thousands of years! It's so obvious an error that it hurts just to watch her fumble around it. For sure, if 2 Thess 2:1-12 is fulfilled as Dee Dee claims (and it is), then so is 1 Thess 4:15-5:9, and thus her entire "orthodox preterism" (i.e., "inconsistent preterism") crumbles to dust. And then she has the nerve to call her own wild inconsistency "orthodox," while calling consistent preterists "heretics." Some nerve.

Quite simply, partial preterists (i.e., inconsistent preterists) can't pass the litmus test of scripture. I know--I once were one.

 

[OldShepherd]

If you continue to characterize me as engaging in dishonesty and manipulation, I will promptly report you to the owners of the board. Such a personal smear campaign will not be tolerated at Christian Forums, I'm sure.

[size=+1]But you think that the owners of the board will tolerate you calling ALL non-preterists, "flummoxed" which I understand to mean confused, and "biased' and also accuse them of "obtuscate and twist and wresting" scriptures. And OBTW I have reported my own post.[/size]

GW:
That is false. Preterism shows that not only did the aposltes and Christ teach WHEN the Parousia would take place, but they taught it plainly, uniformly, and in a consistent manner all through the New Testament writings. Futurists, flummoxed by the overwhelming support in scripture for a first-century timeframe for the return of Christ, must obfuscate and twist the plain testimony of Christ and the apostles so that it better fits their proud church traditions. Such futurist wresting of the scriptures is transparent to all unbiased seekers of truth.

[size=+1]Emphasis added. And I note with interest you still refuse to address my posts on Revelation 2-3. It should be a piece of cake for a Preterist who is not "flummoxed" and who does not "obtuscate and twist and wrest" scriptures.[/size]

 

[GW]

What more needs to be said about Revelation 2-3, Old Shep? Haven't we concluded that St. John indeed writes there that Christ's return was for those Asia Minor churches, his contemporaries of the first-century? Scripture says it so plainly that one wonders how any could ever deny it.

Oh, heck, I'm almost out of time for now anyway, given my busy work schedule.

"So little to do, so much time...um, scratch that, reverse it." -Willy Wonka

 

[parousia70]

And I note with interest you still refuse to address my posts on Revelation 2-3. It should be a piece of cake for a Preterist who is not "flummoxed" and who does not "obtuscate and twist and wrest" scriptures.

Indeed it was a piece of cake when I addressed it HERE back on page 16.

I note with interest that you have so far refused to even aknowledge that post of mine which directly addresses your argument on Revelation 3, yet you somehow maintain no preterist has even attempted to address your argument.

 

[OldShepherd]

What more needs to be said about Revelation 2-3, Old Shep? Haven't we concluded that St. John indeed writes there that Christ's return was for those Asia Minor churches, his contemporaries of the first-century? Scripture says it so plainly that one wonders how any could ever deny it.

Oh, heck, I'm almost out of time for now anyway, given my busy work schedule.

[size=+1]Cop out. No you have asserted and alleged that Jesus positively stated that he would return to the seven churches in the first century, when no such promise exists in scripture. I have repeatedly shown the letters to the seven churches were condtional warnings that Jesus would return and judge the churches if they did not repent, which I backed up with "Hebrew Apocalyptic' scriptures from the OT. And you have repeatedly ignored at least 2-3 posts on this.[/size]

[size=+1]And I note with interest you still refuse to address my posts on Revelation 2-3. It should be a piece of cake for a Preterist who is not "flummoxed" and who does not "obtuscate and twist and wrest" scriptures.
.[/size]

Originally posted by: Parousia 70
Indeed it was a piece of cake when I addressed it HERE back on page 16.

I note with interest that you have so far refused to even aknowledge that post of mine which directly addresses your argument on Revelation 3, yet you somehow maintain no preterist has even attempted to address your argument.

[size=+1]That post does NOT address my Revelation 2-3 posts. When you have a valid criticism then make it, this is nothing more than a childish, "Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo." One (1) post and you reminded me how many times before now, AFTER the post was buried on the preceding page by other posts? I have posted on Revelation 2-3 at least two and maybe 3-4 times, and I have reminded several more times.

I glanced at the post. I will make one quick response now and more later. Where is it written that Jesus can only come as a thief one time? Where is it written that Jesus cannot do whatever He wants to do, whenever and whereever He wants to do it?

Again I ask this question, for at least the 6th or 7th time, what does "repent or else" and "watch, or else" mean? Do they mean that some result will postively happen or are they conditional?[/size]

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
you have asserted and alleged that Jesus positively stated that he would return to the seven churches in the first century, when no such promise exists in scripture.

GW:
You are denying the plain fact of what is being said to the seven Asia-Minor churches in Rev 2-3. Therefore, again, I simply will leave it to unbiased minds to read the chapters for themselves and reach their own conclusions. Jesus is plainly applying his second coming to first-century people, and Jesus could not err.



OLD SHEP:
I have repeatedly shown the letters to the seven churches were condtional warnings that Jesus would return and judge the churches if they did not repent, which I backed up with "Hebrew Apocalyptic' scriptures from the OT.

GW:
The only conditional part to Rev 2-3 is whether each Church would be punished or rewarded (according to their works, of course). If they were obedient, they were rewarded. If disobedient, punished. The idea that Christ was making his second coming to them conditional is nowhere in the text.

And, again, if there is any "Church Age Dispensation" or "1948" or "Computerized mark" to be found in prophetic scripture, then Revelation 2-3 clearly demonstrates that Jesus knew nothing about it! There is no way around it, Old Shep. Since Jesus was, in your view, offering a conditional second coming back in the first century, then that makes the glorified Jesus entirely ignorant of the Long Church Age Dispensation, ignorant of 1948, and ignorant of any computerized mark that is inserted into one's hand! This fact alone entirely destroys the main tenets of futurism.



OLD SHEP:
Where is it written that Jesus can only come as a thief one time? Where is it written that Jesus cannot do whatever He wants to do, whenever and whereever He wants to do it?

GW:
Jesus never teaches that he would come as a thief multiple times. You need it to be otherwise, but the scriptures do not support your view. Quite simply, Christ's coming as a thief is the second coming, and Jesus applies that to the first-century Church of Sardis:

--COMPARE THIS--

Matt 24:42-44
be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming...if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you think not

--TO THIS--

Revelation 3:1-3
"To the angel of the [first-century] church of Sardis write:...remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.


​

OLD SHEP:
Again I ask this question, for at least the 6th or 7th time, what does "repent or else" and "watch, or else" mean? Do they mean that some result will postively happen or are they conditional?

GW:
The giving of either a punishment or a reward was all that was conditional, and the condition was placed upon "their works" (Matt 16:27; Rev 20:13; Rom 2:6), which Jesus was then judging in Rev 2-3 (Rev 2:2, 2:9, 2:13, 2:19, Rev 3:2, 3:8, 3:15 ). The judging of their works took place in Revelation 2-3, back in the first century, and St. John documents it for us to read about.

The second coming itself was not conditional, and it was fulfilled exactly when Jesus and the apostles believed it would be--in their generation.

 

[Martin Luther]

I think John on Patmos is clearly talking code talk to 1st Century Christians...The Beast is Rome, Babylon..probably Israel, and the Anti-Christ good ole fashioned Nero.

I am not in denial about the second coming of Christ....oh, I believe that he will return. (but not a shhh..first secret time).......

from Rev. 1

7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.
So shall it be! Amen.


such phrases as Great Tribulation might well, refer to the siege of Jerusalem....which interestingly enough the Gospels never refer too. Clearly showing that they were written pre 70 AD.

Unfornately, preterism is held by say only 10 percent of Christendom...it is very unpopular, even considerd blasphemy in some circles.

But this end times madness..though exhilarating, may well be determential in the end. Maybe I am being unfair..I don't know..

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
You are denying the plain fact of what is being said to the seven Asia-Minor churches in Rev 2-3. Therefore, again, I simply will leave it to unbiased minds to read the chapters for themselves and reach their own conclusions. Jesus is plainly applying his second coming to first-century people, and Jesus could not err.

The only conditional part to Rev 2-3 is whether each Church would be punished or rewarded (according to their works, of course). If they were obedient, they were rewarded. If disobedient, punished. The idea that Christ was making his second coming to them conditional is nowhere in the text.

[size=+1]By twisting the text comepletely beyond reason, you arrive at that conclusion. The phrase "or, else" modifies "come unto thee quickly" in both verses. There is absolutely no way any reasonable unbiased person cannot see that.

In order for these verses to fit your presuppositions it would have to be written,"I will come unto thee quickly, repent or else I will remove thy candlestick(2:5)" and "I will come unto thee quickly, Repent or else I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (2:16)"

But that is NOT what the scripture says. As I said "or else" modifies "come quickly" NOT the judgement.[/size]

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.​

And, again, if there is any "Church Age Dispensation" or "1948" or "Computerized mark" to be found in prophetic scripture, then Revelation 2-3 clearly demonstrates that Jesus knew nothing about it! There is no way around it, Old Shep. Since Jesus was, in your view, offering a conditional second coming back in the first century, then that makes the glorified Jesus entirely ignorant of the Long Church Age Dispensation, ignorant of 1948, and ignorant of any computerized mark that is inserted into one's hand! This fact alone entirely destroys the main tenets of futurism.

[size=+1]Completely ignoring the rules of grammar and twisting verses around to make them say what you want them to, destroys absolutely nothing, which the traditional church believes. The only thing it destroys is the credibility of anyone who claims that. But the scriptures twisting clearly shows the absurd lengths Preterists will go to to support their beliefs.

And you completely ignore the fact that I posted OT precedents showing God deferring judgement when the people repented. See Nineveh in Jonah, for example. Which is exactly what Jesus offered three of the seven churches. And I still haven't seen one single verse where Jesus told the churches at Laodicea and Smyrna He was returning.[/size]

[The giving of either a punishment or a reward was all that was conditional, and the condition was placed upon "their works" . . . The second coming itself was not conditional, and it was fulfilled exactly when Jesus and the apostles believed it would be--in their generation.

[size=+1]Again read the scriptures, your interpretation completely twists what is written, "or else" modifies "come quickly." You have to rearrange the entire verse to make it say what you want it too. This construction occurs 9 times in the NT, outside of Revelation, Mt 6:4, 12:29, 12:33, Lk 14:32, 16:13, Jn 14:11, Ac 24:20, Ro 2:15, and Phip 1:27, and in every case it modifes the clause immediately following " or else." Just as God offered OT sinners the choice of repenting or facing judgment, so too does Jesus in Revelation and in the OT when the people repented God deferred His judgment, e.g. book of Jonah.[/size]

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
The phrase "or, else" modifies "come unto thee quickly" in both verses. There is absolutely no way any reasonable unbiased person cannot see that.

GW:
Nice try. It modifies "come unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick" and also "come unto thee quickly and fight against thee with the sword of my mouth." The only conditionality is placed upon the rewards and/or punishments they received, not on Christ's coming. The faithful and the unfaithful of the Asia Minor churches each received something at His coming to them, each according to their works:

CHRIST'S JUDGMENT OF THE ASIA MINOR CHURCHES ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS:

(*) I know your works...repent else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick...but...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life (Rev 2:5,7)

(*) I know your works...Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly and fight against them with the sword of my mouth....To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna (Rev 2:16-17)

(*) I know your works... And I gave her [the Prophetess of Thyatira] space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira...that which ye have already hold fast till I come...I will give him the morning star. (Rev 2:21-25,28)

(*) I know your works...Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Rev 3:3-5)

(*) I know your works...I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God (Rev 3:11-12).

(*) I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth....I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. (Rev 3:15,20-21)


​

As everyone can plainly see, Revelation 2-3 is Christ's judgment, the judgment at Christ's coming. The punishments and/or rewards received were based "according to their works," as was predicted in the gospels and epistles:

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Romans 2:5-8
thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to every man according to his works: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath




​

OLD SHEP:
And you completely ignore the fact that I posted OT precedents showing God deferring judgement when the people repented. See Nineveh in Jonah, for example.

GW:
The second coming of Christ is not a conditional event. Christ came whether the servants were ready or not. To those that were not prepared, he overtook them as a thief (1 Thess 5).




OLD SHEP:
And I still haven't seen one single verse where Jesus told the churches at Laodicea and Smyrna He was returning.

GW:
Revelation 2-3 is one cohesive message about Christ's coming to those Churches: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the CHURCHES".

Furthermore, you are failing to recognize that Revelation 3:20-21 [re: Laodicea] refers to Christ's second coming spoken about at Luke 12:36-37!

--COMPARE THIS--

Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes...he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them (Luke 12:36-37)

--TO THIS--


Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Rev 3:20-21)


​

And, as for Smyrna, Jesus says: "be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." The receiving of crowns and the second death has to do with the second coming of Christ. It is eschatological.


Quite plainly, Jesus told the churches at Laodicea and Smyrna He was returning -- only, you weren't familiar enough with the eschatological references to take note of it. Please a make a note of it. The return of Christ took place in the first century, as documented in the scriptures.

 

[frost]

(*) I know your works...repent else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick...but...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life (Rev 2:5,7)

(*) I know your works...Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly and fight against them with the sword of my mouth....To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna (Rev 2:16-17)

These two references do seem to indicate that if they repent, he will not come. I tend to think of it like a computer program:

IF
you do something...
THEN
something will happen
ELSE
something else will happen.

IF they didn't repent, then he would come quickly and remove their candlestick, or else the overcomers would eat from the tree of life.

If they didn't repent, then he would come quickly and fight against them with the sword of his mouth, or else the overcomers would eat the hidden manna.

That might be over-complicating the issue, but given those two verses by themselves, it does seem to indicate that if they repented he would not have to come and judge them. Of course I realize this is different than the warnings to the other churches so this is probably the point of confusion.