PDA

View Full Version : I'm kinda lost...



ValonLapsi
10-08-01, 08:12 AM
Pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, pre-mill, post-mill, amill, preterism, partial-preterism, pan-mill...all these are mentioned on the starting page. Could someone maybe enlighten the uninformed one a little and give a short and simple explanation on what each of those terms mean? Even if I don't participate in conversation, I would at least like to know what on earth people are talking about in here...

Fledge
10-08-01, 08:26 AM
Well, to be honest, I don't really know a lot of it either.
All I know is that they are diifering views of "end times" things. The order of events, the how and when it will all happen.

It can all get pretty deep and complicated some too...so it may be difficult for a brief, yet somewhat thorough description. Sure hope somebody can do it though!
:)

Parousia70
10-08-01, 10:01 AM
Hi Valon.

Eshcatology is the study of the "Last Things" or "End Times" in the Bible.

There are really only 2 schools of thought:

1)Futurism; The Belief that the Second Coming of Christ is a yet future event to us.

2) Preterism; The Belief that the Second Coming of Christ is an already fulfilled event.

Within the futurist camp, you will find adherers to the various terms you mentioned:

1) Pre Mill: the belief that the "rapture" of the church ocourrs before the supposed 1000 year physical reign of Jesus on earth.

In the Pre Mill camp, there are various Sub catagories that have to do with the Timing of the said "rapture";
1a) Pre trib: the rapture ocourrs before or at the beginning of the 7 year "great tribulation"
1b)mid trib: the rapture ocourrs somewhere in the middle of the 7 year "great tribulation
1c) Post trib: the rapture ocourrs after the 7 year 'great tribulation' but before the "wrath of God"

2) Post Mill: The belief that the gathering of the saints and the Judgement of the wicked ocourr in one fell swoop, After the 1000 year reign

3) Aumill: the belief that the 1000 year reign is symbolic to the church age and Christs return consumates said age sometime in our future.

4) Partial-Preterism: an oxymoron really, but it is the belief that many of the end time prophesies were already fulfilled in the past, but the second coming still lies in our future.

5)Pan-Mill; an endearing way to describe those who choose not to take sides but believe it will all "Pan out" in the End.

This is only my limited understanding of said terms. Anyone else please feel free to correct, amend or update as you see fit.

Peace in Christ,
Peter

ValonLapsi
10-08-01, 12:49 PM
Ahaa...Okies, thank you, you've given me some understanding in this. First it seemed like Estonian or something :D lol but now I know what's mainly the topic around here. Thank You. :)

Kathleen
10-11-01, 04:55 PM
Hey,

Preterism; The Belief that the Second Coming of Christ is an already fulfilled event.

SO...alot of people are preterists? If you don't me asking...what does this mean then? I'm just trying to understand. What is this world we are living in? If the second coming of Christ has already occured...do the teachings of the Bible pertain to us? what are we? Who are we? And why are we here? Where are we?

Anyone????

God Bless You All.

Odyssey
10-11-01, 08:27 PM
Kathleen,

Those are valid questions. And I can understand the anxiety that you may be feeling. Let me see if I can shed some light on your questions.

1. Yes, there are a lot of Preterists out there! More than I ever imagined. And for the most part, the Preterist teaching has been the majority of 'last things' teaching in the church. The whole idea of a supposed 'rapture' has only been around since the mid to late 1800's. If you go over to the Preterst Archive you will see how many 'old-timers' are listed there.

2. To understand what this means to us, let's look at a couple of things. First, we have to understand the whole covenantal aspect of god and man. When god created covenant man, Adam, he told him 'the day that you eat from it (the tree of knowledge of good and evil) you shall surely die.' He didn't say that Adam would die 900+ years *after* he ate of the tree but he would die that same day. Now, we see from the text that Adam did not die physically but something *did* happen.

Genesis 3.23-24. '...therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. [24]So He drove the man out...'

Here we see that Adam was driven from the presense of god. This shows us god's definition of the term 'death'--separation from him. From that point on, every covenant god established with people was to bring his people back to him. Each one, built on the other, led to the covenant of grace. With the coming of Christ, god established forever the way into his presense. *This* is what the redemption of people is all about. It has *nothing* to do with this physical body or the way we understand things in the natural realm. We use our five senses. But god's kingdom is *not* based on those senses. They are like him--they are spiritual in nature. This is exactly what Jesus told the Samaritan woman: 'God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth' (John 4.24). She was looking to Jerusalem and the mountains upon which it stood as the place to worship god. Jesus was telling her that was not the way anymore. He was/is the way.

Next we have to address the 'time statements' contained in *so many* of the passages. At different times Jesus told his disciples that he would return before they had all died. We have to honestly look at those passages and deal with them and their implications. For instance, if Jesus was *wrong* what does that mean to us today? What does that do about his deity? What about the words of the apostles? They also taught the 'soon' first century coming of Jesus. In fact, if we look at the actual greek text, many of the passages state that Jesus was 'about to' come. This also included all of the aspects of that coming--judgement, rewards, and resurrection. Along that same line, Paul told Felix, 'having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is *about to be* a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous' (Acts 24.15).

I could go on and on. But I would encourage you to go to the Archive and look at some of those excellent writings (I have some there, too:D )!

To answer the question regarding the relevance of the teachings of the bible, does the death, resurrection, ascension of Jesus have no effect today because those prophecies are fulfilled? Of course not. That is why we, as Christians, have to study and find the principles found in the Bible. Those principles are timeless. There are truths that last forever. Just because something is fulfilled doesn't mean it doesn't have lasting application.

Where we are is in the fully established Kingdom of our Great God and King, Christ Jesus our Lord! We don't have to ever worry about every being separated from god! Just like Jesus said, we will *never* die! We will *always* be with god.

If you have some specific passages in mind that you would like answers to, I would do my best to answer them.

Grace to you,

jak

Parousia70
10-11-01, 08:45 PM
Kathleen,
I'm with Jak on this one. I became a preterist about 2 years ago after about 18 years as a futurist. The more I studied and Prayed, the less I could Justify twisting the plain meaning of scripture to fit a supposed 2000+ year "gap" between the 1st and 2nd comings. I had a paradigm shift (Thank God) and I now know that the Second Coming of Jesus happened about 1930 years ago and He is still present on earth, fully, totally, to this day.



That would be
www.preteristarchive.com
in case you get confused

Peace in Christ,
Peter

Parousia70
10-11-01, 08:54 PM
PS.....
As to your question about what are we doing now, why are we here etc....
I Believe Revelation 22:17 describes where we are and what we are doing here:

"And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely."

This verse describes what goes on in the New Heavens And New Earth. Thats you and me today Kathleen! Our Job is to call to all who thirst and say COME! Take the water of LIFE!!

Peace in Christ,
Peter

Kathleen
10-12-01, 10:01 AM
Hey all!!

Thanks so much for the info. I will be sure to read those archives..and I'm gonna re-read *sigh* the specifics you've mentioned in Revelation...I'll be back with MANY questions when I'm done...I think!:D

Thanks & God Bless!

:)

Odyssey
10-12-01, 10:05 AM
Great! Maybe god will show you some things and you can teach them to us!

Grace to you on this 'Odyssey.'

jak

JesusFreak2K1
10-12-01, 06:19 PM
I have a question. According to a preterist's view, the thousand year reign of Christ has happened already? And if so, does that mean that we are approaching the tribulation period? I will wait for an answer. Thanks so much!!!

Parousia70
10-12-01, 06:25 PM
Hi JF2K1

According to the preterist position the 1000 year reign of Christ happened already, as well as the tribulation and 2nd coming.
Peace in Christ,
Peter

JesusFreak2K1
10-13-01, 08:34 PM
Ok, Parousia70. Next question, if I may......If the 2nd coming has already occurred, then where is the historical documentation? I mean, it would have had to be BIG news...at least somewhere.

The reason why I'm asking, is because I'm still very unclear about eschatology as a whole. I guess until I learn differently, I'm classified as a pan milleniallist..it'll all pan out in the end!! LOL!!! Any information you can give.....or any one .....I will greatly appreciate.

If it's possible, please add biblical evidence, so that I may also look it up. Again, thank you so much......I'm learning alot!!:D

Parousia70
10-13-01, 09:32 PM
Hi JF2K1,

Josephus' "War of the Jews" would be the historical documentation I would point you to,it reads amazingly like the Book of Revelation.... from the 100# 'hailstones' to armies of Angels in the Sky. It describes in great detail the Fall of Jerusalem from 66 - 70 AD (42 months BTW, sound familiar?) however I'd suggest you look into scripture first to make sure your understanding of the "Nature" of the "2nd coming" is in Line with What the Bible teaches.

Once you can get beyond any "fleshly preconceptions" about Just what the 2nd coming was predicted to be like, I think you will be able to grasp the truth of it's Past Fulfillment much easier.

For me, the sheer MULTITUDE of "time Statements" attached to the 2nd coming finally opened my eyes. I could no longer in good conscience twist words and phrases used to describe the "2nd coming" such as "Soon, Shortly, At Hand, In yet a very little while, about to come, at the door, will not tarry, some of you standing here will not taste death till you see the son of man come, This generation shall not pass, you will not have finished going over the cities of Israel till the son of man be come, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum", and stretch them to mean 2000+ years without realizing I was butchering Gods word to fit my preconcieved notions.

When I found out my concept of the 2nd coming didn't fit the Word of God, I chose to change my concept to fit the Word, instead of Changing Gods word to fit my concept as I finally realized I had been doing for nearly 2 decades!!

One bit of research that helped me tremendously, was that I scoured the Bible to see If God ever failed to fulfill a promise within the Time limits He himself set for it's fulfillment. I found that He NEVER EVER fulfilled a promise outside of the Plain, human time parameters He himself set. Not once, EVER. And in EVERY instance He put a time limit on a prophesy's fulfillment, it was given and Understood by How time relates to MAN, not how time relates to God, and was fulfilled thusly. The 3rd day = The 3rd day,7 days = 7 days, 40 days & Nights = 40 days & nights, 70 years = 70 years etc , etc, etc.......

When God says Soon, he means soon in Human terms. He can be trusted. He tells the truth.

Jesus Christ returned, as promised, on schedule, "Shortly" after it was predicted 2000 years ago, and is present with us fully, totally, today and evermore, a world without end, AMEN!!

Our Job is not to attempt to "explain away" why Jesus didn't return WHEN he said He would, but to discover HOW he fulfilled His promise. "Shortly", from 2000 years ago, has long since passed, Either Jesus has returned, or we can throw the Bible away because If we can't trust Jesus on the timing of the 2nd coming, we can't trust Him on the Doctorines of Grace or anything else for that matter. We Might as well be atheists!!

Peace in the Present Christ
Peter

JesusFreak2K1
10-14-01, 07:48 AM
Wow, Peter!!!! This is all so much to comprehend!!!! Did you find yourself overwhelmed (like me!) when you came to this crossroad? I have so many millions of questions racing through my mind right now!!

I want to begin my research right away. Could you please recommend the reading material I would need to help me in this search? Also, could you tell me which branch of christianity teaches preterism....ie, baptist, lutheran, episcopalian, etc...?

If I am pestering you too much about this subject, I apologize. I love Jesus SO MUCH, I want to learn about everything that pertains to Him. I hope you understand and I thank you for your wonderful patience! I will wait again for your answer.

God bless you!!!!

Parousia70
10-14-01, 08:24 AM
Believe me JF2K1,
I still do more than my share of pestering of my fellow preterists so I am happy, no, thrilled to return the favor!!

As for which denomination teaches preterism, many teach some form, what's called "partial preterism"( an oxymoron IMO, like saying "Partially pregnant) but it means that MOST of the prophesies of Revelation are fulfilled, but the 2nd coming itself still lies in our future. Many catholics to baptists to presbyterians teach P.P. The Church of Christ is probably the most open about it, although I have some issues about what they teach about music....anyway, I digress...

Here are a few Links tat should help you right away!!

www.preteristarchive.com <easily the most thorough preterist site in the world. be prepared to spend plenty of time but if you have a question about preterism, that site has the answer.

Next I highly recommend
www.bereanbiblechurch.org
Click on the "eschatology" link on the left side of the page and it will take you to transcripts of sermons given by a preterist pastor named David Curtis...I have his audio collection whis is also available to listen to there as well. He is great at putting the view into terms that us simple folk can understand!! He has a series about Matthew 24 that is amazing!!

I hope you find this helpful, above all, don't believe this because of what I or anyone else says, Pray, study Gods word, ask Him or guidance.

God Bless you,
Peter

JesusFreak2K1
10-14-01, 09:03 AM
Thanks so much, Peter...BTW, my name is Robin.:) pleased to meet you.:D I will look do the reading that you have recommended. I have learned not to take even the most learned men at their word, solely. I am taught by the Holy Spirit, who guides me, because even the most learned of men can be wrong or mistaken. Besides, I follow Christ......not men.

Again, Peter, thank you! And I hope that if I have any questions, you wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction. Have a swell day!! God Bless you!!

Robin:D

Suziannr
10-14-01, 10:22 AM
Parousia70, Thanks for the links! But since I'm new to the study of preterism, they raised a lot of questions. I'll continue reading but maybe you can answer two for me more speedily than I can find the answers in these link.

1. 2 Thess 4:16, 17

4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

4:17
Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The preterist view, I think, says that this occured at the Fall of Jerusalem AD 70. Can you explain then if the preterist believe that all believers were caught up in the clouds at that time. I'm a little confused by how this can be interpreted.

2. Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

Pastor Curtis has stated that the preterist view teaches that Satan has been destroyed and thrown into the lake of fire and that now we wrestle against flesh. That may be paraphrased but that is the understanding I received from his teaching. Ephesians says we wrestle NOT against flesh......can you help me with what the preterist view is on this.

Thanks for your willingness to answer these questions on an interesting topic.

In Him, Suz

Parousia70
10-14-01, 11:32 AM
Hi Suz..
Great Questions!
I'll try to tackle them one at a time.....
Some of the following is mine, mixed with others thoughts on the issue....
1 Thess 4:16-18) 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

According to Strongs exhaustive concordance, two different Greek words are translated into the english 'air'
One is 'ouranos' It refers to the air where the birds fly and higher: above the mountain tops, in the atmosphere, outer space or Heaven itself.
The other is 'aer' and this is the one Paul uses in his 1 Thess. passage. It is the 'air or location into which the Living Saints are 'caught up'. It's primary meaning, according to Strongs, is the internal breathing air (inside us) and air within our immediate proximity (as exhaled)

This technical and important distinction, I believe, makes a huge difference. "Aer" the noun comes from the Greek root verb meaning 'to breathe unconscoiusly'.

The exegetic distinction of 2 different 'airs' reflects 2 different locations. It is a critical diference and, I believe, renders the concept of a flight through the sky up into the atmosphere as suspect and difficult to support. In short, ones feet don't even have to leave the ground to get caught up in this air (aer) with the Lord.

The prophetic use of "clouds" in the Bible often symbolizes humans,spirit beings, and those who have died in the Lord ie: "we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses"
(Heb 12:1 ; 22-24, Jude 12) and also all throughout the OT, God came in judgement against nations "in" or "on" Clouds ie: through the actions of Human armies, not literal Foggy water vapor.

Suppose Jesus returned on a literal cloudless day in my section of the world? would I be left behind simply because there were no "Clouds" for me to get caught up in? and if his comming was preceded by a 'clouding over of all the earth', a sign to all that the rapture was iminent, what happens to the "theif in the Night" analogy?
A literal interpretation of Clouds demands that clouds be present.

I believe a figurative interpretation of the word "Clouds" is far more consistant with the location of the air(aer) into which the saints are caught up than a materialistic one.

The Greek for 'meet' in this instance is "apantesis" It is a very unique word used only 3 other times in scripture. It is a special, one of a kind type of "meeting"

Apantesis always referrs to a traveler, (in the 1 Thess. case, Jesus, in other uses the traveler referrs to Paul or the Bridegroom; Matt.25:1,6 & Acts 28:15) traveling to a particular destination, a group of representatives from that destination go out to 'meet'(apantesis) him, and imediatly escort him back to where the representatives came from, which is the travelers destination. The Biblical usage of apantesis, as far as I can see, does not allow for a reverse of direction of the traveler, or a 'holding pattern' if you will of the traveler and the representatives. The only people who reverse direction are the representatives. The women do not tarry with the bridegroom or go back to where the Bridegroom came from, they escort him immediatly to the wedding, and the Christians do not tarry with Paul or go back to where Paul came from, they immediatly escort him back to Rome,where they came from.

Assuming we were to actually fly up and 'meet' Jesus in the clouds (I have illustraited why i don't think this is the case, but for the sake of this study I'll assume we do just that) There is no room in the definition of 'apantesis' for us to do anything but immediatly escort Jesus back to Earth with us.(there are many other Greek words that could be translated into 'meet' But I believe the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use 'apantesis' for a reason!)

This coupled with the greek 'katabaino' (meaning descend) which always describes an un-interrupted descent, (see Luke 3:22) seem to me to be strong evidence against the living saints flying off to heaven with Jesus, waiting 3 1/2 or 7 years (depending on a pre or mid trib view) then returning to Earth.

Seems to me that the Bible teaches it all ocourrs in one fell swoop.

Finally, "Comfort one another with these words" what comfort would you get from words that describe an event that would take place 1900+ years from the time you were told to "Comfort one another" ??
"Hang in there, in just a couple thousand years your suffering will be over"

More later.........
Peace

Suziannr
10-14-01, 06:20 PM
Thanks Parousia70. Lots to study there. I look forward to your response to the verse in Ephesians.

He is Faithful,

Suz

Parousia70
10-14-01, 06:24 PM
2. Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

I think it's important here to recognize the "we" in this passage referrs to the 1st century saints living prior to 70AD and not necessarily us today.

I'm curious where Pastor Curtis said we wrestle agianst the flesh?? We today do wrestle against our own human nature, which has always had the capacity for evil. Satan dosen't necessarily need to be somehow"working it" or "Behind it" , Humans do a good enough Job at it on our own (Sadly)

I do believe Satan IS a defeated foe.

I hope this helps,
Peace in Christ,
Peter

Suziannr
10-14-01, 06:38 PM
According to my Bible Satan is a defeated foe. You might ask what about all the evil in the world? If Satan is destroyed why do we still have so much sin and temptation? James says that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Man is totally depraved, we battle the flesh, we battle evil men with corrupt world views, we battle the effects of sin. But Jesus Christ has conquered the Devil. Satan is not the god of this world, the Lord Jesus Christ is, Jesus is Lord.

Parousia, this is from Pastor Curtis' teaching of 4/27/97
"Inspiration and the Second Coming of Christ"

Suz

Parousia70
10-14-01, 06:51 PM
Hi Suz, I remember reading that now,

I think he would distinguish us from "them" in Ephesians but my advise would be that you ask him! I'm sure he'd be glad to answer!
His email is: dbcurtis@erols.com

Give it a shot, ask him exactly what you asked me and please let me know his response!!

Peace in Christ,
Peter

Suziannr
10-14-01, 07:33 PM
Peter, I did it! Thanks for the addy. I'll post his reply.

Suz

Odyssey
10-15-01, 04:40 AM
Great job there, Peter!

Grace to you,

jak

Kathleen
10-18-01, 02:58 PM
So much info in those archives..so many articles..information overload!!:o
So many different views...I don't I buy some specifics there...but I'm gonna continue reading and doing what I'm doing.

Thanks eh!!
God Bless:)

Just Curious
10-23-01, 11:21 AM
Let me get this straight, Satan is NOT the God of THIS WORLD?


You simply attempt to contradict scripture to defend your position that Satan is a defeated foe!

Not doubt, Christ cried "it is finished", but Satan is still alive and well on planet earth.

In fact, He still has access to Heaven to be the "accuser of the brethren" "day and night".

He still walks about "seeking whom he may devour"

Our hope, the BELIEVER's Hope, is this, that "greater is He that is in you, than he that IS in THE WORLD"!!

Not, that satan is not the God of this world, nor alive and well. That is wishful thinking! Though one day He will be! One day Christ shall crush His head and then not long after He will be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tormented day and night, forever and ever. His time has not yet come. He is allowed to roam, and man is allowed to choose the God of this world or the only true God of Glory!

In fact, if we are not salt and light, if we fail to keep our savour from the source of our Savour, Christ, through the indwelling Spirit of God, then we are fit for nothing but to be cast down and trodden under foot of men!

Any who deny what I have written about Satan and His present existence against us in spiritual warfare has simply not read the epistles of Paul! Simply have not read about us not "being aware of His [Satan's} devices" or the "firery darts" of the wicked one!!

Nor have you read the Second chapter of Ephesians specifically where it addresses our three enemies, the world, the flesh, and the Devil, with the Devil being the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that no worketh in the children of disobedience!

Please base your positions on Scripture not personal fancies!

I am,

Just Curious

Parousia70
10-23-01, 11:59 AM
Hi Just Curious,

A couple things here:
You said
"One day Christ shall crush His head and then not long after He will be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tormented day and night, forever and ever."

If you could explain exactly WHAT the "lake of Fire" is, we might be able to get a better grasp on satan's influence or lack thereof while he is IN it.

What scripture do you site to support your belief that once Satan is in the "Lake of Fire" he no longer has any influence in our lives?

Clearly, Genesis sais Satan would "eat the dust of the earth forever" so, even in the lake of fire we see he has acess to the earth to "eat it's dust"

As for Christ crushing his head, I take it you are referring to Romans 16:20.
"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

Paul told the Roman Christians 2000 years ago that Jesus would "Crush Satan under 'THEIR' feet SHORTLY"

Now, was Paul wrong? Their feet are now dust, and "Shortly" from 2000 years ago has come and gone. Either Satan WAS crushed under THEIR feet SHORTLY after Paul predicted it, or Paul is a false witness. Which conclusion do you preferr?

You said
"In fact, He (satan) still has access to Heaven to be the "accuser of the brethren" "day and night".

What Scripture states that Satan, in 2001, has access to Heaven?

The truth is that Satan is a defeated foe, he has been cast into the lake of fire and is eating the dust of the earth forever.

Peace int he Present Christ,
Peter

hoonbaba
10-23-01, 02:19 PM
Hi Just Curious,

I just wanted to share a few things:

Revelation 22:2 says, "On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

This clearly implies that pain would continue to exist in the age to come. To deny this is silly.

Revelation 22:15 says, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Now we learn that evil would continue to exist. And those who do such evil are outside the new jerusalem, the Holy City. Many are are quick to say that the New Jerusalem is a physical city.

However we know a few things about the New Jerusalem:

1) Revelation 21:2, 9 tells us that the New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ.

2) Ephesians 5:25-32 (more specifically verses 31, 32) tells us that the church is the bride of Christ.

3) Therefore church = New Jerusalem. Perhaps this may sound heretical but not the author of Hebrews.

Hebrews 12:22 says, "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,

Compare that with this verse:

"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." <Revelation 21:2>

Many futurists keep saying, "God will set up his kingdom" after the tribulation, etc, etc.

I would suggest you compare Ephesians 5:5 with Revelation 22:15.

It's interesting how Christ himself says, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." <Luke 17:20-21>

So what am I saying? Preterists believe that pain would continue to exist on earth since the Bible never depicts an earthly paradise as Revelation 22:2, 15 points out. After all, why would Revelation 22:17 say the following:

The bride and the spirit say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (Revelation 22:17)

This verse clearly implies that people would get thirsty in the 'age to come'. How different is this from our society?

Lastly, I'm sure you might be thinking of Revelation 21:4 which says, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Doesn't this clearly contradict Revelation 22? I think this passage refers to Lamentations. Consider the following passages:

"Streams of tears flow from my eyes because my people are destroyed." <Lamentations 3:48>

"This is why I weep and my eyes overflow with tears. No one is near to comfort me, no one to restore my spirit. My children are destitute because the enemy has prevailed." <Lamentations 1:16>

Can you imagine Jeremiah saying such things like, "Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer."? (Lamentations 3:8)

Doesn't this seems to relate with every tear being wept away, since Christ effectively dealt with our sins and so now we have communion with God? After all, there's nothing worse than not being accepted by God.

Wow, I digressed a bit. In any case, all I'm saying is that in the age to come, pain and evil would continue to exist. Preterists believe that we are living in that 'age to come'. I hope this helps

God bless you in every way!

-Hoonbaba

Jep
11-13-01, 03:54 PM
Hi all:

I wish to express my thoughts in Christian love and the last thing I wish to do is to hurt someone’s feelings here. I read the forum rules and don’t think I’m transgressing any by disagreeing here. If I am, moderators, please straighten me out. I can take a licking and keep on ticking. :)

I have studied Preterism as I have some friends who espouse this belief and have discovered this. Many things happened in 70 AD at the destruction of the Temple that can only be explained supernaturally. Yet, not enough prophesy fulfillment happened in this event to even satisfy the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse alone (Matt. 24) much less the entire body of scripture pertaining to eschatology.

I would advise newer and younger Christians to study this doctrine very carefully before they embrace it. After all, didn’t Paul instruct us to have two or three witnesses? :)

Parousia70
11-13-01, 11:37 PM
Hi Jep, Welcome to the board!

You said,
"Many things happened in 70 AD at the destruction of the Temple that can only be explained supernaturally. Yet, not enough prophesy fulfillment happened in this event to even satisfy the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse alone (Matt. 24) much less the entire body of scripture pertaining to eschatology."


I truly do not mean to sound snide, but with all due respect concerning your above comment, Says Who? You?

What is it about the prophesies that you have determined that they could not have possibly come to pass with the temple's Destruction?

Jesus said that the time of the temples destruction would be the "fulfillemnt of ALL THINGS written" (Luke 21:20-22)

What I gather from your post is that because you don't see HOW "all things written" could have possibly been fulfilled with the temples destruction, Jesus must have meant something else when He said "all things written" would be fulfilled at that time.

Preterists merely trust the Bible instead of the newspapers. Jesus said (and that ought to be authority enough) All things written would be fulfilled at the time of the temples destruction and I don't believe he was wrong.

When I was initially faced with the delema that my concept of the NATURE of the fulfillment didn't jive with Jesus prediction here, I thought it best to adjust my CONCEPTIONS to Fit Christs words instead of attempting to adjust His words to fit my concept.

I certainly respect and uphold your right to disagree, and I certainly feel you respect my equal right to do same.

Again, perhaps you could be more specific as to why you believe as you said:
"not enough prophesy fulfillment happened in this event to even satisfy the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse alone"

Thanks in Christ,
Peter

Jep
11-14-01, 12:03 PM
“I truly do not mean to sound snide, but with all due respect concerning your above comment, Says Who? You?”

ME: LOL...Yes, I’m my favorite authority to quote. But seriously, there are many who have studied this and cannot embrace Preterism. I am but one.

“Again, perhaps you could be more specific as to why you believe as you said:
"not enough prophesy fulfillment happened in this event to even satisfy the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse alone”

ME: Yes, but this post will be one long dude. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD--that’s a certainty of history. But one problem I have with the Preterist (although I still love them) is his assumption that, just because this first prophecy has been fulfilled, so has the rest of the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the remainder of the New Testament.

One misunderstanding that seems to lie in common with the Preterists is the broad and almost universal assumption, as evidenced in their writings, that Matthew 24 is just one long conversation, all centering around the destruction of the Temple, when, in fact, it is not. The Bible makes that plain in two different books. Matthew 24:3 gives us the first important hint. Note that in the first two verses Jesus is walking out from the temple when the first conversation ensues, but in verse three, the second conversation, Christ is no longer in the presence of His disciples and is now sitting on the Mount of Olives overlooking Jerusalem: “As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. ‘Tell us,’ they said, ‘when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” The fact is this is another moment in time, possibly a short time, but never-the-less it’s enough lapse to show it is not an ordinal extension of the same sentences previously orated.

Then note the three prong nature of their question: (verse 3) “when will this happen, what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Mark 13:4 gives us a slightly different paradigm: “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

What a strange follow-up question, for it is recorded in the scriptures Jesus initially tells them only of one singular event. When Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down,” one might expect the response to be: when will this happen? But the disciples are asking plural questions that were not previously discussed: When will these things happen, what will be the sign of your coming, what will be the sign of the end of the age, what will be the sign they are all about to be fulfilled?

Christ had made certain statements to the Pharisees back in chapter 23 while inside the Temple that may have puzzled the disciples exceedingly. To the Pharisees he had said: “Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” And, in fact, the Jews never did say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” and thus, never did “see” our Lord return.

The disciples seemed confused at some of Jesus’ statements inside the Temple as these statements did not fit into their understanding of future events, for they were convinced that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear (Luke 19:11).

To properly understand the meaning of their questions, it is necessary to distinguish that when the disciples inquired of Christ’s coming, they used the Greek word parousia which means visible appearance--physical presence. The importance of this meaning in the Greek will become apparent when we later contrast two different words for “coming” in the Greek (If we get that far).

Now we can examine three companion passages in Luke that are not found in Matthew: “You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death.” According to Christian tradition, with the possible exception of the Apostle John, ALL the apostles were martyred.

Finally the last sentence of Luke’s passage will drive my point home: “All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life.” And another statement adds clarity: “This will result in your being witnesses to them.”

From the get-go we can determine that Christ could not possibly be talking about the Jews and what happened to them in 70 AD, because, first, they are not and never have been witnesses for Christ as a race. They loathed Him, rejected Him and killed Him. And, many “hairs on their head” perished in 70 AD when 1,100,000 were slaughtered and the rest exiled and sold into slavery. Further, we have proved that Christ is not talking to His disciples exclusively, for many “hairs on their head” also perished, and well before 70 AD. In fact, all the apostles were murdered with the possible exception of the Apostle John if you believe that he and John the Revelator is the same person (I don’t). We can use deductive logic to see that Christ is talking about His church!

Now that I have shown that Christ was not extending His conversation about the destruction of the Temple but was answering questions about what he was teaching in the Temple, and I have established that He was talking only to the church, I will begin to address certain prophecies in the next post.

“I certainly respect and uphold your right to disagree, and I certainly feel you respect my equal right to do same.”

ME: I certainly do, Brother. I appreciate these debate forums as this gives us opportunity to learn from one another. But when I meet you in the New Jerusalem, I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut that these irrelevant conversations will be the furthest thing from our minds. :)

Jep
11-14-01, 12:47 PM
In Mark 13:37, the last verse of this body of prophecies in that book, Jesus makes a very clear and direct statement as to who this entire Discourse is directed, for, He tells the disciples He is not just talking to them as an assemblage, but to all of those who expect, and are awaiting, His coming: “What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” To whom is that directed? To the saint--to the Church--to those Christians who so long to be with their Savior!

Now we can look at some individual prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and its companion scriptures in the other two synoptic gospels. Matthew 24: (Verse14) “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

The gospel has not been preached in some Moslem countries even today. We have no basis to state this scripture was fulfilled by 70 AD.

Now let‘s walk through Matthew 24:15:25:

‘“So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

The 70 AD event took place in Jerusalem, not in Judea.

“Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.”

No one within the walls of Jerusalem made it out alive until they were conquered. Then the old ones were killed, and the young ones sold as slaves. They had no chance to flee as one day the looked up and they were surrounded by the Roman army. This must be talking about something else.

“For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”

ME: So who is this elect that God cuts these days short to protect? The church, of course. The Jews were not the elect. In fact they hated Jesus Christ. There was not one “elect” within the walls of Jerusalem at the time of the destruction of the Temple.

Matt. 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”

ME: This did not happen in 70 AD either. Josephus would have reported it, and it would be in every history book around the world.

Vs. 30: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Nor did this happen. While it was reported by Josephus that Roman chariots were seen galloping around the clouds, there is nothing to believe Christ was seen coming on the clouds. In fact, if He had been seen doing this by the Jews, you would not have one non-Messianic Jew alive today.

31 “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

ME: Was there a rapture of the church in 70 AD, or even a gathering of it? Nope. This would have been plastered through the history books as well.

“33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

When we examine this scripture in context we can see that it is misused by those who teach that Jesus was stating that all these things would happen to that present generation which he was then facing and speaking to. He quite clearly states that the generation he is referring to is the one that sees the signs. Not the Disciples.

Then we can go into chapter 25: “31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:”

Is there anything recorded in Josephus’ work where Christ came down with angels, gathered together all the nations and divided them into the good, bad and ugly? No. Therefore the destruction of the Temple could not be what Christ is referring to here.

Well, there is much more. But I think I’ll stop here. I believe I’ve shown from the first post forward that Christ is talking not to the Jews but to the church. There was not one single Christian present at the Temple in 70 AD. They would have been killed immediately.

Odyssey
11-14-01, 01:45 PM
Jep,

First, let me state that you are assuming that the disciples had three different questions in mind. That there were two different topics that concerned them. Where did they get the idea to group them all together? Why would they put the destruction of the Temple with the supposed 'end of the world'? If one studies the OT judgments of god, not only upon the covenant peoples, but also on the nations that opposed them, one will find that in every case it is said to be the 'coming of god.' Without fail. Therefore, since the disciples were Jews, they would have known this. They would have known that the fall of the Temple was the sign of the judgment of god, of his 'coming.' They would have also deduced that it would be the close of the 'age' (which is what the term really is). It would be the 'end of the world' as they knew it.

Concerning Matthew 24.14: You wrote,


The gospel has not been preached in some Moslem countries even today. We have no basis to state this scripture was fulfilled by 70 AD.

I beg to differ here. Paul wrote: '...the gospel, which has come to you, just as in all the world...' And later, 'if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister' (Col. 1.5-6, 23). Paul wrote that the gospel had been preached 'in all the world' and that it 'was proclaimed in all creation under heaven.' It seems pretty clear that the gospel had already been preached 'in all the world' by the time Jerusalem fell.

Concerning vv.15-16: If we compare Luke's account, we have the interpretation of this statement. Luke wrote, ' "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand." ' Here we see that Jesus was referring to the Roman invasion of, not only Jerusalem, but all of Palestine. This is proven by his statement, 'for wherever the carcase (i.e., OC Judaism) may be, there shall the eagles be gathered together' (v.28). We know from history that whereever the Jews were, the Romans hunted them down.

Concerning vv.17-20: History tells us that before the official outbreak of the war, the church, i.e., the first century church escaped and fled to the mountains in Pella.

Concerning vv.21-22: The 'tribulation' was already taking place during the first century. In Revelation, John wrote, 'I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation...'

The shortening of days was indeed for the church. But again, it was not the church throughout the ages. It was the church of the first century. Paul wrote, 'But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none' (1Cor.7.29). If we look at the rest of that passage, we see that Paul gave the first century church specific instructions because 'the form of this world is passing away' (v.31)--not that it will be someday.

Concerning the signs of vv.29-31: All throughout the OT, this type of imagery was used to describe the fall of a nation (eg. see Isa.34.1-5; Zeph.1.1-4, 14-18). Not once was it used to describe actual, i.e., physical, events.

The things that Josephus recorded was not Roman chariots in the clouds (how did they get in the clouds). He wrote that they were angelic warriors battling in the air.

Concerning v.34: I have shown that Jesus was speaking to the disciples. This is quite clear from his use of the term 'you.' If he was referring to some unknown group of people (be it the disciples or another generation of believers) he would have used the term 'they.'

Lastly, concerning the judgment in 25.31-32: You left out a whole lot of parables that completely explain this scene. To summarize--in every one of them, without exception the person returned to the people he left. Not once does it state that he returned to another generation of peoples and then punished that generation for something the other generation did.

Nope. Matthew 24 deals completely with things the disciples, and the early church, would witness and experience.

Grace to you,

jak

Debbiek
11-14-01, 02:42 PM
I agree with Jep. Where is evidence of the mark of the beast being used in the past? Debbie

Odyssey
11-14-01, 03:12 PM
Debbie,

The 'mark' is not a totally new idea to Revelation. We find it in the OT as well. What we need to realize about the 'mark' was that is was not an actual or literal mark. That is, John was seeing this in the spiritual realm. This 'mark' was an identification with the 'beast.' In other words, it showed which side you were on. This is exactly the way it was used in the OT (see Eze.8-9). What John was seeing was the allegiance with the 'beast'--the heart of the people, if you will. I can't see your heart (your alliegence to god) and you can't see mine. For all we know, I might be a satan worshipping pagan (I hope you all realize that this is just an example, not really me). But John had the honor of seeing that allegiance. He saw that the people had a 'mark' or 'seal' placed upon them showing that their allegiance was with 'the beast' and not god.

In Ezekiel we see the exact opposite. The 'mark' was placed on those who were repentant in heart because of thier sins and the sins of the nation. The 'angels' did not slay those with the mark.

In Revelation, it was the opposite. The 'mark' was to show that the people were not in allegiance with god.

Grace to you,

jak

Jep
11-14-01, 06:43 PM
ME: LOL...You found the posts. I finally did. I seem to be stumbling around in here.

“First, let me state that you are assuming that the disciples had three different questions in mind. That there were two different topics that concerned them. Where did they get the idea to group them all together? Why would they put the destruction of the Temple with the supposed 'end of the world'?”

ME: I’m not sure, but they most obviously did. Jesus had just instructed the Pharisees in chapter 23 that: “36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!” Jesus comments that the stones would not be left standing concerning the Temple would seem to logically follow.

ME: We must also remember that the apostles were clue-less as to what would happen in the last days. In fact after the ministry of Jesus is over, the apostles ask a really stupid question: Acts 1:4 “Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, ""Which,'' He said, ""you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'' 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, ""Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?'' 7 He said to them, ""It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;”

ME: These guys actually still believed that the kingdom Jesus had so emphasized in his teachings was a political one involving the country of Israel!

“If one studies the OT judgments of god, not only upon the covenant peoples, but also on the nations that opposed them, one will find that in every case it is said to be the 'coming of god.' Without fail.”

ME: I’m afraid you will have to back this up scripturally if I’m to address it specifically.

“They would have known that the fall of the Temple was the sign of the judgment of god, of his 'coming.' They would have also deduced that it would be the close of the 'age' (which is what the term really is). It would be the 'end of the world' as they knew it.”

ME: The destruction of the Temple WAS a judgment of God. Jesus precisely tells the Jews why in the 23rd chapter as I stated above. Yet, this does not extrapolate logically to mean that every eschatological Bible prophecy was fulfilled herein. See my point? :) And please remember that this was not the end of the world an ANYONE knew it. Christians and Messianic Jews, as were the apostles, were not affected at all by this event. They had left the area years earlier. And surely we can look at Israel today and see that this was not the end of the world for them either. The hard truth is this was not the end of anything for anybody, other than the Temple itself.


“I beg to differ here. Paul wrote: '...the gospel, which has come to you, just as in all the world...' And later, 'if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister' (Col. 1.5-6, 23). Paul wrote that the gospel had been preached 'in all the world' and that it 'was proclaimed in all creation under heaven.”

ME: Yes, I’m aware of that scripture. But was the gospel really preached throughout the world? Dr. Thomas Newton from his 1754 work, Dissertations on the Prophecies, writes: “It appears indeed from the writers of the history of the church, that before the destruction of Jerusalem the gospel was not only preached in lesser Asia, and Greece, and Italy, the great theatres of action then in the world; but was likewise propagated as far northward as Scythia, as far southward as Ethiopia, as far eastward as Parthia, and India, as far westward as Spain and Britain”

ME: But that leaves out a whole slew of other areas: The Valley of Mexico, the Nile, Niger, and Congo Rivers (West-Central Africa); the Isonghee of Zaire (Republic of Congo) who introduced the mathematical abacus; Kenya, Ziare, Tanzania, Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Mozambique--North America which we know was populated over 40,000 years ago. About 100 AD, in Indoniesia the “Dvipantara” or “Jawa Dwipa” kingdom is reported by Indian scholars to be alive and well and growing strong in Java and Sumatra. The Xia Dynasty of china dates from B.C. 21 to B.C. 16. Chinese history proves it’s population was educated and had learned the skill of writing over 1500 years before the life of Christ. And the list just goes on and on. By no stretch of the imagination had the gospel been preached throughout the whole world. Paul meant the world that was known to him. Jesus knew exactly what world He was talking about because He created it.

“Concerning vv.15-16: If we compare Luke's account, we have the interpretation of this statement. Luke wrote, ' "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand.”

ME: But we don’t know WHICH surrounding that Luke was writing about. I can think of three since 1948 and many before then. There will be another one to come.

“Concerning vv.17-20: History tells us that before the official outbreak of the war, the church, i.e., the first century church escaped and fled to the mountains in Pella.”

ME: No, this is not correct. Josephus says the Roman general Vespasian, began the siege of Jerusalem and set up pagan symbols in the Temple. But hearing of the political tumult in Rome, returned to Rome to become the new emperor. He then sent his son Titus back to Jerusalem to finish the siege, and during the lull in the siege, Christians alert to the warnings of Christ, fled the city. To: Antioch in Syria, Alexandria in Egypt and Rome in Italy. Not Pella.


“Concerning vv.21-22: The 'tribulation' was already taking place during the first century. In Revelation, John wrote, 'I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation..'“

ME: Many tribulations have taken place in the lives of the Jews. We have Stalin, Hitler and Arafat to show this only in the 20th century. There were many before that. The Romans were only one of them.

“The shortening of days was indeed for the church. But again, it was not the church throughout the ages. It was the church of the first century. Paul wrote, 'But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none' (1Cor.7.29). If we look at the rest of that passage, we see that Paul gave the first century church specific instructions because 'the form of this world is passing away' (v.31)--not that it will be someday.”

ME: No form of this world passed away. The Temple was destroyed and that was that. Paul firmly and wrongly believed that the coming of Christ was imminent. Yet is was not, quite obviously. The time was not shortened for the elect concerning the 70 AD destruction. There WERE no elect present in the 70 AD destruction. Only Jews.

“Concerning the signs of vv.29-31: All throughout the OT, this type of imagery was used to describe the fall of a nation (eg. see Isa.34.1-5; Zeph.1.1-4, 14-18). Not once was it used to describe actual, i.e., physical, events.”

ME: That is simply wrong. The Day of the Lord as described from cover to cover totally echoes Matt. 24. The details are nothing short of amazing and we are yet to see them occur. When we do, we’ll know it.

“The things that Josephus recorded was not Roman chariots in the clouds (how did they get in the clouds). He wrote that they were angelic warriors battling in the air.”

ME: How did they get in the air? :)

“Lastly, concerning the judgment in 25.31-32: You left out a whole lot of parables that completely explain this scene. To summarize--in every one of them, without exception the person returned to the people he left. Not once does it state that he returned to another generation of peoples and then punished that generation for something the other generation did.”

ME: And so I totally lost you on that one.

“Nope. Matthew 24 deals completely with things the disciples, and the early church, would witness and experience.”

ME: Yep. Because that’s not what it says by any stretch of the imagination. Jep hath spoken. Let ye who hath ears, hear. :)

Jep
11-14-01, 06:59 PM
“The 'mark' is not a totally new idea to Revelation. We find it in the OT as well. What we need to realize about the 'mark' was that is was not an actual or literal mark.”

ME: Hmmm...You seem like a nice guy, but you often make statements not backed up by scripture. Please back this one up if you will.

“That is, John was seeing this in the spiritual realm. This 'mark' was an identification with the 'beast.' In other words, it showed which side you were on.”

ME: This simply is not true. The mark is an economic mark that allows people to buy and sell. Rev. 13:16-17: “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” There is no time in history that this has ever occurred. But stick around. We’re getting close with the National ID cards.

Odyssey
11-16-01, 08:29 AM
Jep,

I don’t know what to say. I really had to take some time away to collect my thoughts about what you have written. To start, I applaude you for having the guts to state that Paul ‘wrongly believed that the coming of Christ was imminent.’ There are many futurists out there and the only conclusion they can have for their view is that the writers of the NT were wrong in their beliefs. I have only had one other person make this claim. It astounds me.

With that stated, I will take the words of the apostles over yours any day of the week. For there is a big problem here. It is two fold. First, when I was a little kid, while taking a ‘True or False’ test, I was told that if one part was false, then it’s all false. If what you are saying is true, then we cannot believe any of the Bible. For how can we know which part is true? If Paul and the rest of the apostles (not to mention Jesus), were wrong about their eschatology, then how do we know they were right concerning salvation? What proof do we have to base it on? We can’t use the Bible, because the text we use would probably be wrong (or at least someone could claim that, just as you have done). If it doesn’t fit our understanding of those events, then the Bible is just wrong. I mean, Paul wrote that the days ‘have been shortened’ but you state, ‘The time was not shortened…’ Good position.

This leads to the next problem and that is: If the inspired apostle, who wrote the ‘god-breathed’ Scriptures, was ‘wrong,’ how do you know you’re right? I mean, if they missed it, there is no hope for the rest of us. Do you understand what I am stating? We can’t trust the Bible, but we can trust you! Wow. Again, good position.

Next, let’s consider the other parts of you post. When I stated that before the ‘official outbreah of the war’ the Christians escaped to Pella, you wrote, ‘No, this is not correct. Josephus says the Roman general Vespasian, began the siege of Jerusalem and set up pagan symbols in the Temple. But hearing of the political tumult in Rome, returned to Rome to become the new emperor. He then sent his son Titus back to Jerusalem to finish the siege, and during the lull in the siege, Christians alert to the warnings of Christ, fled the city. To: Antioch in Syria, Alexandria in Egypt and Rome in Italy. Not Pella.’

You need to check your history. Eusebius wrote, ‘The people belonging to the church at Jerusalem had been ordered by an oracle revealed to approved men on the spot before the war broke out, to leave the city and dwell in a town of Peraea called Pella’ (Histories 3.5). The destruction of the city came only after the Christians left.

Concerning the ‘tribulation:’ I guess this time, John was wrong. He wrote that he, as well as the first century church, was going through ‘the tribulation’ not a tribulation. The reason this one is important is the fact that it occurred within Christ’s and the apostle’s generation. Jesus told them that it was coming and John wrote that it was present.

Concerning the ‘world’ of Paul versus the ‘world’ of Jesus: These were not different ‘worlds’ or understandings of the term ‘world’ as you assert. Paul testified over and over that what he received he received it from Christ himself. That it was not taught to him by another apostle. So, Jesus told him the ‘entire planet’ but Paul heard ‘the inhabited earth?’ Really? I find this hard to believe. Especially when we look at the Greek term for this word. Jesus used the word ‘kosmos’ and it means many different things. They all depend on their context. Sometimes it was used to represent the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews (Rom.11.12); sometimes just the Christians (1Cor.4.9; 2Cor.5.19). It also takes on the meaning of the ‘the inhabited earth.’ Now, what term did Paul use? ‘Kosmos.’ Hhhmmm. Jesus told the disciples to preach the gospel to the ‘kosmos’ and Paul wrote that it was accomplished. Jesus even went to far as to tell them to ‘preach the gospel to every creature’ and Paul wrote that this also had been done. If fact, he, again, used the exact same terms. Therefore, your position that Jesus and Paul referred to two different ‘worlds’ is completely unfounded. Unless, of course, Paul was ‘wrong’ again. He sure seems to be wrong a lot.

Concerning the signs throughout the Bible: You wrote, ‘The Day of the Lord as described from cover to cover totally echoes Matt. 24. The details are nothing short of amazing and we are yet to see them occur. When we do, we’ll know it.’ I agree that they ‘totally echoe Matthew 24.’ However, as the references I posted prove, those things are not to be taken literally, i.e., physically. The prophesy of Isa.34 was against Edom and was fulfilled in 721 BC by Assyria. Within the passage, we see that the ‘host of heaven will wear away’ and ‘the sky will roll up like a scroll,’ etc. These things did not literally take place. However, that doesn’t make it any less fulfilled.

This same is seen in Zeph.1. It was against Israel. Note the destruction of all flesh, the day of the was Lord near; the day of the Lord was coming very quickly. There was also wrath; destruction; darkness; clouds; trumpet; earth destroyed by fire; etc. This was fulfilled in 587 BC. Again, not literally (or what can be seen by the natural eye), but those things represented the nation Israel and her world.

I could go on but I feel that this is falling on deaf ears. For you to hold that the apostles were wrong in their view of eschatology but you are right in your view, all you have to do is state that all of the things I wrote is ‘wrong.’ That those things ‘did not happen’ even though the Bible and history stated they did.

I am sorry, but I will no longer correspond with you on this matter. I pray that god continues to lead and guide you into all truth.

Grace to you,

jak

Brandan
11-16-01, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Jep
ME: No form of this world passed away. The Temple was destroyed and that was that. Paul firmly and wrongly believed that the coming of Christ was imminent. Yet is was not, quite obviously. The time was not shortened for the elect concerning the 70 AD destruction. There WERE no elect present in the 70 AD destruction. Only Jews.

If Paul was wrong about this, how do we know he wasn't wrong about everything else? By saying that inspired Scripture is incorrect on one point, then it is no longer inspired... Wow.

Jep
11-16-01, 12:39 PM
“I am sorry, but I will no longer correspond with you on this matter. I pray that god continues to lead and guide you into all truth.”

ME: This is fine, thank you, and I’ve enjoyed our discourse. However I will address the concerns of your final post, and since Kermie’s is similar, his as well.

“There are many futurists out there and the only conclusion they can have for their view is that the writers of the NT were wrong in their beliefs.”

ME: This is simply not true. I glean my beliefs straight from the Bible as it walks me through the last days. When I studied Preterism, I had to reject it from my belief system, as I simply could not tear the entire books of Daniel and Revelation from my Bible. These books will walk us through the last days, especially the 7 seals, from the 1st where Antichrist is revealed, to the 5th and 6th where the church is raptured, to the 7th where the wrath of God is poured out on those left on earth. It’s in there in black and white, and I have no choice but to accept that which is contained within.

“when I was a little kid, while taking a ‘True or False’ test, I was told that if one part was false, then it’s all false. If what you are saying is true, then we cannot believe any of the Bible. For how can we know which part is true?”

ME: Bible study is dissimilar from taking a test. The Bible cannot be understood at all if we do not study it contextually. It is impossible to be a true Bible literalist because much of the Bible cannot be taken literally. As example, when the Bible tells us that God owns the cattle on a thousand hillsides, would I go down to my local court house and do a title search to see exactly which mountains are deeded to God? No. That would be silly because this is not at all a literal scripture.


“If Paul and the rest of the apostles (not to mention Jesus), were wrong about their eschatology, then how do we know they were right concerning salvation? What proof do we have to base it on? We can’t use the Bible, because the text we use would probably be wrong (or at least someone could claim that, just as you have done).”

ME: They were not wrong about their eschatology and I have never stated such if you will consider my overall argument. We simply must understand the context of their statements. First you choose to ignore this: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mat. 24:36)” And you choose to ignore this: “So when they met together, they asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. (Acts 1:6-7)”’ And you choose to ignore this: “I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, ‘My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?’ He replied, ‘Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. (Dan 12:8-9)”’

ME: Second, one cannot prove anything in the Bible using the scientific method. Faith is subjective reality, not objective reality. I know I am saved because the Holy Spirit lives within me. My Bible also tells me this.

“This leads to the next problem and that is: If the inspired apostle, who wrote the ‘god-breathed’ Scriptures, was ‘wrong,’ how do you know you’re right?”

ME: Paul was not wrong at all. He was following these teachings of Jesus: Luke 12:35-40
“Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps alight. And 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.” “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” (Matthew 24:42-44). And Paul fully clarified why he took the “short days” course in his writings: “.....Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.” I Thessalonians 5:1-6

ME: I find this state of preparedness from cover to cover in the New Testament. Please reread the talents parable, the foolish virgins parable, and others. This is a major theme throughout the New Testament. The writers would be teaching heresy if they were to teach anything other than the teachings of Jesus and one of His foremost teaching was watch every day for my return--immanency. Plus, you could die today. No man knows when he will meet the Lord.

“You need to check your history. Eusebius wrote, ‘The people belonging to the church at Jerusalem had been ordered by an oracle revealed to approved men on the spot before the war broke out, to leave the city and dwell in a town of Peraea called Pella’ (Histories 3.5).”

ME: You need to know that Eusebius has been challenged on this by other historians. “Did the Jerusalem Christians flee to Pella just before the Romans destroyed their city? There is no way to know for sure. We can only deal in probabilities. If we accept as reliable the accounts of Eusebius and others, the issue is settled. If, as did Brandon, one begins by doubting those records and seeks reasons for supporting that skepticism, the answer to the question will most certainly be, "No,”

http://www.preteristarchive.com/GeneralStudies/gs_flee-pella.html

ME: I disagree with Eusebius, first because he was a bishop in the fourth century and would have had no way to know this. Second because in the third century many Christian churches were discovered, only one which is in Pella.

“Concerning the ‘tribulation:’ I guess this time, John was wrong. He wrote that he, as well as the first century church, was going through ‘the tribulation’ not a tribulation.”

ME: That depends on which translation you read. The KJV certainly doesn’t read this way. “I John , who also am your brother , and companion in tribulation , and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ , was in the isle that is called Patmos , for the word of God , and for the testimony of Jesus Christ .” The word used here “thlipsis” which literally means: thlipsis thlip'-sis from 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble. We can see that for us to believe John to be stating that they were going through the great tribulation as predicted in the Bible is erroneous exegesis.

“Jesus told the disciples to preach the gospel to the ‘kosmos’ and Paul wrote that it was accomplished. Jesus even went to far as to tell them to ‘preach the gospel to every creature’ and Paul wrote that this also had been done.”

ME: “kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.” Jesus ordered the gospel to be preached throughout the world. Now how do you think that Paul accomplished this, if he did? The American Indians were here 38,000 years before the time of Paul. How do you suppose he came over here to preach to them when our country was not even discovered until 1492? The same can be said about larger Africa, Indonesia, China, and on and on.


“Concerning the signs throughout the Bible: You wrote, ‘The Day of the Lord as described from cover to cover totally echoes Matt. 24. The details are nothing short of amazing and we are yet to see them occur. When we do, we’ll know it.’ I agree that they ‘totally echoe Matthew 24.’”

ME: Thank you. Then you will also agree that the Day of the Lord as defined in the passages I posted has not occurred yet because both Peter and Paul state this: 2 Peter 3:10-13 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11: Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13: Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

ME: II Thess 2:2 “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

“For you to hold that the apostles were wrong in their view of eschatology but you are right in your view, all you have to do is state that all of the things I wrote is ‘wrong.’ That those things ‘did not happen’ even though the Bible and history stated they did.”

ME: The Bible and history state just the opposite, I’m afraid. I have not only stated that I disagree with some of your posits, I have shown you through scripture that some are incorrect. Remember: Sola Scriptura. See how fast Jep the futurist picks up the lingo of these fora. :) Peace, Brother.