-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
I see a lot of words and no Scriptures.
In Matthew 24 there are two questions that are asked by Christ disciples.
Mat 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Mat 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Christ left the temple and then told his disciples that not one stone would be left upon another. He is speaking about the temple, the temple was located in Jerusalem. Go back to Matthew 23:36-39, Christ is speaking about Jerusalem. Anytime a Scripture is interpreted it must be interpreted in light of its context. A text out of context is pretext to error.
Anyway Christ is asked three question by his disciples in verse number 3.
1. He is asked when will these things be
2. What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of age.
The disciples want to know when the temple is going to be destroyed, and Christ lays it out for them in verse 4-35. This would be inclusive of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Mat 24:34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
Christ even tells the disciples that all the things that he had just said would happen within their generation.
If it has not happened then there should be some real old folks walking around somewhere.
Christ then answers the 2nd question beginning in verse 36.
What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age.
Verse 36, " "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."
Christ then goes on to explain in verse 37 - 57 and following and uses Noah as an example. Christ even reiterates that no one knows the hour in verse 42, 44.
That is why the parables in Chapter 25 are important. They teach that one must always be prepared because we do not know the day or the hour of Christ return. There will be no signs, that is why it is said that Christ would return as a thief in the night. A theif does nto give any signs of coming.
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
In Matthew 24 there are two questions that are asked by Christ disciples.
Mat 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Mat 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Christ left the temple and then told his disciples that not one stone would be left upon another. He is speaking about the temple, the temple was located in Jerusalem. Go back to Matthew 23:36-39, Christ is speaking about Jerusalem. Anytime a Scripture is interpreted it must be interpreted in light of its context. A text out of context is pretext to error.
Anyway Christ is asked three question by his disciples in verse number 3.
1. He is asked when will these things be
2. What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of age.
The disciples want to know when the temple is going to be destroyed, and Christ lays it out for them in verse 4-35. This would be inclusive of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Mat 24:34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
Christ even tells the disciples that all the things that he had just said would happen within their generation.
If it has not happened then there should be some real old folks walking around somewhere.
Christ then answers the 2nd question beginning in verse 36.
What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age.
Verse 36, " "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."
Christ then goes on to explain in verse 37 - 57 and following and uses Noah as an example. Christ even reiterates that no one knows the hour in verse 42, 44.
That is why the parables in Chapter 25 are important. They teach that one must always be prepared because we do not know the day or the hour of Christ return. There will be no signs, that is why it is said that Christ would return as a thief in the night. A theif does nto give any signs of coming.
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
P
Becausehedied, thank you for the word and your opinion has been noted, I do agree with some points, but I do not agree with the preterist opinion that the generation that saw these things were fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple, unless you meant the prophecy concerning the Temple was fulfilled in 70 A.D
Again thanks for both your time and thoughts on the matter.
Again thanks for both your time and thoughts on the matter.
I think when using poetic license with the number 1000 it is mentioned once and not dwelt on. For instance, the book of Psalms is a book of songs (basically poems in a musical format). Some of them have very literal truth to them (such as God owning cattle, because cattle are part of his creation), but I think a lot of them are given to poetic license.
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
Now this at first glance just gives me the impression of a work of art rather than an exacting count. However, the 1000 years in Revelation does not give me that same impression. In fact the language seems rather specific to me. If the man who wrote the above song went into detail about what happened in and around those 1000 hills and mentioned the phrase "1000 hills" more than once, then it would be safe to conclude that it was a number of hills atleast around 1000. But in the above song it makes a passing remark about an even number of hills that turns out to be quite a lot. The emphasis then doesn't seem to be on the number 1000 but on the effect the number 1000 has on its readers.
Just saying that's what I get from it.
The reason why people don't take the "days" in Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy as literal is because there is no mention of days. It's "70 Weeks" or more literally "70 Sevens", and seven can refer to any grouping of seven. The "sevens" were used of the common weeks that were made up of days, but I think a study of the Sabbath Year (a seventh year in groupings of seven years) and the Year of Jubilee (occurring after 7 sevens of years) would change a person's mind as to what these "sevens" were referring to.
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
Now this at first glance just gives me the impression of a work of art rather than an exacting count. However, the 1000 years in Revelation does not give me that same impression. In fact the language seems rather specific to me. If the man who wrote the above song went into detail about what happened in and around those 1000 hills and mentioned the phrase "1000 hills" more than once, then it would be safe to conclude that it was a number of hills atleast around 1000. But in the above song it makes a passing remark about an even number of hills that turns out to be quite a lot. The emphasis then doesn't seem to be on the number 1000 but on the effect the number 1000 has on its readers.
Just saying that's what I get from it.
The reason why people don't take the "days" in Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy as literal is because there is no mention of days. It's "70 Weeks" or more literally "70 Sevens", and seven can refer to any grouping of seven. The "sevens" were used of the common weeks that were made up of days, but I think a study of the Sabbath Year (a seventh year in groupings of seven years) and the Year of Jubilee (occurring after 7 sevens of years) would change a person's mind as to what these "sevens" were referring to.
Last edited:
1
Much has been made of the Jewishness of this book and how it fits in to a certain Jewish mentality of things. Well Jews who had been brought up with scriptures that used '1000' in a figurative sense, would most likely see the reference here and get the point too!
On the other hand, I'll conceded a literal 1000 years if people will concede a literal near and soon in the verse below. Near and soon being time statements to the original readers 1900+ years ago...
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and [a]communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
But from my experience most people will take these time statements to mean anything but near and soon to the original readers 1900+ years ago. They'll conjecture that God meant 1900+ years to his original hearers, when he communicated to them in their terms using 'near' and 'soon'.
Of course some may say, well he meant near and soon to HIM, not them. Well ok, then what words would God have used if he had meant to convey a sense of near and soon to them on their terms? Oh yeah! He'd probably say near and soon!
So for the sake of debate I'll give you your literal 1000, if you give me my literal near and soon.
On the other hand, I'll conceded a literal 1000 years if people will concede a literal near and soon in the verse below. Near and soon being time statements to the original readers 1900+ years ago...
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and [a]communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
But from my experience most people will take these time statements to mean anything but near and soon to the original readers 1900+ years ago. They'll conjecture that God meant 1900+ years to his original hearers, when he communicated to them in their terms using 'near' and 'soon'.
Of course some may say, well he meant near and soon to HIM, not them. Well ok, then what words would God have used if he had meant to convey a sense of near and soon to them on their terms? Oh yeah! He'd probably say near and soon!
So for the sake of debate I'll give you your literal 1000, if you give me my literal near and soon.
1
Oh and as far as the title of this thread.
The DEADLY doctrines of preterism.
Preterism isn't as near as deadly as the theology like we find in Left Behind.
Left Behind theology has created many many years of misleading speculations, that have more than likely made people think Christianity is wrong, because of all the failed speculations.
Preterism tells the Jews they MUST accept Jesus to remain in the covenant. The Left Behind theology tells Jews to move to Israel so millions of them can be killed in some end times battle with the anti-Christ.
Jus sayin bro.
The DEADLY doctrines of preterism.
Preterism isn't as near as deadly as the theology like we find in Left Behind.
Left Behind theology has created many many years of misleading speculations, that have more than likely made people think Christianity is wrong, because of all the failed speculations.
Preterism tells the Jews they MUST accept Jesus to remain in the covenant. The Left Behind theology tells Jews to move to Israel so millions of them can be killed in some end times battle with the anti-Christ.
Jus sayin bro.
1
I'll give a little testimony here.
Getting saved is the most important thing in this walk of grace, love and faith with God.
I view my knowledge of the preterist interpretation of the end times as something very important too.
Eschatology used to be cloudy, confusing and terrifying to me. It made no sense because I always read the Bible through the eyes of the latest newspaper. Interpreting current events in to scripture. Always hearing that the latest happening in the news was for sure a fulfillment of some prophecy in the Bible.
After a while I noticed something. As the news changed, so did the speculations on what was being fulfilled! Talk about confusing. What was a fulfillment of a prophecy in say 1999 wasn't once say 2003 came around and we got new headlines and new political realities.
Seeing the constant speculation, and reading of current events in to the Bible and seeing the constant failure of those speculations didn't give me the peace that the scriptures on the end times are supposed to give. Instead those scriptures just gave me more confusion, because things seemed to change every few years. And I think if people held themselves accountable and were intellectually honest, they'd acknowledge the same thing too.
So I went off on a study of alternative (ie different than the popular system we see in the Left Behind books) interpretations of eschatology.
When I came across preterism, wow, things started making sense! No more endless speculations based on changing headlines.
All I know is that for the first time in my life, the issue of eschatology made sense and actually gave me a deeper peace on things.
I share this because so often i/we can get bogged down in the scripture swappin as we try to show our interpretation is right. And there is a place for that.
But I wanted to take a few minutes and get beyond the scripture swapping and debating, to show how this has practically helped my walk with God.
Getting saved is the most important thing in this walk of grace, love and faith with God.
I view my knowledge of the preterist interpretation of the end times as something very important too.
Eschatology used to be cloudy, confusing and terrifying to me. It made no sense because I always read the Bible through the eyes of the latest newspaper. Interpreting current events in to scripture. Always hearing that the latest happening in the news was for sure a fulfillment of some prophecy in the Bible.
After a while I noticed something. As the news changed, so did the speculations on what was being fulfilled! Talk about confusing. What was a fulfillment of a prophecy in say 1999 wasn't once say 2003 came around and we got new headlines and new political realities.
Seeing the constant speculation, and reading of current events in to the Bible and seeing the constant failure of those speculations didn't give me the peace that the scriptures on the end times are supposed to give. Instead those scriptures just gave me more confusion, because things seemed to change every few years. And I think if people held themselves accountable and were intellectually honest, they'd acknowledge the same thing too.
So I went off on a study of alternative (ie different than the popular system we see in the Left Behind books) interpretations of eschatology.
When I came across preterism, wow, things started making sense! No more endless speculations based on changing headlines.
All I know is that for the first time in my life, the issue of eschatology made sense and actually gave me a deeper peace on things.
I share this because so often i/we can get bogged down in the scripture swappin as we try to show our interpretation is right. And there is a place for that.
But I wanted to take a few minutes and get beyond the scripture swapping and debating, to show how this has practically helped my walk with God.
Much has been made of the Jewishness of this book and how it fits in to a certain Jewish mentality of things. Well Jews who had been brought up with scriptures that used '1000' in a figurative sense, would most likely see the reference here and get the point too!
On the other hand, I'll conceded a literal 1000 years if people will concede a literal near and soon in the verse below. Near and soon being time statements to the original readers 1900+ years ago...
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and [a]communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
But from my experience most people will take these time statements to mean anything but near and soon to the original readers 1900+ years ago. They'll conjecture that God meant 1900+ years to his original hearers, when he communicated to them in their terms using 'near' and 'soon'.
Of course some may say, well he meant near and soon to HIM, not them. Well ok, then what words would God have used if he had meant to convey a sense of near and soon to them on their terms? Oh yeah! He'd probably say near and soon!
So for the sake of debate I'll give you your literal 1000, if you give me my literal near and soon.
On the other hand, I'll conceded a literal 1000 years if people will concede a literal near and soon in the verse below. Near and soon being time statements to the original readers 1900+ years ago...
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and [a]communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
But from my experience most people will take these time statements to mean anything but near and soon to the original readers 1900+ years ago. They'll conjecture that God meant 1900+ years to his original hearers, when he communicated to them in their terms using 'near' and 'soon'.
Of course some may say, well he meant near and soon to HIM, not them. Well ok, then what words would God have used if he had meant to convey a sense of near and soon to them on their terms? Oh yeah! He'd probably say near and soon!
So for the sake of debate I'll give you your literal 1000, if you give me my literal near and soon.
Revelation 1:19 Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.
Seems like a book of on-going revelation to me, beginning around the time it was written.
1
What is now = events on the ground at the time of the writing of Revelation.
What will take place later = events that will take place after the 'now'. Later being defined by the 'soon' and 'near' of Revelation 1
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
What will take place later = events that will take place after the 'now'. Later being defined by the 'soon' and 'near' of Revelation 1
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
That's kind of contradictory logic. You're saying that the events after the thousand years (i.e. a thousand years from that specific prophecy) will take place soon, but then you seem to imply that if all the events have not yet taken place (i.e. within 1900 years of all of the prophecies) then this is not soon. So is a thousand years (or even 100, 200, 400, etc. depending on your interpretation of "1000") soon? Is 1900 years soon?
Even if one interprets the 1000 year reign of Christ with poetic license it still implies "a very long period of time" and therefore the chronology for the prophecies which cover the events following the 1000 years are in contrast to a human's definition of soon, considering our lifespans. But if one takes the whole of human history or the history of the earth, for instance, then 1000 years or 2000 years isn't that long.
Even if one interprets the 1000 year reign of Christ with poetic license it still implies "a very long period of time" and therefore the chronology for the prophecies which cover the events following the 1000 years are in contrast to a human's definition of soon, considering our lifespans. But if one takes the whole of human history or the history of the earth, for instance, then 1000 years or 2000 years isn't that long.
Last edited:
B
If Revelation is to be interpreted in view of events to take place in the future, then what possible meaning could it have had for those to whom John wrote?
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Rev 22:6 Then he said to me, "These words are faithful and true." And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place.
There is a time frame set on the events in Revelation by the inspired writer. When the book was written the things where near, shortly to take place.
Also, in a book of signs and symbols, it must distinguish between literal and figurative language.
Just a thought for your consideration, why could the 1000 years not be symbolic. Numbers meant something to the Hebrews (Jews).
1000 is a number of ultimate completeness.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Rev 22:6 Then he said to me, "These words are faithful and true." And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place.
There is a time frame set on the events in Revelation by the inspired writer. When the book was written the things where near, shortly to take place.
Also, in a book of signs and symbols, it must distinguish between literal and figurative language.
Just a thought for your consideration, why could the 1000 years not be symbolic. Numbers meant something to the Hebrews (Jews).
1000 is a number of ultimate completeness.
1
Not contradictory at all.
Everything up to the 1000 year reference is near and soon. The 1000 year reference serves as a signal that hey ok this stuff here isn't near and soon.
The beginning of the 1000 was near and soon, but the 1000 years coming to completion isn't near and soon. Because well, 1000 years really isn't that near or soon.
Everything up to the 1000 year reference is near and soon. The 1000 year reference serves as a signal that hey ok this stuff here isn't near and soon.
The beginning of the 1000 was near and soon, but the 1000 years coming to completion isn't near and soon. Because well, 1000 years really isn't that near or soon.
because people are looking for a physical kingdom on earth and don't realize it's in us already until the 2nd resurrection Paul spoke about at the last trump which is a bodily resurrection.
every eye shall see Him on that day.
..but now not every is seeing Him (lack of spiritual discernment). But we see Him.
every eye shall see Him on that day.
..but now not every is seeing Him (lack of spiritual discernment). But we see Him.
I've already provided some reasons for why I interpret that passage a certain way. If you have a better explanation you can let us hear it. There are symbols in Revelation and then there are explanations of those symbols, so Revelation also contains literal truth. I guess we just differ on how much of it is literal.
I think you'd have to take rather a lot of it as symbolic if you believe everything in Revelation has come to pass, including: the intricate descriptions of the New Jerusalem, the wiping away of all tears, Jesus' second coming, relevant passages in Zechariah that also speak of the Temple and feast days during Christ's reign, Satan being bound, Armageddon, the two resurrections, judging of the damned, lake of fire (which the false prophet and Satan are thrown into), the new earth and new heaven, etc.
Not that this is necessarily a reason to refute preterism, but if all the events in Revelation have been fulfilled then this is basically as good as it gets. That's pretty depressing.
I think you'd have to take rather a lot of it as symbolic if you believe everything in Revelation has come to pass, including: the intricate descriptions of the New Jerusalem, the wiping away of all tears, Jesus' second coming, relevant passages in Zechariah that also speak of the Temple and feast days during Christ's reign, Satan being bound, Armageddon, the two resurrections, judging of the damned, lake of fire (which the false prophet and Satan are thrown into), the new earth and new heaven, etc.
Not that this is necessarily a reason to refute preterism, but if all the events in Revelation have been fulfilled then this is basically as good as it gets. That's pretty depressing.
Not contradictory at all.
Everything up to the 1000 year reference is near and soon. The 1000 year reference serves as a signal that hey ok this stuff here isn't near and soon.
The beginning of the 1000 was near and soon, but the 1000 years coming to completion isn't near and soon. Because well, 1000 years really isn't that near or soon.
Everything up to the 1000 year reference is near and soon. The 1000 year reference serves as a signal that hey ok this stuff here isn't near and soon.
The beginning of the 1000 was near and soon, but the 1000 years coming to completion isn't near and soon. Because well, 1000 years really isn't that near or soon.
near and soon isn't 2000+ years later, and still waiting for it.
The thousand years cannot be after the 2nd coming of Christ according to the parable of the wheat and the weed.
i don't know if you agree with this.