The absurdity and heresy of Preterism
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
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.
That command was to rebuild the temple only. Daniel 9:25 indicates not the temple but the city and the defenses a.k.a. the wall etc.
This permission was given only in Nehemiah chapter 2 by Artaxerxes. But equally importantly, 445 BC is the only date that matches 173,880 days a.k.a. 69 weeks of years.
This permission was given only in Nehemiah chapter 2 by Artaxerxes. But equally importantly, 445 BC is the only date that matches 173,880 days a.k.a. 69 weeks of years.
A common question regarding the 70 week prophecy. You need to realize that if the 70 weeks of years ran continuously and concurrently, You would end up with a completion date af about 40 A.D.
And absolutely nothing of any historical or biblical notoriety occurred at 40 A.D.!
A simple fact that the preterists cannot possibly argue against nor evidently understand.
Preterism is a heresy, yes. But it is also an awful mess.
And absolutely nothing of any historical or biblical notoriety occurred at 40 A.D.!
A simple fact that the preterists cannot possibly argue against nor evidently understand.
Preterism is a heresy, yes. But it is also an awful mess.
Consider the following article, when ascertaining what is meant at back of the term "apocalyptic literature" (not that everyone who uses the term comes at it from this perspective, but that the scholars who tout it likely do):
[quoting excerpt from Dr Paul Martin Henebury--more at link, below]
"If you have been keeping abreast of evangelical treatments of the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, or the Olivet Discourse or Book of Revelation you will have run into the term “Apocalyptic literature.” It’s the favorite go-to for anyone who wants to stop the mouths of the prophets while sounding scholarly.
"I realize that opening line is a bit testy, but I write it as one who has spent some time studying the major works on Apocalyptic – all written by critical liberal scholars – and have read the almost threadbare regurgitations of conservatives who are content to use this scholarship to support their reading of the Bible while retaining traditional beliefs.
"It is hard to find an evangelical treatment of apocalyptic language and literature that has any depth. Evangelical discussions of the genre lean heavily on liberal work, and are often both cursory and deficient in their reporting of the state of the matter. Only a few evangelical scholars, like Brent Sandy (Plowshares and Pruning Hooks)† , provide any in-depth work on the genre, and his work is heavily dependent on liberal scholarship and the kind of philosophical hermeneutics which relies on an evolutionary view of language. Small wonder then that Sandy has moved further left in his commitments. (For example, his The Lost World of Scripture, co-authored with John Walton, is an insidious attack on inerrancy and authorship via appeal to extra-biblical authorities).
"In saying this I am not claiming that there is no such thing as apocalyptic. But I am saying that a truly biblical approach to it will have to look very different than the standard critical proposals. This is because the assumptions which force critical scholarship into interpreting the genre contradict the Bible’s own worldview, including the origin and purpose of language and the function of the prophet."
--Dr Paul Martin Henebury, "Apocalyptic Fixation" [end quoting; bold mine]
- https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/apocalyptic-fixation/
____________
Just something to consider... and somewhat of a caution.
[quoting excerpt from Dr Paul Martin Henebury--more at link, below]
"If you have been keeping abreast of evangelical treatments of the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, or the Olivet Discourse or Book of Revelation you will have run into the term “Apocalyptic literature.” It’s the favorite go-to for anyone who wants to stop the mouths of the prophets while sounding scholarly.
"I realize that opening line is a bit testy, but I write it as one who has spent some time studying the major works on Apocalyptic – all written by critical liberal scholars – and have read the almost threadbare regurgitations of conservatives who are content to use this scholarship to support their reading of the Bible while retaining traditional beliefs.
"It is hard to find an evangelical treatment of apocalyptic language and literature that has any depth. Evangelical discussions of the genre lean heavily on liberal work, and are often both cursory and deficient in their reporting of the state of the matter. Only a few evangelical scholars, like Brent Sandy (Plowshares and Pruning Hooks)† , provide any in-depth work on the genre, and his work is heavily dependent on liberal scholarship and the kind of philosophical hermeneutics which relies on an evolutionary view of language. Small wonder then that Sandy has moved further left in his commitments. (For example, his The Lost World of Scripture, co-authored with John Walton, is an insidious attack on inerrancy and authorship via appeal to extra-biblical authorities).
"In saying this I am not claiming that there is no such thing as apocalyptic. But I am saying that a truly biblical approach to it will have to look very different than the standard critical proposals. This is because the assumptions which force critical scholarship into interpreting the genre contradict the Bible’s own worldview, including the origin and purpose of language and the function of the prophet."
--Dr Paul Martin Henebury, "Apocalyptic Fixation" [end quoting; bold mine]
- https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/apocalyptic-fixation/
____________
Just something to consider... and somewhat of a caution.
Revelation 1:1 This is the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John.
John may be simply using the word "apocalypse" to mean revelation.
or he may be giving a clue as to how this book is to be read.
kind of like what the writer does here
Matthew 13:24 He set another parable before them, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
by saying it's a parable, it says to me that it's not important to the story whether or not there was literally a man to whom these things happened.
maybe there was, maybe not, it doesn't impact the truth of the parable.
another thing I see is that there is a 3 verse preamble prior to the customary opening salutation.
I believe that this is unique among those New testament Epistles that state the author's name.
as part of this preamble, it says
"He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John"
NLT
that seems like a strange way to talk about visions that you personally had.
of course, maybe that's just how they talked about things back then.
I believe that this is unique among those New testament Epistles that state the author's name.
as part of this preamble, it says
"He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John"
NLT
that seems like a strange way to talk about visions that you personally had.
of course, maybe that's just how they talked about things back then.
if God gave him visions, it makes sense to me that they would fit with symbols that people were familiar with.
if John is calling them visions as a literary device, then it again makes sense to me that he would use what's familiar.
true!
at the same time, he may have decided to use an apocalypse to communicate the message he wanted to send.
****************
maybe it's like when Jesus says, "A city located on a hill can't be hidden."
you wouldn't say, "Wait a minute, Jesus. What if it's a really foggy night?"
because Jesus isn't talking about a fact from the physical world, he's communicating a deep spiritual truth!
if John is calling them visions as a literary device, then it again makes sense to me that he would use what's familiar.
true!
at the same time, he may have decided to use an apocalypse to communicate the message he wanted to send.
****************
maybe it's like when Jesus says, "A city located on a hill can't be hidden."
you wouldn't say, "Wait a minute, Jesus. What if it's a really foggy night?"
because Jesus isn't talking about a fact from the physical world, he's communicating a deep spiritual truth!
My answers reflect that the Church Fathers put it into a future apocalyptic category for things going to happen.
My question for you, why believe what you believe if you don't accept the Church Fathers views?
The Creeds you follow were first proposed by them.
Are they good enough for you to believe in the Triune God, but not good enough to believe concerning John's scenario?
In his Against Heresies Book III, at the end of chapter 3, Irenaeus says, “Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” Trajan began to rule in A.D. 98, and John was alive among the people of Ephesus till that time and perhaps a little while after.
In Against Heresies Book V.30.3, Irenaeus writes (declining to try to identify what the number of the beast signifies), “for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.” Domitian died in A.D. 96.
As to John’s actual release from Patmos it would likely have been soon after the death of Domitian, as his edicts – such as banishments – would be voided on his death.
What you are reading is Irenaeus claiming in the first paragraph:
1) John was alive when Trajan ruled in 98 AD
2) John was at that time in the Church of Ephesus, the Church that Paul founded
second paragraph:
1) John kept hidden the number and name of the Beast because it was not time for that to be revealed
2) John is the one with the apocalyptic vision
3) John had his vision towards the end of the reign of Domitian (which confirms Domitian placed John in Patmos)
-
1
- Show all
Good day Nehemiah!
I also said to him, “If it pleases the king, may letters be given to me for the governors west of the Euphrates, so that they will grant me safe passage until I reach Judah. And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king’s forest, so that he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel to the temple, for the city wall, and for the house I will occupy.”
The letters from the king for safe passage through the Trans-Euphrates and the removal of trees for the wood from the kings forest to rebuild Jerusalem which Nehemiah requested, is the decree to restore and rebuild. In addition, the issuing of the letters (the decree) lines up perfectly with the Anointed One being cut off:
7 Sevens = 49 years
62 Sevens = 434 years
69 Sevens = 483 years (Christ crucified)
Letters given to Nehemiah = 445 BCE
445 BCE minus 483 years = 38 AD
Taking into consideration the calendar changes, the timing of the issuing of the decree of the letters from king Artaxerxes in BCE as requested from Nehemiah, this puts us right in the ballpark of the Anointed One being cut off at the end of sixty nine of the seven year periods, which is Christ crucified.
Also, out of all the major translations, I could not find one that says 'the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.' Which translation is that from? Here is the Strong's definition:
Strong's Concordance
chathak: to divide, determine
Original Word: חָתַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chathak
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-thak')
Definition: to divide, determine
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to divide, determine
NASB Translation
decreed (1).
Therefore, the decree was by the king via the letters that Nehemiah requested for safe passage through the Trans-Euphrates and letters to take wood from the kings forest to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
I also said to him, “If it pleases the king, may letters be given to me for the governors west of the Euphrates, so that they will grant me safe passage until I reach Judah. And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king’s forest, so that he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel to the temple, for the city wall, and for the house I will occupy.”
The letters from the king for safe passage through the Trans-Euphrates and the removal of trees for the wood from the kings forest to rebuild Jerusalem which Nehemiah requested, is the decree to restore and rebuild. In addition, the issuing of the letters (the decree) lines up perfectly with the Anointed One being cut off:
7 Sevens = 49 years
62 Sevens = 434 years
69 Sevens = 483 years (Christ crucified)
Letters given to Nehemiah = 445 BCE
445 BCE minus 483 years = 38 AD
Taking into consideration the calendar changes, the timing of the issuing of the decree of the letters from king Artaxerxes in BCE as requested from Nehemiah, this puts us right in the ballpark of the Anointed One being cut off at the end of sixty nine of the seven year periods, which is Christ crucified.
Also, out of all the major translations, I could not find one that says 'the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.' Which translation is that from? Here is the Strong's definition:
Strong's Concordance
chathak: to divide, determine
Original Word: חָתַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chathak
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-thak')
Definition: to divide, determine
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to divide, determine
NASB Translation
decreed (1).
Therefore, the decree was by the king via the letters that Nehemiah requested for safe passage through the Trans-Euphrates and letters to take wood from the kings forest to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
-
1
- Show all
I'm sorry but, the nation Israel currently does not acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah. So, no they didn't! God is going to be dealing with the entire nation of Israel during the tribulation. Those Israelites who believed in Christ at that time became part of the church. But the nation of Israel as a whole has not believed. And they are who God is going to be dealing with, which has not yet been completed.
It is generally accepted that the crucifixion of Christ was on the 14th of Nisan in 30 AD (although some postulate 33 AD that is incorrect, but 38 AD is not even mentioned).
Decree of Cyrus to Crucifixion = 483 years. So 483 - 30 = 453 BC.
The first year of Cyrus is generally taken as 536 BC. However, Martin Anstey did a very thorough study of Old Testament chronology in his book by that title, and discovered that the generally accepted chronological system of Ptolemy was in excess by 83 years. So when you subtract 83 from 536, you get 453 BC.
Decree of Cyrus to Crucifixion = 483 years. So 483 - 30 = 453 BC.
The first year of Cyrus is generally taken as 536 BC. However, Martin Anstey did a very thorough study of Old Testament chronology in his book by that title, and discovered that the generally accepted chronological system of Ptolemy was in excess by 83 years. So when you subtract 83 from 536, you get 453 BC.
I have talked to others who believe as you about Israel and never got a good answer to these questions on that position. Why does the whole nation at one point in time and no other point in time fulfill the prophesy that "all Israel will be saved?" What about the people who lived before and what about their children who live after them who decide to be atheists? Is this like a "magic moment" when all Israelies believe and then it doesn't matter what happened to the Jews before and after?
There are times in history when cities or regions or tribes all, 100% of them, became Christians. That doesn't mean their offspring are now saved. God "dealt" with them and they became believers. Let me ask you this, if some of the Israelies who lived in Egypt at the time of the Exile decided to stay because they had a really good job in the government (like Moses did), does that mean that all Israel was not saved out of slavery? Does one man have the power to negate the promises of God because that man refuses to be saved and so not "all" can be?
My point is this theology has the standard of "all" meaning every last one of them and if one refuses, then the promises of God were not fulfilled. Very very many of the Jews believed in Jesus. Many. So many that the Pharisees got jealous over and over again and persecuted them. This is a repeated story in the Acts. The promise is not to the political Jews but the Israel of those who believe, Jew and Gentile. He will redeem and saved all those of Israel, Gentile and Jew, who believe. And that has already begun. The promise to Israel in redemption is fulfilled.
IF someone gave it some thought, it is a strange theology that insists the political region of Israel with all its inhabitants have to become Christians, every last one of them, in order for God to fulfill his promise. Man is controlling the fulfillment of the plan of God forcing HIm to violate HIs own love of freedom for his beloved creatures and force those who do not want to be redeemed to be redeemed. Otherwise He did not fulfill his promise.
I think the "whosoever will" is redeemed is more like the ways of God. Whosever will not does not thwart the plan of God. In your theology, it certainly does.
There are times in history when cities or regions or tribes all, 100% of them, became Christians. That doesn't mean their offspring are now saved. God "dealt" with them and they became believers. Let me ask you this, if some of the Israelies who lived in Egypt at the time of the Exile decided to stay because they had a really good job in the government (like Moses did), does that mean that all Israel was not saved out of slavery? Does one man have the power to negate the promises of God because that man refuses to be saved and so not "all" can be?
My point is this theology has the standard of "all" meaning every last one of them and if one refuses, then the promises of God were not fulfilled. Very very many of the Jews believed in Jesus. Many. So many that the Pharisees got jealous over and over again and persecuted them. This is a repeated story in the Acts. The promise is not to the political Jews but the Israel of those who believe, Jew and Gentile. He will redeem and saved all those of Israel, Gentile and Jew, who believe. And that has already begun. The promise to Israel in redemption is fulfilled.
IF someone gave it some thought, it is a strange theology that insists the political region of Israel with all its inhabitants have to become Christians, every last one of them, in order for God to fulfill his promise. Man is controlling the fulfillment of the plan of God forcing HIm to violate HIs own love of freedom for his beloved creatures and force those who do not want to be redeemed to be redeemed. Otherwise He did not fulfill his promise.
I think the "whosoever will" is redeemed is more like the ways of God. Whosever will not does not thwart the plan of God. In your theology, it certainly does.
-
1
- Show all
Well, since most people today do not understand the book, there is a problem. I think that John saw the same vision Daniel and others saw. He did not choose which things the Lord would show him but the Lord did show him the same things. Do you see what I mean?
I assure you that was no literary devise. When he said he "saw" he means he observed with his eyes. This is not fiction.
If that message had not started with "I saw a vision..." it had nothing of significance to communicate because it was not a teaching. When a man or woman tells the members that they had a vision from God and it concerned all of them, there are special rules that apply. One, the others need to evaluate it in light of what they know God has said. Two, it needs to register in their own spirit as the Lord. Three, it has to be fulfilled in real life if it is a statment about the future. To tell the church you have a vision from God is to require them to judge it and you, to some degree. Those people knew what it meant to make that claim.
He did not claim to have a vision from God of a city on a hill. Prophesy and teaching are not the same thing to the speaker and to the recepients.
I assure you that was no literary devise. When he said he "saw" he means he observed with his eyes. This is not fiction.
If that message had not started with "I saw a vision..." it had nothing of significance to communicate because it was not a teaching. When a man or woman tells the members that they had a vision from God and it concerned all of them, there are special rules that apply. One, the others need to evaluate it in light of what they know God has said. Two, it needs to register in their own spirit as the Lord. Three, it has to be fulfilled in real life if it is a statment about the future. To tell the church you have a vision from God is to require them to judge it and you, to some degree. Those people knew what it meant to make that claim.
He did not claim to have a vision from God of a city on a hill. Prophesy and teaching are not the same thing to the speaker and to the recepients.
-
1
- Show all
That is not a good answer at all. That is a "turn your mind off so that you do not have to think about this problem." The downside of that decision is that one is unable to love God with the mind. Who in the Bible answered questions of this sort with "well, God planned it."
The problem is God did not plan it what way that you suggest. He is not waiting for the one generation of Jews who will all say "yes" to Him so He can finally end the world.
The problem is God did not plan it what way that you suggest. He is not waiting for the one generation of Jews who will all say "yes" to Him so He can finally end the world.
