Are you preterist or merely 'modified post-trib'?

  • 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.

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
Ok - we just need to define the terms we are discussing so that we are on the same page so to speak, otherwise it's confusing.

So I would state it using other scriptures the "1st resurrection" is what Paul is stating as being quickened:

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:.
.
.
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

So this would make John's use of resurrection in the "1st resurrection" figurative.

Are we agreed?
YES. YOU GOT IT. It took me forever to figure this out.

There will only be one bodily resurrection for mankind PERIOD.

[SUP]23 [/SUP]But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

There was Christ's
Then all of mankind at His coming (Both just and unjust)
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
YES. YOU GOT IT. It took me forever to figure this out.

There will only be one bodily resurrection for mankind PERIOD.


That's what I thought you were trying to say - I just needed to clarify before moving on.

23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

There was Christ's

Then all of mankind at His coming (Both just and unjust)
This would be basically the be post-millennial position with a few adjustments?


 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
That is my curiosity because we both are saying the same one is the harlot but you see it being destroyed before the ten horns came(ad70). I think is this what you are saying or did I misunderstand this?
We are not saying the same thing - the current nation of "Israel" occupying Palestine is not under the Old Covenant blessing and curses (blood guilt) for killing the prophets - the Old Covenant passed away in the 1st century AD:

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The people that were under the Old Covenant blessing and curses (blood guilt) for killing the prophets were this generation:

Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This generation were the people of His time.

The guilty are long gone and the punishment metered out.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
We are not saying the same thing - the current nation of "Israel" occupying Palestine is not under the Old Covenant blessing and curses (blood guilt) for killing the prophets - the Old Covenant passed away in the 1st century AD:

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The people that were under the Old Covenant blessing and curses (blood guilt) for killing the prophets were this generation:

Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This generation were the people of His time.

The guilty are long gone and the punishment metered out.

But "the same one" from my former post "I am saying is Jerusalem" and you are saying it is also?
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
But "the same one" from my former post "I am saying is Jerusalem" and you are saying it is also?
To be frank - I don't have a clue what you are saying. You need to explain yourself more clearly.

I'm saying the nation of "Israel" occupying Palestine today has nothing to do with the Old Covenant or the book of Revelation.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
It does make a difference though I am saying that the harlot is Jerusalem,and you are saying that Jerusalem is the harlot(same thing).


But,what I also said was that if in that day when the Rev. was seen by John the ten kings had received "no kingdom as yet" Revelation 17:12.


Now if the sixth was the one present at that time John saw this Revelation 17:10.

So the seventh head,the eighth,and the ten horns rise(come) after the sixth so if Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70 then Rome had advanced from the sixth head, Rev.17:10 and then the seventh head had come,and the eighth and then Rome was in the stage of the prophecy where ten kings were ruling because they are the ones the scripture says would burn her with fire,make her naked,desolate,ect. Revelation 17:16-18 .

That's where the foggy grey area I spoke of fits in because if someone takes a position that Jerusalem is the harlot(we both do) either one of the two can be correct. The first is that Rome saw the 7th&8th head rise and then the ten horns or the other is that Jerusalem would need to come again afterwards to fulfil the prophecy because as we know Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70. So which also is why I keep asking about the mark and how you see it as being fulfilled before ad70.
 
Last edited:

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,376
113
It does make a difference though I am saying that the harlot is Jerusalem, and you are saying that Jerusalem is the harlot(same thing).
And you are both wrong! There are two women mentioned in the book of Revelation. The woman of Revelation 12 is representing Israel. Where the woman who rides the beast of Revelation 17 & 18 is Rome and her counterfeit church. Rome with her false religious system with the Vatican as her headquarters, is that woman who sits on seven hills. Rome was that great city that ruled over the kings of the earth at the time the angel was giving John this information.

Another huge reason why Jerusalem and her people Israel cannot be the woman who rides the beast is because, during that last 3 1/2 years, God puts it into the hearts of the beast and the ten kings to hate the prostitute, destroying that city completely so that no one will ever inhabit her again, as demonstrated in Rev.18:21-23. Yet, at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ, Satan is let out of the Abyss and gathers Gog and Magog of whom scripture states that they will "surround the camp of God's people, the city that he loves." The city that he loves is in reference to Jerusalem, which demonstrates that it will be inhabited during the millennial period. In opposition, that great city, the woman who rides the beast, will have been destroyed so that no one will ever inhabit her again.

The conclusion then, is that Jerusalem her people cannot possibly be the woman described Rev.17 & 18.
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
It does make a difference though I am saying that the harlot is Jerusalem,and you are saying that Jerusalem is the harlot(same thing).
I'm saying the harlot is apostate Israel/Judah of the 1st century AD not the "nation" occupying Palestine today - big difference.

While you keep referring to the book of revelation, I'm saying the nation occupying Palestine today is not the whore of the book of revelation and has no connection with the bible whatsoever.

I can't make it much plainer than that.
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
112
63
I'm saying the harlot is apostate Israel/Judah of the 1st century AD not the "nation" occupying Palestine today - big difference.

While you keep referring to the book of revelation, I'm saying the nation occupying Palestine today is not the whore of the book of revelation and has no connection with the bible whatsoever.

I can't make it much plainer than that.

The woman of Rev 17 is the religion of Rome, Babylon, she sits on the beast of 7 hills.

--

The Israel of today is the fulfillment of prophecy, yes?
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
I'm saying the harlot is apostate Israel/Judah of the 1st century AD not the "nation" occupying Palestine today - big difference.

While you keep referring to the book of revelation, I'm saying the nation occupying Palestine today is not the whore of the book of revelation and has no connection with the bible whatsoever.

I can't make it much plainer than that.
I understand that that’s what you see now. You said in post#346 you spent 30 years as an Dispensationist and that for about three years now you have been looking at the preterist point of view learning about how they see things.

I should say this that what you said I don’t see as anything other than the very things I thought along the way. I spent a long time looking at things from the Dispensationist camps view and I had already seen it from the preterist view from youth which is why I looked at it from the Dispensationist camps view. In other words I grew up in Churches that were amill,post mill ect. and ran into things I could not explain and so the natural reaction was to switch over to the other camp. The thing is after a while I ran into things I could not explain in the other camp.

I noticed that the things that neither camp seemed to be able to explain was the things that surround the mark,AoB,resurrection,ect. (both are 180deg. in position) but the thing similar from both camps is that it is the point in their rendition of how it all fits together where they both drift away into a "foggy grey area". So if you ask a preterist the things I ask you about the mark your gonna get 52 answers at the same time if you the D'ist. the same questions you’ll get 52 answers.

So as for today you’ve found yourself in situations where you could not defend a certain position held by one camp(me to,different camp at a different point in life). So the very thing is going to happen again. As you said about 3 years ago you began to look deeper into things from the other camps view,but bare this in mind that just the same your going to end up trying to defend a positions view on something and find you have no proof.

That's the point where I thought "man this is crazy" and had no choice but to sit down and read the second and third generations Church letters. Why I did that was to look through them and evaluate if they saw the issues I could not answer past tense or future to themselves so I would have a clue to which direction to go. I mean no offence in what I am saying I see it as the exact process of thinking it through I experienced,I think it's good to admit something is wrong if it's true,I’ve done it twice.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The woman is described with being found with the blood of the prophets:

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Rome was not accounted with the blood of the prophets, 1st century Jerusalem was:

(Mat 23:37 KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

There is no mechanism to transfer the blood guilt from 1st century AD Jerusalem to Rome.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
I noticed that the things that neither camp seemed to be able to explain was the things that surround the mark,AoB, resurrection, etc. (both are 180deg. in position)
Those are your "stumbling" blocks not mine - I'm not fixated on being able to explain the mark, in the same way I not sure how God marks his people - the fact that these things happens or happened is all that really matters and does not affect my position on the "time of the end"

I know that the 70 weeks of Daniel was finished with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by accepting was Daniel said:

Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

I also know that Jesus' spoke of all things being written would culminate with the compassing of Jerusalem by the Romans in 66 AD:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that ALL things which are written may be fulfilled.

ALL means all - there is no "some of all", there are no qualifiers ifs or buts - ALL.

People can accept these plain statements of scripture or try to explain them away and stumble around on minutiae such as how did this happen or that happen or what is/was the mark of the beast.
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
112
63
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The woman is described with being found with the blood of the prophets:

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Rome was not accounted with the blood of the prophets, 1st century Jerusalem was:

(Mat 23:37 KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

There is no mechanism to transfer the blood guilt from 1st century AD Jerusalem to Rome.

Rome, the 4th beast and iron legs, invaded Israel and killed thousands.

The rebellion of the Maccabees also was a bloody war.

They killed John the Baptist and the apostles,

The children of Bethlehem.

And Jesus.

They killed thousands before and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

So they did have the blood of the prophets and the blood of Jesus on their hands, (Pilate washed his hands in vain).

--

The woman is more than just the false religion of Rome,

She (false religion, creation worship) is traced to the tower of Babel,

Where it reappeared after the flood of Noah.

She does have the blood of the prophets on her hands,

As she has operated inside Israel as Baal worship and others forms as false religion.

But in this case, she is seen riding the Roman beast.

--

If the woman in Rev 17 was Jerusalem,

The beast would be seen riding on top of her,

Because Rome dominated Jerusalem.

But Jerusalem never dominated Rome.

So the woman in Rev 17 cannot be Jerusalem.
 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
abcdef,

You are still struggling with this. There are two types of resurrections, the spiritual and the physical. Christ was the firstfruits of both. Since the Cross, a believer's soul immediately goes to heaven when they physically die. An unbeliever's soul goes to Hades when they die to await further judgment. Upon death, your destination is determined. We have plenty of witnesses to this. Ever see the show, "I Survived - Beyond and Back?" Some experienced Heaven, others experienced Hades.

Don't compare 1 Cor 15 with Rev 20. They are different. In 1 Cor 15, Paul is speaking of the physical bodily resurrection which happens on the last day with God/Jesus return at the end of all things. In Rev 20, John is using "resurrection" in a figurative way to describe the SOULS he saw in heaven. If they were part of the first physical resurrection, they wouldn't be souls that he saw. John uses many figurative words in Revelation, in the context of Rev 20, he does the same.




 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63


That's what I thought you were trying to say - I just needed to clarify before moving on.



This would be basically the be post-millennial position with a few adjustments?


Yes, I guess that would be the correct terminology.

The "1,000 year reign" has been underway since the Cross. Jesus has been reigning in the spiritual realm over the nations ever since in the spiritual kingdom that will never be destroyed. Satan's ability to deceive the nations has been restrained (chained) since the Cross. When the "1,000 years" are over, Satan will once again be deceiving the nations. Gog will rise up and invade Israel and when they surround Jerusalem, God will divinely intervene and Gog will be destroyed.


 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
112
63
.

Brother PlainWord,

With an adjustment we will agree totally on this passage as you understand it.



Yes, I guess that would be the correct terminology.

The "1,000 year reign" has been underway since the Cross. Jesus has been reigning in the spiritual realm over the nations ever since in the spiritual kingdom that will never be destroyed.


The Kingdom began on Pentecost, so my understanding is that the mill began then.


Satan's ability to deceive the nations has been restrained (chained) since the Cross.
The chain that restrains the dragon in Rev 20:2, is the same picture as the dragon that sends the flood out after the woman in Rev 12:15-17.

Rome cannot reach Israel after they have fled so far away, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad, for the times of the gentiles. But NOW the times of the gentiles is over and Israel is restored to Jerusalem.

When the "1,000 years" are over, Satan will once again be deceiving the nations. Gog will rise up and invade Israel and when they surround Jerusalem, God will divinely intervene and Gog will be destroyed.
You have got it.

But, WAKE UP !

This is happening right now !
 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
112
63
abcdef,

You are still struggling with this. There are two types of resurrections, the spiritual and the physical. Christ was the firstfruits of both.


There are some things that are not scientifically explained to us,

That will not be understood until we meet Him.

What kind of NEW body we have cannot be explained for now, as it is spirit and beyond our understanding.

1 Cor 15:35-50
--
The lust of the flesh, and all that is in this world is passing away, 1 Jn 2:16-17

The flesh is part of this world and must pass away,

If there is flesh, there would be lust.
--
2 Cor 4:18, the things which are seen are temporal, if you can see it, it is temporal.


Since the Cross, a believer's soul immediately goes to heaven when they physically die.
2 Cor 5:8, does not say that, it only says that Paul would prefer to be with Jesus rather that in the body. (who wouldn't?)

It doesn't say that when you die that you go directly to Jesus.

You go to Paradise to wait for the 2nd resurrection when Jesus comes for the Pentecost Kingdom.

An unbeliever's soul goes to Hades when they die to await further judgment. Upon death, your destination is determined.
Agree


We have plenty of witnesses to this. Ever see the show, "I Survived - Beyond and Back?" Some experienced Heaven, others experienced Hades.
I cannot determine truth by my "experiences" or anyone else's.

Everything must be Bible scripture.

Don't compare 1 Cor 15 with Rev 20. They are different.
They are saying the same thing, that there are 2 resurrections.

The 1st resurrection is Jesus.

The 2nd is at His coming for the Pentecost Kingdom.


In 1 Cor 15, Paul is speaking of the physical bodily resurrection which happens on the last day with God/Jesus return at the end of all things.
If you can see it, it is temporal. 2 Cor 4:18

We will bear the image of the heavenly then,

The earthly image will be gone. 1 Cor 15:35-50, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.

In Rev 20, John is using "resurrection" in a figurative way to describe the SOULS he saw in heaven.
The souls that are seen are from the resurrection when Jesus rose,

Jesus carried them to heaven, Eph 4:8-10.


If they were part of the first physical resurrection, they wouldn't be souls that he saw. John uses many figurative words in Revelation, in the context of Rev 20, he does the same.
Why does a soul want to hang on to this physical body?

Let it go, it's part of this world.

It will turn to dust and be gone with this world.

You will get a new body, a better one, an eternal one.

========



 

abcdef

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
112
63
It appears that I might lose internet service.

If I don't respond, you'll know why.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
I think this needs some further consideration:


1 Cor 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

1 Cor 15:56 KJV The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

If the law has been removed with the termination of the Old covenant, then it follows that the strength of sin has been removed and therefore the sting of death has been removed.

So would this not place the removal of the sting of death to have occurred at the time of the passing of the Old Covenant?