Preterists - Put up or shutter up

[eternally-gratefull]

Truer words were never spoken! And few of us (even commentators) have nearly the OT awareness and understanding that the men who received those letters had, and, thus, were immediately able to easily associate and relate John's words right back to all the history each of those Jews knew by heart. He wrote about things that would mean something to them... but, they would not instinctively mean anything to us. We have to do something I am convinced they never had to do.... We have to speculate and guess... and then go on assumptions.

Daniel had to speculate and guess, All OT people had to speculate and guess. In fact, they were caught off Guard because they were not looking, when they should have KNOWN when messiah would come, daniel told them when and Isaiah told them how (on a donkey) There should have been no way Israel would reject him a week later if they were looking and understood.

It was after those things that paul and others were able to use OT prophets to show christ, I also believe it will be when the things of revelation occur that people will start to see things, Especially Israel. since to me, it is the time of Jacobs trouble which will be occurring. which is spoken of by jesus where he called it tribulation, and john gives us a greater detail off the events which will happen.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

orrr.... we can try to study and ask God for help in understanding Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Ezra... y'know, basically the Law and the Prophets. lol

but i agree, at least some of this is speculative. brilliant minds (who don't agree) have looked into it... for millennia!

Amen sis, thats why we have no right to judge others for what they believe. If they can't agree, what makes us think we are better? lol

 

[notmyown]

Amen sis, thats why we have no right to judge others for what they believe. If they can't agree, what makes us think we are better? lol

i'm a mother. does "because i said so!" work for you?

 

[Ahwatukee]

I guess I would be labeled a Preterist because I really do believe most of Revelation comes straight out of many of John's impressions of the OT prophecies, and that he wrote directly to the 1st-Century men sitting in the East Asian churches along the trade route those 7 cities were built on. And that he was mainly describing the beginning of the kingdom of Christ's rule and His defeat of the Jewish system of sacrifices.

Morning Willie,

I want to reiterate that, John is not the author of the book of Revelation, God is! John only wrote what he heard and saw. There is nothing in Revelation that is of John's own private interpretation or influence. As the very first verse proclaims, this is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants the things which must soon take place.

I just can't read it as a Crystal Ball written for people who would be born 2,000 years in the future. If that were the case, I know there must have been a bunch of local congregations sitting there wondering why in the world they received this letter full of craziness they couldn't make head nor tails of.

Indeed, the book of Revelation, for the most part, refers prophesies and events that are to take place in the last generation leading up to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. You seem to have a problem with God being able to write about events that have to do with the end of the age.

Scripture demonstrates that your thinking is wrong regarding this. I'll will use the same example that I previously used. King Ahaz received a prophecy from Isaiah saying "The Lord himself will give you a sign. A virgin will conceive and bring forth a son and his name shall be called Immanuel." This prophecy was given approx. 800 years prior to the birth of the Messiah. So, the prophecy was given to Ahaz, but he never saw its fulfillment. It was for the people of the generation that Jesus was born in who observed its fulfillment. And there are many more examples.

Therefore, why can't you accept the idea that God could have a book written with the majority of it being to a future generation who would see its fulfillment at the end of the age? The letters to the seven churches would of course be beneficial to them, but everything from Revelation chapter 4 onward would not be fulfilled during there time.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

i'm a mother. does "because i said so!" work for you?

sadly, for many in CC who talk about prophesy, that is their argument..lol thats why I usually do not hang around long. add have a few on ignore..

 

[Stephen63]

Do they all believe that...?

I believe so.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I believe so.

Okay.
I can't see it then.
There remains too much that appears to have never been fulfilled if this is the case.
The way I see it, there's a lot of good and amazing promises in the 1,000 year reign that I certainly haven't seen happen.
Would be interesting to hear how they think they were fulfilled though! Because you know they do have an explanation for them all and they didn't just ignore the verses.

 

[Willie-T]

Morning Willie,

I want to reiterate that, John is not the author of the book of Revelation, God is! John only wrote what he heard and saw. There is nothing in Revelation that is of John's own private interpretation or influence. As the very first verse proclaims, this is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants the things which must soon take place.



Indeed, the book of Revelation, for the most part, refers prophesies and events that are to take place in the last generation leading up to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. You seem to have a problem with God being able to write about events that have to do with the end of the age.

Scripture demonstrates that your thinking is wrong regarding this. I'll will use the same example that I previously used. King Ahaz received a prophecy from Isaiah saying "The Lord himself will give you a sign. A virgin will conceive and bring forth a son and his name shall be called Immanuel." This prophecy was given approx. 800 years prior to the birth of the Messiah. So, the prophecy was given to Ahaz, but he never saw its fulfillment. It was for the people of the generation that Jesus was born in who observed its fulfillment. And there are many more examples.

Therefore, why can't you accept the idea that God could have a book written with the majority of it being to a future generation who would see its fulfillment at the end of the age? The letters to the seven churches would of course be beneficial to them, but everything from Revelation chapter 4 onward would not be fulfilled during there time.

Well, besides the fact that, I believe it was a couple of chapters of prophesy Ahaz received there, covering a vast range of things that he knew were distant.... the really arrogant part of thinking Revelation was written to just us today, is that so did millions and millions and millions of now-dead Christians down through the history of the world. We insult every one of them as being gullible for their beliefs that it was THEM for whom that book was written.... and we are insulting our own grandchildren when they also grow old and die with no dragons or scorpions flying around a world that got hit by a star.

 

[Stephen63]

Okay.
I can't see it then.
There remains too much that appears to have never been fulfilled if this is the case.
The way I see it, there's a lot of good and amazing promises in the 1,000 year reign that I certainly haven't seen happen.
Would be interesting to hear how they think they were fulfilled though! Because you know they do have an explanation for them all and they didn't just ignore the verses.

Not to mention 2000 years with NOTHING in the history books about it.

 

[Locutus]

There's a real disconnect with the "futurist theologies", and those that are saying hardly nothing was fulfilled in light of what Jesus and Peter stated:

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.

Luke 21:22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

Acts 2:20 ‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
Acts 3:24 “And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days.

The attempt to turn "these days" into "these centuries" turns language on it's head and allows for endless speculation which is precisely what we seen since those days.

 

[J7]

The trouble with this is that Jesus told the disciples he would not return before or during the destruction of Jerusalem - See Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21

Matt 24 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.


Therefore it is also prophetically impossible for his visitation to John to have occurred before AD73. I.E. Revelation was received AD95-96

John21 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Yet another nail in the LCPW coffin. Don't know why it bothers me - I just really loathe this stupid doctrine, it is so badly out of whack with scripture, spiritual sense, any sense really.

 

[J7]

Oh, yet another Preterist blooper. If Revelation was written pre AD67, then Jerusalem was still the Holy City. However, Jesus warns:


[FONT=&quot]Rev 22
[/FONT]19 [FONT=&quot]And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So how does that stack up? The whole point was for the Godless to be trapped in Jerusalem, not taken out...

One day you'll get it Locutus, one day [/FONT]

 

[Locutus]

Well, for a start seven you are mixing and matching holy cities with no discernment, the one in Rev 22 is the heavenly city as described by Paul:

Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

Pre - 66-70 AD the unsacked Jerusalem was still considered the physical holy city:

Matt 27:53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Dan 9:24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel's "people" were the tribes of Israel.

 

[Willie-T]

Oh, yet another Preterist blooper. If Revelation was written pre AD67, then Jerusalem was still the Holy City. However, Jesus warns:


[FONT="]Rev 22
[/FONT][FONT=Arial][B]19 [/B][/FONT][FONT="]And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,

[/FONT][FONT="]So how does that stack up? The whole point was for the Godless to be trapped in Jerusalem, not taken out...

One day you'll get it Locutus, one day [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Locutus, post: 3256730"]Well, for a start seven you are mixing and matching holy cities with no discernment, the one in Rev 22 is the heavenly city as described by Paul:

Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

Pre - 66-70 AD the unsacked Jerusalem was still considered the physical holy city:

Matt 27:53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Dan 9:24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel's "people" were the tribes of Israel.

Oops...... Is that called "a blooper?" Don't ya just hate it when that happens?

 

[Bogadile]

Paul talks of Jerusalem (the earthly one) as being in bondage to sin and made an allegory with Hagar in Galatians4. Which is true, but nevertheless I consider it the Holy Land due to its history, and Jesus said it is the city of the great king.

 

[Locutus]

I don't consider the land of Palestine the holy land anymore, the land is defiled with blood, therefore it is not holy.

 

[JaumeJ]

There is absolutely nothing inherently holy in this age aside from the vestiges of Jesus Christ.....The age is full of all contaminated existence without God, while those who have come to know Him are eternabl because of Jesus Chrsit.

We await the living and the eternal being with our Father. Nothing of this age is to be worshipped, adored or considered as everlasting.........that is idolatry.

 

[J7]

LMFO. You are really a bit clueless, I am sorry, it has to be said.

If earthly Jerusalem, the Holy City, still existed, (according to your false claim that Revelation is written pre AD67), then Jesus could not reference Heavenly Jerusalem as 'The' Holy City as this point. It is that simple.

Now run along and give Chilcot $20 for some junky theology lessons.

Well, for a start seven you are mixing and matching holy cities with no discernment, the one in Rev 22 is the heavenly city as described by Paul:

Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

Pre - 66-70 AD the unsacked Jerusalem was still considered the physical holy city:

Matt 27:53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Dan 9:24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel's "people" were the tribes of Israel.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Oh, yet another Preterist blooper. If Revelation was written pre AD67, then Jerusalem was still the Holy City. However, Jesus warns:


Rev 22
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,

So how does that stack up? The whole point was for the Godless to be trapped in Jerusalem, not taken out...

One day you'll get it Locutus, one day

I think I understood your previous post and I agree. Didn't care for your last paragraph though. You have to let men have their thoughts and you have to listen to and consider their thoughts.

As for this post though, I don't think it helps your argument because the holy city being spoken of could be (sounds to me like) the holy city that comes down, the new jerusalem, the eternal city.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

LMFO. You are really a bit clueless, I am sorry, it has to be said.

If earthly Jerusalem, the Holy City, still existed, (according to your false claim that Revelation is written pre AD67), then Jesus could not reference Heavenly Jerusalem as 'The' Holy City as this point. It is that simple.

Now run along and give Chilcot $20 for some junky theology lessons.

that is uncalled for man,

thats is why I hate these discussions, peopl from both sides have to attack others,