The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

I don't know for sure... probably the USA.

Yes they did....1000s of them. Did you think not a single Jew knew he’s the Messiah? All who wanted to did.
Already over and He did deal with them.
Correct That makes no sense at all. All the billions who died before are lost forever. How unjust! What good does it do them if some future generation decides to believe?
Ah, the magic words as it were.

That’s in dispute.

No, 1000s accepted Him. There were 3000 in one day alone. Don’t they count?

I’ve know your theology. I don’t believe it. Don’t mistake not believing for not knowing.

Absolutely correct.
Luke13:35....This one verse alone lays the whole thing out for everybody and anybody.
And yet the preterists and amillennialist will misinterpret this thing....... it is incredible.

https://biblehub.com/luke/13-35.htm
Look, your house is left to you desolate. And I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Hosea 5:15 anybody?
I will return again to My place Till they acknowledge their offense. Then they will seek My face; In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me.”

Would you agree that the book of Revelation is in the genre of apocalyptic literature?

I’ve read the whole Bible many times over. And you got me wrong. Matt 24 is mostly fulfilled prophesy and the chapter came alive when I understood that. Same for Revelation. I finally understood the book.

You're hopeless. Those are Christians a.k.a. the Bride of Christ. The sons of Jacob who do not convert to Christianity are being reserved and preserved (as anyone can see!) for Daniel's 70th week, and the millennium! Furthermore the unconditional Abraham and Davidic covenants will be fulfilled IN THEM!

I think that's splitting hairs, But I know that 445 BCE works perfectly in terms of the mathematics.
To be honest I'm quite sure that Neh ch2 is correct.

I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying here.

where is Jesus when he says this?

does he say this before the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday?

What the report in the Revelation depicts also is described elsewhere in the Bible.

The word translated in the kjv as "commandment" can also mean "word"... like the ylt has it:

"And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word [H1697] to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader is seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks..."

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1697.htm [see the range of meaning, here]

In his writing of the "Against Heresies," Irenaeus wrote, that John was the author of the "Apocalypse."

So here alone, we have confirmation that 70 AD was not the Apocalypse and it was still to come.

Irenaeus also wrote, John knew the number/who the Beast was but kept it secret because it was not yet time to be revealed.

So, we have precise and clear evidence that what John wrote was not about the past, was about the future, and that John kept the information about the Beast and its number a complete secret into his death.

So yes, it is definitely apocalyptic!

One could even conclude by writing AGAINST HERESIES, Irenaeus, was addressing preterist of his day since he is specific about John-Domitian-Patmos 94 AD! And he was calling them HERETICS with a Doctrine of HERESY!

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.

When was 1 Thessalonians 4:17 ever fulfilled?

Context is critical. And in this case it is "a word of command" according to Brown-Driver-Briggs.

b. word of command, (הַ)מֶּלֶךְ ׳ד 1 Chronicles 21:4,6;Esther 1:12 6t. Esther; Ecclesiastes 8:4 compare 2 Chronicles 30:5; 31:5; Daniel 9:23,25;

God charged or commanded Cyrus, therefore Cyrus commanded the Jews: Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged* me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. (Ezra 1:2)
* פָקַ֤ד (p̄ā-qaḏ) = has commanded

It is quite amazing that this heathen king recognized that the true God was "the LORD God of heaven" and that he was bound to obey His charge or commandment.

Wait a minute... you're not suggesting that the word that we're talking about in Dan9:25 is the same word that you're now pointing out in Ezra 1:2, are you? Coz they are two different words.

--Daniel 9:25's word: H1697 - dabar (which can mean "word" like in the ylt; and is translated "commandment" in the kjv - https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1697.htm )

--Ezra 1:2's word: H6485 - paqad ("Definition: to attend to, visit, muster, appoint" - https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6485.htm )



Not only are these two words distinct ^ , but having studied this pretty in-depth, I think the phrase "to restore [H7725 (2x in this verse)] and to build [H1129] Jerusalem" is key... and takes us precisely to [what we call] "Palm Sunday" when Jesus DID the Zech9:9 thing [re: Jerusalem] and SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing [also re: "the city" / Jerusalem], which is what the actual prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 pertains to ("70 Weeks ARE DETERMINED UPON thy [Daniel's] people, AND UPON thy [Daniel's] HOLY CITY...")



[one author has tweaked Sir Rob't Anderson's factorings by (something like) one day... and shows how this (Anderson's) results are indeed the ONLY "year" that could have "fit," based on the number of moons "fitting" between "Nisan" to "Nisan"... I made a post on that quite some time back]

Oh, and one more thing...

I had meant to point out in my last post... about the word in Daniel 9:25 (as shown in your B-D-B example ^ ), see where he points out that this H1697 is also used in Dan9:23, well it is in that verse TWO times, as such:

"At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment [H1697] came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter [H1697], and consider the vision."



So both of these are also within the range (in meaning) of what v.25 is conveying.


I believe "from the going forth of THE WORD [H1697] to" is certainly just as fitting.

it makes sense to me that John would use symbols and figures of speech that people were familiar with.

maybe it's like if I wanted to make a modern-day parable based on The tortoise and the hare.
but I decided to add a butterfly.
even though she flies in a zigzag and rests frequently, she makes steady progress and ends up winning.