Preterism 101

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear Preterists,

I pray you are well, today. I have a few questions about fulfilled prophecy.

If all prophecies have been fulfilled . . .

When was the Gospel preached to all the nations?

When was the Mark of the Beast implemented?

What about China's 200-million-man army?

When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky?

And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?

I really don't mean to question bomb. Feel free to answer one or two and leave the rest for later. Sometimes, I enjoy "rapid fire" Q/A and if you don't, then just tackle one or two.

Thanks,
Jason

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hye Jason... first, I am going to move this eschatology. Second... if you want a one on one with just one representative of the preterist position in a chilled out dialog, I can move it to yet another place.

Third..... despite the assertions of a relatively recent band of heretics, preterists do not believe that all prophecy has been fulfilled. We do believe that most has been, and we do believe that the ones you have cited in your post have most certainly have been.

[Faramir]

This thread really should be moved to another forum.

Either eschatology 101, if you want this to be a thread open to debate or Liberal Arts if all you want is answers to your questions from preterist without debate.

Let me know which type of thread you want this to be, and I (or another moderator) will be happy to move it for you.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Or the Tennis Court if he wants to have a one on one nondebate discussion.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi,

Let's have a multi-person, informal discussion on these things. Thanks for moving them to the appropriate place.

I hope my questions aren't perceived as offensive. I've studied biblical prophecy and I'm still studying it, so it is one of my subjects of interest. Plus, I haven't spoken to many preterists.

Could someone give me a few names of preterist churches and universities? I'd like to see if I recognize any.

Thanks and God bless,
Jason

P.S. Do you consider beliefs regarding prophecies "essential" doctrines for salvation or "non-essential" doctrines?

[efta777]

When was the Gospel preached to all the nations?

Rom 16:25-26
Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the ppreaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-"

There are a ton of verses in the N.T. that discuss the fact that the message had indeed already been made known throughout the entire Earth, this is just the first one that I saw and I don't have time right now to find all the others - other preterists could definately help me out on this one easily.


When was the Mark of the Beast implemented?
If you truly believe that the mark of the beast is in the future, then it seems like it would correspond directly to the mark of the lamb, being the 'anti-type' thereof, and the Bible is very clear that the mark of the lamb is figurative, meaning that true Christians are 'marked' or 'set apart' from the rest of teh world. The fact that this mark is on the forehead or hand means that this mark, or devotion, will be manifested both in the mind and in action. There is a ton of scriptural evidence for this if you want it, I'll have to do that later though.


What about China's 200-million-man army?
Never read that chapter in the Bible, you'll have to show that one to me.


When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky?

If you accept that at least some of Revelation is figurative (Which, as far as I know, almost every Biblical scholar does), then it is very interesting to note that during the siege of Jeruselem by the Romans around A.D. 70, which is when Preterists believe much of Rev was fulfilled, the Romans used catapults that shot 100lb WHITE stones which destroyed much of the city. It could be coincidence, but with all the other evidence pointing to the A.D. 70 fulfillment, it seems like this is a very likely and adequate explanation.


And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?
Not entirely sure, could I get a scripture reference on that one?

[Jason Gastrich]

Rom 16:25-26
Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the ppreaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-"

There are a ton of verses in the N.T. that discuss the fact that the message had indeed already been made known throughout the entire Earth, this is just the first one that I saw and I don't have time right now to find all the others - other preterists could definately help me out on this one easily.

Here is the NIV rendering of those verses in Romans:

"Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him."

It doesn't make sense to interpret that passage as saying the entire world had heard about the gospel. Do you honestly think that all of the people in the entire world had heard the gospel at this point? How about the American Indians or the people in Australia?


If you truly believe that the mark of the beast is in the future, then it seems like it would correspond directly to the mark of the lamb, being the 'anti-type' thereof, and the Bible is very clear that the mark of the lamb is figurative, meaning that true Christians are 'marked' or 'set apart' from the rest of teh world. The fact that this mark is on the forehead or hand means that this mark, or devotion, will be manifested both in the mind and in action. There is a ton of scriptural evidence for this if you want it, I'll have to do that later though.

Sure, I'd like to read the scriptural evidence you have. I'm beginning to see that a person can discover numerous, variant interpretations of the scriptures if they only interpret them as figurative. Do you have a criteria for which passages are considered figurative and which ones are not?


Never read that chapter in the Bible, you'll have to show that one to me.

Revelation 9:16 reads, "The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number." Most prophecy scholars believe this is referring to the Chinese army. Regardless, when did this ever happen with any army?


If you accept that at least some of Revelation is figurative (Which, as far as I know, almost every Biblical scholar does), then it is very interesting to note that during the siege of Jeruselem by the Romans around A.D. 70, which is when Preterists believe much of Rev was fulfilled, the Romans used catapults that shot 100lb WHITE stones which destroyed much of the city. It could be coincidence, but with all the other evidence pointing to the A.D. 70 fulfillment, it seems like this is a very likely and adequate explanation.

This is quite interesting. Do you have a web site with some proof of this?


Not entirely sure, could I get a scripture reference on that one?

Revelation 16:12 reads, "The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East." I've never seen any evidence that the Euphrates River dried up.

God bless,
Jason

[efta777]

It doesn't make sense to interpret that passage as saying the entire world had heard about the gospel. Do you honestly think that all of the people in the entire world had heard the gospel at this point? How about the American Indians or the people in Australia?

It doesn't really matter what I think, it matters what the Bible says. I find it hard to refute Romans 1:8:

"First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world."

Or Col.1:6

"that has come to you. Just as in the entire world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, so it has also been bearing fruit and growing among you from the first day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth."

Or Col 1:23
"if indeed you remain firm in the faith, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant."


Sure, I'd like to read the scriptural evidence you have. I'm beginning to see that a person can discover numerous, variant interpretations of the scriptures if they only interpret them as figurative. Do you have a criteria for which passages are considered figurative and which ones are not?

First off, you're not seriously saying that you take EVERYTHING in Rev. as being absolutely concrete literal do you? The woman of Chapter 12? Will there actually be a woman clothed with the sun and with the moon under her feet? Figurative, right? I'll assume that you agree with me here. I agree that there should be a criteria for which passages are figurative and which are not, and that criteria always lies within the context of the given passage.

Rev. 13:16
"He also caused everyone...to obtain a mark on their right hand or on their forehead."

For starters, it's interesting to compare this verse to Deut. 6:8
"Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads."

Here it's talking about the words of God, the law, and using the symbols on the hands and foreheads as a symbolic mark of the Israelites knowing and putting into action the law. I believe that the same case is present with the mark in Revelation. Let me put it this way, if it can be at all taken as symbolic, as I believe it can, than it is not hard to believe that this prophecy has already been fulfilled (especially when you look further into the number of the beast and it's first-century connection). Of course if you really want to, you can take it literally, but with all the other evidence, it's not likely.


Revelation 9:16 reads, "The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number." Most prophecy scholars believe this is referring to the Chinese army. Regardless, when did this ever happen with any army?

I've never heard of the Chinese Army theory, so I think you're a little off when you say MOST scholars believe this. However, even in my study Bible, which generally seems to lean futurist in it's comments, it says about this verse: "The reference is most likely general, meaning an incalculable number"

See also, Ps. 68:17, Dan. 7:10, Rev. 5:11 All talking about big numbers.


This is quite interesting. Do you have a web site with some proof of this?

About the hailstones? It's written clear as day in Flavius Josephus' "Wars of the Jews," which is arguably the most detailed account of the Roman siege of Jeruselem in A.D. 70 in existence. Book V, Chapter VI, Section III:

"The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent (1), and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE STONE COMETH so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground;"


Hope this helps.

Any other preterists want to help me out with the Euphrates river thing?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am standing back and enjoying watching other people do the heavy work.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Gospel preached to all nations....

Okay, when was the gospel preached to all the nations, assuming that you are referring to Matthew 24:14? Well we know it was before 70AD for one very simple reason. Jesus said it would happen with that generation. Now that may be convincing to those of us who just simply accept the Bible but to others, not as convincing, and to those indoctrinated in futurism, not too convincing… so what does the rest of the NT have to say about this??

Colossians 1:5-6 – because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

Colossians 1:23 – if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Paul says that the Gospel was even preached to every creature under heaven at the time he wrote to the Church at Colosse and was even bearing fruit in the whole world.

Paul told the Romans that their faith was being proclaimed to all the nations and throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:5-6 - Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ

Romans 16:25-26 - Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations , according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith

When the Gospel was preached at Pentecost… who was there to hear it??

Acts 2:5 – And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.

Representatives of every nation heard the Gospel then… and as Pentecost was a feast to which people traveled far and wide, they carried the Gospel back their homelands…. “every nation under heaven.”


You may ask how this could possibly be… well even if I could not explain it, it would still be true because that is how the Bible defines “the Gospel being preached to all the nations” and the Bible must be allowed to interpret the Bible. The word for “world” in Matthew 24:14 is “oikoumene” which means the “inhabited earth” which very often in the NT simply means the Roman Empire. We forget that Rome was the “world” of that time, made up of many, many nations. This same word is used in Luke 2:1 about the census that was ordered that caused Joseph and Mary to have to go to Bethlehem. No one teaches that even the Indians on the American continent were ordered to be censused as well….but that is the same word used in Matthew 24:14 – oikoumene.

Also we must remember that the Jews were, and still are, a very colorful and passionate people. Their idioms and means of communication often employed hyperbole and exaggeration for effect. It was part and parcel of that culture. We are being horribly anachronistic when we try to hyper-literalize such things. The Bible must tell us how to interpret the Bible even if it means we must topple the idol of “literalism” that we have erected today. Biblically literal means that we interpret things literally in the sense that they were intended to be understood.

If you were to say that “it is raining cats and dogs outside,” you would literally mean that it is raining very hard. I would not be taking you literal in a proper way if I insisted that you meant that canines and felines were whalloping down on our heads.

I am a preterist because I take the timing passages seriously. If it were not for the plentiful and clear timing passages in the New Testament I would not be a preterist. Today it seems like most people just dive into the what of prophecy and decide what that must mean and then briefly look at the when. I believe that this is improper. If the prophet clearly limits himself to a certain time frame for fulfillment, we must take that seriously, and if the things do not come to pass when he says that they will, he is a false prophet, with the possible exception of repentance causing the retraction of prophesy of judgment.
Jesus clearly said that the then living generation would not pass away until all these things be fulfilled. We must take that seriously. We cannot simply say because those things have not taken place, then He must not have meant that unless we have another warrant for interpreting the words a different way. Jesus leaves us no other options here if the text is brutally honestly examined in context.

For some other examples...


Cyrus the King of Persia said, “The Lord, the God of Heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” Ezra 1:2; 2 Chron. 36:23

David writes, “All nations surrounded me.” Psalm 118:10

God “brought the fear of David on all the nations.” 1 Chron. 14:17

It is written of Hezekiah King of Judah “that he was exalted in the sight of all nations…” 2 Chron. 32:23

The Chaldeans are said to “march throughout the earth.” Hab. 1:6

“The people from all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph.” Genesis 41:57

“All the earth was seeking the presence of Solomon.” 1 Kings 10:24

“And all the nations shall ser him and his son, and his grandson until the time of his own land comes.” Jer. 27:7

Nebuchadnezzar addresses his decree as “the king to all the people, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth.” Daniel 4:1

[efta777]

Thanks Dee Dee

[Jason Gastrich]

efta,

I agree. It doesn't matter what you think (compared to what the Bible says). However, don't let this stop you from telling us what you think. "The Bible says it, so it must be true," is wonderful, but most people appreciate some more evidence than using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Please don't forget that every person, including the Bible writers, speak and write within an assumed framework.

I can say, "I'm the most tired person in the world." Am I really? I'm simply conveying the fact that I'm tired.

I can say, "I'm the best Dad." Am I best Dad in the world? Well, I'm the best Dad within the framework of the Dads I know. I can't honestly be talking about every Dad in the world because I don't know every Dad in the world.

In the same way, the Bible writers that talked about the gospel being given to every creature or the whole world are surely using a similar framework and literary device. It is a fairly normal way of speaking, but requires one to think about their words and interpret them in the proper context.

Here is what the Living Bible says about Colossians 1:23:

the only condition is that you fully believe the Truth, standing in it steadfast and firm, strong in the Lord, convinced of the Good News that Jesus died for you, and never shifting from trusting him to save you. This is the wonderful news that came to each of you and is now spreading all over the world. And I, Paul, have the joy of telling it to others.

I'm not always a fan of the Living Bible, but it often gives an honest and genuine perspective of the meaning that was intended.

Which scholars do you know? You mentioned not knowing any Bible scholars mentioning the 200 million man Chinese army. I'd like to know who you study and follow.

I can see that you are using a similar device that atheists use when cornered with solid interpretations of the Bible. They always get "conveniently confused" and reach for an abberant, non-literal translation of the Bible.

Why shouldn't the 200,000 man army be considered literal? Please don't tell me that you just decided to "tell us what you think" and stopped telling us what the Bible said. This would be against your foundational system of exegesis.

Thanks for quoting Josephus. I like and respect his accounts.

Dee Dee,

Can you see how the passages referring to "this age" and "this generation" can easily refer to the "church age" that we are still in? They surely didn't have to refer to that literal generation.

It's ironic that preterists like to take passages in a non-literal manner, but in this case, the scriptures must be taken literally.

Here is the Greek definition for the word "generation" in Matthew 24:34:

G1074
γενεά
genea
ghen-eh-ah'
From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons):—age, generation, nation, time.


As you can see, there is no indication that this "generation" must be taken literally. It can be interpreted "age" as in "the church" age (for instance, the age of the prophets had passed).

God bless,
Jason

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jason, do you really want me to utterly dismantle that "age" assertion? I would love to but this is getting too unfocused for my attention... so I have a question. If you would like my participation (and I am not all that special or anything, there are plenty of other preterists here) but if you do we need to exhaust one topic at a time, such as the "all nations" thing first. Of course other issues may come in tangentially, but unless we can do it one thing at a time, I will gracefully bow out. In all honesty, I tend to only post about one substantive post a week as it is with my schedule.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi Dee Dee,

I hope you're doing well, today.

Your participation is really up to you. Please give as much time and effort as you deem appropriate.

I generally address several issues at once. It looks like some other people do, too.

Just answer what you wish and have fun. :yipee:

Have a good weekend!

JG

[studyhound]

12 And the sixth poured out his bowl upon the great river, the river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way might by made ready for the kings that come from the sunrising.


How I see this: The Euphrates was the life source and protection of Babylon. Most Preterists see Babylon as Jerusalem. I see the river as the protection and providence of God. The protection and providence that the Jews rejected when they rejected Christ.

[Hitch]

I can see that you are using a similar device that atheists use when cornered with solid interpretations of the Bible. They always get "conveniently confused" and reach for an abberant, non-literal translation of the Bible. LOL Another 'literalist' caliming 'soon' menas thousands of years?


And 'this generation' means a generation thousands of years future?


And 'last day' means anything but last day...

But the China bit is especially cute. Odd China dosnt come up in my concordance though. But its doubtful there are 200,000,000 horses in the entire world and certainly less than that number in China.

Good work EF, you're right DeeDee it is nice to to watch sometimes...

Hitch

[Hitch]

Which scholars do you know? You mentioned not knowing any Bible scholars mentioning the 200 million man Chinese army. I'd like to know who you study and follow.

Mauro,Boettner, Chilton ,Gentry, Holeford, ,Jefferson, DeMar, , Edwards,Kik,,Sutton,Owen.Heny,,Milton,Rushdoony,North,Alexander.

Some of the works of Chilton,Gentry and De-Mar are availabe free to download at Freebooks.com

take care


Hitch

[Dee Dee Warren]

Revelation does not use the word "China" nor does it say "200 million" whatsover. And remember this army is horseback. There aren't that many horses on the planet.

[Justme]

Hi,

One night I was clicking the remote and came across Hal Lindsey talking about this army of China bit. It was a while ago and I immediately saw it for what it was worth and then I wrote up the following for another board.

In his(Lindsey) logic he pointed out that now is the first time in history any country could field an army of two hundred million. That country would be China, he says. Absolute proof , I guess, that the end times are upon us.

When I hear stuff like this I quickly visulize the situation in my mind-sometimes I take it farher. Here's what this army would look like if 200 million Chinese soldier's headed off to battle.......today.

First, the scripture tells us these are horseman-there may be 200 million soldiers in China, but where do you get the horses from?

How much space does a horseman take up? I own horses, but I have never measured those dimensions, suffice it to know they're x-hands high. Let's guess you'd need 8 feet by 3 ft for each horseman. That would give you 1815 soldiers per acre. So when the soldiers got marching 33 1/3 abreast, you'd have a column reaching 5405 miles long. At a nice trot of 9 mph when the head honcho stopped for supper it would be 25 days before those in the last row made it to the meal. Speaking of the meal!!!! Let's say the cook was doing 4 oz burgers, one per person on 1 bun. If they could force feed their steers and dress them out at 1200 pounds they would only have to butcher 4166 animals for that meal and grind a bit over 2000 bushels of wheat for the buns.

Sounds rock solid to me.!!!!!!!!!
Justme

[Jason Gastrich]

studyhound writes:

12 And the sixth poured out his bowl upon the great river, the river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way might by made ready for the kings that come from the sunrising.

How I see this: The Euphrates was the life source and protection of Babylon. Most Preterists see Babylon as Jerusalem. I see the river as the protection and providence of God. The protection and providence that the Jews rejected when they rejected Christ.

Me:

Yes, the Euphrates is a river that goes through Iraq. Babylon is in Iraq. These things are true.

I don't think Preterists see the actual city of Babylon as the actual city of Jerusalem. I think they can distinguish between these two, very different places.

Hitch, which "soon" are you talking about? You are the first to mention it on this page.

Can anyone, Preterist or non-Preterist, see that Preterists tend to shift gears between a literal and figurative interpretation of the scriptures whenever they deem appropriate? Is there a criteria for doing this? So far, it appears to be a very arbitrary process.

God bless,
JG

[efta777]

I don't think Preterists see the actual city of Babylon as the actual city of Jerusalem. I think they can distinguish between these two, very different places.

I think what is being referred to here is the fact that Preterists view the Babylon of Revelation as being symbolic of Jeruselem, for several contextual reasons.


Can anyone, Preterist or non-Preterist, see that Preterists tend to shift gears between a literal and figurative interpretation of the scriptures whenever they deem appropriate? Is there a criteria for doing this? So far, it appears to be a very arbitrary process.

You're correct, we as preterists do tend to interpret certain things figuratively and certain things literally. But you're missing the major point: EVERYONE does this (Including you, I would assume)! Note my comment earlier about the woman in Revelation. I'm sure you take that passage as being figurative, right? How do you decide that? By looking at it rationaly, as Justme did with the army of 200,000,000 - he proved that this would be pretty much impossible, therefore it most likely has a figurative fulfillment. The same is true of many other things. So, you ask an important question: What is the criteria for deciding what is literal and what is figurative? You have to look objectively at each individual case and decide, based on its ENTIRE context weather it fits into the Bible in a literal or figurative way. Take, for example Matt. chapter 24 - Jesus gives fairly evidently literal phrases like "You see all these things, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down" This was fulfilled and obviously literal, because it happened exactly as he said it. Later he says, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken..." This is interesting language and seems at first to be a problem for the Preterist, as these things obviously did not happen in A.D. 70. However, when this verse is looked at IN LIGHT OF the REST OF THE BIBLE, it's easy to see the figurative nature of this verse. See, for instance the prophecy against Babylon in Isaiah 13:10 "The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light." This did not LITERALLY happen during Babylon's destruction but was rather SYMBOLIC of God's hand in the judgement, just as it would be for the Jews in A.D. 70. See also Isaiah 34:4, against the nations, Ezekial 32:7 "When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon will not give its light..." This DID NOT literally happen. It was figurative. Given this evidence it is NOT a stretch to consider the words of Jesus, being in a prophetic language that his AUDIENCE would understand (Audience is another key word), would be figurative in fulfillment, just as the language he was using would imply.

When each individual verse, passage, word, etc... is systematically thought out and compared with other similar passages as well as investigated culturally, Preterism becomes the logical outcome.

Final question, it's been asked before but it never hurts to ask again: What could Jesus have said that he did not say which would have made it more clear to the people that he would return SOON, as in, within their lifetimes. He could say "This generation will not pass away," He could say "Soon," "Quickly," "Without delay," "Some of you will not taste death," "You will not finish going through all the towns in Israel," etc... etc... etc... Maybe each of these, one by one, could be explained away, but when taken as a whole, it's obvious what he was trying to say, is it not?

Also, what is your response to Justme's figures regarding the army of 200,000,000 in Revelation?

Thank you for your time.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hey guys,

Thanks for your posts.

Regarding the horses, it looks like some of the preterists in here have forgotten to shift into "figurative interpretation mode." It is altogether possible that these "horses" simply represent military vehicles.

Revelation 9:16 indicated there are two hundred thousand thousand horsemen. This is 200 million.

Hal Lindsay has an awesome book called, "The Promise of Bible Prophecy," that explains numerous, awesome prophecies. I've read it and highly recommend it.

efta, thanks for your post. Yes, I know that some scriptures are supposed to be taken literally and others are to be taken figuratively. I also agreed with some of the exegetical methods you gave.

In light of these things, how can the Babylon of Revelation refer to Israel? Here is the description of it (from Revelation 17 and 18):

- This Babylon sits on 7 hills
- This Babylon is a trade city on the water
- People will mourn when this Babylon is destroyed
- Seamen will see smoke from it's burning as they are on the sea
- It will be destroyed in one hour

Do you really believe this Babylon in Revelation refers to Israel? Hint: Check out Dave Hunt's book called, "A Woman Rides the Beast." It was an awesome read.

Hitch, thanks for giving me that list of names. Would you mind providing me some names of Preterist churches and universities?

God bless,
Jason

[Robyn Banks]

Jason G:
Regarding the horses, it looks like some of the preterists in here have forgotten to shift into "figurative interpretation mode." It is altogether possible that these "horses" simply represent military vehicles.

Revelation 9:16 indicated there are two hundred thousand thousand horsemen. This is 200 million.
Revelation 9.6 refers to my souped-up Ford. It has 200 million horse-power. And I'm driving in to Babylon in it to deal to Saddam this weekend.

Vrrrooooomm!!!!

Robyn

PS. It's a Ford Myriad - a little known, but very powerful car.

[Jason Gastrich]

Very funny . . . and an interesting possibility is veiled in your joke. "Horsepower."

I have an 85 Toyota van, so I'm happy when it can go faster than a horse. :wink:

JG

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jason:

I do not know of any Preterist churches or universities, I know of universities that have preterist teachers, but I do not know of one that adopts preterism into its statement of faith. There may very well be one. As a major demonination, in some respects the Church of Christ is preterist, but not in the same manner that I am, though I have a lot of agreement with them in that area. I do not beleive there are other major preterist churches, though there are preterist pastors in many different demoniations most predominantly Reformed Baptist and very conservative Presbyterian. There are a lot of preterists in the mostly Presbyterian Christian Reconstruction movement.

For a name you might recognize, RC Sproul is a preterist. Another name you might recognize is Hank Hanegraaff of the Bible Answer Man... he has not officialy declared himself as a preterist, but he very publically has exhibited preterist leanings and I do beleive that within a few years, he will be a ublic preterist.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jason:


Hey guys,

Thanks for your posts.

Regarding the horses, it looks like some of the preterists in here have forgotten to shift into "figurative interpretation mode." It is altogether possible that these "horses" simply represent military vehicles.


That betrays a fundemantal lack of getting the point on your part. The preterist interprets things "symbolically" (I take issue with that term but will reserve that for another time) when the
Bible gives him express warrant to do so. If you are going to claim that the horses are not real horses then please prove for me from the Bible, that the Bible ever uses "horses" in that sense in a similar context, or if you cannot do that, then an extra-biblical source from the same time period showing that "horses" was a Jewish euphism for milary vehicles. You will not be able to. Horses meant horses, and the book was meant to be understood by its primary audience.

Interpretation is not a runaway train that you can simply just pick and choose what to take which way as you have suggested. You have also completley removed any justification you have for claiming that you are more "literal" than a preterist for you have just figuratized "horses." And you must figuratize ALL of the timing texts. So now that that red herring is removed (ie that futurist are "literal" and preterists are "figurative") let's see who is using Biblical figurativism or not. And it ain't the futurists.....

[Hitch]

Today @ 09:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63865#post63865)
Jason G:

Hey guys,

Thanks for your posts.

Regarding the horses, it looks like some of the preterists in here have forgotten to shift into "figurative interpretation mode." It is altogether possible that these "horses" simply represent military vehicles. Well didnt take long for the literalisn of convienence to arrive. BTW the 'soon' I referenced is found in the first verse of the Apocalypse. And I challenge you to apply your standard ,such as it is, of literalism to verses 1-3.


Revelation 9:16 indicated there are two hundred thousand thousand horsemen. This is 200 million.

Hal Lindsay has an awesome book called, "The Promise of Bible Prophecy," that explains numerous, awesome prophecies. I've read it and highly recommend it. Why? Lindsey's record so far is 100% wrong


efta, thanks for your post. Yes, I know that some scriptures are supposed to be taken literally and others are to be taken figuratively. I also agreed with some of the exegetical methods you gave.

In light of these things, how can the Babylon of Revelation refer to Israel? Here is the description of it (from Revelation 17 and 18):

- This Babylon sits on 7 hills
- This Babylon is a trade city on the water
- People will mourn when this Babylon is destroyed
- Seamen will see smoke from it's burning as they are on the sea
- It will be destroyed in one hour

Do you really believe this Babylon in Revelation refers to Israel? Hint: Check out Dave Hunt's book called, "A Woman Rides the Beast." It was an awesome read.
Rev 18:24
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
(KJV)


Matt 23:35-37
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.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 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!
(KJV)

Thats about as obvious as it gets.


Hitch, thanks for giving me that list of names. Would you mind providing me some names of Preterist churches and universities?

God bless,
Jason Coral Ridge Ministries and Westminister Theological Seminary

Virtually all Reformed Seminaries are Post Millenial but they typically place less emphasis on eschatology then the DF schools which at the THd, level thay vastly outnumber.

http://members.aol.com/mariostz/christian/resources_reformed.html

The same holds true with Reformed Churches, they are usually Post Millennial, but with less emphasis on eschatology than the DF churches.

Take care

Hitch

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Hitch, is D. James Kennedy preterist? I had heard that he was but I was never able to confirm that personally. I may just call over to his church and ask.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Jason, I just reread my post, and I realized that it sounded a bit aggressive, and I did not intend it to be that way or rude.. I wanted to know that.

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64119#post64119)
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey Hitch, is D. James Kennedy preterist? I had heard that he was but I was never able to confirm that personally. I may just call over to his church and ask. DJ is the very one who taught me about John six.

And the rest as they say is history,,,LOL


H

[Rusty T]

Are you ever going to answer the charges that you sent the "gay urges" posting to ii_errancy? Yes or No. Simple enough.

tizzi

[Hitch]

I dont want to get too far off topic Jason but Im sure you've noticed my antogonism toward furtuism and I wanted to give you a brief background reason, just in case you're not familar already.

A pillar of the futuristic view is the supposed 'kingdom offer' made and withdrawn by Christ in the first century. No such offer was ever made, nor recinded. Jesus was plain and told us that he had accomplished all that God sent him to do. The Kingdom Christ set up was that very Kingdom envisioned by the Prophets and taught by Christ himself even after his Resurrection. And later defined by Paul as 'Righteousness Peace and Joy on the Holy Spirit.'
There is no basis in any NT letter or account to support the Kingdom of God/Heaven as a geo-political entity. There is only the misplaced literalism which reflects the Pharisees rather that the Apostles.

Take care


Hitch

[John Reece]

Today @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64149#post64149)
Hitch:

I dont want to get too far off topic Jason but Im sure you've noticed my antogonism toward furtuism and I wanted to give you a brief background reason, just in case you're not familar already.

A pillar of the futuristic view is the supposed 'kingdom offer' made and withdrawn by Christ in the first century. No such offer was ever made, nor recinded. Jesus was plain and told us that he had accomplished all that God sent him to do. The Kingdom Christ set up was that very Kingdom envisioned by the Prophets and taught by Christ himself even after his Resurrection. And later defined by Paul as 'Righteousness Peace and Joy on the Holy Spirit.'
There is no basis in any NT letter or account to support the Kingdom of God/Heaven as a geo-political entity. There is only the misplaced literalism which reflects the Pharisees rather that the Apostles.

Take care


Hitch

:thumb: :yipee: :cheers:

[Jason Gastrich]

Dee Dee,

Thanks for your post.

I've heard of Sproul and I have a book by Hanegraff. I haven't read it, yet, but I hope to read it, soon.

I took a Greek course at Westminster Seminary. They are reformed, but I don't think they are preterists. Are they?

Would you say that preterism is a small movement? Could someone be a Baptist preterist?

Hitch,

Does Jerusalem or Israel sit on 7 hills? One verse in Revelation may resemble another verse, but it wouldn't be wise to ignore both chapters of Revelation that describe this city and assume it refers to Israel.

I definitely concede that some passages of scripture are literal and some are not. Right now, it simply looks like preterists and futurists have different ideas about when to interpret scriptures literally and non-literally.

Hitch,

You addressed something that I didn't fully understand. I think you are assuming I believe or know something that I may not believe or know. Wanna start from the beginning? It had to do with Christ's kingdom and a "kingdom offer". Sorry for not following.

Have you ever read "The Promise of Bible Prophecy"?

Lastly, I did some research on the "soon" of Revelation 1:1. This Greek word that was translated into the English word "shortly" in the KJV (I only see "soon" in the NIV and I thought preterists tended to avoid this translation) is also translated "quickly" (Acts 12:7, 22:18) and "speedily" (Luke 18:8).

This is surely one of those: "Behold, I come quickly" kinds of statements. From the time this statement was made, was Jesus going to return in the next year? In the next 100 years? No. He said that He will return in the "twinkling of an eye". In the same way, the things in Revelation would happen quickly and speedily.

I'm sorry if I missed something that somebody wrote. I didn't think anybody sounded abrasive or anything. It's all good.

Have a happy Saturday! :thumb:

JG

[Faramir]

Today @ 05:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64419#post64419)
Jason G:

Could someone be a Baptist preterist?



:joy: That would be me. :joy:

I know of at least one other preterist who goes to my church.

I also think JP is a Baptist. And Solly used to a preterist and is still a Baptist.

:thumb:

Not many of us. (Yet)

[efta777]

I was a Baptist before I became a preterist. It wasn't necissarily the preterism that brought me out of the Baptist church, it was a combination of several issues; Predestination, eschatology, baptism, etc...


This is surely one of those: "Behold, I come quickly" kinds of statements. From the time this statement was made, was Jesus going to return in the next year? In the next 100 years? No. He said that He will return in the "twinkling of an eye". In the same way, the things in Revelation would happen quickly and speedily.

See the comment from my last post:


Final question, it's been asked before but it never hurts to ask again: What could Jesus have said that he did not say which would have made it more clear to the people that he would return SOON, as in, within their lifetimes. He could say "This generation will not pass away," He could say "Soon," "Quickly," "Without delay," "Some of you will not taste death," "You will not finish going through all the towns in Israel," etc... etc... etc... Maybe each of these, one by one, could be explained away, but when taken as a whole, it's obvious what he was trying to say, is it not?

You've just shown that it is POSSIBLE to explain away some of these time texts independently of the rest, but the problem is that there is an ABUNDANCE of them, and I don't see it as being a wise thing to stretch your exegetical ability by explaining them all individually and then saying that they are all referring to a far future judgement. Taking them all together it's darn near impossible to refute.

[joelkaki]

Jason G, it concerns me that you used the Living Bible to demonstrate your point, for the Living Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation, so it's "meaning" cannot be taken over the actual translation of the words.

Joel

[Hitch]

Lastly, I did some research on the "soon" of Revelation 1:1. This Greek word that was translated into the English word "shortly" in the KJV (I only see "soon" in the NIV and I thought preterists tended to avoid this translation) is also translated "quickly" (Acts 12:7, 22:18) and "speedily" (Luke 18:8).

This is surely one of those: "Behold, I come quickly" kinds of statements. From the time this statement was made, was Jesus going to return in the next year? In the next 100 years? No. He said that He will return in the "twinkling of an eye". In the same way, the things in Revelation would happen quickly and speedily.

I'm sorry if I missed something that somebody wrote. I didn't think anybody sounded abrasive or anything. It's all good.


Thats alright Jason I like to show just how selective literalist can be. Next time your wife asks you to take aou the trash, just tell her you'll get to it shortly , and define that as 2,000 years, certainly she will understand.

The best evidence wrt R1:1-3 is its direct relation to the original audience. They were real people in real trouble. just as real as Tim, the Galatians or the Corinthians.


No. He said that He will return in the "twinkling of an eye".
Really in what book is Jesus recorded saying this? Actually I'd like to walk this road a long way and challenge you to begin your defense of futurism, to whatever degree you hold it, with quotes from Jesus.


WRT the 'kingdom offer'. Of course I only know what you have revealed so far but you have spoken hightly of Hunt and Hunt is a Scofieldist . And Scofield teaches as did DTS for deades, that Christ came to offer to take up the Davidic Throne (physical p 998 SRB) of Israel and when the jews rejected the kingdom he offered them instead 'rest and service' (p 1011)



Does Jerusalem sit on seven hills Of course, insofar as first century apostate judaism represented by Jerusalem used her adulterous relationship with Caesar (Jn 19;15) to murder Messiah and continue persecuting his church for forty years.


Acts 17:5-8
5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
(KJV)


It plain the Imperial persecutions were born in apostate Jerusalem.

Now Unless I forgot something I've dealt with the passages you cited, its time for you to deal with mine.

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Revelation 16:12 reads, "The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East." I've never seen any evidence that the Euphrates River dried up.

Well seven headed dragons drink a lot...

I'll let Chilton aswer this ,fair warning ,he makes no atttempt at literalism.

12 Corresponding to the Sixth Trumpet (9:13-21), the Sixth
Chalice is poured out upon the great river, the Euphrates; and
its water was dried up, that the way might be prepared for the
kings from the rising of the sun. As we saw on 9:14, the
Euphrates was Israel’s northern frontier, from which invading
armies would come to ravage and oppress the Covenant people.
The image of the drying of the Euphrates for a conquering army
is taken, in part, from a stratagem of Cyrus the Persian, who
conquered Babylon by temporarily turning the Euphrates out of
its course, enabling his army to march up the riverbed into the
city, taking it by surprise.2] The more basic idea, of course, is
the drying up of the Red Sea (Ex. 14:21-22) and the Jordan River
(Josh. 3:9-17; 4:22-24) for the victorious people of God. Again
there is the underlying note of tragic irony: Israel has become

the new Babylon, an enemy of God that must now be conquered
by a new Cyrus, as the true Covenant people are miraculously
delivered and brought into their inheritance. As Barrington observes,
the coming of the armies from the Euphrates “surely represents
nothing but the return of Titus to besiege Jerusalem with
further reinforcements”; 22 and it is certainly more than coincidental
that thousands of these very troops actually did come
from the Euphrates.

p 407 The Days of Vengeance


Take care

H

[Jason Gastrich]

joelkaki,

Why do you think I used the Living Bible? I just used the KJV and not the Living to teach about the "speedily", "quickly", "soon" doctrine.

Hitch,

I do really well with questions - that contain question marks. You made a comment about me needing to deal with some things that you asserted. Unless you ask a question, I can't always tell what I need to "deal with." Please be explicit in what you want to know.

1 Corinthians 15:52 mentions the "twinkling of an eye". I'm not sure what you believe about the rapture and the Second Coming of Christ. However, you can see a breakdown of scriptures regarding these, two events here: http://www.jcsm.org/BibleLessons/RaptureSecondComing.htm

God bless!
Jason

P.S. Very interesting about the "Preterist Baptists." Since it was revealed that Preterists don't have their own churches and schools, it seemed like they were probably dispersed throughout the existing churches and schools and that's why I asked.

[Jason Gastrich]

I'm sorry if I seemingly misrepresented that "twinkling verse." This verse is in Corinthians and not a direct quote from Jesus. However, it correlates with the rapture - when Christ comes for His church - so I attributed it to Christ's return. It isn't in "red letters", though, so I wanted to clarify.

JG

[Hitch]

Today @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64658#post64658)
Jason G:

I'm sorry if I seemingly misrepresented that "twinkling verse." This verse is in Corinthians and not a direct quote from Jesus. However, it correlates with the rapture - when Christ comes for His church - so I attributed it to Christ's return. It isn't in "red letters", though, so I wanted to clarify.

JG Hmmm Hunt, Lindsey etc, say the 'rapture' and the return of Christ are two seperate events more than 1,000 years apart. It looks as though you say they are one in the same. Which is it?

[Hitch]

Hitch,

I do really well with questions - that contain question marks. You made a comment about me needing to deal with some things that you asserted. Unless you ask a question, I can't always tell what I need to "deal with." Please be explicit in what you want to know.

Ok To repeat. I would challenge you to begin your defense of futurism quoting the foremost authority on the Scriptures , Jesus Christ.

What quote(s) from Jesus support popular 'rapture' theories?



What quote(s) from Jesus support the establishment of a geo-political kingdom?

Do you agree with Hunt's version of the Millennium?

'The millennial reign of Christ upon earth, rather than being the kingdom of God, willi n fact be the final proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart.” D Hunt Beyond Seduction p 250


If Christ's bodily presence is neccessary for righteousness to flourish why did he say it was to our advantage that he not be physically present?


If you hold that history continues after the 'rapture' how do you explain that view in light of John 6;39-54?


Please explain R18;24 as it compare to Mat 23;33-39.

Take care

Hitch

[Jason Gastrich]

Hitch,

Did you read the site I gave you about the rapture and the second coming of Christ? That site explains exactly what I believe. They are two, seperate events (the very nature of the site reveals this because it lists the appropriate scriptures in two, different columns - one for the rapture and one for the 2nd coming). However, there is no evidence that says they must be 1,000 years apart.

You:

Ok To repeat. I would challenge you to begin your defense of futurism quoting the foremost authority on the Scriptures , Jesus Christ.

What quote(s) from Jesus support popular 'rapture' theories?

Me:

First, I don't appreciate you telling me how to argue my case. This is inappropriate. The entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. Please visit the site I gave for scriptures on the rapture and the second coming.

Jesus talked about the rapture in Revelation 3:3.

You:

What quote(s) from Jesus support the establishment of a geo-political kingdom?

Me:

Are you referring to the 1,000 year reign? I don't know what you're talking about.

You:

Do you agree with Hunt's version of the Millennium?

'The millennial reign of Christ upon earth, rather than being the kingdom of God, willi n fact be the final proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart.” D Hunt Beyond Seduction p 250

Me:

Yes, I believe there will be a 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Read Revelation 20 for more on this.

You:

If Christ's bodily presence is neccessary for righteousness to flourish why did he say it was to our advantage that he not be physically present?

Me:

I didn't say that Christ's bodily presence was necessary for righteousness to flourish. Is this a straw man or is this coming from something else I said? You seem to jump to very fast conclusions about my beliefs and you also make some false assumptions. Perhaps you should try and phrase your questions in a more inquisitive fashion because this accusatory fashion is inappropriate and confusing when I haven't made these claims.

You:

If you hold that history continues after the 'rapture' how do you explain that view in light of John 6;39-54?

Me:

Can you tell me what you think those verses are saying? I just read them and I can't make your argument for you or guess at it.

You:

Please explain R18;24 as it compare to Mat 23;33-39.

Me:

I just read both passages. The one in Revelation is likely referring to Rome (more specifically, the Vatican). Remember the Crusades?

You cannot honestly say that the Jews were the only ones to kill the prophets. Therefore, these two, different passages of scripture are talking about different people/places. There is surely no evidence that they MUST be talking about the same people.

Do you honestly think that God plans to destroy Israel in one hour? This is what Revelation says about "Babylon." Is this the fate of Israel that is consistent with the Bible? If so, and assuming you probably believe this has already happened, then what about the "Magog Invasion" of Ezekiel 38 and 39. When did that happen? How could it happen to Israel if Israel is wiped out like it says in Revelation?

Take care,
JG

[efta777]

Jason
For now I'll just post answers to select comments from your last posts, I cannot answer everything right now due to time constraints:


First, I don't appreciate you telling me how to argue my case. This is inappropriate. The entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. Please visit the site I gave for scriptures on the rapture and the second coming.

I agree. I'm perfectly fine with you using ANY scripture to back up your case, however, this can be abused by placing verses back to back that have nothing to do with each other, as I believe is done with MANY eschatological issues, including the Anti-Christ. So we should all just be careful.


Jesus talked about the rapture in Revelation 3:3.

Rev. 3:3
Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

Why should unrepentent people be afraid of the rapture? Isn't the rapture just supposed to be for the believers? It shouldn't effect unbelievers. However, this shows God coming in judgement on unrepentent people, not a rapture.




Yes, I believe there will be a 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Read Revelation 20 for more on this.

You shouldn't simply say to read Rev 20, because I have done so numerous times and I don't see a physical, literal 1000 year reign of Christ there, so arguments need to be made FROM the scripture, not by simply giving me a chapter to read.


You cannot honestly say that the Jews were the only ones to kill the prophets. Therefore, these two, different passages of scripture are talking about different people/places. There is surely no evidence that they MUST be talking about the same people.

Ahh! You walked right into this one. Yes, I CAN say that the Jews were the only ones HELD RESPONSIBLE for killing all the prophets:

Matt 23:34-35
"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come ALL the righteous blood shed on earth... Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation."

And of course, if you believe anything Jesus said there, you would also note that if Revelation was describing events that took place after A.D. 70 it would be pointless to blame anyone for the death of the prophets because the blood of the prophets was supposed to be avenged WITHIN the generation of those to whom Jesus was speaking.


Do you honestly think that God plans to destroy Israel in one hour? This is what Revelation says about "Babylon." Is this the fate of Israel that is consistent with the Bible? If so, and assuming you probably believe this has already happened, then what about the "Magog Invasion" of Ezekiel 38 and 39. When did that happen? How could it happen to Israel if Israel is wiped out like it says in Revelation?

What verse are you using for the "One hour" idea. Also, Could you please make sure that you give some evidence to relate Ezekiel 38 and 39 to the events of Revelation?

Thank you.

[Jason Gastrich]

In Revelation 18:10, this "Babylon" is judged in one hour and their city is wiped out. Is this the common, Preterist viewpoint of Israel's final judgment?

Ezekiel 38 and 39 don't necessarily relate to Revelation. They talk about an invasion that is launched against Israel where they fight it off and win. The only indicator that it is after the rapture and during the 3 1/2 years of worldwide peace is because Israel is a "land of unwalled cities." Ezekiel 38 and 39 indicate they are at peace and we haven't seen this.

Do you think the battle in Ezekiel 38 and 39 (which sounds like nuclear warfare and a serious weapons malfunction) has already happened? Has "Magog" from the North led a Muslim coalition against Israel, yet?

Arg, one thing I don't like about this forum is how your posts (and all others) disappear as I'm responding. I always have to surf in from a different IE window to read what you wrote . . . .

Revelation 3:3 can refer to the rapture for many reasons. First, unbelievers should DEFINITELY repent and trust Christ before the rapture. If they don't, they'll have to go through a terrible, tribulation period. This alone would be enough to justify and verify Christ's warning in Revelation 3:3.

You:

And of course, if you believe anything Jesus said there, you would also note that if Revelation was describing events that took place after A.D. 70 it would be pointless to blame anyone for the death of the prophets because the blood of the prophets was supposed to be avenged WITHIN the generation of those to whom Jesus was speaking.

Me:

I've already shown that the Greek word for "generation" can easily refer to "age" or "the church age" that we are still in. If you never read my argument, then perhaps you should just look in the Greek text.

In light of this, the death of the prophets can refer to post-70 A.D. Incidentally, "prophecy" is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Is there some evidence that this gift has stopped working?

JG

:rockon:

[Rusty T]

Just wondering if you're ready to address this yet.

[Hitch]

Today @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64736#post64736)
Jason G:

Hitch,

Did you read the site I gave you about the rapture and the second coming of Christ? That site explains exactly what I believe. They are two, seperate events (the very nature of the site reveals this because it lists the appropriate scriptures in two, different columns - one for the rapture and one for the 2nd coming). However, there is no evidence that says they must be 1,000 years apart. Thats is the assumption I made , interesting that fact was presented in anything but a clear manner in your post Jason


You:

Ok To repeat. I would challenge you to begin your defense of futurism quoting the foremost authority on the Scriptures , Jesus Christ.

What quote(s) from Jesus support popular 'rapture' theories?

Me:

First, I don't appreciate you telling me how to argue my case. This is inappropriate. Jason you specifically asked me to tell you what I wanted to question you about. Now you are already comlaining though I did exactly what you asked.
The entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. Please visit the site I gave for scriptures on the rapture and the second coming.

Jesus talked about the rapture in Revelation 3:3. Is this the same event described in Matt 24?


You:

What quote(s) from Jesus support the establishment of a geo-political kingdom?

Me:

Are you referring to the 1,000 year reign? I don't know what you're talking about. Well in DF eschatology the Millennial kingdom is the same as that first 'offerred' by Christ. Jewish and earthly.


You:

Do you agree with Hunt's version of the Millennium?

'The millennial reign of Christ upon earth, rather than being the kingdom of God, willi n fact be the final proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart.” D Hunt Beyond Seduction p 250

Me:

Yes, I believe there will be a 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Read Revelation 20 for more on this. I'll be more specific. do you agree with Hunt's assessment quoted above?


You:

If Christ's bodily presence is neccessary for righteousness to flourish why did he say it was to our advantage that he not be physically present?

Me:

I didn't say that Christ's bodily presence was necessary for righteousness to flourish. Is this a straw man or is this coming from something else I said? You seem to jump to very fast conclusions about my beliefs and you also make some false assumptions. It is a fact , not an assumption, that you have cited Hunt who dosnt believe even the personal in the flesh direct rule of a thousand year duration will be victorious for Christ but when asked whether you agree you did not address that part of the question
Perhaps you should try and phrase your questions in a more inquisitive fashion because this accusatory fashion is inappropriate and confusing when I haven't made these claims.

You:

If you hold that history continues after the 'rapture' how do you explain that view in light of John 6;39-54?

Me:

Can you tell me what you think those verses are saying? I just read them and I can't make your argument for you or guess at it.[quote] I have no doubt you understand both 'last' and 'day'.

You:

Please explain R18;24 as it compare to Mat 23;33-39.

Me:

I just read both passages. The one in Revelation is likely referring to Rome (more specifically, the Vatican). Remember the Crusades? What Scriptural passage condemns Rome for murdering the Prophets and the Saints? I ve already cited a quote of Jesus so judgeing the Jews, WRT the Crusades, Thats not for another 11 or 12 hundred years.


You cannot honestly say that the Jews were the only ones to kill the prophets. Therefore, these two, different passages of scripture are talking about different people/places. There is surely no evidence that they MUST be talking about the same people.[quote] Cute. The fact is I said the Roman persecutions were born in apostate Jerusalem. You intonation that I claimed 'Jews were the only ones to kill' smacks of dishonesty Jason, there is nothing remotely resembleing that inmy post wich accuses the Romans and the Jews plainly. However it is the jews who are judged by Christ and the Apostles in the NT.[quote]

Do you honestly think that God plans to destroy Israel in one hour? This is what Revelation says about "Babylon." Is this the fate of Israel that is consistent with the Bible? jesus said he would grind his enemies to powder. He also prophesied the destruction of the City and its burning.
If so, and assuming you probably believe this has already happened, then what about the "Magog Invasion" of Ezekiel 38 and 39. When did that happen? How could it happen to Israel if Israel is wiped out like it says in Revelation? Well I dont literalize it any more than I would the dimentions of Ezzy's city, so its not a problem.




Take care,
JG [ slash quote ] then end with [quote] you'll get the hang of it

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Today @ 06:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64805#post64805)
tizzidale:

Just wondering if you're ready to address this yet. Please respect the topic. If you continue this hounding a formal complaint will follow.

HITCH

[Jason Gastrich]

Hitch,

The only time I mentioned Dave Hunt was when I recommended the book, "A Woman Rides the Beast." I've read this book and it was awesome, so I recommended it. I do not know all of Dave Hunt's views, though.

There isn't a specific passage in Revelation that condemns Rome. However, I've seen much evidence that this "Babylon" cited in Revelation is the Vatican in Rome. Hunt's book had ample evidence for this viewpoint. Incidentally, Rome sits on 7 hills (so does Lynchburg, Virginia, but let's not go there :teeth: ).

I don't understand the Dave Hunt quote in question. It is too vague and out of context for me to make any judgment or assessment of it.

<quote>Jason you specifically asked me to tell you what I wanted to question you about. Now you are already comlaining though I did exactly what you asked. </quote>

Yes, I wanted you to ask me clear questions, so I could answer them. I didn't want you to tell me how to answer them, though.

<quote>Is Revelation 3:3 the same event described in Matt 24?</quote>

No. Revelation 3:3 is referring to the rapture and Matthew 24 is referring to the 2nd coming of Christ.

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Sorry about the quotes. :huh:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee,

Thanks for your post.

I've heard of Sproul and I have a book by Hanegraff. I haven't read it, yet, but I hope to read it, soon.

Sproul's work on preterism is not necessarily what I would recommend as much as others, but he is definitely a big name preterist. Hanegraaff has yet to commit, but call and ask him about "this generation" and see what he says.


I took a Greek course at Westminster Seminary. They are reformed, but I don't think they are preterists. Are they?

I don't know. Doubtful.


Would you say that preterism is a small movement? Could someone be a Baptist preterist?

It is small today, but was not always small. The older commentaries were heavily preterist in their view of Matthew 24. JP is Baptist and preterist. I have Baptist leanings but attend a nondemoninational church.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Note



Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64805#post64805)
tizzidale:

Just wondering if you're ready to address this yet.

Tizzi, please do not sidetrack threads in this manner. This is not the forum section to be pursuing Jason on this matter, in fact such pursuit is disallowed. Please refer to this forum rule:


We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog.

However, you can feel free to start a thread addressing the issue to which you refer in the appropriate section. Please refrain from doing, as you did here, from insinuating anything about another member's sexuality as that will not tolerated on this forum.
Thank you!

[Hitch]

<quote>Is Revelation 3:3 the same event described in Matt 24?</quote>[

No. Revelation 3:3 is referring to the rapture and Matthew 24 is referring to the 2nd coming of Christ. How do you know? What specifics do you have in support of any separation of these events?

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Sorry about the quotes.




1.
What NT support can you cite for multiple physical resurrections?

2.
What did Jesus say in support of multiple bodily resurrections?


3.
Didnt Jesus set up his kingdom when he was here? If not how than are we translated from the kingdom of darkness in to his kingdom?

4.
Do you believe the 'rapture' can happen at any moment?

5.
Do you believe biblical prophecies are being fulfilled in our times?

6.

What is the purpose of a yet future visible kingdom on earth and who populates this kingdom?


7.
Why is your interpretation of Z 12;10 contrary to John's?

8.

How do you account for ,and have you considered ,your time lines in the light of Psalm 110?


Quotes... use the [ ] inside type / quote, it will look like this [/quote] and the text will break at that point. to restore again inside the [ ] type [quote] ,,with out the slash. This works if you use the 'quote' button found,bottom right on every post. There you have the hight of my computer savvy.

take care

Hitch

[joelkaki]

joelkaki,

Why do you think I used the Living Bible? I just used the KJV and not the Living to teach about the "speedily", "quickly", "soon" doctrine.

Here is part of one of your posts from page one:


Here is what the Living Bible says about Colossians 1:23:

the only condition is that you fully believe the Truth, standing in it steadfast and firm, strong in the Lord, convinced of the Good News that Jesus died for you, and never shifting from trusting him to save you. This is the wonderful news that came to each of you and is now spreading all over the world. And I, Paul, have the joy of telling it to others.

I'm not always a fan of the Living Bible, but it often gives an honest and genuine perspective of the meaning that was intended.

That isn't a translation. It is just a paraphrase, and I do not believe it to be very reliable.

Joel

[Jason Gastrich]

Joel,

Thanks for being more specific about me using the Living Bible.

Colossians 1:23 and 24 are interesting verses. The Living Bible doesn't contradict the other translations. However, it does explain the context of the phrase, "spreading all over the world." If a person doesn't realize that Paul was speaking within a framework when he said, "which was preached to every creature under heaven," then they could confuse the verse and apply it to an incorrect framework.

Paul is obviously speaking about the people he knew and heard about. For Paul to be referring to Australians, American Indians, the Chinese, etc. would be silly. Therefore, the Living Bible reveals the framework of Paul's statement.

I don't think this verse is a problem for people who want to apply it correctly and logically. It can become a problem for people who want to apply it incorrectly (i.e. to people that Paul had never seen, known or even heard about).

In short, I could say something like, "I always eat at Jack N the Box." Does this mean that I never eat at McDonald's? Well, no. It means I frequently eat at Jack N the Box. To assume I never eat anywhere else would be silly.

I hope that wasn't too much info or too redundant!

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Hitch, thanks for your questions. I almost forgot all about them. Let me answer a few, now. Actually, before I answer them, let me ask you a question. Did you read my site on the rapture vs. Christ's Second Coming? If you did, I think it should answer several of these questions. Let me know if you want the link, again. I'd copy and paste it into this form, but there are 2 columns, so that would mess up the appearance of it.

[Hitch]

I did read it and that is the reason for some of the questions.

take care

H

[joelkaki]

Joel,

Thanks for being more specific about me using the Living Bible.

Colossians 1:23 and 24 are interesting verses. The Living Bible doesn't contradict the other translations. However, it does explain the context of the phrase, "spreading all over the world." If a person doesn't realize that Paul was speaking within a framework when he said, "which was preached to every creature under heaven," then they could confuse the verse and apply it to an incorrect framework.

Yes, I understand your basic point in using it, but the way they wrote it down does not reflect the original languages accurately.



Paul is obviously speaking about the people he knew and heard
about. For Paul to be referring to Australians, American Indians, the Chinese, etc. would be silly. Therefore, the Living Bible reveals the framework of Paul's statement.

I don't think this verse is a problem for people who want to apply it correctly and logically. It can become a problem for people who want to apply it incorrectly (i.e. to people that Paul had never seen, known or even heard about).

In short, I could say something like, "I always eat at Jack N the Box." Does this mean that I never eat at McDonald's? Well, no. It means I frequently eat at Jack N the Box. To assume I never eat anywhere else would be silly.

OK, I think we pretty much agree anyway; I guess I just wanted to point out that the Living Bible has some serious problems.



I hope that wasn't too much info or too redundant!


No problem at all.

Joel

[CT292]

Jason wrote:


There isn't a specific passage in Revelation that condemns Rome. However, I've seen much evidence that this "Babylon" cited in Revelation is the Vatican in Rome. Hunt's book had ample evidence for this viewpoint. Incidentally, Rome sits on 7 hills

For a good preterist exposition of Rev 17 which exegetically demonstrates that 1st century Jerusalem is "Babylon", see the book, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation by Joseph Balyeat.

BTW while most modern preterists hold to the Babylon=Jerusalem thesis, some other preterists have applied it to 1st century Rome. This is one issue which preterists Greg Bahnsen who held to the latter view, disagreed with Preterist Kenneth Gentry who holds to the former view.

Colin

[Faramir]

Wow, what great responses from our preterist. Keep up the good work.

:thumb:

[Jason Gastrich]

Joel,

Great verse (Rom. 12:1). I write a weekly devotional that you all may enjoy. The link is http://devos.jcsm.org .

I think you are right about the Living Bible taking Col. 1:23 out of context ONLY if the correct context means every human on the entire planet. However, I feel I've illustrated that Paul wasn't referring to every human on the entire planet. Therefore, even though the Living Bible isn't a word-for-word translation (and doesn't claim to be), it revealed the correct context of this verse.

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Hitch, I have to do some work, now, but I look forward to answering your questions, soon.

Take care!

[Hitch]

P.S. Hitch, I have to do some work, now, but I look forward to answering your questions, soon.



OK but we tend to take 'soon' literally...

H

[Jason Gastrich]

:rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Congratulations Hitch.. I think this is a first!!!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=66844#post66844

[John Reece]

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66835#post66835)
Hitch:

P.S. Hitch, I have to do some work, now, but I look forward to answering your questions, soon.



OK but we tend to take 'soon' literally...

H

:thumb:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Would this qualify as a swarm :hrm:

[John Reece]

swarm : "A group of bees with a queen bee in migration..."

Just following the leader :smile: .

[Dee Dee Warren]

Wow, I finally have a swarm.

[John Reece]

But not a very big one...

:smile:

[Faramir]

Count me in.

[jpholding]

Man I missed good stuff. :pout:

Jason, you know FTill and I are now having it out on preterism?

http://www.tektonics.org/tilldebate.html -- section 2

For the record -- I attend a Baptist church out of respect to my wife's sensibilities. I would probably be happy in several denominations.

[Evangel]

:thumb: very nice mr. holding :thumb:

anyone mind providing me with some internet sites regarding to preterism, eschatology, dispensalationism, etc?

ive already read mr. holding's article on preterism, most of what is in this forum, and a parts of eschatology.org. your help would be greatly appreciated.

[efta777]

Read some of the articals at www.americanvision.org they are very helpful.

[Hitch]

http://www.cmfnow.com/

http://www.freebooks.com/

http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/disp2.html

These sites are unfriendly to DF thought.

take care

Hitch

[joelkaki]

Here is one:

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/archives.htm

And another:

http://www.reformed.org/

Joel

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am going to post some things I have written up for when I am trying to walk someone basically through some preterism....

Dear AJ:


It's probably better this way, I don't have much time. (I'm battling an idiot in the other forum, come watch him get creamed!

It wouldn’t happen to be the unnamed person who has earned his third trip to my ignore list would it?? Or the one who was not quite obnoxious enough to earn a trip to my signature line?? :D


The outside of what? If outside the Bible I agree, if outside a verse at all, I couldn't disagree more. If you look at one singular verse anywhere in the Bible without taking the other verses into consideration, you can effectively re-write scripture.


Agreed, what I meant by importing things from the outside, I meant things from outside the Bible. The Bible must be allowed to interpret the Bible.

Okay you asked about the other times that “this generation” is used in the NT since I had said that in all of the other contexts outside of Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, it ALWAYS means the generation then living. I will list them for you, but I wanted to say something first. What I just said is not controversial. Even those people who believe that it refers to something else in the Olivet Discourse concede that they are making a case of special pleading since it means the contemporaries of Christ elsewhere it is used. But here they are: Matthew 11:16; 12:41; 12:42; 23:36; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:30; 11:31; 11:50; 11:51; 17:25. (omitting Matthew 24:34; Luke 21:32; Mark 13:30).

You disagreed that Matthew 23 is the backdrop for Matthew 24. You are siding against almost every commentator that I know of for that… are you sure that is the position that you want to take?? Futurist commentators concede this point. I would go even further and state that Matthew builds up to Chapter 24 even way before Chapter 23…. Matthew presents a mounting sense of doom and destruction upon the first century apostates like threatening and looming thunder clouds.

Almost all commentators agree that Matthew is the most “Jewish” of the Gospels. As such, he arranges his material with a very definite and Jewish purpose in mind. The Gospels are not exhaustive biographies of everything Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers said what they did where they did in the text for important reasons. The order and arrangement of the Gospel narratives is purposeful. The whole context and arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew lends tremendous weight to the preterist position.

Matthew’s Gospel is uniquely focused on judgment and condemnation of the Jewish apostates, and in fact so much so, that critics and Jewish anti-missionary types argue that it is anti-Semitic to the core!! Matthew also portray Gentiles in favorable lights to again shed judgmental light upon the apostates. Here are some very brief highlights:

Chapter 1 – Christ is presented as the Messianic heir.

Chapter 2 – It is the non-Jewish magi who seek the Christ child but Jerusalem is troubled (verse 3)

Chapter 3 – The ministry of John the Baptist who with great vitriol condemns the Jewish leadership of his day and warns the people of the wrath to come and that the ax is NOW laid at the root of the tree. He warns that the Kingdom is AT HAND. The winnowing fork is ALREADY in God’s hand.

Chapter 8 – Jesus commends a Gentile’s faith and rebukes and warns Israel saying that the Gentile nations shall come and feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the “sons of the kingdom shall be cast out in to the outer darkness…”

Chapter 11 – Jesus rebukes the unbelief of that apostate Jews and calls infamous pagan cities of old in judgment against them.

Chapter 12 – Jesus refers to His contemporaries as an evil and adulterous generation, a wicked generation

Chapter 13 - Jesus then begins to speak to them in parables so that they cannot understand in order to fulfill prophecy about their blindness.

Chapter 15 – Jesus continues to rebuke His contemporaries using the words of Isaiah in judgment against them.

Chapter 17 – Jesus declares them to be a faithless and perverse generation.

** notice the deliberate repeat of the phrase “this generation” almost as an epithet against the apostates of Jesus’ day

And then things worsen considerably beginning in Chapter 21 where the contemporary judgment references are more explicit and frequent.

Chapter 21 – Jesus cleanses the Temple and very shortly later permanently curses the fig tree which in context obviously represents barren Israel. There is the parable of the two sons, and then the parable of the landowner in which Jesus tells them that the Kingdom of God will be wrested from them and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Chapter 22 – The parable of the wedding feast demonstrating Israel’s resistance to God’s call which results in fiery judgment when “the king was enraged and sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire…” (a clear reference to 70AD) and God gathers Gentiles to the wedding feast.

Chapter 23 – Jesus pronounces seven woes upon the corrupt spiritual leaders….

Now let’s get much more specific. You mention that a period of time elapsed between Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees in
Chapter 23 and the actual giving of the Olivet Discourse. I don’t have a problem with that, but the fact is that Matthew arranged his Gospel in such a way that the two are brought together not just by being close textual neighbors, but by semantical similarities as well (and there are striking parallels with phrases used in the synoptic accounts of the Discourse). I am going to pick out a few for reference here.

Let’s look at some of the concluding verses to Chapter 23 which bring this all together:

Verses 31-38 – “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate.

That is astounding. Jesus lays the guilt of the ages at their feet. But there are some repeated themes here which are not accidental.

Matthew 23:34 –Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city…

Compare with

Matthew 24:9 – Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.

and with

Luke 21:12 – They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake.

and with

Mark 13:9 – But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them.

Next item…

Also,

Matthew 23:36 – Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

**[what things?? – all the woes and the pronouncement of the desolation of the Temple]

Compare with

Matthew 24:1 – 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?”

**(inquiring about the desolation (destruction) of the Temple just prophesied to them and also to the Pharisees as judgment upon them… the two chapter are intimately related on that fact alone)

and with

Mark 13:3 - Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives
opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?”

and with

Luke 21:7 – So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

And along the same lines.. tying in “all these things” with the “this generation” of Matthew 23:36....

Matthew 24:34; Luke 21:32; Mark 13:30 – Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

[

[Hitch]

And that is the short version...