Is Prophecy Useless Once Fulfilled?

[dizzle]

Terral has made some statements about Revelation which are just incredibly shallow IMHO. First he said that since Revelation is a prophecy it must ALL refer to future events. When I pointed out to him that the birth of Christ is seen in a vision in Revelation he backpedaled, and carved out a convenient "exception" (at least it is better than a gap I guess). The fact is that his first statement was reckless.

However, the fact is that I don't disagree in principle with his revised assertion that most of Revelation is future. Before you gasp in surprise, here is the unspoken strawman in Terral's emotional arguments about the futurity of Revelation - it was FUTURE to John. That is ALL that was required for it to be a prophecy. So Terral's continual going on about how Revelation is a prophecy means little to nothing to this argument for we agree. The only one who may not is InChristAlways, so to that limited extent, Terral is making a point. Yet he keeps making that point to ME, and it is a complete red herring for I agree with him. But oh no, Terral will say, you think it is past, then it cannot be a prophecy. NOOOOOO, it only had to be future to John and preterists and futurists BOTH believe that.

Now, Terral has also said

You are one trying to change the Book of Revelation into a history book, by claiming that those things happened already.

And my response to that strawman is SO WHAT? Is prophecy useless once fulfilled? Can we tear out all the Messianic prophecies of the OT since they are expired now that they are fulfilled? This is just sound-bite nonsense.

Furthermore, it betrays a fundamentally shallow understanding of the purpose of prophecy which was MUCH more than telling the future - prophecy is ETHICAL and Revelation is abundantly so.

This thread is ONLY about what I have said above. It is not to insist that I answer ten thousand questions - which are disingenous to begin with since I believe what I believe "for no particular reason" anyways.

[furay]

To answer the Subject title: No. Fulfilled prophecies are reminders that God always honors his promises. Though I take it your question was rhetorical. :smile:

[dizzle]

Yes my question was rhetorical in response to some self-congratulatory straw-man burning. But thank you for responding, I enjoyed reading your Icon Corner thread.

[elysian]

I believe there are prophesies in the Bible that are multi-tiered- meaning that some prophesies apply to more than one place and time. For instance there are a lot of prophesies in Revelation that have not been satisfactorily explained- one theory I have is that the seals have not yet been opened so that people may understand them rightly, or there are different understandings and intepretations intended for different places and times in history. There may be multiple fulfillments of one prophecy.

There are some who believe that the Torah includes a code- that everything, and everyone and all the events of the world are encoded in the first five books of the Bible. This is a fascinating theory to me. There is still much that has not been revealed to us.

[dizzle]

I believe there are prophesies in the Bible that are multi-tiered- meaning that some prophesies apply to more than one place and time.

They cannot apply primarily to more than one event - they can be typological or partial. The typology is the ethics of prophecy as I mentioned before.

But let's say a prophecy is completely primarily fulfilled - that there is not expected to be an exact repeat - does that make it useless so that we disparingly say it is now history gross gross?

[elysian]

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, which is why it is important to study history, in this instance the history of fulfilled prophecy in Scripture.

There are two consistent themes of the Prophets: continue to screw over the poor, look out for yourselves and your own personal satisfaction only and guess what? You're going to be knocked off of your high horse. But for those who repent- who turn from sin and seek God above all things, who surrender and become His servants, there is vindication, there is salvation, there is hope. Jesus said that he who loses his life will find it, and he who seeks to preserve his life will lose it.

It is important to look at the culture Isaiah or Jeremiah or any of the other prophets were speaking to, and to say, hey we're like the Israelites of Isaiah's time- just going through the motions but not worshipping God in spirit and truth. Guess what, if we don't learn from what happened in history, the same fate will come to us as well and we will have brought it on ourselves. This is an important value to all Biblical history.

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> Terral has made some statements about Revelation which are just incredibly shallow IMHO. First he said that since Revelation is a prophecy it must ALL refer to future events. When I pointed out to him that the birth of Christ is seen in a vision in Revelation he backpedaled, and carved out a convenient "exception" (at least it is better than a gap I guess). The fact is that his first statement was reckless.
My debating opponents rarely refer to my arguments as shallow. At the start I would like to mention that you have not presented any kind of case for the Preterist interpretation on “The Preterist Debate Thread.” To be making such bold accusations in that long shadow is incredibly shallow to me. Here is the entire paragraph from which you cut your ALL future events remark. Let us allow the third party reader to be the judge in the debate:
Terral Original Post 127 >> John just told you that this is a book of ‘prophecy,’ which means the events are all future. So which is it? A book of prophecy or a history book? I am not willing to remove the word ‘prophecy’ from John’s warnings. Are you? GL with that. Here is your problem: John begins a continuous description of the “Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) that describes all the events of the “day of the Lord” (2Pet. 3:10) described in the whole Bible. The final event of the Lord’s day is the Judgment in Revelation 20:10-15, just as Peter describes in 2Pet. 3:10-12. Christ describes His coming and the final Judgment in Matt. 25:31-33 just after telling the Disciples about the events of the ‘end of the age.’ Matt. 24:3-31. That final judgment occurs simultaneously with the old heaven and earth passing away. Rev. 20:11. John describes all of the events that lead up to that final judgment here in the Book of Revelation. All of those events must be future, as the day of the Lord is not yet ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. That explains why the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) mystery church (Eph. 5:32) is still upon the planet anticipating the coming of that day just like the Thessalonians of 1Thes. 4:13-5:2. The new heavens and new earth of Rev. 21:1+ have not yet appeared, because Christ’s coming (Matt. 24:30) and the final judgment (Matt. 25:31-33) are still future. Elijah has yet to come and restore all things (Matt. 17:10+11) along with the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16-18). Almost all of OT and NT Prophecy have yet to be fulfilled, and God did not fulfill all of His promises to Israel by leveling Jerusalem. No Roman used the Temple as ‘his seat’ to make himself out being God Himself! 2Thes. 2:3+4. The Temple must be rebuilt for that prophecy to be fulfilled in Matthew 24:15, before the ‘end of the age’ can come. You say Christ is addressing the ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of that day, when He disqualified Himself by stating He had no clue about the timing of those events (Matt. 24:36). Once again you refuse to answer my points, because there is no answer. This speaks to my point that folks can believe just about anything for no apparent Scriptural reason.
With a show of hands, how many believe my argument to be incredibly shallow? Did Dee Dee bother to answer any of my points from this one paragraph? No. What about all the other points that remain standing in that thread all the way back to Post #2? No reply. Who is really being shallow? You decide . . .
Dee Dee >> However, the fact is that I don't disagree in principle with his revised assertion that most of Revelation is future. Before you gasp in surprise, here is the unspoken strawman in Terral's emotional arguments about the futurity of Revelation - it was FUTURE to John.
Heh. A what? An ‘unspoken straw man’ argument? Holy Molies . . .
Dee Dee >> That is ALL that was required for it to be a prophecy. So Terral's continual going on about how Revelation is a prophecy means little to nothing to this argument for we agree. The only one who may not is InChristAlways, so to that limited extent, Terral is making a point.
The participants in the debate pick a side and offer opposing arguments that are sometimes supported by Scripture. The third party readers are our judges as to whether or not anyone has presented themselves approved before men (1Cor. 11:19) or God. 2Tim. 2:15. The opinions of my debating opponents are meaningless ramblings about nothing at all. Since we are on opposite sides of the discussion, then everyone already knows we disagree. What does it serve for me to state just how foolish and ridiculous the Preterist interpretation of Scripture is to me? Nothing. Again, the third party reader is already aware of the fact that we disagree. Now you are placed into the position of being required to retract your statement about my incredibly shallow statements. Even if my arguments are wrong (and they are all right : 0 ) ) , even the casual reader to this thread can see they are not shallow or undeveloped. The fact that we disagree does not make me shallow, especially in light of the fact that you have not given a reply to my points from that incredibly shallow series of statements. You see errors? Great! Show me; using Scripture.
Dee Dee >> Yet he keeps making that point to ME, and it is a complete red herring for I agree with him. But oh no, Terral will say, you think it is past, then it cannot be a prophecy. NOOOOOO, it only had to be future to John and preterists and futurists BOTH believe that. Now, Terral has also said
Everything John was given about the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10; day of the Lord) shall be fulfilled in the future. John’s ‘symbolic’ mention of Christ’s birth in Revelation 12 is part of his overview vision of the war between Light (Gen. 1:3, John 1:4+5) and darkness (Gen. 1:2, Eph. 6:12, etc.) that has been ongoing since Genesis 1:2, which ends in Revelation 20:8 with the Battle of Armageddon, and the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Your OP includes just one sentence of my paragraph from Post 143 on this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=9&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=9&pp=16) ) . I highlighted that sentence, but let’s look at that statement in context to the whole paragraph, which is very much a restatement of the above:
Terral original Post 143 >> Parts of John’s vision are of things that occurred in the past, as he was given a heavenly overview of the events that are to be fulfilled in the future. For example: The vision of the woman (Israel), child (Christ) and dragon (Satan) of Revelation 12 represents an overview of a war that has persisted from the time of Genesis 1:2 between Light (Gen. 1:3, John 1:4+5) and darkness (Gen. 1:2, Eph. 6:12, Col. 1:13, etc.). That is the time represented from Genesis 1:2 to Revelation 20:8, and just before Satan is cast into the lake of fire. Therefore, your question is very broad and is given in such a way as to build a straw man argument. Yes, almost ALL of Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future, as it is a book of PROPHECY. Some of the content of John’s vision was also seen by the OT prophets who were also given to see events of the ‘day of the Lord.’ You are one trying to change the Book of Revelation into a history book, by claiming that those things happened already. The bottom line for the third party reader is that John is describing the events of the coming “Day of the Lord” (1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:2, 2Pet. 3:10) or as John writes, the “Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10. About two dozen verses of Scripture contain references to the “day of the Lord,” and all of those things are still future. The events that Christ (Matt. 24:3-31) and John (in the Book of Revelation) are describing shall affect the whole world and every nation, tribe and tongue. The Romans leveled many cities who opposed their rule over a period of hundreds of years. Jerusalem was just one of them, and nothing they did in 70 Ad compares to the cataclysmic events that shall occur at the end of the age.

Dee’s Reply >> And my response to that strawman is SO WHAT? Is prophecy useless once fulfilled? Can we tear out all the Messianic prophecies of the OT since they are expired now that they are fulfilled? This is just sound-bite nonsense.
No sir. Again, you are using generalities in some attempt at proving the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies from the whole Bible were fulfilled in 70 Ad, and the destruction of Jerusalem. I must make that assumption from some knowledge of the Preterist interpretation of Scripture, because you will not simply come out and state your case using Scripture. Even if you were capable of disproving everything I have written in just these two paragraphs from two posts on the Preterist Debate thread, that does NOTHING to prove your case. I am not only showing the folly of the Preterist interpretation, but also offering ‘the right’ interpretation in the same breath. Your defense is that my arguments are shallow, but where is your rebuttal to anything I have written? BTW, your reference to my argument being a ‘straw man’ is most inaccurate. A classic straw man argument is built upon a ‘question’ that is easily answered, but has no application to the topic of discussion. While my very large paragraph from Post #127 contains two questions at the top, I provide the answers using Scripture in a very long dissertation. Careful inspection of paragraph from Post #143 will reveal no question marks at all. I do believe another retraction is in order . . .
Dee Dee >> Furthermore, it betrays a fundamentally shallow understanding of the purpose of prophecy which was MUCH more than telling the future - prophecy is ETHICAL and Revelation is abundantly so.
Ethical? Holy Molies . . . the Greek “propheteia” (#4394) does not mean the same thing every time it is used in Scripture.

propheteia - signifies "the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God" (pro, "forth," phemi, "to speak:" see PROPHET); in the NT it is used

(a) of the gift, e.g., Rom_12:6; 1_Cor_12:10; 1_Cor_13:2;

(b) either of the exercise of the gift or of that which is "prophesied," e.g., Matt_13:14; 1_Cor_13:8; 1_Cor_14:6,22; 1_Thess_5:20, "prophesying(s);"1_Tim_1:18; 1_Tim_4:14; 2_Pet_1:20,21; Rev_1:3; Rev_11:6; Rev_19:10; Rev_22:7,10,18,19. "Though much of OT prophecy was purely predictive, see Mic_5:2, e.g., and cp. John_11:51, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily, fore-telling. It is the declaration of that which cannot be known by natural means, Matt_26:68, it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future, see Gen_20:7; Deut_18:18; Rev_10:11; Rev_11:3. ...
However, ‘propheteuo’ (#4395) can mean the foretelling of the future, as shown below.

C1. Prophecy, Prophesy, Prophesying [Verb]Propheteuo "to be a prophet, to prophesy," is used

(a) with the primary meaning of telling forth the Divine counsels, e.g., Matt_7:22; Matt_26:68; 1_Cor_11:4,5; 1_Cor_13:9; 1_Cor_14:1,3-5,24,31,39; Rev_11:3;

(b) of foretelling the future, e.g., Matt_15:7; John_11:51; 1_Pet_1:10; Jude 14.
And interesting fact is that only two Hebrew words are translated ‘prophecy’ in the OT (n@buw’ah #5016; 2Chron. 9:29) and (nabiy’ #5030, Dan. 9:24; commonly ‘prophet’). You can search the world over and look for someone to help you out with this ‘ethical’ definition of Prophecy all you like. GL with that one . . .
Dee Dee >> This thread is ONLY about what I have said above. It is not to insist that I answer ten thousand questions - which are disingenous to begin with since I believe what I believe "for no particular reason" anyways.
The very first word in your OP is my name, and I shall reply to your accusations of my shallowness in anyway that seems appropriate to me. You are certainly free to answer or ignore anything you wish, and to make the necessary retractions at your leisure.

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

Terral, my opening post said:


This thread is ONLY about what I have said above. It is not to insist that I answer ten thousand questions

You did not answer my post whatsoever. And despite the fact that you think you may post whatever you want, you don't. I made my request as thread starter perfectly clear in my opening post.

Please answer the points in my opening post or don't post. I made my request crystal clear. You are woefully dodging the point.

Here are the points again:

Terral has made some statements about Revelation which are just incredibly shallow IMHO. First he said that since Revelation is a prophecy it must ALL refer to future events. When I pointed out to him that the birth of Christ is seen in a vision in Revelation he backpedaled, and carved out a convenient "exception" (at least it is better than a gap I guess). The fact is that his first statement was reckless.

However, the fact is that I don't disagree in principle with his revised assertion that most of Revelation is future. Before you gasp in surprise, here is the unspoken strawman in Terral's emotional arguments about the futurity of Revelation - it was FUTURE to John. That is ALL that was required for it to be a prophecy. So Terral's continual going on about how Revelation is a prophecy means little to nothing to this argument for we agree. The only one who may not is InChristAlways, so to that limited extent, Terral is making a point. Yet he keeps making that point to ME, and it is a complete red herring for I agree with him. But oh no, Terral will say, you think it is past, then it cannot be a prophecy. NOOOOOO, it only had to be future to John and preterists and futurists BOTH believe that.

Now, Terral has also said





You are one trying to change the Book of Revelation into a history book, by claiming that those things happened already.

And my response to that strawman is SO WHAT? Is prophecy useless once fulfilled? Can we tear out all the Messianic prophecies of the OT since they are expired now that they are fulfilled? This is just sound-bite nonsense.

Furthermore, it betrays a fundamentally shallow understanding of the purpose of prophecy which was MUCH more than telling the future - prophecy is ETHICAL and Revelation is abundantly so.


I will request enforcement of my request for you not to go off topic when my opening post made it very clear that I antipcated that you would, and said right off that it would not be countenanced. I took my objection to your one comment to the Locker Room - and started this thread to get off of yours since you only wanted it to go in a certain direction. I will then have this one go in the narrow focus I stated.

The points are restated above. Please stop assuming your argument and deal with the points presented.

Does a fulfilled prophecy have no value? Is it no longer a prophecy when written simply because it is fulfilled.

Stick to the point, or don't post - you may start your own threads for whatever other roads you wish to take. I did.

PS: Here is a hint - my post only references the shallowness of ONE argument, please again remember that you need to read what the other person actually said, and second, my post never said that prophecy did not mean foretelling the future. Please respond to what I actually said.

[Just The Facts]

Hi Dee

Dee Dee : Quote
They cannot apply primarily to more than one event - they can be typological or partial. The typology is the ethics of prophecy as I mentioned before.
End Quote


That is simply not true..........................Now I am aware that being Preterist you feel all prophecy is fulfilled...............but for us still in the truth(smile) we understand that many of the prophecies of the conquering Jesus have yet to be fulfilled......The sacrificial lamb has been fulfilled...and Now Jesus sits at the right hand of God.................................but evil has not been defeated the devil is not bound at the cross that defeat is still to come and so many of the prophecies are only half filled.......................now whether or not that makes for a dual fulfillment is a matter of Opinion but my point is the same prophecy about the sacrificial lamb also talks of the Conquering Jesus when he returns and does this

4: And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Is prophecy usleless once fulfilled …………not at all because it exposes false Doctrine………….that is why when peter was warning about the False end time religion that would ignore prophecy as fulfilled………….saying where is the prophetic promise of his return………….claiming that all had already happened…………………….

Peter tells us those who ignore prophecy are Willingly ignorant of the Truth of scripture.

[dizzle]

Greeating Just the Facts - I hope you don't mind if I narrow your inquiry to the narrow topic of this thread, for I really want to keep it focused.


That is simply not true..........................Now I am aware that being Preterist you feel all prophecy is fulfilled.

You are operating under a very serious misunderstading. I do not believe ALL prophecy is fulfilled - in fact you can be assured that in this forum area you will not find any teaching that ALL prophecy is fulfilled for that would be considered by this forum to be heretical, and would need to be advocated in the Unorthodox Theology section or General Theistics. So I think the rest of your post is answered once you realize that you did not understand my position. I am an orthodox preterist (which you may have heard referred to as "partial preterism" though personally I reject that label - I am not a hyper-preterist which you may have heard referred to as a "full preterist" another label I make a practice not to use)


..............but for us still in the truth(smile) we understand that many of the prophecies of the conquering Jesus have yet to be fulfilled......The sacrificial lamb has been fulfilled...and Now Jesus sits at the right hand of God.................................but evil has not been defeated the devil is not bound at the cross that defeat is still to come and so many of the prophecies are only half filled.......................


I agree with your point, but that does not make prophecy half filled - it makes them being fulfilled. For example here is a brief list I once compiled:

The primary NT passages that began in the first century and describe events up through the end of history are

Revelation 19 through 21
Matthew 24:31
Matthew 25:31-44
Matthew 28:19
Ephesians 1:20-21
Hebrews 2:5-8

I don't really want to go down that route though in this thread though just wanted to be sure you knew where I was comng from.

This thread is about an assertion that preterism is false because John's words were a prophecy. That is a strawman though because it avoids the very issue under controversy - it assumes its own case as true and then points to that assumption as proof. That is nonsensical. I am using Terral as an example for he is the one currently doing this - he says that since Revelation was written about 90 and it is a prophecy, it cannot be about events twenty years past.

HOWEVER, that is placing a shell game with the position of another - IOW he imports his position about the writing of Revelation into the preterist argument and then says the preterist is inconsistent with Revelatoin beig a prophecy - BUT THE PRETERIST REJECTS THAT DATE OF WRITING! The real debate then is the date of writing. Terral refuses to see or be fair with the facts that IF the preterist's position is right on the date of the writing the preterist ALSO believes that it is a prophecy - thus the argument is nonsense. In order to fairly argue another's position one must fairly evaluate it within their own system FIRST. Also to pick nits, the issue isn't when John WROTE Revelation - it is when he saw the vision. While I believe he wrote it down right after seeing it, that isnt required for it to be a genuine prophecy. I cannot speak for every preterist, but if it were absolutely proven that John had the vision AFTER 70AD, I would not hold a preterist position with regards to that book. However, I believe it was seen before, thus my position is perfectly consistent with it being a prophecy. This is quite basic. If this cannot be seen by an opponent there is no hope of having a fair discussion on more complex issues.

[spiritmech]

Great thread. My answer is "no." I'll write more soon.

[dizzle]

Thanks! Again for everyone there are two issues here:

1. Does the argument "but Revelation is a prophecy" have any whit of worth in attempting to refute preterism (the answer to that is obviously NO since preterists also believe it was prophecy when written)

2. The second point requires me to do some backtracking a sec:

I think upon further reflection that I may have taken something Terral said in a way other than he intended - he said that we preterists make Revelation into a history book rather than a prophecy book. I took that to mean that there is an issue with having a book of prophecy that is fulfilled. In thinking over his first errenous point (point one above) I think he intended to say something different, what I now think he meant was that we make it a history book from the get-go - i.e it was already fulfilled when written. Of course that is then guilty of the error of importing his assumptions about when the text was written which preterists reject. From the preterist view (which must be analyzed to fairly and properly criticize) it was indeed prophecy when written and then history when fulflled (the parts that were fulfilled, not all of it is).

So the second point likely has little to do with what Terral intended to communicate, but is still a very interesting topic that I wish to discuss, the value of fulfilled prophecy.

The first point is still a very valid criticism about a shallow method of criticism.

[panda]

I have a question...

Isn't prophecy typically "understood" AFTER its fulfilled?

Example - all of the prophecies concerning Christ's incarnation were shrouded in mystery until it actually happened. Even Jesus' specific prophecy to His disciples about His death and resurrection were a complete enigma to them until after the prophecy was fulfilled.

I may get creamed for saying this, but I can take it. :wink: One of the primary reasons I believe that the events in Revelation have not yet happened is because I don't believe there will be any "debate" about whether or not they've happened among true believers, once they actually do. There will be, I believe, a universal "AHA!" from all believers in Jesus Christ, just as there was after the Resurrection and Ascension, just as there was when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD according to Christ's prophetic word. These "end times" events are far too earth-shattering (no pun intended) to be an arguable enigma once they actually take place. At least, that's how i feel about it...I'm not trying to convince anyone else here that I'm right.

Thanks! Happy New Year everyone...

Love,
Panda

[dizzle]

Belivers today argue about whether not certain other prophecies have been fulfilled. What your argument does is potentially deny a prophecy was fulfilled due to the opinion of man or forces those who are absolutely convinced it was to say that those who disagree are not true Christians.. In fact the destruction of the Temple issue is not agreed upon by all true Christians - many believe that the destruction referenced in Matthew is not the same as in Luke, and thus Matthew is not fulfilled.

[InChristAlways]

Belivers today argue about whether not certain other prophecies have been fulfilled. What your argument does is potentially deny a prophecy was fulfilled due to the opinion of man or forces those who are absolutely convinced it was to say that those who disagree are not true Christians.. In fact the destruction of the Temple issue is not agreed upon by all true Christians - many believe that the destruction referenced in Matthew is not the same as in Luke, and thus Matthew is not fulfilled.Hi Dee. Love that picture LOL. Scary.
Concerning Matt and Luke. Wasn't one written more to a jewish audience and one to more of a gentile audience? I happened to come across a link that I had bookmarked about a year agon on the hamonization of the gospels but I can't find a book on it.
I have never really seperated the gospels as far as different future events for each book of the gospels.
Anyway, here is a link to it and if anyone can find a book of this harmony of the gospels I would really appreciate it. God bless.

http://www.ccel.org/m/mcgarvey/ffg/FFG000.HTM#Part5

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/mcgarvey/gospels.iii.html

ANGELS ANNOUNCE THE RESURRECTION TO
CERTAIN WOMEN. PETER AND JOHN
ENTER THE EMPTY TOMB.
(Joseph's Garden. Sunday, very early.)
aMATT. XXVIII. 1-8; bMARK XVI. 1-8; cLUKE XXIV. 1-8, 12; dJOHN XX. 1-10.

c1 But a1 Now late on the sabbath day, b1 And when the sabbath was past, con the first day of the week, {aas it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,} cat early dawn, dwhile it was yet dark, cometh {acame} dMary Magdalene early aand the other Mary bthe mother of James, and Salome, cunto the tomb, bringing {bbrought} cthe spices which they had prepared. [Luke xxiii. 56 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Lu+23:56).] ato see the sepulchre. bthat they might come and anoint him. a2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 and for fear of him the watchers [the Roman soldiers on guard] did quake, and became as dead men. [The angel sat upon the stone that the Roman guards might make no attempt to reclose the tomb.] b2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen. 3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? c2 And they found the stone rolled away from [739] the tomb. b4 and looking up, they see {d [Mary Magdalene] seeth} bthat the stone is rolled back: {dtaken away from the tomb.} for it was exceeding great. c3 And they bentering into the tomb, {centered in,} and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. [John mentions Mary Magdalene alone, though she came with the rest of the women. As she was the one who reported to John and Peter, he describes her actions, and makes no mention of the others.] d2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him. [Though Mary came with the other women, she departed at once, while the others tarried, as the sequel shows. The narrative proceeds to tell what happened to the other women after Mary had departed.]

[Just The Facts]

Hi dee dee

I have never been much on the label thing but I think of preterist as all has happened......................even Judgement day which I understand many teach as happening at each persons death.


Partial Preterist ...........to me that is Just amill..............................or post mill..........................Not really preterist at all.......well not from what I understood. That is Judgement day left ........but most of rev and all of Daniel and the OT prophets as fulfilled

So Orthodox is Partial and Hyper is Full......................Is not the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church Partial Preterist....................I mean they believe most has happened and that the kingdom is in Heaven............is that also your understanding ........................as a partial or orthodox preterist. What is the difference that preterists believe it is all about Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dee Dee the date of revelation is clearly many years after the fall of Judea............please come into the thread I started and we can look at just internal evidence and then we do not have to involve doctrines of men. This is one of the reasons I came to this forum was to discuss this with you and others here who believe in the earlier date.

But lets not get off topic which seems to be a no no here unlike every other forum I have ever posted on (smile)......in fact It is the norm everywhere else...................Even fulfilled prophecy serves to show How amazing God truly is........................

I personally believe the opposite of most churches who do not put weight in prophetic belief...........stating it is not doctrine and everyone has an opinion...........I agree everyone has an opinion...................just there is only one Truth………..and ONLY Jesus the revealer can show you that truth.

[dizzle]

Hi dee dee

I have never been much on the label thing but I think of preterist as all has happened......................even Judgement day which I understand many teach as happening at each persons death.


Partial Preterist ...........to me that is Just amill..............................or post mill..........................Not really preterist at all.......well not from what I understood. That is Judgement day left ........but most of rev and all of Daniel and the OT prophets as fulfilled

That is preterist - what the term has historically meant. The other varietyis a relatively recent heresy which has co-opted the historical term.



So Orthodox is Partial and Hyper is Full......................Is not the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church Partial Preterist....................I mean they believe most has happened and that the kingdom is in Heaven............is that also your understanding ........................as a partial or orthodox preterist. What is the difference that preterists believe it is all about Jerusalem in 70 AD.

JTF unfortunately I don't have the time to get into an extended conversation on the kingdom of heaven etc. This short threads I have started are just to challenge certain notable statements that I have read. Short and sweet.



Dee Dee the date of revelation is clearly many years after the fall of Judea............please come into the thread I started and we can look at just internal evidence and then we do not have to involve doctrines of men. This is one of the reasons I came to this forum was to discuss this with you and others here who believe in the earlier date.

Unfortunately I just don't have the time.



But lets not get off topic which seems to be a no no here unlike every other forum I have ever posted on (smile)......in fact It is the norm everywhere else...................Even fulfilled prophecy serves to show How amazing God truly is........................

Off topic is fine here if the thread starter does not mind. We give thread starters a lot of say on the direction of their threadds, esp if they say what they are looking for in the OP.

[lemonpieman2004]

No. Prophecy is fulfilled and leaves its legacies. Legacy will inspire life to continue in a way that has been affected by itself. However, Prophephetic teachings cannot be changed as they will remain to be true. The way in which legacy works is that it will lead to choice. With the fulfillment of a prophecy, people can use this prophecy in the past to change the course of the future. For example, If Isiah had not prophisised the suffering that Jesus would go through then why should the fact that he went through such suffering be important, we all face suffering in our daily lives but because it fulfills Isiah's prophecy it is emphasised to Christians as one of the things that makes Jesus the saviour. Therefore, Christian Theologians have decided that, we must be, suffering servants in order to be more like our Lord.:sigh:

[Thedonhopeless]

Is prophecy useless once fulfilled?

Interesting, I guess one could argue a fewviews:

1. the prophecies are useless ebcause they were written to specific people at a specific time FOR a specific time. Following this road, what is the point of the stuff even beeing in the bible at all really, if it isn't for future generations? It wasn't like the ancient people all had lil pocket bibles to reference, and say..oh that is for me!

2. that the prophecies are not relavant to us, but still important because it intertwines with history, glorifying God and proving what he said is true.

3. the prophecies are relevant to us, because even though they were fulfilled, they give us further glimpses into the judgement and mercy of God in our own lives.

4. prophecies are relevant an dimportant because they are in the bible, and if they weren't, they would not be there.

I not sure if they fulfilled or not at this point, but for the sake of the OP, I will assume they are, so I would take # 3 and #4.