A Preterism discussion with Mickey [Archive]

View Full Version : A Preterism discussion with Mickey

Mickey

June 14th 2006, 07:48 PM

Hi Rossolina,

This is the typical answer you will get from the preterists:
The majority of preterists today would say not just Revelation 20 is ongoing but that Revelation 19 is as well. (and L is right - idealism is a another view that a goodly number of preterists believe as well)
Since,according to them,we are already in Revelation 19 and 20.That means that the following things have already happened:

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations..."(Rev.13:6,7).

I still not have ever heard any preterist explain when that happened.The events which the Lord Jesus described as happening at the "end of the age" (Mt.24:3) involve the whole world,and not just Israel as the preterists would have you believe:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man"(Lk.21:35,36).

In another place the Lord Jesus made it plain that the judgment at the "end of the age" will involve the whole world.In His parable of the tares of the field He said:

"The field is the world...the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father"(Mt.13:38-43).

Despite all this the preterists say that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfills all of these prophecies.The judgment that will take place upon the whole earth remains in the future.

In Christ,
Mickey

studyhound

June 14th 2006, 07:57 PM

Hi Rossolina,

This is the typical answer you will get from the preterists:

Since,according to them,we are already in Revelation 19 and 20.That means that the following things have already happened:

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations..."(Rev.13:6,7).

I still not have ever heard any preterist explain when that happened.The events which the Lord Jesus described as happening at the "end of the age" (Mt.24:3) involve the whole world,and not just Israel as the preterists would have you believe:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man"(Lk.21:35,36).

In another place the Lord Jesus made it plain that the judgment at the "end of the age" will involve the whole world.In His parable of the tares of the field He said:

"The field is the world...the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father"(Mt.13:38-43).

Despite all this the preterists say that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfills all of these prophecies.The judgment that will take place upon the whole earth remains in the future.

In Christ,
Mickey

Wow I havent sen some one get preterism this wrong in quiet some time, or are you just throwing out a
:burn:

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 08:31 PM

Ross, Mickey is a trollish poster who was sent packing with his hindquarters stinging from the forum preterists a bit ago. He doesn't speak for the futurists here in general, they have much better arguments and debating ability. Mickey further just got done shamelessly promoting heresy in another thread.

However.. this thread seems to me to be by you not to have trollish posts such as that above, i.e. you seem to want to have an irenic thread to be able to ask preterists certain questions. If I have you correct, you as the thread-starter have the right to control the direction of your thread, just say so. If you don't mind those kinds of interuptions, that is your choice as well.

Mickey

June 14th 2006, 09:11 PM

Ross, Mickey is a trollish poster who was sent packing with his hindquarters stinging from the forum preterists a bit ago.
Really?

Since I go by the name "Mickey" only on this forum how would you know that I got sent packing from any forum in the past?

Ross,also notice that they refuse to address the verses which I quoted.If they have already happened then when did they happen?They have no answer.

In Christ,
Mickey

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 14th 2006, 09:11 PM

Wow I havent sen some one get preterism this wrong in quiet some time, or are you just throwing out a
:burn:

Mickey misread the OP, he thought it said Misunderstanding Preterism.

Hitch

June 14th 2006, 09:16 PM

Really?

Since I go by the name "Mickey" only on this forum how would you know that I got sent packing from any forum in the past?

Ross,also notice that they refuse to address the verses which I quoted.If they have already happened then when did they happen?They have no answer.

In Christ,
MickeyThey happened about the same time the Gospel was preached to all the world. Actually a few years later...

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 09:20 PM

This forum Mickey, not any other forum. Read carefully. That might help you with your preterism problem too.

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 09:35 PM

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 09:42 PM

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 09:45 PM

Ross another quick link for you, I have indexed some good theology preterism threads here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/theologyweb.html

Those includes the ones where Mickey was trounced pretty thoroughly by Faramir and some good discussions with the able nonpreterists of this forum
I'll look through that tonight, but I would love if you could answer his objections here, just because he specifically directed them here and I suppose I would enjoy seeing him shut down :P

Thanks very much though!

Also, that seems to deal with Post and A Millennial. What about Pre-Millennial?

Hitch

June 14th 2006, 09:46 PM

First off, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm enjoying trying to understand this as I find it rather fascinating :) Please bear with me if I ask any repetitive questions, I'm just doing my best to understand it to the greatest extent possible before I say I align with it.

A few questions:

1. To me it would appear that the 1,000 years haven't started yet? Unless I'm missing something, it seems that Satan is locked up during that time and can't "deceive the nations." Provided this was true, why does it seem our country and world still is very much alive with an evil force. Is there a solid preterist approach that also believes the Millenial period is yet to come? If not, how do you justify that it has started.

2. I'm involved at another forum and don't mind watching people get set in place. Therefore feel free to answer his questions (even if you have done so before) because if anything I'd like to understand the small drop of doubt that his post put in my mind. However I don't want it go to to in depth or off the subject of basic preterism, atleast until I feel informed enough to begin interjecting more of my personal opinion into it.

Thanks again ;)1. To me it would appear that the 1,000 years haven't started yet? Unless I'm missing something, it seems that Satan is locked up during that time and can't "deceive the nations." Provided this was true, why does it seem our country and world still is very much alive with an evil force. Is there a solid preterist approach that also believes the Millenial period is yet to come? If not, how do you justify that it has started.

Certainly we would agree that Christ is enthroned and ruling today.

We would also agree that every believer alive was formerly a subject of the kingdom of darkness and has been set free, being made a new creation in Christ.

We would aslo agree that the believer is safe from the Secon Death having already been granted eternal life through Christ.

We would agree that by logic and direct apostolic application the believer 's current status is that ofa royal priest.

And of course we know that Paul says we 'reign in life through one Jesus Christ'..

So unless I ve forgotten some detail R 20 is covered.

Oh yeah the current activty of the enemy...

Psalm 110
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

The historic 'rule' of Christ is defined by the success of the Kingdom while her enemies are present.

Take care

H

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 09:48 PM

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 14th 2006, 09:50 PM

First off, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm enjoying trying to understand this as I find it rather fascinating :) Please bear with me if I ask any repetitive questions, I'm just doing my best to understand it to the greatest extent possible before I say I align with it.

A few questions:

1. To me it would appear that the 1,000 years haven't started yet? Unless I'm missing something, it seems that Satan is locked up during that time and can't "deceive the nations." Provided this was true, why does it seem our country and world still is very much alive with an evil force. Is there a solid preterist approach that also believes the Millenial period is yet to come? If not, how do you justify that it has started.

Well, preterism is far from monolithic so what I am about to say is one preterist interpretation (and I think the most prevelant, but I am not sure) of the "binding of Satan".

And for time and space sake I will give a very brief explanation of my understanding of the primary "structure" of Revelation, it is not lengthy enough to be persuasive, but it is necessary to explain why I interpret that verse like I do.

Revelation is primarily (especially after Ch. 3) a prohecy in the style of Old Testament prophecies. OT prophecies dealt with "predictions of the future" to be certain, but always in the context of covenantal blessings and cursings.

Revelation is no different. Revelation was written as the "final" prophetic proclemation of the delivery of the covenantal curse to ethnic Israel, declaring and end to the exclusive nature of the covenant with ethnic Israel (the harlot) and the extension of the (new) covenant to the Church (the bride).

From the time of the Abrahamic covenant, God's covenant has been restricted to one ethnic line of descent. As a result the other "nations" had been "deceived" and unable to worship the One True God. Note specifically the passage in Daniel where the archangel Michael has to "contend with the Prince of Persia".

Under the New Covenant of Christ, the gospel was made available to "all nations" (Note that nations more often than not in scripture is a reference to "ethnic people groups").

So Satan being bound is his being bound in his ability to "decieve the nations". God is now worshiped all across the globe, not just in geographic Israel, and not just by ethnic Jews.

I hope that made some sense.

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 09:51 PM

I understand that Hitch, but if Satan is locked up (per Revelation 20) then wouldn't there either A) have been a period of absolute peace considering Satan could not decieve anyone or B) we would currently be in this period of peace. It seems only logical to think that we have not hit the Millennial period yet in my opinion, but there could easily be something I'm missing.

Faramir, sorry I missed your post. That makes a good bit of sense. If anyone has another view or would like to add to that, I would appreciate that as well.

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 09:54 PM

Ross I don't waste time with Mickey, I don't waste time with trolls of any sort. His objections were answered here ad nauseam in the past.

And in all fairness even if he were not a troll (which unfortunately he is) I am on very limited time for forum discussions, thus the links. I have been very ill, and my job is extraordinarily busy right now.

And Ross remember, don't judge opposition to preterism nonfavorably because Mickey does poorly, he is not a good representative of non-preterism.
Ah okay :P Well I trust you guys and don't (after what you have been saying) find him very credible so I'll just search some old threads and see the response to his objections.

Get well soon Xena :)

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 09:56 PM

This isn't exaclty on point, but I looked through my notes of old (and I mean years old so some/lot of it I may have refined) forum discussions and found this one thing on the thousand years (I am looking for other stuff) - the "you" and stuff is referring to my discussion participant in that old thread

*****

Okay about the “thousand years.” Basically you are asking how do we know that it is not a “literal” one thousand years. Well first of all, in hindsight we know it because it has been more than a thousand years since the “millennium” started and it has not ended yet. That is the pragmatic and admittedly circular answer. But the exegetical answer is quite simple as well. Revelation contains hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament and is thoroughly seeped in Jewish symbolism. In Jewish idiom and poetic thought, numbers were important. Ten was the number of quantitative completeness. (seven by contrast is the number of qualitative completeness. Three is the number of amplification. (for example, God is called “holy, holy, holy”) it stands for manyness. A thousand multiplies and intensifies this (10x10x10), in order to express great values [a perfect cube of ten – quantitative perfection] So,10x10x10 is quantitative completeness amplified. It is the perfect intensely complete period of time. Another example in Revelation demonstrates this:

Rev 5:11 – Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.

The number thousand is commonly used this way in the OT. For example:

Ps 50:10 - For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

Thus God claims to own the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10). This of course does not mean that the cattle on the 1001st hill belongs to someone else. God owns all the cattle on all the hills. But He says, “a thousand” to indicate that there are many hills and much cattle. See also:

Deut 1:11 – May the LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!

Deut 7:9 - Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments.

Job 9:2-3 – Truly I know it is so, but how can a man be righteous before God?
If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.

Psalm 68:17 – The chariots of God are twenty thousand, Even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.

Psalm 84:10 – For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand.

Ps 90:4 – For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.

Ps 105:8 – He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations.

It was an idiom. We kind of today use the word “million” in the same way, and we must let the Bible tell us how to interpret the Bible.

Similarly the thousand years of Revelation 20 represent a vast, undefined period of time which fits in well with the OT descriptions of the Messianic reign as “everlasting” and “forever” which are Hebrew words designating a very long period of time but not necessarily forever as we understand it (for that would be in contradiction to what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15). A literal “one thousand” is not even the Hebrew idea of forever and would not fit in with the descriptions of the length of the Messianic reign. Remember that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, that the “rapture” ENDS the Messianic reign of Christ, not begins it. So by necessity, the “millennium” precedes the rapture.

In light of all of this, it is interesting that such a crucial doctrine to premillenialism as the thousand year reign, is only supposedly mentioned here. If a literal earthly millennium is so prominent in the thoughts of the apostles and such an important era in redemptive history we should it expect to appear multiple times in the NT
NOT ONLY in the most figurative book of all Scripture.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:00 PM

Ross I found this old thread where Jaltus and I began a discussion on this topic (we never finished but there is good stuff in there)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=923&highlight=satan

Hitch

June 14th 2006, 10:01 PM

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:03 PM

Ross I briefly reviewed that old thread I linked to. I think it is exactly what you are looking for.

Mickey

June 14th 2006, 10:06 PM

Ross,

The following is fairly typical of the unsound teaching of the preterists.This is in regard to the jusgment that will come upon the whole world--For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man"(Lk.21:35,36).
They happened about the same time the Gospel was preached to all the world. Actually a few years later...
Well then if Hitch is correct then this happened before the "great tribulation",which they place in AD 70.

But we can see that Luke 21:35,36 will happen after the signs in the heavens (Lk.21:25).And those signs appear immediately after the great tribulation:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"(Mt.24:29).

So first we have the "great tribulation" which the preterists say occured in AD 70,and then the signs in the heavens,and then the judgment upon the whole world.

But Hitch has the judgment upon the whole world happening before the "great tribulation".

Besides that,at Matthew 13 the Lord said that the "field is the world" and at the end of the age "all" of the unrighteous will be taken out of the world.That surely did not happen at anytime in the past.

In Christ,
Mickey

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 10:06 PM

That was an amazing read, it's all making much more sense now. The 1,000 years was an objection that both I and my friend shared, so I'll be glad to link him to this post. Thanks a lot :yipee:

Sorry Hitch, maybe I'm just ignorant and uninformed but that still alludes to their being enemies. Would Satan being locked up not refer to all evil being locked up? I assume his demons would still be free if that was literal, but I figured that meant Satan and all he represented was locked away.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:08 PM

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:10 PM

I want to add a postscript to my post here - those are a lot of notes in which I was not as careful as I am now to cite authors etc, but I do remember that post is heavily indebted to Kenneth Gentry utilizing his work. I don't believe I quoted him directly without attribution, but if I did so, it was carelessness to note it. I am much more careful nowadays but that is old, old material.

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 10:11 PM

Mickey

June 14th 2006, 10:13 PM

Ross I don't waste time with Mickey, I don't waste time with trolls of any sort. His objections were answered here ad nauseam in the past.

And in all fairness even if he were not a troll (which unfortunately he is) I am on very limited time for forum discussions, thus the links. I have been very ill, and my job is extraordinarily busy right now.
As usual the excuses become plentiful now.She has no time to answer!
And Ross remember, don't judge opposition to preterism nonfavorably because Mickey does poorly, he is not a good representative of non-preterism.
We can see that Darth Xena is representing preterism very well,always avoiding dealing with the verses which demonstrate that at the "end of the age" there will be a world wide judgment.

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:19 PM

Which thread is not about. Go get your own Mickey, we have all seen this disruptive trolling before. However, since we last met, I have learned the power of the ignore button to cull the wheat from the chaff in my own personal forum judment. I haven't done it yet because even though you have in one day demonstrated yourself to hold to foundational heresy and taken up your old trolling habits for which you were moderated, I have hope that you MIGHT turn into a productive poster, so I will give it a few before I save myself the annoyance.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:20 PM

Yeah, I guess it is rather annoying. Feel free though to find an old thread where you asked it Mickey, preferably one in which you got an answer too.

Xena, I'm reading the You vs. Jaltus debate presently. Thanks.

Faramir who has much more patience than I and is in many respects a better debater of this view than I handled Mickey quite well in the past. I didn't have the patience.

Mickey

June 14th 2006, 10:20 PM

Mickey this thread was about Rev 20, stop trolling with the nonsense you trolled numerous threads like you did the last time you were here and had to be told to stop it. Go revivie one of your old threads in which you asked that question.
You go find it.I cannot find any thread where any preterist gave a credible explanation as to when all the unrighteous were taken out of the world.That has not yet happened,as anyone with the slightest knowledge of world history knows.

"The field is the world...the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father"(Mt.13:38-43).

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:21 PM

Ross BTW, Jaltus is one of the able defenders of nonpreterism that I was speaking of earlier, so reading his stuff you get a good back and forth, Jaltus NEVER trolls or behaves nonsensically.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:25 PM

Here is the link for Mickey's review on one of his on topic threads on this subject (there is another I have to find)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51941&page=1&pp=15

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:27 PM

Here is another

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=45258

there is even yet one more I remember, but those links are sufficient for Mickey to go back to thread where he already raised the issue and post again to not interrupt someone else's thread

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 10:30 PM

Ross BTW, Jaltus is one of the able defenders of nonpreterism that I was speaking of earlier, so reading his stuff you get a good back and forth, Jaltus NEVER trolls or behaves nonsensically.
In my readings from that thread, that is rather evident :D

Don't worry about Mickey Xena, he doesn't get to me. Especially concerning an item of mere opinion and one that doesn't effect the true meaning of Christianity whatsoever.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 10:43 PM

He is just as annoying as heck. I shouldn't let myself get baited. I am glad I was able to point you to a good nonpreterist defense so you can give a fair hearing.

Mickey

June 14th 2006, 11:08 PM

He is just as annoying as heck. I shouldn't let myself get baited. I am glad I was able to point you to a good nonpreterist defense so you can give a fair hearing.
Yea,I can see how my posting those veres is annoying to you,Dee Dee.You still have not answered any of them,and no preterist on the links you provided gave an answer that anyone but a preterists would consider credible.

You want us to just close our eyes and pretend that all of the unrighteous were taken out of the world in AD 70.

In Christ,
Mickey

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 11:13 PM

Yea,I can see how my posting those veres is annoying to you,Dee Dee.You still have not answered any of them,and no preterist on the links you provided gave an answer that anyone but a preterists would consider credible.

You want us to just close our eyes and pretend that all of the unrighteous were taken out of the world in AD 70.

In Christ,
Mickey
<___<

Okay, someone just put an answer here so at least I can see that it's happened before. I'd rather someone answer him so he'll leave.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 11:15 PM

He won't. He will say he is waiting for a "credible" answer meaning he has to be a preterist before he will think he is answered. Seriously go back through his old posts, even the futurists think he is a troll.

Rossolini

June 14th 2006, 11:18 PM

I'm not disagreeing. It just appears that unless he gets an answer in this thread, that he won't bugger off. Maybe I could just state it, since it is my topic:

Mickey, unless you have something to add in support of Preterism, leave. I'm not hear to figure out the flaws in Preterism, but merely what it is. When I want to know where it lacks credibility (if I think it does) I will ask.

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 11:21 PM

That is all you need to do. The mods will make sure your thread stays in the subject you want it to. Mickey is free to start his own thread so it isn't as if he can't be "heard."

Armor of God

June 14th 2006, 11:31 PM

Well, preterism is far from monolithic so what I am about to say is one preterist interpretation (and I think the most prevelant, but I am not sure) of the "binding of Satan".

And for time and space sake I will give a very brief explanation of my understanding of the primary "structure" of Revelation, it is not lengthy enough to be persuasive, but it is necessary to explain why I interpret that verse like I do.

Revelation is primarily (especially after Ch. 3) a prohecy in the style of Old Testament prophecies. OT prophecies dealt with "predictions of the future" to be certain, but always in the context of covenantal blessings and cursings.

Revelation is no different. Revelation was written as the "final" prophetic proclemation of the delivery of the covenantal curse to ethnic Israel, declaring and end to the exclusive nature of the covenant with ethnic Israel (the harlot) and the extension of the (new) covenant to the Church (the bride).

From the time of the Abrahamic covenant, God's covenant has been restricted to one ethnic line of descent. As a result the other "nations" had been "deceived" and unable to worship the One True God. Note specifically the passage in Daniel where the archangel Michael has to "contend with the Prince of Persia".

Under the New Covenant of Christ, the gospel was made available to "all nations" (Note that nations more often than not in scripture is a reference to "ethnic people groups").

So Satan being bound is his being bound in his ability to "decieve the nations". God is now worshiped all across the globe, not just in geographic Israel, and not just by ethnic Jews.

I hope that made some sense.

If Ross doesn't mind, I'm gonna step in here for a question of clarification, as this topic has kinda bugged me too when it comes to preterism. First, let me restate what you have here to make sure I understand.

What you're saying is that Satan is bound right now in the sense that he can't deceive entire nations anymore...hence the ablility of the Gospel to spread everywhere. However, that doesn't preclude him from being able to interact with individuals, right? And by that I don't mean just decieve them, because that's obviously within his powers. But what about demonic possessions and the like? Would you say this he still has this sort of power?

dizzle

June 14th 2006, 11:37 PM

Yes IMHO

Armor of God

June 15th 2006, 12:35 AM

Ok, that makes more sense to me. I've seen some prets who believe Satan has none of those types of abilities, but it is pretty tough to reconcile that with some things that still happen today.

Anyway, lemme spring another one on you regarding the postmill view. As I understand it, premills are looking for a very specific chain of events before Christ's return. They look around us today and say "it could be any day now" for those events to start unfolding.

Postmills, however, believe that the world will steadily move to the point that everyone is a Christian before Christ comes back. From that point of view, would you say that this event is still some time off in the future? I don't know how true it is, but I read somewhere that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Couple that with everything else that's happening right now in the world, it would appear that Christianity is losing it's grip a little, or at least would have some catching up to do.

Rossolini

June 15th 2006, 11:55 AM

All the prets (especially Darth Xena) have done a great job explaining this. I'm still reading through some stuff, but my main objections (1000 years/satan's binding) were answered. You defend your position and support it very well :teeth:

Rossolini

June 15th 2006, 02:50 PM

I was discussing this with a friend and he raised a few questions. I'm going to post them here so he can get some answers :)

Let's say that [the preterists] are right. When Christ defeated death and rose back to life, he established his figurative 1000 year reign on earth, where we are to spread the Gospel and win souls. Let's also say that this marks the binding of Satan and his inability to decieve the nations any further. Even so, there is another requirement for this figurative 1000 years. That is, that some have already been beheaded for refusing to worship the image of the Beast, or accepting his mark on their right hand or on their forehead. These people are to be raised from the dead when Christ establishes his Kingdom. Furthermore, they are to reign WITH Christ for the full figurative 1000 years, meaning theyw ill be alive for all this time. This clearly shows us that the period of time we are living in now is not the 1000 figurative years spoken of in Revelation. There has been no "mark of the beast", and no one has been beheaded for not accepting. No one has been risen from the dead who did not accept it, and no one has been living, let alone reigning for the full time since Christ's ressurcetion or 70 AD or whatever marks the date, so it is impossible that that has come to pass. Rather, it makes much more sense that the Beast and his mark are yet to come, as well as Christ's millenial Kingdom in which he will literally reign on earth for a thousand years.
If you could address his arguement, it would be appreciated :)

Geek Eclectic

June 15th 2006, 03:11 PM

Sorry Hitch, maybe I'm just ignorant and uninformed but that still alludes to their being enemies. Would Satan being locked up not refer to all evil being locked up? I assume his demons would still be free if that was literal, but I figured that meant Satan and all he represented was locked away.
I have an answer to this in addition to what's already been said.

See, the question you pose suggests that Satan is representative of and responsible for all evil. However, in the Christian view, that's simply not the case. Because of the fall, evil pervades our very natures as humans. We are quite capable of great evils with or without Satan goading us.

That explains why, even if the binding of Satan is literal and includes all of his followers as well, evil still persists in this world. Satan may have been taken care of, but we still have our corrupt fleshly natures to deal with. And even without special demonic temptation, that's nothing to sneeze at.

I'm not saying that the binding is literal, mind you. I'm simply pointing out that if it is, the the continuation of evil isn't a problem for someone with a Biblical worldview.

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 03:17 PM

Hopefully this weekend I will have more time, but one really quick thing, and it bothers me that such a verse would not have been anticipated by your friend:

no one has been living, let alone reigning for the full time since Christ's ressurcetion or 70 AD or whatever marks the date

No one has been "living" - I believe that Christians who have died are still alive, doesn't he? (now some Christians do not believe that, but I do)

And as far as reigning? What do the Scriptures say?

But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus....

In a very real sense, according to the Bible, not human logic, we are seated together with Christ NOW in the heavenly places.

Rossolini

June 15th 2006, 03:19 PM

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 03:23 PM

I posted that so quickly because it saddens me that Christians don't understand/or seem to know how the Bible speaks of our current position.

Rossolini

June 15th 2006, 03:30 PM

My friend is going to sign up later and express his objections\questions. Thanks for trying to explain it as we both tend to come from a futurist background.

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 03:35 PM

In a very real sense, according to the Bible, not human logic, we are seated together with Christ NOW in the heavenly places.
Dee Dee,

You are absolutely correct!

But the Lord Jesus is not sitting at His own throne now,but instead the throne of the Father:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

When the kingdom is brought in the Lord Jesus will sit on an "earthly" throne,the "throne of David":

" He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David"(Lk.1:32).

This Throne is an "earthly" throne:

" Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly"(1Ki.2:12).

In the Kingdom men will go to Jerusalem to worship Him:

" And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one…And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain"(Zech.14:9,17).

The following verses also demonstrate that the Lord Jesus will rule from David’s Throne in Jerusalem:

" At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem"(Jer.3:17).

" It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there"(Ez.48:35).

" And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places"(Ez.43:7).

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 03:37 PM

Rossolini

June 15th 2006, 03:38 PM

Okay as long as he knows I am as slow as a turtle. I would suggest though that he read through some basic preterism stuff so as to have a basic handle on the view. I can recommend some links if he likes.
If it's no trouble, it wouldn't hurt. Although if your lost for time, then don't worry about it :D I can look around and find him some.

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 03:40 PM

Mickey, hyperliteralization will not do. By your logic David did not have a throne on earth (and the FAther doesn't sit on a literal throne, throne is representative of power, and ALL power and authority has been given to the Son as per Jesus Himself.)

Further in the vision of the Ascension in Daniel 7, Daniel saw THRONES (plural) set up. Unless the Father has multiple rear ends (in your hyperliteralism) the other throne was for someone else.

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 03:42 PM

Here are a couple Ross

http://www.rapidresponsereport.com/briefingpapers/preterist.pdf

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/eschfaq.html

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 05:00 PM

Further in the vision of the Ascension in Daniel 7, Daniel saw THRONES (plural) set up. Unless the Father has multiple rear ends (in your hyperliteralism) the other throne was for someone else.
Dee Dee,

Every time you attempt to answer verses that demonstrate that the ideas of the preterists are nothing but fables you end up putting your foot in your mouth.

If the "other throne" is the throne of the Lord Jesus then why is He not sitting in that throne at the present time?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

The Lord Jesus is not sitting in His own throne,as you would have us imagine,but instead He is sitting with His Father "in His throne".

I guess that we should not take the words of the Lord Jesus "literally" and understand that when He says that He is sitting at the Father's throne He really means that He is sitting on His own throne.

"Logical" by your standards,but "illogical" by other's standards.

In Christ,
Mickey

Tim C.

June 15th 2006, 05:15 PM

Further in the vision of the Ascension in Daniel 7

Vision of the ascension in Daniel 7? Daniel 7 does not have anything to do with the ascension.

ONLY preterists say Daniel 7 describes Jesus "going away on the clouds." NOBODY else has ever understood it that way.

-Tim

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 05:36 PM

Vision of the ascension in Daniel 7? Daniel 7 does not have anything to do with the ascension.

ONLY preterists say Daniel 7 describes Jesus "going away on the clouds." NOBODY else has ever understood it that way.

-Tim
Tim,

Here are Dee Dee's own words in regard to Daniel 7:

"Jesus is making a clear allusion to the “Son of Man” imagery in Daniel 7:13-14. That passage is not describing a “coming” to touch DOWN on Earth but a “coming” UP to (http://to) the Ancient of Days in vindication and victory to receive the Kingdom."

According to her the accession was a "coming up".To anyone else the accession was a "going" up,but somehow she can delude her mind into believing that it was a "coming up".

So when the Apostles asked the Lord Jesus about the signs of His "coming" they were really asking HIm for the signs of His "coming up to the Ancient of Days".

No need for literalism when we can simply spiritualize away any verses which proves that our ideas are in error.

In Christ,
Mickey

Tim C.

June 15th 2006, 05:39 PM

Yeah... pure silliness.

Yet, Dee Dee speaks of it as though it is a given. Preterists really need to slam some coffee and wake up to reality.

-Tim

ThirstyServant

June 15th 2006, 06:06 PM

Hopefully this weekend I will have more time, but one really quick thing, and it bothers me that such a verse would not have been anticipated by your friend:

No one has been "living" - I believe that Christians who have died are still alive, doesn't he? (now some Christians do not believe that, but I do)

And as far as reigning? What do the Scriptures say?

But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus....

In a very real sense, according to the Bible, not human logic, we are seated together with Christ NOW in the heavenly places.

You missed the entire point. And for the part of my post that you did tackle, that's a weak argument, as have been all of the arguments I've seen made thus far. Whenever something doesn't align with your view, instead of changing your view, you change your perception of God's Word to make it harmonize with your view. "Oh, it's been a 1000 years already? Heh, must have been figurative." Oh, and can't forget this one. "Oh, Christ is supposed to be reigning on earth? Hmm, must be figurative. He reigns on earth because of the Gospel being spread." And of course, "Wait, Satan was supposed to be bound up? Hmm, well I guess he is bound up and we explain the sin in the world from our own sinful natures." Well let me comment on that one first.

Acts 5:3
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

Explain to me how Satan could fill the heart of Ananias if he has been bound, locked and sealed.

Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Wait, Satan has not yet been crushed? I thought he was already bound to the Abyss.

1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

But how could Satan possibly tempt them if he has been sealed in prison?

The scriptures do not imply that when the martyrs will be risen back to life, that it will be in Heaven. It's very clear that their very bodies will be given life to reign with Christ on earth. Unless, do you suppose that the resurrection of Lazarus, or of Christ was figurative as well?

And even so, that is all besides the point. It will not be just any martyrs that will be risen from the dead. It will be those who were beheaded because they did not worship the image of the beast or recieve his mark on their right hand or their forehead. That mark was never administreted, and so no one died for not recieving it. And since that has not happened yet, it is absolutely impossible that the 1000 years described in the Bible is the time that we are living in today. It does not meat all of the qualifications given in the Bible, regardless of whether or not Christ is reigning on earth, Satan has been bound, and the 1000 years are figurative. The Beast and the False Prophet have not yet come to power, and it says clearly in Revelation 20 that they have already been thrown into the pit. And the administering of the Mark of the Beast never happened. Antichrist is yet to come, as is the 1000 year reign of Christ.

I had other things to comment on, but I'm a bit pressed for time right now so I will get to it later.

Geek Eclectic

June 15th 2006, 06:17 PM

Acts 5:3
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

Explain to me how Satan could fill the heart of Ananias if he has been bound, locked and sealed.

Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Wait, Satan has not yet been crushed? I thought he was already bound to the Abyss.

1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

But how could Satan possibly tempt them if he has been sealed in prison?
According to Preterism, the Olivet Discourse and much of the Book of Revelation, including the binding of Satan(figurative or literal), was fullfilled during the time period surrounding the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.

Now look at the passages you quote. Acts was written before the destruction of the Temple, and was describing events that happened much, much earlier than the destruction of the Temple. Ergo, Satan wouldn't be bound yet. This is even more true for Romans and I Corinthians, seeing as they're part of the epistles. And the epistles are accepted as having been written before most of the gospels and the book of Acts.

So you're right. In those passages, Satan hadn't been bound yet. And this has no bearing on the truth of Preterism.

Hitch

June 15th 2006, 06:52 PM

LOL I see the literalist are trying ro re-establish judaism again...Complete with the fabled 'memorial' sin offerings.

Pray tell literalist where does Ezekiel mention the 'memorial' qualities of these sacrfices?

7And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel

Telll me again how these are 'memorial's' looking back to the cross,,, please do so witha literal interpretation of the passage...

Come on Mickey, Timmy

ThirstyServant

June 15th 2006, 06:53 PM

According to Preterism, the Olivet Discourse and much of the Book of Revelation, including the binding of Satan(figurative or literal), was fullfilled during the time period surrounding the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.

Now look at the passages you quote. Acts was written before the destruction of the Temple, and was describing events that happened much, much earlier than the destruction of the Temple. Ergo, Satan wouldn't be bound yet. This is even more true for Romans and I Corinthians, seeing as they're part of the epistles. And the epistles are accepted as having been written before most of the gospels and the book of Acts.

So you're right. In those passages, Satan hadn't been bound yet. And this has no bearing on the truth of Preterism.

Explain to me the significance of Satan being bound, sealed, and locked under the Abyss, and his being unable to decieve the nations any longer. What power, exactly, did Satan lose during 70 AD and what impact does it have on our world today? And furthermore, give me a few examples of him using this power or "decieving the nations" in the past before 70 AD. (There should be no comparisons from after 70 AD to what would have happened under Satan's influence before 70 AD, because apparently, Satan has been bound.

Also, forgive me for my mistake. I was under the impression that Satan was bound as soon as Jesus gained victory over death and rose to life 3 days after being crucified so I assumed any scripture written after the ascencion of Jesus into Heaven was fair game. My mistake. And clarify for me, do you believe that Nero was the Antichrist spoken of in the book of Revelation? And also, have the 7 years of tribulation told about in Revelation already passed? (If so, were they a literal 7 years?)

Thanks. :)

A Cup of No

June 15th 2006, 08:17 PM

Also, forgive me for my mistake. I was under the impression that Satan was bound as soon as Jesus gained victory over death and rose to life 3 days after being crucified so I assumed any scripture written after the ascencion of Jesus into Heaven was fair game. My mistake. And clarify for me, do you believe that Nero was the Antichrist spoken of in the book of Revelation? And also, have the 7 years of tribulation told about in Revelation already passed? (If so, were they a literal 7 years?)

Thanks. :)

Welcome to T-Web, and actually, as a preterist still unsure of his view of the binding of Satan, I agree that this binding was consummated at the cross and resurrection, but was building its way up through Jesus' ministry. The preterist answer, anyway, is that Revelation is not sequential. This is obvious with how John describes the fall of 1/3 of the angels, of the birth of Christ, which happen are mentioned in chapter 12. We know that this does not happen in the future, and we know it didn't happen in A.D. 70. So remember that John can shift things for emphasis.

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 09:39 PM

Welcome to T-Web, and actually, as a preterist still unsure of his view of the binding of Satan, I agree that this binding was consummated at the cross and resurrection, but was building its way up through Jesus' ministry.
L,

Does not the "thousand" years that Satan is bound in regard to the "thousand" years of the kingdom:

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years...And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison"(Rev.20:2-7).

Obviously the reference to "the thousand years" do not start until the Lord Jesus begins to reign.

Are you saying that His reign started at the Cross?

And if Satan was bound at the Cross then how do you explain the fact that in an epistle written after the Cross Peter wrote the following:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"(1Pet.5:8).

If he is bound and has been thrown into a bottomless pit how can he walk about seeking to destroy believers?

In Christ,
Mickey

A Cup of No

June 15th 2006, 09:54 PM

L,

Does not the "thousand" years that Satan is bound in regard to the "thousand" years of the kingdom:

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years...And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison"(Rev.20:2-7).

Obviously the reference to "the thousand years" do not start until the Lord Jesus begins to reign.

Are you saying that His reign started at the Cross?

And if Satan was bound at the Cross then how do you explain the fact that in an epistle written after the Cross Peter wrote the following:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"(1Pet.5:8).

If he is bound and has been thrown into a bottomless pit how can he walk about seeking to destroy believers?

In Christ,
Mickey

- sigh - Mickey, your posts are frustrating. I'll move on. For John, the exaltation begins at the cross. Christ dies, as Mark states, "in his glory", showing us what God's way of being king is like. He then is raised from the dead, and ascends to the right hand of God. Christ's reign then begins, and he begins to put everything under his feet (though he already has at the cross and at the resurrection. Compare Hebrews and 1 Cor 15 for a perfect example of this already-not yet eschatology).

Satan's binding and casting into this "bottomless pit" (do you believe in such a literal thing?) is a vivid picture of what Christ's victory entails for Satan. He can no longer "deceive the nations." The light of the gospel was given to the nations in the first century, and he cannot keep them blinded. Where the gospel shines, there will be worship of the true God by all nations, unlike before, when only (mainly) Israel could worship the true God.

Mickey, please recognize what the text says Satan can no longer do: Deceive the nations. This does not mean he is not a powerful adversary still, or that he attacks Christians and still thinks that he can thwart God's plans. However, he is powerless to deceive the nations any longer now that Christ demands the obedience of faith from all peoples.

ThirstyServant

June 15th 2006, 10:15 PM

- sigh - Mickey, your posts are frustrating. I'll move on. For John, the exaltation begins at the cross. Christ dies, as Mark states, "in his glory", showing us what God's way of being king is like. He then is raised from the dead, and ascends to the right hand of God. Christ's reign then begins, and he begins to put everything under his feet (though he already has at the cross and at the resurrection. Compare Hebrews and 1 Cor 15 for a perfect example of this already-not yet eschatology).

Satan's binding and casting into this "bottomless pit" (do you believe in such a literal thing?) is a vivid picture of what Christ's victory entails for Satan. He can no longer "deceive the nations." The light of the gospel was given to the nations in the first century, and he cannot keep them blinded. Where the gospel shines, there will be worship of the true God by all nations, unlike before, when only (mainly) Israel could worship the true God.

Mickey, please recognize what the text says Satan can no longer do: Deceive the nations. This does not mean he is not a powerful adversary still, or that he attacks Christians and still thinks that he can thwart God's plans. However, he is powerless to deceive the nations any longer now that Christ demands the obedience of faith from all peoples.

So then what you are saying is that Satan's inability to decieve the nations any further means that he cannot keep the nations blind to God's glory, or the good news of salvation through Christ? If that is the case, then I ask you, what power did he have to do this before? It was not Satan who took the nations captive, but rather, it was God who chose Israel up out of the world. In doing this, was he handing the other nations over to Satan?

Revelation 20:2-3
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

I'd also like to note that the verse says that the reason Satan was bound was in order to keep him from decieving the nations. But I would imagine that this would be the furthest extend of his binding. He was locked and sealed. That tells me has lost all power on earth, even if only for this purpose. Anyways, that's up to interpretation.

Also, the idea that Satan was bound when Jesus rose is flawed. If Antichrist has already come, he would have, at one point, been indwelt by Satan himself. That simply cannot be unless it happened before Satan was bound. It makes some sense to say that it happened during 70 AD if Satan was not yet bound until after that, but if Satan was bound during the ressurection it contradicts itself.

Also, I am waiting for someone to explain my comment regarding the Mark of the Beast.

And most of you may regard him as a troll, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to Mickey's posts. I've read them all, and from what I can see, he is making good, valid points. Ignoring him tells me that you don't have the answer.

I've got to run off to practice for the worship team, but I'll be back tonight with a few more things to say.

- Travis

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 10:20 PM

-He then is raised from the dead, and ascends to the right hand of God. Christ's reign then begins...
If He began to reign after He ascened to the Father then why is His not sitting on His own throne?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne"(Rev.3:21).

Also,the Lord Jesus Himself revealed that He will not sit at His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

In Christ,
Mickey

A Cup of No

June 15th 2006, 10:26 PM

So then what you are saying is that Satan's inability to decieve the nations any further means that he cannot keep the nations blind to God's glory, or the good news of salvation through Christ? If that is the case, then I ask you, what power did he have to do this before? It was not Satan who took the nations captive, but rather, it was God who chose Israel up out of the world. In doing this, was he handing the other nations over to Satan?

Dee Dee responded to this with numerous Scripture references above, I will try to find the post number if I can.

Also, the idea that Satan was bound when Jesus rose is flawed. If Antichrist has already come, he would have, at one point, been indwelt by Satan himself. That simply cannot be unless it happened before Satan was bound. It makes some sense to say that it happened during 70 AD if Satan was not yet bound until after that, but if Satan was bound during the ressurection it contradicts itself.

You're reading a belief about Antichrist and satan into this passage. Please justify your belief in one person called "Antichrist" who will come, and when he will be indwelt by Satan.

And most of you may regard him as a troll, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to Mickey's posts. I've read them all, and from what I can see, he is making good, valid points. Ignoring him tells me that you don't have the answer.

If you've read Mickey's posts, please take the time to read the responses that have been levelled. I am about to respond below to something Dee Dee already responded to. Stay tuned.

A Cup of No

June 15th 2006, 10:30 PM

If He began to reign after He ascened to the Father then why is His not sitting on His own throne?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne"(Rev.3:21).

Also,the Lord Jesus Himself revealed that He will not sit at His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

In Christ,
Mickey

Mickey,

Do you think that there are actually "thrones" where God dwells? Does the Father have a body? Does He sit on a throne? Does the Son need to sit? The use of such language solely refers to immense exalaltation and power. Stop being such a wooden literalist.

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 10:33 PM

And most of you may regard him as a troll, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to Mickey's posts. I've read them all, and from what I can see, he is making good, valid points. Ignoring him tells me that you don't have the answer.
Thanks,Travis,I really appreciate your kind words.

There is a saying amoung lawers that if you cannot argue the law then argue the facts.If you can't argue the facts then argue the law.But if you can't argue either the law or the facts then pound on the table.

As Christians we are to "reason" out of the "Scriptures" (Acts 17:2).

Since the preterists cannot argue the verses that I quoted using "reason" and they cannot argue using the "Scriptures",they revert to name-calling.

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 10:39 PM

And most of you may regard him as a troll, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to Mickey's posts. I've read them all, and from what I can see, he is making good, valid points. Ignoring him tells me that you don't have the answer.

Hopefully I will be able to answer your posts over the weekend. If you CHOOSE to believe the above, a, you either haven't been on forums long, or b, you are choosing a statement like that to goad/manipulate someone into a response with someone they (who has been speaking with Mickey for quite some time) really doesn't wish to waste time with. If you CHOOSE to draw that conclusion, it is really you as the only one stuck with a conclusion that doesn't follow, and those sorts of things don't bother me any longer, haven't for many years. I have answered Mickey's on topic posts, and one reason why I don't bother with Mickey much is that he believes that there were two separate gospels preached in the first century (i.e. extreme dispensationalism), that Paul and Peter had different Gospels, and he denies that Christ is currently enfleshed. I don't know whether he thinks that Christ didn't rise bodily or He somehow "shed" His body before or at the Ascension but there are too many orthodox people with which to have productive discussions. I in my old age do very much pick and choose because in illness (very ill lately) and in losing my parents, I have learned the preciousness of time and that how one chooses to use it is a weighty responsibilty indeed. If anyone wants to infer from anyone's choose of who they respond to some sort of "vistory" that immaturity is upon then.

That being said, hopefully I can find some time to respond maybe this weekend. My job has gone into complete work frenzy right now.

And when all is said and done, I have no great burden any longer to convince anyone. If you believe the essentials, I am satisfied. If anyone finds preterism compelling and it helps them understand the Bible better, wonderful. If not :shrug: I think they are wrong, but one day we shall all know better about a lot of things.

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 10:41 PM

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 10:41 PM

Mickey,

Do you think that there are actually "thrones" where God dwells? Does the Father have a body? Does He sit on a throne? Does the Son need to sit? The use of such language solely refers to immense exalaltation and power. Stop being such a wooden literalist.
Even if the verses are figurative the fact is that they show that the Lord Jesus is not now sitting upon His own throne but instead is sitting on His Father's throne.

And they also show that He will not sit upon His throne until He returns to earth.

You think that just because some verse cannot be interpreted in a structly "literal" manner then you are free to put any meaning on that verse that you choose.Those verses do have a meaning,and if they are not saying that the Lord Jesus is ruling from the throne of His Father and that He will not begin to rule until He returns then they must have another meaning.

Please give me your interpretation of the meaning of those two verses.

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 10:42 PM

Dee Dee responded to this with numerous Scripture references above, I will try to find the post number if I can.

It is the link where I had the discussion with Jaltus. Nearly every single one of those issues raised were discussed in that link.

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 10:46 PM

You missed the entire point. And for the part of my post that you did tackle, that's a weak argument, as have been all of the arguments I've seen made thus far. Whenever something doesn't align with your view, instead of changing your view, you change your perception of God's Word to make it harmonize with your view.

Oh boy, that's it. You figured me out. I willfully and purposefuly conspire and connive to change the meaning of the Bible to suit my fancy. Does that make you feel better? If you find the arguments weak, again, I have no great zeal to convince you. All you did though was simply assert that it was weak, you did not demonstrate it. Assertion is patently easy, I can do it to.

Assertion: No it is not weak. So there.

Talk to you later, but I can let you know if you intend upon posturing about how persons simply desire their own views over Scripture, I will simply wish you good day and peace. I don't desire to have a discussion with someone who from the outset has such a low view of my theological character. That is of course your right, but I just don't play those reindeer games any longer (or at least that is my goal - especially this year in the face of serious illness and contemplating what is really profitable and enjoyable in life), especially from someone who knows squat about me from personal one on one discussions.

And yes I have argued like that in the past. I am moving beyond that.

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 10:56 PM

If you CHOOSE to believe the above, a, you either haven't been on forums long, or b, you are choosing a statement like that to goad/manipulate someone into a response with someone they (who has been speaking with Mickey for quite some time) really doesn't wish to waste time with.
Dee Dee,you found time to respond to me earlier.I said:

But the Lord Jesus is not sitting at His own throne now,but instead the throne of the Father:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

To which you said:
Further in the vision of the Ascension in Daniel 7, Daniel saw THRONES (plural) set up. Unless the Father has multiple rear ends (in your hyperliteralism) the other throne was for someone else.
If the "other throne" is the throne of the Lord Jesus then why is He not sitting in that throne at the present time?:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

The Lord Jesus is not sitting in His own throne,as you would have us imagine,but instead He is sitting with His Father "in His throne".

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 15th 2006, 10:58 PM

I believe that has been responded to already. You choose not to accept the reasoning, that is your choice. If I can after I respond to TS, I will respond further but "L" nailed it as far as I am concerned. I did already answer that question BTW if you read my original post with not just the explications but the implications as well.

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 11:18 PM

Please consider the following two verses which are in reference to the same event:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:31).

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

This is what Dee Dee says:
But.... did the first century people "see" Christ coming on the clouds?? …Jesus is making a clear allusion to the "Son of Man" imagery in Daniel 7:13-14. That passage is not describing a "coming" to touch DOWN on Earth but a "coming" UP to the Ancient of Days in vindication and victory to receive the Kingdom.
Dee Dee says that the Lord Jesus began to reign when He ascended into heaven,and she thinks that Daniel 7:13-14 supports her position.

But in order to believe her ideas we must believe that when the Lord Jesus spoke of His "coming in glory" that He was really speaking of Him "coming up"!

If the Lord wanted to convey the idea that He was "coming up" then why didn't He say "when He goes in His glory" instead of saying "when He come in His glory"?

This is just another demonstration that Dee Dee is able to part company with her "reason" if it is necessary in order to cling to her fables.She doesn't know whether she herself is coming or going and she surely doesn't know if the Lord is coming or going.

"Coming UP".What a laugh!

In Christ,
Mickey

A Cup of No

June 15th 2006, 11:36 PM

Please consider the following two verses which are in reference to the same event:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:31).

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

This is what Dee Dee says:
[/size]
Dee Dee says that the Lord Jesus began to reign when He ascended into heaven,and she thinks that Daniel 7:13-14 supports her position.

But in order to believe her ideas we must believe that when the Lord Jesus spoke of His "coming in glory" that He was really speaking of Him "coming up"!

If the Lord wanted to convey the idea that He was "coming up" then why didn't He say "when He goes in His glory" instead of saying "when He come in His glory"?

This is just another demonstration that Dee Dee is able to part company with her "reason" if it is necessary in order to cling to her fables.She doesn't know whether she herself is coming or going and she surely doesn't know if the Lord is coming or going.

"Coming UP".What a laugh!

In Christ,
Mickey

Here we go again. The reason Christ said "coming into his glory" is because he was deliberately using Danielic language so his disciples would understand him within that context. That is why he constantly referred to himself as the "son of man."

And speaking of fables, at least Dee Dee's "fables", if they were such a thing, are innocent. Your "fables", however, are much more dangerous. You deny essentials, such as the continuing incrnation of Christ, and still continue to criticize Dee Dee's position, which has been defended far better than yours. Your derogatory and mocking attitude has stripped your posts of any semblance of Christian discussion, and I will no longer respond to someone who mocks a friend and avid defender of the historic faith delivered once to the saints.

Mickey

June 15th 2006, 11:58 PM

Here we go again. The reason Christ said "coming into his glory" is because he was deliberately using Danielic language so his disciples would understand him within that context.
So were the Apostles also using "Danielic language" when they asked Him:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mt.24:3).

Were they really asking Him for the signs of His "going" by using "Danielic language"?

And if Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 25:31 are in reference to His acending into heaven then how do you explain the fact that this "coming"(or "going") happens after the great tribulation?:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:29,30).

According to the preterists the "great tribulation" did not occur until AD 70,many years after the Lord ascended into heaven.

How can you explain that?

In Christ,
Mickey

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 16th 2006, 11:59 AM

So were the Apostles also using "Danielic language" when they asked Him:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mt.24:3).

Were they really asking Him for the signs of His "going" by using "Danielic language"?

And if Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 25:31 are in reference to His acending into heaven then how do you explain the fact that this "coming"(or "going") happens after the great tribulation?:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:29,30).

According to the preterists the "great tribulation" did not occur until AD 70,many years after the Lord ascended into heaven.

How can you explain that?

In Christ,
Mickey
Typical Mickey reasponse.

Mickey: "What about the thrones?"
L, Darth Xena, et al.: Here is the answer.
Mickey: "What about the thrones?"
L, Darth Xena, et al.: Here is the answer.
Mickey: "What about the thrones?"
L, Darth Xena, et al.: Here is the answer.
Mickey: "What about the thrones?"
L, Darth Xena, et al.: Here is the answer.

Once it finally becomes clear, even to Mickey that his question has been answered, he does not refute the answer, does not even acknowledge the answer, but goes on to the next question. I call this the "yeah, but....." debate method.

A person asks a question, that question is answered (and usually answered well), instead of the questioner addressing or acknowledging the answer, thy ask yet another question.

So Mickey, I will answer your question (it is quite easy, and I know it has been addressed at TWeb before), but only if you agree to answer my question too.

Do you now see that the thrones you were asking about could be (not have to be, but just could be) talking about positions of power and not literal physical thrones? Yes or no? If no, please provide a reason for your answer.

:deal: ?

Mickey

June 16th 2006, 03:04 PM

Once it finally becomes clear, even to Mickey that his question has been answered, he does not refute the answer, does not even acknowledge the answer, but goes on to the next question. I call this the "yeah, but....." debate method.
I answered Dee Dee's response.She was saying that the Scriptures reveal not just one "throne" in heaven,but instead "thrones".

I then asked her if one of those thrones is the throne of the Lord Jesus then why is He not sitting in that throne.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne"(Rev.3:21).

The point that I raised with Dee Dee is the fact that the Lord Jesus is not now sitting in His throne but instead the throne of His Father.And since Dee Dee could not answer that she felt like she must say something,whether or not it addressed my point.And then she said that there is more than one throne in heaven.

That did not answer my point.But you say:
A person asks a question, that question is answered (and usually answered well)
She did not answer my question,much less answer it "well".She ignored my point and went to some verse that has nothing at all to do as to why the Lord Jesus is not now sitting at His own throne.
...instead of the questioner addressing or acknowledging the answer, thy ask yet another question.
I asked the same question again because she never answered that question.
So Mickey, I will answer your question (it is quite easy, and I know it has been addressed at TWeb before), but only if you agree to answer my question too.

Do you now see that the thrones you were asking about could be (not have to be, but just could be) talking about positions of power and not literal physical thrones? Yes or no? If no, please provide a reason for your answer.
Yes,they could be speaking about "positions of power".And if the Lord Jesus is now in the position of power in regard to a kindom that is on earth then He would be the one sitting in the position of power.

But now He is now at the right hand of the Father,and it is the Father Who is in the position of power,and not the Lord Jesus.

In Christ,
Mickey

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 16th 2006, 03:44 PM

Yes,they could be speaking about "positions of power".And if the Lord Jesus is now in the position of power in regard to a kindom that is on earth then He would be the one sitting in the position of power.

Good.

But now He is now at the right hand of the Father,and it is the Father Who is in the position of power,and not the Lord Jesus.

No, he is now ruling now:

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

God the Son is reigning now and will hand over rule to God the Father "at the end" when all enemies are put under His feet.

Mickey

June 16th 2006, 04:00 PM

No, he is now ruling now:

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Paul is speaking about the "future" in those verses.He says "when He SHALL HAVE put down all rule and authority".Paul is not using the present tense but instead HE is speaking about the "future".
God the Son is reigning now and will hand over rule to God the Father "at the end" when all enemies are put under His feet.
The Lord Jesus Himself said that He will not sit upon His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(1Cor.15:31).

In Christ,
Mickey

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 16th 2006, 04:08 PM

Paul is speaking about the "future" in those verses.He says "when He SHALL HAVE put down all rule and authority".Paul is not using the present tense but instead HE is speaking about the "future".

Yes he is. Christ is reigning now and will continue to reign until he puts all enemies under his feet.

But more importantly Paul is not talking about some idealic mellinial reign either, as there are obviously "enemies" (plural) to be subdued.

The Lord Jesus Himself said that He will not sit upon His throne until He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(1Cor.15:31).

Which happened in AD 70.

Mickey

June 16th 2006, 05:36 PM

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 16th 2006, 08:00 PM

The Apostles asked the Lord Jesus about the signs of the "coming" of the Lord Jesus (Mt.24:3).

He then answered,and said:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(1Cor.15:31).

And you say that that happened in AD 70:

What evidence can you provide that proves that the Lord Jesus "came" to earth in AD 70 and at that time sat on His throne?

You have already seen the evidence as witnessed by your next statement:

Dee Dee says that His "coming" was really a "coming up" that happened when He ascended into heaven.But no one has ever answered the following.If Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 25:31 are in reference to His acending into heaven then I wonder how she can explain the fact that this "coming" happens after the great tribulation?:

:strawman:

You either totally misunderstood Dee Dee OR are intentionally mistrepresenting her. Either way, it would be a waste of my time to provide a substantive answer.

I can quote Dee Dee to show that your understanding of what she said is incorrect:

However, they then state that the "coming" is disconnected from the rest of the passage and refers to the yet future Second Coming. This cannot be done. The passage says that "immediately after the tribulation of those days" this event would happen, and guess what? Immediately means immediately

So Dee Dee clearly sees the "coming" in verse 30 as happening 'immediately after the tribulation".

And by the way, you made a mistake above when you cited this verse:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(1Cor.15:31)."

It is really Mt. 25:31. It was a mistake. I understand. I make them too. No big deal.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:29,30).

According to the preterists the "great tribulation" did not occur until AD 70,many years after the Lord ascended into heaven.

And Dee Dee explains this quite well in her commentary:

Now if we grant that this is not the bodily coming from the sky of the Second Coming, but rather the event that I have just painstakingly laid out, then it is not that His coming "happens" precisely at that moment, it is at that moment that "they will see." Does "seeing" require then a physical appearance of Christ? No. They will see His coming in the smoldering ruins of the apostate city in whom the blood of the prophets were shed.

So even if the "coming" were the assention. (a position I myself do not hold, at least not as it relates to v. 30) it is possible that the coming happended at the assention, but it was not "seen" by the Jews until it was manifested by the covenantal judgment against Jerusalem.

So it is your misunderstanding of Dee Dee's position that creats this perceived "problem". But that is OK. I sometimes misunderstand the writings of others. I am sure you will play the man and admit that this was an honest misunderstanding.

Since I see that Dee Dee is now on the "Eschatology 201" forum perhaps she will clear this up for us.

No need. I already cleared it up. (Something that you could have done with a simple reading of her commentary on Mt. 24:30, why you did not do that first I don't know)

ThirstyServant

June 16th 2006, 09:01 PM

I've become a bit lost in this thread and the order in which things have come up, so I will just reply like this. First of all, Dee Dee, I'd like to apologize for the tone I took in my initial post in this thread. That was uncalled for. Forgive me. The whole idea of the preterist viewpoint of prophecy is totally foreign to me, the first time I ever even heard it suggested was yesterday when Ross and I spoke. I've always been taught it and believed it to be a certain way, and so when I suddenly realized that other people were so off-course in relation to where I stand, I felt as if the very foundation on which we both seem to be drawing our beliefs was twisted and that caused me to react harshly. I'm sorry, and I hope you get better soon.

I think you were right in saying that this isn't an "essential" of Christianity, so it's nothing to get angry or overly frustrated about. But, it is significant. So I want to ask a few questions and try to understand your perspective of the topic at hand, because as of right now, I simply don't understand how the prophecies in question fit into your view of their fulfillment.

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

In your view, how and when did this happen? Are there any records of this mark being administered, or anyone being beheaded for not accepting it? And who was the second beast that this chapter speaks of?

I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

When did this happen? And was it an earthquake just in Jerusalem, that because of how it affected things, it figuratively shook the whole earth, or did it actually shake the whole earth?

All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God

Are these also figurative thrones that the angels stood around and fell down before?

The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water— the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter. The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.

My question, as I'm sure you guessed, is how and when did this happen?

The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them. The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.

When did these locusts appear?

And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth. But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here." And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on. At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Who were these two witnesses, what exactly did they do, when were they killed, did they or did they not literally rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven, and when did this severe earthquake occur. Are there any records of any of these things happening?

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Who is this beast, and more importantly, did he actually have authority over every tribe, people, language and nation? And did all of the inhabitants of earth worship this beast, save those who are saved and have their names written in the book of life?

Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries."

When did all of this happen, and when did Babylon fall?

The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, "It is done!" Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

Did the city actually spread into 3 parts? And did the cities of the nations collapse? Did this happen?

Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again. The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.

Were all of the nations led astray by Babylon, and have all of these things remained true as this chapter predicts?

I will stop with the questions right there, because you have said that some preterists believe that both Revelation 19 and 20 are still ongoing so I will not bother to deal with those. My questions only ask whether or not all of those things have come to pass.

Here is an excerpt from a book called Charting the End Times by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, from a chapter called "The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25)" in a section regarding The Tribulation.

Beginning with Matthew 24:9 Jesus gives a brief description of the Tribulation period, which is described in more detail in Revelation 4-19 and limited to seven years, according to both Daniel and John. Matthew 24:9-14 covers the first half of the Tribulation, and verses 15-26 describe the second half, also known as "The Great Tribulation." Obviously, the second half will be worse than the first half. One of the most significant means of identifying that period is our Lord's statement in verse 21 - the events of that time will be worse than anything that has ever happened in the history of the world. Those who hold to the preterist viewpoint of prophecy believe all this trauma was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but there are three problems with their view, in addition to the fact that the Temple was not desecrated as Jesus said in verse 15. Though the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was bad, it does not compare to the two world wars that killed over 20 million people, as well as the Jewish Holocaust. Secondly, Jesus did not come physically in A.D. 70 as He promised or as the angels promised in Acts 1:9-11. And third, preterists cannot prove John wrote Revelation seven years before the fall of Jerusalem. Rather, he wrote Revelation in A.D. 95 while exiled to the Isle of Patmos, which is what the church has always believed. That alone renders preterism impossible, for Revelation is all about things to come, or a time yet future.

I will leave you with that.

- Travis

dizzle

June 16th 2006, 09:09 PM

Thirsty the last two days at work have been so crazy! I never hesitate though or wait to post something nice, so I didn't want to delay posting my thanks for your apology. And I understand, the viewpoint can seem very foreign. Hopefully in a bit even if you don't agree, you will understand a bit more where folks like me (and folks like Hank Hanegraaff by the way, I do not know if you were aware that he holds this same viewpoint) are coming from. If that happens, that is a good thing. Oh, and also and FYI, R.C. Sproul also holds this view. I am not trying to name-drop, I just wanted to give you some assurance that there are folks you would have heard of that are credible that would agree. (and also as an FYI, if you go back to the older commentaries, meaning 1700s and 1800s, they have a lot of preterist positions in them. It is not a new view. Hopefully speak to you some more soon.

Mickey

June 16th 2006, 11:04 PM

You either totally misunderstood Dee Dee OR are intentionally mistrepresenting her.
Faramir,

I neither misunderstood Dee Dee nor did I intentionally misrepresent her.Let us first take this verse:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

In speaking of the "judgment mentioned in Matthew 25:31" she said:
Additionally, I have already proven that the "coming" described is NOT a coming to earth but an enthronement in Heaven. The "coming of the Son of man in His Kingdom" is absolutely equated with "sitting on the throne of His glory" to exercise His dominion and judgment among the nations beginning with the apostates who crucified Him.[emphasis mine]
And this:
But.... did the first century people "see" Christ coming on the clouds?? …Jesus is making a clear allusion to the "Son of Man" imagery in Daniel 7:13-14. That passage is not describing a "coming" to touch DOWN on Earth but a "coming" UP to the Ancient of Days in vindication and victory to receive the Kingdom.
Here Dee Dee is speaking of "seeing Christ coming on the clouds":

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:31).

Dee Dee's reference to the "going up" to the Ancient of Days must refer to the ascension of the Lord Jesus into heaven.And He had already gone up to the Ancient of Days well before AD 70,the year that the preterists say that the "great tribulation" occured.

But the verses that Dee Dee says are in regard to the beginning of the kingdom did not happen until AFTER the great tribulation:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:29,30).

So the verses which Dee Dee says are in regard to the Lord Jesus going up to the Ancient of Days happened AFTER the "great tribulation".

But the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven and was sitting at the right hand of the Father many years before the "great tribulation".

I wonder how she can explain that.

In Christ,
Mickey

dizzle

June 17th 2006, 01:03 AM

Mickey if you are going to quote a work, first, give a link and a title. I don't give you permission to cite my work without its reference. Second, if you are going to quote a work, it is incumbent upon you to READ it. You cannot cherry-pick comments and act as if your issue wasn't addressed for indeed I dealt directly with that issue in that very work. Are you that irresponsible with other sources you use?

Mickey

June 17th 2006, 01:48 AM

Mickey if you are going to quote a work, first, give a link and a title.
Are you denying that you said those things?
I don't give you permission to cite my work without its reference.
I do not need to have permission from you to quote from another site,a site that you do not own or have control over.
Second, if you are going to quote a work, it is incumbent upon you to READ it.
I read it,Dee Dee.Why don't you address your own words?
You cannot cherry-pick comments and act as if your issue wasn't addressed for indeed I dealt directly with that issue in that very work.
I only quoted your words on the subject we have been discusing.And if you did deal with it directly then why don't you tell tell us how you did that?
Are you that irresponsible with other sources you use?
I have as much right to quote from that source as you do.

Why don't you address your own words,Dee Dee?

You have the Lord's ascension happening almost forty years after it actually happened.And in order to do that you have to have the Lord "coming up"!

In Christ,
Mickey

Chief of Staff Lizard

June 17th 2006, 10:06 AM