We are given in Isaiah 17:1-4 a prophecy of the destruction of the city of Damascus:

Isaiah 17:1-4(NLT)

This message came to me concerning Damascus:"Look, Damascus will disappear! It will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted. Sheep will graze in the streets and lie down unafraid. There will be no one to chase them away. The fortified cities of Israel will also be destroyed, and the power of Damascus will end. The few left in Aram will share the fate of Israel's departed glory," says the LORD Almighty. "In that day the glory of Israel will be very dim, for poverty will stalk the land."

Two things stand out about this prophecy. The first is the prediction of Damascus' utter destruction. A Google of Damascus will quickly yield that Damascus is the world's oldest continuosly-inhabited city. Because of this, Isaiah's prophecy of the city's demise is a prime target for skeptics looking for unfulfilled prophecies.

The second thing that stands out is that the nation of Israel plays a major role in this. How can this be, according to a preterist paradigm? God has substituted Israel with the Body of Christ! But where are this new Israel's fortified cities? The body of Christ's refuge is Christ Himself, and to suggest He might be destroyed is blasphemy.

The only paradigm in which this prophecy makes any sense is one which recognizes the Nation of Israel as an entity that God is not yet finished with.

Two things stand out about this prophecy. The first is the prediction of Damascus' utter destruction. A Google of Damascus will quickly yield that Damascus is the world's oldest continuosly-inhabited city. Because of this, Isaiah's prophecy of the city's demise is a prime target for skeptics looking for unfulfilled prophecies.

Try not to be so literal and look at from the perspective of the literature being used. Hyperbole is a common tool used in the prophets writings.

Also it was sacked and the people were taken away (2 kings 16.9, 17.6, 18.10)

The second thing that stands out is that the nation of Israel plays a major role in this. How can this be, according to a preterist paradigm? God has substituted Israel with the Body of Christ! But where are this new Israel's fortified cities? The body of Christ's refuge is Christ Himself, and to suggest He might be destroyed is blasphemy.

Ya, this was fulfilled. Remember Isaiah was a pre-exile prophet and the bulk of his writings about Israel were in regard to the Exile and its return. The walled cities were common in Isaiah day and thats all he is talking about.

The only paradigm in which this prophecy makes any sense is one which recognizes the Nation of Israel as an entity that God is not yet finished with.

Thats quite a leap of (bad) logic.

Oh, gee, thank you, studyhound! I made a wager with myself that the first thing out of a preterist's mouth on this issue would be an accusation of being too literal and/or an attempt to convince me the meaning of the passage should be spiritualized. Thanks to you, I won that bet!

Originally posted by Brother Drizzt

Oh, gee, thank you, studyhound! I made a wager with myself that the first thing out of a preterist's mouth on this issue would be an accusation of being too literal and/or an attempt to convince me the meaning of the passage should be spiritualized. Thanks to you, I won that bet!

LOL Well when you stack the deck full of jokers....

Care to replyto my first post or just this?

Originally posted by studyhound

LOL Well when you stack the deck full of jokers....

Care to replyto my first post or just this?

I'll get to it.

The title of this thread is preposterous.

Preterism doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation of most OT prophecies like this one if I'm not mistaken. Mostly the prophecies in the New Testament.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Preterism doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation of most OT prophecies.

Yeah, like the Zechariah passages on the earthly reign of the King

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Yeah, like the Zechariah passages on the earthly reign of the King

*cough* Notice he said it doesn't have anythin to do with the interpretation of most of the OT prophecies.

Sorry I invited the Preterist wolves to dance, now. My being able to guess the tactics the Preterists would use is no huge task; I've witnessed it time and again. Any verse or passage that would prove problematic to their paradigm is simply reinterpreted to fit their skewed view. The inherent dishonesty in the preterist hermeneutic is such that an opponent can never hope to win because the preterist changes the rules to suit.

As to,

Originally posted by A Cup Of No

The title of this thread is preposterous.

You're right. There can be no problem in a malleable theology.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Preterism doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation of most OT prophecies like this one if I'm not mistaken. Mostly the prophecies in the New Testament.

But they have to spititualize away the existence of the Nation of Israel for prophecies that haven't been fulfilled yet, or their paradigm collapses.

Originally posted by Brother Drizzt

Sorry I invited the Preterist wolves to dance, now. My being able to guess the tactics the Preterists would use is no huge task; I've witnessed it time and again. Any verse or passage that would prove problematic to their paradigm is simply reinterpreted to fit their skewed view. The inherent dishonesty in the preterist hermeneutic is such that an opponent can never hope to win because the preterist changes the rules to suit.

As to,



You're right. There can be no problem in a malleable theology.

Any verse of passage that would prove problematic to the futurist paradigm is simply reinterpreted to fit their skewed view. The inherent dishonesty in the futurist hermeneutic is such that an opponent can never hope to win because the futurists change the rules to suit.

That's a fairly nice bashing of preterism, but it actually didn't deal with studyhound's comment. And preterists do not *spiritualize* anything. If something was meant to be taken symbolically, what is the merit in taking it literally? Futurists have to "spiritualize" time texts or their paradigm collapses! See? We can both take potshots at the position, but it doesn't do much.

Originally posted by A Cup of No

Any verse of passage that would prove problematic to the futurist paradigm is simply reinterpreted to fit their skewed view. The inherent dishonesty in the futurist hermeneutic is such that an opponent can never hope to win because the futurists change the rules to suit.

That's a fairly nice bashing of preterism, but it actually didn't deal with studyhound's comment. And preterists do not *spiritualize* anything. If something was meant to be taken symbolically, what is the merit in taking it literally? Futurists have to "spiritualize" time texts or their paradigm collapses! See? We can both take potshots at the position, but it doesn't do much.

I'll bite. Show me something futurists have to spiritualize.

Nah, never mind. Preterism's of the devil, and I like my freedom. 'Nuff said.

Whatever you say...