The Appeal of Preterism

[Dante]

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

[shazeep]

oh, man--here we go...

[Sean]

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.




Im so sorry to hear that. You should read this.


http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Full%20Preterism%20Resurrection.htm

[jfrog]

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Well, all the current interpretations are more reactive than predictive. Something happens and they go out in droves to see if anything in the bible sounds like the event was predicted.

Preterism at least involved people actually taking heed of a prophetic warning and it worked for them! That's much more amazing than how bible prophecies are currently considered by the established crowd.

[TJJJ]

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

[houston]

Good grief

[Sean]

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.



Well whatever you decide to believe in the middle of the road. It needs a name...howabout dramatic/cyclicism?

[jfrog]

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

Interesting thoughts.

[Dante]

Preterism is far more systematically consistent than any other formulation of eschatology.

[Michael The Disciple]

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

[Sean]

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/pdf/2001_green_mp-critique.pdf

Michael, unless you are already into preterism(set in stone), you should check out this link.

I will not teach anything that has this much inconsistency. This, according to this website could be a heretical doctrine sweeping the churches in these last days. Most folks I am seeing are not looking at the negative side of it, only the positive. If you or I choose to "teach" a doctrine that is heretical, we will "oficially" become HERETICS, by Bible standards.

You owe it to yourself to research it well, before you make the final decision of what to teach...

[Luke]

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/pdf/2001_green_mp-critique.pdf

Michael, unless you are already into preterism(set in stone), you should check out this link.

I will not teach anything that has this much inconsistency. This, according to this website could be a heretical doctrine sweeping the churches in these last days. Most folks I am seeing are not looking at the negative side of it, only the positive. If you or I choose to "teach" a doctrine that is heretical, we will "oficially" become HERETICS, by Bible standards.

You owe it to yourself to research it well, before you make the final decision of what to teach...

Michael is a post trib believer not a preterist unless i have really missed something in his post.

[TGBTG]

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hilarious. If you think that's the appeal of preterism, then you do not understand the preterist view point (regardless of its flaws)

First, pre-trib has way more in common with post-trib than preterism. The only difference between both views is when the rapture occurs. Everything else is virtually the same (as far as their interpretation of Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, Daniel 7-12, and the book of Revelation)

As for preterism, its appeal is mainly due to the fact that the interpretation is from a 1st century perspective. In other words, how the original recipients of the book of Revelations would have understood the message? (not interpreting from a 21st century perspective)

Take for instance, when the writer in Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him..." How would the original audience have understood it?
Would they have said, "sure those that pierced him will be alive for 2000 years, so this ain't gonna happen for a very long time..." or would they have thought "this event would happen soon, since those that pierced him would still be alive at his coming to see him."

How about when it says "Behold, I am coming soon..." How would the original recipients have understood it? If "soon" means for not for another 2000 years, then language has lost its meaning...lol

Both views have inconsistencies. Both views have to face the cognitive dissonance associated with their view, of course, that's an entire different can of worms. At least, each camp should acknowledge its inconsistency instead of ignoring it and berating that of the other camp.

[jfrog]

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hilarious. If you think that's the appeal of preterism, then you do not understand the preterist view point (regardless of its flaws)

First, pre-trib has way more in common with post-trib than preterism. The only difference between both views is when the rapture occurs. Everything else is virtually the same (as far as their interpretation of Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, Daniel 7-12, and the book of Revelation)

As for preterism, its appeal is mainly due to the fact that the interpretation is from a 1st century perspective. In other words, how the original recipients of the book of Revelations would have understood the message? (not interpreting from a 21st century perspective)

Take for instance, when the writer in Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him..." How would the original audience have understood it?
Would they have said, "sure those that pierced him will be alive for 2000 years, so this ain't gonna happen for a very long time..." or would they have thought "this event would happen soon, since those that pierced him would still be alive at his coming to see him."

How about when it says "Behold, I am coming soon..." How would the original recipients have understood it? If "soon" means for not for another 2000 years, then language has lost its meaning...lol

Both views have inconsistencies. Both views have to face the cognitive dissonance associated with their view, of course, that's an entire different can of worms. At least, each camp should acknowledge its inconsistency instead of ignoring it and berating that of the other camp.

:yourock

[Sean]

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

[jfrog]

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

I'm a lifetime observer/critic

[Sean]

LOL

[TGBTG]

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

Hahaha...funny you should say that. I was telling my friend I am now an "observer." On a serious note though, as far as coming to a conclusion, how does one come to a conclusion when there are major holes in all the doctrine?

Like I said in another thread, I used to be fully pre-trib (I saw inconsistencies, but figured I would one day be able to reconcile it.) So I would search/study/pray to figure it out. As of now, I see no reconciliation. Matter of fact, I started a thread a while back asking probing questions on both preterism and dispensationalism, for which there were no answers per se.

The obvious truth (IMO) is that preterism and dispensationalism are faced with the same problem, which is "what to do with the last half of Matt 24?"

Both sides agree that the first half of Matt 24 is fulfilled, but the how about the last half?

Preterism says since Jesus said "this generation will not pass away till all these things be fulfilled..." therefore it must have been fulfilled. Since, it was not fulfilled physically, they are forced to spiritualize Jesus' coming, the sun and moon events..etc

On the other hand, dispensationalists say Jesus said his coming would be physically SEEN by all, therefore must be a gap (~2000 years so far..lol) between the first half of matt 24 and the last half, or some hold to double fulfillment of the first half of Matt 24 (of course, double fulfillment negates the fact that Jesus said the tribulation of that magnitude will be a one time event).

In any case, the real issue IMO is the cognitive dissonance both sides of the debate are struggling with.

So, as far as a conclusion, well, for now, I'd say I'm an observer because I find it difficult to teach a doctrine as truth when it is obviously & blatantly wrong, but that's just me.

[TGBTG]

Sean

Here's the thread where I posted some probing questions to the different view points. Feel free to respond to the question(s) directed at the dispensationalists.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=44467

[Sean]

Michael is a post trib believer not a preterist unless i have really missed something in his post.




Thanks, Luke...Sorry Michael, I might have interpreted that post as what you believe. Maybe, clarify?

[TGBTG]

Thanks, Luke...Sorry Michael, I might have interpreted that post as what you believe. Maybe, clarify?

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

:)

[Sean]

Hahaha...funny you should say that. I was telling my friend I am now an "observer." On a serious note though, as far as coming to a conclusion, how does one come to a conclusion when there are major holes in all the doctrine?

Like I said in another thread, I used to be fully pre-trib (I saw inconsistencies, but figured I would one day be able to reconcile it.) So I would search/study/pray to figure it out. As of now, I see no reconciliation. Matter of fact, I started a thread a while back asking probing questions on both preterism and dispensationalism, for which there were no answers per se.

The obvious truth (IMO) is that preterism and dispensationalism are faced with the same problem, which is "what to do with the last half of Matt 24?"

Both sides agree that the first half of Matt 24 is fulfilled, but the how about the last half?

Preterism says since Jesus said "this generation will not pass away till all these things be fulfilled..." therefore it must have been fulfilled. Since, it was not fulfilled physically, they are forced to spiritualize Jesus' coming, the sun and moon events..etc

On the other hand, dispensationalists say Jesus said his coming would be physically SEEN by all, therefore must be a gap (~2000 years so far..lol) between the first half of matt 24 and the last half, or some hold to double fulfillment of the first half of Matt 24 (of course, double fulfillment negates the fact that Jesus said the tribulation of that magnitude will be a one time event).

In any case, the real issue IMO is the cognitive dissonance both sides of the debate are struggling with.

So, as far as a conclusion, well, for now, I'd say I'm an observer because I find it difficult to teach a doctrine as truth when it is obviously & blatantly wrong, but that's just me.



Thanks bro. I dont know if you have followed my debates with the guys on the Matt 24 thread, But, I laid out the passages of Matt. and Luke in a easily understandable format with very little paraphrasing. If you have not seen it, I can direct you to it or post it.

I think that if anyone is confused on this subject, the "safest" position is to take the simple words of the Bible literally, and use the least amount of "symbolism" as possible. Anytime we start "symbolizing" passages, we are flirting with heresy. I symbolize a few things, but very carefully, with reservation, the least I can.

For instance, in Rev., John saw armies on horses. If he would have seen modern military equipment, he would be at a loss for words(like tank, aircraft, explosions etc.) The vision simply meant he saw a war. The Lord let him see things he could actually explain with his own vocabulary, but obviously we do not use horses and swords these days.



I believe that the greatest heresy that the Preterist movement is doing to our Bible, is effectively eliminating the book of Rev. to the modern day church as written to another group of believers. (Its just a good ol history book to them).

They way they attempt to explain the prophecies of Jesus concerning His 2nd coming are just comical. They almost call it a parable(allegory)!!!

Brother, I have a ministry that includes teaching teachers how to teach...

That is why I asked you to "make the call" and figure out the safest way to teach eschatology and just teach it with all confidence.

God bless...

[TGBTG]

Thanks bro. I dont know if you have followed my debates with the guys on the Matt 24 thread, But, I laid out the passages of Matt. and Luke in a easily understandable format with very little paraphrasing. If you have not seen it, I can direct you to it or post it.
I have followed it. It has its major holes, but I didn't really want to get involved in that debate because it might come across as if I was defending preterism. My stance is that both dispensationalism and preterism have major holes.
Having said that, I would try to go respond to your layout in that thread...lol

I think that if anyone is confused on this subject, the "safest" position is to take the simple words of the Bible literally, and use the least amount of "symbolism" as possible. Anytime we start "symbolizing" passages, we are flirting with heresy.
Everyone symbolizes whether they like it or not on the parts that don't fit into their doctrine. Since you're a pre-trib, I'll give you some.

1. What does "Behold I am coming SOON" mean (Rev 22:7,12)?
Considering the time this was written, how do you interpret SOON?

Do you take SOON to mean literally? (the preterist does...)

2. How about Rev 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

How do you interpret "those who pierced him being alive to see his coming?" Do you take it literally? (the preterist does...)

3. How about this "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth... Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev 3:7-11)

Did the church in Philadelphia witness his coming? Do you take that literally? (the preterist does...)


I symbolize a few things, but very carefully, with reservation, the least I can.
See above...I can give you a whole lot more of symbolism innate to dispensationalism that you probably don't even realize because you're reading the text already from a dispensationalist view not a neutral view.

For instance, in Rev., John saw armies on horses. If he would have seen modern military equipment, he would be at a loss for words(like tank, aircraft, explosions etc.) The vision simply meant he saw a war. The Lord let him see things he could actually explain with his own vocabulary, but obviously we do not use horses and swords these days.
That's one you see. Good. How about this?
Do you believe the mark of the beast to be literal? most dispensationalists I know believe it to be literal, yet the beast itself is not believed to be literal.

How about the 7 churches of Revelation? are they literal or symbolic or both?
The preterist takes it as literal...what do you think?

I believe that the greatest heresy that the Preterist movement is doing to our Bible, is effectively eliminating the book of Rev. to the modern day church as written to another group of believers. (Its just a good ol history book to them).
No, on the contrary preterism actually seeks to proof that Jesus is who he claims he is because (according to them), everything He said would happen in the first century happened thus proving Jesus is the Messiah.

N.B. I am not a preterist, I just think its strengths are more than that of dispensationalism.

They way they attempt to explain the prophecies of Jesus concerning His 2nd coming are just comical. They almost call it a parable(allegory)!!!
Lol...like I said above, there's a lot of allegory in your position also, but you might not realize it because it's innate to your position.
Here's another one for you:
Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Literal or symbolic?? (and please, don't even say it was the transfiguration 8 days after as some dispensationalists teach...lol). Remember verse 27 says when He comes, he'll reward every man and then right after, it says "there'll be some standing here who would not die..." So do you take vs 28 literally?

Brother, I have a ministry that includes teaching teachers how to teach...

That is why I asked you to "make the call" and figure out the safest way to teach eschatology and just teach it with all confidence.

God bless...
Are you saying I should teach with all confidence something that I can see is not coherent?? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

[Sean]

I have followed it. It has its major holes, but I didn't really want to get involved in that debate because it might come across as if I was defending preterism. My stance is that both dispensationalism and preterism have major holes.
Having said that, I would try to go respond to your layout in that thread...lol


Everyone symbolizes whether they like it or not on the parts that don't fit into their doctrine. Since you're a pre-trib, I'll give you some.

As I said, bro. I do "symbolize" some things, realizing that I may be errant, so I dont teach it as 'set in stone"

1. What does "Behold I am coming SOON" mean (Rev 22:7,12)?
Considering the time this was written, how do you interpret SOON?

There are 2 trains of thought I may use depending on the context, one is "quickly"(momentarily..ie...in the twinkling of an eye) and the other is to the Lord in eternity, soon is really no time at all(1,000 years as a day) for instance.

Do you take SOON to mean literally? (the preterist does...)

My way is still a literal view, but it is through Gods perspective

2. How about Rev 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

How do you interpret "those who pierced him being alive to see his coming?" Do you take it literally? (the preterist does...)

Absolutely, all will see him and wail in the earth. It includes the Jewish decendants(they also which pierced him) and Gentiles. The Jewish race is big time marginalized by The Lord in the book of Revelation.

3. How about this "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth... Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev 3:7-11)

Did the church in Philadelphia witness his coming? Do you take that literally? (the preterist does...)


This is what I posted on the rapture thread. There are 3 ways to view Revelation...#1 Literally, #2 Spiriturally and #3 Dispensationally.
Dispensationally speaking, the 'Philadelphian" church of modern days is the will of God for us today. verse 10, will even get them "raptured". These 7 churches are still relevant to us today.



See above...I can give you a whole lot more of symbolism innate to dispensationalism that you probably don't even realize because you're reading the text already from a dispensationalist view not a neutral view.


That's one you see. Good. How about this?
Do you believe the mark of the beast to be literal? most dispensationalists I know believe it to be literal, yet the beast itself is not believed to be literal.

It is a "literal" mark, however the beast is obviously symbolizing something,a "literal" something(or a man). This is what I mean about folks using"sensationalistic" rationale to make this bigger than it is. Even from Irvin Baxter, he is a "sensationalist". I will not say what this literal mark or beast is(other than a man), just only that is "literal". You cant go wrong with that interpretation.


How about the 7 churches of Revelation? are they literal or symbolic or both?
The preterist takes it as literal...what do you think?

I mentioned it above


No, on the contrary preterism actually seeks to proof that Jesus is who he claims he is because (according to them), everything He said would happen in the first century happened thus proving Jesus is the Messiah.

N.B. I am not a preterist, I just think its strengths are more than that of dispensationalism.


Lol...like I said above, there's a lot of allegory in your position also, but you might not realize it because it's innate to your position.
Here's another one for you:
Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Literal or symbolic?? (and please, don't even say it was the transfiguration 8 days after as some dispensationalists teach...lol). Remember verse 27 says when He comes, he'll reward every man and then right after, it says "there'll be some standing here who would not die..." So do you take vs 28 literally?


Literal, Judas was still there with them, and the "coming in His kingdom" is the Acts 2 experience. I dont even know if those in my camp agree with me on that one, but the KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT MEAT AND DRINK, BUT RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST...(He just did not want to single out Judas at that time).


Are you saying I should teach with all confidence something that I can see is not coherent?? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?



Well bro. eschatology is part of the gospel. We should be well versed in our gospel message.....

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[jfrog]

Well bro. eschatology is part of the gospel. We should be well versed in our gospel message.....

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

He just pointed out about 20 differenet holes in your eschatology ship... He also pointed out about 20 different holes in the preterist eschatology ship... you really think it'd be wise for him to get on either of those boats just so he could say he's on a boat?

[TGBTG]

As I said, bro. I do "symbolize" some things, realizing that I may be errant, so I dont teach it as 'set in stone"
Which was why I said everyone symbolizes to fit their doctrine. It just so happens that some of the things you take literally, the preterit symbolizes. But at least you acknowledge you could be wrong...which is good IMO.


There are 2 trains of thought I may use depending on the context, one is "quickly"(momentarily..ie...in the twinkling of an eye) and the other is to the Lord in eternity, soon is really no time at all(1,000 years as a day) for instance.


My way is still a literal view, but it is through Gods perspective
Ha..."two trains of thought depending on the context..." I think the context here is pretty obvious (given the original audience)...and yes, the 1000 years as a day is the famous dispensationalist line. What is ignored is the audience is supposed to understand the warning else, what's the point of warning of them of a soon coming?

Absolutely, all will see him and wail in the earth. It includes the Jewish decendants(they also which pierced him) and Gentiles. The Jewish race is big time marginalized by The Lord in the book of Revelation.
Ha..the classic response.."the Jewish race." Again, interpreting based on a 21st century perspective. Let's think about it: the writer of Revelation was Jewish. Do you think he meant the Jewish descendants or actually the group of people that pierced him? Was it all Jews that pierced him? obviously not. The earliest christians were Jews, so are you now going to say the descendants of only the Jews that pierced him? Also, was it all gentiles that pierced him? obviously not. The context shows that those that pierced him were the ones that crucified him...Of course, this presents an issue for dispy, hence the re-interpretation of the text to mean Jewish descendants.

The Jewish descendants pierced him no more than the native americans in the Americas did...


This is what I posted on the rapture thread. There are 3 ways to view Revelation...#1 Literally, #2 Spiriturally and #3 Dispensationally.
Dispensationally speaking, the 'Philadelphian" church of modern days is the will of God for us today. verse 10, will even get them "raptured". These 7 churches are still relevant to us today.
So you view some parts of revelation "dispensationally" and some part like the mark in Rev 13, "literally?" Do you realize you're choosing whatever to fit your doctrine instead of allowing the text to speak for itself?


It is a "literal" mark, however the beast is obviously symbolizing something,a "literal" something(or a man). This is what I mean about folks using"sensationalistic" rationale to make this bigger than it is. Even from Irvin Baxter, he is a "sensationalist". I will not say what this literal mark or beast is(other than a man), just only that is "literal". You cant go wrong with that interpretation.
So here is "literally" but the other is "dispensationally"...this is choosing what fits in order to maintain the pre-trib model.

Literal, Judas was still there with them, and the "coming in His kingdom" is the Acts 2 experience. I dont even know if those in my camp agree with me on that one, but the KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT MEAT AND DRINK, BUT RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST...(He just did not want to single out Judas at that time).
Remember verse 27 says when he comes, he will bring his reward with him for every man. And then He said there'll be some still alive. So the rewards were given in Acts 2?


Well bro. eschatology is part of the gospel. We should be well versed in our gospel message.....

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
I'm still finding the one that is consistent. To me there's no point in preaching something I see is incoherent.

[mfblume]

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

That is a circular manner of reasoning, which is illogical, though. First, the bible has to say there is a future tribulation and that we will go through it before one can say that resistance of such a thought is error. The bible does not plainly spell that out, which is why there are varying views on the issue! Also, more importantly, your reasoning demands that the bible says that doctrines that avoid a great tribulation in their future is a sign of false doctrine, which it does not say. You have, as a result, a position made from deriving conclusions and basing tenets of faith on those derivations that are not laid out in the bible itself.

IMHO, Futurism disregards the correlation between all the gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse as well as the timeframe elements in Revelation that demand it be first century in fulfillment, as well as what Jesus said about Jerusalem in the end of Matt 23 compared with Rev 18:24.

The eschatology of the Bible is far more dependent and focuses on the timeframe of the immediate years following the cross, as it should when one stops to think about it. The worst crime in the world was Christ's own people disowning and killing him in exchange for calling Caesar their king in a spiritual adulterous relationship for which Jerusalem has been known to be a harlot especially noted in Ezekiel 16 time and time again!. No city was ever called a harlot in the bible like Jerusalem was. And if we want to compare bible with bible to understand the harlot and when the trib. occurred, Jerusalem in the first century fits the bible more solidly than any other view.

It makes Revelation a changeover account of the covenants, showing the mopping up God had to do in judging Israel as well as the Kingdom inception that started since the CROSS and not in our future to begin in a so-called "millennial rule."

[Sean]

He just pointed out about 20 differenet holes in your eschatology ship... He also pointed out about 20 different holes in the preterist eschatology ship... you really think it'd be wise for him to get on either of those boats just so he could say he's on a boat?




Well, what are you going to tell souls that you are witnessing to if you have no opinion and they ask what revelations is all about?

Are you going to send them to our debate?

Im just encouraging you to study and make the call, so you can evangelize the gospel. Not just argue the rest of our lives on the internet.

[mfblume]

The greatest thing about preterism that I see is that it teaches a solidly present kingdom without another Kingdom to come in our future. Jesus is on the throne NOW. We're born again into it. We are seated with Him in His throne over all powers. If He is seated over all powers now, then how in the world is there another throne in the future for him to sit upon?

Acts 2, of all chapters where we should understand the kingdom, clearly shows he is on the throne of David seeing that He is king and has descended from David to be king. ALL OTHER VIEWS rob him of that PRESENT ultimate rule and dominion. He is KING NOW! Praise His name!

[Sean]

Which was why I said everyone symbolizes to fit their doctrine. It just so happens that some of the things you take literally, the preterit symbolizes. But at least you acknowledge you could be wrong...which is good IMO.



Ha..."two trains of thought depending on the context..." I think the context here is pretty obvious (given the original audience)...and yes, the 1000 years as a day is the famous dispensationalist line. What is ignored is the audience is supposed to understand the warning else, what's the point of warning of them of a soon coming?

Hey bro. Jesus said He would return, gave them signs and admitted HE HIMSELF did not know when it will be....And the bottom line...He never has returned to this day.


Ha..the classic response.."the Jewish race." Again, interpreting based on a 21st century perspective. Let's think about it: the writer of Revelation was Jewish. Do you think he meant the Jewish descendants or actually the group of people that pierced him? Was it all Jews that pierced him? obviously not. The earliest christians were Jews, so are you now going to say the descendants of only the Jews that pierced him? Also, was it all gentiles that pierced him? obviously not. The context shows that those that pierced him were the ones that crucified him...Of course, this presents an issue for dispy, hence the re-interpretation of the text to mean Jewish descendants.

The Jewish descendants pierced him no more than the native americans in the Americas did...


Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, (and) they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


Hey bro. , just saw that one. About the Gentiles(not the Jews) piercing Jesus. Thank you.
See how easy it is to fix this...That will help me greatly in a lesson.
But the rest is obviously futuristic, because it just did not literally happen yet. Again, thank you for pointing that out.


So you view some parts of revelation "dispensationally" and some part like the mark in Rev 13, "literally?" Do you realize you're choosing whatever to fit your doctrine instead of allowing the text to speak for itself?


Well, the "alternative" is to ignore it having any relevance to me and treat it like O.T. history(preterism)...I realize I did not invent my theology, but it must be taught some way some how. I have to look at the best model of eschatology that I can find and teach it until I can find some better model. Otherwise, we can just be like the Pope, who said the book of Revelation is too difficult to understand, so he discourages Catholics from reading it.



So here is "literally" but the other is "dispensationally"...this is choosing what fits in order to maintain the pre-trib model.


Like I said above...


Remember verse 27 says when he comes, he will bring his reward with him for every man. And then He said there'll be some still alive. So the rewards were given in Acts 2?

Revelation 22:12
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.?????



Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.?????

Is this what you are talking about? Please clarify bro. I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about the "judgement seat of Christ"?





I'm still finding the one that is consistent. To me there's no point in preaching something I see is incoherent.


Well my only suggestion, if I may, is you figure out what your "middle ground" is and start preaching it before you get too old to do it.

[Monterrey]

I got looking at larkins charts again, pre trib dispensationalist, ...

What a joke!

[Sean]

I got looking at larkins charts again, pre trib dispensationalist, ...

What a joke!



Just out of curiosity bro., what do you believe about this subject? Be specific please....

[Sean]

For anyone interested, post 568 and 569 on the "Is Matt. 24 the rapture" thread is available for your reading. It is a categorization of Matt. and Luke with very little commentary by me. Give it a try at least.

[Monterrey]

Just out of curiosity bro., what do you believe about this subject? Be specific please....

Ardent anti-dispensationalist, have been for years.

It is all my parents fault......


























They taught me to read.

[Sean]

Ardent anti-dispensationalist, have been for years.

It is all my parents fault......































































































































































































They taught me to read.




I forgive them...LOL

[mfblume]

This link takes you to a thread where I presented the view that the KINGDOM IS ALREADY IN EFFECT an d WILL NOT BEGIN in our future in a millennium. The MILLENNIAL view also refers to the last dispensation as the KINGDOM DISPENSATION, as if the Kingdom has not come yet. I prove it has in the following, for those interested:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46332

THIS is what appeals to me more than anything about preterism.

[Revelationist]

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

It's more about the two covenants. Preterism is right on the mark, but you should wake up after studying it that it's really Covenant Eschtoligy.

[Revelationist]

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

Living for God out of love and not fear...

[mfblume]

Living for God out of love and not fear...

Exactly. it's as though our brother is trying to tell us that unless a doctrien forces people to serve God out of fear then it must be a false doctrine.

[bkstokes]

Mike, I know Jerusalem is accused by the prophets to having been harlot. However, Rome who also claims a special relationship with God could be accused of committing adultery. Is not Rome the only city set on 7 hills (which would qualify as the harlot of Rev 17-18)?

[votivesoul]

Exactly. it's as though our brother is trying to tell us that unless a doctrien forces people to serve God out of fear then it must be a false doctrine.

I don't think this is what is meant.

I think Michael's position is that preterism is often warmly received by many because of their flesh, in that suffering for the Gospel as a martyr in a future Great Tribulation at the hands of the Beast is so unpalatable, that they refuse to believe anything else.

For them, it's not a truth issue; rather it's just an issue of how easy of a life they want.

[houston]

Mike, I know Jerusalem is accused by the prophets to having been harlot. However, Rome who also claims a special relationship with God could be accused of committing adultery. Is not Rome the only city set on 7 hills (which would qualify as the harlot of Rev 17-18)?:smack

[bkstokes]

My knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem is very limited. First are these are these hills or mountains? Second, it does not appear that the city of Jerusalem is actually built on these seven locations. The biblical text says that the city was built "on" seven hills. Not that the city was built in the midst of 7 hills or mountains.

[Sabby]

My PP position was strengthened over time when the pastor began preaching current events as fulfillment of end-time prophecy, mis-using Mk 13 and Mt 24. What was worse was the glorification of the nation of Israel, and not a peep about our orthodox forbears suffering persecution in the Middle East. It must be because the orthodox are not baptized in Jesus' name!
Wait! Neither is the nation of ISRAEL!
Well, I'll be...

[Sabby]

The toe nails of the iron/clay image are long, man.

[bkstokes]

Sabby, I lean towards PP. It was actually Hank Hanegraaf's (sp ?) book that got me going that way. However, it really seems that the woman who rides the Beast in Revelation refers to the Roman church.

[Sabby]

Another more forceful impression AGAINST Dispensationalism/Futurism was when I had a Bible study involving a Chick Track. Its design was similar to a comic book's and the artistry was well done. The cover showed an ob nurse running through the nursery of a hospital screaming, "The babies are missing!" Man, I had fun with that one...

[Monterrey]

Another more forceful impression AGAINST Dispensationalism/Futurism was when I had a Bible study involving a Chick Track. Its design was similar to a comic book's and the artistry was well done. The cover showed an ob nurse running through the nursery of a hospital screaming, "The babies are missing!" Man, I had fun with that one...




lol!!!!

[mfblume]

I don't think this is what is meant.

I think Michael's position is that preterism is often warmly received by many because of their flesh, in that suffering for the Gospel as a martyr in a future Great Tribulation at the hands of the Beast is so unpalatable, that they refuse to believe anything else.

For them, it's not a truth issue; rather it's just an issue of how easy of a life they want.

I know of no preterist who uttered any such thing. I think only critics of it say that sort of thing. The appeal, as I said, is the overabundance of scriptural support and the correlations of what Jesus said about Jerusalem and, especially, the concept of the present kingdom as opposed to a yet future one in a millennium. Most preterists were STRONG post tribbers beforehand. Not pretrtibbers. And we;ve put up with TRIBULATION from preachers and churches more than any other view of prophecy. lol We do not mind tribulation at all.

[mfblume]

Mike, I know Jerusalem is accused by the prophets to having been harlot. However, Rome who also claims a special relationship with God could be accused of committing adultery. Is not Rome the only city set on 7 hills (which would qualify as the harlot of Rev 17-18)?

Rome is the city with seven hills in Rev 17-18!! I agree. The HARLOT sits on the SEVEN HEADED beast. THE SEVEN HEADS are not part of the woman but the beast whom the woman sits upon. And the woman is JERUSALEM and the BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS/HILLS is Rome. But it is not the ROMAN Catholic church, which was NEVER a bride of God to begin with as the harlot is accused of being. The BEAST IS PAGAN ROME with its Caesars who Jerusalem cried out to be their king instead of Jesus. ROME was in league with the Jews throughout Acts to persecute the church.

Jerusalem is the whore.

Isa 1:21 KJV How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

How can ROME be that?

Read Ezekiel 16. See JERUSALEM called a harlot time and time again!

If you BASE the identity of the HARLOT on the BIBLE, comparing Bible with Bible, JERUSALEM is the only entity that comes to the surface.

Jesus said JERUSALEM was guilty of all blood shed on earth, and that is what was found in the Harlot in Rev 18:24. TWO ENTITIES CANNOT BE GUILTY OF ALL OF THE SAME THING. In Matt 23, JESUS identified the harlot of Rev for us! She is the GREAT CITY where our Lord was crucified!

Rev 11:8 KJV And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

[Revelationist]

An great overview.

[Sean]

Sorry guys to break up your preterist pow wow with negativity. Couldnt resist getting involved a little....LOL

A favorite argument among preterists is that the book of Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, and hence the book must have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Rome overran Jerusalem. Futurists point out, however, that some of the earliest church Fathers confirmed a late date, including Irenaeus (who knew Polycarp, John’s disciple) who claimed the book was written at the close of the reign of Domitian (which took place from A.D. 81—96). Victorinus confirmed this date in the third century, as did Eusebius (263-340). Hence, since the book was written after A.D. 70, it could hardly have been referring to events that would be fulfilled in A.D. 70.

Against preterism, futurists note that key events described in the book of Revelation simply did not occur in A.D. 70. For example, in A.D. 70 “a third of mankind” was not killed, as predicted in Revelation 9:18. Nor has “every living creature in the sea died,” as predicted in Revelation 16:3. In order to explain these texts, preterists must resort to an allegorical interpretation since they did not happen literally.

[Monterrey]

[QUOTE=Sean;1320499]Sorry guys to break up your preterist pow wow with negativity. Couldnt resist getting involved a little....LOL
[QUOTE]

Now you have to go and repent, you are not sorry, not even a little!

LOL

[Sean]

Pray for me bro........LOL(if I was sorry I would not have done it)...LOL

[Dante]

I don't need fancy charts or teleological arguments to prove preterism. It is what it is, and truth speaks for itself.

[Bowas]

Sorry guys to break up your preterist pow wow with negativity. Couldnt resist getting involved a little....LOL

A favorite argument among preterists is that the book of Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, and hence the book must have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Rome overran Jerusalem. Futurists point out, however, that some of the earliest church Fathers confirmed a late date, including Irenaeus (who knew Polycarp, John’s disciple) who claimed the book was written at the close of the reign of Domitian (which took place from A.D. 81—96). Victorinus confirmed this date in the third century, as did Eusebius (263-340). Hence, since the book was written after A.D. 70, it could hardly have been referring to events that would be fulfilled in A.D. 70.

Against preterism, futurists note that key events described in the book of Revelation simply did not occur in A.D. 70. For example, in A.D. 70 “a third of mankind” was not killed, as predicted in Revelation 9:18. Nor has “every living creature in the sea died,” as predicted in Revelation 16:3. In order to explain these texts, preterists must resort to an allegorical interpretation since they did not happen literally.

A favorite argument among futurists is the Book of Revelation was written After AD70, and hence the book must be fulfilled after AD 70. lol

Do bare in mind, not all church fathers agreed to the premise that it was written after AD70. True, some did, but some is not the whole. The most common person quoted, didn't seem to have the greatest math skills or at least failed to report accurately.
"Here Irenaeus claims an *apostolic tradition*, barely a century after the ministry of the apostles (and less, in the case of John), that claims that Jesus was more than 50 years of age at His death."
Does anyone here support his math on the age of Jesus? If not, why use him as an authority on the age of the Book of Revelation? We have to admit, it is difficult to get a definite historical account as to when it was written, so if internal evidence can be used to support either side, then it could be considered. Everyone must claim certain things are symbolic, idioms or metaphors it's just how to determine what is and what is not.

[mfblume]

Rome is the city with seven hills in Rev 17-18!! I agree. The HARLOT sits on the SEVEN HEADED beast. THE SEVEN HEADS are not part of the woman but the beast whom the woman sits upon. And the woman is JERUSALEM and the BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS/HILLS is Rome. But it is not the ROMAN Catholic church, which was NEVER a bride of God to begin with as the harlot is accused of being. The BEAST IS PAGAN ROME with its Caesars who Jerusalem cried out to be their king instead of Jesus. ROME was in league with the Jews throughout Acts to persecute the church.

Jerusalem is the whore.

Isa 1:21 KJV How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

How can ROME be that?

Read Ezekiel 16. See JERUSALEM called a harlot time and time again!

If you BASE the identity of the HARLOT on the BIBLE, comparing Bible with Bible, JERUSALEM is the only entity that comes to the surface.

Jesus said JERUSALEM was guilty of all blood shed on earth, and that is what was found in the Harlot in Rev 18:24. TWO ENTITIES CANNOT BE GUILTY OF ALL OF THE SAME THING. In Matt 23, JESUS identified the harlot of Rev for us! She is the GREAT CITY where our Lord was crucified!

Rev 11:8 KJV And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Still a slam-dunk, even if I say so myself. lololol

[Lafon]

Rome is the city with seven hills in Rev 17-18!! I agree. The HARLOT sits on the SEVEN HEADED beast. THE SEVEN HEADS are not part of the woman but the beast whom the woman sits upon. And the woman is JERUSALEM and the BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS/HILLS is Rome. But it is not the ROMAN Catholic church, which was NEVER a bride of God to begin with as the harlot is accused of being. The BEAST IS PAGAN ROME with its Caesars who Jerusalem cried out to be their king instead of Jesus. ROME was in league with the Jews throughout Acts to persecute the church.

Jerusalem is the whore.

Isa 1:21 KJV How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

How can ROME be that?

Read Ezekiel 16. See JERUSALEM called a harlot time and time again!

If you BASE the identity of the HARLOT on the BIBLE, comparing Bible with Bible, JERUSALEM is the only entity that comes to the surface.

Jesus said JERUSALEM was guilty of all blood shed on earth, and that is what was found in the Harlot in Rev 18:24. TWO ENTITIES CANNOT BE GUILTY OF ALL OF THE SAME THING. In Matt 23, JESUS identified the harlot of Rev for us! She is the GREAT CITY where our Lord was crucified!

Rev 11:8 KJV And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


Mike, if you will but carefully examine an outline of the city limits of Jerusalem at the time of Christ, you'll find that the place "where also our Lord was crucified" was NOT within its boundaries, rather the site of Calvary was northeast of the city.

Moreover, the phrase "street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," should be recognized as speaking of the "whole world," for it will be there, scattered in every place imaginable, that the slain saints of the coming Anti-Christ and his deceived followers, will be found when God allows him to "make war with the saints and overcome them" during the last days.

Now I know that you, as an advocate of preterist doctrine do not accept this as truth, but I write and post this for the sake of those of us who do believe in the prophecy which tells of the coming of this "man of sin" and of his "war" with the saints.

[mfblume]

Mike, if you will but carefully examine an outline of the city limits of Jerusalem at the time of Christ, you'll find that the place "where also our Lord was crucified" was NOT within its boundaries, rather the site of Calvary was northeast of the city.

Moreover, the phrase "street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," should be recognized as speaking of the "whole world," for it will be there, scattered in every place imaginable, that the slain saints of the coming Anti-Christ and his deceived followers, will be found when God allows him to "make war with the saints and overcome them" during the last days.

Now I know that you, as an advocate of preterist doctrine do not accept this as truth, but I write and post this for the sake of those of us who do believe in the prophecy which tells of the coming of this "man of sin" and of his "war" with the saints.

The scripture refers to Jerusalem when it mentioned where our Lord was crucified. Everyone agrees with that. It does not have to be within the confines of the city walls. Hebrews 13 says it was outside Jerusalem. But it was close enough to be considered that city. It was just outside the walls. So it it's too weak an argument to say the city Jerusalem was not in view.

What other great city was where Jesus was crucified if not Jerusalem? The world? So the great city we read of later on in the book that is the harlot is the world?

Read the bible and see the bible calls Jerusalem a Harlot many times as I've shown.

Jesus said Jerusalem was guilty of all blood. Jesus said that. The same we read in revelation 18:24. You really have to reach to avoid that connection.

[shazeep]

Well whatever you decide to believe in the middle of the road. It needs a name...howabout dramatic/cyclicism?


Or, the naming in and of itself might be taken as a sign of human thinking, and thus straying. I'm with TJJJ-just say 'no' :lol

[shazeep]

I think it's only natural to seek a definitive answer to (deliberately ambiguous) questions like these because they are foremost in others' minds, and what we may feel we are being implicitly called upon to answer definitively; when the nature of the question itself, it's uselessness in the moment (plus the fact that it is what everyone wants to know), precedes here.

While appearing to be an important question, it becomes merely a trap, a red herring. Forcing you to take A Position defined by Some Guys, that some Other Guys disagree with, which should be your biggest clue. It divides you. It has no other purpose, imo.

[Bowas]

Mike, if you will but carefully examine an outline of the city limits of Jerusalem at the time of Christ, you'll find that the place "where also our Lord was crucified" was NOT within its boundaries, rather the site of Calvary was northeast of the city.

Moreover, the phrase "street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," should be recognized as speaking of the "whole world," for it will be there, scattered in every place imaginable, that the slain saints of the coming Anti-Christ and his deceived followers, will be found when God allows him to "make war with the saints and overcome them" during the last days.

Now I know that you, as an advocate of preterist doctrine do not accept this as truth, but I write and post this for the sake of those of us who do believe in the prophecy which tells of the coming of this "man of sin" and of his "war" with the saints.

Please provide scripture to substanciate your claim that "the great city should be recognized as speaking of the whole world."
I have never heard that and seems to be a stretch to which I cannot see a reason for it not to be Jerusalem. True, it occcured just outside the city limits, but still was considered Jerusalems crucificion place, right?

[Sean]

Please provide scripture to substanciate your claim that "the great city should be recognized as speaking of the whole world."
I have never heard that and seems to be a stretch to which I cannot see a reason for it not to be Jerusalem. True, it occcured just outside the city limits, but still was considered Jerusalems crucificion place, right?





I think the city here is speaking of modern day Jerusalem. It spiritually is just like Sodom and Egypt today. It is filled with sinners, unbelievers and endless various types of faiths today. It fits the description to the "T" today!

[Bowas]

I think the city here is speaking of modern day Jerusalem. It spiritually is just like Sodom and Egypt today. It is filled with sinners, unbelievers and endless various types of faiths today. It fits the description to the "T" today!


Why, may I ask, would it be "modern day Jerusalem?" It, to me, is obvious it is speaking of Jerusalem, as you agree, but the Jerusalem of today has no inhabitants that was around during Jesus' time to warrant this kind of punishment and none today are any more guilty of His death, than any other group of peoples today.

[mfblume]

Why, may I ask, would it be "modern day Jerusalem?" It, to me, is obvious it is speaking of Jerusalem, as you agree, but the Jerusalem of today has no inhabitants that was around during Jesus' time to warrant this kind of punishment and none today are any more guilty of His death, than any other group of peoples today.
Ahhh. Yes.

[Sean]

Why, may I ask, would it be "modern day Jerusalem?" It, to me, is obvious it is speaking of Jerusalem, as you agree, but the Jerusalem of today has no inhabitants that was around during Jesus' time to warrant this kind of punishment and none today are any more guilty of His death, than any other group of peoples today.





It was ONLY describing the CRUCIFIXION area, not blaming them for it...




7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

[mfblume]

It was ONLY describing the CRUCIFIXION area, not blaming them for it...


7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

Matthew 23: 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

[houston]

I think it's Exeter, not Jerusalem.

[Bowas]

Why, may I ask, would it be "modern day Jerusalem?" It, to me, is obvious it is speaking of Jerusalem, as you agree, but the Jerusalem of today has no inhabitants that was around during Jesus' time to warrant this kind of punishment and none today are any more guilty of His death, than any other group of peoples today.

[/U]





It was ONLY describing the CRUCIFIXION area, not blaming them for it...




7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

Keep reading...
Verse 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

[Sean]

Keep reading...
Verse 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.




Sure...that earthquake, etc., was not because of the crucifixion, but because they slew the 2 modern day tribulation prophets....

[Lafon]

Please provide scripture to substantiate your claim that "the great city should be recognized as speaking of the whole world."

I have never heard that and seems to be a stretch to which I cannot see a reason for it not to be Jerusalem. True, it occcured just outside the city limits, but still was considered Jerusalem's crucificion place, right?

Seeing that you appear to be an avowed advocate of Preterism (please forgive me if my supposition is amiss), I suspect that any explanation I might present will be met with rejection, nevertheless, for the sake of those, like myself, who reject and abhor such a doctrine, therefore I respectfully submit the following response to your request for scriptural authentication of my claim that "the great city (of Revelation 11:8) should be recognized as speaking of the whole world," and NOT the city of Jerusalem, as proclaimed by mflume:

Allow me emulate Christ Jesus when He responded to inquires of the Pharisees, scribes and others, to statement which He made concerning various things pertaining to the kingdom of God, by tendering a few questions to you:

Are there any scriptural passages which refer to the city of Jerusalem as being called ("spiritually") Sodom and Egypt, that is, with the exception, as you appear to imply, as noted in Revelation 11:8?

Do you not recognize that the language of this scriptural passage is NOT stating, or even insinuating, that Jerusalem is actually called "Sodom and Egypt," rather it is referring to a "great city" that is called such in the "spiritual" sense?

The words of Revelation 11:3-12 are relating the circumstances of the "two witnesses," who are yet to become manifest, but after their manifestation they are to be granted very special and unique "power" which enables them to do "be strong, and do exploits" (see Daniel 11:32), when the 7th angel shall begin to sound the trumpet (see Revelation 10:7). For this reason our efforts to understand the "esoteric" implications of the statements written in the context of these passages must be restricted to them ONLY.
Has any of the seven trumpets noted in the book of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" even begun to be sounded yet? Of course not!

Therefore common logic and reasoning allows for one to infer that the "two witness," who shall be granted the ability to command "that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will," are yet to become manifest upon the earth, so such "power" which enables them to do these things has not been given; but, we are assured that it will be granted them in due course of time.

Heretofore many have "assumed" that these "two witnesses" could/might be such notable individuals of olden times as Moses and Elijah, whom the apostles, Peter, James, and John his brother, saw talking with Christ Jesus upon the "mount of transfiguration" (see Matthew 17:1-8).

Others have "assumed" that these could/might be Enoch and Elijah, believing that because these are the only two individuals whom the langauge of the Bible "seems/appears" not to state that they ever experienced the "common" death, yet asserting that, according to the words of Hebrews 9:27, all must die, so it must be that God will send them back down to the earth so that the words of this scriptural passage might be fulfilled.

I must ask, however, Where is it found written in the sacred Writ that either of these individuals from olden times, that is, Moses, Elijah, or Enoch, were "killed" by "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit"?

The answer, of course, is nowhere, for, first of all the "beast" has not yet been cast into the "bottomless pit," and secondly, we find it written in the words of Deuteronomy 34:5-6, that Moses experienced the "common" death and the LORD was He who buried his dead body "in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor"; and that no burial sites for the bodies of Enoch and Elijah has ever been found.

That which the reader of the "revelations" disclosed in the words of Revelation 11:3-12 must understand, IMHO, is that the "two witnesses" which are to be killed, and their dead bodies, being deprived of a "common" burial, but are to be left lying "in the street of th great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," are none other than the "two olive trees" (noted by John in Revelation 11:4), that is, the saints of the Gentile church which presently resides upon the earth (see Romans 11:17), and the 144,000 descendants of the patriarch Abraham (i.e., Jews) that are to be "sealed in their foreheads" (see Revelations 7:3-8; also compare to Zechariah 4:2-3 & 11-14), at the opening of the sixth seal of the book that was in the hand of Him that sat on the throne (of God) in the heavens (compare Revelation 5:1 to Revelation 7:2).

In the inspired writings of the prophet Daniel, we find that the coming Anti-Christ, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (these phrases are used to refer to the one and same entity, the evil, wicked, invisible spirit we know as Satan and the Devil), "shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they (the saints) shall be given into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of time" (see Daniel 7:25 - also compare to Revelation 13:7).

Now I must ask: Is it written anywhere, either in Revelation or any other book of the Bible, where the dead bodies of only "two witnesses" (as it is commonly "assumed" by "rapturist" advocates, which I am not) will lie in the street of the city of Jerusalem, seeing that these will, prior to their being slain by "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit," that is, the coming Anti-Christ; prior to being restored to life again from the dead and ascend to heaven?

Absolutely not! And this is because these "two witnesses" are, as I've noted, saints, both Gentiles and Jews, who will reside and be slain all over the world!
And this, my friend, is why I feel fully justified in stating that "the great city (as noted in Revelation 11:8)should (and, Indeed, MUST)be recognized as speaking of the whole world," and NOT the city of Jerusalem!

[mfblume]

Lafon,

The concepts we adhere to in interpretation of Revelation or any other part of the bible for that matter, cannot be concepts NO ONE ELSE BELIEVES. Having said that, NO ONE ELSE BELIEVES the CITY of Revelation 11:8 was the whole world.

NO scholar whatsoever made that claim, and like BOWAS said, I never heard of that interpretation. That alone proves the concept is wrong. We've been around. We know the various interpretations. And when someone comes up with an idea no one else has, then that is a big and definite red flag of error.

God does not give one sole person an understanding that He does not give many many many more as well.

Saying the CITY is the world is simply reaching for any excuse to deny the obvious.

May times people reject what is plainly in view and use terms like you did, "abhor", due to a particular pride. Here's what I mean. Partial preterism only differs with futurism as to the timing of the tribulation and beast, basically. Both views see the Lord coming in the future and both believe the physical resurrection will occur for all saints in one moment. Both see a definite end of history as we know it. Both views see eternal judgment and glory for the saints. So, common sense says there's nothing to abhor. It is ridiculous to abhor the teaching for those differences.

But when a person touts oneself as an expert on a viewpoint to the point that they seek their IDENTITY from it, wanting to be KNOWN by THAT interpretation and teaching, then to disagree with that teaching is to personally insult that person. That person should not be doing this, but they are using prophecy for their reputation in being known. When it is simply a disagreement of viewpoints it is not personal. But a person makes it personal when their viewpoint is their means of identity among others. I always wondered why some people literally become ANGRY if you differ with them and say ridiculous things like they ABHOR your belief, but now I know why. That person has made prophecy their means of identity and when you disagree with it, they feel they are attacked personally by losing their chance at identity and reputation, and so their security is gone and they lash out.

Brother, keep it an interpretation and not your claim to fame, and you won't say such strange claims about another person's belief.

Partial Preterism does not attack the Godhead truths, does not attack Acts 2:38 salvation, does not attack physical resurrection and does not attack God's Word coming to pass when God says it will. So chill out, for goodness' sake.

[Lafon]

Lafon,

The concepts we adhere to in interpretation of Revelation or any other part of the bible for that matter, cannot be concepts NO ONE ELSE BELIEVES. Having said that, NO ONE ELSE BELIEVES the CITY of Revelation 11:8 was the whole world.

NO scholar whatsoever made that claim, and like BOWAS said, I never heard of that interpretation. That alone proves the concept is wrong. We've been around. We know the various interpretations. And when someone comes up with an idea no one else has, then that is a big and definite red flag of error.

God does not give one sole person an understanding that He does not give many many many more as well.

Saying the CITY is the world is simply reaching for any excuse to deny the obvious.

May times people reject what is plainly in view and use terms like you did, "abhor", due to a particular pride. Here's what I mean. Partial preterism only differs with futurism as to the timing of the tribulation and beast, basically. Both views see the Lord coming in the future and both believe the physical resurrection will occur for all saints in one moment. Both see a definite end of history as we know it. Both views see eternal judgment and glory for the saints. So, common sense says there's nothing to abhor. It is ridiculous to abhor the teaching for those differences.

But when a person touts oneself as an expert on a viewpoint to the point that they seek their IDENTITY from it, wanting to be KNOWN by THAT interpretation and teaching, then to disagree with that teaching is to personally insult that person. That person should not be doing this, but they are using prophecy for their reputation in being known. When it is simply a disagreement of viewpoints it is not personal. But a person makes it personal when their viewpoint is their means of identity among others. I always wondered why some people literally become ANGRY if you differ with them and say ridiculous things like they ABHOR your belief, but now I know why. That person has made prophecy their means of identity and when you disagree with it, they feel they are attacked personally by losing their chance at identity and reputation, and so their security is gone and they lash out.

Brother, keep it an interpretation and not your claim to fame, and you won't say such strange claims about another person's belief.

Partial Preterism does not attack the Godhead truths, does not attack Acts 2:38 salvation, does not attack physical resurrection and does not attack God's Word coming to pass when God says it will. So chill out, for goodness' sake.


God forbid that I display PRIDE in the public expressions of my beliefs about this matter! Nor am I angry, as you allege, rather I am simply, and only, stating my personal beliefs, to which you apparently disagree (as is your right).

I neither stated, nor suggested, in any manner whatsoever, that any, including you, did not belief in Acts 2:38, or the resurrection.

Why not give a try providing a scriptural-based response to some (or all) of the questions I tendered, instead of making your unfounded accusations regarding the sincerity of my expressed beliefs (for once)!

[Truthseeker]

To me it's simple, John said the book of revelation was to the seven churches in Asia about things that would shortly come to pass.

[mfblume]

Seeing that you appear to be an avowed advocate of Preterism (please forgive me if my supposition is amiss), I suspect that any explanation I might present will be met with rejection, nevertheless, for the sake of those, like myself, who reject and abhor such a doctrine,

I just described how silly it is to abhor a doctrine that only differs on timing for beast and tribulation. I will just get on and prove Jerusalem is part of the main overall the theme of Rev 11.

Are there any scriptural passages which refer to the city of Jerusalem as being called ("spiritually") Sodom and Egypt, that is, with the exception, as you appear to imply, as noted in Revelation 11:8?

There does not have to be if the indications all around it are obvious. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible needs to only say something ONCE to be truth. It does NOT Have to be stated twice or three times. Two or three witnesses is not speaking about God's word itself. If that were the case, then God would speak a truth once, and people would dismiss it because it was not spoken twice or more. That demand for witnesses is required for things other than God's own word. That is why they needed witnesses to crimes in the bible times to verify a PERSON'S WORD, not GOD'S. It is an affront to God's integrity to demand more than one witness to HIS WORD.

Jerusalem is called Sodom and Egypt because like those two kingdoms, GOD'S PEOPLE WERE TO TOLD TO COME OUT OF THEM DUE TO IMPENDING JUDGMENT.

Jesus said that very thing as follows:

Mat 24:15-16 BBE When, then, you see in the holy place the unclean thing which makes destruction, of which word was given by Daniel the prophet let this be clear to the reader, (16) Then let those who are in Judaea go in flight to the mountains:


Lot had to come out of Sodom or be destroyed. Israel had to come out of Egypt. Jesus told His church to come out of Jerusalem when they see the abomination of desolation, just like the previous two. The reason for the NEW EXODUS from Jerusalem was the great tribulation such as never was nor ever would be. If it was a worldwide tribulation, then Jesus would not have restricted the people in Judaea to leave the region.

Do you not recognize that the language of this scriptural passage is NOT stating, or even insinuating, that Jerusalem is actually called "Sodom and Egypt," rather it is referring to a "great city" that is called such in the "spiritual" sense?

Of course! That's a no-brainer. It is spiritually called so. That means traits about Egypt and Sodom must be found with about the city the verse is referring to.

The verse distinguishes what the city is by saying it is where the Lord was crucified. Jerusalem was where He was crucified. Jesus even said so Himself.

Luk 13:33 KJV Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

He said that after people told Him to flee:

Luk 13:31 KJV The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

A man who professes to be a prophet can be tried on that ground only by the grand Sanhedrin, which always resides at Jerusalem; and as the Jews are about to put Jesus to death, under the pretense of his being a false prophet, therefore his sentence must come from this city, and his death take place in it. That's what He meant.

The words of Revelation 11:3-12 are relating the circumstances of the "two witnesses," who are yet to become manifest,

That's your interpretation. So their prospect of yet being manifested is not necessarily the truth. But anyway, . . .

but after their manifestation they are to be granted very special and unique "power" which enables them to do "be strong, and do exploits" (see Daniel 11:32), when the 7th angel shall begin to sound the trumpet (see Revelation 10:7).

You also think in your face-value manner of interpretation that they'll literally breathe fire out of their mouths like a dragon?

Skipping over your circular arguments that say the trumpets have not sounded because you say they have not, due to face-value interpretation, let me get to the Jerusalem point.



Now I must ask: Is it written anywhere, either in Revelation or any other book of the Bible, where the dead bodies of only "two witnesses" (as it is commonly "assumed" by "rapturist" advocates, which I am not) will lie in the street of the city of Jerusalem, seeing that these will, prior to their being slain by "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit," that is, the coming Anti-Christ; prior to being restored to life again from the dead and ascend to heaven?

You have it all wrong. The two witnesses are not actual MEN. They lay dead for 3.5 days which is 3.5 years of Jerusalem being trodden under, corresponding to the 3.5 years of 11:1.

The church FLED Jerusalem when they saw the abomination that Jesus warned them would come as the sign to flee the city. THE WITNESSES OF SPIRIT AND TRUTH are what the two men represent. Since the church was GONE from the city during it's siege, the witnesses of Spirit and Truth DIED IN THAT CITY. No Christians were there to preach Spirit and Truth.

The traits of MOSES and ELIJAH are in the vision of the two men because LAW, which signifies TRUTH, was brought by Moses, and PROPHECY, which indicates SPIRIT, was indicated by the most famous of all prophets, Elijah.

THE TWO WITNESSES are called THE TWO OLIVE TREES. Not just any olive trees, BUT A SPECIFIC "THE TWO."

And we find in Zechariah 4 that THE TWO OLIVE TREES are in a vision depicting Joshua the High Priest, who stands for the spiritual ministry indicating SPIRIT once again, and Zerubbabel the governor, who like Moses stands for TRUTH or LAW. See Zech. 4:11-14. (I will quote those passages below)

So, the picture of MOSES and ELIJAH and Joshua the high priest and Zerubabbel are all OLD TESTAMENT KEYS used in this chapter to indicate what the two witnesses are, like everything else in revelation is FROM OLD TESTAMENT PICTURES meant to be applied to the CHURCH period in ways that the NEW TESTAMENT teaches. Since the NEW TESTAMENT teaches the witness of Spirit and Truth, and they correspond by their types of Moses and Elijah, or Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest, we see the two witnesses as symbols of Spirit and Truth.

Nobody is going to breathe literal fire like a mythical dragon.

Rev 11:5 KJV And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

Jeremiah gives the KEY to interpretation when he said:L

Jer 5:14 KJV Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.

It is speaking about preaching the WORD! Face-value reading, like you utilize, would mean literal fire comes out of their mouths,. If you agree it is not literal but figurative, then you contradict your own methodology of face-value reading by saying the two men are two literal men but the fire is not actual fire. Which is it? This is an example of how inconsistent futurists are with their interpretative mannerism.

And this is because these "two witnesses" are, as I've noted, saints, both Gentiles and Jews, who will reside and be slain all over the world!
And this, my friend, is why I feel fully justified in stating that "the great city (as noted in Revelation 11:8)should (and, Indeed, MUST)be recognized as speaking of the whole world," and NOT the city of Jerusalem!

It is accepted by everyone except yourself that JERUSALEM is where the Lord was crucified in Rev 11. You are the only one I ever heard say otherwise. Even futurists know it is Jerusalem in that verse.

Let me cite a futurist:

SCOFIELD, one of the "fathers" of dispensationalism said:

Revelation 11:8

"great city "

That is, Jerusalem.

continued...

[mfblume]

Jerusalem screams everywhere at us from this chapter.

Rev 11:2 KJV But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


Where was the temple? Jerusalem.

What is the holy city Jesus said would be trodden over by gentiles? Jerusalem. The whole context of Ch 11 is Jerusalem!

Jesus remarked about Jerusalem in the same way.

Luk 21:24 KJV And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


And when we read of the treading down by Gentiles, which actually and historically did last 3.5 years when Rome besieged the city in the first century, like the 3.5 days translate into when context is understood properly, we immediately read "AND" when it mentions the witnesses, conjoining the CITY with the two witnesses because THEY PREACH THERE. .

Rev 11:2-3 KJV But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (3) And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.


This intimates they PREACH IN JERUSALEM.

Rev 11:4 KJV These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.


As I said, the two olive trees are specific, and can only POINT TO Zech 4's vision.

Zec 4:11 KJV Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?

Zec 4:14 KJV Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.


You failed to make that connection as futurists do since they MISS the Old Testament basis for all the visions in Revelation that are meant to be applied spiritually to the truths preached by Jesus and the apostles.

The two olive trees in Zech 4 are Joshua the high priest, and Zerubbabel the governor. Where did Joshua the high priest, and Zerubbabel REBUILD THE TEMPLE? JERUSALEM, of course!

The CONTEXTUAL PATTERN between Revelation 11 and the book of Zechariah is unavoidable. Before Zerubbabel and Joshua are mentioned in Zech 3-4, chapter 1 and 2 mentions the measuring of the city for the temple:

Zec 1:16-17 KJV Therefore thus saith the LORD; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. (17) Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

Zec 2:1-2 KJV I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. (2) Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.


This corresponds to Rev 11:

Rev 11:1 KJV And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.


And then TWO OLIVES TREES are mentioned IN REVELATION AND ZECHARIAH, with Zech's reference pointing to Joshua the high priest (Zech 3:1) and Zerubbabel the governor (Zech 4:6) in Zech 4:3, 11, 14. Zech 4:14 even uses IDNENTICAL WORDS AS REVELATION 11.

Zec 4:11 KJV Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?

Zec 4:14 KJV Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

Rev 11:4 KJV These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.


The pattern is undeniable! Futurism does not NOTICE THESE because it is NOT BASED UPON Old Testament pictures used as SYMBOLS of their antitypes in the CHURCH PERIOD as preached by Jesus and the apostles.

All of this screams out Jerusalem!

So, Zech prophesies of the two olive tree witnesses who worked in the temple rebuilding in JERUSALEM, just as the two witnesses of Rev 11 are mentioned AFTER THE TEMPLE MEASUREMENTS OF JERUSALEM are mentioned in 11:1.

We know the CITY of Rev 11:1 is JERUSALEM for that is where the temple was and the two witnesses in Zechariah's day. And when we read of the CITY in verse 8 that is in question, the CITY IS THE SAME ONE FROM VERSE 1, Jerusalem!

Jesus gave SEVERAL links of JERUSALEM to what is read in Revelation. He not only said a prophet won't perish outside of Jerusalem, but that Jerusalem was filled with the blood of prophets and all shed on earth, just like Rev 18:24 said about the CITY. Jesus also said that Jerusalem would be trodden down of the Gentiles as we read in Rev 11:1. Jesus also said the church must FLEE JERUSALEM when the abomination of desolation occurs, just like His people FLED EGYPT and SODOM due to judgment, which the CITY in Rev 11:8 is SPIRITUALLY called after.

It is so obvious it is Jerusalem that a person simply has to want it to be something different without any actual basis other than wanting to disagree.

[mfblume]

God forbid that I display PRIDE in the public expressions of my beliefs about this matter! Nor am I angry, as you allege, rather I am simply, and only, stating my personal beliefs, to which you apparently disagree (as is your right).

I neither stated, nor suggested, in any manner whatsoever, that any, including you, did not belief in Acts 2:38, or the resurrection.

Why not give a try providing a scriptural-based response to some (or all) of the questions I tendered, instead of making your unfounded accusations regarding the sincerity of my expressed beliefs (for once)!

You said you "abhored" this belief I hold dear. That's the same sort of uncalled-for emotional response as being angry is emotional. I am not saying it is anger, but emotional which betrays pride.

And I already dealt with my biblically based answer which I posted after you posted, before I read what you posted in response. I was working on my response biblically when you retorted.

[Bowas]

Seeing that you appear to be an avowed advocate of Preterism (please forgive me if my supposition is amiss), I suspect that any explanation I might present will be met with rejection, nevertheless, for the sake of those, like myself, who reject and abhor such a doctrine, therefore I respectfully submit the following response to your request for scriptural authentication of my claim that "the great city (of Revelation 11:8) should be recognized as speaking of the whole world," and NOT the city of Jerusalem, as proclaimed by mflume:

Allow me emulate Christ Jesus when He responded to inquires of the Pharisees, scribes and others, to statement which He made concerning various things pertaining to the kingdom of God, by tendering a few questions to you:

Are there any scriptural passages which refer to the city of Jerusalem as being called ("spiritually") Sodom and Egypt, that is, with the exception, as you appear to imply, as noted in Revelation 11:8?

Do you not recognize that the language of this scriptural passage is NOT stating, or even insinuating, that Jerusalem is actually called "Sodom and Egypt," rather it is referring to a "great city" that is called such in the "spiritual" sense?

The words of Revelation 11:3-12 are relating the circumstances of the "two witnesses," who are yet to become manifest, but after their manifestation they are to be granted very special and unique "power" which enables them to do "be strong, and do exploits" (see Daniel 11:32), when the 7th angel shall begin to sound the trumpet (see Revelation 10:7). For this reason our efforts to understand the "esoteric" implications of the statements written in the context of these passages must be restricted to them ONLY.
Has any of the seven trumpets noted in the book of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" even begun to be sounded yet? Of course not!

Therefore common logic and reasoning allows for one to infer that the "two witness," who shall be granted the ability to command "that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will," are yet to become manifest upon the earth, so such "power" which enables them to do these things has not been given; but, we are assured that it will be granted them in due course of time.

Heretofore many have "assumed" that these "two witnesses" could/might be such notable individuals of olden times as Moses and Elijah, whom the apostles, Peter, James, and John his brother, saw talking with Christ Jesus upon the "mount of transfiguration" (see Matthew 17:1-8).

Others have "assumed" that these could/might be Enoch and Elijah, believing that because these are the only two individuals whom the langauge of the Bible "seems/appears" not to state that they ever experienced the "common" death, yet asserting that, according to the words of Hebrews 9:27, all must die, so it must be that God will send them back down to the earth so that the words of this scriptural passage might be fulfilled.

I must ask, however, Where is it found written in the sacred Writ that either of these individuals from olden times, that is, Moses, Elijah, or Enoch, were "killed" by "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit"?

The answer, of course, is nowhere, for, first of all the "beast" has not yet been cast into the "bottomless pit," and secondly, we find it written in the words of Deuteronomy 34:5-6, that Moses experienced the "common" death and the LORD was He who buried his dead body "in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor"; and that no burial sites for the bodies of Enoch and Elijah has ever been found.

That which the reader of the "revelations" disclosed in the words of Revelation 11:3-12 must understand, IMHO, is that the "two witnesses" which are to be killed, and their dead bodies, being deprived of a "common" burial, but are to be left lying "in the street of th great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," are none other than the "two olive trees" (noted by John in Revelation 11:4), that is, the saints of the Gentile church which presently resides upon the earth (see Romans 11:17), and the 144,000 descendants of the patriarch Abraham (i.e., Jews) that are to be "sealed in their foreheads" (see Revelations 7:3-8; also compare to Zechariah 4:2-3 & 11-14), at the opening of the sixth seal of the book that was in the hand of Him that sat on the throne (of God) in the heavens (compare Revelation 5:1 to Revelation 7:2).

In the inspired writings of the prophet Daniel, we find that the coming Anti-Christ, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (these phrases are used to refer to the one and same entity, the evil, wicked, invisible spirit we know as Satan and the Devil), "shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they (the saints) shall be given into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of time" (see Daniel 7:25 - also compare to Revelation 13:7).

Now I must ask: Is it written anywhere, either in Revelation or any other book of the Bible, where the dead bodies of only "two witnesses" (as it is commonly "assumed" by "rapturist" advocates, which I am not) will lie in the street of the city of Jerusalem, seeing that these will, prior to their being slain by "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit," that is, the coming Anti-Christ; prior to being restored to life again from the dead and ascend to heaven?

Absolutely not! And this is because these "two witnesses" are, as I've noted, saints, both Gentiles and Jews, who will reside and be slain all over the world!
And this, my friend, is why I feel fully justified in stating that "the great city (as noted in Revelation 11:8)should (and, Indeed, MUST)be recognized as speaking of the whole world," and NOT the city of Jerusalem!

Bro. Thank you for your answer.
What you presented seems to be quite a leap. You presented much about what others believe or don't believe, but still failed to give clear scripture(s) supporting your conclusions. There are many that can be shown, and in fact Mike Blume presented several that scripturally supported "that great city" of Revelation and supported elsewhere in the Bible is identified as Jerusalem.
But I do thank you for taking the time to explain your postion, but I personally need a bit more scripturally, that I can read and point to, to support my positions.
I am very insecrure when it comes to claiming what the Bible says, or doesn't say, and I find I have much greater confidence when I can point to precise, explicit scriptures to support my postion(s).

[Bowas]

Here is a sound rule in determining what we can believe.
If it is not found explicilty in the bible, and taught by Jesus and the Apostles, we need to be wary of anything else.

[Aquila]

Preterism offers some excellent points. However, I'm not closed to the idea of dual fulfillment.

[shag]

i've considered that, but after how many fullfillments is it a fulfilled prophecy?
Can we ever know that a prophecy is EVER fulfilled, if we were to leave the opportunity open of it being fulfilled numerous times over?


I think of when Jesus said, this day is the scripture fulfilled in your ears. Can we leave that open for multiple fullfillings...no. Can we others?

[mfblume]

I've considered dual fulfillment, because there is such a thing when something in the Old Testament fulfilled a prophecy, such as Solomon rising up to reign as son of David, while Jesus Christ is the greater Son of David who now reigns. However, that is dual only in the sense that a foreshadow IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD BEFORE THE CROSS serves as the first lesser fulfillment, with the second greater one pointing to Jesus. There is no example in the bible of a dual fulfillment occurring with both instances of lesser and greater AFTER THE CROSS with both referring to Jesus or the church somehow.

So, the summary is that we have old testament examples that serve as the first with their new testament counterparts as the second. Both instances are in the bible in that manner and fashion. But there is not a single example of both instances fulfilled after the cross like this manner of dual fulfillment proposes over things like Matt 24. So, like BOWAS said, we cannot stand on a supposition. God does will for us to make foundational doctrines on suppositions.

[Aquila]

What if Satan continuously strives to bring the end?

[mfblume]

What if Satan continuously strives to bring the end?

Another supposition, though.

[mfblume]

A careful read of Matt 24:21 flatly prohibits a dual fulfillment.

[Aquila]

A careful read of Matt 24:21 flatly prohibits a dual fulfillment.

I see a significant gap. For example,

Matthew 24:15-22
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

From the event that transpires in verse 15 to verse 22 and beyond a significant amount of time may have passed (over 2,000 years). Take a look at Luke's account:

Luke 21:20-25
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Again, from the destruction of Jerusalem to the signs in verse 25 many many years may have passed. We see the Diaspora in verse 24 and how the Jews were spread throughout the world through the centuries. We see Jerusalem trodden under foot of the Gentile peoples... until their time is fulfilled. Then we see the signs begin to take place. Jerusalem's being trodden under foot could have began in AD 70... and have taken place all the way up through 1948.

While we look at the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs that follow heralding the end... I think we don't consider the significant amount of time that takes place between them.

[Bowas]

As Mike Blume pointed out, one point in the case against dual fulfillment is found within the scriptures themselves.
This passage is clear, whichever time this is referring to, will be the worst...ever, as it is impossible to have two or more worst of anything.

This tribulation will be of such magnitude that there was never anything like it prior to it, nor will there be anything worse than it once it has occurred.

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

[Bowas]

I think it's Exeter, not Jerusalem.

Oh, you are getting sooo close! lol

[houston]

Oh, you are getting sooo close! lol what?

[Esaias]

I've considered dual fulfillment, because there is such a thing when something in the Old Testament fulfilled a prophecy, such as Solomon rising up to reign as son of David, while Jesus Christ is the greater Son of David who now reigns. However, that is dual only in the sense that a foreshadow IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD BEFORE THE CROSS serves as the first lesser fulfillment, with the second greater one pointing to Jesus. There is no example in the bible of a dual fulfillment occurring with both instances of lesser and greater AFTER THE CROSS with both referring to Jesus or the church somehow.

So, the summary is that we have old testament examples that serve as the first with their new testament counterparts as the second. Both instances are in the bible in that manner and fashion. But there is not a single example of both instances fulfilled after the cross like this manner of dual fulfillment proposes over things like Matt 24. So, like BOWAS said, we cannot stand on a supposition. God does will for us to make foundational doctrines on suppositions.

What about "I have set thee for a light unto the gentiles/nations"? Did that not apply both to Christ and the apostle Paul?

[Esaias]

Btw, just because the Olivet prophecy had primarily to do with AD70 it does not follow that preterism is correct as just about all schemes of interpretation (except dispensationalism and its derivatives) understood that prophecy as fulfilled in AD70.

[mfblume]

What about "I have set thee for a light unto the gentiles/nations"? Did that not apply both to Christ and the apostle Paul?

The idea of Christ and the church being a light is not a dual fulfillment, because the Church is the body of Christ. Paul was in Jesus' name, meaning one with Christ. What is true of Christ is true of the church because they are one body. That is of a totally different nature than Solomon being son of David followed by Jesus as Son of David.

[mfblume]

Btw, just because the Olivet prophecy had primarily to do with AD70 it does not follow that preterism is correct as just about all schemes of interpretation (except dispensationalism and its derivatives) understood that prophecy as fulfilled in AD70.

But all schemes do not see the events occurring in one generation, including those futurists agree occurred in AD70, as Jesus said they would in verse 34.

[Esaias]

The idea of Christ and the church being a light is not a dual fulfillment, because the Church is the body of Christ. Paul was in Jesus' name, meaning one with Christ. What is true of Christ is true of the church because they are one body. That is of a totally different nature than Solomon being son of David followed by Jesus as Son of David.

Paul is not the church, he is a member of the church. I'll have to go check but seems I remember that prophecy was directly applied to Paul (eat your heart out, Branham lol). Which if that were the case then we have a definite example of a prophecy fulfilled by Christ and then, "after the cross", by another person/event.

[Esaias]

But all schemes do not see the events occurring in one generation, including those futurists agree occurred in AD70, as Jesus said they would in verse 34.


I think you left some words out brother cause I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say here lol.

[mfblume]

Paul is not the church, he is a member of the church. I'll have to go check but seems I remember that prophecy was directly applied to Paul (eat your heart out, Branham lol). Which if that were the case then we have a definite example of a prophecy fulfilled by Christ and then, "after the cross", by another person/event.

Actually the passage has both Paul and Barnabas speaking those words, so it is not just Paul and Jesus. And they said the Lord commanded "US."

Acts 13:46-47 KJV Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (47) For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

[mfblume]

I think you left some words out brother cause I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say here lol.

I can understand it, but I guess anyone knows what THEY meant to say. lol

I meant to say that all schemes of prophecy may agree parts are for AD70, but not all of them see the reality that the entire series of events would occur by AD70. The reason I know the entire series of events occurred by then is because verse 34 says ALL THESE THINGS would occur in one generation. If the temple destruction is part of the "ALL THESE THINGS", and they are ALL supposed to occur in one generation, we already know the temple was destroyed in AD70. That means everything else must have occurred in the same generation who saw the temple destruction back then!

[Esaias]

Actually the passage has both Paul and Barnabas speaking those words, so it is not just Paul and Jesus. And they said the Lord commanded "US."

Acts 13:46-47 KJV Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (47) For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Thanks for getting the quote (I'm battling the demon of laziness right now lol).

So a prophecy primarily pertaining to Christ is fulfilled by two Christians...

Actually it looks plausible that Paul is basically saying "we are going to the Gentiles in obedience to God because Christ is to enlighten the Gentiles".

[Esaias]

I can understand it, but I guess anyone knows what THEY meant to say. lol

I meant to say that all schemes of prophecy may agree parts are for AD70, but not all of them see the reality that the entire series of events would occur by AD70. The reason I know the entire series of events occurred by then is because verse 34 says ALL THESE THINGS would occur in one generation. If the temple destruction is part of the "ALL THESE THINGS", and they are ALL supposed to occur in one generation, we already know the temple was destroyed in AD70. That means everything else must have occurred in the same generation who saw the temple destruction back then!

Then, to be consistent...

[mfblume]

Thanks for getting the quote (I'm battling the demon of laziness right now lol).

So a prophecy primarily pertaining to Christ is fulfilled by two Christians...

Actually it looks plausible that Paul is basically saying "we are going to the Gentiles in obedience to God because Christ is to enlighten the Gentiles".

Yes, I think that is what it means, and also that ISRAEL's prophecy to whom this was first given in Isaiah is fulfilled in the CHURCH/. The New Israel is the Church.