Historicism, Futurism, Preterism?

[Amanah]

Which of the following best fits your beliefs and why?


The Historicist school of prophetic interpretation results in a progressive and continuous fulfillment of prophecy. This continuous fulfillment starts in Daniel’s time (circa 600 BC), continues through John the Revelator’s time (circa 100 A.D.), on to the Second Coming of Jesus.

Futurism Futurists believe most of Revelation is to be fulfilled during a short time immediately prior to the Second Advent.. The rest is restricted to a literal Antichrist who will reign for 3½ literal years. Futurism further claims that the Antichrist will be an individual and not a system. This method of prophetic interpretation has a few prophetic events happening early in the Christian dispensation, a large gap of no prophetic interest, and a literal close of 3½ years instead of hundreds of centuries.

Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled and therefore no significance for the present day.

[mfblume]

Partial preterist because I believe Rev 1-19 is fulfilled, we're in chapter 20, and the resurrection, great white throne judgment and end of history is yet future.

[Esaias]

Which of the following best fits your beliefs and why?


The Historicist school of prophetic interpretation results in a progressive and continuous fulfillment of prophecy. This continuous fulfillment starts in Daniel’s time (circa 600 BC), continues through John the Revelator’s time (circa 100 A.D.), on to the Second Coming of Jesus.

Futurism claims that most of the prophecies of the Apocalypse were fulfilled to ancient Rome. The rest is restricted to a literal Antichrist who will reign for 3½ literal years. Futurism further claims that the Antichrist will be an individual and not a system. This method of prophetic interpretation has a few prophetic events happening early in the Christian dispensation, a large gap of no prophetic interest, and a literal close of 3½ years instead of hundreds of centuries.

Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled and therefore no significance for the present day.


The entry on futurism is incorrect. Futurists believe most of Revelation is to be fulfilled during a short time immediately prior to the Second Advent.

[Esaias]

BTW, I lean towards the historicist approach.

Why? Because it's the closest to how the Bible itself interprets prophecy, and it's the only approach that makes any sense, in my opinion.

[Amanah]

BTW, I lean towards the historicist approach.

Why? Because it's the closest to how the Bible itself interprets prophecy, and it's the only approach that makes any sense, in my opinion.

From what I have read so far, I like it also Esaias, it does seem quite sensible.

[mfblume]

I came to my view after having studied the cross, and had no interest in studying prophecy. I preached each weekend from the start of one year from Matt 1 and to the next chapter, a chapter a week. Never planned on that either. And then came to Matt 21 and about fell off my chair when I noticed Jesus spoke of His coming to destroy those husbandmen in his day and he never left that topic after that chapter til He when to the cross.

And I saw His words all through Revelation like a commentary of Revelation for first century Israel. To me, this view fits more with bible interpreting bible.

I did not even know others believed the way I started seeing it. Then came into contact with others!

[Amanah]

I came to my view after having studied the cross, and had no interest in studying prophecy. I preached each weekend from the start of one year from Matt 1 and to the next chapter, a chapter a week. Never planned on that either. And then came to Matt 21 and about fell off my chair when I noticed Jesus spoke of His coming to destroy those husbandmen in his day and he never left that topic after that chapter til He when to the cross.

And I saw His words all through Revelation like a commentary of Revelation for first century Israel. To me, this view fits more with bible interpreting bible.

I did not even know others believed the way I started seeing it. Then came into contact with others!

thank you, I will read more about this. In fact, after I finish the book I'm currently reading, I'm going to get your book from amazon.

[Sister Alvear]

Well...I believe in post Trib...however I have many friends that believe many ways....

[Amanah]

Well...I believe in post Trib...however I have many friends that believe many ways....

I'm just learning so bear with me

does this mean you are a partial preterist?

[consapente89]

Somewhere in between Futurist and Historicist....with a leaning toward Futurist. Prophecy is a gray area for me, as I believe it was for those who penned it. One thing I know for sure....Jesus is coming!

I do believe his second coming is the same event as the rapture of the Church.

[Amanah]

I do believe his second coming is the same event as the rapture of the Church.

I believe this also.

[houston]

I'm just learning so bear with me

does this mean you are a partial preterist?

No. She believes that the tribulation is a future event that the church will endure, followed by the return of the Lord.

[Sister Alvear]

I believe it is yet to come...

[mfblume]

thank you, I will read more about this. In fact, after I finish the book I'm currently reading, I'm going to get your book from amazon.

:thumbsup

[Aquila]

I'm a Pre-Millennial Futurist. Let me put down my Bible and my newspaper and explain why... I found that Preterists and Historicists try to interpret prophecy with the Bible in one hand and a history book in the other. LOL

No seriously.... I dedicated myself to looking into Preterist and Historicism. However, I found that the application of the prophecies were often ambiguous and interpretations were different throughout each school of study from scholar to scholar. So, I felt like I was trying to FORCE prophetic significance on historic events. So, I returned to Futurism.

As for the timing of the Rapture.... I'm what they call, "Pre-Wrath", in my understanding. I've attached a chart that explains the timing of the Rapture as it relates to the Pre-Wrath doctrine.

[Aquila]

I did write up an outline of a form of Apostolic Historicism back when I was investigating the method of interpretation. Here it is:

APOSTOLIC HISTORICISM

The Revelation:

Chapter 1 Vision Begins

Chapters 2-3 The Seven Churches (Seven Church Ages)

Chapter 4 Vision of Heaven

Chapter 5 The Lamb Takes the Scroll
A. Scroll is God’s writing of divorcement against Israel.

Chapter 6 The Seven Seals (Judgments on Jerusalem)
A. Fist Seal: Military Advances against Israel by Vespasian.
B. Second Seal: War against Jerusalem led by Titus
C. Third Seal: Famine in Judea and food shortages during Roman Siege
D. Fourth Seal: Pestilence resulting from Famine and Roman Siege.
E. Fifth Seal: Cry of the Martyrs for judgment on Pharisaical Israel
F. Sixth Seal: Destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD.
G. Seventh Seal: Preparation for Trumpets (Judgments against Rome).

Chapter 7 The 144,000 and the Great Multitude (Advent of the Church Dispensation)
A. 144,000 First Fruits: First Century Jewish Christians who fled to Pella.
B. Innumerable Multitude: The Gospel’s harvest among the Gentiles

Chapter 8 The Seven Trumpets (Judgments on Roman Empire)
A. Seventh Seal: Preparation for Trumpets (Judgment upon Rome)
B. First Trumpet: Hoards of Goths destroy Roman Country sides 408-410
C. Second Trumpet: Vandals Raid Roman Sea Ports
D. Third Trumpet: Huns Raid Roman river ways.
E. Fourth Trumpet: Odoacer invades Rome

Chapter 9 Plague of Locusts (THE RISE OF ISLAM - 150 Year Jihad & Rise of the Turks)
A. Fifth Trumpet: Mohammad rises to Power. Saraceans wage war 612-762
B. Sixth Trumpet: Turks wage war 1281-1672 AD.

Chapter 10 The Angel and the Little Book
A. Sufferings of the Faithful
B. Seven Thunders: Unknown

Chapter 11 The Two Witnesses and the Pit Beast (Spirit and Power of Moses & Elijah, Revived The Holy Roman Empire)
A. Two Witnesses: Spirit of the prophets operating in the Church Militant.
B. Pit Beast: Holy Roman Authorities
C. The 1260 Days: 1,260 Years of Testimony under Holy Roman Oppression
D. Death of the Two Witnesses: The Church’s seeming defeat
E. Seventh Trumpet (The Resurrection): Apostolic Revival and Rapture at the end of days.

Chapter 12 The Woman in the Wilderness (Church Persecuted)
A. The Woman: God’s covenant people (Israel)
B. The Dragon: Pagan Rome (Satan)
C. Birth of the man child: Birth of Christ
D. Ascension of the man child: Christ’s ascension.
E. Fleeing Woman: God’s Covenant People (Now the Church, the Israel of God)
F. 1,260 Days fleeing in the wilderness: 1,260 Years of persecution
G. “Wings of a Great Eagle” given unto the Woman: Flight to the Americas for religious freedom.
H. Flood out of the Dragon’s mouth: Persecution (False Doctrine)
I. Earth Opens it’s mouth: Divine Assistance given to the Woman

Chapter 13 The Beast/False Prophet and 666 (The Holy Roman Empire/Papacy)
A. Beast from the Sea
B. Deadly wound: Fall of Rome 476 AD
C. Deadly Wound is healed (554 AD)
Revival of Ancient Rome (The Holy Roman Empire is born 554-1814 AD).
a. Seven Heads - Incarnations of the Beast
b. Ten Horns: (Imperial Circles)
i. Austrian
ii. Bavarian
iii. Burgundian
iv. Electoral Rhenish
v. Franconian
vi. Lower Rhenish Westphalian
vii. Lower Saxon
viii. Swabian
ix. Upper Rhenish
x. Upper Saxon
D. Given authority for 42 Months (1,260 days): Allowed to Rule for 1,260 Years (554 AD – 1814 AD)
E. Wages war against the Saints: Inquisitions and Persecutions.
F. Lamblike Beast: The Papacy
a. Horns Like a Lamb: Looks Christian
b. Speaks like a Dragon: False Doctrine (Trinitarianism/Catholicism)
c. Calls fire down from Heaven: False Miracles
d. Make an Image: Idolatry (Saint Worship)
e. Image Speaks: Demonic influence from idols.
f. Causes all who will not worship idols to be put to death: Inquisitions.
g. Mark of the Beast: Symbolic of Submission to Papal Authority. MAY BE YET FUTURE WITH TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 14 The Harvest (Revival & Ingathering)
A. Angels preach the Gospel: Apostolic Revival
B. Harvest: Revival and/or Rapture
C. Winepress: Final Judgment

Chapter 16 The Seven Vials (Final Sequence of Wrath)
A. First Vial: Global Pestilence
B. Second Vial: Global Bloodshed at sea or Global Pollution of Seas
C. Third Vial: Global Bloodshed upon waterways or Freshwater Pollution
D. Fourth Vial: Global Persecution or Global Warming
E. Fifth Vial: Global Spiritual Darkness and Mental Distress
F. Sixth Vial: Global War centered in the Middle East
G. Seventh Vial: Opening of Judgment on Babylon

Chapter 17 The Eighth Beast and Harlot (Revived Holy Roman Empire/Papacy)
A. Eight Beast: Revived Holy Roman Empire (Modern Europe and Western Powers)
B. Harlot (Ecumenical Movement headed by Papacy)

Chapter 18 The Judgment of the Great Harlot:
A. “Come out of her my people” (Admonition to obey the Gospel or possibly the Rapture)
B. Collapse of Papal power in the Holy Roman Empire and/or Destruction of the City: Destruction of Vatican City (Papacy)

Chapter 19 The Return of Christ On a White Horse (Christ Returns Unexpectedly)

Chapter 20 The Millennium (Christ Rules the Millennial Kingdom for 1,000 years) and Final Judgment.

Chapter 21 The New Jerusalem (The Eternal State)

Chapter 22 Closing Visions & Admonitions

Olivet Discourse:

Luke 21:1-23 The First Century Persecutions Woes and Judgment on Jerusalem.
Luke 21:24-36 Brief Synopsis of the Entire Church Age Culminating in Christ’s Return.

Matthew 24:1-22 The First Century Persecutions Woes and Judgment on Jerusalem.
Matthew 24:23-51 Brief Synopsis of the Entire Church Age Culminating in Christ’s Return.

Pauline Son of Perdition:

II Thessalonians 2:3-8 The "son of perdition" is the Papacy asserting itself and sitting in the "temple of God" (the Church) saying that he is God (or the Vicar of Christ) on Earth.

[Amanah]

thank you Aquila!

[Amanah]

I have a weird question . . . did Peter get rebaptized in Jesus name before the day of Pentecost?

another question: when they asked Jesus, before Pentecost, when the kingdom would be restored to Israel, he told them the time was not for them to know. Didn't they mean Israel after the flesh?

[Aquila]

thank you Aquila!

Don't thank me too much. Although I offered my Historicist conclusions after my studies, I'm actually a Pre-Millennial Futurist. lol

[Aquila]

In my Preterist studies, I found that I liked the works of David Chilton the most. He seemed the most consistent.

[mfblume]

I have a weird question . . . did Peter get rebaptized in Jesus name before the day of Pentecost?

another question: when they asked Jesus, before Pentecost, when the kingdom would be restored to Israel, he told them the time was not for them to know. Didn't they mean Israel after the flesh?

They were mistaken and indeed felt it would be a natural Kingdom of Israel. Jesus told them earlier he had many things to say and they could not bear them. They needed the Holy Ghost. After they got it, they never mentioned it again and no apostle ever taught it.

[Esaias]

I have a weird question . . . did Peter get rebaptized in Jesus name before the day of Pentecost?

No, he was baptized in the name of the Lord prior to Pentecost (John 3-4 for example). He may have been baptized by John earlier, in which case his Christian baptism could be called a "re baptism" of sorts.

another question: when they asked Jesus, before Pentecost, when the kingdom would be restored to Israel, he told them the time was not for them to know. Didn't they mean Israel after the flesh?

They meant Israel, the same Israel that is spoken of throughout both Old and New Testaments. It is not certain exactly what they believed was all involved in the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, but having been with Christ for three and a half years, having the mysteries of the Kingdom explained to them, and so forth, it is certain they were asking a question of timing and not nature. Meaning they knew the "what", but did not know the "when". The Lord told them they weren't authorized to know that information, hence all through the NT there is the element of uncertainty as to time, combined with the warnings to be "always ready", since the church was not given a timetable regarding such things.

Notice, they did not ask "Will you at this time restore the kingdom OF Israel?" They were talking about restoring the kingdom TO Israel. John Baptist and Jesus Christ both preached the good news of the kingdom. Jesus had told the leaders of Judea that the kingdom would be taken FROM them and given to others.

So the restoration spoken of is restoring the kingdom OF GOD to Israel, that is, it must at least include Israel coming back under Divine Government, as mentioned in Luke ch 1:31-33. This was prophesied by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea, and Romans ch 9, Hebrews ch 8, and other NT passages show the apostles understood the fulfillment was happening through the spread of the Gospel.

When will it all be finished? When will the full inheritance be received? It is not for us to know the "when", we are to be busy propagating the message of the Kingdom, and to be ready always.

EDIT: I do not mean that the kingdom had been taken from "the Jews" and the disciples were asking when it would be given back to "the Jews". Israel was under the control of Pharisees, Sadducees, heathen, Idumeans, Romans, etc. It was to return to Divine governance under Messiah. This began with the ministry of Christ and continues today.

[mfblume]

Questions to stir thought...

Punishment fits the crime.

If the great tribulation is greater than any before or after it, and the punishment must fit the crime, what crime in the future could be greater than the Son of God being crucified by His Bride, Israel (read Ezekiel 16), while that same bride adulterates with the Roman empire calling Caesar her king?

[mfblume]

Questions to stir thought...

Matt 24 says all the list of prophecies Jesus gave in that chapter must be fulfilled before the generation in question would pass away... and that generation included the day when the temple would be destroyed. Temple was destroyed in AD70. How can the generation Jesus spoke of be any other since that one?

If one says there are some things listed that did not happen yet, and will happen, it still says all the events listed would occur in one generation... including the temple destruction. That means what we think the events that have not occurred yet are, can only be a misunderstanding of what Jesus was talking about.

Case in point... some say the moon never turned to blood and the sun to darkness yet. Oh? WHen you read about kingdoms falling in the Old Testament, a FIGURATIVE statement was made to indicate it was lights out for that kingdom... stars were said to fall, and the sun turned to blackness. It is Hebrew cultural thinking that must be considered, which today is practically UNKNOWN by most.

[mfblume]

Questions to stir thought...

The three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate the same Olivet Discourse.

In Matthew's version of Matt 24, Jesus spoke of the buildings of the temple being taken down in destruction stone by stone. The disciples asked when shall these things be? They also asked, what shall be the sign of thy coming?

Matt 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

First of all, END OF THE WORLD literally means END OF THE AGE in Greek. Not end of Earth.

They in effect asked Jesus WHEN the stones would be torn down, which futurists agree was AD70. Then they asked what would be THE SIGN of His coming.

When they said THESE THINGS, they referred to the same "these things" Jesus mentioned in ver 2. And they included the temple destruction which occurred in AD70.

Futurists will argue the time when THESE THINGS would occur indeed does refer to AD70. But they say the SIGN OF THY COMING does not, and is speaking about our future. So, they claim Jesus spoke both of "these things" AD70 and also "THE SIGN" in our future.

But...

THE SAME SIGN was referred to in the following two gospels in their renditions of the same conversation, and refers to the "THESE THINGS" that Matt 24: does.

Mark 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Luke reads as follows:

Luke 21:6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

This means THE SIGN of his coming is the same SIGN when the temple would be destroyed.

If we let bible interpret bible.... and we read back before Mat 24 to find out WHAT COMING Jesus referred to in Matt 24, we find this...

Matt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

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.

Matt 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.



He spoke of NO OTHER COMING than that!

The second coming is not in Matthew anywhere! iT IS ONLY IN 1 THESS 4, and 1 COR 15 and a couple other places in the epistles. It is in John 5, but no where else in Matthew or Luke or Mark. So, HIS COMING in those gospels can only be the one he spoke of before those chapters in Matthew, Luke and Mark. A FIRST CENTURY coming in destruction.

[Amanah]

I'm almost done reading end time delusions

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0768429609/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Bro Blume, what you have typed above seems sensible, obviously I have lots of reading yet to do on the subject.

[mfblume]

I'm almost done reading end time delusions

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0768429609/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Bro Blume, what you have typed above seems sensible, obviously I have lots of reading yet to do on the subject.

It is a HUGE subject. One preacher I know was so well-versed in it that he could machine-gun the scriptures together with anyone in a chat. He focused on something else for a couple of years and could discuss the issue but with no where near the flow he used to have.... IT'S THAT HUGE.

[TGBTG]

If you study all these doctrines without bias, you'd see that Historicism, Futurism, and Preterism all have their inconsistencies.

Adherents of each doctrine just focus on the "holes" in the others'.

[mfblume]

If you study all these doctrines without bias, you'd see that Historicism, Futurism, and Preterism all have their inconsistencies.

Adherents of each doctrine just focus on the "holes" in the others'.

I honestly see no inconsistency in what I believe. Can you point one out to me? Are you implying we cannot know exact truth of the matter?

[Esaias]

If you study all these doctrines without bias, you'd see that Historicism, Futurism, and Preterism all have their inconsistencies.

Adherents of each doctrine just focus on the "holes" in the others'.

Please identify the most important inconsistency of each approach to.prophecy, please.

[Amanah]

Please identify the most important inconsistency of each approach to.prophecy, please.

what I need is an Eschatology for dummies, with a chart that shows where the theories intersect and diverge.

[houston]

http://pictures.amazingdiscoveries.org/ChartsGraphs/5078-Futurism-Preterism.jpg

[Amanah]

thank you Houston

[houston]

You're welcome. Not sure how accurately it represents the views of those on this forum. There are always divergent views.

[mfblume]

http://pictures.amazingdiscoveries.org/ChartsGraphs/5078-Futurism-Preterism.jpg

A historicist made that chart, though. Accusing Jesuits of making preterism and futurism, and calls Historicism "the original protestantism". So, it's a bit biased. No Jesuit ever said Revelation's first 19 chapters are fulfilled in the first century, though. Partial preterism is not represented on it. I call my view kingdom eschatology.

[Esaias]

Alcazar developed the first preterist exposition of the Apocalypse. Grotius (a Protestant) adopted his views but preterism pretty much remained restricted to catholic and some "higher critical" aka liberal Protestant expositors. Historicism is what led, in part, to the Reformation, but the Great Dissapointment of 1843-1844 led many to switch over to futurism. Preterism began to gain ground in the mid-late 1900s among conservative non-catholics through the efforts of guys like Max King and some others, essentially as a backlash against the wildly failing prognostications of futurists.

[mfblume]

Alcazar developed the first preterist exposition of the Apocalypse. Grotius (a Protestant) adopted his views but preterism pretty much remained restricted to catholic and some "higher critical" aka liberal Protestant expositors. Historicism is what led, in part, to the Reformation, but the Great Dissapointment of 1843-1844 led many to switch over to futurism. Preterism began to gain ground in the mid-late 1900s among conservative non-catholics through the efforts of guys like Max King and some others, essentially as a backlash against the wildly failing prognostications of futurists.

None of them taught fulfillment in first century.

[Bowas]

I'm almost done reading end time delusions

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0768429609/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Bro Blume, what you have typed above seems sensible, obviously I have lots of reading yet to do on the subject.

I too have studied them all, and in quite detail, I might add. They only one that fits all the bill, without having to make excuses, exemptions or exclusions has been partial preterism. If one approaches the scripture without a preconceived outcome, one most definatley cannot come up with traditional futurism. Bro. Blume did mention a very important point, and that is we must approach the scriptures from the Hebraic mindset and not from our modern and culturally influenced mindset.

[Esaias]

None of them taught fulfillment in first century.

None of who?

Everyone knows preterism was first systematized by Alcazar and adopted by Grotius. Early preterism put most of prophecy back in the past (hence the term, preterism meaning "past-ism"), dealing with the 1st century collapse of Jewish Temple system and the fall of Pagan Rome in the 4th century. Later preterists abandoned the pagan Rome angles and put it all in the first century.

Prior to Alcazar there was no preterist interpretation of prophecy. Some preterists try to quote expositors who speak of Matthew 24 as having an AD70 fulfillment as evidence of pre-Jesuit or non-catholic Reformed preterism, but conveniently fail to mention that historicists UNIVERSALLY have ALWAYS seen Matthew 24 as pertaining to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, a person is not a preterist because they understand the Olivet Prophecy of Matthew 24 as speaking of the overthrow of Jerusalem. All historicists believed that, and even some futurists.

Preterism is the identification of the Beast, Antichrist, and Mystery Babylon with past events long ago finished and over with. The first preterists tied it to AD70 and the Rise of Constantine, but later and modern preterists abandoned any association with the fall of Pagan Rome, and many went further and even located the Second Advent, Resurrection, and Final Judgment in the first century.

[mfblume]

None of who?

Everyone knows preterism was first systematized by Alcazar and adopted by Grotius.

Everyone knows?

Early preterism put most of prophecy back in the past (hence the term, preterism meaning "past-ism"), dealing with the 1st century collapse of Jewish Temple system and the fall of Pagan Rome in the 4th century. Later preterists abandoned the pagan Rome angles and put it all in the first century.

Early preterists?

I can say the early church was partial preterist as you say it was historicist. These sorts of claims are disingenuous and biased. Please provide proof of these claims.



Prior to Alcazar there was no preterist interpretation of prophecy.

Please prove this.

Some preterists try to quote expositors who speak of Matthew 24 as having an AD70 fulfillment as evidence of pre-Jesuit or non-catholic Reformed preterism, but conveniently fail to mention that historicists UNIVERSALLY have ALWAYS seen Matthew 24 as pertaining to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, a person is not a preterist because they understand the Olivet Prophecy of Matthew 24 as speaking of the overthrow of Jerusalem. All historicists believed that, and even some futurists.

Preterism is the identification of the Beast, Antichrist, and Mystery Babylon with past events long ago finished and over with. The first preterists tied it to AD70 and the Rise of Constantine, but later and modern preterists abandoned any association with the fall of Pagan Rome, and many went further and even located the Second Advent, Resurrection, and Final Judgment in the first century.
First preterists?

This whole outline is assumed and not at all proved. Everybody claims the early church taught their view. The fact remains is that all of this is diversionary, and standing on what the WORD says and debating from an inward perspective of the word the word's internal is the only way to argue any point to be true or not.

Otherwise, it's biased assumed information that can never be proved.

[Esaias]

I too have studied them all, and in quite detail, I might add. They only one that fits all the bill, without having to make excuses, exemptions or exclusions has been partial preterism. If one approaches the scripture without a preconceived outcome, one most definatley cannot come up with traditional futurism. Bro. Blume did mention a very important point, and that is we must approach the scriptures from the Hebraic mindset and not from our modern and culturally influenced mindset.

I disagree. Preterism requires an a priori assumption not derived from Scripture itself (several, actually). How is prophecy fulfilled IN THE BIBLE ITSELF? Preteristically? Futuristically? Or historically?

Preterism and futurism both fail on this foundational point. Most all preterists and futurists ignore the entire foundation of OT prophecy and its Biblically documented chronological fulfillment. They also ignore one of the fundamental keys of prophecy - the Abrahamic Covenant and the prophecies that put it into action. They completely miss the importance of Daniel, the original "apocalypse", with it's DIVINE INTERPRETATIONS as provided by both Daniel and the angel Gabriel, which provides the KEY to understanding Revelation. They miss the scope and sequence of Bible prophecy, in other words, and instead take a hodge podge of NT prophetic texts and force them into their particular, necessary, and assumed position either in a brief period in the first century or in a brief period right before The End™.

Both systems (futurism, and preterism) are riddled with insurmountable inconsistencies and internal contradictions, as well as contradictions to the plain statements of Scripture.

Both systems render Bible prophecy as essentially moot and irrelevant for the vast majority of mankind throughout the last 2000 years. Prophecy was for people 2000 years ago, not for anyone living afterwards (preterism), or prophecy is for people in some unspecified future time and not for anyone living before (futurism).

Both systems were developed for the express purpose of deflecting criticism away from Papal Rome as being the Beast, Antichrist, etc - which was not a uniquely Protestant view, by the way.

[mfblume]

I disagree. Preterism requires an a priori assumption not derived from Scripture itself (several, actually). How is prophecy fulfilled IN THE BIBLE ITSELF? Preteristically? Futuristically? Or historically?

I proved that incorrect just by the way I came into partial preterism.

Like I said here many times, I cast away all thoughts of prophecy, started studying the cross in the mid 90's. Then with no intention, I started seeing partial preterism, not even know there was a title like that in existence. It was not until later someone told me what it was called when someone believes the way I saw the Lord lead me to believe. I had preached dispensationalism up to that point.

Someone mentioned back in the early 80's that the HE of Daniel 9:27 was not antichrist, but Jesus Christ who ministered 3.5 years and then died, not for himself but us.

That focused my attention on the cross way back then.

But not until I studied and preached from Matthew 1 on through each chapter, for a few chapters, then personally continued studying the following chapters until I came to chapter 21 and noticed what the COMING of the Lord was in verse 40, did I realize prophecy was taught to me incorrectly.

There was no priori assumption of ANYTHING in my experience. And I overcome this false claim by the word of my testimony! lol

And to focus on assumed origins of doctrines is diversionary from the WORD ITSELF. Brethren who saw it like I did, testified they never knew anyone else believed it! And historicists and futurists all got their views from books and teachers, not the bible itself the way those whom I know did.

So, this is all diversionary. Deal with the Bible's internal evidence of its own WORD.

[Esaias]

Everyone knows?

Except today's preterists?



Early preterists?

Yes, Alcazar, Grotius, etc.

I can say the early church was partial preterist

You would be wrong. By early church do you mean Ante-Nicene? Or during the NT period itself? If the former, you would be grossly mistaken. If the latter, you would again be wrong, because nobody in the NT viewed the bulk of NT prophecy as PAST lol.

as you say it was historicist. These sorts of claims are disingenuous and biased. Please provide proof of these claims.

https://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/_migrated/tx_org/fnleenonpreteristicbiblicalhistoricalism.pdf



This whole outline is assumed and not at all proved. Everybody claims the early church taught their view. The fact remains is that all of this is diversionary, and standing on what the WORD says and debating from an inward perspective of the word the word's internal is the only way to argue any point to be true or not.

I think you introduced the "early church" into this discussion for some reason. I do not know what you mean by "an inward perspective of the word the word's internal is the only way to argue any point"???

Otherwise, it's biased assumed information that can never be proved.

What? This makes no sense.

[Esaias]

I proved that incorrect just by the way I came into partial preterism.


All that proves is you made the same assumptions and mistakes as other preterists have made, to be honest.

I know a person who through their own "prayer and study" came to believe that sinning was just a means of "working out their destiny with God". This person was Oneness Pentecostal when they hit that discovery. I could tell this person "Your new doctrine is identical with Frankist Judaism, certain variations of Hindu Shaivism, Crowleyism, or Nietzschian philosophy" to which they could honestly say "Never heard or read any of that."

Doesn't mean they "must be correct" or "divinely guided" in their beliefs.

[mfblume]

All that proves is you made the same assumptions and mistakes as other preterists have made, to be honest. That is a very biased response. I read

I know a person who through their own "prayer and study" came to believe that sinning was just a means of "working out their destiny with God". This person was Oneness Pentecostal when they hit that discovery. I could tell this person "Your new doctrine is identical with Frankist Judaism, certain variations of Hindu Shaivism, Crowleyism, or Nietzschian philosophy" to which they could honestly say "Never heard or read any of that."

Doesn't mean they "must be correct" or "divinely guided" in their beliefs.

You said I had priori assumptions. That was wrong.

But the point is I had no priori understanding, and I was not even looking to consider prophecy in my study.

Sometimes your answers shock me, Esaias. I usually do not see you like this. lol That was incredibly biased.

[mfblume]

Except today's preterists?





Yes, Alcazar, Grotius, etc.


You mean the apostles. lol




You would be wrong. By early church do you mean Ante-Nicene? Or during the NT period itself? If the former, you would be grossly mistaken. If the latter, you would again be wrong, because nobody in the NT viewed the bulk of NT prophecy as PAST lol.



https://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/_migrated/tx_org/fnleenonpreteristicbiblicalhistoricalism.pdf



I think you introduced the "early church" into this discussion for some reason. I do not know what you mean by "an inward perspective of the word the word's internal is the only way to argue any point"???

When we argue for our viewpoint, it is silly to go to books of alleged history of where the view came from compared to others. Use Bible to propose our points. Not assumed historical events. This verse says that, and that verse says this, and that is why we believe what we believe. That's the what we should debate our position. Not by assumed history you cannot prove.


What? This makes no sense.

What you presented was biased and assumed information you got from books.

Brother, the way we handle doctrines like you are here, as opposed to the way others handle them with word alone, tells a lot of how we came into our views.

[mfblume]

Esaias, let me guess. You got this history of where preterism and futurism came from in books written by historicists, right?

Those surveying the various beliefs, please know that my view does not resort to alleged historical origins that cannot be proved. My view stands on proposing what the bible itself says. Nothing else. That is how I came into this view and that is how I present it. History is often in the eye of its writers alone. And it becomes popular after time.

[Esaias]

That is a very biased response. I read



You said I had priori assumptions. That was wrong.

But the point is I had no priori understanding, and I was not even looking to consider prophecy in my study.

Sometimes your answers shock me, Esaias. I usually do not see you like this. lol That was incredibly biased.

Shocking? Just because a person studies the Bible and comes to a conclusion without reading books by others who have the same conclusion doesn't mean they a) didn't have presuppositions at work, or b) they are correct in their conclusions. That was the point I was making.

[Esaias]

Esaias, let me guess. You got this history of where preterism and futurism came from in books written by historicists, right?

It's even on Wikipedia, lol. Can you demonstrate a preterist exposition of prophecy PRIOR to Alcazar and Grotius?

Those surveying the various beliefs, please know that my view does not resort to alleged historical origins that cannot be proved. My view stands on proposing what the bible itself says. Nothing else. That is how I came into this view and that is how I present it. History is often in the eye of its writers alone. And it becomes popular after time.

History is history, and it is either true or false. Is there a preterist exposition of prophecy PRIOR to Alcazar?

Note: quoting some AnteNicene writer on Matthew 24 won't do as I already pointed out ALL Christians prior to the rise of futurism believed Matthew 24 spoke of AD 70. We'd need to see an expositor explain Antichrist, the Man of sin, the Beast, Mystery Babylon, the thousand years, and all that as being fulfilled up to or in AD70.

[mfblume]

Shocking? Just because a person studies the Bible and comes to a conclusion without reading books by others who have the same conclusion doesn't mean they a) didn't have presuppositions at work, or b) they are correct in their conclusions. That was the point I was making.

But it was extremely biased and thinking the worst simply because you are historicist. I usually have not seen you post form that perspective. That's what shocked me. You said we believe this from priori assumption and I proved that wrong. I had no presupposing in effect at all. What I read in the bible shook my world in that period o study. People are so used to getting things from books that they do not realize the other approach.

[mfblume]

It's even on Wikipedia, lol. Can you demonstrate a preterist exposition of prophecy PRIOR to Alcazar and Grotius?



History is history, and it is either true or false. Is there a preterist exposition of prophecy PRIOR to Alcazar?

Note: quoting some AnteNicene writer on Matthew 24 won't do as I already pointed out ALL Christians prior to the rise of futurism believed Matthew 24 spoke of AD 70. We'd need to see an expositor explain Antichrist, the Man of sin, the Beast, Mystery Babylon, the thousand years, and all that as being fulfilled up to or in AD70.

You keep doing this. You know yourself that citing historical writings proves nothing about what the early church in ACTS believed. Go to the Bible. If you use history, try finding me a belief that real presence was not the main belief in the early church fathers writings, for example of showing this line of approach you present to be error.

After having urged you to base views on scripture alone, you still continue in this way should show readers something.

Brother, when we resort to means outside of Scripture to deny a viewpoint, I think that says something.

[Esaias]

But it was extremely biased and thinking the worst simply because you are historicist.

Thinking the worst? No, I think you may be thinking the worst about what I said. I just explained it in the post you quoted. I did not assume anything about your motives.

I usually have not seen you post form that perspective. That's what shocked me. You said we believe this from priori assumption and I proved that wrong. I had no presupposing in effect at all.

Perhaps you have "assumed the worst" about what I mean by presuppositions and a priori assumptions, rather than simply asking me what I meant?

What I read in the bible shook my world in that period o study. People are so used to getting things from books that they do not realize the other approach.

I get my doctrine from the Bible. Do I read other books? Sure, as do most of us (except Sean, he's speshul). I began reading Revelation before I ever heard of historicism, futurism, or preterism. I had heard people claim a secret pre trib rapture but never saw it in scripture. I had briefly believed post trib but just by reading the Bible I could see they were waaaaay off in key areas. The only thing they had right was no secret rapture.

As I studied the Bible, I followed the prophecies in the OT and into the New. I had no term for it, I just called it "prophecy".

Years later I discovered the debate between historicism, futurism, and preterism. I discovered historicism most closely aligned with what I had already found. Most historicists, however, have missed some key points, but that's another subject.

What I'm saying is we all have assumptions that influence how we read and understand prophecy. Some of the foundational assumptions I find in preterist writers and futurist writers (and some well known historicist writers as well!) are flawed and unbiblical, in my opinion. Those assumptions don't come from "books on prophecy", necessarily.

[Bowas]

I disagree. Preterism requires an a priori assumption not derived from Scripture itself (several, actually). How is prophecy fulfilled IN THE BIBLE ITSELF? Preteristically? Futuristically? Or historically?

Preterism and futurism both fail on this foundational point. Most all preterists and futurists ignore the entire foundation of OT prophecy and its Biblically documented chronological fulfillment. They also ignore one of the fundamental keys of prophecy - the Abrahamic Covenant and the prophecies that put it into action. They completely miss the importance of Daniel, the original "apocalypse", with it's DIVINE INTERPRETATIONS as provided by both Daniel and the angel Gabriel, which provides the KEY to understanding Revelation. They miss the scope and sequence of Bible prophecy, in other words, and instead take a hodge podge of NT prophetic texts and force them into their particular, necessary, and assumed position either in a brief period in the first century or in a brief period right before The End™.

Both systems (futurism, and preterism) are riddled with insurmountable inconsistencies and internal contradictions, as well as contradictions to the plain statements of Scripture.

Both systems render Bible prophecy as essentially moot and irrelevant for the vast majority of mankind throughout the last 2000 years. Prophecy was for people 2000 years ago, not for anyone living afterwards (preterism), or prophecy is for people in some unspecified future time and not for anyone living before (futurism).

Both systems were developed for the express purpose of deflecting criticism away from Papal Rome as being the Beast, Antichrist, etc - which was not a uniquely Protestant view, by the way.

I did not say, "...is prophecy fulfilled IN THE BIBLE ITSELF?"

Futurism and historisism though are not even suggested in scripture as the scriptures on end time, is written in such a manner that they knew they were in the time of the end, back then, and said so quite explicitly on several occasions.
Historisim seems to make more sense than typical futurism, but it still relies on derived conclusions, as nothing explicitly says it is a progressive fulfillment, as I understand historisism.

[Esaias]

I did not say, "...is prophecy fulfilled IN THE BIBLE ITSELF?"

I didn't say you did. Not sure why you suggested I said you did. What I was saying is, looking at how prophecy is fulfilled within the Bible itself rules out both futurism and preterism.

Futurism and historisism though are not even suggested in scripture as the scriptures on end time, is written in such a manner that they knew they were in the time of the end, back then, and said so quite explicitly on several occasions.


You don't understand historicism. Of course they knew they were in the "end time". But the Bible itself defines " latter days, end time, last days". And it does so in a manner that rules out futurism AND preterism.

Historisim seems to make more sense than typical futurism, but it still relies on derived conclusions, as nothing explicitly says it is a progressive fulfillment, as I understand historisism.

The Bible teaches progressive fulfillment, and history confirms such fulfillment, in numerous OT prophecies. I really am not certain you understand what historicism actually is. Either that, or *I* don't and I need to find a new term. :)

Progressive fulfillment, or rather, "continuous historical fulfillment", is the idea that history is subject to the Divine Plan of God, and that He has given us the necessary overview of that Plan in the form of prophecy. It does not mean all prophecies are always being fulfilled (and never get finished), or that all prophecies require a long long long time to come to pass. It does, however, mean that there is no 2000 year mystery gap in prophecy (futurism, partial preterism), or that God has left His church with no prophetic Word from AD70 to infinity (full preterism).

Let me ask you something. The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2... is it growing and filling the whole earth? If you say yes, then you have admitted you hold to an historicist understanding of the prophecy. You could only be a consistent preterist if you say it grew and filled the whole earth BY AD70.

In which case we have NO IDEA what the future holds AT ALL.

[Esaias]

I came to my view after having studied the cross, and had no interest in studying prophecy. I preached each weekend from the start of one year from Matt 1 and to the next chapter, a chapter a week. Never planned on that either. And then came to Matt 21 and about fell off my chair when I noticed Jesus spoke of His coming to destroy those husbandmen in his day and he never left that topic after that chapter til He when to the cross.

And I saw His words all through Revelation like a commentary of Revelation for first century Israel. To me, this view fits more with bible interpreting bible.

I did not even know others believed the way I started seeing it. Then came into contact with others!

Matthew ch 22:1-14 contains a Kingdom parable. The destruction of the bidden guests is in verse 7 (notice, the King didn't come and burn up their city but He did send His armies to do it). But AFTER the destruction of the city, the Wedding Supper is still future. Guests are still being found, the servants are still going out to round people up to furnish the Feast with guests, the improperly dressed guest is there, then thrown out. All future from the point of the ungrateful city's destruction.

People are still being invited and compelled to the Feast, the improperly dressed guests have not yet been expelled, and thus the events are currently on going and have been since the city's devastation. Therefore, the prophecy continues AFTER AD 70 and runs CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH HISTORY UNTIL THE PRESENT, and will continue until the time's up (judgment). Thus, this chapter's parable refutes preterism and categorically proves the "continuous historical" understanding is not only correct, but derived directly from the Bible itself.

[Esaias]

I came to my view after having studied the cross, and had no interest in studying prophecy. I preached each weekend from the start of one year from Matt 1 and to the next chapter, a chapter a week. Never planned on that either. And then came to Matt 21 and about fell off my chair when I noticed Jesus spoke of His coming to destroy those husbandmen in his day and he never left that topic after that chapter til He when to the cross.

And I saw His words all through Revelation like a commentary of Revelation for first century Israel. To me, this view fits more with bible interpreting bible.

I did not even know others believed the way I started seeing it. Then came into contact with others!

Matthew ch 22:29-32 deals with our Lord teaching on the resurrection. Was the resurrection in AD 70? If the bolded part of your statement quoted above is true, then you must admit He was talking about AD 70 in these verses, and you should be a full, consistent preterist.

But you believe the resurrection is still future. Therefore the bolded part of your statement quoted above is not true.

There are several other subjects upon which our Lord taught between ch 21 and going to the cross which do not directly pertain to AD 70. Perhaps you missed all those things? I won't say you had an epiphany in ch 21 and then assumed everything else after that dealt with the same subject.

[mfblume]

Matthew ch 22:29-32 deals with our Lord teaching on the resurrection. Was the resurrection in AD 70? If the bolded part of your statement quoted above is true, then you must admit He was talking about AD 70 in these verses, and you should be a full, consistent preterist.

But you believe the resurrection is still future. Therefore the bolded part of your statement quoted above is not true.

There are several other subjects upon which our Lord taught between ch 21 and going to the cross which do not directly pertain to AD 70. Perhaps you missed all those things? I won't say you had an epiphany in ch 21 and then assumed everything else after that dealt with the same subject.

There is no resurrection in Matt 24 anywhere.

[Esaias]

There is no resurrection in Matt 24 anywhere.

:blink

[houston]

There is no resurrection in Matt 24 anywhere.

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
----

[mfblume]

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
----

I do not see a resurrection there. Trumpet calls are for various reasons.

Isaiah 58:1 KJV Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

If this was resurrection, it could have been said far more plainly than that. The dead in Christ shall rise, for example... or as in John's gospel, all those in the graves who hear his voice shall live.

Jesus used the same terms in chapter 23... one chapter earlier... was this a resurrection?

Matthew 23:36-37 KJV 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!


He WOULD HAVE gathered Jersualem from destruction! But they would not.

And notice the proximity of that statement from verse 36 where he spoke of their generation.

Compare with this:

Matthew 24:31-34 KJV And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: (33) So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. (34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Notice he said FROM THE FOUR WINDS.

This is powerful! Watch:

Zechariah 6:1-5 KJV And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. (2) In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; (3) And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses. (4) Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? (5) And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits [HEB: WINDS]of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.


FOUR SPIRITS are the four sets of horses. Sound familiar? The four horsemen in Revelation 6. Same colours.

And when Zechariah called them FOUR SPIRITS OF THE HEAVEN, SPIRIT is WIND in Hebrew. FOUR WINDS.

And the horses in Revelation are

1: false Christs
2: war
3: famine
4 death and hell.

Notice that JESUS spoke of gathering elect FROM the FOUR WINDS in heaven, after HE LISTED:

Matthew 24:4-9 KJV And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. (5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many [WHITE HORSE]. (6) And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars [REDHORSE]: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (7) For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, [BLACK HORSE]and earthquakes, in divers places. (8) All these are the beginning of sorrows. (9) Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: [PALE HORSE]and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.



The FOUR WINDS are what the elect will be gathered FROM, like HE WOULD HAVE GATHERED ISRAEL FROM the destruction. But Israel would not, and the elect would!

It's not resurrection, but safety from destruction!

Just like Noah's ark. The ones who REMAINED were the ELECT, because the FLOOD CAME and TOOK THE SINNERS IN DEATH.

Same thing!

And after Revelation 6 LISTS THE FOUR HORSEMEN, which Zechariah was told were WINDS/SPIRITS, we read the next chapter in Revelation:

Revelation 7:1 KJV And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

[good samaritan]

1Thess. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God:and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Mt. 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

These two scripture sound synonymous to me. It is not just the trumpets that make people think of the resurrection, it is the part about the Son of Man coming in the clouds.

[mfblume]

These two scripture sound synonymous to me. It is not just the trumpets that make people think of the resurrection, it is the part about the Son of Man coming in the clouds.

Please read my post previous to this one as it shows a DISTINCT difference. I just explained it. :)

[Esaias]

:blink

:whistle

[mfblume]

:whistle

We post so people will read the posts. :)

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1476707&postcount=60

[Esaias]

We post so people will read the posts. :)

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1476707&postcount=60

Very well then, be right back.

[Esaias]

I proved that incorrect just by the way I came into partial preterism.

...

But not until I studied and preached from Matthew 1 on through each chapter, for a few chapters, then personally continued studying the following chapters until I came to chapter 21 and noticed what the COMING of the Lord was in verse 40, did I realize prophecy was taught to me incorrectly.



I came to my view after having studied the cross, and had no interest in studying prophecy. I preached each weekend from the start of one year from Matt 1 and to the next chapter, a chapter a week. Never planned on that either. And then came to Matt 21 and about fell off my chair when I noticed Jesus spoke of His coming to destroy those husbandmen in his day and he never left that topic after that chapter til He when to the cross.



I am reposting my original response to your post:

"Matthew ch 22:1-14 contains a Kingdom parable. The destruction of the bidden guests is in verse 7 (notice, the King didn't come and burn up their city but He did send His armies to do it). But AFTER the destruction of the city, the Wedding Supper is still future. Guests are still being found, the servants are still going out to round people up to furnish the Feast with guests, the improperly dressed guest is there, then thrown out. All future from the point of the ungrateful city's destruction.

People are still being invited and compelled to the Feast, the improperly dressed guests have not yet been expelled, and thus the events are currently on going and have been since the city's devastation. Therefore, the prophecy continues AFTER AD 70 and runs CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH HISTORY UNTIL THE PRESENT, and will continue until the time's up (judgment). Thus, this chapter's parable refutes preterism and categorically proves the "continuous historical" understanding is not only correct, but derived directly from the Bible itself."

(end of repost)

I also posted this right afterwards:

"Matthew ch 22:29-32 deals with our Lord teaching on the resurrection. Was the resurrection in AD 70? If the bolded part of your statement quoted above is true, then you must admit He was talking about AD 70 in these verses, and you should be a full, consistent preterist.

But you believe the resurrection is still future. Therefore the bolded part of your statement quoted above is not true.

There are several other subjects upon which our Lord taught between ch 21 and going to the cross which do not directly pertain to AD 70. Perhaps you missed all those things? I won't say you had an epiphany in ch 21 and then assumed everything else after that dealt with the same subject."

(end of repost)

You responded with a short statement that Matthew 24 nowhere mentions the resurrection, which is totally irrelevent to the subject at hand.

May I please direct your attention back to my two posts, quoted above, in response to your statements about how you came into partial preterism?

[mfblume]

I am reposting my original response to your post:

"Matthew ch 22:1-14 contains a Kingdom parable. The destruction of the bidden guests is in verse 7 (notice, the King didn't come and burn up their city but He did send His armies to do it). But AFTER the destruction of the city, the Wedding Supper is still future. Guests are still being found, the servants are still going out to round people up to furnish the Feast with guests, the improperly dressed guest is there, then thrown out. All future from the point of the ungrateful city's destruction.

The burning of the city corresponds to AD70. It does not matter if the king comes directly. The fact is God is said to have done when he dispatches heathen nations, as in the past:

Isa 10:5-13 KJV....O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. ..(6)....I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. ..(7)....Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few. ..(8)....For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings? ..(9)....Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus? ..(10)....As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria; ..(11)....Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols? ..(12)....Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. ..(13)....For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:


Jesus spoke of AD70 as the LORD COMING. This was irrefutably AD70.

Mat 21:40....When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
Mat 21:41....They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Mat 21:45....And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

COMING in Matt 24 is PRESENCE... .Parouosa. His kingdom presence is in view.

Matt 21 shows parables of the religious leaders losing the kingdom and others getting it instead.

Mat 21:28....But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29....He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 21:30....And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Mat 21:31....Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

And...

Mat 21:33....Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
Mat 21:34....And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
Mat 21:35....And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36....Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
Mat 21:37....But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mat 21:38....But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Mat 21:39....And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
Mat 21:40....When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

The same picture is seen in the marriage.

Who said the marriage is yet future?



People are still being invited and compelled to the Feast, the improperly dressed guests have not yet been expelled, and thus the events are currently on going and have been since the city's devastation. Therefore, the prophecy continues AFTER AD 70 and runs CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH HISTORY UNTIL THE PRESENT, and will continue until the time's up (judgment).

Says who? Just because the marriage supper is a thing of the past does not mean the kingdom is still being filled. Who said it was future? It's been the popular deal and has become hymn book theology, but who said in the Word?



Thus, this chapter's parable refutes preterism and categorically proves the "continuous historical" understanding is not only correct, but derived directly from the Bible itself."

(end of repost)

I also posted this right afterwards:

"Matthew ch 22:29-32 deals with our Lord teaching on the resurrection. Was the resurrection in AD 70? If the bolded part of your statement quoted above is true, then you must admit He was talking about AD 70 in these verses, and you should be a full, consistent preterist.

But you believe the resurrection is still future. Therefore the bolded part of your statement quoted above is not true.

There are several other subjects upon which our Lord taught between ch 21 and going to the cross which do not directly pertain to AD 70. Perhaps you missed all those things? I won't say you had an epiphany in ch 21 and then assumed everything else after that dealt with the same subject."

(end of repost)

You responded with a short statement that Matthew 24 nowhere mentions the resurrection, which is totally irrelevent to the subject at hand.

May I please direct your attention back to my two posts, quoted above, in response to your statements about how you came into partial preterism?
Look at my post where I explained the alleged resurrection of Matt 24. No one has responded to it yet and you and another has posted since then in reference to the issue and neither of you responded to it.

[Esaias]

Look at my post where I explained the alleged resurrection of Matt 24. No one has responded to it yet and you and another has posted since then in reference to the issue and neither of you responded to it.

I will address the rest of your post in a minute. But I only responded to your Matthew 24 post because it had nothing to do with what I was saying. I don't need to comment on an argument about whether or not the resurrection is mentioned in Matthew 24 because I am not talking about that subject. I am talking about whether Jesus NEVER GOT OFF THE SUBJECT OF AD 70 between Matthew 21 and the cross.

BRB

[Esaias]

The same picture is seen in the marriage.

Who said the marriage is yet future?



You did not address the fact that, as I pointed out, the parable continues with events that happen AFTER AD 70 and which continue to this day. Ergo, not preterist, not futurist, but historicist.

Says who? Just because the marriage supper is a thing of the past does not mean the kingdom is still being filled. Who said it was future? It's been the popular deal and has become hymn book theology, but who said in the Word?

If the marriage supper is a thing of the past then nobody is currently being invited to the supper.

[mfblume]

You did not address the fact that, as I pointed out, the parable continues with events that happen AFTER AD 70 and which continue to this day. Ergo, not preterist, not futurist, but historicist.


That's the same reasoning that thinks wars and rumours of wars occurring today must mean they were not an issue in the first century.

If the marriage supper is a thing of the past then nobody is currently being invited to the supper.

Who said they have to be?

We have to deal with paradigms and how incorrect or correct they may be.

[Esaias]

That's the same reasoning that thinks wars and rumours of wars occurring today must mean they were not an issue in the first century.

No it is not. I didn't say anything was NOT an issue in the first century. Please try to stay focused here, brother. The parable explicitly shows that AFTER the destruction of the city, the servants of the Lord would go and compel OTHERS to come to the wedding feast, through various means. And still it would not be furnished with enough guests, so more compelling of guests to come to the feast takes place. Additionally, there is the improperly dressed man getting the boot. All of this takes place AFTER the destruction of the city, which you identify as the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

ERGO, there are prophesied events happening AFTER the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. And more to the point, these POST AD 70 things were spoken of BY JESUS in MATTHEW, AFTER the first parable you mentioned and BEFORE the cross. And THEREFORE, it is not true that Jesus 'never left the subject' of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem from that parable in ch 21 till the cross.

FURTHERMORE, I proved that Jesus ALSO spoke about the subject of the Resurrection in chapter 22, during His refuting of the Sadducees. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH AD 70.

AND THEREFORE PROVES MY POINT that He talked about OTHER THINGS BESIDES AD 70 during the period in which you claimed He talked about NOTHING BUT AD 70.



Here's what it looks like to me.

You read a parable in Matthew 21 where Jesus spoke of coming in vengeance, and saw that it applied to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. You then ASSUMED that He 'never left that subject' until the cross. As a result, you CONCLUDED 'partial preterism', though at the time you did not know about that term.

So, as I stated earlier, preterism is based upon certain a priori assumptions. In your case, the a priori assumption was that 'Jesus never left that subject from ch 21 to the cross'. As a result of that assumption, you concluded partial preterism. Your assumption was made before you concluded partial preterism, and it clearly (per your own words) is the underlying source of your belief in what is known as partial preterism.

When I first said something about a priori assumptions, you got defensive and began to assume bad things about me and/or my motives. Yet, your own words later proved my point!

Note: Having a priori assumptions isn't always bad. In fact, we all have them and cannot get away from them. We a priori assume that the bible is true before we go trying to figure out what it teaches, correct? We a priori assume that 'truth' is a constant that can in fact be known before we go around to figure anything out at all, correct?

the problem comes in when we do not examine our a priori assumptions, and therefore do not recognise how they influence our thinking, colouring what we see, and affecting our conclusions. In such cases we may have inaccurate, unproven, or false a priori assumptions that will produce error. Error which we will not be able to detect until we examine the underlying assumptions we made in the beginning.

[mfblume]

No it is not. I didn't say anything was NOT an issue in the first century. Please try to stay focused here, brother.
I am quite focused here. You just aren't seeing it.

The parable explicitly shows that AFTER the destruction of the city, the servants of the Lord would go and compel OTHERS to come to the wedding feast, through various means.

AFTER the destruction. Right. This is speaking of the kingdom. The KINGDOM would have been given to the religious, but it went to others. And it focused on THEIR DESTRUCTION. Jesus spoke of that destruction. It was the main discourse. You are right it was not ALL he said. But it was THE THEME interspersed with issues they asked him and he answered. They lost the kingdom, would be destroyed because of it, and it would go to another. The parable of the two sons, the parable of the vineyard, the wedding. That overall pattern is over and over again. The THEME is their loss and subsequent destruction. I never said the ongoing kingdom with OTHERS was not mentioned!

And still it would not be furnished with enough guests, so more compelling of guests to come to the feast takes place. Additionally, there is the improperly dressed man getting the boot. All of this takes place AFTER the destruction of the city, which you identify as the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
Right.

The KINGDOM was confirmed to have COME in AD70 when the KING's words concerning His kingdom were fulfilled and the enemies of that Kingdom to whom it was first promised to come were dealt with.


ERGO, there are prophesied events happening AFTER the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Sure! But just the overall Kingdom going forth... THAT THE RELIGIOUS LOST and OTHERS OBTAINED.

And more to the point, these POST AD 70 things were spoken of BY JESUS in MATTHEW, AFTER the first parable you mentioned and BEFORE the cross. And THEREFORE, it is not true that Jesus 'never left the subject' of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem from that parable in ch 21 till the cross.

Brother, the overall and main point of the wedding feast was that the people promised to experience it lost it! THAT is the issue that never left Christ.

FURTHERMORE, I proved that Jesus ALSO spoke about the subject of the Resurrection in chapter 22, during His refuting of the Sadducees. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH AD 70.

The issue of resurrection was a sideline issue, but the overall point of their loss of the kingdom was what he did not leave. And he kept focusing on it AFTER the resurrection note. He never raised the issue of resurrection! Someone asked him about it. But when HE INITIATED CONVERSATION AND TOPIC, it was them losing the kingdom.

And chapter 23 sees Him rip into the pharisees again, rebuking them and speaking of how he would have gathered from the destruction to come.



AND THEREFORE PROVES MY POINT that He talked about OTHER THINGS BESIDES AD 70 during the period in which you claimed He talked about NOTHING BUT AD 70.



THAT THEY BROUGHT UP... NOT HIM.


Here's what it looks like to me.

You read a parable in Matthew 21 where Jesus spoke of coming in vengeance, and saw that it applied to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. You then ASSUMED that He 'never left that subject' until the cross. As a result, you CONCLUDED 'partial preterism', though at the time you did not know about that term.

So, as I stated earlier, preterism is based upon certain a priori assumptions. In your case, the a priori assumption was that 'Jesus never left that subject from ch 21 to the cross'.

You do not know what priori assumption is. It is heading in to the scriptures before you read them with a viewpoint you're looking for in them. I did not head into them with a theme in mind to hunt for. I went into them BLANK of anything I expected. I went in there OPENED for it to tell me what its own context was. I got the picture of the theme of losing the kingdom and others getting it AFTER I read the context.

It's all through Matt 24.

As a result of that assumption, you concluded partial preterism.

No assumption. It's the context of those chapters. Jesus pauses and answers questions, and raises the issue of those who do come into the kingdom better stay faithful or they will be in trouble, too. but the overall theme was what I laid out.


Your assumption was made before you concluded partial preterism, and it clearly (per your own words) is the underlying source of your belief in what is known as partial preterism.

When I first said something about a priori assumptions, you got defensive and began to assume bad things about me and/or my motives. Yet, your own words later proved my point!

No, you are twisting what prior assumption is.. it is PRESUPPOSITION. It is ideas BEFORE you read the text, not ideas derived AFTER and as a RESULT OF reading the text.

Note: Having a priori assumptions isn't always bad. In fact, we all have them and cannot get away from them. We a priori assume that the bible is true before we go trying to figure out what it teaches, correct? We a priori assume that 'truth' is a constant that can in fact be known before we go around to figure anything out at all, correct?

the problem comes in when we do not examine our a priori assumptions, and therefore do not recognise how they influence our thinking, colouring what we see, and affecting our conclusions. In such cases we may have inaccurate, unproven, or false a priori assumptions that will produce error. Error which we will not be able to detect until we examine the underlying assumptions we made in the beginning.

I had no priori assumption about these chapters. My understanding came as a result of reading them. I saw how Jesus changed themes from chapter 21 onward compared to the former chapters. I never saw that before I read them in that period of study.

[mfblume]

Look what THEY spoke about to Him.

Matthew 22:15-21 KJV Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. (16) And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. (17) Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? (18) But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? (19) Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. (20) And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? (21) They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


And also,,,

Matthew 22:23-30 KJV The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, (24) Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. (25) Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: (26) Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. (27) And last of all the woman died also. (28) Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


And also...

Matthew 22:35-37 KJV Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law? (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.



But he continued with nothing but rebuke for religious.

Matthew 23:1-4 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (4) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.


And He sums it up with...

Matthew 23:35-37 KJV 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!


And that so stunned the disciples, they asked WHEN.

Even after they tried to change the subject, He redirected them to destruction!

Matthew 24:1-3 KJV And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. (2) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

[Esaias]

You do not know what priori assumption is.

Yes I do. It is an assumption that is in place prior to an argument or series of premises used to reach a conclusion. It is a premise that is assumed to be true without further need of proof or demonstration, and is therefore not part of the demonstration or proof of an argument. Brother, I taught Aristotelian logic, both formal and material, as well as classical progymnasmata and rhetoric. I know what an a priori assumption is. My approach to apologetics is generally Van Til's presuppositional apologetics, which focuses on identifying the presuppositions (a priori assumptions) people hold at the base of their arguments and rationales. I studied Charles Finney's Systematic Theology and TAUGHT introductory systematic theology using Finney's course as the primary text, with a heavy focus on epistemology and the first truths of reason, truths that are a priori and need no demonstration or proofs.

I know what an a priori assumption is. You stated you saw something in Matthew 21, and then you assumed that a certain condition prevailed throughout the rest of Matthew up to the cross. As a result of your assumption, you interpreted the rest of Matthew, and a lot of other scriptures, in a particular way. You then concluded what is called 'partial preterism'. Your assumption 'Jesus never left that subject until the cross' was a priori to your conclusion of partial preterism. How can you deny that?

Whew. I am going to leave off all the 'he said she said you said I said' stuff as it's a major distraction from the topic at hand. I do not know why this seems to be a recurring theme on this forum: a point is made, someone makes a counter point, then all of a sudden it's all a debate about what was or was not said rather than the original subject. lol

From now on, in this thread, I am simply going to demonstrate a)the errors of preterism when they appear, and b)the correct biblical understanding of those things. If anyone wishes to dialogue, I will gladly do so, but not if it's going to be bogged down in these side debates.

I will return later this evening and address the rest of your points, and recap what was pointed out so far on the actual subject without the side issues.

[Esaias]

Sure! But just the overall Kingdom going forth... THAT THE RELIGIOUS LOST and OTHERS OBTAINED.


And so we see that this parable of the kingdom has its continuous and ongoing fulfillment throughout history, and not preteristically culminating and ending in AD 70.

Brother, the overall and main point of the wedding feast was that the people promised to experience it lost it! THAT is the issue that never left Christ.

THAT is not what you said. You never said anything about anything 'leaving Christ', whatever that means, and neither did anyone else.

Anyway, the parable clearly does not have a preteristic fulfillment, but a continuous historical fulfillment, as it is fulfilled from AD 70 up to now and continues to go forward, not yet having reached its consummation. Trying to ignore the details of the inherent chronology in favour of only acknowledging 'the overall and main point' simply won't do. The parable contains prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem - AD 70 - and onwards.
And therefore, refutes preterism.


The issue of resurrection was a sideline issue,

Then we can dispense with it for the moment.

but the overall point of their loss of the kingdom was what he did not leave. And he kept focusing on it AFTER the resurrection note. He never raised the issue of resurrection! Someone asked him about it. But when HE INITIATED CONVERSATION AND TOPIC, it was them losing the kingdom.

And chapter 23 sees Him rip into the pharisees again, rebuking them and speaking of how he would have gathered from the destruction to come.

Looks to me like you are trying to avoid the plain fact that Christ did indeed address topics other than AD 70 after He gave the parable in ch 21 and before going to the cross. It doesn't matter who initiated what conversations, YOU said 'he never left that topic until the cross' indicating He only taught or spoke about the topic of the impending judgment on Jerusalem which was to occur in AD 70.

I think I've clearly shown that He did indeed speak on other topics in that time frame. Which means you were mistaken in your assumption, which it seems for some reason you maintained all the way to the present. And since you yourself testified that that idea you had is what led you partial preterism, and since that idea is now shown to have been a mistake, perhaps you should reconsider partial preterism?


I had no priori assumption about these chapters. My understanding came as a result of reading them. I saw how Jesus changed themes from chapter 21 onward compared to the former chapters. I never saw that before I read them in that period of study.

Well, since we have now seen that your understanding was based upon a faulty conclusion, perhaps you will revisit those chapters (and prophecy in general).

[mfblume]

And so we see that this parable of the kingdom has its continuous and ongoing fulfillment throughout history, and not preteristically culminating and ending in AD 70.



The kingdom never stopped in AD70. lol

You totally missed what I said. I said the emphasis was on religious Israel losing the kingdom and getting destroyed for it, and others getting it. I preach kingdom here today most all of the time.

THAT is not what you said. You never said anything about anything 'leaving Christ', whatever that means, and neither did anyone else.

Anyway, the parable clearly does not have a preteristic fulfillment, but a continuous historical fulfillment, as it is fulfilled from AD 70 up to now and continues to go forward, not yet having reached its consummation. Trying to ignore the details of the inherent chronology in favour of only acknowledging 'the overall and main point' simply won't do. The parable contains prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem - AD 70 - and onwards.
And therefore, refutes preterism.


No. I stated the destruction was the theme Christ never left. OTHERS raised other issues. And as soon as He STARTED an issue it was back to that topic again. If you mean that answering others' questions departs, then I agree. But my point was HIS emphasis.


Then we can dispense with it for the moment.



Looks to me like you are trying to avoid the plain fact that Christ did indeed address topics other than AD 70 after He gave the parable in ch 21 and before going to the cross. It doesn't matter who initiated what conversations, YOU said 'he never left that topic until the cross' indicating He only taught or spoke about the topic of the impending judgment on Jerusalem which was to occur in AD 70.

I already clarified that. He left it to answer THEIR issues. Right. But HE stayed on topic with his words.

I think I've clearly shown that He did indeed speak on other topics in that time frame. Which means you were mistaken in your assumption, which it seems for some reason you maintained all the way to the present. And since you yourself testified that that idea you had is what led you partial preterism, and since that idea is now shown to have been a mistake, perhaps you should reconsider partial preterism?

lol

Still missing the point.

[mfblume]

Yes I do. It is an assumption that is in place prior to an argument or series of premises used to reach a conclusion. It is a premise that is assumed to be true without further need of proof or demonstration, and is therefore not part of the demonstration or proof of an argument.

You seemed to say it was an issue of prior understanding BEFORE reading the chapters of the bible. So, was it or not?

I'm talking about presuming something BEFORE YOU READ THE BIBLE.

I was never talking about ideas prior to an argument. Prior to reading the particular text in mind.

You said I had a priori assumption of the TEXT of those chapters. And brought that assumption in to read them.


Brother, I taught Aristotelian logic, both formal and material, as well as classical progymnasmata and rhetoric. I know what an a priori assumption is. My approach to apologetics is generally Van Til's presuppositional apologetics, which focuses on identifying the presuppositions (a priori assumptions) people hold at the base of their arguments and rationales. I studied Charles Finney's Systematic Theology and TAUGHT introductory systematic theology using Finney's course as the primary text, with a heavy focus on epistemology and the first truths of reason, truths that are a priori and need no demonstration or proofs.

The issue was not priori assumpton in our arguments! It was priori assumption IN READING THE chapters of Matthew 21 onward. Did you mean priori assumption in coming to this argument, or coming into reading those chapters?

I know what an a priori assumption is. You stated you saw something in Matthew 21, and then you assumed that a certain condition prevailed throughout the rest of Matthew up to the cross.

I had no priori assumed thought of that idea BEFORE I read those chapters that day. I got it AFTER I read those chapters as a result of reading them.


As a result of your assumption, you interpreted the rest of Matthew, and a lot of other scriptures, in a particular way.

I got it AFTER reading Matthew, not before.'


You then concluded what is called 'partial preterism'. Your assumption 'Jesus never left that subject until the cross' was a priori to your conclusion of partial preterism. How can you deny that?

Again, are you talking about coming into thihs argument with a priori assumption or coming into the reading of Matthew? I was talking about coming into the reading of Matthew WITHOUT any priori consideration whatsoever. THAT was testimony.


Whew. I am going to leave off all the 'he said she said you said I said' stuff as it's a major distraction from the topic at hand. I do not know why this seems to be a recurring theme on this forum: a point is made, someone makes a counter point, then all of a sudden it's all a debate about what was or was not said rather than the original subject. lol


I cannot understand what it is you missed in my statements. This is a waste of time, otherwise.

[Amanah]

how do the various eschatologys interpret this verse:

10“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. (Zechariah 12:10–11 NKJV)

[Esaias]

The kingdom never stopped in AD70. lol

Exactly! We'll have you on the right track in no time, brother!

You totally missed what I said. I said the emphasis was on religious Israel losing the kingdom and getting destroyed for it, and others getting it. I preach kingdom here today most all of the time.

I did not miss what you said, I know what you said the emphasis was. And I know you preach 'kingdom here today most of the time' (why not all the time? The kingdom doesn't go away on Mondays, does it?) What you would like to emphasise about a parable however does not eliminate the facts concerning the parable which turn to be inconvenient for your eschatology.

I already clarified that. He left it to answer THEIR issues. Right. But HE stayed on topic with his words.

Stayed on topic? Brother, Matthew ch 26:20-34, Jesus initiates conversation and does not talk about any coming destruction of Jerusalem in Ad 70. Matthew ch 26:10-13 Jesus initiates conversation and does not speak of AD 70. Matthew ch 26:1-2 Jesus initiates conversation and does not speak of AD 70. Matthew ch 25, from verse 1 to 46, does not speak of AD 70 (if you say it does then there is no reason for you not to be a full preterist). I will stop here. Even leaving off Matthew 25 as being subject to debate regarding the subject matter, I counted THREE discourses/conversations our Lord had in just chapter 26 alone which did not speak of AD 70. It took me less than one minute to find them. I think we can all see very clearly that Christ did not speak of AD 70 in ch 21 AND THEN NEVER LEFT THAT TOPIC TILL THE CROSS.

I am going to move on to other points as there is therefore no need to keep rehashing this one.


Still missing the point.

No. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they missed your point. And just because they continue to disagree with you when you fail to convince them doesn't mean they are 'still missing' your point.

[Esaias]

The second coming is not in Matthew anywhere! iT IS ONLY IN 1 THESS 4, and 1 COR 15 and a couple other places in the epistles.

Folks, think about what is being said here. Think really long and hard about it.

THE single most momentous event in all human history, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection from the dead... "only mentioned in First Thessalonians ch 4 and First Corinthians ch 15... and a few other places in the epistles."

[Esaias]

1 Thessalonians 4:1-18 KJV (1) Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. (2) For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. (3) For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: (4) That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; (5) Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: (6) That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. (7) For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. (8) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit. (9) But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. (10) And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more; (11) And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; (12) That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing. (13) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. (14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

1. Paul does not explain "the coming of the Lord here is different from the coming of the Lord in other chapters or other epistles I have written. This is a special case." Therefore,
2. The coming of the Lord in chapter 4 is the same coming of the Lord mentioned in chapter 1 verse 10, chapter 2 verse 19, chapter 3 verse 13, and chapter 5 verses 1 through 9. And therefore,
3. Partial preterists who affirm only chapter 4 contains the future coming of the Lord and resurrection of the saints, are inconsistent and arbitrary in their eschatology and interpretation of Scripture.
4. And therefore they should either be consistent and go full preterist and believe the second coming and the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement were a local AD 70 political-religious event only, OR
5. They should abandon their faulty interpretative methods and leave partial preterism behind and embrace the biblical, historical eschatology.

[Esaias]

1 Corinthians 15:22-28 KJV (22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. (28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Notice Paul did not say "and afterward's they that are Christ's at His OTHER coming." Paul seems to only know about "THE coming of the Lord".

Again, partial preterism is inconsistent and arbitrary. They will say "but death was not destroyed in AD 70 because nobody resurrected at that time." So the coming of the Lord in which death is defeated must be universally visible, whereas the coming of the Lord in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not obey the gospel, the coming of the Lord where all nations are to be gathered together before Him and the wicked depart into everlasting fire and the righteous inherit the kingdom of God, and other such like things, can come and nobody even know what happened?

Inconsistent, and arbitrary.

[Esaias]

Partial preterism claims there is no Second Advent mentioned in Matthew. THIS, then, is explained away to refer to Roman heathen armies destroying apostate Jews:

Matthew 25:31-46 KJV When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? (38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? (39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? (40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


1. Jesus speaks of the righteous INHERITING the KINGDOM. Paul did too - in First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50!

2. Therefore, letting bible interpret bible, we see that Matthew chapter 25 does indeed contain teaching addressing the Second Advent of our Lord and the resurrection and final Judgment.

3. And therefore, brother Blume is grossly in error for claiming the Gospel of Matthew contains NO REFERENCE TO THE SECOND COMING AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS.

5. And therefore, partial preterism is shown to be inconsistent, arbitrary, and seriously in error.

Notice, the issues I pointed out are a matter of HERMENEUTICS. It is not a matter of trying to find some historical fulfillment of some obscure hard to understand or vaguely worded prophecy buried in the Apocalypse. Rather, very confident and sweeping declarations were made concerning the subject matter of Matthew, our Lord's words, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, etc. And these confident and sweeping words have now been easily and clearly shown to be ERROR.

Now, it took me less than fifteen minutes to confute all this foundational preterist error. Yet preterists have been studying for YEARS and have never seen any of these serious mistakes of theirs? How is that possible?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Esaias]

how do the various eschatologys interpret this verse:

10“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. (Zechariah 12:10–11 NKJV)

This has several layers of meaning and application.

God poured out the Spirit of grace and supplication in the sense that He made grace available for His people, when Christ was crucified, and they looked on Him Whom they had pierced. And there was indeed mourning for him (by those of His disciples there with Him at Golgotha).

Furthermore, when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost 3000 Jews were convicted and saved and joined to the church.

Also, whenever the Spirit moves upon someone's heart, even today, they 'look upon Christ' and see the One Whom 'they have pierced', they mourn for him in godly contrition and repentance, that they might be saved.

[Bowas]

References to Jesus "coming" has way more meanings than what is typically call, 'the second coming."

Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you." We pretty much agree that was a "coming of the Lord," as the Holy Ghost.

The list is rather long the different "comings," through scripture.

His "coming" in judgement in AD70 uses the same language we find throughout the Old Testament, referring to "coming."

Other than the use of the same phrase, "coming of the Lord," we find in Matt 24, which is clearly referring to His coming in judgement, but other than that, there is no clear identifiers as it being a "resurrection," or "rapture" type "coming."

In fact, in service this past Sunday, Jesus "came" and paid us a visitation.

[Esaias]

References to Jesus "coming" has way more meanings than what is typically call, 'the second coming."

Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you." We pretty much agree that was a "coming of the Lord," as the Holy Ghost.

The list is rather long the different "comings," through scripture.

His "coming" in judgement in AD70 uses the same language we find throughout the Old Testament, referring to "coming."

Other than the use of the same phrase, "coming of the Lord," we find in Matt 24, which is clearly referring to His coming in judgement, but other than that, there is no clear identifiers as it being a "resurrection," or "rapture" type "coming."

In fact, in service this past Sunday, Jesus "came" and paid us a visitation.

Which is why we must be careful and thorough to understand what is being indicated whenever we come across talk of the Lord "coming". We cannot just assume that because in some case it means a visitation of judgment that it therefore means that in all cases.

[Amanah]

I have finished reading End Time Delusions: The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World

I need to go back and read it again though, I read it fast to see what it said, and need to read it again more slowly.

I thought it rang true, especially the Catholic Church being the anti Christ and causing the falling away, and Historicism helping to foment the reformation.

After coming to realize that 1948 is not a lynch pin of prophecy, and that there are two Israels in the bible, dispensationalism doesn't make sense anymore.

I always had trouble with reading Matt 24, and connecting it to dispensationalism, but now it makes more sense, when you are not looking for a rapture and a separate second coming.

The author is a 7th day Adventist, obviously, and his tieing Sabbath keeping to the book of revelation surprised me.

[Esaias]

I have finished reading End Time Delusions: The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World

I need to go back and read it again though, I read it fast to see what it said, and need to read it again more slowly.

I thought it rang true, especially the Catholic Church being the anti Christ and causing the falling away, and Historicism helping to foment the reformation.

After coming to realize that 1948 is not a lynch pin of prophecy, and that there are two Israels in the bible, dispensationalism doesn't make sense anymore.

I always had trouble with reading Matt 24, and connecting it to dispensationalism, but now it makes more sense, when you are not looking for a rapture and a separate second coming.

The author is a 7th day Adventist, obviously, and his tieing Sabbath keeping to the book of revelation surprised me.

SDAs have some quirky ideas about modern day fulfillments of prophecy regarding the Sabbath, the role of the US, and the nature of the parousia and the Millennium.

His book though doesnt really push SDA doctrines that much, so its an easy read.

[houston]

Amanah,

Read this. I had leanings toward partial preterism for a few years. This sealed the deal for me... (until I recognized that the hermeneutic leads to full preterism, which is why I just backed away from eschatology all together... so I am not guilty of embracing heresy)

https://dwtr67e3ikfml.cloudfront.net/bookCovers/64beeb6526d2bfa4dc6e2cb3dcad9af11218dbae

Free download here
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/574321

[Esaias]

Wow, you could have just posted a link. Now the page is all stretched out...

[houston]

I didn't notice

[houston]

Too late to edit

[Bowas]

Which is why we must be careful and thorough to understand what is being indicated whenever we come across talk of the Lord "coming". We cannot just assume that because in some case it means a visitation of judgment that it therefore means that in all cases.

I agree, which is why, when one compares the language of Matt 24 "coming of the Lord," with other references of "comings of the Lord," found throughout the Old Testament, never was it a physical return of the Lord, but was a "judgment coming."

I can provide the references if needed, but on the way to work right now.

[mfblume]

1 Corinthians 15:22-28 KJV (22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. (28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Notice Paul did not say "and afterward's they that are Christ's at His OTHER coming." Paul seems to only know about "THE coming of the Lord".

Again, partial preterism is inconsistent and arbitrary. They will say "but death was not destroyed in AD 70 because nobody resurrected at that time." So the coming of the Lord in which death is defeated must be universally visible, whereas the coming of the Lord in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not obey the gospel, the coming of the Lord where all nations are to be gathered together before Him and the wicked depart into everlasting fire and the righteous inherit the kingdom of God, and other such like things, can come and nobody even know what happened?

Inconsistent, and arbitrary.

There are MANY comings of the Lord (He physically CAME to meet people and went to Mary and Martha's house! -- we need to know the term THE COMING means a significant one out of the many), but THE coming is the second coming. Jesus spoke of the LORD COMING in Matt 21:40. He spoke of coming at the end of Matt 16 when those standing there would still be alive. He spoke of his coming in Matt 10 where they were told they would not have gone over all the cities of Israel till He came. These are clearly not THE coming noted in 1 Cor 15.

But the issue none of you have noticed, though I briefly mentioned it, is that Matthew's context before Chapter 24, where the disciples asked Him what would be the sign of His coming, must have an antecedent before that chapter for them to even know to ask Him about HIS COMING. And the ONLY coming he referred to was in the destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 10, 16 and 21. Please try to find the second coming before Matt 24 in Matthew.

Tell me what coming Matt 10, 16 and 21 are if not the destruction of Jerusalem.

I feel inability to think outside the box is the biggest reason futurism prevails so much, even the aspect of futurism in historicism.

[Amanah]

ok, so now I'm reading Larry T Smith's book:

THE COMING OF THE LORD, THE LAST DAYS,
AND THE END OF THE WORLD
AS TAUGHT BY JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES."

[Amanah]

So far it's boiling down to who makes a better antichrist, Nero or the Papacy.

[Bowas]

So far it's boiling down to who makes a better antichrist, Nero or the Papacy.

Keep reading. It gets better.

[houston]

ok, so now I'm reading Larry T Smith's book:

THE COMING OF THE LORD, THE LAST DAYS,
AND THE END OF THE WORLD
AS TAUGHT BY JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES."

It's good material.

[Esaias]

.

But the issue none of you have noticed, though I briefly mentioned it, is that Matthew's context before Chapter 24, where the disciples asked Him what would be the sign of His coming, must have an antecedent before that chapter for them to even know to ask Him about HIS COMING. And the ONLY coming he referred to was in the destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 10, 16 and 21. Please try to find the second coming before Matt 24 in Matthew.

So, are you admitting you were wrong when you stated there is NO mention of the second coming anywhere in Matthew?


I feel inability to think outside the box is the biggest reason futurism prevails so much, even the aspect of futurism in historicism.

So far no futurists have joined in the conversation, so their supposed inability to think outside the box is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Esaias]

It's good material.

Have you read anything on prophecy besides preterist and futurist writings?

[houston]

Have you read anything on prophecy besides preterist and futurist writings?

I don't like your tone.

[Esaias]

I don't like your tone.

Would you prefer a falsetto?

I was just asking a question.

:smack

[houston]

Would you prefer a falsetto?

I was just asking a question.

:smack

LOL! Was jk. I haven't looked into Historicism.

[mfblume]

So, are you admitting you were wrong when you stated there is NO mention of the second coming anywhere in Matthew?



No. You are consistently assuming what I said and missing my intent. My point was the SECOND COMING of Jesus, as referred to as a COMING, was not taught anywhere in Matthew. The disciples never heard him use the term COMING in reference to resurrection. The COMING only referred to the impending destruction of Jerusalem throughout Matthew. COMING in reference to the resurrection was never taught until the epistles were written.


So far no futurists have joined in the conversation, so their supposed inability to think outside the box is irrelevant to the discussion.

I was not referring to just futurists. ;) (Hint hint.) After all, I did also write, " even the aspect of futurism in historicism".

When are you going to address my post about the gathering from the four winds? As of yet NO ONE responded to it yet.

[Esaias]

No. You are consistently assuming what I said and missing my intent. My point was the SECOND COMING of Jesus, as referred to as a COMING, was not taught anywhere in Matthew. The disciples never heard him use the term COMING in reference to resurrection. The COMING only referred to the impending destruction of Jerusalem throughout Matthew. COMING in reference to the resurrection was never taught until the epistles were written.


I know what you said. I quoted you saying the Second Coming is nowhere in Matthew. I did not assume anything except that you meant what you said. And I addressed it. Simply repeating your claim, with a slightly nuanced change of wording so as to imply you meant "the word coming was not used in reference to resurrection" doesn't change the fact you claimed "The Second Coming is nowhere mentioned in Matthew". You made that claim here, you make that claim in your writings, including I believe in your response to elder Groce's critique of Larry Smith's booklet. To which I will simply repeat what I said earlier:

Partial preterism claims there is no Second Advent mentioned in Matthew. THIS, then, is explained away to refer to Roman heathen armies destroying apostate Jews:

Matthew 25:31-46 KJV When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? (38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? (39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? (40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


1. Jesus speaks of the righteous INHERITING the KINGDOM. Paul did too - in First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50!

2. Therefore, letting bible interpret bible, we see that Matthew chapter 25 does indeed contain teaching addressing the Second Advent of our Lord and the resurrection and final Judgment.

3. And therefore, brother Blume is grossly in error for claiming the Gospel of Matthew contains NO REFERENCE TO THE SECOND COMING AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS.

5. And therefore, partial preterism is shown to be inconsistent, arbitrary, and seriously in error.

Notice, the issues I pointed out are a matter of HERMENEUTICS. It is not a matter of trying to find some historical fulfillment of some obscure hard to understand or vaguely worded prophecy buried in the Apocalypse. Rather, very confident and sweeping declarations were made concerning the subject matter of Matthew, our Lord's words, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, etc. And these confident and sweeping words have now been easily and clearly shown to be ERROR.


I was not referring to just futurists. ;) (Hint hint.) After all, I did also write, " even the aspect of futurism in historicism".

When are you going to address my post about the gathering from the four winds? As of yet NO ONE responded to it yet.

Why should I? There are points YOU have not responded to. I notice that preterists are hypnotized by the Olivet Discourse in Matthew ch 24, and seem to think that because they understand Jesus to be prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem that therefore all non-preterists are wrong.

This is a mistake. Preterists and historicists (and even a few futurists!) understand Matthew ch 24. This is why I said earlier that finding some writer who understands Matthew 24 in reference to AD 70 proves nothing about their eschatology except that they weren't dispensationalists.

The differences between preterism and the historical understanding of prophecy do not revolve around Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not the "Rosetta Stone" of Bible prophecy. It was never misunderstood until radical futurism came along. And almost all preterists seem to be disgruntled ex-futurist dispensationalists who, having seen the errors of pop prophecy pundits on Matthew 24, and having seen the basic truth about it, have fixated on it and filter everything they read through it so as to lead to what looks to me as a rather unhealthy obsession over it. Or in other words, preterists and futurists BOTH fixate on Matthew 24 as the alpha and omega of prophecy. Which is why I have always said they are two sides of the same coin, and are basically the same error going in opposite directions.

[mfblume]

I know what you said. I quoted you saying the Second Coming is nowhere in Matthew. I did not assume anything except that you meant what you said. And I addressed it. Simply repeating your claim, with a slightly nuanced change of wording so as to imply you meant "the word coming was not used in reference to resurrection" doesn't change the fact you claimed "The Second Coming is nowhere mentioned in Matthew".

I was clarifying what I meant. You make it out like I am scrambling in the face of being shown-up.

You made that claim here, you make that claim in your writings, including I believe in your response to elder Groce's critique of Larry Smith's booklet. To which I will simply repeat what I said earlier:

Partial preterism claims there is no Second Advent mentioned in Matthew. THIS, then, is explained away to refer to Roman heathen armies destroying apostate Jews:

Matthew 25:31-46 KJV When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? (38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? (39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? (40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


1. Jesus speaks of the righteous INHERITING the KINGDOM. Paul did too - in First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50!

We inherit the kingdom NOW. The kingdom is not not-yet come. It came! Inheriting the kingdom is not a second advent issue. The kingdom we're already in will magnify in manifestation after the second coming, but we're in it now. Matt 25 is about the church continuing on in the kingdom that in some way was established, though already in existence for entrance since Acts 2, upon the destruction of the entire system of law that was actually done away at the cross.

2. Therefore, letting bible interpret bible, we see that Matthew chapter 25 does indeed contain teaching addressing the Second Advent of our Lord and the resurrection and final Judgment.

3. And therefore, brother Blume is grossly in error for claiming the Gospel of Matthew contains NO REFERENCE TO THE SECOND COMING AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS.

5. And therefore, partial preterism is shown to be inconsistent, arbitrary, and seriously in error.

Notice, the issues I pointed out are a matter of HERMENEUTICS. It is not a matter of trying to find some historical fulfillment of some obscure hard to understand or vaguely worded prophecy buried in the Apocalypse. Rather, very confident and sweeping declarations were made concerning the subject matter of Matthew, our Lord's words, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, etc. And these confident and sweeping words have now been easily and clearly shown to be ERROR.


I disagree. Matt 25 is not future. It is past as well.


When are you going to address my post about the gathering from the four winds? As of yet NO ONE responded to it yet.
Why should I? There are points YOU have not responded to.

Why should you? You said there was a resurrection in Matt 24 and asked me to address it. So I did! And you do not even say anything to my response. If I missed some points you made, list them like I missed mine that you did not respond to.

Calm down and talk here.


I notice that preterists are hypnotized by the Olivet Discourse in Matthew ch 24, and seem to think that because they understand Jesus to be prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem that therefore all non-preterists are wrong.

This is a mistake. Preterists and historicists (and even a few futurists!) understand Matthew ch 24. This is why I said earlier that finding some writer who understands Matthew 24 in reference to AD 70 proves nothing about their eschatology except that they weren't dispensationalists.
The whole chapter is about the destruction of Jerusalem. And because you miss that aspect, as I once did, you are as wrong as I was then.

The differences between preterism and the historical understanding of prophecy do not revolve around Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not the "Rosetta Stone" of Bible prophecy. It was never misunderstood until radical futurism came along.

Wrong. You still think aspects of Matt 24 refer to resurrection and the future. When I started seeing KINGDOM ESCHATOLOGY, which far better describes my view, I could barely let go of parts of Matt 24 being future, too.

And almost all preterists seem to be disgruntled ex-futurist dispensationalists who, having seen the errors of pop prophecy pundits on Matthew 24, and having seen the basic truth about it, have fixated on it and filter everything they read through it so as to lead to what looks to me as a rather unhealthy obsession over it. Or in other words, preterists and futurists BOTH fixate on Matthew 24 as the alpha and omega of prophecy. Which is why I have always said they are two sides of the same coin, and are basically the same error going in opposite directions.

What fixated me was the work of the cross, and prophecy was a byproduct I was not even looking for. And just because we are talking here of Matt 24 does not mean we are fixed on that,

And calm down.

[Aquila]

Bro. Blume, I have a question that I don't know if I've asked openly before or not. I know that you are a partial preterist, so you might be the one to ask.

Is there such a thing as a Premillennial Partial Preterist?

[mfblume]

Bro. Blume, I have a question that I don't know if I've asked openly before or not. I know that you are a partial preterist, so you might be the one to ask.

Is there such a thing as a Premillennial Partial Preterist?

Nope.

But again I insist on referring to my belief as Kingdom eschatology. It's more focused on where we are now as a result, than on what put us here in this situation of the kingdom.

[Aquila]

Nope.

But again I insist on referring to my belief as Kingdom eschatology. It's more focused on where we are now as a result, than on what put us here in this situation of the kingdom.

I assume you hold to Amillennialism. I have some good preterist friends who are also Amill. I struggled with Partial Preterism because I can't shake Premillennialism. I kept coming to Revelation 19 being a spiritualized description of our present age (after the fall of Jerusalem). I saw Revelation 19 revealing the church and the Lord's Supper as being "the marriage supper of the Lamb", with the end of this age culminating in Christ's physical return. Of course, this freed up Revelation 20 to be Premillennial for me. But I found no other Partial Preterist who had ever embraced such an understanding. And so I abandoned the concept.

[Esaias]

Why should you? You said there was a resurrection in Matt 24 and asked me to address it.

Please show me where I said there was a resurrection in Matthew 24.

[Aquila]

Bro. Blume...

Here's Matthew 24:31. It reads,

Matthew 24:31
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Most take this as a reference to the Resurrection wherein the dead in Christ rise with the should of an archangel and the living are then caught up together with them to meet Christ in the clouds.

However, it is my understanding that "angelos" can represent the preachers of the Gospel (think of the angels of the 7 churches in the Revelation). Thus, this would be the church the preaching the Gospel during the church age, gathering together all of Christ's elect through their preaching.

Others have said that this mentions a very real, but unseen, spiritual reality wherein the angels actually assist with gathering together the elect after death during the church age.

What is your take?

[Esaias]

I assume you hold to Amillennialism. I have some good preterist friends who are also Amill. I struggled with Partial Preterism because I can't shake Premillennialism. I kept coming to Revelation 19 being a spiritualized description of our present age (after the fall of Jerusalem). I saw Revelation 19 revealing the church and the Lord's Supper as being "the marriage supper of the Lamb", with the end of this age culminating in Christ's physical return. Of course, this freed up Revelation 20 to be Premillennial for me. But I found no other Partial Preterist who had ever embraced such an understanding. And so I abandoned the concept.

One of the reasons I believe in Pre Milliannialism is because the other views make Revelation to have no description of the Coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the saints. And that seems highly unlikely, even absurd.

[Amanah]

I have not finished all the reading I need to do, but I can see the following:

The destruction of the temple can certainly be seen in Matt 24, and the way Nero persecuted the church He can certainly be seen as an Antichrist

The Roman Catholic Church did cause a falling away from truth, with a restoration due to the reformation, and the Papacy certain is an Antichrist, that received a fatal wound from the reformation and let made a come back and is still with us

Catholic Church will continue to play a role as Antichrist:
https://www.endtime.com/mystery-babylon-who-is-it/
Clue #1... Mystery Babylon is a city
Notice in the above prophecy that a woman is used to symbolize Mystery Babylon. Verse 18 of the chapter tells us that the woman is a city. “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”
Clue #2... Mystery Babylon presides over a vast international system
In verse 1, we are told that the woman sits on many waters. Verse 15 explains the meaning of the waters. “And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.”
Not only is this woman a city, but the city is apparently the headquarters over a vast international system...
Clue #3... The city sits on 7 hills
In verse 3, we are told that the woman rides on a beast with 7 heads. Verse 9 reveals the meaning of the heads. “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.”
Remember, we’ve already learned that the woman is a city. This passage tells us that the city sits on seven mountains. There is a city on earth that is known as “The City of Seven Hills.” It’s the city of Rome.
But is Rome the headquarters for an international power that rules over “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues?”
The Vatican claims to rule over one billion Roman Catholics worldwide. Remember, this prophecy was written long before the Catholic Church existed and long before Rome became her headquarters...
Clue #4... She is clothed in purple and red
Revelation 17:4 “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:”
There are two ruling bodies in the Roman Catholic Church: The College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops and Archbishops. These two bodies are somewhat like the Senate and the House of Representatives here in the US.
An article appeared in..The Criterion, a Roman Catholic publication, July 1, 1988. The article was entitled, “More than You Want to Know About Cardinals.” It stated, “Cardinals wear red, while non-Cardinal Bishops and Archbishops wear purple.”
So let’s review. Mystery Babylon is a city that sits on seven hills. Rome is known worldwide as “The City of Seven Hills.”
Mystery Babylon is to “sit” on peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues.” Rome is headquarters for the Roman Catholic Church, claiming one billion members worldwide.
Mystery Babylon is described as being clothed in purple and red. The official colors of the two ruling bodies of the Roman Church are purple and red.
One other factor should be understood. In Revelation 17, God chose to use a woman—a whore—to symbolize the Roman Catholic Church. Why?
It’s really very simple. In scripture, God always used a woman to symbolize a church. He used a virgin to represent His true church (II Corinthians 11:2), and He used a harlot to represent a false church—as he did in Revelation 17-19.
There can be only one conclusion: The Vatican is the Mystery Babylon of Revelation. And it is this false religious system that has deceived the people of the world that will be destroyed at the time of Armageddon.

So, the Catholic Church certainly is The beast/antichrist that we need to *come out of*

Thousand year reign has yet to happen:

Revelation 20 (NIV)
20..And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2..He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3..He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4..I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5..(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6..Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

[Amanah]

When you reject 1948 as prophetic and see that God's promises are to the Spiritual Israel instead of the natural Israel that Jesus continually condemned (Scribes, Pharisees, Layers, hypocrites), it is an easy transition from dispensationalist to historicism.

[Esaias]

When you reject 1948 as prophetic and see that God's promises are to the Spiritual Israel, it is an easy transition from dispensationalist to historicism.

:thumbsup

[houston]

Amanah,

the great city in Rev 11 and 17,are they the same city?

[Esaias]

While it is true that the Vatican fulfills much of the criteria of apocalyptic Babylon, it should be kept in mind that Babylon is also identified as the great city "where also our Lord was crucified", which could only be Jerusalem.

So, the question is, "How can this be reconciled?" When you look at the Vatican, and where it actually came from, it begins to make sense. There is more to first century Jerusalem and Judaism than most have realised. Limiting Babylon to either just a physical city in Palestine, or a physical city in Italy, misses what's actually being depicted.

Brother Benincasa made a point awhile back regarding the clay and iron of Daniel 2. Iron of course is Rome. And the clay? Well, he pointed out that Israel is repeatedly identified as clay in the hands of the Divine Potter. So there is indicated an attempted combine of rebellious apostate Israel and heathen Rome. This fits in with Babylon being identified as Jerusalem, yet with the prophetic destiny and history of Rome.

Babylon thus looks more and more like a world system that deceives the people (ideology, religion), because it is in bed with earthly governments (politics) and its merchants are the "great men of the earth" (economics). It is apostate Jerusalem. It is supported by, and seems to be in control of what was left of the old Roman Empire (the various political, economic, and religious leftovers, known today as for example the European Union, the Black Nobility, the Papacy, the European nobility, "international banking" which is actually European centered and Rothschild controlled...

[Amanah]

Rev 11 is Jerusalm

Rev 17 is Rome

[mfblume]

Folks, think about what is being said here. Think really long and hard about it.

THE single most momentous event in all human history, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection from the dead... "only mentioned in First Thessalonians ch 4 and First Corinthians ch 15... and a few other places in the epistles."

I stand by what I say.

Show me where it is in Matthew.

IT IS NOT the most momentous event in all of history. The most momentous event in all of history is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, Himself.

Get away from the cross of Jesus, and we depart from so many truths. It's like the greatest tribulation ever is future because some greater crime than the cross will take place in our future. Lose view of the cross as THE event of them all, and one cannot see truth properly.

[Amanah]

While it is true that the Vatican fulfills much of the criteria of apocalyptic Babylon, it should be kept in mind that Babylon is also identified as the great city "where also our Lord was crucified", which could only be Jerusalem.

So, the question is, "How can this be reconciled?" When you look at the Vatican, and where it actually came from, it begins to make sense. There is more to first century Jerusalem and Judaism than most have realised. Limiting Babylon to either just a physical city in Palestine, or a physical city in Italy, misses what's actually being depicted.

Brother Benincasa made a point awhile back regarding the clay and iron of Daniel 2. Iron of course is Rome. And the clay? Well, he pointed out that Israel is repeatedly identified as clay in the hands of the Divine Potter. So there is indicated an attempted combine of rebellious apostate Israel and heathen Rome. This fits in with Babylon being identified as Jerusalem, yet with the prophetic destiny and history of Rome.

Babylon thus looks more and more like a world system that deceives the people (ideology, religion), because it is in bed with earthly governments (politics) and its merchants are the "great men of the earth" (economics). It is apostate Jerusalem. It is supported by, and seems to be in control of what was left of the old Roman Empire (the various political, economic, and religious leftovers, known today as for example the European Union, the Black Nobility, the Papacy, the European nobility, "international banking" which is actually European centered and Rothschild controlled...

fascinating.

[mfblume]

When you reject 1948 as prophetic and see that God's promises are to the Spiritual Israel instead of the natural Israel that Jesus continually condemned (Scribes, Pharisees, Layers, hypocrites), it is an easy transition from dispensationalist to historicism.

Historicism rises and falls on whether or not a year is counted for a day in Revelation. The year-day theory is one of the weakest arguments i found in all theories.

[Amanah]

Historicism rises and falls on whether or not a year is counted for a day in Revelation. The year-day theory is one of the weakest arguments i found in all theories.

I admit I'm not done reading on the subject.

[Esaias]

Historicism rises and falls on whether or not a year is counted for a day in Revelation. The year-day theory is one of the weakest arguments i found in all theories.

Nonsense. This shows that you do not understand the historical interpretation of prophecy at all. I have found most preterists and futurists both do not understand historicism. Preterist writings and futurists writings are replete with errors concerning historicism, errors that are so basic that it shows a lack of basic study of the very thing they supposedly oppose!

Futurists claiming historicism is preterism, preterists claiming historicists are preterists, or futurists, the list goes on and on. Really amazing to me that so many reject what they don't even understand or really bother to study.

[mfblume]

I admit I'm not done reading on the subject.

You are doing the right thing. Listening to them all.

[Esaias]

Please show me where I said there was a resurrection in Matthew 24.

bump

[mfblume]

Nonsense. This shows that you do not understand the historical interpretation of prophecy at all. I have found most preterists and futurists both do not understand historicism. Preterist writings and futurists writings are replete with errors concerning historicism, errors that are so basic that it shows a lack of basic study of the very thing they supposedly oppose!

Futurists claiming historicism is preterism, preterists claiming historicists are preterists, or futurists, the list goes on and on. Really amazing to me that so many reject what they don't even understand or really bother to study.

lol If there was no year-day theory there is no historicism. Howso? Simple! The centuries you get from the days mentioned in Revelation flatly refute your interpretation of chapters throughout Revelation.


Admit it.

Anyone can make empty claims. Prove what you claim.

[mfblume]

bump

You're right. I confused you with Houston after having misread your post that I gave that response to. Sorry. But I'd still like to get something from you on those words.

[mfblume]

Rev 11 is Jerusalm

Rev 17 is Rome

I believe they're both Jerusalem. Check out the jewels and trappings from Rev 17 in Ezekiel 17.

[mfblume]

One of the reasons I believe in Pre Milliannialism is because the other views make Revelation to have no description of the Coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the saints. And that seems highly unlikely, even absurd.

Revelation does have a description of the coming of the Lord and resurrection. Revelation 20's second resurrection! But to say it does not focus on it the way you believe it should is based upon the circular reasoning that Revelation has to speak about the future resurrection in that manner because you say it does. Who said it does?

[mfblume]

Exactly! We'll have you on the right track in no time, brother!

I did not miss what you said, I know what you said the emphasis was. And I know you preach 'kingdom here today most of the time' (why not all the time?

All the time? I preach on other things as well because there are other issues in the bible apart from the kingdom. lol



The kingdom doesn't go away on Mondays, does it?) What you would like to emphasise about a parable however does not eliminate the facts concerning the parable which turn to be inconvenient for your eschatology.


More empty claims. Lay them out and prove what you say.


Stayed on topic? Brother, Matthew ch 26:20-34, Jesus initiates conversation and does not talk about any coming destruction of Jerusalem in Ad 70. Matthew ch 26:10-13 Jesus initiates conversation and does not speak of AD 70. Matthew ch 26:1-2 Jesus initiates conversation and does not speak of AD 70. Matthew ch 25, from verse 1 to 46, does not speak of AD 70 (if you say it does then there is no reason for you not to be a full preterist). I will stop here. Even leaving off Matthew 25 as being subject to debate regarding the subject matter, I counted THREE discourses/conversations our Lord had in just chapter 26 alone which did not speak of AD 70. It took me less than one minute to find them. I think we can all see very clearly that Christ did not speak of AD 70 in ch 21 AND THEN NEVER LEFT THAT TOPIC TILL THE CROSS.


Of course he spoke OF THE CROSS, Esaias. Like I said the cross is the most important even in all of history past or future. But the teachings he gave focused on their destruction.



I am going to move on to other points as there is therefore no need to keep rehashing this one.
No. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they missed your point. And just because they continue to disagree with you when you fail to convince them doesn't mean they are 'still missing' your point.


No, you did more than disagree. You DID NOT get the point. Just because you claim you did does not mean you did. This point was not whether kingdom continues on today or not. It was ISRAEL LOSING IT and another getting it. And I deny the thought that the marriage supper is future. You can only say what you do by assuming the marriage supper is future. Maybe you missed me distinguishing that after your responses.

[Esaias]

You're right. I confused you with Houston after having misread your post that I gave that response to. Sorry. But I'd still like to get something from you on those words.

Okay, that clears that up. I was like "What? What thread are you reading?" lol

What words do you want me to address? Houston's?

Did you respond to what I mentioned about Matthew 25?

[Esaias]

Revelation does have a description of the coming of the Lord and resurrection. Revelation 20's second resurrection! But to say it does not focus on it the way you believe it should is based upon the circular reasoning that Revelation has to speak about the future resurrection in that manner because you say it does. Who said it does?

Maybe we should have another thread on Millennialism and ch 20?

[Esaias]

lol If there was no year-day theory there is no historicism. Howso? Simple! The centuries you get from the days mentioned in Revelation flatly refute your interpretation of chapters throughout Revelation.


Admit it.

Anyone can make empty claims. Prove what you claim.

I'll be back later this evening. Sabbath supper is fixing to be ready, got a five pound meatloaf, mashed taters, and green beans, homemade bread waiting to be sanctified.

:)

[Amanah]

Amanah,

the great city in Rev 11 and 17,are they the same city?

Houston, you didn't go down this path because you were afraid it leads to heresy, yet you want me to continue?

there seem to be many who start studying this and back off of it? why is that?

[Esaias]

lol If there was no year-day theory there is no historicism. Howso? Simple! The centuries you get from the days mentioned in Revelation flatly refute your interpretation of chapters throughout Revelation.

See? You do not understand the historicist approach to prophecy. I was an historicist years before I even heard of the year-day principle.

I'll bet you cannot imagine there are historicists who do NOT apply the year-day principle to Revelation. Well, guess what? THERE ARE.

And guess what else? There are non-historicists who use the year-day principle (though not in Revelation) as well.

The year-day principle is not the sine qua non ("not without which") of historicism. This is, like I said, something that has amused me for years. Futurists often have no idea what they are talking about when they speak of preterism. And preterists are often as ignorant of the historical approach as futurists are of the preterist approach!

The year-day principle is a product of the historical interpretative method, not the source of it.

[houston]

Houston, you didn't go down this path because you were afraid it leads to heresy, yet you want me to continue?

there seem to be many who start studying this and back off of it? why is that?
I mostly agree with partial praeterism. The hermeneutic leads to full praeterism. I recognize that so I stopped studying. You can study... lol

[Esaias]

I mostly agree with partial praeterism. The hermeneutic leads to full praeterism. I recognize that so I stopped studying. You can study... lol

You are correct: It's either full preterism, or non-preterism. Partial preterism is like being partially pregnant.

[houston]

You are correct: It's either full preterism, or non-preterism. Partial preterism is like being partially pregnant.

Yep

[Amanah]

I mostly agree with partial praeterism. The hermeneutic leads to full praeterism. I recognize that so I stopped studying. You can study... lol

I would be fearful to teach someone something I thought was not so

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

[MarieA27]

While it is true that the Vatican fulfills much of the criteria of apocalyptic Babylon, it should be kept in mind that Babylon is also identified as the great city "where also our Lord was crucified", which could only be Jerusalem.

So, the question is, "How can this be reconciled?" When you look at the Vatican, and where it actually came from, it begins to make sense. There is more to first century Jerusalem and Judaism than most have realised. Limiting Babylon to either just a physical city in Palestine, or a physical city in Italy, misses what's actually being depicted.

Brother Benincasa made a point awhile back regarding the clay and iron of Daniel 2. Iron of course is Rome. And the clay? Well, he pointed out that Israel is repeatedly identified as clay in the hands of the Divine Potter. So there is indicated an attempted combine of rebellious apostate Israel and heathen Rome. This fits in with Babylon being identified as Jerusalem, yet with the prophetic destiny and history of Rome.

Babylon thus looks more and more like a world system that deceives the people (ideology, religion), because it is in bed with earthly governments (politics) and its merchants are the "great men of the earth" (economics). It is apostate Jerusalem. It is supported by, and seems to be in control of what was left of the old Roman Empire (the various political, economic, and religious leftovers, known today as for example the European Union, the Black Nobility, the Papacy, the European nobility, "international banking" which is actually European centered and Rothschild controlled...

It was always my understanding that Babylon was the secular world itself, and not one place like Rome, Jerusalem, America etc...

When the Bible talks about, "come out from among them" and "come out of Babylon" and "be ye separate" it just always made more since with the rest of the scriptures that that was talking about a secular world system.

[shag]

In pp, I have issue w the position of suddenly transitioning from the last part of 1 Thess. 4 being our yet future fullfillment (2nd coming) to the (very next)first verse(& following) of chapter 5's "coming" being right at 2000 yrs past, in AD 70.

I cannot in good conscious, buy that perspective.



https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians+4&version=NKJV



That said, I am closer to pp w my view of eschatology than any other.

[Esaias]

It was always my understanding that Babylon was the secular world itself, and not one place like Rome, Jerusalem, America etc...

When the Bible talks about, "come out from among them" and "come out of Babylon" and "be ye separate" it just always made more since with the rest of the scriptures that that was talking about a secular world system.

The world system is indeed secular, meaning "worldly", and it encompasses religion, politics, economics, everything.

[mfblume]

In pp, I have issue w the position of suddenly transitioning from the last part of 1 Thess. 4 being our yet future fullfillment (2nd coming) to the (very next)first verse(& following) of chapter 5's "coming" being right at 2000 yrs past, in AD 70.

I cannot in good conscious, buy that perspective.



https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians+4&version=NKJV



That said, I am closer to pp w my view of eschatology than any other.

PP does not stand on whether or not there is a transition between those chapters, though. Since the bible delineates a plainly distinct difference between time of resurrection and time of Jerusalem's destruction, we have to work from that perspective for the harder-to-understand passages

[Evang.Benincasa]

I been away for a bit.

How are all the Dispensationalists doing?

I bet they are really giving the Preterists and Historicists a run for their money?

:nah

[Bowas]

I been away for a bit.

How are all the Dispensationalists doing?

I bet they are really giving the Preterists and Historicists a run for their money?

:nah

Yeah. The dispies have been having a field day lately, but what's been most convincing, is all their scriptures that they bring to the table. So convincing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yeah. The dispies have been having a field day lately, but what's been most convincing, is all their scriptures that they bring to the table. So convincing.

Wow, that's so awesome! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

I been away for a bit.

How are all the Dispensationalists doing?

I bet they are really giving the Preterists and Historicists a run for their money?

:nah

They're no where to be found.

What's your thoughts on historicism, brother. We've been accused of arbitrary and groundless claims for our belief of what's fulfilled by historicists.

[Bowas]

Wow, that's so awesome! :thumbsup

I'm surprised you didn't see them all.
Wait right here, I'll go get all the links. Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back as soon a so find it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

They're no where to be found.

What's your thoughts on historicism, brother. We've been accused of arbitrary and groundless claims for our belief of what's fulfilled by historicists.

Well, I was Historicist Post Trib, and would need to go through the thread to find out what was misunderstood. I wasn't a Historicist like Isaac Newton.

I was at John Knox College and was visiting a class. Historicism was being discussed. I was speaking with the teacher and he agreed with everything I was saying as a Preterist. Yet, he didn't believe in Preterism. Study and prayer is what everyone from the Three godders to the Clarence Larkinites must continue to do. All just need to stay hungry, keep searching out His will and His Word.

When I get some more time I'll be back to read the thread. ;)

[Aquila]

Bro. Blume,

You haven't responded to my post: #109.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1477144&postcount=109

[mfblume]

I assume you hold to Amillennialism. I have some good preterist friends who are also Amill. I struggled with Partial Preterism because I can't shake Premillennialism. I kept coming to Revelation 19 being a spiritualized description of our present age (after the fall of Jerusalem). I saw Revelation 19 revealing the church and the Lord's Supper as being "the marriage supper of the Lamb", with the end of this age culminating in Christ's physical return. Of course, this freed up Revelation 20 to be Premillennial for me. But I found no other Partial Preterist who had ever embraced such an understanding. And so I abandoned the concept.

What did you want me to say?

The single-most issue of premillennialism is that the ONLY place any passage alluding to it is found is in Revelation. Chapter 20. And Revelation is so full of symbols of visions, with VERY FEW details even interpreted in the book itself, that represent what the rest of the Bible teaches, that I cannot see any substantiation to make it a doctrine. It stands to reason that the Lord and Apostles should have plainly taught about it.

Think of it! Millennium. The major title you just gave suggests it's a main issue in the bible. PreMILLENIALism. After naming an entire belief system after that concept of millennium, when Jesus and the apostles gave no plain teaching on it anywhere, something is askew.

I asked myself this and settled it in my heart. I think you and everyone else needs to ask it of yourselves as well, if I may be a little forward about it. Would God have a major concept like millennium -- an entire AGE of precisely 1,000 years -- have mention in a HIGHLY symbolic book, and mean for us to make a doctrine out of it, when the Apostles and Jesus taught NO PLAIN concept whatsoever? And the prophets never stated anything about a thousand year age. All the premmillennialists can do is ASSUME some things the prophets said are not yet fulfilled and must be part of the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20, although the Lord and Apostles NEVER interpreted their prophecies in any way other than applying to the church age and the resurrection. Period.

We hear these claims that Isaiah and Zechariah spoke of the millennium, but Jesus and the apostles NEVER interpreted those same passages as dealing with a future age after the resurrection.

We both know prophecy is related to us through visionary symbols. Jesus was foretold to come as a BRANCH from the ROOT, and STEM. He was told to be a LAMB. In Revelation that Lamb has seven eyes and horns. Isaiah spoke of the downfall of kingdoms by describing celestial bodies darkening, or falling, when none of that literally occurred when those kindgoms fell, like Babylon and Idumea, etc.

I can see how all of those prophecies that premillenniallists use to say a millennium is yet to come actually SYMBOLICALLY represent the NEW COVENANT AGE we're in now.

Many times we read a prophecy and naturalize is, when the SAME TERMS were already used in the New Testament to refer to the current new covenant age.

For example, Isaiah 2 speaks of going to Mount Zion, the highest of all hills, and serving God. Hebrews 12:22 calls the current new testament church "Mount Zion," to which we've already come! Why would Hebrews distinctly use the very concept Isaiah prophesied of COMING TO Mount Zion and say we ALREADY ARE COME, unless the writer's knew full-well that Isaiah 2 is fulfilled spiritually in the church?

And it's so important to futurists that they entitle every viewpoint from its perspective.. pre-MILLENNIALISM, post-MILLENNIALISM, a-MILLENNIALISM.

And it's all based upon the possibility that Revelation 20 MIGHT NOT BE SYMBOLIC, despite all of the symbols and introduction to Revelation in the first few verses saying that its contents SIGNIFY or BETOKEN events, and despite the fact the apostles and Jesus never said anything plain about it!

So, I concluded Rev 20 can only be symbolic of the rest of the Bible's words about the new testament.

We read of the binding of the devil in Rev 20. Jesus spoke of binding and spoiling the strongman. Paul said that about the cross. We read of saints on thrones, and Paul said we're seated with Christ over all powers now. We read of the HOLY CITY attacked by the enemy. Hebrews and Jesus calls the church a city. And we know the devil hates this holy city of the church.

[Amanah]

Bro Blume, I'm stuck on page 83-85 of your book.

"Since it was Christ's work behind the destruction, it is all due to the presence (Gr. Paruosia, translated as "coming") of Jesus that these things occurred."

you are saying that the destruction of Jerusalem AD70 was the second coming of Christ?

[Amanah]

So looking at Revelations, I'm guessing you think Rev 1-19 is history, and all that is left is 20-22?

[Esaias]

We read of the binding of the devil in Rev 20. Jesus spoke of binding and spoiling the strongman. Paul said that about the cross. We read of saints on thrones, and Paul said we're seated with Christ over all powers now. We read of the HOLY CITY attacked by the enemy. Hebrews and Jesus calls the church a city. And we know the devil hates this holy city of the church.

Revelation 20:1-4 KJV And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Brother Blume, the thousand years is said to begin when Satan is bound. According to the prophecy, this binding occurs AFTER the beast, false prophet, mark of the beast, beast persecutions against the saints, the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, the fall of Babylon, etc.

Yet you say that the thousand years represents 'the church age' and that the binding of Satan took place at the cross, that the resurrected saints seated on thrones was fulfilled in Paul saying we are seated in heavenly places and rule and reign now - all of which was BEFORE AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Brother Blume, can you explain what seems to many of us to be a serious discrepency between these two things? On the one hand, the beast and the false prophet are on the scene, the mark of the beast, persecution against the saints, then the beast attacks the whore Babylon and destroys it, then there is conflict between the beast and the Son of God and His armies, ending in the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, THEN AFTER THESE THINGS HAPPEN Satan is bound, the saints who resisted the mark of the beast and who were martyred by the beast are resurrected and rule and reign.

But on the other hand, you are saying essentially that Satan was bound at the cross, then there is persecution against the saints, then the beast destroys Babylon in AD 70. (I once asked you about when the beast was cast into the lake of fire and you said that was Nero dying, I think? Which puts the beast in the lake of fire before the destruction of Babylon?)

Can you perhaps sort this out, because it sure looks like some major discrepencies there?

[Amanah]

Brother Blume, I'm on page 140 now, I like the way you bring the Sabbath into the conversation from Genesis when Adam and Eve were deceived before they could enter into the Sabbath to the Israelites rejecting the Sabbath, and the year of Jubilee, and then rejecting the Sabbath rest of the new covenant. very interesting.

[mfblume]

Brother Blume, I'm on page 140 now, I like the way you bring the Sabbath into the conversation from Genesis when Adam and Eve were deceived before they could enter into the Sabbath to the Israelites rejecting the Sabbath, and the year of Jubilee, and then rejecting the Sabbath rest of the new covenant. very interesting.

Thanks, that was a precious revelation for me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Thanks, that was a precious revelation for me.

I remember when you preached it down in Texas.

I shouted right out of my seat! :happydance

[mfblume]

I remember when you preached it down in Texas.

I shouted right out of my seat! :happydance

I remember you shouting! :D

[Esaias]

Revelation 20:1-4 KJV And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Brother Blume, the thousand years is said to begin when Satan is bound. According to the prophecy, this binding occurs AFTER the beast, false prophet, mark of the beast, beast persecutions against the saints, the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, the fall of Babylon, etc.

Yet you say that the thousand years represents 'the church age' and that the binding of Satan took place at the cross, that the resurrected saints seated on thrones was fulfilled in Paul saying we are seated in heavenly places and rule and reign now - all of which was BEFORE AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Brother Blume, can you explain what seems to many of us to be a serious discrepency between these two things? On the one hand, the beast and the false prophet are on the scene, the mark of the beast, persecution against the saints, then the beast attacks the whore Babylon and destroys it, then there is conflict between the beast and the Son of God and His armies, ending in the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, THEN AFTER THESE THINGS HAPPEN Satan is bound, the saints who resisted the mark of the beast and who were martyred by the beast are resurrected and rule and reign.

But on the other hand, you are saying essentially that Satan was bound at the cross, then there is persecution against the saints, then the beast destroys Babylon in AD 70. (I once asked you about when the beast was cast into the lake of fire and you said that was Nero dying, I think? Which puts the beast in the lake of fire before the destruction of Babylon?)

Can you perhaps sort this out, because it sure looks like some major discrepencies there?

bump for brother Blume...

[mizpeh]

bump for brother Blume...Is that what all preterist or partial preterist believe?

Esaias, I thought you were a preterist.

[Esaias]

Is that what all preterist or partial preterist believe?

Esaias, I thought you were a preterist.

Why would you think that? If you want to label my beliefs it would be premillennial historicism.

[mizpeh]

Why would you think that? If you want to label my beliefs it would be premillennial historicism. Something you wrote a long time ago.

Premillenial like this guy?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?s=premillenialism

[Esaias]

Something you wrote a long time ago.

Premillenial like this guy?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?s=premillenialism

No, he is a futurist. Think more along the lines of John Gill or H. Gratton Guinness or E. B. Elliott or Sir Isaac Newton or Henry Alford, among others.

[Esaias]

Something you wrote a long time ago.

Premillenial like this guy?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/?s=premillenialism

Most futurists think that if you believe Matthew 24 was primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, or if you don't believe in a future seven year Tribulation or future 3.5 year Great Tribulation, or if you don't believe in a single future dictator known as "Antichrist", then you must be a preterist.

So, most futurists think we are preterists. Interestingly, I have found most preterists (at least partial preterists) mistake us for preterists, too, for some reason. PreteristArchive for example routinely called Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, Mede, Newton, Calvin, Knox, Mather, and a bunch of other historicists "preterists".

A lot of folks think its either preterism, or futurism (usually dispensational pretrib at that).

[Amanah]

I'm a historicist with partial preterist sympathies. I like both Nero and the Pope for antichrist, and I anticipate future antichrists.

And I love Bro Blume's explanation of Sabbath rest and how everyone messed it up until the church came along.

but, Partial Preterists have to cut out Rev chapter 20, which is not good because they are taking away from the word of God.

[Amanah]

I was thinking this morning about how David was promised that his kingdom would always have someone sitting on the throne, and how that was fulfilled in Jesus who abolished the earthly kingdom of Israel and instituted the church as his spiritual kingdom, which supports the premise that the Church (as spiritual Israel) has supplanted fleshly Israel, making an eschatology based on 1948 unrealistic.

[mfblume]

I'm a historicist with partial preterist sympathies. I like both Nero and the Pope for antichrist, and I anticipate future antichrists.

And I love Bro Blume's explanation of Sabbath rest and how everyone messed it up until the church came along.

but, Partial Preterists have to cut out Rev chapter 20, which is not good because they are taking away from the word of God.

Rev 20 includes the church now. We are seated with him and ruling, as Rev 20 says there were thrones and people sat on them. Rev 20 is about the kingdom now. And the second resurrection is the resurrection taking us to the white throne judgment. First is salvation -(Ro 6:13).

The attack on the holy city is persecution against the church that will ensue just before the end. People will confuse this with the great tribulation which actually already occurred in the first century.

Please elaborate on how you see us cutting that chapter out. I see it as current church period ever since the first century.

[mfblume]

bump for brother Blume...

Just saw this this morning. Great point. Will get back asap.

[Amanah]

I don't think the parts in bold have happened yet.

Rev:20 (ESV) Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit[a] and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

The Defeat of Satan

7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven[b] and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Judgment Before the Great White Throne

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

[Esaias]

I was thinking this morning about how David was promised that his kingdom would always have someone sitting on the throne, and how that was fulfilled in Jesus who abolished the earthly kingdom of Israel and instituted the church as his spiritual kingdom, which supports the premise that the Church (as spiritual Israel) has supplanted fleshly Israel, making an eschatology based on 1948 unrealistic.

1948 was not "fleshly Israel" becoming a nation. Those people aren't Israelites to begin with, for the most part.

There is no earthly vs spiritual Israel, there is only Israel, previously under the old covenant, now under the new covenant. There has been no supplanting or replacement of anything except the covenant. Replacement theology is an error, common to many futurists, many historicists, and many preterists, as well.

I'm about halfway done with my article (book!) on prophecy, it will make this crystal clear.

[mizpeh]

1948 was not "fleshly Israel" becoming a nation. Those people aren't Israelites to begin with, for the most part.

There is no earthly vs spiritual Israel, there is only Israel, previously under the old covenant, now under the new covenant. There has been no supplanting or replacement of anything except the covenant. Replacement theology is an error, common to many futurists, many historicists, and many preterists, as well.

I'm about halfway done with my article (book!) on prophecy, it will make this crystal clear.

Paul recognizes the nation of Israel. ROmans 11

[Esaias]

Paul recognizes the nation of Israel. ROmans 11

Read what I posted again, you apparently misread my post.

[mizpeh]

Read what I posted again, you apparently misread my post.
Are you saying the only Israel is the nation of Israel?

[Esaias]

Are you saying the only Israel is the nation of Israel?

I'm saying the modern nation of Israel over in the Mideast is not the Israel of the Bible, they are not generally speaking the descendants of Jacob. While there may be some Israelites among them here or there, for the most part they are not Israelites at all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'm saying the modern nation of Israel over in the Mideast is not the Israel of the Bible, they are not generally speaking the descendants of Jacob. While there may be some Israelites among them here or there, for the most part they are not Israelites at all.

Which when you tell the above to a Dispensationalist it sounds like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_BU5hR9gXE&ab_channel=Partexedd%7CCSGO

[Esaias]

Which when you tell the above to a Dispensationalist it sounds like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_BU5hR9gXE&ab_channel=Partexedd%7CCSGO

Yes, that is unfortunately the case. "Waaaa waaaa wahhh, wah waaah waaaa waaah waaah."

lol

[Amanah]

It takes time to absorb the information and get it straight for sure. I'm on page 152 of Bro Blume's book, so I'm still in process of learning the partial preterist view, and I read thru End Time Delusions rather quickly, so I don't quite have the historicist view nailed down either. But, I'll get there. Plus in the future we will have Bro Esaias' book to read also. To be honest I'm enjoying learning about both views.

[mizpeh]

I'm saying the modern nation of Israel over in the Mideast is not the Israel of the Bible, they are not generally speaking the descendants of Jacob. While there may be some Israelites among them here or there, for the most part they are not Israelites at all.What? are they a genetically watered-down version? Are the citizens of the nation of Israel mostly non-Hebrew? What exactly do you mean?

[mfblume]

Israel was never focused on natural descendancy. It is partly a religious adherence issue. If a person obeyed Law they were just as equal to God as someone born in the land.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Israel was never focused on natural descendancy. It is partly a religious adherence issue. If a person obeyed Law they were just as equal to God as someone born in the land.

Thank you. :highfive

[Bowas]

It takes time to absorb the information and get it straight for sure. I'm on page 152 of Bro Blume's book, so I'm still in process of learning the partial preterist view, and I read thru End Time Delusions rather quickly, so I don't quite have the historicist view nailed down either. But, I'll get there. Plus in the future we will have Bro Esaias' book to read also. To be honest I'm enjoying learning about both views.

A lot of very valuable information in that book. I have referenced it many times.

[mfblume]

Esaias, you asked me about he binding of satan in Rev 20 and the apparent conflict between the cross doing this, and the events of AD70 when the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake in Rev 19 and then reading Rev 20's binding of the devil as though it happens after the events of Rev 19.

I have to lay out the picture of AD70's relationship to Jerusalem being judged, which you agree with, in order to explain this.

Jesus changed covenants at the cross. And yet the trappings of law and the temple, etc., continued on for another generation -- the generation Jesus noted in Matt 24. It was a time God provided for repentance. Hence, rev repeatedly says they repented not. But just as the old covenant was actually dealt with on the cross but time passed until every remnant of it was gone with temple destruction 40 years later, satan was bound at the cross. But AD70 specifically saw him bound in the area of not preventing the gospel from being spread, since it specifically says he was bound to not deceive the nations any more.

The idea of the devil being bound and yet active to a degree ought not surprise us. far greater and stronger words were said about satan's destruction in Heb 2:14 b the cross, and yet the devil is still active. So, if we accept Heb 2:14 as noting satan was destroyed, but yet we accept the fact it happened at the cross and yet the devil is still active, why bother about a LESSER term used in BINDING in Rev 20 when we say he is still active so cannot be bound?

Just as the CROSS was the source of the result for the temple destruction in a delayed manner, same with the binding. The cross bound him, but its effects were furthered 40 years later.

[Amanah]

I read Ps 102 this morning, thought it was interesting how at first the psalmist mentions the stones of the building as he is in despair, he is looking at the physical and not at the spiritual.

12..
But you, O Lord, are enthroned forever;
........you are remembered throughout all generations.
13..
You will arise and have pity on Zion;
........it is the time to favor her;
........the appointed time has come.
14..
For your servants hold her stones dear
........and have pity on her dust.

but then he looks at the spiritual perspective and his mind shifts to the glory of God and his spirit is uplifted

21..
So the name of the Lord will be declared in Zion
........and his praise in Jerusalem
22..
when the peoples and the kingdoms
........assemble to worship the Lord.
23..
In the course of my life he broke my strength;
........he cut short my days.
24..
So I said:
“Do not take me away, my God, in the midst of my days;
........your years go on through all generations.
25..
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
........and the heavens are the work of your hands.26..
They will perish, but you remain;
........they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
........and they will be discarded.
27..
But you remain the same,
........and your years will never end.
28..
The children of your servants will live in your presence;
........their descendants will be established before you.”

[Amanah]

The similarity between Ps 102 & Matthew 24 struck me as both are speaking about the temple, and then the destruction of the earth

24 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

[Amanah]

bumping for reference/rereading

While it is true that the Vatican fulfills much of the criteria of apocalyptic Babylon, it should be kept in mind that Babylon is also identified as the great city "where also our Lord was crucified", which could only be Jerusalem.

So, the question is, "How can this be reconciled?" When you look at the Vatican, and where it actually came from, it begins to make sense. There is more to first century Jerusalem and Judaism than most have realised. Limiting Babylon to either just a physical city in Palestine, or a physical city in Italy, misses what's actually being depicted.

Brother Benincasa made a point awhile back regarding the clay and iron of Daniel 2. Iron of course is Rome. And the clay? Well, he pointed out that Israel is repeatedly identified as clay in the hands of the Divine Potter. So there is indicated an attempted combine of rebellious apostate Israel and heathen Rome. This fits in with Babylon being identified as Jerusalem, yet with the prophetic destiny and history of Rome.

Babylon thus looks more and more like a world system that deceives the people (ideology, religion), because it is in bed with earthly governments (politics) and its merchants are the "great men of the earth" (economics). It is apostate Jerusalem. It is supported by, and seems to be in control of what was left of the old Roman Empire (the various political, economic, and religious leftovers, known today as for example the European Union, the Black Nobility, the Papacy, the European nobility, "international banking" which is actually European centered and Rothschild controlled...

[Amanah]

bumping for rereading

I disagree. Preterism requires an a priori assumption not derived from Scripture itself (several, actually). How is prophecy fulfilled IN THE BIBLE ITSELF? Preteristically? Futuristically? Or historically?

Preterism and futurism both fail on this foundational point. Most all preterists and futurists ignore the entire foundation of OT prophecy and its Biblically documented chronological fulfillment. They also ignore one of the fundamental keys of prophecy - the Abrahamic Covenant and the prophecies that put it into action. They completely miss the importance of Daniel, the original "apocalypse", with it's DIVINE INTERPRETATIONS as provided by both Daniel and the angel Gabriel, which provides the KEY to understanding Revelation. They miss the scope and sequence of Bible prophecy, in other words, and instead take a hodge podge of NT prophetic texts and force them into their particular, necessary, and assumed position either in a brief period in the first century or in a brief period right before The End™.

Both systems (futurism, and preterism) are riddled with insurmountable inconsistencies and internal contradictions, as well as contradictions to the plain statements of Scripture.

Both systems render Bible prophecy as essentially moot and irrelevant for the vast majority of mankind throughout the last 2000 years. Prophecy was for people 2000 years ago, not for anyone living afterwards (preterism), or prophecy is for people in some unspecified future time and not for anyone living before (futurism).

Both systems were developed for the express purpose of deflecting criticism away from Papal Rome as being the Beast, Antichrist, etc - which was not a uniquely Protestant view, by the way.

[Amanah]

bumping for rereading

Partial preterism claims there is no Second Advent mentioned in Matthew. THIS, then, is explained away to refer to Roman heathen armies destroying apostate Jews:

Matthew 25:31-46 KJV When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? (38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? (39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? (40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


1. Jesus speaks of the righteous INHERITING the KINGDOM. Paul did too - in First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50!

2. Therefore, letting bible interpret bible, we see that Matthew chapter 25 does indeed contain teaching addressing the Second Advent of our Lord and the resurrection and final Judgment.

3. And therefore, brother Blume is grossly in error for claiming the Gospel of Matthew contains NO REFERENCE TO THE SECOND COMING AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS.

5. And therefore, partial preterism is shown to be inconsistent, arbitrary, and seriously in error.

Notice, the issues I pointed out are a matter of HERMENEUTICS. It is not a matter of trying to find some historical fulfillment of some obscure hard to understand or vaguely worded prophecy buried in the Apocalypse. Rather, very confident and sweeping declarations were made concerning the subject matter of Matthew, our Lord's words, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, etc. And these confident and sweeping words have now been easily and clearly shown to be ERROR.

Now, it took me less than fifteen minutes to confute all this foundational preterist error. Yet preterists have been studying for YEARS and have never seen any of these serious mistakes of theirs? How is that possible?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Amanah]

bumping for re reading

I know what you said. I quoted you saying the Second Coming is nowhere in Matthew. I did not assume anything except that you meant what you said. And I addressed it. Simply repeating your claim, with a slightly nuanced change of wording so as to imply you meant "the word coming was not used in reference to resurrection" doesn't change the fact you claimed "The Second Coming is nowhere mentioned in Matthew". You made that claim here, you make that claim in your writings, including I believe in your response to elder Groce's critique of Larry Smith's booklet. To which I will simply repeat what I said earlier:

Partial preterism claims there is no Second Advent mentioned in Matthew. THIS, then, is explained away to refer to Roman heathen armies destroying apostate Jews:

Matthew 25:31-46 KJV When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? (38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? (39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? (40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


1. Jesus speaks of the righteous INHERITING the KINGDOM. Paul did too - in First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50!

2. Therefore, letting bible interpret bible, we see that Matthew chapter 25 does indeed contain teaching addressing the Second Advent of our Lord and the resurrection and final Judgment.

3. And therefore, brother Blume is grossly in error for claiming the Gospel of Matthew contains NO REFERENCE TO THE SECOND COMING AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS.

5. And therefore, partial preterism is shown to be inconsistent, arbitrary, and seriously in error.

Notice, the issues I pointed out are a matter of HERMENEUTICS. It is not a matter of trying to find some historical fulfillment of some obscure hard to understand or vaguely worded prophecy buried in the Apocalypse. Rather, very confident and sweeping declarations were made concerning the subject matter of Matthew, our Lord's words, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, etc. And these confident and sweeping words have now been easily and clearly shown to be ERROR.




Why should I? There are points YOU have not responded to. I notice that preterists are hypnotized by the Olivet Discourse in Matthew ch 24, and seem to think that because they understand Jesus to be prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem that therefore all non-preterists are wrong.

This is a mistake. Preterists and historicists (and even a few futurists!) understand Matthew ch 24. This is why I said earlier that finding some writer who understands Matthew 24 in reference to AD 70 proves nothing about their eschatology except that they weren't dispensationalists.

The differences between preterism and the historical understanding of prophecy do not revolve around Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not the "Rosetta Stone" of Bible prophecy. It was never misunderstood until radical futurism came along. And almost all preterists seem to be disgruntled ex-futurist dispensationalists who, having seen the errors of pop prophecy pundits on Matthew 24, and having seen the basic truth about it, have fixated on it and filter everything they read through it so as to lead to what looks to me as a rather unhealthy obsession over it. Or in other words, preterists and futurists BOTH fixate on Matthew 24 as the alpha and omega of prophecy. Which is why I have always said they are two sides of the same coin, and are basically the same error going in opposite directions.

[Evang.Benincasa]

bumping for re reading

Disgruntled ex-futurists? :heeheehee

[Amanah]

bumping for rereading
Revelation 20:1-4 KJV And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Brother Blume, the thousand years is said to begin when Satan is bound. According to the prophecy, this binding occurs AFTER the beast, false prophet, mark of the beast, beast persecutions against the saints, the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, the fall of Babylon, etc.

Yet you say that the thousand years represents 'the church age' and that the binding of Satan took place at the cross, that the resurrected saints seated on thrones was fulfilled in Paul saying we are seated in heavenly places and rule and reign now - all of which was BEFORE AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Brother Blume, can you explain what seems to many of us to be a serious discrepency between these two things? On the one hand, the beast and the false prophet are on the scene, the mark of the beast, persecution against the saints, then the beast attacks the whore Babylon and destroys it, then there is conflict between the beast and the Son of God and His armies, ending in the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, THEN AFTER THESE THINGS HAPPEN Satan is bound, the saints who resisted the mark of the beast and who were martyred by the beast are resurrected and rule and reign.

But on the other hand, you are saying essentially that Satan was bound at the cross, then there is persecution against the saints, then the beast destroys Babylon in AD 70. (I once asked you about when the beast was cast into the lake of fire and you said that was Nero dying, I think? Which puts the beast in the lake of fire before the destruction of Babylon?)

Can you perhaps sort this out, because it sure looks like some major discrepencies there?

[Amanah]

Disgruntled ex-futurists? :heeheehee


I need to see the opposing viewpoint right now since I'm not strong on prophecy

[Evang.Benincasa]

I need to see the opposing viewpoint right now since I'm not strong on prophecy

Sister, keep studying this out, until you are strong on prophecy. There is a thread one needs to hold on to. One, this wasn't meant for anyone other than a covenant people. Two, OT was written primarily to who? Prophets were primarily speaking to who? You? Me? No, they were speaking only to the divided nation of Israel, and kingdom broken in two, and only the Southerns were the one who would bring forth Messiah. Judea the Southern kingdom, cool breezes, sweet tea, and fried chicken, and the best corn bread this side of the Dan. Their capital was Jerusalem. The book of Revelation was primarily written to Diaspora Judeans, because those 7 churches were Diaspora churches. Made me worry a little when Elder LeDeay agreed with me on that.

But, the situation is this, most churches only cherry pick from the OT. They tell stories about David, Noah, Moses, Joshua, but never give the holistic picture. READ the OT and understand it thoroughly. Understand that Messiah was to come for a specific role to bring salvation to more than one nation. That kingdom would no longer be one that was bound by physical parameters, but be placed in the unseen spiritual one. Fear of death would be wiped away, because as they were dying in the gladiatorial games, they totally understood to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. Jesus tells a Roman procurator that His kingship wasn't of a physical realm. Because if it was physical then resentence to the Empire of Rome would be necessary. Jesus is King now, we are His subjects, now, we are seated in heavenly places now. When this body dies, I walk out of it to be with Him now.

But read the Old Testament thoroughly with the mind of who it is actually written to, and what THEY were awaiting.

[Esaias]

There is a thread one needs to hold on to. One, this wasn't meant for anyone other than a covenant people. Two, OT was written primarily to who? Prophets were primarily speaking to who? You? Me? No, they were speaking only to the divided nation of Israel, and kingdom broken in two, and only the Southerns were the one who would bring forth Messiah. Judea the Southern kingdom, cool breezes, sweet tea, and fried chicken, and the best corn bread this side of the Dan. Their capital was Jerusalem. The book of Revelation was primarily written to Diaspora Judeans, because those 7 churches were Diaspora churches. Made me worry a little when Elder LeDeay agreed with me on that.

But, the situation is this, most churches only cherry pick from the OT. They tell stories about David, Noah, Moses, Joshua, but never give the holistic picture. READ the OT and understand it thoroughly. ...

But read the Old Testament thoroughly with the mind of who it is actually written to, and what THEY were awaiting.

No better advice has been given than this right here.

[Amanah]

Sister, keep studying this out, until you are strong on prophecy. There is a thread one needs to hold on to. One, this wasn't meant for anyone other than a covenant people. Two, OT was written primarily to who? Prophets were primarily speaking to who? You? Me? No, they were speaking only to the divided nation of Israel, and kingdom broken in two, and only the Southerns were the one who would bring forth Messiah. Judea the Southern kingdom, cool breezes, sweet tea, and fried chicken, and the best corn bread this side of the Dan. Their capital was Jerusalem. The book of Revelation was primarily written to Diaspora Judeans, because those 7 churches were Diaspora churches. Made me worry a little when Elder LeDeay agreed with me on that.

But, the situation is this, most churches only cherry pick from the OT. They tell stories about David, Noah, Moses, Joshua, but never give the holistic picture. READ the OT and understand it thoroughly. Understand that Messiah was to come for a specific role to bring salvation to more than one nation. That kingdom would no longer be one that was bound by physical parameters, but be placed in the unseen spiritual one. Fear of death would be wiped away, because as they were dying in the gladiatorial games, they totally understood to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. Jesus tells a Roman procurator that His kingship wasn't of a physical realm. Because if it was physical then resentence to the Empire of Rome would be necessary. Jesus is King now, we are His subjects, now, we are seated in heavenly places now. When this body dies, I walk out of it to be with Him now.

But read the Old Testament thoroughly with the mind of who it is actually written to, and what THEY were awaiting.

I'm going to stop reading secular books and just read/study the Old Testament for the next several months.

typically I do great reading the OT until I start working my way through the divided kingdom and prophets, then I get bogged down.

[mfblume]

What did you want me to say?

The single-most issue of premillennialism is that the ONLY place any passage alluding to it is found is in Revelation. Chapter 20. And Revelation is so full of symbols of visions, with VERY FEW details even interpreted in the book itself, that represent what the rest of the Bible teaches, that I cannot see any substantiation to make it a doctrine. It stands to reason that the Lord and Apostles should have plainly taught about it.

Think of it! Millennium. The major title you just gave suggests it's a main issue in the bible. PreMILLENIALism. After naming an entire belief system after that concept of millennium, when Jesus and the apostles gave no plain teaching on it anywhere, something is askew.

I asked myself this and settled it in my heart. I think you and everyone else needs to ask it of yourselves as well, if I may be a little forward about it. Would God have a major concept like millennium -- an entire AGE of precisely 1,000 years -- have mention in a HIGHLY symbolic book, and mean for us to make a doctrine out of it, when the Apostles and Jesus taught NO PLAIN concept whatsoever? And the prophets never stated anything about a thousand year age. All the premmillennialists can do is ASSUME some things the prophets said are not yet fulfilled and must be part of the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20, although the Lord and Apostles NEVER interpreted their prophecies in any way other than applying to the church age and the resurrection. Period.

We hear these claims that Isaiah and Zechariah spoke of the millennium, but Jesus and the apostles NEVER interpreted those same passages as dealing with a future age after the resurrection.

We both know prophecy is related to us through visionary symbols. Jesus was foretold to come as a BRANCH from the ROOT, and STEM. He was told to be a LAMB. In Revelation that Lamb has seven eyes and horns. Isaiah spoke of the downfall of kingdoms by describing celestial bodies darkening, or falling, when none of that literally occurred when those kindgoms fell, like Babylon and Idumea, etc.

I can see how all of those prophecies that premillenniallists use to say a millennium is yet to come actually SYMBOLICALLY represent the NEW COVENANT AGE we're in now.

Many times we read a prophecy and naturalize is, when the SAME TERMS were already used in the New Testament to refer to the current new covenant age.

For example, Isaiah 2 speaks of going to Mount Zion, the highest of all hills, and serving God. Hebrews 12:22 calls the current new testament church "Mount Zion," to which we've already come! Why would Hebrews distinctly use the very concept Isaiah prophesied of COMING TO Mount Zion and say we ALREADY ARE COME, unless the writer's knew full-well that Isaiah 2 is fulfilled spiritually in the church?

And it's so important to futurists that they entitle every viewpoint from its perspective.. pre-MILLENNIALISM, post-MILLENNIALISM, a-MILLENNIALISM.

And it's all based upon the possibility that Revelation 20 MIGHT NOT BE SYMBOLIC, despite all of the symbols and introduction to Revelation in the first few verses saying that its contents SIGNIFY or BETOKEN events, and despite the fact the apostles and Jesus never said anything plain about it!

So, I concluded Rev 20 can only be symbolic of the rest of the Bible's words about the new testament.

We read of the binding of the devil in Rev 20. Jesus spoke of binding and spoiling the strongman. Paul said that about the cross. We read of saints on thrones, and Paul said we're seated with Christ over all powers now. We read of the HOLY CITY attacked by the enemy. Hebrews and Jesus calls the church a city. And we know the devil hates this holy city of the church.

Bump

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
While it is true that the Vatican fulfills much of the criteria of apocalyptic Babylon, it should be kept in mind that Babylon is also identified as the great city "where also our Lord was crucified", which could only be Jerusalem.

So, the question is, "How can this be reconciled?" When you look at the Vatican, and where it actually came from, it begins to make sense. There is more to first century Jerusalem and Judaism than most have realised. Limiting Babylon to either just a physical city in Palestine, or a physical city in Italy, misses what's actually being depicted.

Brother Benincasa made a point awhile back regarding the clay and iron of Daniel 2. Iron of course is Rome. And the clay? Well, he pointed out that Israel is repeatedly identified as clay in the hands of the Divine Potter. So there is indicated an attempted combine of rebellious apostate Israel and heathen Rome. This fits in with Babylon being identified as Jerusalem, yet with the prophetic destiny and history of Rome.

Babylon thus looks more and more like a world system that deceives the people (ideology, religion), because it is in bed with earthly governments (politics) and its merchants are the "great men of the earth" (economics). It is apostate Jerusalem. It is supported by, and seems to be in control of what was left of the old Roman Empire (the various political, economic, and religious leftovers, known today as for example the European Union, the Black Nobility, the Papacy, the European nobility, "international banking" which is actually European centered and Rothschild controlled...

This made sense. What is the significance of the ten toes?

[Scott Pitta]

When it comes to eschatology, I do not have a clue.

[Evang.Benincasa]

When it comes to eschatology, I do not have a clue.

https://player.hu/uploads/2017/04/GeYzD.gif

[consapente89]

Jesus is coming! If you don't believe that, then you are a mocker and a scoffer. You might be a good man otherwise...but as Elder Tony Moody once said "Can someone please get me the Greek on 'a good man'?!?!"

It is so amazing to me that we can get so much right, but get hung up on one item, and that one hang up can cause us to be lost. One hang up, if we allow it to, can totally isolate 'a good man' from the sharpening iron of strong Apostolic Fellowship.

If what I believe I observed is correct, Pixler got hung up on some minor item, and totally rejected the correction of good men. That one disagreement was worth more to him, and many other 'good men', than his ministering brethren. The self-imposed isolation led him down the road of no return, away from Jesus Christ and his Church. I'm going to hold on to the fellowship, and I choose to accept correction when it comes my way.

[Evang.Benincasa]

consapente89?

What do you believe?

[consapente89]

I lean toward a post tribulation rapture. I believe antichrist is a spirit that was present in Paul's day but increases in intensity as we near the end of the age. I believe in a Church that is victorious through past, present, and future persecution and 'tribulation'. For the most part, I am undecided about many of the details, but I believe Jesus is coming. If you ask for a lot of specifics, I'll probably tell you "I don't know".

[Esaias]

This made sense. What is the significance of the ten toes?

The various republics that sprang up out of the Roman Empire, which were an attempted continuation of the Roman system (religiously and judicially, etc). The number ten is there simply because the image was of a man - and men have ten toes.

(The beast in Daniel 7 had ten horns, plus a little horn, etc and there is some significance to those numbers, of course, but that's a bit different.)

[Esaias]

I'm going to stop reading secular books and just read/study the Old Testament for the next several months.

typically I do great reading the OT until I start working my way through the divided kingdom and prophets, then I get bogged down.

https://craigtowens.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/kings-of-israel-judah2.jpg

http://www.thebookwurm.com/kingchrt.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/kings.html

[Evang.Benincasa]

I lean toward a post tribulation rapture. I believe antichrist is a spirit that was present in Paul's day but increases in intensity as we near the end of the age. I believe in a Church that is victorious through past, present, and future persecution and 'tribulation'. For the most part, I am undecided about many of the details, but I believe Jesus is coming. If you ask for a lot of specifics, I'll probably tell you "I don't know".

So, bro, you don't know what you believe? YOU don't know the specifics of what you believe? Do you know the specifics of One God? Jesus name baptism? Holiness unto the Lord? Women long hair, Men short hair? Shall I go on? Do you tell Trinitarians I believe in Jesus baptism, infilling of the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues and One God. If you ask for a lot of specifics, I'll probably tell you I don't know? Seriously?

My name must be Johnny Neckbone, because people think my head screws off and on. i like you brother please think about what you just posted. If you say you believe that the cow jumped over the moon, and Judas ran off with the spoons. Then please, I BEG YOU PLEASE. Study it out it, book, chapter, and verse. Know the specifics. If I wake you up out of a dead sleep and ask for a Bible study on Jesus name, you be able to start laying it down with book. Do that with your eschatology.

[Esaias]

Judas ran off with the spoons?

BWAHAHAHAH! That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

[consapente89]

So, bro, you don't know what you believe? YOU don't know the specifics of what you believe? Do you know the specifics of One God? Jesus name baptism? Holiness unto the Lord? Women long hair, Men short hair? Shall I go on? Do you tell Trinitarians I believe in Jesus baptism, infilling of the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues and One God. If you ask for a lot of specifics, I'll probably tell you I don't know? Seriously?

My name must be Johnny Neckbone, because people think my head screws off and on. i like you brother please think about what you just posted. If you say you believe that the cow jumped over the moon, and Judas ran off with the spoons. Then please, I BEG YOU PLEASE. Study it out it, book, chapter, and verse. Know the specifics. If I wake you up out of a dead sleep and ask for a Bible study on Jesus name, you be able to start laying it down with book. Do that with your eschatology.

Yessir. I need to.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yessir. I need to.

Amen

You're a ΚΑΛΟΣ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ! :highfive

[houston]

Judas ran off with the spoons?

BWAHAHAHAH! That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Even got a response from baptist me. I grinned. It almost hurt my face.