Preterism...A Pox Upon Baptists & other denoms

And John took them to be in his future, given that his prophetic book was written 26 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Which you may not agree with, but extrabiblical books prove he was banished to Patmos near the end of the first century, and he references the banishment in Revelation 1:9. The A.D. 70 date for fulfillment of his prophecies that most preterists use is disproven by that verse.

 

That view has been allowed within orthodoxy, its just the flown blown version that fits the definition of heresy!

 

Anything that denies a literal and future return of Christ is heresy.

 

A fact is something that is proven. I am perfectly willing to hear your reasons for believing this. In my personal experience I have found this statement to be untrue. Rather it is the early date that doesn't bear scrutiny. I have provided a few arguments for a late date but instead of scrutinizing them or providing evidence for an early date you choose to hide behind a broad blanket statement. It the equivalent of saying that your right because you want to be. As I said before: show me.

No, that is not what you or Charles Hodge said. According to your quote we must interpret scripture according to how the audience understood it ("in the sense attached to them...by the people to whom they were addressed"). On the other hand, sound interpretation demands that scripture be interpreted according to what the inspired authors intent was. There is a big difference between what the author (or speaker) intended and how the audience took it. I again point back to John 2:18-20

 

So do you advocate a partial or full fulfillment of the Olivet discourse? All of the attempts to justify a full fulfillment of this, that I have seen, have had to stretch scriptures to make the blanks fit some of those facts you refer to. If you do not advocate a full fulfillment, why are we arguing.

This has been a very common mistake on our side, confusing terms. What most mean by the title "the anti-Christ" is the beast of revelation. A more fitting title might be "an anti-Christ" or perhaps better yet "the great anti-Christ". Either way, preterits no well that this is what is meant. To try to pass this off as an actual argument against a person's position is tantamount to a straw man argument. If you are really interested in open and honest Biblical discussion for the purpose of deepening everyone's understanding of the Bible, don't stoop to such tricks. This isn't about keeping score, or at least it shouldn't be.

I would tend to agree with you on this and here robycop3 and I diverge. I do not see a connection with this passage in Matthew and the man of perdition described in II Thessalonians.

Here we see one of the greatest problems with full preterism. It is assumed that Revelation's time references indicate that all of the events described in the book would take place soon. On close scrutiny, however, this falls apart.

The word translated as "come to pass" in Revelation 1:1 is in the aorist tense. This tense can sometimes be difficult to translate as it does not indicate mode of the verb, whether it is starting, continuing, or completed. A similar problem occurs in Luke 1.

Here we read about an angel visiting Zacharias and telling him about the conception of John. He also describes the many things that John will do in his lifetime. When Zacharias did not believe the angel he was struck mute, "...until the day that these things shall be performed..." We later learn that Zacharias is given back his voice when John was only a few days old (Luke 1:59-64). This happened long before all that the angel had declared was fulfilled. This may seem like a contradiction but it is fact a mistranslation. The word translated "shall be performed" is in the arorist tense and so can mean to begin to be performed. As such a better translation might be "until the day these things begin to be performed" which is indeed what happened.

Not only is this the same tense as the word from Revelation 1:1, it is the same word. As such, a more accurate translation if Revelation 1:1 may be "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly begin to come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;"

Revelation 1:3, being closely linked to the above verse, must be interpreted in this same light. The time that is at hand is the time in which the things begin to come to pass.

Revelation 22:10 is clearly a reference back to Revelation 1:3 as it is nearly identical. I see no reason to believe that it shouldn't be similarly understood.

Some of the events described in Revelation did start to happen soon for the original recipients of the book, but there is no indication that all did, including the mark of the beast.

Show me an example of when Revelation 13:16-17 took place historically.

Here we again see our little aorist friend, the same word used in Revelation 1:1 is used in both of these portions of scripture. I would suggest that here again they should be translated with the idea of beginning. That generation would see those things beginning to happen. This fits well with a historicist interpretation.

Luke 10:18 took place long before Luke 21 is recorded and in that verse Jesus talks in the past tense. He already saw Satan fall. Luke 21, however, looks to their future not their past. There is no way these could refer to the same events.

Clearly this tread is not arguing against partial or "orthodox" preterism, but full preterism. Do you still await the coming?

 

Ah, the OTHER most holy sacred cherished hallowed cow, the 'SECOND' coming, derived solely from:

28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9
37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10

Yes, we hold He came 'the second time' unto deliverance from persecution to those Christian Jews by breaking the horn of their Jewish persecutors, 66-70 A.D.

We await the 'NEXT' coming:

23....Christ`s, at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 1 Cor 15

 

You really thinkjt Second coming happened in AD 70, correct?

The Second Coming MUST have a physical resurrection of all of the dead in Christ up until that point in time, and he MUST establish his kingdom on earth at that time...

When did that happen in history again?

 

You did a really nice jog here outlining how the Bible refutes full pretierism, as still looking for when jesus came back and set up reign on earth, and that all of His saints were glorfied!

 

Yeah.

A.W. “a pox on the Baptists” Pink on Heb 10:37:

“….. "For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry" (verse 37). The causal "For" denotes that the apostle was about to confirm what he had just said: he both adds a word to strengthen their "confidence" and "patience," and also points them to the near approach of the time when they should receive their "reward." The Greek is very expressive and emphatic. The apostle used a word which signifies "a little while," and then for further emphasis added a particle meaning "very," and this he still further intensified by repeating it; thus, literally rendered this clause reads, "For yet a very, very little while, and He that shall come will come."……. "For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." The reference here is to the person of the Lord Jesus, as is evident from Habakkuk 2:3, to which the apostle here alludes. Like so many prophecies, that word of Habakkuk’s was to receive a threefold fulfillment: a literal and initial one, a spiritual and continuous one, a final and complete one. The literal was the Divine incarnation, when the Son of God came here in flesh. The final will be His return in visible glory and power. The spiritual has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 when that which most obstructed the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom on earth was destroyed—with the overthrow of the Temple and its worship, official Judaism came to an end. The Christians in Palestine were being constantly persecuted by the Jews, but their conquest by Titus and their consequent dispersion put an end to this. That event was less than ten years distant when Paul wrote: compare our remarks on "see the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25)….”

….and you say it with such authority.

 

The real ‘pox’ on the Baptists, the blatant contradiction to the peaceful religion of Jesus Christ, is the theo-political system of Christian Zionism that dispensationalism has morphed into. Worse yet, this ‘pox’ shamelessly makes the Saviour and the writers of the NT out to be nothing short of liars many times over. Dispensationalism is the real ‘pox’ here, not Preterism.

 

:applause::applause:

[You encourage this trash??
Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated on this board.]

 

Notice how disagreeing with dispensationalism now makes you anti-semetic? Gotta love the fair and balanced Mods. I guess disagreeing with Obama makes one a racists as well.

 

I am not going to quote this offensive trash again as you should have had the eyes to see it for yourself:

That has nothing to do with dispensationalism even if the poster tried to link it to dispensationalism. It is simply wrong. It is anti-semitism and has no place on this board.
Talk about covenants and dispensations as you will but cease and desist with the hateful racist language.

 

I doubt the intention here was racism. What troubles me are the grandiose blanket statements made with no support. We have learned too much from the politicians and hide behind short sound bites instead of engaging in real debate. At least robycop3 tried to support his claims.

 

I must be missing something, I dont see the anti-semitism in Kyredneck's comment. Has something been deleted I missed?

 

What is "Zionism"?
What is "Christian Zionism"?
Perhaps they are not offensive to you, but they are terms that are offensive to others and they do point to a race of people. Why is it necessary to use such racist terms when discussing dispensationalism? What is the connection? There is none!! It is language designed to work on the emotions of others and stir up trouble, and nothing more.

 

Nope.....his toes got stepped on and he said..."OUCH"

 

I had shots for this when I was 5 years old and haven't given much thought about it since then.

 

I knew it would not be too long before Kentucky revealed his real agenda. Y'a'll this is typical rhetoric on his part. I am glad that a moderator has finally taken notice.