Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

Recommended Posts

Thoughts?

 

Personally, as with several biblical topics (Hell, The whole "tongues" thing, ect...) I'm not quite sure. Though, I do heavily lean to the preterist side of things. And think it sounds more likely.

Share this post


Link to post

Preterism is the belief that the prophecies of the future were fulfilled during the lifetimes of the apostles; futurism is the belief that the fulfillment of prophecy is still in the future. Have you ever considered the possibility that both views are true? The well known prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 that a virgin would conceive and bear a child is quoted in the Bible as referring to the birth of Christ, but have you ever looked at the context in which it was made?

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

(Isaiah 7:14-16 ESV)

It was also a sign to King Ahaz that the enemies he feared would soon be destroyed. It had two fulfillments, one near and one far in the future. Perhaps the same thing is true of other Bible prophecies. It could be that preterism and futurism are not two different ways of interpreting prophecy but two parts of the total interpretation. Here is a more detailed explanation of what I mean:

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-whole-truth/

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think theophilus has a good point about recognizing that both perspectives can be true; heaps of prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus' and the apostles' day, but there's also heaps that hasn't.

 

When you listen to the explanations preterists give for prophecy from the Revelation already being fulfilled, it's usually a series of random events throughout history, but the Revelation isn't like that at all. The events all relate to one another to make up a bigger picture which is consistent. For example, Daniel talks about a final 7 year period in which an agreement for animal sacrifices are resumed (which can only happen in the temple), but in the middle of that "week" something terrible happens.

 

The Revelation also talks about the same period of time in years, months, and days (i.e. 3.5 years, 42 months, and 1260 days, probably so that it would be more difficult to obscure this time line) in which various events happen. This period of time just happens to correspond with the same period of time Daniel referenced in a few different places and which Jesus described in Matthew 24 when he referenced Daniel and the Great Tribulation. It's all connected.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/10/2016 at 12:08 AM, Endtime Survivors said:

When you listen to the explanations preterists give for prophecy from the Revelation already being fulfilled, it's usually a series of random events throughout history, but the Revelation isn't like that at all. The events all relate to one another to make up a bigger picture which is consistent. For example, Daniel talks about a final 7 year period in which an agreement for animal sacrifices are resumed (which can only happen in the temple), but in the middle of that "week" something terrible happens.

Correct. I always try to point to where these events were fulfilled. They can explain some, but not others (such as the coming of Christ). It just doesn't hold water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Just as others say about their beliefs Not all preterist believe the same. Preterest is a very general term. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Do dispensationalist accept the destruction of the temple circa 70AD as a fact? 

 

Follow up question:

If so was that destruction of man or God?

My simple logic tells me if The Revelation of Jesus Christ was penned after that event it would have been noted . 

 

My view It happened God used the Romans to do the job.  All through Scripture we read God sending warnings to His people. I read the 'Olivet Discourse ' to be the warning of the coming end of that age. 

I also believe our reigning King will return as He has said. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Becky said:

Do dispensationalist accept the destruction of the temple circa 70AD as a fact? 

Yes, of course.

 

1 hour ago, Becky said:

If so was that destruction of man or God?

 

That's kind of a loaded question.

 

1 hour ago, Becky said:

My simple logic tells me if The Revelation of Jesus Christ was penned after that event it would have been noted . 

Actually, it is more logical that it is not noted. It is common knowledge so why would they write about something everyone in the audience already knew about?

 

1 hour ago, Becky said:

I also believe our reigning King will return as He has said. 

Yes, but when? Is this future or past?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Becky said:

If so was that destruction of man or God?


 

Quote

That's kind of a loaded question.

We have a Bible full of God using man to do many things i do not understand how the question woudl be considered loaded? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Becky said:

We have a Bible full of God using man to do many things i do not understand how the question woudl be considered loaded? 

Loaded meaning you actually asked a tautology meaning the answer would technically be yes to both scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

sheesh more words to look up .

Quote

The definition of a tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice in different ways, or a statement that has to be true by the way it is phrased.

  I had no idea .. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Becky said:

sheesh more words to look up .

  I had no idea .. 

Precisely. So because the way the question was phrased, both scenarios must necessarily be true. 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Sheesh no wonder i was in the 'bone head' english classes . this is off topic so lets get back to Preterism 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Quote

Do dispensationalist accept the destruction of the temple circa 70AD as a fact? 

I have been told the answer is yes.

The OT is full of warnings to the Israelites over and over God warned them about this and that .

My opinion is God always warned them before He sent some form of destruction.  I believe the same for the destruction of Jerusalem circa 70 AD. 

In my view the Oliviet Discourse was the warning for the destruction of Jerusalem .

 

 

Did my best to keep the sentence structure proper. :classic_smile:

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Becky said:

I have been told the answer is yes.

The OT is full of warnings to the Israelites over and over God warned them about this and that .

My opinion is God always warned them before He sent some form of destruction.  I believe the same for the destruction of Jerusalem circa 70 AD. 

In my view the Oliviet Discourse was the warning for the destruction of Jerusalem .

 

 

Did my best to keep the sentence structure proper. :classic_smile:

I have a problem with this. The reason I take issue is that in Matthew 24:29-31. This says immediately after, yet I don't see any evidence that these things have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
3 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I have a problem with this. The reason I take issue is that in Matthew 24:29-31. This says immediately after, yet I don't see any evidence that these things have happened.

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


Are you expecting this to be literal? 

 

The God sent destruction (IMO) was sent to the generation that had part in the murder of Jesus. God sent Jesus for the salvation of sinners. Maybe this is not the proper word but  i see/read this as imagery of the vengeance of those who murdered Christ .  

 

My thinking about His Cross The Jewish leaders had the Romans do the deed , while at the same time God sent Jesus and Jesus gave His life. 

 

Luk 11:47  Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 
Luk 11:48  Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 
Luk 11:49  Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 
Luk 11:50  That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 
Luk 11:51  From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. 
Luk 11:52  Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
29 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I have a problem with this. The reason I take issue is that in Matthew 24:29-31. This says immediately after, yet I don't see any evidence that these things have happened.

The text states: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

 

I too ask with @Becky"are you expecting this to be literal?"

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Origen said:

The text states: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

 

I too ask with @Becky"are you expecting this to be literal?"

It very well could be. However, I was referring to the coming of the Son of Man. This has not happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
3 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

It very well could be. However, I was referring to the coming of the Son of Man. This has not happened.

The argument revolves the around the word "immediately" and what it governs.  Note verses 29 and 30.

 

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

 

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then tall the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

 

So "immediately after the tribulation" something happens, then (some time after those events and there no time indicator as to how long after those events or event long those events took) the coming of the Son of Man.  The second event does not follow immediately only "the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken" follows "immediately."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Origen said:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

If those things are not literal, they still must be symbols of something. So what happened immediately after that time?

3 hours ago, Origen said:

So "immediately after the tribulation" something happens, then (some time after those events and there no time indicator as to how long after those events or event long those events took) the coming of the Son of Man.  The second event does not follow immediately only "the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken" follows "immediately."

And we have not had such an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
16 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

And we have not had such an event.

If you mean the coming the son of man of course not, but that misses the point.  The "the coming the son of man" does not take place immediately after the tribulation, rather immediately after the tribulation "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."  Then some time after those events, and there no time indicator as to how long after those events or event long those events took, the Son of Man returns.

 

16 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

So what happened immediately after that time?

The text does not use the word "immediately" referring to events following "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."  It only point out what after that without any reference to when.

 

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

 

[some time later after those previous event]

 

"Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then tall the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

 

[the text does indicate how long those events were nor how long after those events the Son of Man returns]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Origen said:

If you mean the coming the son of man of course not, but that misses the point.  The "the coming the son of man" does not take place immediately after the tribulation, rather immediately after the tribulation "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

Actually you missed my counterpoint. We have had no such event described that would happen immediately after the Tribulation. Being an event (whether literal or symbolized by) that the sun will be darkened, etc.

 

If the tribulation already happened. What was this cataclysmic event that would be described (whether literally or symbolically) in this way? My point is that there has been no such event.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Luk 23:44  And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 
Luk 23:45  And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. 
Luk 23:46  And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Actually you missed my counterpoint. We have had no such event described that would happen immediately after the Tribulation.

I understood.  It would depend on if one take those events are literal or symbolic of something.

 

5 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

What was this cataclysmic event that would be described (whether literally or symbolically) in this way? My point is that there has been no such event.

Again it depends on if you take literally or symbolically.  If literal, then no.  If symbolic, well that is the question.

 

I would prefer that you not take my word for anything and check it out for yourself.  What is this cosmic calamity language?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Origen said:

I would prefer that you not take my word for anything and check it out for yourself.  What is this cosmic calamity language?

Not sure what you are asking here my friend.

2 minutes ago, Origen said:

Again it depends on if you take literally or symbolically.  If literal, then no.  If symbolic, well that is the question.

I actually think there would be a noteworthy event no matter if it is symbolic or literal.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...