Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Do Preterists Apply Same Rules To Unfulfilled Prophecies As They Do To Fulfulled?


beameup

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I've never thought of Isaiah's "servant songs" as being brief or cryptic.

 

What are you folk doing? You've started a thread, I've explained my "preterist-amil" position in response to the questions. Are you going off to consult how to trip me up?

There is no grand conspiracy to try to trip you up....

But there is also no sense in endlessly debating the topic.  We know your position, and you know my position.  It is not edifying nor a profitable use of my time to debate the subject any further than I have. 

You have demonstrated time and again a careless approach to Scripture, denying the plain sense of many passages to force it into an historic event that clearly did not happen. 

You have demonstrated time and again your propensity to use the Greek and Hebrew as your alibi to change the Scripture (the KJV) to suit your fancy when the KJV text does not allow your preterist position.

You have also demonstrated your agenda, since you rarely post on any other parts of this forum.  You are obviously here to debate end times events in an effort to persuade people to your view, even though most of us here are strongly opposed to your false doctrine.  I know I would not do what you are doing....I would try to find people of like faith and practice and hang out with them.  Therefore I conclude that you have a desire to be contentious on this subject, and a desire for attention....there is no other way to understand your motivation in your continuing strife and debate over these issues.

 

Quite simply, I have better things to do....

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:   Lk 1:30,32
 
Was the angel lying to Mary?

 

What does that prophecy mean? A succession of kings sat on David's throne, until Zedekiah. Amos speaks of the tabernacle of David being broken down & rebuilt. A prophecy taken up by James as referring to Jesus, born into David's line.

 

David, as an example of Christ sat on the throne of the LORD:

 

1 Chr. 29:10 Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.

11 Thine, O Lord is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all.

....

23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

 

Christ ascended to his heavenly throne, & to his kingdom with all power in heaven & earth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.  Luke 1:33
"The House of Jacob" are Jews - genetic Israelites.
 
So, was the angel just "misleading" Mary?

 

 

 

 

So nothing about a 1,000 year reign over an increasingly godless population, ending with world-wide Satanic rebellion & total destruction of the planet. (Rev. 20)

 

Prophecy is progressive, so these statements are properly developed by the Apostolic preaching.

 

Jesus' reign counts all believers in as kings and priests unto God.

 

Gentile believers, with Jewish believers are counter together as Abraham's seed.

 

Gal. 3:Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

.....

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, you are saying that Mary was "misled" by the angel so that she would agree to giving birth

to one who would "sit upon David's throne" and rule over the nation of Israel.

 

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.  Lk 1:38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Gentile believers, with Jewish believers are counter together as Abraham's seed.

 

 

Which tribe are you from?  Rev. 7:4-8 lists 144,000 of the 12 tribes, and then v. 9 distinguishes the Gentiles from the Jews.....

something must be haywire somewhere, because if what you said is true, then there would not be such a distinction made here....but there is....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Which tribe are you from?  Rev. 7:4-8 lists 144,000 of the 12 tribes, and then v. 9 distinguishes the Gentiles from the Jews.....

something must be haywire somewhere, because if what you said is true, then there would not be such a distinction made here....but there is....

 

Probably from the thribe of Dan.

 

Oh where is the tribe of Dan in there?

 

These are not the literal 12 tribes, but signified, Rev 1:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Probably from the thribe of Dan.

 

Oh where is the tribe of Dan in there?

 

These are not the literal 12 tribes, but signified, Rev 1:1.

You see, this is why I am so adamantly against this preterist/A-mil position. 

Your side is constantly harassing us about "fanciful interpretations" and how your position is superior because you just believe the text....

Well - YOU DON'T. 

If it is not LITERAL then why take the trouble of listing all TWELVE???

 

Nonsense and rubbish - it is literal, it just doesn't fit your theology. 

 

PS Dan will be left unprotected during the Tribulation - Gen 49:17, Judges 18:30

If you notice, in Rev. 7:7, he lists "Levi" but Levi was always counted separately in the OT because they were set aside as priests, holy unto the Lord.

Dan is judged for introducing idolatry into Israel, and maintaining it despite repeated warnings against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Was the angel lying to Mary?

 

So, you are saying that Mary was "misled" by the angel so that she would agree to giving birth

to one who would "sit upon David's throne" and rule over the nation of Israel.



And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.  Lk 1:38

 

Your whole line of argument is offensive to the inspired author of Holy Scripture. It's time for repentance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Invicta:

"Probably from the thribe of Dan.

 

Oh where is the tribe of Dan in there?

 

These are not the literal 12 tribes, but signified, Rev 1:1."

 

 

 

 

You see, this is why I am so adamantly against this preterist/A-mil position. 

Your side is constantly harassing us about "fanciful interpretations" and how your position is superior because you just believe the text....

Well - YOU DON'T. 

If it is not LITERAL then why take the trouble of listing all TWELVE???

 

Nonsense and rubbish - it is literal, it just doesn't fit your theology. 

 

PS Dan will be left unprotected during the Tribulation - Gen 49:17, Judges 18:30

If you notice, in Rev. 7:7, he lists "Levi" but Levi was always counted separately in the OT because they were set aside as priests, holy unto the Lord.

Dan is judged for introducing idolatry into Israel, and maintaining it despite repeated warnings against it. 

 

Invicta is neither preterist, nor amil - AFAIK he believes Mat 24 refers to the destruction, that Rev. is AD 90s & should be understood historically (which actually is the amil position), and there will be a future millennium - and that dispensationalism is wrong.

 

Why was Dan omitted? And why Manasseh & Joseph, but not Ephraim? Dan is given pride of place in the resettlement according to Ezekiel 48 so your reasoning is questionable; Manasseh & Ephraim appear there, with the omission of their father Joseph.

 

As Revelation is before the tribulation & destruction, the 144,000 are a perfect number of believing Jews, sealed, protected & ultimately led out of Jerusalem before the destruction.

 

In Rev.7, & 5, why do we read nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues? To clear the ambiguity, it is often helpful to consider the Greek. Kindred (phyle) normally refers to the tribes of Israel or the land - tribe (25x), kindred (6x). It is likely that here "kindred" refers to the believers of the tribes .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In Rev.7, & 5, why do we read nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues? To clear the ambiguity, it is often helpful to consider the Greek. Kindred (phyle) normally refers to the tribes of Israel or the land - tribe (25x), kindred (6x). It is likely that here "kindred" refers to the believers of the tribes .

 

Here it is again.  You can't support your theory from the KJV text, so you have to appeal to the Greek to make it work.  I believe every word of the KJV is the perfect words of the Living God.  I never have to worry about going to the Greek to prove my point.  I just stick with the old KJV, believing that God knows more about linguistics than I do, and that God is perfectly able to preserve His words the way He wants to preserve them, even in a different language. 

Your constant referencing to the Greek to prove your point does two things:

1.  It demonstrates the weakness of your position

2.  It is extremely offensive to those of us who believe in the absolute preservation of God's words in the KJV

 

Dan:

I did not say they would be obliterated in the Tribulation.  I said they would be left unprotected.  We know they survive somehow because they are reinstated during the Millenial Reign of Christ as Ezekiel 48 indicates....so make sure you actually read what I say before you dismiss it.

 

Your comments on Rev. 7 are nonsensical.  The point is that there is a distinction made between Jewish believers (the 144,000) and the gentile believers (Nations, peoples, tongues).  If what you said earlier about US GENTILES being "Abraham's seed" then there would be no need for the distinction made by John in Rev. 7, esp. in light of the fact that it was not a generic, ambiguous statement about "Abraham's seed" or "the Israel of God."  No, this was a SPECIFIC statement about the physical nation of Israel, with the added detail of 12,000 individuals from each tribe.  Why such a specific distinction if there is no more distinction between Israel and the Church in the NT?  You see, your position is untenable.  It does not work.  The dispensational system handles this distinction, and has the correct answer for this dilemma. 

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As Revelation is before the tribulation & destruction, the 144,000 are a perfect number of believing Jews, sealed, protected & ultimately led out of Jerusalem before the destruction.

 

 

 

The 144,000 is a select group of Jewish MEN who will preach the gospel across the globe during the Tribulation.

 

Re 14:1 ¶ And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
Re 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
Re 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
Re 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
Re 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

 

I would be interested in any historical documentation you might have to support this specific claim that 144,000 Jews were led out of Jerusalem before the AD 70 Destruction of Jerusalem.  According to REv. 14:4, these would have to be all males, and all virgins. 

If your theory is true, then you should have no trouble documenting the evidence.

 

Isa 41:21 ¶ Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.
Isa 41:22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.

 

Again, though, this does not explain the distinction between Jew and Gentile when you claim there is no distinction in the NT.  That is the bigger issue that has not been answered.  I brought this passage up in Rev. 7 to prove your position is false, and you have not answered that particular question - you just leap-frogged onto a DIFFERENT issue, instead of resolving the issue at hand.....j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Marriage does not defile, man or woman. As they are first fruits, we should expect a fulfilment in Apostolic times. You demand historical evidence, yet reject use of the Gk Scripture to clarify where the words are ambiguous. e.g even the Corinthians, with their ungodly past:

 

2 Cor. 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

The Scriptures in Revelation may be "signified" but figurative language necessarily has a literal meaning that must be understood by study of Scripture, & non-figurative language where possible.

 

e.g. the four horsemen - the conquering LORD Christ defeating the enemies who rejected both him & his Gospel, & the deliverance of the 144,000 redeemed is prophesied by Ezekiel: 

14:21 For thus saith the Lord God; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?

22 Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all that I have brought upon it.

 

Rev. 6:And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.....

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ian, I asked some very specific questions, and you did not answer any of them.   All you are doing is confusing the issue, and then hiding behind "figurative language."  This is why I consider preterism a false doctrine.  It does not fit the plain meaning of the text. 

Rev. 14 said that the 144,000 were male virgins.  You counter with some vague reference to II Cor. 11????  Nonsense.  The Lord was so clear as to who those 144,000 were, that he even told you what TRIBE they were from in Rev. 7!  There is no use in trying to make this a "symbolic" text, or a "figurative" text, when the Bible is crystal clear on the matter.   II Cor. 11 is the Bride of Christ.  Rev. 7 is Jewish witnesses.....two different things.

 

You have not answered the original question - you keep dodging it.

If we as Christians are "Abraham's seed" and there is no more distinction between Jew and Gentile, then why is that distinction made again in Rev. 7, with the 144,000?  The 144,000 are defined in Rev. 14 as male virgins (PLURAL! - not "a chaste virgin" SINGULAR).

 

This also explains my comparison to the Mormons.  I could also include the JW's.  When they get pinned down in their own contradictions, instead of facing the truth and repenting, they JUMP TO ANOTHER TOPIC without ever answering a plain, direct question.

 

Historical evidence:  I believe the KJV is the perfect word of God.  But that perfect word of God has plenty of support from the archaeological findings in the Middle East.  Our God and the Bible is the God and Bible of History.  The Bible does not exist in a vacuum.  God does not expect us to believe the Bible in blind faith.  The faith God expects is a reasonable faith, that can be verified by history and prophecy.  That is what Isa. 41:21 is all about.  The false gods are not the gods of history, they are the gods of mythology.  The Book of Mormon can be proven to be wrong by the fact that there are no archaeological findings in the Western Hemisphere to support the claims of their book.  If the Book of Mormon were true, then we should find some evidence of their history here.

But do you know how the Mormons answer that charge?  THE SAME WAY YOU DID.  If your conjecture is TRUE, then there would be evidence of it somewhere.  Your lack of evidence demonstrates the inadequacy of your claim. 

Birds of a feather flock together.  Mormonism is a false cult.  Preterism is a false doctrine.

 

I am finished here, now that I have demonstrated your contradictions, your inability to answer a simple question, your changing of the text again, and your lack of any historical evidence.

 

PS - your cross-reference between Ezek. 14 and Rev. 6 have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Historical evidence:  I believe the KJV is the perfect word of God.  But that perfect word of God has plenty of support from the archaeological findings in the Middle East.  Our God and the Bible is the God and Bible of History.  The Bible does not exist in a vacuum.  God does not expect us to believe the Bible in blind faith.  The faith God expects is a reasonable faith, that can be verified by history and prophecy.  That is what Isa. 41:21 is all about.  The false gods are not the gods of history, they are the gods of mythology.  The Book of Mormon can be proven to be wrong by the fact that there are no archaeological findings in the Western Hemisphere to support the claims of their book.  If the Book of Mormon were true, then we should find some evidence of their history here.

But do you know how the Mormons answer that charge?  THE SAME WAY YOU DID.  If your conjecture is TRUE, then there would be evidence of it somewhere.  Your lack of evidence demonstrates the inadequacy of your claim. 

 

A momentary pause from the OP: This reminds me also of the Mormons and how they handle the "Abraham Papyrus", which, once translated, was found to be from the Book of Breathings, an old Egyptian funerary document, which documents the passage of the dead into the land of the dead. Now that it has been found to be nothing at all about Abraham or what was claimed, they are back-peddaling and claiming, "Well, we believe that while the actual words may be different, this is the meaning the Lord caused Joseph Smith to see, so it is still true!" They can't dny the fact that it is different, so they create a reason that it is ultimately okay that it is. Ignore the facts and ceate a new truth.

 

Okay, back to the OP now.

 

And by the way, gentlemen, lest keep it clean and polite, now. I sense some collars are beginning to get a bit hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...