ECT A Question For the Preterists

W

whitestone

Well-known member
Rivers said:
You're making a couple of assumptions that not all Preterists would make. For example, not all Preterists think that the "beast" was "Rome" or "Caesar." Thus, much of your concern would be irrelevant to their understanding of these texts.
Click to expand...


most do say that it is Rome/Nero ect. which started with Hugo Groutis(SIC) but others would try to look at the leader of the one party during the siege "sacari"(SIC) but then try to match him to free and bond rich and poor ect. or "five were one is and one is yet to come" ect and it also will quickly fall apart.
 
R

Rivers

New member
whitestone said:
most do say that it is Rome/Nero ect. which started with Hugo Groutis(SIC) but others would try to look at the leader of the one party during the siege "sacari"(SIC) but then try to match him to free and bond rich and poor ect. or "five were one is and one is yet to come" ect and it also will quickly fall apart.
Click to expand...

Again, not all Preterists actually agree with what you are saying they think. Your comments may only be applicable to some of them.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The question I would ask about the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:1-4 is why we would not take it literally?

After all, the passage in Zechariah shows the feet of the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives and when He ascended into heaven from the same mount we read the following:

"And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:10-11).​

It is impossible to think that this passage is not saying that the Lord Jesus will return to the earth in the same manner which He left. And since He left with His feet standing on the Mount of Olives then it should surprise no one that when He returns His feet will likewise be standing on the Mount of Olives.

So would someone tell me why we should not take the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-4 literally?
 
Last edited:
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Rivers said:
Again, not all Preterists actually agree with what you are saying they think. Your comments may only be applicable to some of them.
Click to expand...

okay then there's a 99% failure rate on their behalf and a 1% holdout that refuses to name any other possible fulfilment of those scriptures.

The thing about it is though the word "preterism" denotes that some how,way form or fashion these very prophecies have been fulfilled in the past i.e. ad70.

Now I am asking for the proof that should be provided as to when they were,,Jerryshu is asking when they were,,,musterion is asking when they were ect.ect. and the preterist world seems to be stumped as to these fulfilments.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
The question I would ask about the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:1-4 is why we would not take it literally?

After all, this passage shows the feet of the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives and when He ascended into heaven from the same mount we read the following:

"And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:10-11).​

It is impossible to think that this passage is not saying that the Lord Jesus will return to the earth in the same manner which He left. And since He left with His feet standing on the Mount of Olives then it should surprise no one that when He returns His feet will likewise be standing on the Mount of Olives.

So would someone tell me why we should not take the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-4 literally?
Click to expand...

Jerry the questions you are asking are valid questions but I don’t think the preterist will ever address them I think they know there is no answer,,,this is the pattern they have established in theology.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
whitestone said:
Jerry the questions you are asking are valid questions but I don’t think the preterist will ever address them I think they know there is no answer,,,this is the pattern they have established in theology.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I have said on this forum often, the preterists' interpretation of the Scriptures is based on their preconceived ideas. They prove over and over that they are willing to twist any prophecy found in the OT in an effort to make those prophecies conform to their baseless ideas.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Yes, as I have said on this forum often, the preterist's interpretation of the Scriptures is based on their preconceived ideas. They prove over and over that they are willing to twist any prophecy found in the OT in an effort to make those prophecies conform to their baseless ideas.
Click to expand...


I think in the end their approach will be their demise. As if they heard a thing that sounded pretty pretty good at first but then began to fall apart they should ask their own selves the same questions we are asking.


As if they were just talked into beginning to believe preterism they should ask "ok,now that I'm hooked show me where their actually fulfilled?",,,till then their still in Sunday school...
 
R

Rivers

New member
whitestone said:
The thing about it is though the word "preterism" denotes that some how,way form or fashion these very prophecies have been fulfilled in the past i.e. ad70.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct. How would you prove they weren't fulfilled when we know very little about what happened around AD 70? I think most Preterists would argue that they believe the certainty of the prophecies of Jesus and the apostles and not what can, or can't, be proven by secular sources.

whitestone said:
Now I am asking for the proof that should be provided as to when they were,,Jerryshu is asking when they were,,,musterion is asking when they were ect.ect. and the preterist world seems to be stumped as to these fulfilments.
Click to expand...

Many Preterists also understand that there is no contemporary historical proof that Jesus even existed outside of the biblical canon. Thus, it's foolish to deny the fulfillment of prophecy on the basis of any lack of secular history when this would ultimately undermine the entire gospel.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Rivers said:
Yes, this is correct. How would you prove they weren't fulfilled when we know very little about what happened around AD 70? I think most Preterists would argue that they believe the certainty of the prophecies of Jesus and the apostles and not what can, or can't, be proven by secular sources.



Many Preterists also understand that there is no contemporary historical proof that Jesus even existed outside of the biblical canon. Thus, it's foolish to deny the fulfillment of prophecy on the basis of any lack of secular history when this would ultimately undermine the entire gospel.
Click to expand...



hey gotta give it to ya(your trying,lol)

p.s. the preterist are who insist it's fulfilled(their burden of proof),,,I'm an D'ist(please capitalise)= I see it as future so proving something in the past is also not my burden...
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Rivers said:
Many Preterists also understand that there is no contemporary historical proof that Jesus even existed outside of the biblical canon. Thus, it's foolish to deny the fulfillment of prophecy on the basis of any lack of secular history when this would ultimately undermine the entire gospel.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to use a little common sense. If this event happened in the past then there can be no doubt that these events would have been reported by the secular historians:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​

Do you really think that it is possible that this event would have gone unnoticed by the secular historians if it happened sometimes in the past?
 
R

Rivers

New member
whitestone said:
hey gotta give it to ya(your trying,lol)

p.s. the preterist are who insist it's fulfilled(their burden of proof),,,I'm an D'ist(please capitalise)= I see it as future so proving something in the past is also not my burden...
Click to expand...

The Preterist doesn't have the burden to falsify your theory that it all wasn't fulfilled either. I think it's more likely that the prophecies of Jesus and the apostles were reliable and should be understood within the historical context given for their fulfillment.
 
R

Rivers

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Sometimes you have to use a little common sense. If this event happened in the past then there can be no doubt that these events would have been reported by the secular historians:

Do you really think that it is possible that this event would have gone unnoticed by the secular historians if it happened sometimes in the past?
Click to expand...

You're just begging the question here.

Like I noted before, lack of secular historical reporting would mean that Jesus Christ (and all the apostles) never existed. Thus, it is foolish to claim that a prophecy like Zechariah 14 is unfilled on the basis of denying that any secular historians reported it.

If you believe in the Jesus of the NT, then you might as well believe what his prophecies indicated about their fulfillment within the apostolic era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top