Alert: Revelation 18:2 Just Happened

[tetelestai]

Why is this woman built a house? And why is her base already there?

One more time.

The Jews went to Babylon for 70 years.

When they returned, they brought bad habits with them from Babylon, they had Babylonian wives. Ezra made the men divorce their wives.

In a nutshell, the Jews returned to Jerusalem, Zechariah is writing to those Jews who returned, the basket of iniquity is taken back to Babylon, it represents the false idols, immorality, etc.

Babylon was a pagan country, so the house that was already there, was probably whatever pagan gods the Babylonians worshipped.

None of this has anything to do with the first century, or the yet future, it's all ancient history that pertained to the Jews, Babylonian captivity, and the Jews return to Jerusalem after the captivity to rebuild the temple.

Not sure why you think this has anything to do with Rev 18

 

[musterion]

Those goofy Catholics, allegorizing this Scripture and literalizing that Scripture. So inconsistent.

 

[tetelestai]

Sudden destruction?


Who were all the nations bewailing?
Educate me.

Here's what your buddy Flavor Flav had to say about it:

"The Romans, though it was a terrible struggle to collect the timber, raised their platforms in twenty-one days, having as described before stripped the whole area in a circle round the town to a distance of ten miles. The countryside like the City was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City." - Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 303

 

[tetelestai]

Those goofy Catholics, allegorizing this Scripture and literalizing that Scripture. So inconsistent.

The next time you think Luke 19:44 wasn't fulfilled, try reading Josephus' final description of the city:

"The Romans, though it was a terrible struggle to collect the timber, raised their platforms in twenty-one days, having as described before stripped the whole area in a circle round the town to a distance of ten miles. The countryside like the City was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City." - Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 303

 

[tetelestai]

Who were all the nations bewailing?
Educate me.

Once again, from your buddy Flavor Flav:

"...It is certain that when from the upper city they watched the Temple burning they did not turn a hair, though many Romans were moved to tears." - Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 292

 

[User Name]

from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

I'm honestly not sure who's right in all of this, but I don't think that Jesus meant that "the blood of the righteous" would literally stop with Zechariah. I think Abel and Zechariah were mentioned in order to cover the righteous blood of all of Old Testament history. But we also have the New to account for (Matt 27:25; Rev 6:9-11).

 

[User Name]

Those goofy Catholics, allegorizing this Scripture and literalizing that Scripture. So inconsistent.

The Catholic Church does not teach the sort of full preterism that is being presented in this thread. Rather, it teaches "partial preterism", i.e., that prophecy was partially fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but there will be a future fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

 

[musterion]

The Catholic Church does not teach the sort of full preterism that is being presented in this thread. Rather, it teaches "partial preterism", i.e., that prophecy was partially fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but there will be a future fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Fair enough.

So from a partial preterist POV, what do you make of full preterism?

 

[User Name]

Fair enough.

So from a partial preterist POV, what do you make of full preterism?

That question deserves a more thorough response than I can provide in one post, so if you're really interested, here's a rather thorough article on the subject: http://www.theopedia.com/preterism

Suffice to say that I'd probably consider myself a partial preterist, but I don't think I buy into full preterism at this time.

 

[tetelestai]

i.e., that prophecy was partially fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but there will be a future fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

There is no such thing as "partial fulfillment"

The prophecies are either fulfilled or they are not.

They don't get fulfilled partially, put on a shelf, and then later fulfilled completely.

"partial fulfillment" is a made up phrase by people who can't explain their theology.

 

[musterion]

That question deserves a more thorough response than I can provide in one post, so if you're really interested, here's a rather thorough article on the subject: http://www.theopedia.com/preterism

Suffice to say that I'd probably consider myself a partial preterist, but I don't think I buy into full preterism at this time.

That's fine, can you briefly/bullet point explain why not? I'm genuinely curious, not a setup.

 

[musterion]

The prophecies are either fulfilled or they are not.

Just like Luke 19:44 was not.

 

[User Name]

That's fine, can you briefly/bullet point explain why not? I'm genuinely curious, not a setup.

From the link I posted before, these are several points which distinguish partial preterism from full preterism:

* [P]artial preterists are in agreement and conformity with the historic ecumenical creeds of the Church and articulate the doctrine of the resurrection held by the Early church fathers.
* Partial preterists hold that the New Testament predicts and depicts many "comings" of Christ. They contend that the phrase Second Coming means second of a like kind in a series, for the Scriptures record other "comings" even before the judgment-coming in 70 AD. This would eliminate the 70 AD event as the "second" of any series, let alone the second of a series in which the earthly, physical ministry of Christ is the first.
* Partial Preterists believe that the new creation comes in redemptive progression as Christ reigns from His heavenly throne, subjugating His enemies, and will eventually culminate in the destruction of physical death, the "last enemy" (1 Cor 15:20-24). If there are any enemies remaining, the resurrection event cannot have occurred.​

 

[Interplanner]

Just like Luke 19:44 was not.

Of course it was. But before discussing that why on earth would v44 be treated separately from any of the others in that paragraph. THAT kind of work is what really disgraces and ruins the Bible's message.

 

[Interplanner]

Alert: Revelation 18:2 Just Happened

The Rev is not about modern times. It is a pastoral attempt to help 1st century Judean Christians come to terms with the 'stoning' of the 'harlot' and the marriage to the Bride. It was for the relocated Christians in Little Asia.

 

[tetelestai]

Just like Luke 19:44 was not.

Luke 19:44 was fulfilled.

Josephus makes it crystal clear that it was fulfilled.

"The Romans, though it was a terrible struggle to collect the timber, raised their platforms in twenty-one days, having as described before stripped the whole area in a circle round the town to a distance of ten miles. The countryside like the City was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City." - Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 303

 

[tetelestai]

Of course it was. But before discussing that why on earth would v44 be treated separately from any of the others in that paragraph. THAT kind of work is what really disgraces and ruins the Bible's message.

mystery boy is a Darby Follower.

Therefore, he can't have the prophecy fulfilled, otherwise the teachings of men that he defends will fall apart.

It's more important for him to defend his false teachings of men, then to learn the truth.

He has too much pride invested in it.

 

[musterion]

Luke 19:44 was not fulfilled.

Josephus makes it crystal clear that it was not fulfilled.

 

[tetelestai]

Luke 19:44 was not fulfilled.

Josephus makes it crystal clear that it was not fulfilled.

It doesn't surprise me that you have to resort to deception to defend your false teachings of men.

I guess that's what people like you have to resort to when the truth proves you wrong.

 

[musterion]

It doesn't surprise me that you have to resort to deception to defend your false teachings of men.

I guess that's what people like you have to resort to when the truth proves you wrong.

lain:


:yawn:


:loser:



:rapture: