lifeisgood
New member
Why didn't I think of that.
Does Luke 19:44 disprove Preterism?
- Thread starter George Affleck
- Start date
Why didn't I think of that.
lifeisgood
New member
Maybe it was the Roman Army coming as Jesus Christ in 70AD that everyone saw? :devil:
Interplanner
Well-known member
re Satan's binding.
Even though I find that the Rev is about the 1st century catastrophe in Judea, ch 20 still says that Satan was loosed for a little while, after that catastrophe and before the NHNE. I believe that is what Tet had in mind. By rumor that he is free or in charge, he accomplishes many disinformed things around the world, though, right?
re the Roman army.
Read 'wrath' or 'punishment' of God. In that sense, it was a coming, a visitation. There are several things that could qualify as a coming when seen before the Gospel event:
the resurrection
the teaching for 40 days
the Spirit on the day of Pentecost
the incoming of the nations in faith
the wrath and judgement on Israel in 66+
Not that any of these are the final 2nd coming in judgement on all nations, but I don't see where he claimed that.
re MAD.
About 100 years after the letters, when the ECFs were trying to figure out what it meant now that the 'delay' of Mt24B etc was in place, some of them began to think that certain events would resume in Israel. The only path to that position was the Rev. It is certainly not in Rom 2, 8, I Cor 15, 2 Pet 3, Heb 9, 2 Tim 4, I Jn on antichrist--there is nothing Judaic about those descriptions of the 2nd coming in judgement and the arrival of the NHNE.
The pressure of the Catholic--Protestant conflict in 1800s UK caused the appearance of dispensationalism. The counter-Reformation Jesuit Ribera had devised an eschatology that 'saved' the face of the Pope from being called AC. The Brethren thought that the Catholic--Protestant conflict could be further defused if there was a view that there were sealed compartments of time in which Israel was and would again be the focus of God's work. Then every faction was 'correct' at least at some segment of time.
D'ism is far more driven by this than by good integrated scholarship of the self-organizing passages of the NT that speak about the whole scope of history. That is why it must rely heavily on the Rev and dangle precariously from Mt 23:39 and Rom 11:26, both understood poorly.
Paul said those who preach that the resurrection is past make shipwreck of their faith.
If you really believe Preterism and follow it's logic this is true for the resurrection is our hope and our justification.
If you really believe Preterism and follow it's logic this is true for the resurrection is our hope and our justification.
Are you going to admit that the quote you posted from Cyprian has absolutely nothing to do with Darby's rapture?
lifeisgood
New member
A Tetelestai defender. Got it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
No, I don't know about certain things like the emphasis on the Roman army only, or perhaps poorly communication on that.
Please address 1 item at a time. I'm not a clone.
Please address 1 item at a time. I'm not a clone.
Paul said that before 70AD.
Paul also made it clear to the Thessalonians that the Great Revolt had to happen first, before the resurrection would happen.
The Great Revolt began in 66AD
lifeisgood
New member
Are you going to admit that when you say the Roman Army is Jesus Christ second return and everyone saw Him coming on the clouds of dust from the chariots horses' hoofs is not really what you meant?
Another preterist nut is in our midst.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The coming on the clouds is in Mt24B which is the final coming in judgement. 24A is Judean and does not include that.
The complication is this: he said B would follow right after, yet he also allowed for a delay. There was.
Mt24A is 1st century Judean; B is worldwide at the day of judgement. There is only confusion if they are now mixed, because there has been a delay, as was always allowed.
The complication is this: he said B would follow right after, yet he also allowed for a delay. There was.
Mt24A is 1st century Judean; B is worldwide at the day of judgement. There is only confusion if they are now mixed, because there has been a delay, as was always allowed.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Please deal with concepts, not show off your dull sword skill of name calling.
Rather insane notion huh?
The revolt was only a local revolt i.e. among the Jews, the man of lawlessness was not revealed, the son of perdition, nobody sat in the temple claiming he was God.
If preaching the resurrection is past was shipwreck to faith prior to 70 ad it will be shipwreck to faith today for the same reasons.
I never said the Roman army "is" Jesus Christ.
Nor did I say Christ Jesus came in the "form" of the Roman army.
I have often used Isaiah 19:1 to show what I meant, but that hasn't stopped the Darby Followers from misrepresenting me.
(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud
and is coming to Egypt....
As for the chariots horses hoofs, Josephus wrote the following about what happened in 70AD:
"I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. " - (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3)
As if TeTs gonna do as you say?
Interplanner
Well-known member
But the wrath or judgement of God upon unbelieving Israel in that event is not an insane notion. In order for God to execute that, He has to 'come' and do it.
Was Josephus inspired by God?
It was a revolt by all of Judaea against Rome.
However, there were internal battles amongst the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes.