that is a shame as I love those foods.It means we no longer will be eating fish, lobster and Sushi (tongue in cheek).
Oh well I suppose I can live on...potatoes.
that is a shame as I love those foods.It means we no longer will be eating fish, lobster and Sushi (tongue in cheek).
The Greek can also mean that when the events start to happen, then will happen all quickly!My point from 2Pet 3:8 is that 'soon' is relative in terms of time. We are only two days from Christ's first appearing in the metaphorical used by Peter.
The nail in the coffin for preterism is that the second coming event has yet to happen!Since you are a Preterist, I can see why you say that.
That theology however is not Biblical. According to your theology, Preterism = No signs today point forward to Christ's return Jesus “came” in 70 AD All of Matthew 24 is fulfilled, both partial and full Preterism agree on this.
Now the problem with this theology is...... If you think on the implications of believing the “prophecies” as past events, it will change nearly everything you have ever learned from the Bible.
Harriet, as the first century neared its close, 7 historical churches are addressed in John's Revelation. REALVILLE History tells us Revelation was written late in the first century. In Irenaeus’ work entitled, “Against Heresies” chapter 13:18, Irenaeus tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision and wrote the book........
“For that [referring to John’s vision] Irenaeus wrote the following......:
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign” (written 180 AD).
Now WHY do you accept the theolgy and where did it come from???????
The view that 70 AD was the fulfillment some point to its development in the 16th century. This theory is said to be invented in the early 1500’s by a Jesuit named Alcasar to counter the Reformers' claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the “great whore... mystery Babylon” sitting on the beast in Revelation 17. Alcazar wrote a large commentary, “Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse,” which suggested the entire book of Revelation is pagan Rome and the first six centuries of the Church's existence.
One has to willfully convince him or her self into denial to come to conclusion that the Old Testament prophecies have already fulfilled and the Lord has no more use for nation and people of Israel. We are watching the birth of a global government, a global religion and a global economy today. It is a fact Earthquakes, famines, wars and pestilences are increasing in both scope and intensity. These are all taking place in the same time period, numerous world wars and internal conflicts, a rise of false prophets and false Christ's as never before. One is hard pressed to prove this is a first century fulfillment, it goes against all logic, present reality and accurate Bible interpretation. The Bible says “...no prophecy is of private interpretation” 2 Peter 1:20.
True, but 2Pet 3.8 doesn't use the word 'soon' or 'quickly', but it is a valid point for those who are scoffing at His timing.The Greek can also mean that when the events start to happen, then will happen all quickly!
The JudIzer scoffers already came in Peter's day. How do I know that? Well, the s offers said "ever since the fathers died". Only Hebrews would say that, and you know it .True, but 2Pet 3.8 doesn't use the word 'soon' or 'quickly', but it is a valid point for those who are scoffing at His timing.
Actually, the nail 8n the coffin for futurists is that you make Jesus a false prophet if that didn't happen "soon"The nail in the coffin for preterism is that the second coming event has yet to happen!
Soon cam mean when all those things predicted come to pass!Actually, the nail 8n the coffin for futurists is that you make Jesus a false prophet if that didn't happen "soon"
The nail in the coffin for preterism is that the second coming event has yet to happen!
Actually, the nail 8n the coffin for futurists is that you make Jesus a false prophet if that didn't happen "soon"
True, but 2Pet 3.8 doesn't use the word 'soon' or 'quickly', but it is a valid point for those who are scoffing at His timing.
Oh yes Mr.No mam. That is not what "soon" meant when John wrote it.
Rev 1:1-3 —
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.”
The word in verse 1 that is translated as “soon” or “shortly” is the Greek word “tachei” [Strong’s #5034]. Notice how this word is defined:
Strong’s — quickness, speed; hastily, immediately
HELPS — swiftness (speed), i.e. done as quickly (speedily) as is appropriate to the particular situation (HELPS Word-studies, The Discovery Bible New Testament, Gary Hill).
verse 1 is saying only that God is causing the fulfillment of these prophecies to approach quickly. Regardless of how long it takes, we are not to construe the apparently long delay as idleness on God’s part.
People who live in (say) California will say that an earthquake is imminent because they know it can come any time, and there’s nothing (that they know about) which must happen before the earthquake strikes. But even so, they can’t say with any certainty how much time will pass before it does strike.
The key thing that makes an event imminent is that, as far as we know, it’s ready to happen but its timing is unknown. This agrees exactly with the way Jesus described His return in the end times:
Mark 13:32-37 — 32“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 33“Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come. 34“It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert. 35“Therefore, be on the alert—for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— 36in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep. 37“What I say to you I say to all, ‘Be on the alert!’”
So, the right understanding is that WHEN the events begin to happen in the Rev., they will take place quickly.....with in 7 years!
2 Peter 3:3 CSBThe JudIzer scoffers already came in Peter's day. How do I know that? Well, the s offers said "ever since the fathers died". Only Hebrews would say that, and you know it .
So Peter said to his audience at the time that God is not slack as some all slackers.
If you studied well, one certainly knows that Peter was claiming that was the "end times"
Read it again with audience relevance in mind.
I know lots about preterism, but I wasn’t thinking about preterism when I made my comment above.Preterist do not scoff at the 2nd Coming. They believe it has already taken place!!!!
They contend that Jesus’ use of the phrase this generation in His Olivet Discourse requires fulfillment in the first century.
"Partial Preterism," holds to two second Comings:
one that occurred in A.D. 70 as a parousia (Greek, “coming” or “advent”) and Day of the lord for the purpose of judging the Jewish nation and
one that will occur universally at the climax of human history as the final and ultimate Day of the Lord.
They do that simply because if it happened in 70 AD......the 1000 Year rule of Christ has come and gone and that blows their teaching away as it is obviouse that did not happen. So they had to invent another false reasoning.
For the prophecies of Revelation to fit into the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, it is necessary to date the composition of the book before A.D. 70. So to do that they try and change real factual history.
Then, If Preterism’s interpretation of prophecy were correct, the historical record should support details. However, the opposite is the case.
To the Preterists, Jesus will never return again bodily. However, the divine declaration in Acts 1:11, .......
“This same Jesus…will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven,” contradicts both Partial and Full Preterism.
The teaching then is false. It not only distorts the prophetic program and denies the blessed hope (Ti. 2:13) but promotes the deception that there will be no end to history, that evil has been eradicated from the world (Full Preterism), and that believers now live in the eternal state.
if we take just verse 3 out of context from all that Peter said in ch.3, I would agree. However, Peter said that the Lord had said, that in the last days there would be scoffers..... Peter is also describing the Judaizers who said to him " where is the promise of His coming ever since the fathers died.....2 Peter 3:3 CSB
[3] Above all, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days scoffing and following their own evil desires,
‘Will come’ sounds future to me.
Present time? Is that why Peter said, ...So, Peter is speaking about his present time As a Hebrew he knows that the last days of old covenant Israel was upon them and he was looking for the new Jerusalem where righteousness dwells.
Preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix pointing to that something is "past" or "beyond", in this case most, if not all prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD according to full or partial preterists.Can I just interrupt and ask what may be a real dumb question....
Who or what is 'Preter'.
When people keep talking about 'Preterism' what do they actually mean. Who was Preter? Was he a guy that just had an unusual spelling to his name, because I know there's Peter, but I've never heard of anyone in the Bible called Preter.
...?!
I know lots about preterism, but I wasn’t thinking about preterism when I made my comment above.
Can I just interrupt and ask what may be a real dumb question....
Who or what is 'Preter'.
When people keep talking about 'Preterism' what do they actually mean. Who was Preter? Was he a guy that just had an unusual spelling to his name, because I know there's Peter, but I've never heard of anyone in the Bible called Preter.
...?!