Lots of questions like history channel trying to prove bigfoot and UFOs.
The problem with preterism is that so many events clearly described in Revelation just did not happen in 70 AD.
WHEATON — A broad coalition of evangelical theologians has cracked the code of the Book of Revelation, solving its mysteries, metaphors and messages in what is being called a watershed moment in Christian history."To get this kind of across-the-board agreement is phenomenal," said a spokesman. "Moments like this come along once in a millenium."
The key to understanding the book's puzzling enigmas and fundamental message was "hidden in plain sight," say the scholars. The book's purpose and message can be summed up for lay readers as
(Excerpt - read more at Evangelical scholars solve Book of Revelation's mysteries
I think he’d better just stay a Preterist. He is obviously clueless as to what scripture prophesy really says. I sure hope he doesn’t try to teach that crap to anyone who truly has studied prophesies.
So, when Meek can exegete Zechariah 8: 20-23, Luke 21:24, Ezekiel 37, Romans 11, I’m all ears. Nothing he spews makes sense in light of plain reading of the Word.
I became a preterist.
/////////
Yeah. That’s the ticket. Localize the Second Coming.... the same way that the Libs try to localize the worldwide flood of Noah’s day.
Okay, so R.C. Sproule is also a preterist. He is as wrong as this guy (about eschatology, though he is outstanding in virtually every other area of theology).
I still love my preterist brethren, however! Eschatology divides believers into several different camps, due to our imperfect understanding of he prophetic Scriptures.
The biggest separator, however, is this: Is the LORD going to give the Jews a literal (earthly-based) Millennial Kingdom with Christ ruling from Jerusalem — or not?
If not, then the Amils, preterists, and/or Post-Mils are probably on the right track.
I tend to disagree with them on this point, however, and anticipate a literal (post-Rapture/pre-Second Coming) Jerusalem-centered Millennium! So call me a wooden-headed literalist. (I have been called worse!)
Bttt.
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: November 1, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: November 8, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: November 15, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: November 22, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: November 29, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: December 13, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: December 20, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: December 27, 2013
Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood: January 3, 2014
Eschatology is often worthless, a vanity, and a distraction. Beyond the idea that a Christian ought to live as if Christ is coming in the next hour, every hour of their lives, none of the eschatalogical doctrines affect my Christian testimony or walk.
I laugh in this guys face. Hopefully with enough spittle to ruin his day. I wonder how many people he’s deflated and caused to leave the faith?
So many straw men, so little time!
What is interesting is that there are millions upon millions of Christians who believe scripture HAS answered these questions but the author acts as tho they have never been answered by anyone...Apparently the author just doesn't care for the biblical answers given...
bfl
Also, "A lot of prophecy cannot be determined until after it has passed and looking back it can be recognized. Looking forward, it often doesn’t make much sense. It happened with Jesus when He came."
And, "So many straw men, so little time!"
I tend to agree with all 3 of these sentiments, and indeed, while I'm careful not to suggest any study of Scripture for any reason is profit-LESS, this subject (eschatology) to me never truly seems to be worth the time. Indeed, all we are really being called toward, in any of the warnings in Scripture, is to live a life of holiness, and be ready for His Coming at any time. Indeed, He can "come" at any time, to each of us individually, as no one can ever know what exact day AND hour, we will DIE.
This is truly the first point I'd like to dwell on now. Many of these passages (I will examine one to demonstrate this point) can be and should be looked at in this context: personal death. Many times what is often overlooked in such discussion, is exactly who such passages were written for, that is, what their life was like and what they could expect merely by reaching adulthood (age 20 onward).
In those times, unlike today, if someone lived to be 20, they had made it past a whole lot of hurdles. Also, while age 30 could perhaps be reasonably expected (that wasn't still virtually guaranteed, as it is today), if one reached 30, much less 40, well, to put it plainly, one's life was almost over. It was very rare for anyone to live past 40, and still more rare past 50.
Keep that in mind as I examine this passage (as that proper context will apply to the other passages not mentioned in this post, as the examination of those will be the same). Before I begin, a word about my methodology here: While I am loathe to rely on Biblical Commentary, here I believe it is quite educational and helpful to do so, and such, I will rely upon the reader's desire for further explanation to go to the site(s) I list to read more of which I quote, for again, it is quite helpful in this instance (IMO).
Why does Hebrews 10:37 say that in a VERY VERY (it’s there twice in the Greek) LITTLE WHILE Jesus would return and not delay? Were the writer of Hebrews and the other biblical writers that expressed the same thing FALSE PROPHETS?
To answer the question (which is a straw man by the way): No, the authors of Scripture were not "false prophets"
As I mention above, I believe the commentary found here is most useful in this regard, specifically:
In these verses, after the manner of the Epistle, what is being urged is supported by an Old Testament quotation (Habakkuk 2:3, 4), its drift being
(1) the certainty, notwithstanding delay, of the fulfillment of the Divine promise;
(2) the necessity meanwhile of continuance in faith and perseverance.
…
For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie [rather, 'but it hasteth to the end, and doth not lie']: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, and not tarry [or, 'be behindhand'].
That the person spoken of is the Lord Jesus Christ, is evident from the prophecy in Habakkuk 2:3 here referred to, and from the character of him that is to come, Matthew 11:3 and from parallel places, James 5:7 and this is to be understood, not of his coming in the flesh, for he was come in the flesh already; though Habakkuk indeed refers to his first coming(note, this reflects metmom's point re prophecy yet to be fulfilled, and how it may not be understood until it IS fulfilled), yet not to that only, but including his second coming also; but of his coming in his kingdom and power to destroy Jerusalem, and take vengeance on the Jews, for their rejection of him:(note, again here, certainly possible that this prophecy was seen, in a certain sense, by the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, but, as we have already seen, prophecies in Scripture may have dual, and even triple meanings or intent, i.e., past, present and still future applications and fulfillments, again as metmom implied) the kingdom of Christ was at hand, when he began to preach; upon his ascension to heaven, it began to appear more visible; but still the temple was standing, and that worship continued, which stood in the way of the glory of his kingdom; during which time the saints suffered much: but in a little while from the writing of this epistle, he, who was to come, did come, even within about ten years after this, and showed his power and his glory, in delivering his people, and destroying his enemies; see Matthew 16:28. It may be applied to his coming to help his people in time of need; the afflictions of the saints are many; they are all for an appointed time, and but for a while; and Christ has promised to come, and visit them; and which he does often, and speedily, and seasonably: it may also be accommodated to Christ coming to take his people to himself by death; Christ may be said to come in this sense, and he will certainly come; and this will be in a little while; man is but of few days; death is certain, and should be patiently expected: and it may likewise be suitably improved, with respect to Christ's coming to judgment; that he will come is certain, from prophecies, particularly from the prophecy of Enoch, from his own words, from the testimony of angels, from the institution of the Lord's supper, till he comes, and from the general expectation of the saints; and this coming of his is desirable, because it will be the marriage of the Lamb, and the redemption of the saints, and because of the grace and glory that will be brought unto them, and because they shall then be for ever with him; and this will be quickly, in a little time, in comparison of the time that went before his first coming, and of the eternity that will follow after this; and though it may seem long, yet with God it is but a little while, with whom a thousand years are as one day; and however, since it is certain that he will come,
and will not tarry, beyond the appointed time, patience should be exercised.
Here now, it should be clear, that for this and all similar verses that seem to imply His Second Coming (to the world, that is, the Judgement of the World) will be "soon" or "near", by our standards and understanding of "soon" and "near" may not necessarily be so, even for the people 2,000 years ago. Indeed, what can we even see when one studies the issue from an historical perspective: the disciples of Christ, after He did not (apparently) return in glory "in this generation", did not surrender their faith in Him, NOR did they become Preterists in the sense they ascribed His Second Coming to the destruction of the Temple. That is, one WILL find early faith in the Church of the Apostles and disciples of same, who DID believe in a "literal" return of Jesus "in this generation". But what one will NOT find, is a "conversion" of sorts by these same people (when the truth became obvious by the mere passage of time), "Well then, He didn't return in a literal generation as we expected, therefore, He must have 'returned' when the Temple was destroyed"
No, this is not found in history. What is found, in all historical, patriarchal writings, is a continued, firm belief in a glorious Second Coming that will be visible to every human on the Earth; the fact that the literal interpretation of "in this generation" was thrown out is irrelevant.
What therefore should be understood when reading such verses (even those that say "in this generation") is that, the Scriptures are assuring the faithful that when they die, which again, for them would be a "short" time (or, in the "generation" of the believer, because again, they didn't live that long back then) that they would see Christ in all His Glory (at their particular judgement). This is how the Church understands it now, because again, the literal interpretation makes no sense, a "return" via the destruction of the Temple notwithstanding.
Now, a word about the following question:
If the teaching 1 day=1000 yrs and a 1000 yrs = 1 day to the Lord...DOES THAT MEAN?—1000 yrs in Revelation is a single 24 hr day?
Again, another straw man argument, but to answer directly: No, the 1000 years in Revelation is not a single 24 hour day (at least one can't be assured this is the case).
The preceding question refers to 2 Peter 3:8, which is clearly a metaphor, an expression, to illustrate the timelessness of God. It's not meant to be some kind of equation, some key to unlocking the mystery that is God's timetable.
It's not that time "doesn't matter" to God (as was asked elsewhere in the OP), but rather that our finite existence can NOT be used to predict God's actions, to discern God's timetable. Clearly time DOES matter to God, or else He wouldn't have created it, and entered into it (via the Incarnation). It's just that we can't assume that our concept of time, no matter how "long" for us, means anything to God.
If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?
Well, this is a surprising question, I must admit, and I'm not sure what point is being made here. Because indeed, the question could be turned around and asked, "If the destruction of the Temple was when Jesus returned, why didn't St. John mention the destruction of the Temple, IN THE PAST TENSE, in Revelation? IOW, if St. John felt that the destruction of the Temple was clear and unmistakable evidence of Jesus' Second Coming, why didn't he SAY that, CLEARLY, in the book of Revelation? Don't you think he would have mentioned that, if indeed such an important event occurred?" Indeed, when viewed that way, this question becomes even more troublesome for the Preterist, I'd say, rather than the "futurist".
If the Great Tribulation is still future to us, why did Jesus tell the first century Christians that they could avoid it by fleeing to the mountains (Luke 21:21; ref. Matthew 24:21)? And why did the Apostle John tell his readers a few years later that THEY were in the tribulation (Revelation 1:9)? If the book of Revelation is for us today, why would John write to the 7 churches if it had nothing to do with them? Why would John torture these first-century Christians with impossible and intricate symbolic labyrinths that applied only to people 2,000 years later? Why does Revelation say some 30 times that the events MUST be fulfilled SOON?
These questions again demonstrate metmom's point, to whit: That prophecy can have a mysterious, still future meaning yet not understood. That's reply number one. Secondly, I'd add also that these pieces of advice also served a function at that time, as indeed: What would be the best place to avoid persecution (fleeing to the mountains). What could the early Christians at that time expect (persecution, or IOW, certainly a Tribulation of their own).
So again, simply because these events were seen back then, makes no difference wrt Christ's Second Coming, because they very well could (and probably WILL) be seen AGAIN
If the GREAT COMMISSION is not yet fulfilled, why did Paul say it had been fulfilled when he was writing (Roman 1:8; 10:18; Colossians 1:5-6)?
Here, the questioner is confusing the GREAT COMMISSION with the testimony all of creation shouts out (with joy) of the great God who created them. In this way, the "Gospel" HAS been "heard" by all the world already, and indeed, all of man will be judged by this fact. See Psa 19:4. Was the "GREAT COMMISSION" spread throughout the whole world BEFORE JESUS? Psa 19:4 is what St. Paul is clearly alluding to in Rom 10:18 (and elsewhere, where the sentiment of the entire world "hearing the Gospel" is mentioned). This is again, the point he is making, that creation itself speaks of its Creator DAILY, and it's our woe if we ignore this testimony.
This testimony, the testimony of creation, is NOT the "great commission". I think that simple statement of fact should be self-evident.
If “heaven and earth” have not yet passed away, does that mean that not one jot or tittle has passed from the law and Jesus has not fulfilled it yet (Matthew 5:17-18)?
See here. The answer to the question, which apparently would be surprising for the author, is "No, not one jot or tittle has passed from the law". Indeed, "abolish" does NOT mean "fulfill" (necessarily), and also, even when He does return, the Law won't be "abolished". There will simply be no more sin, as death itself is finally destroyed, we will have no desire to sin (just as those in Heaven now have no desire to sin, yet the Law is still present). We will perfectly serve the Law at that time.
The main point here is, actually, one I and other Catholics have made to Protestants re the perpetual virginity of Mary (cf Matt 1:25). The word "until" does NOT always, necessarily imply a ceasing of the event in question. Do not get hung up on the word "until" in Matt 5:17, this is my point here.
If the NEW JERUSALEM is a future physical location, how is it possible that the Hebrews in the first century were already there (Hebrews 12:22)?
I have honestly read this question 10 times (if not more) and I still don't see how this is an issue. After all, the words "new Jerusalem" do not appear in Heb 12:22, that I can see. Jerusalem was (and is) a perpetual city, it's never "fallen" in the respect that people have always lived there. So the "heavenly Jerusalem" in Heb 12:22 is not the "New Jerusalem", rather it's "heavenly" because that's precisely how Jews at the time viewed Jerusalem. They did so because God dwelled in the Temple, (cf Isa 24:23), and therefore was a "heavenly" place, where God and His Angels dwelt.
If Jesus was going to return literally and physically (Acts 1:11), why do we read that his ascension was hidden from view by a cloud? If Jesus is going to return LITERALLY “in like manner” (Acts 1:11), does that also mean that He will return riding a white horse (Revelation 19:11)?
Why are these questions so controversial? Or really, why is the answer, "He will return on a white horse, from a cloud" so difficult for the "futurist"? It's not for me. Sounds pretty glorious to me, to be surrounded by a mighty cloud, riding on a thunderous white horse! Doesn't sound, to me, like that contradicts the claim of a "glorious return" at all (if indeed that's what's implied by those questions. Otherwise, I have no idea what the questions are meant to ask).
If Jesus was to be returning in a physical visible appearance to the whole world, why did He tell his first-century disciples (John 14:19) that the world would never see him again?
See here. Again, this is written to the reader, the believer, who's time is short. Here, Jesus is comforting his followers, because He knows they will not see him again (indeed, in this way, this passage is actually harmful to the preterits position, as it arguably demonstrates Jesus knows he would NOT return within a literal generation to the entire world, all at once).
He's saying here that when He goes back to be with His Father, He's going to send (and has now sent) His Holy Spirit to "teach us" (meaning the Church) to be our "comforter". Today, we can also see fulfillment of this at each of our peculiar judgements (this is when we see Him, but not the world).
The world "will not see [him] again" in the sense that He will not be coming again to teach the world, to give the world a chance to come to him (that's our job now, that's the "great commission"), rather, the next time the entire world sees Him, He will be judge of it (and woe to anyone who resisted the Gospel then!)
This is the point here: That Jesus, as a man, as a clearly identifiable human being like the rest of us, remains "unseen" in the sense that He's not some guy walking down the street that we could therefore encounter. This is why it is said, "To those who do not see, yet still believe are blessed". One CAN encounter Christ today in His Church, but only those who have "eyes to see" will have such an encounter. To the rest of the world, He remains and will remain hidden, hidden by their own stubborn blindness, not because He doesn't intend to return in glory.
This is the message of John 14, the entire chapter. Don't take one verse out of context and build an entire theology around it.
If the King James Version of the Bible really speaks of an end to the physical universe, why is “end of the world” found there consistently translated as “end of the AGE” in modern translations?
This is no more concerning than a better translation is closer to the truth. Here we can see that indeed, we are living in an "age" different than the one before the Incarnation. Before, the entirety of the faith was not revealed, now it is. The age to come is the final defeat of death. Nothing more "complicated" than that.
If the prophetic passages were fulfilled once in the first century, and then again thousands of years later, why is there no hint of this by Jesus and the biblical writers?
Here is where I was tempted to let metmom's reply stand as a reply to the entire work of Mr. Meeks, but I had some extra time today (the reader can thank the snow God sent for that, if this work of mine was appreciated), so I replied as above.
However to make it clear and to conclude, this is (apparently) PRECISELY Mr. Meek's mistake: He seems to believe, for whatever reason, that once a prophecy is fulfilled, it can have no further future applications. I submit, there is NO reason to believe this, other than simple eisegesis.