The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

[cv5]

So the Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 is not the same as Nehemiah 1, because in Nehemiah 1 he is in his 20th year of reign, which does not fit with Ezra 4 (or your date)

Nope. Same king. That entry is just a commentary on a yet future event.

 

[OldSage]

Nope. Same king. That entry is just a commentary on a yet future event.

Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.

 

[cv5]

Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.

Nope. That particular entry was a future event. It was simply added into the commentary at some point for reference.

 

[OldSage]

Nope. That particular entry was a future event. It was simply added into the commentary at some point for reference.

Have you read the Book Of Ezra?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Nothing added, not a huge page of added info

"Nothing added" as you say, but you totally "left out" the other parts OF the Olivet Discourse (namely, in Lk21 and in Mk13). I'm wondering why.

Could it be that you do NOT acknowledge the following:


--that Matt24:4-8's / Mk13:5-8's "the beginning of birth pangs" EQUAL Lk21:8-11 (SAME EVENTS / SAME TIME-PERIOD)... even though Lk21:8-11 doesn't include the "label" (so to speak) of "the beginning of birth pangs"...

[IOW, do you think I am "ADDING TO SCRIPTURE" by saying THESE THREE TEXTS (Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 / and Lk21:8-11) are describing the exact SAME EVENTS [/same time-frame] EVEN THO Lk21:8-11 does not use the term "the beginning of birth pangs"?? Is that how you see what I wrote, as "adding"...?? So let me ask you straight up... DO YOU BELIEVE that Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 / LK21:8-11 *ARE* the SAME EVENTS / SAME ITEMS / SAME TIME-FRAME (as *I* believe they are)?? or not?]



--that Lk21:12 starts off saying "BUT BEFORE ALL these [i.e. BEFORE ALL those things just described in vv.8-11, aka "the beginning of birth pangs" PARALLEL to Matt24:4-8 and Mk13:5-8 (SAME ITEMS)]," [BEFORE ALL those BoBPs] the next section (vv.12-24a's 70ad events) must come "BEFORE ALL" of those BoBPs just described in vv.8-11...

[IOW, here in Lk21:12-24a is the ANSWER relating to the 70ad events that come first (BEFORE ALL the BoBPs), but you've completely disregarded THIS PORTION OF the Olivet Discourse... and I have to wonder WHY??]







So, it's not a matter of "adding" something, it's a matter of placing the items given in Scripture in their "chronological" sequence / order GIVEN the "timing clues" PROVIDED IN THE TEXT ITSELF... which I find many people tend to disregard / overlook... especially here in the case of Lk21:8-11 where the term / "label" "the beginning of birth pangs" is not provided in this text (even tho they are the IDENTICAL ITEMS that Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 ALSO speak of... and this is why many ppl MISS the fact of v.12 saying "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" referring to "the beginning of birth pangs," that something explained further in that text must come PRIOR TO THOSE [namely, the 70ad events of vv.12-24a, esp.vv.23,20! i.e. Jesus' response re: "THESE THINGS WHICH YE BEHOLD" regarding "the temple" per vv.5-6 ])


No offense, but your posts are lengthy, but even with all the length, I found this ^ aspect (i.e. the "chronology" issues and "timing" words provided in the text of Scripture) to have been entirely MISSING from it. See how that goes?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[parts of Luke 21]

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. [i.e. the 70ad events that come PRIOR TO the beginning of birth pangs of vv.8-11 / Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8]

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all the nations [also 70ad events]: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations [distinct from v.23's 'great distress IN THE LAND,' see], with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled/shall have taken place.

["TILL ALL be fulfilled/shall have taken place" (v.32) must necessarily INCLUDE the two time-lengthy items that v.24 had already addressed... (the second of those two having to do with "Gentile domination over Israel" that started in 606/605bc... with Neb as "head of gold"... and whose "dream/statue/image" also includes eventual "toes"... but Rev says, "the beast that WAS, and IS NOT [at the time Rev was written], and YET SHALL BE" (<--why is that??); ...with Dan2:34-35 [parallel Matt24:36-39] / Dan7:25,27 likewise providing "timing clues" rendering a 70ad final-fulfillment-of-prophecy unjustifiable... I remain unconvinced of your viewpoint, for these and many other reasons... ]

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.

So a king is not allowed to change his mind?

 

[OldSage]

538 - 515BC - Ezra 1-6.......First return.

483 - 473BC - Esther and book of Esther

457BC - Ezra 7-10.....Second return

444 - 425BC - Nehemiah, Book of Nehemiah........Third return.

I am finding it very hard to give credibility to the dates you propose.
(And I really have to wonder who originally authored them).
The events of Ezra and Nehemiah all seem to take place in the immediate aftermath of the
return from exile.

Regarding the date of 457BC for the second return. It doesn't hold water, and unless
I am very much mistaken, this is all very fishy.

Levitcal priests served until the age of 49, so the absolute latest possible date for this
sacrifice would be 538BC + 49 years, which is 489BC.
But actually it is much earlier than 489BC - that is obvious from the text,
probably around 515BC.

Ezra 8: 35 Then the exiles who had returned from captivity sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel

 

[cv5]

538 - 515BC - Ezra 1-6.......First return.

483 - 473BC - Esther and book of Esther

457BC - Ezra 7-10.....Second return

444 - 425BC - Nehemiah, Book of Nehemiah........Third return.

The period between the first seige of Nebuchadnezzar 606BC and the decree of Cyrus 537BC is precisely 25,200 days, or exactly 70 - 360 day years.

 

[OldSage]

There are two connected 70 year periods really. That is why Daniel speaks of 70 years in the desolations
of Jerusalem, since it was destroyed in 589BC and reconstructed for sacrifice in 519BC

 

[randyk]

Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.

Nothing about Ezra 4 is unequivocal! It appears to be a brief history, overall, of the opposition to the work of rebuilding the temple up until the time of Darius. The only problem is, Artaxerxes, and opposition in his time, is mentioned too, even though his reign *followed* Darius.

So the answer may be that the history of Artaxerxes is simply "fit" into the history up to Darius, to include some of the later history of opposition to the building, and then returning to the end point at Darius' reign. Or, the kings named may have had more than one name.

I remain confident that Artaxerxes followed the reign of Darius, even though in this chapter his history is listed in the accounts of opposition. After all, opposition continued well after the reign of Darius. And even though Artaxerxes may have seen this opposition, and even participated in it, he ultimately determined to continue the original mandate of Cyrus, to decree the completion of the city of Jerusalem. That decree was apparently in 456 or 457 BC.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Here's how one author addresses that chapter (Ezra 4)... brief excerpt:

"The chapter then closes with the statement, “Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24). This last verse, however, connects itself with verse 5, and gives the result of the enemy’s opposition of which verses 4 and 5 contain a general summary. The parenthesis [which he's calling vv.6-23, I think] gives the details of the way in which Artaxerxes was prevailed upon to issue his decree."

--Edward B. Dennett, Bible Truth Publishers - https://www.bibletruthpublishers.co...on-ezra-4/edward-b-dennett/e-dennett/la146718 [bracketed insert mine]


[and from an earlier paragraph...]

"It will be perceived that these two verses (4 and 5) are a summary of the activity of the foes of Israel during the reigns of Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes; and that therefore verse 24 is connected with verse 5 [re: v.3's "build an house unto our God"], the intervening passage being a parenthesis which gives an account of the way in which the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin succeeded in their designs. Moreover it would seem, from a careful comparison of the prophecies of Haggai with this chapter that the children of Israel ceased to build long before the prohibition was obtained; for it is evident from Haggai 2:15 that they had made but little, if any, progress after the foundation was completed."

--Edward B. Dennett, Bible Truth Publishers [same article; bracketed insert mine]







[the way I understand it is that Cyrus's decree had to do with "build A HOUSE" / "the house of the Lord"]

 

[Jimbone]

Hi Jimbone.
All you need to do is diligently persistent in studying this admittedly complex topic. Give it time. God willing one of these days that lightbulb is going to go off in your head and you will have your very own eureka moment.

By the way........TheDivineWatermark is undoubtedly correct in this matter. Just to let you know I agree with everything he is stating with no dispute whatsoever.

As for me Scripture is like a 3D model (30 year engineering background). It is like an assembly, a series of patterns, of codes, of elements. One and only one assembly fits together perfectly! There are no missing pieces, no square pegs in round holes, and no leftover pieces.

And that "model" is the 69 weeks to TE/Church age "gap"/pre-trib rapture/70th week tribulation/Second Coming-premillennial-reconstitution of Israel iteration.

Nothing else even comes to this level of perfection because nothing else is correct!

So you are clearly telling me I need something outside scripture to understand scripture? Can you not see a problem with this? Do you not think that's a red flag?

Okay, so you like the patterns huh? Who does God tell us will inherit the earth? So you say He comes down and takes us, the righteous by His grace and by His blood, and leaves the wicked on earth to face judgement? Wait, that's not Gods pattern. Let's stay right in the same scripture, right after where I left off in Mat. 24:36-40 when He tells us

36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.

Who was taken off the world in the flood? The righteous or the wicked? No matter how you try to spin the water lifting the arc into the "air" like us in the rapture, but the FACT is the wicked were removed and the righteous stayed on earth. Why do you flip this to keep your "3D model like thinking" to make it fit the pre trib view?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Who was taken off the world in the flood? The righteous or the wicked? No matter how you try to spin the water lifting the arc into the "air" like us in the rapture, but the FACT is the wicked were removed and the righteous stayed on earth. Why do you flip this to keep your "3D model like thinking" to make it fit the pre trib view?

The "taken" and "left" passages are not speaking of "our Rapture" (that is not its CONTEXT).

The one "taken" is taken away in judgment (just as in Noah's day) and the one "left" is left to enter the EARTHLY MK age in their mortal bodies (just as in Noah's day); compare Dan2:35c with Gen9:1 "[actively] FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth".



Matt24:36-42,43-51 (and really ALL of Matt24) is speaking of what leads UP TO His Second Coming to the earth (NOT "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" event--THAT is NOT the Subject Jesus is covering in His Olivet Discourse, ANYWHERE)

 

[OldSage]

Nothing about Ezra 4 is unequivocal! It appears to be a brief history, overall, of the opposition to the work of rebuilding the temple up until the time of Darius. The only problem is, Artaxerxes, and opposition in his time, is mentioned too, even though his reign *followed* Darius.

So the answer may be that the history of Artaxerxes is simply "fit" into the history up to Darius, to include some of the later history of opposition to the building, and then returning to the end point at Darius' reign. Or, the kings named may have had more than one name.

I remain confident that Artaxerxes followed the reign of Darius, even though in this chapter his history is listed in the accounts of opposition. After all, opposition continued well after the reign of Darius. And even though Artaxerxes may have seen this opposition, and even participated in it, he ultimately determined to continue the original mandate of Cyrus, to decree the completion of the city of Jerusalem. That decree was apparently in 456 or 457 BC.

Well its bugging me now. lol

Josephus (effectively) says Artaxerxes is Cambyses which makes total sense in the context ....... to me

 

[OldSage]

Here's how one author addresses that chapter (Ezra 4)... brief excerpt:

"The chapter then closes with the statement, “Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24). This last verse, however, connects itself with verse 5, and gives the result of the enemy’s opposition of which verses 4 and 5 contain a general summary. The parenthesis [which he's calling vv.6-23, I think] gives the details of the way in which Artaxerxes was prevailed upon to issue his decree."

--Edward B. Dennett, Bible Truth Publishers - https://www.bibletruthpublishers.co...on-ezra-4/edward-b-dennett/e-dennett/la146718 [bracketed insert mine]


[and from an earlier paragraph...]

"It will be perceived that these two verses (4 and 5) are a summary of the activity of the foes of Israel during the reigns of Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes; and that therefore verse 24 is connected with verse 5 [re: v.3's "build an house unto our God"], the intervening passage being a parenthesis which gives an account of the way in which the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin succeeded in their designs. Moreover it would seem, from a careful comparison of the prophecies of Haggai with this chapter that the children of Israel ceased to build long before the prohibition was obtained; for it is evident from Haggai 2:15 that they had made but little, if any, progress after the foundation was completed."

--Edward B. Dennett, Bible Truth Publishers [same article; bracketed insert mine]







[the way I understand it is that Cyrus's decree had to do with "build A HOUSE" / "the house of the Lord"]

But that is not even stretching a point - it goes really against the text

...5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia..........
24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But that is not even stretching a point - it goes really against the text

...5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia..........
24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Nah... I see it more like this:

"...to frustrate their purpose, all the days of President Ford, even unto the reign of [era of] President G.W. Bush"

...since it's talking about a spans of time (that this problem existed), it's not exactly making the point like: "up until G.W. Bush was ELECTED and BECAME President"... it's saying, this problem existed a long spans of time... and then v.24 is giving the actual point in time [/time-stamp], see. "... it ceased unto the second year OF the reign of Darius king of Persia."

 

[randyk]

Well its bugging me now. lol

Josephus (effectively) says Artaxerxes is Cambyses which makes total sense in the context ....... to me

I'm not sure myself of all this. Artaxerxes is a royal title, as well as a specific name of a king. So the word "Artaxerxes" could be applied to some king between Cyrus and Darius. But I don't believe Artaxerxes--THE Artaxerxes, was Cambyses, unless the word "Artaxerxes" is only being applied as a title to him.

The context in Ezra 4 seems to be about preventing building of the temple. Artaxerxes was involved in perpetuating the temple restoration, as well as overseeing the building of the walls of Jerusalem, including various buildings afterwards. He could, conceivably, be fit parenthetically back into the history of temple opposition between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, since he also had to overcome opposition to the temple worship.

Ezra 7.12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings.
13 Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go...
17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.

 

[OldSage]

Yah, but Darius comes into the picture 522BC, not 450BC

Nah... I see it more like this:

"...to frustrate their purpose, all the days of President Ford, even unto the reign of [era of] President G.W. Bush"

...since it's talking about a spans of time (that this problem existed), it's not exactly making the point like: "up until G.W. Bush was ELECTED and BECAME President"... it's saying, this problem existed a long spans of time... and then v.24 is giving the actual point in time [/time-stamp], see. "... it ceased unto the second year OF the reign of Darius king of Persia."

 

[OldSage]

I'm not sure myself of all this. Artaxerxes is a royal title, as well as a specific name of a king. So the word "Artaxerxes" could be applied to some king between Cyrus and Darius. But I don't believe Artaxerxes--THE Artaxerxes, was Cambyses, unless the word "Artaxerxes" is only being applied as a title to him.

The context in Ezra 4 seems to be about preventing building of the temple. Artaxerxes was involved in perpetuating the temple restoration, as well as overseeing the building of the walls of Jerusalem, including various buildings afterwards. He could, conceivably, be fit parenthetically back into the history of temple opposition between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, since he also had to overcome opposition to the temple worship.

Ezra 7.12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings.
13 Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go...
17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.

I think its a title = but not totally sure
but anyhow lots of kings have the same name
Henry 1,2, ......8 etc

I am not sure about the sequence and dates....in Josephus it is more like 479 and 466 or 461 BC.....
but Josephus may not be particularly accurate either.....he would be using secondary sources for that history
and his dates and chronology seem odd as well

I find it hard to reconcile the chaos at Jerusalem with a post Mordecai picture