The absurdity and heresy of Preterism
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It seems that Ezra was writing, in ch. 4, a brief accounting of opposition to the temple reconstruction between Cyrus and Darius. But Artaxerxes does not fit easily in there, because chronologically, he reigned *after* Darius. Darius is mentioned *after* this Artaxerxes, who may have been one of the kings who ruled between Cyrus and Darius.
Ezra 4.1 When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the Lord, the God of Israel, 2 they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, “Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here.”
This is back at the time immediately after Cyrus' decree of 537 BC.
Ezra 4. 6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.
This may have actually been Cambyses or Darius, or some think Xerxes the husband of Esther. At any rate, it follows, chronologically, the early work on the temple after Cyrus' decree. It continues the theme of opposition to the temple's rebuilding.
Ezra 4.7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes.
This Artaxerxes may or may not be the Artaxerxes of the later time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Perhaps not because Darius is mentioned directly afterwards?
Ezra 4. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Ezra 4.1 When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the Lord, the God of Israel, 2 they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, “Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here.”
This is back at the time immediately after Cyrus' decree of 537 BC.
Ezra 4. 6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.
This may have actually been Cambyses or Darius, or some think Xerxes the husband of Esther. At any rate, it follows, chronologically, the early work on the temple after Cyrus' decree. It continues the theme of opposition to the temple's rebuilding.
Ezra 4.7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes.
This Artaxerxes may or may not be the Artaxerxes of the later time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Perhaps not because Darius is mentioned directly afterwards?
Ezra 4. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
-
1
- Show all
I got 99 problems, but Jesuit Futurist eschatology ain't one.
You've got a serious problem explaining how the street and wall wasn't included in the package deal when:
1) Artaxerxes granted Ezra "all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him" (Ezra 7:6 KJV) - you are essentially arguing Ezra didn't want a wall or a street "according to the hand of the Lord" which was upon Ezra - utterly ridiculous.
2) the wall was green-lighted by the king long before the 445-444 B.C. decree. (Ezra 9:9 KJV)
You need to understand that it matters not whether Ezra built the wall, but that the green light for the wall was already given before the 445/444 B.C. decree, which blows your Jesuit argument completely out of the water.
There is no "second decree" ---- again, it was a reinstatement of the original decree with additional mention of a wall WHICH WAS ALREADY GREENLIGHTED LONG BEFORE 445/444 B.C.
It is you who are seduced by ridiculous Jesuit ideas, when you have been shown that the starting date of 457 B.C. perfectly lines up everything in the prophecy, which for some reason you Jesuit Futurists seem to keep forgetting was a Numerically Specific Time Prophecy of 490 years, NOT 490 PLUS 2,000+ YEARS AND COUNTING.
You've got a serious problem explaining how the street and wall wasn't included in the package deal when:
1) Artaxerxes granted Ezra "all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him" (Ezra 7:6 KJV) - you are essentially arguing Ezra didn't want a wall or a street "according to the hand of the Lord" which was upon Ezra - utterly ridiculous.
2) the wall was green-lighted by the king long before the 445-444 B.C. decree. (Ezra 9:9 KJV)
You need to understand that it matters not whether Ezra built the wall, but that the green light for the wall was already given before the 445/444 B.C. decree, which blows your Jesuit argument completely out of the water.
There is no "second decree" ---- again, it was a reinstatement of the original decree with additional mention of a wall WHICH WAS ALREADY GREENLIGHTED LONG BEFORE 445/444 B.C.
It is you who are seduced by ridiculous Jesuit ideas, when you have been shown that the starting date of 457 B.C. perfectly lines up everything in the prophecy, which for some reason you Jesuit Futurists seem to keep forgetting was a Numerically Specific Time Prophecy of 490 years, NOT 490 PLUS 2,000+ YEARS AND COUNTING.
When it comes to Jesuit Futurism, I already had my shoes on and was out the door while you are still fast asleep with visions of papal Jesuit sugarplums dancing in your head.
How long you gonna deny that that the king green lighted the building of the wall long before the reinstatement of the ONLY decree of Artaxerxes in 445/444 B.C.?
How long you gonna deny that that the king green lighted the building of the wall long before the reinstatement of the ONLY decree of Artaxerxes in 445/444 B.C.?
Says the man who is blinded by Jesuit fantasies and who believes an organization that has failed for almost 1,500 years to gain a proper position on the simplest of all Biblical truths - "salvation by grace through faith" - has somehow gained authoritative status regarding the USDA choice red meat of eschatology 
-
1
- Show all
This doesn't seem exactly right either... because in 4:7,8,11,12-16, some bad dudes write a letter "to Artaxerxes the king" telling him [likely embellishing (i.e. LYING)] "that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations." Then the letter goes on to say, "Let it now be known to the king that if that city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, they will not pay tribute, duty, or toll, and the royal treasury will suffer. Now because we are in the service of the palace and it is not fitting for us to allow the king to be dishonored, we have sent to inform the king that a search should be made of the record books of your fathers. In these books you will discover and verify that the city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, inciting sedition from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed. We advise the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, you will have no dominion west of the Euphrates."
The the king responds to that letter by saying (in part), "The letter you sent us has been translated and read in my presence. I issued a decree, and a search was conducted. It was discovered that this city has revolted against kings from ancient times, engaging in rebellion and sedition. And mighty kings have ruled over Jerusalem and exercised authority over the whole region west of the Euphrates; and tribute, duty, and toll were paid to them.
Now, therefore, issue an order for these men to stop, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order. See that you do not neglect this matter. Why allow this threat to increase and the royal interests to suffer?"
And then the last verse of this chapter says, "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." See that? There was no evidence that the city was actually being rebuilt (only "bad guys spreading falsehoods, in order to get them in trouble and prevent what it was they *were* accomplishing re: "the work of the house of God" at that point); and the whole context is worded in such a way that it sounds to me as though the king was being *informed* of such a thing re: "the city" (even tho it wasn't actually the case that "the city" was being rebuilt... only "the house of God")... and that the king says, "[no more build] UNTIL a commandment be given by me"... which is what we see at the later time. Does that make sense? (I'm kinda tired atm )
IOW, the letter would not need to start out (as it does) by saying anything like it is informing the king that they are rebuilding the city, etc, but it does start out that way... If he had decreed that, then just start off the letter by saying, "Uh, mr. king, that was dumb what you just did... and here's why..." but it doesn't in any way acknowledge that he was the initiator... and the last verse only gives evidence on "what we already know" *WAS* decreed (re: "the house of the Lord") up to that point... (work on IT is what "ceased" at that point, per v.24, clearly stated as fact).
The the king responds to that letter by saying (in part), "The letter you sent us has been translated and read in my presence. I issued a decree, and a search was conducted. It was discovered that this city has revolted against kings from ancient times, engaging in rebellion and sedition. And mighty kings have ruled over Jerusalem and exercised authority over the whole region west of the Euphrates; and tribute, duty, and toll were paid to them.
Now, therefore, issue an order for these men to stop, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order. See that you do not neglect this matter. Why allow this threat to increase and the royal interests to suffer?"
And then the last verse of this chapter says, "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." See that? There was no evidence that the city was actually being rebuilt (only "bad guys spreading falsehoods, in order to get them in trouble and prevent what it was they *were* accomplishing re: "the work of the house of God" at that point); and the whole context is worded in such a way that it sounds to me as though the king was being *informed* of such a thing re: "the city" (even tho it wasn't actually the case that "the city" was being rebuilt... only "the house of God")... and that the king says, "[no more build] UNTIL a commandment be given by me"... which is what we see at the later time. Does that make sense? (I'm kinda tired atm
)IOW, the letter would not need to start out (as it does) by saying anything like it is informing the king that they are rebuilding the city, etc, but it does start out that way... If he had decreed that, then just start off the letter by saying, "Uh, mr. king, that was dumb what you just did... and here's why..." but it doesn't in any way acknowledge that he was the initiator... and the last verse only gives evidence on "what we already know" *WAS* decreed (re: "the house of the Lord") up to that point... (work on IT is what "ceased" at that point, per v.24, clearly stated as fact).
Why do people make a big deal about the reinstatement's mention of a wall? After all, even the stupidest ancient ruler would know that a wall around a rebellious people prone to insurrection is a huge problem - even walls like the one Artaxerxes had previously authorized (Ezra 9:9 KJV) long before 445/444 B.C. - and is why he ordered the suspension of its building until the matter could be settled.
-
1
- Show all
*Sigh*
Ezra 9:9 KJV proves they already had a green light to build the wall long before the 445/444 B.C. reinstatement of Artaxerxes' original decree which was suspended due to the false allegations of Israel's enemies.
Daniel 9:25 KJV is to be calculated from the decree in 457 B.C., not 445/444 B.C.
Ezra 9:9 KJV proves they already had a green light to build the wall long before the 445/444 B.C. reinstatement of Artaxerxes' original decree which was suspended due to the false allegations of Israel's enemies.
Daniel 9:25 KJV is to be calculated from the decree in 457 B.C., not 445/444 B.C.
E
Ezra 9: 9For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolationsthereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem
nothing about restoration of the city
the restoration of the HOUSE and it’s desolation and the walls is bit the city
also, your about 12 years to early in the timing of the end of the 69th week.
nothing about restoration of the city
the restoration of the HOUSE and it’s desolation and the walls is bit the city
also, your about 12 years to early in the timing of the end of the 69th week.
God had already promised years ago to restore Jerusalem and kingly rulership therein (Jeremiah 30:18 KJV) and Ezra 7:14 KJV specifically says the king's decree concerned "Judah and Jerusalem", not just temple. Judah was the entire region surrounding Jerusalem, the walled capital city within.
Please stop insisting Artaxerxes' 457 B.C. decree only concerned the temple. Ezra 7 KJV explicitly says it concerned Judah, Jerusalem, the establishment of the priesthood, education system, judicial system, constabulary, and the wall around Jerusalem in the region of Judah.
Ezra 9:9 KJV plainly says God extended mercy in the sight of the kings of Persia "to give us a wall" meaning royal authorization of a wall had been established long before 445/444 B.C. Therefore, reckoning of Daniel 9:25 KJV MUST begin at 457 B.C.
Please stop insisting Artaxerxes' 457 B.C. decree only concerned the temple. Ezra 7 KJV explicitly says it concerned Judah, Jerusalem, the establishment of the priesthood, education system, judicial system, constabulary, and the wall around Jerusalem in the region of Judah.
Ezra 9:9 KJV plainly says God extended mercy in the sight of the kings of Persia "to give us a wall" meaning royal authorization of a wall had been established long before 445/444 B.C. Therefore, reckoning of Daniel 9:25 KJV MUST begin at 457 B.C.
-
1
- Show all
I'm almost certain you've never objectively investigated Protestant Historicism, have already made up your mind about it, and will stubbornly oppose all evidence supporting it, no matter how compelling.
For instance, every Church Father who lived not too far removed from the time of Paul and had anything to say about what was generally accepted at the time about the subject of the Restrainer of 2 Thess. was that it was the Roman Empire, not some "agent of holiness" as Jesuit Futurism claims.
For instance, every Church Father who lived not too far removed from the time of Paul and had anything to say about what was generally accepted at the time about the subject of the Restrainer of 2 Thess. was that it was the Roman Empire, not some "agent of holiness" as Jesuit Futurism claims.