The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

[DorothyMae]

First understand that John wrote the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter (Rev 1:19).

So John wrote the things he saw, the things which are and the the things which shall be hereafter.

You think it is cruel to write about future events that churches in existence in John's day would not understand but it's okay to leave future churches with no instruction?

Since they are mentioned by name and told it was written so that they would understand, yes.

My position is it was for them and they understood. Ephesus was for sure meant as what was threatened came to pass. John was told NOT to seal up the book whereas Daniel was told to seal it up.

I believe it would be cruel to leave without instruction the churches which would come into existence "in a few millennia".

What good has thinking it’s for us done?

 

[DorothyMae]

This is your misunderstanding of the word (in the Greek) for "IS ABOUT [mello G3195 - which means "IS SURE" ( to happen)]"... and the other ones I pointed out.

Why is it "cruel" to tell someone that certain prophecies are "SURE" to take place? (I think that notion seems unreasonable, tbh).

Is there any prophesy that is not sure to happen and said so from the first?

 

[biker]

My position is it was for them and they understood. Ephesus was for sure meant as what was threatened came to pass. John was told NOT to seal up the book whereas Daniel was told to seal it up.

How do you conclude this when the Church Fathers don't put John and Ephesus together until "immediately" after Patmos after Domitian's death?

Are you saying when John had his vision in 95 AD he went to Ephesus and told them these things are completed but I must reveal them to you anyways?

You begin with:
My position is:

How can you have a 68 AD position when the Church Fathers prove you wrong?
How can you have any opposing position when we know the facts already?
Do you believe the Church Fathers are lying?

In my position, I believe you think the Church Fathers must be lying. Because to have a 68 AD position, you have to ignore what the Church Fathers wrote concerning John-Domitian-Patmos-Ephesus-94 AD to 100 AD.


And.............you have never given evidence to prove that the Church Fathers are wrong.
Are we to accept your views and dismiss the Church Fathers because you claim it without evidence?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Is there any prophesy that is not sure to happen and said so from the first?

I'm just saying that the word "mello" is another WAY of saying the same thing. You could say (the same thing various ways, with the same idea being conveyed),

--"the hour of trial that I'm PROPHESYING WILL [*for SURE*] come upon the whole world to test those dwelling upon the earth"

--"the hour of trial CERTAIN to come upon the whole world to test those dwelling upon the earth"

--"the hour of trial THAT WILL come upon the whole world to try those dwelling upon the earth"

--"the hour of trial PROPHESIED to come upon the whole world to try those dwelling upon the earth"





[just because some versions have it as "IS ABOUT" to come upon the whole world, doesn't mean the word "mello" necessarily carries that meaning, as in, how we say something "IS ABOUT" to happen in the next few moments--(the word means "SURE / CERTAIN [to]"... so read this verse with that in mind, and reading it from that perspective shows us that he's not saying "in the next few moments" or "in the next several years," but instead "IS SURE [(to take place)]" and not saying as you suggest it would, "THIS prophecy [unlike others you've heard and been exposed to] IS SURE to take place [whereas the others (of inferior caliber) 'flopped']." NO. Not THAT idea, see. )]

 

[biker]

This Thread has become retarded because we are now allowing posters to basically call Church Fathers liars.

If they lied about John-Domitian-Patmos-Ephesus...
How do we know they did not lie about the Creeds we believe in or how the Church is to operate, or how to be a leader, or how to understand God?

This is ABSURD!

 

[cv5]

Sorry I had to delete come of your post. I can only have 1000 characters.
Yes, I know how the words have been changed to mean future. One reads the words that say his servants should know what will soon take place and real churches are mentioned but your theology changes it into those who got that revelation couldn't have a clue since it was for people 2000+ years away and so absolutely useless to them. The churches the letters were sent to that would have comforted them was equally useless since none of it was meant for them. I have one poster here who insisted, maybe it was you, who said it doesnt mean "soon" but quickly and they have seen these developments over the last 40 years. Now 40 years is not quickly by any stretch of the imagination. So I know the theology. A vision given to John for the church so that they would understand what is about to happen was not so they could understand what was about to happen at all. That is your position.
The church is Jerusalem saw this as telling THEM to flee and they did and saved their lives. And most Christians do not live in Jerusalem so this information, absolutely vital to them, is useless to us and if the whole world is in the hands of evil, there is no where to flee to in any case. Another piece of useless warning/information.
So exactly what does this tell you to do should these events happen?

I really appreciate you taking the time to address what you think are my questions. It was hard to follow but that is not your fault. My questions concerned a few things.
1. What good does it do the Jews, the billions, who have lived and died before the events your theology tells you will happen where one generation of Jews happens to believe Jesus is the Messiah? That "all Israel" means what? ALl the Jews in all the world? What about the Jews who are already dead and rejected the testimony of JEsus?
2. Where will you or anyone who believes this go should these events start and leaving Jerusalem is no good since the world is in trouble? How does this help you escape? (Remember we are to flee Bablyon so we do not share in her punishment.)
3. What were the churchs mentioned in Revelation to do with the letters sent to them in your view?

I am a very practical person and live out my faith in practical ways. I do know for sure that the first century CHristians in Jerusalem thought Matthew 24 and the warnings in Revelation were for them and literally left town. They for sure, as well as all the other Christians living at the time, did not believe the information and warnings were for a future generation. Were they mistaken in your view?

Practical people with good intentions who ignore the Scripture and lean on their own righteousness go to hell all the time.

In my opinion you are confused and puzzled because you do not comprehend Romans 9 and Romans 11. And you do not comprehend them because you do not accept them and you do not believe them. And it is clear to everyone observing your posts that you chafe against these verses
and so many others due to nothing less than sheer unmitigated rebellion.

Anyways here are the answers to your test questions!

(Rom 9:25)
For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

(Rom 11:32)
For God has bound up all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all.

It is apparent that you believe that God is unfair. Romans 9 Romans 11 and endless other Scriptures say otherwise. The above two Scriptures declare to you that in fact we are all blessed that God is saving anybody. Because God is perfectly well within his rights to save absolutely nobody.

 

[cv5]

This Thread has become retarded because we are now allowing posters to basically call Church Fathers liars.

If they lied about John-Domitian-Patmos-Ephesus...
How do we know they did not lie about the Creeds we believe in or how the Church is to operate, or how to be a leader, or how to understand God?

This is ABSURD!

What I find bizarre and concerning is that regardless of the superb exegesis that all of the posters here on this thread have provided and so patiently and graciously contributed, the detractors absolutely refuse to budge an inch, and remain firmly entrenched in unbelief and denial. I mean no progress at all whatsoever.

Furthermore rocksolid Scripture is met with mindless sophistry, trolling and endless questions which seem to be insincere. Because if the questions were sincere they would accept the answers, and say so and expressed their thanksgiving and praise God for the inestimable gift of enlightenment!

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Since they are mentioned by name and told it was written so that they would understand, yes.

John mentions 7 churches in Rev 2-3. If you look at Paul's writings, he wrote letters to 7 churches. However, only 1 church (Ephesus) mentioned by John in Rev 2-3 was included in Paul's writings.

Does that mean Paul's writings were not to be read and understood by the churches John mentioned in Rev 2-3?

Or does that mean John's writings were not to be read by churches to which Paul wrote letters?

No, of course not.

In our day and time, we are to read what Paul wrote to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica.

In our day and time, we are to read what John wrote to the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea.


By insinuating that the writing could only benefit the specific church mentioned and that no other church can learn and benefit from the instruction except that church is not proper understanding of the purpose of Scripture.

My position is it was for them and they understood. Ephesus was for sure meant as what was threatened came to pass. John was told NOT to seal up the book whereas Daniel was told to seal it up.
What good has thinking it’s for us done?

Again, do you read Paul's letter to the Romans and learn from it? How about Paul's letters to the Corinthians ... Galatians ... Ephesians ... Philippians ... Colossians ... Thessalonians???

What good does it do you to read Paul's letter to the Romans ... or even Genesis for that matter?

Or am I to understand that you don't read any of Paul's writings because his letter is not addressed to [ fill in the location in which you live ]???


That is ridiculous!!!

 

[biker]

What I find bizarre and concerning is that regardless of the superb exegesis that all of the posters here on this thread have provided and so patiently and graciously contributed, the detractors absolutely refuse to budge an inch, and remain firmly entrenched in unbelief and denial. I mean no progress at all whatsoever.

Furthermore rocksolid Scripture is met with mindless sophistry, trolling and endless questions which seem to be insincere. Because if the questions were sincere they would accept the answers, and say so and expressed their thanksgiving and praise God for the inestimable gift of enlightenment!

Agreed,
Several have given solid proofs and for some unknown reason they are being rejected. And it's not that these are true facts or just being rejected that is alarming, but there is nothing in return as to why these are being rejected. We're getting, My Position is...but that Position is not even being put forth with any proofs. When 1 side offers legit factual proofs while the other side denies without any proofs, just opinions, the debate is over.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.

From a viewpoint of having first hand accounts from those who were there to make such claims towards the Apostle John, it sets off red lights watching someone basically flat out deny these accounts exist, or that these accounts are not accurate.

That's like telling Michael Jordan he is wrong, after asking Michael, how was it like to win 6 NBA Championships?

But the most striking fact about this person in discussion, we are asking for the proofs they claim to be in existence. And after 50 pages and 989 posts, we still have not been given the first proof. And to top that off, they continue to knock down anything offered to them expecting that their sole opinion is all we need to accept as proof.

I feel like I am in a discussion with someone who does not view any sort of reality the same as I do. To me, that's insane!

 

[cv5]

Agreed,
Several have given solid proofs and for some unknown reason they are being rejected. And it's not that these are true facts or just being rejected that is alarming, but there is nothing in return as to why these are being rejected. We're getting, My Position is...but that Position is not even being put forth with any proofs. When 1 side offers legit factual proofs while the other side denies without any proofs, just opinions, the debate is over.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.

From a viewpoint of having first hand accounts from those who were there to make such claims towards the Apostle John, it sets off red lights watching someone basically flat out deny these accounts exist, or that these accounts are not accurate.

That's like telling Michael Jordan he is wrong, after asking Michael, how was it like to win 6 NBA Championships?

But the most striking fact about this person in discussion, we are asking for the proofs they claim to be in existence. And after 50 pages and 989 posts, we still have not been given the first proof. And to top that off, they continue to knock down anything offered to them expecting that their sole opinion is all we need to accept as proof.

I feel like I am in a discussion with someone who does not view any sort of reality the same as I do. To me, that's insane!

You got it buddy. I'll tell you what, the nonbiblical insensible so-called rebuttals coupled with a total incapacity to absorb the slightest Scriptural truth means only one thing. And that is an extremely grim diagnosis indeed. You tell me..... is it stupidity or brazen unbelief?

 

[cv5]

John mentions 7 churches in Rev 2-3. If you look at Paul's writings, he wrote letters to 7 churches. However, only 1 church (Ephesus) mentioned by John in Rev 2-3 was included in Paul's writings.

Does that mean Paul's writings were not to be read and understood by the churches John mentioned in Rev 2-3?

Or does that mean John's writings were not to be read by churches to which Paul wrote letters?

No, of course not.

In our day and time, we are to read what Paul wrote to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica.

In our day and time, we are to read what John wrote to the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea.


By insinuating that the writing could only benefit the specific church mentioned and that no other church can learn and benefit from the instruction except that church is not proper understanding of the purpose of Scripture.





Again, do you read Paul's letter to the Romans and learn from it? How about Paul's letters to the Corinthians ... Galatians ... Ephesians ... Philippians ... Colossians ... Thessalonians???

What good does it do you to read Paul's letter to the Romans ... or even Genesis for that matter?

Or am I to understand that you don't read any of Paul's writings because his letter is not addressed to [ fill in the location in which you live ]???


That is ridiculous!!!

To the perceptive there is a lot more than just simply ridiculous going on here my friend.

 

[Dan_473]

My answers reflect that the Church Fathers put it into a future apocalyptic category for things going to happen.

thank you for your answer, again, it's not quite what I asked.

are you familiar with the term "apocalyptic literature"?

https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/religion/bible/general/apocalypse

My question for you, why believe what you believe if you don't accept the Church Fathers views?

I accept that the church fathers have valuable things to contribute to the understanding of scripture and Christianity.

but they are not infallible, they can make mistakes.

The Creeds you follow were first proposed by them.

my impression is that the Creeds are a bit later than polycarp, Ignatius, and irenaeus.
but is that incorrect?

which creed is the earliest, who first proposed it, and where?

Are they good enough for you to believe in the Triune God, but not good enough to believe concerning John's scenario?

I accept the doctrine of the Trinity and a triune God because I think it best fits the scriptures, not because the early church fathers teach it.

 

[biker]

You got it buddy. I'll tell you what, the nonbiblical insensible so-called rebuttals coupled with a total incapacity to absorb the slightest Scriptural truth means only one thing. And that is an extremely grim diagnosis indeed. You tell me..... is it stupidity or brazen unbelief?

yep, indeed 100% brazen unbelief!

 

[Truth7t7]

If they weren’t convinced by the life and miracles of Jesus before their eyes, no rapture will convince them. They’ll say it’s a government extermination plot or aliens. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

In general I wish you guys would think about the question posed and answer it instead of merely repeating your doctrine. I’m very familiar with the position. What I don’t see is answers to the obvious problems. Repeating the doctrine verbatium doesn’t answer the problems.

They dont have the answers in response, because dispensationalism has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese

 

[crossnote]

They dont have the answers in response, because dispensationalism has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese

Funny, I was taught under non-dispensational teaching and it smelled like Limburger cheese. LOL

 

[Truth7t7]

=========================================
Regarding the gospel, they (Israel) are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.

Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.
========================================

Only the "Remnant" elect Jew will be saved, the vast "Majority" will be blind to salvation.

Romans 11:7KJV
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

 

[Guojing]

=========================================
Regarding the gospel, they (Israel) are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.

Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.
========================================

I love that verse, to be more precise, "they" actually refers to God and Israel, which is a great contrast to Genesis 12:2-3.

 

[Truth7t7]

Except during the Tribulation, there will be no adding to the Church, as the Church (bride of Christ) will already be with Jesus in heaven waiting to return with Jesus at the end of the Tribulation.

No such thing as a pre-trib rapture, the Church will be present on this earth during the 3.5 year tribulation.

 

[biker]

DorothyMae said:
What I don’t see is answers to the obvious problems. Repeating the doctrine verbatium doesn’t answer the problems.

I have not once offered a Doctrinal position, I have offered what the Church Fathers claimed. And still, you have purposefully ignored me because you have no proofs for the first 5 Centuries where anyone believes in the 68 AD baloney concerning Nero/John/Patmos.

It's rather difficult to read this and find something that goes against it:

In his Against Heresies Book III, at the end of chapter 3, Irenaeus says, “Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” Trajan began to rule in A.D. 98, and John was alive among the people of Ephesus till that time and perhaps a little while after.

In Against Heresies Book V.30.3, Irenaeus writes (declining to try to identify what the number of the beast signifies), “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 no very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.” Domitian died in A.D. 96.

As to John’s actual release from Patmos it would likely have been soon after the death of Domitian, as his edicts – such as banishments – would be voided on his death.


What you are reading is Irenaeus claiming in the first paragraph:
1) John was alive when Trajan ruled in 98 AD
2) John was at that time in the Church of Ephesus, the Church that Paul founded

second paragraph:
1) John kept hidden the number and name of the Beast because it was not time for that to be revealed
2) John is the one with the apocalyptic vision
3) John had his vision towards the end of the reign of Domitian (which confirms Domitian placed John in Patmos)

 

[Truth7t7]

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
(Rom 11:12)

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Rom 11:25)

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
(Rom 11:26)

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Rom 11:27)

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
(Rom 11:32)

I really don't see how you can say " So this is not future in any case".
Perhaps your presuppositions are blinding you to the text, just as the Jews presuppositions towards the Gospel at this present hour.

You post as if every ethnic Jew in the world is going to be saved?

Only the "Remnant Elect" Jew will be saved, the majority will be "Blind" to salvation.

Romans 11:7KJV
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded