The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

[tourist]

Right on! You would think that this event of demonic beings coming up out of the Abyss stinging the inhabitants of the earth for five months would be something for Josephus to write about.

I have read a little of Josephus and enjoyed his account and favorable impression of Jesus.

 

[Yahshua]

There are definitely some notable differences between Luke 21 and the other accounts. This gives rise to many unnecessary controversies and erroneous interpretations and conclusions. I urge everyone to review this video which maps out the differences.

Well at 2:30 is where he makes a case that Luke and Matthew are speaking about two different events. But he makes a mistake. Notice what's said...


Matthew 24-4-16 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Famines

- Earthquakes

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Lack of brotherly love

- The abomination of DESOLATION; Flee to mountains!

- Time of Great Tribulation begins

- Days cut short because of the elect

- Fearful events & signs from heaven



Mark 13-4-16 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Earthquakes

- Famines

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Lack of brotherly love

- The abomination of DESOLATION; Flee to mountains!

- Days of Tribulation begins

- Days cut short because of the elect

- Fearful events & signs from heaven



Luke 21:8-21 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Earthquakes

- Famines

- Pestilences (diseases)

- Fearful events & signs from heaven ("but before this")

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Betrayal of kin

- Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its DESTRUCTION is near; Flee to mountains!

- Time of Great Tribulation begins (lit. wrath against these people; Jews) until time of gentiles fulfilled

- Fearful events & signs from heaven (mentioned again)


-----------

So it was the "fearful events & signs from heaven" that were mentioned early in Luke. Aside from that, everything else in Luke's account lines up with the other two accounts. Testimony of two or more establishes truth, so we have to rely on Matthew & Mark as the foundation for the sequence to confirm Luke's account.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

if so, if you look down below the Strong's definition you can see see Thayer one.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5035: ταχύ

ταχύ (neuter of the adjective ταχύς), adverb (from Pindar down), quickly, speedily (wihtout delay): Matthew 5:25; Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:8 Rec.; Luke 15:22 L Tr brackets WH; John 11:29; ἔρχεσθαι, Revelation 2:5 Rec.bez elz, ; ; forthwith, i. e. while in the use of my name he is performing mighty works, Mark 9:39.

I'm not sure why Strong's includes the word "unnecessary".
it could be a kind of working backwards:
seeing how things worked out, then assuming the word must be defined in a way that fits.

the issue I see with using
"no unnecessary delay" is that we as humans have no way of knowing what a necessary delay is for God.
there could be reasons that Jesus will delay indefinitely.
if that's the case, the word "soon" adds no information to the sentence.
Jesus could just say,
"behold, I am coming."

I looked again at Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly (Gr. taxý)

And the word "quickly" in Rev 22:7 is Strong's #5035. I went through the variants (from 5036 to 5029):


Strong's #5036 ταχύς:

Of uncertain affinity; fleet, i.e. (figuratively) prompt or ready -- swift.


Strong's #5035 ταχύ:

Neuter singular of tachus (as adverb); shortly, i.e. Without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily -- lightly, quickly.


Strong's #5034 τάχος:

From the same as tachus; a brief space (of time), i.e. (with en prefixed) in haste -- + quickly, + shortly, + speedily.


Strong's #5033 τάχιστα:

Neuter plural of the superlative of tachus (as adverb); most quickly, i.e. (with hos prefixed) as soon as possible -- + with all speed.


Strong's #5032 τάχειον:

Neuter singular of the comparative of tachus (as adverb); more swiftly, i.e. (in manner) more rapidly, or (in time) more speedily -- out (run), quickly, shortly, sooner.


Strong's #5031 ταχινός:

From tachos; curt, i.e. Impending -- shortly, swift.


Strong's #5030 ταχέως:

Adverb from tachus; briefly, i.e. (in time) speedily, or (in manner) rapidly -- hastily, quickly, shortly, soon, suddenly.


Strong's #5029 τάχα:

As if neuter plural of tachus (adverbially); shortly, i.e. (figuratively) possibly -- peradventure(-haps).



I think if you go through 5029, 5030, 5031, 5032, 5033, 5034, 5035, 5036, there may be a way to explain why "quickly" in Rev 22:7 does not mean "immediately" but rather "by surprise", "suddenly" ... which would explain why so many years have passed between the time the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ was written and the current time.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The visions given to John in Revelation weren't just about the future.


Revelation 1:19
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


John is given visions of the past, present, and future. That pretty much covers everything from John's point of view. In other words, he's given a timeline of events that includes many things, some of which happened before John...just like Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel were given visions of a timeline of events that started before they were aware of it.

- Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom already existed before he was told he was the head of gold.

- And it was the 1st year of Belshazzar king of Babylon when Daniel was given the vision of the 4 beasts (1st of which was Babylon).


So shouldn't this lend itself to considering a historicist view of prophetic fulfillment (as in, prophecy unfolds throughout history)? Not all past and not all future?

Yes ... in agreement past/present/future ... from the time of the writing.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

I fight my own Battles. I was merely using the back n forth between You and Dino as an example of what I believe to be his m/o. I think it is very wise of you to choose to see this in another light. However, seeing that I get paid in my real life job to notice these traits and habits, on a website forum it is more profound and noticeable. Which is why we are having this back n forth and why I have continued to pursue it. Not because Dino is not my Brother in Christ, but because he feels justified in his actions.

I think a lot of the "back and forth" as you call it has more to do with communicating in an online forum, which is much more limiting than face-to-face discussion.

But, as you point out, you're the expert in recognizing traits and habits.

I appreciate your care and concern.

 

[Dan_473]

Amen!

I also believe it is John the Apostle. The same John who wrote the Gospel of John and the 3 Epistles of John.

sure!
again, tradition for the Epistles
and a kind of process of elimination for the gospel book.

 

[Dan_473]

What's interesting about the 3 Epistles of John is that they are said to have been written around 88 - 93 AD.

yes, some people say that, and it is the traditional view.
it may have been written well after the book of Revelation.

"Alternatively, the letter's acknowledgment and rejection of gnostic theology may reveal a later date of authorship than orthodox Christianity claims. This can not be assured by a simple study of the context. Gnosticism's beginnings and its relationship to Christianity are poorly dated, due to an insufficient corpus of literature relating the first interactions between the two religions."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_John

 

[acts5_29]

Historicist view HINGES on history misinterpreted.

Many respected theologians such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wycliff were historicist, and John Wycliff is the guy who translated Revelation to English. If you're going to say John Wycliffe misinterpreted stuff, then you pretty much undermine the inerrancy of the Bible you're reading.

It's not so much that they misinterpreted history--it's that a lot of history hadn't happened yet. They were in the Reformation. Another 500 years transpired after them.

It's a lesson in humility, because 500 years might pass after you, too, are dead and gone.

If yo ssd's squeak by the patmos thingy (which also destroys preterism) then you have history itself to completely annihilate any hope of traction.

Everyone's arguments against someone else destroy the other guy's argument. Nothing new here.

 

[Dino246]

Many respected theologians such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wycliff were historicist, and John Wycliff is the guy who translated Revelation to English. If you're going to say John Wycliffe misinterpreted stuff, then you pretty much undermine the inerrancy of the Bible you're reading.

Regarding the bolded sentence, that is flawed reasoning. It does not follow that because Wycliffe misinterpreted history that he necessarily misinterpreted Scripture when translating it.

 

[acts5_29]

Regarding the bolded sentence, that is flawed reasoning. It does not follow that because Wycliffe misinterpreted history that he necessarily misinterpreted Scripture when translating it.

He interpreted Revelation to be historicist. What do you say I am missing?

 

[azamzimtoti]

He interpreted Revelation to be historicist. What do you say I am missing?

I doubt that. Interpretation is based on the Greek which does not contain "historicist" thought - his commentaries are a different matter all together.

 

[acts5_29]

I doubt that. Interpretation is based on the Greek which does not contain "historicist" thought - his commentaries are a different matter all together.

So John Wycliffe is wrong about the things you want him to be wrong about, and right about the things you want him to be right about.

 

[azamzimtoti]

So John Wycliffe is wrong about the things you want him to be wrong about, and right about the things you want him to be right about.

I don't want him to be right or wrong, when he's right he's right and versa vice

I have quite a few commentaries - I learn from them when they are right. That doesn't mean I throw out the baby.

 

[Dan_473]

If those dates are somewhat accurate, then the word SOON would fall into God's timing and not literal timing.

I don't think that necessarily follows.

John could be describing events from the 90s, but in such a way that we read them and think they are to happen in the future.

 

[Dan_473]

I looked again at Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly (Gr. taxý)

And the word "quickly" in Rev 22:7 is Strong's #5035. I went through the variants (from 5036 to 5029):


Strong's #5036 ταχύς:

Of uncertain affinity; fleet, i.e. (figuratively) prompt or ready -- swift.


Strong's #5035 ταχύ:

Neuter singular of tachus (as adverb); shortly, i.e. Without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily -- lightly, quickly.


Strong's #5034 τάχος:

From the same as tachus; a brief space (of time), i.e. (with en prefixed) in haste -- + quickly, + shortly, + speedily.


Strong's #5033 τάχιστα:

Neuter plural of the superlative of tachus (as adverb); most quickly, i.e. (with hos prefixed) as soon as possible -- + with all speed.


Strong's #5032 τάχειον:

Neuter singular of the comparative of tachus (as adverb); more swiftly, i.e. (in manner) more rapidly, or (in time) more speedily -- out (run), quickly, shortly, sooner.


Strong's #5031 ταχινός:

From tachos; curt, i.e. Impending -- shortly, swift.


Strong's #5030 ταχέως:

Adverb from tachus; briefly, i.e. (in time) speedily, or (in manner) rapidly -- hastily, quickly, shortly, soon, suddenly.


Strong's #5029 τάχα:

As if neuter plural of tachus (adverbially); shortly, i.e. (figuratively) possibly -- peradventure(-haps).



I think if you go through 5029, 5030, 5031, 5032, 5033, 5034, 5035, 5036, there may be a way to explain why "quickly" in Rev 22:7 does not mean "immediately" but rather "by surprise", "suddenly" ... which would explain why so many years have passed between the time the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ was written and the current time.

it's possible!
there's always going to be some amount of latitude in understanding any human language.

did you check out the Thayer definition?

 

[Dino246]

He interpreted Revelation to be historicist. What do you say I am missing?

He translated Revelation into English.

He interpreted Revelation to be historicist.

One may interpret Revelation according to any of the four models and still translate it correctly. Translation is (primarily) a matter of know both languages reasonably well. Interpretation does sometimes colour translation, but that can only be proven with actual verse-by-verse evidence, not logically fallacious arguments.

 

[biker]

Right on! You would think that this event of demonic beings coming up out of the Abyss stinging the inhabitants of the earth for five months would be something for Josephus to write about.

Agreed!

When we think of Greek Historians like Thallus (a Pagan who wrote “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” ), or Greek Historian Phlegan ( a Pagan who wrote
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place. ”

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” ).

Those are just examples that when major events took place like Christ's Crucifixion, there was an eclipse when it was not time for an eclipse, or the earthquakes that shook all over Greece and into Asia and many other places. And these are non Believers, non Biblical sources writing about this.

So no doubt had Scorpions that flew and were demonic did happen in 70 AD, it would not just have been Josephus writing of these events, but every ancient writer would have mentioned them.

 

[biker]

I think a lot of the "back and forth" as you call it has more to do with communicating in an online forum, which is much more limiting than face-to-face discussion.

But, as you point out, you're the expert in recognizing traits and habits.

I appreciate your care and concern.

I get paid, that does not make me an expert. But behavioral patterns in body movement, facial expressions, eye contact and awareness, in language, in writing generally reveals the same traits and habits.

 

[biker]

yes, some people say that, and it is the traditional view.
it may have been written well after the book of Revelation.

"Alternatively, the letter's acknowledgment and rejection of gnostic theology may reveal a later date of authorship than orthodox Christianity claims. This can not be assured by a simple study of the context. Gnosticism's beginnings and its relationship to Christianity are poorly dated, due to an insufficient corpus of literature relating the first interactions between the two religions."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_John

Do you think the 3 Epistles of John were not written by the Apostle John?

 

[biker]

I don't think that necessarily follows.

John could be describing events from the 90s, but in such a way that we read them and think they are to happen in the future.

Why would we read something directly from John's point of view?

I assumed the Councils voted that the chosen Materials for the Canon were in fact directed by the Holy Spirit.

If Revelations follows suit being led by the Holy Spirit, then it seems logical to assume "SOON" is based upon God's timing, not John's.