The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

[eternally-gratefull]

The second decree is not merely a reinstatement. It is an embellishment and reactionary to the request of Nehemiah. The accusation was that they were building a wall Ezra 4:13, which the first decree arguably did not allow. Nehemiah was allowed to return with letters in hand to accomplish this task.

Yes of course the math doesn't work. It isn't supposed to work it will never work. There are only 69 weeks of years between 445BC and the triumphal entry. There is no mathematical prophecy pointing to 70 A.D.

Amen

There was only one decree to rebuild the city.. all the rest had no provision to rebuild the city. In fact. in one of them, there was a complaint they were rebuilding the city and they were forced to stop.

The time only has to account for the time of messiah the prince. When we look at it. we find the time to be exactly when Jesus entered Jerusalem as Prophesied by Zechariah 9: 9

The 70 weeks have yet to be fulfilled.

 

[cv5]

I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.

Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:

Jesus was about 30 years old in 27 A.D....

which means the Triumphal Entry - which so many point to as the fulfillment of "Messiah the Prince", claiming "Messiah" means "Commander" - and Crucifixion could have been no later than 31 A.D....

which means the remaining 3 1/2 years of the 70th Week expired no later than 34 B.C. - well before 39 B.C.

457BC + 490 = 33AD........But you must subtract 7 years to accomodate the 360 Prophetical year.
Which leaves you with 26AD. So the math does not work any which way you slice it.

However calculating 69 weeks of years, Starting at 445 BC, using 360 day prophetical years calculates perfectly. Precisely to the very day.

Any alternative theory is kaput. Frankly I do not understand why the nonstop debate and error.
Both mathematically and prophetically 69 weeks of years is absolutely correct.

 

[cv5]

I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.

Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:

Jesus was about 30 years old in 27 A.D....

which means the Triumphal Entry - which so many point to as the fulfillment of "Messiah the Prince", claiming "Messiah" means "Commander" - and Crucifixion could have been no later than 31 A.D....

which means the remaining 3 1/2 years of the 70th Week expired no later than 34 B.C. - well before 39 B.C.

I have just reviewed Ezra 8:11, the first decree of Artaxerxes. This decree is a series of orders pertaining to the return of the Israelites, the rebuilding of the Temple and the reconstitution of the priest and the sacrifices.

There is no mention whatsoever of the city or the wall being rebuilt.

 

[OldSage]

I have just reviewed Ezra 8:11, the first decree of Artaxerxes. This decree is a series of orders pertaining to the return of the Israelites, the rebuilding of the Temple and the reconstitution of the priest and the sacrifices.

There is no mention whatsoever of the city or the wall being rebuilt.

the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem

The wall is not in the commandment.

 

[cv5]

I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.

Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:

Jesus was about 30 years old in 27 A.D....

which means the Triumphal Entry - which so many point to as the fulfillment of "Messiah the Prince", claiming "Messiah" means "Commander" - and Crucifixion could have been no later than 31 A.D....

which means the remaining 3 1/2 years of the 70th Week expired no later than 34 B.C. - well before 39 B.C.

I just did some backchecking. Pursuant to the decree of Atraxerxes given to Nehemiah, chapters 2 thru 6 are given almost completely to the rebuilding of the WALL. This rebuilding effort is punctuated in chapter 7:1.....as specifically being completed.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the decree of 445 BC is the correct one. Undoubtedly the starting point for Daniels 70 weeks prophecy.

 

[OldSage]

I just did some backchecking. Pursuant to the decree of Atraxerxes given to Nehemiah, chapters 2 thru 6 are given almost completely to the rebuilding of the WALL. This rebuilding effort is punctuated in chapter 7:1.....as specifically being completed.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the decree of 445 BC is the correct one. Undoubtedly the starting point for Daniels 70 weeks prophecy.

There were several walls. Herod built a third wall.....

 

[cv5]

There were several walls. Herod built a third wall.....

And your point is......?

 

[cv5]

Amen

There was only one decree to rebuild the city.. all the rest had no provision to rebuild the city. In fact. in one of them, there was a complaint they were rebuilding the city and they were forced to stop.

The time only has to account for the time of messiah the prince. When we look at it. we find the time to be exactly when Jesus entered Jerusalem as Prophesied by Zechariah 9: 9

The 70 weeks have yet to be fulfilled.

BTW...........The stepmother of Atraxerxes was......Esther.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem

The wall is not in the commandment.

Even so. There was only one command to rebuild the city. The other commands where for the temple only

we must take the command as a whole not as part

 

[Ahwatukee]

Here are your words:

“Preterism is one of the most destructive teachings out there. The full preterist believes that all of matthew 24, as well as all of the events of Revelation have already taken place, including the resurrection.”

You go from stating that “preterism is one of the most destructive teachings” to mentioning one component of full preterism. There was no distinction between the views. The unlearned reader would assume they are the same thing.

That is correct, but I corrected myself by mentioning 'full preterism.' I wasn't concerned about giving a complete description of this, because I didn't think that I was have this much contention over it. Therefore, for everyone who read that post, my aim was at 'full preterism.' That said, lesser preterism is a terrible teaching as well.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.

In my own studying of this, I do not see the word "H1129 - build / rebuild [banah]" (which is used in Dan9:25) used anywhere after Ezra 4:4, its 10th occurrence in Ezra (each of those 10 having to do with "building a HOUSE" or "TEMPLE" [i.e. the "house of the Lord"]), so that (for one thing) rules out the 7:11 decree, for 1) there's no "connection" with the wording [H1129], there; 2) nor is there a "connection" with the other word used in Dan9:25 "H7725 - restore [shuv / shub]," which is used only 4x in Ezra (2:1, 6:21, 9:14, 10:14), none of them having to do with "restore H7725 [and build/rebuild] JERUSALEM"; 3) the subject of the Ez7:11 decree had to do (not with "restore and build/rebuild JERUSALEM," the specific wording in Dan9:25, but) rather for Ezra to be authorized to take priests / Levites for religious services, and also to beautify the "house / Temple"... nothing about "restore and build / rebuild JERUSALEM," see...

so, ONLY the 4th decree "fits" that description (the one in 445bc--in Nehemiah 2... BTW, in Nehemiah, the "H1129 - build / rebuild [bamah]" word is used 22x [recall it's used 2x in Dan9:25 "build / rebuild [H1129] Jerusalem" AND "the wall shall be built [H1129]"], and the "H7725 restore / again [shuv / shub]" word [also 2x in Dan9:25] is found 18x.)

Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:

This is where the issue comes in regarding the "70 YEARS" prophecy (which years were coming to/nearing a close) when Daniel prays (in the first part of this chapter), and why it is even being addressed near the "70 WEEKS" prophecy (which is further down in the context, as you know). Bearing in mind that this "time-prophecy" is especially concerning "THY [Daniel's] people, and [upon] THY [Daniel's] holy city" (v.24)... so the "time-prophecy" is something our Lord wants *especially* Israel to "UNDERSTAND" (and they *will*--the "WISE" of them "WILL UNDERSTAND" in that future, specific, limited time-period, the final "ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"... especially in its latter half, per 12:10,1,6-7)...

...so the first thing *they* will understand uniquely, is that the "70 YEARS" (that were coming to a close, in Dan9), in actuality, due to "what king was reigning when" at the time, factored out to "69 yrs, 1 day" (or something similar to this), in "real" years.
This is also why the "time, times, half a time" in 7:25 and in 12:6-7 (tho referring to the SAME 2nd half of trib yrs) are written distinctly, and to where Israel (IN those future years) will come to "UNDERSTAND" in a way that is unique to them (IOW, *they* will lead the way, in "understanding," at/during a time of "great deception"--it's not just any random" 3.5 yrs, see... and they will "know")


That's all I want to get into in this post, as it is already too long... but I agree with the others who've said that the "69 Weeks [TOTAL]" meant that those "483 years" really only factored to about [something like] "476 of OUR *years* / calendar-years" (landing it right on Palm Sunday in 32ad, the day Jesus SAID the Lk19:41-44 words [note those especially!], and DID the Zech9:9 thing, BOTH having to do with "Jerusalem / the city"--relating particularly to the wording itself in Dan9:24's prophecy )

 

[Jimbone]

Aaahhh yes. There is your mistake. Daniels prophecy was for Israel his people and Jerusalem.
The interregnum is quite obviously the Church age, and it's extremely well-documented both in prophecy and the statements of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. Gods plan for Israel reboots after the Rapture.

So obvious even the GEICO caveman understands....

It's so sad that you can't see how much you have to assume about and add to scripture to make what you're teaching here work. You mock, insult, then boast egotistically about your understanding non stop while mocking others. You just will not listen. I can't lie I do side more with them than you, but your arguments and reasoning fall very short in my opinion, and believe nothing fits scripture like the view there're teaching, but you've been raised and taught this view so long you think because you've memorized the mental tap dancing it takes to see 2,000+ years when Jesus tells those that ask Him "when will ALL these things take place", and He answered, "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

You're so busy mocking and blindly swallowing what you were told that you don't even realize you set aside Gods plain word to embrace your tradition. For some reason you seem to have "picked this hill to die on", and I honestly don't understand why you feel it's so important for others to believe like you on this matter. I am saved, born again, Spirit filled, made new overnight, in a undenyable transformation, a literal "road to Damascus experience" that can only come from God, without a doubt believer. I do not believe in the pre trib rapture, at all in any way. Are you saying I'm not saved? Are you saying that if I deny this pre trib rapture, like I do 100%, that I'm less saved? If it's true do I miss the trip because I'm not "saved enough"? Please help me to understand why it matters to you so much?

 

[Jimbone]

That is correct, but I corrected myself by mentioning 'full preterism.' I wasn't concerned about giving a complete description of this, because I didn't think that I was have this much contention over it. Therefore, for everyone who read that post, my aim was at 'full preterism.' That said, lesser preterism is a terrible teaching as well.

Hey Ahwa, hope your having a great day. I just wanted to ask again because you've never answered my question on this devastating topic that destroys the whole idea of a future rapture categorically. In my mind.

Okay now that we are on this side of the cross and we've been told that scripture is closed, that if anyone comes with a new message that disagrees with what was given to them then, then that person should be damned to hell forever. So I believe scripture is closed and we've been given all we need for salvation. Most people I've talked to agree with me on this 100%, at least until after I make this case anyway. So no more new scripture on the way, yet God's temple is no longer on earth, nor has He given any instructions for us to build one. So when is God going to command us to build this temple? Also if He comes speaking to us directly, giving us commands, does this mean scripture is opened again? Did it ever close truly? Do we now need to take a more careful look at Joseph Smith, Mohammed, maybe L. Ron Hubbard or Shirley MacLaine? How would we know these messages weren't from God too if He's still speaking?

I know most just think if we just build it in the same spot then that makes it God's temple. I disagree, in both previous temples God commands His temple built, and gives very specific instructions on how to do so. Now I'm supposed to just believe that a bunch of men deciding to make a building will result in "God's temple"? I don't. So until you, or anyone else can explain to me how the most rational, most logical, perfect God of order, abandones all these perfect plans and just leaves the building of "His Temple" to the decision and discretion of us? Please clear this up for me. Or ignore it like you always do and go on teaching the same weak argument that makes you feel safe because that's how you were taught to understand it, NOT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. No matter how strongly you feel it does. I don't expect a real answer, really just like adding this to these conversations so others can think about it from another angle and see how little sense a 3rd temple even makes.

One last thought, just a small but very telling fact about our views. This view allows me to declare Jesus Christ King of this world, now, today, in power and glory ruling with an iron rod until all enemies are made a footstool for His feet. Right now, today, incharge of the world, Jesus is King!!!! You have to say something more like, "He's King, but just not yet". Right? So is Jesus King right now? I love that I can say that now, even all the way to a horribly painful grave, I would declare Jesus King. Now, with no "but" at all. I like that, you have to add a disclaimer that I don't. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the early church fathers added that "but". Just saying.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ "15 which IN HIS TIMES He SHALL SHEW [/OPENLY MANIFEST, future tense], who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;" (<--this phrase used only elsewhere in Rev19:16 [and 17:14 in reverse order])...

...one of only TWO TIMES in all of the epistles that "King" is mentioned (re: Jesus), and BOTH of them are "future tense"... now, why is that??

Of course, He *IS* King... the issue has to do with *when* He will [future tense] MANIFEST OPENLY as such... and *that* has to do with the "chronology" issues.

The "Amill-teachings" incorrectly use Acts 3 (Peter's words) to incorrectly surmise that David's throne has now been *relocated* UP TO Heaven, when that is not the case, and not the point Peter is making in Acts 3.








[see especially Acts 3:21 - "21 whom indeed it behooves heaven to receive until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from the age."]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

and He answered, "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

Keep in mind (and I think I've pointed this out to you in prior posts, way back when = ) ), that Luke 21:32's "This generation shall not pass away *TILL* ALL be fulfilled" must necessarily INCLUDE what items v.24 had already just spoken about (two very time-lengthy items!):

--"and [they] shall be led away captive into all the nations"

--"and Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN of the Gentiles *UNTIL* the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled" [see Rev11:2] (i.e. "Gentile domination over Israel," which started in 606/5bc; think: Neb's "dream/statue/image," with Neb as "head of gold"; and distinct from the phrase "the FULNESS of the Gentiles BE COME IN [G1525]")








[again, Lk21:12-24a covers the 70ad events part of His response (the events [in 70ad] which must come "BEFORE ALL the beginning of birth pangs," per v.12); ... whereas Matt24 covers the point in time from "the beginning of birth pangs" and that which FOLLOWS them, see... (and "the beginning of birth pangs" are EQUIVALENT the "SEALS" of Rev6... and Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 is saying that those are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" and that will END with His "OPENLY MANIFEST" King of kings and Lord of lords "RETURN" to the earth Rev19, see..., i.e. describing the future, specific, LIMITED time-period we call "the 7-yr Trib" ['FOR ONE WEEK'])--so this relates to the "chronology" issues...]

 

[cv5]

It's so sad that you can't see how much you have to assume about and add to scripture to make what you're teaching here work. You mock, insult, then boast egotistically about your understanding non stop while mocking others. You just will not listen. I can't lie I do side more with them than you, but your arguments and reasoning fall very short in my opinion, and believe nothing fits scripture like the view there're teaching, but you've been raised and taught this view so long you think because you've memorized the mental tap dancing it takes to see 2,000+ years when Jesus tells those that ask Him "when will ALL these things take place", and He answered, "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened."

You're so busy mocking and blindly swallowing what you were told that you don't even realize you set aside Gods plain word to embrace your tradition. For some reason you seem to have "picked this hill to die on", and I honestly don't understand why you feel it's so important for others to believe like you on this matter. I am saved, born again, Spirit filled, made new overnight, in a undenyable transformation, a literal "road to Damascus experience" that can only come from God, without a doubt believer. I do not believe in the pre trib rapture, at all in any way. Are you saying I'm not saved? Are you saying that if I deny this pre trib rapture, like I do 100%, that I'm less saved? If it's true do I miss the trip because I'm not "saved enough"? Please help me to understand why it matters to you so much?

Hi Jimbone
I sense your frustration and sympathize with you. This prophecy and doctrine business is difficult yes but very very serious. Anyway........keep at it and I wish you well. And steer clear of false doctrine.

In your free time you might want to pump the word "doctrine" into the blueletterbible search bar and find out what the apostle Paul had to say about it.

 

[cv5]

In my own studying of this, I do not see the word "H1129 - build / rebuild [banah]" (which is used in Dan9:25) used anywhere after Ezra 4:4, its 10th occurrence in Ezra (each of those 10 having to do with "building a HOUSE" or "TEMPLE" [i.e. the "house of the Lord"]), so that (for one thing) rules out the 7:11 decree, for 1) there's no "connection" with the wording [H1129], there; 2) nor is there a "connection" with the other word used in Dan9:25 "H7725 - restore [shuv / shub]," which is used only 4x in Ezra (2:1, 6:21, 9:14, 10:14), none of them having to do with "restore H7725 [and build/rebuild] JERUSALEM"; 3) the subject of the Ez7:11 decree had to do (not with "restore and build/rebuild JERUSALEM," the specific wording in Dan9:25, but) rather for Ezra to be authorized to take priests / Levites for religious services, and also to beautify the "house / Temple"... nothing about "restore and build / rebuild JERUSALEM," see...

so, ONLY the 4th decree "fits" that description (the one in 445bc--in Nehemiah 2... BTW, in Nehemiah, the "H1129 - build / rebuild [bamah]" word is used 22x [recall it's used 2x in Dan9:25 "build / rebuild [H1129] Jerusalem" AND "the wall shall be built [H1129]"], and the "H7725 restore / again [shuv / shub]" word [also 2x in Dan9:25] is found 18x.)



This is where the issue comes in regarding the "70 YEARS" prophecy (which years were coming to/nearing a close) when Daniel prays (in the first part of this chapter), and why it is even being addressed near the "70 WEEKS" prophecy (which is further down in the context, as you know). Bearing in mind that this "time-prophecy" is especially concerning "THY [Daniel's] people, and [upon] THY [Daniel's] holy city" (v.24)... so the "time-prophecy" is something our Lord wants *especially* Israel to "UNDERSTAND" (and they *will*--the "WISE" of them "WILL UNDERSTAND" in that future, specific, limited time-period, the final "ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"... especially in its latter half, per 12:10,1,6-7)...

...so the first thing *they* will understand uniquely, is that the "70 YEARS" (that were coming to a close, in Dan9), in actuality, due to "what king was reigning when" at the time, factored out to "69 yrs, 1 day" (or something similar to this), in "real" years.
This is also why the "time, times, half a time" in 7:25 and in 12:6-7 (tho referring to the SAME 2nd half of trib yrs) are written distinctly, and to where Israel (IN those future years) will come to "UNDERSTAND" in a way that is unique to them (IOW, *they* will lead the way, in "understanding," at/during a time of "great deception"--it's not just any random" 3.5 yrs, see... and they will "know")


That's all I want to get into in this post, as it is already too long... but I agree with the others who've said that the "69 Weeks [TOTAL]" meant that those "483 years" really only factored to about [something like] "476 of OUR *years* / calendar-years" (landing it right on Palm Sunday in 32ad, the day Jesus SAID the Lk19:41-44 words [note those especially!], and DID the Zech9:9 thing, BOTH having to do with "Jerusalem / the city"--relating particularly to the wording itself in Dan9:24's prophecy )

Well spoken, and beautifully embellished with your usual flair. We knew we could count on you lol.

Yes the archaeologists and historians do have these kings and reginal dates nailed down very tightly. 173,880 days it is!

 

[cv5]

Hey Ahwa, hope your having a great day. I just wanted to ask again because you've never answered my question on this devastating topic that destroys the whole idea of a future rapture categorically. In my mind.

Okay now that we are on this side of the cross and we've been told that scripture is closed, that if anyone comes with a new message that disagrees with what was given to them then, then that person should be damned to hell forever. So I believe scripture is closed and we've been given all we need for salvation. Most people I've talked to agree with me on this 100%, at least until after I make this case anyway. So no more new scripture on the way, yet God's temple is no longer on earth, nor has He given any instructions for us to build one. So when is God going to command us to build this temple? Also if He comes speaking to us directly, giving us commands, does this mean scripture is opened again? Did it ever close truly? Do we now need to take a more careful look at Joseph Smith, Mohammed, maybe L. Ron Hubbard or Shirley MacLaine? How would we know these messages weren't from God too if He's still speaking?

I know most just think if we just build it in the same spot then that makes it God's temple. I disagree, in both previous temples God commands His temple built, and gives very specific instructions on how to do so. Now I'm supposed to just believe that a bunch of men deciding to make a building will result in "God's temple"? I don't. So until you, or anyone else can explain to me how the most rational, most logical, perfect God of order, abandones all these perfect plans and just leaves the building of "His Temple" to the decision and discretion of us? Please clear this up for me. Or ignore it like you always do and go on teaching the same weak argument that makes you feel safe because that's how you were taught to understand it, NOT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. No matter how strongly you feel it does. I don't expect a real answer, really just like adding this to these conversations so others can think about it from another angle and see how little sense a 3rd temple even makes.

One last thought, just a small but very telling fact about our views. This view allows me to declare Jesus Christ King of this world, now, today, in power and glory ruling with an iron rod until all enemies are made a footstool for His feet. Right now, today, incharge of the world, Jesus is King!!!! You have to say something more like, "He's King, but just not yet". Right? So is Jesus King right now? I love that I can say that now, even all the way to a horribly painful grave, I would declare Jesus King. Now, with no "but" at all. I like that, you have to add a disclaimer that I don't. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the early church fathers added that "but". Just saying.

Jimbone....
WE do not rebuild the Temple. And Dan 9 is not given to us. It is for Israelites only.

We won't even be around to experience the 70th week.

 

[Phoneman-777]

While Alcazar may have been the first modern writer to articulate a preterist position, the position itself does not rest on Alcazar's ideas themselves, but directly on historical evidence and interpretation of Scripture.

Not "may have been" - he was the first to postulate such ideas; ideas which find no support in Scripture.

For instance, the angel of Acts 1:9-11 KJV told those watching Jesus taken up in glory that He would return exactly as He left - six times in these three verses, Luke appeals to their (and our) sense of sight.

Now, if Jesus came back in the first century "in like manner as ye have seen Him go up to heaven", why is there not a single historic account of such an event? What about the Mark of the Beast? The Beast had not even yet arisen, for the ECFs all taught the the Restrainer was the Pagan Roman Empire which prevented it from arising.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You've defined Preterism around Alcazar's work. Perhaps inadvertently.
But it helps - most of us know didly about it

Did you know that the same publishing company that put out the "Left Behind" books by Lahey and Jenkins also afterward began to publish the Preterism series, beginning with "The Last Disciple"? Lahay and Jenkins, who believed their Jesuit Futurist ideas were Biblical, said they felt as if the publishing company stabbed them in the back.