The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem

The wall is not in the commandment.

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.

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:

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....

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.

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

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?

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 )

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.

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.

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