O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Being one as myself who likes to meddle in affairs not his own...
How come you also haven't been posting as you used to nor engaging in other posts.
I for one would love some interaction on a or two discussions I have tried to get going.
I too have been missing the regular dialogue, and would thoroughly enjoy discussing several of the themes I have commented about on other websites. Would anybody like to get into any of the following subjects?
#1) The identity and activities of the 144,000 Firstfruits saints (i.e., the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints)
#2) Pinpointing the beginning and ending point on history's timeline of the 2,300 mornings and evenings of Daniel 8:13-14
#3) The question of authority in the marital relationship prior to and subsequent to the Fall
#4) The cessation of the divine council in AD 70 in connection with all 4 empires in Daniel's statue crumbling simultaneously
#5) The identity of the "prince of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28:11-19 being Satan (NOT the human prince of Tyre in Ez. 28:1-10), who is eventually turned into ashes in the Jerusalem Lake of Fire in AD 70
#6) The fall of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 creating the necessity for the divine council
#7) God's creative activity on each day of the creation week mirroring the main feature of God's activities in each of the 7 millennia of human history
#8) Studying the identity of the "elect lady", the leader of the house church in II John, as one example of women shepherding a house church
#9) Examining the text of I Cor 14:34-35 as not being Paul's writing, but a quote from the Corinthian church he was correcting for its error in restricting women speaking in the assembly
#10) Identifying "The King" of Daniel 11:36, as well as the "king of the south" and the "king of the north" in Dan. 11:40
#11) Identifying the personality in AD 70 who fulfilled Ezekiel 38-39's and Rev. 20's "Gog, the chief prince"
#12) Identifying who composed the "camp of the saints" in Rev. 20:9
#13) Proving that Ezekiel's temple in ch. 40-47 is Zerubbabel's post-exilic temple
#14) Pinpointing the beginning and ending day on the calendar of the 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11-13
Okay, maybe there's something on this list that might pique someone's interest.... Anyone?
If I had anything to say pertaining those 14 issues I would, but alas.
Patricia, regarding # 2 subject, I believe it is referring to the period leading up to the Maccabean victory over Antiochus Epiphanes. I think that was 165BC.
Yep, that was my figuring also - and the 2,300 number amounts to 1,150 24-hour DAYS, with a total of 2,300 "morning" AND "evening" oblations, as I have been told. This works out well for the temple cleansing by Judas Maccabeus in 165 BC, as you say. The starting point would be 3 years and 3 months previous to that winter cleansing of the temple (the period of 1,150 total 24-hour days) as Josephus described in the Preface to his "Wars" (19): "For example, I shall relate how Antiochus, who was named Epiphanes, took Jerusalem by force, and held it three years and three months, and was then ejected out of the country by the sons of Asamaneus:" (the Hasmoneans).
Wow. You DO have lots of questions! :)
Anyway, there hasn't been any maintenance of this site for years. The same old graphics are being used. I doubt there are relevant search tags embedded so that web crawlers (Google) can popup search results for those who are searching, and the general look of the site is too "busy".
Human nature being what it is, few will want to dig through here to find what they want if they have to dig deep. There are a wealth of articles and forums, but if I were a newbie, I would quickly go elsewhere. The purpose of the site isn't well stated, the core belief of preterism isn't represented, and there doesn't seem to be any kind of moderating influence that would keep it on track. Threads peter out for lack of numbers and authoritative and guiding help on difficult topics. I don't know who the owner is, but there might be someone else willing to take on the task of fixing these issue. But of course, they would have to have admin authority to do so.
These are all issues that have emerged on other websites where I have either introduced or engaged in the conversation about them. I have adopted a studied viewpoint about every single point above, but would welcome a challenge on any one of them. Collective minds are always better than a solitary one. And for my preferences, those collective minds don't even need to be "authoritative" to have a very real benefit.
In fact, I have found that those who are older in the faith or who have vast learning or degrees behind their names are more prone to stay glued to an erroneous mindset about scripture's intent on a passage. There tends to be more pride at stake, in other words, or they have too much of a dog in the fight, or they have painted themselves in a corner and can't get out.
I won't mention any names, but I listened to a 1 1/2 hour audio from an "authority" on this website, and witnessed the most painful attempt to talk all the way around the stated subject without so much as touching it for more than five minutes. He thought he was giving it a thorough going-over, but there were holes in his presentation you could steer a car through. So bring on the newbies - they stand an equal chance of getting it right. Maybe a better one.
Hello, I'm new to this board. I've been a preterist since 2006. I live in the Tampa Bay area.
One thing I wanted to mention is that the futurists are now using Haggai 2:6-7 as an example of a long period of time symbolically represented as a short period of time to get around the "shortly", "near", "about to" time statements within the New Testament. They claim that Haggai 2 is referring to the end of the temple in 70AD. I'm not familiar with the book of Haggai, but it appears it is referring to the events that were happening during the time of the building of the second temple not the destruction of it. Any input would be appreciated.
Welcome to the forum, first of all. Have you a church that is welcoming of your partial preterist views, or have you resorted to internet options for fellowship, as I have?
I had not seen this Haggai 2:6-7 reference used before to disprove the imminence indicators in Revelation and elsewhere, but I can see how it might be twisted in an attempt to discredit the meaning of "soon", at hand", "near", etc. However, when I check in the LXX, that particular phrase in Haggai 2:6 - "it is a little while" - is totally absent.
Not sure why there's a difference between the translations, but this is how the LXX for Haggai 2:7-8 reads: "For thus saith the Lord Almighty, Yet once I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and the choice portions (or objects) of all the nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord Almighty."
Of course, this same "shaking" process is referred to again in Haggai's ending verses 2:22-23 of the LXX. "Speak to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, saying, I shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land, and I will overthrow the thrones of kings, and I will destroy the power of the kings of the nations" (This, I believe, is Daniel's crumbling statue of world empires, with the power of the divine council members over those nations being destroyed simultaneously in AD 70. It's not the nations themselves, but the demonic rulers of the kingdoms of the world that were eliminated with one strike of the rock cut without hands.) "and I will overthrow chariots and riders; and the horses and their riders shall come down, EVERY ONE BY THE SWORD STRIVING AGAINST HIS BROTHER."
This last part I believe to be a duplicate of Ezekiel 28:19-21 and Gog's warfare in AD 68-70 - fulfilled by the "chief prince" who was Simon bar Giora leading a massive army against his fellow citizens of Israel. "For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; so that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are on the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence" (Christ's Parousia) "and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places (or towers or stairs) shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground" (Israel's cities conquered in the AD 70 era) "And I will call for a sword against him" (against Gog) "throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God. EVERY MAN'S SWORD SHALL BE AGAINST HIS BROTHER." This I believe is the civil war in Israel with Zealot factions fighting against moderates from AD 66-70; a war in which Simon bar Giora played a major part, especially at the end.
Though Haggai spoke a message pertinent to his times when a revival was going to take place in post-exilic Israel, yet we know from Peter's statement in Acts 3:21,24 that EVERY prophet had at least some part of his prophetic message dedicated to a later fulfillment in those first-century days. "Yeah, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after" (operating during the literal one thousand millennium years of 967 BC - AD 33) "as many as have spoken" (including Haggai) "have likewise foretold of these days." Those days were the ones leading up to the AD 70 "times of restitution of all things", and the "times of refreshing" that would arrive with "the presence of the Lord", which God would send bodily in AD 70.
The writer of Hebrews, as you know, took this Haggai 2:6-7 prophecy and attached its fulfillment to a time anticipated soon by the writer. We know this by the author's use of the word "NOW" in Hebrews 2:26-27. "Whose voice then shook the earth;" (God at Sinai), "but NOW hath He promised, saying 'Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Notice: if this is a direct quote from Haggai 2:6, there is NO phrase of "it is a little while" that appears in this NT sentence. Just like in the LXX translation, it's absent here in Hebrews 12:26 as well.
So, the Futurist who bases their case against terms of imminence in Revelation on that lone added phrase in Haggai 2:6 is standing on shaky ground - no pun intended.
Does any of this help out at all, Steve?
Patricia, thank you for the warm welcome. No, I have never attended a church or fellowship espousing any form of preterism. I understand that more of them are popping up here & there. Hopefully I will find one at some point in the near future.
Thank you for the input concerning Haggai 2. Seems the futurists are getting desperate although more creative regarding the time statements of Christs coming in the Bible. During a discussion on another forum I mentioned James 5:8 and his/her reply was Haggai 2. Here is another futurist attempting to refute preterism using Haggai 2: https://www.whitehorsemedia.com/more-on-preterism-part-1/
I have also had a forum exchange similar to yours where the person denied that "AT HAND" carried any sense of imminence. This person refused to acknowledge that when I Peter 4:7 said that "the end of all things is at hand", that it was speaking of the time present to Peter's contemporary audience. I gave them scripture's own definition of "at hand" by pointing them to the Ezekiel 12:21-28 section where God's prophecy saying "The days are at hand" is defined by Him as being spoken and performed to the house of Israel "in YOUR days". The Jews were interpreting those prophecies as being "far off", with "many days" passing before their "prolonged" fulfillment. God said the prophecy of "at hand" events would not "linger". It's pretty plain reading, but the forum member wasn't convinced. Sad.
I read the link you gave, Steve, from Mr. Wohlberg on his Preterism I and 2. Of course, I would differ with him on his II Peter 3:8 interpretation. I think God through Peter was giving some very specific instruction in that verse that He did not want the saints to miss, at all costs.
The verse does not imply that time is a meaningless, immaterial, irrelevant thing to God, whether it's one day or a thousand years. I believe Peter was saying that God symbolically equates a literal single day to represent a literal thousand year period. This is similar to the day / year principle at play elsewhere in scripture.
In other words, I believe this II Peter 3:8 verse lays the groundwork for saying that the literal (24-hour) 7-day creation week was meant to picture God's 7-thousand-year total for human history until His final coming (the third one). I find it significant that each day's creative activity during creation week is a symbolic representation summing up God's prevailing plan for humanity on this planet during each of the 7 millennia of human history. You may be interested in a comment I made about this, where I laid out the matching comparisons between the 7 days of creation week and a total of 7 thousand years of human history at comment #3 for this link: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/'-and-every-eye-shall-see-him'-how-scripture-defines-'every-eye'/
Your biblical studies are very convincing. I have held to the 7&7 (seven days/7,000 years) philosophy for most of my life. I do believe the ancients thought this way too.
But, let me just throw another element into this debate...
If you look at Leviticus 23 where all the Israel feast days are mentioned, notice that the EIGHTH day is also mentioned. In the new testament, Jesus read from Torah on the 8th day.
It is called "THAT GREAT DAY OF THE FEAST" The eighth day is also the day male babies were to be circumcised.
In short, the number 8 signifies the time of completion of all things. It is when man's time is up and God's time begins. It is a holy day, set apart by itself.
Much can be said of this.
But in any case, let me also say that tying 7 days to 7,000 years can be a slippery slope. As far as we know, it was 4,000 years to Jesus, and now it has been 2,000 years since. That would mean at least another 1,000 years before the 7,000 years are finished.
Speaking that way means that something significant will happen in another 1,000 years, which means full preterism is wrong, since full preterists proclaim the fulfillment of ALL things.