Madkins007

Preterist views:

The earlier link to the Planet Preterist "Outline of Covenant Eschatology" did not work (sorry!), so here is one that hopefully will: http://planetpreterist.com/modules.p...showpage&pid=5

Tod wrote "But if you absolutely insist that somebody address this nonsense it is easy enough. That "Jesus DID return at about 70 AD" most definitely is NOT reported by Josephus or Tacticus. You can't get out a claim like that without citing a reference."

I thought I DID cite the references, but...

Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 5.6.1 (exerpt) "Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities".


Tacticus, Histories 5.13: "In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure"

Compare these to the Scripture in question (Matt 24:27- " For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" and 24:30 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the land will mourn; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"

I DID misspeak when I said that Jesus return was mentioned int eh two. I was using the aforementioned outline as my source, and it only says that reports of heavenly armies are mentioned in the two texts- that was my mistake!

Tod

This is a MASSIVE stretch. First of all, the Matthew account says nothing about literal lightning, but says only that "as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." It is a comparison, not a statement about real lightning. He isn't saying that real lightning will be associated with Jesus' second coming. Secondly, lightning is common not only in nature but in literature, particularly in a supernatural context.

Using Tacticus' reference to lightning to claim this means that the second coming has already occurred is not a justifiable leap in logic (and I use the word very, very loosely here). Lightning is referred to an awful lot in writings throughout history; it is arguably one of the most referenced natural phenomenon, especially in a supernatural context.

As to your claim regarding "heavenly armies," I can only assume that you think the correlate in the Matthew account is the claim that Jesus "...will send his angels with a loud trumpet to gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (vs 31) because there is absolutely no reference to a heavenly army. Furthermore, these angels spoke of in this verse aren't said to be warriors but rather gatherers of "his elect." The most devastating thing it says they will do is blow a trumpet! Nowhere in the entirety of Matthew 24 does it claim anything analogous to "heavenly armies" will cause destruction to anything or anyplace, particularly the temple or Judah.

Furthermore, it says that Jesus won't come until "This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed to the whole world as evidence to the nations. And then the end will come." (vs 14)

I hate to break it to you, but the "news" wasn't spread around the "whole world" in 70 AD. In fact, it wasn't even spread through the majority of the known world at that time!

This breaks us to the next point. Throughout the chapter Jesus' second coming is associated with the end of the world. the previously cited verse said "then the end will come." The conversation begins with the disciples asking: "Tell us, when is this going to happen, and what sign will there be of your coming and of the end of the world?" (vs 3)

Again, I hate to have to be the one to point it out, but the world didn't end in 70 AD!

Next, we see in vs. 21 it says "For then there will be great distress, unparalleled since the world began, and such as will never be again."

While I'm sure that the destruction of their beloved temple was a "great distress" to the Jews, it was far from the worst thing that had ever happened throughout the history of existence! Hell, even the Jews temple had been destroyed before, so this was hardly an "unparalleled" event! Not only is this far from the most distressing event to befall the world throughout recorded history, it certainly isn't even the most distressful event in a biblical context. I would think the entire destruction of all life on earth via the alleged flood would be a far more catastrophic event than the fall of Judah and destruction of the temple!

Lastly, according to Jesus, when his second coming occurs "his elect" will be "gather[ed]" (as cited in another verse). He says "this is what it will be like when the Son of man comes. then of two men in the fields, one is taken, and one left; of two women grinding at the mill, one is taken, one left." (vs 39-41)

Again, I must point out, the rapture didn't occur in 70 AD!

If it did, I guess you and all other so-called Christians living on earth just weren't among his "elect." Sorry dude...; I guess I'll see you in hell. ; )

This is why nobody felt the need to initially respond to this preterist claim that Jesus' second coming occurred when the Jews were besieged by Rome. It's just silliness.

Amlodhi

Nonsense. Corinthians is a Pauline epistle. Paul here is repeating his oft stated doctrine that the "letter of the law" condemns whereas "the spirit of grace" gives life. It has zip to do with contradictions.

The concept that it was only some aspect of God's nature rather than a title proper is not new. As far back as 1874, John W. Haley, in his book "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" (pg. 421) , says ". . . others take the meaning to be, not that the name was not known before, but that its full meaning was previously unknown."

I must agree with Tod that this cannot be well supported.


However, YHWH, doesn't mean "LORD" or "Lord of the covenant". YHWH became "the Name" of the covenant God of Israel because after telling Moses His Name, YHWH said "I have also established my covenant with them (i.e. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Ex. 6:4

IOW, Abraham, etal, were already aware that the God speaking to them was their covenant God. To Moses was revealed the Name of their covenant God.

"Lord is simply a KJV replacement for YHWH since, at some point, the tetragrammaton was considered ineffable. The Masoretes vowel pointed the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowel indicators of "Adonai" to remind the Jewish reader to pronounce "Adonai" wherever YHWH appears in the text rather than speak aloud "ha Shem" (the Name).

Ex. 6:3 in the Hebrew says: ". . . I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai), and by my name YHWH I did not reveal myself."

That YHWH indicates an etymological association with "HVH" (I am) reveals nothing new concerning the character of God. Ex. 3:14 says nothing more than "Ahwh asher ahwh" (I am that I am).

Hence, to Moses was revealed the Name of Israel's covenant God. And in Gen. 22:14 it unambiguously states, " And Abraham called the name of that place "YHWH yirah" (Yahweh he sees, or, he/it will be seen).

Therefore, I'm inclined to agree with Tod. Somebody goofed.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Madkins007

Well...

1. I did not claim any of this, I was passing on other stuff, and referenced it so people could read it and make their own judgements.

2. Rapture? What is that? (snicker. Yeah, I know what the 'pro-rapture' groups teach. Tain't in the Bible, though, so it don't count.) The bit about the people in the fields- like it was in the time of Noah, right? Newsflash- those who were taken were NOT raptured, they were taken by the flood! (v.39)

3. Whole world ending? Yes, it did. The phrase 'whole world' is commonly used in Jewish writings to refer to the whole JEWISH world (Colossians 1:6, for example). To take it literally is to take it out of context. The Jewish world DID end in 70AD.

4. Verse 21- the Great Tribulation- 1.1 million Jews died, their holy place was destroyed... Remember- 'world', 'universe', etc. most often refer to the Jewish world. Also, of course, hyperbole is another common literary device in the Bible.

The outline previously mentioned addresses Matt. 24 verse for verse, offering citations from the Bible, Josephus, Tacticus, and other sources throughout.

I am not 100% in the Preterist camp, and I have only been studing it now for a few months (been a Christian for over 25 years), so I KNOW I don't have all the answers- but overall, this makes more sense then a God who claims that 2000 years is 'just around the corner' when almost every other (if not ALL other) details in Matt. 24 were done by 70 AD.

Asha'man

What makes the most sense is that the author of that passage was just wrong.

God made no such claim, a person writing in the late 1st century wrote it, expecting the end times to happen sometime soon, probably before the early/mid 2nd century.

The author thought the destruction of the temple was clearly a sign of the coming end times, and wanted to put a prophecy into the mouth of Jesus about it. After all, Jesus must have known about it, and spoken about it, even if the author didn't have any acutal records of it. He didn't think he was lying, just filling in missing details.

When the end didn't happen, eveybody started looking for ways they might have misunderstood the passage, because they were too sheepish to admit it was utterly untrue as written.

Claims of the end times being near have been made continuously for the last 2000+ years, and will probably be made for the next 2000 years as well.

That is what makes the most sense.

Asha'man

Hey Tod,

What is your take on the contradiction between the two genealogies of Joseph, and the apologetic excuses about one belonging to Mary instead?

This one has always seemed cut and dried to me, a genealogy is ment to be taken literally, it's supposed to be history, so no possible metaphorical reading makes sense.

Also, the text is very clear in mentioning Joseph, not Mary, in both lineages.

Prophetessofrage

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MY REPLY:I'd like to thank you 2 learned ones for pointing out my 'error' with regard to Yahweh and Jehovah. My point was, the many names 'God' is known by in the Old Testatment or Torah or Pentateuch, (I have confidence you 2 will correct me if there is a spelling or semantical error) does explain away the seemingly contradictions. That in itself, is fact! Whether or not you believe the anwer is valid is irrelevant, the fact is it is a valid answer that does clear up the seemingly contradictions is it not?

Tod

Originally posted by Madkins007
Well...

2. Rapture? What is that? (snicker. Yeah, I know what the 'pro-rapture' groups teach. Tain't in the Bible, though, so it don't count.) The bit about the people in the fields- like it was in the time of Noah, right? Newsflash- those who were taken were NOT raptured, they were taken by the flood! (v.39)

This is being highly disingenious. I'll be charitable and assume that you simply didn't read the quote or reference the Bible yourself. It isn't talking about "the time of Noah." It is a comparison: "As it was in Noah's day, so will it be when the Son of man comes." (vs 37) See, a comparision to the flood, not a claim that he is talking about the flood. Then Jesus is claimed to have explicitly said: "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes. Then of two men in the fields, one is taken, one left; of two women grinding at the mill, one is taken, one left." (vs 39-41) Clearly the passage is talking about events that will occur at the second coming, and NOT simply referring to events that occurred during the flood.

Furthermore, the flood "took" EVERYBODY not on the Ark! Where do you get this crap about the "bit about the people in the fields...were taken by the flood"? It wasn't the case that of people in the field, "one was taken and one left" by the flood. The flood allegedly killed ALL that weren't on the Ark.

Lastly, Jesus says he will send his angels to "gather his elect." You can refuse the term "rapture." Fine, we won't call it that. It still doesn't change the fact that Jesus says that when he returns "his elect" will be "taken" while the others will be "left."

3. Whole world ending? Yes, it did. The phrase 'whole world' is commonly used in Jewish writings to refer to the whole JEWISH world (Colossians 1:6, for example). To take it literally is to take it out of context. The Jewish world DID end in 70AD.

Where does one begin? Okay, first of all the account MUST speak of the whole world because near the beginning in vs 7 it says "nation will fight against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." There aren't multiple "nations" or "Kingdoms" in Judah!

Secondly, the vers in Colossians 1:6 offers no contextual evidence that it doesn't mean to speak of the whole known world. It says "the gospel that came to you in the same way as it bearing fruit and growing throughout the world." Considering Colossae is outside of Judah and is a gentile audience it seems apparent that "growing throughout the world" means just what it says, and doesn't refer simply to the "Jewish world."

Furthermore, the Jewish world didn't end in 70 AD, unless you narrowly define the "Jewish world" as the Jewish claim to the literal land of Judah circa 70 AD. The Jews and their culture continued to live until this very day, and almost 1900 years later even their literal land has been reclaimed.

I am not 100% in the Preterist camp, and I have only been studing it now for a few months (been a Christian for over 25 years), so I KNOW I don't have all the answers- but overall, this makes more sense then a God who claims that 2000 years is 'just around the corner' when almost every other (if not ALL other) details in Matt. 24 were done by 70 AD.

What makes even more sense then this monument to special pleading and mental gymnastics called "preterism" is to think that the gospel writers were simply mistaken. They did believe that Jesus' return would occur soon, indicated as much, and were simply wrong.

Tod

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prophetessofrage

MY REPLY: Ah, but there is no reason NOT to believe that the author of Exodus meant for us to understand the statement to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name instead of meaning exactly what it says, that he simply didn't know his name especially in light of the fact that iit s a 'valid' answer, that does clears up the matter, now don't it?

Yes, there is a good "reason NOT to believe that the author of Exodus meant for us to understand the statement to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name." He doesn't SAY that! Pretty damn fine reason. Secondly, there is no biblical precedence for a biblical author using a phrase like "know my name" to mean "know the significance of my name." Therefore it isn't a valid answer at all, and clears up nothing. It is not a valid argument to go from "Hebrews saw significance in names" to "Hebrews did or sometimes use the phrase "know such-and-such's name" to mean "know the significance of such-and-such's name."

Again, it is just a wild guess.

Secondly, there is no new significance to his name as a covenant god for Moses to know that Abraham didn't. As was pointed out to you by another poster: Abraham already knew Yahweh as the covenant God.

As such, I say back unto YOU, "That is a wild guess with no basis for believing it to be true."

Believing that the author is claiming that Abraham didn't know YHWH's name is not a wild guess and has every basis for believing it to be true since that is precisely what is said.

I have the text on my side. You have to establish a case that it meant other than what it says. All you have done, again, is take a wild guess that has NO evidential support or biblical precedence.

Tod earlier: The fact that the ancient Hebrews may have seen significance to a name doesn't mean that when they said a person didn't know another's name that they meant anything other than the person didn't know their name!

MY REPLY:Oh, now you want to put 'logic' where you yourself profess 'illogic' to exist.

No, actually I give the author far more credit than you do, and do believe him competent and "logical" enough in his word usage to say what he means. Just because I think one author contradicted another due to a lack of inspiration by a divine being doesn't mean I don't expect that the authors would use logical choices in their words.

The reality is this, the ancient world, let alone Hebrews, knew God by many names and so it could very well have been that they meant 'the person didn't know their name." Scripture backs that up...

I'm glad you think scripture backs up the interpretation that "they meant 'the person didn't know their name" when they said it. It makes a lot more sense then thinking that they really MEANT to say "the person didn't know the signficance of their name."

Although I suspect you didn't word that quite like you meant.

Scripture backs that up, when it tells us of the many names the patriarchs gave to Deity. Abraham names a place 'beth this or that', Issac, follows suit, with Jacob close behind. All naming a Divine experience with God, "EL this or El That.' In fact, that they did so do this, kinda clears up the 'contradiction' now don't it?[[/b]

Uh, no, not at all. It is rather irrelevant any how, because the text says Abraham named a place "Yahweh provides." Not "El" or "Elohim" provides, but Yahweh. And no matter how many names "the patriarchs gave to Deity" or how many "Divine experience[s]" Abraham et al named after God matters in determining whether the verse in question means to say Abraham didn't know Yahweh's proper name: Yahweh.

MY REPLY:I'd like to thank you 2 learned ones for pointing out my 'error' with regard to Yahweh and Jehovah. My point was, the many names 'God' is known by in the Old Testatment or Torah or Pentateuch, (I have confidence you 2 will correct me if there is a spelling or semantical error) does explain away the seemingly contradictions. That in itself, is fact!

No, it isn't a fact, if the "fact" your claiming as fact is that this nonsense "does explain away the seemingly contradictions." The number of titles given the Hebrew God doesn't change the fact that the verse in question specifically states that "YHWH" is the only name in question. The author says Abraham didn't know God by his proper name of "YHWH" but only as "El Shaddai" which, like El or Elohim isn't a proper name anyway. Let's clear that up since you keep speaking of these "many names" when what you should be saying is "many titles." There is only one name of the Hebrew God and that is YHWH.

If Abraham really named the place using one of the other titles then the author in Genesis is mistaken to claim that he named the place "Yahweh provides."

Whether or not you believe the anwer is valid is irrelevant, the fact is it is a valid answer that does clear up the seemingly contradictions is it not?

It isn't a valid answer, however. To be a valid answer you'd have to show evidence that this is what the author means, something you obviously can't do or won't, and you'd have to show precedence for Hebrews using a reference to knowing somebody's name in the context of simply knowing the significance of his name.

Again, simply stating that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names doesn't at all in any remote way imply that they would ever say "x didn't know y's name" to mean "x didn't know the significance of y's name."

Tod

You are correct. This is yet another example of what we continually see. The ONLY reason Christians even find this or other silly explanations (in this case that Luke's genaeology is Mary's) possible is because otherwise there is a contradiction. NEVER do they have a parsimonious reason or evidence to believe such explanations are true, and they wouldn't think these explanations were true if there wasn't a contradiction. Again, they assume inerrancy to prove inerrancy.