Preterism

[smrpgx]

Something to note is that Revelation wasn't written until AD 96. In Revelation, God makes it very clear that what is seen will come. Yet they say it was all fulfilled before. If it has all been fulfilled, why are we still here? This stuff is heresy.

[Religious Fanatic]

The date of Revelation is still debatable, stop reading Hal Lindsey.

Historicists and Partial Preterists don't believe it has ALL happened, only Full Preterists.

[puritan lad]

Something to note is that Revelation wasn't written until AD 96.

Prove it.

The evidence is against you and supports a date of around 66 AD (Download th evidence at http://discussions.godandscience.org/download.php?id=72). And these things were to happen "shortly", were "near", and were "about to take place".

[SUGAAAAA]

so does generation mean race or no?

[puritan lad]

No. "a genea" means "this generation". It never means anything else.

[Jac3510]

Sorry, PL . . . not quite true.

genea has several meanings, with "generation" being only one of them. It can refer to an age (the period of the people under discussion), a nation, or a specific group of people. Louw and Nida list four separate definitions in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains:

a. same generation
b. people of same kind
c. descendants
d. age

Briefly examining each of these . . .

a., referring to "people living at the same time and belonging to the same reproductive age-class - 'those of the same time, those of the same generation.' (i.e., Lk. 11.51). The expression 'the people of this generation' may also be expressed as 'the people of this time.' Successive generations may be spoken of as 'groups of people who live one after the other' or 'successions of parents and children.'

b., referring to "an ethnic group exhibiting cultural similarities - 'people of the same kind' (i.e., Lk. 18.8), cf. genea 'those of the same time' (a).

c., referring to "successive following generations of those who are biologically related to a reference person - 'posterity, descendants, offspring.' (i.e., Acts 8.33) . . . In the case of genea, teknon, and sperma, the reference is not to one's immediate descendants or offspring (that is to say, to one's sons or daughters) but to a successive series of such persons, one's descendants. In some languages, such descendants may be called merely 'the children of one's children', and in other languages one may refer to descendants as 'those who follow one' or 'those who come later.'"

d., referring to "an indefinite period of time, but in close relationship to human existence and in some contexts, a period of time about the length of a generation - 'age, epoch.' (i.e., Acts 14.16). It is, of course, possible in Ac. 14.16 that the reference should be to 'generations' in the sense of periods of time."

The above statements are nearly direct quotations from the lexicon, edited for transliteration and to avoid lexicon jargon. I wish I had my NIDNT on me . . . Strong's agrees, but eh . . .

God bless

[puritan lad]

b., referring to "an ethnic group exhibiting cultural similarities - 'people of the same kind' (i.e., Lk. 18.8), cf. genea 'those of the same time' (a).

You must have used some dispensational source for this definition. (genea does not appear in Luke 18:8) If you were refering to Luke 16:8, the word "genea" means the same thing here as it does anywhere else, "generation".

Luke 16:8
"So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light."

I challenge anyone to open a concordance and find where genea means anything like "people of the same kind". It does not. It always means, "generation", or "age". Even in the one case in the KJV where it is (wrongly) translated "nation", it clearly referred to that generation.

Here are the gospel accurances of "genea".

Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34;
Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30;
Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29,30,31,32,50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32.

Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. (In fact, those who say it means “race” tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24).

If Jesus had meant "race", the greek word would have been "ethnos". If He had meant "people of the same kind", he would have probably used "ethnos", or possibly (though not likely) "genos" (even translating "genos" as "race" is a huge stretch. It actually means "type" or "kind".) This is NOT what the word says. It says "a genea". Even a dispensationalist like Gleason Archer has the honesty to suggest a possible translation error. He knows exactly what "genea" means in the plain sense, which is the standard you have given us for the term "world". Which is it Jac? Are you going to take this for what it says in the "plain sense" or not?

[Jac3510]

Well, if you are going to start challenging sources

I'll get a few more up later for added strength, but for the record, I do believe that it should be rendered "generation" in Matt. 24, though I am most definitely NOT a preterist.

I just was pointing out that your particular argument was inaccurate.

[Brigham]

I believe the rapture and end times are yet to come, who knows they may even be in 200,000 years when truly few people will expect it. I just had one question an atheist asked me. It was about when Jesus said "some of you standing before me will be here when I return" something like that. Is there something wrong with the translation or something? I'd appreciate the help.


-Brigham

[puritan lad]

Brigham,

He was referring to Matthew 16:28, which is another scripture that dispensationalists can't handle.

Matthew 16:28
"Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

This is (obviously) not about the Second Advent. It is about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (See Matthew 3:1-12, Matthew 10:5-23, Matthew 21:33-45). Christ's kingdom is a present reality. It will grow like leaven until it fills the earth.

[Jac3510]

PL, I have no problem with that passage . . . it refers to the transfiguration. Commentators are pretty universal on that, so far as dispensationalists, go.

Regardless, it most definitely cannot be referring to the destruction of the Temple, because we did not see "the coming of the Son" at that time, although we certainly saw the judgment against the Jews for the rejection of Christ!

BTW, with reference to the "generation" passage under discussion, as I was further researching the word (for the record, the TNDT--which is THE standard for Greek Lexicons--agrees with the definitions provided, as well as the NIDNT, as well as two others I found in our Library, as well as several Reformed authors I read on the subject), I came across a view I've come to agree with. The phrase he genea toute occurs six times in Matthew, and there is absolutely no doubt that the word has a purjoritive tone. With the support of many Reformed theologians, I'd advocate that the word refers to a "kind of people," that is, evil people who reject the Gospel. Jesus is saying, "I tell you, these evil people who reject my Gospel will always be here until I return."

You like to study. Go look up the six times that phrase is used in Matthew, and see who it always refers to. If you have access to the Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society, find the Spring '95 edition and find the article on the word "generation" in Matt. 24. If you are near a seminary or any theological school, you should have access to ATLAS, a database of about 70 journals. You can get to it through that.

God bless

[puritan lad]

PL, I have no problem with that passage . . . it refers to the transfiguration. Commentators are pretty universal on that, so far as dispensationalists, go.

It is also one of the most ridiculous interpretations os scripture that I've ever come across. What "reward" was given at the transfiguration? (Matthew 16:27) What kind of prophecy is this anyway? "There are some standing here who will not taste of death within the nest 6 days." Boy, that really took some divine insight. This interpretation is theological desperation, not sound exegesis.

Regardless, it most definitely cannot be referring to the destruction of the Temple, because we did not see "the coming of the Son" at that time, although we certainly saw the judgment against the Jews for the rejection of Christ!

He most certain didn't "come" at the transfiguration either. Jesus said that He would come in judgment of the Jews (Matthew 21:40). I'll expound this more when I have time.

God Bless,

PL

[Locker]

I have a question - PL you mentioned earlier that the number 666 referred to Nero but Nero Died in 68 AD. How could he be the anti-Christ and still fulfill prophecy concerning standing in the Temple and, etc?

Can you help me figure this out??

Thank

[puritan lad]

I have a question - PL you mentioned earlier that the number 666 referred to Nero but Nero Died in 68 AD. How could he be the anti-Christ and still fulfill prophecy concerning standing in the Temple and, etc?

Can you help me figure this out??

Thank :)

Sure. This comes from confusing Daniel's "little horn", Paul's "man of sin", John's "beast", and John's "antichrist" and assuming them to be all the same person. In fact, they are three different people. (John's "antichrist" isn't a single person, but is defined as "anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ" (1 John 2:22).

There are no prophecies concerning the beast (Nero's/Rome) standing in the temple. Remember, the "beast" is not mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, where it mentions "that man of sin...Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Just who this is is a matter of great debate among preterists. I hold that it is probably he high priest. I'll make my case later. I've got a lot on my plate in these forums right now, and little time.

God Bless,

PL

[Jac3510]

PL,

I read through the article, and as familiar as I am with preterism, I genuinely don't know what the view is on Nero's mark. If Nero was the beast (and I do believe that he was a type, much the same as Antioch Ephiphanes was in the 4th century BC), then it follows that the people would have had to have his mark on their right hand or forehead. Or is this allegorical, because I don't know anything about him requiring the people to tatoo his name on them?

Thanks

edit: as to your previous response to me . . . I don't really want to have a debate with you at this moment on how to interpret the revelation. I'd much rather finish our other discussion. All I'll say here is that I don't think you can object to the Transfiguration being the fulfillment of Jesus' words is Matt. 16 on the basis of "not seeing Jesus coming in His kingdom" for two reasons:

1) It has been strongly argued by men like John Walvoord that Peter, James, and John did see "the kingdom coming" at that time . . . Moses representing the Law, Elijah the prophets, and the three disciples the redeemed Israel. You can say the whole thing seems like a stretch, but it would simply be your word against some of the greatest Bible scholars of our day . . . the whole thing makes sense to me.

I really don't want to get into a verse by verse of this section. Here's an easy way to look at the reward issue. Matt. 16 is paralleled in Mark 8. Both passages refer to the bema seat of Christ. The reward spoken of is with reference to that future judgment, which has not yet happened. In verse 28, Jesus is providing proof for His statement regarding the coming judgment. It is as if He is saying, "You will be judged as to how well you served as a disciple when you go to enter into my Kingdom. And, to prove it to you, some of You will see Me in my Kingly position very soon. By this you will know My words are true." It is, then, not six days later until the promise is fulfilled.

2) More importantly, we didn't see "the coming of the Son in His Kingdom" at the destruction of the temple, either. We certainly see the judgment against Israel, as I believe I have already noted. But we don't see a Kingdom. In fact, I would argue that this most certainly cannot represent 70 AD, because that would imply that the Kingdom came then. But, in your view, the Kingdom would have been inaugurated at the very latest at Pentecost.

God bless