Leolaia, do you have any archived debates with preterists? Would you consider challenging J.P. Holding to a debate on preterism?
Matthew 10:23
by pixel 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
PSacramento
The "Son of Man" event expected in the synoptic gospels and the Book of Parables does not correspond to what occurred in AD 70. In fact, this is probably why the gospel of Matthew, written later than Mark, revises the Olivet discourse to distinguish the parousia from the destruction of the Temple and to emphasize a theme of apparent delay in the fulfillment of "all these things", as Christians were still waiting for them to be fulfilled for quite some time after AD 70.
Perhaps, but were they waiting because that is what Jesus said or because thatis what they WANTED it to mean?
Jesus makes it clear that no one KNOWS when the parousia will happen, even so far as to command them to not dwell on it but to focus on being His witnesses through out the world ( ACTS 1).
It seems that in Jewish apocolyptic writings and prohesizing, the use of "thuner and lighting" and the "sky rolling up" and the "mountains falling" and the "son of man" coming, was typical of the language used in that genre and used to describe a life altering event for all of Israel.
-
Leolaia
John....No, I'm not the debating type. I'm more discussion oriented. I'll mention later on if you wish the problem I find with preterism (which does do justice in part with early Jewish/Christian eschatological expectation), but I'm off in a few minutes to see the Hobbit.
PSacramento....Gotta run, but its not the epiphanic motifs so much (whether literal or figurative) but the nature of the event.
-
Pterist
Partial Preterism of the amillenism type, should not be confused with hyper Or FULL Preterism !
-
John Kesler
Leolaia, yes, I'd like your thoughts. I've studied preterism, and I have my own views about its problems, but I'd like to see your take.
-
Pterist
*** The "Son of Man" event expected in the synoptic gospels and the Book of Parables does not correspond to what occurred in AD 70. In fact, this is probably why the gospel of Matthew, written later than Mark, revises the Olivet discourse to distinguish the parousia from the destruction of the Temple and to emphasize a theme of apparent delay in the fulfillment of "all these things", as Christians were still waiting for them to be fulfilled for quite some time after AD 70.****
The two references to the coming/ presence of the Son of man, is one with Observable events and one with NO observable events.
In MHO the former event that Jesus said would come with visible signs And would be fulfilled in that generation, was fulfilled on that Jewish nation that ceased to exist in 70AD. The later event with no visible signs like a "thief in the night" is yet to come on the Gentile/ Christian world.
Shalom.
-
PSacramento
In MHO the former event that Jesus said would come with visible signs And would be fulfilled in that generation, was fulfilled on that Jewish nation that ceased to exist in 70AD. The later event with no visible signs like a "thief in the night" is yet to come on the Gentile/ Christian world.
I agree with this also since Jesus is quoted saying at least a couple of times that NO ONE knows when it will happen, it will be unexpected AND for His followers to NOT focus on it.
-
-
John Kesler
Leolaia wrote: John....No, I'm not the debating type. I'm more discussion oriented. I'll mention later on if you wish the problem I find with preterism (which does do justice in part with early Jewish/Christian eschatological expectation), but I'm off in a few minutes to see the Hobbit.
I was hoping to have a Leolaia post for Christmas. One problem with the preterist view is that it, like the futurist-view, rests on a misidentification of Daniel's fourth kingdom as Rome instead of Greece. Without a proper understanding of the book of Daniel, no eschatology can be correct, even if one views the Bible as authoritative.