Futurism attempting to disprove Preterism....

Today I was presented an article, and the purpose of the article is to disprove Preterism.  To find this article you can visit it here. 

This article is bold to state the following: 

"So lets begin with the basis for this view of prophecy.

Rev 1:9: “I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation” "

Now this isn't true - this isn't the basis.  To make an assumption like this is to err, but this verse could be used as a supporting argument.  What is written in the Book of Revelation?  The "tribulations to come".  Would it not be soothing/comforting for one reading this letter/book to know that the writer is going to be going through those tribulations with you?

Also - would it not align with other biblical documentation?

John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him(Peter), If I will that he(John) tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Jesus' words again aligning with old covenant laws.  Telling Peter to not worry about what others have or receive. In simple terms - don't covet anything your neighbour has.

Back to the point - if John 21:22 did also mean that John would be alive when Christ returned this lines up with another Bible verse.

Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

²⁸ Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Every time I ask someone who believes in a future coming of Christ where the people are from Matthew 16 are - I cannot get a simple answer.

You see - there are valid reasons why a Preterist or someone who believes in Fulfilled Eschatology doesn't believe in Futurism.  Futurists can't answer simple questions based on the text.

Which leads us to other topics in the article and how I have a few main arguments to dismiss even those topics.

Things everyone needs to understand when trying to interpret prophecy to fit your view.  Does everything you interpret line up with the remainder of Scripture?  If it does line up then you're on the right track - if it doesn't line up, then it's not true or needs to be tested further.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

If a prophecy is not of any private/personal interpretation - this means that what the prophecy meant when it was written has to mean the exact same thing today.

So, the next argument that was used is the following:

Rev. 3:10 "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” The whole world will be involved in this trial not just secluded to Israel. This would be the Great Tribulation.

One thing I dislike about how they posted this was putting their opinion inline with the Biblical text.  Where does it say the whole world will be involved in this trial?

The greek word here for World is: 

οἰκουμένη oikouménē, oy-kou-men'-ay; feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication, of G1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:—earth, world.

Interesting - how the meaning of this word is clear to have in it's definition "specially, the Roman empire".

Know where else this word is used?

Luke 2:1  And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Now - again this isn't twisting scripture - this is just what scripture says, and demonstrates how the meaning of the word supports that "World" is the Roman Empire.

So if this is the meaning of the word - than the article's argument for Revelation 3:10 - is false, and shouldn't be considered.

The Latter Days argument

1 Tim. 4:1: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith.” These are the same latter days mentioned in Micah 4:1 “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established on the top of the mountains.” The difference is that 1 Tim. 4 precedes Micah 4.

Last days as used in the King James Version of the Bible appears here:

·         Isaiah 2:2

·         Micah 4:1

·         Acts 2:17

·         2 Timothy 3:1

·         Hebrews 1:2

·         James 5:3

·         2 Peter 3:3

I'm not dismissing that the Bible talks about the last days.  But the point is Acts 2:17 - Peter is bold to state that they are in the last days.  The last days that Joel mentioned have started.  Joel was written before Christ - but the timeframe is up for debate, being written as early as the 9th Century BC and as late as the 4th Century BC.

Here lies the question that nobody seems to ask or answer....

Why have the last days lasted longer than the time frame of when Joel was written through to Acts 2:17?  We're now almost 2000 years in the last days, but it was prophesied at most 1000 years before they started.

So we're in the last days that have lasted almost 2000 years - or are we in the last days?

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

What's interesting about this passage is the word time.  A lot of Bible versions use the word Hour...

G5610

ὥρα hṓra, ho'-rah; apparently a primary word; an "hour" (literally or figuratively):—day, hour, instant, season

It's just interesting how the word here changes the context of time.  We were in the last days - but now we're in the final day.  Or we're in the final hour.

Again - amazing how they were in the last days which was perhaps 30 odd years and all of a sudden they're in the final day, or in the final hour.  What's amazing is how that final day/hour has lasted longer than the other "days" combined.

Think about that..........

The infamous Peace Treaty

I knew it, I knew it.  Everyone uses Daniel 9:27 to support their futurist view when it comes to supporting the Antichrist.

In order to understand Daniel 9:27 - you also need to understand Daniel 9:24-26.  You also need to understand Daniel 8.

Daniel 8 gives a container of 2300 days.  We know this is 2300 years because of the day for a year method.  This can be confirmed in Numbers 14:34, Ezekiel 4:6.

When did Daniel 8 take place?

Daniel 8:1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.

So - when is the 3rd year of Belshazzar?

548 BC

So we now know that Daniel 8 needs to be completed by (548BC + 2300, there's no year 0) 1753AD.

Then - let's look at Daniel 9.  Daniel 9 - is more detail to the prophecy mentioned of Daniel 8.  Again - we know that Daniel 9 needs to be fulfilled by no later than 1753AD.

But WAIT - Daniel 9 gives a timeline. I'm going to use the Septuagint(LXX) version of the Old Testament, as it was translated from Hebrew to Greek and completed by 132BC.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy.

Daniel 9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.

Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him:  and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming:  they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Daniel 9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many:  and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away:  and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.

Now - re-read Daniel 9:24 - and determine purpose of the 70 weeks.  How does verse 27 all of a sudden become about Antichrist?

Interesting how in the Septuagint it's written and seen in plain text that the verse is about God and Christ.  It is not about an antichrist.

Who establishes a covenant with many?  Christ did!

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Oh wait - I guess I forgot the timelines, right?

69 weeks from Decree to restore Jerusalem unto the coming of Christ the Prince

The decree was in 457BC.  Add 483(69 weeks) and this will get you to 27AD  When was Christ Baptised?  in The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar aka 27AD.  Then the 70th week simply follows suit.

This 27th verse of Daniel 9 when interpreted with the context of all verses and/or using the Septuagint disproves that this verse is about an Antichrist - and therefore dismisses much of the rest of this website's article.

There's no future Temple - because the Jewish daily Sacrifice has already stopped.  The reason they need a Temple is because the Sacrifice needs to start again in order to stop again.

Again - most futurists don't understand Fulfilled eschatology because many of their current beliefs don't align.  So the question is - do your beliefs align with God's word - or do your beliefs align with someone's interpretation of Scripture. 

Remember this:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

How I'm treated because I believe Jesus already returned......

I’m almost at a total loss.  So many people talk about how Christians are so closed minded and I try and defend Christians on this argument – but the way I’ve been talked to in regards to my Christian beliefs – I can now understand where people are coming from.

 

Yes, I am a Christian, but I’m not a fundamental Christian – perhaps Conservative, BUT I don’t even think that fits the bill.  We call ourselves believers of fulfilled eschatology, and eschatology is “the study of end times” if you will.  In simple terms I believe the entire Bible has been fulfilled and therefore – there won’t be a future second coming of Jesus.

 

So as a result of this – I’ve been told many things:  “You’re believing another gospel and Paul warned us about that”; “that doesn’t make any sense”; “your beliefs are false”; oh and let’s not forget “I’ll pray that God brings you back to repentance”.

 

I almost can’t believe what I’m being told.  The main reason being – the people who say these things don’t even try and understand why I believe what I do.  So instead of trying to understand my beliefs I guess it’s easier to say the things I mentioned above.  How can you love me as your neighbor if you don't understand where I'm coming from?

 

Clearly – these people forget or disregard the part when I tell them “I used to believe what you do, BUT I had too many questions that nobody could answer, so after I praying one day, literally the next day I discovered this”.  So to tell me to turn back to what you used to believe – means I have to go back to reading Bible verses from a certain perspective and again the questions I had before come back and nobody is able to answer them.  Then they say “Well ask God about it” – and as you can see we come back right full circle.

 

I used to believe in a future Second coming of Jesus.  I used to believe in a rapture and trust me, I studied it over and over.  The thing is – I no longer believe in a future second coming of Jesus. 

 

In simple terms here’s what I believe……Jesus spoke to his disciples and apostles around 30ad – saying he would return in the future and that His generation shouldn’t pass until he returned.  So in 70AD – there was a destruction of the temple.  Jerusalem was surrounded by armies(romans) and yes there was a war.  So in 70AD(Future from 30AD) – I believe is when Jesus returned.

 

So – things like the Apostles creed – Yeah I don’t believe parts of it because it says “he will come again to judge the living and the dead” – well I don’t believe that.  So it’s even more difficult to try and find a church that doesn’t have these “futurist” type of beliefs and/or teachings.

 

So to understand my beliefs – you need to start with that.  To disprove them – you have to show me from my paradigm why my beliefs are wrong.  While reading the Bible from this paradigm – I haven’t had any questions that I can think of.  By trying to disprove my beliefs based on questions you now have that you can no longer answer – doesn’t mean my belief isn’t true.  It just means that your belief may not align with this paradigm.

 

So again – Christians judge me because I’m not open to their beliefs.  Trust me – I’m open to hearing about it.  The thing is – I already know everything about it.  The question is – what do you know about my beliefs other than what you watched and/or read on the internet.

 

So people say my beliefs are a “new belief system” and I shouldn’t believe it because it’s “another gospel”.

 

SO let’s start here:

2 Peter 1:20 states:  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

So – this would mean that what Jesus said 2000 years ago – would have to have the same meaning then as it does today.  Right?

 

So – 2000 years ago Jesus said these things:

Matthew 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Luke 21:32  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Mark 8:12  And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, Why does this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

Mark 13:30  Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

What did “this generation” mean when Jesus said this to people 2000 years ago?  It meant that generation of his time, right?

 

Interesting how Mark 8:12 answers this for us – with the help of the content from it’s former verse:

Mark 8:11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.

 

To which Jesus says:  Why does this generation seek after a sign?

 

Somehow – futurists magically make Matthew 24:34 to be “that generation”.

 

Compound all of this with Matthew 16:28 – and BAM I don’t know any 2000 year old person standing on the earth – which means I guess the Son of man coming in his kingdom has already happened – OR this verse makes Jesus to be a liar.

 

Now – does it all line up with “his generation” – yes I’d say so.

 

So before condemning my beliefs – start answering these questions and perhaps you can lure me back to a Future second coming of Jesus:

• How does “this generation” all of a sudden become a generation in the future – when in every other passage it’s referring to the generation of Jesus’ day.
• Why isn’t there any 2000 year old people walking the earth?  Didn’t Jesus also reference this in John?  I don’t see apostle John walking the earth
• Why don’t we have to live by the law anymore?  See Matthew 5:17-18 for this

 

Keep in mind that 2 Peter 1:20 states:  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.   So – I don’t want to be reading ideas nor having “this is what was taught by the elders” – I’d like to read good sound biblical evidence.

 

So – with that said, if you want me to believe your beliefs you need to disprove my beliefs and not just simply discard them by saying they’re false and that I should repent.