Can any of you link or share a good argument against FULL preterism?

[claninja]

Do you believe this prophesy has come to pass

I think so.

That Jesus has returned and fought against those nation that surrounded Jerusalem.

I’m not so sure that is the proper conclusion as to how the prophecy was to be fulfilled

That Jesus has returned and fought against those nation that surrounded Jerusalem.

I’m not so sure that is the proper conclusion as to how the prophecy was to be fulfilled

His feet have stood on the mount of Olives.

Jesus did stand on the mount of Olives around 2000 years ago.

That He destroyed the armies that fought against Jerusalem.

I’m not so sure that is the proper conclusion as to how the prophecy was to be fulfilled

That the resurrection is past?

The resurrection is not mentioned in Zechariah 14.

 

[JLB]

Jesus did stand on the mount of Olives around 2000 years ago.

Yes, Jesus was actually on the mount of Olives when He taught Matthew 24-25 which is called the Olivet Discourse.

Question:

Did Jesus stand on the mount of Olives when He fought against the nations that were gathered together to battle against Jerusalem?

Did the mount of Olives split in two making a valley?


Or are these events yet in the future?


For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity,
But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
Zechariah 14:2-4

 

[claninja]

Question:

Did Jesus stand on the mount of Olives when He fought against the nations that were gathered together to battle against Jerusalem?

Did the mount of Olives split in two making a valley?

I don’t think so, but then again, the NT often reinterprets OT passages in unexpected ways. Additionally, the old covenant was completely removed.

Therefore, I don’t necessarily agree that those passages are required to have a literal 1:1 fulfillment.

But you seem to think they do require literal 1:1 fulfillment?

Or are these events yet in the future?

I don’t think so. But if there was clear language in the NT that stated the fulfillment of the prophets was far off, or far beyond the first century generation, then I could be convinced that Zechariah 14 is still possibly future.

Can you provide any NT evidence like this?

 

[Timtofly]

I don’t think so. But if there was clear language in the NT that stated the fulfillment of the prophets was far off, or far beyond the first century generation, then I could be convinced that Zechariah 14 is still possibly future.

So you believe Jesus is currently sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem? Or is that just spiritual jargon for whatever you want to make up?

 

[claninja]

So you believe Jesus is currently sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem? Or is that just spiritual jargon for whatever you want to make up?

I think Jesus is presently sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem.

Though I also think:

• The NT reinterprets Jerusalem under the new covenant (Galatians 4:24-26, Hebrews 12:22-24)

• the NT also reinterprets the throne of David (acts 2:29-36) under the new covenant.

 

[Timtofly]

I think Jesus is presently sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem.

Though I also think:

• The NT reinterprets Jerusalem under the new covenant (Galatians 4:24-26, Hebrews 12:22-24)

• the NT also reinterprets the throne of David (acts 2:29-36) under the new covenant.

How is that working out for current world Presidents? Are they all obedient, and sending a yearly delegation to Jerusalem?

Was the Cross merely a spiritual story, and not literal either? How can one be physical, but the other not physical?

 

[claninja]

How is that working out for current world Presidents? Are they all obedient, and sending a yearly delegation to Jerusalem?

Was the Cross merely a spiritual story, and not literal either? How can one be physical, but the other not physical?

I explained that I think the NT reinterprets Jerusalem and the throne of David. I’m interested to see if you disagree with that, and where you the NT claims otherwise - that Jesus must sit on an earthly throne in the literal city of Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

I explained that I think the NT reinterprets Jerusalem and the throne of David. I’m interested to see if you disagree with that, and where you the NT claims otherwise - that Jesus must sit on an earthly throne in the literal city of Jerusalem.

Because Jesus died physically on a literal cross. Why did the NT not reinterpret that prophecy, into some spiritual meaning like you do for the physical reign of Jesus?

I do not see the NT reinterpreting Jerusalem nor the throne of David. That would be a personal human interpretation of Scripture, not a Biblical interpretation.

Revelation 21 describes the New Jerusalem as a literal physical place just like earth and heaven are literal physical places. The New Jerusalem is still future, after, and not until God is finished with the current physical Jerusalem. To read the chapter any other way, would be a personal choice, and personal opinion. The church did not replace physical Jerusalem. The city still exists.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because Jesus died physically on a literal cross. Why did the NT not reinterpret that prophecy, into some spiritual meaning like you do for the physical reign of Jesus?

I do not see the NT reinterpreting Jerusalem nor the throne of David. That would be a personal human interpretation of Scripture, not a Biblical interpretation.

Revelation 21 describes the New Jerusalem as a literal physical place just like earth and heaven are literal physical places. The New Jerusalem is still future, after, and not until God is finished with the current physical Jerusalem. To read the chapter any other way, would be a personal choice, and personal opinion. The church did not replace physical Jerusalem. The city still exists.

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

So, you believe that "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is a literal physical place? How does that work exactly? The Lamb, of course, is Jesus Christ. How exactly can a physical place be His bride? I thought the church is His bride, as Ephesians 5:22-33 indicates? Do you think He has two brides?

 

[HealthyShape]

The city still exists.

The city of the Christ's time does not exist anymore. The current Jerusalem was built later. It is a different city with the same name.

 

[claninja]

Because Jesus died physically on a literal cross. Why did the NT not reinterpret that prophecy, into some spiritual meaning like you do for the physical reign of Jesus?

The New Testament interprets some Old Testament prophecies literally, such as those concerning being pierced (Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10), riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9), or the thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12–13). At the same time, it also interprets certain passages typologically, seeing them as patterns or foreshadowings rather than literal predictions. Examples include John the Baptist as Elijah (Malachi 4:5 :Matthew 11:14; 17:12–13), the crying in Ramah (Jeremiah 31:15 :Matthew 2:18), and passages that prefigure Jesus’ death and resurrection on the third day (e.g., Jonah 1:17: Matthew 12:40; Hosea 6:2 ; Acts 2:31).

That being said, the New Testament identifies the resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God as the fulfillment of the promise made to David (Acts 2:29–36). Furthermore, it declares that the earthly Jerusalem would no longer the center of worship in John 4; and rather, the heavenly Jerusalem is our true place to gather to worship (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22–24)

therefore, I would argue typological fulfillment is better fitting, unless you can provide any NT passages where the earthly Jerusalem would be the future place of worship?

I do not see the NT reinterpreting Jerusalem nor the throne of David. That would be a personal human interpretation of Scripture, not a Biblical interpretation.

The NT literally says worship will no longer take place in Jerusalem. The NT literally says we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. The NT literally states the David prophesied of the resurrection and ascension when God swore him an oath that his descendant would be on the throne eternally. I can’t help that you don’t see that.

Revelation 21 describes the New Jerusalem as a literal physical place just like earth and heaven are literal physical places. The New Jerusalem is still future, after, and not until God is finished with the current physical Jerusalem. To read the chapter any other way, would be a personal choice, and personal opinion. The church did not replace physical Jerusalem. The city still exists.

sure, just show me where it says Jesus reigns physically in the earthly Jerusalem in the throne of David prior to the new Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

So, you believe that "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is a literal physical place? How does that work exactly? The Lamb, of course, is Jesus Christ. How exactly can a physical place be His bride? I thought the church is His bride, as Ephesians 5:22-33 indicates? Do you think He has two brides?

No. The Bride dwells in the New Jerusalem. Do you think Washington DC is a literal city or the bride of Christ because saved people live in it? If John had said I see Washington DC as the bride, the Lamb's wife would you think it just a spiritual term, and not a literal place?

Jesus is not a physical Lamb. The city New Jerusalem is a physical city.

 

[Timtofly]

The city of the Christ's time does not exist anymore. The current Jerusalem was built later. It is a different city with the same name.

So the Jerusalem of David was not the same Jerusalem as the one when Jesus lived? What is your point?

 

[HealthyShape]

So the Jerusalem of David was not the same Jerusalem as the one when Jesus lived? What is your point?

That the current Jerusalem was built by Romans, Christian knights and Muslims. It was not built by Jews.

Palestinian Arabs (Muslim and Christian) lived in Jerusalem for centuries before large-scale Jewish immigration from Russia and elsewhere in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

So, I would rather ask what is your point?

 

[Timtofly]

therefore, I would argue typological fulfillment is better fitting, unless you can provide any NT passages where the earthly Jerusalem would be the future place of worship?

So you deny heavenly Jerusalem is physical, and it can come to earth as a physical city?

I have never once said about Revelation 21 that it has physically come to earth in the first century. That does not mean it is not a physical place. Revelation 21takes place after this current physical creation no longer exists. The New Jerusalem is not currently in heaven, nor on the earth.

The bride of Christ is currently found in both places, heaven and earth. As a type, the church in the wilderness of Moses' day was the wife and bride of Jesus as God. This spiritual connotation did not start in the NT. When have I said anything about physical worship? Did they not do both the physical and spiritual aspects throughout history? Why would the future not be physical? Do you have some proof that all physical creation will cease, and never exist again?

We won't need a Temple on the New earth according to John. We won't need the sun nor moon, but to say there is nothing physical in the future is a stretch to prove the point the New Jerusalem is not physical.

 

[Timtofly]

sure, just show me where it says Jesus reigns physically in the earthly Jerusalem in the throne of David prior to the new Jerusalem.

This prophecy has not been fulfilled yet. How can I show you proof in first century writings that it has been fulfilled? You are the one claiming it has been fulfilled. I asked how is that working out for all the leaders today. Do they recognize and send a yearly delegation to Jesus even in spiritual type where all humanity is in direct obedience to God?

 

[Timtofly]

That the current Jerusalem was built by Romans, Christian knights and Muslims. It was not built by Jews.

Palestinian Arabs (Muslim and Christian) lived in Jerusalem for centuries before large-scale Jewish immigration from Russia and elsewhere in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

So, I would rather ask what is your point?

My point is that the New Jerusalem has not been built yet. It is going to happen in our future. It did not happen in the first century.

 

[HealthyShape]

My point is that the New Jerusalem has not been built yet. It is going to happen in our future. It did not happen in the first century.

What new Jerusalem, you mean the metaphor from the book of Revelation? When do you think the bride of Christ (the church, the new Jerusalem) will be built?

 

[Timtofly]

What new Jerusalem, you mean the metaphor from the book of Revelation? When do you think the bride of Christ (the church, the new Jerusalem) will be built?

Built?

Was the earth built?

Is the church being built in heaven or on earth?

The New Jerusalem is a physical city that comes down from heaven, because that is what John wrote. No metaphor here:

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven."

John did not see the church descending like a city. Have you seen a wedding with a city descending down the aisle? The wedding metaphor is about this physical city. The physical city is not a metaphor of the church currently being built on earth. The church waits in heaven for a thousand years after the Second Coming, and then comes back in a physical city, not a metaphor.

The church is not even on earth with the groom for a thousand years. Jesus is fulfilling prophecy. Both are seperated. This should not be a big deal, as they have been seperated for thousands of years. Except that they all are physically in heaven, who no longer live on the earth. But the church is not currently the wife with Jesus in Heaven. The church will not be the wife, until after this creation is over, and a new one like in Genesis 1 begins. The wedding will never be consummated during this creation. But it is only a metaphor. There is nothing physical about how the church and Christ are Husband and wife. Yes, John uses the wedding metaphor, but the city is a literal physical creation. How it descends from heaven is the point of a wedding metaphor. Jesus is waiting on earth, and the bride descends with God, the father, from heaven. That is the only metaphor. But it will be a literal and physical event.

 

[HealthyShape]

The New Jerusalem is a physical city that comes down from heaven, because that is what John wrote. No metaphor here:

The whole book full of metaphors and suddenly a literal city? Nah... reading does not work that way.

The city is called the bride and wife of Christ, which is obviously church, it mentions the 12 apostles, its dimensions are the multiples of 12... let us be rational. And you think that the tree of life in there is also literal, that we need to literally eat something to live?

And I am not yet even touching the lethal issue for your view that it had to happen quickly, the time was near. No such literal, physical city came down from heaven in the 1st century.