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

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

The text calls New Jerusalem itself the bride. It does not say it is the city that the bride dwells in. But, far be it from you to ever recognize symbolism. That requires spiritual discernment, which you know nothing about.

 

[claninja]

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.

I honestly have no idea how any of this relates to what i said.

 

[claninja]

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.

Peter said it was fulfilled in acts 2:30-36. God made an oath to David that one of his descendants would sit on the throne. "Foreseeing this" David prophesied about the resurrection of the Christ and exaltation to the right hand. Jesus' resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God fulfilled the promise to David.

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?

Red Herring. You are redefining fulfillment by introducing a modern, external test (“Do world leaders today send delegations to Jesus?”) that the Bible itself never uses.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

None of your so called metaphor happened in the first century. The book has metaphor. The book has literal events. You toss out the literal events as if they will not prophetically happen.

You are essentially saying nothing is prophecied in Revelation, but it was a look back at the first century via metaphor. So to you, Revelation is not even a prophetic genre. It was merely a newspaper article about first century events, according to you.

 

[HealthyShape]

None of your so called metaphor happened in the first century. The book has metaphor. The book has literal events. You toss out the literal events as if they will not prophetically happen.

You are essentially saying nothing is prophecied in Revelation, but it was a look back at the first century via metaphor. So to you, Revelation is not even a prophetic genre. It was merely a newspaper article about first century events, according to you.

This is it? You just ended up with "but I want it to be literal and I want to to be in the future!", which is nothing to debate.

The book is obviously metaphorical, the city is obviously metaphorical and the book clearly says "it will happen soon, the time is near".

You have nothing on your side to support your view.

 

[Timtofly]

Peter said it was fulfilled in acts 2:30-36. God made an oath to David that one of his descendants would sit on the throne. "Foreseeing this" David prophesied about the resurrection of the Christ and exaltation to the right hand. Jesus' resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God fulfilled the promise to David.



Red Herring. You are redefining fulfillment by introducing a modern, external test (“Do world leaders today send delegations to Jesus?”) that the Bible itself never uses.

Acts 2:30-36 is not the fulfillment of Zechariah 14.

 

[Timtofly]

This is it? You just ended up with "but I want it to be literal and I want to to be in the future!", which is nothing to debate.

The book is obviously metaphorical, the city is obviously metaphorical and the book clearly says "it will happen soon, the time is near".

You have nothing on your side to support your view.

So what is my view?

 

[claninja]

Acts 2:30-36 is not the fulfillment of Zechariah 14.

acts 2:30-36 is Peter’s belief that Jesus being made Lord and Christ through the resurrection and ascension to the right hand fulfilled the davidic oath.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is it? You just ended up with "but I want it to be literal and I want to to be in the future!", which is nothing to debate.

The book is obviously metaphorical, the city is obviously metaphorical and the book clearly says "it will happen soon, the time is near".

You have nothing on your side to support your view.

The book does NOT say everything written in it will happen soon. It contains things about the past (before it was written), the present (as of the time it was written) and the future (after it was written) up until the future second coming of Christ when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in after which point there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Also, regardless of whether you take the thousand years literally or not, it is an actual period of time with a beginning and end. So, how can you think that the entirety of the thousand years would happen soon? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Timtofly]

acts 2:30-36 is Peter’s belief that Jesus being made Lord and Christ through the resurrection and ascension to the right hand fulfilled the davidic oath.

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

Jesus is currently sitting on God's throne. Not David's.

The oath was not just sitting on a throne. It was also saving the world, and not leaving David's soul in hell. Salvation was realized, not ruling on the throne of David. Jesus has yet to do that part of the oath.

 

[claninja]

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

Jesus is currently sitting on God's throne. Not David's.

The oath was not just sitting on a throne. It was also saving the world, and not leaving David's soul in hell. Salvation was realized, not ruling on the throne of David. Jesus has yet to do that part of the oath.

David’s throne — the very one Solomon inherited — was called the throne of the LORD.

• “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father.” (1 Chronicles 29:23)

Christ fulfilled this typology through His resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God. In doing so, God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. When David received the oath that one of his descendants would sit on his throne, he prophetically foresaw this exaltation and resurrection — not merely an earthly reign, but the divine enthronement of the Messiah at God’s right hand.

Jesus was to sit at the right hand, REIGNING, until his enemies were made a footstool:

• ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’
• "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet" 1 corinthians 15:25

 

[Timtofly]

David’s throne — the very one Solomon inherited — was called the throne of the LORD.

• “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father.” (1 Chronicles 29:23)

Christ fulfilled this typology through His resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God. In doing so, God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. When David received the oath that one of his descendants would sit on his throne, he prophetically foresaw this exaltation and resurrection — not merely an earthly reign, but the divine enthronement of the Messiah at God’s right hand.

Jesus was to sit at the right hand, REIGNING, until his enemies were made a footstool:

• ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’
• "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet" 1 corinthians 15:25

Yet it still does not fulfill Zechariah 14:16

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Peter told us Jesus was the descendant of David, not that the prophecy was fulfilled.

Your interpretation claims the prophecy was fulfilled. Peter was just explaining to those in Jerusalem, that they just crucified Jesus as part of that fulfillment.

I never said "merely an earthly reign". I said the prophecy would be fulfilled at the Second Coming when Jesus does have an earthly reign. There are more prophecies than just the one from David. All seats of authority are under the Lordship of Christ, but not every seat of authority is directly obedient, until Jesus is physically sitting on a throne in Jerusalem.

Revelation 11:15

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

Jesus has always sat on God's throne, because He told everyone, "Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:57-58

"Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Your interpretation was already fulfilled prior to Abraham's time. That was already a reality since before creation. Jesus was already sitting on the Lord's throne, when creation was spoken into existence. That reality still did not completely fulfill the Davidic Oath. Jesus showed Abraham the scares of the Cross, and that is why:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

Abraham knew all about it way before David was born. Paul put it in order in 1 Corinthians 15:23-25

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

Jesus has sat in authority on the Lord's throne from Genesis 1:1, until Revelation 20:11. Only after that comes Revelation 21, a totally different creation, just as physical as this one with a new physical Jerusalem, called the holy city.

Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.... And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

The kingdom is the entire creation brought under the direct authority of Jesus Christ, and death is removed, and then this creation will be no more. The end means just that, the end, no more creation. But Jesus was already sitting in authority when that promise was given to David, although, Jesus had not been physically born yet, and had to physically die, and then physically ascend to heaven, and then was physically as if he had always been inside or outside of creation. Jesus already told them He was always physically in existence. You don't believe that? Neither did they way back then:

"Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

 

[claninja]

Peter told us Jesus was the descendant of David, not that the prophecy was fulfilled.

Your interpretation claims the prophecy was fulfilled. Peter was just explaining to those in Jerusalem, that they just crucified Jesus as part of that fulfillment.

Peter states: "Foreseeing that God would set his descendant on the throne, David prophesied of the resurrection." Then Peter states "Jesus was exalted to the right hand". Then Peter states "Jesus was made both Lord and Christ". The evidence points to Peter stating Jesus being exalted to the right hand as Lord and Christ fulfills God's promise to David.

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Why would this happen literally when the NT teaches otherwise?

• John 4:21-24: Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
• Hebrews 12:22-24: But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assemblya of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
• Galatians 4:25-26, 30: Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.

Since the New Testament provides a framework for the understanding of many Old Testament prophecies typologically — such as John the Baptist as Elijah, the weeping in Ramah fulfilled in Herod’s massacre, and Jesus rising on the third day according to the Scriptures — and since Zechariah 14 is never directly quoted in the New Testament as being fulfilled, nor does the New Testament ever teach that Jesus was to sit on a literal throne in earthly Jerusalem, and since it explicitly teaches that earthly Jerusalem would no longer be the true place of worship for the Father — then why should Zechariah 14 be interpreted literally rather than typologically?

Is the reason it should be interpreted literally based solely on your theological frame work?

 

[Timtofly]

Is the reason it should be interpreted literally based solely on your theological frame work?

No.

Do you mean historical accuracy?

I have no theological frame work. I just read what is in Scripture. Is your typology not just human theology?

Where in Scripture does it admonish people to view all Scripture as symbols?

Prophecy is supposed to be about future events. There is a reason why no NT writer declared Zechariah 14 as having been fulfilled. Because it is still future.

Peter was explaining that they just killed the Messiah. Not that Jesus fulfilled some typology. Peter was not a theologian, but was telling them what the Holy Spirit wanted them to hear. Then many come along and give us their theological interpretation of what the words, written down, are trying to tell us, in their personal theological framework, as a secondary message.