Search results

There are different resurrection beliefs amongst preterists, mainly corporeal vs corporate. Partial preterism “usually” affirms corporeal, while full preterism “usually” affirms corporate. At least to my knowledge, scripture states that only Jesus’ flesh would not see decay - psalm 16:10. I...

Despite the gospels never mentioning the phrase "day of the Lord" nor defining it, I'm assuming we can agree that the "day of the Lord" is in some sense related, at least in part, to the "coming of the son of man of on the clouds" from the Olivet discourse. The "coming of the son of man on the...

I disagree that revelation 20 should be taken as 100 percent literal.

Grammar, syntax, and context demonstrate that Daniel 7:12 is a parenthetical, and NOT a sequential continuation: Daniel 7:12 begins וּשְׁאָר חֵיוָתָא (“and as for the rest of the beasts”). This is ו + noun phrase, NOT ו + imperfect verb (wayyiqtol). In Biblical Hebrew, ו + noun phrase often...

I wouldn't say chatgpt isn't biased. You can pretty much get it to say whatever you want. That being said, If vs 12 is to be understood as chronologically occurring POST the destruction of the fourth beast (vs 11), it doesn't really make sense why it is left out of the angels interpretation...

we can easily debunk this. A.) You originally argued Daniel 7:22 is parallel to revelation 20:4 because of the mutually shared phrase “judgement given to the saints”, despite there being zero mention of a 1000 year reign mentioned in Daniel 7. B.) However, contrary to your own logic above...

And i responded it is “initially” irrelevant, since the angel does not explain the locations or movements of Daniel 7:13-14. But ultimately, it Depends on the textual variant of Daniel 7, I suppose. The Old Greek has the son of man coming on the clouds “like” the ancient of days. The Masoretic...

Daniel’s symbolic vision in chapter 7 comes with an explanation from the angel. Revelation chapter 20 does not.

let’s first remember that Daniel 7:13-14’s “the son of man coming on the clouds” is a vision FOR WHICH the angel provides an interpretation of, in Daniel 7:18: 18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’ So before you impose any...

Its important to note several things: 95ad was still within Jesus' generation The visions found in revelation do contain historical events (revelation 1:19, revelation 5, revelation 12:5, etc...) The events of revelation were to occur quickly because the time was near ( revelation 1:3)...

Technically, you are committing eisegesis with this argument by reading and imposing outside theological frameworks onto the text prior to letting the text speak for itself. For example, you are imposing the idea that Daniel 7:13-14 must be about the ascension and resurrection of Christ and...

Yea, that seems correct for the most part. The problem with this view of Daniel, is that Daniel 7:22 is the results of the courtroom scene in the context of the vision.

I would disagree that vs 13-14 are parenthetical based on the rest of the vision. The vision in Daniel 7:9-14 gives us a specific chronological order: The court convenes (thrones placed, ancient of days arrives and sits on the throne, court sits, books opened) The beast is slain The son of man...

Revelation 20:11-15 is when the ancient of days is sitting on the throne and books are opened. IF revelation 20 is about the same event, then revelation 20:11-15 most closely resembles Daniel 7:9-10, as BOTH scenes describe the ancient of days as sitting on the throne followed by the opening of...

I never said it was proof. I was responding to a poster that said the date of revelation proves preterism false, when in fact the date itself does not prove preterism false or true. Not sure why you need to interject whataboutisms or red herrings......

I was only addressing the date of revelation. Your interjection is a red herring.

Exactly. Revelation 20, is the paper laid flat, unfolded, making it appear as if the 2 dots are literally separated by a long period of time. Daniel 7 is the paper folded, where the 2 dots are connected as one court scene, not separated by a long period of time.

none of this has anything to do with dating the book of revelation

This doesn’t address my point.

Not necessarily. According to the preterist understanding of Matthew 24, mark 13, or Luke 21 - Jesus told the disciples that the events of the Olivet discourse would occur within their generation. Additionally, Revelation, written within Jesus’ generation by the presupposed John the disciple...