So here's the story.
I was reading at Slice of Laodicea, was directed to this video, tried to comment (and Youtube swallowed all but my last comment), clicked over to Dave the video-maker's blog, commented there on the video's worrying, Emergent Church-esque postmodernist tendencies, got into a conversation, and then encountered another poster there named Adam, who is a voluminous writer (which means he writes a whole bunch).
Adam started saying some things I found very strange (and they only got worse from there), and eventually I discovered that he is a Hymenaean, or Hyper-Preterist (sometimes called a Full Preterist). It wasn't long before he said more than a few things that made it clear he was more than an interlocutor who disagreed - he is a heretic, "gangrene" in the church, whose teaching will cause "shipwreck of the faith".
Adam is the 1st Hymenaean I've ever encountered, so it was certainly interesting to read his arguments and try to wrap my brain around them. Our interaction on Dave's combox took us a bit far afield of the original topic so I invited Adam to defend his views on my blog later on when I got some more time. He said he would seriously consider doing so, and this is an invitation to respond to the next post I write, where I will respond to his posts.
Of course, he can respond to this one too, but I don't have time to lay out much argument now. I hope to get to it w/in 4-5 days.
As always, I don't delete or police comments, and this time I may have met more than my match in terms of verbosity.
I plan to bring up questions relating to the resurrection, since it is the most disturbing and heretical of his beliefs. Call it a teaser, Adam. Hopefully it will be a good time.
19 comments:
Points for originality, although I cannot imagine how anyone could honestly represent modern history as the New Earth... tell this Adam fellow when you get to talking with him that I at least am highly disappointed and should like my money back.
Sorry for the late response -- I was sans laptop for a few days as I awaited my new one (which appeared yesterday and I finalized the new install this morning!) Your blog is the second one I visited :)
The Hymenaean-attribute is one that I have heard on occasion -- especially during expulsion and excommunication from some congregations I previously served. Note that I never once brought up my beliefs within the community, it was only upon Google-ing my name did they review my communique in the blogosphere and decided that I was anathema to their community.
2 Timothy in itself is an intriguing look at full preterism (or pantelism, or hyper-preterism by futurists). One the fact of 2 Timothy, it would definitely seem that I am like Hymenaean, but only until you look deeper at the doctrinal differences between a full preterist and a futurist.
Hymenaeus (and Philetus) were both talking about a past Resurrection which, at the time, we know would be in the future of the people in 2 Timothy. How do we know this? Historically, 2 Timothy came before other Epistles and Books of the Bible. We know from the God-inspired Book that further writings had come -- and had shown even more imminency in the Return the believers of the first church were expecting quickly. If we knew that April 1, 2007 was coming quickly, and someone said it had already come, they'd be lying. But if another person on April 5th said it had already come, they'd be telling the truth. Two people, saying the exact same thing, but different time frames, about an occurrence -- and only one is right and one is wrong.
When it comes to my views of the Parousia, we can both agree that it is an occurrence. You, a Futurist, believe Christ and many of His Disciples were liars. You don't trust in the Book because the Book says plainly that the Parousia would be coming "quickly" to the people of the First Church. You don't trust in the Book because it said that some of those alive when Christ was on the earth would still be alive when He came.
I, a Preterist, believe that Christ was telling the whole truth. I believe that He would come quickly, while some of His First Church was still alive.
I differ from Hymenaeus and Philetus in that my view of the Resurrection and Parousia is that of one that can't be disproven because we have no more writings after Revelation was finished -- a book that shows the absolute quickness of the expected return to the First Church. Hymenaeus and Philetus spoke of the Parousia while God still had Books to be written. I speak of the Parousia 2000 years after the last Book was written. All of the New Testament points to the Parousia, in fact 90% of the New Testament is based on eschatological promises of prophecy to fulfill. If the Parousia didn't happen very quickly after Revelation was written, why did the Book finish at Revelation? Why was there not more written, inspired by God and canonized by Men, to keep the Body together?
Turi said: although I cannot imagine how anyone could honestly represent modern history as the New Earth.
The question from me, then, is how would you view the New Earth? To me, the full Preterist, I believe the New Earth is a Kingdom that exists where God shows no judgment because His Covenant has been fulfilled by Jesus. Since there is no Law, no Judgment, there is no Sin. I also believe that all men are God's Children in His favor, especially those who believe in His story.
And you would call World War II, and World War I, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the gulag... brothers dwelling together in harmony, right? No offense man, but your paradise sucks.
I view the New Earth as obtaining whenever Jesus' prayer actually comes to pass: that God's will would be done, and his name hallowed, on earth as it is in heaven. Speaking of liars...if that happened at some point in the past feel free to enlighten me. At any rate, I think the God to whom I am referring is different from whatever sedated and illogical deity you seem to have come up with, who goes from 'judging the world' to judging a single nation and not that harshly; and then sets up an eternal kingdom most of the citizens of which spit on his (ahem) all-hallowed name.
This seems like rather a larger issue than quibbling over the precise limits of 'soon'.
If Adam writes a lot, hes prolific not voluminous. I would have let it slip by but for the condescending way you explained it.
Anon,
Ah, yes, prolific. That was what I was looking for, actually!
So, it would be "a prolific writer" as opposed to "a voluminous writer." And I assume it might be "he's prolific, not voluminous" as opposed to "hes prolific not voluminous".
Seriously, go after my grammar, go after my "condescension" if you want. I would be interested in your pointing out where I was condescending. You're not going to get all hurt and squishy, like "I can't believe you are SOOOOO arrogant as to call AB DADA a heretic," are you?
turi: And you would call World War II, and World War I, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the gulag... brothers dwelling together in harmony, right? No offense man, but your paradise sucks.
Where exactly does the Book promise that we'll all live together in harmony with each other? The Book I read says that the New Age will bring forth a time when God lives with all of us (everyone) and there is no more eternal death.
turi: that God's will would be done, and his name hallowed, on earth as it is in heaven. Speaking of liars...if that happened at some point in the past feel free to enlighten me.
It seems to me that is has. First of all, we see NO judgment against those who steal from churches (and many do) like Ananais and Sapphira. We don't even see God's judgment against what might have been considered sin pre-Parousia. Humans are naturally self-involved, so the evil side doesn't go away, just the sin does (sin meaning doing an evil that God would judge you for. He stopped judging, therefore sin is vanquished).
God's Will was to reconcile all men to him. No man was able to do it by themselves, not even by faith. It was Christ's second coming that reconciled everyone -- not faith, not works. Before the Christ, salvation seemed to come from works alone (impossible). After Christ, Pre-Parousia, we see that there was both faith and works in the N.T. (this is why there are so many debates about faith/works). After the Parousia, there is neither faith nor works since we all live in the Kingdom. Our post-mortal lives will be based on how we lived in the mortal kingdom, but everyone will live eternally, even the unbeliever.
Turi: and then sets up an eternal kingdom most of the citizens of which spit on his (ahem) all-hallowed name.
The Bible doesn't say it will be hallowed by all -- it will just be hallowed in all the earth. There is a big difference. If I said that some day there would be black people in all the earth, would you assume that I meant there would ONLY be black people, or that I would mean that black people would exist among other races throughout the earth?
One question I ask of Futurists: do you have any debt (mortgage, car loan/lease, credit card)? If you do, your interpretation of the Bible should show that you are unable to follow God since you can only serve one king, which would be debt. If you are a Futurist with debt, you should be very afraid, right?
FWIW, I don't necessarily see my detractors as being derogatory or condescending, although I do believe that many non-believers see them that way (and many of them tend to be towards non-believers because of the believer's views on "Hell" (which, by the way, is not really well described in the Bible and often mistranslated from Gehenna and other on-Earth locations). For me, I harbor no resentment when others try to call me out -- I have a very good grasp of the passage of time through the Bible, so more often than not I have to be prolific. I'd prefer to be fecund, though :)
oy vey...
First off, the passage does not say 'in all the earth', it says 'on earth as in heaven'. We may dispute about the precise form of worship and obedience in heaven, but it is pretty obviously unanimous. There is only one party of non-worshipping angels, and they are mostly in the Other Place. Sorry, but you gotta deal with what the Man said.
Secondly, my copy of the Book is pretty clear about the New Creation: Revelation 21 springs to mind - God will wipe every tear from their eyes, no more death, no more mourning, no more crying, no more pain... was John maybe talking about the discovery of opium, you think? And what about this 'no more sea' business - I got eyewitness testimony that at any rate the Mediterranean is still sloshing around like always. Either you, or the Apostle, are severely confused on the matter, but you can't both be right. Likewise, Isaiah writes that there will no longer be weeping heard in Jerusalem - prerhaps because all the inhabitants have been massacred by legionaires? - and that the wolf will lay down with the lamb. Again, peace on earth, goodwill to men... Maybe we're talking about parallel universes here, but the history of mine is pretty irrefutably still blighted by sin.
For example, Paul identifies homosexuality as the judgement of God upon unbelievers. It seems difficult to maintain that homosexuality has vanished from the modern world, or, for that matter, Death; which by your argument ought to be overthrown and barbequed à la Lake de Fire (Rev. 20) by this point.
To put it another way, permit me to frame your argument for the New Earth syllogistically:
P1 - God struck exactly two people dead on the spot for stealing from the church. (which is actually not true, they were struck dead for lying - Acts 5.4)
P2 - People nowadays who steal from the church (or lie, for that matter) are not always struck dead on the spot.
C - God is no longer judging the world, and sin no longer exists.
This is ridiculous. Similarly, the point about faith and works has no textual basis whatsoever. Paul says in Ephesians that we are saved by grace, through faith, not by works. That is a categorical statement, and to dispute it is to accuse its Author of fraud. Never was righteousness achieved by works, and never apart from grace by means of faith. And never, ever, on the basis of God transmogrifying himself into some post-modern stoner who's chill with vast swathes of his creation pretending that he doesn't exist. God says he doesn't change. You say that he does. You can't both be right.
TURI: to dispute it is to accuse its Author of fraud.
>>Well, he's already accused Him of writing "dung"...
...and then accuses the Christians of calling Jesus a liar...
vo·lu·mi·nous /vəˈlumənəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vuh-loo-muh-nuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. forming, filling, or writing a large volume or many volumes: a voluminous edition.
2. sufficient to fill a volume or volumes: a voluminous correspondence.
3. of great volume, size, or extent: voluminous flow of lava.
4. of ample size, extent, or fullness: voluminous petticoats.
5. having many coils, convolutions, or windings.
Not to pick at piddly things but Voluminous can be used as Alan did per Dictionary.com #2 above. I would have let it slip by but for the telling way that your pick at piddly things reveals that you can't deal with the substance of what Alan said.
AB DADA: The Hymenaean-attribute is one that I have heard on occasion -- especially during expulsion and excommunication from some congregations I previously served. Note that I never once brought up my beliefs within the community, it was only upon Google-ing my name did they review my communique in the blogosphere and decided that I was anathema to their community.
>>I love this. Adam, I would really like to know the names and locations of these churches so I could call them and congratulate them for standing for the truth and not being afraid to deal w/ gangrene in their midst.
Isn't it very telling to you that you have been excommunicated *multiple* times? Or are those other churches just part of the "Futurist-fad power congregation"?
Do you still go to a non-Full Preterist church? Which one? Have you kept your beliefs a secret there too?
I would prefer to move forward with the newer post, but I am happy to continue this comment thread as well.
Turi: it says 'on earth as in heaven'. We may dispute about the precise form of worship and obedience in heaven, but it is pretty obviously unanimous
And when it says that, it means that God's Love will be on Earth as it is in Heaven. It says nothing of meaning unanimously all mortals loving God, it means God loving all (unidirectionally).
Turi: Revelation 21 springs to mind - God will wipe every tear from their eyes, no more death, no more mourning, no more crying, no more pain... was John maybe talking about the discovery of opium, you think? And what about this 'no more sea' business - I got eyewitness testimony that at any rate the Mediterranean is still sloshing around like always
Actually, the Jewish Temple was referred to as "Heaven and Earth" by 1st century Jews. The Jews at the time understood, from previous prophecy, that God was coming to judge Israel and Jerusalem. When God showed that He was bringing a New Heaven and Earth, it was in relation to the Covenant that allowed for the Temple. The destruction of said Temple brought forth a New Covenant, where the Ecclesia existed inside men, not inside buildings.
Turi: It seems difficult to maintain that homosexuality has vanished from the modern world, or, for that matter, Death; which by your argument ought to be overthrown and barbequed à la Lake de Fire (Rev. 20) by this point.
Actually, it just says that homosexuality would be a sign -- and in fact during the Last Days of the Old Covenant, there is no historical doubt that homosexuality was prevalent. Nowhere in my Book (nor yours) does it say that negative behavior would disappear. As to Death going away, it has -- we all have the eternal Love of God forever, regardless of our faith or actions. God judges no longer, as He rules with His Son in His Kingdom.
Turi: Paul says in Ephesians that we are saved by grace, through faith, not by works. That is a categorical statement, and to dispute it is to accuse its Author of fraud.
No, Paul did not say that we are saved by grace. Paul said that the 1st century believers that he was talking to would be saved by their faith. Saved from what? Saved from the destruction of many Jews and Romans in the Last Days of the Old Covenant, which did occur in their time as Christ, and His Apostles, said it would.
I'm not sure what all this talk of "salvation" is -- it sure wasn't meant for you and me. We were born free of the Law and God's Judgment. It was the Jews who needed salvation, and God did save the believers when they were told to flee to the mountains before the attack by the Romans on the Temple and the Jews. Or do you think that 2.1 billion Christians will all run for the mountains sometime in the near future? During the 1st Century, Christians were in the minority in Jerusalem and Rome. Christ said that only few would see the Kingdom. When He said "few" do you think it means about a few tens of thousands fo Christians in the 1st Century, or 2.1 billion Christians today? To me, "few seeing the Kingdom" makes zero sense in modern times.
Well, he's already accused Him of writing "dung".
No, I never said that. The Old Testament is proof as to the dung that mortals were under the Law. Since we don't live under the Law any longer, we are not dung, we are glorious in His Love for us, all of us, especially the believers.
Turi: and then accuses the Christians of calling Jesus a liar
Never said it like that. I accuse Futurist Christians of calling Jesus a liar, which they/you do. Christ was specific about His Return in that very generation, quickly, soon. I will address more of this in the new post, though.
Rhoblogy: Isn't it very telling to you that you have been excommunicated *multiple* times? Or are those other churches just part of the "Futurist-fad power congregation"?
Do you still go to a non-Full Preterist church? Which one? Have you kept your beliefs a secret there too?
I attend 3 local Futurist congregations (they are not churches, they are just buildings of organized religion). I also attend a living room congregation of Futurist and Preterist believers, as well as an online congregation of Preterist believers.
I serve over 200 congregations (Preterist, Futurist, and other) in my congregation printing co-op ministry.
Of the congregation who have ex-communicated me, all are facing severe financial trouble in the 1-8years since I departed. 4 have failed completely. My current congregation leaders have asked me nicely to not share my perspective within the building or with any members or attendees outside of the building, and I abide by their request. I have discussed Preterism with over 20 pastors local to me, and only 5 or so have called me a heretic, the rest said similarly that the fruits of my faith prove to them that I am a faithful believer.
AB DADA: Useless. The Bible before Christ is 100% dung (see Malachi 2:3 where God shows that the Old Testament was full of the dung of man, God’s word) — it is merely an example of how far Man fell from God’s excessive demands. It is useless for us today since Christ fulfilled all that Man failed in.
You said that right here: http://livingroomfaith.org/Blog/?p=43#comment-2386
You've been a good convo partner, facing up to stuff. Don't start to act two-faced now.
--Only 5 pastors think I'm a heretic
>>Hooray for them. Given the level of discernment present in today's American church, one might be surprised that 5/20 recognised that heresy is DOCTRINAL, not b/c of "fruits", ie, the way you live your life. Lots of people bear the "spiritual fruit of niceness".
The Bible before Christ is 100% dung (see Malachi 2:3 where God shows that the Old Testament was full of the dung of man, God’s word) — it is merely an example of how far Man fell from God’s excessive demands. It is useless for us today since Christ fulfilled all that Man failed in.
And where is the problem? The Bible before Christ is dung -- not the words of God, the intent of the very Old Testament, it shows that man is worthless. I don't call God's Intent dung, I call the Men who fell short of His Law dung. The Old Testament isn't God, it is the story of men. That story is dung. God is the Word, but the Word is not the Book. Too many Christians (Futurists and Preterists alike) believe the Word = the Book, and that is just not true. I see that all the time, people holding up the Book and saying "I live in the Word every day!"
I hold that Christ absolves us of the need to hold to the Old Testament as having ANY weight or importance in our life. The whole reason to include the Old Testament is to show WHY Christ was necessary to those who are unaware of what God required (and no longer does).
When I introduce others to the Book, I tell them to read it backwards -- start at Revelation (Chapter 1), and when you finish it, ask yourself a basic question: "Why was this book needed?" Then go back a book and do the same. The Book opens itself to an interesting progression as you get to Genesis FROM Revelation.
--The Bible before Christ is dung -- not the words of God, the intent of the very Old Testament, it shows that man is worthless.
>>This is the very Bible that Christ said would not pass away and said would last longer than heaven and earth. It is that by which He judged sinful men. It is that in accordance w/ which He lived every detail of His life. It is that to which He often appealed for authority.
But you say it's dung.
See, that's one of the reasons I think it's so clear that you hate God.
--I call the Men who fell short of His Law dung.
>>Isaiah calls their deeds a used menstrual cloth and calls men "worms" and "dust and ashes", so same thing.
--The Old Testament isn't God, it is the story of men.
>>It was breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16). You say His breath stinks, and you are a blasphemer.
--The whole reason to include the Old Testament is to show WHY Christ was necessary to those who are unaware of what God required (and no longer does).
>>Galatians 3 and Romans 6 witness against your error.
Responses here and also at the Hell post.
AB DADA: Blaspheming as defined in the New Testament is the action of refusing Christ the Savior by disrespecting Him through not acknowledging Him
RHOLOGY: Good so far. And you are a blasphemer by that definition; you have called God's Word "dung".
And then you repeated yourself:
"The Old Testament isn't God, it is the story of men. That story is dung."
Please either qualify or retract the statement. In 2 Tim 3:16, what are the Scriptures that he refers to? The Old Testament.
Adam's translation of 2 Tim 3:16 - "For dung is God-breathed..."
AB DADA: Modern Evangelicals don't seem to realize the definition of two words they use often -- blasphemer and heresy.
RHOLOGY: Please correct me.
AB DADA: Galatians 3 shows that Christ's reason for coming was to offer protection from Judgment for those who were unable to hold to the Law
RHOLOGY: Right, it says the Law is a "tutor to lead us to Christ." But that is not the same as saying, as you did:
"I hold that Christ absolves us of the need to hold to the Old Testament as having ANY weight or importance in our life."
AB DADA: Romans 6? This has nothing to do with us
RHOLOGY: Do you realise how many millions of people have written off the Bible, to their peril, over the course of history w/ that exact statement?
AB DADA: it was written to a specific crowd of people who Paul knew (through the Holy Spirit) would see that End of the Age Judgment
RHOLOGY: You assume that b/c you have embraced error and must defend it at any cost. Where does Romans mention and define that Judgment as coming w/in a few years?
And another thing - you claim Romans is written to only Greeks.
Why would Paul write Romans 2:17-24?
17But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
All thru Romans 2, 3, and 4, Jews are mentioned. Abraham is brought out as an example of faith. This makes no sense.
And the way you express your views about the Judgment makes it sound like it is necessary for all those Jews to have ended up in Jerusalem. Surely you do not claim that, do you?
A quick note: The opinions listed below are not meant to CONVINCE YOU that your views are "wrong" or "ungodly" -- they are just my opinions after major Bible research and private prayer that I provide to try to explain to Evangelical Futurists that my views are not against God, even if they may go against what your congregational fellowship espouses. I am not here to convince you to change your mind -- I am only here to try to unharden your heart against other Preterists who want to be part of the organized community of Christians. I am happy that you have your views if they fulfill you. If you are unfulfilled in how your faith affects your life, only then do I recommend you inquire into other viewpoints on Christian living.
Rhoblogy: Good so far. And you are a blasphemer by that definition; you have called God's Word "dung".
As usual with Evangelical Futurists, you still don't understand my definition of dung, which fits hand in hand with the ending of the OT in Malachi: the people of the OT, and their stories, are dung. God's Book (not His Word, in my eyes) is not dung -- the topics of the stories are. The stories themselves are (if you are to label the actual stories). The telling of the stories is definitely NOT dung.
Rhoblogy: "For dung is God-breathed..."
I would say it as "For the telling of the story of man is God-breathed, but the story of man is dung." God passed on the story (telling it through the revelations or directly) to other men, and they refused to see how full of dung the previous generation generally was. There were a few glorious men, but very few indeed.
Rhoblogy: Please correct me.
I'm not here to correct you, I am here to show people that my views are not anti-Christianity, just anti-churchianity.
The definition of heretic within the Book and also in modern dictionaries is "That which goes against the Organized Church." Heretic is not again God, just against the Organized Church. Since I believe that Organized Religion in itself is counter to Christ's teachings, I happily accept the label of "heretic." If God was against Organized Religion (Pharisees, etc), then I am with God, and God Himself is a heretic by your label.
Blasphemer meant many things over time. Those who were against the Pharisees were blasphemers, and I stick with them. Evangelicals love to say "Hey, God never changes, right?" So why did God threaten (and do!) Judgment against Israel and the Jews? God never changes, right? I say His Plan changed based on saving all men. Blasphemers during Christ's time were those who spoke against the Messiah. I don't believe blaspheming can happen today -- God's Love is intact, eternal and universal. Some may condemn a maker because their lives are terrible, but God still loves them and will have a place for them in eternity (maybe not as much of a place as one who serves Christlike).
Rhoblogy: Right, it says the Law is a "tutor to lead us to Christ." But that is not the same as saying, as you did:
Excellent point. To be honest, my interpretation of Galatians isn't strong since I have never really spent a lot of time on that particular Book. I promise to do so in late April. A quick glance over my Book and my notes leads me to agree to a point. But it was much more important in the time just before Christ's Resurrection. Let's read it together, please correct me if my translation is in error:
24 Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith.25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.
The word "until" comes twice. If you wait at a bus stop until the bus arrives, do you still wait after you boarded that bus? No. The Law was needed as the guardian of Israel until the true guardian came.
Rhoblogy: Do you realise how many millions of people have written off the Bible, to their peril, over the course of history w/ that exact statement?
After Christ's Presence? None. There is no peril except mortal peril. Romans 6 was written for Romans, not Americans. To read it otherwise is to pick and choose versus rather than read it as a whole and see that the whole book was focused on just the Roman Empire Believers.
Rhoblogy: You assume that b/c you have embraced error and must defend it at any cost. Where does Romans mention and define that Judgment as coming w/in a few years?
Good question! Romans 16:20: The God of peace will come "soon." Exegesis of Romans is difficult in English translations because the English translations were coopted by mortals who desired control and profit. LaHaye, Scofield, Moody, Hinn, Hagee, the Popes -- all modified the texts to suit their own lives. But Romans is obviously a book that is misconstrued as being relevant even though the words used often "ye" and "people" are the very people that the Book of Romans was written to -- the Roman Empire residents who believes, gentile and Jew.
Rhoblogy: And another thing - you claim Romans is written to only Greeks. Why would Paul write Romans 2:17-24?
If I did say that, it was in error (typing faster than I edit, heh). I firmly believe that much of Romans was written specifically to the believers of the Roman Empire ("the world") -- Jew and Gentile(Greek) alike, but there are also verses that are adamant against the Jews of Rome who disbelieve. My mistake if I said otherwise.
Rhoblogy: All thru Romans 2, 3, and 4, Jews are mentioned. Abraham is brought out as an example of faith. This makes no sense.
And the way you express your views about the Judgment makes it sound like it is necessary for all those Jews to have ended up in Jerusalem. Surely you do not claim that, do you?
Ahh, great question. Revelation shows us who is to be Judged -- Israel, who loved Rome instead of God. It is obvious from comparing prophecy of what would happen to what did happen shortly after the writing of Revelation ("Don't seal the book for the time is near.") Israel WAS part of Rome completely by the time Revelation began fulfillment. The Pharisees who condemn Christ were aligned with Rome, and they were now more Romans than Jews. Rome gave the Jews power over others in their regions of Judea/Jerusalem/elsewhere. Most of the Jews of the world were in Jerusalem in the majority, and in other parts of Rome in the minority. When the Jews were expelled by Caesar, some fled, but they were quickly allowed back by Nero, so many returned -- even more than there were before. When you look at the history of the First Jewish-Roman War, you see how many Jews returned to Jerusalem/Judea after the exile was lifted (quickly, in fact). It is almost like Nero was going against previous Caesars in being part of God's Judgment -- did Nero know???
I am a former Full Preterist and have recently published an article to my blog on why I can no longer accept that position. This may be something you may want to check out.
http://www.shadowsofthecross.com/
Post a Comment