Any full preterists?

He possibly was dead at that time. But as I pointed out He was speaking not only to Caiaphus but also the scribes and elders. Were they all dead too? If so then Jesus was wrong. Jesus didn't say he would see Him in the clouds above, He said ye will see me "coming in the clouds".

This is the same time frame given in Matt 16:27-28.

I still have not got an answer of this verse from you. Did any of those at the house of the High Priest see Jesus "coming in the clouds"?

Yes or No?

Thats because I do not believe it was a physical coming. It followed the Old Testament examples of "coming in the clouds". It usually meant judgement.

By the way, how could those in Matt 26:64 see Jesus both sitting at the right hand and coming in the clouds? Perhaps its figurative language and not literal. Is. 19:1

 

Grasshopper,

Apparently, you do not know which covenant you are living under. Exodus passages were for the Old covenant congregants.

You said, 'Revelation 141 And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount
Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name,
and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads.

Of course, it will be written on the messengers foreheads during the Great Tribulation. If the Lord says it, we believe it.

You said, 'Would that be a literal 777 perhaps?

Ray is saying, You have no Biblical reference for your statement above; it was a clever thought, however.

You said, 'Does one of the 144000 brand it on for us?'

If you study more carefully you will see that this mark will not be on you or me. [Revelation 7] These twelve thousand people will come from the various 12 tribes of Israel as explained to you in this chapter.'

You said, 'Or perhaps Lahaye has it right.'

I have never read one page out of one of his books. Study the Bible and the Lord God will teach you. [I John 2:27 & St. John 14:26]

 

But if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, then there would be a well-known metaphor from the OT that it would refer to. You had a point with "coming in the clouds) though a metaphor can still have a greater, literal antitype), but "meet him in the air" sounds too clear.

And this present age is still a stage, where we still feel the effects of sin and the Fall. So this can not be "it". Once again, even if you point to spirits floating off to Heaven, there is still a final fulfillment of God's plan of salvation beyond this present life. Our real difference is that you believe it will be a spirit world; I believe it will be a world of physically resurrected people.

 

I've seen different things.

1. sea in the original creation separated the land masses, in the New H and E there is no more separation.

2. Sea is where evil came from Rev 13:1, Is 57:20, Dan 7:3

3. Gentiles are called sea in parts of the OT. Perhaps referring to there are no more racial divisions in the Kingdom.

I guess I would lean to 1.

Now a question for you:

Is the New Jerusalem of Rev. 21:10 a literal physical city?

 

To expound more on this, the nations will no longer be divided, evey people, tongue and nation are united in Christ.

Isaiah 60

1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee.
2 For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the peoples; but Jehovah will arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3 And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: they all gather themselves together, they come to thee; thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be carried in the arms.
5 Then thou shalt see and be radiant, and thy heart shall thrill and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be turned unto thee , the wealth of the nations shall come unto thee.

 

Though I don't have letters following my name, I'm am informed enough to know what Covenant I am in. What is the point? Is the point that Old testament language is figurative and New Testament language must be literal? Is the point God will use a type of symbolic language to a Jewish audience in the OT and not to a Jewish audience in the NT?
When Jesus spoke His metaphoric language He too was in the Old Covenant. Does that make it figurative or literal? Would Jews of the 1st century not draw on their knowledge of the OT to understand and interpret the writings of Jews such as Jesus, Paul, and John? Or should they start thinking like westerners at around AD29?

And literal of course.

 

air in the greek:

from aemi (to breathe unconsciously, i.e. respire by analogy, to blow)

I have heard it explained as Him meeting us in our immidiate area (breathe or respire) not in the atmoshpere. This is where God tabernacles with man. We are spiritually in His realm. It can probably be explained better than I just did.

 

But when you take that together with Christ descending with a trup (i.e. "coming in the clods"), then both point to a literal meaning. The first by itself could possibly be symbolic, but not likely in the contexts we see it used in the NT. The latter could possibly fit the interpretation you gave, but once again, not likely. It is not used in that context. But both together definitely picture a literal sequence.

. Not a "city" as we know it, but a literal place on a literal restored earth, yes. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this new heavens and new earth will have a totally new order of existence. (now, we are fallen, and live like the other animals where we must labor to live, and reprodice the next generation and die. In the new world, it will be all directly centered around God. Secular scientists in their string theory even believe that the laws of the universe (the "Standard Model of physics") can suddenly change, and this I believe may be what characterizes the start of the new heavens. There will no longer be "decay"). One important thing to realize is that "the city" is not all of Heaven. It is simply the center of worship of God. Such as v.24, "the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it".

Yes, the Church today is a type of this. But many of the physical pictures given here point to something far beyonf just life in the Church age. Once again, you speak of going to Heaven when you die, but the only decriptions of this eternal existance we are given in the Bible is here.

As for the sea, it is not necessarily representing an origin of "evil", but in Rev.17:1, 15, which you left out, it means the "nations and people", in which the evil happens to arise from. Not divisions within them, but just the nations as a whole. And I don't thin necessarily just gentiles either.
So yes, #1 would be more feasible.

 

Consider verse 9 of Revelation 21:

9 And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, who were laden with the seven last plagues; and he spake with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

The angel says he will show John the bride, the wife of the Lamb. Who is that? Is there any doubt the angel is going to show John the church? Then the angel goes on to describe the church from God's perspective.

12 having a wall great and high; having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The church is built on the foundation of the of the apostles and the prophets.

Eph 2:19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;
21 in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord;
22 in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.

I Cor 3:9 For we are God's fellow-workers: ye are God's husbandry, God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

15 And he that spake with me had for a measure a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

In Chapter 11 John was told to measure the Old Covenant Temple to see if it measured up to God's standard. It does not measure up and is destroyed. In contrast the New Jerusalem is perfect.

If God's city was being built from those early Christians then perhaps they are also the 144000. They are the Jews from every tribe who entered also into the New Covenant.

Revelation 141 And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 and they sing as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders: and no man could learn the song save the hundred and forty and four thousand, even they that had been purchased out of the earth.
4 These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, to be the firstfruits unto God and unto the Lamb.

These 144000 are called the firstfruits. If these are tribulation "jews" in the far distant future, how could they be firstfruits, seems they would be the very last. But James tells us who the firstfruits are:

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

James calls those in the 1st century firstfruits.Why can't these firstfruits in James be the same in Revelation?

 

Ch.21 is the actual marriage of Christ and the Church. 2 Cor.11:2 Paul tells us that we are betrothed to Christ, and that we should be presented to Him as a chaste virgin. Of course, you believe the marriage was AD70, but as it is still possible for the Church (individual people or groups within) to lose its purity, we are still in the betrothed state, or the "intermediate" state you associate with the AD33-70 period only.

I don't really have a strict interpretation of the 144,000, as not enough is known about them. I generally hold them to be future, in keeping with the timeline in Rev., but I consider preterist and historicist ideas as valid theories.

"Firstfruits" in that case means they are among the first resurrected. They, along with the dead saints from the past (including the NT Christians) are the firstfruits.

 

I believe that right after the Rapture [I Thessalonians 4:17] will be the Judgment Seat of Christ and then the Marriage of the Lamb in Heaven. I believe that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb probably will be right after the 'Marriage' in Heaven and then Christ will re-enter our sphere in the Second Coming of Christ. [Rev. 19:11-21] I believe that after the Second Coming as mentioned in 19:14 His saints from Heaven will return to earth with Jesus. As Christ sets up His New Jerusalem He will present His 'bride' [21:9] which is the Lamb's wife-all saved human beings who will have received a spiritual body liken unto our Lord's perfect Being.

I'll let you look up the Scriptural references to these grand events.

 

Just one minor problem with that. The scripture says New Jerusalem is the "bride".


9 And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, who were laden with the seven last plagues; and he spake with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

Now unless John got distracted what he describes after verse 9 and on is the bride.

 

I think he means the physical city, not the body of people, which is the bride. Just like today, with "the Church", it is both a meeting place and the body that meets there.

Also, I forgot to mention, that you may say that we are the bride now, and that is still true, as in the case of Joseph and Mary and other betrothed couples in the Bible, they were called man and wide even before the ceremony.

 

Thats the problem. When the New Jerusalem is described, its describing the bride. Thus the New Jerusalem is the "Bride of the Lamb" from God's view positionally perfect. Unlike the type of the OT the literal Jerusalem.

 

But like I said, it can be both, as the city we live in now is "us" (we are apart of it, and make it up), as well as the physical place.
Just curious, what is your idea on Gal.4, where Paul says Jerusalem above is our "mother". I took this as being an element of the New Jerusalem will represent the bride of the Father; OT Israel eventually taken back in after the divorce.

 

Those who are of the New Covenant are the children of the New Jerusalem in contrast to the Old Covenant which produced children of bondage. We are of Mt. Zion whereas the Old Covenant children were of Mt. Sinai.

Of course one being physical the other spiritual. Heb 12:22 speaks of this as well.

 

I must say Eric, after going round and round with you on this subject, I find your position somewhat tolerable. If I wasn't a full preterist I think I would be where you are. Its the only one other than preterism that sees the fulfillment of prophecy, even if its only typological.
It reminds me of an episode of Star Trek. The crew of the enterprise existed in two parallel universes. I find our positions to be much the same, almost identical but in completely different universes.

 

You said, 'Just curious, what is your idea on Gal.4, where Paul says Jerusalem above is our "mother".

Notice the clear distinction between Abraham's wives. The pagan wives were 'bondmaids,' [Gal. 4:22] while the Hebrew wives were 'freewomen' plus they were heirs of the 'promises' of the Lord. Romans 9:4 tells the whole story. The O.T. fathers as in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were the lineage from which Jesus was born. A pure genealogy from among the Israelite people, with no mixture of an Egyptian blood line.

In Galatians 4:26 Paul points out that the Jerusalem above 'is the mother of us all, both Israelite and Gentile Chritians. Heaven is our sure and everlasting hope that we look for now and when we go to be with Christ. [II Cor. 5:8]

You said 'Those who are of the New Covenant are the children of the New
Jerusalem in contrast to the Old Covenant which produced children of
bondage.'

The congregants of the O.T. people of God were not in bondage in any way to the Lord. They knew very well of their final destiny as point out in Hebrews 11:13 & 16.

You said, 'We are of Mt. Zion whereas the Old Covenant children of Mt. Sinai.'

Ray is saying, I am not looking for any mountain not even Mt. Zion. Jesus is on His throne and not on any earthly mountain, or mountain in Heaven. Moses came down from Mount Sinai, but the covenant people were the Lord's people in spite sometimes of their backsliding.

We of the New Covenant are the children of God. [Romans 8:16] The concept of the congregation of Israel being 'children of bondage' is foreign to the Old Covenant. If you look up the word 'bondage' you will find that it better portrays the pagan, Egyptians who worshipped false gods. These were the O.T. people in human history who were-- the 'children of bondage.' Egyptians were ' . . . from the House of bondage,' suggesting a whole nation of people. [Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 8:14; 13:5 . . .and so on]

You said, 'Of course one being physical the other spiritual. Heb 12:22 speaks of
this as well.'

Just as the city of Jerusalem was the center of the worship of Jehovah, so too Heaven above is where the justified saints and angels worship the Lord in His glorified body,
Who sits on the throne. [Hebrews 1:3]

I think we agree on some of these things, you merely say it another way.

 

But I was thinking in terms of them being children of the bride, vs. them being the bride itself. I imagine you would say as individuals we are "children", as a whole, we are the bride?

Yeah, it's been quite interesting, and I have learned a lot from your view as well. Certainly challenged me and made me think!

 

Just completed a new page where I deal with Preterism, and also updated my Revelation page to include what I believe are the typical fulfillments of the prohecies that I learned from preterist sites and Josephus.