The Preterist Approach to Revelation

[kudzu]

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..."

Jews don't love Jesus. The Apostles loved Jesus, and therefor were not Jews.

That's the problem with poor scholarship and/or taking a verse out of context. Jesus was speaking to individual Jews NOT all Jews.. Jesus lived and died an observant Jew.

He did NOT preach to the gentiles.

When Jesus first sends out his disciples he specifically tells them not to preach to Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6): These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

[Bobb]

That's the problem with poor scholarship and/or taking a verse out of context. Jesus was speaking to individual Jews NOT all Jews.. Jesus lived and died an observant Jew.

Is it your belief that Israeli and Hollywood Jews are observant Jews? Where on this planet are observant Jews?

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..." Is that too complicated for you to understand?

[kudzu]

Is it your belief that Israeli and Hollywood Jews are observant Jews? Where on this planet are observant Jews?

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..." Is that too complicated for you to understand?

Hollywood Jews and Israeli Jews weren't living in the first century AD.. Jesus was speaking to an individual group of Jews NOT all Jews.. Jesus lived and died a Jew. Read the scripture you quote in context.

May I ask, what church do you attend?

[Bobb]

Hollywood Jews and Israeli Jews weren't living in the first century AD.. Jesus was speaking to an individual group of Jews NOT all Jews.. Jesus lived and died a Jew. Read the scripture you quote in context.

Yes, Hollywood Jews and Israeli Jews weren't living in the first century AD. Jesus was talking to individuals who were proto-talmudic Jews. Hollywood and Israeli Jews are Talmudic. They are children of the devil. If you wish to call Jesus a Jew, then denounce today's Jews as those who say they are Jews, but are not Jews, but are of the Synagogue of Satan.

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..." Can you not follow the logic there?

[kudzu]

Yes, Hollywood Jews and Israeli Jews weren't living in the first century AD. Jesus was talking to individuals who were proto-talmudic Jews. Hollywood and Israeli Jews are Talmudic. They are children of the devil. If you wish to call Jesus a Jew, then denounce today's Jews as those who say they are Jews, but are not Jews, but are of the Synagogue of Satan.

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..." Can you not follow the logic there?

Read the scripture that you are quoting in context.

Jesus is saying "You are not the righteous just because you descend of Abraham, if you not also behave like that".

Reversing that to say Jews are "children of Satan" in general is basically the thing he tries to refute here, in reverse.

[Bobb]

Read the scripture that you are quoting in context.

Jesus is saying "You are not the righteous just because you descend of Abraham, if you not also behave like that".

Reversing that to say Jews are "children of Satan" in general is basically the thing he tries to refute here, in reverse.

The Jews claimed to be God's people because of their lineage. Jesus told them they were Satan's people, because they rejected Him, and natural lineage means nothing. (Today's Jews have no evidence of natural linage. They call themselves Jews because they hate Jesus. Go find a Jew to talk to, he'll set you straight.)

Your interpretation is BS, "You are not the righteous just because you descend of Abraham, if you not also behave like that." You imply here that their lineage counts as something, but Jesus counted it as nothing. You also imply "behave like that" doesn't equate with loving Jesus when loving Jesus is exactly what Jesus pointed out is behaving like Abraham.

[kudzu]

The Jews claimed to be God's people because of their lineage. Jesus told them they were Satan's people, because they rejected Him, and natural lineage means nothing. (Today's Jews have no evidence of natural linage. They call themselves Jews because they hate Jesus. Go find a Jew to talk to, he'll set you straight.)

Your interpretation is BS, "You are not the righteous just because you descend of Abraham, if you not also behave like that." You imply here that their lineage counts as something, but Jesus counted it as nothing. You also imply "behave like that" doesn't equate with loving Jesus when loving Jesus is exactly what Jesus pointed out is behaving like Abraham.

Half the people I know and see every day are Jews. You are a victim of poor scholarship. Where on earth such crap?

[leaningright]

I take the preterist view in my interpretation of revelation. I believe everything in it has happened except the end. I also believe strongly in the overarching message ... that God’s people will be victorious in the end.

[kudzu]

I take the preterist view in my interpretation of revelation. I believe everything iwww.ecclesia.org/truth/mat05.htmln it has happened except the end. I also believe strongly in the overarching message ... that God’s people will be victorious in the end.

Me too..

This is interesting.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat05.html

[Bobb]

Half the people I know and see every day are Jews. You are a victim of poor scholarship. Where on earth such crap?

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..."

Have you ever posted anything more pathetic than appealing to the number of Jews who claim to know (either to interpret an NT verse critical of the Jews or to defend your ignorance about Jews which no Jew believes)? Oh yes, when you follow it up by accusing me of poor scholarship! What have all those Jews told you? NOTHING.

Do Jews love Jesus?

This object is currently hanging in an Israeli museum:



Their Talmud tells Jews that Jesus is in boiling excrement.

[kudzu]

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..."

Have you ever posted anything more pathetic than appealing to the number of Jews who claim to know (either to interpret an NT verse critical of the Jews or to defend your ignorance about Jews which no Jew believes)? Oh yes, when you follow it up by accusing me of poor scholarship! What have all those Jews told you? NOTHING.

Do Jews love Jesus?

This object is currently hanging in an Israeli museum:



Their Talmud tells Jews that Jesus is in boiling excrement.

Do you even know what the Talmud is?

[Jack]

'Revelation' ... is only to the First Person. After that, it is Hearsay to all the rest of us. Plus, translations through the ages are a problem.

The preterist approach to Revelation is most clearly contrasted with the futurist approach.

According to the preterist approach, most of the prophecies in the book of Revelation were fulfilled not long after John wrote.v

In other words, their fulfillment is past from the perspective of the twenty-first century.vi The fourth major approach to the book is the idealist or symbolic approach.

According to this view, Revelation does not contain prophecies of specific historical events. Instead, it uses symbols to express timeless principles concerning the conflict between good and evil.


Until recently these various approaches have been considered by most to be mutually exclusive. A number of scholars, however, have begun to propose a fifth approach, which may be termed the eclectic approach. As one proponent of this view explains, “The solution is to allow the preterist, idealist, and futurist methods to interact in such a way that the strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized.”vii One of the first to espouse such an approach was George Ladd.

He concluded that the correct method of interpreting the book of Revelation was to blend the futurist and preterist methods.viii He has been followed in this basic eclectic approach, although with different emphases, by a number of scholars including Gregory Beale, Grant Osborne, and Vern Poythress.ix


Because the approach one takes to the book of Revelation dramatically affects one’s exegetical conclusions, it is necessary that I explain the reasons I take the approach I do. I believe that the book itself demands a basically preterist approach.

This does not mean that all of the prophecies in the book have already been fulfilled. Some of the prophecies in Revelation (e.g., 20:7–22:21) have yet to be fulfilled, but many, if not most, of the prophecies in the book have been fulfilled.


My approach then may be considered as essentially preterist.x


continued

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/preter...l-eschatology/

[kudzu]

'Revelation' ... is only to the First Person. After that, it is Hearsay to all the rest of us. Plus, translations through the ages are a problem.

Revelation was a letter written to 7 churches (Jewish communities) around the Med.

[Bobb]

Do you even know what the Talmud is?

Yes, the Talmud is the bible of the Jews. But, you know nothing about Jews. In monumental, willful ignorance, you think Jesus is Jew.

[Bobb]

Revelation was a letter written to 7 churches (Jewish communities) around the Med.

Revelation was written to seven churches and "churches" are not code words jewish communities.