Interplanner
Well-known member
I can't follow. Do you mean it is difficult--
1, to prove the resurrection? or
2, that the resurrection is proof of that fact that his perfect life justifies us from sin?
ECT What makes Preterism so impossible
- Thread starter Totton Linnet
- Start date
I can't follow. Do you mean it is difficult--
1, to prove the resurrection? or
2, that the resurrection is proof of that fact that his perfect life justifies us from sin?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The confusion on this conversation, which Tet needs to clarify, is whether the only thing that happened in 70AD was the wrath on Israel. He seems to indicate that the broader purpose of the judgement of the whole world and (per Peter) the re-making of our world in the NHNE happened at 70 AD.
Sonnet
New member
1, but broadly scripture in general.
(Acts 2:5) Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
Why were Jews from every nation under heaven in Jerusalem?
Answer: Pentecost was one of the three pilgrimage feasts that required Jews to travel to Jerusalem for the feast.
Now, jump to 70AD. When did the Romans surround the city?
Answer: During a pilgrimage feast.
Therefore, the judgment that followed the siege, was upon Jews from every nation under heaven.
Sonnet
New member
Jesus may as well be a boomerang for all the difference his 'return' has made.
No one has noticed.
Interplanner
Well-known member
OK, I think you mean that our modern world has raised many doubts about the ordinary or scientific or historical world that cause us to retract from the Bible or to confine it to 'religious' truth as a category, not much different from a vision received while on peyote. (The BOOK OF MORMON was opium-driven--casting a new light on Marx's quip!).
I have some background on these things, but will try to keep remarks concise just the same. I'd encourage you to get my DELUGE OF SUSPICIONS story at Amazon.com. Here is why: as we go back in time as major Biblical events go, we reach the flood first, then creation. Flood/deluge evidence is therefore more intriguing because it is more demonstrable.
In my last foray into this, I was astonished to learn that CPT or VT is a newer field of inquiry because of this! Catastsrophic Plate Tectonics has to do with accounting for unbelieveably powerful forces that jerked tectonic plates around, while Vertical Tectonics is an overlapping inquiry into how some moved more vertically than horizontally. And all this is not 'millions' of years ago.
At the same time, though limited, you have many, many Biblical passages saying exactly the same thing when they refer to the 'founding' of the earth. That there were violent, turbulent forces at work. There is a deep fear of the oceans ever getting loose again, in the Hebrew psyche.
This is relatively recent, as is a whole other area of inquiry called geo-mythology. Geo-mythology is the study of the locations of myths and parallel myths. It turns out there are some 500 accounts of floods, not of one river flooding, but something happening to the whole system as we know it. All over the world. Some are very complete, others are fragmentary--yet telling. Why would one tribe in Mexico mention just 8 people from one family surviving this thing? Why would excavators be working in Brisbane and unearth an Aztec calendar in the sedimentary deposits? Why would a whole school of geologists now believe that Ayers Rock is the little curl-up of a "J" of rock of an event that deposited all of central Australia rapidly and recently and had sufficient force to BEND the granite platform? Why is its granite 'young' (the crystals are jagged not smooth)? Why does Agers of the London society of geology now believe that Yosemite's domes could form in as little as 5 hours? All this is related.
I hope you can see that it is much more of a presuppositional war than it is a war over objective facts.
There are "tons" of such "material" in the literature now and there is a reading list at the back of DELUGE.
As soon as you can, view the video presentation by the Scottish research James-Phillips called "Tracing Genesis in Culture" which is the type of Christian-informed geo-mythological work we should all know. It is astounding. You will want to write down the two British antiquities scholars on the source of world myth. They both affirm it is degenerated from the Bible, not the reverse.
So, back to the next level down, Biblically. Archeology. It seems to be quite in hand. I mean, at this point, you'd have to say something like 'there never was a 2nd temple' to matter any more. It is quite well-established.
Down to another level, which Tet is also very familiar with: the destruction of Jerusalem, 66-70 AD. There is bonus material here for our British friends; hold that thought. Here you have an unusually catastrophic event with the added dimension of an enormous antiquity volume in which the writer is aware that he is covering something so auspicious and had heard several independent accounts of some of the bizarre things (cannabilism, the 'sword in the sky over the city', the inexplanable in-fighting, the exposed magma, the sound of the fire, the sound of the voice saying 'We are leaving' etc.) from first-hand people who had no reason to invent them, and no way to know the other witnesses. The writer was a trained Levitical priest and so had an inside understanding of what all this meant based on Daniel 9.
We have the prediction that these things would happen even with some of their grotesque detail in Christ's words about what would happen to that generation. Christ used Jeremiah's lines but inserted Roman military terms for his description, Mt 24, Lk 19, 21, 23, etc)
I want to interject here: I hope your doubts of the Bible are not due to modern pop eschatology and its crumbling claims about the modern state of Israel. They should be based on the real history of what Christ was really saying.
Now the English aspect: in 1805 the skeptic Thomas Payne was attempting publicize his death-blow to Christianity. In response, Pastor Peter Holford took the objective materials in Josephus and toured England with it to show that Christ was divine and authoritative on these things and that both the ordinary and the bizarre aspects (see list above) took place as stated. As I understand it, sales of Payne were therefore a small fraction of what was expected. In addition, (from my knowledge of church history and English history), I don't see where the intellectuals in England bothered attacking Christ any further; they switched to Genesis.
I hope this will help. It really is much more of a war of presuppositions than of facts.
Sonnet
New member
Thanks - have you looked at this:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf ?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf ?
Sonnet
New member
Also worth looking at James Prestwich - 19th Century geologist who saw evidence for a catastophic flood based on the finds of ossiferous breccia in much of S. England, France and America.
https://archive.org/stream/oncertainphenome00presrich#page/n0/mode/1up
https://archive.org/stream/oncertainphenome00presrich#page/n0/mode/1up
Josephus was not a trained Levitcal Priest. If you invested as much time in Scripture as you do in sources external to Scripture, Interplanner, you would know this.
Further, if you knew your 1st Century history norms as well as you think you do, you would know not to base believing Josephus' reports about weather conditions - which were heavily influenced by the many every day superstitions about weather conditions in his day. If it rained on one side but not down across the way, that was a bad omen, and so on. Natural disasters, well, the gods were displeased with mankind, etc.
And Josephus was writing well aware he was considered a traitor by all those Jews carried off to Rome in chains while his sell out had him living in the lap of luxury among the Romans his writings had sought to justify their eyes their slaughter of his people, destruction of their city, and looting of their Temple.
You are a fool.
Further, if you knew your 1st Century history norms as well as you think you do, you would know not to base believing Josephus' reports about weather conditions - which were heavily influenced by the many every day superstitions about weather conditions in his day. If it rained on one side but not down across the way, that was a bad omen, and so on. Natural disasters, well, the gods were displeased with mankind, etc.
And Josephus was writing well aware he was considered a traitor by all those Jews carried off to Rome in chains while his sell out had him living in the lap of luxury among the Romans his writings had sought to justify their eyes their slaughter of his people, destruction of their city, and looting of their Temple.
You are a fool.
On YOUR ACTUAL "bible" - the writings of Josephus the very core of Preterist notions.
It is one thing to read, study, and even enjoy sources external to Scripture.
But to OVER RELY on them, as your Preterism has REPEATEDLY demonstrates it has done.
No thanks, you can keep the "uncertain sound" that is YOUR endless OVER RELIANCE on sources EXTERNAL TO SCRIPTURE, 1 Cor. 14:8; 2 Tim. 3:26-17.
By the way, nice cop out response on your part. You know you have no answer.
What you are doing is claiming your external sources are right and mine are wrong.
Any time you want to debate Preterism with just the bible let me know
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(Matt 24:34) Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Using no external sources at all, what does Matt 24:34 say at face value?
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know what docs would work to deny Josephus his priesthood, but let's say he's not. He did know the workings, from the inside, as far as I can tell, and he knew the rendition of Dan 8-9 that is also what Caiaphas was referring to, I think, in Jn 12 and 18.
He had the category of disreputable or irreverent men which was often used by the ruling and priest class to refer to the zealots. For their part, they claimed to be to true priests.
It is said that the difference between the Qumran priesthood and the zealots is that the Qumran accepted the fact that they would never be in the temple; the zealots insisted on being there. I don't see where he was trying to save face with them and how they defined things, but rather with the ruling class.
There could also have been capitulation: he may have joined with the zealots for a while and returned his loyalty later. The ruling class of Jews was influential all through the Roman world in many cities.
He had the category of disreputable or irreverent men which was often used by the ruling and priest class to refer to the zealots. For their part, they claimed to be to true priests.
It is said that the difference between the Qumran priesthood and the zealots is that the Qumran accepted the fact that they would never be in the temple; the zealots insisted on being there. I don't see where he was trying to save face with them and how they defined things, but rather with the ruling class.
There could also have been capitulation: he may have joined with the zealots for a while and returned his loyalty later. The ruling class of Jews was influential all through the Roman world in many cities.