Size and shape of the New Jerusalem and how will it fit on the Earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Sherlock:
This is not true whatsoever. Catholics are, in fact, free to subscribe to the preterist view if they so choose. They are also free to reject it. There are a number of highly-respected Catholic apologists that subscribe to the preterist view.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can enlighten me on this. I know that the Full preterist view is that the ressurection (general please) and the second coming has already occured. That would seem to be in opposition to our RCC’s Nicene Creed which says in part that we wait for the Lord to “Come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead” and that we “look for the ressurection of the dead and the life of the world to come, amen.”
 
40.png
catholic2:
Maybe you can enlighten me on this. I know that the Full preterist view is that the ressurection (general please) and the second coming has already occured. That would seem to be in opposition to our RCC’s Nicene Creed which says in part that we wait for the Lord to “Come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead” and that we “look for the ressurection of the dead and the life of the world to come, amen.”
Click to expand...
That’s not the view I was referring to. Go here: cin.org/users/james/questions/q065.htm to see what I (and probably StCsDavid) are referring to. This is just a snippet, written by Jimmy Akin (who is hardly a friend to heresy) in answer to the question, “what is preterism” and asking just what Jimmy Akin thinks of it:

“I happen to subscribe to it, as do numerous others including (Catholic) Scott Hahn and (Protestant) David Chilton. The general thesis of preterism is that the bulk (though not all) of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century or otherwise in the first few centuries (by the conversion of Constantine). There is still, however, the future Second Coming, General Judgment, New Creation, and Eternal Order. Many preterists identify the Whore of Babylon as Apostate Jerusalem (which was destroyed in A.D. 70), though others identify it as Pagan Rome.”
 
OK Sherlock, I will do some studying and get back to you.

So your view then is a MODIFIED preterism right? Not a FULL preterism or somebody else referred to as hyperpreterism, right?

If you are a moldified preterist, why not call yourselves by another label?
 
40.png
catholic2:
OK Sherlock, I will do some studying and get back to you.

So your view then is a MODIFIED preterism right? Not a FULL preterism or somebody else referred to as hyperpreterism, right?

If you are a moldified preterist, why not call yourselves by another label?
Click to expand...
“Moldified”? Eeeeeyeeewww…sounds nasty. I just turned 43. Look, I’m no spring chicken, but I’m not moldy yet.

As for the terms being used: since Jimmy Akin, for whom I have a great deal of respect, doesn’t use the terms that you do, then I’ll stick with the terms he does use. I have found him to be a reliable source in the past, as well as detailed and precise. I doubt his use of the term comes from intellectual sloppiness.
 
40.png
catholic2:
StCsDavid: Your Preterist view is showing. Basically your position is that every prophecy including the ressurection and second coming was fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70AD. Preterism will not fly, has not flown, has tried and crashed.

You have to negate the Book of Revelation to hold on to Preterism because it was written about 96 AD, 26 years after Jerusalem’s destruction, and it is plainly written that the events described in Revelation are yet to come.

"After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven and the former voice, which I had heard as of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up hither, and I will show thee the things that must come to pass hereafter.”
(DR english translation) Apocalypse 4:1

The RCC does not hold to the Preterist view and I would consider that view quite heretical.
Click to expand...

Preterism is far more nearly adequate than most views - however, if the book is treated as what it calls itself, that is, as an apocalypse, one has the advantages of Preterism without its disadvantages.​

Apocalyptic is not prophecy - it’s like it in certain respects, and may have grown out of it, in part. As the book is a Christian apocalypse, it allows for eschatology of some kind - which means that certains realities can be present already, in history, yet not in their completeness. So something remains to be completed.

The notion that the Revelation is an apocalypse, is far from unorthodox. It denies no dogma. And *if *the Magisterium has objections to it, it has been exceedingly slow to say so. ##
 
GoG: What you said went sailing right over my head. Care to simplify or restate it?
 
Jimmy Akin (never heard of him before) in his study “Flow of time in Revelation” unfortunately stoped at 21:8. Does anyone know of a study by him from 21:9 on?
 
You’ve never heard of Jimmy Akin? Are you kidding me? If you aren’t, take a look at the site that sponsors this forum: Catholic Answers. Jimmy Akin is one of their apologists, and has written a number of excellent tracts and books as well.
 
Cat2, with all due respect, can you tell me the source for your belief in this literal interpretation of Revelations? You are very steadfast in your beliefs, and I find not fault in that; however, other than a reference to Ireneous and quotes from Revelations, I haven’t seen any solid evidence to refute the multiple sources provided that indicated that John authored Revelations prior to 70 AD. If I’m a preterist as you say, it is only because the historical evidence points me in that direction.

On a more philosophical note, one reason I have so much trouble with the cube is that it is so out of character as to how God has revealed himself to man in the past and even today. God spoke to the prophets in whispers. Christ came into the world as a helpless, poor, infant. His mother Mary in the aparitions approved by the Church appeared to children or very humble people. There is even a very real simplicity in the Eucharist as Christ reveals himself in the bread and wine. Doesn’t it seem more “man made” to conceive of an image of God dropping this giant cube on earth, or hovering it above like some kind of spacecraft?
 
40.png
catholic2:
Here is a literal translation from Greek to english. It may sound awkward…(A complete text of the Greek New Testament from United Bible Societies’ Third Corrected Edition. Editor Paul R. McReynolds, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois)

Rev.21:15-16
“And the one speaking with me had measure reed gold, that he might measure the city and the gates of it and the wall of it. And the city four-cornered is set and the length of it as much as also the width. And he measured the city in the reed on stadia twelve thousands, the length and the width and the height of it equal is.”

STADIA is mentioned also in Mt. 14:24; Lk 24:13; Jn 6:19, 11:18; 1C 9:24; Rev 14:20 as well as Rev. 21:16.

Dictionary.com
Stadia:
An ancient Greek measure of distance, based on the length of the race course on which foot races were held, equal to about 185 meters (607 feet)
Click to expand...
Hi Catholic2.
This definition of 607 feet, is short of the mark. For instance there are 5280 feet in a mile. So 12,000 X 607 / 5280 = 1379.5 miles. Most modern bibles suggest 1500 miles. A Furlong = 1/8 mile. 12,000 / 8 = 1500 miles. Also 1 Furlong = 660 feet. So when that definition says 607 feet, it is to restrictive. Again, noone really knows the exact length of a Stadia. It is somewhere between 607 and 660 feet.
 
40.png
StCsDavid:
Cat2, with all due respect, can you tell me the source for your belief in this literal interpretation of Revelations? You are very steadfast in your beliefs, and I find not fault in that; however, other than a reference to Ireneous and quotes from Revelations, I haven’t seen any solid evidence to refute the multiple sources provided that indicated that John authored Revelations prior to 70 AD. If I’m a preterist as you say, it is only because the historical evidence points me in that direction.

On a more philosophical note, one reason I have so much trouble with the cube is that it is so out of character as to how God has revealed himself to man in the past and even today. God spoke to the prophets in whispers. Christ came into the world as a helpless, poor, infant. His mother Mary in the aparitions approved by the Church appeared to children or very humble people. There is even a very real simplicity in the Eucharist as Christ reveals himself in the bread and wine. Doesn’t it seem more “man made” to conceive of an image of God dropping this giant cube on earth, or hovering it above like some kind of spacecraft?
Click to expand...
Well put! The idea of a literal giant cube sounds more L. Ron Hubbard-like than God-like.
 
The next time the Lord comes, according to scripture, it won’t be in a manner like the first. We all know that and I don’t want to sound didactic as I really don’t know all the details. For now just the City descending to earth from the heavens is what we’re talking about. As far as preterism is concerned, I don’t see any preterists on this thread. Aloha, daniel
 
40.png
catholic2:
The next time the Lord comes, according to scripture, it won’t be in a manner like the first. We all know that and I don’t want to sound didactic as I really don’t know all the details. For now just the City descending to earth from the heavens is what we’re talking about. As far as preterism is concerned, I don’t see any preterists on this thread. Aloha, daniel
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’ve addressed the comments that others have made in response to yours, and this post doesn’t add anything. As for their not being any preterists on this thread, why, I tend towards that view. It seems very reasonable. My very orthodox priest subscribes as well. It’s your definition of it that seems off base—if I have to choose between your definition and the use of the term by Jimmy Akin and other well-known apologists, I think you know whose expertise I’ll choose.
 
Don’t worry, I’m still researching. My last comment was just a warm up. Be back and I’ll try to address all the issues.
 
Meanwhile, don’t want to sound trite. There’s a huge difference between a full preterist and one who considers himself a partial one. Just as you can’t be a Roman Catholic without accepting all of its Dogma, you can’t be a preterist if you think not all of prophecy has not been fulfilled. That’s why I said I saw no preterists on this thread.
 
40.png
catholic2:
Meanwhile, don’t want to sound trite. There’s a huge difference between a full preterist and one who considers himself a partial one. Just as you can’t be a Roman Catholic without accepting all of its Dogma, you can’t be a preterist if you think not all of prophecy has not been fulfilled. That’s why I said I saw no preterists on this thread.
Click to expand...
Before somebody notices…sorry for the double negative. I meant to say “you can’t be a preterist if you think all of prophecy has not been fulfilled.”
 
40.png
catholic2:
Meanwhile, don’t want to sound trite. There’s a huge difference between a full preterist and one who considers himself a partial one. Just as you can’t be a Roman Catholic without accepting all of its Dogma, you can’t be a preterist if you think not all of prophecy has not been fulfilled. That’s why I said I saw no preterists on this thread.
Click to expand...
Why should I accept your definition and use of the term preterist, over the use of the term by well-known apologists with a great deal of credibility?
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Why should I accept your definition and use of the term preterist, over the use of the term by well-known apologists with a great deal of credibility?
Click to expand...
Because of the great difference! Some partial “preterists” consider full-preterists as heretics.
 
So being a partial preterist is like being “sort of pregnant?” 🙂

Okay, I’m not a preterist. To be candid, I never heard of that term until this thread started and I did some research; so I have learned something. I’m a Roman Catholic who has some views that agree with some, but not all, of what a bonofide preterist would believe. Or you can just call me David. 🙂

I’ll look forward to your response to the various elements that lead me to believe that Revelations was penned prior to the destruction of the Temple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top