Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [revelation-list] significance of names and naming

Expand Messages
  • Don K
    Jason, you are certainly correct that there is so much involved in the names of the Apocalypse. RE: the differences between K. Gentry and myself in regard to
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Jason, you are certainly correct that there is so much involved in the "names" of the Apocalypse.
      RE: the differences between K. Gentry and myself in regard to those names, I venture to say that there would be a great deal of agreement, actually. There are of course significant differences between us in other regards however, i.e. the millennium, and parousia, etc. Gentry has been invited, on more than one occasion, to meet me in formal public debate to discuss those issues. He has to this juncture, regrettably, declined all such invitations. (I might also note that Keith Mathison, editor of the new tome against "hyper-preterism" was invited to meet me in formal public debate, and he also refused.)
       
      Incidentally, Gentry is not a "full preterist." He is a partial or "semi-preterist." I am not a hyper-preterist, or at least I do not like the term. I am simply a preterist in regard to prophetic issues. Hope that little bit of clarification from my perspective is helpful.
      Don K. Preston
      Who Is This Babylon? Currently undergoing revision for reprint
      Along with other contributors, currently writing a response to: When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, Keith Mathison, editor.
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:45 AM
      Subject: RE: [revelation-list] significance of names and naming

      In a message dated 3/18/2004 3:53:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, claire.gouldthorp@... writes:
      "What do you think is the significance of names and naming in the Book of
      Revelation, in relation particularly to 3:12, 14:11, 19:12, 22:4?" 
       
      The first name mentioned in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is  "Jesus Christ". It is ultimately significant. The book is primarily about Him as Saviour and redeemer. It comes as no surprise that Christ is depicted in His Glorified state. He ultimately models in Word (Name) and deed (Covenantal action) what He was purposed to be and do from the beginning.(The beginning of this particular book, the beginnings of time and space and the beginnings of Canon.)
       
      .  .  .Just as the first man, Adam, reflected the glory of God in spiritual identity and physical glory, so too by 22:4 we see the ultimate progression of man's redemption. By having God's name of his forehead we see the realised progression of his (man's) restoration, physically and spiritually, to the image of God through the last Adam. The promise implied in 3:12 is an integral and final restoration of the position of man in relation to God.
       
      My limited experience in reading The Book of the Revelation is that every name, if not every word, of the book is significant and nothing is named or called without purpose and intense meaning
       
      19:12-16 is especially rich in understanding the significance of names within the book. Your challenge to explain or draw a detailed thread through the above scriptures is one which is not easily exhausted as evidenced by the replies of Gentry and Preston. What I would find interesting is what, if any, different positions of full versus hyper-preterism can be realised
      through examining the literal meanings of names in the Revelation?
       
      . Jason Coates
      Johannesburg, S. Africa
       

    • MORIAH PLASTICS (COATES)
      Don, I suspected the same with respect to the names issue. I fully realise that Gentry is a partial-preterist. (Many people don t see a distinction between
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 20, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Don,
         
        I suspected the same with respect to the "names" issue. I fully realise that Gentry is a partial-preterist. (Many people don't see a distinction between partial, full and hyper etc.hence "preterist".) What does excite me is to learn that Gentry has a new book coming out, which I most certainly must read and I also look forward to your published response. Unfortunately, Gentry has given little preview of his new work via this forum, but I am sure will be of great importance in helping to clarify the differences within the "Preterist" camp, or between the preterist camps.
         
        I also look forward to seeing the revisions in your book which I have begun to read most recently.
         
        Jason Coates
        Johannesburg, S. Africa
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Don K [mailto:dkpret@...]
        Sent: 19 March 2004 08:56 PM
        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [revelation-list] significance of names and naming

        Jason, you are certainly correct that there is so much involved in the "names" of the Apocalypse.
        RE: the differences between K. Gentry and myself in regard to those names, I venture to say that there would be a great deal of agreement, actually. There are of course significant differences between us in other regards however, i.e. the millennium, and parousia, etc. Gentry has been invited, on more than one occasion, to meet me in formal public debate to discuss those issues. He has to this juncture, regrettably, declined all such invitations. (I might also note that Keith Mathison, editor of the new tome against "hyper-preterism" was invited to meet me in formal public debate, and he also refused.)
         
        Incidentally, Gentry is not a "full preterist." He is a partial or "semi-preterist." I am not a hyper-preterist, or at least I do not like the term. I am simply a preterist in regard to prophetic issues. Hope that little bit of clarification from my perspective is helpful.
        Don K. Preston
        Who Is This Babylon? Currently undergoing revision for reprint
        Along with other contributors, currently writing a response to: When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, Keith Mathison, editor.
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:45 AM
        Subject: RE: [revelation-list] significance of names and naming

        In a message dated 3/18/2004 3:53:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, claire.gouldthorp@... writes:
        "What do you think is the significance of names and naming in the Book of
        Revelation, in relation particularly to 3:12, 14:11, 19:12, 22:4?" 
         
        The first name mentioned in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is  "Jesus Christ". It is ultimately significant. The book is primarily about Him as Saviour and redeemer. It comes as no surprise that Christ is depicted in His Glorified state. He ultimately models in Word (Name) and deed (Covenantal action) what He was purposed to be and do from the beginning.(The beginning of this particular book, the beginnings of time and space and the beginnings of Canon.)
         
        .  .  .Just as the first man, Adam, reflected the glory of God in spiritual identity and physical glory, so too by 22:4 we see the ultimate progression of man's redemption. By having God's name of his forehead we see the realised progression of his (man's) restoration, physically and spiritually, to the image of God through the last Adam. The promise implied in 3:12 is an integral and final restoration of the position of man in relation to God.
         
        My limited experience in reading The Book of the Revelation is that every name, if not every word, of the book is significant and nothing is named or called without purpose and intense meaning
         
        19:12-16 is especially rich in understanding the significance of names within the book. Your challenge to explain or draw a detailed thread through the above scriptures is one which is not easily exhausted as evidenced by the replies of Gentry and Preston. What I would find interesting is what, if any, different positions of full versus hyper-preterism can be realised
        through examining the literal meanings of names in the Revelation?
         
        . Jason Coates
        Johannesburg, S. Africa
         

      • Charles Larkin, 42130
        Could someone enlighten me as to the distinguishing differences between preterists , semi-preterists , full preterists and hyper-preterists ? Thanks in
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 20, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Could someone enlighten me as to the distinguishing
          differences between "preterists", "semi-preterists", "full
          preterists" and "hyper-preterists"?

          Thanks in advance,
          CGL


          On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:56:22 -0600
          "Don K" <dkpret@...> wrote:
          >Jason, you are certainly correct that there is so much
          >involved in the "names" of the Apocalypse.
          >RE: the differences between K. Gentry and myself in
          >regard to those names, I venture to say that there would
          >be a great deal of agreement, actually. There are of
          >course significant differences between us in other
          >regards however, i.e. the millennium, and parousia, etc.
          >Gentry has been invited, on more than one occasion, to
          >meet me in formal public debate to discuss those issues.
          >He has to this juncture, regrettably, declined all such
          >invitations. (I might also note that Keith Mathison,
          >editor of the new tome against "hyper-preterism" was
          >invited to meet me in formal public debate, and he also
          >refused.)
          >
          >Incidentally, Gentry is not a "full preterist." He is a
          >partial or "semi-preterist." I am not a hyper-preterist,
          >or at least I do not like the term. I am simply a
          >preterist in regard to prophetic issues. Hope that little
          >bit of clarification from my perspective is helpful.
          >Don K. Preston
          >Who Is This Babylon? Currently undergoing revision for
          >reprint
          >Along with other contributors, currently writing a
          >response to: When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed
          >Response to Hyper-Preterism, Keith Mathison, editor.
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: MORIAH PLASTICS (COATES)
          > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:45 AM
          > Subject: RE: [revelation-list] significance of names
          >and naming
          >
          >
          > In a message dated 3/18/2004 3:53:50 PM Eastern
          >Standard Time, claire.gouldthorp@... writes:
          > "What do you think is the significance of names and
          >naming in the Book of
          > Revelation, in relation particularly to 3:12, 14:11,
          >19:12, 22:4?"
          >
          >
          > The first name mentioned in the Revelation of Jesus
          >Christ is "Jesus Christ". It is ultimately significant.
          >The book is primarily about Him as Saviour and redeemer.
          >It comes as no surprise that Christ is depicted in His
          >Glorified state. He ultimately models in Word (Name) and
          >deed (Covenantal action) what He was purposed to be and
          >do from the beginning.(The beginning of this particular
          >book, the beginnings of time and space and the beginnings
          >of Canon.)
          >
          > . . .Just as the first man, Adam, reflected the
          >glory of God in spiritual identity and physical glory, so
          >too by 22:4 we see the ultimate progression of man's
          >redemption. By having God's name of his forehead we see
          >the realised progression of his (man's) restoration,
          >physically and spiritually, to the image of God through
          >the last Adam. The promise implied in 3:12 is an integral
          >and final restoration of the position of man in relation
          >to God.
          >
          > My limited experience in reading The Book of the
          >Revelation is that every name, if not every word, of the
          >book is significant and nothing is named or called
          >without purpose and intense meaning
          >
          > 19:12-16 is especially rich in understanding the
          >significance of names within the book. Your challenge to
          >explain or draw a detailed thread through the above
          >scriptures is one which is not easily exhausted as
          >evidenced by the replies of Gentry and Preston. What I
          >would find interesting is what, if any, different
          >positions of full versus hyper-preterism can be realised
          > through examining the literal meanings of names in
          >the Revelation?
          >
          > . Jason Coates
          > Johannesburg, S. Africa
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revelation-list/
          >
          > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
          >Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >

          ---------------------------------------------
          CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance.
        • Don K
          Charles, I will offer just a thought or two. Essentially a partial, (or semi-) preterist is one that holds that some, although not all of the eschatological
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 24, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Charles, I will offer just a thought or two.
            Essentially a partial, (or semi-) preterist is one that holds that some,
            although not all of the eschatological prophecies of the scriptural corpus
            have been fulfilled. Although the Oxford Dictionary defines a preterist as
            one that holds that most of Revelation has been fulfilled, that term also is
            applicable to those who hold that some or most of the Olivet Discourse has
            been fulfilled.
            A full preterist (or hyper as some use the term. I personally do not care
            for that term since it appears to be used disparagingly by many who use it),
            is one that holds that all eschatological prophecy has been fulfilled in the
            events of A. D. 70. Another term that is used by full preterists, and a term
            that I personally prefer to describe the nature of this view, is Covenant
            Eschatology. It is called Covenant Eschatology since it affirms that
            Biblical eschatology is concerned with the termination of the Old Covenant
            World of Israel that occurred in A.D. 70. Thus, in this paradigm, Biblical
            eschatology is concerned with the termination of Covenant, and not History.
            It is interesting that there is currently a "move" in some circles to
            recognize that Jesus saw A.D. 70 as the focus of his eschatology. N. T.
            Wright, and Scot McKnight for instance both believe that Jesus perceived the
            impending judgment on Israel as the Day of the Lord. Wright seems to believe
            that Paul is the one responsible for the church's "literal" view of the end
            of human history. Earlier, it seems that John A.T. Robinson took this view
            as well.
            You can the preterist view in Grotius, Wetstein (to varying degrees), J. S.
            Russell, and others.
            You can find a lot of articles on my website www.eschatology.org. Also
            www.preteristarchives.com.

            Hope this is helpful.

            Don K. Preston
            Who Is This Babylon? Currently undergoing revision for reprint
            Along with other contributors, currently writing a response to: When Shall
            These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, Keith Mathison,
            editor.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Charles Larkin, 42130" <charles.larkin@...>
            To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>; <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 1:20 PM
            Subject: Re: [revelation-list] significance of names and naming


            > Could someone enlighten me as to the distinguishing
            > differences between "preterists", "semi-preterists", "full
            > preterists" and "hyper-preterists"?
            >
            > Thanks in advance,
            > CGL
            >
            >
            > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:56:22 -0600
            > "Don K" <dkpret@...> wrote:
            > >Jason, you are certainly correct that there is so much
            > >involved in the "names" of the Apocalypse.
            > >RE: the differences between K. Gentry and myself in
            > >regard to those names, I venture to say that there would
            > >be a great deal of agreement, actually. There are of
            > >course significant differences between us in other
            > >regards however, i.e. the millennium, and parousia, etc.
            > >Gentry has been invited, on more than one occasion, to
            > >meet me in formal public debate to discuss those issues.
            > >He has to this juncture, regrettably, declined all such
            > >invitations. (I might also note that Keith Mathison,
            > >editor of the new tome against "hyper-preterism" was
            > >invited to meet me in formal public debate, and he also
            > >refused.)
            > >
            > >Incidentally, Gentry is not a "full preterist." He is a
            > >partial or "semi-preterist." I am not a hyper-preterist,
            > >or at least I do not like the term. I am simply a
            > >preterist in regard to prophetic issues. Hope that little
            > >bit of clarification from my perspective is helpful.
            > >Don K. Preston
            > >Who Is This Babylon? Currently undergoing revision for
            > >reprint
            > >Along with other contributors, currently writing a
            > >response to: When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed
            > >Response to Hyper-Preterism, Keith Mathison, editor.
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: MORIAH PLASTICS (COATES)
            > > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:45 AM
            > > Subject: RE: [revelation-list] significance of names
            > >and naming
            > >
            > >
            > > In a message dated 3/18/2004 3:53:50 PM Eastern
            > >Standard Time, claire.gouldthorp@... writes:
            > > "What do you think is the significance of names and
            > >naming in the Book of
            > > Revelation, in relation particularly to 3:12, 14:11,
            > >19:12, 22:4?"
            > >
            > >
            > > The first name mentioned in the Revelation of Jesus
            > >Christ is "Jesus Christ". It is ultimately significant.
            > >The book is primarily about Him as Saviour and redeemer.
            > >It comes as no surprise that Christ is depicted in His
            > >Glorified state. He ultimately models in Word (Name) and
            > >deed (Covenantal action) what He was purposed to be and
            > >do from the beginning.(The beginning of this particular
            > >book, the beginnings of time and space and the beginnings
            > >of Canon.)
            > >
            > > . . .Just as the first man, Adam, reflected the
            > >glory of God in spiritual identity and physical glory, so
            > >too by 22:4 we see the ultimate progression of man's
            > >redemption. By having God's name of his forehead we see
            > >the realised progression of his (man's) restoration,
            > >physically and spiritually, to the image of God through
            > >the last Adam. The promise implied in 3:12 is an integral
            > >and final restoration of the position of man in relation
            > >to God.
            > >
            > > My limited experience in reading The Book of the
            > >Revelation is that every name, if not every word, of the
            > >book is significant and nothing is named or called
            > >without purpose and intense meaning
            > >
            > > 19:12-16 is especially rich in understanding the
            > >significance of names within the book. Your challenge to
            > >explain or draw a detailed thread through the above
            > >scriptures is one which is not easily exhausted as
            > >evidenced by the replies of Gentry and Preston. What I
            > >would find interesting is what, if any, different
            > >positions of full versus hyper-preterism can be realised
            > > through examining the literal meanings of names in
            > >the Revelation?
            > >
            > > . Jason Coates
            > > Johannesburg, S. Africa
            > >
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > > ADVERTISEMENT
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ---
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revelation-list/
            > >
            > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
            > >Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            > >
            >
            > ---------------------------------------------
            > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please
            immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail
            transmission may contain confidential information. This information is
            intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is
            intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files
            if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Bob MacDonald
            ... holds that some, although not all of the eschatological prophecies of the scriptural corpus have been fulfilled.
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 24, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Don Preston wrote:
              >>Essentially a partial, (or semi-) preterist is one that
              holds that some, although not all of the eschatological
              prophecies of the scriptural corpus have been fulfilled.<<

              Does 'hold' mean believe or confess personally? Or does it
              mean that the writer of Revelation holds this?

              The book itself indicates that "the testimony of Jesus is
              the spirit of prophecy." What does prophecy mean to the
              writer?

              Don also wrote: >>Biblical eschatology is concerned with the
              termination of the Old Covenant World of Israel that
              occurred in A.D. 70. Thus, in this paradigm, Biblical
              eschatology is concerned with the termination of Covenant,
              and not History.<<

              Your note does not mention those who consider that this book
              is about the fulfilment of the covenant in the death of
              Jesus; or those who hold that the covenant is not
              'terminated' but finds its purpose and end - not terminus
              but completeness; living telos rather than brick wall.

              Bob

              Bob MacDonald
              http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
              Victoria, B.C., Canada

              Catch the foxes for us,
              the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
              for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
              http://peleyah.ca
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.