I am a newbee partial preterist. Discuss.

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Hi everyone. I am new to preterism. The reason that I have come to this conclusion on eschatology, is because Jesus said twice that he would return before that generation passed. Actually I think it woz three times.
Either we go preterist, or conclude that Jesus was mistaken or wrong. I don't think that Jesus was wrong.
There seems to be evidence that the rapture occurred in 70 AD, from various pagan sources. There were no Christians remaining to record the event, so it is a bit cloudy in history. The faith was lost and all that remained were the various Gnostic Greek sects which developed after the rapture, eventually being replaced by the Catholic Church.
For info.. I am a religious liberal - which means that I am not a fundamentalist. I woz never a dispensationalist.. I had a sort of Amillennial eschatology.

For those that feel that preterism is incorrect, then perhaps we can discuss why here on the forum.

 

[The_Believer7]

So ... what's going on now, ... almost 2,000 years after the Rapture ?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

We are approaching the end of the age and the beginning of the Messianic age described in Isaiah. This is different to the return of Christ (which has already happened). The Messianic age is eternal and is the Kingdom. This is described by Jesus in the parable of the wheat and the tares.
The tares are removed from the Kingdom first, then the wheat is gathered into his barn. The angels are sent out by Jesus to remove the tares and all that offends from the earth, which will become the Kingdom.
The popular rapture theory contradicts Jesus - as in that scenario, the wheat is gathered first.
I think that these times are the last days, and is described also in Daniel, with the Antichrist changing times and laws. The Antichrist is imo. a spirit and not one man. It is the general fallen spirit of fallen men, combined with devils.

 

[A_Thinker]

This is described by Jesus in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

The tares are removed from the Kingdom first, then the wheat is gathered into his barn. The angels are sent out by Jesus to remove the tares and all that offends from the earth, which will become the Kingdom.

The popular rapture theory contradicts Jesus - as in that scenario, the wheat is gathered first.

How does your view on the Rapture differ ... except in timing ?

Wasn't it wheat that was gathered in 70 AD ?

 

[JLB777]

Hi everyone. I am new to preterism. The reason that I have come to this conclusion on eschatology, is because Jesus said twice that he would return before that generation passed. Actually I think it woz three times.
Either we go preterist, or conclude that Jesus was mistaken or wrong. I don't think that Jesus was wrong.
There seems to be evidence that the rapture occurred in 70 AD, from various pagan sources. There were no Christians remaining to record the event, so it is a bit cloudy in history. The faith was lost and all that remained were the various Gnostic Greek sects which developed after the rapture, eventually being replaced by the Catholic Church.
For info.. I am a religious liberal - which means that I am not a fundamentalist. I woz never a dispensationalist.. I had a sort of Amillennial eschatology.

For those that feel that preterism is incorrect, then perhaps we can discuss why here on the forum.

There are 3 scriptural facts that concern the coming of the Lord to gather His people at the resurrection and rapture, in which once these 3 things are known, there is no more confusion about this subject.


15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17


1.] The resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs at the coming of the Lord, before the rapture.

• And the dead in Christ will rise first. v. 16

2.] Just after the resurrection of the dead in Christ, the rapture will occur at the coming of the Lord, whereby both the living and dead in Christ, will be caught up together to be with the Lord in the air.

• Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. v.17

3.] The third fact about the coming of the Lord, is that the antichrist will be destroyed, by the brightness of His coming.

• Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

...the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.


The 3 major things that occur at His coming:

1. The Resurrection of the dead in Christ.
2. The Rapture.
3. The destruction of the antichrist.

Once each person comes to understand these three major truths that occur at His coming, there will be no more confusion about this doctrine.


JLB

 

[Willie T]

Some of this does take a bit of OT knowledge (like His listeners had) or else your attempts to put all His words into a 21st Century framework will continue to result in faulty conclusions.

 

[JLB777]

This is different to the return of Christ (which has already happened).

Really?

Why would you say Jesus has returned.


What scripture teaches this?

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you believe Christ will return?

 

[JLB777]

Do you believe Christ will return?

Yes. At the end of the age.

 

[dreadnought]

Hi everyone. I am new to preterism. The reason that I have come to this conclusion on eschatology, is because Jesus said twice that he would return before that generation passed. Actually I think it woz three times.
Either we go preterist, or conclude that Jesus was mistaken or wrong. I don't think that Jesus was wrong.
There seems to be evidence that the rapture occurred in 70 AD, from various pagan sources. There were no Christians remaining to record the event, so it is a bit cloudy in history. The faith was lost and all that remained were the various Gnostic Greek sects which developed after the rapture, eventually being replaced by the Catholic Church.
For info.. I am a religious liberal - which means that I am not a fundamentalist. I woz never a dispensationalist.. I had a sort of Amillennial eschatology.

For those that feel that preterism is incorrect, then perhaps we can discuss why here on the forum.

I believe biblical prophesies come true in each of our lifetimes.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Do you believe Christ will return?

I am not sure about that, as I believe that he already returned. The close of the end of the age might be some sort of transformation into the Kingdom. When Jesus talks about the tares being removed from the Kingdom, that must be the earth - as what would tares be doing in heaven? - they wouldn't be there to be removed, that is why I think that the earth is transformed into the Kingdom.
But unlike pre-millennial's, I do not accept a 1000 year rule of Christ with the return to earth of the saints from heaven - I think that the author of Revelation was in error about a literal 1000 year Kingdom.
But at the resurrection, the saints in heaven receive resurrection bodies, which is different from the spiritual body in heaven.

I make use of primarily the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe that the writer of Paul, whoever that was, is reliable - I know that would upset a lot of people, but that is what I conclude on that.
The resurrection occurs at the beginning of the Messianic Age - when people get resurrection bodies to live forever, on a transformed earth.

I can't really respond to all the writings of Paul, as I do not believe that anyone writing in the NT times was reliable as a prophet, except for Jesus - they might just be wrong about it - I believe that prophesy ended with Micah.
If Peter was correct about the earth being consumed by fire - when does that happen? Where do people go who are on the earth at that time? Duzant it say in the OT that the earth endures forever?

The Lion and the Lamb in Isaiah, (as it was) is metaphor, but is also describing a literal condition of transformation of the animal kingdom, in the age to come - no predation, no venomous serpents etc.
I think that the first Christians were gathered up into heaven, much like Elijah.

Jesus talking about the kingdom being introduced before the passing of that generation, was describing the dawn of the kingdom, as the new covenant, as well as his return to collect the saints back in 70 AD.
The question about how is the rapture different if it was in 70 AD - the wheat was gathered up, but Jesus was not describing that specific event - he was talking about the end of the age some 2000 years in the future. That is when the disciples asked him specifically about the end of the age.
Jesus also talked about the tribulation of 70 AD, and prophesied accurately about the Romans surrounding Jerusalem, and warned people to flee to safety. Then immediately after the tribulation, would be the return of Jesus and the 'rapture' of the saints - 70 AD.
The end of the age is more apocalyptic - the 'day of the Lord' prophesied in the OT or Tanakh. This is after the antichrist does his worship of a peculiar god of forces, has no regard for the desire of women, and seeks to alter times and laws, and wears out the saints - which is what they/he is doing now.
The angels are sent out by Jesus, and they take out the tares which are upon the earth. Then the wheat is gathered into his barn - which is those Christians remaining on the earth at that time, and the saints already in heaven - united in the kingdom.
Posting a lot of stuff from Paul and the other letters of the NT wont work for me - Jesus first, and the prophets of old like Isaiah, Micah.
Revelation also - not reliable and not prophetic and not written by John.
Duz Jesus need to return to earth in a physical body? Perhaps. Jesus said that he would drink wine again in the Kingdom, so perhaps so. Whatever sort of immortal body there is, wine will no longer be harmful, or people prone to alcoholism. Like Jesus said - they are like the angels and can no longer die. And like Isaiah said - God will swallow up death.
There are two or more writers of Isaiah. The first Isaiah describes an eternal kingdom. The latter Isaiah pretends to be Isaiah, by using Isaiah's sort of language, but has another belief - in a millennial kingdom of about 1000 years, where people do die. The latter Isaiah is a false prophet - an impostor pretending to be Isaiah.

 

[Douggg]

I am not sure about that, as I believe that he already returned. The close of the end of the age might be some sort of transformation into the Kingdom. When Jesus talks about the tares being removed from the Kingdom, that must be the earth - as what would tares be doing in heaven? - they wouldn't be there to be removed, that is why I think that the earth is transformed into the Kingdom.
But unlike pre-millennial's, I do not accept a 1000 year rule of Christ with the return to earth of the saints from heaven - I think that the author of Revelation was in error about a literal 1000 year Kingdom.
But at the resurrection, the saints in heaven receive resurrection bodies, which is different from the spiritual body in heaven.

I make use of primarily the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe that the writer of Paul, whoever that was, is reliable - I know that would upset a lot of people, but that is what I conclude on that.
The resurrection occurs at the beginning of the Messianic Age - when people get resurrection bodies to live forever, on a transformed earth.

I can't really respond to all the writings of Paul, as I do not believe that anyone writing in the NT times was reliable as a prophet, except for Jesus - they might just be wrong about it - I believe that prophesy ended with Micah.
If Peter was correct about the earth being consumed by fire - when does that happen? Where do people go who are on the earth at that time? Duzant it say in the OT that the earth endures forever?

The Lion and the Lamb in Isaiah, (as it was) is metaphor, but is also describing a literal condition of transformation of the animal kingdom, in the age to come - no predation, no venomous serpents etc.
I think that the first Christians were gathered up into heaven, much like Elijah.

Jesus talking about the kingdom being introduced before the passing of that generation, was describing the dawn of the kingdom, as the new covenant, as well as his return to collect the saints back in 70 AD.
The question about how is the rapture different if it was in 70 AD - the wheat was gathered up, but Jesus was not describing that specific event - he was talking about the end of the age some 2000 years in the future. That is when the disciples asked him specifically about the end of the age.
Jesus also talked about the tribulation of 70 AD, and prophesied accurately about the Romans surrounding Jerusalem, and warned people to flee to safety. Then immediately after the tribulation, would be the return of Jesus and the 'rapture' of the saints - 70 AD.
The end of the age is more apocalyptic - the 'day of the Lord' prophesied in the OT or Tanakh. This is after the antichrist does his worship of a peculiar god of forces, has no regard for the desire of women, and seeks to alter times and laws, and wears out the saints - which is what they/he is doing now.
The angels are sent out by Jesus, and they take out the tares which are upon the earth. Then the wheat is gathered into his barn - which is those Christians remaining on the earth at that time, and the saints already in heaven - united in the kingdom.
Posting a lot of stuff from Paul and the other letters of the NT wont work for me - Jesus first, and the prophets of old like Isaiah, Micah.
Revelation also - not reliable and not prophetic and not written by John.
Duz Jesus need to return to earth in a physical body? Perhaps. Jesus said that he would drink wine again in the Kingdom, so perhaps so. Whatever sort of immortal body there is, wine will no longer be harmful, or people prone to alcoholism. Like Jesus said - they are like the angels and can no longer die. And like Isaiah said - God will swallow up death.
There are two or more writers of Isaiah. The first Isaiah describes an eternal kingdom. The latter Isaiah pretends to be Isaiah, by using Isaiah's sort of language, but has another belief - in a millennial kingdom of about 1000 years, where people do die. The latter Isaiah is a false prophet - an impostor pretending to be Isaiah.

In Acts 1, Jesus left this world from the Mt. of Olives. In Zechariah 14:4-5, when Jesus returns, it is to the same Mt of Olives, his foot touching down splitting it, half to the north, half to the south. Obviously has not happened yet.

 

[BABerean2]

In Acts 1, Jesus left this world from the Mt. of Olives. In Zechariah 14:4-5, when Jesus returns, it is to the same Mt of Olives, his foot touching down splitting it, half to the north, half to the south. Obviously has not happened yet.

Rev_6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Rev_8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.

Rev_11:13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Rev_11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Rev_16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

.

 

[mkgal1]

There seems to be evidence that the rapture occurred in 70 AD, from various pagan sources. There were no Christians remaining to record the event, so it is a bit cloudy in history. The faith was lost and all that remained were the various Gnostic Greek sects which developed after the rapture, eventually being replaced by the Catholic Church.

I'm new to this as well. It was only a couple of weeks ago that I explained my understanding of a few verses and a few people responded by saying, "you're a preterist". I hadn't ever heard that term before that.

As far as your comment about the rapture happening in 70 AD, I think you're considering the "coming of the Son of Man" to be the rapture? I'm not so sure there's going to even *be* a rapture.

From N.T. Wright:

Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.

The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.

This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?

It is Paul who should be credited with creating this scenario. Jesus himself, as I have argued in various books, never predicted such an event[2]. The gospel passages about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Mark 13:26, 14:62, for example) are about Jesus’ vindication, his “coming” to heaven from earth. The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11-27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever. (More of article here: Farewell to the Rapture).
​

 

[The_Believer7]

I think that the first Christians were gathered up into heaven, much like Elijah.

Don't you think that someone would have noted that ?

Then immediately after the tribulation, would be the return of Jesus and the 'rapture' of the saints - 70 AD.

Isn't the Rapture (any rapture) ... a teaching of Paul ?

Where are you finding support for a 70 AD rapture ?

I make use of primarily the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe that the writer of Paul, whoever that was, is reliable - I know that would upset a lot of people, but that is what I conclude on that.

You do realize that one of the gospels was written by Paul's physician friend, Luke, correct ?

And that Paul had met with the other Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) ... and, ultimately, received their blessing to pursue his evangelistic ministry ?

 

[mkgal1]

CosmicGoldfish.....you may be interested in reading this:

MAKING ALL THINGS NEW Inaugurated Eschatology for the Life of the Church Benjamin L. Gladd and Matthew S. Harmon With an Introductory Chapter by G. K. Beale

 

[mkgal1]

From this article: Did Paul Teach the "Rapture"?

So does Paul teach the “rapture”? No, he doesn’t. He doesn’t teach that Christians are going to be taken up into the atmosphere and protected from global tribulations in a heavenly hideaway. He teaches that Jesus (not the Emperor) is Lord and that when the times comes to bring an end to earthly sufferings and evil, the resurrected Jesus will appear (parousia) and complete the kingdom inauguration in a restored creation. Evil will be defeated, death will be overcome, and the powers and principalities will be undone. Creation will be reconciled to God.

Oh, and Paul also told the Thessalonians to not get too excited about all this eschatology stuff. They should get back to work, and mind their own business (1 Thess 4:11). Jesus will come when he comes.​

Read more at Did Paul Teach the "Rapture"?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Don't you think that someone would have noted that ?



Isn't the Rapture (any rapture) ... a teaching of Paul ?

Where are you finding support for a 70 AD rapture ?



You do realize that one of the gospels was written by Paul's physician friend, Luke, correct ?

And that Paul had met with the other Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) ... and, ultimately, received their blessing to pursue his evangelistic ministry ?

Rapture is a word that has got into the language - I still use the word, and yes, it is derived from Paul. People did note the event - they were pagans, and I have only just heard of it - I know Josephus is one who noted strange events in Judea of the time, but as it's new to me, I cannot as yet quote these pagan sources - I know the Bible fairly well from memory.
Call it 'the coming of the Son of Man' to clarify, rather than rapture. I think that whoever wrote 1 Thessalonians, and I don't know who that was - was wrong, not a prophet, just someone writing their thoughts.
Paul didunt have a blessing from the Apostles - they wrote about his error - James tries to correct Paul's teaching, trying to say that works are also important.
Imo. Luther made a mistake in developing the salvation though grace doctrine - which he based on Romans - Jesus makes it clear in the Gospels that works are important, and that we might be judged for lack of works.
For me, it is repentance, followed by works - being born again, baptism, but a continuous awareness of the dangers of sin. I got this, by reading again the Gospels recently.
The parable of the sower also makes it clear that salvation is not a given - there must be a continuous walk on the narrow path.
I do not know who wrote the gospels. But I believe that they are reliable, until the recent Mandela Effect alterations (but that's another matter) - most of it is still reliable, as for now.
I know it will be unpopular here, but I think that Paul (if there was a real historical Paul), was a man of lawlessness who was contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who wanted to clarify the Law - not abolish it, as Paul wished to do. I think that Peter and James were very opposed to Paul. I think there probably was a real Paul, but I am not sure at all who wrote the letters attributed to Paul.
As for Revelation - bogus and writing about Nero and Rome. It is not true. It is not Jesus writing - it is by an unknown Jewish author and was later edited to make it appear to be a Christian book.
I base my eschatology on the teachings of Jesus and the prophets. People posting lots of Revelation and Paul is going to be a waste of time for me. I am a preterist because Jesus said that the Kingdom would arrive within a generation.
People try to wriggle out of his words by saying that 'this generation' means the survival of the Jewish race. People like atheists who try to trash Christianity use these passages to claim that Jesus was wrong. As in Matt 24, Jesus accurately predicts the sacking of Jerusalem - he wozant wrong.

 

[The_Believer7]

Paul didunt have a blessing from the Apostles - they wrote about his error -

Where ???

James (the brother of Christ) doesn't oppose Paul's teaching. He affirms Paul teaching that God-given salvation will result in works, ... so that if one has true faith, ... that that faith will be EXPRESSED in works (i.e. "show me your faith by your deeds").

The parable of the sower also makes it clear that salvation is not a given - there must be a continuous walk on the narrow path.

So ... you heed the parable of the sower, which is written of by Luke, Paul's physician friend.

And Luke also wrote Acts, which clearly shows Paul joining in ministry with the Apostles, including Peter, James, and John. In fact, the last half of Acts is a presentation of Paul's evangelizing of the regions surrounding the Middle East.

And ... if the faith was lost (through a 70AD rapture), ... how was what you believe REINTRODUCED to the world ? Who is responsible for bringing it back ?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

And ... if the faith was lost (through a 70AD rapture), ... how was what you believe REINTRODUCED to the world ? Who is responsible for bringing it back ?

Christianity developed after about 250 years. It's a good point though. The gospels and the various letters still existed - the information might have been used to develop a new church. Perhaps there were Ebionites and Nazarines in Judah. Some people who were not born-again were left behind.
These people had copies of the gospels and letters. Jesus said that one cannot enter the Kingdom unless born again - so that would explain the survival of the church after the rapture.
There were lots of Greek Gnostic sects about in those years - they also had Gospels and various writings. The Ebionites seem to have been persecuted out or just fizzled out quite early.
Gnostics also faded away. The Catholic Church was eventually established throughout the empire, but it took about 350 years. I think that the Greeks latched onto Paul's easy 'Judaism Lite' doctrines.
There were lots of these Greek churches at an early date throughout the empire, but the rapture took many. If Paul existed, then he established churches far and wide, into Turkey, Syria in the early years before 70 AD.
By the way - I don't think that Jesus actually landed physically in 70 AD - but it was a gathering up of people, much like a rapture - like Enoch and Elijah.
The end of the age happens twice - 70 AD and the last days. 70 AD brought about the end of an age - the end of the Jews in Judah and Temple religion. I think Jesus was talking about two things, and we need to sort out what is of the coming of the Son of Man, and what is about the Day of the Lord.