Preterism debunked

[Dr. D Bunker]

bye

 

[Dr. D Bunker]

bye

 

[Lost4words]

I have difficulty believing you fell for that fabricated mess. It's not just Irenaeus you have to fabricate a bunch of stuff for, it's Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr. Not to mention the Didache which I imagine you also see as irrelevant.

How about you get one of you Preterist buddies explain the following. It's amusing to see how they write these things off as a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

Who were the two witnesses?

When was “a fourth of the Earth” (Rev. 6:8) killed in 70AD? NEVER!

When did the three plagues in Revelation 9 occur in 70 A.D.? NEVER!

It's beyond me how the seals, trumpets and bowls could have passed between 60-70 A.D.!

In 70 AD there was no "great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood."

And what record do we have of "one third of the living creatures in the sea dying, and a third of the ships destroyed?” NONE!

What record do we have of the great earthquake in Revelation 16 occurring where the city of Jerusalem was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations (plural) fell?” NONE!

I am a partial preterist. Plus, when it comes to Revelation, the preterist have the best evidence possible. Most 'end times' experts these days rely on their own individual interpretation / view / opinion of Revelation.

The Ironclad Network: Irenaeus and the Date of Revelation

Is a very good read with strong evidence for the date being early. It goes against all that you have written so you dismiss it instantly!

 

[Calminian]

You can post all the Preterist links you want, the writings of the early church fathers DEBUNK Pretersim….

I repeat...
What didn't happen in 70 AD debunks Preterism.

None of the Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp, etc. ever mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred. There is zero indication from the church fathers that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.

Preterism has perverted so much of our bible, over 1,000 verse, entire chapters, nearly the entire book of Revelation and much of Daniel, that one would think that if it was all fulfilled by 70 AD, I would think God would have given us some indication or at least one written record of it's fulfillment.

Christians living during 70 A.D., as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event. They never referred to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they referred to it as future event.

The Didache, a first century document every Christian should read, was lost for centuries and rediscovered in Constantinople in 1873. This document proves that those who lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded the events of Matthew 24-25 as unfulfilled.

This Didache mentions the Antichrist, (and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God,) the great tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ as unfulfilled events. The Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70 that the Preterism is false.

In addition to the Didache, early church fathers like Irenaeus, Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, wrote of a future Second Coming.

Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote at length about the Antichrist toward the end of the second century. He was a student of Polycarp.

Justin the Martyr was a Christian apologist (defender of the faith), born in Rome, who wrote about the middle of the second century. He had been a pagan philosopher who converted to Christianity. According to tradition, he was martyred for his faith. Justin clearly believed that Christians would be persecuted by the Antichrist.

Hippolytus, a leader of the church at Rome who was martyred for his faith, wrote about the Antichrist in the early third century in a document titled Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70? Those who were alive in A.D. 70 and the years immediately following? Or modern day preterists writing 2,000 years later?
I’ll side with those who lived closer to the events.

For the Preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70, otherwise it's debunked from the get go.

There is compelling evidence in the writings of the church fathers that the Book of Revelation was written approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Irenaeus lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).

So get this in your mind...Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation) and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus!

In Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.

Irenaeus (AD 120-202) believed that the “Antichrist” had not been revealed. That throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint because most Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff and R.C. Sproul believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist.

That’s not what Irenaeus thought. Notice when he says John the apostle had his apocalyptic vision…

“...For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Who was Domitian? Domitian was a Roman Emperor near the end of the first century.

Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.

Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation sometime around A.D. 95 (“towards the END of Domitian’s reign”), long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement by Irenaeus is devastating to the preterist position.

Plus Jesus said explicitly, if someone says the Messiah has come, do not believe them (Matt. 24:23-28). The full preterist position, IMV, is actually heresy.

 

[Calminian]

I am a partial preterist. ...

That's good news. Now we know you are only partially wrong.

 

[Lost4words]

Plus Jesus said explicitly, if someone says the Messiah has come, do not believe them (Matt. 24:23-28). The full preterist position, IMV, is actually heresy.

Of course, Jesus was speaking before 70AD.

 

[Dr. D Bunker]

bye

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In 70 AD there was no "great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood."

Seriously now, do you really expect to see a mountain burning with fire literally being picked up and cast into the sea? It is covenantle......OC Mt Sinai/Old Jerusalem and NC Mt Zion/New Jerusalem.

Revelation is COVENANTLE...........

Faith, Mountain, and Sea Matt 21:21/Mark 11:3
Faith, mountain and sea

Didn't Jerusalem sit on a small mount?

Exodus 20:
18 And all the people are seeing the voices, and the flames, and the sound of the Trumpet, and the Mount smoking;
and the people see, and move, and stand afar off,

Revelation 18:

15 The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, far off shall stand because of the fear of her torment, weeping, and sorrowing,
18 and were crying, seeing the smoke of her burning, saying, What [city is] like to the great city? 19and they did cast dust upon their heads,

Deuteronomy 4
11 And ye draw near and stand under the Mountain, and the Mountain is burning with fire unto the heart of the Heavens — darkness, cloud, yea, thick darkness:
12 ‘And Yahweh speaketh unto you out of the midst of the fire; a Voice of Words ye are hearing and a similitude ye are not seeing, only a Voice;

How about their sins cast in to the sea?

Micah 7:19
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities;
and thou wilt cast all their Sins into the depths of the Sea.

Did Jesus literally mean that the Apostles would be able to lift up a mountain and cast it into the sea?

Matthew 21:21
Yet Jesus answering said to them, "amen I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith, and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing,
but even-ever to the Mountain, this, ye may saying,
'Be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea', it shall be becoming"; [Revelation 8:8]

Hebrews explains the differences of the Covenants here:

Hebrew 12:18
For ye came not near to the Mountain touched and scorched with fire, and to blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19 and a sound of a trumpet, and a Voice of sayings, which those having heard did entreat that a Word might not be added to them,
22 But ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers,

As does my bro Paul:

Galatians 4:
24 which things is an allegory. For these are *the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating who-any is Hagar.
25 For the Hagar mount Sinai is in Arabia is together-elemental yet to now Jerusalem slaving/serving tye with the offspring of Her.

Revelation 8:8
And the second messenger trumpets and as it were a great Mountain with fire burning was cast into the Sea, and the third of the sea became blood,

And with that, I humbly bow out of this thread so I can focus on other threads I have created.........
Blessings


.
.

 

[Dr. D Bunker]

bye

 

[Calminian]

Seriously now, do you really expect to see a mountain burning with fire literally being picked up and cast into the sea? It is covenantle......OC Mt Sinai/Old Jerusalem and NC Mt Zion/New Jerusalem....

And like a literal Messiah riding in on a colt? And being cutoff and rising from the dead. Who believes that stuff?

 

[Lost4words]

I'll try again. If you attempt to answer these, try not to embarrass yourself too much.

Who were the two witnesses?

When was “a fourth of the Earth” (Rev. 6:8) killed in 70AD? NEVER!

When did the three plagues in Revelation 9 occur in 70 A.D.? NEVER!

It's beyond me how the seals, trumpets and bowls could have passed between 60-70 A.D.!

In 70 AD there was no "great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood."

And what record do we have of "one third of the living creatures in the sea dying, and a third of the ships destroyed?” NONE!

What record do we have of the great earthquake in Revelation 16 occurring where the city of Jerusalem was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations (plural) fell?” NONE!

Its very obvious that you are interpreting Revelation wrongly. As my friend above said, you are not going to see a burning mountain being thrown into the sea!

You are reading Revelation in black and white and with modern eyes and mind.

 

[Lost4words]

And like a literal Messiah riding in on a colt? And being cutoff and rising from the dead. Who believes that stuff?

Totally different.

 

[claninja]

Plus Jesus said explicitly, if someone says the Messiah has come, do not believe them (Matt. 24:23-28). The full preterist position, IMV, is actually heresy.

Stating that Christ came in judgment on Israel in 70AD, just as the Father had done in the OT is explicitly different then stating "look, here is the Christ" or "there he is".

Matthew 24:23-28 At that time, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. See, I have told you in advance.

 

[Calminian]

Its very obvious that you are interpreting Revelation wrongly. As my friend above said, you are not going to see a burning mountain being thrown into the sea!

You are reading Revelation in black and white and with modern eyes and mind.

Since when are meteors modern? You don't believe a meteor has ever struck the earth in the past?

 

[claninja]

And like a literal Messiah riding in on a colt? And being cutoff and rising from the dead. Who believes that stuff?

Yea and like a literal snake striking Jesus' heel and Jesus literally crushing a snakes head
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.
He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”


And a literal several thousand year old Rachel crying when herod killed the boys of Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:16-18 When Herod saw that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was filled with rage. Sending orders, he put to death all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, according to the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing consolation, because they are no more.”

 

[Calminian]

Stating that Christ came in judgment on Israel in 70AD, just as the Father had done in the OT is explicitly different then stating "look, here is the Christ" or "there he is".

Matthew 24:23-28 At that time, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. See, I have told you in advance.

It's actually identical, when you think about it. Just prior, Jesus warned there would be many false prophets, not just one coming at one moment. Thus, if someone claims the Messiah came, he is not to be believed. The point was that Messiah's second coming would be so thunderous, and obvious that no one would miss it. You wouldn't have to be told. Every eye would see.

The Jesus you're following is a different Jesus, one who came quietly and secretly. the real Jesus tried to warn you about this.

 

[Calminian]

Yea and like a literal snake striking Jesus' heel and Jesus literally crushing a snakes head
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.
He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

These were symbols of something literal, though. The Bible uses symbols as well. That doesn't take away from the fact that those things the symbol represents should be taken literally.

And a literal several thousand year old Rachel crying when herod killed the boys of Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:16-18 When Herod saw that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was filled with rage. Sending orders, he put to death all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, according to the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing consolation, because they are no more.”

This is a different kind of prophecy, but also prophetic, with a literal fulfillment.

 

[klutedavid]

What didn't happen in 70 AD debunks Preterism.

None of the Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp, etc. ever mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred. There is zero indication from the church fathers that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.

Preterism has perverted so much of our bible, over 1,000 verse, entire chapters, nearly the entire book of Revelation and much of Daniel, that one would think that if it was all fulfilled by 70 AD, I would think God would have given us some indication or at least one written record of it's fulfillment.

Christians living during 70 A.D., as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event. They never referred to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they referred to it as future event.

The Didache, a first century document every Christian should read, was lost for centuries and rediscovered in Constantinople in 1873. This document proves that those who lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded the events of Matthew 24-25 as unfulfilled.

This Didache mentions the Antichrist, (and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God,) the great tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ as unfulfilled events. The Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70 that the Preterism is false.

In addition to the Didache, early church fathers like Irenaeus, Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, wrote of a future Second Coming.

Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote at length about the Antichrist toward the end of the second century. He was a student of Polycarp.

Justin the Martyr was a Christian apologist (defender of the faith), born in Rome, who wrote about the middle of the second century. He had been a pagan philosopher who converted to Christianity. According to tradition, he was martyred for his faith. Justin clearly believed that Christians would be persecuted by the Antichrist.

Hippolytus, a leader of the church at Rome who was martyred for his faith, wrote about the Antichrist in the early third century in a document titled Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70? Those who were alive in A.D. 70 and the years immediately following? Or modern day preterists writing 2,000 years later?
I’ll side with those who lived closer to the events.

For the Preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70, otherwise it's debunked from the get go.

There is compelling evidence in the writings of the church fathers that the Book of Revelation was written approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Irenaeus lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).

So get this in your mind...Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation) and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus!

In Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.

Irenaeus (AD 120-202) believed that the “Antichrist” had not been revealed. That throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint because most Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff and R.C. Sproul believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist.

That’s not what Irenaeus thought. Notice when he says John the apostle had his apocalyptic vision…

“...For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Who was Domitian? Domitian was a Roman Emperor near the end of the first century.

Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.

Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation sometime around A.D. 95 (“towards the END of Domitian’s reign”), long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement by Irenaeus is devastating to the preterist position.

There are two different forms of preterism.

1) Partial preterism is generally considered to be the historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church. Some partial preterists may believe that the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord were not historically fulfilled. (wikipedia)

2) Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or "end times" events, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgment. (wikipedia)

I assume you are referring to full preterism?

 

[claninja]

It's actually identical, when you think about it.

If it's identical where are all these "messiahs and prophets" performing great signs and miracles deceiving the elect that full preterists are pointing out?

Full preterists believe Jesus is in heaven, so your argument falls flat.

Thus, if someone claims the Messiah came, he is not to be believed.

Correct, if someone claims there is a messiah walking around for every one to see, they are not to listen to that person.

No Full preterist claims that. A full preterist claims Jesus is in heaven.

Thus if there was a giant group of people who said the messiah has come and they point to some guy walking around on earth performing miracles, a full preterist wouldn't believe it.

The Jesus you're following is a different Jesus, one who came quietly and secretly.

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[claninja]

These were symbols of something literal, though. The Bible uses symbols as well. That doesn't take away from the fact that those things the symbol represents should be taken literally.

I absolutely agree with you. striking the heel and crushing the head didn't literally occur, they symbolized Jesus' defeat over satan and death.

This is a different kind of prophecy, but also prophetic, with a literal fulfillment.

And yet it's still a prophecy that wasn't literally fulfilled by a literal several thousand year Rachel crying in the 1st century.