Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[trophy33]

I'm not one of those. I believe the NT authors wrote from the standpoint of expecting that it could happen soon for all they knew (only the Father knows - Matt 24:36) so everyone should always be prepared for it.

How do you make the verses I quoted in the post #45 compatible with your view?

The statements there do not seem to be about just a possibility, at all. They seem certain.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes their error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

Matthew's account of the destruction shows that it would happen in the same generation in which Jesus gave His warning. This happened 38 years later when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. There was a year when things stopped while Vespasian went back to Rome and that gave the Christians the opportunity to get out of Jerusalem to a place of safety. Matthew describes it "before" the rest of end time events.

Luke's account shows that the destruction happens afterwards, showing what is to happen well after AD70. It shows that the events he describes haven't happened yet. If you read both accounts carefully, you will see that Matthew's account markedly differs from Luke's account.

If you don't believe me, then do you own homework in the Scripture references to see whether it is right or not.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don’t see anywhere In the OP that it says the apostles COULD have believed Christ’s coming was literally soon, that’s literally why I asked the question. ONE of His arguments was that preterism misrepresents scripture by using the literal definitions of near, soon, and quickly when they should, instead, be understood from God’s time.

As for Your argument on using 2 peter 3 , it makes zero sense. The context of 2 peter 3 is the addressing of the last days scoffers who are scoffing “where is coming?”. Peter, in his last epistle, had taught the end of all things had drawn near, so of course scoffers would be scoffing “where is his coming?”. If Peter taught that Christs coming was possibly thousands of years away, then it makes zero sense for scoffers to scoff “where is his coming”, and it makes zero sense for Peter to exhort his audience to “hasten” and “anticipate”. His argument for God being slow, in human time, but not God’s time due to his eternal nature, was to comfort the suffering church, as they “hasten” and “anticipate” God’s promises.

The second coming of Christ involves two events. We are in the time of the Gentiles at present. The time will end when the last of the Gentiles will have received Christ as Saviour. Only the Father knows how many Gentiles will become believers. As soon as the last Gentile person is saved, the Rapture will happen. This will happen suddenly so as to take Satan by surprise to prevent him doing anything to interrupt it. The dead in Christ will rise first and then those who are alive will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. This could happen at any time. There will be no warning. As soon as the Rapture happens, the restraints again evil will be lifted and the Man of Sin will be revealed. Satan has known that it would happen at any time from the 1st Century, so he has always had his AntiChrist in the wings all that time.

After the Rapture, the events leading up to the physical coming of Christ to the earth will commence, There has to be definite events that have to happen before Jesus comes in person. The recent event is the formation of the nation of Israel and Israel will be the focal point of what is going to happen according to God's end time plan.

I don't have to provide extensive Scripture proof of these things. You can do your own homework and come to your own conclusion, but those who take Scripture literally and seriously will see that my view has merit. Those who treat the Scripture as allegory might have other view points.

One interesting passage is the promise to the church at Philadelphia, the mission church, that it will not go through the Tribulation. What this suggests that it will be Raptured beforehand. If this is true, it is advisable for believers to ensure that they are part of those churches that are similar to the Philadelphia church.

The Laodicean church represents the apostate church which shows that similar churches may not participate in the Rapture but will go through the Tribulation.

 

[claninja]

I agree with that argument. When you look at 1 Peter 4:7, for example, I believe Peter was talking from God's perspective just like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-12. From God's perspective, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is always near since no amount of time makes any difference to Him. What is near to Him can seem like a long time to us, which is what Peter pointed out in 2 Peter 3:8-9.


It makes complete sense to me. We think so differently that very little of what you believe makes any sense to me and vice versa. So be it. Not much we can do about that.


Right, because, like you, they didn't understand that he was speaking from God's perspective of time, not man's. Which is why Peter said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. It seems that from your perspective Peter said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9 for no reason at all. Yet, I would think you believe he said it for a reason. So, what do you think that reason is?

In verse 9, for example, do you think Peter pointed out that the Lord is not slow in keeping His promise because He was going to be coming literally soon? Peter said the reason that the Lord would come in His timing is because of His desire for everyone to repent, which means He wants to give everyone enough time to repent, as He sees fit. Is that no longer true? Does 2 Peter 3:9 no longer apply today? Did it only apply up until 70 AD?


You're not getting it. The scoffers, like you (not saying you're a scoffer, but just saying you are mistaken about the timing like they were/are), didn't understand that His coming was not necessarily going to be literally soon. Can't you see that Peter was saying they were mistaken in their perspective (again, see 2 Peter 3:8-9)? Why are you acting as if the scoffers had the correct perspective of the timing of Christ's second coming? They didn't. They didn't know anything. That's why Peter felt the need to correct that mistaken notion by saying what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9.


Why not? If it could potentially happen in the lifetimes of his readers (his readers include you and me, by the way), then why wouldn't anyone reading his message want to heed his words? Do you think people should only "hasten" and "anticipate" something if it's guaranteed to happen in their lifetimes? No one should "hasten" and "anticipate" if something can happen in their lifetimes, but not for certain? Well, let me tell you something. I don't know when Jesus is coming, but I believe it could happen in my lifetime. But, even though He may not come in my lifetime I'm still hastening and highly anticipating it. It's sad that preterists like yourself are not.


Let's look at the text itself to see if it supports your claim.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

I don't see anything here about comforting the suffering church. Instead, I see a description that the Lord is taking His time to keep His promise because of his desire to give people time to repent so that they don't perish. Did the Lord stop wanting to give people time to repent after 70 AD or does this passage still apply today? I believe it clearly still applies today. The Lord is holding off on destroying the earth (as Peter proceeded to talk about after that passage) because of His desire to give people as much time as He sees fit to repent first.

Peter never said the scoffers didn’t understand near should be understood as “God’s time”. Peter compares them to the scoffers of Noah’s day. Just as the pre diluvian heavens and earth were destroyed by water, so too would their present heavens and earth be destroyed by fire. The prediluvian scoffers also scoffed at Noah. It is this that they overlook, as their present heavens and earth were to be destroyed by fire. This has nothing to do with the scoffers misunderstanding “near”

Peter, instead, exhorts his audience that 1,000 years is like a day, AND a day is like 1,000 years, for the purpose of more coming to repentance - ie the Hebrews coming to repentance. Audience relevance = Hebrews amongst the diaspora. To the Jew first. Peters audience, in his epistles, was the Hebrews. God was being patient so that the hebrews, his chosen people, would come to repentance. Was there possibly some huge event, literally near the timing of of 1st and 2nd Peter, where many Hebrews would be judged and even their children slayed for not recognizing the Timing of Christs first advent? Absolutely! And God had been patient with them for forty years, long suffering that they would turn to Christ and repent.

2 peter 3:1 this is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved

1 Peter 1:2 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised.

And they were in fact suffering around the world.

1 Peter 4:12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial that has come upon you, as though something strange were happening to you.

1 Peter 5:9 9Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

The scoffers and persecutors correctly understood Peters belief that the “end of all things was literally near”. They Just overlooked the fact that just as in the days of Noah the scoffers world was destroyed by water, so too would their world be destroyed by fire.

 

[DavidPT]

Peter never said the scoffers didn’t understand near should be understood as “God’s time”. Peter compares them to the scoffers of Noah’s day. Just as the pre diluvian heavens and earth were destroyed by water, so too would their present heavens and earth be destroyed by fire. The prediluvian scoffers also scoffed at Noah. It is this that they overlook, as their present heavens and earth were to be destroyed by fire. This has nothing to do with the scoffers misunderstanding “near”

Peter, instead, exhorts his audience that 1,000 years is like a day, AND a day is like 1,000 years, for the purpose of more coming to repentance - ie the Hebrews coming to repentance. Audience relevance = Hebrews amongst the diaspora. To the Jew first. Peters audience, in his epistles, was the Hebrews. God was being patient so that the hebrews, his chosen people, would come to repentance. Was there possibly some huge event, literally near the timing of of 1st and 2nd Peter, where many Hebrews would be judged and even their children slayed for not recognizing the Timing of Christs first advent? Absolutely! And God had been patient with them for forty years, long suffering that they would turn to Christ and repent.

2 peter 3:1 this is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved

1 Peter 1:2 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised.

And they were in fact suffering around the world.

1 Peter 4:12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial that has come upon you, as though something strange were happening to you.

1 Peter 5:9 9Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

The scoffers and persecutors correctly understood Peters belief that the “end of all things was literally near”. They Just overlooked the fact that just as in the days of Noah the scoffers world was destroyed by water, so too would their world be destroyed by fire.

As to these scoffers in question, why can't this be meaning some are doing this throughout the entire NT church age beginning after Christ initially ascended to heaven 2000 years ago through to when He literally bodily returns?

Since 2 Peter 3 used Noah's flood as an example, obviously it took considerable time for Noah and others to build that ark. They didn't build it overnight or something. In the meantime while they are building it Noah is warning them of the upcoming end of all things. But instead of trying to prepare for that, what do they do? They continue living in the same manner they have been all along, They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage---as if this world was going to continue in this manner indefinitely even though, the world as they knew it at the time, if was coming to an abrupt end in the very near future.

In the same way, the time Noah and others spend building the ark, he then used that time to also warn of the upcoming end of things, this is what the past 2000 years represent, being warned about the upcoming end of all things and preparing for it. But instead of some preparing for it, they go on with life as if life will continue in this manner indefinitely. Except that's the not the way the story ends since that was not the way the story ended in Noah's day, since that event proves time runs out eventually, and that things do not continue like they are now, for forever.

While I might not agree with some of these Amils hyper literal interpretation of some of these events, such as God is literally going to engulf the entire planet in literal flames of fire, I at least agree with their timing of these events, that it is meaning in the end of this present age and that it will be involving Christ's bodily return.

 

[claninja]

As to these scoffers in question, why can't this be meaning some are doing this throughout the entire NT church age beginning after Christ initially ascended to heaven 2000 years ago through to when He literally bodily returns?

Since 2 Peter 3 used Noah's flood as an example, obviously it took considerable time for Noah and others to build that ark. They didn't build it overnight or something. In the meantime while they are building it Noah is warning them of the upcoming end of all things. But instead of trying to prepare for that, what do they do? They continue living in the same manner they have been all along, They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage---as if this world was going to continue in this manner indefinitely even though, the world as they knew it at the time, if was coming to an abrupt end in the very near future.

In the same way, the time Noah and others spend building the ark, he then used that time to also warn of the upcoming end of things, this is what the past 2000 years represent, being warned about the upcoming end of all things and preparing for it. But instead of some preparing for it, they go on with life as if life will continue in this manner indefinitely. Except that's the not the way the story ends since that was not the way the story ended in Noah's day, since that event proves time runs out eventually, and that things do not continue like they are now, for forever.

While I might not agree with some of these Amils hyper literal interpretation of some of these events, such as God is literally going to engulf the entire planet in literal flames of fire, I at least agree with their timing of these events, that it is meaning in the end of this present age and that it will be involving Christ's bodily return.

Did Noah and his family die before the flood came? Or did it happen within their generation?

Was Noah preaching a flood would come within their lifetime or several thousand years away?

 

[Hammster]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes their error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

Straw man much?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Straw man much?

You have no rebuttal because it is true.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I don’t see anywhere In the OP that it says the apostles COULD have believed Christ’s coming was literally soon, that’s literally why I asked the question. ONE of His arguments was that preterism misrepresents scripture by using the literal definitions of near, soon, and quickly when they should, instead, be understood from God’s time.

As for Your argument on using 2 peter 3 , it makes zero sense. The context of 2 peter 3 is the addressing of the last days scoffers who are scoffing “where is coming?”. Peter, in his last epistle, had taught the end of all things had drawn near, so of course scoffers would be scoffing “where is his coming?”. If Peter taught that Christs coming was possibly thousands of years away, then it makes zero sense for scoffers to scoff “where is his coming”, and it makes zero sense for Peter to exhort his audience to “hasten” and “anticipate”. His argument for God being slow, in human time, but not God’s time due to his eternal nature, was to comfort the suffering church, as they “hasten” and “anticipate” God’s promises.

To attribute the coming of Titus in AD70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the "end of all things" is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”

Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

As Eric said, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.

Peter informs us that “end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of ALL things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’ Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.

The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.

In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.

 

[Hammster]

You have no rebuttal because it is true.

Lol. Yeah, that must be it.

Or…

There are so many false statements that I’m not sure it’s worth the effort to correct.

And, it’s not posted in good faith. A lot of vitriol in the OP.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, what the heck.

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world.

Straw man.

That is all they want to talk about.

No, it’s not.

How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth.

No, we actually cannot discuss it because we have to spend time correcting the other eschatological views on when and how it will happen.

That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

That’s an obscure statement. While it may be true that hyper-preterists hold that view, it’s disingenuous to lump all preterists together.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70.

I think you mean that we use them in context, as the first hearers understood them, and that messes up your eschatology.

But Jesus did not physically come then.

Most preterists don’t argue that He did.

Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes their error.

Your understanding is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes your error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position.

So you are admitting that most Bible believing Christians are wrong. Good start.

Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

What is your complaint?

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

True.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself,

No we wouldn’t.

we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

Since you’ve already admitted being wrong, you might want to revisit this.

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

He wasn’t fast. It took 40 years.

Our view of time is completely different from God's.

While that true, God communicates time in our understanding.

There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion.

Like when the NT writers talk about soon, and last days, they are using language that their audience would understand as soon, and last days of the old order.

From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

So it could be 10000 years before His return.

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

So it could be 10000 years before His return.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You have no rebuttal because it is true.

(Microphone drop)

 

[Hammster]

(Microphone drop)

Best pick it back up.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Oh, what the heck.

Straw man.

No, it’s not.

No, we actually cannot discuss it because we have to spend time correcting the other eschatological views on when and how it will happen.

That’s an obscure statement. While it may be true that hyper-preterists hold that view, it’s disingenuous to lump all preterists together.

I think you mean that we use them in context, as the first hearers understood them, and that messes up your eschatology.

Most preterists don’t argue that He did.

Your understanding is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes your error.

So you are admitting that most Bible believing Christians are wrong. Good start.

What is your complaint?

True.

No we wouldn’t.

Since you’ve already admitted being wrong, you might want to revisit this.

He wasn’t fast. It took 40 years.

While that true, God communicates time in our understanding.

Like when the NT writers talk about soon, and last days, they are using language that their audience would understand as soon, and last days of the old order.

So it could be 10000 years before His return.

So it could be 10000 years before His return.

Disagreeing with all I say here does not cut it. It seems like that is all you have here. Your annoyance seems to be that someone would rebut Preterism. You have no biblical argument.

In one breath you seem to say the second coming "wasn’t fast. It took 40 years." In the next breath you argue it was “quickly,” “shortly” and “near.” You are going to have to make your mind up. This sums up Preterism.

 

[Hammster]

Disagreeing with all I say here does not cut it. It seems like that is all you have here. Your annoyance seems to be that someone would rebut Preterism. You have no biblical argument.

In one breath you seem to say the second coming "wasn’t fast. It took 40 years." In the next breath you argue it was “quickly,” “shortly” and “near.” You are going to have to make your mind up. This sums up Preterism.

You have no rebuttal because it’s true.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I noticed that about Hammster too. See, Sovereigngrace, he did not even quote one single verse to support his response to see if he knows what he talks about. Just a disagreement filled with one-line personal opinions that are not worthy on paper. So much for the "oh, what the heck" statement.

Yes, I though this was a Bible forum?

 

[Hammster]

Yes, I though this was a Bible forum?

Still no rebuttal?

 

[Hammster]

Since my last one was not refuted, I thought I would go a different direction.

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world.

How is that unbiblical? You made the claim. Back it up.

That is all they want to talk about.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up n

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes their error.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

 

[Jipsah]

(Microphone drop)

That's OK. it wasn't plugged into anything.

 

[Jipsah]

Best pick it back up.

It probably rolled under the couch.