Questions about preterism

Justme · Aug 15, 2003

Hi OS,

You wrote

post 146)
I believe my name was on that post. You heard my answers.
*****************
With reference to this verse:
Hebrews 9:26
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I asked when the end of the ages would be.....

The answer is 'when Christ appeared to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.'

One of your quotes on a commentary answered something other than than that which would be incorrect. Robertson just ignored that part which is what you did as well.

So I'm glad it was your name on the post and not mine.

Justme

FreeinChrist · Aug 17, 2003

GW said:
FREE:
Revelation 20 mentions it about 6 times!

GW:
If a symbol is mentioned 99 times, it is still a symbol.

No, it's a difinitive time statement with events that happen before and after. Preterism has to spiritualize it because it messes up their position

Millennialism was contested by amillennialists from the first century until the 4th century. The millennialist expectations of Justin, Irenaeus, and others failed to materialize, and they discredited themselves and were an embarrassment to the church of those centuries for their failed endtimes views.

Not true. They didn't discredit themselves at all. You just wish they did. What happened in the church is that they started changing their view because the empire became Christian.

BTW, Zechariah 14 says nothing of a "millennium."

Disagree. Zechariah 14:9-21. See verse 16, "..all who are left of the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year after year to worship the King..."
The battle in the first part of 14 hasn't happened yet, and the second half has not happened yet.

FREE:
Who was the beast from the sea? the false prophet? The two witnesses who are visably resurrected in Jerusalem and 'caught up' and thew accompanying earthquake?
When was the earthquake that levels all the mountains, and make the islands disappear? When were all the seas turned to blood? The sores? The scorpian things?

GW:
Please pick up a copy of Kenneth Gentry's book, The Beast of Revelation -- Identified!

Can't you answer? Gentry connects the fourth beast in Daniel 7 with the first beast of Revelation, which supports the futurist view more, because many of the things didn't happen that Daniel 7 describes.
Revelation presents the battle as have been done before the beast is thrown alive into the lake of fire. Nero died in 68 A.D. before Jerusalem fell - a whole year plus. He never sat in the temple of God and called himself God. And Nero 's persecution of Christians was confined mostly to Rome.

OldShepherd · Aug 17, 2003

Justme said:
Hi OS,

You wrotepost 146)
I believe my name was on that post. You heard my answers.
*****************
With reference to this verse:
Hebrews 9:26
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I asked when the end of the ages would be.....

The answer is 'when Christ appeared to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.'

One of your quotes on a commentary answered something other than than that which would be incorrect. Robertson just ignored that part which is what you did as well.

So I'm glad it was your name on the post and not mine.

Justme

[size=+1]:shrug: Too bad I only quoted Robertson. Oh wait I also quoted JFB and Gill. Oh well.[/size]

FreeinChrist · Aug 17, 2003

GW said:
They were shaken because the second coming had come (in their estimation) yet they were still experiencing grave persecution (2 Thess 1:4-9). Paul had to reassure them that the second coming of Christ would stop their persecution:

Well, you obviously interpret scripture to fit the endtime view of your own. Because you aren't taking the text for what it says.

The point is this: since they believed in an imminent return, then we know with certainty that "1948" and the "church age" and the "EU" and a "computerized mark of the beast" are myths unknown to the apostles. That is, their belief in an imminent first-century return of Christ eliminates the possibility that your eschatological views are true.

Not true - it just means the Second coming has been imminent for 2000 years. And the thessalonians wouldn't have known about the mark, for of 'mystery Babylon', etc, because those things were revealed to John in 95 A.D. - a good 30 years after the letters to the Thesalonians were written.
So your complaint about 1948, EU, etc is rather silly.

FREE:
Show me a verse where John writes that it already occurred.

GW:
Antichrist had come as of the time 1 Jn 2:18-19 was written. John was writing during the tribulation period at the Day of the Lord (Rev 1:9). His vision was about things obligated to come to pass shortly for the time was then at hand (Rev 1:1,3).

again, you are giving your interpretation but not answering the challenge. He doesn't say the man of sin (beast, man of lawlessness, etc) had come. He wrote of those who had left, rejecting Christ as 'antichrists', but note that in Revelation, the term Antichrist is not used. And he was writing in Patmos, having been banished by Dominitan...and Christians have been suffering tribulation since the Resurrection. But that isn't the Great Tribulation.
If you believe that John was in the tribulation when he wrote Revelation, and the Second coming happened shortly afterward, what events after 95 A.D. are you referring to?

FREE:
Yes, we have been in the last days that long.

GW:
This is unacceptable. The "last days" is that generation that was to see the return of Christ, and everyone knows it. Even Tim LaHaye.

It is acceptable, certainly more than that the Second Coming already occurred!!

GW:
God does not have time. Time is for mankind. God is timeless.

God created time. Peter wrote that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a 1000 years as one day." What we think of as soon is not necesarily His view. And Peter wrote that the "Lord is not slow about His promise as some count slowness" but wants all to come to repentence.

FREE:
How odd that you must make 'soon' a definite time period, but make 1000 years as vague and meaningless.

GW:
The bible itself makes "soon" a short time period. And, the "thousand years" is neither vague nor meaningless just because it is a symbol.

No, 1000 years is specific and measurable. And there are events that happen at the beginning of it and afterward. the 42 months, 1260 days, 3 1/2 days til the witnesses are resurrected...all specific like the 1000 years. 144,000 is specific .

GW:
Preterists use scripture to interpret scripture. So, technically, it is God defining things in God's terms.

Actually, i don't think preterists doe a good job at all of letting scripture interpret scripture - or they would ber futurists!

FREE:
No, Christ invented 'globalness'"!

GW:
Nope. The apostles meant the "whole Roman world" (see Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28; Rom 1:8; Acts 2:5-9).

You are changing their words..but that is not new.
Luke 21:35 "for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth." Do a phrase study of Revelation and look at what happens to "those who dwell on the earth" - it is a phrase that is used alot in that book. See Rev. 3:10 "the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth."
"earth" - 'ge' - the globe
"world" - 'oikoumene' - the inhabitable earth or world. It can be used of a particular inhabited country as in Luke 2:1, Acts 11:28 Context is the key. All the earth is all the earth!

nite..

Justme · Aug 17, 2003

Hi OS,

Can you show me the CORRECT answer in any of them?

Justme

OldShepherd · Aug 17, 2003

Justme said:
Hi OS,

Can you show me the CORRECT answer in any of them?

Justme

[size=+1]Well, you could actually read the post. But I have highlighted the appropriate sections of ALL three quotes, click here. Are you presuming to determine what is and is not correct?[/size]

GW · Aug 17, 2003

FREE:
No, it's a definitive time statement with events that happen before and after. Preterism has to spiritualize it because it messes up their position

GW:
The "thousand years" cannot be a future literal epoch, for the gospels and epistles say that the resurrection, judgment, and new heavens/earth all take place at the second coming. The resurrection of the dead takes place at the second coming (1 Cor 15:23), the judgment takes place at the second coming (2 Tim 4:1), and the New Heavens/Earth takes place at the second coming (2 Pet 3:10). Quite plainly, there is no literal "thousand years."

FREE:
They didn't discredit themselves at all. You just wish they did.

GW:
They did. Their teachings about Christ's return to them never took place, and their expectations failed. They were convinced that their 2nd and 3rd century political scenario was the one the scriptures identified as the final generation. We can laugh at such obvious error now, but to them it was a very serious dogma they held.

FREE:
What happened in the church is that they started changing their view because the empire became Christian.

GW:
Incorrect. We know that Amillennialists were opposing millennialists in the 2nd century, long before the empire became Christian.

FREE:
Disagree. Zechariah 14:9-21. See verse 16, "..all who are left of the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year after year to worship the King..."

GW:
Zechariah 14 has nothing to do with a millennium.

And, a future literal rendering of Zechariah 14:16-21 requires that the Old Covenant will be reinstated. Gasp! Such a belief goes against everything the New Testament says about the weakness and unprofitability of the Old Law, as well as its shadowy nature.

FREE:
Revelation presents the battle as have been done before the beast is thrown alive into the lake of fire. Nero died in 68 A.D. before Jerusalem fell - a whole year plus. He never sat in the temple of God and called himself God. And Nero 's persecution of Christians was confined mostly to Rome.

GW:
The "son of perdition" has nothing to do with "antichrist." Furthermore, we know from 2 Thess 2:4-7 that the son of perdition was already establishing his takeover of the Jerusalem Temple at the time Paul was writing, and the Thessalonians knew of it personally. Just more biblical proof there that the preterist view is the biblical view.

GW · Aug 17, 2003

FREE:
Not true - it just means the Second coming has been imminent for 2000 years.

GW:
The apostles' first-century expectation means they knew nothing of "1948," "computer chips marks of beast," the Church age, etc. etc. Since they didn't know of these things, they are not part of the apostolic doctrine.

FREE:
And the thessalonians wouldn't have known about the mark, for of 'mystery Babylon', etc, because those things were revealed to John in 95 A.D. - a good 30 years after the letters to the Thesalonians were written.

GW:
First, Revelation was written in AD 68. Next, you are arguing that Paul and Peter didn't know the doctrine of eschatology. Strange.

I don't think you are getting it; if the apostles believed in a first-century coming of Christ, then they did not believe or even know about "1948", the Church age, etc. etc. Thus, those things cannot be true.

FREE:
again, you are giving your interpretation but not answering the challenge.

GW:
The Antichrist of the final hour had come as of the time 1 Jn 2:18-19 was written. John was writing during the tribulation period at the Day of the Lord (Rev 1:9). His vision was about things obligated to come to pass shortly for the time was then at hand (Rev 1:1,3). You deny it, but I am fully content letting our readers here see who is right by reading the passages themselves.

I will only add that 2 Thess 2:4-7 shows that the "man of sin" was already actively being restrained from his takeover of the Jerusalem Temple at the time Paul was writing! It was clearly a first century event.

FREE:
..and Christians have been suffering tribulation since the Resurrection. But that isn't the Great Tribulation.

GW:
The "great tribulation" spoken of at Matt 24:15-21 is shown in Luke's gospel to be the fall of Jerusalem at AD 66-70 (compare to Luke 21:20-23).

FREE:
If you believe that John was in the tribulation when he wrote Revelation, and the Second coming happened shortly afterward, what events after 95 A.D. are you referring to?

GW:
John announced the second coming around AD 67-68, and the events of the fall of Jerusalem and the empire-wide disasters happened shortly after, including Christ's coming to the Asia-Minor churches as documented in Revelation 2-3.

FREE:
God created time. Peter wrote that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a 1000 years as one day." What we think of as soon is not necesarily His view.

GW:
Peter's statement proves that God knows of no time. If one day and a thousand years are all the same to God, then we know God is timeless.

Finally, your "whole world" does not match the geographic "whole world" spoken about by the apostles. I am content to let our readers look up those passages and see for themselves.

FreeinChrist · Aug 18, 2003

GW said:
FREE:
Not true - it just means the Second coming has been imminent for 2000 years.

GW:
The apostles' first-century expectation means they knew nothing of "1948," "computer chips marks of beast," the Church age, etc. etc. Since they didn't know of these things, they are not part of the apostolic doctrine.

You may think you are making a point, but you aren't. It was not necessary that they know. And the information given to John in Revelation was not given til 95 A.D. - almost 30 years after Peter and Paul died. But I strongly believe that John was aware of the Church age. He wouldn't have understood computer chips (if that is the mark - I don't know).

FREE:
And the thessalonians wouldn't have known about the mark, for of 'mystery Babylon', etc, because those things were revealed to John in 95 A.D. - a good 30 years after the letters to the Thesalonians were written.

GW:
First, Revelation was written in AD 68. Next, you are arguing that Paul and Peter didn't know the doctrine of eschatology. Strange.

I don't think you are getting it; if the apostles believed in a first-century coming of Christ, then they did not believe or even know about "1948", the Church age, etc. etc. Thus, those things cannot be true.

No, it was written in 95 A.D. John was on the island of Patmos because he had been banished there. Nero did not banish anyone, he tortured and killed them for fun. Roman historians documented that Dominitan did banish to Patmos. The early church believed that it was during the reign of Dominitan, and all of them saw the Second coming as still future - ALL. Iranaeus, who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John himself wrote that the Revelation was received during the reign of Dominitan - 27 years after Nero died.
And according to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, the church at Smyrna was not in existence in 65 A.D. And Laodicea was far from wealthy, having been flattened by an earthquake in 62 A.D.

The Antichrist of the final hour had come as of the time 1 Jn 2:18-19 was written. John was writing during the tribulation period at the Day of the Lord (Rev 1:9). His vision was about things obligated to come to pass shortly for the time was then at hand (Rev 1:1,3). You deny it, but I am fully content letting our readers here see who is right by reading the passages themselves.

I am sure that those who don't have to change the meaning of scripture to fit their endtime view, or spiritualize away all the details, will understand what John was writing about. It really is very plain.
You haven't written a thing to show that I am wrong.

I reject the preterist viewpoint for a multitude of reasons. Here's some:
1) The entire early church still saw the Second Coming as future.
2) The events of 70 A.D. do not fit scriptural account of the Second Coming.
3) it is those who worship the beast that are defeated...and Israel did not worship Nero. Yet they were defeated.
4) Nero never sat in the temple of God declaring himself God.
5) The 2 witnesses - so WHO was killed and resurrected 3 1/2 days later in front of those celebrating their deaths?? And what about that earthquake?
6) There was no earthquake that flattened the mountains of the entire earth, not even those in the Roman Empire. Pliny, writing in 77 A.D. missed the greatest earthquake ever if it had occurred in 70 A.D.
7) Roman never had an army 200,000,000 and neither did Jerusalem
8) The seas of the world did not turn to blood - Jerusalem is landlocked.
9) 1000years means 1000 years. 3 1/2 days means 3 1/2 days, 1260 days means 1260 days.
10) Zechariahn prophecies the destruction of the army that came against Jerusalem by Christ- Titus went home victorius.
11) Nero, the preterist 'beast', died before Jerusalem fell...doesn't fit the description of events in Revelation, where the beast is destroyed AFTER the battle.
12) So when did darkness cover the kingdom of the beast - the Roman Empire?
13) False prophet?
14) Joel 3: 1-2 -
15) "and every eye shall see" - yet the whole world missed the Second coming - including the church which had been looking for Christ! The writers of the oldest extraBiblical document, the Didache, still saw the Second Coming as future...and they would have been alive for 70 A.D.

I could mention much more, but need to go to sleep.

Justme · Aug 18, 2003

Hi OS,

Here is the verse:

6Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

This tells about the END OF THE AGES.

You know the END.

Mark 10:30
will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fieldsand with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.

You know the END of the age of sleeping in the dust and the beginning of the age of heavenly ETERNAL life that Jesus brought in for mankind starting with His sacrifice on the cross.

Jesus did away with sin at the END OF THE AGES which He did by the sacrifice of Himself.

So when was the END OF THE AGES? The correct answer is when Jesus appeared to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Justme

GW · Aug 18, 2003

FREE:
You may think you are making a point, but you aren't. It was not necessary that they know.

GW:
Free, you are not following basic logic, and therefore I won't be able to continue this discussion. The whole concept of the "long church age" comes from the dispensationalists who point to Paul as the originator of the doctrine. Yet Paul himself was teaching and expecting a 1st-century return of Christ! Therefore, the dispensationalist teaching of a "long church age" is impossible, for Paul knew nothing of it.

FREE:
And the information given to John in Revelation was not given til 95 A.D. - almost 30 years after Peter and Paul died.

GW:
There is no doubt that Revelation was given in AD 67-68. Internal evidence, external evidence, and church tradition all support it.

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

FREE:
But I strongly believe that John was aware of the Church age. He wouldn't have understood computer chips (if that is the mark - I don't know).

GW:
John was not aware of the "church age." He spends two whole chapters telling of how Christ was returning to first-century churches, and explicitly says that the book was about "things obligated to come to pass shortly for the time is at hand." You refuse to believe him.

FREE:
You haven't written a thing to show that I am wrong.

GW:
Preterism is biblical and superior, and that is why so many are rapidly defecting out of dispensationalism.

FREE:
I reject the preterist viewpoint for a multitude of reasons. Here's some:
1) The entire early church still saw the Second Coming as future.

GW:
It is very telling that your #1 reason for rejecting preterism is "tradition."

FREE:
2) The events of 70 A.D. do not fit scriptural account of the Second Coming.

GW:
They do. Christ promised his apostles that they would see all those things well as His return in their generation (Matt 24:33-34), and Jesus could not lie or err.

I encourage anyone to read the following studies on the Olivet Discourse to see it is so:

Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

Commentaries on the Olivet Discourse:

http://philologos.org/__eb-jl/matt24.htm

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat24.htm

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=mr&chapter=013

'Nuff said. Bye for now. Readers may do the research here and at those links and decide for themselves.

Agape,
GW

FreeinChrist · Aug 18, 2003

Justme said:
Hi OS,

Here is the verse:

6Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I believe you are misinterpreting this by taking this out of context. Let's look at the verses before and after:

(NASB) Hbr 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Hbr 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a {mere} copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
Hbr 9:25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
Hbr 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hbr 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this {comes} judgment,
Hbr 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

The "consumation of the ages" is a reference to the COMPLETION of God's plan to provide for our salvation. And yes, the death and resurrection of Christ was the completion of that plan. Note that the verses go on to say that though He was sacrficed '"at the comsumation of the ages", He will still "appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

What preterism has to prove is that the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. And I don't think they have a chance.

frost · Aug 18, 2003

FreeinChrist said:
What preterism has to prove is that the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. And I don't think they have a chance.

And how can you prove dispensationalism? There seems to be no biblical proof of it anywhere.

How do you explain that A)Jesus said these things would come to "this generation?" B) The disciples themselves and the rest of the first century church thought Christ's return would be in their lifetime? Were the disciples wrong? The guys that spent 3 years with him on Earth? And the early church, people led by those very disciples, were they wrong as well?

OldShepherd · Aug 18, 2003

frost said:
And how can you prove dispensationalism? There seems to be no biblical proof of it anywhere.

How do you explain that A)Jesus said these things would come to "this generation?" B) The disciples themselves and the rest of the first century church thought Christ's return would be in their lifetime? Were the disciples wrong? The guys that spent 3 years with him on Earth? And the early church, people led by those very disciples, were they wrong as well?

[size=+1]Every one of the early church fathers who writes of the Parousia writes of it as future. Even the Moratorian canon which Preterists cite as proof that Revelation was written early, clearly states that Christ's return was yet future.

Problem with "this generation"? No problem, the generation which will see all the warning signs, "this generation" will not pass away until all the things are fulfilled. And that generation has not occurred yet, because all of the warning signs have not happened.

For example, Josephus writes that about 1.1 million Jews were killed in the destruction of Jerusalem. During the NAZI holocaust 1939-1945 approximately 6 million Jews were tortured and killed. That is more than five times the number. Jesus said there, "shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The tribulation faced by Jews in the holocaust was over 5 times worse than the tribulation in 70 AD.

Also there are still Jews living in Israel who can flee into the hills and there is most certainly an abomination standing in the holy place, the Al Aqsa mosque. There was NO abomination recorded standing IN the holy place in 70 AD.[/size]

Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Justme · Aug 18, 2003

Hi Free,

First you ended with:
What preterism has to prove is that the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. And I don't think they have a chance.
******************

I don't promote preterism, although the articles I have read by preterists(full) make sense and precious little of the stuff I hear on TV or read in these kind of forums makes any sense to me at all.

I chose to call the event in 70 AD the parousia because that is the Greek word for the coming of the son of man/the establishment of the kingdom of Heaven.
The second coming for all of us reading this is a future event. Ask any full preterist, I think they will tell you that as well.

Now to the verse:

Hebrews 9:26

NIV
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

NASB
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

KJV
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Darby
26 since he had [then] been obliged often to suffer from the foundation of the world. But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice.

I want you to look at the KJV and note the word 'world.' That is another meaning of the Greek word AION. Then think of the question asked at Matthew 24:3.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

It is not necessary to look any further at all. When biblical statements are as plain as Hebrews 9:26, just accept it, is my advice.

When Jesus did away with sin it was at the:
1)consumation of the ages
2)end of the world(aion)
3 end of the ages(aion)
From that same verse it clearly tells us that He did away with sin at the end of the age/world with the sacrifice of Himself.

33AD.

You quoted these verses:

(NASB) Hbr 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Hbr 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a {mere} copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
Hbr 9:25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

I wonder why you would do that because these verses point out that the Holy Place is now in Heaven where NO aboination that causes desolation can ever get near it to appear to the people of Judea, thus proving that the A of D had to appear in the holy place of the Jerusalem temple which hasn't exiisted since 70 AD.

You quoted:
Hbr 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this {comes} judgment,

Yes, and the straightforward meaning of this verse is the same today as it was when written. All men will die, after that they receive/learn about their judgment.

You quoted:
Hbr 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

As I said before for all of us reading this the second coming of Christ is a future event, I'm hoping quite a way in the future.

So context or no context there is no problem with Hebrews 9:26, to mis-interpret something that straight forword would be difficult I suspect.

You wrote:
The "consumation of the ages" is a reference to the COMPLETION of God's plan to provide for our salvation. And yes, the death and resurrection of Christ was the completion of that plan. Note that the verses go on to say that though He was sacrficed '"at the comsumation of the ages", He will still "appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Hiim.

Exactly, as I have said our experience of the second coming of Christ is a future event. And YES the end of THAT world or AGE is over, back in 70 AD.

Compare these two verses for clarity on the end.

Mark 10
NIV
30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.
KJV
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Eternal life was available to mankind, in stages, from the crucifixion on thru the parousia, because of Jesus and the things Jesus did.

Justme

GW · Aug 18, 2003

OLD SHEP:
Every one of the early church fathers who writes of the Parousia writes of it as future.

GW:
The early Church father known as John the apostle writes of it as ALREADY PRESENT, applying it to his contemporaries (Rev 2-3). St. John, announcing the apocalypse to the Asia Minor churches during the tribulation period of the Day of the Lord (Rev 1:9-10), stated that the vision of the book was obligated to come to pass shortly for the time was at hand (Rev 1:1-3; 22:6-7; 22:10-11). 'Nuff said. There's your key to interpreting the Apocalypse. St. John gave the key--now we must use it.

Remember, St. John had already announced that the final-hour antichrist had come upon him and his flocks (1 John 2:18-19). It all took place in their generation exactly as Christ prophesied (Matt 23:36/24:33-34).

OLD SHEP:
Problem with "this generation"? No problem, the generation which will see all the warning signs, "this generation" will not pass away until all the things are fulfilled. And that generation has not occurred yet, because all of the warning signs have not happened.

GW:
Uh...here's the problem with that -- Jesus explicitly promised the apostles that THEY would see all those signs, as well as His return, in their generation. Jesus, speaking to his apostles, says to them:

Matthew 24:25, 33-34
"Behold, I have told you in advance...So, YOU, WHEN YOU SEE all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Can it be any more plain than that? Did St. James, in following the Lord's teaching, indeed recognize when "He was near, right at the door?" Our readers may see the statement by James and decide for themselves:

James 5:7-9
be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord...for the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.

By simply comparing James 5:7-9 to Matthew 24:33, we see that St. James believed that he had "seen all those things" so as to recognize and state that Christ was "at the door." St. James was right, futurists are wrong.

FreeinChrist · Aug 18, 2003

frost said:
And how can you prove dispensationalism? There seems to be no biblical proof of it anywhere.

Dispensationism is simply a systematic theology, a way of looking at how God has dealt with man thru the millenia, how He progressively revealed His plan and what His expectations of man were. I believe the first prophecy of Christ was Genesis 3:15, "the seed of the woman". But Adam didn't know He would ride a donkey on what we call Palm Sunday, or that He would be called Immanuel, for example, for these things were revealed later. Noah didn't know that Jesus would have to die as a fulfillment of the Law which was given centuries later. Neither Adam, Noah or Abraham knew of the Law that would be given to Moses, with it's many ritual washings, nor did God expect it of them. And since the resurrection, we have not been expected to hold to the Levitical sacrifices and washings.
As for whether there is a future dispensation, can you tell me when the lamb lay by the wolf, or the lion eats hay like an ox? When no babies die young? When those who die at 100 are thought to be accursed? Hasn't happened yet.
So dispensationism need not be proved, IMHO.

How do you explain that A)Jesus said these things would come to "this generation?" B) The disciples themselves and the rest of the first century church thought Christ's return would be in their lifetime? Were the disciples wrong? The guys that spent 3 years with him on Earth? And the early church, people led by those very disciples, were they wrong as well?

As Old Shepard said, the early church expected a future Second Coming. The Didache, ca. 80 -100 A.D., the oldest extraBiblical church document presented the Parousia as future.

and:

"If such miracles are shown to have accompanied the power of his suffering and still now accompany it, how great will be the miracles when he appears again in glory! As Daniel revealed, he shall appear on the clouds as the Son of Man, accompanied by angels." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 31.1.

"Papias maintained that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a period of a thousand years when Christ's kingdom will be established on this earth in physical form.
He is said to have maintained the mishna [Jewish teaching] of a millennium."
Papias in Eusebius III.39.11; Jerome, On Illustrious Men 18.

"The day is at hand when everything will perish together with the Evil one. The Lord is at hand, and his reward." Letter of Barnabus in Codex Sinaiticus; ca. A.D. 120 (not the Barnabus who traveled with Paul)

"The first elders bear witness that when Christ comes again, when he rules over all, there will in truth be unity, harmony, and peace among the different kinds of animals, which by nature are opposed and hostile to each other." Iranaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Proclamation 61. (the lamb lie by the wolf)

And I can find many more.

What I can't find is comments by early church fathers that the Second coming already occurred. So no, the early church fathers like Justin were not wrong.

GW · Aug 19, 2003

FREE:
...And I can find many more.

What I can't find is comments by early church fathers that the Second coming already occurred. So no, the early church fathers like Justin were not wrong.

GW:
Your reliance upon mere tradition in the face of such a clear testimony from scripture is telling.

Furthermore, the tradition that props up your views was contested for three centuries, and the amillennialists finally won the day by the 400s.

Finally, the extended "Church Age" dispensation in your schema was entirely unknown to Paul! The apostle Paul believed the return of Christ was for his own generation and contemporaries--he knew nothing about the "Church Age" dispensation.

Sorry, but the apostolic doctrine of eschatology (that which was known to the apostles and taught by them) makes dispensationalism utterly impossible.

We are not in the last days, nor are those days yet future.

FreeinChrist · Aug 19, 2003

Justme said:
Hi Free,

II chose to call the event in 70 AD the parousia because that is the Greek word for the coming of the son of man/the establishment of the kingdom of Heaven.

I don't follow your reasoning.

The second coming for all of us reading this is a future event. Ask any full preterist, I think they will tell you that as well.

huh? the ones I have spoken with believe and teach that it is a past event, as in 70 A.D. That there will be no future physical coming of Christ.

I want you to look at the KJV and note the word 'world.' That is another meaning of the Greek word AION. Then think of the question asked at Matthew 24:3.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

It is not necessary to look any further at all. When biblical statements are as plain as Hebrews 9:26, just accept it, is my advice.

I have looked at all those versions and the Greek words behind it and the verses before and after Hebrew 9:26. If what you believe is true, the world has already ended. ?? Sorry, but in looking at the definitions of the Greek words involved, I stick with the explanation I have given you. It was the consumation of the salvation plan, progressively revealed in the ages before the death and resurrection of Christ.
Paul, writing after the resurrection in 33 A.D. wrote:
Ephesians 1:10 "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on the earth; even in him;"
ans
Ephesians 2:7 "That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."

Ephesians was written aout A.D. 60 -62.

And yes it IS important to look at the verses before and after! CONTEXT is very important.
And the things which Christ said were to occur at His Coming did not occur 70 A.D.

You quoted these verses:

(NASB) Hbr 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Hbr 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a {mere} copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
Hbr 9:25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

I wonder why you would do that because these verses point out that the Holy Place is now in Heaven where NO aboination that causes desolation can ever get near it to appear to the people of Judea, thus proving that the A of D had to appear in the holy place of the Jerusalem temple which hasn't exiisted since 70 AD.

The Holy Place was always in heaven. The tabernacle on earth was a mere copy of the one in Heaven, which you would understand if you read all of Hebrews and look at the overall message of that book before trying to interpret one verse of it.
And the AoD didn't happen in 70 A.D. Nero never sat in that temple and declared himself God, nor did any other in 70 A.D. (and Nero was already dead).

You quoted:
Hbr 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this {comes} judgment,

Yes, and the straightforward meaning of this verse is the same today as it was when written. All men will die, after that they receive/learn about their judgment.

But our physical resurrection is not immediate. Our spirits join Christ in heaven. See Romans 8, I corinthians 15

Hbr 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

As I said before for all of us reading this the second coming of Christ is a future event, I'm hoping quite a way in the future.

As I said, the preterists I know believe the Second Coming is past. Ask GW if he expects a future Second Coming.

You wrote:
The "consumation of the ages" is a reference to the COMPLETION of God's plan to provide for our salvation. And yes, the death and resurrection of Christ was the completion of that plan. Note that the verses go on to say that though He was sacrficed '"at the comsumation of the ages", He will still "appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Hiim.

Exactly, as I have said our experience of the second coming of Christ is a future event. And YES the end of THAT world or AGE is over, back in 70 AD.

Hate to repeat myself, but the consumation (completion of God's salvation plan for mankind) occurred with the Resurrection. Not 70 A.D., 30 plus years later. The new Covenant began with the Resurrection, not 70 A.D. The Old Covenant ended at the same time.

FreeinChrist · Aug 19, 2003

GW said:
Free, you are not following basic logic, and therefore I won't be able to continue this discussion.

You ignore what text actually says. The discussion of I and II Thesalonians proves that! And I find 1000 yers, 3 1/2 days, 1260 days, 144,000 to far more exact that 'soon'.

:
There is no doubt that Revelation was given in AD 67-68. Internal evidence, external evidence, and church tradition all support it.

Sorry, but there is tremendous doubt about the early date. The bulk of evidence is with the later date of 95 A.D., from the writings of the early church fathers like Iranaeus (student of Polycarp, student of John), to the writings of Roman historians regarding Nero (who did not banish) and Dominitan (who DID banish to Patmos), to the lack of existence of the church of Smyrna in the 60's, the condition of the town of Laodicea, AND the lack of fulfillment of the details prophesied in Revelation and II Thesalonians!
Frankly, to claim that 'church tradition' supports the early date is delusional. Iranaeus (180A.D.), Victorinus (c.300), Eusebius (c. 300), Jerome (c. 400), Sulpicicius Severus (c.400), The Acts of John (c. 650) , Orosius (C.600) etc, provide support for the later date. ADD to that that all the early church fathers saw a future Second Coming...church tradition supports the 95 A.D. date.

In contrast, the earliest suggestion that it was during Nero's reign is from a subscription in the Syriac version of the New Testament, written about 550 A.D.

John was not aware of the "church age." He spends two whole chapters telling of how Christ was returning to first-century churches, and explicitly says that the book was about "things obligated to come to pass shortly for the time is at hand." You refuse to believe him.

No he is writing about 'what is'. It is in Rev. 4 that he begins to write about what will be "after these things." the basic outline of Rev. is found in 1:19.

FREE:
I reject the preterist viewpoint for a multitude of reasons. Here's some:
1) The entire early church still saw the Second Coming as future.

GW:
It is very telling that your #1 reason for rejecting preterism is "tradition."

Well, at least here you recognize that it is church tradition that the Second Coming is future.

They do. Christ promised his apostles that they would see all those things well as His return in their generation (Matt 24:33-34), and Jesus could not lie or err.

He doesn't lie. That is why 70 A.D. can't be it.

What I see in those websites is that preterism spiritualizes what it cannot fit in their view. They ignore the details that don't fit. And those details are many!

Questions about preterism

Senior Veteran

CF Advisory team

Zaqunraah

CF Advisory team

Senior Veteran

Zaqunraah

Veteran

Veteran

CF Advisory team

Senior Veteran

Veteran

CF Advisory team

Active Member

Zaqunraah

Senior Veteran

Veteran

CF Advisory team

Veteran

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

Similar threads