Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?

[Der Alte]

Again you are misrepresenting my view by saying, "What you have tried to do is make all of the key events figurative." That is clearly not the case.

That is the way I see it. Anything in any verse which if translated literally, would refute preterist presuppositions, you have it figuratively referring to something else, e.g. heaven and earth = Israel.

What you have done is called eisegesis. In your zeal to maintain a literalistic interpretation you've imposed on the text what you consider to be a plausible scenario. In reality, though you can imagine something like fire and smoke obscuring the light of the sun, moon, and stars, it's not found in the text. IOW your attempt at literalism ends up being speculation.

Far less speculation than your speculation the heaven and earth refers to Israel.

Then you shouldn't have said: "I have just interpreted all the events literally, reasonably and logically. And unlike what is being proposed here, I didn't have to say that one person or thing figuratively represented another person or thing."

Then you revised your position and said: "You want to make the entire passage figurative but you object when I interpret some terminology as hyperbole, which is a figure of speech that occurs many times in the Bible. But a word used hyperbolically does not make an entire verse or passage figurative."

And then backpedal even further: "This verse (v. 13) may be figurative but this does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative

More of your diatribe. As they say in law, "Asked and answered. Move on." Address my evidence and the points I have made.

I will repeat, Isaiah used figurative language to describe one nation being used by God to judge and destroy another nation. According to your concessions above, you also recognize my position as the correct one.

No I absolutely do not recognize your position as the correct one! Perhaps you need to repeat this over and over until you remember and understand what it is saying, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

You are proving that your maxim is subjective. I have proven that your stated position has changed. You began by saying you had "interpreted all the events literally," and then that you "didn't have to say one person or thing represented another person or thing." Then you said you interpreted "some terminology as hyperbole."

Then you conceded that another verse in the chapter "may be figurative" but that doesn't prove that anything else in the passage is figurative. Even though you had already admitted that other things in the passage are figurative.

More of your diatribe. As they say in law, "Asked and answered. Move on." Address my evidence and the points I have made.

You seem to think you've offered the best and only translations available. The YLT and the OJB, along with many others, show the actions of God concerning Israel were "To plant the heavens, and to found earth" which is clearly an example of figurative language.

That you can find scholars who translate Isa 51:16 essentially as it appears in modern versions does not prove that the heaven and the earth refer to Israel and they do not prove that the LXX and Targum are wrong.

Again, I'm not saying the temple was heaven and earth, that would be taking the quote literally. The term, "as it were," indicates a figurative use.

Yes it does. The text is clearly identified as figurative by the words "as it were." There is no such textual identification in Isa 51;16.

Or, the prophets used apocalyptic, figurative, hyperbolic language that expressed the magnitude of a catastrophic destruction and transfer of kingdoms.

When this method is consistently applied to the New Testament prophets, we begin to better understand the significance of AD 70.

I agree there is figurative language in the Bible. But figurative language in one place does not prove figurative language in another place

Do you really want to rely on pre-Christian Jewish interpretations?

They probably did employ the more literal view that you favor. But, was that the proper approach?

Can you prove them wrong? What I have posted is what is known as credible, verifiable, historical evidence which to this point you have not proved wrong.

I think there's a better way to pursue truth.

Let me offer an example:
Ezekiel's prophecy
"Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the LORD, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.” (Ezekiel 37:26-28 NKJV)

Paul's interpretation:
"And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” (II Corinthians 6:16 NKJV)

Ezekiel prophesied an everlasting covenant of peace, and God's sanctuary in their midst forevermore. God said, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

Paul told the New Covenant church in Corinth that they were the temple of God. Then he quoted Ezekiel, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people." These words are echoed later by John, "And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God." (Revelation 21:3 NKJV)

Peter said: "you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” (I Peter 2:5, 6 NKJV)

Christians cannot be "[God's] sanctuary in their midst forevermore. [God's] tabernacle also shall be with them" and also be the same sanctuary and tabernacle at the same time.

Both Paul and Peter would likely be ridiculed by your pre-Christian Jewish scholars for spiritualizing the text. What right did they have to twist and manipulate God's Word?

The fact is, they were the divine interpreters of the Old Testament. They give us the license to interpret passages, long thought to be literal, in a spiritual, or even allegorical manner (Gal. 4:21-31).

No they don't give anybody "the license to interpret passages, long thought to be literal, in a spiritual, or even allegorical manner" in just any old way they want to, and especially when the new interpretation is evidentally agenda motivated to make passages support religious doctrines which did not exist until the 19th century or later. As I have said repeatedly there are guidelines for interpreting scripture figuratively.

However, we are not free to impose our ideas on the text, we must remain within the context established by the inspired NT writers.

Such as making heavens and earth mean Israel without any scriptural precedence?

Also, I think it's important for me to admit the obvious. My opinions simply reflect one person trying to pursue the truth of God's Word.

May God bless the pursuit of truth.

That is why I lean so heavily on the recognized scholars and sources. Many of the sources I cite can be D/L free at Internet archives e.g. BAGD Hebrew Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Robertson's Greek Grammar, Targum Isaiah, etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I will henceforth ignore any diatribe you trying to tell me waht I meant when I said certian things. Maybe I did not express myself in the exact way you think I should have. Tough! I say once again for the last time my p0ostions was and remainbd, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense!" That would automatically imply if the plain sense does not make good sense then it is prudent to look for another sense. For example Jesus was not literally a chicken spreading His wings over Jerusalem.

Fail! I note that in the definitions you posted that, while earth can figuratively refer to "earth's inhabitants" it does not specifically refer to Israel and heaven does not figuratively refer to Israel specifically or the people of earth generally. Right there is where you should see figurative references cited.

Also, earth, land, doesn't have to mean world/globe.
This is an interesting greek word that is translated various ways:

Greek Lexicon :: G3625 (KJV)

Luk 2:1
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world G3625 should be taxed.

Matt 24:14
And shall be being proclaimed this, the Well-Message of the Kingdom, in whole the being-homed/oikoumenh <3625> into a testimony to all the Nations
and then shall be arriving the end.

Reve 3:10
That thou keep the Word of the endurance of Me, I also thee shall be keeping out of the hour of the trial of the being about to be coming upon the whole being-homed/oikoumenhV <3625> to try'test the ones dwelling upon the land.

3625. oikoumene feminine participle present passive of 3611 (as noun, by implication, of 1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:--earth, world.
3624. oikos oy'-kos of uncertain affinity; a dwelling (more or less extensive, literal or figurative); by implication, a family (more or less related, literally or figuratively):--home, house(-hold), temple.
3306. meno men'-o a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy):--abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

1. 
   
   the inhabited earth
   1. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
   2. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
   3. the whole inhabited earth, the world
   4. the inhabitants of the earth, men
2. the universe, the world

.

 

[A New World]

That is the way I see it. Anything in any verse which if translated literally, would refute preterist presuppositions, you have it figuratively referring to something else, e.g. heaven and earth = Israel.

As I said, in my opinion, your method is flawed because you're imposing your literalistic bias on the text in order to refute the Preterist position.

I didn't go to Isaiah looking to support my view. However, as I read this passage it is immediately clear that God did not literally plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth when he said to Zion, "you are My people."

It seems so obvious I'm surprised anyone would try to dispute it. Which is why I'm suspicious of your motives for doing so.

No I absolutely do not recognize your position as the correct one! Perhaps you need to repeat this over and over until you remember and understand what it is saying, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

Nope, no need. I've shown that your mantra is subjective since what is plain to one is not plain to another. The plain sense of Isaiah 13 is that he employed figurative language to think otherwise is nonsense.

That you can find scholars who translate Isa 51:16 essentially as it appears in modern versions does not prove that the heaven and the earth refer to Israel and they do not prove that the LXX and Targum are wrong.

I didn't "find" scholars to prove your selected versions wrong. The literal translation along with the simple reading the text supports my view.

The text is clearly identified as figurative by the words "as it were." There is no such textual identification in Isa 51;16.

Of course it's figurative, that was my point!

My point was related to Josephus: "that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God."

To which you replied, "This does not say that a part of the temple was heaven and earth but "as it were heaven."

Though you implied that I was saying the temple "was" heaven, my point was, the Jews saw the temple figuratively as heaven.

Is. 51:16 needs no textual identification since the term itself applied to Israel identifies it as figurative.

I agree there is figurative language in the Bible. But figurative language in one place does not prove figurative language in another place.

We completely agree. That's why I've taken time to show that each passage in question stands on its own containing figurative language.

No they don't give anybody "the license to interpret passages, long thought to be literal, in a spiritual, or even allegorical manner" in just any old way they want to

Which is why I added: "However, we are not free to impose our ideas on the text, we must remain within the context established by the inspired NT writers."

and especially when the new interpretation is evidentally agenda motivated to make passages support religious doctrines which did not exist until the 19th century or later. As I have said repeatedly there are guidelines for interpreting scripture figuratively.

Which is why we must focus on Scripture and not allow our bias to drive our thinking. Your research is flawed if you think this interpretation did not exist until the 19th century.

The guideline you've presented is a subjective maxim, as I've pointed out. You have proven that as you've revised your original position. Though you've tried to deny that fact, it's really undeniable just go back and read the posts. You seem to think your personal opinion is the plain sense and an opposing one is nonsense.

Such as making heavens and earth mean Israel without any scriptural precedence?

Deut. 32:1 & Isaiah 56:16 establish scriptural precedent. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

At this point we've both stated and discussed our positions sufficiently. We're now just repeating ourselves.

Let me summarize my stated position on the three main passages we've discussed then I'll move on to other issues.

1. Isaiah used figurative language to describe God's use of one nation to judge and destroy another nation. (Is. 13:1-17)

Isaiah, Babylon, the Medes, the day of The Lord, the destruction, the transfer of kingdoms are understood literally. These are all verified in history.

The following is figurative language and is not intended to be taken literally:

The stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light.

The sun will be darkened in its going forth.

The moon will not cause its light to shine.

I will shake the heavens.

The earth will move out of her place.

You denied my position then continued to admit Isaiah used hyperbole, which is figurative language, and said v. 13 may be figurative (and of course it is).

My position stands.

2. Isaiah used the figurative term "heaven and earth" as he recounted God's actions toward His covenant people. (Is. 51:16)

The context of this chapter is God comforting Zion, His nation, His people.

God planting the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth is presented as the result of God's actions toward His people, putting His Words in their mouth, covering them with the shadow of His hand, and calling them His people.

Though you continue to avoid the obvious, it remains obvious.

My position stands.

3. Moses, addressing the "heavens and earth," gave the song of Moses as an instructional tool for Israel to teach her children throughout her generations.

He began, &#8220;Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth."

This figurative language in the text was directed to, and only to, Israel.

"So Moses came with Joshua the son of Nun and spoke all the words of this song in the hearing of the people. Moses finished speaking all these words to all Israel."(Deuteronomy 32:44, 45 NKJV)

Moses began by addressing the heavens and the earth, telling them to hear the words of his mouth. At the end of the address the text says he "spoke all the words of this song in the hearing of the people." Therefore, the term "heavens and earth" is used figuratively as Israel.

My position stands.

Thanks Der Alter, may God bless

 

[Der Alte]

. . .
My position stands.

3. Moses, addressing the "heavens and earth," gave the song of Moses as an instructional tool for Israel to teach her children throughout her generations.

He began, “Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth."

This figurative language in the text was directed to, and only to, Israel.

"So Moses came with Joshua the son of Nun and spoke all the words of this song in the hearing of the people. Moses finished speaking all these words to all Israel."(Deuteronomy 32:44, 45 NKJV)

Moses began by addressing the heavens and the earth, telling them to hear the words of his mouth. At the end of the address the text says he "spoke all the words of this song in the hearing of the people." Therefore, the term "heavens and earth" is used figuratively as Israel.

My position stands.

Your position stands alright, it stands refuted by two preChristian translations of the same verse, the Targum and LXX. The Jews considered themselves the elite, chosen people of God, superior to all other peoples. If Jews of that time could have found God calling them heaven and earth in Isa 51 that would certainly support their presumed superiority to other nations, but they did not.

LXX Isa 51:16 I will put my words into thy mouth, and I will shelter thee under the shadow of mine hand, with which I fixed the sky, and founded the earth: and the Lord shall say to Sion, Thou art my people.

Targum isa 51:16 1 have put the words of my prophecy in thy mouth, and with the shadow of my power have I protected thee, to raise up the nation, concerning which it hath been promised that they shall be as many as the stars of heaven, and to establish the congregation it has been promised concerning them, that they shall multiply like the dust of the earth, and to say to the inhabitants of Zion, They are my people.​

In the below verses God clearly calls on the heavens and the earth to witness against Israel for their transgressions. Does God call on heaven and earth to witness against Israel three times then at a later time call them heaven and earth? Not according to the Targum and LXX. But you are free to misinterpret proof texts trying to support your assumptions/presuppositions.

Deu 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you [Israel] this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [Israel] that I have set before you [Israel] life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Deu 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As I said, in my opinion, your method is flawed because you're imposing your literalistic bias on the text in order to refute the Preterist position.

My position stands.

Thanks Der Alter, may God bless

Doesn't the position of Preterism and zionist dispensationalist Futurism hinge on the dating of Revelation?
Take a gander at this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791343/#post65802765
Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Originally Posted by ebedmelech

This is a good try Biblewriter...but the fact is many historians have questioned the 95 AD date. This is in no way as settled an issue as you think and wish to purport.
​

Please don't come with this "futurist could care less" idea because the first thing they yell is "Revelation was written in 95 AD".
​

Interesting post.
There is no shortage of biblical scholars seeing Revelation being written prior to ad 70.

The Early Date of Revelation[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] |[bless and do not curse] Study Archive

Apocalypse: Early Date Advocates​

ADVOCATES FOR THE EARLY DATE OF REVELATION (20TH-21ST CENTURIES)


Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction ; Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition, (1989)

ADVOCATES FOR THE EARLY DATE OF REVELATION

(PRIOR TO THE 20TH CENTURY)​

Philip Schaff(1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)
"Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428.)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (p. 397-398)........

.

.

 

[interpreter]

All the Church fathers say the Revelation was written in 95 or 96 AD. The Revelation opens in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All the Church fathers say the Revelation was written in 95 or 96 AD.
The Revelation opens in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.

Do all the ECFs have that same view of Constantine as you do?

That is a pretty radical view IMHO......


.

 

[A New World]

I think a more efficient use of our time would be to examine the different hermeneutics of Futurists and Preterists. Hopefully others agree and participate. There are variations within each view so we can each point out those differences. Once we are aware of the other's premise, we'll better understand the their conclusion.

There is, of course, the debate between Futurists and Preterists and which is the best hermeneutical approach.

We're familiar with those who desire to understand the Old Testament from a pre-Christian/Jewish perspective. They tell us we should make every attempt to view Scripture from the perspectives of the writers and the original audiences. They devote much time and effort toward that goal. That's admirable, logical, and respectable. We also recommend it when it comes to interpreting the NT.

My view of the Preterist hermeneutic is as follows.

There's a familiar statement with which I agree though this may not be an exact quote: "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed."

Just as we are to "interpret the obscure in light of the clear," I believe the proper hermeneutical approach is to interpret the Old in light of the New.

We are all aware that there are portions of the OT that were sealed and not to be revealed until the time of the end, such as Dan. 12:9. There were also mysteries not revealed until the time of the apostles. (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. chapters 1,3,5,6 etc.)

Peter, writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion (the same audience as the book of James), said they were, at that time, being "kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." It was in the last time they would be "receiving the end of [their] faith&#8212;the salvation of [their] souls." (1 Pet. 1:5,9)

He told his audience, "gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 1:5, 9, 13 NKJV)

He said, in regard to the OT prophets, "To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven&#8212;things which angels desire to look into." (I Peter 1:12 NKJV)

He also gave time statements (1 Pet. 4:5,7,17) that would later cause unbelievers to scoff at the words of imminence spoken by the inspired apostle saying, &#8220;Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.&#8221; (2 Peter 3:4 NKJV)

Many OT prophecies are cited by the apostles. Sometimes they quote them verbatim, other times they do not. However, the fact that God raised up apostles to reveal the fulfillment of OT prophecies in the last days was evidence that the age was coming to a close.

The fulfillment of prophecy taking place during that generation included the building of the Messianic temple, a spiritual house, with a Chief Cornerstone, living stones, a holy priesthood, and spiritual sacrifices. Paul also confirmed the building of this temple (2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-22).

Though it was a mystery in the Old Testament as to the manner of the restoration of the whole house of Israel in the last days, it was revealed through the apostles.

The apostles revealed that the calling of the Gentiles, their being grafted in with the Jews in the last days, and all being raised up into one spiritual body, the body of Christ, was the fulfillment of prophecy. (Is. 11:10-12; 49:6-8)

Isaiah prophesied,"Thus says the LORD : &#8220;In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages" (Isaiah 49:8 NKJV)

Paul announced the time of the fulfillment, "For He says: &#8220;In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you.&#8221; Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Corinthians 6:2 NKJV)

Since it's a demonstrable fact that the first century AD generation was living in the last days, the logical conclusion is the age in which they were living was about to come to an end. In other words, they were living in the time of the end prophesied by Daniel. Jesus, speaking to His disciples, effectively 'unsealed' the book of Daniel, further proof they were living in the time of the end. (Mt. 24:15)

Another very important aspect of the Preterist hermeneutic is paying careful attention to the time frame references and how they were relevant to that generation. Above I called attention to a few given by Peter. I think there's a thread here on CF that lists over one hundred NT time frame references.

With this hermeneutic in mind, I will turn my attention back to the most recent discussion on the term "heavens and earth."

Jesus said,"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17, 18 NKJV)

He said not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until "heaven and earth" passed away. If heaven and earth have not passed away, all of the Mosaic Law is still in effect. There is not one person under the Mosaic Law today nor has there been since it passed away.

Jesus, in the Olivet Discourse, answered the disciples question concerning the end of their age. He described various things for them to expect in their lifetime. He also gave a few time indicators. The gospel would be preached in all the world, and all the things He described would occur before their generation came to an end.

Paul said the gospel had been made known to all nations, had gone out to all the world, and it had been preached to every creature under heaven. (Rom. 16:25,26; Col. 1:5,6,23)

Isaiah spoke of the establishment of the Old Covenant people: "And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant the heavens, Lay the foundations of the earth, And say to Zion, &#8216;You are My people.&#8221; (Isaiah 51:16 NKJV)

We know that the age of the Law came to an end. The writer to the Hebrews said the Law, the Old Covenant, was "ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) The conclusion is, the Old Covenant order was spoken of figuratively as "heavens and earth." When the Law and the prophets were fulfilled "heaven and earth" passed away.

John was shown the very moment the Old order passed away and the full arrival of the New heavens and earth. (Rev. 21:1-4)

In my opinion there is no reason for us to attempt to interpret the Old Testament through any other perspective than the inspired New Testament writers. Much more could be added. I hope other Preterists here will join the discussion and add their perspectives.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think a more efficient use of our time would be to examine the different hermeneutics of Futurists and Preterists. Hopefully others agree and participate. There are variations within each view so we can each point out those differences. Once we are aware of the other's premise, we'll better understand the their conclusion.

There is, of course, the debate between Futurists and Preterists and which is the best hermeneutical approach.......................

John was shown the very moment the Old order passed away and the full arrival of the New heavens and earth. (Rev. 21:1-4)

In my opinion there is no reason for us to attempt to interpret the Old Testament through any other perspective than the inspired New Testament writers. Much more could be added.

I hope other Preterists here will join the discussion and add their perspectives.

There are probably more Partial preterists around here than Full/Hyper Preterists, since the latter view is deemed heretical and un-orthodox, and thus do not want to risk exposing themselves at the risk of being strung up ehehe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKITYu7z-AY

.

 

[Der Alte]

All the Church fathers say the Revelation was written in 95 or 96 AD. . . ..

Cite a few of them if you don't mind?

 

[A New World]

There are probably more Partial preterists around here than Full/Hyper Preterists, since the latter view is deemed heretical and un-orthodox, and thus do not want to risk exposing themselves at the risk of being strung up ehehe

Hang 'Em High (1967) trailer - YouTube

.

I tried my best to remain in the Partial Preterist mindset. I read RC Sproul's book, "The Last Days According To Jesus," and Hank Hanegraaf's, "The Apocalypse Code," and the wheels have been spinning since.

I've read several PPs lists of prophecies they believe have been fulfilled. Taken together they almost become FPs. For example, some agree that 2 Pet. 3 was fulfilled in AD 70. The others may call that heretical. Some see all of the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled, others choose to divide it in various ways.

A typical Partial Preterist list of Scriptures that some offer as past and yet future events.

Past:
Mt. 10:23
16:28
24:30
24:64

1 Thess. 5:2

2 Thess. 1:7

James. 5:7-9

1 Pet. 4:7

Rev. 1:7



Future:
John 5:28-29

Acts. 1:11
17:31

1 Cor. 15:23-24

1 Thess. 4:16

1 Jn. 3:2


List of Scriptures John Lightfoot (1602-1675) related to AD 70:

Deut. 32:22-24

Is. 65:17

Jer. 4:23
5:22-28

Mt. 16:28
24:29,30,34,37

Lk. 19:12,27
23:30

Jn. 21:22

Acts. 1:11
2:20

1 Cor. 3:13
10:11

2 Cor. 5:17

Gal. 4:9

Col. 2:20

2 Thess. 2:2

Heb. 10:37
12:26

James. 5:9

1 Pet. 3:19-21
4:7

2 Pet. 3:6-13

1 Jn 2:18

Rev. 1:7
6:4-13
21:1,2

I guess he bordered on heresy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I tried my best to remain in the Partial Preterist mindset. I read RC Sproul's book, "The Last Days According To Jesus," and Hank Hanegraaf's, "The Apocalypse Code," and the wheels have been spinning since.

I've read several PPs lists of prophecies they believe have been fulfilled. Taken together they almost become FPs. For example, some agree that 2 Pet. 3 was fulfilled in AD 70. The others may call that heretical. Some see all of the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled, others choose to divide it in various ways.

A typical Partial Preterist list of Scriptures that some offer as past and yet future events.

Past:
Mt. 10:23
16:28
24:30
24:64

.

Did you happen to see this earlier post of mind, concerning the confusion of a particular Partial Preterist and the split in Matt 24?

[I may make a seperate thread on this]

http://www.christianforums.com/t2367396-2/#post65786114

There are two primary camps within preterism on this issue:
one view holds that there is a break in Matthew 24 beginning with either verse 35 or 36 [Switch-On],
and another that holds that the entire enchilada primarily belongs to the first century [Switch-Off].

Frankly there are strong arguments for both, and I have held both positions, in fact in writing this piece I have waffled - when I started writing I was becoming very convinced of a Pro-Switch view, now upon writing it I am back to my former position of a No-Switch view.

If in fact there is any change after verse 34, this would be what I would propose (I have not&#8212; The subject matter up to verse 34 is strongly primarily speaking of the first century and only very loosely can have thematic application to the future.

After verse 34, Jesus speaks much more loosely, doesn't give a strong time referent and refers in ways that can refer to either the first century, the consummation, or both. I have swayed in various positions so it is unknown if this will be my final resting place. . . . (after completely writing this piece, I am saying probably not). ...........


.

 

[A New World]

Did you happen to see this earlier post of mind, concerning the confusion of a particular Partial Preterist and the split in Matt 24?

[I may make a seperate thread on this]

Yes, I did see that post and I appreciate the insight. As I've noted in the past, I moved rather quickly to the more consistent Preterist view and never really waffled. The idea of dividing it, as I recall from previous discussions with PPs, is not as easy when all three accounts are considered.

There are also futurists who think Luke's version, at least part of it, does refer to AD 70 while Matthew's and Mark's do not. One told me that Luke 21:20-24 is not part of the Discourse and that it refers to AD 70. However, he said, all of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and the remainder of Luke 21 are yet future.

I don't understand the reason behind dividing it at all.

 

[interpreter]

Did you happen to see this earlier post of mind, concerning the confusion of a particular Partial Preterist and the split in Matt 24?

[I may make a seperate thread on this]

http://www.christianforums.com/t2367396-2/#post65786114

There are two primary camps within preterism on this issue:
one view holds that there is a break in Matthew 24 beginning with either verse 35 or 36 [Switch-On],
and another that holds that the entire enchilada primarily belongs to the first century [Switch-Off].

There is a third camp that says the second coming was in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through ST. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Did you happen to see this earlier post of mind, concerning the confusion of a particular Partial Preterist and the split in Matt 24?...............

​

There is a third camp that says the second coming was in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through ST. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.

Ummm, isn't that a bit far-fetched and waaaay outside of mainstream Christianity's view?

.

 

[A New World]

There is a third camp that says the second coming was in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through ST. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.

Do you have an idea of how many hold that view? Was it an ancient view that has by now disappeared?

 

[A New World]

More Scriptural evidence for Full Preterism

The Preterist view is based heavily on two principles.

One is Audience Relevance. How does one apply the words of Scripture to the writer's immediate audience?

Two is the Timeframe References. How do the statements that indicate the timing of the events relate to the immediate audience?

The power of tradition was so strong prior to considering the fulfilled view I completely ignored the original audiences and the timing of the eschatological events. I once read the scriptures as though they were written to me. So, of course, I also applied the time statements to my time, my generation. I would confidently proclaim the imminent coming of The Lord because the scriptures say His coming "must soon take place."

Once I realized the first century AD audiences were living in the last days the light of truth began to illuminate many things that were once darkened. At least things that I had not even considered.

Now, when I read scripture, I ask myself, "Who is writing? Who is their intended audience? and, Is there a timeframe for the events described?"

When applied to the Olivet Discourse I concluded:

Jesus responded to direct questions asked by Peter, James, John and Andrew. (Mk. 13:3,4) They were His immediate audience.

He told them of circumstances, situations, and events that were to occur within their generation. (Mk. 13:5-13,30) That was the timeframe.

He said when the 'abomination of desolation' spoken of by Daniel occurred those in Judea were to flee to the mountains. (Mk. 13:14-20)

Daniel was to be sealed until the time of the end. I believe the
disciples would have understood Jesus to be unsealing, and
revealing, the book of Daniel to them. He was informing them
that they were living in the time of the end spoken of by Daniel and all
the OT prophets.

Jesus warned them of false christs and false prophets who would try and deceive the elect. He told them to depend on all He was telling them before these events occurred. (Mk. 13:21-23) The events would be relevant to their generation.

He said after the tribulation of those days (the last days generation), the kingdom of that age would end. He used language familiar to them from the prophecies of the Old Testament. The language symbolized the removal of the current kingdom of Old Covenant Israel. (Mk. 13:24-27) Their generation would witness this cataclysmic event.

He gave them the time frame of the last days (their generation would by no means pass away until all these things take place). They wouldn't immediately know the exact day and hour, but they had been given signs to recognize the day as it grew near. (Mk. 13:28-33)

The scriptural support for the Preterist view begins with the two principles above. The evidence then follows throughout the New Testament. It is beyond dispute that the first century audiences were the last days generation. They were told by Jesus Himself that they were living in the time spoken of by Daniel, a book sealed until the time of the end.

They would later learn that John's book, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, was not sealed because the appointed time was near. (Rev. 22:10) This is further confirmation that 'all these things' would occur in their generation.

Before their generation came to an end Jesus' words were confirmed. Every time statement presented by the inspired writers was of imminence. There was never a hint that there would be a long delay before the coming of The Lord.

Peter: "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer...For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:7, 17 NASB)

James: "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door." (James 5:7-9 NASB)

John: "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18 NASB)

Paul: "Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:11, 12 NASB)

If God intended to communicate an almost two thousand year delay in the coming of The Lord, to a completely different generation, why did He go to such lengths to explicitly inform the first century generation that the end of all things was imminent?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

More Scriptural evidence for Full Preterism

The Preterist view is based heavily on two principles.

One is Audience Relevance. How does one apply the words of Scripture to the writer's immediate audience?

Two is the Timeframe References. How do the statements that indicate the timing of the events relate to the immediate audience?

If God intended to communicate an almost two thousand year delay in the coming of The Lord, to a completely different generation,
why did He go to such lengths to explicitly inform the first century generation that the end of all things was imminent?

I believe the biggest hurdle for the Hyper/Full Preterists is convincing the Amills and Full Futurist that not only is ALL of the Olivet Discourse fulfilled, but also ALL of Revelation and every endtime Prophecy, in both the OT and NT, are fulfilled.

Tis a daunting task task and a major uphill battle against those non-Preterists entrenched in the doctrines and beliefs held by a majority of the early Christian churches and the ECFs.

How many of the ECFs were full-Preterists?
Were any of these 3 considered full Preterist?

Early Church Fathers And AD 70 Destruction Of Jerusalem And Preterism | Preterist Global Resources

Chrysostom

&#8220;For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it.&#8221; (Homily LXXIV, A.D.347)

Origen

&#8220;I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem.&#8221; (Contra Celsum, 198-199)

Athanasius (A.D. 340)

&#8220;Now observe; that city, since the coming of our Savior, has had an end, and all the land of the Jews has been laid waste; so that from the testimony of these things (and we need no further proof, being assured by our own eyes of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an end of the shadow....... (Athanasius, Festal Letters, VIII)


.

 

[A New World]

I believe the biggest hurdle for the Hyper/Full Preterists is convincing the Amills and Full Futurist that not only is ALL of the Olivet Discourse fulfilled, but also ALL of Revelation and every endtime Prophecy, in both the OT and NT, are fulfilled.

Tis a daunting task task and a major uphill battle against those non-Preterists entrenched in the doctrines and beliefs held by a majority of the early Christian churches and the ECFs.

How many of the ECFs were full-Preterists?
Were any of these 3 considered full Preterist?

Early Church Fathers And AD 70 Destruction Of Jerusalem And Preterism | Preterist Global Resources

Chrysostom

“For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it.” (Homily LXXIV, A.D.347)

Origen

“I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem.” (Contra Celsum, 198-199)

Athanasius (A.D. 340)

“Now observe; that city, since the coming of our Savior, has had an end, and all the land of the Jews has been laid waste; so that from the testimony of these things (and we need no further proof, being assured by our own eyes of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an end of the shadow


.

Good points.

I agree it's a daunting task and an uphill battle. Other than the blinding affect of tradition I'm not sure why it's such a difficult task. My simple mind had no problem accepting the fulfilled view once I considered the following familiar concept.

John gave 'bookend' time statements that should be difficult to miss.

"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3 NASB)

"And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Revelation 22:10 NASB)

Twice John told his audiences the appointed time was near.

When we consider that Daniel was told to seal up his vision because it wouldn't be relevant until the time of the end. John was told the opposite, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy" because the end was near.

Though Daniel's vision was sealed and had no immediate relevance to him or his audience, John and his audiences were living when the time of the end was near and his visions remained unsealed and were directly relevant.

I also appreciate the Preterist Archive. It amazes me when I read many of those considered to be church fathers who held to distinct Preterist views yet they apparently never came to a Full Preterist view. It makes me wonder how many of their books and documents have been edited out of history to preserve a dominant majority view.

The threat of being labeled a heretic was much more a concern when your very life depended on your public doctrinal profession. We are fortunate that we're not only able to express our opinions, but to do it without threat of violence. I wonder what orthodoxy would look like if every generation could've discussed and debated doctrinal issues freely.

 

[Der Alte]

I believe the biggest hurdle for the Hyper/Full Preterists is convincing the Amills and Full Futurist that not only is ALL of the Olivet Discourse fulfilled, but also ALL of Revelation and every endtime Prophecy, in both the OT and NT, are fulfilled.

Tis a daunting task task and a major uphill battle against those non-Preterists entrenched in the doctrines and beliefs held by a majority of the early Christian churches and the ECFs.

How many of the ECFs were full-Preterists?
Were any of these 3 considered full Preterist?

Early Church Fathers And AD 70 Destruction Of Jerusalem And Preterism | Preterist Global Resources

Chrysostom

“For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it.” (Homily LXXIV, A.D.347)

I did not find this quote in Chrysostom Homily LXXIV.

NPNF1-10. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Origen

“I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem.” (Contra Celsum, 198-199)

This citation should be identified as Origen Against Celsus Book 4, chapter 22. There is no question that Jerusalem was destroyed but was Origen a full preterist?

Origen Against Celsus Book 3 Chap 5

But with regard to the consummation of the world, Jacob is the first who gives any information, in addressing his children in the words: “Gather yourselves together unto me, ye sons of Jacob, that I may tell you what shall be in the last days,” or “after the last days.” If, then, there be “last days,” or a period “succeeding the last days,” the days which had a beginning must necessarily come to an end. David, too, declares: “The heavens shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old as doth a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end.” Our Lord and Savior, indeed, in the words, “He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female,” Himself bears witness that the world was created; and again, when He says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away,” He points out that they are perishable, and must come to an end. The apostle, moreover, in declaring that “the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God,” manifestly announces the end of the world; as he does also when he again says, “The fashion of this world passeth away.” Now, by the expression which he employs, “that the creature was made subject to vanity,” he shows that there was a beginning to this world: for if the creature were made subject to vanity on account of some hope, it was certainly made subject from a cause; and seeing it was from a cause, it must necessarily have had a beginning: for, without some beginning, the creature could not be subject to vanity, nor could that (creature) hope to be freed from the bondage of corruption, which had not begun to serve. But any one who chooses to search at his leisure, will find numerous other passages in holy Scripture in which the world is both said to have a beginning and to hope for an end.​

Athanasius (A.D. 340)

“Now observe; that city, since the coming of our Savior, has had an end, and all the land of the Jews has been laid waste; so that from the testimony of these things (and we need no further proof, being assured by our own eyes of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an end of the shadow
.

Not properly identified. Unable to locate.