I am a newbee partial preterist. Discuss.

[mkgal1]

no, I dont hold to rapture theology - I use the word as it is useful to describe the gathering up of Enoch and Elijah - I don't accept the pre-trib rapture, but I was converted to Christianity by a fundamentalist pastor and attended Pentecostal church for a while.

I apologize, I believe you posted something similar earlier. Do you disagree that the faithful could have been "gathered up" (by way of them understanding Jesus' messages) by fleeing to the hills of Pella and and saved from the destruction of Jerusalem?

I have drifted into Anglicanism as I prefer it to all the preaching of the Evangelical church, although I was baptized in an Evangelical church some years ago.
I don't accept infant baptism, but I suppose we are not going to agree on everything, and I like to have fellowship, and fear that I would be considered a heretic in most Protestant churches, if I spoke up - and I don't speak up.

I think I have in the past, found the pre-trib rapture a nice doctrine, and have studied the theory for a long time, using this forum to bounce ideas about, to try and learn from others about Eschatology.
I have become a liberal because of the books that I have read. I didunt get the answers from fundamentalist sort of writers.

Have you heard of Fr Richard Rohr? You may enjoy his writing and speaking. He's a Franciscan Catholic.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

So are you the one who decides which part of the Bible is authoritative? Or are you relying on a bishop of Archbishop?



That may be so, as it is with Queensland Anglicans, which are dying at a rate of knots. However, for the healthy Sydney Anglican diocese, a minister who is liberal theologically and does not accept the authority of all of Scripture, would be tossed out because of his/her liberalism.


Oz

I'll have a look into those terms later.
For me, I am the one who decides on the biblical canon - I am my own bishop.
All religion is dying out in the UK, not just Anglicans - Methodists are in drastic decline, and have proposed a merger with the Anglican church - which would be OK, as the reason for the split was not that great - there are Anglo-Catholics, Evangelical and Liberal wings within Anglicanism.
We can decide for ourselves what is authoritative in the bible and what is not - we can use discernment and reason. We have to make eschatology work out. If we don't buy dispensationalism, then we need something else, that works.
Full preterism is considered unorthodox.
People here havunt explained the sayings of Jesus about the soon coming of the kingdom. I have provided a solution.
I have been influenced by atheist writers such as Bart Erhman and Acharia S. I have to keep my opinions secret usually. All my unorthodoxy duzant alter the primary orthodoxy of my Christianity. Partial Preterism is not heretical. Dumping books of the bible is not heretical.
Luther said that we should be our own priest.
The vicar at my church last week wrote 'love' on a toilet roll and threw it at someone. I don't know what that was about, but it was to do with the doing away of the Law - which I don't agree with, as I have said.
People need to explain the passages of the Gospels where Jesus teaches that the Kingdom was to commence within a generation, and not ask me for bible verses - I know the bible by memory.
The only comment for far that has made me think is the one about how did the church continue after 70 AD. The 'rapture' is almost lost to history as there was no way of making the event known or published, except by a few pagan writers, which I will research later further.
I would be tossed out of a church, if I was a pastor - I could not preach on things that I do not believe to be true. If I keep quiet then all is well, even if I enrage people on his forum.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I apologize, I believe you posted something similar earlier. Do you disagree that the faithful could have been "gathered up" (by way of them understanding Jesus' messages) by fleeing to the hills of Pella and and saved from the destruction of Jerusalem?


Have you heard of Fr Richard Rohr? You may enjoy his writing and speaking. He's a Franciscan Catholic.

I think that they did escape to Pella, but I think there was something very dramatic that happened to the church - they were literally gathered into the air and translated into heaven, as Jesus said that they would not die, some of them anyway.
After the tribulation.
And you can tell that Jesus was talking about Judah of that day, as he mentions the Sabbath - he was talking to Jews in Judah specifically.
I haven't heard of Richard Rohr, but I'll look him up.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

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

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

John the Apostle lived to be over 90 and was still around after 70AD.
Did he miss the rapture? Your theory is wack.

There is a ton of prophecy that can only be fulfilled with a literal reign of Jesus on the earth having come after the 7 year tribulation. The ideas in Mathew 24 are in response to a 3 fold question. Jesus had commented on the temple being destroyed and not two stones left touching one another. The disciples asked when will these things be and what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age? Jesus talks about when the temple would be destroyed in 70AD. Then he gets into the signs of His coming and the end of the age. When He speaks of this generation will not pass away he is talking about the generation that sees these signs He has just mentioned. This is not speaking of the generation that was standing there.

Peter speaking of the 2nd coming of the Lord says this
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us,[fn] the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[fn] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Key verse knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. Peter close to 70 AD speaks of scoffers making a joke of the delay in Jesus 2nd coming. This makes no sense if He came in 70AD.

 

[mkgal1]

People need to explain the passages of the Gospels where Jesus teaches that the Kingdom was to commence within a generation

I thought I'd answered that earlier.....God's kingdom began when the Temple was destroyed. That was the end of the Jewish [temple] age. "The Son of Man Coming" was symbolic of His full power and glory being fulfilled. This is called "inauguration theology". His Kingdom has been "inaugurated, but not consummated". It's a process (that won't violate humanity's free will).

From Fr Richard Rohr:

---->The brilliant Anglican theologian, N. T. Wright, concludes that we have largely missed Paul’s major theme. [1] After Luther, many thought Paul’s great idea was “justification by faith” (Protestants) versus “works righteousness” (Catholics). It makes a nice dualistic split, but Wright believes the great and supreme idea of Paul is that the new temple of God is the human person. In this insight, he offers us a superb example of thin-slicing the texts and finding the golden thread. Once you see it, you cannot not see it.

The first stone temple of the Jewish people was built around 950 BC. On the day of the dedication of “Solomon’s Temple,” the Shekinah glory of YHWH (fire and cloud from heaven) descended and filled the Temple (1 Kings 8:10-13), just as it had once filled the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 40:34-35). This became the assurance of the abiding and localized divine presence of YHWH for the Jewish people. This naturally made Solomon’s Temple both the center and centering place of the whole world, in Jewish thinking.

When the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and took the Jews into exile (587 BC), it no doubt prompted a crisis of faith. The Temple was where God lived! People like Ezra and Nehemiah eventually convinced the people that they must go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple so God could be with them again. Yet Wright points out there is no account of the fire and glory of God ever descending on this rebuilt temple (515 BC). And this “Second Temple” is the only temple Jesus would have ever known and loved.

The absence of visible Shekinah glory must have been a bit of an embarrassment and worry for the Jewish people. Wright says it could explain the growth of Pharisaism, a belief strong in Jesus’ time that if liturgical and moral laws were obeyed more perfectly—absolute ritual, priesthood, and Sabbath purity—then the Glory of God would return to the Temple. This is the common pattern in moralistic religion: our impurity supposedly keeps God away. They tried so hard, but the fire never descended. They must have wondered, “Are we really God’s favorite and chosen people?” (This is a common question for all of us in early-stage religion.)

Knowledge of this history now gives new and even more meaning to what we call the Pentecost event (Acts 2:1-13). On that day, the fire from heaven descended, not on a building, but on people! And all peoples—not just Jews—were baptized and received the Spirit (Acts 2:38-41). Paul understood this and spent much of his life drawing out the immense consequences. In that moment, Christianity began to see itself as a universal rather than a tribal or regional religion, which is why they very soon called themselves “catholic” (universal) as early as the year 108 AD. Paul loved to say, “You are the Temple!” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:21-22), and of course this morphs into his entire doctrine of corporate humanity as the very Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-30).~https://cac.org/the-evolution-of-the-temple-2017-05-14/​

 

[mkgal1]

Something else to consider is Ray Vanderlaan's "Clash of Kingdoms":

Volume 15 | A Clash of Kingdoms

 

[mkgal1]

I think that they did escape to Pella, but I think there was something very dramatic that happened to the church - they were literally gathered into the air and translated into heaven, as Jesus said that they would not die, some of them anyway.

I thought Jesus had said "some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (vv. 27–28).....meaning it would happen in their lifetime.

Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology

Where are you getting the idea from that they literally were gathered into the air and translated to heaven?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I thought I'd answered that earlier.....God's kingdom began when the Temple was destroyed. That was the end of the Jewish [temple] age. "The Son of Man Coming" was symbolic of His full power and glory being fulfilled. This is called "inauguration theology". His Kingdom has been "inaugurated, but not consummated". It's a process (that won't violate humanity's free will).

OK, so explain to me please the passage when Jesus says that some of those people standing there with him will not taste of death until the coming of the kingdom?
Can anyone explain that, except to say that the kingdom did come for those people...
I had thought to explain this by thinking that they would see the kingdom of God within their lifetimes, but in that scenario, they would not see the kingdom - the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jews from Judah is not the kingdom - the kingdom for them must have been the kingdom of heaven.
Perhaps much later they could have seen the kingdom with the spread of Christendom, but not in 70 AD.
And Jesus also said that time was so short that the disciples would hardly have the time to preach through Israel before the advent of the kingdom.
And John the Baptist warns people of the coming judgement - 70 AD.

Another post said that John lived unto 90 AD - presumably thinking that John wrote Revelation in 90 AD. I have said already that I do not accept that John wrote Revelation, and I think that it was certainly written during the time of Nero or shortly after. The author is cashing in on the fears that Nero would return somehow - the Nero revividus myth, they call it.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I thought Jesus had said "some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (vv. 27–28).....meaning it would happen in their lifetime.

Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology

Where are you getting the idea from that they literally were gathered into the air and translated to heaven?

I saw a video that someone posted on YouTube. He quoted four pagan writers and what they wrote. I am trying to find the video again so that I can do further research. But that is the only solution for me - that they vanished, like with the rapture.
It's a long time ago. The empire would not have noticed if several thousand Christians vanished. Jesus also said in John's Gospel that he would return for the Apostles, after preparing a place in heaven for them. How long do the Apostles have to wait for Jesus to return - 2000 years?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I found the YouTube video, so I can look into this further. The post is by a channel - mercurylegion ... I dont think that I can post videos here as I have a new account, but I used to be Hiscosmicgoldfish on the forum. I have been away for some years.

 

[The Times]

No, I think the Book of Revelation is significant for each of us.

Throughout the generations right?

 

[dreadnought]

Throughout the generations right?

Throughout each generation and for each of us as individuals.

 

[The Times]

Throughout each generation and for each of us as individuals.

But, if you also consider the opening chapter, which is a letter to the seven Churches in Asia Minor, that there was an urgent message, accompanied by the call...."the time is near". The urgent message needed to be delivered to each of the Head Bishops/Messengers of those Churches, which required a reinvigoration of the preaching of the gospel yet again as stated in Revelation 10:11. This message comes some three decades after the fall of Jerusalem, when the Great Commission was disrupted. John was instructed by Jesus to restart the vigorous task to preach yet again to the many peoples of the world (Revelation 10:11). The time is near, is to say, it is high time that the preaching commence immediately without fail. John accompanies his message, that the beast and the false prophet who were burnt up in 70AD, will no longer impede them. This is the near field message.

However the far field message, concerning mystery Babylon that is the beast that was, is not (70AD) and yet will become again in the future, was a mystery beast to John, because it was not for his time, but a future time, where the world would be trampled under the feet of that end of days generation before Christ's brilliant coming.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I found the YouTube video, so I can look into this further. The post is by a channel - mercurylegion ... I dont think that I can post videos here as I have a new account, but I used to be Hiscosmicgoldfish on the forum. I have been away for some years.

mercurylegion

this link works and you can find the video under ..
Proof that THE RAPTURE Already Happened in 66 A.D.? (from Ancient Roman Sources) and :
What Happened AFTER THE RAPTURE!!! (from 66 thru 145 A.D.)

 

[Douggg]

Acts reads like fiction. I risk annoying people greatly on this forum - but Acts resembles the travels of Dionysus. Paul replaces Jesus. Paul morphs from a pius Jew into a Jew-hating Roman hero. Acts is very anti-Jew.

You are in the wrong forum. This forum is not about proving the bible true.

 

[mkgal1]

OK, so explain to me please the passage when Jesus says that some of those people standing there with him will not taste of death until the coming of the kingdom?
Can anyone explain that, except to say that the kingdom did come for those people...
I had thought to explain this by thinking that they would see the kingdom of God within their lifetimes, but in that scenario, they would not see the kingdom - the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jews from Judah is not the kingdom - the kingdom for them must have been the kingdom of heaven.
Perhaps much later they could have seen the kingdom with the spread of Christendom, but not in 70 AD.

I'm not sure if I'm following your train of thought here.....but I am convinced that there is a LOT of depth to the question of "what does the coming of the Kingdom of God mean or look like?". That may be a perfect place to sort of "park" on in your reading/discovering. It's probably different for each of us....how that unfolds for us in our understanding.

For me.....it makes sense to think of what the Temple meant for the Jews (and, from what I'm understanding, early Jesus followers were still considered Jewish, since Jesus is Jewish and teaching in synagogues).....correct? Wasn't the "church at Jerusalem" still Jewish? I don't believe there was an actual split until *after* the destruction. Basically....I think the importance is between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.....and the "vanishing" of the Old Covenant(Hebrews 8:13.....but I realize you've tossed that out as non-canonical in your view).

 

[The Times]

I thought Jesus had said "some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (vv. 27–28).....meaning it would happen in their lifetime.

Jesus is speaking of his ascension into Heaven and the setting up of the Kingdom of Heaven, in his Father's house of many rooms/dimensions.

2My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:2-3)

As recorded in John 14, that were still alive to witnesses Christ's ascension into Heaven, for him to start making preparation for his bride, in his Father's house in Heaven.

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus is speaking of his ascension into Heaven and the setting up of the Kingdom of Heaven, in his Father's house of many rooms/dimensions.

2My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:2-3)

There were there as recorded in John 14, that were still alive to witnesses Christ's ascension into Heaven, for him to start making preparation for his bride, in his Father's house in Heaven.

I believe HIs plan has many different phases .....and the ascension was part of setting up the Kingdom of God....but not specifically what Jesus was referring to at that time. From that link:

----->Among the more prominent interpretations is the idea that “coming of the Son of Man” in view here is the transfiguration, which is narrated in the following chapter.ii Some suggest that Jesus is referring to his resurrection or to Pentecost. Others suggest that Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70.iii Then there are those who believe Jesus is speaking here of his Second Coming and of the end of history. Among those holding this view, there are those who believe Jesus was mistaken because he believed this would occur within the lifetime of his hearers, and there are those who believe that Jesus was correct because the “some standing here” refers to a later generation.iv

In order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,” he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14. And again we must recall that the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (cf. Dan. 7:9–10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.~Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology​

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I'm not sure if I'm following your train of thought here.....but I am convinced that there is a LOT of depth to the question of "what does the coming of the Kingdom of God mean or look like?". That may be a perfect place to sort of "park" on in your reading/discovering. It's probably different for each of us....how that unfolds for us in our understanding.

For me.....it makes sense to think of what the Temple meant for the Jews (and, from what I'm understanding, early Jesus followers were still considered Jewish, since Jesus is Jewish and teaching in synagogues).....correct? Wasn't the "church at Jerusalem" still Jewish? I don't believe there was an actual split until *after* the destruction. Basically....I think the importance is between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.....and the "vanishing" of the Old Covenant(Hebrews 8:13.....but I realize you've tossed that out as non-canonical in your view).

I have thought of late that the Ebionites or Nazarines were the true Christians - the church run by James in the early years. The unpopular idea here, is that Paul was opposed to the Ebionites and James and went his own way. Paul's doctrines were easier to accept for the Greeks as there was no Jewish Law or circumcision - just a few basic rules.
The video that I posted claims there that the Judaisers were left behind at the rapture - I don't agree with that. I think that there might have been a compromise agreed between James, Peter and Paul, at first, but that Paul went to far, so James writes his letter to refute Paul's teachings.
Paul won the day, perhaps because the Ebionites were raptured in 66 AD.
Anyway, I found the video and the writers were Flavius Josephus, 75 AD, Cornelius Tacitus 112 AD, Casia Dio 66 AD and Suetonius 66 AD - all writing from a pagan perspective on the rapture of the church.
Looks like we missed the rapture after all.

 

[Douggg]

I have been influenced by atheist writers such as Bart Erhman and Acharia S. I have to keep my opinions secret usually. All my unorthodoxy duzant alter the primary orthodoxy of my Christianity. Partial Preterism is not heretical. Dumping books of the bible is not heretical.

Everyone is entitled to their view on Christianity. But not in this forum. This forum is a about eschatology, study of the end times from the Christian perspective, based on the bible being true. You should not be participating in this forum if you don't believe the bible is true.