Olivet Discourse historicist or preterist?

[Timtofly]

What early fathers believed that the devil was bound at the second coming? Please furnish us with quotes

No, they never claimed Satan was ever bound, else you would have quoted them. From the quotes you gave Satan was free and roaming around like a roaring lion until the Second Coming. No future little season before the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus prophesied that the temple buildings would be destroyed (Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6) and He was asked when that would happen. Do you believe He didn't answer that question? The temple buildings obviously were destroyed, so when do you think that happened, if not in 70 AD?

70AD was not the AoD. Yes the rebels destroyed Jerusalem from within. The rebels burned down Herod's temple. The rebels killed each other, and caused many to resort to cannibalism. They paid the blood that those who wanted to crucify Jesus claimed upon themselves and their children.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yes, I know that.

I'm fine with that, but I think no more needs to be said about them at this point. Feel free to continue discussing them if you want, but I'm growing tired of seeing all the mentions of the ECFs.

The ECFs disagreed on things just like we still do today, so it makes no sense for anyone to try to say that the ECFs believed this or believed that as if all of them believed the same thing (I know you're not saying this, but some here seem to think that). They were not in agreement on anything just as we're not still today. So, I'd prefer to just leave them out of our discussions for the most part.

I am writing 2 books on the ECFs, so I like to test my findings. It is very helpful. It allows others to expose any holes in one's position.

 

[Douggg]

I am writing 2 books on the ECFs, so I like to test my findings. It is very helpful. It allows others to expose any holes in one's position.

This is not an argument (because I am not an expert on the topic), but could you please in a reply post list the names of who you consider the ECF's, and beside their name, the dates they lived, and the location(s) they were active?

Never mind - go to this thread...

ECF's list - grand experiment

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, I know that.

I'm fine with that, but I think no more needs to be said about them at this point. Feel free to continue discussing them if you want, but I'm growing tired of seeing all the mentions of the ECFs.

The ECFs disagreed on things just like we still do today, so it makes no sense for anyone to try to say that the ECFs believed this or believed that as if all of them believed the same thing (I know you're not saying this, but some here seem to think that). They were not in agreement on anything just as we're not still today. So, I'd prefer to just leave them out of our discussions for the most part.

The thing that bothers me about some of this, none of these ECFs are here to defend what they meant or didn't mean. Yet, some via the way they interpret what they were meaning, have them coming off sounding like some of the biggest morons that ever walked the planet. I get it that they didn't agree about everything. But that's not what I am even meaning in this case. I'm meaning, such as, having ECF Chilaists that clearly saw the thousand years meaning post the 2nd coming, then having these same ECF Chilaists having satan cast into the LOF before the thousand years rather than after. That's nonsense. That's an example of someone not understanding their position correctly. Plus, not everything written that ECF Chilaists believed at the time even survived. We mainly have fragments here and there of what they wrote and believed. To assume that someone who believes the thousand years are post the 2nd coming then has satan cast into the LOF before the thousand years, the latter doesn't even agree with one single Scripture in the entire Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that satan is cast into the LOF before the beginning of the thousand years. Why would anyone today then claim that ECF Chilaists had satan being cast into the LOF prior to the thousand years when there is not a single Scripture that can even support that possibility?

 

[RandyPNW]

The AoD was Antiochus Epiphanies. Josephus gave us both historical accounts. He did not compare them to each other. Without Josephus, the early church, nor us today would have a clue about either. They project onto the historical account of Josephus the same way modern scholars do. No where does God claim the AoD was in 70AD. Since Josephus did not make that claim either, what other record of the event are any going by? Word of mouth?

Jesus referenced Daniel and his AoD in Dan 9, and it is written in connection with the destruction of Jerusaem and the temple--9.26. If Jesus referred to that event as something yet to take place in his own generation, the AoD *cannot* be Antiochus 4.

 

[RandyPNW]

You are completely missing the point. It's one thing to get a definition of a word from a dictionary or find out some information about something from an enyclopedia. That's fine. But, you are basing a doctrine from something written in an encyclopedia about supposed "Christian nations" despite the fact that scripture says nothing whatsoever about Christian nations.

Christian Nations did not yet exist in the time that the Bible was written. So it won't say "Christian Nations." But they are alluded to as the nations Paul said were fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant.

In other words, the Gospel was being sent to the nations not just to save individuals, but also to bring entire nations into conformity with Christianity. We know that because *Israel was the model of that!*

Israel was a kind of theocracy, and not just followers of God's Law who were derived from Hebrew blood! God planned the *Nation-State,* and not just a select group of people derived from it.

God does select His elect from nations. But this is a matter of evangelical salvation, and a matter of eternal life. But in the present day, God wants Christians not just to find individuals converts--He wants them also to witness before kings and leaders of nations, to impact and to convert the whole society.

Where does it say anything about "nations of faith"?

Abraham was made to be larger than just a natural father--he was made a spiritual father. That is implicit in his call to father many nations. This wasn't just biological--it was spiritual. As such, he becomes a father of nations of faith.

 

[DavidPT]

Jesus referenced Daniel and his AoD in Dan 9, and it is written in connection with the destruction of Jerusaem and the temple--9.26. If Jesus referred to that event as something yet to take place in his own generation, the AoD *cannot* be Antiochus 4.

Though I agree with your point about Antiochus 4, except for the part concerning this generation, is one to believe that when Jesus made mention of Daniel in the Discourse, one was supposed to only go to one chapter and one verse in order to gain more insight into what He was meaning? Imagine if you lived in the first century prior to 70 AD. How would going to only Daniel 9:26 provide further insight as to what Jesus was meaning? For one, that verse doesn't even mention an AOD. They didn't have hindsight back then if any of these events would have still been future to them at the time.

 

[RandyPNW]

I do not typically go to outside links because i cannot engage with them. I think you know that. That reveals a weakness in your position. The evidence is simply not there, and you know it. There is nothing you presented in your posts that proves your claims - quite the opposite.

In other words, I should read and consider your posts, but not enter in as evidence what others provide. You said you wanted consideration of what the Church Fathers actually said. This post provided that. If you don't want to read it, fine. Done with discussion. I won't read your quotes either.

 

[sovereigngrace]

In other words, I should read and consider your posts, but not enter in as evidence what others provide. You said you wanted consideration of what the Church Fathers actually said. This post provided that. If you don't want to read it, fine. Done with discussion. I won't read your quotes either.

If you are going to speak on behalf of the ECFs I would advise you to study the actual writings for yourself instead of depending on the usual inaccurate sweeping generalities and misleading Premil propaganda that mark many bias, ill-researched and ill-informed Premil websites. I believe this is smart, fair and wise.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, this has been argued a number of times before. As you probably know, I view "all these things" narrowly, as applied specifically to the major event predicted, namely the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. All of *those* things would happen in "this generation." It certainly did not mean that Jesus was coming back in that generation! And if "this generation" refers only to the last generation, then it isn't including "all these things," is it? It isn't including the destruction of the temple, which was the *major event* being foretold!

The first mistake you are making is applying some of these things too narrowly. The 2nd mistake you are making is failing to take into account when Jesus said what in the Discourse. In Luke 21, Jesus clearly said the following first---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled--then later said this---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Till all what is fulfilled? Obviously, this for one---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Until that is fulfilled first, in the meantime this can't already be fulfilled---This generation passes away. That is a contradiction.

 

[RandyPNW]

The first mistake you are making is applying some of these things too narrowly. The 2nd mistake you are making is failing to take into account when Jesus said what in the Discourse. In Luke 21, Jesus clearly said the following first---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled--then later said this---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Till all what is fulfilled? Obviously, this for one---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Until that is fulfilled first, in the meantime this can't already be fulfilled---This generation passes away. That is a contradiction.

Not at all. You're reading it only one way, and, I think, the wrong way. Let's say Mt. St. Helens is about to blow, and I predict that the volcano is about to explode in the view of my friends.

Then I begin to explain to them, as though an expert in the field, what will happen then, the flow of mud down the river, the destruction of the mountain, the ash cloud and aftermath, as the skies darken.

Then I may explain how for it will be generations before people see a complete recovery of the mountain. Finally, I say, "all this will happen within a year."

So what do I mean by this? Do I mean that generations later, when the mountain recovers, that this will happen within a year? Of course not! No, I'm saying that the *main event,* the explosion of the volcano, will take place within a year, and then the rest of the signs will follow.

It is the same thing in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus is focusing on the destruction of the temple as the main event. That was the thing he was asked about--not all of the extra details. Jesus added that as important additions.

He mentions preliminary signs, heralding this event--called "birth pains." They are also critical to know, even though the central question involves when the temple would be destroyed.

And he also explains that the aftereffects will involve many generations in a Jewish Diaspora. But then he returns to the main subject by answering the original question: when will this happen? So he says, "all this will happen in this generation," referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

I know you don't agree with this. But surely you can appreciate my point of view? It is a *rational* point of view, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless you're so biased that you just can't stand looking at it from another point of view?

In fact, I will go so far as to say, accepting this point of view will completely open up your view of things. It certainly did for me when I first considered this possibility. I did run the risk of giving too much credit to the Preterists.

But I learned that the Church Fathers largely held to this view, as well. It gave me confidence to go ahead and consider it. And everything then just fell together for me.

I hope it does for you too. Otherwise, this Discourse remains a confusing mess. It did for me for many years!

 

[jgr]

How would going to only Daniel 9:26 provide further insight as to what Jesus was meaning? For one, that verse doesn't even mention an AOD.

Daniel 9
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus referenced Daniel and his AoD in Dan 9, and it is written in connection with the destruction of Jerusaem and the temple--9.26. If Jesus referred to that event as something yet to take place in his own generation, the AoD *cannot* be Antiochus 4.

Jesus mentioned it, because those people in the audience understood what He was talking about.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:


We see here, those listening knew and understood exactly what an AoD would be. The parenthesis about the reader is to any one reading the gospel at any time. Do we think much about the AoD as being in our recent past? No, but those in the first century knew about it, and had a memorial day yearly to always remember it.

According to Josephus, just the Roman armies coming against Jerusalem gave many cause for concern. Jesus was not just talking about the first century. Jesus said to take head when any AoD appears. Jesus never claimed an AoD would appear in 70AD. His words would have been more specific. Something like, "In 40 years there will be an AoD set up, and Jerusalem will be destroyed." That would have been a clear answer to the question, "When will these things be?". He told them on-site the Temple would be destroyed. Nor did He literally say, "The AoD is when the Temple is destroyed". The only thing associated with the AoD, is to get as far away from Jerusalem as possible. The reader is supposed to understand it was Antiochus Epiphanies, just like those who heard Jesus that day understood. Antiochus Epiphanies was not the only AoD. There would be others, giving them reason to flee from Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

If you are going to speak on behalf of the ECFs I advised you to study the actual writings for yourself instead of depending on the usual inaccurate sweeping generalities and misleading Premil propaganda that mark many bias, ill-researched and ill-informed Premil websites. I believe this is smart, fair and wise.

Is it not just natural to quote ECF's specifically to prove one's own biases? Even Amil will mine quote, just to make their point seem authoritative.

 

[Timtofly]

It is the same thing in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus is focusing on the destruction of the temple as the main event. That was the thing he was asked about--not all of the extra details. Jesus added that as important additions.

Not really the only thing they asked. They expected the end of the Temple to be the end of all things. They also asked about the Second Coming and the end of all things. The Cross had not even happened yet. 70AD was not the Second Coming and not the end of all things. 70AD did not even have an AoD event. The rebels burned down Herod's Temple, and no one would stop killing each other, long enough to put the fire out.

Jesus never prophecied about 70AD. He just claimed all the stones would be removed. 70AD just happened to be when the Romans literally had Jerusalem leveled to the ground.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Agreed that the Olivet discourse was not fulfilled in AD70 nor during the reign of Domitian either. For one, all the Jewish Christians escaped and didn't die, yet Revelation records an uncountable number in Heaven who washed their robes in the blood of the lamb so they IMHO have to be Chrisitians yet only non-Christian Jews died in the AD70 attack and destruction. Further, 5x as many Jews died in the Holocaust of WW2 than in AD70, so it is hard to understand how the deaths in AD70 could be the worst ever until the second coming of the Lord.

 

[RandyPNW]

Not really the only thing they asked. They expected the end of the Temple to be the end of all things. They also asked about the Second Coming and the end of all things. The Cross had not even happened yet. 70AD was not the Second Coming and not the end of all things. 70AD did not even have an AoD event. The rebels burned down Herod's Temple, and no one would stop killing each other, long enough to put the fire out.

Jesus never prophecied about 70AD. He just claimed all the stones would be removed. 70AD just happened to be when the Romans literally had Jerusalem leveled to the ground.

OK, I can't convince you otherwise.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus mentioned it, because those people in the audience understood what He was talking about.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:


We see here, those listening knew and understood exactly what an AoD would be. The parenthesis about the reader is to any one reading the gospel at any time. Do we think much about the AoD as being in our recent past? No, but those in the first century knew about it, and had a memorial day yearly to always remember it.

According to Josephus, just the Roman armies coming against Jerusalem gave many cause for concern. Jesus was not just talking about the first century. Jesus said to take head when any AoD appears. Jesus never claimed an AoD would appear in 70AD. His words would have been more specific. Something like, "In 40 years there will be an AoD set up, and Jerusalem will be destroyed." That would have been a clear answer to the question, "When will these things be?". He told them on-site the Temple would be destroyed. Nor did He literally say, "The AoD is when the Temple is destroyed". The only thing associated with the AoD, is to get as far away from Jerusalem as possible. The reader is supposed to understand it was Antiochus Epiphanies, just like those who heard Jesus that day understood. Antiochus Epiphanies was not the only AoD. There would be others, giving them reason to flee from Jerusalem.

That's so convoluted I can hardly understand it. Obviously, you're set on your opinion. I've already give you mine.

 

[DavidPT]

I know you don't agree with this. But surely you can appreciate my point of view? It is a *rational* point of view, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless you're so biased that you just can't stand looking at it from another point of view?

As to your analogy, that was perfectly rational if involving a scenario like that. Yet, the analogy you provided is still not taking some of the following into consideration, though.

Can you provide an analogy that meets all of the following criteria?

1)---when someone said something followed by what they said later.

2)---The context in which someone said something.

3)---what someone said later, does it also include what someone said earlier?


An example of 1)---Jesus said this first---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---then Jesus said this later---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled


An example of 2)---what context did He say this in---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled? Is it the same context He said this in---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled?

As to the former, meaning verse 32, He said that in the following context.

Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Since you obviously think verse 32 is first century context involving 70 AD, what about verses 29-31 and verses 33-36, do you also think any of those verses are first century context involving 70 AD? If yes, whichones and why? If no, why should one think Jesus simply got confused for a moment, thus applied verse 32 to the first century and 70 AD when He never applied verses 29-31 and verses 33-36 to that period of time?


An example of 3)----Jesus said this first---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---then Jesus said this later---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled

When He said this later---till all be fulfilled---does that also include what He said earlier---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled? If no, why not? Is it because if it is yes instead, you then have to admit you have been applying verse 32 in the wrong manner this entire time? What valid reasons could you possibly have for Jesus not even including this--until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---being something that has to be fulfilled first before this generation can pass away? How can all only mean some of what Jesus predicted up to verse 32 rather than everything He predicted up to that verse?