preterism

Hi Toms,

hat is how I started this, trying to go down the signs one at a time.
So far no one has shown a historical fulfillment of any of the signs given by Jesus for his second coming,

Click to expand...

What are signs(plural) of the second coming of Christ?

Justme

Tom777





+++It is a sign but of what. You claim that literally all theologians take it as a sign of the new covenant. What I would agree with is that the knocking down of the temple was a judgment, but you go much farther in saying that it is not a judgment, but the judgement. Something that you have failed to show from scripture. Claiming that all theologians hold to the temple having something to do with the new covenant and then trying to suggest that all theologians agree with your specific interpretation is neither logical nor accurate.+++



Ok, finally we are going somewhere, whew. Alright, yes it’s judgement, the problem is there’s not a seperation here. You claim it is only a judgement, but not the judgement. This is incorrect as all events at the consumation of the Ages were concurrent and not separate. Secondly yet another problem I have with Futurists is that you want me to Scripturally support my claim, but remain exempt from this yourself. However, since I am completely used to this and expected it I will answer you but I do expect a scriptural response from you as well, ok??



Remember how I said one of the follies of Futurism is that it can’t see the forest? It’s too busy counting all the trees. Similar is the three blind men that are unaware the thing they are touching is an elephant. You must look at the whole to understand the parts. Sadly it is taught that there is a seperation between the Consummation of the Ages and the New Covenant from the other events which are the Judgment and the Resurrection. This is not true. This is why we need to see the whole. People may turn solely to passages that show Christ coming in judgement, or turn solely to passages that show Christ coming with rewards. What they fail to see or understand, is that this is one in the same. Christ came to fullfill what the Prophets had written. The Prophets spoke of Judgement, of Resurrection, of the New Covenant, of the Messiah, of the next Age. This are all concurrent events, they are not seperated by thousands of years. The easiest way to know this is to know that in Daniel’s 70 weeks there is no seperation between the 69th and 70th week. That is a dogmatic teaching that is Biblically wrong. One thing that has been correctly taught, but incorrectly understood is the Second Coming of Christ. It is true that there was to be but one Second Coming, but people have failed to realize what all this meant and when it was. So if you acknowledge that Christ came to Judge Israel, then you have to acknowledge that Christ did everything else too. All was to be fullfilled at the Second Coming, all of it. Not some, not this and that, but ALL. The last thing I will stress that I believe to be part of the problem is that the bulk of Bible translations out there are not literally translated, but “theologically” translated, even supposed literal translations like the NASB or the NKJV. I HIGHLY recommend to Christians to get a for real literal translation such as Young’s or Green’s. (Or learn the original languages!) Let’s look at those verses now,



Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”



Mt 13:17 "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”



"But as for you, go {your way} to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise for your allotted portion at the end of the Age." (Daniel 12:13)



“There is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” (Acts 24:15)



"The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds." (Matt. 16:27)



“These are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:22)



"For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God.” (I Peter 4:17)



“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead and by His appearing and His kingdom: …” (II Tim. 4:1)



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



"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. (Rev 22:12)



“Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?” (Lk. 3:7)



“I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is about to be revealed to us.” (Rom. 8:18)



6th century B.C: "Seal up the vision; for it shall be for many days." (Dan. 8:26)

1st century A.D.: "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10)



See we notice that sometimes the Bible speaks of Wrath and Judgment, other times it speaks of rewards and salvation. People may ask when and which ones but the correct answer is all at the same time. These verses speak of only one appearance and the nearness of that appearance.

+++ Are you saying that you believe that they were also invisible? The point here is that you try to tell us that where evidence does not exist, it was symbolic or invisible.+++



The problem is you have little faith. You want someone to point out the Christ to you saying here he is, or there he goes. It doesn’t work that way.



+++ Well, how about the specific references so that we can look at these in context.+++



I’ve stated it many times before, but in keeping with our broken record style of posting, go read Jospheus “Wars of the Jews”. You claim to have read this, and yet you continuely ask for historical proof? I don’t believe you’ve read them.



+++ This is what I have asked for from the start – show me where history records the fulfillment of these prophecies. But don’t keep repeating the same old, same old over and over again.+++



The problem is with the questioner. Answers have been given, you just don’t like them because they counter your dogma. But, that’s a you problem, not a me problem. The fact is that historians such as Josephus and Tacitus not to mention the Bible testify to the time of trouble. It is now up to you to debunk them.



+++All this Jesus said would occur but that this was not yet the end. You are changing what he said to say that it is the end. Further, Jesus said that those who claimed that Jesus returned in that timeframe were deceived.+++



You are the one that is altering the scripture. We’ve been over this before. You want Jesus saying that Wars and Rumors of Wars to “not yet be the End”, as found in Luke 21:9. Well, duh! He kept on talking! Of course this was “Not yet the End.” You’ve got Christ stopping almost in mid sentence! You also ignore immediate audience which was the first century disciples in a private conversation. Christ is telling them that they will witness those events, not some future generation. You then ignore the final closing which is “this generation shall not pass til ALL these things are fullfilled.”

+++Stop repeating the same old things over and over. Show us something of substance+++



I see in keeping with Futurism you have offered nothing of Substance to counter anything. The ball is in your court, not mine. I have yet to have a futurist Biblically or Historically counter what I have said. Neither you or Der Alter or anyone. Instead of rejecting the proof you are receiving, you ought to bring forth proof as to why you do not believe the time of trouble has happened already. That is what I recommend you do, since we are basically spinning wheels here. Hope you had a good Christmas.



SUEDE

This question along with how did the gentiles benefit from the Roman army sieging and razing Jerusalem are 2 of the big red herrings of the futurist.

Minor aside about audience relevance: regardless of whether this was The Judgement or a judgement, God never left his people without a warning. 1 million+ dead, the temple destroyed and the apple of God's eye rejected are pretty significant events to go by with no more than a passing comment 30+ years before. This and 100 more internal and external pieces of evidence convince me that John's Unveiling was written as a statement of prophetic, covenant warning before Jerusalem fell.

Now, on to the fray:

Taking off our theological blinders for a moment, what would a Jew's opinion of the events in the first century have been? Take for instance Simeon (Luke 2) and contrast his views with those of a Jew that lived till the end of the 1st century. Simeon saw "a light for glory to...Israel" The Jews (edited to say: not all Jews, and not necessarily Simeon, but the Sanhedren and the like) expected the Messiah to free them and exhalt them. Then, after all that pregnant expectation, there was an ash heap that marked the spot.

For them the world had ended. Biblical language is full of common idiom and hyperbole. The so-called golden rule of interpretation

(Golden Rule of Interpretation: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate text, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise.)

Click to expand...

lets us down here. We have to see these within the time/culture settings of the writer. A much better hermeneutic is grammatico-historical. We look at the words/phrases/epistles in the lingua franca of the writer's day and then begin to formulate our ideas.

Therefore when we look at the time context and the covenental context (collectively known as the redemptive-historical setting) we begin to appreciate the impact that the fall of Jerusalem had on the world of the day and why the days were like none since and never shall be.

God divorced His covenant people, wrote Ichabod over them, judged them for their faithlessness and slew them. It is unrepeatable. God disowned the rebels and gave the kingdom to another. Those were the days of vengeance where God poured out His wrath and brought to a close the Old Covenant. He also brought to fruition all the promises to the (faithful, Jewish) fathers. The divinly appointed means of worship, the "holy" city and the "holy" people were all cast down and found disfavor with God. How is that not earthshaking? We take our status in Christ for granted and fail to realize what has taken place on our behalf when we think it no small thing that branches were broken off for us.

And finally the justification (not sin-wise) and vindication of Christ and His body was brought to fruition when that which offended was finally removed. The major and near fatal stumbling block (the white-washed sepulchars, the synagogue of satan, the anti(against)-christs) to the church were parading around with little opposition and killing Christians, with zeal, and the whole while claiming to do it in God's name, as demanded from His Law.

So it is not that hard to begin to see the true impact on the world and how to logically fit in the New Heavens and Earth. The Language and Imagery of the Bible by Caird is a valuable resource for study of this kind. But just realizing the way we use language ourselves is a good start.

In the immortal words of Dolly Pardon "You know what really burns my butt? A flame 3' high" The Bible is full of this kind of language, rich with the fulness of good literary devices from a culture that is different in many ways. It is beyond reason to expect the Jewish hearers of Jesus and the apostles would be deaf to these devices or expect their words to be understood in a different way than the Scriptures (in their case the Old Testament Scriptures [OTS] of course). So when "coming on the clouds" or "Son of Man" is used it was packed with significance and the hearers understood. Just because contemporary audiences are so self centered to think that everything must be "about me" they cavalierly interpret everything by "the golden rule" with that minor twist and voila newspaper eisigesis and the left behind books.

Hi stauron,

Carry on, logic is nice to ad.

Justme

Justme said:

Hi stauron,

Carry on, logic is nice to ad.

Justme

Click to expand...

Thanks Justme. Did you mean "It is nice that you had some logic" or "It would be nice if you added some logic"?

Either way I will elaborate a bit in another post.

stauron

Ok, my wife read my post and said it was confusing and should be explained some more.

Oh, yeah, she, also, said, I, should, use, more, commas. That, should, cover, it. Just, put, them, where, you, think, fit.

The main point that I was trying to get accross is that the nation of Israel that was in existence in the first century had some very distinct characteristics. The definition of Israel involved bloodline, land, Law/covenant, priesthood and temple. When those things were removed either the nation disappeared, or the definition changed. Either way there is no way to have wrath poured out to the uttermost on them any longer. The covenant judgements promised against the apostates can't happen if the covenant or the apostates are gone.

Therefore: if we no longer have the covenant nation of Israel we can't have the judgement. This fits perfectly with apocalyptic language in the verse we are discussing. We are dealing with the terminology "suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will" (even from the man in black). It does not seem like a stretch to apply the judgement that ends the national relationship with God unlike anything that has ever happened or ever will.

I think we can move on to the next objection...

Hi,

I didn't see the goof up, I meant logic is nice to READ............

Justme

LOL, it seems the others have retreated in typical fashion. Good work everyone in standing up in truth. Happy New Year to all. Take care,

SUEDE

Suede said:

LOL, it seems the others have retreated in typical fashion. Good work everyone in standing up in truth. Happy New Year to all. Take care,

SUEDE

Click to expand...

I am still around, just recovering from a very major computer issue over Christmas.

While you are waiting for me to catch up, here is one that you can consider...where can I find the historical fulfillment of this?

Zech 14:3-4
3 Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
NKJV

Hey Tom,

I too have had computer issue, only thing worse is car problems. Hope all is better now and that you had a good holiday. It's interesting that your question in regards to Zech 14 is more commonly asked then one might think. Let me cut and paste an article here that will answer your question.

Zechariah 14 and the Coming of Christ by Gary DeMar
In the premillennial view of Bible prophecy, the events depicted in Zechariah 14 are most often interpreted as depicting the second coming of Christ when Jesus will descend from heaven and stand on the Mount of Olives and from there set up His millennial kingdom. The chronology outlined in Zechariah, however, does not fit this scenario. Events actually begin in chapter thirteen where it is prophesied that the Shepherd, Jesus, will be struck and the sheep will be scattered (Zech. 13:7). This was fulfilled when Jesus says, "'You will all fall away, because it is written, "I [size=-1]WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED[/size]"'" (Mark 14:27).

What follows describes events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. God will act as Judge of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. As the king, He will send "his armies" and destroy "those murderers, and set their city on fire" (Matt. 22:7).

For I will gather all the nations [the Roman armies] against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered [Matt. 24:17], the women ravished [Luke 17:35], and half the city exiled [Matt. 24:16], but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city" (Zech. 14:2).

This happened when the Roman armies, made up of soldiers from the nations it conquered, went to war against Jerusalem. Rome was an empire consisting of all the known nations of the world (see Luke 2:1). The Roman Empire "extended roughly two thousand miles from Scotland south to the headwaters of the Nile and about three thousand miles from the Pillars of Hercules eastward to the sands of Persia. Its citizens and subject peoples numbered perhaps eighty million."1 Rome was raised up, like Assyria, to be the "rod of [His] anger" (Isa. 10:5). "So completely shall the city be taken that the enemy shall sit down in the midst of her to divide the spoil. All nations (2), generally speaking were represented in the invading army, for Rome was the mistress of many lands."2 Thomas Scott, using supporting references from older commentators and cross references to other biblical books, writes that Zechariah is describing the events surrounding Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70.

The time when the Romans marched their armies, composed of many nations, to besiege Jerusalem, was "the day of the Lord" Jesus, on which he came to "destroy those that would not that he should reign over them" [Matt. 22:1­10; 24:3, 23­35; Luke 19:11­27, 41­44]. When the Romans had taken the city, all the outrages were committed, and the miseries endured, which are here predicted [Luke 21:20­24]. A very large proportion of the inhabitants were destroyed, or taken captives, and sold for slaves; and multitudes were driven away to be pursued by various perils and miseries: numbers also, having been converted to Christianity, became citizens of "the heavenly Jerusalem" and thus were "not cut off from the city" of God [Gal 4:21­31; Heb. 12:22­25].3

Forcing these series of descriptive judgment to leap over the historical realities of Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70 so as to fit a future judgment scenario is contrived and unnecessary.

Then the L[size=-1]ORD[/size] will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle (14:3).

After using Rome as His rod to smite Jerusalem, God turns on Rome in judgment. Once again, Assyria is the model: "I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets . . . . So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, 'I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness'" (Isa. 10:5­6, 12­13). "It is significant that the decline of the Roman Empire dates from the fall of Jerusalem."4 Thomas Scott concurs: "It is also observable, that the Romans after having been thus made the executioners of divine vengeance on the Jewish nation, never prospered as they had done before; but the Lord evidently fought against them, and all the nations which composed their overgrown empire; till at last it was subverted, and their fairest cities and provinces were ravaged by barbarous invaders."5

And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south (Zech. 14:4).

It is this passage that dispensationalists use to support their view that Jesus will touch down on planet earth and set up His millennial kingdom. Numerous times in the Bible we read of Jehovah "coming down" to meet with His people. In most instances His coming is one of judgment; in no case was He physically present. Notice how many times God's coming is associated with mountains.

"And the L[size=-1]ORD[/size] came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. . . . Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Gen. 11:5, 7).


"So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey. . . (Ex. 3:8).

"Then Thou didst come down on Mount Sinai, and didst speak with them from heaven. . . (Neh. 9:13a).

"Bow Thy heavens, O L[size=-1]ORD[/size], and come down; touch the mountains, that they may smoke" (Psalm 144:5).

"For thus says the L[size=-1]ORD[/size] to me, 'As the lion or the young lion growls over his prey, against which a band of shepherds is called out, will not be terrified at their voice, nor disturbed at their noise, so will the L[size=-1]ORD[/size] of hosts come down to wage war on Mount Zion and on its hill'" (Isa. 31:4).

"Oh, that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at Thy presence­" (Isa. 64:1).

"When Thou didst awesome things which we did not expect, Thou didst come down, the mountains quaked at Thy presence" (Isa. 64:3). In Micah 1:3 we are told that God "is coming forth from His place" to "come down and tread on the high places of the earth." How is this descriptive language different from the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives with the result that it will split? Micah says "the mountains will melt under Him, and the valleys will be split, like wax before the fire, like water poured down a steep place" (1:4). "It was not uncommon for prophets to use figurative expressions about the Lord 'coming' down, mountains trembling, being scattered, and hills bowing (Hab. 3:6, 10); mountains flowing down at his presence (Isaiah 64:1, 3); or mountains and hills singing and the trees clapping their hands (Isaiah 55:12)."6

What is the Bible trying to teach us with this descriptive language of the Mount of Olives "split in its middle"? The earliest Christian writers applied Zechariah 14:4 to the work of Christ in His day. Tertullian (A.D. 145­220) wrote: "'But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives.' For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives' [Zech. xiv. 4]."7 Tertullian was alluding to the fact that the Olivet prophecy set the stage for the judgment-coming of Christ that would once for all break down the Jewish/Gentile division. Matthew Henry explains the theology behind the prophecy:

You will notice that there is no mention of a thousand year reign. Yet, we are told that "the L[size=-1]ORD[/size] will be king over all the earth" (14:9). So what is new about this language? "For the L[size=-1]ORD[/size] Most High is to be feared, a great King over all the earth. He subdues peoples under us, and nations under our feet" (Psalm 47:2, 3). This is exactly what happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul told the Roman Christians that "the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Rom. 16:20). The church's adversary (Satan) were those Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and persecuted His Bride, the church (see John 16:2). Jesus calls them a "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 3:9). (End article)

I would like to add that unfortunately people don't understand that prophetic language is highly poetic, it's actually quite beautiful. And though the overall event described will of course have happened, the description of it is poetic and we must exercise caution in taking it literally. Prophetic statements often describe God coming on a cloud and causing his enemies heart's to melt in their chest. Does this mean literally? No, it's poetic.

I'm still looking for your historically based reply as to why 70 AD is NOT the Second Coming. Don't keep us waiting too long. Take care,

SUEDE

Suede said:

I see in keeping with Futurism you have offered nothing of Substance to counter anything. The ball is in your court, not mine. I have yet to have a futurist Biblically or Historically counter what I have said. Neither you or Der Alter or anyone. Instead of rejecting the proof you are receiving, you ought to bring forth proof as to why you do not believe the time of trouble has happened already. That is what I recommend you do, since we are basically spinning wheels here. Hope you had a good Christmas.

Click to expand...

Oooh, I am just so impressed whenever someone posts here, so full of themself, crowing and boasting about how good their arguments are and how nobody can provide a scriptural response to their heretical views.

OBTW did you ever respond to my post concerning Matt 10:23? Let me refresh your memory. Preterists, such as yourself, cite this verse as proof that the Parousia, or second coming, of Jesus would be within the lifetime of the Apostles.
However, when Jesus began His instructions to the Apostles, Matt 10:5, He told them, “Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town.”

Mat 10:5 Jesus sent out these twelve, instructing them as follows: "Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town.​

Also Jesus said that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to, “all nations,” as a witness then the end would come. If the Apostles were forbidden to go into the area of the gentiles and the cities of Samaria, how could the gospel be preached to “all nations” before His return?
Now, before you even go there, the disciples and their 1st century contemporaries may have known only the nations of the known world, i.e. the Roman Empire, but Jesus was not an ordinary person. As the Son of God, Jesus knew there was an entire world beyond the boundaries of the Roman empire, many continents, and many, many nations. When the Son of God says "All nations," does He mean "all" or only some?

Did the Apostles disobey Jesus? Because we know from Acts that several Apostles went into the gentile regions and cities of Samaria, before His return.

I would like to add that unfortunately people don't understand that prophetic language is highly poetic, it's actually quite beautiful. And though the overall event described will of course have happened, the description of it is poetic and we must exercise caution in taking it literally. Prophetic statements often describe God coming on a cloud and causing his enemies heart's to melt in their chest. Does this mean literally? No, it's poetic.

Click to expand...

Here it is the old Preterist, and every other unorthodox doctrine, copout. If something prophesied cannot be historically verified, then of course, its, “highly poetic, it's actually quite beautiful,” its “spiritual,” its ”symbolic,” its “metaphorical,” etc., etc., etc. I know someone has already posted this but it is appropriate, “If the plain sense of scripture, makes good sense, then it is nonsense, to look for any other sense.” Without rules, or as in this case ad hoc rules, virtually any passage in the scripture can be made to say almost anything, by disregarding the clear meaning of the text. Was there anything at all in the scriptures that was written in straight forward, unmetaphorical, unsymbolic, clear language? How do you know?

The answer for every false doctrine out there is, if it agrees with our teaching then it is plain language, if it does not agree with our teaching then it is spiritual, etc. and Preterism is no different.

Der Alter said:

Also Jesus said that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to, “all nations,” as a witness then the end would come. If the Apostles were forbidden to go into the area of the gentiles and the cities of Samaria, how could the gospel be preached to “all nations” before His return?

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.​

Now, before you even go there, the disciples and their 1st century contemporaries may have known only the nations of the known world, i.e. the Roman Empire, but Jesus was not an ordinary person. As the Son of God, Jesus knew there was an entire world beyond the boundaries of the Roman empire, many continents, and many, many nations. When the Son of God says "All nations," does He mean "all" or only some?

Click to expand...

Well I am certainly not willing to put my own opinion forth as to what Christ meant about this. But I am willing to stick with what Paul thought:I am sure that Paul understood Jesus' words better than I.

Der Alter said:

Here it is the old Preterist, and every other unorthodox doctrine, copout. If something prophesied cannot be historically verified, then of course, its, “highly poetic, it's actually quite beautiful,” its “spiritual,” its ”symbolic,” its “metaphorical,” etc., etc., etc. I know someone has already posted this but it is appropriate, “If the plain sense of scripture, makes good sense, then it is nonsense, to look for any other sense.” Without rules, or as in this case ad hoc rules, virtually any passage in the scripture can be made to say almost anything, by disregarding the clear meaning of the text. Was there anything at all in the scriptures that was written in straight forward, unmetaphorical, unsymbolic, clear language? How do you know?

Click to expand...

This is a great question. Your answer, apparently, is that the plain sense is the right one. But you have already violated this. You think the plain sense means "all nations" must mean what you think it does. But the "plain" sense to Paul doesn't match. I think that we need to work much harder than accepting our 21st century worldview as normative and reading it into scripture. The Galatians had Paul and the apostles with them and they still missed some rather significant things. Why are we so proud that we think we are not subject to the same things?

Der Alter said:

The answer for every false doctrine out there is, if it agrees with our teaching then it is plain language, if it does not agree with our teaching then it is spiritual, etc. and Preterism is no different.

Click to expand...

And here we have saved the best for last. How is your hermeneutic any different? You think that you take the plain language as plain and the spiritual languange as spiritual and then formulate your doctrine. The truth is that all sytematic theology and all humans do as your caricature suggests. Dispensational futurism is guilty of this in many ways. You don't have to be a preterist to see this. There are plenty of "orthodox" (in your opinion) views that critique parts of the futurist theology because of its inconsistency and theological question begging.

Gary Demar and Ken Gentry are considered "ortho" for this forum's sake. They believe in a future physical return of Christ. Both of them would bring this same charge (when it agrees with my view it is plain language, when it doesn't it is spiritual) against dispensationalists. The rub is that both are considered orthodox. You are really going to have to come up with some better complaints.

Toms777 said:

I am still around, just recovering from a very major computer issue over Christmas.

While you are waiting for me to catch up, here is one that you can consider...where can I find the historical fulfillment of this?

Zech 14:3-4
3 Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
NKJV

Click to expand...

I thought we were going to stay on topic? I think we are ready to move past Matt 24:21

But, since you bring it up, when the LORD goes forth to battle, what kind of sword does he use? Does he ride a horse?

Quite often God's sword arm was an Assyrian mercenary or a Philistine that God used to fulfill His purposes. On the day of battle was God physically present in the battle? So in what way will/was this event "as" when the LORD "fights" in the day of battle? In what sense will the LORD set His foot on the Mount of Olives? I expect that we can find the exact same kind of fulfillment. If the events we are using as a reference are figurative/non-literal/spirtual shouldn't we expect the fulfillment to be the same? Or is there some special rule that says "All prophecy must be literally, physically fulfilled if at all possible, by whatever means necessary"? That would not appear to be the "plain" sense or whatever. Maybe the topic of this thread should be hermeneutics instead of just preterism. There seems to be a general dearth of sound hermeneutical principles.

Hi Toms,

If we are going to track the literal we might as well sort out some of these things too.

How can the abomination appear in the 'holy place', Hevbrews 9, that hasn't existed since 70 AD?

How can any future generation flee from Judea since Judea ceased to exist in 70 AD?

How can John,in the future, write a letter to the Church of Ephesus since it lays in ruins in a swamp?

Jesus says the following to the church of THyatira...
25Only hold on to what you have until I come. ...........

How does the letter John writes in the future get to any Christians in Thyatira, being none live in what was once called Thyatira anymore?

Justme

Toms777 said:

We've been down this path before. That doesn't cut it.

Matt 24:21-23
21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.
NKJV

This is not speaking about the reason (though so far it appears that has been taken out of context also), but it is speaking of tribulation, which is a time of trouble. Indeed we see a description that unless the time was shortened, no flesh should be saved.

I do not remember anything in 70AD bringing us to the brink of the complete anhilation of all flesh. perhaps you could show me where this was historically fulfilled.

Click to expand...

You must be the one Jesus was talking about in John 21 that was going to live until He comes...

We have two pretty fundamental disagreement here. The first is that "flesh" has broader meaning than just the soft tissue on our body. Here is the verse in another translation:

"And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short. "

Click to expand...

No life or no one are equally valid translations. But that is not the most important bit.


Here is a little more of the immediate context. It seems that Jesus was trying to get something accross to the disciples that were sitting there listening to him. Notice the repeted use of the second person:

24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 24:21 For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him. 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 24:25 Remember, I have told you ahead of time.

Click to expand...

The plain sense is that the disciples would be the ones seeing this take place.

So the burden of proof is on you (either you reading this or some generation 2000 years from now whatever is convenient) to demonstrate that the context is not the context. But whichever way you go the "no one" or "no flesh" is refering to the folks involved in the struggle. This is the normal use of language. If you are reading the account of a volcanic eruption and say "If the warning was given an hour later no one would have survived" You take the plain meaning as "the people arround the volcano". Why do we throw away our reasoning skills when it comes to scripture?

Why are the obvious contextual clues ignored and the pet theological interpretation of the day eisegetically inserted over the text and called "good hermeneutics"? Christ was answering the disciples and refered to their judgement and powers of observation mutliple times. Before and within the text of the account in question Christ attaches the events to the generation hearing His words. An historical event that matches all the criteria coincedently happens within the exact time frame asserted.

Der Alter,


+++Oooh, I am just so impressed whenever someone posts here, so full of themself, crowing and boasting about how good their arguments are and how nobody can provide a scriptural response to their heretical views.+++



Actually, I’m not boasting here, I'm quite calm and humble when I post, but truth is what it is. I would like to repeat a statement you made here and do hope you honestly evaluate what you said about Preterism



“nobody can provide a scriptural response”



Think about it. If you can’t scripturally refute it….it’s right. It is your eschatology that is off and unBiblical. So in a way, it is your view that is heretical. Think about that one.



+++OBTW did you ever respond to my post concerning Matt 10:23? Let me refresh your memory. Preterists, such as yourself, cite this verse as proof that the Parousia, or second coming, of Jesus would be within the lifetime of the Apostles. However, when Jesus began His instructions to the Apostles, Matt 10:5, He told them, “Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town.” +++



Yes I did, I do my best to respond in a timely manner. Post #55 is where you can find it, but I’ll quote my response here,



“Of course, it’s another example of a Futurist misread. Christ is telling them that they won’t be able to through all the cities of Israel, not that they wouldn’t ever leave or preach outside of it. Look at the verse again “…you will not finish going through the cities of Israel…”They didn’t go through all the cities. Besides, even your interpretation hurts the Futurist view!”



+++Also Jesus said that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to, “all nations,” as a witness then the end would come. If the Apostles were forbidden to go into the area of the gentiles and the cities of Samaria, how could the gospel be preached to “all nations” before His return?+++



Saturon aptly answered this already, so I won’t repeat it.



+++Did the Apostles disobey Jesus? Because we know from Acts that several Apostles went into the gentile regions and cities of Samaria, before His return.+++



No. In verse 18 of Matthew 10 we read that the disciples would in fact be witnesses to the Gentiles. Also Christ himself was going to a Samaritan village in Luke 9:51-56, which is after the event in Matthew 10. So was Christ contradicting himself??? No, of course not! At first the message was for Jews and only later for Gentiles. There’s times when Christ’s humanity seems to be unaware of this fact, such as the Roman Centurion’s faith in him to heal his servant.



+++Here it is the old Preterist, and every other unorthodox doctrine, copout. If something prophesied cannot be historically verified, then of course, its, “highly poetic, it's actually quite beautiful,” its “spiritual,” its ”symbolic,” its “metaphorical,” etc., etc., etc.+++



Actually it isn’t a copout, but a true understanding of the Bible. Prophetic language IS poetic, or do you really believe a seven headed dragon is going to come in the future? Besides, Jerusalem falling IS historical verification, it happened when and why Christ said. Futurism has failed time and time again, and it will continue this record until it is dismissed.



+++ I know someone has already posted this but it is appropriate, “If the plain sense of scripture, makes good sense, then it is nonsense, to look for any other sense.”+++



I agree with that statement, shall we apply it to Matthew 10:23?



"You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23)



Or what about to this verse?



"There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matt. 16:28



+++Without rules, or as in this case ad hoc rules, virtually any passage in the scripture can be made to say almost anything, by disregarding the clear meaning of the text.+++



Ture indeed. This is where Futurism and Cults come into play.



+++Was there anything at all in the scriptures that was written in straight forward, unmetaphorical, unsymbolic, clear language?+++



YES! Matthew 10:23 and 16:28 are but two of over 100 passages that flat out demand 1st century fulfillment!! Let’s say you told someone that you were going away, but that they wouldn’t be able to visit all the cities in Southern California until you came back. How do you think they would understand that? That you would be back in 2,000 + years?



+++The answer for every false doctrine out there is, if it agrees with our teaching then it is plain language, if it does not agree with our teaching then it is spiritual, etc. and Preterism is no different.+++



No, that’s correct interpretation, and Futurism is no different from it so we mustn’t judge hypocritically. Well…unless of course you look forward to a literal Seven Headed Dragon. ;-) All theologies at times will have literal interpretations, and at times will have spiritual ones.



Der Alter, I’m sorry I stir such passions, albeit hatred. It’s unfortunate that this is the case when one is confronted with a different view. But, we must allow the Bible to be the ultimate authority. IF one can not refute or respond to Preterism Biblically, then it IS the correct view of eschatology and we must admit it and concede and follow the Truth, I did. I was raised a futurist like most Christians, but when I couldn’t refute it no matter what I did, I knew that I was wrong and the Bible was right and therefore Preterism is right. We must bend to the Bible, and not the other way around. Take care,

SUEDE

SUEDE said:

Think about it. If you can’t scripturally refute it….it’s right. It is your eschatology that is off and unBiblical. So in a way, it is your view that is heretical. Think about that one.

“Of course, it’s another example of a Futurist misread. Christ is telling them that they won’t be able to through all the cities of Israel, not that they wouldn’t ever leave or preach outside of it. Look at the verse again “…you will not finish going through the cities of Israel…”They didn’t go through all the cities. Besides, even your interpretation hurts the Futurist view!”

Click to expand...

This is a deliberate misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of the scripture. Here are the relevant verses in this passage.Jesus begins His instructions in verse 5. And note neither you nor any other Preterist has correctly addressed this verse. Jesus did not say, at this point, “Go first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus said, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:” What part of not is unclear? Then in the same continuous narrative Jesus said, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” Reading the literal words written, what is the plain sense of those two statements?

What you, and every other Preterist, has done is change the meaning of verse 5, to make it agree with the Preterist presupposition.

Saturon aptly answered this already, so I won’t repeat it.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry, I wasn’t addressing Stauron, I was addressing you, and his answer, like yours, is wrong. It disregards the context of Matt 10:1-23.

No. In verse 18 of Matthew 10 we read that the disciples would in fact be witnesses to the Gentiles. Also Christ himself was going to a Samaritan village in Luke 9:51-56, which is after the event in Matthew 10. So was Christ contradicting himself??? No, of course not! At first the message was for Jews and only later for Gentiles. There’s times when Christ’s humanity seems to be unaware of this fact, such as the Roman Centurion’s faith in him to heal his servant.

Click to expand...

As I have already pointed out, in vs. 5, Jesus did not say “later for gentiles.” Jesus said, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles. . .” Luke 9:51-56, is irrelevant, Christ did not say He was not going into a Samaritan village.

You imply that vs. 18 means the disciples would be witnesses to the gentiles in their villages. Carefully read the verse, “And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.” While this verse does not prove that the governors and kings were Jews, they were certainly not Gentiles. “a testimony against them [governors and kings] and the Gentiles.” Two distinct groups, if the disciples obeyed Jesus, they did not go out of Israel so the governors and kings were Jews. There were in fact gentiles in Israel at the time of Jesus, He interacted with several of them. So in all of Matthew ch. 10, not one verse states or implies that the disciples would be outside of Israel before Jesus makes the statement in vs. 23. Therefore, this passage does not prove the Parousia of Jesus, in the 1st century or the lifetime of the apostles.

Actually it isn’t a copout, but a true understanding of the Bible. Prophetic language IS poetic, or do you really believe a seven headed dragon is going to come in the future? Besides, Jerusalem falling IS historical verification, it happened when and why Christ said. Futurism has failed time and time again, and it will continue this record until it is dismissed.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry did you post some proof that all prophetic language is poetic? I must have missed that. How about the prophecy of the destruction of the temple was that also poetic?

Re; the 7 headed dragon, see my response above, and apply the rule, “ If the plain sense,. . .etc.” This is one of those instances which demand spiritual, metaphorical, etc., vice plain, language.

Agreed Jerusalem fell. And your point is? Oh and did you post some proof that “Futurism has failed time and time again. . .” I must have missed that too. I would say that Preterism falls flat on its face with respect to Matthew 10.

I agree with that statement, [“If the plain sense of scripture, makes good sense, then it is nonsense, to look for any other sense.”] shall we apply it to Matthew 10:23?

"You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23)

Or what about to this verse?

"There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matt. 16:28

Click to expand...

Hold on there just a minute. Instead of jumping around all over the N.T., rattling off other irrelevant proof texts, lets stay in Matt 10 and apply the rule to vs. 5. Read and give me an a plain sense interpretation of Matt 10:5.

Without rules, or as in this case ad hoc rules, virtually any passage in the scripture can be made to say almost anything, by disregarding the clear meaning of the text.

”Ture [sic] indeed. This is where Futurism and Cults come into play." This does not afford any meaningful response to my point, above.

YES! Matthew 10:23 and 16:28 are but two of over 100 passages that flat out demand 1st century fulfillment!! Let’s say you told someone that you were going away, but that they wouldn’t be able to visit all the cities in Southern California until you came back. How do you think they would understand that? That you would be back in 2,000 + years?

Click to expand...

Over 100 passages, that flat out demand 1st century fulfillment? I hardly think so. How about Matt. 10:23 when it isn't twisted out of shape to fit Preterism? Your illustration is irrelevant.

SUEDE said:

No, that’s correct interpretation, and Futurism is no different from it so we mustn’t judge hypocritically. Well…unless of course you look forward to a literal Seven Headed Dragon. ;-) All theologies at times will have literal interpretations, and at times will have spiritual ones.

Click to expand...

You are not paying attention. Once again, “If the plain sense, of scripture makes good sense, it is nonsense to look for any other sense.” To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a seven headed dragon, thus the plain sense of this scripture does not make good sense, consequently we must look for a metaphorical, spiritual, or other sense. And in this regard I do not believe that Jesus or God had wings like a chicken either. And correct me if I’m wrong doesn’t Daniel explain the dragon metaphor? I believe this is called scripture interpreting scripture

Der Alter, I’m sorry I stir such passions, albeit hatred. It’s unfortunate that this is the case when one is confronted with a different view. But, we must allow the Bible to be the ultimate authority. IF one can not refute or respond to Preterism Biblically, then it IS the correct view of eschatology and we must admit it and concede and follow the Truth, I did. I was raised a futurist like most Christians, but when I couldn’t refute it no matter what I did, I knew that I was wrong and the Bible was right and therefore Preterism is right. We must bend to the Bible, and not the other way around. Take care,

Click to expand...

”Stir passions” might be appropriate in the same sense as when one sees a neighbor’s house on fire, a passion is stirred to warn them. However using the term “hatred” is a false assertion. We must indeed allow the Bible to be the final authority and concede and follow the Truth. That forces the question, why have you not done so? I would say you rolled over without putting up a fight.

Phoenix said:

Der Alter, are you sure your not Old Shepard in disguise ?

Click to expand...

Boy is that a good question!

Perhaps they were seperated at birth?

Toms777 said:

You are taking verses out of context.

Rev 1:7-8
7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
NKJV

Note that every eye will see him. Doesn't sound very invisibile to me.

Now please show me where every eye saw Jesus Christ return to earth.

Click to expand...

In AD 67-70, coincident with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple at the end of the Old Covenant age. The cloud-coming of Revelation 1:7 that "every eye would see" is shown in Revelation 14:14-20 to be an event that occurs in the heavenly realms. As the passage reveals, Christ's actions and commands in the heavenlies result in various tribulation-period disasters that transpire on earth. Simply put, Revelation 14:14-20 is the cloud-coming that "every eye would see." This is significant, for St. John is not describing the coming of Christ as some visual spectacular with cumulus clouds in the skies overhead, but as the coming of Yahweh himself, making Christ equal with the Father. Jesus promised his apostles that he would return in their lifetimes "in the glory of the Father" (Matt 16:27-28; Lk. 9:26; Matt 24:33-34). Christ's return at AD 67-70 was precisely in the manner and tradition of Yahweh's Old-Testament-era comings. We have countless examples of the Father coming in His great glory during the Old Testamental period (be sure to note the graphic, physical descriptions and explicit "visual" connotations of Yahweh's comings):These are just a few examples of the Father's Old-Testament comings, but there are many others: Yahweh came down and shot arrows at Saul and his armies, shaking the earth's foundations and the heavens at that time (2 Sam 22:8-16); Yahweh is depicted as having destroyed the universe when he judged Israel through Babylon (Jer 4:22-30), and did so again when he judged Egypt by Babylon's King Nebuchadnezzar (Ez 32:1-16). The Father entered into judgments with Egypt and Assyria in a spectacular coming in Isaiah 31. Habakkuk's depiction of Jehovah's coming at Mt. Sinai is nothing less than apocalyptic (Hab 3:3-16). Were any of these OT comings visual, physical/literal appearances of Yahweh as the prophets describe in metaphorical prophetic language? Of course not (Jn 1:18; 1 Jn 4:12)--the Hebrews understood that no human could ever see Yahweh and live (Exodus 33:20). Importantly, these comings of the Father form the entire backdrop for the doctrine of the "coming" of Christ, for it was in this manner of the Father's glory that Christ said he would come (Matt 16:27-28; Lk. 9:26; Matt 24:33-34). As stated in Matthew 21:40-45, the Lord of the Vineyard came to the apostate leaders of first-century Israel and was The Stone that crushed them to powder, removing the Kingdom of God from them and giving it to a new Nation. Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, came in the glory of the Father and did so in the lifetimes of the apostles, exactly as he promised (Matt 16:27-28; 24:33-34).

Toms777 said:

But let's look at the events that are prophecied and show me each of these historically where they happened. let's start with this verse.

Matt 24:21-22
21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.
NKJV

Show me the specifics of the historic fulfillment of this prophecy.

Click to expand...

AD 66-70 was the greatest Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history, and was, unquestionably, the one Christ's followers spoke of mere decades before it transpired. This was the same Day of the Lord concerning which the apostles stated they would remain alive unto its passing (1 Thess 5:2-4,23; Phil 1:6,10; Heb 10:25,36-39; 1 Cor 1:7-8; 1 Cor 5:5). Due to the covenantal significance of the event, that Day of the Lord's vengeance (cf. Luke 21:20-22; Isa 61:2; Jer 46:10) can never be repeated. There is no equal to the level of devastation millions of Messiah-rejecting Jews endured as they were violently excommunicated out of covenant with God (Matt 21:40-45; Acts 3:22-24).
In addition, we should not overlook the common Old Testament figure of speech Jesus is utilizing in Matthew 24:21: "ever was/nor ever shall be." Scripture tells us in 1 Kings 3:12 that there was "no king like Solomon before or after him." Such statements are then repeated in 2 Kings 18:5-6 of Hezekiah and in 2 Kings 23:25 of Josiah. Obviously, they can't all be the greatest King there ever was nor ever shall be. (And, of course, Jesus Christ surpasses even Solomon -- Matt. 12:42). Furthermore, this same Old Testament idea of "never will be again" is employed of various judgments that have already been fulfilled such as locusts in Egypt (Ex. 10:12-15; cf. Joel 1:1-4), a cry in Egypt (Ex. 11:6), and judgment upon O.T. Israel (Ez. 5:9; Joel 2:2). The Ezekiel 5:9 passage is especially instructive to us, for it states that the Babylonian conquest of Israel (sixth-century BC) would be the greatest judgment God had ever brought upon a nation, past or future. Therefore, we recognize that the expression "ever was/nor ever shall be" is a common Hebraic idiom meaning "very great" or "very much." Our Lord was simply saying in Matthew 24:21 that there would be very great tribulation. St. Luke's account of this great tribulation reads as follows:

Without question, Jesus promised his apostles that they would live to see Israel's great tribulation ("great distress in the land and wrath upon this people") and all those things come to pass in their generation (Matt 24:33-34; Luke 21:31-32).