preterism

[Justme]

Hi Toms,

- Where is the reference that we can verify??

The bible.

- Where are the nations and kingdoms? In 70AD I see Rome versus the Jews.

Acts 2
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

That would have included ALL the Jewish nations.

Okay let's just stick to one.. This is from my last post.
This would be to explain one of the signs. The sign that the parousia was part of the answer that Jesus gave to this question.
4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

Here's one I left for you before , but I guess you missed it. I would like to see your comments however.

Jesus wants the church at Thyatira to....
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

I would like to hear you explain how this church is going to do that next week. Don't even try to conjure up verses that say Thyatira will be rebuilt along with the temple.

I had better not specify 'next week' ..just future.

Oh, and could you lay out something I can verify?

Justme

 

[parousia70]

- Where is the reference that we can verify??
- Where are the nations and kingdoms? In 70AD I see Rome versus the Jews.

Let's deal with one at a time so that it remaind manageable.

Jesus promises His apostles that they will hear of wars and rumors concerning wars, which had special significance during that period of the great Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Claudius' Roman war with Britain/East Anglia; at least three Jewish insurrections against Rome prior to the 60s AD (one was violently put down by Cuspius Fadus); the Jewish/Alexandrian revolt upon Caligula's death; Claudius declares martial law in Palestine after the Jewish insurrection at the death of Agrippa I; the Germanic tribes in present-day Belgium and Germany made perpetual trouble for the legions throughout the reign; a smoldering Balkan war was in continuous progress. These conflagrations escalated, and Rome started its own civil wars in 68-70 that nearly toppled the empire. As Tacitus wrote, " Four princes [Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian] killed by the sword; three civil wars, several foreign wars; and mostly raging at the same time. Favorable events in the East [the subjection of the Jews], unfortunate ones in the West. Illyria disturbed, Gaul uneasy; Britain conquered and soon relinquished; the nations of Sarmatia and Suevia rising against us; the Parthians excited by the deception of a pseudo-Nero."

 

[Toms777]

Philippians 2:19
But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

Are you expecting Timothy's SOON arrival to YOU Tom?

Why not? Since you believe it is ABSURD to limit this to the original audience of 1st century Philippians, how and when are you expecting Timothy to come to you?

That is why we need to look at the context. Clearly we can agree that some cases are intended solely to be 1st century, others clearly are not.

So this in an of itself cannot be used to determin whether the prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD or not.

While The personal pronoun "you" indeed is often used to indicate a broader audience then merely the origianl hearers, it is NEVER EVER EVER EVER used to indicate an audience that DOES NOT INCLUDE the original hearers.

Actually, I disagree. When many books are written, the word "you" is used to refer to those who will read, not those who will original hear the words. Consider.

Now preterists face a far more seruious problem. Scripture tells us to look for these signs, yet preterists tell us no one will actually see what the Bible says that every eye will see.

 

[Toms777]

Hi Toms,


The bible.

I was not aware that Jospehus wrote in the Bible. I cannot find his writing in my Bible. Could you point me to the specifica book in the Bible where I might find Josephus' writings?

Acts 2
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

That would have included ALL the Jewish nations.

That was in the 33Ad timeframe. Are you thinking that they came for the week and decided to stay for the next 27 years? In such a case, they would not be from other nations, but would be residents, and certainly would not be national combatants.


Okay let's just stick to one.. This is from my last post.
This would be to explain one of the signs. The sign that the parousia was part of the answer that Jesus gave to this question.
4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

Now don't try to move on until we have at leats resolved one item. I am having such a hard time to try to get the preterists on here to address a single point before they want to move onto to another one.

 

[Toms777]

Jesus promises His apostles that they will hear of wars and rumors concerning wars, which had special significance during that period of the great Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Claudius' Roman war with Britain/East Anglia; at least three Jewish insurrections against Rome prior to the 60s AD (one was violently put down by Cuspius Fadus); the Jewish/Alexandrian revolt upon Caligula's death; Claudius declares martial law in Palestine after the Jewish insurrection at the death of Agrippa I; the Germanic tribes in present-day Belgium and Germany made perpetual trouble for the legions throughout the reign; a smoldering Balkan war was in continuous progress. These conflagrations escalated, and Rome started its own civil wars in 68-70 that nearly toppled the empire. As Tacitus wrote, " Four princes [Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian] killed by the sword; three civil wars, several foreign wars; and mostly raging at the same time. Favorable events in the East [the subjection of the Jews], unfortunate ones in the West. Illyria disturbed, Gaul uneasy; Britain conquered and soon relinquished; the nations of Sarmatia and Suevia rising against us; the Parthians excited by the deception of a pseudo-Nero."

First, I still don't see the reference as to where I can find the claims about Josephus.

Second, a couple of small wars would not compare to something like WW1 or WW2, so I hardly think that would be a sign. Also, it is unlikely that this is something that the people would see back then (and the preterists hear claim that that persons to whom this was said must be the one to see it).

Don't forget this has to be unlike anything which happened before or after at any time in history.

 

[Justme]

Toms,

Actually, I disagree. When many books are written, the word "you" is used to refer to those who will read, not those who will original hear the words. Consider.

I considered. I think you have lost it.

Scripture tells us to look for these signs, yet preterists tell us no one will actually see what the Bible says that every eye will see.

Maybe it does, but where does scripture tell US to look for these signs?

You are really having trouble with this nobody seeing the signs bit........I just spent a couple hours going thru Josephus who SAW some of these things and RECORDED them. If the parousia is a spiritual, heavenly situation who do you expect to RECORD that for mortal man, they are DEAD when they see it?

We HAVE given you pages and pages of historical evidence of the physical 'signs'..Par just spieled off some more wars from there...

Justme

 

[Toms777]

I considered. I think you have lost it.

Well, as you wish - you are welcome to your opinion.

Maybe it does, but where does scripture tell US to look for these signs?

Well, perhaps I should ask you who you think that the Bible was written for. Are we to believe that any of it is directed to us? If so, then I would have to ask where in the Bible does it ever specific tell US that?

Do you see? That argument does not make any sense - if you follow it to it's logical conclusion, it means that we should toss out the Bible because it was not specificallyu addressed to US!

You are really having trouble with this nobody seeing the signs bit........I just spent a couple hours going thru Josephus who SAW some of these things and RECORDED them.

Oddly, many people have mentioned this, but so far every request for a single reference where I could look this up in Josephus has been as invisible as these supposed signs in 70AD. Why, if it is so clear in Josephus, why can no one just tell me where I would find it in Josephus?

Seems as hard to find as hen's teeth.

If the parousia is a spiritual, heavenly situation who do you expect to RECORD that for mortal man, they are DEAD when they see it?

Every eye shall see him (Rev 1:7). Eyes see that which is visible. He shall be visible to every eye.

We HAVE given you pages and pages of historical evidence of the physical 'signs'..Par just spieled off some more wars from there...

You have given me nothing. You claim Josephus but give no references. Everything else you tell me is invisible, symbolic or poetic.

The evidence that you have given me is as invisible as you claim the signs of 70AD were.

 

[parousia70]

That is your interpretaton of "soon". This would only hold if the context agreed.

The word actually used is "shortly" which can mean different things in the context of scripture. Revelation 22:20 has Jesus saying that he is coming soon, and the context of that part of Reveleation is the coming for the final judgement. That is a future event, and yet Jesus called it soon. That being the case, we cannot assume that "shortly" means the 1st century.

Circular reasoning. It can't literally mean SOON because you believe it is yet future.
Next?

Domitian persecuted the Christians in the AD96 timeframe:

http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm

Care to explain how Domitian was a Judaizer?

Further, the most reliable external source that we have to establish the date of the writing of Revelation is Irenaeus who specifically places it during the reign of Domitian, which would place the writing of the book in the range of AD 90-95.

Ireneaus also states that Jesus Lived to be 50 years old. You agree with Him on this as well?

The fact is Ireneaus statement is the ONLY external source for the late date. All other sources rest on his one single solitary statement, and it was by no means uncontested in the early Church.

Daniel Denham (1979)
"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg
"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the...ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus' estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation: Four Views, p.18)

F.W. Farrar (1831-1904)
On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony
"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

The BEST evidence favors the early date
Quotes from Scholars on the Date of Revelation

Robert Young (late 1800s)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

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

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)

"Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called 'the most soul-stirring of all ancient history.' But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (The History of the Christian Church, Vol I; 6:38)

George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)

Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1871)
"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement Of Alexandria's story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. (3) Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. (4) Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64)...(5) Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible - 1871)

A.N. Wilson (1977)
"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 254)

"The historian who tries to date and place John's Revelation is guided by the author to a quite specific time span. The words of Revelation are written down four years after the Roman fire, and shortly after Nero's own death. We know that they were written before the ultimate calamity of the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70...He writes of the earthly temple as still in existence [Rev 11:1-2]." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 11)

"In Paul's lifetime, and Nero's, there was no such thing as the New Testament--even though some of its individual writings (perhaps all of them in some primitive form) could be dated to before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 19)



Testimony from Early Church History

Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403)
"[John], who prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]...the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed." (Epiphanius, Panarion/Heresies 51:12,33)

Clement (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

(On the Timing of John's Banishment)
"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603)

Note on the Muratorian Canon: Sometime between A.D. 170 and 200, someone drew up a list of canonical books. This list, known as the Muratorian Canon, is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. Yet, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68.

Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century)
"The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)

Arethas (sixth century)
"Arethas in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event" (From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1871)

(On Revelation 6:12) "Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian."

(On Revelation 7:1) "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ."

(On Revelation 7:4) "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

Papias (first century)
"Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)


Tom, Revelation was written prior to 70AD.

 

[parousia70]

a couple of small wars would not compare to something like WW1 or WW2, so I hardly think that would be a sign.

Except the 1st century wars were wars that the apostles would hear of, Just as Jesus promised they would. The Apostles did not hear of WW's 1 & 2 so they can not be included. You need to show that the apostles are to be excluded from the "YOU". You have failed thus far to do so.

Don't forget this has to be unlike anything which happened before or after at any time in history.

No it doesn't, but it was.
Please reference my post #79 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1489781&postcount=79

 

[parousia70]

Every eye shall see him (Rev 1:7). Eyes see that which is visible. He shall be visible to every eye.

[On Yahweh's coming during the Maccabean Period] For I have bent Judah for me, I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I will stir up your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece, and will make you as the sword of a mighty man. Yahweh shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord Yahweh will blow the trumpet, and will go with whirlwinds of the south. Yahweh of Hosts will defend them; and they shall devour, and shall tread down the sling-stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, like the corners of the altar. Yahweh their God will save them in that day (Zechariah 9:13-16)

What did Yahweh LOOK like when He was SEEN over Greece as depicted above?

Where in Grecian literature can we find histrical reference to the monumental event of God being actuallty OPTICALLY seen over Greece during the Maccabean period?

[On Yahweh's coming to Israel for Babylonian Exile - 6th Century BC] Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: Because you are turbulent more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my ordinances, neither have done after the ordinances of the nations that are round about you; therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I, even I, am against you; and I will execute judgments in the midst of you before the eyes of the nations. I will do in you that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all your abominations (Ez 5:7-9)

In the 6th century, what did Yahweh LOOK like when he was seen by the EYES OF THE NATIONS executing Judgements? Where is the historical documentation of this OPTICAL event?

[On Yahweh's coming to Israel for Babylonian Exile - 6th Century BC] As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I be king over you: and I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries in which you are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will I enter into judgment with you face to face...Hear the word of Yahweh: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. All flesh shall see that I, Yahweh, have kindled it...Thus says Yahweh: Behold, I am against you, and will draw forth my sword out of its sheath, and will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Seeing then that I will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north: and all flesh shall know that I, Yahweh, have drawn forth my sword out of its sheath (Ez 20:33-35,47-48; 21:3-5)

In the 6th century BC, where can we find imperical evidence of ALL FLESH LIVING AT THAT TIME seeing God kindle that flame?

Jehovah hath made bare His holy arm before the eyes of all nations (Isa 52:10)

Tom, why can't you provide a shred of physical evidence of the EYES OF ALL NATIONS optically seeing Gods actual physical ARM as depected as having been accomplished above? Your interpratation of "Every eye shall see" demands you produce such proof.

 

[Der Alte]

Actually it isn’t. Christ merely said that they wouldn’t be able to go through all the cities in Israel till he returned. It’s as simple as that and it cuts the legs right out of Futurist thinking. You have not addressed this directly, instead ducked and dodged. At first the disciples, and Jesus were only for the Jews. This changed over time though.

Do please tell us how it, "cuts the legs right out of Futurist thinking" You are not reading Matt 10:23. You look at the words, without seeing them, then substitute your own presuppositions. Mt 10:5 does not say "go first to the lost sheep of Israel then to the gentiles." Here is where your entire preterist house of cards crumbles. You evidently simply cannot understand the words, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Again I ask what part of not is unclear?

This is because you can’t see the forest, like most futurists.

What is this some kind of mantra that you chant, in place of reason, logic, and research? You are the one that can't see the forest. I have given you one sentence and you can't read it or understand it.

Every good theologian will tell you that Christ and the disciples first went exclusively to the Jews.

It was only later that they expanded there teachings to the gentiles and really it would be Paul that take over this mission and allow the orginal disciples to focus on Israel.

True, it was later, but that is irrelevant to Matt 10:23. When Jesus was instructing the disciples in Mt 10, He did not say anything about later. I see some tap dancing about Paul. I documented that the original disciples went into Samaria and gentiles areas, before the Parousia.

The FACT remains though that Christ told them that they wouldn’t be able to go through all the cities of Israel, a point you have not addressed.

The FACT is you have not satisfactorily addressed Matt 10:5. You keep changing it to say “the Jews first, and gentiles later.”

Matt 10:23 does not refer to the Parousia, but to Jesus rejoining the disciples at some point during that particular missionary journey. In chapter 12, Jesus and the disciples are together again. And it doesn't require any of your scripture twisting, reinterpreting the clear statement of Jesus in Matt 10:5.

Luke 9:51-56 is apt because John and James are with Jesus which means they were going to Samaria as well! The theory you presented to avoid a direct answer on Matthew 10:23 is throughly debunked, let’s move on and have you face it directly.

You have debunked diddly. Luke does not conflict with the literal, straight forward, interpretation of Matt 10:23. Jesus told the disciples do not go in the way of the gentiles or any town or city of the Samaritans, and He would come and rejoin them before they had completed all the cities of Israel.

Your twisting of Mt 10;5 to make it fit your preterist presuppositions is what has been debunked.

You aren’t reading my posts carefully. Theology at times is going to be literal, but at other times it is going to be symbolic or spiritual. Prophetic language is VERY poetic, but it is not entirely so.

And how do we determine when it is and is not literal? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. When it agrees with the Preterists presuppositions, then it is literal, but when it doesn't then it is poetic, figurative, metaphorical, etc., etc., etc.

Exactly! And this is why it is silly that Futurists present Preterism as spiritualizing or symbolizing EVERYTHING when in fact they too do this.

You are still not paying attention. "If the literal sense, makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." If you ever see me metaphorizing, spiritualizing, etc., a passage which makes good literal sense, to make it fit, don't hesitate to let me know. An example of where you reinterpret the text to make it fit is Mt 10:5, it says, "do not go," not "later."

That [destruction of the temple] was one of the signs of the end of the current Age and the start of the next Age for one thing.

Where does the scriptures say "the end of the current Age and the start of the next Age.?" Oh, I know its that poetic language again.

There’s no need to list them. Every generation has a group of futurists that believe that they are the “terminal” generation. Several Popes, Napolean, Hitler, Reagan, all these people have been pointed out as the Anti Christ by futurists, they were wrong. It was believed that Christ would return in the 1800’s which is were a lot of Cults come from-this errorneous futurist belief. The World Wars were supposed to be the end. Israel becoming a country again-the end. Y2K, the end, the Iraq war, the end. Do I really need to go on, I’m embarrassed enough for the both of us.

Oh, I see when you say what you call "Futurism [implying all], has failed time and time a gain", you are speaking about little splinter groups which have made various predictions and prophecies. I'm sorry those do not represent the bulk of Evangelical Christianity.

I would say that Preterism falls flat on its face with respect to Matthew 10.

If this were true you would have been able to answer 23 directly. We are still waiting. Christ told his 1st Century disciples in essence that he would be back in THEIR lifetime. Care to respond to that? He said that THEY would not be able to go through all the cities of Israel. THEY are now dead, this time has passed. Either Christ was right or he was not. Preterism affirms the truth of Christ, futurism rejects it.

I have answered Matt 10:23 directly, Jesus sent His disciples out to preach and teach and He told them He would rejoin them before they had gone into all the cities of Israel. And lest I forget, He also told them not to go to any Samaritan or gentiles city, at that time.

Yes, at that time there [sic] weren’t to go to Gentile cities. But, as you wrote earlier, and used ACTS as your “proof” they do go to Gentile cities don’t they? Thanks for the assistance in that matter. Again you fail to see the forest. At the time of Matthew 10, they weren’t to go to other cities. Does this mean they never ever could? Nope, the Bible testifies otherwise. Does this have a single thing to do with them going through the cities of Israel? Nope. You still have not directly addressed verse 23.

Still rattling on about the forest, when you are the one who cannot see. First, Jesus told the disciples not to go to any gentile or Samaritan city, then, He said before they finished going to all the cities of Israel He would come, chap. 12, Jesus has rejoined the disciples, just as He said.

Yes I agree! Futurism and cults are huge offenders of this.

If you ever see me violating any rules of interpretation, be sure and let me know. Until that time take care of that beam in your own eye. And OBTW there is another view, "Biblical Historicism."

Over 100 passages, that flat out demand 1st century fulfillment? I hardly think so.

You hardly think so because you don’t know any better. But the sad fact is, you don’t desire to know any better either, that’s the problem. If we only study things we know or accept, we aren’t getting any smarter. You seem to have neither the time nor the courage to look into Preterism with fresh eyes. You won’t even give it a shot, and therefore your only rebuttals are things like “I hardly think so”.

The problem as I see it is, the Preterists have bought into the latest fad religion and like all the others have their kit bag full of “spoof, proof texts.” I have indeed read a lot of Preterist stuff, Gentry for example. I have downloaded his book. And I can refute virtually every one of your “spoof texts” without once saying “poetical, spiritual, metaphorical,”, etc., etc., etc.

If we use scripture to interpret scripture we can know things like Jerusalem is the Harlot of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is what? And how do we know it?

Us Preterists seem to be the only folks here using the Bible to explain the Bible, which is the way it must be since the Bible counters Futurism. Take care,

Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. You haven’t dealt with Matt 10:5, yet. Read the literal words and without changing the words or adding anything to them, explain Mt 10:23. And OBTW you did not respond to my point that, neither Matt 10:18, nor any other verse in Matt 10, states or implies that the disciples would go into Samaria or gentile areas. For the Jews there are only two categories of people, Jews or Gentiles. The “kings and governors,” of vs. 18, are distinct from the Gentiles, therefore they can only be Jews. And there were no Jewish kings and governors outside of Israel.

 

[parousia70]

That is why we need to look at the context. Clearly we can agree that some cases are intended solely to be 1st century, others clearly are not.

Well I was responding to your claim that it is ABSURD to confine the term YOU anywhere in scripture to the original audience.

I was merely demonstrating your error.
I accept your recantation.

Actually, I disagree. When many books are written, the word "you" is used to refer to those who will read, not those who will original hear the words.

Please provide scriptural evidence of this.

Now preterists face a far more seruious problem. Scripture tells us to look for these signs, yet preterists tell us no one will actually see what the Bible says that every eye will see.

Scripture told the apostles and their generation to look for signs, not us.

 

[parousia70]

Do please tell us how it, "cuts the legs right out of Futurist thinking" You are not reading Matt 10:23. You look at the words, without seeing them, then substitute your own presuppositions....... He said before they finished going to all the cities of Israel He would come, chap. 12, Jesus has rejoined the disciples, just as He said.

This is a very interesting interpratation of this passage. I have only heard this particular interpration from one other individual. Are there any scholarly commentaries on 10:23 available for us to research that share this view or is it unique to you (and the other fella I mentioned)??

The JFB has this to say about 10:23


Ye shall not have gone over--Ye shall in nowise have completed.
the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come

--To understand this in the first instance, of Christ's own peregrinations, as if He had said, "Waste not your time upon hostile places, for I Myself will be after you ere your work be over"--seems almost trifling. "The coming of the Son of man" has a fixed doctrinal sense, here referring immediately to the crisis of Israel's history as the visible kingdom of God, when Christ was to come and judge it; when "the wrath would come upon it to the uttermost"; and when, on the ruins of Jerusalem and the old economy, He would establish His own kingdom. This, in the uniform language of Scripture, is more immediately "the coming of the Son of man," "the day of vengeance of our God" (Matthew 16:28, 24:27,34; compare with Hebrews 10:25, 5:7-9)

What do you know that JFB didn't?

 

[Toms777]

Ireneaus also states that Jesus Lived to be 50 years old. You agree with Him on this as well?

You say much so easily without any references. but it makes no difference ebcause there is so much additional evidence.

The fact is Ireneaus statement is the ONLY external source for the late date. All other sources rest on his one single solitary statement, and it was by no means uncontested in the early Church.

You can provide pages of opinions, as could I, but those are simply opinions, so I will not repond further to them. The rest of the references that you gave, were for the most part nowhere near the timeframe of the events. Irenaeus was the most reliable source.

The best that you can argue therefore is to try to discredit Irenaeus, but even if you do, you still have the rest of the evidence to deal with, and so far it appears to invisible.

 

[Der Alte]

This is a very interesting interpratation of this passage. I have only heard this particular interpration from one other individual. Are there any scholarly commentaries on 10:23 available for us to research that share this view or is it unique to you (and the other fella I mentioned)??
* * *
What do you know that JFB didn't?

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T.-Mat 10:5 -
These twelve Jesus sent forth (toutous tous dōdeka apesteilen ho Iēsous). The word “sent forth” (apesteilen) is the same root as “apostles.” The same word reappears in Mat_10:16.

Way of the Gentiles (hodon ethnōn). Objective genitive, way leading to the Gentiles. This prohibition against going among the Gentiles and the Samaritans was for this special tour. They were to give the Jews the first opportunity and not to prejudice the cause at this stage. Later Jesus will order them to go and disciple all the Gentiles (Mat_28:19).

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible,Mat 10:5 -
These twelve Jesus sent forth,.... And no other but them, under the character of apostles. These had been with him a considerable time, to whom he had been gradually communicating spiritual knowledge; and by the benefit of private conference with him, and the observation they had made upon his doctrine and conduct, were greatly qualified for public usefulness: wherefore he gives them a commission, furnishes them with power and authority; and sends them forth from him by pairs, that they might be assisting to one another, and bear a joint testimony to the Gospel they preached; but before he sent them forth from his presence, he gave them some directions where they should go, and to whom they should minister, and where not:

and he commanded them, as their Lord and Master; he gave them strict orders, which he expected them to comply with, and closely enjoined them, as they must answer it to him again,

saying, go not into the way of the Gentiles; meaning, not the customs' and manners of the Heathens, they were to avoid; but that they were not to steer their course, or take their journey towards them: they were not, as yet, to go among them, and preach the Gospel to them; the calling of the Gentiles was not a matter, as yet, so clearly revealed and known, nor was the time of their calling come: besides it was the will of God, that the Gospel should be first preached to the Jews, to take off all excuse from them, and that their obstinacy and perverseness in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, might manifestly appear; and since Christ himself was the minister of the circumcision, he would have his apostles, for the present, whilst he was on earth, act agreeably to the character he bore, that there might be an entire harmony in their conduct.

And into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: the word "any" is supplied, and that very rightly; for, not the city of Samaria, the metropolis of that country, as the Arabic version reads it, is only meant, but any, and every city of the Samaritans: not that it was strictly unlawful and criminal to go thither; for he himself went into one of their cities, and so did his apostles, Joh_4:4 Luk_9:52 and after his death preached the Gospel there; but he judged it not proper and expedient at this time, and as yet, to do it; that is, not before their preaching it to the Jews; for there was a very great hatred subsisting between the Jews, and the Samaritans, insomuch that they had no conversation with each other in things civil or religious. The Samaritans, though they boasted of their descent from Jacob, were a mongrel sort of people, partly Jews, and partly Gentiles, a mixture of both; and therefore are distinguished from both and though they had, and held the law, and five books of Moses, yet corrupted them in many places, to serve their purpose, and countenance their religion, particularly their worshipping at Mount Gerizim; on which account they were looked upon by the Jews as apostates, idolaters, and even as Heathens (f), and are therefore here joined with them; and to shun giving offence to the Jews, seems to be the reason of this prohibition; see Gill on Joh_4:20.

(f) T. Hieros. Shekelim, fol. 46. 2. Bartenora in Misn. Taharot, c. 5. sect. 8.

Edited to add

Matthew Henry Commentary
Matt 10:Ver. 23. But when they persecute you in this city, &c.] Or any city into which they went, and preached the Gospel; and would not suffer them to go on in their work, they were not to desist, but to go elsewhere, where they might hope for a better reception, and a longer continuance, and so of doing more good:

flee ye into another; not so much for their own safety, though this, according to the circumstances of things, is lawful, but for the further spreading of the Gospel. The exhortation is not to take methods to avoid persecution, or to make an escape from it, but to perseverance under it: the sense is, they were not to be discouraged, and to leave off, because of persecution in one place, but to persist in the ministration of the Gospel, by carrying it to other cities; and it seems to be a spur to them to make haste, and fulfil their office of preaching the Gospel, in the land of Judea: nor need they fear going on too fast, lest they should have no places to preach in;

for verily I say unto you, this is a certain and indisputable truth not to be called in question, being strongly affirmed by truth itself,

ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, or "finished" them; that is, their tour through them, and their ministry, or the preaching of the Gospel in them,

till the son of man be come; which is not to be understood of his second coming to judgment, but either of his resurrection from the dead, when he was declared to be the Son of God, and when his glorification began; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost, when his kingdom began more visibly to take place, and he was made, or manifested to be the Lord and Christ; or of his coming to take vengeance on his enemies, that would not have him to rule over them, and the persecutors of his ministers, at the destruction of Jerusalem.
​

I believe some one said something about reading other sources beside those that support you. Surprising what one might learn if they realize Gentry is not scripture, and research somewhere other than, "Preterist Archives."

And if you are interested Robertson, Gill, and Matthew Henry, are available online, try Crosswalk.

 

[Toms777]

Except the 1st century wars were wars that the apostles would hear of, Just as Jesus promised they would. The Apostles did not hear of WW's 1 & 2 so they can not be included.

Exactly my point - so 70AD was not the worst tribulation of all time.

You need to show that the apostles are to be excluded from the "YOU". You have failed thus far to do so.

Don't need to. The context shows that clearly. The onus is on you to show that the historical evidence of the signs and all that i have seen so far is "invisible" evdience.

No it doesn't, but it was.
Please reference my post #79 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1489781&postcount=79

Saw it but it does not answer anything in this regard. No matter what you say, the Bible is clear on this point:

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

You have to show me historical fulfillment of the worst tribulation in history, one so bad that it threatened all mankind with decimation.

 

[Toms777]

[On Yahweh's coming during the Maccabean Period] For I have bent Judah for me, I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I will stir up your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece, and will make you as the sword of a mighty man. Yahweh shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord Yahweh will blow the trumpet, and will go...
[snip fopr brevity]...

The Bible says that he will return the way that he left - visible to thos watching the sky. He will also step foot on the mount of olives.

You have to deal with that.

 

[Toms777]

Well I was responding to your claim that it is ABSURD to confine the term YOU anywhere in scripture to the original audience.

I was merely demonstrating your error.
I accept your recantation.

I don't knwo where you saw any recantation. Please dfeal with me hobnestly and respond to what I have said, not what you wish that i said.

You still need to deal with the context of scripture.

Please provide scriptural evidence of this.

Pick up the phone and ask any publisher, or author whether the first person who heard the words or read the book was the intended auidence. Come on, let common sense prevail!

Scripture told the apostles and their generation to look for signs, not us.

Conetxt says otherwise...especially since so far all the evidence of a historical fulfillement is "invisible". (Try putting that type of evidence forward ina court of law and see how far you get!)

 

[Justme]

Hi Parousia70,

Hey was that fella you knew with the similar view of Matt 10:23, was he ALSO an American with a birthday of Aug 6? And a complicated..'location'....

Justme

 

[stauron]

So you do agree that using the word "you" to mean only the audience present at the time is absurd - good!!! progress!!!

I have addressed each and every point that I have seen. If you feel that there is one that has not been, please read carefully my responses first, and if you still don't see it, please feel free to raise it again, but please do so directly and concisely. If there is a point buried in one of these page long dissertations, it may be missed.

If you are referring to the claim that 70AD was the worst suffering ever, I already dealt with that in a few exchanges. I am still waiting for anyone to show me historical evidence of these events, but all I hear is they are sybolic, poetic and invisible, in short, there is no historical evidence that we were told to look for a signs of His return.

Toms777,

After stepping back a bit and seeing the fury of posting from yesterday I was able to finally see the stumbling block here. I see that you are basically acting with integrity and wanting to get answers. I would like to pursue them.

The first stumbling block is a basic (mis)understanding of hermeneutics. I think that we may be close, but miss a few important points.

Second, you are assuming the content of the passage must be as you see it, and then asking for proof. On the other side, we have been providing you proof after proof that have fallen on deaf ears because it has not addressed the underlying (wrong in our opinion) interpretation of the words and neither side has addressed the other on the same ground.

So, if you are up to it, lets look at both of these points. In this post I am going to concentrate on point 1.

We may eventually work down to individual hermeneutical principles, but for starters let's try this. Application is the last step in understanding a passage. First we look to the context and the audience to understand the meaning and intent of the passage. Der Alter is trying to do this with Matt 10. This may be the only compliment I ever give him, but he is using proper hermeneutics at this point. If he was as astringent in other places we might get someplace. The plain sense is the sense in which the original hearers understood the words. Literal is a term with no meaning in our discussion. The literal meaning of a symbol is symbolic. The literal meaning of a metaphor is figurative. Using the word literal is pointless. Everyone agrees that Jesus is not made out of wood with hinges and a lock, even if He is literally a door. Metaphor and hyperbole are common elements in all language, Biblical language is no exception.

Now, when I say the meaning of the passage, it is the most basic, first and primary meaning that the original audience understood or that the original speaker/writer intended.

In the Olivet Discourse, was Jesus trying to speak to timeless truths, or did He have a specific event in mind? Was He using the disciples' questions as a springboard to answer a different question or was He addressing them? Did the disciples understand His answer or was it too much for them?

My main point is that all these questions need to be answered before we even can get a hint of application.
In order to get answers to these (and similar) questions the context of the chapter, the book and the parallels needs to be addressed. The author's intent and the intended audience must be discussed.

Finally, after the meaning is understood, we can meaningfully apply it to the audience to which the words were spoken/written. And lastly, contemporary application (us blokes).