preterism

[parousia70]

the Book of Reveleation was written in 96 AD, AFTER 70 AD.

The book of Revelation was written by St. John between AD 66-68, in the final years of the Neronic persecution. The internal evidence of the book strongly suggests the early date, and the external evidence for this date is firmly attested to by many well-known scholars and early Church writings. The following information gives a sampling of the internal evidence that supports the early date under Nero's reign. We can get to the external evidence later.

(1) The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70.

(3) The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation chapter 11. John is sent to measure the city and temple, and Jerusalem is said to be under siege at the time of writing. It would not be possible for John to speak of these as still standing after 70 AD, for they were utterly destroyed at that date. And, if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening--the destruction of Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest disaster in antiquity, and surely the greatest disaster in Israel's history. To imagine St. John overlooking the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while he discusses both as if they were still standing, is impossible. Rather, St. John is prophesing their impending doom just two or three years before they were made utterly desolate.

(4) There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original possibly surviving past that time.

(5) Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. For certain, none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

(6) Almost all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked directly to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet Discourse demonstrate that it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of these same events.

(7) The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are as follows: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while--Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

 

[parousia70]

If the Nicene Creed doesn't call the final judgement the"second" coming of Christ, why are preterists banished here with the Mormons & cults? Is God only allowed one day of judgement? (and it's at the "second" coming alone?) What about the "Day of the Lord" language of the OT (many times it appears, but I'm too lazy to write down more than a few- Amos 5:18-20,Joel 2:1-11,Ezek. 30:1-19, etc.) is that all futuristic, meaning the "second" coming?

reformedman,

Just so you know, if you believe in any way that Christ will come again in our future, you are not banished here with the cults.

All that is required for full and unfettered access to CF is to profess some kind of future to us return of Christ. Spiritual, physical, whatever, as long as it is future to us.

It appears you subscribe to such a notion, so, enjoy the forums

 

[Suede]

Der Alter,


+++This is a deliberate misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of the scripture. Here are the relevant verses in this passage.+++


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.



+++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?+++



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



+++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.+++



Stauron correctly answered your other question. If he told you 2+2=4 I see no point in me restating that fact or elaborating on it. He was correct the first time, please re read what he wrote you.



+++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.+++



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.



+++I’m sorry did you post some proof that all prophetic language is poetic? I must have missed that.+++



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.



+++ How about the prophecy of the destruction of the temple was that also poetic?+++



Good example to address. In the Olivet Discourse it isn’t that poetic, particualarly Luke’s account. But, in Revelation it is more poetic then in the Olivet Discourse.



+++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.+++



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

+++Agreed Jerusalem fell. And your point is?+++



That was one of the signs of the end of the current Age and the start of the next Age for one thing.



+++Oh and did you post some proof that “Futurism has failed time and time again. . .” I must have missed that too.+++



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.



+++ 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.



+++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.+++



Yes, at that time there 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.

+++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.+++



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



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

[Edited by a moderator]

+++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.+++



Well I’m glad you got that part. But why can’t you apply to exact same logic to the verses that indicate that some of the 1st Century Christians will be alive when Christ returns?



+++And correct me if I’m wrong doesn’t Daniel explain the dragon metaphor? I believe this is called scripture interpreting scripture.+++



No he doesn’t, but he does use “beasts” to describe the world empires. Poetic and of course symbolic. If we use scripture to interpret scripture we can know things like Jerusalem is the Harlot of Jerusalem.



+++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.+++



I see it otherwise, but I’m used to the hate. However, I will take your word that you do not hate me.



+++We must indeed allow the Bible to be the final authority and concede and follow the Truth.+++



Exactly, which is why I left the Futurist camp were I so long had laid my head.



+++ That forces the question, why have you not done so? I would say you rolled over without putting up a fight.+++

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,

SUEDE

 

[stauron]

This is a deliberate misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of the scripture. Here are the relevant verses in this passage.
<<<snip>>>>
What you, and every other Preterist, has done is change the meaning of verse 5, to make it agree with the Preterist presupposition.
<<<<snip>>>>
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.

So in Colossions is Paul talking about a different gospel and a different world or the same?

I believe this is called scripture interpreting scripture.

Here is a great example of it. Show us whether you believe this or not practically.

 

[Suede]

Stauron,

Hey, just a heads up for you, if you want to reply specifically to a certain post, what you want to do is go to that post and in the lower right hand corner click on the piece of paper with the curved arrow icon. It's next to the report and quote button. That way the original poster will be e-mailed that someone is replying to them. Your last post, #84 is I believe intended for Der Alter, but it notified me. Hope this helps, this style of forum takes a lot of getting used to, I still haven't figured out all the tricks! Take care,

ADD

 

[stauron]

Stauron,

Hey, just a heads up for you, if you want to reply specifically to a certain post, what you want to do is go to that post and in the lower right hand corner click on the piece of paper with the curved arrow icon. It's next to the report and quote button. That way the original poster will be e-mailed that someone is replying to them. Your last post, #84 is I believe intended for Der Alter, but it notified me. Hope this helps, this style of forum takes a lot of getting used to, I still haven't figured out all the tricks! Take care,

ADD

Thanks,

I hit the "quote" button on the bottom of his post...but I'll try the other one now.

stauron

 

[Justme]

Hi Parousia70,

Do you have any links or whatever that shed any light on the imprisonment of John that would clear up this:

9I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

I'm sure interested in digging more into the Lord's Day bit...in normal English the Lord's day would most assuredly be the day of the Lord which would mean John didn't just have a vision , he saw the origonal from his perch in Heaven....anyway it is all interesting.

Thanks for that summary of the early date of the writing. I had never worried about when the book was WRITTEN only when the vision was SEEN, however, your points about the temple have big time merit.

Justme

 

[Suzannah]

I just have to say this: I didn't even know what "preterism" was until I came to CF. Suede, the poster above accused another poster of "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,"

Well, I sure did have "fresh eyes" and I sure read this entire thread with them. And I have to say that all of those who have posted in favor of "preterism" have one thing in common: they all seem to confine Jesus and His words, to the "present" of His day, thereby completely denying His ability to know the future, to know the hearts of each of us here in our "present" when those of us with nothing better to do, would be sitting around debating this issue. You all keep saying that the Bible was written "for" us but not "to" us. To me, this just simply begs the question that Jesus would not know that we would be sitting here at our computers at 4:03 am on this particular morning, and therefore, nothing He had to say "then" is "relevant" to us now???? If that's the case, then all of us should hang up our Christian hats and go to bed. This "preterism" thing is absurd, in my opinion, judging from what is written here. I am not attacking persons but simply stating that I don't agree with any of this doctrine.

Col 2:8 ¶ See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
1 Tim 6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
1 Tim 6:14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Tim 6:15 which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1 Tim 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him {be} honor and eternal dominion!
2 Tim 2:14 ¶ Remind {them} of these things, and solemnly charge {them} in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless {and leads} to the ruin of the hearers.
Heb 2:1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away {from it.}
Heb 9:28 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.
2 Pet 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is {a matter} of one's own interpretation,
2 Pet 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
2 Pet 3:8 ¶ But do not let this one {fact} escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
2 Pet 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

 

[Toms777]

Hi Toms,


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

Justme

I started going through them one at a time, if you bear with us, that is what we we do.

If you want to read ahead, they are all found in the Bible. Matthew 24 is one location ot look as is the Book of Reveleation 9which was written in around AD 96 and therefore is one book that we know for absolute fact could not have been fulfilled in AD 70.

 

[Toms777]

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.

Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. The fulfillment was Jesus:

Luke 16:15-16
16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.
NKJV

I don't see the problem until and unless one places restrictions on the Bible which are nto found in the Bible such as your have.

Now we know that all prophecy was not fulfilled in 70AD for at least 2 reasons. Firts, the signs that jesus gave us to look for have not occurred - I have tried to go through them one at a time, and so far no one has shown any historical fulfillment. Those who say that these were fulfilled invisibly are ignoring what is said in the book of Luke:

Luke 21:25-31
25 "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of heaven will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."
29 Then He spoke to them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.
NKJV

These signs are visible and we are told to look for them and we are told to look up to see Jesus returning. Why look up if we could not see Him return, as we are told we will returnm the way that he left:

Acts 1:9-11
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
NKJV

Second, the Book of Reveleation was written in 96AD and thus was to be fulfilled after AD70.

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.

I read it, but still waiting for anyone to shown historical fulfillment in it....I note that you didn't!

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.

Uh huh, because you cannot show the histrical fulfillment, provide references in Jospehus, the problem is with me. Have you ever read the definition of an ad hominem argument?

+++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.”

First, you are ignoring the context of the discussion. There were those on here who claimed that the destruction of the temple was the sign of the end. Yet Jesus says specifically that it was not. It is good to read the context so that you don't lose the flow of the discussion.

As for who will actually see these events, that is your interpretationm that it must be the audience to whom he was speaking.

Let's look at the use of the word "You". This does not relate to this prophecy, but just to show you that "You" prophetically does not always refer to strictly the present audience.

Gen 3:14-15
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV

Is the "You" here, the serpent or Satan? If Satan, are you telling me that Satan crawls on His belly? If the serpent, are you telling me that Jesus died on the cross to kill a snake?

Matt 5:11-12
11 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
NKJV

Does this only apply to the audience? Does this mean that if we are reviled, he abandons us because we were not there as part of the audience?

What about the Great Commission?

Mark 16:14-17
14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

Did the audience at the time fail because they were not able to reach all the world while they were alive?

You need to be consistent in your application of scripture to all these verses.

 

[Toms777]

Zechariah 14 and the Coming of Christ by Gary DeMar

First, to be honest, If I see long copy and pastes in the future, I am likely to ignore them. I have thousands (liertally) of books and have done considerable reading. Brief excerpts are fine, but for the sake of us all and our time, it would be preferred if excerpts can be brief and to the point and in general if there is a specific point, that it be summarized.

In light of this, there was much which did not relate directly but which was filler. I will therefore cut out what I do not see as specific to the point and address what I see as His specific points relating to our discussion.

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).

Zech 14:1 tells us that it is the Day of the Lord. In the Day of the Lord, Isaiah tells us in Is 2:17-18 that only the Lord will be exalted and that all idols will be abolished. If that happened in 70AD, are you telling me that there are no more idols? Are you telling me that the Lord alone is exalted?

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.

But this is different because we are told of the physical effects of His coming and we are told of signs that we are to look for which indicate His coming, and we are told every eye shall see Huim. This does not apply to the other references.

 

[Toms777]

(1) The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

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.

(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70.

Domitian persecuted the Christians in the AD96 timeframe:

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

(3) The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation chapter 11. John is sent to measure the city and temple, and Jerusalem is said to be under siege at the time of writing. It would not be possible for John to speak of these as still standing after 70 AD, for they were utterly destroyed at that date. And, if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening--the destruction of Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest disaster in antiquity, and surely the greatest disaster in Israel's history. To imagine St. John overlooking the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while he discusses both as if they were still standing, is impossible. Rather, St. John is prophesing their impending doom just two or three years before they were made utterly desolate.

This is only an issue if you assume that Revelation is referring to the timeframe around the first century and not a future timeframe during which Jerusalem is re-built. Since we can look on a map and see that Jerusalem is alive and well today, this is not a problem or an issue. 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.

If you assume that it is written priot to AD70 about AD70, then your conclusion would be correct but only through circular reasoning.

(4) There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original possibly surviving past that time.

Rev 2:2
2 "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
NKJV

This refers to false apostles (note the word "liars"!)

(5) Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. For certain, none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

The same can be said of many other people. This is also not a problem if the book was written in 96AD about a time yet to come.

(6) Almost all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked directly to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet Discourse demonstrate that it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of these same events.

I don't know who these unnamed scholars are, but I would suggest that we stick with facts not opinion from unnamed scholars.

(7) The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are as follows: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while--Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

This again requires assumptions again with respect to the timeframe and the meanings of the 7 kings. Kings in scripture typically or frequently refers to nations, not a lineage of specific rulers of a single nation. The context of Rev 17 would suggest that this is the correct interpretation, since it is clear that there are another 10 kings who co-exist with "the beast". Interesting, Rev. 17 also refers to an "eighth king" who is "the beast", and belongs to the seven. This eighth king does not fit in well with the view that this occurred before AD 70, sicne there has to be found some way to have one of the previous empoerors return (which didn't happen) and to fit it in before AD 70.

 

[Toms777]

Just as an aside, I thought that those interested in Jesus second coming might enjoy this:

[url="http://www.lifetalk.net/2ndcoming/ee.html"]http://www.lifetalk.net/2ndcoming/ee.html[/url]

 

[stauron]

I just have to say this: I didn't even know what "preterism" was until I came to CF. Suede, the poster above accused another poster of "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,"

Well, I sure did have "fresh eyes" and I sure read this entire thread with them. And I have to say that all of those who have posted in favor of "preterism" have one thing in common: they all seem to confine Jesus and His words, to the "present" of His day, thereby completely denying His ability to know the future, to know the hearts of each of us here in our "present" when those of us with nothing better to do, would be sitting around debating this issue. You all keep saying that the Bible was written "for" us but not "to" us. To me, this just simply begs the question that Jesus would not know that we would be sitting here at our computers at 4:03 am on this particular morning, and therefore, nothing He had to say "then" is "relevant" to us now???? If that's the case, then all of us should hang up our Christian hats and go to bed. This "preterism" thing is absurd, in my opinion, judging from what is written here. I am not attacking persons but simply stating that I don't agree with any of this doctrine.

So how do we know the difference between verses that are for us and not? You are saying that if it is not written to us it is not relevant to us. This is absurd. We really should hang up our hats and go to bed in that case.

But your option doesn't save us either. Are we supposed to be circumcised? Speak in tongues? Prophesy? Call Jews a brood of vipers and white washed sepulchers? Should we sell all we have? Should we not acquire gold and wander about healing lepers? Should we act as if we have no spouse and hate our families? Why or why not? If all these things are written to us, we are being disobedient if we don't do them all. (And this is totally leaving out all the Old Covenant Laws, do you wear wool mixed with linen?)

Scripture has a context. It was written at a specific time for a reason. If the plain sense make sense seek no other sense. Now how would the original audience think about that? Can the sense that they understood as plain be the same sense that we take away?

Good hermeneutics takes the original audience, the authors occasion for writing and the covenantal/historical timing in context to understand the Scripture. Preterism does it more consistently.

If you noticed, most of those disagreeing with preterism in the thread are trying to prove why the context is not what the preterist says. They are still arguing for a context that made sense to the original audience. Good interpretation demands that.

And when you say

they all seem to confine Jesus and His words, to the "present" of His day

you are way off. In fact you have it backwards. Preterists say that Christ predicted and warned about the destruction that was coming. And it came to pass exactly as He said. So is predictive prophecy less because it was 'only' 40 years away instead of thousands and thousands? Preterists affirm that Christ predicted events and the time frame within which the events were to take place. So if you are uncomfortable about being 'confined' then it is the Scriptures with which you have the problem.

 

[Toms777]

So how do we know the difference between verses that are for us and not? You are saying that if it is not written to us it is not relevant to us. This is absurd. We really should hang up our hats and go to bed in that case.

No, that is what the Preterist position on here was presented to be. I was told that if the word "you" was used then that must apply to those in the audience at the time and not to anyone else. We do agree that that position and reasoning is absurd, however.

How do we know? Context. That si what we are tryingt to discuss.

But your option doesn't save us either. Are we supposed to be circumcised? Speak in tongues? Prophesy?

[snip for brevity]

Each issue must be addressed separately in context. Sincwe we are dealing with Preterism here, let's address that issue in context and stay on topic.

 

[stauron]

No, that is what the Preterist position on here was presented to be. I was told that if the word "you" was used then that must apply to those in the audience at the time and not to anyone else. We do agree that that position and reasoning is absurd, however.

How do we know? Context. That si what we are tryingt to discuss.

Each issue must be addressed separately in context. Sincwe we are dealing with Preterism here, let's address that issue in context and stay on topic.

Speaking of staying on topic are you going to address my comments? You asked to address your view of Matthew 24. I have and you haven't said anything about it. I proved contextually that the language about suffering unlike any since that time or ever is very possible in describing the destruction of Jerusalem.

Application is only possible after interpretation. The meaning is different from application. If the passage is addressed to a specific audience it is irresponsible to make the passage normative to other audiences without understanding the context.

I am glad we agree about the absurdity of "spoof" texting. We may be able to have a conversation here...

 

[Toms777]

Speaking of staying on topic are you going to address my comments? You asked to address your view of Matthew 24. I have and you haven't said anything about it. I proved contextually that the language about suffering unlike any since that time or ever is very possible in describing the destruction of Jerusalem.

Application is only possible after interpretation. The meaning is different from application. If the passage is addressed to a specific audience it is irresponsible to make the passage normative to other audiences without understanding the context.

I am glad we agree about the absurdity of "spoof" texting. We may be able to have a conversation here...

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.

 

[Justme]

For Toms and Der Alter,

I just read this whole thread over. It appears you two have made the poorer showing on this one.

However, I thought I'd answer one thing that Toms brought up. It was covered, but it wasn't noticed.

You want historical proof of these 'signs'...........I asked you once what the signs(plural) were and I don't think you realize that it is sign (singular) in the Olivet in the question that is asked. Who knows what that means, but it must mean something.

Anyway I'll list out some 'signs' as they are usually referred to and give some historical evidence of some and in some cases I'll give you something even better...the written word of God. He knows history before it is history.

8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

Among countless other things Josephus says this:
so the Jews, who had been before assaulted in their faces, wheeled about to Titus, and continued the fight. The armies also were now mixed one among another, and the dust that was raised so far hindered them from seeing one another, and the noise that was made so far hindered them from hearing one another, that neither side could discern an enemy from a friend.
******************

There will be famines........

Here is Josephus telling about famine in Jerusalem when Titus was ticked off....
For that the Romans are not unacquainted with that famine which is in the city, whereby the people are already consumed, and the fighting men will in a little time be so too; for although the Romans should leave off the siege, and not fall upon the city with their swords in their hands, yet was there an insuperable war that beset them within, and was augmented every hour, unless they were able to wage war with famine, and fight against it, or could alone conquer their natural appetites.

While I'm here those 100 pound hailstones that we hear about, well, Josephus explains a possibility there too:
and when they had set the ENGINES against the wall, they put the multitude from coming more of them out of the city, [which they could the more easily do] because they had made no provision for preserving or guarding their bodies at this time;

These 'engines' could apparently fling 100 pound rocks at the city.

There will be earthquakes in various places,............

That's a given, there is always earthquakes.

Mark says:
9"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.

Jesus was talking to His deciples here. You can either believe that it happened or consider that Jesus was a liar, but I think the next couple of verses show it was another time and another place from the present.

11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit

If the subject material is presented by the Holy Spirit it would be correct and non-refutable...that is not the case in what I read coming from some on this thread.
10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

Here we can go by the word of God..He usually get's things pretty close.

23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

I have seen a thousand times where certain groups will stumble thru reams of so called logic and quote countless meaninglwess verse to prove....that Paul was wrong..Paul didn't say that. If Paul didn't say that, why did it show up in an inspired writing of God's word? Yes, Paul did say that and Paul clearly says..This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, ..........and don't try to claim creature only means snakes.

Mark says:
12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death

Yea, Josephus wrote about that too...........

You get the point.
But how about the biggee, how about historical prove that the parousia happened.

John, the beloved died, yet Jesus made it plain John could live until His return if Jesus so chose.

The deciples of Jesus didn't get thru all the cities before Jesus came.

Some Thessalonians were alive when the parousia occurred. Last I read there was about 6000 Catholics in Thessalonica so I'm guessing that isn't who Paul was talking about. It was the people Paul was writing to that would be alive at the parousia.

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.

You guys get the picture...it's time to deal with the issues that are put before you..'out of context', bringing up verses to supposedly prove the bible wrong, simply stating "it is like this" with no biblical backing is getting a little stale.

I have read posts you've written on other topics that are very informative, but here I think you can do better.

Justme

 

[Toms777]

For Toms and Der Alter,

I just read this whole thread over. It appears you two have made the poorer showing on this one.

However, I thought I'd answer one thing that Toms brought up. It was covered, but it wasn't noticed.

You want historical proof of these 'signs'...........I asked you once what the signs(plural) were and I don't think you realize that it is sign (singular) in the Olivet in the question that is asked. Who knows what that means, but it must mean something.

It was the question...that did not limit Jesus to one sign and He clearly did not limit himself and indeed dividied them between those which would not indicate the end and those that did.

Anyway I'll list out some 'signs' as they are usually referred to and give some historical evidence of some and in some cases I'll give you something even better...the written word of God. He knows history before it is history.

Now, as I said at the start, if we start trying to deal with each and every verse simultaneously, we will end up with huge messages. I tried to go through a couple, but none of the preterists could provide any historical evidence of the signs.

8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

Among countless other things Josephus says this:
so the Jews, who had been before assaulted in their faces, wheeled about to Titus, and continued the fight. The armies also were now mixed one among another, and the dust that was raised so far hindered them from seeing one another, and the noise that was made so far hindered them from hearing one another, that neither side could discern an enemy from a friend.
******************

- 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.

One last point:

You guys get the picture...it's time to deal with the issues that are put before you..'out of context', bringing up verses to supposedly prove the bible wrong, simply stating "it is like this" with no biblical backing is getting a little stale.

You can do better than this also. No one here is "...bringing up verses to supposedly prove the bible wrong". What we are trying to do is show you what the Bible says and trying to understand where the historical evidence exists. I don't think that your accusation here was appropraite.

 

[parousia70]

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

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?

Here is the jist of your error:

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

You need to show prior biblical precident for your bias to EXCLUDE the original audience from Jesus' use of the personal pronoun YOU. You have thusfar failed to do anything of the sort, and you won't be able to.

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.

Youy never dealt with my posts on Every eye shall see, or ever was nor ever shall be.

I welcome your attempt at a point by point lucid refutation thusfar absent.