Questions about preterism

[OldShepherd]

[size=+1]Here is a post from April showing how some of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) viewed the Parousia.[/size]

• The Epistle of Ignatius To The Magnesians [ca. 98 AD]
  [Ignatius was a disciple of John the apostle. John certainly would have taught him, if Jesus had returned 28 years earlier.]
  
  These things[I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state;[17] but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope,[1] from which may no one of you ever be turned aside. Born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works.[2] He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us[3] ever be turned aside!
  
  Chap. X.--Beware Of Judaizing.
  
  Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity.[7] For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess[12] Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace[13] Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.
  
  The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Philadelphians
  Chap. VI.--Do Not Accept Judaism.
  
  But if any one preach the Jewish law(9) unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil,(10) and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of(11) mere carnal circumcision.

[size=+1]The late date, for the writing of Revelation, by John, ca. 96 AD, has been argued against because it mentions Judaizers, which according to Preter. sources, “would be ridiculous after the temple was destroyed..” Yet, here Ignatius warns against Judaizers, in two of his letters, 98 AD and later.

If the “Day of the Lord” and Jesus’ return occurred in 70 AD then Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD knew nothing about it. Justin specifically states that God “has still delayed” Jesus' return, following His ascension.[/size]

• 
  The First Apology Of Justin [110-165 AD]
  
  For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy. In these books, then, of the prophets we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man's estate, and healing every disease and every sickness, and raising the dead, and being hated, and unrecognised, and crucified, and dying, and rising again, and ascending into heaven, and being, and being called, the Son of God. We find it also predicted that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things, and that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe on Him. And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose.
  
  Chap. XLV.--Christ's Session In Heaven Foretold.
  
  And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there(2) until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation--hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: "The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning(3) hare I begotten Thee."(4) That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by tire.

[size=+1]One last church father, for a third witness. Irenaeus writing also about 150 AD, also writes of the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension and also mentions only a future manifestation from heaven. Note, none of these early church fathers mention the “Day of the Lord”, the return of Jesus with all of his angels, which supposedly occurred in 70 AD.[/size]

• 
  Irenaeus Against Heresies [120-202 Ad]
  
  1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations(6) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"(7) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"(8) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses,"

[size=+1]Should you feel inclined to check my sources here is the link to the early church fathers at CCEL, online.[/size]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

[size=+1]I know, maybe John’s disciples and the entire early church got it wrong and they needed for GW, P70, AM, and all the other Preters, to come along 2000 years later, to post their misquoted and misinterpreted “proof texts” and set them straight.[/size]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=502209&postcount=52

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
...And I can find many more.

What I can't find is comments by early church fathers that the Second coming already occurred. So no, the early church fathers like Justin were not wrong.


GW:
Your reliance upon mere tradition in the face of such a clear testimony from scripture is telling.

FYI, GW - I came to a conclusion of futurism and pretrib based on Bible study done over years. It is convenient that early church tradition backs me up!
Trying to criticize me personally by insinuating that I base my views on church tradition is cheap!
The point that I make by quoting them is that IF the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. ALL of Christiandom missed it! Sounds inconsistent when there are verses about looking for our Saviour from heaven!
As I wrote, I can't find any that said it already occurred. Doncha think that even one would have, if it had happened?

Furthermore, the tradition that props up your views was contested for three centuries, and the amillennialists finally won the day by the 400s.

Amillenialists still expect a future Second Coming. That the RCC became amillenialist is not to their credit, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Amillenialism does not equal preterism.

Finally, the extended "Church Age" dispensation in your schema was entirely unknown to Paul! The apostle Paul believed the return of Christ was for his own generation and contemporaries--he knew nothing about the "Church Age" dispensation.

Sure he did! He was in the 'church' age, and he expected that in 'the dispensation of the fullness of times', Christ would gather His church.
Of course, the gospel was to be preached to all the world, all nations, and every eye was to see when He returns...didn't happen in 70 A.D.
We are still under the Great Comission - which was to be carried out to the utttermost parts of the earth. So the Chinese were reached in 67 A.D.? What about India? Somalia? New Zealand? Nope.
The Resurrection ushered in the church age, in which the church is to carry out the Great Comission, and will culminate with the Second Coming.

 

[FreeinChrist]

double post

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
Every one of the early church fathers who writes of the Parousia writes of it as future.

GW:
The early Church father known as John the apostle writes of it as ALREADY PRESENT, applying it to his contemporaries (Rev 2-3).

[size=+1]You have repeatedly ignored my posts on this. Where is your Preterism, "Hebraic apocalyptic language" applied to this passage? I have posted relevant scripture at least twice. Ignored. I have asked repeatedly, "What does "IF" mean? What does "Repent or else" mean?

Two of the churches, Smyrna and Laodicea, there is no mention of Jesus coming whatsoever.

Jesus offered three of the churches, Ephesus, Pergamos, and Sardis, the opportunity to repent, to escape judgment, just as God did to the OT believers. And the scriptures record that God relented of His judgement when the people repented.[/size]

• 
  Ephesus, Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent
  
  2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna
  
  Pergamos, 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth
  
  Thyatira, 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
  
  Sardis, 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
  
  Philadelphia, 3:11 Behold, I come quickly:
  
  3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans

 

[OldShepherd]

There is no doubt that Revelation was given in AD 67-68. Internal evidence, external evidence, and church tradition all support it.

How do you explain that A)Jesus said these things would come to "this generation?" B) The disciples themselves and the rest of the first century church thought Christ's return would be in their lifetime? Were the disciples wrong? The guys that spent 3 years with him on Earth? And the early church, people led by those very disciples, were they wrong as well?

[size=+1]And what about the early church? Where is the early church father that speaks of the Parousia/Second coming, as already past in 70 AD? Here are more ECF, written between 160 and 430 AD, all pointing to a future Parousia.[/size]

• 
  Augustin, The Enchiridion Chapter 55.-The Expression, "Christ Shall Judge the Quick and the Dead," May Be Understood in Either of Two Senses. [354-430 AD]
  
  Now the expression, "to judge the quick and the dead," may be interpreted in two ways: either we may understand by the "quick" those who at His advent shall not yet have died, but whom He shall find alive in the flesh, and by the "dead" those who have departed from the body, or who shall have departed before His coming; or we may understand the "quick" to mean the righteous, and the "dead" the unrighteous; for the righteous shall be judged as well as others. Now the judgment of God is sometimes taken in a bad sense, as, for example, "They that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment;" sometimes in a good sense, as, "Save me, O God, by Thy name, and judge me by Thy strength." This is easily understood When we consider that it is the judgment of God which separates the good from the evil, and sets the good at His right hand, that they may be delivered from evil, and not destroyed with the wicked; and it is for this reason that the Psalmist cried, "Judge me, O God," and then added, as if in explanation, "and distinguish my cause from that of an ungodly nation."
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-03/npnf1-03-23.htm#P2444_1185381
  
  Origen, From the Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew Book XII. [185-254 AD]
  
  But when the Word comes in such form with His own angels, He will give to each a part of His own glory and of the brightness of His own angels, according to the action of each. But we say these things not rejecting even the second coming of the Son of God understood in its simpler form. But when shall these things happen? Shall it be when that apostolic oracle is fulfilled which says, "For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things dope in the body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad? " But if He will render to each according to his deed, not the good deed only, nor the evil apart from the good, it is manifest that He will render to each according to every evil, and according to every good, deed. But I suppose-in this also following the Apostle, but comparing also the sayings of Ezekiel, in which the sins of him who is a perfect convert are wiped out, and the former uprightness of him who has utterly fallen away is not held of account-that in the case of him who is perfected, and has altogether laid aside wickedness, the sins are wiped out, but that, in the case of him who has altogether revolted from piety, if anything good was formerly done by him, it is not taken into account. But to us, who occupy a middle position between the perfect man add the apostate, when we stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, there is rendered what we have done, whether good or bad; for we have not been so pure that our evil deeds are not at all imputed unto us, nor have we fallen away to such an extent that our better actions are forgotten.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
  
  Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion. Book III [160-225 AD]
  
  His Christ also will come, just as it is written of Him. Why did he come after the Creator, since he was unable to correct Him by punishment? Why did he reveal himself before Christ, whom he could not hinder from appearing? If, on the contrary, he did chastise the Creator, he revealed himself, (I suppose, ) after Him in order that things which require correction might come first. On which account also, (of course, ) he ought to have waited for Christ to appear first, whom he was going to chastise in like manner; then he would be His punisher coming after Him, just as he had been in the case of the Creator. There is another consideration: since he will at his second advent come after Him, that as he at His first coming took hostile proceed-rags against the Creator, destroying the law and the prophets, which were His, so he may, to be sure, at his second coming proceed in opposition to Christ, upsetting His kingdom. Then, no doubt, he would terminate his course, and then (if ever) be worthy of belief; for else, if his work has been already perfected, it would be in vain for him to come, for there would indeed be nothing that he could further accomplish.
  
  Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence," but after His rejection become "the chief corner-stone," accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom.
  
  Then indeed He shall have both a glorious form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men. "Thou art fairer," says (the Psalmist), "than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips; therefore God hath blessed Thee for ever.
  
  Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and Thy majesty." For the Father, after making Him a little lower than the angels, "will crown Him with glory and honour, and put all things under His feet." "Then shall they look on Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, tribe after tribe; " because, no doubt, they once refused to acknowledge Him in the lowliness of His human condition. He is even a man says Jeremiah, and who shall recognise Him Therefore, asks Isaiah, "who shall declare His generation? "
  
  If I may offer, moreover, an interpretation of the two goats which were presented on "the great day of atonement," do they not also figure the two natures of Christ? They were of like size, and very similar in appearance, owing to the Lord's identity of aspect; because He is not to come in any other form, having to be recognised by those by whom He was also wounded and pierced. One of these goats was bound with scarlet, and driven by the people out of the camp into the wilderness, amid cursing, and spitting, and pulling, and piercing, being thus marked with all the signs of the Lord's own passion; while the other, by being offered up for sins, and given to the priests of the temple for meat, afforded proofs of His second appearance, when (after all sins have been expiated) the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, the church, are to enjoy the flesh, as it were, of the Lord's own grace, whilst the residue go away from salvation without tasting it. Since, therefore, the first advent was prophetically declared both as most obscure in its types, and as deformed with every kind of indignity, but the second as glorious and altogether worthy of God, they would on this very account, while confining their regards to that which they were easily able both to understand and to believe, even the second advent, be not undeservedly deceived respecting the more obscure, and, at any rate, the more lowly first coming. Accordingly, to this day they deny that their Christ has come, because He has not appeared in majesty, while they ignore the fact that He was to come also in lowliness.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-30.htm#P4781_1518654[/list]

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

Here is the verse in KJV

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It says Jesus has appeared once at the END OF THE WORLD. You can't just say that it is wrong and the world hasn't ended yet, then ignore it.

Why don't you ask GW when the second coming of Christ will happen in his personal life. He will know, I bet. I know when I will see Jesus, as far as the bible tells me anyway.

Your argument of 'it hasn't happened yet' means nothing, just as anybody else that has ever said that. It hasn't happened yet as you BELIEVE it will happen....it never will, sorry.

Justme

 

[frost]

[size=+1]Every one of the early church fathers who writes of the Parousia writes of it as future

[/size]

[size=+1]Agreed. Even the disciples thought of it as future. The question is, how far future? The language of the Epistles seems to indicate the disciples and early church thought it would be in their lifetime. Do you deny this? You must also agree that they were ALL wrong.[/size]
[size=+1]"the time is at hand" [/size]
[size=+1]"the time is short" [/size]
[size=+1]"a very little while"[/size]
"the day is near"
"the last hour has come"
etc, etc....[size=+1]

Problem with "this generation"? No problem, the generation which will see all the warning signs,

Then why didnt he say "that generation" or "the generation that will be alive at that time?" You are adding things to the text that are not there. Why not read it how it was written?

For example, Josephus writes that about 1.1 million Jews were killed in the destruction of Jerusalem. During the NAZI holocaust 1939-1945 approximately 6 million Jews were tortured and killed. That is more than five times the number. Jesus said there, "shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The tribulation faced by Jews in the holocaust was over 5 times worse than the tribulation in 70 AD.

I think this is referring not to mere numbers of people but to dissipation of the Old Covenant. Their nation, their temple, the sacrifices, their entire way of life changed forever. The Law gone, the New Covenant and Kingdom here forever under the reign of Christ.

[/size]

 

[GW]

FREE:
You ignore what text actually says. The discussion of I and II Thesalonians proves that!

GW:
There is no way around it. The man of sin was alive when Paul wrote 2 Thess 2:4-7, and his attempts to take over the Jerusalem Temple were well underway -- and Paul says they all knew it! You futurists are looking for these things that already happened long ago.



FREE:
Sorry, but there is tremendous doubt about the early date.

GW:
I think you meant that there is tremendous doubt about the late date.

When was Revelation Written?



FREE:
No he is writing about 'what is'. It is in Rev. 4 that he begins to write about what will be "after these things." the basic outline of Rev. is found in 1:19.

GW:
Revelation 1:19 says:

'Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are ABOUT TO COME AFTER THESE THINGS


And Revelation 1:1-3 says:

Revelation 1:1,3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand.




FREE:
Well, at least here you recognize that it is church tradition that the Second Coming is future.

GW:
But scripture does not agree with that tradition. And the traditions of men are making the word of God of no effect.



FREE:
He doesn't lie. That is why 70 A.D. can't be it.

GW:
Since we agree Jesus doesn't lie or err, why will you not accept his words to his apostles that THEY would see all those things as well as His return? And why will you not accept that St. James took Jesus' words literally, announcing when the second coming was near at the door in the 60s AD?

CHRIST TO HIS APOSTLES:

Matthew 24:25, 33-34
Behold, I have told you in advance...So, you, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


ST. JAMES CIRCA 60s AD:
James 5:7-9
be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. ...for the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.



We have no permission to teach against Christ's words here. Futurists must abandon their views and accept those of Christ and St. James, who placed the last days and return of Christ in the first century.

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
I know, maybe John’s disciples and the entire early church got it wrong and they needed for GW, P70, AM, and all the other Preters, to come along 2000 years later, to post their misquoted and misinterpreted “proof texts” and set them straight.

GW:
St. John was inspired, and church traditions are not. You can have your traditions, but I'm standing on the Word of God.

BTW, If you really thought that church tradition was inspired as scripture, then you'd believe in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, transubstantiation, and apostolic succession. And, you'd have to believe in Amillennialism too (in addition to millennialism)! Feel free to use weak and contradicted tradition to back your your presuppositions, but I'll stick with Holy Scripture.

 

[GW]

FREE:
I came to a conclusion of futurism and pretrib based on Bible study done over years. It is convenient that early church tradition backs me up!
Trying to criticize me personally by insinuating that I base my views on church tradition is cheap!

GW:
Your #1 reason for rejecting the preterist view on the TIMING of the return of Christ was "church tradition." You said it. Not me. I stand upon Holy Scripture as to the timing of the return of Christ, and that means the first-century. And, for sure, your view of the dispensational "Church Age" was unknown to St. Paul. St. Paul forgot about that one!


FREE:
The point that I make by quoting them is that IF the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. ALL of Christiandom missed it!

GW:
If premillennialism was true, then MOST of Christiandom missed it and is still missing it! So what? Stick to scripture, please.

As I said to Old Shep, if he is going to use Church Tradition to trump the plain statements of scripture, then he must also believe in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary and many other views of the ECFs that I'm sure he does not accept. Same goes with you. If you continue to choose church tradition as equal to scripture, you will need to be a Catholic.



FREE:
As I wrote, I can't find any that said it already occurred. Doncha think that even one would have, if it had happened?

GW:
More tradition? Let's stick to scripture. They asked Jesus when would those things take place, and he replied to the apostles, saying:

Matthew 24:33-34
So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.





FREE:
Amillenialists still expect a future Second Coming. That the RCC became amillenialist is not to their credit, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Amillenialism does not equal preterism.

GW:
But Amil and Premil are different as night and day, and both cannot be correct. Furthermore, historic Amil teaches that the great trib took place at AD66-70 as Luke says at Luke 21:20-23.



FREE:
Sure he did! He was in the 'church' age, and he expected that in 'the dispensation of the fullness of times', Christ would gather His church.


GW:
That is false. Paul knew nothing of a long Church age or of "1948", which is proven by Paul's first-century expectation for Christ's return. You can not get around this. If Paul had any knowledge of a Church Age or of a future gathering to Israel at "1948" and beyond, then he would NOT have looked for Christ to return in his own lifetime. Since Paul did expect Christ to return in his own lifetime, we know that the dispensationalist teachings cannot be true.



FREE:
the Great Comission - which was to be carried out to the utttermost parts of the earth. So the Chinese were reached in 67 A.D.? What about India? Somalia? New Zealand? Nope.

GW:
See, you missed it again. The "uttermost parts of the earth" was a region just south of Jerusalem in Sheba!

Matthew 12:42
The queen of the south...came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon


Over and out.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi Free,

Here is the verse in KJV

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It says Jesus has appeared once at the END OF THE WORLD. You can't just say that it is wrong and the world hasn't ended yet, then ignore it.

I'm not saying it is wrong - read closer.
What I AM saying is that in looking in the Greek and the context of the verse, the death and resurrection of Christ brought the plan of salvation, progressively revealed in the ages before, to completion (consumation). That is what that particular Greek word, translated in that verse in KJV as 'end" means - a completion.
OBVIOUSLY, the world did not end. Just relying on the English words is poor exgesis of scripture IMHO.
AND continuing in the text of Hebrews 9, the author expected a future return of Christ.

Why don't you ask GW when the second coming of Christ will happen in his personal life. He will know, I bet. I know when I will see Jesus, as far as the bible tells me anyway.

As you implying that the second return of Christ is simply the meeting of Christ after we die - one at a time? And that didn't start to happen til after 70 A.D. ? That is unscriptural!

Your argument of 'it hasn't happened yet' means nothing, just as anybody else that has ever said that. It hasn't happened yet as you BELIEVE it will happen....it never will, sorry.

Justme

Means plenty - when others are saying that it has happened, and it very obviously hasn't. AND all of Christiandom missed it for about 1600 years!

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
There is no way around it. The man of sin was alive when Paul wrote 2 Thess 2:4-7, and his attempts to take over the Jerusalem Temple were well underway -- and Paul says they all knew it! You futurists are looking for these things that already happened long ago.

No, not if you let the text speak for itself and not inject meaning into it.
Paul wrote that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work.." until 'he who letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."
What is behind the AC is Satan, since Paul also says that the AC 'coming' "is after the working of Satan with power signs and lying wonders." What is preventing the AC is the Holy Spirit, who will stop 'letting' at a time decreed by God.

Now Paul also says writes "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. "
Nero never did that! Never came to Jerusalem and sat in the temple declaring hhimself God. Titus. never sat in the temple declaring himself God.

GW:
I think you meant that there is tremendous doubt about the late date.

nope - tremendous doubt about the early date! Huge doubt about the early date.

FREE:
No he is writing about 'what is'. It is in Rev. 4 that he begins to write about what will be "after these things." the basic outline of Rev. is found in 1:19.

GW:
Revelation 1:19 says:

'Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are ABOUT TO COME AFTER THESE THINGS

KJV Rev. 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"
What he has seen - the vision
what things are - the churches
things which shall be hereafter - the events that occur after the churches.
The church is still here. When the church is removed, things will then happen swiftly.

FREE:
Well, at least here you recognize that it is church tradition that the Second Coming is future.

GW:
But scripture does not agree with that tradition. And the traditions of men are making the word of God of no effect.

Actually in this case, scripture very much agree with tradition! And I find it funny that you will try to claim back up for the Neronian date for the writing of Revelation using tradition (a bad fit, BTW), and now try to dismiss this!
IF the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. AT LEAST ONE Christian would have recognized it, don't you think?? After all, the church was supposed to be looking for their Saviour from heaven, the 'blessed hope'.

Since we agree Jesus doesn't lie or err, why will you not accept his words to his apostles that THEY would see all those things as well as His return? And why will you not accept that St. James took Jesus' words literally, announcing when the second coming was near at the door in the 60s AD?

What I reject is the preterist interpretation of these words. The generation that saw the signs would see the Second Coming. The signs that Christ described DID NOT OCCUR in 70 A.D. Preterism denies the globalism of Christ's words, AND has to deny so many of the details of Revelation, it's almost funny if it wasn't so serious! After all, Revelation is from Christ as well. When was the earthquake of all earthquakes?? Pliny the elder, writing in 77 A.D. wrote that the worst earthquake known occurred back around 17 A.D.
And I already explained James to you.

We have no permission to teach against Christ's words here.

It is really too bad that preterists do exactly that! They have to deny events of Revelation by spiritualizing what doesn't fit into their scheme, changing the meaning of Christ's words.
Fact is - all of the early church expected a Second Coming. NONE of the early church fathers taught that the Second Coming already occurred - including those that knew John and lived around the time of John! John did not receive the Revelation until 95 A.D

 

[FreeinChrist]

Your #1 reason for rejecting the preterist view on the TIMING of the return of Christ was "church tradition."

No, dear - just the first one I wrote at 1100 pm. It is the most glaring point from what has been posted, and one you cannot deny! My endtime viewpoints came from careful study over years, looking at what the text actually says, and the Greek and Hebrew behind it ...AND how it relates to the rest of scripture, based on consistent hermenuetics. I found preterism to be very inconsistent.

If premillennialism was true, then MOST of Christiandom missed it and is still missing it! So what? Stick to scripture, please.

Of course you don't want me to point out that a belief in the millenial reign of Christ was very strong in the early church.
I'd love to stick with scripture...but I take scripture for what it says, and I have found that preterism is inconsistent.
And I found that preterism puts an extrordinary value in Josephus, a nonChristian known to stretch the truth, and who was courting the favor of the Romans for position.

Belief that the Second Coming is future was as universal across Christiandom as the belief that Jesus is the Son of God The bizarre concept that it already occurred showed up way later.

But Amil and Premil are different as night and day, and both cannot be correct. Furthermore, historic Amil teaches that the great trib took place at AD66-70 as Luke says at Luke 21:20-23.

that does not, by default, make preterism correct.
Amil, premil and post mil ALL believe in a future Second Coming.
Preterism is the odd view.

That is false. Paul knew nothing of a long Church age or of "1948", which is proven by Paul's first-century expectation for Christ's return.

Sorry, but Paul knew very well that he was in the time of the 'fullness of the Gentiles' as he refers to it in Romans 11. Jesus said, regarding the fall of Jerusalem, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive unto all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
70AD did not put an end to the times of the Gentiles, Jerusalem was trodden down for the nex 1800 plus years - still, in fact!
It will continue to be until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
Paul didn't know how long the 'times of the Gentiles' would be and like the rest of us should, lived as if it was imminent.

What I have also found that preterism ignores, is Acts 1:6- 7 - "...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again kingdom to Israel? And He said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." hmmm restoration of Israel...not for the diciples to knwo the times or seasons...interesting.

See, you missed it again. The "uttermost parts of the earth" was a region just south of Jerusalem in Sheba!

That is just pathetic, GW!! This is an example of why I see preterism as using poor exegesis of scripture, and are inconsistent, and contradict Christ Himself!

In Acts 1:8:
'earth' - Greek word 'ge' - the globe. Check the Septuagint - God created 'ge'.
'uttermost' - 'eschatos' (hmmm guess where the word eschatology comes from!) Ususally referring to place. In reference to place, the most extreme or remote.' In reference to time, the 'last time'.

Matthew 12:42
The queen of the south...came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon

The Greek word for 'uttermost' in this verse is 'peras', not 'eschatos'. An extremity, a remote place.
Taking both these verses in context:
Matthew 12:42 the queen of the south came from a remote part of earth to hear Solomon.
Act 1:8 yiou are to go to the most remote reach of earth to reach the lost for Me.

Happily, the many Spirit-filled Christians who risked and lost their lives to reach the lost in the remote areas- and still are- believed that the Great Commission meant the whole world, not just Sheba!!

 

[GW]

FREE:
Paul wrote that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work.." until 'he who letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."
What is behind the AC is Satan, since Paul also says that the AC 'coming' "is after the working of Satan with power signs and lying wonders." What is preventing the AC is the Holy Spirit, who will stop 'letting' at a time decreed by God.

GW:
None of that is in the text. Absolutely none. The Holy Spirit was not the restrainer, and the "man of sin" is a man, one who was accomplishing his role in Paul's generation! That is what the text says. The man of sin was alive in Paul's day! What more proof do we need. I know that this throws a wrench in your futurism, but the text says plainly what it says. It is because of the text that I am no more a futurist. The text says what preterists claim, and therefore I had to embrace the text and leave my futurist traditions at behind. We must love the Word of God above traditions.



FREE:
Now Paul also says writes "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. "

Nero never did that! Never came to Jerusalem and sat in the temple declaring hhimself God. Titus. never sat in the temple declaring himself God.


GW:
That's because the Zealots did! Menahem and John of Gischala seized the Temple as self-proclaimed Jewish Messiah-Kings of Israel in AD 66-68, launched a War against Rome, and drove the nation into its desolation by inciting a demonic civil war in Israel that ended in the utter annihilation of that Nation at AD 70. Christ brought the Romans and came and wiped those sons of disobedience off the face of the earth as the right judgment for killing the son of God and the apostles (Luke 19:41-44; Matt 23:31-38; 1 Thess 2:14-16). Paul plainly shows that the "man of sin" was one of his own contemporaries who was at that time being restrained from the seizure of the Jerusalem Temple by some restrainer there:

2 Thess 2:4-7
for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. ...And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.



FREE:
nope - tremendous doubt about the early date! Huge doubt about the early date.

GW:
The single evidence for the late date is Irenaeus' statement saying that either John or the Revelation was seen almost in his own day. That's not a clear statement to go on, and certainly can't compare to the bastion of evidence for the Neronic date. As Robert Young of the Young's Literal Translation/Young's concordance writes:

Robert Young (late 1800s)
"It [Revelation] 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, Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section.
​

FREE:
KJV Rev. 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

GW:
The text says "the things that are about to come after these things." That is a time statement. Those things which were yet future were about to happen, and SOON, for the time was at hand when John wrote (Rev 1:1-3). Sorry, but there is no way around it.





FREE:
Actually in this case, scripture very much agree with tradition! And I find it funny that you will try to claim back up for the Neronian date for the writing of Revelation using tradition (a bad fit, BTW), and now try to dismiss this!

GW:
I do not believe tradition trumps scripture, but only that it shows what others before us have stated and maintained. Scripture says exactly when Christ came again, but futurists have to deny it to maintain their traditions.



FREE:
IF the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. AT LEAST ONE Christian would have recognized it, don't you think??

GW:
ST. John not only recognized it, he wrote a book about it at the time it was being fulfilled. St. James also recognized it, as we see by comparing James 5:7-9 to Matt 24:33.





FREE:
What I reject is the preterist interpretation of these words. The generation that saw the signs would see the Second Coming.

GW:
Jesus plainly said that the APOSTLES WOULD SEE THOSE SIGNS (Matt 24:33).



FREE:
Preterism denies the globalism of Christ's words

GW:
Futurists retroactively insert a modern global globalist understanding into the text that was never there when the apostles spoke. As I said before, the "uttermost parts of the earth" was a few hundred miles south of Jerusalem. I will stick with their use of words.


FREE:
AND has to deny so many of the details of Revelation, it's almost funny if it wasn't so serious!

GW:
Futurism denies the details of Revelation, and is allegorical beyond belief and without principle.

 

[OldShepherd]

St. John was inspired, and church traditions are not. You can have your traditions, but I'm standing on the Word of God.

BTW, If you really thought that church tradition was inspired as scripture, then you'd believe in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, transubstantiation, and apostolic succession. And, you'd have to believe in Amillennialism too (in addition to millennialism)! Feel free to use weak and contradicted tradition to back your your presuppositions, but I'll stick with Holy Scripture.

[size=+1]Implying twice that I use only the ECF to defend my views. You are correct the ECF are not inspired BUT the writings of the ECF give us a snapshot how the church in the days immediately following Jesus and His disciples, interpreted the scripture and put them into practice. And the careful reader will note that at your website you quote some of these same church fathers to support your views. Therefore it appears to be alright to quote the ECF and 18th and 19th century writers as long as they prop up Preterism BUT when it is shown, to a man, that they refute a major point of your beliefs, you resort to the hypocritical, "I'll stick with scriptures."

As for your false accusations, no, no , no , no , and no. Speaking of contradictions, how many of my posts have you ignored like the plague which refute your explanation/interpretation of scripture? Some points which you cannot answer, why is there no record in history of Jesus returning to any church or location in the first century?[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

I think you meant that there is tremendous doubt about the late date.

When was Revelation Written?

[size=+1]I see, even after having this brought to your attention, Here., you are still misquoting and quoting sources out-of-context, at your website, in a dishonest attempt to prop up Preterism. If Preterism is so right why not be truthful about what these sources really say?[/size]

[size=+1]Note, if the Muratorian canons are telling us that John wrote Revelation first then it is very strange that it lists all the church epistles of Paul first, and specifically notes their chronological order, first, second, etc., then the canon lists the Apocalypse [size=+2]after[/size] Paul’s epistles. Since the writer of the canon took particular note of the chronological order of Paul’s epistles, several times, it is highly unlikely that he listed John’s Apocalypse after Paul’s epistles, if it was written before.

Objection anticipated, “But the passage says, ‘the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.’” What the passage says is, “John, [size=+2]not[/size] the Apocalypse, was Paul’s predecessor,” which is supported by scripture, and both Paul and John followed a similar rule, writing to only seven churches. “But, but, but. . .” No buts, there is scriptural precedent for this, Noah observed the law of Moses, the commandments of clean and unclean, many, many years before God wrote them on stone and gave them to Moses. [/size]

• 
  3. As to the epistles(13) of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Old Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object(14) in these;--which it is needful for us to discuss severally,(15) as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown--i.e., by this sevenfold writing--that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.
  
  III.--Canon Muratorianus.(1) (In Muratori, V. C. Antiq. Ital. Med. av., vol. iii. col. 854.)

[size=+1]The argument, citing the Muratorian canon, whether Revelation was written; early, before 70 AD or; late, after 96 AD, is an attempt to prove that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, ca. 70 AD, was the “Second Advent” or “Day of the Lord”, prophesied by both Jesus and John. But if the canon is reliable as to the dating of Revelation, then it is equally reliable as to the dating of Jesus’ second advent. Note that according to these same Muratorian canons, the second advent did not occur in 70 AD, but was yet future from 170 AD, or later.[/size]

• 
  1. those things at which he was present he placed thus.(2) The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name(3) in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself(4) as one studious of right.(5) Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began(6) his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.(7) And hence, although different points s are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit,(9) which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,--the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future.

[size=+1]The next falsehood/misrepresentation is an out-of-context quote from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown commentary. To demonstrate how it was deliberately and dishonestly manipulated, to make it appear to say exactly the opposite of what the authors intended, I will add the beginning of the paragraph and a following sentence, which were deliberately omitted. The original quote, posted by GW, in blue, and the omitted material shown in red. Note the JFB thesis, “the[/size] [size=+2]best[/size] [size=+1]authorities" date the writing of John to ca. 95 AD.[/size]

• 
  PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING.-The best authorities among the Fathers state that John was exiled under Domitian (Irenaeus, 5, 30; Clement of Alexandria; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3, 30). Victorinus says that he had to labour in the mines of Patmos. At Domitian’s death, 95 AD, he returned to Ephesus under the emperor Nerva. Probably it was immediately after his return that he wrote, under Divine inspiritation, the account of the visions vouchsafed to him in Patmos (ch. 1, 2, 9). However ch. 10 seems to imply that he wrote the visions immediately after seeing them. Patmos is one of the Sporades. Its circumference is about thirty miles. “It was fitting that when forbidden to go beyond certain bounds of the Earth’s lands, he was permitted to penetrate the secrets of heaven.”[Bede, Explan. Apocalypse on ch. 1.]
  "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." * * *
  Three schools of interpreters exist: (1) the Preterists, who hold that almost the whole has been fulfilled. (2). The Historical Interpreters, who hold that it comprises the history of the church from St. John’s time to the end of the world, the seals being chronologically succeeded by the trumpets, and the trumpets by the vials. The futurist, who consider almost the whole as yet future, and to be fulfilled immediately before Christ’s second coming. The first theory [Preterism] was not held by any of the earliest Fathers, and is only held now by rationalists, who limit John’s vision to things within his own horizon, Pagan Rome’s persecutions of Christians, and its consequently anticipated destruction. Commentary on the Whole Bible,Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Zondervan Publishing, 1871, pp. 548-9

[size=+1]The above quote, in blue, is posted at your link, to attempt to prove that JFB supported an early date for Revelation and thus Preterism. However, JFB rejects this view and states even in the portion quoted out-of-context, “the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written AFTER Paul's death under Nero.", then goes on to say none of the earliest church fathers were Preterists. It is strange that this doctrine, if it is true, was not held by any of the immediate followers of the Lord’s apostles, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, disciples of John, and Barnabas, disciple of Paul, or their immediate followers, such as Irenaeus, Origen, Mathetes, Justin, etc.

Thus neither the Muratorian canon nor JFB supports the view that Jesus' Parousia happened in 70 AD.

You are always using the mantra, "Jesus didn't lie." as if that proves your argument. Well you are right Jesus did not lie. So if Jesus' second coming happened in 70 AD, why did the church that Jesus built on the rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, NOT teach that for about 1800 years? The most universe shaking event in the history of the world, supposedly happened and NOT one single solitary person in the entire church wrote or spoke a single word about it, for almost 2000 years. Just the opposite ALL the early church fathers who wrote of Jesus second coming all speak of it in the future.[/size]

• 
  Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
nope - tremendous doubt about the early date! Huge doubt about the early date.

GW:
The single evidence for the late date is Irenaeus' statement saying that either John or the Revelation was seen almost in his own day. That's not a clear statement to go on, and certainly can't compare to the bastion of evidence for the Neronic date. As Robert Young of the Young's Literal Translation/Young's concordance writes:

Quoting Robert Young...aahh - listening to the traditions of man ??? As you falsely accuse me?

I have only a little time, then need to sleep.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 120- 202 ) student of Polycarp, who was a student of John the Apostle.
"For if it were necessary that the name of him [antichrist] should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been told by him who saw the apocalyptic vision. For it was seen no long time ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of Dominitan's reign."
the 'vision' was 'seen' in Dominitan's reign.

Dio Cassius (150 - 253) - a Roman historian who references the realease of those banished to Patmos by Dominitan, after his death in 96 A.D.

Victorinus (d.c. AD 304), Bishop of Pettau
"He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Dominitan. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse;...being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocolypse which he had received from God."

Eusebius (260 - 340), Jerome (340 - 419) also refeer to John receiving the vision during the reign of Dominitan. So did Sulpicius Severus (c. 400), a historian who wrote "Sacred History".

All this and more, before that subscription in the Syriac version of the New Testament (A.D. 550) - 450 years after Revelation was written. The next writer who referred to it being written during Nero's reign is Arethas (c. 900).

Nobody earlier than 550 A.D. wrote that it was under Nero. And all the ECF believed in a future Second Coming, and not a wone taught that it already occurred.

Nero did not banish Christians, he killed them. Roman historians do not record Nero banishing Christians, but they do record it of Dominitan.

[/quote]
GW:
The text says "the things that are about to come after these things." That is a time statement. Those things which were yet future were about to happen, and SOON, for the time was at hand when John wrote (Rev 1:1-3). Sorry, but there is no way around it.
[/quote]

But what events after 95 AD qualify?
And when did all the sealife die? All seas become blood? When did Wormwood hit? When was the kingdom of the beast darkened? When did those who took the mark get sores? What about those scorpian/locusts? The 200,000,000 horsemen? Who were the 2 witnesses?
How can Nero be the beast when he died before Jerusalem fell?

I do not believe tradition trumps scripture, but only that it shows what others before us have stated and maintained. Scripture says exactly when Christ came again, but futurists have to deny it to maintain their traditions.

I do not believe tradition trumps scripture either - nor the writings of men like Young and other preterists, or amils or anyone else. Or Josephus.

And show me ONE verse that gives the date that Jesus returned - or that He already returned! You have to show that in order to back up this statement: "Scripture says exactly when Christ came again,"
Show me or admit that is not true!

FREE:
IF the Second Coming occurred in 70 A.D. AT LEAST ONE Christian would have recognized it, don't you think??

GW:
ST. John not only recognized it, he wrote a book about it at the time it was being fulfilled.

No, he wrote a prophecy , not a history. Rev. 4 - 22 was future.

Need to sleep. Will address rest later. Sure would like it if you would actually answer my questions, and the points OS has made!

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
Implying twice that I use only the ECF to defend my views. You are correct the ECF are not inspired BUT the writings of the ECF give us a snapshot how the church in the days immediately following Jesus and His disciples, interpreted the scripture and put them into practice.

GW:
As long as we agree that scripture trumps the traditions of men we are a-ok. If your response to preterist claims about scripture is "but Justin and Papias said...", then you are trying to selectively use traditions of men to trump scripture. That will not do.



OLD SHEP:
And the careful reader will note that at your website you quote some of these same church fathers to support your views. Therefore it appears to be alright to quote the ECF and 18th and 19th century writers as long as they prop up Preterism BUT when it is shown, to a man, that they refute a major point of your beliefs, you resort to the hypocritical, "I'll stick with scriptures."

GW:
Scripture trumps the later traditions of men. That's all that needs to be remembered. You cannot claim that your traditions are equal to scripture nor even consistent when measured against other then-contemporary traditions. For example, premillennialism and amillennialism grew up together, and they are entirely contrary to each other! So much for the "light" provided by the ECFs with regard to eschatology.

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
Objection anticipated, “But the passage says, ‘the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.’” What the passage says is, “John, not the Apocalypse, was Paul’s predecessor,” which is supported by scripture, and both Paul and John followed a similar rule, writing to only seven churches.

GW:
The passage says that Paul followed John's RULE by writing to only seven total Churches. Where is John's RULE demonstrated? The book of Revelation.



OLD SHEP:
The argument, citing the Muratorian canon, whether Revelation was written; early, before 70 AD or; late, after 96 AD, is an attempt to prove that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, ca. 70 AD, was the “Second Advent” or “Day of the Lord”, prophesied by both Jesus and John.

GW:
Wrong. Citing the Muratorian canon on the date of Revelation is only to show that the early-date tradition was as early as the Irenaeus late-date tradition (if indeed we accept that Irenaeus held the late date). The Muratorian canon supports an early date. Period.




OLD SHEP:
The next falsehood/misrepresentation is an out-of-context quote from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown commentary.

GW:
I never said that the JFB commentary officially prefers the early date evidence. Rather, it presents the early date evidence in a good, concise manner, and since most people are uneducated on the early date tradition, it is very instructional.

If you keep accusing me of dishonesty and manipulation I will report you to Erwin. Please retract your accusation, and know that I have preserved your accusation to send to the owners of this board.



OLD SHEP:
Thus neither the Muratorian canon nor JFB supports the view that Jesus' Parousia happened in 70 AD.

GW:
No one ever said that they do. Quit creating straw men and knocking them down.

Nevertheless, I would be irresponsible if I did not remind you that the JFB commentary prefers that Matthew 24 is fulfilled by AD 70! Read its commentary on the Olivet found at Mark 13.




OLD SHEP:
So if Jesus' second coming happened in 70 AD, why did the church that Jesus built on the rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, NOT teach that for about 1800 years?

GW:
It is erroneous for you to act here as if the Church has taught a consistent eschatology for the past 2000 years. Nothing could be further from truth.

I will continue to point out that the primitive Church of the first century plainly taught a first-century return of Christ--and that is all that's necessary.

 

[GW]

FREE:
Quoting Robert Young...aahh - listening to the traditions of man ??? As you falsely accuse me?

GW:
As long as we agree that scripture trumps the traditions of men we are a-ok. Scripture trumps later tradition.



FREE:
Nobody earlier than 550 A.D. wrote that it was under Nero. And all the ECF believed in a future Second Coming, and not a wone taught that it already occurred.

GW:
The Muratorian Canon of AD170 demonstrates that it was written before Paul's death, and the book of Revelation itself demands the early date.

(1) The Temple and city of Jerusalem are under siege at the time John wrote (Rev 11:1-2; 11:13)

(2) the Jewish persecution against the Church was still in force but about to end (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).

(3) 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.



FREE:
Nero did not banish Christians, he killed them. Roman historians do not record Nero banishing Christians, but they do record it of Dominitan.

GW:
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.)





GW:
The text says "the things that are about to come after these things." That is a time statement. Those things which were yet future were about to happen, and SOON, for the time was at hand when John wrote (Rev 1:1-3). Sorry, but there is no way around it.

FREE:
But what events after 95 AD qualify?


GW:
The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. 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.




FREE:
I do not believe tradition trumps scripture either - nor the writings of men like Young and other preterists, or amils or anyone else. Or Josephus.

GW:
Very good. Then I resubmit that the scripture teaches a first-century return of Jesus Christ, and that Jude is preterist concerning the last-days apostasy and that St. John is preterist about the "final hour antichrist" (1 Jn 2:18-19) and about Christ's return to then-contemporary Asia Minor Churches (Rev 2-3). And I resubmit that all the NT writings show a first-century timeframe for Christ's return and that they learned this from the Master who promised them, saying, "Behold, I have told you in advance...So, you, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."