Questions about preterism

[FreeinChrist]

The prophecy of the Olivet is the destruction of the temple.

The Olivet discourse is about far more than that.
Matthew 24:3 "...Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your Coming, and of the end of the age?'"
Matthew 24 then goes on to address the Second Coming and and the end of the age.
That Mark and Luke have less complete questions does not negate the questions in Matthew.

In Matthew, Jesus says that many will come in His name saying they are the Christ. The Jews would have considered this blasphemous, just like they considered it so with Jesus. The Zealots tried to claim rulership, but not that they were Messiahs.
And it was not nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom - which expresses a far more global picture - but Rome against Israel.
And the followers of Christ were not hated in all nations (vs 9)...they hadn't reached all nations (vs 14).
The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel did not occur. And image of the beast (which preterists say is Nero) was not set up in the Temple. The sacrifices continued til the temple was destroyed.
The 2nd beast did not cause the mark on the right hand or forehead. The phylacteries worn by Jews were on the LEFT hand.
What false Christ's arose to show great signs and wonders in that time?


And of course, every eye did not see. (30)


Then go on to Acts 1:6-7 The disciples ask "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?" And Jesus says, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons wich the Father hath put in his own power." There is yet to be a resoration of Israel, according to Acts 1, etc.

is the bible-ALL the bible- not the inspired word of God, whether Luke was 'there' or not?

Yep - but you must consider all three accounts of the Olivet discourse for a complete understanding, and in relationship with the rest of the Bible. Can't just pick out a verse that fits the your view.

The destruction of the temple was predicted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21....it happened...it fits.

No, just in Luke 21:20-24. The rest just plain doesn't fit. And I haven't seen my many questions answered to show me otherwise.
Did all sealife die, Justme? All the sea turn to blood? Who were the two witnesses in Jerusalem?

Well, John the beloved knew, Paul knew and both of them wrote about it. Jesus explained to John that he would live until He returned. John 21:22
Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?

Read one more verse, Justme.
23) "This saying therefore went out among the bretheren, that that disciple would not ide; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, 'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

In other words, Jesus was pointing out that they follow Him, and whether this one dies sooner or later is not important. It's like little kids complaining about fairness - 'why do I have to die first? How come he lives longer?'


John wrote I John in the time period of A.D. 85- 95. and in it he writes,
in 2:18 " ...ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."
So John still believed it was future. And of course, Revelation was written in 95-96 A.D.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Free said:The destruction of the Temple did not fulfill all the events of Revelation, of I Thes. 4 or Zechariah 12-14, or Isaiah in many chapters, or Daniel 7 or 12, etc. Not by a long shot.

Did the destruction of the temple fulfill the prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple? If it did, it was one of the 'things' spoken of in Matthew 24:34 and it occured within THIS generation.

Free: Sorry but that is poor exegesis of scripture. The passage in Luke 21:2-25 fulfills the destruction of Jerusalem, and the times fo the Gentiles is still in effect. And we have beat the drum of 'this generation' to death.
And you are avoiding the fact that in 70 A.D., there was no fulfillment of Zechariah 12-14, many chapters of Isaiah, Daneil 7 and 12 - and they haven't been fulfilled as yet.
Now you don't think GOD is liar, do you?


Now I had asked:
Did all the seas turn to blood and all sealife die? (Rev. 16:3)?
Did darkness come on the kingdom of the beast, which preterists believe is Nero, and sores come on all who worshipped the beast? (Rev. 16)
Who were the 200,000,000 horsemen?
Who were the two witnesses?

Well, which would you like to be wrong. Your interpretation of a symbolic book written from an angels point of view from Heaven or would you like Jesus to be a false prophet?

It was because of your question in this quote that I asked if you think God is a liar. What is wrong is a view that only sees less than half of the events fulfilled and spiritualized what doesn't fit. And it is notable that NOT A SINGLE ECF or or later taught that the Second coming already occured .

Now let's look at scripture:
Rev 16:3 The second {angel} poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like {that} of a dead man; and every living thing in the sea died.
Rev 16:4 Then the third {angel} poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of waters; and they became blood.
Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things;
Rev 16:6 for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it."

The water turning to blood and sealife dying are described as a literal event. Do you think the plagues of Egypt were symbolic - that God didn't really turn a river to blood then? Why do you deny that He will as prophesied in Rev. 16? Because you can't find fulfillment in 70 A.D.? What about the plague of boils? Sounds similar to the 1st bowl judgement of sores on all who worship the beast.
(Side point - if nero was the beast - did all who regarded him as diety get malignant sores throughout th Roman empire? Doesn't show up in history - another lack of fulfillment).

I want to tell you about the 200 million horseman.

If we march these horseman say 50 to a row there would be a column about 5000 miles long. For a meal you would need over 4000 fatted calves to feed the boys. If the group moved at say a 6 mile an hour trot the first guys would have a burger at the cookshack and it would be about 70 days before the last guys got there.

Then some people want to trade the horses for tanks!!!!!!!!!!!Does anyone ever think these things thru and guess that maybe some of these things in the Book of Revelation are a bit beyond this world???

So you deny the second woe? Because it doesn't fit your view?
I believe they are not horses as we know them, and yes they are not of this world as we know it.
But there sure wasn't any fulfillment for them in 70 A.D.

Forget literal multi million armies and blood as high as the bridles and on and on...
People insist on the sea being blood, but oh, no Jesus sure never meant He would return before the twelve went thru the cities. Matthew 10:23.

And I say you are dead wrong. And haven't come close to proving your points or showing the fulfillment of what Jesus told would happen. YOU don't think He is a false prophet, do you?

Matthew 10:32 - "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."

I realize that preterists believe that this passage demands a first century fulfillment (they want to fit all of the prophecy regarding the endtime in 70 AD but they can't).
But many, many disagree.
When discussing if this verse was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, John Calvin said that it was too "far fetched" to believe that.
I'll quote a fellow named Yeager : "The apostles never completed their kingdom ministry bfore they turned to the Gentiles. this was because israel did not receive their message. This thought is developed throughout the remainder of the chapter 10 and in chapter 11, in which Jesus finally castigates israel, withdraws the message of national deliverance and turns to individuals woth an offer of salvation in Matthew 11:28-30."

I wrote: If Nero is the beast, how can you reconcile the fact that he died by suicide, having had his power removed and made an outlaw, with Rev. 16:13-21, and Rev. 20?

If it doesn't reconcile who cares, all Nero is is man's guess at the beast, fit in a pope if you like, it changes nothing.

Since preterism made the claim of Nero as the beast in their efforts to make their view fit 70 AD, it matters! There is a whole lot written about the beast from the sea/ man of lawlessness/son of perdition/ the little horn/ the insolent king to ignore it. IF the Lord had returned in 70 AD, the beast has to be explained also.

Strange that the flight of the people is the same, the once in creation great tribulation is the same and the parousia all happen in the same generation which awile ago you said was 'race' or some future generation, now it is back to the time of the temple.

huh? I reread that with what I said. ?
I believe there will be a future temple. AND I believe that the temple as described by Ezekiel will be built during the millennial kingdom.
'this generation" , IMHO, can be both - that the Jews will not cease before the as a race, and that the generation that see the signs as described by Jesus - which do not fit 70 AD - will see the Second coming.
I never put it back to before 70 AD.

Luke 21
24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

It wasn't Jews destroying the temple so it must have been gentiles. I thought that riot was over in 70 AD.

Again you aren't making sense to me here.
The Romans, who are GENTILES, destroyed the temple (as referenced in Daniel 9:26). Not the Jews. And the times of the Gentiles is still going on. The nation of Israel does not control the Temple Mount as yet - and there are still stones on top of each other at the temple mount.
And a greater dispersal of Jews happened after 70 AD - called the Diapsora. They went to more nations. And have been gathering back since the late 1800's.

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

The Olivet discourse is about far more than that.

I think you missed the point.

How can all writers be correct in how they phrased the question that Jesus asked? Two of them never included the 'end' or the 'coming' in the question , yet they list Jesus statement indentically concerning the Great Tribulation and the coming.

I would ask the readers to consider the answer is that the 'end' and the 'coming' are 'things' that will happen to indicate the time of the destruction of the Temple. Then the generation passing verse fits as written concerning the generation at the time of Jesus.

Then Luke's statement about the armies fits with the companion verses of Mark and Matthew concerning the abomination-as written.

The 'end' reconciles with Matthew 10:23 and Colossians 1:23 -as written.

You wrote:

And it was not nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom - which expresses a far more global picture - but Rome against Israel.

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

And the followers of Christ were not hated in all nations (vs 9)...they hadn't reached all nations (vs 14).

Had they reached all the nations that Jesus had in mind when He said this? Remember HIs instructions to the apostles when they went out to proclaim the gospel.
Matthew 10
5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

AND all the nations WERE in Jerusalem.

And image of the beast (which preterists say is Nero) was not set up in the Temple.

Let's forget what preterists say, they didn't write the bible. Did Jesus say the abomination would appear in the holy place?

Now you say it wasn't set up in the holy place.
The holy place was in the temple..
the temple was in the province of Judea...
Jesus told His friends and followers to flee JUDEA....

Can that be possible from 70 AD to present?

The sacrifices continued til the temple was destroyed.

Great!!!!!!!
So how long might it have been between that ceasing of sacrifices and the abomination being setup?

Daniel 12
11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

The 2nd beast did not cause the mark on the right hand or forehead.

Oh, really and how would mankind be privy to heavenly happenings to know this?

What false Christ's arose to show great signs and wonders in that time?

Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect–if that were possible.

This has GOT to be about the temple because Luke said it too.

8He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

There was some false prophets around too.
acts 13:6
They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar*Jesus,

And of course, every eye did not see. (30)

And of course, I've explained this before.

Every single one of the species of man will SEE Jesus at their personal death in the spiritual realm.(I best limit it to Christians after the first century)

Then go on to Acts 1:6-7 The disciples ask "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?" And Jesus says, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons wich the Father hath put in his own power." There is yet to be a resoration of Israel, according to Acts 1, etc.

Will Judea come back too?
You're putting a lot more weight on this than it's worth in my opinion.

Yep - but you must consider all three accounts of the Olivet discourse for a complete understanding, and in relationship with the rest of the Bible. Can't just pick out a verse that fits the your view.

That's what I did and now can you tell me how all three writers can be correct in how they phrased the question considering the coming is in the list of 'things' given by all three.

No, just in Luke 21:20-24. The rest just plain doesn't fit. And I haven't seen my many questions answered to show me otherwise.
Did all sealife die, Justme? All the sea turn to blood? Who were the two witnesses in Jerusalem?

I answered, you just maybe missed it. The Book of Revelation is a vision for the most part taking place in Heaven. Things will be a tad different I'm guessing and remember the tale of the 200 million horseman army.

Read one more verse, Justme.
23) "This saying therefore went out among the bretheren, that that disciple would not ide; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, 'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

In other words, Jesus was pointing out that they follow Him, and whether this one dies sooner or later is not important. It's like little kids complaining about fairness - 'why do I have to die first? How come he lives longer?'

Okay readers follow this.

This is the verse I quoted:
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

Jesus says to Peter that it shouldn't matter to him if Jesus wants John to remain until Jesus returns.

If this verse is read as written it totally destroys the teaching of people like Free. They have to cover it up, fuzzy up he meaning or somehow not let readers just use it word for word. If you read it word for word it says Jesus might want John to live until He returns.

The talk on coffee row came out that Jesus had said John would NEVER die at all, but Jesus only said John might live until after Jesus returned. That is the long and the short. If the verse stands the religious doctrine falls...it has to go they say. BUT the word of God says....

John wrote I John in the time period of A.D. 85- 95. and in it he writes,
in 2:18 " ...ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."
So John still believed it was future. And of course, Revelation was written in 95-96 A.D.

Why did you not quote all of verse 18? Maybe it is because it is yet another biblicall statement that refutes your teaching...

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Then here is more from 1 John 4
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

You say that John wrote Revelation in the 90's AD. Could be, others say the 60's AD. I say what different does it make when it was wrote? What difference does it make when it was seen?
It was a VISION where John is taken in the spirit up to Heaven and is told and is allowed to see things. A vision can go back in time as well as show things ahead in time. When it was written is even less of a concern. What do you expect John to do, change what the vision was because he thinks it should go some other way. NO, John is obliged to record it as seen...period. Because these things happened in the spiritual realm nobody living SAW it, including John.

I didn't see any comment about who actually SAW Christ in the great tribulation. You know the 'you' and 'they' thing. I also never saw any verses that would indicate there is a third bodily form for Chrisians.

Justme

 

[FreeinChrist]

I wrote:
And the Kingdom of God will continue to be within us until the the Second Coming, when Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years, then Satan has his moment again, then Satan is thrown into the lake of fire.

Actually your next question is "have you read Rev 20 yet?" And yes I have and if you had you wouldn't have wrote what I quote:

The 1000 year reign with Christ is BEFORE the parousia, satan is canned BEFORE the parousia, the 1000 year reign can not possibly be on earth. Read Rev 20 again and then look at 1 Thess 4:15.

Which completely conflicts with scripture!
The Second Coming is described in Rev. 19.
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it {is} called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes {are} a flame of fire, and on His head {are} many diadems; and He has a name written {on Him} which no one knows except Himself.
Rev 19:13 {He is} clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white {and} clean, were following Him on white horses.

Then:
Rev. 20
Rev 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Rev 20:3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut {it} and sealed {it} over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I {saw} the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,
Rev 20:8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.
Rev 20:9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.


Unless one really twists and mutilates this scripture, the obvious understanding here is:
-Christ returns (Rev. 19)
-Satan is bound and thrown intot he abyss for 1000 years. (Rev. 20:2-3)
-Those who were beheaded because they did not worship the beast or his image or take the mark 'came to life' and reigned with christ for 1000 years. (4)
-At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is released from the abyss (7)
-He deceives the nations and gathers to maek war - Gog and Magog, but is handily defeated.
-Satan is thrown into the lake of fire.
- heaven and earth 'fled away' and the the Great White Throne Judgement occurs, where all those who were not part of the first resurrection are judged.


Now in looking at this passage - how do you get that Satan is canned before the Parousia? Or that the 1000 years is before the parousia?
Doesn't fit scripture and not fulfilled in 70 AD.

Concerning Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1. It is about the transfiguration. What is the transfiguration?

I'm glad you see that it is about the Transfiguration.
And the Transfiguration is the not the Second coming - the Parousia'. Jesus, by appearring in the Shechinah glory of God, showed Himself as God and that He acted in power.

I can't figure how the preteists use the Transfiguration to prove their views. It makes no sense to me.

Well, if Jesus is telling me to flee from Judea when I see the abomination in the holy place I hope He understands my problems with that.. there is neither a Holy Place for the abomination to appear in or a Judea to flee from.

One problem is that unless you are a Jew living in Jerusalem in the future Tribulation , it doesn't apply to you.
Second, there will be another temple.
Just as theri will be the temple as decribed in Ezekiel built at a future time.

But that isn't what I was after. Remember that million people I told you about that saw the 'coming' back in 70 AD. It was "THEY."

27At that time THEY will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
The YOU had fled to the mountains with the help of the prayers that Jesus asked for them.

that's pathetic interpretation. Sorry to be blunt about it.

You have mentioned I didn't answer some of your questions before. I think I got all this time, but you missed one of mine. I copied it below:
************
So once again I would like people to point out the verses that would lead us to believe there is a third bodily form for mankind...there is the earthly natural form, then there is the spiritual, heavenly form and where is the biblical evidence that the spiritual that MUST follow the natural becomes some physical earthly form again.
**********************

Justme

There are many, many of my questions and points that have gone unaddressed.

Regarding your question, I had beleived I answered it. And I could write pages, and pages - but would you read it?
I believe that from the beginning, when God made man in His image, man had a oul and spirit and physical form. the physical from became perishable because of the fall (death), and the spirit and soul were separated from God till God made the atonement for mankind.

I Cor, 15 describes the perishable becoming imperishable.

Romans 8:11 "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you."

Romans 8:23 "...waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body."

and as I said, I came to my conclusions having looked up every verse that had grave, hades, hell, death, sleep, body, soul, 'made alive' etc in Greek and Hebrew...and it is what I believe.

And I believe your question is shown by Christ Jesus Himself. He was physically raised - was He not? Think He can die again?
Are we not going to be adopted as a son of God?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I think you missed the point.

How can all writers be correct in how they phrased the question that Jesus asked? Two of them never included the 'end' or the 'coming' in the question , yet they list Jesus statement indentically concerning the Great Tribulation and the coming.

Are you now denying that ALL of scripture is inspired?
Luke and mark are not wrong in just writing part of the question.
And I stand by what I wrote that one must look at ALL scripture related to the Olivet discourse to understand and then how it relates to the rest of scripture.
Let scripture interpret scripture.

And I think I am done with that point. If you are going to argue furthur on it, then I think that is just being argumentative.

I would ask the readers to consider the answer is that the 'end' and the 'coming' are 'things' that will happen to indicate the time of the destruction of the Temple. Then the generation passing verse fits as written concerning the generation at the time of Jesus.

show fulfillment of all that relates to the Second coming and the 'end'.

You wrote:

And it was not nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom - which expresses a far more global picture - but Rome against Israel.

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

That was for the Feast of Weeks , also known as Pentecost. It ocurred 50 days after the Passover Feast and is a time when Jews were expected to come to Jerusalem.

Regardless, they are identified as Jews first. And this is an inadequate fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy at best.

Your exegesis makes me cry.

Let's forget what preterists say, they didn't write the bible.

I'd give that a big AMEN.

Did Jesus say the abomination would appear in the holy place?

Show fulfillment - according to Daniel 9:27

Great!!!!!!!
So how long might it have been between that ceasing of sacrifices and the abomination being setup?

Daniel 12
11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

I believe a proper interpretation of that verse (via Hebrew) is that FROM the time that the sacricifices stop and that the abomination of desolation is set up TO THE END will be 1260 days. ( Look at the earlier question asked by Daniel that brought this answer! ) NOT that there are 1260 days between the AB. of Desolation and the sacrifices. AND - if you want to interpret that it is between - the sacrifices would have to stop first, then the AofD come 1290 later....that doesn't work with 70 AD.
Look at Daniel 9:27 - the sacrifices cease in the middle of the 'week' or seven. The AbofD causes the stopping of the sacrifices - similar to what Antiochus Epiphanes did.

there will be a future temple and sacrifices. future fulfillment, because it hasn't been fulfilled yet.

I wrote - in regards to the lack of fulfillment in 70 AD :
The 2nd beast did not cause the mark on the right hand or forehead.
It does in Rev. 13
you wrote:

Oh, really and how would mankind be privy to heavenly happenings to know this?

Heavenly happening? Makes no sense! Iis there buying and selling in the heavens??

This happens on earth with men! The second beast that works in the presence of the first is the false prophet. The mark is required to buy or sell. The mark is on the right hand or on the forehead and is the no. of the beast - 666.
what fulfillment of this occurred in 70 AD?

Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect–if that were possible.

This has GOT to be about the temple because Luke said it too.

Acts 13:6
They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar*Jesus,

Only Luke 21: 20-25 deals with the temple, the rest is about the endtimes that are yet to occur.
and there have been false prophets for almost 2000 years.
And Bar Jesus was a false prophet - not a false christ. To claim to be the Messiah was to claim to be God and that was blasphemy. the Pharisees didn't die when Jesus did. They would have after anyone who claimed to be Messsiah.
But now fulfillment regarding 70 AD - does one little thing out of very many make a complete fulfillment? NO

I answered, you just maybe missed it. The Book of Revelation is a vision for the most part taking place in Heaven. Things will be a tad different I'm guessing and remember the tale of the 200 million horseman army.

And I believe that is bad hermenuetics.
"tale of the 200 million horsemen" - A TALE - is that what you call a prophecy by Jesus? YIKES!

And I note that you cannot SHOW FULFILLMENT in the first century. That is why preterism has to spiritualize and minimize the Revelation of Jesus Christ. sad...

Okay readers follow this.

This is the verse I quoted:
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

Jesus says to Peter that it shouldn't matter to him if Jesus wants John to remain until Jesus returns.

If this verse is read as written it totally destroys the teaching of people like Free. They have to cover it up, fuzzy up he meaning or somehow not let readers just use it word for word. If you read it word for word it says Jesus might want John to live until He returns.

You are dipping into ad hominen commentary that is sadly showing that your arguement is weak.
I provided the verse that followed the above. You miss the point of what is taught there.

Frankly, fuzzy teaching is that which claims fulfillment of events but CAN'T SHOW IT!

Why did you not quote all of verse 18? Maybe it is because it is yet another biblicall statement that refutes your teaching...

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Because it doesn't refute my teaching, Justme. I have already explained in depth earlier in this thread.
Since John wrote this AFTER 85AD - show me fullfilment! What I see is John still expecting a future Second Coming well after 70 AD.

The 'last days' as used in Hebrew 1:1-3 refer to the fact that God completed His reveltion of the salvation plan. It was progressively revealed since Genesis 3:15 - the first prophecy of the Saviour.

The Greek word translated as 'hour' above and as 'time' in KJV is 'hora' - means 'time', 'season', a particular time, a short time, the right time... depends on context. In light of other scripture like Hebrews , etc, I believe KJV use of 'time' in this verse is correct,. And we are still in the last time - because the salvation plan is completed by Christ's resurrection.

Then here is more from 1 John 4
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Who do you think the spirit of the antichrist is? Who gives power to the beast? See Rev. 13. It's Satan - the dragon.
And note here that John after 85 AD is teaching that THE antichrist is yet to come.....

You say that John wrote Revelation in the 90's AD. Could be, others say the 60's AD. I say what different does it make when it was wrote? What difference does it make when it was seen?

HUGE! It is prophecy! Not history!
And I have given tons of reasons why it was written in 95-96 AD in this thead. To conditions of churches, to lack of existence of smyrna....go back and read.
And it isn't "me" saying it - it is the ECF , who all saw the Second coming as a future event.

It was a VISION where John is taken in the spirit up to Heaven and is told and is allowed to see things. A vision can go back in time as well as show things ahead in time. When it was written is even less of a concern. What do you expect John to do, change what the vision was because he thinks it should go some other way. NO, John is obliged to record it as seen...period. Because these things happened in the spiritual realm nobody living SAW it, including John.

Read Rev. 1:19
And then read REv. 4:1-2. there is an outline of Revelation. the events of 4- 22 occur after the letters to the churches. Look at the phrase - "after these things".
And John is not just seeing things in heaven. that you claim this shows you haven't read Revelation, nor understand it at all.

I am sorry, Justme, but I don't think you know what you are writing about. Nor do I think you have done a serious study of Revelation itself, especially if you regard the 200 million horsemen as a "tale".

You know what's sad? On another mb this last month, a person who had professed Christ for years listened to the teaching of a preterist, lost her faith and is now looking into New Age stuff. As I have a powerful frustration ( with preterism as a result of this, I am backing of it for now. IMHO, - well, nevermind my opinion of it... Let's just say I understand why this mb limits preterism to this forum and sticks with the Nicean creed in the other.

nite...

 

[GW]

FREE:
The person who wrote lines 47-59 in the Muratorian Canon simply referred to Paul being an apostle after John, John being the predessor.

GW:

That is false. The Canon says Paul was following a rule set by John in writing to only seven churches: "...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Paul had to have known of John's message to the seven Churches before his death.

Smyrna did exist before AD 70, and Laodicea remained intact. The city was so rich it even rebuilt itself quickly with no aid from other provinces or Rome.

As for your list of Church quotes on a late date, they all derived their view from Irenaeus. If Irenaeus was wrong or misunderstood, those that used Irenaeus for the late view are all wrong too. Gentry proves this in Before Jerusalem Fell.
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm





FREE:
ahh, a cop out. Who were the 2 lampstands, then?

GW:
Why are you not familiar with this allusion to the OT, nor with the use of "lampstands" and "witnesses" in Revelation? Why do you not recognize the meaning of being dead for three days and then being resurrected to Heaven? You should be able to recognize John's use of these allusions.




FREE:
["This generation"] has been beat to death in this thread. It is the generation that sees the signs that will not pass away before those things occur, or it means tha the 'race' will not pass away.

GW:
You need it to be that, but scripture won't permit it. First, it was the apostles that were told that they would see those things occur (Matt 24:33). Next, "this generation" in the NT usage always refers to the contemporaries to whom Jesus was speaking, like at Matt 23:36, just a few verses before 24:34! Finally, your racist reading of Matt 24:34 demands that the Jewish race will go extinct in the future. Now, while today's Jews are already fully absorbed into gentile bloodlines and are "gentiles" in the biblical sense, your view demands that today's citizens of modern political Israel will be annihilated. That is a sad, racist view.



FREE:
From John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, regarding Rev. 1:7:
“Behold he cometh with clouds…
John carries on the account of Christ in his kingly office, one branch of which is to execute judgment; and describes him by a future coming of his, which cannot be understood of his coming to take vengeance on the Jews, at the time of Jerusalem's destruction, though that is sometimes expressed in such language, and with such circumstances, as here; see (Matthew 24:30) (26:64)

GW:
Please note there that Gill is PRETERIST on Matthew 24:30, but then inconsistently applies Rev 1:7 to the future. Anyone can see they are the same event. Gill is being inconsistent, but we are being consistent.


FREE:
The Zealots tried to claim rulership, but not that they were Messiahs.

GW:
Ugh. Please don't speak authoritatively about things you do not have a clue about. First-century Israel was a cauldron of Messianic claimants (Acts 5:36-37; Acts 8:9-10; Acts 12:21-22). Please read Richard Horsley's Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, which is entirely about the multiplied Messianic movements in first-century Palestine. Or, at least get some information on it here:

Messianic Claimants
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html





FREE:
And it was not nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom - which expresses a far more global picture - but Rome against Israel.

GW:
Please look at the "Maps" section at the back of your bible. OT Israel was surrounded by both "kingdoms" and "nations." Ever heard of the Kingdom of Herod or the Nabataean Kingdom? None of this was global in any way that you mean it. Your assessment is simply incorrect.



FREE:
And of course, every eye did not see.

GW:
The "cloud-coming" that "every eye would see" (Rev 1:7) is shown at Rev 14:14-20, where John makes it plain that a spiritual visitation of the Divine Lord God is in view, not a physical one. Disasters upon earth are the result of the heavenly visitation.

Finally, aside from the fact that the "millennium" is nowhere in the OT, the gospels and epistles prove there is no literal future "thousand years." The epistles explicitly declare that the resurrection, judgment, and New Heavens/Earth are at the Second Coming:

* The resurrection occurs at the second coming (1 Cor 15:23)

* The judgment occurs at the second coming (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)

* The New Heaven/Earth occurs at the "thief's
coming (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2), the day of the Lord.



Thus, there is no "millennium."



​

That's all for now.

 

[Justme]

Hi to Free and anybody else,

It isn't the preterists who 'spiritulize' the parousia and Olivet events, it is the bible. The preterists only accurately interpret that.

The main argument of futurists is that nobody SAW anything in 70 AD. No, they didn't because it was in the spiritual realm, that is why they call it faith.

Justme

 

[OldShepherd]

Hi to Free and anybody else,

It isn't the preterists who 'spiritulize' the parousia and Olivet events, it is the bible. The preterists only accurately interpret that.

The main argument of futurists is that nobody SAW anything in 70 AD. No, they didn't because it was in the spiritual realm, that is why they call it faith.

Justme

[size=+1]Yeah listen to the Preterists, "We're right and you're wrong. We can't prove half the stuff we believe, because it is either metaphorical, spiritual, figurative, allegorical or something, but we are still right, so there."[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

FREE:
The person who wrote lines 47-59 in the Muratorian Canon simply referred to Paul being an apostle after John, John being the predessor.

GW:
That is false. The Canon says Paul was following a rule set by John in writing to only seven churches: "...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Paul had to have known of John's message to the seven Churches before his death.

[size=+1]This is just wishful thinking as I have pointed out before, more than once and which you have basically ignored except to respond with your usual, "Is too.", "Is not.," when you have no reasonable or logical reply.

If the phrase, "following the rule of his predecessor John," means that John wrote his Apocalypse first, perhaps with your inerrant Preterist exegetical logic, you can explain why the writer of the Muratorian canon, goes to great lengths to identify which of Paul's letters was first, second, third, etc, and then after listing all of Paul's letters, in chronological order, he then lists John's writings AFTER Paul's? And furthermore, at the end of the Muratorian canon the writer clearly states that the second coming was yet future from his day.

So if you adamantly accept your assumption that Revelation was written before Paul's letters then you must also accept that the Parousia was still future from ca. 170 AD. If not then carefully explain why when some little out-of-context bit of some writing seems to support your presuppositions it is accurate, but when it doesn't then the same writing is not accurate?[/size]

As for your list of Church quotes on a late date, they all derived their view from Irenaeus. If Irenaeus was wrong or misunderstood, those that used Irenaeus for the late view are all wrong too. Gentry proves this in Before Jerusalem Fell.
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

[size=+1]Thank you for that link to the Preterist's Bible. I have read the chapter on Irenaeus at that link. Let us take a look at some of this so-called proof.[/size]

p.46The evidence from Irenaeus that is deemed so compelling is found in Book 5 of his Against Heresies (at 5:30:3). Although originally composed in Greek, today this work exists in its entirety only in Latin translation. Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question is preserved for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History at 3:18:3 (see also 5:8:6):

ei de edei anafandon en tw nun kairw khputtesqai tounoma autou, di ekeinou an eppeqh tou kai thn apokaluyin eorakotos oude gar pro pollou cronou ewpaqh alla scedon epi ths hmeteraV geneaV, proV tw telei Dometianou archV

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been nounced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

p. 49 fn 16. There is another area where some scholars have deemed there to be a problem with the common interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement. Taking the lead of Guericke, a few expositors have called into question the proper understanding of Irenaeus’s Dometianou. Guericke is bothered by the absence of the definite article before Dometianou . Stuart relates his argument thus: “Guericke suggests, that when Irenaeus says, ‘the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, proV tw telei thV Dometianou archV that the adjective Dometianou (for adjective it may be, and if so, it is one which is genneris communis, and not the proper name of Domitian), belongs, in accordance with the Greek formation, to the name DomitiuV , and not to Domitian which would make an adjective of the form DomitianikoV If it were a proper name, he says it should be written tou Domitianou.. Now Nero’s name was DomitiuV Nero, and not Domitianus, which is the name of the later emperor’’ (Stuart, Apocalypse, 1 :282 -283n). If such a re-interpretation of the phrase is permissible, and if we interpret the first portion of the sentence from Irenaeus along the common lines, then this would make Irenaeus testify that the Apocalypse was written near the end of the reign of Nero. This particular approach to the Domitian identity is very rarely held even among convinced early date advocates. Farrar says that “no scholar will accept this hypothesis” (Farrar, Early Days, p. 407). (This must be an overstatement, since Guericke was a reputable scholar.) Stuart doubts its validity, as did Macdonald. Not only does it seems abundantly clear that Irenaeus intended the Emperor Domitian by this reference, but the argument above is much stronger, more widely held, and to be preferred. 17. Swete, Revelation, p. cvi. Although it should be noted that Swete comments that Hort did not accept Bovan’s argument calling for such a re-interpretation of Irenaeus. 18. ANF 1:311-312. The translation and introductory remarks were by Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, according to the first edition of the translation: The Writings of Irenaeus, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880).​

[size=+1] Pay attention now, here comes the proof, “some scholars have deemed there to be a problem with the common interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement” and “a few expositors have called into question the proper understanding of Irenaeus’s Dometianou.” Note, it does NOT say that scholars have proven Irenaeus to be wrong but “deemed to be a problem” and “called into question” But wait there is much more.

“the adjective Dometianou (for adjective it may be, and if so, it is one which is genneris communis, and not the proper name of Domitian)” Notice the speculation here, “Domitianou” MAY BE an adjective, instead of a noun, and IF SO. . .. If that is true none of the scholars quoted, nor Gentry himself, ventures a guess how to interpret it as an adjective. ALL published translations translate it as a noun.

“If it were a proper name, he says it should be written tou Domitianou/tou Domitianou.” Is this true? Let us look to the New Testament where a similar phrase occurs, Luke 3:1. There are four proper names in this verse, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Philip. All four have the genitive ending, “ou” as “Domitianou” and none of the four have the definite article, “tou.” And all four are translated as nouns, NOT adjectives. I have highlighted the names in the English transliteration, for those who do not know Greek.

If Irenaeus is wrong because it lacks the definite article then this verse is also wrong.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Luke 3:1 en etei de pentekaidekatw thV hgemoniaV tiberiou kaisaroV hgemoneuontoV pontiou pilatou thV ioudaiaV kai tetrarcountoV thV galilaiaV hrwdou filippou de tou adelfou autou tetrarcountoV thV itouraiaV kai tracwnitidoV cwraV kai lusaniou thV abilhnhV tetrarcountoV

Luke 3:1 en etei de pentekaidekatw thv hgemoniav tiberiou kaisaros hgemoneuontos pontiou pilatou tes ioudaiav kai tetrarcountos tes galilaiav erodou filippou de tou adelfou autou tetrarcountos tes itouraiav kai traconitidos xoras kai lusaniou tes abilenes tetrarxountos​

And be careful to note this statement which is buried in a footnote.

This particular approach to the Domitian identity is very rarely held even among convinced early date advocates. Farrar says that “no scholar will accept this hypothesis” (Farrar, Early Days, p. 407). (This must be an overstatement, since Guericke was a reputable scholar.) Stuart doubts its validity, as did Macdonald. Not only does it seems abundantly clear that Irenaeus intended the Emperor Domitian by this reference, but the argument above is much stronger, more widely held, and to be preferred.​

Later on page 55 Gentry discusses the Latin translation of Irenaeus, which supports the traditional understanding. Note, carefully that Gentry cavalierly dismisses the Latin translation with this phrase, “But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur.” Now that certainly sounds convincing doesn’t it? But wait, how do we know what Irenaeus wrote in Greek?

Scroll back up to the first quote and you will see this statement by Gentry, “Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question is preserved for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Irenaeus died in 202 AD, Eusebius wrote his church history in 315 AD, more than one hundred ten years AFTER Irenaeus died. Therefore the Greek quote in Eusebius also did NOT come with Irenaeus’ “imprimatur[/i]”

p.55 Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apocalypsin viderat. Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est. The Latin translator may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly understood. This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur.​

Bottom line, Gentry’s book, at least this section, is nothing but a biased piece of dissertation deliberately slanted to favor Gentry’s preterist views.[/size]

Thus, there is no "millennium."

[size=+1]Well then it must be true because GW said it was. The six references to "the thousand years" in Revelation 20 don't mean a thing. According to Preterists they are symbolic. None of them have a clue what they are symbolic of. But according to Preterist logic they must be symbolic because they don't fit the presuppositions and assumptions of Preterism.[/size]

 

[Justme]

Hi OS,

Yeah listen to the Preterists, "We're right and you're wrong. We can't prove half the stuff we believe, because it is either metaphorical, spiritual, figurative, allegorical or something, but we are still right, so there."

That is about the most totally correct post I have ever seen you write and I agree with you.

Justme

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
This is just wishful thinking as I have pointed out before,

GW:
There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96. Sorry, but your logic is wishful thinking.



OLD SHEP:
If the phrase, "following the rule of his predecessor John," means that John wrote his Apocalypse first, perhaps with your inerrant Preterist exegetical logic, you can explain why the writer of the Muratorian canon, goes to great lengths to identify which of Paul's letters was first, second, third, etc, and then after listing all of Paul's letters, in chronological order, he then lists John's writings AFTER Paul's?

GW:
It has to mean that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul died. It cannot means anything else. There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.

After listing Paul's writings, the Canon says Paul was following John's rule in writing to only 7 churches. Thus the Canon is placing John's apocalypse prior to Paul's death, and it proves that the early-date tradition was believed as early on as the Irenaeus late-date tradition (if indeed we are to believe Irenaeus meant Domitian and not Nero).





OLD SHEP:
The six references to "the thousand years" in Revelation 20 don't mean a thing. According to Preterists they are symbolic. None of them have a clue what they are symbolic of. But according to Preterist logic they must be symbolic because they don't fit the presuppositions and assumptions of Preterism.

GW:
Since the resurrection occurs at the second coming (1 Cor 15:23)...

And since the judgment occurs at the second coming (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)...

And since the New Heaven/Earth occurs at the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2)...


THEREFORE we know there is no literal historic millennium. The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." The "thousand years" is a typological symbol in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.

 

[OldShepherd]

Forget literal multi million armies and blood as high as the bridles and on and on...
People insist on the sea being blood, but oh, no Jesus sure never meant He would return before the twelve went thru the cities. Matthew 10:23.

[size=+1]Misinterpretation and quoting out-of-context. Here is your "proof text."[/size]

Matt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.​

[size=+1]This supposedly proves that Jesus told His disciples He would come again, after His crucifixion, before they had carried the gospel to all the cities of Israel. So that must prove that Jesus would return in the first century, right? Wrong!

In this passage Jesus is sending His disciples out on one of many missionary journeys. In this instant Jesus gave His diciples specific instructions to NOT go to any Samaritan city or among the gentiles.[/size]

10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.​

[size=+1]This missionary journey ended with the Jesus and the disciples again together, in chapter 12, being criticized by the Pharisees, for plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath. Also read the later instructions of Jesus in Matthew 24, the end will come AFTER the gospel has been preached "unto all nations." If the disciples did not go to the gentiles how was the gospel preached to them?

And note Paul writes in Colossians that the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven.[/size]

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

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;​

[size=+1]The disciples were told specifically to not go to the Samaritans or gentiles but there are several passages which show that the disciples most certainly did go to the Samaritans and gentiles, even while they were with Jesus.[/size]

John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

Ac 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

Ac 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:[to Samaria]

25 And they, when they [Peter and John, vs. 14] had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

Ac 9:32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

Ac 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: [Ashdod a city of the Philistines] and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea. [in Gaulanitus]​

[size=+1]If the Parousia occurred before the disciples went to the Samaritans and gentiles, why is it not recorded in scripture.[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:

OLD SHEP:
If the phrase, "following the rule of his predecessor John," means that John wrote his Apocalypse first, perhaps with your inerrant Preterist exegetical logic, you can explain why the writer of the Muratorian canon, goes to great lengths to identify which of Paul's letters was first, second, third, etc, and then after listing all of Paul's letters, in chronological order, he then lists John's writings AFTER Paul's?

GW:
It has to mean that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul died. It cannot means anything else. There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.

After listing Paul's writings, the Canon says Paul was following John's rule in writing to only 7 churches. Thus the Canon is placing John's apocalypse prior to Paul's death, and it proves that the early-date tradition was believed as early on as the Irenaeus late-date tradition (if indeed we are to believe Irenaeus meant Domitian and not Nero).

[size=+1]Reading only what you want to read and seeing only what you want to see. Twice in the Muratorian canon the writer places John's apocalypse chronologically AFTER the writings of Paul.[/size]

The Muratorian Canon
3. As to the epistles34 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 Oid Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object35 in these;-which it is needful for us to discuss severally,36 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. [Note, here John’s Apocalypse listed AFTER Paul’s letters to the seven churches] 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.

4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church.[Note, here John’s Apocalypse listed AFTER all the other NT. Books again.]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html
​

[size=+1]And of course you would rather die than acknowledge that the Muratorian canon does NOT support your assumption that it supposedly proves the Apocalypse occurred in 70 AD because Paul's epistles, according to your one out-of-context sentence, might have been written after Revelation.

The canon clearly states that the Apocalypse was yet future from 170 AD. If this statement is false or unreliable, then the entire writing is suspect. You cannot have it both ways.[/size]

And so, though various elements(d) may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign(e) Spirit all things have been declared in all the Gospels: concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning life with his disciples, and concerning his twofold coming; the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, the second glorious in royal power, which is still in the future.​

[size=+1]The six references to "the thousand years" in Revelation 20 don't mean a thing. According to Preterists they are symbolic. None of them have a clue what they are symbolic of. But according to Preterist logic they must be symbolic because they don't fit the presuppositions and assumptions of Preterism.[/size]

Since the resurrection occurs at the second coming (1 Cor 15:23)...

And since the judgment occurs at the second coming (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)...

And since the New Heaven/Earth occurs at the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2)...

THEREFORE we know there is no literal historic millennium. The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." The "thousand years" is a typological symbol in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.

[size=+1]Smoke and mirrors, Hocus-pocus. Misdirection. This does not address my post. I said, Preterist do not have a clue what "the thousand years" means. But it clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of Preterism. Soon means soon. Shortly means shortly. But "the thousand years" doesn't mean anything.[/size]

 

[GW]

Paul, in writing to seven churches, was following John's rule. That's what the canon plainly states, and there is no way around it. The early date tradition has support from at least the second century.

As to the "millennium," the bible proves it is not a real historic thing:


Since the resurrection occurs at the second coming (1 Cor 15:23)...

And since the judgment occurs at the second coming (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)...

And since the New Heaven/Earth occurs at the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2)...

THEREFORE we know there is no literal historic millennium. The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." The "thousand years" is a typological symbol in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.


You cannot dispute these facts, no matter how hard you try. The "millennium" is a typological symbol, and not a real future epoch.

 

[Justme]

Hi OS,

If the Parousia occurred before the disciples went to the Samaritans and gentiles, why is it not recorded in scripture.

It was and you just went thru some of it, but you have came up with ways to prove the bible wrong so you can cling to a false doctine.

Heres another verse, let's see how you negate this one.

Hebrews 9
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I'll type out your standard answers for you too save you time.

....out of context...
...irrelevent.....
...I've covered that .....


...blank screen.......
Justme

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
Misinterpretation and quoting out-of-context.

GW:
We'll see who is quoting out of context.


OLD SHEP:
Here is your "proof text."
Matt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.This supposedly proves that Jesus told His disciples He would come again, after His crucifixion, before they had carried the gospel to all the cities of Israel. So that must prove that Jesus would return in the first century, right? Wrong!

In this passage Jesus is sending His disciples out on one of many missionary journeys. ......This missionary journey ended with the Jesus and the disciples again together, in chapter 12


GW:
LOL. One would have to entirely divorce 10:23 from 10:16-22 to reach such a nonsensical conclusion. Sorry, you are seriously twisting scripture here. Matthew 10:23 cannot be divorced from Matthew 10:16-22! The passage had its fulfillment AFTER the resurrection and ascension of Christ, not before.

Only someone desperate to protect a futurist tradition to the detriment of Holy Scripture could arrive at the conclusion that Matt 10:16-23 was fulfilled before the crucifixion. C'mon.

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
The person who wrote lines 47-59 in the Muratorian Canon simply referred to Paul being an apostle after John, John being the predessor.

GW:

That is false. The Canon says Paul was following a rule set by John in writing to only seven churches: "...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Paul followed the rule of 'seven' , a number that indicates completion, regarding God. And I would be taken in by your interpretation of the Muratorian Canon, but it also includes this:
"And so, though various elements(d) may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign(e) Spirit all things have been declared in all the Gospels: concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning life with his disciples, and concerning his twofold coming; the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, the second glorious in royal power, which is still in the future."

hmmm....seems even this commentator sees the Second coming as future in 170 AD.

Smyrna did exist before AD 70, and Laodicea remained intact. The city was so rich it even rebuilt itself quickly with no aid from other provinces or Rome.

No, Smyrna was not reached for Christ in Paul's time - not according to Polycarp. And Laodicea took many years to rebuild.
Add to that, Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians between 60 - 62AD, mentioning Laodicea several times. He does not describe a lukewarm church or one that had been lukewarm, but as an active group! That's because they became lukewarm later.

Also, Paul wrote to the Ephesians, and what we learn from his letter to the Ephesians does not correspond to the message to the Ephesians in Revelation. Paul does not refer to them as having lost their first love! He doesn't make reference to John or anything else written to them.

So to go along with your view, there are problems regarding Smyrna, Laodicea, and Ephesus - and that the writer also saw the Second Coming as future.

As for your list of Church quotes on a late date, they all derived their view from Irenaeus. If Irenaeus was wrong or misunderstood, those that used Irenaeus for the late view are all wrong too. Gentry proves this in Before Jerusalem Fell.

But in another book, "The Beast of Revelation", Gentry favors 65 AD for the writing of Revelation! Check pg 188.
Also, regarding Gentry, he quotes people in the 1800's who actually favored a postNero date for the writing. They don't really back him up at all!

So what preterists have to do then is to insinuate that writers of the past misunderstood Iranaeus, and that they did not have any other sources for information.

Iranaeus was clear. It, the vision, was seen toward the end of Dominitan's reign.
Dio Cassius (150-235) was a Roman historian who referenced the liberation of those that Dominitan banished after his death in September, 96 AD.

Finally, your racist reading of Matt 24:34 demands that the Jewish race will go extinct in the future. Now, while today's Jews are already fully absorbed into gentile bloodlines and are "gentiles" in the biblical sense, your view demands that today's citizens of modern political Israel will be annihilated. That is a sad, racist view.

Descending to ad hominen attack should be beneath you.
And no, all Jews are not 'absorbed" as you put it. I could introduce you to a few. And, it is the futurist view that agrees with Romans 11:25-29. I would say it was the preterists who had a rascist view towards Jews - that they are wicked ones who God will send all His wrath on, as opposed to the futurists who believe it is those who reject Christ who receive God's wrath.

FREE:
The Zealots tried to claim rulership, but not that they were Messiahs.

GW:
Ugh. Please don't speak authoritatively about things you do not have a clue about. First-century Israel was a cauldron of Messianic claimants (Acts 5:36-37; Acts 8:9-10; Acts 12:21-22). Please read Richard Horsley's Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, which is entirely about the multiplied Messianic movements in first-century Palestine. Or, at least get some information on it here:

More ad hominen. sad, GW. And you seem to rely greatly on the writings of modern day writers to support your views. Certainly more than the Bible! What I don't see is evidence that events described in Revelation occurred in 70 AD. You haven't showed it either!

And earlier you referenced John of Gischala as a false messiah. But he never declared himself to be a God. Josephus doesn't say so - and they did not get along at all! And the Zealots did not stop the sacrifices - even according to Josephus. Didn't erect images of themselves in the temple.

An earlier 'antichrist-type', before Christ, Antiochus Epiphanes, did claim to be God, did erect a statue of himself, and sacrificed a pig in the Holy of Holies, terrorized and killed the Jews - and I believe a conmplete study of Daniel and Revelation shows that the future AC will be a worse example than him.

FREE:
And it was not nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom - which expresses a far more global picture - but Rome against Israel.

GW:
Please look at the "Maps" section at the back of your bible. OT Israel was surrounded by both "kingdoms" and "nations." Ever heard of the Kingdom of Herod or the Nabataean Kingdom? None of this was global in any way that you mean it. Your assessment is simply incorrect.

You are sidestepping, IMHO. IF all of the Olivet discourse was in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem, then it would have been more than Rome against Israel. AND in Revelation it describes all the nations of the world going against Jerusalem....didn't happen yet. AND
Zechariah 12-14 describing all the nations going against Jerusalem...initially they overrun, then God destroys all the nations that went against Jerusalem before the end of the battle. Titus went home victorious!
(and the preterist beast, Nero, died before Jerusalem fell!)

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
ahh, a cop out. Who were the 2 lampstands, then?

GW:
Why are you not familiar with this allusion to the OT, nor with the use of "lampstands" and "witnesses" in Revelation? Why do you not recognize the meaning of being dead for three days and then being resurrected to Heaven? You should be able to recognize John's use of these allusions.

Allusion? I suppose you must have to believe that because it sure isn't fulfilled in 70 AD. - along with many other things.

GW:
Please note there that Gill is PRETERIST on Matthew 24:30, but then inconsistently applies Rev 1:7 to the future. Anyone can see they are the same event. Gill is being inconsistent, but we are being consistent.

Not exactly right. Gill held a mild form of partial preterism in regards to Matthew 24, but never believed the preterist view of fulfillment of the Second coming events. For instance, his commentary about I Thes. 4 includes:

"That we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord:
not that the apostle thought that he and the saints then in the flesh should live and continue till the second coming of Christ; for he did not imagine that the coming of Christ was so near, as is manifest from (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) though the Thessalonians might take him in this sense, which he there corrects; but he speaks of himself and others in the first person plural, by way of instance and example, for illustration sake; that supposing he and others should be then in being, the following would be the case: and moreover, he might use such a way of speaking with great propriety of other saints, and even of those unborn, and that will be on the spot when Christ shall come a second time;"

To call him a preterist is misleading and untrue.

FREE:
And of course, every eye did not see.

GW:
The "cloud-coming" that "every eye would see" (Rev 1:7) is shown at Rev 14:14-20, where John makes it plain that a spiritual visitation of the Divine Lord God is in view, not a physical one. Disasters upon earth are the result of the heavenly visitation.

I believe that is quite the misinterpretation . You are minimizing and actually dismissing what Christ says - "and every eye shall see" in regards to the Second coming. Didn't happen yet.

Finally, aside from the fact that the "millennium" is nowhere in the OT,

Zechariah 14:9-21, particularly 16-18. And a number of places in Isaiah.
And Ezekiel 36-37, particularly 37:24-28.
And I could probably find more.

the gospels and epistles prove there is no literal future "thousand years."

Revelation 20 refers to 1000 years 6 times. It clearly describes that Satan is bound for 1000 years, the saints reign with Christ 1000 years. At the end of 1000 years, Satan is released for a short time then defeated for good, and then the Great white throne judgment.
This cannot be explained in any adequate way by 70 AD. Satan is still the 'prince of the power of the air' as he is called by Paul.

Paul refers to 2 men who taught that the resurrection has already occurred and upset the faith of some. (A resurrection after Christ's). Preterism does the same thing. Paul warned against it in a letter to Timothy. That warning is relevant today.

 

[FreeinChrist]

[size=+1]Pay attention now, here comes the proof, “some scholars have deemed there to be a problem with the common interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement” and “a few expositors have called into question the proper understanding of Irenaeus’s Dometianou.” Note, it does NOT say that scholars have proven Irenaeus to be wrong but “deemed to be a problem” and “called into question” But wait there is much more.

And be careful to note this statement which is buried in a footnote.

This particular approach to the Domitian identity is very rarely held even among convinced early date advocates. Farrar says that “no scholar will accept this hypothesis” (Farrar, Early Days, p. 407). (This must be an overstatement, since Guericke was a reputable scholar.) Stuart doubts its validity, as did Macdonald. Not only does it seems abundantly clear that Irenaeus intended the Emperor Domitian by this reference, but the argument above is much stronger, more widely held, and to be preferred.​

Bottom line, Gentry’s book, at least this section, is nothing but a biased piece of dissertation deliberately slanted to favor Gentry’s preterist views.[/size]

Good points...and I sure agree with the last! I'm not too impressed with Gentry's scholarship.

 

[OldShepherd]

Hi OS,

It was and you just went thru some of it, but you have came up with ways to prove the bible wrong so you can cling to a false doctine.

Heres another verse, let's see how you negate this one.

Hebrews 9
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I'll type out your standard answers for you too save you time.

....out of context...
...irrelevent.....
...I've covered that .....

...blank screen.......
Justme

[size=+1]Is there supposed to be something here for me to respond to? Just how foolish do you wish to be made to appear. You know very well I responded to you one (1) out-of-context "proof text" more than once. I cited Gill, Robertson, and Jamieson,Faussett, Brown, and linked to the post later on and highlighted the pertinent sections, because you could not find it without someone leading you by the hand. Do you think you are impressing someone by pretending this has not been answered?[/size]