The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct

[parousia70]

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that Jesus 2nd coming would ocour within the lifetime of His apostles.
(Matt 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32,Matt 16:28, Luke 9:27,Matt 10:23)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that all things written would be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
(Luke 21:20-22)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that as it was in Noah's day, So would the coming of the Son of Man be. The wicked would be taken in Judgement, and the rightesous would be "left behind" on earth.
(Matt 24:37-41)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that salvatiion was not complete until Christ returned.
(Hebrews 9:28)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that The way to heaven was not opened until the Temple was destroyed.
(Hebrews 9:8)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that on the "new earth" Birth, death, ageing and sinners would continue to exist.(Isaiah 65:17-21, Revelation 21 & 22)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that Christ is an invisible King, He was to come "in His kingdom" and that the coming of His kingdom would be "unobservable"
(1Timothy 1:17, Luke 17:20)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that Christ took the kingdom from the Jews, and gave it to the church, who is the holy nation that bears it's fruits.
(Matt 21:43, 1Peter 2:9)

The Bible,and therefore preterism, teaches that the Church is the "Israel of God" and the only heir to the promise of Abraham. (Gal 6:16)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that the true inheritance of Abraham is not earthly, but the better country of Heaven. (Hebrews 11:16, 1 Peter 1:4)

The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct.

 

[jenlu]

This is great...I know these are not all the preterism buzz scripture's, but I'm glad you have put the down like this...so I can look one by one, and try to figure how I agree or disagree with the interpretation...Let's start with the first one...while I agree there was a coming, I'm not quite sure the coming that these verses talk about was the 2nd coming...you and I both know God "came" many times in the O.T. It was for Judgement and Salvation...but none of those were the 2nd coming...also in Matthew 16:28 the way Jesus uses the phraseology...Son of Man...that refers me to an O.T. scripture(wish I could remember where, but you'll probably know the one I'm talking about...always have problems with chapter and verse...this time even book...geesh) when the "Son of Man" was seen coming into His kingdom...the way he was going was towards the "Ancient of Days"...that's toward heaven not earth...same with Luke 9:27 and Matthew 10:23

 

[Autumn]

I appreciate all of your references.

The Kingdom of God is here and was not ushered in with visible sign. The Kingdom of God is the Holy Spirit and rules in every Christian. However, in Matthew 24:30 "And then at last, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the nations of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
When did this happen?

 

[Thunderchild]

The comments by Jesus in Matthew 24:34 follow on from the statement in Matthew 24:30 that "all the tribes shall mourn and they shall see him coming in the clouds of heaven ..."

Mark 13:30 follows that same statement (Mark 13:26) and continues to say that Jesus himself does not know when this will occur (Mark 13:32)

Mark is a more ordered account than Matthew - note that the references to the fig tree and the statement that "this generation shall not pass" come after Jesus's remarks regarding his return in Mark, where in Matthew they become an aside in the middle of the account of Jesus's return. (Matthew often makes this type of break without warning)

Luke's account of Jesus's return is the same as Mark's, but fails to mention that Jesus doesn't know when these things will occur.

Matthew 24:37-41 shows that the coming of the Son of Man will be as unexpected as the coming of the flood was... it does not say that the wicked will be taken away. In fact the record explicitly states that it is the elect who will be gathered. Further Jesus tells of the tribulation (Matthew 24:21) and the rise of false prophets which will occur before the return ...

Hebrews 8:13 seems to be a mis-type. I can't find any correlation with a reference to the temple.

 

[davo]

Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

That which was old and becoming obsolete was the Old Covenant, which had its outworkings through the Temple -the Temples' demise equates to the demise of the old covenant.

davo

 

[Autumn]

Okay, I know that only the Father knows when Christ will come down in the clouds. Are you saying that this did not happen yet? In Luke 17:34-35 it speaks of people being raptured and others being left behind.

If Christ came in 70 AD then isn't His reign of 1000 years over and isn't Satan's as well?

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Autumn
I appreciate all of your references.

The Kingdom of God is here and was not ushered in with visible sign. The Kingdom of God is the Holy Spirit and rules in every Christian. However, in Matthew 24:30 "And then at last, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the nations of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
When did this happen?

From Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 3, "The Signs That Preceded The Destruction"

Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

If I'm not mistaken, Christ is to come with his "holy ones," or angels, and the "trump of God" will sound with the voice of an archangel.

That's if you want to get physically literal about it. On the other (spiritual, yet equally literal) hand, God came numerous times against other nations (e.g., Babylon, Edom, etc.) and the judgment of God against them is described in very similar apocalyptic language. The whole notion of "coming on the clouds" and darkening the sun, reddening the moon, and collapsing the stars, was non-literal language that ALL the ancient nations (incl. Israel) understood to mean that political upheaval was extremely near ... that the end of whatever political/socio-economic/religious system was experiencing the judgment of God was "at hand" and will happen "soon" and very "quickly."

It is indisputable that those judgments against those ancient nations (described in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.) were fulfilled in history. Yet nowhere do we find historical documentation of those "signs in the sky," or a literal "coming on the clouds." So why do you expect the same literalism when it came to the judgment upon Israel?

(I will concede that it is possible the records of those nations' destructions -- accompanied by literal, physical fulfillments of the apocalyptic language -- may have been lost over the ages. But if you believe this to be the case, then you surely can't discount the accounts Josephus recorded.)

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Autumn
In Luke 17:34-35 it speaks of people being raptured and others being left behind.

Luke only speaks of a taking away (presumably to judgment) and a leaving behind. I do not see a physical rapture here.

If Christ came in 70 AD then isn't His reign of 1000 years over and isn't Satan's as well? [/B]

:::using my best Ed McMahon voice::: THAT IS CORRECT, SIR!

 

[coastie]

Luke only speaks of a taking away (presumably to judgment) and a leaving behind. I do not see a physical rapture here.

There are so many holes in this that you are not considering, sir.

First of all, if Satan is already in the lake of fire, why is there still so much sin in the world? If Jesus has already has his thousand year reign, why is there no historical record of him from A.D. 70 to 1070?

Who was the anti-christ? Explain the chain fo events leading to and after Israel as fitting to biblical context. None of these things can be historically backed up.

However, if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning? The individual's interpretation fo the Bible has lead to many many detestable acts by people who claimed to be Christina and do things in the name of (their interpretation of) the Bible.

Eventually, what is the value of the Bible if all things can be interpetted one way or another? It has no substantiated moral value at that point. Show me biblically where the Bible draws the line at personal interpretation and maybe then I will consider your inferrences to have value in spiritual claims as contraversial as these.

Zach

 

[davo]

Originally posted by coastie
...if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning? ...Show me biblically where the Bible draws the line at personal interpretation and maybe then I will consider your inferrences to have value in spiritual claims as contraversial as these.

Zach

G'day Zach Do you beleive this verse literally, without putting your interpretation on it:

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

If you answer YES -then literally only those who saw Jesus does this promise apply to -what about the rest of us?

If you answer NO -but qualify your "no," then you are giving us your interpretation. Now interpretations are ok so long as you don't ignore context or established theological theme. We all know that "in believing" we see Jesus -a spiritual reality [not just post death], but rejecting dealing with scriptures, just because in your eyes "litrality" is not adhered to only shows your own misunderstanding and bias [IMO].

davo

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by parousia70

The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct.

And therefore preterism is the authority in all Bible interpretation.

And therefore preterism usurps all church authority, Catholic and Protestant alike.

And therefore preterism is the truth, the way, and no one comes to Jesus except thru preterism.

And therefore all churches, Catholic and Protestant alike, teach false doctrines--except preterist churches.

And therefore, the millions and millions of churches/believers have all been deluded for 1000's of years, and somehow they all just "missed" this MAJOR event of Christ's 2nd Coming.

 

[coastie]

Originally posted by davo


G'day Zach Do you beleive this verse literally, without putting your interpretation on it:

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

If you answer YES -then literally only those who saw Jesus does this promise apply to -what about the rest of us?

If you answer NO -but qualify your "no," then you are giving us your interpretation. Now interpretations are ok so long as you don't ignore context or established theological theme. We all know that "in believing" we see Jesus -a spiritual reality [not just post death], but rejecting dealing with scriptures, just because in your eyes "litrality" is not adhered to only shows your own misunderstanding and bias [IMO].

davo

Davo... the verse is not exclusionary brother. It doesn't say that those of us who do not see Him are not going to heaven.

Zach

 

[davo]

Originally posted by coastie
Davo... the verse is not exclusionary brother. It doesn't say that those of us who do not see Him are not going to heaven.

Zach

Beautiful! -thanks for interpreting that for me

davo

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Thunderchild

Hebrews 8:13 seems to be a mis-type. I can't find any correlation with a reference to the temple.

You are correct. I meant to type Hebrews 9:8, but Davo did a fine Job of drawing a corelation anyway!

I have edited the original post to reflect this correction, Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[coastie]

Originally posted by davo


Beautiful! -thanks for interpreting that for me

davo

That is not the same type of interpretation. I am not giving the text new meaning through explaining what it says. That is clearly what Mr. Beidler was doing. Giving the text new meaning through personal interpretation.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by coastie


There are so many holes in this that you are not considering, sir.

First of all, if Satan is already in the lake of fire, why is there still so much sin in the world?

Here's a few holes you seem to be overlooking yourself

Perhaps you could point me to the scripture that says in order for sin to be in the world, Satan has to be "working it" or "behind it" somehow. Take your time.

From everything I have found, scripture testifies that the heart of man is wicked above all else (Satan included),(Jeremiah 17:9) and that man is fully capable of sin all by himself, and he sins when he is drawn away by his own lusts(James 1:14).
Nothing in scripture suppports the kind of "Flip Wilson" theology you seem to be implying here (The Devil made me do it). In fact scripture is clear that Sinners continue to dwell in the New Heavens and earth. (Isaiah 65:17-23, Revelation 21 & 22))

Originally posted by coastie
If Jesus has already has his thousand year reign, why is there no historical record of him from A.D. 70 to 1070?

Preterists differ on what the 1000 years referrs to, however the original Greek for "thousand ,"Chilioi", means "plural of uncertain affinity", In fact the early Church officially condemned "millennialism" as Heresy.

I believe that the "millennium" was fulfilled in the time between the ascention and 70 AD, but was representative of the consumation of the Davidic Monarchy, lasting from King David, first in the lineage, to Christ the King, Last and eternal King. A time period of 1000 years.

Originally posted by coastie
Who was the anti-christ?

No such thing as "The" antichrist.
Antichrist is a church heresy that manifested among the apostles' flocks in the 1st century. This heresy proved to St. John that the final hour of the last days had come upon him (1 John 2:18-19).

"Antichrist" is a heresy. It is a heresy that affected Christians among the apostles' first century flocks, and was a sign of the final hour of the last days (1 John 2:18-19). The christians who were affected by this spirit "went out from" (i.e. "left") the apostolic congregations to chase the heresy and teach it to many others. These apostate Christians were called "many deceivers" in 2 John 1:7:

"For MANY DECEIVERS are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

"As you have heard that antichrist would come, even now there are MANY ANTICHRISTS, by which we know it is the last hour. They WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not OF us..."(1 John 2:18-19).

They had left the apostles flocks after being in them for some time. These apostate christians are mentioned again in 1 John 4:1-3, where St. John also calls those under the heresy of antichrist "MANY FALSE PROPHETS." Surely Matt 24:11,24 and Acts 20:29-30 were coming to pass in the mind of St. John as a sign of the impending end.

IN SUM
Antichrist is not a world-ruler secular leader dude that has power over the world, or even one single nation. Antichrist is a heresy, or a spirit of heresy that manifested among MANY Christians in the apostles' flocks in the 60s AD causing them to deny that one had to have Jesus to have the Father (1 John 2:22-24) and causing them to proclaim that Jesus never actually came in real human flesh (1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7).

It never ceases to amaze me how much mythology has been built up over 2000 years on this idea of a Mr. Antichrist world ruler dude. No such thing exists anywhere in the bible, yet so many Christians buy into it hook, line, and sinker -- thanks to Hal Lindsey, J. Hagee, LaHaye, and other so-called "prophecy experts."

Originally posted by coastie
However, if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning?

Sir, I contend you are no literalist. You rely on spiritualization and allegory to formulate your own personal interpratation.

Case in point:
Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show His servants things which must shortly take place.

Allegorization and spiritualization is the only way one can stretch "Shortly" into 2000+ years.

Peace,
P70

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by coastie
First of all, if Satan is already in the lake of fire, why is there still so much sin in the world?

James 1:14-15 says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death."

If Jesus has already has his thousand year reign, why is there no historical record of him from A.D. 70 to 1070?

Show me in Revelation 20 where it says Jesus physically reigned on earth. Also, where are the thrones located? This should give you an idea from where the beheaded saints reign from. And if they reign with Christ, then Christ must also with them in this location.

As for the 1000 years, can you prove to me using the book of Revelation that I should take this number literally? Is the dragon literal? Is the chain with which Satan is bound literal? Is there an actual key to the Abyss? Do you take everything in Revelation literally?

Who was the anti-christ? Explain the chain fo events leading to and after Israel as fitting to biblical context. None of these things can be historically backed up.

Before I answer that question, can you prove to me that the Antichrist (using that very term) is a single person?

However, if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning?

Oh, I do take the Bible literally. But what you're wanting me to do is ascribe physical wings to God, right? (See Psalms 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; and 91:4.) Before you go slapping a particular interpretation on a particular verse or passage, you need to identify what type of literature you're reading. What type of literature is Revelation?

The individual's interpretation fo the Bible has lead to many many detestable acts by people who claimed to be Christina and do things in the name of (their interpretation of) the Bible.

Sounds like you want an infallible interpreter. Check your local listings for the nearest Catholic Church or Kingdom Hall.

Eventually, what is the value of the Bible if all things can be interpetted one way or another? It has no substantiated moral value at that point.

Again, you want a Bible that can't be twisted to fit someone's agenda, right? Too bad. Even Peter and Paul confronted this problem: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16, NASB).

But I ask you this: what makes your view superior to mine?

Show me biblically where the Bible draws the line at personal interpretation and maybe then I will consider your inferrences to have value in spiritual claims as contraversial as these.

2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (NET, www.netbible.org). I simply believe what the Bible says because God spoke it into existence through his prophets and apostles. If Jesus said He was coming back while the present generation was still alive, then I believe that He did. It's up to me to prove, through history, that He did exactly that.

Now my challenge to you is this: prove to me that Jesus meant some other generation than the one he was speaking to.

 

[davo]

Well coastie, looking at your post #9: If you were the devil, which interpretation would you rather be correct: an interpretation that says he's [Satan] running amuk -tempting, harassing and basically beating up on God's children -and not only that, there's worse to come!

OR

an interpretation that says Jesus totally defeated Satan and slam-dunked him into the Lake of Fire when He came in His Parousia near 2000 years ago!

If you were the devil -which would you want to be true???


If you want to argue about SIN -argue with St Paul, he said sin came into the world through Adam.

This worlds problem is SIN -not Satan, it's DOUBT -not the Devil. The heart of man is evil and corrupt ABOVE ALL else -Jer 17:9.

Paul also said: "give no place to the devil" -"futurism" virtually gives him equal billing with God . While he's tempting you there, he's whispering in my ear here [omnipresent???? ] The truth is: "each one is drawn aside by his own desires and enticed..." We don't need the devil for us to sin -we do it by ourselves.

Fortunately for us Christ's salvation IS complete and we have eternal forgiveness.

davo

 

[coastie]

Whoa whoa... I started replying to P70's and all of the sudden I have two more... sheesh, I'm getting ganged up on here!

I can't take on the three of yours posts here. Pick one for me to concentrate on here.

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by coastie
Whoa whoa... I started replying to P70's and all of the sudden I have two more... sheesh, I'm getting ganged up on here!

I can't take on the three of yours posts here. Pick one for me to concentrate on here.

Hmmmmmm ... you replied to MY posting and accused me of quite a bit. I suggest you pick on me for a while.