Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be so easy to attribute everything Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD except for one HUGE and I mean HUGE problem: verses 29-31 where Jesus said all eyes would see His visible return. Now Preterist, as best I read him, has chosen to interpret Jesus' words as more symbolic of a spiritual or psychological return - anything except an actual physical return. And that is where most preterists run into problems convincing Christians that all prophecy has been fulfilled. Perhaps it's time to consider another possibility: that Matthew got some of this wrong as he transcribed Jesus' Olivet Discourse many years later. Matt. 24:28 is horribly out of place, hence out of context, when compared to Luke's more accurate-sounding account in Luke 17:34-37 where Jesus talks about one taken and the other left and then the Apostles ask, "Where, Lord" whereupon Jesus replies with the same words as Matthew gives in Matt 24:28. This one verse (28) demonstrates that the narration, as delivered by Matthew, could be flawed. Therefore, perhaps v.29-31 are misplaced as well. Possibly everything else in the Discourse (except those 3 verses) are accurate, then, and we can attribute the whole discourse as pertaining to 70 AD and not to Jesus' return at the end of the world. Any thoughts?
It would be so easy to attribute everything Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD except for one HUGE and I mean HUGE problem: verses 29-31 where Jesus said all eyes would see His visible return. Now Preterist, as best I read him, has chosen to interpret Jesus' words as more symbolic of a spiritual or psychological return - anything except an actual physical return. And that is where most preterists run into problems convincing Christians that all prophecy has been fulfilled. Perhaps it's time to consider another possibility: that Matthew got some of this wrong as he transcribed Jesus' Olivet Discourse many years later. Matt. 24:28 is horribly out of place, hence out of context, when compared to Luke's more accurate-sounding account in Luke 17:34-37 where Jesus talks about one taken and the other left and then the Apostles ask, "Where, Lord" whereupon Jesus replies with the same words as Matthew gives in Matt 24:28. This one verse (28) demonstrates that the narration, as delivered by Matthew, could be flawed. Therefore, perhaps v.29-31 are misplaced as well. Possibly everything else in the Discourse (except those 3 verses) are accurate, then, and we can attribute the whole discourse as pertaining to 70 AD and not to Jesus' return at the end of the world. Any thoughts?
I've been saying the above in bold for almost a year now.
It would be so easy to attribute everything Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD except for one HUGE and I mean HUGE problem: verses 29-31 where Jesus said all eyes would see His visible return. Now Preterist, as best I read him, has chosen to interpret Jesus' words as more symbolic of a spiritual or psychological return - anything except an actual physical return. And that is where most preterists run into problems convincing Christians that all prophecy has been fulfilled. Perhaps it's time to consider another possibility: that Matthew got some of this wrong as he transcribed Jesus' Olivet Discourse many years later. Matt. 24:28 is horribly out of place, hence out of context, when compared to Luke's more accurate-sounding account in Luke 17:34-37 where Jesus talks about one taken and the other left and then the Apostles ask, "Where, Lord" whereupon Jesus replies with the same words as Matthew gives in Matt 24:28. This one verse (28) demonstrates that the narration, as delivered by Matthew, could be flawed. Therefore, perhaps v.29-31 are misplaced as well. Possibly everything else in the Discourse (except those 3 verses) are accurate, then, and we can attribute the whole discourse as pertaining to 70 AD and not to Jesus' return at the end of the world. Any thoughts?
Greetings Thrillobyte: Preterists do not grab these things out of thin air! Do you believe that during God's judgment upon Edom, Egypt, and Babylon that the literal earth was moved out of her place and that it was shaken? Do you believe the literal heavens were rolled up as a scroll? Was the literal sword of the Lord bathed in the blood of the slain? Did ALL the hosts of heaven dissolve and fall? IF you are to insist that verses 29-31 are to be taken literally, then you must also take the verses found in Isaiah 13 and 34 literally as well! When did that happen, Thrillobyte?
Here is the HUGE problem for futurists, especially dispensationalists--every time Jesus used the expression "this generation," He ALWAYS meant His contemporaries (twenty times!). Jesus' Jewish disciples standing right there with Him had no problem with this clear apocalyptic, metaphorical, figurative, judgment language. They had heard it before! They clearly understood it as God's coming in judgment upon them in much the same manner as He had come to their forefathers and to Egypt and to Edom and to Babylon!
Again, there is no end of the world! The Scriptures speak of a time of the end or the end of the age, not the end of the world. Many in the church have been falsely taught that this world will end, that Christ will come physically and visibly in the clouds, that every eye throughout the whole earth will see Him, and that He will then judge everyone who has ever lived when everyone pops up out of their graves! I was taught this from the time I was saved. I was taught this in seminary! But what saith the Scriptures on these matters?
Futurists are good at pointing out apparent HUGE problems for preterists, while they ignore their own HUGE problem of not taking Jesus and the Apostles at their word when they clearly expressed the time frame for His return, for the abomination of desolation, for the great tribulation, for the resurrection and for the judgment. In order to take time statements in their normal, usual, common, everyday usage, they must do injustice to their preconceived ideas of the nature and manner of Christ's return! They are not willing to do that and, therefore, make obscure that which is plain. "This generation will by no means pass away" is not difficult to understand. No one should stumble over such simple words. No one should read Matthew 24 and ignore the plain audience relevance there. Jesus is talking to THOSE disciples right there with Him about things that were to affect them personally. WE are not the YE! This is plain and simple narrative that only becomes difficult when one cannot fit his presuppositions into it! Did not Jesus say directly to THOSE disciples with Him--"When YOU see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet . . . " (Mat. 24:15). Is that not plain? Why does the Church sitll look for the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet? Why?
Verses 29-31 are NOT a huge problem for preterists. Futurists invent that "problem" by their refusal to acknowledge LEGITIMATE apocalyptic, figurative, metaphorical, prophetic, judgment language completely and easily understood by the Jewish mindset.
Jesus said to that first-century, pre-A. D. 70 generation--"Behold, I am coming soon!" Will we believe Him?
Preterist, I was a pre-tribber until about 2 months ago when I did extensive research on the rapture, the 7-year tribulation, the Antichrist and lots of other stuff related to it and found it all to be a false doctrine. What I cannot seem to let go of is the concept that Christ will return physically one day, not in my lifetime undoubtedly, but some day to put an end to all this earthly corruption. Otherwise you have a God who just sits idly by while humans destroy themselves. Revelation 1:7 cannot be attributed to the past. IMHO. The word "shall" makes Jesus' coming a future event; there's no way around that. What hope is there for Christians if the world is destined to continue as it is until infinity. When does it all end? When does the Judgement of nations occur? When do we get to the new heaven and new earth? Or has that, too, already happened in John's generation?
Preterist, I was a pre-tribber until about 2 months ago when I did extensive research on the rapture, the 7-year tribulation, the Antichrist and lots of other stuff related to it and found it all to be a false doctrine. What I cannot seem to let go of is the concept that Christ will return physically one day, not in my lifetime undoubtedly, but some day to put an end to all this earthly corruption. Otherwise you have a God who just sits idly by while humans destroy themselves. Revelation 1:7 cannot be attributed to the past. IMHO. The word "shall" makes Jesus' coming a future event; there's no way around that. What hope is there for Christians if the world is destined to continue as it is until infinity. When does it all end? When does the Judgement of nations occur? When do we get to the new heaven and new earth? Or has that, too, already happened in John's generation?
Hi thrillobyte, you surely do bring up some very interesting points. I am curious if you believe there is still the 1000 year reign of Christ to come? I do. If we have been living in the 1000 year reign for the last 2000 years (like preterists believe) then something is terribly wrong. Where is the righteousness which is to cover the earth? When were the nations judged as to their treatment of Christ's brethren (Matt.25:31-46)? When did Christ reign from Jerusalem over the nations and his disciples, made apostles, rule over the 12 tribes of Israel for the last 2000 years?
And if we have been living in the millennial reign of Christ for 2000 years, then all of Paul's writings need to be set aside because we are back under law, not grace.
If Christ and His apostles have been reigning from Jerusalem for the last 2000 years then the complement of the nations has already enters 2000 years ago; no more believers are to be added to the body of Christ whose destiny is above. (see Romans 11:25)
Hi thrillobyte, you surely do bring up some very interesting points. I am curious if you believe there is still the 1000 year reign of Christ to come? I do. If we have been living in the 1000 year reign for the last 2000 years (like preterists believe) then something is terribly wrong. Where is the righteousness which is to cover the earth? When were the nations judged as to their treatment of Christ's brethren (Matt.25:31-46)? When did Christ reign from Jerusalem over the nations and his disciples, made apostles, rule over the 12 tribes of Israel for the last 2000 years?
And if we have been living in the millennial reign of Christ for 2000 years, then all of Paul's writings need to be set aside because we are back under law, not grace.
If Christ and His apostles have been reigning from Jerusalem for the last 2000 years then the complement of the nations has already enters 2000 years ago; no more believers are to be added to the body of Christ whose destiny is above. (see Romans 11:25)
Preterist, I was a pre-tribber until about 2 months ago when I did extensive research on the rapture, the 7-year tribulation, the Antichrist and lots of other stuff related to it and found it all to be a false doctrine. What I cannot seem to let go of is the concept that Christ will return physically one day, not in my lifetime undoubtedly, but some day to put an end to all this earthly corruption. Otherwise you have a God who just sits idly by while humans destroy themselves. Revelation 1:7 cannot be attributed to the past. IMHO. The word "shall" makes Jesus' coming a future event; there's no way around that. What hope is there for Christians if the world is destined to continue as it is until infinity. When does it all end? When does the Judgement of nations occur? When do we get to the new heaven and new earth? Or has that, too, already happened in John's generation?
thrillobyte: I understand your concerns--I've been there too. But you must remember the "shall" was used of Jesus' coming when it was first spoken, not to us, but to those of Jesus' own day. It was a future event--for them!
Why cannot Revelation 1:7 be attributed to the past? The context is clearly those things which were in John's day to shortly take place--the time was THEN near! Those who pierced Him are involved! The tribes of the land are involved.
Here is the key to all of this--whether you wish to accept it is up to you. For many years now Christians have been taught that Christ will come physically and visibly to all and actually set His feet upon the Mount of Olives, splitting it in two! Every eye throughout the entire earth will see it! Dead bodies will pop up out of their graves and all people who have ever lived throughout all time will be judged. The earth will be annihilated and God will create new physical heavens and a new physical earth! Is this really the biblical NATURE of Christ's return, the resurrection and the judgment? I no longer believe so. But these things are the major stumbling blocks for a transition from the errors of dispensationalism to the truths of preterism.
There is absolutely no possibility of reconciling the clear time statements and first-century, pre-A. D. 70 expectations of His coming with the current understanding of how Christ was to return, how the resurrection would occur, and how and when God would judge the living and the dead. Those who cling to the modern understanding will never ever be able to accept the time indicators at face value! They must either redefine them or ignore them.
Upon what do so many base their understanding of Christ's return? Acts , 2 Peter 3, and Revelation 1! How was Jesus to come in "like manner" as the disciples saw Him go? We love to zero in on how they saw Him visibly leave their presence and then assume He will come back that same way. But where were the trumpets when He departed? Did every eye on earth see Him go? It was a very private matter. Only "every eye" of a select group saw Him. There is very little similarity between His departure in Acts 1 and the popular teaching today of how He is to return. They are not like manners! And again, who are the "every eye" of Revelation 1:7? The context is not some end-of-the world event involving all peoples of the earth. This is a very Jewish event--it involved the tribes of the land, not the earth. Those who pierced Him were there. Jesus told Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (those who ultimately "pierced Him" by calling for His death) that THEY would personally see Him "sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mat. 26:64). This cloud coming is the main emphasis of how Jesus departed and how He was to return. Also of interest--even the Romans (who actually pierced Him) saw His coming in judgment upon Israel. According to Josephus, Titus himself concluded as much.
Why does the earth have to end? Because of 2 Peter 3? Here again, the incorrect exegesis of this passage has led to doctrinal error--error that could have easily been avoided through proper hermeneutical principles. The word for "elements" (stoikeia) is NEVER used of the chemical makeup of the earth. It is always used (7 times) of the precepts and principles of law or philosophies. I encourage you to look them up and find just one that speaks of chemical elements. In 2 Peter 3, stoikeia referred to the enslavement under the Judaistic system of laws and regulations--things from which Christ freed those early believers! They were not to return to them. That age was about to come to an end when the New Covenant in Christ's blood became fully established when Christ sprinkled His blood upon the altar in the heavenly Holy of Holies in A. D. 70! The Old Heavens and Earth (Judaism and the Old Covenant "elements") were burned up and the New Heavens and Earth (the new people of God, the Church) was established forever.
Preterists are often accused (and unjustly I believe) of spiritualizing and interpreting biblical truths figuratively, metaphorically, or spiritually. But clearly the Scriptures involve such genres and such uses of language. The wise student of the Word invests the necessary time and effort to ascertain when something is to be taken "literally" and when it is to be understood firguratively. Certainly, to spiritualize that which is not spiritual is wrong. But to literalize that which is to be understood as figurative or metaphorical is also wrong.
Jesus said many times that He was coming back to those of His day (e.g. Matthew 10, 16, 24, 26). Paul spoke of the resurrection and the judgment as about to occur (Acts 17 and 24)! Paul clearly included himself and those believers of his day when he taught about the resurrection ("WE shall all be changed"--1 Cor. 15) and the coming of Christ ("WE shall be caught up"--1 Thes. 4). Those very first-century Thessalonians were told that THEY would be given relief and that those who troubled THEM would be troubled AT HIS APPEARING! (2 Thes. 1). When we ignore audience relevance, we misapply Scripture!
The resurrection was the hope of Israel. Before Christ, all went to Sheol (Hades) and waited for the resurrection. No one could enter God's presence until the sacrificial blood of the Perfect Lamb of God had been sprinkled on the heavenly altar once and for all. Christ, both the sacrifice and the High Priest, did that in A. D. 70 and Hades was emptied and cast into the lake of fire, the righteous were at last freed to be with Christ in heaven, the wicked were cast out of His presence. Christ was not to come at some end-of-time event to judge the world in righteousness. The judgment Christ brought in A. D. 70 (the judgment Paul taught was ABOUT TO come) was not for all people throughout all time at one time. His judgment brought the DETERMINATION of destiny for all the righteous and wicked who ever lived and who will ever live. All who die in Christ go to be with Him; all who die in Adam and in their sins, go to Hell forever.
I know I have covered a lot here and have not given ample support. I would be more than happy to do that if you would like. I would simply ask--are you sure that you are properly understanding the nature and manner of Christ's return, the nature of the resurrection, and the nature of the judgment? Upon what Scripture do you base your understanding? Is there another possible and legitimate understanding of those Scriptures?
Hi thrillobyte, you surely do bring up some very interesting points. I am curious if you believe there is still the 1000 year reign of Christ to come? I do. If we have been living in the 1000 year reign for the last 2000 years (like preterists believe) then something is terribly wrong. Where is the righteousness which is to cover the earth? When were the nations judged as to their treatment of Christ's brethren (Matt.25:31-46)? When did Christ reign from Jerusalem over the nations and his disciples, made apostles, rule over the 12 tribes of Israel for the last 2000 years?
And if we have been living in the millennial reign of Christ for 2000 years, then all of Paul's writings need to be set aside because we are back under law, not grace.
If Christ and His apostles have been reigning from Jerusalem for the last 2000 years then the complement of the nations has already enters 2000 years ago; no more believers are to be added to the body of Christ whose destiny is above. (see Romans 11:25)
Preterists have it all wrong.
Eusebius: The 1000-year reign was not 1000 years! We must not press large rounded numbers too far. A "millennial reign" is not found in the Scriptures. I believe that time-frame was the forty years between Christ's death and Second coming in A. D. 70! Forty years is a very significant time frame! We see the completeness in the number 1000 when we consider that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. What does that mean? Does He not own the cattle on the 1001st hill? This is a figurative, metaphorical number!
People have continued to come to Christ since that time and will forever continue to come to Christ by grace through faith! Preterists do not have it all wrong! Most critics of preterism, I believe, do not really even understand preterism--as evidenced by your misunderstanding of our understanding of the 1000-year reign! Since legitimate preterists (not futuristice "preterists") believe that all of the events of the book of Revelation are past, how do you teach that we believe that we are now in the 1000-year reign? That is not what many preterists teach!
From what I can determine, a full-blown preterist is just an atheist who believes in God. No offense, Preterist, my cynicism wasn't directed at you. Your arguments are clear, well-thought-out, balanced and I must admit they do make lots of sense. I guess at the end of the day we all have our own individual rapture when we take our last breath. It's just a a shame that all those glorious descriptions of heaven and earth might turn out to have been figments of someone's imagination.
From what I can determine, a full-blown preterist is just an atheist who believes in God. No offense, Preterist, my cynicism wasn't directed at you. Your arguments are clear, well-thought-out, balanced and I must admit they do make lots of sense. I guess at the end of the day we all have our own individual rapture when we take our last breath. It's just a a shame that all those glorious descriptions of heaven and earth might turn out to have been figments of someone's imagination.
Dear thrillobyte: I AM a "full-blown preterist!" How does that make me an atheist?
Very much, IN CHRIST, Preterist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
