A Challenge to Futurists

[Ozarkpreterist]

In the past 50 years or more there has been a “battle for the Bible” going on in academic circles. It may surprise us what liberals and skeptics use most to attack the authority of the Scriptures. It is without a doubt non-fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. For example, Bertrand Russell in his book “Why I am not a Christian” writes:

“I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the gospels… there one does find some things that do not seem very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all people who were living at the time. There are a great many texts to prove that. He believed that His coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it is the basis of a good deal of his moral teaching.”

RC. Sproul made this comment on the matter in his book “The Last Days According to Jesus,”

“The skeptism expressed by Russell on these matters is by no means limited to him, but are the axe ground by a host of higher-critical scholars of the Bible… the chief ground for the radical criticism of modern biblical scholarship, which has resulted in a wholesale attack on the trustworthiness of Scripture… is the thesis that the Gospels’ records of Jesus’ predictions contain glaring errors and gross inaccuracies….”

Sproul talks in his book of his seminary days where liberal professors constantly used Biblical texts regarding the return of Christ to “prove” the bible was in error.

Even our beloved C.S. Lewis said:

“Say what you like, we shall be told the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master told them so. He shared, and indeed created their delusion.”

The same line of attack against Christianity is used by Jewish skeptics to speak against Christianity. They say that Jesus did not bring the Messianic kingdom in the time frame that the Old Testament prophets predicted. They claim in order to get around Jesus’ failure to bring the Kingdom of God to earth we have invented the doctrine of the second coming. In other words, Jesus would come back to take care of the things He did not fulfill the first time. However, the Jewish Bible gives no support for the Christian doctrine of a second coming. Consider the following quotes from Jewish writers.

The Jew refused to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a "second coming." ( He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt.) [The Real Messiah Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973 page 15.]

Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a "second coming." At first, Christians expected that this (second coming) would come very shortly...in their lifetime. When their prayer was not an answered they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus’ death. This was the millennium or thousand years kingdom. Finally after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned, (they postponed his second coming to an indefinite time). We therefore see that the (early Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus failure). This compounded with the pagan influence in the (early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism. [Pinchas Stolper, ed. pages 32, 33}

You will discover that when ever any really strong question [such as why Jesus hasn’t fulfilled all Messianic prophecies]..is asked [of the Christians], the (standard answer is that it refers to the second coming). It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure ( rest to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming).It is clearly an answer born of desperation. [Samuel Levin. You Take Jesus, I will Take God. Los Angeles 1980. Page 15

Muslims use a similar attack against Christianity. They throw scriptures like Matthew 24:29-34, Mark 13:23-30, Matthew 10:22-23, and Matt 16:27-28 in our faces saying that Jesus could not be divine.

The challenge to the futurist viewpoint is simple. How do you answer these charges? These questions are faced by seminary students, missionaries, and evangelists alike. Christians in this hour especially need an answer. What can you give us? The following post was made last Saturday at Christian Forums. It is an example of the kind of attack that is coming against the Bible.

Ozark

[Ozarkpreterist]

Post made by Verizon1:

Allah is the name of the Muslim god and according to Islam, the same god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and he cannot lie. According to Islam, Jesus was once one of the greatest prophets of God (however we do not hold that view any more).

There have been many false prophets claiming to be God. So why the double standard? Try looking rationally at the Idol Jesus without attachment or pride of your traditions, 'cause he also failed miserably at his end time predictions and his coming back quickly. How can one look at others in haste then not see their own idols failings?

Let's look at what scripture tells us about false prophets: Deut 18:20-22 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' "And it you say in your heart, How shall we know the words which the Lord has not spoken? "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which God has not spoken and that prophet, has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him..
(Jesus was put to death).

The false Prophet is put to death by the council of his tribe and the one they stand up for and do not put to death because he's found righteous, will be the one they anoint with the oil.

Notice if the prophecy, does not come true, then this verse calls the prophet false and is not a spokesman for God. Well since people feel this is true, and God says it's true, and the words openly say this is true even in more verses like (Isa. 30:10, Jer. 5:30-31, 14:14, 23:16, 26, 32-32),

How does proof in scripture that Jesus himself failed as a prophet, all of a sudden become totally ignored?

The Proof is clearly in the writings. Here is one of the most interesting sections since any person who reads this will have a totally new understanding on why Islamic does not believe Jesus is God as opposed to the Christians.

Jesus said in Matthews 10 :23 that he would return before his disciples went through the cities of Israel. That did not happen which makes Jesus speaking as a false prophet here.

Jesus said in Matthew 16:27-28 that he would come in the glory of God with his angels and reward every man cording to his works and before his disciples would die, he would return in the kingdom. Jesus did not come in the glory of God with his angels and reward every before the disciples died. Which makes Jesus a false prophet.

Jesus said to the high priest Caiaphas that (He would see the Son of Man) coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:62-63) That did not happen so Jesus is a false prophet.

Jesus said in Luke 9:26-27 whoever is ashamed of his words he will be ashamed when He comes in God’s glory with holy angel before some of his disciples standing there died. That did not which makes Jesus a false prophet.

Jesus said in Luke 21:20-22 when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies those would be the days of vengeance when all thing would be fulfilled. This did not happen so Jesus is a false prophet.

More false prophecy claims; Jesus’ disciples told everyone they understood that THEY were living in the "end-times." "Now all these things happened unto them for example: and they are written for our admonition, UPON WHOM THE ENDS OF THE WORLD ARE COME." (I Cor. 10:11 -KJV) "But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND..." (I Peter 4:7 -KJV) Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? The disciples were also false prophets.

Matthew 24:31-34? "Truly I say: THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS OCCUR." (well the end didn’t happen and Jesus never returned in his generation) Which makes Matthew a false prophet. Don’t let the church’s fool you by my reveling of this by saying it is any other generation.

Peter said to the people to save themselves from that generation. (Acts 2 40) Will nothing happen in (that generation) which makes Peter another false prophet.

Paul said in Acts 3:23 that the Prophet Jesus would utterly destroy them from among the people.

Will that did not happen which makes Paul another false prophet.

Stephen said that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy this place (the temple and city) and change the customs (the laws) of Moses delivered to them (Acts 6:13-14) We all know Jesus never returned and destroy the place or changed the law. So Stephen is another false prophet.

Paul said that the (day of Christ was at hand) Romans 13:11 and that did not happen so Paul is a false prophet.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:7 they were eagerly waiting for the revelation of Christ. Well the revelation of Christ never happen so Jesus is a false prophet.

The writer of Hebrews said it would be a little while and Jesus who is coming would not tarry 10:37. This statement makes the writer of Hebrews a false prophet.

James said to the people to establish their hearts for the coming of Jesus is at hand (James 5:8-9) The return of Jesus was (not at hand) which makes James a false prophet.

Peter said the people would give an account to Jesus who was ready to judge the living and the dead. (1 Peter 4:5) Jesus was not ready, or never judged anyone which makes Peter a false prophet.

John spoke for Jesus in Rev 22:7,12: Behold, I (Jesus) come soon. Blessed is he who keeps the sayings of the prophecy of this book... I will return soon, and my reward with me, to give to every man according to his deeds. (is 2000 years soon)? John is a false prophet.

NAS Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place... Well nothing shortly took place.
NAS Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. The time was not hear.

LIT Rev 1:19 "Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which are about to occur after these things." Nothing was about to occur.

NAS Rev 3:11 'I am coming quickly... Jesus did not come quickly.

NAS Rev 22:6 And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place. Nothing shortly took place so the words are not faithful and true.

NAS Rev 22:7 "And behold, I am coming quickly." Jesus did not come quickly. And don’t let the churches fool you into believing quickly means 2,000 years.

NAS Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near". The time was not near.

In short, more false prophecy and blunders....Guess the false prophets were under your noses only to be seen when the (one who is right Islam,) arrived to lift the veil of confusion. John said the words of the prophecy about Jesus were near, and at hand. Well the fulfillment of prophecy was [B] not near, and at hand, which makes John the lest of your false Prophets.
.
If the disciples lied, and your Jesus lied, and did not keep his word about his soon return how can you believe him when it come to salvation ? And please do not try to tell me, that those who are (Muslim) I don’t know how to read your false Bible..

I Guess the followers of these false prophets have to deceive some more people and back pedal on these things to. So now the Church has been saving face on these issues by claims that Jesus has to come back in out time to fulfilled the thing he FAILED to DO! Nowhere does the Bible say the Messiah fails then has to get a second chance coming back to finish the job he FAILED to DO! (This basically is telling the Muslim world that he's the opposite of the Messiah).

They show they always have to lie to back their faith by using more lies to fight the truth revealed, which is in essence that Jesus and his disciples are false prophets according to the words of God (Deut 18:20-22). The New Testament is not the Word of God and Christianity is a false system.

[Auntie]

"1st Corinthians 1:17-31
17)For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18)For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19)For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20)Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21)For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22)For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23)But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24)But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25)Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26)For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27)But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28)And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29)That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30)But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31)That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist
The challenge to the futurist viewpoint is simple. How do you answer these charges? These questions are faced by seminary students, missionaries, and evangelists alike. Christians in this hour especially need an answer. What can you give us? The following post was made last Saturday at Christian Forums. It is an example of the kind of attack that is coming against the Bible.

Ozark

How do I answer these charges?

First of all, I've never been called upon to answer them. The topic never comes up. I think that's a shame, because I study prophecy and I like to discuss it. But most people I know don't care about prophecy.

But if I had to answer, I'd answer from scripture: 2 Peter 3

1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

What I would NOT do is reinterpret scripture to mean Jesus had already returned just to squelch attacks. Why would I do that? If we're not being attacked, we're probably not telling the truth.

[GTX]

Faith, we are always challenged. It is the nature of Satan to make us doubt scripture. Trust the Lord, trust the Word.

[verizon1]

Trust the Lord, trust the Word. What a lie. How can you christians dear say you trust what you believe to be the word of God when Jesus failed to do what he said he would? Jesus said he would return (before his pisciples died) Matthew 16:27-27. By your own words this did not happen which makes your Jesus to (the world a false prophet).

I dear you christians say you believe the word. Jesus as said that the high priest Caiaphas that (HE) would see his return on the clouds of heaven. That did not happen and don't try to tell us we don't know how to read your false Bible. You own Bible calls this Jesus a false prophet if you understand Det. 18.

Jesus did not return when he said so he is a false prophet to the world. How can you believe someone when they make false testimonys which can be proofed with their own words?

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by verizon1
Trust the Lord, trust the Word. What a lie. How can you christians dear say you trust what you believe to be the word of God when Jesus failed to do what he said he would? Jesus said he would return (before his pisciples died) Matthew 16:27-27. By your own words this did not happen which makes your Jesus to (the world a false prophet).

I dear you christians say you believe the word. Jesus as said that the high priest Caiaphas that (HE) would see his return on the clouds of heaven. That did not happen and don't try to tell us we don't know how to read your false Bible. You own Bible calls this Jesus a false prophet if you understand Det. 18.

Jesus did not return when he said so he is a false prophet to the world. How can you believe someone when they make false testimonys which can be proofed with their own words?

verizon1 As I have already stated you have made some very valid points here. The traditional teaching of men, have indeed made Christ appear to be just another false prophet. For almost 2.000 years now here in America we have constantly been told that (we) were living on the threshold of the end of the world and Christ's return which was to be fulfilled in the first century.

The Jews, and other religions, and the secular media have used these same (valid point) to further discredit Christianity as well. These verses have always been used by liberal theologians to attack the inspiration of Scripture.

They too reason that these passages were not fulfilled when they were supposed to be (the first century generation), so Jesus and the NT writers failed in their predictions and were therefore not inspired and false prophets. However these things can and will be answered with the Bible.

I haft to go to work. But I am shore another preterist here can answer (all you questions). Jesus did return when he said he would. I will also get back to about these thing when I come home from word.

You servent in Christ.

[Justme]

Hi Verizon1,

Trust the word. What a lie... I can easily see why you come to this conclusion. The first hundred times I read the gospel I kinda thought the same thing.
I use this short form description of the coming of the son of man and the second coming to explain my understanding of this part of the gospel, maybe it will help.
The second coming of Christ occurs at the personal death of each individual. This process began with the 'coming of the son of man' as described in the gospel and that occured within the generation that Jesus talked to in the first century. The 'coming of the son of man' is a spiritual heavenly event, not a physical earthly one.

Justme

[Mandy]

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

If there was never to be a physical restoring of the kingdom, why didn't Jesus tell the disciples? Why did He make them think, even after His death and resurrection, that there would indeed be a future restoration of the kingdom to Israel? But I suppose Jesus was speaking spiritually, right? It is quite obvious that Jesus' disciples were speaking of a physical restoration. Read Ezekiel 37.
Preterism makes the Scriptures so symbolic that who can know what is literal or not? God is not the author of confusion and preterism = confusion.

[Justme]

Hi Mandy,

Where in those verses did Jesus actually SAY there was any physical earthly Kingdom or, for that matter, where anywhere else does it positively say a physical return? If there is then I have to refine my thinking. If there is I haven't found it yet.

Mandy, I must say here that I am not a preterist promoter. I'm curious what the bible actually says, not what anyone including me, wants it to say.I have said I don't know all that much about preterism. Many of their articles make perfect sense, but if I read some of it right, they also think there is some rejuvination of sun and earth and eventually they get another trip thru the daisies...hogwash. They don't and neither does anybody else.... IMO. Maybe I don't understand this correctly; I'm sure they will straighten me out if I'm wrong.

Justme

[davo]

Originally posted by Mandy
If there was never to be a physical restoring of the kingdom, why didn't Jesus tell the disciples?

I read somewhere Jesus saying "my kingdom isn't of this world" -maybe the disciples were out of the room at the time. :)

Originally posted by Mandy
Why did He make them think, even after His death and resurrection, that there would indeed be a future restoration of the kingdom to Israel?

Well Jesus didn't make them think anything as you suggest. Israel's kingdom was to be restored [as per the scriptures] it just wasn't to be fashioned according to fleshly Israel's fleshly whims. The Kingdom of Israel that was to be saved was the Israel of "faith" -true children of Abraham. And this comprised of the "REMNANT":

Rom 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth." [Land] 29 And as Isaiah said before: "Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed [remnant], we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah."

Originally posted by Mandy
But I suppose Jesus was speaking spiritually, right? It is quite obvious that Jesus' disciples were speaking of a physical restoration.

The disciples were indeed still in there "fleshly" mindset at this time -hoping, as did the crowd that rushed Jesus to make him their king, for an "earthly" messiah. HOWEVER, not many days thence they were filled with "spiritual power" from on high and THAT'S the last you hear of any "fleshly" talk of fleshly kingdoms.

Originally posted by Mandy
Preterism makes the Scriptures so symbolic that who can know what is literal or not? God is not the author of confusion and preterism = confusion.

And yet inspite of your abhorrance and bewilderment of our "fulfilled message" like insects to a fire you seem to be attracked to the LIGHT -the truth is hard to stay away from, you keep coming back. :clap:

davo

[davo]

Originally posted by Justme
...but if I read some of it right, they also think there is some rejuvination of sun and earth and eventually they get another trip thru the daisies...hogwash. They don't and neither does anybody else.... IMO. Maybe I don't understand this correctly; I'm sure they will straighten me out if I'm wrong.

G'day Justme -not sure where you came up with this idea re preterism, but "hogwash" sounds appropriate. [at least for me :D

davo

[Ozarkpreterist]

Originally posted by Mandy
[color=red][b] Preterism makes the Scriptures so symbolic that who can know what is literal or not? God is not the author of confusion and preterism = confusion.

Preterism is confusing?

29“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31“And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Matthew 24:29 through Matthew 24:34 (NASB)


27“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Matthew 16:27 through Matthew 16:28 (NASB)


62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said* to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew 26:62 through Matthew 26:64 (NASB)


3Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Revelation 1:3 (NASB)

11‘I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
Revelation 3:11 (NASB)

Preterism is confusing. Let’s see what futurists say!

“This generation” does not mean the generation Jesus was addressing. It means some generation way way off in the future.

Jesus said that there were people standing before Him who would not die until they saw the kingdom of God come in glory. Either He was not talking to those folks or they are still around today. Take your pick.

Jesus’ words to the high priest were just to scare him a little. He really had nothing to worry about because Jesus would not come back for 2000+ years.

Near really means 2000+ years.

Quickly really doesn’t mean quickly. It means in two millennia or so.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where God said He was going to do something quickly or soon then waited over a thousand years to do it?

And you say Preterism is confusing? These are just a few of the dozens of passages in the New Testament that say or imply that Jesus was coming back in that generation. You really have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to make futurism fit in with these scriptures. And if you try, you will be the one that is dizzy and confused.

Just saying, “oh you just don’t have faith” is not enough. You need to prove that futurism is correct in light of both the Old and New Testaments. This just cannot be done. That is why dispensational scholars have been losing ground for years to liberals and skeptics, and it is a major reason why at many seminaries young people graduate with less faith than when they began their studies.

Ozark

[verizon1]

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist


Preterism is confusing?

29“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31“And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Matthew 24:29 through Matthew 24:34 (NASB)


27“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Matthew 16:27 through Matthew 16:28 (NASB)


62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said* to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew 26:62 through Matthew 26:64 (NASB)


3Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Revelation 1:3 (NASB)

11‘I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
Revelation 3:11 (NASB)

Preterism is confusing. Let’s see what futurists say!

“This generation” does not mean the generation Jesus was addressing. It means some generation way way off in the future.

Jesus said that there were people standing before Him who would not die until they saw the kingdom of God come in glory. Either He was not talking to those folks or they are still around today. Take your pick.

Jesus’ words to the high priest were just to scare him a little. He really had nothing to worry about because Jesus would not come back for 2000+ years.

Near really means 2000+ years.

Quickly really doesn’t mean quickly. It means in two millennia or so.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where God said He was going to do something quickly or soon then waited over a thousand years to do it?

And you say Preterism is confusing? These are just a few of the dozens of passages in the New Testament that say or imply that Jesus was coming back in that generation. You really have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to make futurism fit in with these scriptures. And if you try, you will be the one that is dizzy and confused.

Just saying, “oh you just don’t have faith” is not enough. You need to prove that futurism is correct in light of both the Old and New Testaments. This just cannot be done. That is why dispensational scholars have been losing ground for years to liberals and skeptics, and it is a major reason why at many seminaries young people graduate with less faith than when they began their studies.

Ozark

I appreciate the preterist honesty on these things and for yor honesty in saying there is a big problems. And I look forward to some pretty good arguments. Honestly hadn't heard of "covenant eschatology", or "Preterism" before.

It’s time to put the preterist to the test. I have heard all the lies I can stand from the futurist Christians. They seem to think we are some kind of fools who cannot read the Bible.

The second coming of Christ does NOT occur at the personal death of each individual nor was the so called resurrection of Jesus his return, either because Jesus did not come on the clouds of heaven.
What kind of fools do they, think we are? I have head and the lies and back pedaling on these things that I can stand from the so called futurist. And I will not answer any more of your silly back pedaling. Jesus is a false prophet by his own words (Matthew 16:27-28)

My question is to the preterist only I don't have time to answer futurist lies. How was Matt 16:27-28 accomplished in the first century. Please don’t try to play me for a fool by saying Jesus is not talking to his disciples. I can read and speak Hebrew and Greek as well. How was this fulfilled. Preterist only.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by verizon1




The second coming of Christ does NOT occur at the personal death of each individual nor was the so called resurrection of Jesus his return, either because Jesus did not come on the clouds of heaven.
What kind of fools do they, think we are? I have head and the lies and back pedaling on these things that I can stand from the so called futurist. And I will not answer any more of your silly back pedaling. Jesus is a false prophet by his own words (Matthew 16:27-28)

My question is to the preterist only I don't have time to answer futurist lies. How was Matt 16:27-28 accomplished in the first century. Please don’t try to play me for a fool by saying Jesus is not talking to his disciples. I can read and speak Hebrew and Greek as well. How was this fulfilled. Preterist only.

When I was studying the preterist position, a brother in the Lord tried to alter my thinking by saying that the above verses were fulfilled at the Transfiguration.

Lest first start with what this verse do not mean before we build our foundation on what they do mean. The first attempt to avoid Jesus obvious wording of the passage is offered by the amillennialist interpretation. It goes like this verse 27 is speaking about the end of time and verse 28 is speaking about the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.

The second attempt to avoid the power of these words is offered by the preillennial. They say Jesus' prediction was fulfilled in the Transfiguration scene just six days later when Peter, James and John saw Jesus glorified with Moses and Elijah. Here is the dilemma with these views.

If the verse are an undivided unit the amillennialist view is wrong because verse 27 speaks of Jesus coming in Judgment with his angels and that did not happen on Pentecost! And on the other hand, the premillennial doctrine is false since because Jesus did not reward each according to his works at the Transfiguration.

In fact,you are right, Jesus did promise to return in judgment of all men in his generation. Peter tells us Jesus was "ready to judge the living and the dead." 1 Peter 4:5 Peter warned them to be saved from that generation (Acts 2:32-40). Paul is instructing Timothy to "keep the commandment without spot, blameless until the appearing of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Notice Paul did NOT tell Timothy to keep the commandment until he (Timothy) died. He said to keep the commandment until the appearing of Jesus. (1 Timothy 6:14) Paul taught the nearness of the coming of the Lord. James the half brother of Jesus said the coming of the Lord was at hand (James 5:8-9). No games here just plan scripture.

In order to understand the manifestation of Jesus in judgment before his disciples died one must understand the language of Israel's Old Testament prophets. In biblical language "clouds" are symbolic of God's wrath and judgment against the enemies of God's people. David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course. clouds also speak of God's divine presence and power. On games here just plan scripture.

The Lord said that He would ride into Egypt on a cloud to punish them: Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt. The idol of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. (Isa. 19: 1). In the above verse. the Lord did NOT literally ride on a cloud. However. Egypt did receive this judgment at the hands of the Assyrians (Isa. 20:1-6) . When God used the means of a nation or people to carry out a judgment. He was said to come on the clouds. No games here just plan scripture.

This apocalyptic language was well known to all in the Jewish and early Christian communities. This language was studied by all the congregation of Israel on the Sabbath in the synagogue. It was spoken in homes and by the rulers of Israel. This is the reason Jesus chose to use apocalyptic language as He described His SOON return to the people of His day. No games here just understanding of the Jewish culture, historical setting, and scripture.

Jesus promised the High Priest. Caiaphas. that he would "see the Son of man... coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:63-65). By this statement Jesus was claiming to be divine, Israel's Messiah, and the Son of God. This is how Israel's prophets had said the Son of Man would come in the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13-14). No games here just plan scripture.


Caiaphas knew that the language that Jesus used meant that he, as a ruler of Israel and as the fleshly seed of Abraham who rejected his Messiah, would SEE His return in judgment.

A fleshly concept of Jesus coming on the clouds was contrary to the nature of Caiaphas' understanding of the OT prophets. The Old Testament idea of the "day of the Lord" was that God acted by means of armies or a nation to judge His enemies (Luke 11:29-32, 19:43-44). No games here just plan scripture.


The "day of the Lord" was tumultuous. frightening, and awesome but God did NOT appear visibly. Only the God of Israel could ride the clouds of heaven in judgment (Psa. 104:1-3. Isa. 19:1-3. Joel 2:1-2, Nah. 1-3. Zeph. 1:14-15). This fact was well known to every Jew. No games here just plan scripture.

The inspired apostle John stated that the Jews sought the more to kill Jesus because He was making himself equal to God (Jn 5:18, 8:58). These events of God coming in the clouds of heaven for judgment were contained in the ancient scrolls which comforted the early followers of Christ while then, waited for His return in judgment against their enemies (2Thes. 1:3-8). No games here just plan scripture.

Paul stated that he only said what the prophets and Moses said would take place (Acts 26:21-22). Although futurists today claim that verses such as Acts 1:9-11 predict events in our future. the angels said Jesus would return in the same manner (nature) as He appeared in the Old Testament, that is. in the clouds. David described his deliverance from his enemies in terms which sounded as if the physical universe was destroyed when Jehovah came down from heaven ( 2 Sam. 22) No games here just plan scripture.

The "day of the Lord" in the Old Covenant did not destroy planet earth, nor did it end time forever, nor would it do so under the New Covenant (compare Isa. 45:17 and Eph. 3:21). No games here just plan scripture.

In the Old Covenant. governments and nations were destroyed during the "day of the Lord" because they were enemies of God or because they came up against His chosen people.

In the first century in 70 A.D.. the Jewish world was destroyed during the "day of the Lord" because of their inability to accept the prophets of God and the Son of God (Matt.23:34-36). Jesus invisibly and spiritually came on the clouds of heaven to judge His enemies and establish His everlasting kingdom. No games here just a understanding of the scripture.

[GTX]

Originally posted by verizon1


I appreciate the preterist honesty on these things and for yor honesty in saying there is a big problems. And I look forward to some pretty good arguments. Honestly hadn't heard of "covenant eschatology", or "Preterism" before.

It’s time to put the preterist to the test. I have heard all the lies I can stand from the futurist Christians. They seem to think we are some kind of fools who cannot read the Bible.

The second coming of Christ does NOT occur at the personal death of each individual nor was the so called resurrection of Jesus his return, either because Jesus did not come on the clouds of heaven.
What kind of fools do they, think we are? I have head and the lies and back pedaling on these things that I can stand from the so called futurist. And I will not answer any more of your silly back pedaling. Jesus is a false prophet by his own words (Matthew 16:27-28)

My question is to the preterist only I don't have time to answer futurist lies. How was Matt 16:27-28 accomplished in the first century. Please don’t try to play me for a fool by saying Jesus is not talking to his disciples. I can read and speak Hebrew and Greek as well. How was this fulfilled. Preterist only.

You write here preterist only? You are clearly putting down Jesus, calling him a false prophet.

Preterist or not, who asked you? Where did you come from, and why are you attacking? Calling futurists fools and calling Jesus a false prophet is against the rules.

You aren't going to last long with this attitude.

Preterists, don't answer him, we preterists and futurists at least agree on our salvation, to let this guy in to blespheme our Lord is not cool!

Do you think he is going to be saved by your view? I doubt it.

[eldermike]

I have noticed that people defending a lost position use more words than those defending the truth. My kids used that same trick. I have a stupid question. What denomination are pretrist? And I also have a beef. The word "futurist". I am discovering more and more about me these days. These handles are just too much, please just call me a Christian.

Blessings

[bouncer]

On the face of it, as of now, I am also willing to admit there is a problem, since I do not know how to explain what Jesus meant when he said he would return before the end of 'this' generation...

Would some preterist or Mr.Verizon who knows greek and hebrew, please point out the actual hebrew or greek word that was used instead of generation and also tell us its literal translation ?

in one of the Bible versions, the word 'race' has been used instead....

in this instance the actual Hebrew version would be helpful.

thanks.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by eldermike
I have noticed that people defending a lost position use more words than those defending the truth. My kids used that same trick. I have a stupid question. What denomination are pretrist? And I also have a beef. The word "futurist". I am discovering more and more about me these days. These handles are just too much, please just call me a Christian.

Blessings

Preterist are christians we are not a denomination. Verizon1 is a Muslim from another plase on this fourm. He and other Muslim have made some very valid points here about Scripture that must, be address with scripture. Jesus is not a false propher he is the (GOD WHO CANNOT LIE)and we must show that from scripture alone.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by bouncer
On the face of it, as of now, I am also willing to admit there is a problem, since I do not know how to explain what Jesus meant when he said he would return before the end of 'this' generation...

Would some preterist or Mr.Verizon who knows greek and hebrew, please point out the actual hebrew or greek word that was used instead of generation and also tell us its literal translation ?

in one of the Bible versions, the word 'race' has been used instead....

in this instance the actual Hebrew version would be helpful.

thanks.

Hi bouncer :wave:

The word "generation" as used in Matthew 24:34 is from the Greek word "genea," which means, "by implication an age" the period or the persons. This word has the same meaning as the word "generation" found in Luke 11:50-51, that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of THIS GENERATION; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zechariah which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, it shall be required of "THIS GENERATION."

Several other passages in the New Testament where this identical Greek word genea is used, would be (Luke 1:50; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10).

It is unfortunate that some have defined this word "generation" so as to mean "race," and try to make Jesus say that all these things would happen before the "race" of Jews had passed away. Jesus was not talking about any "race" of Jews. The word "generation" as used in this verse does not mean "kind, nation, offspring, stock." The Greek word is genea, meaning by implication an age (the period or the persons).

If the verse meant "kind, nation, offspring, stock," then it would have had the Greek word "genos," but it did not: the word is "genea." An example of the use of the word "genos" (which is not used in Matthew 24:34) would be 1 Peter 2:9, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation...." Here it is evident that this is the word that means "king, nation, offspring, stock."

Another Greek word for "generation" is "gennema" and means "offspring - fruit." This particular word is found in Matthew 23:33, where Jesus said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?'' But this word is also not the one that is used in Matthew 24:34. A study of the passages where Jesus used this word (genea/generation) shows that Jesus generally used the word in connection with the people who were right then and there in His own time. The places in Matthew where this exact word is used are: Matthew 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:23, 36; 24:34. Look them up and see for yourself.

Look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means "race" in any other context. Here are all the references in the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time.

It always refers to Jesus' contemporaries. In fact, those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! We can overlook such a transparent error, but we should remember that this is serious. We are dealing with the Word of the living God.

One of the best verses that I can think of which clearly shows the true meaning of this word "generation/genea" as used in Matthew 24:34, is Matthew 1:17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Here are 42 generations.

If "race" for example were meant by this word, this passage means there were 42 races of Israel, all of whom came from Abraham's blood. This passage ought to really settle the matter as to the meaning of the word.


I hope this helps.

You servent in Christ.

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by Verizon1
What kind of fools do they, think we are? I have head and the lies and back pedaling on these things that I can stand from the so called futurist. And I will not answer any more of your silly back pedaling. Jesus is a false prophet by his own words (Matthew 16:27-28)


Verizon1 this is your local friendly Administrator, please take it easy with your use of words, this a Christian board.

[verizon1]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70


When I was studying the preterist position, a brother in the Lord tried to alter my thinking by saying that the above verses were fulfilled at the Transfiguration.

Lest first start with what this verse do not mean before we build our foundation on what they do mean. The first attempt to avoid Jesus obvious wording of the passage is offered by the amillennialist interpretation. It goes like this verse 27 is speaking about the end of time and verse 28 is speaking about the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.

The second attempt to avoid the power of these words is offered by the preillennial. They say Jesus' prediction was fulfilled in the Transfiguration scene just six days later when Peter, James and John saw Jesus glorified with Moses and Elijah. Here is the dilemma with these views.

If the verse are an undivided unit the amillennialist view is wrong because verse 27 speaks of Jesus coming in Judgment with his angels and that did not happen on Pentecost! And on the other hand, the premillennial doctrine is false since because Jesus did not reward each according to his works at the Transfiguration.

In fact,you are right, Jesus did promise to return in judgment of all men in his generation. Peter tells us Jesus was "ready to judge the living and the dead." 1 Peter 4:5 Peter warned them to be saved from that generation (Acts 2:32-40).
.

Manifestation you have given alot of scripture here. While I go over these things in the Bible can another preterist work on answering a question for me. I am also e-mailing your answers over seas (back home) if you don't mind.

My question is what is your interpretation of Matt. 24:29 How can you say that the sun was darkened, and the stars fell from the sky. This also has not happen which makes the Bible false.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by verizon1


Manifestation you have given alot of scripture here. While I go over these things in the Bible can another preterist work on answering a question for me. I am also e-mailing your answers over seas (back home) if you don't mind.

My question is what is your interpretation of Matt. 24:29 How can you say that the sun was darkened, and the stars fell from the sky. This also has not happen which makes the Bible false.

In short, the "signs in the sky" are not to be taken literally. The cultures of that period understood the language to be metaphoric; indeed, a close comparison of Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature and Scripture will show that the sun being darkened, the moon turning to blood, and the stars falling from the sky actually represented the downfall of a particular nation or religious system. These doomed nations did not expect to see these things, but they certainly knew that the words contained descriptions of divine judgment.

One thing that I fell prey to in my 30 years as a futurist was not reading the Bible in the cultural contexts that it was written; instead, I imposed my 21st-century view upon the Scriptures and tried to glean meaning from it that wasn't there or wasn't intended byt the Author. We can't forget to read the Bible from the point-of-view of the audience for which a particular book was written. And we also can't separate the culture of the New Testament from the culture of the Old Testament. They were the SAME culture and we should expect the readers of the New Testament to interpret the language of the Apostles and Jesus in the same manner as they interpreted the language of the prophets of old.

So did these things actually happen? Literally and physically, no. Literally and spiritually, yes. The cosmos did not disappear, but the literal nations under judgment certainly did.

If you are Muslim like some people are claiming, I'm sure you can answer this question for me: are there any passages in the Quran that use poetic and/or apocalyptic language reserved for judgment of people or nations? I'd be interested to know if there are literary parallels between the Quran and the Bible.

[verizon1]

Originally posted by Badfish
Originally posted by Verizon1


Verizon1 this is your local friendly Administrator, please take it easy with your use of words, this a Christian board.

I was NOT calling futurist christians fools. I said that they believe WE are the fools when they tell us scripture says something that it does not. We also know the Greek and Hebrew better then most christians. I will take it easy however.

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by verizon1


I was NOT calling futurist christians fools. I said that they believe WE are the fools when they tell us scripture says something that it does not. We also know the Greek and Hebrew better then most christians. I will take it easy however.

Cool, thanks :cool:

[Ozarkpreterist]

Originally posted by npetreley


How do I answer these charges?

First of all, I've never been called upon to answer them. The topic never comes up. I think that's a shame, because I study prophecy and I like to discuss it. But most people I know don't care about prophecy.

But if I had to answer, I'd answer from scripture: 2 Peter 3

What I would NOT do is reinterpret scripture to mean Jesus had already returned just to squelch attacks. Why would I do that? If we're not being attacked, we're probably not telling the truth.

It is a dangerous thing to take one scripture and build a whole method of interpretation around it. futurists commonly use this passage to say that the time statements of the Jesus and the apostles cannot be taken at face value. A thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years to God. Therefore, soon doesn't necessarily mean soon and quickly doesn't mean quickly in the scriptures.

However, if we use this passage to interpret other prophesies, we run into obvious problems. The scriptures foretold that Jesus would rise from the dead three days after His crucifixion. According to the futurists use of II Peter 3:8-9 this could mean that He rises from the dead three thousand years later!

To even begin to prove that II Peter 3:8-9 can be used to negate the obvious time statements of the New Testament one would at least have to find some precedent for doing so. In other words, futurists would have to find at least one place in the Bible where God said He was going to do something quickly or soon and then waited a millennium or two to do it. Can any futurists find such a passage?

To give you an idea how preterists use the precedents of scripture, consider the story of Simeon in Luke 2:25-32. The Lord promised this man that he would live to see the Messiah with his own eyes. The Lord kept His promise. He did not fulfill it with someone else in some future generation. Yet, futurists say Jesus did not really mean it when He said to certain people face to face that they would see Him come in glory. There are no double standards in the scriptures.



Ozark

[verizon1]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


In short, the "signs in the sky" are not to be taken literally. The cultures of that period understood the language to be metaphoric; indeed, a close comparison of Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature and Scripture will show that the sun being darkened, the moon turning to blood, and the stars falling from the sky actually represented the downfall of a particular nation or religious system. These doomed nations did not expect to see these things, but they certainly knew that the words contained descriptions of divine judgment.

One thing that I fell prey to in my 30 years as a futurist was not reading the Bible in the cultural contexts that it was written; instead, I imposed my 21st-century view upon the Scriptures and tried to glean meaning from it that wasn't there or wasn't intended byt the Author. We can't forget to read the Bible from the point-of-view of the audience for which a particular book was written. And we also can't separate the culture of the New Testament from the culture of the Old Testament. They were the SAME culture and we should expect the readers of the New Testament to interpret the language of the Apostles and Jesus in the same manner as they interpreted the language of the prophets of old.

So did these things actually happen? Literally and physically, no. Literally and spiritually, yes. The cosmos did not disappear, but the literal nations under judgment certainly did.

If you are Muslim like some people are claiming, I'm sure you can answer this question for me: are there any passages in the Quran that use poetic and/or apocalyptic language reserved for judgment of people or nations? I'd be interested to know if there are literary parallels between the Quran and the Bible.

Hi Mike Can you give us some scripture on how these things were fulfilled? Anyone can say they were fulfilled without giving scriptire. I am a Muslim and I and other have come to this fourm to learn about christianity for our selfs.

Where we come from your New Testament is false and not apart of the Bible because Jesus did not return on the clouds of heavn or before his disciples died as he said he would.

Untill now we had never heard anyone saying that Jesus had returned and fulfilled his word. So we are looking into these things. So can you give us some scripture on these things.

Thank you.

[chagal was here]

verizon1,

i want to thank you for your questions. It is good for us who are christians to see ourselves from an outsider's viewpoint.

May the One God guide you to truth.
jcarter

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by verizon1


Hi Mike Can you give us some scripture on how these things were fulfilled? Anyone can say they were fulfilled without giving scriptire. I am a Muslim and I and other have come to this fourm to learn about christianity for our selfs.

Where we come from your New Testament is false and not apart of the Bible because Jesus did not return on the clouds of heavn or before his disciples died as he said he would.

Untill now we had never heard anyone saying that Jesus had returned and fulfilled his word. So we are looking into these things. So can you give us some scripture on these things.

Thank you.

If you're asking for Scriptural verification of those nations' downfalls (e.g, the destruction of Babylon, Edom, etc.), there may be some, but I really can't give you anything concrete at the moment. However, history proves the fulfillment of those particular passages, not necessarily Scripture itself.

As for Christ's prophecy regarding His coming (along with the "sun, moon, stars" motif), history will also prove this event in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Christ DID come in the metaphorical clouds of glory, i.e., in judgment against Israel through the use of the Roman armies.

However, there may be some eyewitness verification of those events, if one still wishes a physical presence of Christ and His angels in the clouds. Josephus, the Jewish historian, gives this account:

"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."

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by verizon1


Hi Mike Can you give us some scripture on how these things were fulfilled? Anyone can say they were fulfilled without giving scriptire. I am a Muslim and I and other have come to this fourm to learn about christianity for our selfs.

Where we come from your New Testament is false and not apart of the Bible because Jesus did not return on the clouds of heavn or before his disciples died as he said he would.

Untill now we had never heard anyone saying that Jesus had returned and fulfilled his word. So we are looking into these things. So can you give us some scripture on these things.

Thank you.

Hang in there verizon1 there are biblical answers to these questions as well in the Bible. I would like to give other preterist a turn to answer your questions as will. So just hang in there your questions (will be answered with the Bible).

Your servent in Christ

[Acts6:5]

Hey Verizon,

There won't be any scriptures describing how the NT prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD because all of the NT was written before 70AD (including Revelation). But there are Old Testament scriptures that use the same "apocalyptic" style that depict the destruction of people, cities, and nations that Mike mentioned earlier.

The collapse or end of the "world"": Is 13:9-10 (fall of Babylon by the Medes), Jer 4:23-29 (judgment against Judah), Is 34:3-5 (prophesy against the nations), Is 21:18-23 (people of the earth).

God coming in the clouds in judgment: Is 19:1, Ps 18:7-15, Mic 1:3-4

Hope that helps.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Hi verizon here are some more Old Testament scriptures you can add to Mikes and Acts.

Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken (Matthew 24:29).

Compare to Jehovah's coming to O.T. Babylon in 539 BC (Isa 13:10-13, 13:1, and 13:17), or Jehovah's coming to Nineveh in 612 BC (Nahum 1). Or Jehovah's coming to Edom in 703 BC (Isa 34:3-5), or His coming to Egypt in 572 BC (Eze 32:7-11) . The sun, moon, and stars are not literal but speak of the downfall of rulers and authorities.

Isaiah 13:10-17 uses this exact language to speak of the conflict of the Medes and the Babylonians. Rev 12:1-4; Rev 8:10-9:2 use the casting down of stars to speak of rulers. Isaiah 14:12 calls Nebuchadnezzar the Morning Star cast down to earth.

In Rev 1:20, the stars are rulers/messengers of the Churches. The "shaking of the heavens and earth" was used by Haggai in 2:7 and 2:21-23 to speak of political overturnings when the great Persian empire was all aflame with rebellion and conflict and the Jews were expecting this to work in their favor as they were being restored to Palestine and rebuilding the Temple.

Such "de-creation of heaven and earth" language is used in Psalm 18:5-16 to describe the downfall of Saul's Kingdom. In Isaiah 13:6-19, we see that destruction of heavens and earth pertain to when the Medes broke up the Babylonian empire. Nahum applies this earth-shattering metaphor to Yahweh's judgment of Ninevah (Nahum 1:1-5). Isaiah applies this language to Edom of 703 BC (Isa 34:3-8). Ezekiel applies this language to Babylon's victory over Egypt (572 BC) in Ezekiel 32:7-11.

We can understand New Testament prophecy a lot better if we understand how terminology was used in the Old Testament. We must immerse ourselves in the culture, history, language and religion of the Jews of Jesus' day if we hope to go any further and deeper into our understanding.of the Bible.

Salvation is of the Jews. Christianity is not some totally new religion. It is the fulfillment of the promises made to the Jews (on behalf of the Gentiles as well) Romans 15:8-12.

We all hope this helps.

[Acts6:5]

Good stuff, Mani!

[gwyyn]

Ok how do you decide whether to use the greek or hebrew translation?? I can look up a word in my strongs and there's like 5 different definations. So how do ya'll decide? justwhich ever one suits you?

[davo]

Originally posted by gwyyn
Ok how do you decide whether to use the greek or hebrew translation?? I can look up a word in my strongs and there's like 5 different definations. So how do ya'll decide? justwhich ever one suits you?  

If you are interested you can obtain an Greek lexicon. There are basically 2 types -one will give you every place in the NT where a particular word occurs [usually gives the root word], the other gives every word in the NT and gives its "parsing" -this tells you the specific tense of verbs and other moods etc -this lexicon is handy when using an interlinear bible [a bible containing both Greek and English in comparison]. You can get the same for the Septuagint which is the OT in Greek which the early church used [actually, the majority of OT quotes found in the NT are from the Septuagint also known as the LXX]. The above is the same for finding the meaning of words from the Hebrew scriptures i.e., OT. 

davo

[npetreley]

Ok how do you decide whether to use the greek or hebrew translation?? I can look up a word in my strongs and there's like 5 different definations. So how do ya'll decide? justwhich ever one suits you?

The OT is Hebrew, and the NT is Greek. So go for the appropriate definition/language/context depending on the OT or NT. As davo said, you can also get a copy of the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the Hebrew. It sometimes helps. I find it extremely useful because IMO it makes some passages in Daniel clear that are otherwise very fuzzy.

I strongly recommend that you don't just get a lexicon and Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, though. Try to get an Gree and/or Hebrew interlinear Bible. I've got a great English/Greek interlinear Bible that prints the English right above the Greek words, so you can really follow what's going on with the language.

Finally, I recommend this URL -- there's a "KJV with Strongs definitions" link there that lets you move the mouse over each word in a verse, and it will show you the Strongs definition for the word under the mouse pointer. Very handy.

http://www.olivetree.com/bible/index.html

[verizon1]

Very good things here. Thanks to everyone for your time. We are going to take a little time to look over the things you have said. We have other question that we would like to ask also in a day or so. Thank you

[verizon1]

In short, we have gone over the apocalyptic literature in Scripture and can see a close comparison and parallels between of the Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature.
Understanding that Jesus was a Jew we can see how he would used this same Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature from the Old Testament. We are not says that Jesus is God, at this time mind you.

Our next question to you preterist would be this then. If the Christians church, indeed believes that Jesus is the same God, in the Old Testament who rides the clouds of heaven in judgement by other nations. And we do agree that the Old Testament languages was not to be taken literally.
Why do they turn right around and make Jesus into a false prophet when he told the high priest that he would see his return as the people did in the Old Testament? (Matt. 26:62-64) Something just does not sit right here.
Why would they make Jesus a false prophet according
to his own words Deu. 18:21-22 . Also where were the preterist Christians all this time?

Thank you

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by verizon1
[B]In short, we have gone over the apocalyptic literature in Scripture and can see a close comparison and parallels between of the Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature.  Understanding that Jesus was a Jew we can see how he would used this same Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature from the Old Testament. We are not says that Jesus is God, at this time mind you.

Very good, Verizon1!!!  It's good to see someone actually doing their "homework"!!!    :clap:

You state that, at this time, you do not believe Jesus is God.  And this is solely because you don't believe he fulfilled the prophecies he made about Himself, correct?

Our next question to you preterist would be this then. If the Christians church, indeed believes that Jesus is the same God, in the Old Testament who rides the clouds of heaven in judgement by other nations. And we do agree that the Old Testament languages was not to be taken literally.  Why do they turn right around and make Jesus into a false prophet when he told the high priest that he would see his return as the people did in the Old Testament? (Matt. 26:62-64) Something just does not sit right here.  Why would they make Jesus a false prophet according
to his own words Deu. 18:21-22 . Also where were the preterist Christians all this time?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're wondering why the early Christian church supposedly turned Jesus into a false prophet by saying Jesus didn't return in AD 70, despite the fact that history verifies the prophecy (if you accept the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as His return in judgment).  A very interesting question, Verizon1.

I'm still researching this issue, but I would venture to guess that it was because a majority of the early church (a LARGE portion of which was made up of Gentiles probably not familiar with Near Eastern literature or culture) was looking for a physical Kingdom instead of a spiritual Kingdom.  This majority view, unfortunately, would eventually overtake the minority view that understood Christ's words as they were meant to be understood.

It's my opinion that Christ's statement that when "He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" is not meant to be applied to the church as a body.  In fact, it was meant only for those to whom He was speaking: his disciples.  Notice what Jesus says next:  "for He [the Holy Spirit] will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."  Does the Holy Spirit regularly disclose to us what is to come?  No.  He did that only for his Apostles.  This was Christ's promise that the Word of God, as long as it was preached by the Apostles either orally or in written form, would not be tainted by error.

Thus, it is certainly possible (and quite evident looking at history) that a majority of the Church could fall into error at some point in its history.  I'm not surprised that preterist views fell out of favor.

Honestly, Verizon1, I'm sure someone else on this message thread could give you a much better answer than I.  Manifestation?  Franklin?  Davo?  Parousia70? 

"A little hep here would be hot!"  --Jar Jar Binks, Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


Very good, Verizon1!!!  It's good to see someone actually doing their "homework"!!!    :clap:

You state that, at this time, you do not believe Jesus is God.  And this is solely because you don't believe he fulfilled the prophecies he made about Himself, correct?



If I'm understanding you correctly, you're wondering why the early Christian church supposedly turned Jesus into a false prophet by saying Jesus didn't return in AD 70, despite the fact that history verifies the prophecy (if you accept the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as His return in judgment).  A very interesting question, Verizon1.

I'm still researching this issue, but I would venture to guess that it was because a majority of the early church (a LARGE portion of which was made up of Gentiles probably not familiar with Near Eastern literature or culture) was looking for a physical Kingdom instead of a spiritual Kingdom.  This majority view, unfortunately, would eventually overtake the minority view that understood Christ's words as they were meant to be understood.

It's my opinion that Christ's statement that when "He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" is not meant to be applied to the church as a body.  In fact, it was meant only for those to whom He was speaking: his disciples.  Notice what Jesus says next:  "for He [the Holy Spirit] will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."  Does the Holy Spirit regularly disclose to us what is to come?  No.  He did that only for his Apostles.  This was Christ's promise that the Word of God, as long as it was preached by the Apostles either orally or in written form, would not be tainted by error.

Thus, it is certainly possible (and quite evident looking at history) that a majority of the Church could fall into error at some point in its history.  I'm not surprised that preterist views fell out of favor.

Honestly, Verizon1, I'm sure someone else on this message thread could give you a much better answer than I.  Manifestation?  Franklin?  Davo?  Parousia70? 

[/I]

Your doing a great job so far Mike.  As a matter of fact you have also pionted out something I had never thought of. :clap:

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70


Your doing a great job so far Mike.  As a matter of fact you have also pionted out something I had never thought of. :clap:

 

Really?  What was that?

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


 

Really?  What was that?

It will take a little time to go into it so I will tell you about it when I get back home.  It has to do with the chruch today and how it believes its the church at Pentecost which is most of its problems.  

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by verizon1
In short, we have gone over the apocalyptic literature in Scripture and can see a close comparison and parallels between of the Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature.
Understanding that Jesus was a Jew we can see how he would used this same Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature from the Old Testament. We are not says that Jesus is God, at this time mind you.

Our next question to you preterist would be this then. If the Christians church, indeed believes that Jesus is the same God, in the Old Testament who rides the clouds of heaven in judgement by other nations. And we do agree that the Old Testament languages was not to be taken literally.
Why do they turn right around and make Jesus into a false prophet when he told the high priest that he would see his return as the people did in the Old Testament? (Matt. 26:62-64) Something just does not sit right here.


Why would they make Jesus a false prophet according
to his own words Deu. 18:21-22 . Also where were the preterist Christians all this time?

Thank you

There were a number of early writers who made significant preterist statements (i.e. Eusebius, Athanasius, Origen, Melito, and Odes of Solomon). One doesn’t have to look too closely to find some real gems. They have been there all along. We just didn’t recognize them as preterist statements. We just know they weren’t what we have "traditionally been taught. Here are a few examples of preterist statements found in their writings.

Think deeply on these things. Eusebius records the statement that James (brother of Jesus, writer of the book of James) made just before (c. 63 A.D.) he was pushed off the temple to the pavement below when he was being martyred for his faith in Jerusalem: "Why do ye ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of great Power, and "is about to come on the clouds of heaven."( Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 2, Ch.23; cf James 5:8,9)

Eusebius says that the abomination of desolation (i.e the antichrist, man of sin and beast of Revelation) occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D."... these facts, as well as the whole tenor of the war, and each particular of its progress, when finally "the abomination of desolation, according to the prophetic declaration, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, but which now was approaching its total downfall and final destruction by fire; all this, I say, any one that wishes may see accurately stated in the history written by Josephus." (Eusebius; Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch.5). After quoting sections of Matt. 24:19-21; Lk. 19:41ff and Lk. 21:20, 23, 24,

Eusebius says this about the destruction of Jerusalem: "All this occurred" in this manner, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian (70 A.D.), according to the predictions of our Christ...On comparing the declarations of our Saviour which the other parts of Josephus work, where he describes the whole war, "how can one fail to acknowledge" and wonder at the truth divine and extraordinary foreknowledge and prediction of our Saviour?" (Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 3. Ch.7)

Eusebius declares that the Great Commission had been accomplished by the time Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 (cf. Matt. 24:14): "Of who (Christ), indeed "at this very time, "the sound of the holy apostles went throughout all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’ " (Eusebius Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8; cf. Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:6,23)

Athanasius declares "For now that "He has come" to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind in checked, and "the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away." For the race of men had gone to ruin had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet "the end of death." (Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 9 Verse 4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21-26)

In reference to the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Massiah and their interpertation of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, Athanasius has this to say: "Perhaps with regard to the other "prophecies" they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel." (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff).

I hope this helps as you can see there were preterist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

There were a number of early writers who made significant preterist statements (i.e. Eusebius, Athanasius, Origen, Melito, and Odes of Solomon).

As for the quotes you provided from Athanasius, I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting Athanasius and "On the Incarnation of the Word," but are simply unfamiliar with the whole work. I could put your quotes in the proper context, but it's easier to cite from the CONCLUSION of "On the Incarnation of the Word":

Here, then, Macarius, is our offering to you who love Christ, a brief statement of the faith of Christ and of the manifestation of His Godhead to us. This will give you a beginning, and you must go on to prove its truth by the study of the Scriptures. They were written and inspired by God; and we, who have learned from inspired teachers who read the Scriptures and became martyrs for the Godhead of Christ, make further contribution to your eagerness to learn. From the Scriptures you will learn also of His second manifestation to us, glorious and divine indeed, when He shall come not in lowliness but in His proper glory, no longer in humiliation but in majesty, no longer to suffer but to bestow on us all the fruit of His cross the resurrection and incorruptibility. No longer will He then be judged, but rather will Himself be Judge, judging each and all according to their deeds done in the body, whether good or ill. Then for the good is laid up the heavenly kingdom, but for those that practice evil outer darkness and the eternal fire. So also the Lord Himself says, "I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of power, coming on the clouds of heaven in the glory of the Father." For that Day we have one of His own sayings to prepare us, "Get ready and watch, for ye know not the hour in which He cometh"

Melito? This is attributed to him, but I couldn't find the context to confirm whether or not it's accurate: "For with all his strength did the adversary assail us, even then giving a foretaste of his activity among us [during the Great Tribulation] which is to be without restraint..." (Discourse on the Resurrection, i, 8).

Obviously, if this is an accurate quote, Melito puts the great tribulation in the future.

Eusebius avoided the whole issue of prophecy, but he seems to have been an amillenialist. He had a conflict of interest, so to speak. He was working with Constantine to establish the kingdom of God through Constanine's government, so he was not inclined to think that there would be a future fulfillment of the kingdom of God. That's not to say he didn't believe what you say, but it wasn't exactly from an objective point of view.

Origen tried to turn the whole Bible into allegory and harmonize it with the works of Plato! Origen doubted the authenticity of 2 Peter, which I can certainly understand since it contradicts his conclusions.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by verizon1
. Also where were the preterist Christians all this time?

Thank you

Here are more good ones verizon1 I hope these help

Early Preterist Statements

All it takes is going to the writings of the early church fathers and doing a little research to learn the truth of the matter. The church fathers back that far did not write much about Jerusalem, but some of them did. Here is a sample of a few of the earliest:

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-193-217), in The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1 page 329, in The Ante- Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, placed the abomination of desolation of Daniel's 70th week prophecy, in the time of Nero. He said: ' in the one week; was He Lord. The half of the week Nero and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Gaiba, and Vitallus. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the Holy place."

Earlier ever that Clement of Alexandria, was Clement of Rome, who wrote to James and told him what Peter had to the Jews, thusly: " ' For we; said I, 'have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you....; "When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple...;' (Clement, p 94, vol. 8, The Ante-Nicene Fathers).

Even earlier that Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (145-220) told of how the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of predictions that had been made in Daniel 9:26. He said: Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that 'both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin; And so the times of the coming Christ, the leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

"In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated;, (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 158).

Tertullian was also a preterist in his interpretations of Zechariah 14:4. He said, " 'But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives; For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives; " (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 417).

Eusebius says that the abomination of desolation (i.e.the antichrist, man of sin and beast of Revelation) occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D "...(Eusebius' Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch5).

As one can easily see, the preterist position was taught by various writer clear back to the time of the apostles. They originally understood rightly that the time of fulfillment was to be imminent until the middle of the second century when they began to abandon that and suggest the delay/ postponement ideas. When the remaining fulfillment's associated with Christ's parousia did not occur in the physical-literal way they had expected, they assumed they had not been fulfilled at all. The same problem persists today, and can be solved by following correct Biblical interpretation methods. We need to get back to the study of Biblical Judaism.

 

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by npetreley


As for the quotes you provided from Athanasius, I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting Athanasius and "On the Incarnation of the Word," but are simply unfamiliar with the whole work. I could put your quotes in the proper context, but it's easier to cite from the CONCLUSION of "On the Incarnation of the Word":


I am very familiar with Athanasius and my copy if his works reads as flows.  "Perhaps with regard to the other "prophecies" they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel." (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff). 
 

Would you mind show this contex in the Section and verse from your copy.

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

I am very familiar with Athanasius and my copy if his works reads as flows.  "Perhaps with regard to the other "prophecies" they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel." (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff). 
 

Would you mind show this contex in the Section and verse from your copy.

My copy isn't going to be any different than your copy unless your copy is simply a few selected quotes from a preterist web site.

I also don't see why it is necessary to provide the context, since I already demonstrated by quoting from the CONCLUSION of the work to show that Athanasius believed Jesus would return IN THE FUTURE in glory. But since you asked, here it is:

At the beginning oif the chapter, Athanasius states his purpose for writing it.

We have dealt thus far with the Incarnation of our Savior, and have found clear proof of the resurrection of His Body and His victory over death. Let us now go further and investigate the unbelief and the ridicule with which Jews and Gentiles respectively regard these same facts.

Then he says he'll consider the objections of the Jews first, and goes on to show that OT prophecy supports the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah.

First, then, we will consider the Jews. Their unbelief has its refutation in the Scriptures which even themselves read; for from cover to cover the inspired Book clearly teaches these things both in its entirety and in its actual words. Prophets foretold the marvel of the Virgin and of the Birth from her, saying, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God is with us." ... Again, does Scripture tell of anyone [else] who was pierced in hands and feet or hung upon a tree at all, and by means of a cross perfected his sacrifice for the salvation of all?

That's the thrust of the whole chapter. It exists only to prove from OT prophecy that Jesus is clearly the Messiah.

And now let's look at your quote with the surrounding context.

But surely they cannot fight against plain facts. So it may be that, without denying what is written, they will maintain that they are still waiting for these things to happen, and that the Word of God is yet to come, for that is a theme on which they are always harping most brazenly, in spite of all the evidence against them. But they shall be refuted on this supreme point more clearly than on any, and that not by ourselves but by the mostwise Daniel, for he signifies the actual date of the Savior's coming as well as His Divine sojourn in our midst. "Seventy weeks," he says, "are cut short upon thy people and upon the holy city, to make a complete end of sin and for sins to be sealed up and iniquities blotted out, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy One of holies. And thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the Word to answer, and to build Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince." In regard to the other prophecies, they may possibly be able to find excuses for deferring their reference to a future time, but what can they say to this one?

In other words, Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah.

That's all you should need, but here's the remaining context, and why you have taken the destruction of Jerusalem out of context.

How can they face it at all? Not only does it expressly mention the Anointed One, that is the Christ, it even declares that He Who is to be anointed is not man only, but the Holy One of holies! And it says that Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and that after it prophet and vision shall cease in Israel! David was anointed of old, and Solomon, and Hezekiah; but then Jerusalem and the place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and Asaph and Nathan, and later Isaiah and Hosea and Amos and others. Moreover, those men who were anointed were called holy certainly, but none of them was called the Holy of holies. Nor is it any use for the Jews to take refuge in the Captivity, and say that Jerusalem did not exist then, for what about the prophets? It is a fact that at the outset of the Exile Daniel and Jeremiah were there, and Ezekiel and Haggai and Zechariah also prophesied.

He points out three of the qualifications that will identify the Messiah:

1. He is not just "anointed," He is the Holy of Holies.

2. Jerusalem would stand until He came.

3. After He came, prophecy and vision would cease.

Then he says you can disqualify everyone except Jesus from these three conditions, because at times when Jerusalem stood in the past, there was still prophecy going on. When Jerusalem didn't stand, there was STILL prophecy going on. But after Jesus (Who was the only Holy of Holies) came and Jerusalem was destroyed, there were no more prophecies or visions, so for the first time all three conditions are met.

NONE of this has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with preterism. Add to that the fact that Athanasius says VERY CLEARLY in his conclusion of the work that Jesus will return again in glory.

[Auntie]

Great work npetreley!

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

Here are more good ones verizon1 I hope these help

Early Preterist Statements


Pleas stop misrepresenting these people as though they were preterists.

Tertullian was NOT a preterist. From the same work you used:

Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates.

He saw Antichrist as coming IN THE FUTURE.

Clement of Alexandria was practically a gnostic, so there's no telling what he thought. But Clement of Rome was not a preterist, either.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by npetreley
Pleas stop misrepresenting these people as though they were preterists.

Npetreley, you know that's not what Manifestation is doing.  He's not saying that those early church fathers were "consistent preterists" in any sense of the idea.  Rather, he's showing that the early church fathers interpreted certain passages in a preteristic manner and not a futuristic manner, and in some cases combined the two ideas in tension.

 

 

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by npetreley


My copy isn't going to be any different than your copy unless your copy is simply a few selected quotes from a preterist web site.

I also don't see why it is necessary to provide the context, since I already demonstrated by quoting from the CONCLUSION of the work to show that Athanasius believed Jesus would return IN THE FUTURE in glory. But since you asked, here it is:

At the beginning oif the chapter, Athanasius states his purpose for writing it.



Then he says he'll consider the objections of the Jews first, and goes on to show that OT prophecy supports the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah.



That's the thrust of the whole chapter. It exists only to prove from OT prophecy that Jesus is clearly the Messiah.

And now let's look at your quote with the surrounding context.



In other words, Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah.

That's all you should need, but here's the remaining context, and why you have taken the destruction of Jerusalem out of context. 



My copy is not from a web site.  I have shown the context that is the in chapter and verse.  Why can you do the same.  Any one can say that Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah. Without showing the chapter and verse it comes from.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


Npetreley, you know that's not what Manifestation is doing.  He's not saying that those early church fathers were "consistent preterists" in any sense of the idea.  Rather, he's showing that the early church fathers interpreted certain passages in a preteristic manner and not a futuristic manner, and in some cases combined the two ideas in tension.

 

 

Thanks Mike.  We know how the blind lead the blind on these things.

[verizon1]

In other words, Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah.

That's all you should need, but here's the remaining context, and why you have taken the destruction of Jerusalem out of context.

So in other words these men also have called your Jesus a false prophet by your own words Matthew 26:62-64 These men have also called Jesus a false prophet.

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by verizon1
So in other words these men also have called your Jesus a false prophet by your own words Matthew 26:62-64 These men have also called Jesus a false prophet.

 

I wouldn't say that, Verizon1.  They simply reinterpret the words of Christ because they failed to recognize the historical and spiritual fulfillment of those words.

Christ was correct.  His prophecies did come true.  But certain individuals throughout church history couldn't see the forest for the trees, and choose a different National Park to go wandering in: "Futurist National Park, here I come!" 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by verizon1

So in other words these men also have called your Jesus a false prophet by your own words Matthew 26:62-64 These men have also called Jesus a false prophet.

According to you, maybe. But that doesn't make it true.

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Npetreley, you know that's not what Manifestation is doing.  He's not saying that those early church fathers were "consistent preterists" in any sense of the idea.  Rather, he's showing that the early church fathers interpreted certain passages in a preteristic manner and not a futuristic manner, and in some cases combined the two ideas in tension.

If so, then I'm afraid it makes no sense to me to call these "preterist statements." How can they be preterist statements if if the person making them believes that some prophecy remains unfulfilled? All views on prophecy other than preterism believe that some prophecies were fulfilled and some prophecies have not yet been fulfilled. They simply differ on what has and hasn't. The preterist view is the only one I know of that puts everything on one side of the line.

So if you are simply looking for people who have made a statement at some time or another that agrees with the preterist view, then you could include just about ANYONE in that group. Even Jewish people who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah have made preterist statements in THAT context. At one time or another they must have said something that places some fulfillment of prophecy in the past. And since preterists put ALL prophecy in the past, their statements are preterist by that definition. But that hardly makes for evidence that preterism is true.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by npetreley
 


Even Jewish people who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah have made preterist statements in THAT context. At one time or another they must have said something that places some fulfillment of prophecy in the past. And since preterists put ALL prophecy in the past, their statements are preterist by that definition. But that hardly makes for evidence that preterism is true.

This is a false statement.  Most Jews don't even believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophets concerning Israels Messiah. Those prophets are from the Old Testament.  So how could they make preterist statements.  Where is your proof for thses kind of false statement?   Notice how various will know Jewish writer express this.

The Jew refused to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a "second coming." ( He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt.) [The Real Messiah Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973 page 15.]

Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a "second coming." At first, Christians expected that this (second coming) would come very shortly...in their lifetime. When their prayer was not an answered they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus’ death. This was the millennium or thousand years kingdom. Finally after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned, (they postponed his second coming to an indefinite time). We therefore see that the (early Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus failure). This compounded with the pagan influence in the (early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism. [Pinchas Stolper, ed. pages 32, 33}

You will discover that when ever any really strong question [such as why Jesus hasn’t fulfilled all Messianic prophecies]..is asked [of the Christians], the (standard answer is that it refers to the second coming). It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure ( rest to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming).It is clearly an answer born of desperation. [Samuel Levin. You Take Jesus, I will Take God. Los Angeles 1980. Page 15

These Jews are not macking preterist statements:eek:

[verizon1]

npetreley

According to you, maybe. But that doesn't make it true.

So why the double standard? As you, have said, Your Jesus did not fulfill all the predictions about his coming.
You same scriptures also says when a prophet speaks for God the thing must be fulfilled in time Deu. 18. So why the double standard here?

Are you telling me that we should believe some scriptures and not the rest? Are you telling me that we should (NOT] believe what God said in Deu.18? Are you telling me that God uses a double standard?

Try looking rationally at the Idol Jesus without attachment or pride of your traditions, 'cause he also failed miserably at his end time predictions and his coming back quickly. How can one look at others in haste then not see their own idols failings?

You have made Jesus into a false prophet unless you can show me from Deu 18 were God said he would use a double standard. Jesus told Caiaphas the (HE) WOULD SEE HIS RETURN. Matthew 26:62-64. Out of your own words you have said this did NOT happen which makes Jesus another false prophet according to your word of God Deu. 18.

[parousia70]

Originally posted by npetreley
 

And since preterists put ALL prophecy in the past, their statements are preterist by that definition.

Just to be absolutely clear, You are incorrect in that statement. While Preterists place the fulfillment of  all "eschatology" in the past, we affirm that "Prophesy" continues to unfold and be fulfilled on a daily basis, into the future.

The point I believe  Manifest, Mike Buy-dler, etc were making is that when you take all the different verses that individual ECF's took a 'preterist' understanding of, and put them together, you'd have full preterism.

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


 

Really?  What was that?

Hi Mike. Your statement about Christ sending the Spirit of truth, to guide "them into all the truth" was a deep and true statement. Is not meant to be applied to the church as a body. In fact, it was meant only for those to whom Jesus was speaking: his disciples. The Spirit of truth, was to guide or remind (them) of the things to come. (John 16:13) These things that the Spirit of truth was to remind them of were the same things, that Jesus had already told them about before.

The error of the church today is that they believe they, are the church in the (transitional age). The believe they are living in the last days, of the Old Covenant age. The church today is stuck at Pentecost and refuses to move pass that point in time.

Their error is in believing that the Holy Scripture were only written to them. Therefor they refuse to see, that the Scripture were written for us, and not to us. This is the big problem within the church today, they believe they are the transitional church.

I never thought of that part about the Spirit of truth guiding or reminding them ONLY of the things Jesus said. The is why Stephen could say by the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus of Nazareth will come and destroy this place (the temple and city) and change the customs which Moses delivered to us (the Old Covenant law). Act 6:13-14.

The Spirit of Truth guided or reminded Stephen of the thing that Jesus had already said (Matthew 24:1-3) What happen a few short years after Stephen said those words? The end came! Jesus return just as Stephen said and destroyed that place and changed the customs which Moses delivered to them. Could anything be clearer, simpler, or more straight forward? No matter how the futurist deny this truth, the facts still remains in history. The temple and the customs of Moses were indeed destroyed at his return.

As you already know the church today believes its the transitional church. Buy I had never though of that part you so will pointed out about the Spirit of truth. Thank you brother for that insight into scripture.:clap:

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by parousia70


Just to be absolutely clear, You are incorrect in that statement. While Preterists place the fulfillment of  all "eschatology" in the past, we affirm that "Prophesy" continues to unfold and be fulfilled on a daily basis, into the future.

The point I believe  Manifest, Mike Buy-dler, etc were making is that when you take all the different verses that individual ECF's took a 'preterist' understanding of, and put them together, you'd have full preterism.

Thank you  parousia70  As you already know our fururist brothers also like to play like they are dom about these things also.

[davo]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70
Could anything be clearer, simpler, or more straight forward? No matter how the futurist deny this truth, the facts still remains in history. The temple and the customs of Moses were indeed destroyed at his return.

Yes sir!! the Law of Death i.e., condemnation was swallowed up in the Law of LIFE in Christ Jesus!! :clap:

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

davo

[verizon1]

Mike

Christ was correct._ His prophecies did come true._ But certain individuals throughout church history couldn't_see the forest for the trees, and choose a different National Park to go wandering in: "Futurist National Park, here I come!"_

Hi Mike. I must say that the preterist post that I have read here so far do make some sense. As I said from the start we do know how to read your Bible. I am starting to see, what you mean in your statement about the futurist cannot see the forest for the trees.

Dose anyone here know were the idea about Jesus not returnig in the first century started? This would be a big help. Thank you.

[davo]

Originally posted by verizon1
I must say that the preterist post that I have read here so far do make some sense. As I said from the start we do know how to read your Bible. I am starting to see, what you mean in your statement about the futurist cannot see the forest for the trees.

Dose anyone here know were the idea about Jesus not returnig in the first century started? This would be a big help. Thank you.

G'day verizon1 :wave: The most probable explanation is that after the initial generation of believers died out, and persecution was still previlent against the church [now more so by Rome], believers started reading the promises of deliverence made to the disciples in terms of their own time frame and context -and so started drawing the dots together and assumed a future end for them -a natural, but misguided thing to do. All the way through church history [to lesser and greater degrees] this has happened -people not realising that Christ's Parousia was literal and spiritual in His coming in judgment on old covenant Judaism, the covenant of death.

2Cor 3:7-11 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

That's just my take on it.

davo

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

This is a false statement.  Most Jews don't even believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophets concerning Israels Messiah.

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Many Jews recognize the fulfillment of prophecy in the past, just not the one you're talking about.

[npetreley]

Originally posted by verizon1
npetreley
According to you, maybe. But that doesn't make it true.

So why the double standard? As you, have said, Your Jesus did not fulfill all the predictions about his coming.

You same scriptures also says when a prophet speaks for God the thing must be fulfilled in time Deu. 18. So why the double standard here?

You forgot the word "yet."

[npetreley]

Originally posted by parousia70

The point I believe  Manifest, Mike Buy-dler, etc were making is that when you take all the different verses that individual ECF's took a 'preterist' understanding of, and put them together, you'd have full preterism.

As I've said elsewhere, I've given up. But I am nonetheless left