Preterism is a Better View of the Bible than Futurism for Someone Suffering

Logos1 · May 25, 2011

Different day same trickery

John of Japan said: ↑

Knowing your aversion to the Greek (in spite of it being the language the NT was originally written in), I avoided all mention of it in my post. I am just as comfortable in the English Bible. So, care to debate the English Bible? (Oh and by the way, I never declare my Greek to be superior, though I do declare my Greek tools to be superior. I just never see anyone answering my points from the Greek.)

Let me get this straight. In your OP you talked about Christ coming in 70 AD. Then you talked about your preterism being a comfort because Christ kept His promise to come then.

But when I bring up and try to discuss the only--the only--passage in the NT which teaches that the 2nd coming of Christ is a comfort, I'm dodging the issue. Is that your view?
And I said the futurist view was more comforting because the Bible--quoting the English KJV--talks about comfort and the 2nd coming. My belief in the future, literal, physical 2nd coming of Christ is far more comforting to me than some spiritual coming in 70 AD that no one saw, no one recorded and no one can prove.

End of story and end of debate, if you don't want to discuss the Word of God.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same MO here. Twist my position so you can attempt to make your point then declare victory and go home. I’ve seen this show before in your posts John.

What I originally said was your quotation did not say anything about a physical coming—you inserted that—I’ll agree with you on the point that his spiritual coming was comforting because it reconciled man back into the presence of God so when we die we go straight to heaven and dwell in the presence of the Lord. Would you like to agree on that?

But that having been said you still dodge my point that preterism beats futurism for comforting someone who is not familiar with the positions and just reads the bible like they would normally read anything else using the normal usage of the language.

As for your belief in the “future, literal, physical second coming of Christ” your argument is with the apostles not with me—any honest reading of their letters clearly indicates they proclaimed the coming of Christ in their generation (although the term second coming is manmade not in the bible—Christ came at different times—to Saul on the Damascus road, at Stephen’s stoning, and in judgment against Jerusalem—you are not so familiar with the bible as you think if you suppose it teaches a so called “second coming”)

The apostles were the ones inspired by the Holy Spirit John—not you--so I will have to side with them on this one.

Logos1 · May 25, 2011

Thomas

thomas15 said: ↑

I understand the point and addressed it. You Sir are doing what preterists do best and is the only option available and that is to confuse and change the subject, rather than deal with the data available.
Click to expand...

If you understood it—I accept your declaration that you did—if you addressed it then your post must have gotten lost in another thread somewhere—I look forward to its coming home. And, will be glad to respond to it upon its arrival.

Logos1 · May 25, 2011

Hank We work well together

HankD said: ↑

Thanks Logos1.

"coming soon" The Scripture defines "soon" from God's perspective:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Click to expand...

I always appreciate your civility also Hank. I don't get much of it-LOL, but it comes with the territory when you become a preterist.

It was trading thoughts with you that gave me the ideal for this thread.

I think you really nailed the problem with the futurist’s dealing with the term soon (or coming quickly or at hand or last hour etc). Futurists claim, as you said, that soon needs to be defined from God’s perspective.

Since man has a set definition for the terms soon, at hand, coming quickly, etc. if God chooses to speak to man in a meaningful way then he has to use terms we understand or define them for us so we can understand them. Futurists claim God’s definition of soon isn’t the same as man’s—they make my point for me in that. If all the learned, trained, and educated futurists can’t understand what those terms mean—just that they don’t mean what we think of as their normal meaning—then how could someone new to the scriptures hope to understand those terms—and no could honestly think they draw comfort from that. Preterism gives them meaning and fulfilled promises—and yes comfort futurism can’t give them. It gives them victory in Christ not unfilled promises with no hope of understanding when those promises will be fulfilled.

Let’s put ourselves in the place of the first century Christians—do you think they would have gotten any comfort by thinking Christ would come back at some unknown point thousands of years into the future. They were persecuted then and comforted by holding on to the promise that Christ was coming back in their generation.

Since as you say God defines soon on his own terms and not our expected definition then since we can’t grasp the true meaning of soon how are we suppose to grasp the true meaning of anything else? How can we really be sure of anything if that’s the case? Maybe such terms as risen from the dead, or saved by faith, or justification all have other meanings also—once you establish that soon is no longer a meaningful term then all Christian tenants of faith also are called into doubt. Based on futurist’s logic we can’t really be sure of anything. How could anyone doubt that preterism is more comforting for the beginner in Christ to understand and draw comfort from?

Regards,

Logos1

Logos1 · May 25, 2011

Annsni

annsni said: ↑

Honestly, this sounds like the argument "A loving God wouldn't send people to hell" and so we now come up with the idea that no one goes to hell and that instead they do kind of a purgatory that isn't terrible and then everyone will be in heaven with Christ forever. Yes, it's a MUCH more comforting thought to everyone around us - and that is why the world believes it. However, it's not Scriptural, nor is the view that Christ had to have come back in 70 AD because it's just so much more comforting to someone suffering. I'm sorry but we just went through hell with my 21 year old daughter having a baseball sized mass on her pancreas. She did not recover well and it was very hard to hear one of the top pancreas surgeons in the country say "I just don't know what else to do" as your daughter is vomiting even her own saliva. To have thought that this is all that's promised would have had me toss myself from the 6th floor of New York Presbyterian. Seriously. It is no comfort to think that this is what the world looks like with God ruling and Satan bound. I thank God that I still have His promise of the future - and not to see it in the past and look at this world as it is now.
Click to expand...

Comparing preterism to universalism is not a legitimate comparison, it’s not on point with this thread, and I’m very sorry to hear about your daughter (and wish her well)—but you have manufactured your own vision of the future instead of drawn it from the bible.

I would like to see the verses where God said there would be a literal, physical, restoration to paradise on this earth in the bible! (If you want to make comparisons that sounds like J.W. talk.) I would agree it would be great if he did—but the fact is there is no such language in the bible.

Best of luck to you and your family. While we don’t have paradise to look forward to we do have prayer and I’ll pray for you all.

HankD · May 25, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Since man has a set definition for the terms soon, at hand, coming quickly, etc. if God chooses to speak to man in a meaningful way then he has to use terms we understand or define them for us so we can understand them. Futurists claim God’s definition of soon isn’t the same as man’s—they make my point for me in that. If all the learned, trained, and educated futurists can’t understand what those terms mean—just that they don’t mean what we think of as their normal meaning—then how could someone new to the scriptures hope to understand those terms—and no could honestly think they draw comfort from that. Preterism gives them meaning and fulfilled promises—and yes comfort futurism can’t give them. It gives them victory in Christ not unfilled promises with no hope of understanding when those promises will be fulfilled.

Let’s put ourselves in the place of the first century Christians—do you think they would have gotten any comfort by thinking Christ would come back at some unknown point thousands of years into the future. They were persecuted then and comforted by holding on to the promise that Christ was coming back in their generation.

Since as you say God defines soon on his own terms and not our expected definition then since we can’t grasp the true meaning of soon how are we suppose to grasp the true meaning of anything else? How can we really be sure of anything if that’s the case? Maybe such terms as risen from the dead, or saved by faith, or justification all have other meanings also—once you establish that soon is no longer a meaningful term then all Christian tenants of faith also are called into doubt. Based on futurist’s logic we can’t really be sure of anything. How could anyone doubt that preterism is more comforting for the beginner in Christ to understand and draw comfort from?
Click to expand...

Well, I agree as to definition of terms. What I am contending is that we all do the same thing when it comes to scriptural interpretation and the discerning of literal, metaphor, allegory, etc... that is we use our prayerful (hopefully) judgement.

i.e. The 2 Peter passage I quoted is followed by this description of the "Day of the Lord":

2 Peter 3

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

If we expand this passage furthur we see:

2 Peter 3
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 the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

A reference to the literal flood of water, then immediately followed up by:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The normal every day sense is that it is literal fire in keeping with the literal water of the flood.

In addition (in the immediate context) 1000 years are introduced as a viable reality to the 1st century Christians as to the long-suffering of God before the second coming (aka Day of the Lord) according to the definition of the passage of time with the Lord.

More than their definition of "soon" no doubt.

As to comfort we are first admonished to a godly life:

2 Peter 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness

Then finally as to comfort:

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

With preterism, from my point of view, we have the same old earth with all the sin and death and violence but without the "wherein dwelleth righteousness" promise.

Obviously, no one (of the entrenched like you and I) are going to be convinced at this point in time.

But at least we can better understand the differing points of view, others can decide for themselves.

HankD

John of Japan · May 25, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Pretty much the same MO here. Twist my position so you can attempt to make your point then declare victory and go home. I’ve seen this show before in your posts John.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I twist no one's position. I just did not realize how narrowly you were going to interpret your own OP. Usually in any debate (BB Internet, or real life), whatever the opponent says in the OP is fair game for rebuttal. But you allow yourself to talk about a spiritual 2nd coming of Christ, but reject any effort to rebut that. Fine. I'll work with that. (Wait and see!)

But what disappoints me most is that you are not willing to discuss the Word of God, or at least to answer my point. You take refuge in simply saying, "You're wrong, John, and I'm right." You thus refuse to exegete the only passage in the entire NT that discusses comfort and the 2nd coming, and then take refuge in your OP which you apparently feel eliminates the need for discussing that passage.

What I originally said was your quotation did not say anything about a physical coming—you inserted that—I’ll agree with you on the point that his spiritual coming was comforting because it reconciled man back into the presence of God so when we die we go straight to heaven and dwell in the presence of the Lord. Would you like to agree on that?
Click to expand...

Well no. I don't agree on that. This is a first on the BB for me. You won't allow me to disagree with your OP in the area of a spiritual versus a physical 2nd coming. You're allowed to say Christ came spiritually in 70 AD, but I'm not allowed to say He did not. Weird. Not a debate, for sure.

But that having been said you still dodge my point that preterism beats futurism for comforting someone who is not familiar with the positions and just reads the bible like they would normally read anything else using the normal usage of the language.
Click to expand...

Tell you what. I'm going to ignore the last couple of paragraphs in your post, since they are irrelevant and only your opinion, proving nothing. You simply restated your belief in a spiritual coming, declaring positively (with no proof) that you are right.

Here's what I'm going to do. I'll do my best to be a first time student of prophecy, like in your OP. So I'll be attracted to the idea that we can find comfort from Christ's 2nd coming in 70 AD. I know exactly what I would say as I strove to take in your teaching.

I would say, "How do you know He came in 70 AD?" Please answer, and teach me.

Logos1 · May 26, 2011

HandD

A literal fire did indeed destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD so the Jewish World was destroyed by fire.

The thousand years/day argument they would have to weight against the soon, at hand, etc. time related statements.

“Obviously, no one (of the entrenched like you and I) are going to be convinced at this point in time.”

At least we can agree that we are entrenched in our positions and are not going to change; however, keep in mind that I use to think exactly like you and I was so persuaded by the logic and consistency of Preterism that I changed positions and became a Preterist.

Logos1

Logos1 · May 26, 2011

You are making yourself more inspired by the Holy Spirit than the Apostles

John of Japan said: ↑

Tell you what. I'm going to ignore the last couple of paragraphs in your post, since they are irrelevant and only your opinion, proving nothing. You simply restated your belief in a spiritual coming, declaring positively (with no proof) that you are right.

Here's what I'm going to do. I'll do my best to be a first time student of prophecy, like in your OP. So I'll be attracted to the idea that we can find comfort from Christ's 2nd coming in 70 AD. I know exactly what I would say as I strove to take in your teaching.

I would say, "How do you know He came in 70 AD?" Please answer, and teach me.
Click to expand...

Tell you what I’m going to do is ignore the first paragraphs of your reply since they are a strange sort of circuitous route of confusing logic that keeps running over itself.

As to how do I know he came in 70 AD—if you like me believe that the bible is inerrant then you are painted into a corner and have to accept that he came in the life time of the first century generation because the Apostles proclaimed he would.

I could get into arguing other evidence for it--but it is beside the point.

Any honest reading of the Apostles letters has to accept they believed and taught and wrote that he was coming in the time of the first generation so either they were right and he did come just as they proclaimed--it just happened to be a different type of coming than we are usually taught to think of it or else they were wrong and the bible is not inerrant.

If you want to argue with the Apostles and say they were wrong—which is what you are doing John then you can give your self some wiggle room to say he didn’t come back as they proclaimed—but I happen to believe the bible is inerrant.

Once you have decided the Apostles didn’t even know the timing of Christ’s return then you can call into question every single tenant of Christianity. It is all up for grabs and nothing about what the Apostles or Christ said has any true meaning. So why pretend to be a Christian in the first place if you can't put your faith in it anyway.

So who do I think is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is inerrant you or the Apostles—the Apostles get my vote. Since they proclaimed Christ’s return in their generation I accept that as final. It is solid proof of the fact and simply means I need to change my definition of what constitutes his return.

You are not arguing with me John--your argument is with the Apostles and Christ!

John of Japan · May 26, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

As to how do I know he came in 70 AD—if you like me believe that the bible is inerrant then you are painted into a corner and have to accept that he came in the life time of the first century generation because the Apostles proclaimed he would.

I could get into arguing other evidence for it--but it is beside the point.
Click to expand...

Hey, I was going along with your very strict interpretation of your own OP, and trying to start from the beginning. Work with me here and give me your other evidence. I do believe the Bible is inerrant, and am trying to start from scratch here, just as you said to. Since, or if Christ came in 70 AD, then there ought to be evidence, right?

Any honest reading of the Apostles letters has to accept they believed and taught and wrote that he was coming in the time of the first generation so either they were right and he did come just as they proclaimed--it just happened to be a different type of coming than we are usually taught to think of it or else they were wrong and the bible is not inerrant.
Click to expand...

So what was that "different" kind of coming? What kind of coming do you believe it was? I'm trying to start from scratch here as you asked me to. Work with me.

If you want to argue with the Apostles and say they were wrong—which is what you are doing John then you can give your self some wiggle room to say he didn’t come back as they proclaimed—but I happen to believe the bible is inerrant.
Click to expand...

Hey, work with me. I'm trying to work with you here. I don't want to argue with the Apostles (never have). Pretend I'm a newbie to the study of prophecy and tell me what the Apostles said.

Once you have decided the Apostles didn’t even know the timing of Christ’s return then you can call into question every single tenant of Christianity. It is all up for grabs and nothing about what the Apostles or Christ said has any true meaning. So why pretend to be a Christian in the first place if you can't put your faith in it anyway.
Click to expand...

This is harsh and judgemental. I'm trying to be a newbie, remember? So teach me why you think folks who don't believe like you are just pretending to be a Christian. I'm not understanding this attitude.

So who do I think is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is inerrant you or the Apostles—the Apostles get my vote. Since they proclaimed Christ’s return in their generation I accept that as final. It is solid proof of the fact and simply means I need to change my definition of what constitutes his return.

You are not arguing with me John--your argument is with the Apostles and Christ!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dare argue with the Apostles and Christ. Tell me where they said Christ would come in their generation. I really want to know if Christ came in 70 AD, how did He come, and who knew about it?

Luke2427 · May 26, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Which view of the bible is more comforting for someone in pain, suffering a loss or needing comfort for some reason.

If you didn’t know the difference between a preterist view and a futurists view of the bible and were starting fresh which view of the bible would be more comforting—Preterism.

In a futurists view you have to change the meaning of works like “coming soon” and “this generation” to mean things that are uncommon, not used anywhere else, and if you don’t know the futurists code to understand these words it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the other hand in the preterist’s view you can use the normal everyday meaning of the words just as you would anywhere else and you understand their meaning.

Further if you needed comfort and wanted to feel like you could put your trust in what the bible says which is more comforting to see Christ promise to come back soon and still be waiting 2,000 later or realize he came back in 70 AD and kept his promise to come back soon. A promise made and a promise kept is far more reassuring than a promise with no fulfillment.

Preterism is a far more understandable and comforting view of the bible than futurism to someone who needs comfort, reassurance, and something concrete to hold on to in times of stress.
Click to expand...

This video addresses this issue in a hilarious way. Stick with it until about 3 minutes in. It is absolutely hilarious!

revmwc · May 26, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Which view of the bible is more comforting for someone in pain, suffering a loss or needing comfort for some reason.

If you didn’t know the difference between a preterist view and a futurists view of the bible and were starting fresh which view of the bible would be more comforting—Preterism.

In a futurists view you have to change the meaning of works like “coming soon” and “this generation” to mean things that are uncommon, not used anywhere else, and if you don’t know the futurists code to understand these words it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the other hand in the preterist’s view you can use the normal everyday meaning of the words just as you would anywhere else and you understand their meaning.

Further if you needed comfort and wanted to feel like you could put your trust in what the bible says which is more comforting to see Christ promise to come back soon and still be waiting 2,000 later or realize he came back in 70 AD and kept his promise to come back soon. A promise made and a promise kept is far more reassuring than a promise with no fulfillment.

Preterism is a far more understandable and comforting view of the bible than futurism to someone who needs comfort, reassurance, and something concrete to hold on to in times of stress.
Click to expand...

So since Christ has already come as you say then we can tell people you will die, and your body decay. There is no hope of Christ ever completing you in salvation your soul and spirit will just floata round in eternity. God kept His promise and came back for His apostles but we can't claim He will return for us, forget 1st Corinthians and 1st Thessalonians everything for the future that is promised is actually already in the past. We just exist to exist in our day. So there are no promises we can claim everything Christ promised is passed.

I really don't find that too conforting.

I guess Paul was lieing here:
1st Corinthians 15:20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Notice verse 23 in the Preterist view we can't claim this for us today because Christ came in 70 A.d according to their teaching. Verse 23 Christ was resurrected so too would those who are His when He returned, since He according to preteris has already returned we have no hope in being ressurected as Paul states the believer would.

1st Thessalonians 4: 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

This has already happened if He returned in 70 A.D. the dead have risen and all believers have been taken with Him, so we can't find comfort in these words.

We see Christ also as a false prophet, for this statement in Matthew 24:
14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Daniel 12:11And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Christ said the abomination of desolation would be seen before His return, Daniel says the abomination of Desolation will be set up and will be there for 3 1/2 years. The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. there was nothing set up in the temple that was ever noted by any biblical writer that made it desolate. So Christ lied about the image or whatever it is or Daniels passages meant somethig would be SET UP for 1290 days = 3 1/2 years. Either Preterist view is incorrect or we must do away with Paul's teaching, Christ is proven a false prophet as would be Daniel. My faith goes to Paul, Christ and Daniel.

Jim1999 · May 26, 2011

I believe that Jesus is presently seated at the right hand of God the Father and ruling, and an amillennialist! Does that make me a preterist?

Cheers,

Jim

revmwc · May 26, 2011

Jim1999 said: ↑

I believe that Jesus is presently seated at the right hand of God the Father and ruling, and an amillennialist! Does that make me a preterist?

Cheers,

Jim
Click to expand...

Do yu believe He has already returned and is in Hid kingdom rulling from heaven?

Jim1999 · May 26, 2011

Yes! The kingdom is in essence the churches of Jesus Christ and He is ruling for His seat. The second coming is a future event.one event!

Cheers,

Jim

JesusFan · May 26, 2011

Jim1999 said: ↑

I believe that Jesus is presently seated at the right hand of God the Father and ruling, and an amillennialist! Does that make me a preterist?

Cheers,

Jim
Click to expand...

NOT if you still see a literal second coming of Christ to be in the Future, with physical bodily resurrection at that time!

JesusFan · May 26, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Comparing preterism to universalism is not a legitimate comparison, it’s not on point with this thread, and I’m very sorry to hear about your daughter (and wish her well)—but you have manufactured your own vision of the future instead of drawn it from the bible.

I would like to see the verses where God said there would be a literal, physical, restoration to paradise on this earth in the bible! (If you want to make comparisons that sounds like J.W. talk.) I would agree it would be great if he did—but the fact is there is no such language in the bible.

Best of luck to you and your family. While we don’t have paradise to look forward to we do have prayer and I’ll pray for you all.
Click to expand...

Really hard to see how pretierism, especially hyper version fits the Biblical doctrine of the Sec Coming..

was NOT to be an invsible "in the dark" event, but
was to be seen by all men
Eyes would behold him coming back, how can one see invisible return/spiritual return?
All the saints would have come out of their graves, living one raptured stright up in air to meet coming Lord

Which historian recorded in in ancient times, any one?
Messiah returning with an army opf his Saints, dealing judgement upon World
Again, any record of that?

messiah returning ushers in his Millinual reign upon earth, satan bound, sickness disease wars famines etc all done away with at that time...

When did that happen? is this present age ruled full way God intends it to be under messiahnic rule?

just dont say biblical support...

You can get extra bible sources to refernce that...

strange cannot get jesus/peter/paul/or John to though!

J.D. · May 26, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Which view of the bible is more comforting for someone in pain, suffering a loss or needing comfort for some reason.

If you didn’t know the difference between a preterist view and a futurists view of the bible and were starting fresh which view of the bible would be more comforting—Preterism.

In a futurists view you have to change the meaning of works like “coming soon” and “this generation” to mean things that are uncommon, not used anywhere else, and if you don’t know the futurists code to understand these words it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the other hand in the preterist’s view you can use the normal everyday meaning of the words just as you would anywhere else and you understand their meaning.

Further if you needed comfort and wanted to feel like you could put your trust in what the bible says which is more comforting to see Christ promise to come back soon and still be waiting 2,000 later or realize he came back in 70 AD and kept his promise to come back soon. A promise made and a promise kept is far more reassuring than a promise with no fulfillment.

Preterism is a far more understandable and comforting view of the bible than futurism to someone who needs comfort, reassurance, and something concrete to hold on to in times of stress.
Click to expand...

It's funny (providential) that you should mention this - this very thing has been on my mind a lot lately. As I age some of my physical maladies are becoming more and more chronic. I am beginning to have strong longings to be released from the body and am finding it difficult to desire a return to a physical body. However I do believe there is a resurrection that reunites us with a physical body, but that body will be sin-free and ailment-free.

Logos1 · May 27, 2011

John it looks like you will be converting over to full Preterism

John of Japan said: ↑

I wouldn't dare argue with the Apostles and Christ. Tell me where they said Christ would come in their generation. I really want to know if Christ came in 70 AD, how did He come, and who knew about it?
Click to expand...

John I think it would be fair to wrap all your statements up into the last one about how a newbie would understand verses.

Obviously the seven Revelation I come quickly statements would be understood to mean a soon coming of Christ.

Matt 24:34 Jesus said this generation would not pass away—anyone newbie or not can see he is talking about the generation alive at the time of the statement.

Mark 14: 62 Jesus said to the high priest you will see the Son of Man come with the clouds of heaven…saying "you will see" to the high priest could only mean the person he was speaking to "the high priest" would live to see it.

1 Thessalonians 4: 15 when Paul says we are still alive at the Lord’s coming…you have to pervert the word of God not to see he is saying some of them will still be alive when Christ returns.

1 Thessalonians 5: 4 he uses the term you again meaning those he was talking to saying they would not be overtaken like a thief.

1 Thessalonians 5: 6 we must not sleep…but we must stay awake and be sober--again meaning those reading the letter not some future readers thousands of years in the future.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 when he tells them may your spirit, soul, and body be kept sound and blameless for the coming of our Lord—he didn’t tell them of a future coming he is specifically telling them to keep themselves blameless when Christ comes back obviously meaning they will be alive when he comes. How can you not see that Paul is a full Preterist in this verse.

And you want other evidence the bible gives us that also which is backed up by the historical accounts of the destruction of the temple just as Jesus predicted:

Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and Luke 21 when Jesus said not one stone would be left upon another and if you read the historical account that is exactly the way the temple was torn down stone by stone. The disciples asked what would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age—notice when he comes it is also the end of the age—the age they are living in the Old Covenant age.

Since you wouldn’t argue with the apostles and Christ I think that should fairly settle the matter in your mind doesn’t it. It does for me.

Logos1 · May 27, 2011

Hello revmwc

Dear Brother revmwc,

Instead of waiting till the future to claim victory in the Lord as futurists have to do I welcome you over to full Preterism so you can rightfully start claiming your victory in Christ today. In the futurists view since Christ’s coming is always put off and never arrives you never get to proclaim Christ’s victory in your earthly life time—but we Preterists know Christ has already conquered death and when you die you go straight to heaven to be with the Lord—try it and you will find it very comforting.

Just think about it—every single preacher who tells the family of a dead person that he has gone to heaven to be with the Lord is actually proclaiming full Preterism. They would have to say the dead won’t be with the Lord till Christ returns to be consistent with futurism. When you think that through and grasp the ramifications of it all I want to be the first to welcome you into hyper Preterism and the comfort of knowing the joy you can experience only in hyper Preterism. May God bless you in your new walk in the Lord.

Luke2427 · May 27, 2011

Logos1 said: ↑

Dear Brother revmwc,

Instead of waiting till the future to claim victory in the Lord as futurists have to do I welcome you over to full Preterism so you can rightfully start claiming your victory in Christ today. In the futurists view since Christ’s coming is always put off and never arrives you never get to proclaim Christ’s victory in your earthly life time—but we Preterists know Christ has already conquered death and when you die you go straight to heaven to be with the Lord—try it and you will find it very comforting.

Just think about it—every single preacher who tells the family of a dead person that he has gone to heaven to be with the Lord is actually proclaiming full Preterism. They would have to say the dead won’t be with the Lord till Christ returns to be consistent with futurism. When you think that through and grasp the ramifications of it all I want to be the first to welcome you into hyper Preterism and the comfort of knowing the joy you can experience only in hyper Preterism. May God bless you in your new walk in the Lord.
Click to expand...

What do you say to these guys who say you DO go to be with the Lord spiritually immediately upon death but your body must await the Resurrection?

Preterism is a Better View of the Bible than Futurism for Someone Suffering

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Luke2427 Active Member

revmwc Well-Known Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

revmwc Well-Known Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

JesusFan Well-Known Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

J.D. Active Member
Site Supporter

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

Luke2427 Active Member

Useful Searches

Preterism is a Better View of the Bible than Futurism for Someone Suffering

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Luke2427 Active Member

revmwc Well-Known Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

revmwc Well-Known Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

JesusFan Well-Known Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

J.D. Active Member Site Supporter

Logos1 New Member

Logos1 New Member

Luke2427 Active Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

J.D. Active Member
Site Supporter