time of the end

Not all have. We don't teach dispensationalism or pre-millinealism in my Baptist church as the only acceptable interpretation. When we do discuss the end times, we focus on the clear teaching of Scripture based on this statement:

"God in his own time and in his own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord."

 

Preterism is phony as a Ford Corvette! The simple TRUTH is, those eschatological events they SAY have happened, have NOT yet happened. These are STUPENDOUS events, and history would NOT have missed them, and also, the earth would be greatly changed from what it's been since the Flood.

Many prets try to justify their false doctrine by consigning the prophecies of Jesus and daniel to the "figurative/symbolic language" category...in the face of all the fulfilled prophecies having cometa pass LITERALLY!

PRETERISM IS JUST ANOTHER MAN-MADE FALSE DOCTRINE !

 

It does not have to be an either or solution. Old Testament prophecies generally have a more immediate and partial application as well as a final and full application. I think anyone who reads the Olivet discourse can easily see that A.D. 70 is the immediate application whereas there is a very clear and explicit ultimate application far beyond A.D. 70. A.D 70 can be "the end" of the nation of Israel as characterized from Exodus to A.D. 70 but not the "end of the world" as both Daniel and the Olivet discourse clearly and explicitly deal with as the ultimate application.

By the way, I am not a pre-tribber, nor an Preterist or an A-miller.

 

The promise to Abraham does not need to be forced into the a-mill system as salvation has been and always be the same for Gentiles or for Israel as there is no other name and no other way to the Father but one and it is the same one way from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation. One does not have to deny that salvation of individual Jews was the same as for those in the church age or deny that the future salvation of the nation of Israel violates the common salvation. Abraham's promise included a seed and nation from his loins that are double birthed in addition to "nations" (Gentiles) not of Abraham's loins.

 

First there are several covenants that establish the relationship between God and Israel. the first one was with Abraham. This covenant had nothing to do with the Temple nor was it ever abolished. The second was the Mosaic covenant and yes its connection with Israel was the Temple.

Further, the word of God tells us "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:22-24)."

It seems the preterists are the ones who are saying "look here!" The fact is no one has claimed to see Jesus come back just as He left. Revelation 1:7 says He will return and every eye will see Him. Nope hasn't happened.

Talking about inconsistency is preterists who continue to take the Lord's Supper seeing as the believe Jesus has returned already. The command to do this was based on doing it until He returns. If that had happened then there would be no need for the Lord's supper. (I Cor 11:26)

 

There is a Heinz 57 Variety mulligan stew (and many other metaphorical recipes) of eschatology (Last Things).

Preterism being one of them is not know in history not even by ECF who crossed the time line of AD70, saw the destruction of the temple but did not equate it with the second coming of Christ nor did any others shortly (and at length) thereafter.

Acts 1
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

this same Jesus (not Titus), which is taken up from you (bodily) into heaven, shall so come in like manner (bodily) as ye have seen him (with your eyes) go into heaven.

His Return - Same LORD, same place (Mt of Olives), same manner (bodily):

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
...
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Hasn't happened yet.

HankD

 

Since preterists cannot account for the eschatological events in history that they SAY have happened, they often try to consign those Scriptures prophesying them to the status of "figurative/symbolic language", while ignoring the fact that those parts of the Olivet Discourse that HAVE already cometa pass have done so LITERALLY. Included are the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple, war, rumor of war, persecution of Christians with decapitations, the trampling underfoot of the rebuilt Jerusalem by gentiles, etc. Thus, prets try to convince themselves their doctrine is true.

 

Right Roby, some one said (and I forget who) The best proof that the Second coming will be visible and bodily is that the first coming was.

I believe JoJ said it but with slightly different wording.

HankD

 

Sure you don't want to think about that?

 

End of the "age" not world.

 

The Early Church Fathers and the Last Days of the Jewish Age

Bishop Kouri has added a new resource to Lesson 5, The Apostles’ Revelation: The Jewish Age, Behind, Not Ahead of The Church. Discover what the Post Apostolic Church fathers really believed about the Seventy Weeks of Daniel and the End of the Jewish Age.

(Lesson 5 above is part of Brother Kouri’s insightful, provocative, and widely applauded ATS course, AD250 The Non-Negotiables of Apostolic Christianity.)


THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE LAST DAYS OF THE JEWISH AGE

BARNABAS:

Written anonymously around 100 AD, the “Epistle of Barnabas” is the earliest extra-Canonical source we have. Although not included in the Canon of the New Testament, it is an incredibly early documentation of the early Church’s beliefs about the last days. The Apostle John was probably alive when it was written. And although the authorship is disputed, we will refer to Barnabas as the author.

The Epistle of Barnabas sets forth the common view held by the early Church that the seventieth week of Daniel ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, as Messiah’s Day dawned and Christ’s Church was born. Barnabas writes, "For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built...in the name of the Lord.’ I find...that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord." (EOB, 16:6)

Barnabas uses the expression "the week," but does not mention Daniel. Yet scholars agree from the context that this is definitely a reference to Daniel’s 70th week. And it is assumed by many scholars that the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks was so well known and so widely expounded in the early Church that it needed no further explanation. The early Church did not avoid Daniel’s prophecy.

This early Christian writer connects Daniel’s vision of seventy weeks with the prophecy of Haggai 2:7-9 and the building of a "spiritual temple," the Church. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas obviously believed that Daniel’s 70th week was fulfilled with Christ’s first advent. This was when the Old Temple was destroyed and the new “spiritual temple” was initially established. Writing in 100 AD he clearly believed the 70th week of Daniel was already completed.

It seems clear from this passage in the Epistle of Barnabas that less than a century after Christ’s passion (remember that according to Daniel the Messiah would be cut off in the middle of the 70th week), it was the widespread belief of the Church that the 70th week of Daniel was completed. It is certain that Barnabas placed the end of the 70th week no later than 70 AD. His mention of the building of the Church (which was able to grow largely unimpeded after 70AD) makes it probable that Barnabas saw 67 to 70 AD and the destruction of Herod’s Temple as the end of the Jewish or Old Covenant Age and the dawning of Messiah’s Day. As David B. Currie writes in his book, Rapture, The End-Times Error That Leaves The Bible Behind, "He (Barnabas) assumes his readers will agree that the events of ‘the week’ led to the building of the Church.” (Page 422)


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDREA

Within a century of Barnabas, Clement became bishop of Alexandria until his death in 215 AD. Clement taught that the blessings of the New Covenant required the end of biblical Judaism within the 70 weeks of Daniel.Clement writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in the prophetic language of Daniel’s seventy weeks, "Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement of Alexandrea believed the Jewish Age, the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel and the great tribulation were behind, not ahead of the Church.



ORIGEN (185-254 AD)

A student of Clement of Alexandrea, Origen agreed that the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD marked the end of the Jewish Age and the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy regarding the 70 weeks. Origen writes, "The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled" (TPR, IV:1:5).

Like Clement, Origen also believed the Jewish Age, the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel and the great tribulation were behind the Church, not ahead of it.


TERTULLIAN

In 203 AD Tertullian wrote his famous treatise Against The Jews. This early Church father also taught that Daniel’s 70th week had been fulfilled in 70 AD: "Vespasian vanquished the Jews…and so by the date of his storming Jerusalem, the Jews had completed the seventy weeks foretold by Daniel” (AAJ, VII; CID).

Contrary to modern postponement preachers and teachers, Tertullian believed the Jewish age, the abomination of desolation, and the great tribulation was behind, not ahead of the Church.


ATHANASIUS

Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373 AD. Like the early Church fathers before him, he also taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel culminated and the Jewish Age ended in 70 AD: "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken" (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

Athanasius clearly reflects the view of the entire early Church: once the Messiah had come, the role of the Temple in Jerusalem would be ended. “Things to be done which belonged to Jerusalem beneath…were fulfilled, and those which belonged to the shadows had passed away” (FEL, IV:3-4).

This important early Church father clearly believed that the Jewish age ended in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.


IRENAEUS AND HIPPOLYTUS

Irenaeus was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandrea whose widely held view we dealt with above. Irenaeus and his pupil Hippolytus are the only two writers from the early Church period who believed in a still-future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week. They both placed the 70th week at the end of the gospel age and so are the first interpreters to postulate a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks (AG, V). Both predicted a specific date for the second coming that has long since come and gone.
But their belief in a future 70th week was never widely accepted! St. Jerome specifically pointed out that the number of years in their system did not coincide with the historical events they purported to cover. He wrote, "If by any chance those of future generations should not see these predictions of his (Irenaeus) fulfilled at the time he (Irenaeus) set, then they will be forced to seek for some other solution and to convict the teacher himself (Irenaeus) of erroneous interpretation” (CID)

David B. Currie points out in his scholarly work, "As a point of history, the views of Irenaeus did give seed to premillennialism. But the early fathers of the Church strongly and universally denounced this concept. The early Church understood the presumptuous-parenthesis theory that rapturists employ…but they resoundingly rejected it.” (David B. Currie, Rapture, page 425)

The prevailing view of the early Church fathers was that Daniel’s vision of the 70 weeks was fulfilled in 70 AD. The final or 70th week began with the baptism of Jesus and his presentation to Israel by John the Baptist. The Messiah was cut off in the middle of the 70th week when Jesus was crucified. The abomination of desolation and the great tribulation spoken of by Daniel were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.

These events marked the end of the Jewish age and the dawning of Messiah’s Day.


https://georgekouri.com/the-early-church-fathers-and-the-last-days-of-the-jewish-age

Now, if the tribulation of Matt. 24 is fulfilled, then would they not also be saying the coming in the same chapter has also come to pass?

“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 heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

None of these men would be full- preterist, but they would interpret Matt. 24 in a historic preterist way.

 

Hi Grasshopper!
Correct statement.
I have always admitted that the destruction of the temple was part of the prophetic statements of Jesus Christ.
However I believe there are some far reaching prophecies in Matthew 24.

Personally and FWIW I have no problem with partial preterists.
Full preterists - well if they had a credible response to my Acts 1:9-12 inquiries then I might lend an ear.

HankD

 

Grasshopper, can you please quote a fulfilled Biblical prophecy that wasn't fulfilled LITERALLY?

 

The Mission of John the Baptist
…4as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord; make straight paths for Him.’ 5Every valley shall be filled in,and every mountain and hill made low.The crooked ways shall be madestraight, and the rough ways smooth.6And all mankind will see God’s salvation.”…

 

Lol. there's like a kazillion of these:

13 and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali:
14 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,
15 The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles,
16 The people that sat in darkness saw a great light, And to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, To them did light spring up. Mt 4

Was all of Galilee in literal darkness, then comes Jesus literally in the form of a great light?

 

Yes, there are an abundance of metaphorical usages in the bible and they ALL point to a literal occurrence as you point out but there are also a greater abundance of literal usages which do not have or need to be viewed as metaphors.

Just because we fine a metaphor we like does not mean we should apply it wherever we want.
Or apply it in a different place because we don't like the actual literal in the different because the literal doesn't fit our agenda.

The problem we all have is sorting out the metaphor and the raw literal.


HankD

 

Like this one?:

64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26

Or this one?:

7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen. Rev 1

A credible response:

"....There are only two main verses that have loosely been used to assume a physical return of Christ by the Greek-dominated church. The first is Acts 1:9-11 (the Ascension), "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight," after this the two angels reassured the disciples saying, "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven." (emphasis mine, tj.) The emphasis here is not on the transfigured form, but on the manner in which he ascended and would return, "in a cloud." This event was a reaffirmation of Jesus’ being the apocalyptic "Son of Man" spoken of in Daniel and the Gospels. That he, "the Son of Man," came with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13), is later emphatically stated to be fulfilled in His return, in numerous places (Matt.16:27f; 24:30; Mark 13:26; and Luke 21:27).

The second verse under consideration is Revelation 1:7, "Behold, he cometh in the clouds and every eye shall see him, every one which pierced him: and all the kindred of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Here one finds the same apocalyptic "Son of Man" imagery regarding His "coming in the clouds." The language of the text shows that literally, those that would see him were even who had "pierced him", namely the Jews (Acts 2:23,36; 5:30).

In His parousia in judgment on the Jewish theocracy, those that had rejected Him would now "see" the truth of Jesus’ claims and their error, i.e. a nationalistic expectation of the Kingdom (Matthew 26:64). Truly, upon a close investigation of the subject, there are not any verses in the New Testament that point to any other manner of coming other than a spiritual parousia of Christ in a judgment of God’s enemies at the redemptive-historical end-time of the Old Covenant system. In fulfilling this event, the bondage of the non-occurence theory is vanquished."
Rejection of the Non-Occurrence Theory

 

This is your take kyredneck, I don't agree but I do respect and accept as viable the full preterist view and I myself have been called a "partial" preterist because I see a partial fulfillment of His Second Coming in Matthew 24/Luke 21 (the days of vengeance).

Objection: Full preterism borrows a lot of vocabulary from neo-orthodoxy, makes me go - hmm, that's interesting...

My biggest objection is that the "see"ing that you point to in Acts 1:9-11 and Revelation 1:7 are both "sight" with the physical eye(s) on the surface meaning of the literal words.

But yes, koine however can and does use physical sight and enlightenment interchangeably as does English and that is the problem for our understanding of how to unravel it all

Until then we should mull these things over in our minds (better than having lustful thoughts) no matter our view until we see Him face-to-face.

HankD

 

Actually a futurist such as John Gill saw it this way, that it's not "sight with physical eyes" (Gill had probably never even heard of 'Preterism' before):

"....nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the son of man, sitting at the right hand of power ...... not, that they should see him at the right hand of God with their bodily eyes, as Stephen did; but that they should, or at least might, see and know by the effects, that he was set down at the right hand of God; as by the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon his disciples, on the day of pentecost; by the wonderful spread of his Gospel, and the success of it, notwithstanding all the opposition made by them, and others; and particularly, by the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more especially designed in the next clause; and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner...."

I'm not a 'full preterist' but I don't find it in the least as objectionable as the blatant war mongering Zionism that Dispensationalism has morphed into. It's the most dangerous cult in the world.

Haven't the least idea what you're referring to. Perhaps you could clarify just a little, example or two?

My biggest objection is the carnality of your view. We're told that 'the kingdom cometh not with observation', and that we've 'not come to a mount that might be touched', yet dispies are longing for something that can be seen with the eye and touched with the hand.

My other biggest objection is the blatant disregard by dispies of the many time indicators in the scriptures surrounding/concerning the coming of the Son of Man:

101 time indicators