Preterists Cannot Prove Their Assertions !

First, I'd like to thank you for the compliment. Though we disagree on this topic, I can see that you know your Scriptures and your history quite well. As you say, Scripture shapes history, not vice versa.

Getting back to the passage in Acts 2, Peter explained to his audience that what was happening right in front of their eyes was in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. No way around that. We need to interpret all Scripture according to the sense in which it was written. If we were to take Isaiah 55:12 in a literal sense, we would expect to see mountains and hills singing and trees clapping their hands. Obviously, the prophet used poetic language in this passage. I don't mean to come across as condescending, but we interpret poetry one way, history another, and prophetic symbolism yet another. I'll look up some examples of prophetic symbolism shortly.

Doctrine must never trump TRUTH. That is why I don't believe the "dispy" view - because it simply is not true. You are looking for a literal fulfillment of events that have symbolic descriptions. The "cosmic calamities" of the Olivet Discourse will never come to pass in a literal sense, but they have already come to pass in a symbolic sense.

 

The symbolic represents something literal

 

One good reason - Jesus was following the example of the prophets, who often used symbolic language. Remember, Jesus was referring to Isaiah 13:10, which was a proclamation of judgment against Babylon. In Revelation 14 and 18, spiritual Babylon (Jerusalem) is "fallen, fallen". In Rev. 17, we see Israel is called "Babylon the Great".

Consider Isaiah 19, an oracle against Egypt. If we were to take the prophecy literally, we would expect that God rides a cloud (vs. 1). Isaiah 24:19-23 has very similar language to what Jesus used. The prophet used symbolism to describe an impending judgment on Israel. Every prophecy of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled to the letter.

 

We agree on that, Brother. What we disagree on is what the literal meaning is.

 

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus told His disciples that their generation would "not pass away until ALL these things take place". In context, we see that "all these things" refers to everything He has been telling them from verse 1. You agree that the first part of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem. When He said "all" He literally meant ALL the things He had prophesied in the discourse. Remember, you are the one claiming that we need to take everything literally.

Just as you believe that Jesus didn't switch from speaking in literal terms to symbolic terms, I suggest that He didn't start out talking about events that would happen in their near future and then switch to talking about their distant future. His frequent use of "you" points to His immediate audience. I find it odd that you want to apply a literal interpretation to symbolic descriptions, but you want to change the meaning of terms like "near", "soon", "you", and others when they clearly point to a close-at-hand fulfillment. When Jesus said "you will see", let's take Him literally and in context.

You are the one who says we are to take prophecies literally, then you suggest the idea of a time gap between Acts 2:18-19. That is absolutely absurd. That's even more of a stretch than the supposed gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. Completely unsupportable from Scripture. You have to fit that "gap" into the verse in order to make it fit your eschatological view. It's ironic that you suggest that Preterist make"inconvenient" Scriptures symbolic when you have to change the meaning of passages to make them say what you want them to say. When you have to make things up to fit them into your view, it's time to reevaluate the "prophecy" junk from John Hagee, Thomas Ice, etc.

 

No. The generation which sees the signs, Matthew 24:32-34, ". . . when ye shall see all these things . . . ."; Matthew 24:29.

 

Jesus was telling His immediate audience that they were the generation who would see those signs, and so they did when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem and with the events of the Jewish Wars from AD 68-70. If Jesus meant a future generation, He would have said "when they see all these things". We must take His literal meaning here.

 

You keep making this claim but have yet to support it

 

Since Jerusalem was actually invaded by the Roman army, and these things did come to pass, I suggest the burden of proof is on the Dispensationalists. Can you prove Jesus meant a future audience when so much of what He prophesied came to pass within 40 years of when He spoke? After all, He did say that the generation He was speaking to would see these things, and history shows they did.

 

Now you need to also prove the destruction in ad 70 was exactly what He was talking about. By the way I never said a future audience I said generation is speaking to the nation of Israel not the people living at that time.

 

My apologies - you never did say that. Since the events did happen exactly as Jesus described in the Olivet Discourse, I'd say that "the proof is in the pudding". Not sure what other kind of proof you could find. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...".

 

I think you are mistaken when you say they happened as Jesus described. You have been shown otherwise a couple of times by robocop. In fact it looks like you literized portions of it and spiritualized others. Not consistent.

 

I haven't literalized anything, but I obviously do recognize portions where "prophetic language" is used. Robycop has disagreed with me, but that doesn't mean that I am mistaken. Some of the early church historians (e.g. Eusebius) held the view that the events of AD 70 were in fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse prophecy.

 

I have no idea what this means

 

Again, my apologies, Brother. I mean that I can see that a part of the discourse is in symbolic language, just as the OT prophets used a lot of symbolism.

 

And?

 

I really appreciate this type of discussion. You, RevMitchell, and the others have been very gracious even while we disagree. I appreciate that you know (and love, I suspect) history so well. For historical support, I would have to look at guys like Eusebius, who believed that the events leading up to AD 70 were in fulfillment of Christ's prophecies.

As you say, Jesus is 100% true, so the problem lies in the interpretation. The "genea" and "one day is as a thousand years" are weak arguments. We can't change the meaning of "shortly", "soon", etc. Even Hebrews 1:1 shows that that generation was living in "these last days". You misunderstand what "last days" refers to, though. It's not about the literal end of the world, but about the end of the Old Covenant system.

Since Scripture doesn't make it clear that there is a gap where Peter quotes Joel's prophecy in Acts, and Peter himself doesn't allude to it, there is no gap. That simply doesn't make sense. Let's go with the simplest explanation here - Peter was quoting Joel to show that the entire prophecy was being fulfilled.

It's ironic that the book titled "Revelation" is the hardest to understand. If you are looking for a literal fulfillment of the disasters described in the book, you will never see them. However, if you understand that John is using symbolic language, you can easily see their fulfillment in the events of AD 68-70.

 

Compare the language of Matthew 24:29 with the language of Ezekiel 5:9, Isaiah 13:9-10, or Judges 5:19-20. Heavenly bodies often symbolize earthly rulers and governments. Clouds are often symbolic of judgment. As we've established, Jesus clearly described the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in AD 70. Since He went on to say "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (v. 34), He meant everything He had described from the beginning of the Discourse.