Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

Well, first of all, Matt. 23 is a separate event altogether. It is not part of the Olivet Discourse, which is Matt. 24-25. So you cannot connect Matt, 23 exegetically to the Olivet Discourse.

Looking again at Matt. 24, I see my search parameters in the software was mistaken, and there are quite a few other you/ye verses. But again, most of those are generic, just like the ones in the Sermon on the Mount.

Let's look at v. 15. If you have a presupposition of preterism, then you must say that the abomination of desolations occurred in the AD 70 event. However, to me that is an impossible interpretation in the light of v. 11 describing a time of unequalled tribulation. It did not happen. AD 70 was certainly not unequaled tribulation.

Preterism has to ignore the fact that so many prophesied events have not occurred in any way, shape or form. We know from fulfilled prophecy that when prophecy is fulfilled, it is literally fulfilled. (Bethlehem as Christ's birthplace, etc., etc.). The fulfillment is obvious. However, the supposed fulfilments of preterism are all very iffy, not literal at all.

 

Somehow, the definition of terms like "you", "soon", "at the door", etc. change their meaning when you need to make it fit the "futurist" view. Any other time, these words mean just what they say. To state the obvious, our views or whether or not these events have occurred are why we are having this discussion in the first place.

 

Why is it a separate issue? Chapter and verse divisions didn't come around for many centuries, so it's all in the same context.

I disagree regarding whether "you" is a generic term in this context. He is telling His immediate audience what to expect. We have similar occurrences elsewhere in the NT.

Most futurists agree that the Olivet Discourse was at least partially fulfilled in AD 70. I believe it was fulfilled in its entirety. On the other hand, the futurist view has to read the doctrine into Scripture to make it fit.

 

As I've mentioned earlier, the Beast is both Nero and Rome. The 70th week has already been fulfilled, as I explained earlier.

On a slightly different note, I'd like to ask a question to you Futurists. Where is the 7 years of tribulation in Revelation? While we see different phrases for 3 1/2 years, we don't see 7 years of tribulation anywhere in Scripture. I am guessing you have to pick a couple of the 3 1/2 year periods and join them together.

 

It's a separate event because the Bible says so: "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple" (Matt. 24:1). I think Scripture is very clear. The place is different, the audience is different, the content is different.

Like where? Vagueness is not an argument. I've pointed out that the Sermon on the Mount uses a generic "you." You did not refute that.

This is a very easy charge to make without specific proof, so I'll make it right back at you. The preterist view has to read the doctrine into Scripture to make it fit.

 

Of course, I can turn that statement around. You can try to fit your doctrine into the Scriptures, but that doesn't make it true. Still, it's quite obvious neither of us is ever going to budge.

On another note, I took a turn for the worse over the weekend. Remembering what you said about how it could turn into pneumonia, I went to the doctor. She took an x-ray to be sure. Fortunately, it was just that I had tried to get active too soon. Take care.

 

Do you have any specific uses of "soon" or "at the door" to talk about? With my software, I can't find those words in Scripture (KJV) connected with prophecies about the end times.

 

In Matthew 23, we see that Jesus was in the Temple, where He had pronounced "woes" upon the Jewish leaders. Then He lamented over Jerusalem. At the beginning of Matthew 24, as He came out of the Temple, the disciples wanted Him to elaborate. So, yes, this is all in the same context.

Some examples of "you" being used elsewhere in the NT to refer to the immediate audience. I'm not disputing that "you" can refer to a general audience as well. The same can be said of "you must be born again", which was spoken directly to Nicodemus, but applies to all of us. The question is not how can it be used, but how is it being used in the context?
A few "immediate audience" uses only are: Matthew 3:7 "You brood of vipers"; Matthew 10:23 "Whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes"; John 3:10 "You are Israel's teacher, and do not understand these things?"; 1 Cor 1:14 "I thank God that I did not baptize any of you". Obviously there are many more, but you know them as well as I do.

An example of the way that "futurists" need to fit their doctrine into the Scripture can be found in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus never indicates He is changing the time reference from where He predicts the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem to speak of a far distant future audience. There is simply no Scriptural basis for it. I suggest it is up to the futurist to make it clear - so the original audience would have understood it - that this was the case.

 

Nope. Can't swallow that. There are too many differences.

1. Ch. 23 is to the general populace with specific reference to the scribes & Pharisees, but Ch. 24-25 is to the disciples.
2. The location is different: the temple and Olivet.
3. The content is quite different: woes upon the wicked leaders vs. direct prophecy.
4. The occasion is different: in Ch. 23 Christ opens the ballgame with the subject, but in 24-25 He is answering queries by the disciples.

I'm not sure what your point is here in regards to the Olivet Discourse. You have not disproved any generic "you" statements in the discourse.

How in the world can the Olivet Discourse not be future when the disciples are asking about "the sign of thy coming" and "the end of the world" in 24:3???? That puts the discourse firmly in the futurist mode.

Has Christ come back yet, in answer to the disciples' question? The full preterist says He came in AD 70. Is that what you say? I say that is a ridiculous position. No one saw Him, He did not stay, He did not come to earth.

Has the "end of the world" come yet in answer to the disciples' question? Why would we even have that conversation? It's been almost 2000 years since AD 70 and the world is still here!! In all of the prophecies of the first coming of Christ, the literal fulfillment is quite clear: Bethlehem as the birthplace, betrayed by 30 pieces of silver, etc. etc. There are no such clear fulfillments in the preterist view. It's all figurative.

Yours are the kind of statements that are so frustrating to futurists. The futurist must prove that Matt. 24-25 is future when it is about the end of the world??? Really? Look out your window. Is the world still there?

 

Matthew 16:27-28 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father...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 26:64 "Jesus said to him (Caiaphas)...you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven."
1 Cor. 10:11 "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon who the ends of the ages have come."
James 5:8-9 "the coming of the Lord is near", "The Judge is standing at the door".
1 Peter 4:7 "The end of all things is near..."
1 John 2:18 "Children, it is the last hour..."

My apologies - I'm answering some points out of order. Thanks to some medicine the doctor has me on, my head has been in a bit of a fog for a few days.

"End of the world" is correctly translated as "end of the age (aeon, not kosmos). This puts an entirely different meaning on the text.
Hebrews 1:2 "in these last days" He has spoken to us in His Son; 9:26 "now, at the consummation of the ages". Both passages refer to the end of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 10 shows that the Old Covenant system is finished. There will not be a 3rd Temple, no reinstatement of the priestly system and animal sacrifices. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of that system, making them obsolete. It makes no sense for God to have a separate system for the Jews to go back to, when they were but a shadow.

His "return" in AD 70 was in judgment. This is not to be confused with the 2nd Advent, which is still in our future.

 

Thank you. Definitely nothing to take chances with, and I appreciate your genuine concern.

Obviously, it's the same genuine concern that drives you to "correct" those who you believe have been deceived into a false view of eschatology. You are a good man, Brother Roby. You are only trying to convince me (and other preterists) of the facts as you see them, because it's important to have a correct understanding of Scripture. If only more Christians had the same compassion and drive!
Let me assure you that it was only after a great deal of prayer and study of the Scriptures that I came to realize the futurist view is based on false premises, and the partial preterist view fits the prophecies like the proverbial hand in a glove. I see this more and more with every time I study the Scriptures. The prophecies were not about the end of the world, but the consummation of the Old Covenant age.

 

This is more like it. No vagueness here.

Yep, the transfiguration.

Yep, he'll be allowed to see it as all others in Hell will.

I don't see any problem here. In dispensationalism, yes, we are at the end of the ages.

Yes, draws nigh spatially, but not necessarily in a time sense.

Yes, we are in the final age of man.

This is a tough one, but "hour" here is obviously a figure of speech, since when he said it, there were still more hours.

My apologies - I'm answering some points out of order. Thanks to some medicine the doctor has me on, my head has been in a bit of a fog for a few days.

"End of the world" is correctly translated as "end of the age (aeon, not kosmos). This puts an entirely different meaning on the text.
The Greek word kosmos refers to the world system, which is not in view in this passage, but the Greek word aion (not aeon) can certainly mean the physical world, and it does here. The authoritative lexicon known to us in the Greek field as BAGD (2nd ed. of Bauer, Arndt, Ginrich, Danker) has for definition 3: "the world as a spatial concept" (p. 28).

This whole era is known as "the last days" in Scripture as witness 2 Peter 3:3.

As for the rest of your statements here, they are irrelevant to this discussion. Your mind must be wandering because of the medicine. But really, I don't see the need to discuss the rabbit trail of replacement theology here, but Rom. 9-11 handily refutes the idea that there is no further divine purpose for ethnic Israel.

Glad to know you are not a full preterist. But tell me, how do you know that Jesus came in judgment in AD 70? What evidence is there? Are there any Christian or Jewish documents telling us this? I have (and have read) The History of the Church by Eusebius, and there is nothing in there. Again, I don't recall Josephus saying anything like that. So where is the evidence?

 

The transfiguration was only a week later, so this doesn't really make sense.

I believe the context shows that Caiaphas would see it in his lifetime.

Audience relevance shows that the end of the ages had come upon his original readers - not an audience at an undetermined period far off in the future.

2 Pet 3:3 is clearly about the mockers in his day. In context, vs. 7-13 point toward the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, when Christ came in judgment on Israel. The "elements" (v. 10) is not literal chemical elements, but "stoicheia" - principles or philosophy. The same word is used in Gal. 4:3-10, Col 2:8, and Heb. 5:12. Sorry, I'm getting off on another rabbit trail. Yes, I am definitely still under the influence - good dope .

I've only read quotes from Eusebius and Josephus. The evidence is in the fact that the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed, exactly as described by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, and throughout most of Revelation.

For the record, I do not believe in "Replacement Theology". Probably a topic for another time, though.

 

And so it was.

I took a second look at the passage, and the "you" there is plural in the Greek, making it not to Caiphas alone but to the Jewish people, who he represented.

This is where we come back to my statement that preterists have the same problem with the time statements as futurists do. 1 Cor. was written in about the spring of 55 or 56, making it a minimum of 14 years before AD 70. Would you call that "near"? I certainly wouldn't. 14 years ago I had not the slightest idea I would be where I am now. It was a huge gap in time.

Nope, can't agree.

Since you brought it up for whatever reason, the word is actually the nominative neutral plural of stoixeion, one meaning of which is: "in physics, the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, water)" (Friberg, Friberg & Miller's Anlex). So it certainly can and does mean the elements of nature here. (Rabbit trails can be fun. )

Well yes, the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed as prophesied, but that does not make the whole Olivet Discourse, and certainly not Revelation, about that one event. There are so many, many other things prophesied that did not happen in AD 70. And the main thing is that Jesus did not come. No one saw Him. No one heard any trumpets or loud voices. Nothing!

Glad to know that.