Preterism and "This Generation"

Most Baptists believe the dispensational viewpoint, which I call "Schofieldism", because it's the only view they have ever been taught. At best, it is the only thing they have ever studied. After all, the Schofield Reference Bible is lauded by Baptists as the greatest Bible out there. In my estimation, it has been one of the biggest reasons for the spread of the false doctrine of dispensationalism and it's sub-teaching of pretribulationism.

Baptists, don't you think it's time for another look? Nothing that Schofield or Lindsey or Van Impe of Walvoord has ever taught about Bible prophecy has come true. Most of it has been outright proven wrong. The only view that is consistent with the scriptures in every sense is the full-preterist view. No added gaps, parenthesis, funny definitions, or denials are inherent in the preterist view. It is the only view that is based on accurate exegesis of the text alone, and confirmed by history. The preterist exegesis blows the dispensational exegesis out of the water. In fact, it isn't even close.

Warren

 

Revelation was written shortly before 70 A.D. The proof is that chapters 17-18 point ahead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. John never once mentions a past destruction. Surely he would have if the Temple had been destroyed just 26 years earlier. But he only points AHEAD to Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction. The great city wherein is the blood of prophets (18:24) could only have been JERUSALEM. It's destruction is pointed AHEAD to, with time statements conveying NEARNESS. No historical event, let alone another destruction of Jerusalem, happened in close proximity to 96 A.D. that could have fulfilled those prophecies.
The destruction of Jerusalem again in 136 A.D. would not really have been "shortly" and "near" to 96 A.D. Besides, the Temple was not destroyed in 136 A.D. The Temple's destruction is what marked "the tribulation of THOSE days" (Matt.24:29). Therefore, 70 A.D. was the biggie. And, again, John would have surely mentioned a past destruction of JErusalem and the Temple had it been destroyed just 26 years previous to a supposed 96 A.D. date. But he did not - he only pointed ahead to it's desolation.

Warren

 

Jesus never once said thatr he would return to the earth to sit on a big chair in Jerusalem. Think about that! If you were to ask a dispensationalists why he can't accept the preterist view his reply would be something along the line of not seeing Jesus in Jerusalem today. But he never taught that! Neither did any of the inspired Apostles!

Warren

 

John didn't mention history because he was writing PROPHECY! Rev was written ca. AD 90.

 

Dansrusdad

What you are forced to say is that the Temple will be built and Jerusalem will suffer anbother destruction future to this writing, since Rev.17-18 point ahead to those things. There are many problems in saying that. For one, Jesus NEVER ONCE taught a "rebuilt Temple". It was the destruction of the THEN-PRESENT Temple that he was referring to and the desolation of the THEN-PRESENT Jerusalem. You really have no option here other than to admit that Jesus was pointing to what happened in 70 A.D. The Book of Revelation PARALLELS the Olivet Discourse. Therefore, John was pointing ahead to the "near" (1:3; 22:10) destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple; he said that it would "shortly come to pass" (1:1; 22:6). 2000 years and running is NOT "shortly" OR "near" by any means.

Then, of course, you have the time statement "this generation" to deal realistically with. Jesus said that "the great tribulation" would be fulfilled before the "THEN-PRESENT generation had passed. I proved with other references what genration Jesus was rferring to. And, again, the Olivet Discourse is a PARALLEL to the Book of Revelation.

Johgn had been exiled to Patmos during NERO'S reign. Th Syriac Version of the 6th century introduces Revelation as "The Apocalypse of Saint John, who was sent to Patmos by Nero Caesar". Nero was is known historically as "the great persecutor of the Church". His nickname was "the beast". John's exile to Patmos was a typical punishment under his reign.

Indeed, the evidence for a pre-70 dating of Revelation is OVERWHLMING.

Come on, guys, let's hear some quality feedback. The next reformation is here!

Warren

 

Look up "throne of David" and "throne of His father David" in
the Bible. Look at the Book of MAPS in
the back you your Bible. The "City of David"
is a hill south of the Temple Mount.
Jerusalem was built around the
City of David. David's throne is
in Jerusalem. Jesus will rule a
physical kingdom for a physical 1,000 years
on the physical throne of David in
a physical Jerusalem.

Of course, doubters will always embrase
unliteral
mysticism. Mysticism can prove anything.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Perchance if you bold
this error, it will become true?

 

Amen, Brother Danrusdad -- Preach it!

 

There are many doctrines inferred from scripture that it doesn;t actually say. Full preterism has more of these than does futurism; with all the clear action, sense, and scope statements that are brushed aside in favor of a handful of time statements that are actually variable! Such as resurrection being spiritual. The Bible doesn't SAY that either, but instead speaks of bodies rising from the grave. (not spirits rising from inside bodies).
Dual fulfillment is the only way the time statements, and the action, sense and scope statements, all agree.

OH NO? You mean like the spiritual resurrection (that doesn't match what is described regarding Christ and others); and that Christians rule the earth now. (and all godless kingdoms have been abolished. Oh, but that just means that they eventually fall, and then new ones rise and also fall; forever. That's not what the prophecies about the return of Christ say!) What about there being no future events for us, because we are to reign on earth forever; but then, oh wait, we do die and go to some other place after all. (So this life really is a "parenthesis" after all!)

 

Revelation 11:1-2 (HCSB):

Then I was given a measuring reed like a rod, with these
words: "Go and measure God's sanctuary and the altar,
and count those who worship there.
2 But exclude the courtyard outside the sanctuary.
Don't measure it, because it is given to the nations,
and they will trample the holy city for 42 months.

This has a Temple rebuilt during the
first half of the 70th week of Daniel
next to the Dome of the Rock written all over it.

In the late 80s I talked to a Hadistic Jew Rabbinical
student in New York City.
He said the Jewish Messiah would be recognized
by the following:

1. He would be peace to Yisrael
2. He would restore the daily sacrifice
3. He would rebuild the Temple

Note that the daily sacrifice can take place
on the Temple Mount while the Temple is being
built. I believe it will take 3½-years to
build the temple. At the dedication of the new
temple is when the Antichrist will commit the
Abominatin of Desolation (AOD).

Of course, we know it will be the antichrist who
fools the Jews. At the middle of the 70th
week of Daniel, the Antichrist commits the AOD
and and many Jews look upon Jesus as the missed Messiah.

These events are future
(though some are similiar to events
of the past). Surely the posting
of Roman Armies on temple mound for 100s
of years on the site of a destroyed
Temple is "desolation". But the real
AOD has yet to be committed (futurism).

 

A freind of did a study on the word "This" in the terms "This generation"... Just the word "This" from what I understand theres an obvious use of the word in the original writing that literally means then and not later.

So if your interested in looking into it (because I'm not a word studier in that way) Go search it out. I believe there is one of three "this"s that could be used and it apparently confirms the past.


Maybe it helps?

God Bless

Seth3

 

In regards to the Dave Bussard comment,

To say that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 do not pertain to the same events because of the placement of one verse in Luke 21 is abosutely absurd!!! I will begin this short treatise by first showing that Luke is in general not in the same format as Matthew:

Matt.24:17,18 = Luke 17:31

Matt.24:26,27 = Luke 17:23,24

Matt.24:28 = Luke 17:37

Matt.24:37,38 = Luke 17:26,27

Matt.24:40,41 = Luke 17:35,36

You see here we not only find Luke in a different order and arrangement than Matthew, but even encompassing different chapters!!! His argument is yet another futile attempt to explain away reality and truth!

He tries to enforce his argument by saying that Matthew's Olivet took place in the day and Luke's Olivet was later at night, and referred to a totally different prophesy! This assertion is riddled with speculation and assumption! After Jesus had explain about the blocks of the Temple being thrown down, His disciples asked Him when this was going to happen. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke continue with Jesus explaining this event from the Mount of Olives over looking the Temple. It gives NO indication of day or night or how much later His explaination was. It could have been soon after they left the Temple or it could have been later at night. It is not indicated here nor does it really matter! And just because Luke does not begin Jesus' answer with the comment that they were sitting on the Mount of Olives does NOT make these to be understood as two different answers to two separate events!!! Luke is arranged differently as I showed you above, but their content is exactly the same.

Your argument is weak and shallow -- full of holes! It reminds me of the story about the young boy, who needing to get some drinking water, races down the hill to the well with his pail to get some water. So he fills it, and in haste he ascends back up the hill. Yet when he arrives at the top he looks into the pail and there is no longer any water in it. What he observes is that the pail is riddled with many small holes. So then he goes back down and thinks to himself, this time I will fill it and make my way up the hill even faster! After doing this over and over again, after several days he finally collapses in fury and exhaustion. Yet while sitting at the bottom of the hill he looks up. His eyes open wide with amazement! He is elated! How beautiful the grass and flowers have grown on the futile path he had taken to the top, having been watered by his effort and strain.

Dave Bussard's assertion here is in many ways like the young boy and the pail with many holes! His argument is riddled with holes, yet he attempts to cover his flawed hermeneutics with a pretty picture! I hope that most of you will see through this guile -- a falsehood disguised as a pretty picture -- a ray of light. We must begin to see these things as Jesus and His disciples saw them. NOT from the standpoint of how we THINK they must be to suite our beloved views!

 

Escatologist

You should try to answer my main point with scripture rather than with 15 exlcamation points.

It's not the order in which things are written concerning how Matthew 24 relates to Luke 21 that means anything, and I did not hint to the thought that it was. It's the CLEAR timing indicators in the passages that matter.

Does not Matthew 24 tell us that THE persecution (abomination/future) will take place AFTER the birth pains? It clearly does, and I know you believe that it does. Matt 24:9 says "THEN" (after the birth pains) persecution will take place. "Then" is a clear timing indicator.

But what you don't see is that Luke 21:12 tells us A persecution (70 AD) takes, or took, place BEFORE the birth pains. The word "before" is actually used. How do you ignore the "before?" It's a clear timing indicator. "Before" means before.

Matt 24 = Birth pains and "then" persecution
Luke 21 = persectution "before" birth pains

And I'm rarely here, so don't take it personal if I don't reply to your response. I may not. I figured I could just put it out there and anyone can either accept it or reject it. I'm okay with that.

Dave

 

What I commented about your assertion IS correct. You are playing word games here. The placement of the said passage above does not change nor endanger the accuracy or meaning of Luke's account verses Matthew's. They are BOTH speaking of exactly the same events, and concur with Mark's account as well. Your attempt to cut and dissect these Holy Spirit inspired passages and try to make them appear non-related is bad hermeneutics and spurious. Your view forces you to do such, because without some sleight of hand here and a redefinning of "this generation" there, to force it to fit inside your particular views' box, results in instant failure of that view. You must challenge and re-interpret or re-define many passages to conceal their truths and not reveal your views' flaws, and as such make the truth of God's Word null and void! In my view I believe Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. And other related passages concur that this is true. It doesn't take a sleight of hand or any side-stepping of God's Word for me to arrive at the proper meaning. You show try to study and learn the Word un-objectively and without motive, because there are many passages that refute your understanding! Of course you would probably have another word or passage changing event to prove your argument, which again will fail under the weight of proper biblical hermeneutics. My friend, Go with God not man!

 

Ed - Rev.11:2 speaks of the THEN-PRESENT temple, not a rebuilt one. Likewise, I Thes.2:4 does the same. NOTHING in any N.T. text hints at a rebuilt temple thousands of years from the time of the inspired writers. The PLAIN SENSE is that they were speaking of the THEN-PRESENT temple. Jesus surely was in Matt.24:2,15. The destruction of the first century temple literally characterized "the tribulation of those days". Note the distinct first century historical markers associated with that time:

"holy place"

"Judaea"

"on the housetop"

"sabbath day"

"flee to the mountains"

"Jerusalem compassed with armies"


One has to have his head in the sand to deny that these words describe a first century scenario. Ed, you're beginning to look like an ostrich!

Eric, double fulfillment isn't a valid option. Why?? Because it makes YOU the filter. We have no right to claim "double fulfillment" or "type" whenever we get in a jam. Again, we must base our doctrine on what the Bible SAYS, not what it doesn't say. Double fulfillment makes Jesus to be a liar. Think about it.

Warren

 

Revelation was written to saints that were already in "tribulation" (v.9). The tribulation here was no doubt NERO's persecution. He is known in the history books as "the great persecutor of the church" and was nicknamed "the beast". This is just one of many evidences that Revelation was written sometime shortly before 70 A.D., probably in 64-65 A.D. Nero ruled from 63-68 A.D.

John wrote to SEVEN churches in Asia Minor. The fact that there were only seven churches in Asia Minor at that time points to an EARLY date. There would no doubt have been many more than seven by 96 A.D.

In the seven letters to the churches, the JEWS are the problem for the Christians. Yes, Nero too, but it was the Jews who alihned with the Romans to persecute the Christians. This was the same Jewish persecution that Paul and the other Apostles speak to in their N.T. letters, all of which were written before 70 A.D. without dispute.

Chapters 17-18 describe the fall of first century Jerusalem and the Temple, and labels it as the "avenging of the apostles and prophets" (18:22). DIVINE avenging. Jesus pointed to this same avenging of the blood of the prophets and the Son of God in the vineyard parable and the marriage parable - read Matt.21:33-40 and 22:2-7; also Matt.23. Jesus said that this avenging of the blood of the proiphets would come upon "this generation", meaning the then-present generation of hypocritical, unbelieving, murderous Jews.

Now, how does the clear scriptural scenario of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction as the defining element of "the tribulation of those days" square with the dispensational scenario of Christ coming back to RESCUE Jerusalem and sit on a big chair in a rebbuilt temple?? Hahahahahahah! It doesn't! Dispensational theologians are constantly guilty of adding to the scriptures.

Warren

 

Warren: "Double fulfillment makes Jesus to be a liar. "

Forgive him Father for he knowest not
what he doth.

Double Fulfillment makes Jesus to be
200% correct.

 

Warren

The Futurists, in order to have their Daniel chapter 9 be fulfilled within their time frame, must re-build the Temple and re-establish the daily jewish sacrificial system. If daniel 9 were already fulfilled, as in reality it is, their whole system of a future end of the age and world ending cataclysmic melting of the cosmos fails. By definition, their fear and terror tactics are only different than the modern day terrorrists in that the Futurist's terror relies on an illusional hypothetical quasi real set of events. No one really gets hurt except theologically and emotionally. Yet anyone with just a little bit of common sense would have to ask, "why would God, who allowed a system of sacrifice and worship to run its course after thousands of years, which by the way was flawed as compared to the New Covenant and NEVER could atone for sins, want to bring back and re-establish this system of worship anyway?" But the answer probably lies in that the Futurist's entire system of beliefs hinge on this which then forces them to apply other tactics, such as side-stepping, re-definning, and re-interpretting an enormous amout of already fulfilled scripture.

As for the beloved brother Ed: He has already been well sucked into the hole of this fabled futuristic belief. I do not think he has the strength or wherewithal to crawl out. Even though I enjoy the challenge of debating him, for the most part you may be waisting your time, energy, and breath! Yet some are capable of shaking of tradition and seeing what is true. I for one had at one time held the Futurist's and Historicist's view. Although by constant study and a willingness to at least look at all the views allowed me to come to knowledge of the truth. It is a breath of fresh air to see others as yourself spend the time and energy to challenge tradition and doctrine and come to their senses.

 

Eschatologist: //Yet anyone with just a little bit of common sense would have to ask, "why would God, who allowed a system of sacrifice and worship to run its course after thousands of years, which by the way was flawed as compared to the New Covenant and NEVER could atone for sins, want to bring back and re-establish this system of worship anyway?"//

Nobody i know ever said that God was bringing back
and re-establishing the system of sacrifice.
In the opinion i expressed before, the antichrist
will reistablish animal sacrifice.
Recall the Jews are looking for a Messiah who will
restablish animal sacrifice
(insted of looking for the once-for-all sacrifice
that Messiah Jesus gives us).
However, i do note the Temple of the Millinnial Kingdom
described by Ezekiel has animal sacrifice.

 

Ed,

Please deal with the historical markers mentioned above. Here they are again:


"holy place"

"Judaea"

"flee to the mountains"

"Jerusalem compassed with armies"

"on the housetop"

"sabbath day"


These things earmark the "great tribulation" to the first century. There is no way to get around it, Ed. You can't say these things will happen again because Jesus never taught a "rebuilt temple". There is no "Judaea" today. The practice of "on the housetop" is not all that common in Israel today. I would ask that you be honest with yourself about these things. Don't go making generic soup out of them either, i.e., trying to somehow apply them to modern society. The words above literally nail down just when the great tribulation happened.

Warren