A Curious Omission

[kyredneck]

I give you Scripture and reasoning attached to them. You address none of them. I tried to be respectful but you have not. Feel free to keep writing about my "fantasy world" if you wish. I won't see your comments.

...took you long enough...

 

[asterisktom]

...took you long enough...

Yea, I know. But on the plus side these kinds of threads usually irk me into more study. And that is always a good thing.

 

[AustinC]

Unfortunately, it seems preterists simply study to reinforce their false premise which is neither biblically supported nor historically supported regarding a second coming of our King in 70CE.

 

[Lodic]

Unfortunately, it seems preterists simply study to reinforce their false premise which is neither biblically supported nor historically supported regarding a second coming of our King in 70CE.

From my perspective, I flip that coin around. Futurists study with the preconceived idea that most of the "end times" prophecies are still in our future. Preterists understand, based on careful study of Scripture and history, that these events were fulfilled in the Jewish Wars ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.

 

[AustinC]

From my perspective, I flip that coin around. Futurists study with the preconceived idea that most of the "end times" prophecies are still in our future. Preterists understand, based on careful study of Scripture and history, that these events were fulfilled in the Jewish Wars ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.

In the prophets, were there prophecies that had dual meaning and fulfillment? Is it therefore impossible that Jesus had more meaning than 70CE when he prophesied?
For example, Matthew 24 clearly is focused on the destruction of the temple in 70CE, yet it goes beyond that. In Matthew 24:14 we read: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Had the gospel been proclaimed throughout the whole world in 70CE? Of course not. Therefore Jesus is going beyond 70 CE with his prophetic words.
You should be more specific and state that Dispensationalists (Historicists) look for specific times and force Jesus words into those events. It becomes a game of what can we find. Preterism is simply a shorter historicist position. It's narrow and it does not see the possibility of dual prophesy.
Ultimately, we presently live in a godless world like those of the days of Noah. Any observing person sees this and knows that Jesus is not reigning here on earth with his children, while the unredeemed have been removed. That is yet to come. One reason we know this is that the gospel has not yet been proclaimed throughout the whole world. Second, not all the elect have been redeemed and given faith.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

70CE has its place in Jesus prophetic words, but it's hardly the end point of his prophetic words.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And a few verses after He warned about being dragged to the synagogues. And "Pray that your flight not be on the Sabbath."

Indeed He did. And the end wasn't then either.

Do either of these have any spiritual validity today?

Of course they do. But you won't find it.

These are just two of the many time indicators that many today simply ignore in order to hold on to their eschatology that has a strong hold on them.

What you need to understand is than in Matthew 24:3, our Lord's disciples ask three questions. And He answers each one. When you've worked that out you will have a time line.

Based on your comment to Lodic I would say that you still are. You believe in a physical future return of Christ. Basic definition of a futurist, no matter what other labels are added to it.

Don't be silly. You know perfectly well what a Futurist believes.
If we're going to be silly, then you are a Futurist. You believe that tomorrow (which is future) God will make His sun rise on the evil and the good and send His rain on the just and the unjust. You believe, I assume, that in the future there will be wars, famine, pestilences and earthquakes; and you believe that in the future the Gospel must be preached in all the world, or did everyone stop doing that in AD 70?. Does that not make you a Futurist?

 

[asterisktom]

Indeed He did. And the end wasn't then either.

Of course they do. But you won't find it.

What you need to understand is than in Matthew 24:3, our Lord's disciples ask three questions. And He answers each one. When you've worked that out you will have a time line.

Don't be silly. You know perfectly well what a Futurist believes.
If we're going to be silly, then you are a Futurist. You believe that tomorrow (which is future) God will make His sun rise on the evil and the good and send His rain on the just and the unjust. You believe, I assume, that in the future there will be wars, famine, pestilences and earthquakes; and you believe that in the future the Gospel must be preached in all the world, or did everyone stop doing that in AD 70?. Does that not make you a Futurist?

Well, brother, I do not want to be silly, so let me tell you what I think defines a futurist. And I am not alone in this. "Futurist" to me - and to many that I know - means some who believes the Second Coming is still future. I take it that your definition of "futurist" would be someone who believes in the Millennium. Is this correct?

They are not three totally separate questions in Matthew. It is one basic question divided into three parts, but all of them a response to what Jesus had just said concerning the Temple being destroyed. If they are questions involving totally different time frames - far into their future - why are they not asked in Mark and Luke? And notice that in Mark and in Luke Jesus answers (assumed) additional questions that the disciples did not ask.

It is telling that, in discussing the Olivet Discourse, Matthew is almost always the Synoptic that is cited. Reason being that that book lends itself to the misapprehension that the questions involved more than one time frame.

"When you've worked that out you will have a time line."

There is no grammatical indication of a time line in Matthew 24. And, when you compare that chapter with Mark and Luke, the order of events is jumbled. Reason? Jesus was speaking of events that would be fulfilled in "this generation", Matt. 24:34.

Also, I assume the mention of Sabbath (not fleeing on it) and synagogues did not cause any red flags to come up for you?

 

[Lodic]

In the prophets, were there prophecies that had dual meaning and fulfillment? Is it therefore impossible that Jesus had more meaning than 70CE when he prophesied?
For example, Matthew 24 clearly is focused on the destruction of the temple in 70CE, yet it goes beyond that. In Matthew 24:14 we read: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Had the gospel been proclaimed throughout the whole world in 70CE? Of course not. Therefore Jesus is going beyond 70 CE with his prophetic words.
You should be more specific and state that Dispensationalists (Historicists) look for specific times and force Jesus words into those events. It becomes a game of what can we find. Preterism is simply a shorter historicist position. It's narrow and it does not see the possibility of dual prophesy.
Ultimately, we presently live in a godless world like those of the days of Noah. Any observing person sees this and knows that Jesus is not reigning here on earth with his children, while the unredeemed have been removed. That is yet to come. One reason we know this is that the gospel has not yet been proclaimed throughout the whole world. Second, not all the elect have been redeemed and given faith.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

70CE has its place in Jesus prophetic words, but it's hardly the end point of his prophetic words.

While I do not believe these prophecies had a double fulfillment, I must confess that I do not know for certain. However, the prophecy that the gospel will be proclaimed throughout the whole world has been fulfilled per the following passages: Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6, Colossians 1:23, and 1 Timothy 3:16. In context, the "whole world" refers to the Roman Empire.

I do believe that Dispensationalists force Christ's prophecies into the future. Preterists recognize where these prophecies came to pass, just as we all recognize OT passages coming to pass (e.g. Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 53:5-9; Psalm 22).

As you pointed out, we do live in a godless world today. However, that does not mean that Jesus does not reign today. Let's not confuse the reign of Jesus with Heaven.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well, brother, I do not want to be silly,

Too late.

so let me tell you what I think defines a futurist. And I am not alone in this. "Futurist" to me - and to many that I know - means some who believes the Second Coming is still future. I take it that your definition of "futurist" would be someone who believes in the Millennium. Is this correct?

It may perhaps be correct within the Hyper-preterist world that you inhabit, but it is not correct in anything like orthodox Christian circles. "Futurism" is the belief that the large majority of Biblical prophecy is yet to be fulfilled. "Preterism" is the belief that the large majority of Biblical prophecy is already fulfilled. However, Preterists nonetheless look forward to the future return of Christ in glory. "Amillennialism" is, partly, the belief that Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled throughout this present age. I won't go into details since I think most people here understand these things even if you don't.

They are not three totally separate questions in Matthew. It is one basic question divided into three parts, but all of them a response to what Jesus had just said concerning the Temple being destroyed. If they are questions involving totally different time frames - far into their future - why are they not asked in Mark and Luke? And notice that in Mark and in Luke Jesus answers (assumed) additional questions that the disciples did not ask.

It is telling that, in discussing the Olivet Discourse, Matthew is almost always the Synoptic that is cited. Reason being that that book lends itself to the misapprehension that the questions involved more than one time frame.

Question 1. When will these things (destruction of the Temple) be?
Question 2. What signs will there be when You return?
Question 3. When will this age end?
Now it is true that Mark and Luke telescope these three questions into two, This is not unusual: how many demoniacs were there? How many times did the cock crow for Peter? The reason that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew is discussed more than those of Mark and Luke is because it is the longest (51 verses in Matthew, 37 in Mark, 34 in Luke) and therefore the most complete.

"When you've worked that out you will have a time line."

There is no grammatical indication of a time line in Matthew 24. And, when you compare that chapter with Mark and Luke, the order of events is jumbled. Reason? Jesus was speaking of events that would be fulfilled in "this generation", Matt. 24:34.

It is evident that verses 5-13 were not fulfilled in AD 70. Do you believe that tomorrow (which is future) God will make His sun rise on the evil and the good and send His rain on the just and the unjust, or did that stop in AD 70? Do you believe that since AD 70 there have been no more wars, famine, pestilences and earthquakes; and do you believe that the Gospel must be preached in all the world, or did everyone stop doing that in AD 70?
Now look at Matthew 24:33 (it's the same in Mark): "When you see all these things......" panta tauta. Now look at verse 36. "But of that day and hour no one knows." Peri de tes hemeras ekeines. There is a contrast being made; These things, and That day. There is one event that there will be signs of before it happens. That is the destruction of Jerusalem. There was the defeat of the Israelite armies, the surrounding of Jerusalem and the siege. The Lord Jesus warned His disciples to make a run for it when that started happening, and Eusebius tells us that they did so.
But there's another time coming of which there will be no warning. We are repeatedly told that it will be like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3; 16:15).. You wake up, and there he is!

Also, I assume the mention of Sabbath (not fleeing on it) and synagogues did not cause any red flags to come up for you?

Nope.

 

[asterisktom]

Too late.

When I said "I don't want to be silly, brother" it was a subtle appeal to you, as Christians, to keep things cordial. But I guess subtle does not work with you. This, and the fact that those two items I listed, especially synagogues being around still, did not seem like red flags to your futurist slant, do not bode well for a profitable discussion.

 

[asterisktom]

The more I think about it the more I believe just ignoring you is the best course, especially having noticed your other insult. I keep hoping for better things from you. I can only hope that you are a young Hotspur and with a little maturity and God's grace you will know better how to converse with others, especially Christians.

Goodbye.

 

[AustinC]

A preterist ignoring things...it is the only way to remain a preterist...[emoji16]

 

[Covenanter]

Unfortunately, it seems preterists simply study to reinforce their false premise which is neither biblically supported nor historically supported regarding a second coming of our King in 70CE.

I wrote in response to a question on facebook -

Anon -
I am reading through II Thessalonians and got to chapter 2. I have a few questions about it. The Bible says the lawless one will be revealed when the restrainer is taken out of the way. I do not know what the restrainer is, but I assume the lawless one is a reference to Antichrist. Verse 4 says that he will take his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. The passage also very clearly says in verse 8 that he will be slain and brought to an end by the appearance of Christ’s coming.
My questions:
1. Who/what is the restrainer?
2. Is this passage yet future? (I feel it must be since Christ has not yet returned).
3. Will there be a future temple for the lawless one to sit in?
4. Will there be a literal antichrist figure preceding Christ’s 2nd advent?
I was raised dispy premil, and so I’m having trouble thinking outside of the box.
Thanks!

My reply -
I need to rearrange the order of your questions.
Note that 2T2 follows 2T1, and takes place while the temple is still standing. The events of 2T2 must take place before the events of 2T1. The events prophesied by the Lord in Mat. 24 would take place in the lifetime of "this generation" and were completed by AD 70.
Jesus in Mat. 24:30 and Rev. 1:7 said he would "come in the clouds" and "the tribes of the land will mourn." (see the Greek!) Since AD 70 there have been no "tribes of the land" and "those who pierced him" and long perished.
We see the same situation in 2 Peter 3, when the scoffers were boasting that Jesus' prophesied "coming" had not occurred, and their fathers had died.

2. Is this passage yet future? (I feel it must be since Christ has not yet returned).
No. Paul is describing the rebellion of apostate Israel before the destruction.
3. Will there be a future temple for the lawless one to sit in?
No. The futurists read that into the passage.
1. Who/what is the restrainer?
The true believers in Jerusalem & Judea who were advised to flee before the destruction. See Rev. 7 & 14.
4. Will there be a literal antichrist figure preceding Christ’s 2nd advent?
Probably lots - look around! But the prophecy refers to the rebellion before the destruction.
Look at the way "clouds" are used in the OT - describing the LORD coming in judgement. Also as a sign of the veiled glorious presence of the LORD.
Note in Mat. 24:35-, after the destruction before the passing of "this generation" for which there will be plenty of warning signs, Jesus announces in the next verse the passing of heaven and earth at some unknown time without specific warning.
That is the time after the destruction in which we are living.
Hope that helps & provides a basis for further study.

 

[AustinC]

Verses against hyper-preterism in Matthew 24.

Matthew 24:4,6,8-9,14,27,30

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray.

And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.

All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

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.

No secret coming. The entire earth will know and observe. Clearly this did not happen in 70CE.

 

[asterisktom]

I was not able to finish this post last night because of the storm and consequent Internet problems.

But there's another time coming of which there will be no warning. We are repeatedly told that it will be like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3; 16:15).. You wake up, and there he is!

This is maybe the fifth time in this post that I have to account for the straw in the straw man that he brought up. It is too tedious to answer the earlier ones but I will answer this one. First I am not arguing against two major events, the one with clear, cautionary signs (Jerusalem surrounded), the other sudden and without warning (thief in the night).

The following is his curious comment concerning my writing that there is no indication of a time gap in Matt. 24 (for that matter, neither are there any in Mark or Luke)

Now look at Matthew 24:33 (it's the same in Mark): "When you see all these things......" panta tauta. Now look at verse 36. "But of that day and hour no one knows." Peri de tes hemeras ekeines. There is a contrast being made; These things, and That day. There is one event that there will be signs of before it happens. That is the destruction of Jerusalem. There was the defeat of the Israelite armies, the surrounding of Jerusalem and the siege. The Lord Jesus warned His disciples to make a run for it when that started happening, and Eusebius tells us that they did so.

He makes it sound like "these things" in Matt. 24 pertain solely to AD 70 while "that day" refers to imagined future events. But the "these things" of Matt. 24 are the same "these things" of Mark 13. Compare the passages. And those "these things" (Mark 13) happen after the angels (Mark 13:27) have already "gathered the elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth (land, ge) to the uttermost part of heaven."

Speaking of "these things", take a look at Luke 21:28. When they begin to come to pass, Christ tells His hearers, "lift up your head, for your redemption draws nigh."

Which should we honor more? The words and integrity of our Lord or a theology that has to seriously stretch His plain statement?

At what point does "nigh" become "two thousand years"?
Are His hearers still lifting up their heads?

 

[thomas15]

I was cleaning up my office at work early this week and came across an old copy of BibSac. Picked it up and noticed it contained an article on preterism, a specific aspect of preterism. What has then followed is a few days of reviewing reconstructionalism in general and American Vision in particular.

Trying to boil it all down into it's essential parameter, to me it really comes down to how one views grace as in God's gift of grace resulting in salvation. Assuming that one takes the actual words of the Bible seriously and one believes that grace is a free gift (free as in free, free, free, free, free), an absolute free gift (gift, gift, gift, gift, gift) and one is willing to suffer being mocked for believing they are saved strictly because of their faith in the risen Christ, and no (as in no, no, no, no, no) works involved, preterism and for that matter reformed/replacement theology which is an essential part of preterism, evaporates into thin air, this in spite of the many proof texts offered and the tenacity and optimism of it's disciples.

 

[TurtleSox]

Isn't Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus prediction of the fall of the temple? And isn't Revelation 19 describing the fall of Jerusalem?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was not able to finish this post last night because of the storm and consequent Internet problems.

Oh. I thought you had given me a fond farewell in post #111.

This is maybe the fifth time in this post that I have to account for the straw in the straw man that he brought up. It is too tedious to answer the earlier ones but I will answer this one. First I am not arguing against two major events, the one with clear, cautionary signs (Jerusalem surrounded), the other sudden and without warning (thief in the night).

If you have explained this five times, I haven't read any of your explanations. Have another go. And while you're at it, answer the other questions I put to you. Do you believe that tomorrow (which is future) God will make His sun rise on the evil and the good and send His rain on the just and the unjust, or did that stop in AD 70? Do you believe that since AD 70 there have been no more wars, famine, pestilences and earthquakes; and do you believe that the Gospel must be preached in all the world, or did everyone stop doing that in AD 70?

The following is his curious comment concerning my writing that there is no indication of a time gap in Matt. 24 (for that matter, neither are there any in Mark or Luke)

You seem to be unaware that there is no obvious 'timeline' in quite a lot of Biblical prophecy. In Isaiah 41, the prophet is speaking of someone He has 'called in righteousness' as a saviour for Israel, and then in chapter 42, without any break or timeline, He speaks of 'My Servant whom I uphold.' There were no chapter divisions for about 2,000 years after Isaiah wrote, so the reader had to use his intelligence to work out who is being referred to and when. You have to do the same in the Olivet discourse, and, of course, in much of Revelation..

He makes it sound like "these things" in Matt. 24 pertain solely to AD 70 while "that day" refers to imagined future events. But the "these things" of Matt. 24 are the same "these things" of Mark 13. Compare the passages. And those "these things" (Mark 13) happen after the angels (Mark 13:27) have already "gathered the elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth (land, ge) to the uttermost part of heaven."

Come on! Pay attention! I have been arguing that Matthew 24 (and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke) does absolutely not pertain solely to AD 70. You have to use your common sense to understand what our Lord is saying. Knowing that He is answering three questions is the first step to understanding.
FYI, houtos and ekeinos, 'this' and 'that' are frequently used in Greek to express a contrast just as they are in English.

Now, if you want me to spend time going through these verses in depth, I am prepared to do that, but I want you to answer the questions above first.

Speaking of "these things", take a look at Luke 21:28. When they begin to come to pass, Christ tells His hearers, "lift up your head, for your redemption draws nigh."

Which should we honor more? The words and integrity of our Lord or a theology that has to seriously stretch His plain statement?

At what point does "nigh" become "two thousand years"?
Are His hearers still lifting up their heads?

If they were hoping for redemption in AD 70 then yes, perhaps they still are lifting their heads. Wars, earthquakes, famines and pestilences did not stop in that year.

 

[thomas15]

"...not of works, lest anyone should boast".

If you want to partner with Jehovah and have an active part in obtaining and maintaining your free gift of salvation and if you want to avoid being made fun of by your professors, fellow university and seminary classmates and also your church, social and work friends, you will find a warm and cozy home in preterist/reconstructionalist theology. After all, everyone knows that simple faith in the actual words of the Bible is for the simple minded, people like me.

 

[37818]

. . . maintaining your free gift of salvation . . . .

Cannot be eternal life. Because a life which must be maintained can never be eternal.