A Curious Omission

[AustinC]

Austin, first of all, I appreciate the pun in the first sentence, intended or not.

Arguing from silence is actually legitimate, but it is not something I would rely on totally. Also important is the internal evidence that Revelation was written while the Temple was still standing. But the other pieces of evidence are the numerous time statements (which I will gladly go into) combined with the Scripture teaching that when the Parousia happens (happened) the canon is closed. So, yes, we do have texts - in many places. All these evidences combine together to make a good case for both a pre-AD 70 date for all Scripture as well as for Full Preterism in general.

What I think you are overlooking is audience relevance. Much of the New Testament was not written primarily to us. There came the rapture and the resurrection from the dead, just as it is written in Thessalonians. Then there was a brief time when there were no Christians on the Earth. Then the next Christians started, grew in numbers, faced persecutions (this time mostly from various Roman administrations) and on and on up to our time.

Nowhere is there a promise that Christians on Earth would be free from hardships. And though Christ rules from that time on, it is a "rule in the midst of enemies".

You're welcome.
The problem is that the church, after 70CE, as well as person's outside the faith, would have very assuredly written about the rapture of Christians, of which there is no extant writings. No evidence, no data, nothing. Surely Polycarp, as a disciple of John would have told us.
Two Disciples of John: Polycarp | 5 Minutes in Church History

 

[asterisktom]

You're welcome.
The problem is that the church, after 70CE, as well as person's outside the faith, would have very assuredly written about the rapture of Christians, of which there is no extant writings. No evidence, no data, nothing. Surely Polycarp, as a disciple of John would have told us.
Two Disciples of John: Polycarp | 5 Minutes in Church History

First of all, the rapture happened in the midst of the brutal Neronic persecution and the Jewish War. There were hardly any Christians left. Christ said that "when the Son of Man comes will He find faith in the earth?" Also that if those days had not been cut short no flesh would have been saved.

More later.

 

[AustinC]

First of all, the rapture happened in the midst of the brutal Neronic persecution and the Jewish War. There were hardly any Christians left. Christ said that "when the Son of Man comes will He find faith in the earth?" Also that if those days had not been cut short no flesh would have been saved.

More later.

I understand that is your narrative, but surely Polycarp would have recorded the rapture of his mentor, the Apostle John. Yet, no one in the early church records such an event and instead keeps looking to the return of Christ.
I do not doubt parts of Jesus prophetic word was fulfilled in 70CE, but the entire removal of all the saints is simply not recorded by those who would have remained. It is a massive stretch of imagination to claim Jesus returned in 70CE.

 

[Lodic]

But by the time the book had been written and a few copies made, it would already have been out of date.! I agree that we are not supposed to be setting dates for the "Antichrist" to appear. Many of them had already come when John wrote his first letter. The purpose of the book is for the understanding and encouragement of people all through the ages.

The problem you have is that Nero is actually only the fifth 'king.' Julius Caesar, as you will know if you know your Shakespeare, turned down the crown three times when it was offered to him.

'You all did see that on the Lupercal,
I thrice did offer him a kingly crown
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?'

It was Augustus who claimed him as the first Emperor to consolidate his own legitimacy as Caesar's heir and Preterists claim him because without him their system doesn't work. But I do assure you that he never, ever claimed to be king or Emperor..
But yes, I know that the early date is crucial to Preterism, which is one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt. But so long as you believe in a physical future return of Christ, I'm not going to fall out with you. Therefore I shall stop my participation on this thread here.

The reason I hold to the early date is because it simply makes the most sense. I'm familiar with the argument that Augustus was the first emperor, but that's just a matter of semantics. Again, this view makes the most sense. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you haven't heard before. I really appreciate how we can disagree without getting argumentative. Blessings, Brother.

 

[asterisktom]

I understand that is your narrative, but surely Polycarp would have recorded the rapture of his mentor, the Apostle John. Yet, no one in the early church records such an event and instead keeps looking to the return of Christ.
I do not doubt parts of Jesus prophetic word was fulfilled in 70CE, but the entire removal of all the saints is simply not recorded by those who would have remained. It is a massive stretch of imagination to claim Jesus returned in 70CE.

If it were only my narrative I would be on shaky ground. At the risk of sounding pious it is based on the narrative of Jesus. And much of the New Testament. I hate to see that you overlook the inspired narrative of the New Testament - just as I used to do for decades - in order to underscore the shaky narrative of the ECF.

On the one hand we have the roughly 100 inspired time statements that show the coming of CHrist would be within the generation of His hearers ("some standing here", "this generation will not pass away", "last day", "last hour", "about to happen", etc.) and on the other hand we have the uninspired narrative from a far from disinterested churchman. More on this later.

But first this, if all of the Christians had left the earth c. AD 70 and John and Polycarp, both being Christians (per your words "his mentor") were alive at the time, they would both have been raptured. So Polycarp would not have been around to leave that record.

But how do we know that Polycarp even knew John? I doubt this testimony very much. Here is why:

1. All the evidence, once again, funnels down to one source, the testimony of Irenaeus, the same man who blundered in other areas of research.
2. Irenaeus (I am tempted to spell his name with the German "Irren" - "to err") wrote that Papias was a disciple of John.
3. But Eusebius, a church historian who actually read the book of Papias (now lost) says this cannot be true.
4. It seems Irenaeus was trying to make his apostolic connection to boost the authority of Papias and Polycarp.
5. Eusebius gives us a more realistic view of Papias, writing of his "strange parables" and "legends" in his writings that Papias insists are true.
6. Papias himself never claimed to have seen John, or any other of the Disciples.
7. If Polycarp really knew John, let alone having him as his mentor, why is it that in his letter (which is easy to find on the Internet) he quotes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke but not once from John? You would think that a student would surely quote his teacher, his only link to the Disciples.

No. In this whole Polycarp to John connection there is less to it the closer you look. It is a fabrication in order to boost authority, a tenency in the early, early church that was all too common.

Austin, I second what Lodic wrote. I also appreciate how that you can disagree, but do it agreeably. I have more to add.

 

[asterisktom]

But yes, I know that the early date is crucial to Preterism, which is one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt.

And ignoring the roughly 100 inspired time statements spoken to 1st-century hearers is crucial to futurism, which is just one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt.

 

[AustinC]

If it were only my narrative I would be on shaky ground. At the risk of sounding pious it is based on the narrative of Jesus. And much of the New Testament. I hate to see that you overlook the inspired narrative of the New Testament - just as I used to do for decades - in order to underscore the shaky narrative of the ECF.

On the one hand we have the roughly 100 inspired time statements that show the coming of CHrist would be within the generation of His hearers ("some standing here", "this generation will not pass away", "last day", "last hour", "about to happen", etc.) and on the other hand we have the uninspired narrative from a far from disinterested churchman. More on this later.

But first this, if all of the Christians had left the earth c. AD 70 and John and Polycarp, both being Christians (per your words "his mentor") were alive at the time, they would both have been raptured. So Polycarp would not have been around to leave that record.

But how do we know that Polycarp even knew John? I doubt this testimony very much. Here is why:

1. All the evidence, once again, funnels down to one source, the testimony of Irenaeus, the same man who blundered in other areas of research.
2. Irenaeus (I am tempted to spell his name with the German "Irren" - "to err") wrote that Papias was a disciple of John.
3. But Eusebius, a church historian who actually read the book of Papias (now lost) says this cannot be true.
4. It seems Irenaeus was trying to make his apostolic connection to boost the authority of Papias and Polycarp.
5. Eusebius gives us a more realistic view of Papias, writing of his "strange parables" and "legends" in his writings that Papias insists are true.
6. Papias himself never claimed to have seen John, or any other of the Disciples.
7. If Polycarp really knew John, let alone having him as his mentor, why is it that in his letter (which is easy to find on the Internet) he quotes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke but not once from John? You would think that a student would surely quote his teacher, his only link to the Disciples.

No. In this whole Polycarp to John connection there is less to it the closer you look. It is a fabrication in order to boost authority, a tenency in the early, early church that was all too common.

Austin, I second what Lodic wrote. I also appreciate how that you can disagree, but do it agreeably. I have more to add.

asterisktom, it seems you have created a conspiracy theory in order to disavow the connection of Polycarp to John. Yet, we have all the churches, to whom the Apostles wrote, that continue in the faith with zero evidence or reference to Jesus return. All these churches would have ended abruptly, but they don't. They continue on in the faith, continually looking to Christ's return. This has continued on to today. In your view, anyone looking with hope to Christ returning is foolish. The Kingdom came at 70CE and what we have now is Kingdom life with Christ Jesus ruling and the saints reigning by his side. Yet, it is clear that such a scenario does not exist. We live in a wicked and corrupt world.
Your theory hinges on conspiracy and silence. I find it is a weak theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And ignoring the roughly 100 inspired time statements spoken to 1st-century hearers is crucial to futurism, which is just one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt.

You mean like the Lord Jesus saying, "The end is not yet"?
But as you know perfectly well, I'm not a futurist.

 

[AustinC]

And ignoring the roughly 100 inspired time statements spoken to 1st-century hearers is crucial to futurism, which is just one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt.

I have been listening to Eric Alexander as he preaches through Revelation. There is room for futurist and preterist as well as historicist and ideologist views within the text. All four must be considered as prophesy often has multiple functions.

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom, it seems you have created a conspiracy theory in order to disavow the connection of Polycarp to John.

...

Your theory hinges on conspiracy and silence. I find it is a weak theory.

When that demeaning phrase is first dragged out then serious discussion takes a back seat to mere argumentativeness. You have my motives wrong.
I can only assume that you did not even consider the time statements, nor did you really deal with my research concerning these church fathers.

I do intend to answer other points raised, but I wanted to answer this first.

 

[asterisktom]

I have been listening to Eric Alexander as he preaches through Revelation. There is room for futurist and preterist as well as historicist and ideologist views within the text. All four must be considered as prophesy often has multiple functions.

These four views, in many key points, are antithetical. There was maybe room for five views in the Hindi parable, as the blind men approached the elephant. Yet there is only one true elephant. The same goes for what is called eschatology. There is only one truth, only one correct eschatology.

How do we prove that prophecy has multiple functions (interpretations?), I am not sure how you mean this. To accommodate those four disparate views above? Prophecy has had at times dual application but, as far as I can recall, always lesser to greater fulfillment. And that greater fulfillment has often been Christ or His work.

I no longer have to consider three of these four views. I have spent years in two of them and was glad to finally be clear about them. And clear of them.

 

[asterisktom]

You mean like the Lord Jesus saying, "The end is not yet"?

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

Do either of these have any spiritual validity today?

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.

But as you know perfectly well, I'm not a futurist.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

I can only assume that you did not even consider the time statements, nor did you really deal with my research concerning these church fathers.

For those interested in getting free dual language PDFs of the Early Church Fathers I recommend this site.

pdfdrive.com is a great site for all types of books. I have been using it for years now.

 

[AustinC]

When that demeaning phrase is first dragged out then serious discussion takes a back seat to mere argumentativeness. You have my motives wrong.
I can only assume that you did not even consider the time statements, nor did you really deal with my research concerning these church fathers.

I do intend to answer other points raised, but I wanted to answer this first.

I acknowledged that some parts of prophesy were met in 70CE. I also state that more is to come that has not been fully fulfilled in 70CE.
On the other hand, you have created a whole series of conjectures in order to go on past 70CE, essentially requiring a new set of believers with no mentors or leadership other than some scattered documents they had to collect and rebuild the church using those documents. The odds on that actually happening are infinitesimally small and would have been recorded in the early church fathers documentation. Thus, I use the term conspiracy theory to convey just how unlikely this would be.

 

[asterisktom]

On the other hand, you have created a whole series of conjectures in order to go on past 70CE, essentially requiring a new set of believers with no mentors or leadership other than some scattered documents they had to collect and rebuild the church using those documents. The odds on that actually happening are infinitesimally small and would have been recorded in the early church fathers documentation. Thus, I use the term conspiracy theory to convey just how unlikely this would be.

There was no early church father documentation because there were no early church fathers - that is, no earliest church fathers. In fact there was a twenty year "dead zone" of no writing after the Parousia. And then we had writings from people like Ignatius, a mixture of truth and error.

If God could raise up sons of Abraham from rocks can anything else be too hard for Him? You write of "odds". That is a naturalistic view. How many of the miracles in the Bible would have been denied - are denied - on the basis of the odds being against such events?

These were not just scattered documents. They were letters left behind by the Apostles themselves. There was no immediate need for collection and organization. Jesus told His disciples of the power of His words:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." - John 6:63

These letters at some point clearly were read by those who then became the new crop of Christians. No mentor, strictly speaking, is needed.

I was saved in my bedroom in Germany by reading a Christian book. It had plenty of Scripture and they convicted me and so I prayed the prayer at the end and became a Christian. At the time I did not know a single Christian.

 

[AustinC]

These four views, in many key points, are antithetical. There was maybe room for five views in the Hindi parable, as the blind men approached the elephant. Yet there is only one true elephant. The same goes for what is called eschatology. There is only one truth, only one correct eschatology.

How do we prove that prophecy has multiple functions (interpretations?), I am not sure how you mean this. To accommodate those four disparate views above? Prophecy has had at times dual application but, as far as I can recall, always lesser to greater fulfillment. And that greater fulfillment has often been Christ or His work.

I no longer have to consider three of these four views. I have spent years in two of them and was glad to finally be clear about them. And clear of them.

Only one true eschatology, sure, but unfortunately for you, preterism is not the true eschatology since we are presently not living in the Kingdom under the reign of our King. Therefore your position is incorrect.

 

[AustinC]

There was no early church father documentation because there were no early church fathers - that is, no earliest church fathers. In fact there was a twenty year "dead zone" of no writing after the Parousia. And then we had writings from people like Ignatius, a mixture of truth and error.

If God could raise up sons of Abraham from rocks can anything else be too hard for Him? You write of "odds". That is a naturalistic view. How many of the miracles in the Bible would have been denied - are denied - on the basis of the odds being against such events?

These were not just scattered documents. They were letters left behind by the Apostles themselves. There was no immediate need for collection and organization. Jesus told His disciples of the power of His words:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." - John 6:63

These letters at some point clearly were read by those who then became the new crop of Christians. No mentor, strictly speaking, is needed.

I was saved in my bedroom in Germany by reading a Christian book. It had plenty of Scripture and they convicted me and so I prayed the prayer at the end and became a Christian. At the time I did not know a single Christian.

Your initial assertion is false, therefore your following explanation, in an attempt to overcome the serious problems of your assertion, is false. We are at an impasse as you are creating excuses from silence to make up your story. Second, you refuse to explain why we are not presently living under the rule of the King and why rebels opposed to the King are not removed from the new earth.

 

[asterisktom]

Your initial assertion is false, therefore your following explanation, in an attempt to overcome the serious problems of your assertion, is false. We are at an impasse as you are creating excuses from silence to make up your story. Second, you refuse to explain why we are not presently living under the rule of the King and why rebels opposed to the King are not removed from the new earth.

I am not "attempting to overcome" anything. I am reading the Bible. I am explaining what I am seeing. Some times I have to revise what I thought I was seeing. But that was always because a helpful critic pointed out to me from the Bible another possibility. That is what I ask from all responders here. Not scanning of motives.

How can I "refuse to explain" something that I strongly disavow - your belief that we are not now in the kingdom of Christ? We are most certainly in the Kingdom and Christ certainly is reigning now. Or how else would you explain Daniel 7:13-14?

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, and all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Notice that Christ came to the Ancient of Days. And then He was given a Kingdom, an eternal kingdom. When did this happen? Not the Incarnation or the Second Coming but the Ascension.

This same event is prefigured in the parable of the Nobleman in Luke 19:12

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return."

The historical connection, which would not have escaped many of His hearers, was the journey of Herod Archelaus to Rome to confirm his kingship. But the deeper significance is Christ's receiving of the Kingdom.

And then, just as the parable relates, there is the return and the voiced opposition of the people, "We will not have this man rule over us."

All of this happened as well.

But whether you accept my last statement or not you - or any futurist - would have a hardship explaining at what point this receiving of the kingship happened. At least, I have not heard a reasonable answer yet.

Brother, I am taking the time to answer your points and rebuttals. But if it does seem like all of this is "making excuses" then you are right. We are at an impasse. Too bad.

 

[AustinC]

I am not "attempting to overcome" anything. I am reading the Bible. I am explaining what I am seeing. Some times I have to revise what I thought I was seeing. But that was always because a helpful critic pointed out to me from the Bible another possibility. That is what I ask from all responders here. Not scanning of motives.

How can I "refuse to explain" something that I strongly disavow - your belief that we are not now in the kingdom of Christ? We are most certainly in the Kingdom and Christ certainly is reigning now. Or how else would you explain Daniel 7:13-14?

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, and all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Notice that Christ came to the Ancient of Days. And then He was given a Kingdom, an eternal kingdom. When did this happen? Not the Incarnation or the Second Coming but the Ascension.

This same event is prefigured in the parable of the Nobleman in Luke 19:12

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return."

The historical connection, which would not have escaped many of His hearers, was the journey of Herod Archelaus to Rome to confirm his kingship. But the deeper significance is Christ's receiving of the Kingdom.

And then, just as the parable relates, there is the return and the voiced opposition of the people, "We will not have this man rule over us."

All of this happened as well.

But whether you accept my last statement or not you - or any futurist - would have a hardship explaining at what point this receiving of the kingship happened. At least, I have not heard a reasonable answer yet.

Brother, I am taking the time to answer your points and rebuttals. But if it does seem like all of this is "making excuses" then you are right. We are at an impasse. Too bad.

Well, this world is filled with wickedness and corruption. Jesus is not enthroned in Jerusalem. His apostles and elders are not by his side and all sin has not been eradicated from earth so that this world is better than the garden. All this proves you have misunderstood Jesus and his return. Instead, you literally make up stories about what happened after 70CE and you ignore the horrors humanity has brought to this godless age.

You seem to imagine that everything that has happened on this earth after 70CE is just a fantastic myth that you cannot even accept as real. Again, if the Kingdom is now, then God's elect are far less holy than the Bible tells us and God has failed in redeeming his children. But, it seems you just ignore reality in order to cling to 70CE with all your might. So be it. Live in your fantasy world.

 

[asterisktom]

Well, this world is filled with wickedness and corruption. Jesus is not enthroned in Jerusalem. His apostles and elders are not by his side and all sin has not been eradicated from earth so that this world is better than the garden. All this proves you have misunderstood Jesus and his return. Instead, you literally make up stories about what happened after 70CE and you ignore the horrors humanity has brought to this godless age.

You seem to imagine that everything that has happened on this earth after 70CE is just a fantastic myth that you cannot even accept as real. Again, if the Kingdom is now, then God's elect are far less holy than the Bible tells us and God has failed in redeeming his children. But, it seems you just ignore reality in order to cling to 70CE with all your might. So be it. Live in your fantasy world.

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.