Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

[Lodic]

And so it was.

Meaning, it really doesn't make sense for Jesus to say that some of them would still be alive a week from then. If His point was that some of them would see the Transfiguration, He would have said something entirely different.

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.

Not really all that long, since they had already been given a relative time reference of "within their generation".

Nope, can't agree.

And we won't. I'm not trying to "convert" you to Preterism, just trying to show you why I believe this eschatological view.

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. )

My turn to say "Nope, can't agree." I'm sure the drugs had a little something to do with why I brought it up. As you said, it was a fun rabbit trail.

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!

Jesus never changed the timeline for the prophecies during the OD. Jesus "came", but not in a literal sense. God "came" in judgment many times in the OT, but He didn't literally visit those whom He judged. The same with Jesus and Jerusalem in AD 70.

It will be late this afternoon (or possibly tomorrow) before I can get back. Working on a report.

 

[John of Japan]

Meaning, it really doesn't make sense for Jesus to say that some of them would still be alive a week from then. If His point was that some of them would see the Transfiguration, He would have said something entirely different.

And I certainly disagree with this.

Not really all that long, since they had already been given a relative time reference of "within their generation".

That answer avoids my question. Would you consider 14 years to be "near"?

And we won't. I'm not trying to "convert" you to Preterism, just trying to show you why I believe this eschatological view.

Right. Got it. (Not that I'd ever convert to preterism, since I have been committed to grammatical-historical interpretation for about 45 years.)

Jesus never changed the timeline for the prophecies during the OD. Jesus "came", but not in a literal sense. God "came" in judgment many times in the OT, but He didn't literally visit those whom He judged. The same with Jesus and Jerusalem in AD 70.

Can you back this up with Scripture? Where in Scripture did God come "in judgment" without actually being there?

It will be late this afternoon (or possibly tomorrow) before I can get back. Working on a report.

Have a good one. I have a bunch of papers to grade myself.

 

[Lodic]

That answer avoids my question. Would you consider 14 years to be "near"?

It's not whether I would consider 14 years to be near, but whether the original audience considered it to be near relative to the time given by Christ. On the other hand, I would consider a 2,000 gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th Weeks to be an unreasonably long time - but I seriously digress.

Can you back this up with Scripture? Where in Scripture did God come "in judgment" without actually being there?

Right off the top of my head, there was Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's flood, and Elijah's "duel" with the Baal worshippers in 1 Kings 17.
Not sure how many you were looking for, so I just grabbed a few examples below. These judgments are often referred to as "the Day of the Lord", but they don't refer to a literal return of the Lord, but judgment upon a city, a nation, or a people.

In Nahum 1:2-6, God "came" to judge Nineveh "in the whirlwind and in the storm".
Isaiah 13:1-9 gives us "the burden of Babylon...the day of the Lord comes."
Isaiah 19:1 shows a judgment on Egypt - "Behold, the Lord rides upon a swift cloud".
Egypt was visited in judgment again in Ezekiel 30:3-11 "It will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations..." (You'd think they would learn.)
Ezekiel 30:18-19 used similar language to show that He came in judgment. upon Egypt. (Maybe they were ruled by teenagers. That would explain a lot.)
Zeph. 1:4-15 speaks of the 586 B.C. destruction of Jerusalem.

Break's over, back to my report. I must say that I would rather work on my report than grade papers, though. Take care.

 

[prophecy70]

I am anti-preterism. Does that make me a duspy? In a word, NO.

It doesn't make anyone a "duspy".

 

[robycop3]

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

Why not? Not ALL the disciples saw it.

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

Not ACTUALLY. The Scripture says "EVEN", indicating that those who'd pierced Jesus wouldn't ORDINARILY see His return. Hard to do after they died, except that Jesus will allow the souls in hades, both paradise & torments, to see His return.

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.

That end was that of the Old Covenant, not the eschatological events.

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 .

But then, Peter continued on with the "day = thousand years" principle. And very certainly, many scoffers have come in THIS day.

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.

Then you should have no reason to doubt that the rest of Jesus' prophecies won't come to pass JUST-AS-EXACTLY-AND LITERALLY ! !

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

GOOD ! ! !

However, you are still trying to get past that big ole bear of a prob that the eschatological events prets SAY have happened, have NOT yet happened, and are completely absent from history. Saying "That passage is figurative" won't cut it in the face of LITERAL FULFILLMEMNT of its companion passages.

 

[Lodic]

Why not? Not ALL the disciples saw it.

The point there is nobody would expect to NOT be alive if the event was only a few days away. On the other hand, if this was an event nearly 40 years in the future, this statement would make perfect sense.

That end was that of the Old Covenant, not the eschatological events.

The eschatological events are directly related to the end of the Old Covenant - not to the literal end of the world.

But then, Peter continued on with the "day = thousand years" principle. And very certainly, many scoffers have come in THIS day.

As we've discussed earlier, the "day = 1,000 years" is just a comparison of man's vs God's perspective. Peter's point was to be patient in their suffering.

Then you should have no reason to doubt that the rest of Jesus' prophecies won't come to pass JUST-AS-EXACTLY-AND LITERALLY ! !

I have no doubt at all that all of Christ's prophecies in the OD came to pass exactly and literally.

However, you are still trying to get past that big ole bear of a prob that the eschatological events prets SAY have happened, have NOT yet happened, and are completely absent from history. Saying "That passage is figurative" won't cut it in the face of LITERAL FULFILLMEMNT of its companion passages.

We simply disagree regarding the proper interpretative method.

 

[John of Japan]

It's not whether I would consider 14 years to be near, but whether the original audience considered it to be near relative to the time given by Christ. On the other hand, I would consider a 2,000 gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th Weeks to be an unreasonably long time - but I seriously digress.

You see, just like all the other preterists, you do not answer a direct question about nearness and the number of years. This is proof that preterists have difficulty with time statements, just as do literally interpreting premillennialists.

As for the argument about the original audience and how they understood it, that's fine, but then I can ask, "So what did they consider nearness to be?" Until you answer that and prove that 14 years was near to them, once again you are proving my point that non-literal interpreters (preterist, postmil, amil) have the same difficulties with time statements that literal interpreters do.

Right off the top of my head, there was Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's flood, and Elijah's "duel" with the Baal worshippers in 1 Kings 17.
Not sure how many you were looking for, so I just grabbed a few examples below. These judgments are often referred to as "the Day of the Lord", but they don't refer to a literal return of the Lord, but judgment upon a city, a nation, or a people.

In Nahum 1:2-6, God "came" to judge Nineveh "in the whirlwind and in the storm".
Isaiah 13:1-9 gives us "the burden of Babylon...the day of the Lord comes."
Isaiah 19:1 shows a judgment on Egypt - "Behold, the Lord rides upon a swift cloud".
Egypt was visited in judgment again in Ezekiel 30:3-11 "It will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations..." (You'd think they would learn.)
Ezekiel 30:18-19 used similar language to show that He came in judgment. upon Egypt. (Maybe they were ruled by teenagers. That would explain a lot.)
Zeph. 1:4-15 speaks of the 586 B.C. destruction of Jerusalem.

With these references, you have not answered my question in #62, which was: "Where in Scripture did God come 'in judgment' without actually being there?"

Now, in the examples you've given, most do not specify that "the Lord came." Others are clearly figures of speech ("the day of the Lord" or something similar). So IMO you have not proven your point. The prophecies of Christ coming back are much more obviously a physical coming, which all agree did not happen in AD 70.

For example, Matt. 24:30 says: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." There are two ways to interpret this. A literal interpretation is very clear that Christ will come physically. An allegorical interpretation will say that nah, it doesn't have to be physical. But then I may ask, what in the world does the statement "they shall see" mean metaphorically?

Note: contrary to what some on the BB seem to think, "allegorical interpretation" is not an insult, but a technical term used for non-literal interpretation ever since Origen and maybe even Philo.

Break's over, back to my report. I must say that I would rather work on my report than grade papers, though. Take care.

Yeah, I'd rather do a report than grade these papers myself. (What's your report on?) I had 37 students in a two week block class, and they all did research papers, which are hard to grade. Oh, well, that's what they hired me for.

 

[Lodic]

You see, just like all the other preterists, you do not answer a direct question about nearness and the number of years. This is proof that preterists have difficulty with time statements, just as do literally interpreting premillennialists.

As for the argument about the original audience and how they understood it, that's fine, but then I can ask, "So what did they consider nearness to be?" Until you answer that and prove that 14 years was near to them, once again you are proving my point that non-literal interpreters (preterist, postmil, amil) have the same difficulties with time statements that literal interpreters do.

Westerners such as ourselves may have a different understanding of "near" than those in the ancient middle east. Also, I was just thinking about how Simeon had been promised to see the Messiah (Luke 2), and he was patient. I still say that, in this context, 14 years was a "short time" to wait for this.

With these references, you have not answered my question in #62, which was: "Where in Scripture did God come 'in judgment' without actually being there?"

Now, in the examples you've given, most do not specify that "the Lord came." Others are clearly figures of speech ("the day of the Lord" or something similar). So IMO you have not proven your point. The prophecies of Christ coming back are much more obviously a physical coming, which all agree did not happen in AD 70.

For example, Matt. 24:30 says: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." There are two ways to interpret this. A literal interpretation is very clear that Christ will come physically. An allegorical interpretation will say that nah, it doesn't have to be physical. But then I may ask, what in the world does the statement "they shall see" mean metaphorically?

God's Presence was in each of those judgments. In the same way, Christ was "present" in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The sign of the Son of Man shall appear in Heaven...they shall see His coming. Since a sign is something that points to something else, Christ's coming doesn't have to be in the clouds. Another understanding of "see His coming" would be "understood, or perceived His coming." BTW - I appreciate your elaboration on allegorical interpretation.

Yeah, I'd rather do a report than grade these papers myself. (What's your report on?) I had 37 students in a two week block class, and they all did research papers, which are hard to grade. Oh, well, that's what they hired me for.

My report involves an internal Health, Environmental and Safety audit of one of my company's chemical manufacturing facilities. After the audits are completed, I am very involved in assembling the findings, recommendations, etc. into a report. Lot's of work, but I rather enjoy it.

 

[John of Japan]

Westerners such as ourselves may have a different understanding of "near" than those in the ancient middle east. Also, I was just thinking about how Simeon had been promised to see the Messiah (Luke 2), and he was patient. I still say that, in this context, 14 years was a "short time" to wait for this.

This is merely speculation as it stands. What evidence do you have that people in the time of Christ thought of "near" differently than we do?

I just looked up the Greek word used about Simeon "waiting," and I see nothing about the time of waiting or the nearness of the event. It has to do with expectancy, and is a present participle, meaning that he continually waited. But what did he think about his waiting? We don't know.

God's Presence was in each of those judgments. In the same way, Christ was "present" in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Okay. But did Jesus literally come Himself in AD 70? Often in the OT God sent an angel to judge. Is that what happened in AD 70? If so, then Jesus did not come.

The sign of the Son of Man shall appear in Heaven...they shall see His coming. Since a sign is something that points to something else, Christ's coming doesn't have to be in the clouds. Another understanding of "see His coming" would be "understood, or perceived His coming."

Note the order: the sign appears, and then the Savior appears. The "sign" does not occur in connection with the clouds, but the coming does. As for "see His coming," that is the Greek word erxomai (the normal word for coming and going), and then the word horao for "see." It occurs in 57 verses in the NT, and is a normal word for "to see." So, how does one arrive at the notion that this "see" is metaphorical without something in the context to say so? The word is used by the angel in Matt. 28:7 for seeing Jesus physically.

The literal interpretation of this verse is much easier to swallow.

P.S. Why do preterists make such a big deal about the clouds? That is such a minor point.

BTW - I appreciate your elaboration on allegorical interpretation.

Well, I could say a lot more about that, but will save it for another time. I will give one hermeneutical quote about the preterist position, which is technically the historicist view. "The historicist view, as attractive as it seems at first glance, given nineteen centuries of church history between the writing of the Apocalypse and today, turns out to be an interpretive 'tower of Babel.' No two historicist commentators who are not of the same generation, or directly dependent on each other, have ever reflected widespread consensus on what particular passages in Revelation are referring to church history. This utter confusion shows that the historicist view is hardly to be considered on par with the other three views and cannot be viewed as a viable option" (Boyd Luter, "Interpreting the Book of Revelation" in Interpreting the NT, ed. by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, p. 460).

My report involves an internal Health, Environmental and Safety audit of one of my company's chemical manufacturing facilities. After the audits are completed, I am very involved in assembling the findings, recommendations, etc. into a report. Lot's of work, but I rather enjoy it.

Well, I take it back. I'd rather grade my papers. I'd be totally incompetent at your job. My wife runs the business end of our marriage, thankfully.

 

[Lodic]

This is merely speculation as it stands. What evidence do you have that people in the time of Christ thought of "near" differently than we do?

I just looked up the Greek word used about Simeon "waiting," and I see nothing about the time of waiting or the nearness of the event. It has to do with expectancy, and is a present participle, meaning that he continually waited. But what did he think about his waiting? We don't know.

So, just as we really don't know what Simeon thought of his waiting, we don't really know what the 1st Century Christians thought of their waiting. They did know to expect the events within their lifetime, though. The point isn't really about how they viewed their waiting, but when the events came to pass. Otherwise, we could go on a rabbit trail of how today's Christians are still waiting after 2K years.

Okay. But did Jesus literally come Himself in AD 70? Often in the OT God sent an angel to judge. Is that what happened in AD 70? If so, then Jesus did not come.

No, Jesus did not literally come in the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. While God often used angels to judge, He also used other nations / armies to judge. The Roman armies were His instrument of judgment in AD 68-70.

Note the order: the sign appears, and then the Savior appears. The "sign" does not occur in connection with the clouds, but the coming does. As for "see His coming," that is the Greek word erxomai (the normal word for coming and going), and then the word horao for "see." It occurs in 57 verses in the NT, and is a normal word for "to see." So, how does one arrive at the notion that this "see" is metaphorical without something in the context to say so? The word is used by the angel in Matt. 28:7 for seeing Jesus physically.

The literal interpretation of this verse is much easier to swallow.

In Matt. 26:64, Jesus tells Caiaphas "hereafter you will see". This has to mean that Caiaphas (and the Jews he was over) would see Jesus coming on the clouds of Heaven. This is obviously a reference to a vision from Daniel 7:13. However, in Daniel's vision, the Son of Man is going UP to the Ancient of Days. Could this be a reference to His Ascension, when Christ was seen rising into the clouds?

P.S. Why do preterists make such a big deal about the clouds? That is such a minor point.

Maybe we've listened to the old Judy Collins song "Both Sides Now" too many times. The lyrics include "I've looked at clouds from both sides now".
Actually, it's because we do recognize the symbolism of clouds in God's judgment.

I know there are similarities between the historicist and preterist views, but I suspect there are differences. Preterism has been an orthodox method of interpretation since the beginning of Christianity. There is no confusion with this hermeneutic.

We would definitely be lost without our wives, I suspect. Mine does not work outside the home due to health issues, but she definitely manages the household. The fact that we have such wonderful wives shows God's mercy and favor on us.

 

[John of Japan]

So, just as we really don't know what Simeon thought of his waiting, we don't really know what the 1st Century Christians thought of their waiting. They did know to expect the events within their lifetime, though. The point isn't really about how they viewed their waiting, but when the events came to pass. Otherwise, we could go on a rabbit trail of how today's Christians are still waiting after 2K years.

All I have to say to this is that no preterist has ever answered my question about nearness and 14 years. Join the non-answering club.

No, Jesus did not literally come in the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. While God often used angels to judge, He also used other nations / armies to judge. The Roman armies were His instrument of judgment in AD 68-70.

Interesting, non-typical approach. The typical preterist says that Christ came spiritually in AD 70. But if He came spiritually, that means that He left his body in Heaven, and that just won't do.

In Matt. 26:64, Jesus tells Caiaphas "hereafter you will see". This has to mean that Caiaphas (and the Jews he was over) would see Jesus coming on the clouds of Heaven. This is obviously a reference to a vision from Daniel 7:13. However, in Daniel's vision, the Son of Man is going UP to the Ancient of Days. Could this be a reference to His Ascension, when Christ was seen rising into the clouds?

In Dan. 7:14 it is clear that Jesus is coming down to reign on earth. So this is a prime passage for my stand that Christ will reign on the throne of David in the millennium.

Maybe we've listened to the old Judy Collins song "Both Sides Now" too many times. The lyrics include "I've looked at clouds from both sides now".
Actually, it's because we do recognize the symbolism of clouds in God's judgment.

There are both symbolic and real clouds in the prophecies.

I know there are similarities between the historicist and preterist views, but I suspect there are differences. Preterism has been an orthodox method of interpretation since the beginning of Christianity. There is no confusion with this hermeneutic.

Actually, I've read the apostolic fathers and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and found no signs of preterism there. The typical view for the first five centuries was premillennial [Clement of Rome (c. 30-100), Papias (c. 60-130) and Tertullian (c. 160-220), and others]. Then along came Origen (c. 185-c. 254), who followed Jewish philosopher Philo into the allegorical interpretation of Greek philosophy, and that view was later spread by Augustine (354-430).

In modern times, preterism was passe until R. C. Sproul. The scholarly books on prophecy I have up until probably 1990 don't even mention preterism. Since Sproul, it has spread through the Internet. But as I told the training union crowd on Sunday, don't get your theology from the Internet!

We would definitely be lost without our wives, I suspect. Mine does not work outside the home due to health issues, but she definitely manages the household. The fact that we have such wonderful wives shows God's mercy and favor on us.

Absolutely! One Valentine's Day I wrote her, "Roses are red, violets are blue; I'd be a disaster if I didn't have you."

 

[Calminian]

... I'm not sure how I wound up with the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Guess it's easy for a discussion regarding the "End Times" to go all over the place, and I am no exception.
I am familiar with the why / how "futurists" believe there is a gap between weeks 69 & 70, but I don't believe it is inherent. The 70 weeks are "modeled" after the 70 years of captivity, right? There was no gap in the Judean captivity. Daniel's prophecy doesn't even hint at a gap of time. As I'm sure you agree, the time starts with the decree to restore Jerusalem in 458 B.C. (Ezra 9:9). It ends with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in 33 A.D., which is 490 years. The Crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week.

Not sure if this has been said yet, but the 69 weeks end at the entry or Christ on the donkey where he presents himself as Messiah. Then, after this, three events will happen before the last seven years begins. The Messiah will be cut off (crucifixion), Jerusalem will be destroyed by the people of the coming prince (70AD), and this future prince of a revived Roman empire (being that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem) must establish a covenant with Israel (not happened yet). All of these things begin after the 69 weeks, and before the 7th week. It's impossible to miss the gap.

Something else worth mentioning in regard to these favorite preterist passages:

Matt. 16:28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Luke 9:27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

John saw the coming of Christ and his Kingdom on Patmos.

Rev. 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.​

Seems pretty clear Christ was speaking of the vision he would provide to John and maybe others by extension read it and reaping the blessing.

 

[Lodic]

Interesting, non-typical approach. The typical preterist says that Christ came spiritually in AD 70. But if He came spiritually, that means that He left his body in Heaven, and that just won't do.

I'm not quite sure how the Full Preterists view it, but I think His "coming" was more along the line of His presence and power were behind the judgment.

In Dan. 7:14 it is clear that Jesus is coming down to reign on earth. So this is a prime passage for my stand that Christ will reign on the throne of David in the millennium.

Backing up to verse 13, we see that He came UP to the Ancient of Days, not DOWN to earth. While He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, Daniel doesn't specify its location.

Actually, I've read the apostolic fathers and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and found no signs of preterism there. The typical view for the first five centuries was premillennial [Clement of Rome (c. 30-100), Papias (c. 60-130) and Tertullian (c. 160-220), and others]. Then along came Origen (c. 185-c. 254), who followed Jewish philosopher Philo into the allegorical interpretation of Greek philosophy, and that view was later spread by Augustine (354-430).

In modern times, preterism was passe until R. C. Sproul. The scholarly books on prophecy I have up until probably 1990 don't even mention preterism. Since Sproul, it has spread through the Internet. But as I told the training union crowd on Sunday, don't get your theology from the Internet!

Have to disagree with you here. I can tell you that Preterism was the theme of "The Parousia" by James Russell in 1878. I can also tell you that Eusebius did hold to some preterist views. Unfortunately, my sources are at home, and I don't have much shelf space to keep them at work. I don't use the internet, popular authors, evangelists, popular preachers, or besides Scripture itself drive my theology. That is not to say that I don't use other sources for research and/or clarification.

Ironically, the dispensationalist ideas of Darby and Scofield are the real "new kids on the block". I'm thinking that is where too many Christians get their theology, instead of following the Berean example and searching out whether the things they are being told are backed up by Scripture.

Absolutely! One Valentine's Day I wrote her, "Roses are red, violets are blue; I'd be a disaster if I didn't have you."

LOVE IT!!!! I will have to steal that one.

 

[Lodic]

Not sure if this has been said yet, but the 69 weeks end at the entry or Christ on the donkey where he presents himself as Messiah. Then, after this, three events will happen before the last seven years begins. The Messiah will be cut off (crucifixion), Jerusalem will be destroyed by the people of the coming prince (70AD), and this future prince of a revived Roman empire (being that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem) must establish a covenant with Israel (not happened yet). All of these things begin after the 69 weeks, and before the 7th week. It's impossible to miss the gap.

Something else worth mentioning in regard to these favorite preterist passages:

Matt. 16:28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Luke 9:27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

John saw the coming of Christ and his Kingdom on Patmos.

Rev. 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.​

Seems pretty clear Christ was speaking of the vision he would provide to John and maybe others by extension read it and reaping the blessing.

I must respectfully disagree. If there were going to be a gap, it would be very explicit in Scripture. I believe the "gap" is implied conjecture at best. The 70 weeks began with the Cyrus's decree to rebuild Jerusalem (458 BC), and ends with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. (Daniel 9:27)

This 1st Century audience didn't literally see Christ, but they saw His judgment "coming" (or "presence").

I should clarify that I am a "Partial Preterist". I believe the last couple of chapters of Revelation are still in our future, and I look forward to His glorious (physical) return. That being said, I take the "time indicator" statements at face value. That is actually a little ironic, in that "futurists" believe that preterists change the meanings of words to fit their view.

 

[Calminian]

I must respectfully disagree. If there were going to be a gap, it would be very explicit in Scripture.

I agree, which is why I believe there's a gap. It is explicit not conjecture, indicated by the word after.

This 1st Century audience didn't literally see Christ, but they saw His judgment "coming" (or "presence").

And this is the type of conjecture I try to avoid, along with the conjecture that the worldwide events described in Rev. 4-19 are isolated local events. Christ took a very different view.

Matt. 24:21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.​

I should clarify that I am a "Partial Preterist".

Yes I know. I browsed through the thread. Talk about a gap conjecture! You feel there's a huge gap between Rev. 18-19 apparently, yet reject the very explicit gap in Dan. 9.

 

[Lodic]

I agree, which is why I believe there's a gap. It is explicit not conjecture, indicated by the word after.

"After" - the next thing that will happen. A gap would be very clear - "after an undetermined period of time". Also, a 2,000 year "gap" at the end of a previous period of 483 years? I don't buy that.

And this is the type of conjecture I try to avoid, along with the conjecture that the worldwide events described in Rev. 4-19 are isolated local events. Christ took a very different view.

Matt. 24:21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

I guess I've made "conjecture" the word of the day . That which was "unequaled" would be the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. It's not that there wouldn't be greater disasters by body count, but unequaled in its effect. This brought an end to the Old Covenant system.

I see "Babylon" of Rev 18 as 1st Century Jerusalem. Chapter 19 shows us the next thing John saw. I'm sure that sounds very strange to you. Other than my eschatological views, I am sure we are much more alike than different in our beliefs.

 

[Calminian]

"After" - the next thing that will happen. A gap would be very clear - "after an undetermined period of time". Also, a 2,000 year "gap" at the end of a previous period of 483 years? I don't buy that.

And then the covenant which starts the last week (the final seven-year period). But in your view, the covenant cannot start the 7 years, as you have 30-40 years between the entry in the donkey and 70 AD. The gap view is very explicit. After the 69 weeks you have the crucifixion, and destruction of the city. Then you have the covenant which starts the 7 years. Very easy to follow. Contrast that with the gaps you're forcing between Rev. 18-19.

I guess I've made "conjecture" the word of the day . That which was "unequaled" would be the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. It's not that there wouldn't be greater disasters by body count, but unequaled in its effect. This brought an end to the Old Covenant system.

Exactly. You have to do summersaults with the text instead of a straightforward reading that's compatible with the incredible and terrifying seal, trumpet and bowl judgements described in Revelation. So easy and straightforward. No need to strain the text.

 

[Lodic]

And then the covenant which starts the last week. But you your view, the covenant cannot start the 7 years, as you have 30-40 years between the crucifixion and 70 AD. The gap view is very explicit. After the 69 weeks you have the crucifixion, and destruction of the city. Then you have the covenant which starts the 7 years. Very easy to follow. Contrast that with the gaps you're forcing between Rev. 18-19.



Exactly. You have to do summersaults with the text instead of a straightforward reading that's compatible with the incredible and terrifying seal, trumpet and bowl judgements described in Revelation. So easy and straightforward. No need to strain the text.

The 70th week is way before AD 70. The Crucifixion and Resurrection are in the 70th week, and the destruction of Jerusalem nearly 40 years later. There is also a view which states that the stoning of Stephen and conversion of St. Paul marked the 70th week, but I lean toward the "Crucifixion" view.

I am familiar with the 70 weeks according to the futurist view, but I don't believe it.
The Book of Revelation would be quite the discussion, but the partial preterist view makes a lot more sense than the futurist or dispensationalist views. I can try to elaborate when I have more time. Kinda funny, though. I say you are forcing a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week, and you say I am forcing a gap between Rev 18 and 19. On that note, I gotta run. Blessings on you and yours. Hope to catch you tomorrow.

 

[Calminian]

The 70th week is way before AD 70. The Crucifixion and Resurrection are in the 70th week, and the destruction of Jerusalem nearly 40 years later. There is also a view which states that the stoning of Stephen and conversion of St. Paul marked the 70th week, but I lean toward the "Crucifixion" view.

I am familiar with the 70 weeks according to the futurist view, but I don't believe it.
The Book of Revelation would be quite the discussion, but the partial preterist view makes a lot more sense than the futurist or dispensationalist views. I can try to elaborate when I have more time. Kinda funny, though. I say you are forcing a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week, and you say I am forcing a gap between Rev 18 and 19. On that note, I gotta run. Blessings on you and yours. Hope to catch you tomorrow.

Not sure what you're talking about. The 70th week is not the crucifixion. That happens after the 69 weeks after the time of the triumphant entry when Christ is presented as the Messiah and rejected. This is before the crucifixion and destruction of Jerusalem and before the covenant with Israel. There is a clearly expressed game between the 69th and 70th week, and no gap at all implied between the tribulation and second coming.

 

[robycop3]

The point there is nobody would expect to NOT be alive if the event was only a few days away. On the other hand, if this was an event nearly 40 years in the future, this statement would make perfect sense.

But, far as we know, that transfiguration was the only such one Jesus did here on earth, and not all the disciples saw it. OF COURSE they were alive at that time! But the others died without seeing such an event, so Jesus' statement makes perfect sense.

The eschatological events are directly related to the end of the Old Covenant - not to the literal end of the world.

No, they're related to the end of the current "Age of Grace".

As we've discussed earlier, the "day = 1,000 years" is just a comparison of man's vs God's perspective. Peter's point was to be patient in their suffering.

But such suffering has been going on ever since then.

I have no doubt at all that all of Christ's prophecies in the OD came to pass exactly and literally.

Then, once again - IF THEY'VE ALREADY OCCURRED, HOW COME THEY'RE NOT FOUND IN HISTORY????????????????????????????????????????????

We simply disagree regarding the proper interpretative method.

There can only be ONE interpretive method - EXACTLY AS WRITTEN in their original language.