Featured Did the Lord return in AD 70?

@Salty,
It is a nonsensical interpretation. It is untenable.
There is only one second appearing, Hebrews 9:28 and Acts of the Apostles 1:11, ". . . this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. . . ."

 

Well, throwing away Hebrews 9:28 or Acts of the Apostles 1:11. Matthew 24:34, ". . . you . . . ." And 1 Corinthians 15:52, ". . . we . . . ." They become failed prophecy.

 

Doesn't @kyredneck believe this?

It is a preterist view

 

I disagree with the date. He actually returned AD 66.

 

lu

To just ignore all of the many times that Christ spoke of His coming in that generation is to discredit Him with giving false prophecies.

Shall I quote the passages? I will do it if I felt that you would take them seriously. I am up for a cordial discussion on the topic - with an open Bible.

 

Matthew 24:33, ". . . even so ye also, when ye see all these things, . . ." Referring to Matthew 24:29, ". . . the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, . . ." The plural "ye" refers to those who see those signs when they happen. I have always understand it that way. The plural pronoun can refer to more than the immediate audience. There are examples of that use of the plural pronoun.

 

Well if you think that Christ came back in 66 AD then perhaps you can answer this:

1} do you think the 1000 yrs in Revelation 20:2-7 is actual or figurative?

2} If figurative how do you explain Revelation 20:2-7?

3} If actual how do you explain with Revelation 20:2-4? With deceiver gone and Christ reigning, did 66-1066 AD look like what you would expect His reign to be like?

4} Since it has been just under 2000 years since you say Christ returned and the bible tells us that after 1000 yrs {1066} Satan will return and then be defeated and cast into hell. Does this earth look like paradise to you? No evil, no tears, no pain etc.

Also perhaps you can tell me when the great battle between Satan & Christ came about?

From what I have read of the preterist view it does not have anything to support it. The bible and history prove that it is error.

 

Those who disagree with the Preterist view often do so because they don't understand what Preterists believe. As stated earlier, there is only one 2nd Coming. As a Partial Preterist, I believe Christ's return is still a future event. However, Jesus made it very clear in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, & Luke 21) that Great Tribulation was coming soon, within a generation. This came to pass when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Note that Jesus described judgment coming on Jerusalem "immediately after the tribulation of those days". Jesus came in judgment. Again, this is not to be confused with the 2nd Coming.

To the point that @Salty made, we need to understand what others believe in order to have a defense. That's the value of this type of forum. We Preterists can explain what we believe, so you don't rely on second-hand reports of "this is what they believe".

Finally, I am interested in what @asterisktom says regarding AD 66.

 

Hi, Lodic. Good to hear from you again. I thought that, instead of writing all this again, I would just start a new thread on the topic of AD 66 and related topics.

 

I believe that these referred to a one-time event, but that not literal. The same type of apocalyptic imagery is found in the Old Testament.

 

Yes yes, "this generation" what generation is that generation? That is the question.

 

Some people make the argument that He meant "this kind of generation", "the generation then living", or even "this race" in the Olivet Discourse prophecy. That is adding words to what Jesus said, or even changing the meaning of what He said. When we compare this phrase to every other use of "this generation" in Scripture, it clearly refers to the generation then living, not some future generation.

 

OR it is talking about the generation that actually sees those things.

 

If that were the case, Jesus would have said "that generation" or even "those who see these things take place". The generation that Jesus was speaking to did see the events that He was describing in the Olivet Discourse. Tribulation came upon them. The temple was destroyed - just as He said. Jerusalem was surrounded by armies - just as He said. They were the generation that Jesus spoke of. The only way to make this fit a future generation is to apply a preconceived idea that it must apply to a future generation because it can't apply to the generation that He was speaking to. That is circular reasoning. Especially considering that all the other times Jesus spoke of "this generation", He clearly meant the generation of men then living. Analogy of Scripture shows that reading any different meaning into the text is eisegesis, not exegesis. Gary DeMar addresses this question in this article - How Should 'This Generation' be Understood? - The American Vision. Beginning with the 4th paragraph, DeMar addresses your specific point.

 

Yet Jesus did not return. Hmmm....

 

Peter covers your concerns about Jesus return.
*2 Peter 3:1-13*

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 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. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Notice what happens at Jesus return. Certainly this did not happen in 70CE.

 

Not physically. Jesus "came" in judgment on Jerusalem in the same sense that God "came" in judgment on various nations in the Old Testament. Jesus told His disciples they would see the destruction of the temple; they would hear of wars and rumors of wars; they would be handed over to tribulation. Jesus warned His disciples that they would see the Abomination of Desolation, and they would need to flee to the mountains. All these came to pass in the Jewish Wars of AD 66 - 70.

Finally, Jesus said "immediately after the tribulation"...the "powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man would appear. They would see (or "understand") the great glory of the One they crucified. The 1st Century Jews would understand that they were the ones who had Him crucified, and they would mourn.

 

I've never claimed that Jesus physically returned in AD 70. He "came" in judgment upon Israel. All the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse, as well as most of the Book of Revelation, did come to pass in AD 70. I'm sure you have more than a few objections to this view, and I am happy to address them specifically as you ask. Otherwise, I could post some links to websites that explain the Preterist views quite well.