How could anyone believe in Preterism?

[convicted1]

Asking...not to inflame those who hold to preterism...but for my understanding...when and who originated this doctrine?

 

[asterisktom]

I ask, because the Apostles' Creed does nothing but summarize the inspired writings in the Bible. It itself is not inspired, but it shares the truth of Scripture. Would you not agree?

No, I would not agree.

"He descended into Hell". Do you think that Christ went down to Hell? I don't. The Bible does not teach that. The actual phrase in Latin is "descendit ad inferos", clearly referring to Hell.

A bit of background (emphasis added):
"The first mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of 390 from a synod in Milan and may have been associated with the belief, widely accepted in the 4th century, that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article of a creed." - from Wiki

We are on shaky ground when we place our faith on anything but the Bible, whether or not it claims to be a summary of its teachings. After all, this is exactly how the scribes and Pharisees claimed to be treating the word of God. Yet they received strong condemnation from our Lord. Their summarizing - and elaborations - made the Word of God of no effect.

 

[asterisktom]

Asking...not to inflame those who hold to preterism...but for my understanding...when and who originated this doctrine?

It depends on what you mean exactly. Obviously, by definition, it could not exist prior to AD70 because the very gist of Preterism is that Christ's coming has been passed. Most Preterists believe that the canon closed before Christ's Parousia, so any explicit teaching of the Parousia as a past event would have had to come from a post-Biblical writer.

More later. (I might be wanted in the kitchen. And it is starting to smell pretty good!)

Edit: I don't know why there was a link with the word "canon". It wasn't my doing.

 

[DHK]

No, I would not agree.

"He descended into Hell". Do you think that Christ went down to Hell? I don't. The Bible does not teach that. The actual phrase in Latin is "descendit ad inferos", clearly referring to Hell.

A bit of background (emphasis added):
"The first mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of 390 from a synod in Milan and may have been associated with the belief, widely accepted in the 4th century, that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article of a creed." - from Wiki

We are on shaky ground when we place our faith on anything but the Bible, whether or not it claims to be a summary of its teachings. After all, this is exactly how the scribes and Pharisees claimed to be treating the word of God. Yet they received strong condemnation from our Lord. Their summarizing - and elaborations - made the Word of God of no effect.

Hell has many meanings. If it is sheol, it simply means "the grave," as Jacob referred to it. Even in the NT it is referred to as a place of the departed spirits and included paradise as pictured in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

I believe the concept could have been taken from:
As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (The heart of the earth being the grave).

Acts 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

The evidence is there, quite clearly.

 

[DHK]

Asking...not to inflame those who hold to preterism...but for my understanding...when and who originated this doctrine?

That would depend who you ask.

Proponents of preterism sometimes argue that this position was the original eschatological understanding of the Early Christian church,[2][3][4] a claim contested by historicists and futurists.[5] One preterist has been said to hold that the view was developed in the 17th century,[6] a view also held by many non-preterists.

from Wikipedia

 

[HankD]

Good to see you again, Hank.

Concerning those points raised, I believe they have all been addressed in the archives. I am too busy right now to hunt them up; I am staying here with family in Kansas. I forgot how nice it was to be out on the back porch. Two types of owls, as I type, are making themselves at home in the giant mulberry tree in the backyard.

If any one point of disagreement seems most important, Hank or anyone else, perhaps we can make a new thread of it. I will do my best to give a reasonable reply.

I have always remembered good discussions with you, Hank. You have always done well in the cordiality department, even though you strongly disagreed several times.

Yes, the good old days... I only mentioned these things to perhaps get people to look into the archives.

There they will see the best case that could possibly be made for preterism.

I'm still a futurist but I move a lot of the eschatology chess pieces around.

Good to see you again as well, back in the US of A!

HankD

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

[

No, I would not agree.

"He descended into Hell". Do you think that Christ went down to Hell? I don't. The Bible does not teach that. The actual phrase in Latin is "descendit ad inferos", clearly referring to Hell.

So one phrase negates the whole Creed, huh? The question has to do with whether or not the apostles believed Christ would return. Nothing else. This is misdirection and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Please answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

 

[asterisktom]

[So one phrase negates the whole Creed, huh? The question has to do with whether or not the apostles believed Christ would return. Nothing else. This is misdirection and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Please answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

Please don't confuse my no longer answering you with not being able to answer you. Discussions with you devolve into a repetitive downward spiral of silliness. I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither do I care.

The rest is silence. (Apologies to Shakespeare)

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, the good old days... I only mentioned these things to perhaps get people to look into the archives.

There they will see the best case that could possibly be made for preterism.

I'm still a futurist but I move a lot of the eschatology chess pieces around.

Good to see you again as well, back in the US of A!

HankD

Thanks, Hank. I am here for about a month trying to work out details of my inheritance. My Dad died this January and it was very frustrating trying to do legal things from China. Important documents went missing. One that did not go missing had what looked like tiremarks on the envelope! Also, the country is frustratingly bureaucratic and inept.

I still move some of the eschatology chess pieces around, but mainly pawns. Not that I am unwilling to move bigger pieces should a case be made for it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Please don't confuse my no longer answering you with not being able to answer you. Discussions with you devolve into a repetitive downward spiral of silliness. I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither do I care.

As to the emboldened part, how hard is it to understand, "Do you think the apostles believed Christ would return?" So I must believe the true translation of that nonsense above is: "I don't want to answer the question."

By the way: Silence from you is like a breath of fresh air.

 

[Yeshua1]

As to the emboldened part, how hard is it to understand, "Do you think the apostles believed Christ would return?" So I must believe the true translation of that nonsense above is: "I don't want to answer the question."

By the way: Silence from you is like a breath of fresh air.

The Apostle John recorded down to us that the great hope and what we are to earnestly wait/expect/hope for is the Second coming of jeus, when we shall become glorified...

was John wrong?

Didn't paul have to write a letter addressing those holding to the pretierist views that second coming already happened, and "missed the boat?"

 

[HankD]

As to the emboldened part, how hard is it to understand, "Do you think the apostles believed Christ would return?" So I must believe the true translation of that nonsense above is: "I don't want to answer the question."

By the way: Silence from you is like a breath of fresh air.

TND - Tom is one of the good guys.

But as he said we (he and I) disagree.

Like I said it would be good for anyone who is interested to check the archives (not sure what year - just do a seach on "preterist" and you will find the debate).

You make a good point - some of the Early Church Fathers who were contemporary with the apostles wrote both before and after AD70 and yet post AD70 were still looking for the return of Christ. I put forth many of their quotes in these debates showing the ECF who bridged the AD70 events (Both before and after) knew nothing of preterism.

That would seem to be a strong argument, however the truth of preterism or futurism must be made soley from the scriptures.
But the question still remains why didn't the ECF know anything about preterism (assuming for the sake of the discussion that preterism is true)?

To be forthright I believe one of the fathers said the destruction of Jerusalem was part of the retribution Christ spoke of in Luke 21:20 which would come upon them.


HankD

 

[DHK]

The last prayer of the Bible:
"Even so come Lord Jesus."

This in and of itself would seem to refute Preterism which doesn't look for a second coming and doesn't believe in it.
It especially would refute it if the Book of Revelation's date could be shown that it was written in ca. 98 A.D.

 

[OldRegular]

I am not a Full Preterist, Partial Preterist perhaps. Though Tom and I disagree he has always treated me and my views with respect. Insofar as I can tell his posts are respectful to all. Most of US posting on this Board could learn at least that much from Tom. Having said that many of his post are very insightful and worth reading. I was especially impressed by a recent post of his which I copied for further study.

1. I do believe in the visible return of Jesus Christ at the end of time as we know.

2. I believe that the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70AD was the judgment of God prophesied in Matthew 24. I do not believe there was a visible return of Jesus Christ or a resurrection of the dead at that time.

3. I believe His return will coincide with a General Resurrection of all the dead and the White throne Judgment.

4. I believe that the Church, all the redeemed of all time and the Bride of Jesus Christ, will dwell in the New Heavens and New Earth in the presence of God.

5. I believe that those who died in Adam will be cast into the "lake of fire" with Satan!

6. I reject the dispensational doctrine of a "snatching away" of the Church prior to a seven year period of GRReat Tribulation, multiple resurrections, and a Jewish millennium.

7. I reject the Classic Dispensational doctrine of a "Parenthesis Church" as an interruption in God's program for national Israel!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not a Full Preterist, Partial Preterist perhaps. Though Tom and I disagree he has always treated me and my views with respect. Insofar as I can tell his posts are respectful to all. Most of US posting on this Board could learn at least that much from Tom. Having said that many of his post are very insightful and worth reading. I was especially impressed by a recent post of his which I copied for further study.

1. I do believe in the visible return of Jesus Christ at the end of time as we know.

2. I believe that the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70AD was the judgment of God prophesied in Matthew 24. I do not believe there was a visible return of Jesus Christ or a resurrection of the dead at that time.

3. I believe His return will coincide with a General Resurrection of all the dead and the White throne Judgment.

4. I believe that the Church, all the redeemed of all time and the Bride of Jesus Christ, will dwell in the New Heavens and New Earth in the presence of God.

5. I believe that those who died in Adam will be cast into the "lake of fire" with Satan!

6. I reject the dispensational doctrine of a "snatching away" of the Church prior to a seven year period of GRReat Tribulation, multiple resurrections, and a Jewish millennium.

7. I reject the Classic Dispensational doctrine of a "Parenthesis Church" as an interruption in God's program for national Israel!

Full Pretierism denies all of those points...

 

[OldRegular]

Full Pretierism denies all of those points...

I believe they agree with me on points 6 & 7!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe they agree with me on points 6 & 7!

You are correct, but any who deny the actual second Coming and the resurrection of the dead and living are teaching heresy!

 

[Rippon]

By the way: Silence from you is like a breath of fresh air.

That's an incredibly rude and juvenile remark tnd.