Romans 16:20 is a Strong Proof of Christ's 70 AD Return

Not exactly that. It is actually much worse!

 

The hyper-preterists and the hyper-dispensationalists share much in common when it comes to the Word of God.

The hyper dispenationalists would throw away all the New Testament except the prison letters of Paul because the rest of the New Testament does not apply to Christians. They reject Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and I don’t know what else!

The hyper preterists would discard the Book of Revelation since everything in it has already happened. They would have to throw away all Scripture that promise a resurrection of the body since that is not going to happen. They would or should abolish the Lord’s Supper because if Jesus Christ is not going to come again there is no point in trying to shew the Lord’s death till he come. [1 Corinthians 11:26]. I am not sure about Baptism. They don’t believe in the resurrection and Paul wrote: But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: [1 Corinthians 15:13]

Poor old Apostle John, didn’t die until 100 AD. Wrote the Book of Revelation too late to help. I wonder why God went to the trouble of having John write that. It is not like there were word processors in those days.

Then John missed the resurrection of 70 AD, if there were one. The HHP are apparently not sure. So his old body will just lie molding in the grave. Wonder if that is where the abolutionists got the thought for their hymn: "John Brown’s body lies a molding in the grave!" Don't believe that John's last name was Brown though!

Perhaps they will get it all straightened out; but then don’t anybody hold their breath.

 

Full preterism denies the New Testament hope of the Church found in the future bodily return of Christ at the eschaton.

To deny that Jesus is coming again, in the future is to deny the efficacy of the New Testament teaching about His mission and ministry.

 

There are about a dozen naked assertions here. Assertions without scriptural proof. Dates are off too. And a lot of silly comments I didn't expect from someone who has been around awhile and should have accumulated some discretion.

 

You make the same mistake that the 1st-century Jews did when confronted with their Messiah's spiritual doctrine., gauging God's faithfulness by fleshly fulfillments.

Your second statement in the extreme. By your logic there will be a time in the future (after when you think the 2nd coming is) when Christians will "deny the efficacy of the New Testament teaching about His mission and ministry". Do you not see the inconsistency here?

 

Your initial response to my post is much like those of LOGO. If I have misstated something then identify and refute.

I have been around a long time and I know enough not to deny Scripture. Hyper-preterism is generally considered heretical even by some who believe in the 70 AD return of Jesus Christ

 

I confess that my take-off on the Apostle John was intentionally silly but not nearly as silly as denying the resurrection which Scripture clearly teaches.

God is not the author of confusion; yet HHP's claim there was a resurrection in 70AD. So what happened to the resurrection bodies of these Saints? Are you claiming that there are Saints in heaven with resurrection bodies and Saints without resurrection bodies? Strange! Much like the claim of some dispensationalists that during the millennium there will be glorified Saints on earth with mortals, very strange!

 

I don't mean to be rude but what you seem to be saying is Christ has already returned. May I ask are you a Jehovah's Witness? If not it would certainly seem so.

 

I am not denying the resurrection. I am just saying that the resurrection - just like Christ's spiritual temple - is grossly misunderstood. Try this:

1. Find the Greek words used for "resurrection"(raised, etc.).
2. Study out the occurrences of those words in the NT (and the LXX, if you have the time - but especially the NT)
3. Then notice that some of these "resurrections" have already happened.

This topic is a most important one, requiring all of us (myself included) to not descend into merely argumentative mode, but to constantly maintain a Berean attitude of "Let God be true and every man (or creed, or confession, or tradition potentially) be a liar".

 

So when did the rapture of the Church happen in history?

 

God speaking through the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost tells us, and the Jews who would listen:

Acts 2:29-36, KJV
29. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35. Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Looking specifically at verse 31 it is obvious that a body was raised! I believe, according to the Apostle Paul, that body was different than the one that went into the tomb. Other Scripture reveal certain things that body did.

 

I'm tired of repeating myself. I don't know why you write all that as if I didn't believe it. You guys get your into your heresy frenzy and through your basic reading skills out the window.

 

Apostle paul does refer to us being raised up in "spiritual" bodies in 1 Corinthians 15, but the greek and contex would support that he menas the body is NOT same as the "earthly" body, not same "substence" still phyusical, yet different!

 

That's a low blow against saids ability to read, wouldn't you agree? It's not a truthful response, but is rather pejorative in nature.

When persons resort to such tactics in response it means only one thing. You know this, don't you?

- Peace

 

pre-terism is at best ignorant thinking and at most certainly heretical

I was reading through this thread and couldn't keep from making a comment or seven.

Here are the problems with pre-teristic thinking:

First, The Lord Jesus Christ prayed said, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Not in 2000 years has God's will been done on "earth as it is in heaven." It won't happen until the King of King returns and "every eye shall see Him."

Second, If the Lord returned, then certainly all the million or more martyrs of the last 2000 years have just had some hallucinogenic experience. 5000 martyrs a day were not really piled up, guarded by dogs to prevent burial, as Jerome states. If one accepts the Pre-teristic view it makes Fox a liar, and the accounts of the martyrs nothing but myth.

Third, The resurrection order dismisses the Pre-teristic view. "But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."

Fourth, In these days, there are those who will lie and even deceive the elect. The deceived elect would include those who, though saved, embrace the pre-terism view and teach it - though the scheme is heretical.

Fifth, The apostle John did not write the Revelation until after Peter and Paul had both been martyred by Nero approximately 65 AD. When Vespasian replaced Nero, the persecutions of believers lessened, but then came Domitian and he was the Roman ruler who exiled John to the island. When Domitian was murdered the senate repealed all his rules and John was released to the Ephesian church in 87AD. These are historical facts that pre-teristic holders desire to revise. Can't be done because even the world historians agree to the facts.

Sixth, The prophets of the Old Testament and in particular those such as Ezekiel become invalid by the pre-teristic view. Such visions as the gathering of the bones cannot be mistaken as opposed to the pre-teristic view.

Seventh, I suppose what bothers me most is that unthinking pew warmers actually have so little Scripture knowledge that they will accept the Pre-teristic thinking and smile as though it is from God's mouth to their ear.

 

Nice artful dodge but it doesn't address the issues. The reality is some Jews did receive Jesus and believe. According to the New Testament and early church documents many Jews who encountered Jesus did believe. Messianic expectation is difficult to link to this issue, but are you attempting to say everything in the NT concerning the nature of predictive, eschatological prophecy is simply in "spiritualist" terms?

This doesn't make sense to me. Are you attempting to position my eschatology as classic-dispensational millenialism? If so, you don't know my eschatology. So I don't understand this statement.

Also, since we're on the topic of the early church records...the greatest argument against the preterist claims comes from the documents of the New Testament being written during the Apostolic period until AD 90. Likewise, the best documents (here I'm thinking Clement I, Papais' fragments, Shepherd of Hermas, and many others) don't ever mention the return of Christ nor do they mention that believers had seen Jesus return. This would have been extraordinarily significant news within the relatively new cohort of believers across the Mediterranean region, so why don't any early church documents contemporary AD 70-120 mention the return of Jesus?

It seems that given the complete lack of evidentiary support for a claim of the return of Jesus, when we have significant documentary evidence of His resurrection, how is it that the preterist camp can continue to make these claims? Who did Jesus return to? Where did Jesus return?

 

Too much to answer here right now, but I will touch on a few. Underlining on your comments is mine.

Don't talk to me of "artful dodges" and then artfully put words in my mouth, "spiritualist" in quotes, as if I would ever write that term in a positive sense.

"According to the New Testament and early church documents"

You seem to put the two on a par. (I don't believe you really think of them that way.) However my basis for the topics on this thread is the Bible alone.

But, since you mention dating, Revelation was written in the 60s. See Schaff, among several others, for a scholarly study on this. Schaff used to believe - as I did - in a later date for Revelation, but finally saw the force of the evidence for that early date.

Many of the others who were supposedly silent on the Parousia were actually writing before it, like Clement of Rome, and the writer of the Didache. I had written this on this board months ago. If interested I will dig it up.

 

While this debate on full preterism was very active I did research on my 20,000 page DB of early church fathers and found not one conclusive passage to support preterism.

Even those who spoke of Christ's return pre-Second Coming spoke of a bodily and visible return with at least one who spoke of a literal one thousand year reign of Christ.

I hope Tom will present his case from the ECF so I can research the passages he presents.

Anyway, good to hear from you brother Tom. I hope all is well with you and yours.

Have a blessed time back in the states while we remember/celebrate His incarnation.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
​

HankD

 

Hello Hank,

Thanks. We are doing well. And I hope you and your family are having a great Christmas.

This is short for now. I had mentioned somewhere else today that I did already have an ECF post here at BB. I will try to find it and, if time permits, augment it. Short point is that a few of those writers have, I believe (on both external and internal evidence) early pre-Parousia dates.

And by ECF I mean the term in a most restrictive sense, the earliest of the CFs.

BTW, we haven't actually left for China. I changed my location because i suspect that once we get there I may very well be Internetless (at least as far as these sites are concerned) for a while. We were given our official red-stamped invitation and work permits yesterday. All that remains is the visa paperwork from Chicago (by email and mail). We should leave in a few days.