Partial Preterism

[Stormcrow]

Lots of Bible scholars disagree with you.

None worth mentioning.

 

[Stormcrow]

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't make it any better.

As I said:



Your examples are just nonsense. I doubt ANYONE other than yourself around here would take them seriously.

Are modern books the same as works produced by the early-ish Christian community? No they aren't. There is a BIG difference.

Is a modern book that says nothing about the 2nd coming, nothing about Christianity, the same as an early-ish Christian work which DOES SPEAK about the 2nd coming?

No they aren't the same at all.

Again, if you don't like your evidence challenged, find better evidence. I'm not responsible for your lack of standards when it comes to the evidence you present.

You set the bar low. If you don't like it, produce credible evidence.

Your examples are just nonsense. I doubt ANYONE other than yourself around here would take them seriously.

I take them as seriously as I take yours. The point is to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that "because no one - as far as we know - noticed a first century parousia, it didn't happen."

It's especially absurd when Christ Himself said that His coming would be visible to those "in the land" who would be most likely to be killed or captured by the Romans. How many books do you think the dead or galley slaves wrote about Christ's coming???

I'm sorry, but I just can't take your evidence seriously at all.

 

[Lehigh3]

That looks like a misquote. It says:

"and no man gainsays it"

Nope. Same thing They couldn't admit it was fulfilled & no man (so-called church father) gainsays it)

Right, your article which says:

"None of the writers above were Preterists; one and all still looked for Christ to come a second time."

I am right - but you take that sentence out of context. Read the whole paragraph & learn.

It goes on to say:

"Yet, their writings evidence definite Preterist strains and influences."

Church fathers did speak about some first century fulfillment. Hey look, dispensationalists today will speak about a little first century fulfillment. Some church fathers may go further than dispensationalists, but the point is, is that talking about some first century fulfillment does not make someone a "preterist".

ah huh.... And read the whole article about the period of the dispensationalists. Preterism was the earliest (from the authors of the Bible) & most credible understanding of their "end times". The gentile church leaders had no clue about Jewish eschatology. And they didn't interpret eschatology initially- as the article says. What they defended against was gnosticism in the church. The soteriology was much more important than any interpretation of the book of Revelation.

Talking about the 1st century fulfillment & stating that one agrees with that fulfillment, as Christ stated in Luke 21:20-22, makes one a Preterist. That I feel very blessed about. There is no more curse, for sure when one is in the New Jerusalem kingdom.-
And I didn't learn about Him keeping His promises from any church service either. And thank God I wasn't duped into hearing about any "end time" madness stuff when I did attend church!
God is good. And Christians are fulfilled(complete) in Him now! (Col.2:10)

 

[Zinc]

I am right - but you take that sentence out of context. Read the whole paragraph & learn.

It wasn't "out of context" at all. Your article couldn't produce any real preterists, and it admits as much.

ah huh.... And read the whole article about the period of the dispensationalists. Preterism was the earliest (from the authors of the Bible) & most credible understanding of their "end times".

"Preterism" is not an early system at all. It's a modern invention.

Talking about the 1st century fulfillment & stating that one agrees with that fulfillment, as Christ stated in Luke 21:20-22, makes one a Preterist.

Talking about certain first century fulfillment doesn't make one a "preterist". If that were true, then dispensationalists could be preterists.

 

[Zinc]

The point is to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that "because no one - as far as we know - noticed a first century parousia, it didn't happen."

I would say: "That no one noticed any first century 2nd coming in early Christianity makes the full preterist doctrine look highly suspect".

How exactly do your examples of modern books illustrate that this is an "absurd claim"?

 

[Stormcrow]

"Preterism" is not an early system at all. It's a modern invention.

Preterism is a strawman that allows people to tilt at a label while ignoring the clear and explicit teachings of Christ and His apostles:

{3} As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Matthew 24:3 (NASB)

{42} "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. Matthew 24:42 (NASB)

[Why would He tell them to "be alert" if He wasn't going to come until long after they were dead???]

{44} "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will. Matthew 24:44 (NASB)

[Why would He tell them to "be ready" if He wasn't going to come until long after they were dead???]

{13} "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. Matthew 25:13 (NASB)

[Why would He tell them - yet again - to "be alert" if He wasn't going to come back for at least another 2,000 years???]

{11} Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1 Corinthians 10:11 (NASB)

{7} but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; {8} the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 (NASB)

{4} who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, Galatians 1:4 (NASB)

{11} For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, {12} instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, {13} looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, Titus 2:11-13 (NASB)

[Paul is saying that they were looking for His appearing in their "PRESENT AGE!!!"]

{26} Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the *consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9:26 (NASB)

*consummation:–noun, the act of consummating; completion. The state of being consummated; perfection; fulfillment.


{27} "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. {28} "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)

{64} Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Matthew 26:64 (NASB)

See that word "you?" It wasn't written to, for, or about you! It was spoken to Caiaphas in front of the Sanhedrin and Jesus said it to Caiaphas AFTER the Transfiguration as recorded in Matthew 17!!! CLEARLY HE WAS NOT talking about the Transfiguration when He told the disciples some of them would live to see His coming!!!

So in order to accept your peculiar point of view regarding these things, we either have to ignore everything Christ and the apostles said on the matter or believe they lied about His coming at the end of THAT AGE: THE END OF THE AGE OF THE LAW!

This isn't "preterism": it's the Word of God! Take it or leave it!!!

 

[Stormcrow]

I would say: "That no one noticed any first century 2nd coming in early Christianity makes the full preterist doctrine look highly suspect".

That's not what you wrote here:

"...no one noticed any parousia so far as we can tell."

Once again, BECAUSE THE ENTIRE NT CANON WAS WRITTEN BEFORE 70AD, YOU WILL NOT FIND A SINGLE VERSE THAT SAYS, "LOOK, CHRIST CAME JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD!!!"

The only way you can twist scripture to support your view, then, is to find any source that will date any book of the NT post 70AD!!!

Your sources and evidence are about as credible on the subject as is any modern work that contains NOTHING about Christ's coming!

 

[Zinc]

That's not what you wrote here:

If you want the "so far as we can tell" thing in my statement:

I would say: "That no one noticed any first century 2nd coming in early Christianity--so far as we can tell--makes the full preterist doctrine look highly suspect".


So how exactly do your examples of modern books illustrate that this is an "absurd claim"?

Because that just looks like complete nonsense. There isn't anything remotely close to an analogy between them.

Your sources and evidence are about as credible on the subject as is any modern work that contains NOTHING about Christ's coming!

This is just an assertion that you don't agree with something.

How do your examples do anything to properly illustrate an error in what I have said? (i.e. help to show an error.)

Is all you have the mere assertion that such and such is wrong and would be no better than modern books?

Are your examples "illustrating" anything more than a question-begging assertion from you?

 

[Zinc]

Preterism is a strawman that allows people to tilt at a label while ignoring the clear and explicit teachings of Christ and His apostles

There is no "straw man". You just don't like the term for whatever reason. That's your problem. Other people are happy with the term "preterism"!!

{27} "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. {28} "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)

Here we see the common fallacy of the preterist: timing is not a proof of preterism.

So in order to accept your peculiar point of view regarding these things

Yeah, your own view isn't peculiar at all is it... :D

 

[Stormcrow]

timing is not a proof of preterism.

Funny, since the word "preterism" is taken from the Latin for "past", it seems to have EVERYTHING to do with timing!

And you have yet to present one single credible source that supports your peculiar view. 2

 

[Stormcrow]

There is no "straw man". You just don't like the term for whatever reason. That's your problem. Other people are happy with the term "preterism"!!

Here we see the common fallacy of the preterist: timing is not a proof of preterism.

Yeah, your own view isn't peculiar at all is it... :D

So in order to accept your peculiar point of view regarding these things, we either have to ignore everything Christ and the apostles said on the matter or believe they lied about His coming at the end of THAT AGE: THE END OF THE AGE OF THE LAW!

So which category can I put you down for, those who merely ignore Christ and the apostles or those who believe they were liars?

 

[Zinc]

So which category can I put you down for

I will be happy to respond. But first:


If you want the "so far as we can tell" thing in my statement:

I would say: "That no one noticed any first century 2nd coming in early Christianity--so far as we can tell--makes the full preterist doctrine look highly suspect".


So how exactly do your examples of modern books illustrate that this is an "absurd claim"?

Because that just looks like complete nonsense. There isn't anything remotely close to an analogy between them.

Your sources and evidence are about as credible on the subject as is any modern work that contains NOTHING about Christ's coming!

This is just an assertion that you don't agree with something.

How do your examples do anything to properly illustrate an error in what I have said? (i.e. help to show an error.)

Is all you have the mere assertion that such and such is wrong and would be no better than modern books?

Are your examples "illustrating" anything more than a question-begging assertion from you?



??

 

[Stormcrow]

I'm sorry. I didn't know I was wasting my time with someone who doesn't share a common frame of reference vis a vis "faith in Christ."

Therefore, of course you would find no veracity in the claims Christ made about Himself or His coming in that generation.

Regardless of that fact, you've offered nothing but sources that make ridiculous claims that some of the NT letters were written post 70 AD. That's all you've got. When shown that your own sources equivocate on the same evidence you offer as "proof" of your position, you try to change the subject.

Further, you've offered no credible source to support your claim that a first century parousia didn't happen, and merely draw inferences from silence.

In the end, you've got nothing that anyone of faith - regardless of their eschatological view - needs to worry about.

 

[Zinc]

You are changing the subject yourself. Please respond to:


If you want the "so far as we can tell" thing in my statement:

I would say: "That no one noticed any first century 2nd coming in early Christianity--so far as we can tell--makes the full preterist doctrine look highly suspect".


So how exactly do your examples of modern books illustrate that this is an "absurd claim"?

Because that just looks like complete nonsense. There isn't anything remotely close to an analogy between them.

Your sources and evidence are about as credible on the subject as is any modern work that contains NOTHING about Christ's coming!

This is just an assertion that you don't agree with something.

How do your examples do anything to properly illustrate an error in what I have said? (i.e. help to show an error.)

Is all you have the mere assertion that such and such is wrong and would be no better than modern books?

Are your examples "illustrating" anything more than a question-begging assertion from you?