Preterism and early Christian writings

[Zinc]

From the Early Christian Writings site:


The Apocalypse of John

Estimated Range of Dating: 90-95 A.D.



Hebrews

Estimated Range of Dating: 50-95 A.D.



2 Peter

Estimated Range of Dating: 100-160 A.D.



2 Timothy

Estimated Range of Dating: 100-150 A.D.



Now the "Early Christian Writings" site may not be perfect. And you can find people arguing for earlier dating than the above. For example, the preterist Ken Gentry argues for an early date for Revelation (before 70 CE).

But my point here, is that for various New Testament writings, the range of dating goes beyond 70 CE.


So firstly, full preterism is not directly taught in the Bible. (i.e. nothing in the Bible claims that the "second coming" really happened in the first century.)

Secondly, it only takes one New Testament book to be actually late dated and that will contradict full preterism. (If the book is still anticipating a future parousia.)

And it's not just Biblical writings that are an issue. We have extra-Biblical writings that are dated after 70 CE and still anticipating a future parousia.

 

[Stormcrow]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html

The Apocalypse of John
Estimated Range of Dating: 90-95 A.D.

Based on one quote from Iraeneus. Meanwhile, all the internal evidence of the book indicates a date of writing during Nero's reign before the destruction of Jerusalem.

When was the Book of Revelation written? - BibelCenter Studies

Hebrews

Estimated Range of Dating: 50-95 A.D.

Pretty wide spread there. Here's something that pinpoints the timing a bit more:

In the letter the author wrote at some length about the Jewish priesthood, bloody sacrifices, and the tabernacle. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. With its destruction the Jewish priesthood and bloody sacrifices were brought to an end permanently. Yet the author made no mention of this historic end to these Jewish forms of worship which had been practiced throughout the Old Testament era up to that time. His failure to speak of this suggests the author wrote the Letter to the Hebrews prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and before A.D. 70.


Taking into account all of the preceding information, it seems very probable that the Letter to the Hebrews was written after A.D. 64 and before A.D. 70. This would make the date of the letter sometime between A.D. 65 and 69.

2 Peter

Estimated Range of Dating: 100-160 A.D.

You might want to make sure that if you're going to cite a source, it actually agrees with the point you're trying to make, to wit:

The external evidence points most strongly to the inauthenticity of II Peter. If II Peter is authentic, then both epistles are authentic and both addressed themselves to the same church and were sent at approximately the same time (Peter's stay in Rome). Thus, it is most reasonable to assume that the two authentic epistles of Peter would have circulated together. However, the external evidence reveals that several early writers have knowledge only of I Peter, and this tells against the authenticity of II Peter.

In other words, if IIPeter is authentic, it was written and circulated with IPeter by Peter from Rome sometime before his death in 65AD.

If it's not authentic, however, then anything it has to say about such things can and should be discounted, as it shouldn't even be in the canon of the NT!

That's all from your own link, which certainly does nothing to advance your case in the least!

2 Timothy

Estimated Range of Dating: 100-150 A.D.

Once again, from the link you posted:

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.

If they are post-Pauline pseudepighrapha, we can dismiss anything they have to say because they are not authentic! Paul died in 64 or 65 AD in Rome as part of Nero's persecution against Christians. So if they weren't written by Paul, then they are frauds and cannot be trusted to support your peculiar point of view!

But my point here, is that for various New Testament writings, the range of dating goes beyond 70 CE.

And if they do, they are not authentic and have no place in the canon of the NT, (according to your own source!) ergo whatever they have to say about the parousia cannot be trusted to be true.

Next time, find sources that actually support your point!

 

[Stormcrow]

Now, for the simplest and most logical explanation as to why they were all written prior to 70AD: they all expected Christ's return within the generation that He told them all those things would happen. He also told that some of them would not die before they saw those things He told them!

Therefore, most of the writers of what later became known as the NT were writing to churches encouraging them to "keep the faith!" Why??? Because they were under intense persecution and many were falling away or being subverted by "Judaizers!"

Sometimes, it really does help to have studied church history and Paul's letters in college!

 

[Zinc]

With regard to Hebrews:

Kummel dates Hebrews as follows (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 403): "To the obvious question whether Jerusalem is still standing (13:13 f) and the temple cultus is still in process (9:9 f) Heb gives no answer. In its timeless scholarly movement of ideas only the OT sanctuary plays a role, not the Herodian temple; an origin before 70 cannot be inferred either from the silence concerning the catastrophe of the year 70 or from the expression in 8:13 that the Old Covenant is 'in the course of passing away.' On the contrary, the persecutions which the community has experienced (10:32-34) and the spiritual proximity to Lk-Acts point in all probability to the post-Pauline period. Heb was, however, written before 96 (I Clem); Timothy, who as a young man had been a mission aide of Paul, is still living (13:23), writers and readers belong to the second Christian generation (2:3), the new suffering which threatens the readers (12:4) may point to the time of Domitian (81-96). Accordingly the letter was probably written between 80 and 90."


Hebrews 2:3 states: "Announced first by the Lord, it [salvation] was confirmed to us by those who had heard him." Hebrews 13:7 states: "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith." This is compatible with a date of Hebrews during the second or third Christian generation.

Hebrews

 

[Zinc]

If they are post-Pauline pseudepighrapha, we can dismiss anything they have to say because they are not authentic!

They are still evidence that no one noticed any parousia so far as we can tell.

 

[Zinc]

Now, for the simplest and most logical explanation as to why they were all written prior to 70AD

But that is a highly controversial claim. There is a good chance that this is factually inaccurate.

 

[Zinc]

Based on one quote from Iraeneus.

I'm guessing others would disagree that the evidence is merely "one quote from Irenaeus".

 

[Stormcrow]

They are still evidence that no one noticed any parousia so far as we can tell.

Sure. And by that same standard I could argue that Chilton's Auto Manuals are evidence for no 1st century parousia because they were written after 70ad and don't mention it.

Apparently, you have a much more liberal approach to evidence than I do.

Again, based on your own sources, if these books are authentic, then they would have been written by the apostles prior to 70ad. However, if they are not authentic, as your very own sources allege, then they can't be taken seriously to support ANY position at all! They' re value as any kind of evidence is dubious, at best!

P.S. By claiming these epistles are inauthentic, your sources destroy any weight they would've carried for your argument. Furthermore, the best evidence for your point-of-view you could have produced was a post-70ad AUTHENTIC apostolic writing alleging no parousia happened in 70ad. You don't have that. Instead, you draw inferences from sources seeking to destroy the apostolic authorship and authority of the very scriptures you're trying to use to justify your position!

What we have is a number of APOSTOLIC WRITINGS in the NT - all written BEFORE 70ad that tell readers Christ is coming soon, MOTIVATED BY CHRIST'S OWN WORDS ON THE SUBJECT!

{7} Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. {8} You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. James 5:7-8 (NASB)

{11} Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. {12} The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Romans 13:11-12 (NASB)

{5} Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Philippians 4:5 (NASB)

{25} not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. Hebrews 10:25 (NASB)

{7} The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. 1 Peter 4:7 (NASB)

{18} Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 1 John 2:18 (NASB)

{3} Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. Revelation 1:3 (NASB)

{10} And he *said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Revelation 22:10 (NASB)

{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 16:28 (NASB)

And there are many more examples of this in the NT.

Now, either Christ and the Apostles were lying when they wrote these things, OR the church in America - 2,000 years removed from those events and some 6,000 miles away - SIMPLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT CHRIST MEANT WHEN HE SAID - REPEATEDLY - THAT HE IS COMING FOR THAT GENERATION!!!

 

[Zinc]

Sure. And by that same standard I could argue that Chilton's Auto Manuals are evidence for no 1st century parousia because they were written after 70ad and don't mention it.

Apparently, you have a much more liberal approach to evidence than I do.

What? That is hardly the same as documents produced by the early-ish Christian community!

And it isn't just a case of, "not mentioning it". It's a case of, "contradicting it".

if they are not authentic, as your very own sources allege, then they can't be taken seriously to support ANY position at all!

Not correct. Even if they aren't "authentic", they were still produced by the early-ish Christian community. They are still early sources which *contradict* the idea that the parousia had already occurred.

Perfectly good evidence.

Just as extra-Biblical writings are perfectly good evidence.

Now, either Christ and the Apostles were lying when they wrote these things, OR the church in America - 2,000 years removed from those events and some 6,000 miles away - SIMPLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT CHRIST MEANT WHEN HE SAID - REPEATEDLY - THAT HE IS COMING FOR THAT GENERATION!!!

So here we see the real motive for preterism: you think (rightly or wrongly) that the Bible predicts a first century parousia. For dogmatic reasons, you will then twist the scripture any which way you have to to uphold the preterist outlook of first century fulfillment.

I'm guessing others would disagree that the evidence is merely "one quote from Irenaeus".

So then I take it you didn't actually read the link I posted.

I did take a look at it actually. The author appeared to be dogmatically influenced by preterist belief.

As I say, people would claim more evidence for a late date for Revelation than that.

Yes, the words of Christ and the Apostles ARE controversial. But that doesn't make them false.

 

[Stormcrow]

They are still early sources which *contradict* the idea that the parousia had already occurred.

They don't say anything about it one way or another! "Contradiction", therefore, is an inference you're drawing from their alleged silence!


What part of "irrelevant" aren't you grasping about your sources?!?

In the meantime, continue to IGNORE the vast amount of Apostolic writings which SUPPORT the claim of Christ's 1st century coming in judgment upon the generation that crucified Him!!!

So here we see the real motive for preterism: you think (rightly or wrongly) that the Bible predicts a first century parousia. For dogmatic reasons, you will then twist the scripture any which way you have to to uphold the preterist outlook of first century fulfillment.

Not only am I presenting the scripture EXACTLY as given by Christ and recorded by His apostles, , then citing sources which propose to invalidate the parts of scripture that allegedly don't even discuss it and claiming, therefore, they contradict it!



2

 

[Stormcrow]

The author appeared to be dogmatically influenced by preterist belief.

As opposed to your perfectly objective, non-dogmatic position on the subject, which causes you to ignore the apostles and Christ's own words to support it???

Obviously, in your view then, Christ was either a liar or a fool for leading the apostles to believe and write as they did. I

 

[Zinc]

They don't say anything about it one way or another! "Contradiction", therefore, is an inference you're drawing from their alleged silence!

Not true. I think you will find that New Testament writings and extra-Biblical writings DO COMMENT on the parousia.



Where you get the idea that the documents in question "don't discuss it" I don't know.

In the meantime, you continue to IGNORE the vast amount of Apostolic writings which SUPPORT the claim of Christ's 1st century coming in judgment upon the generation that crucified Him!!!

There is nothing in the Bible that claims any first century fulfillment really happened.

So-called "time texts" are not a proof of preterism.

 

[Stormcrow]

There is nothing in the Bible that claims any first century fulfillment really happened.

BECAUSE IT WAS ALL WRITTEN BEFORE ANY FULFILLMENT HAPPENED!!!

EVEN YOUR OWN SOURCES - HIGHLY CRITICAL OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP - CAN'T BE CERTAIN THEY WEREN'T!!!

Again, from your own link:

If II Peter is authentic, then both epistles are authentic and both addressed themselves to the same church and were sent at approximately the same time (Peter's stay in Rome).

Your own link goes on to question its authenticity, meaning that if it's NOT authentic, it's validity on anything it discusses is questionable AT BEST!

Tertullian IS extra-biblical AND authentic! Origen IS extra-biblical AND authentic! Polycarp IS extra-biblical AND authentic! Eusebius IS extra-biblical AND authentic! Josephus IS extra-biblical AND authentic!

Yet they are NOT in the canon of scripture!!! WHY??? BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT APOSTOLIC IN ORIGIN!!!

Even your own source on Hebrews draws its conclusion from a single, ambiguous verse!

Hebrews 13:7 states: "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith." This is compatible with a date of Hebrews during the second or third Christian generation.

IT'S EQUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH A DATE OF 65 - 69AD DURING THE FIRST PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS BY ROME AND/OR THE CONTINUING PERSECUTION BY JERUSALEM THAT STARTED WITH THE STONING OF STEPHEN!

Therefore, the very BEST you can offer is speculation to support your theory, while I have given you the words of the apostles themselves!!!

I think you will find that New Testament writings and extra-Biblical writings DO COMMENT on the parousia.

"COMMENT ON" or "contradict"? Because as Lehigh has shown you in this thread, Josephus "commented on" the parousia IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERNATURAL EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM!!!

Meanwhile, YOU HAVE OFFERED NOTHING THAT CONTRADICTS IT!!! You have, however, offered sources that attempt to undermine the authenticity of the very scriptures you're trying to use to make your point!!!

Why would we even consider your "proof" if it's not genuine??? Why would we even consider your "proof" if demonstrated to be fraudulent BY YOUR OWN HYPER-CRITICAL SOURCES?!?!?



Either the apostles believed in an imminent return of Christ or they didn't! THE PROOF THAT THEY DID HAS BEEN SHOWN TO YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN, FURTHER SUPPORTED BY JOSEPHUS!!! YOU, HOWEVER, IGNORE IT!!!

Why is that???

 

[Zinc]

Your own link goes on to question its authenticity, meaning that if it's NOT authentic, it's validity on anything it discusses is questionable AT BEST!

Again, they would still be documents produced by the early Christian community. They would still contradict your doctrine.

Even your own source on Hebrews draws its conclusion from a single, ambiguous verse!

No it didn't.

"COMMENT ON" or "contradict"?

If later sources are still expecting the parousia of Jesus, then they contradict preterism.

Because as Lehigh has shown you in this thread, Josephus "commented on" the parousia IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERNATURAL EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM!!!

What has that got to do with the Bible and Christian doctrine?

Where did Josephus say anything about the "parousia of Jesus"?

Why would we even consider your "proof" if it's not genuine???

Doesn't matter whether the sources are "authentic" or not. It's still evidence that the early Christian community had no idea of any parousia having happened so far as we can tell.



You are claiming more than that. You are claiming first century fulfillment, which would be "preterism".

And that is contradicted by early Christian writings.

As I say, here we see the real motive for preterism: you think (rightly or wrongly) that the Bible predicts a first century parousia. For dogmatic reasons, you will then twist the scripture any which way you have to to uphold the preterist outlook of first century fulfillment.

Notice that I'm not disputing the idea of an "imminent prediction". No, I'm disputing your preterist claim of fulfillment.

When it comes to fulfillment, preterists will, "twist the scripture any which way".

Doesn't matter if the Bible makes an "imminent prediction". What I'm disputing is your obviously preterist claim of fulfillment.

 

[Stormcrow]

Again, they would still be documents produced by the early Christian community. They would still contradict your doctrine.

au·then·tic[aw-then-tik]–adjective
1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
2.having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3.entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience;

Do you understand that if your own sources are correct, an "inauthentic" piece of scripture carries no weight for whatever it says because - BY DEFINITION - it would be counterfeit, false, having an origin that cannot be ascertained or is of questionable or dubious nature, or NOT reliable or trustworthy???

In other words, if your very own sources are correct and these books are inauthentic, THEY ARE WORTHLESS AS FAR AS EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED TO PROVE ANYTHING!!!

Now see if you can understand this: THE ONLY WAY FOR THESE BOOKS TO HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AT ALL IS IF THEY ARE AUTHENTIC! BECAUSE IF THEY ARE INAUTHENTIC - BY YOUR VERY OWN SOURCES - THEN THEY CANNOT SUPPORT EITHER POSITION! THEY ARE WORTHLESS TO PROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE THEIR SOURCE, AUTHORSHIP, AND PURPOSE CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED!!!

Furthermore, you have yet to cite a single verse that purports to contradict a first century fulfillment!!! YOU ARE SIMPLY DRAWING AN INFERENCE OF NON-FULFILLMENT FROM THESE BOOKS' PURPORTED SILENCE!!!

Even your own source on Hebrews draws its conclusion from a single, ambiguous verse!

No it didn't.

READ THE SUMMATION FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE AGAIN!!!

Hebrews 13:7 states: "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith." This is compatible with a date of Hebrews during the second or third Christian generation.

As I noted before, THE VERSE YOUR VERY OWN SOURCE CITES CAN BE USED TO DATE THE BOOK MUCH EARLIER THAN YOU ALLEGE BECAUSE OF THE ON-GOING PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH THAT HAD BEEN HAPPENING IN JERUSALEM SINCE THE STONING OF STEPHEN!!!!!

Your source, therefore, uses this single verse to justify a later dating of Hebrew with no regard to the FACT that this same verse can also be used to justify an EARLIER WRITING OF IT!!!

AND EVEN IN YOUR OP, YOU CITE THE SPREAD OF THE POSSIBLE WRITING FROM 50-95AD!!!

Hebrews

Estimated Range of Dating: 50-95 A.D.

Therefore, YOUR SOURCE PROVES NOTHING!!! IT'S WORTHLESS AND IRRELEVANT AS FAR AS THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS CONCERNED!!!

THEREFORE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY, YOU CANNOT ARGUE THAT A FIRST CENTURY PAROUSIA DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!



I AM NOT a preterist, because I am not driven by any doctrinal agenda - preterist or otherwise



Christ's words and those of His apostles pointing to fulfillment within "that generation" for the purposes He expressed are either true or they are not.

 

[Zinc]

Early Christian writings are not on your side. And that includes--very possibly--Biblical writings. (And yes, they still count as evidence, even if they are pseudepigraphical.)



A particular book may be dated "50-95AD". By itself, that may not be a huge problem for the preterist. But how many scholars are going to date at least some works late?

So it does make preterism look highly suspect.

All you really have yourself is "speculation" that any first century fulfillment ever happened.

And yes, you are clearly a preterist. What else are you doing in a "preterism" forum claiming preterist style fulfillment?

 

[Zinc]

READ THE SUMMATION FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE AGAIN!!!

What was it you were saying about Revelation?

"Based on one quote from Iraeneus"

That wasn't true, and this latest claim about Hebrews isn't true.

 

[reba]

Zinc, Storm, and any one else,

You guys knock off the personal attacks!

I am going to have to read through the posts and delete what i believe to personal attacks.
At this point i will not bother to fix just delete. If your personal attacks were not open to the public this last warning would not be public. Infractions are next.


Announcements - General Talk


EDITTED: Now the posts make less sense then before!

We are blessed to have a place to openly discuss this kinda of topic. We should treat the forums, not to mention each other, with a bit more respect! Infraction are the next step...

 

[Lehigh3]

I already proved that the early so called church fathers leaned towards Preterism. But I think someone forgot to reread "the road back to Preterism" article correctly.

Yes, these church fathers were gentiles & couldn't & didn't figure out covenantal eschatology, which was about the Jews, especially in Revelation.

They were too busy defending the church against gnosticism. They didn't solve anything about eschatology bc it wasn't there main concern.
The Bible itself solves the eschatological questions, not the church fathers. That's another reason not to call any MAN on earth "father!" bc of the so-called church fathers who perpetuated the "imminence" in scripture- many years after after Christ said it must occur shortly. So the man-made futuristic last days doctrines were just their error- which also became their agenda- once the twisting of God's words were accepted by these gentiles.

Revelation was written during Nero's reign probably about AD 62-66. Some early versions have John exiled on Patmos by Nero in Rev.

Tradition says that John wrote it in AD 96. However, the Jews were not a threat any longer to the saints then & it is in AD96 that tradition relies on a gentile rendering of Rev. John was a very old man & probably wouldn't be able to remember or even write as well either.

Revelation is also prophetic & AD96 fits none of the internal evidence- as does the great tribulation (main story) of Rev.

I don't agree with the late dates of those other epistles & gospels either. All of the canon was written before AD70.

Preterism is the new reformation - gaining popularity every day too. It's Biblically sound & cannot & will not lose.

I am a Preterist. I know the rest already, it is not like I didn't check it out- all of the theories, etc. I did, & they all failed to answer all my questions.

 

[Zinc]

I already proved that the early so called church fathers leaned towards Preterism.

They are united in looking for a future 2nd Coming.

The preterist is saying that 2000 years of Christianity has been utterly wrong on this point.

Preterism is the new reformation - gaining popularity every day too. It's Biblically sound & cannot & will not lose.

It's a fringe movement like the Jehovah's Witnesses. (Although I'm guessing that the JW's have far better organized support?) You will need to find many more preterists to make a dent in mainstream Christianity.

I am a Preterist. I know the rest already, it is not like I didn't check it out- all of the theories, etc. I did, & they all failed to answer all my questions.

And some people will deconvert from full preterism, just as they will deconvert from dispensationalism or whatever.