The Pros & Cons of Preterism

[Stormcrow]

But you havent answered up to the this response yet, I will address both #331 and #332 here.

Zec 12v8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

I have read it, in fact the answer is right in front of you. God did not rise up to defend Jerusalam in 70 Ad the temple and the peaple were in fact destroyed, the nations that came against Jerusalam won. and reigned on earth for a couple of hundred years after it. THE DAY OF THE LORD IS NOT ABOUT DESTROYING ISRAEL FOR THEIR SIN, its about saving israel for Gods namesake. And destroying the world for its sin.

Let's recap the issue you seem to be having with this passage:

I contend that the writers of the NT selectively cited the passage from Zechariah to make these statements:

{30} "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth [land] will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30 (NASB)

{7} BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. Revelation 1:7 (NASB)

Not that this means much, but when you look at the cross reference for Rev. 1:7 in the NASB (the best study Bible, IMHO), what passage should happen to appear???

That's right: ZECHARIAH 12:10-14! And what does that passage say???

{10} "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. {11} "In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

{12} "The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; {13} the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; {14} all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves. Zechariah 12:10-14 (NASB)

Now, are Matthew and Revelation the only places to find this passage selectively cited??? NOPE! There's one more:

{36} For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN." {37} And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." John 19:36-37 (NASB)

There's John quoting just a very small section of Zech. 12:10 again! So do we have other examples of this kind of selective citation in the New Testament???

YEP!

{15} And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Matthew 2:15 (KJV)

But wait! What about the rest of that passage in Hosea???

{1} When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. {2} As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. Hosea 11:1-2 (KJV)

Clearly the context of Hosea 11:1 can't possibly be referring to anyone else but Israel.

Peter does the same thing, Paul does the same thing. What gives them the right to take small snippets of OT prophecies out of their larger context?

Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard summarize these themes:

In sum, Judaism sought to relate its ancient scriptures to the realities of its contemporary experience.

You do exactly the same.

 

[Sam21]

Yet I cite more than a dozen verses saying the same thing from different NT writers, and you equate that with 1 verse pulled out of context???

In the meantime, you're doing EXACTLY what the snake-handling crowd does: looking at one verse and pulling it completely out of context to justify a doctrine that couldn't otherwise be supported! You don't see the bitter irony in that???

So Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, and John all wrote what they did for the sake of appearances???

They didn't have to set a date! They were told specifically that no one would know the hour except the Father! But when you look at their entire body of work, and the history that surrounded it, you can arrive at no other logical conclusion: these men were told to expect Christ's return in their lifetimes by none other than Jesus Christ Himself, but you know better than they what He meant???

Hubris be thy name! :o

You're doing EXACTLY what the Jews of Jesus' day were doing when He came as a suffering servant while they were expecting a conquering deliverer! And you're doing it because you see the words Christ spoke, but you're using them to defend a doctrine instead of letting His words speak for themselves!

That's not the way to understand this stuff.

In the final analysis you have to be wrong because you are claiming that the sky has fallen and I just went outside and it is still there(clear and blue). I have repeadedly said that you are basicly correct about the time element,yes the NT writers believed that the "last times",the "time of Christ return",was at hand and would occur shortly, however you would have to be "three sheets into the wind","in a pipe dream","our of your tree", and "off the wall"(get my drift) to take the position that the return of Christ described by Jesus and the other NT writers and the events past chapter 4 in Rev have occured!!! That is insanity because you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for what you speak. I concede that what you say of the time element is correct,the NT is saying that the return of Christ and all the events involved(including the end of the age)were about to occur. I do not concede that Christ did return or that any of the events past chapter 4 in Rev have occured, I also ask that if you hold this position then PROVE YOUR POINT!
Allow me to explain to you what you are doing. You are taking the time element literal and then symbolizing away all the other literal things in the bible,God is not telling you that you can do that,you are just doing it. Be fair,if you are going to symbolize then do it with the time element to,you are picking and chosing in order to get what you want. Time element(literal),all end time events(symbolic),YOU...little ole you,have made a CHOICE to take part of the bible literal and part of the bible symbolic and you have done it without the permission of the bible...and that is why you are in serious error.

 

[Lehigh3]

guys remember there is a big difference between full preterest and orthodox preterest.

In a nut shell

full preterest do not believe Christ will return

orthodox preterist believe He will..

reba, there is no such thing as an "orthodox preterist" An orthodox Christian maybe- or partial-preterist but not a full preterist. That is an oxymoron. An "orthodox preterist" doesn't exist. He only wants to call himself a Preterist (partially) so as to not to deny history & AD70. But he is partial futurist in that he must satisfy men in his church - so he creates a false dichotomy of Jesus words- a "dual fulfillment" even though he has to twist the words of Scripture to do so.

One is either a Preterist or a futurist. Jesus & the apostles were Preterists. Full Preterists. There is no "dual fulfillment."

 

[Sam21]

Yet I cite more than a dozen verses saying the same thing from different NT writers, and you equate that with 1 verse pulled out of context???

In the meantime, you're doing EXACTLY what the snake-handling crowd does: looking at one verse and pulling it completely out of context to justify a doctrine that couldn't otherwise be supported! You don't see the bitter irony in that???

So Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, and John all wrote what they did for the sake of appearances???

They didn't have to set a date! They were told specifically that no one would know the hour except the Father! But when you look at their entire body of work, and the history that surrounded it, you can arrive at no other logical conclusion: these men were told to expect Christ's return in their lifetimes by none other than Jesus Christ Himself, but you know better than they what He meant???

Hubris be thy name! :o

You're doing EXACTLY what the Jews of Jesus' day were doing when He came as a suffering servant while they were expecting a conquering deliverer! And you're doing it because you see the words Christ spoke, but you're using them to defend a doctrine instead of letting His words speak for themselves!

That's not the way to understand this stuff.

An error on your part,you said that Peter(and others) were told to expect Christ return in their lifetime. Peter was told that he would DIE before the return of Christ,so Peter was NOT told to expect Christ return in his lifetime.

 

[Hitch]

reba, there is no such thing as an "orthodox preterist" An orthodox Christian maybe- or partial-preterist but not a full preterist. That is an oxymoron. An "orthodox preterist" doesn't exist. He only wants to call himself a Preterist (partially) so as to not to deny history & AD70. But he is partial futurist in that he must satisfy men in his church - so he creates a false dichotomy of Jesus words- a "dual fulfillment" even though he has to twist the words of Scripture to do so.

One is either a Preterist or a futurist. Jesus & the apostles were Preterists. Full Preterists. There is no "dual fulfillment."

PGE

Everyone believes some prophecy has come to pass, and so by definition are preterists, Christians believe in the bodily return of Christ.

 

[warhorse]

I believe the full preterist would argue that He has already returned in 70 AD, but that His return was in judgment upon Jerusalem.

My view is expressed best in Matthew 23:37-39:

{37}"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

{38}"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate [literally a ruined wasteland]!

{39} "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" Matthew 23:37-39 (NASB)

I think this is pretty specific. Christ won't be returning until Israel recognizes Him as Messiah and welcomes Him back.

They've got to swallow 2,000 years of pride before that happens. I hope for all our sakes it's soon.

Jesus did not rise up to defend Jerusalam he destroyed it, yes 70 ad did constitute the days of vengance, But the times of the gentiles are not yet complete. Jesus has not returned.

luke 21v22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

 

[reba]

reba, there is no such thing as an "orthodox preterist" An orthodox Christian maybe- or partial-preterist but not a full preterist. That is an oxymoron. An "orthodox preterist" doesn't exist. He only wants to call himself a Preterist (partially) so as to not to deny history & AD70. But he is partial futurist in that he must satisfy men in his church - so he creates a false dichotomy of Jesus words- a "dual fulfillment" even though he has to twist the words of Scripture to do so.

One is either a Preterist or a futurist. Jesus & the apostles were Preterists. Full Preterists. There is no "dual fulfillment."

You say it your way I'll say it mine

 

[Hitch]

Jesus did not rise up to defend Jerusalam he destroyed it, yes 70 ad did constitute the days of vengance, But the times of the gentiles are not yet complete. Jesus has not returned.

luke 21v22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Care to define that?

until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

 

[warhorse]

Let's recap the issue you seem to be having with this passage:

I contend that the writers of the NT selectively cited the passage from Zechariah to make these statements:

{30} "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth [land] will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30 (NASB)

{7} BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. Revelation 1:7 (NASB)

Not that this means much, but when you look at the cross reference for Rev. 1:7 in the NASB (the best study Bible, IMHO), what passage should happen to appear???

That's right: ZECHARIAH 12:10-14! And what does that passage say???

{10} "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. {11} "In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

{12} "The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; {13} the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; {14} all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves. Zechariah 12:10-14 (NASB)

Now, are Matthew and Revelation the only places to find this passage selectively cited??? NOPE! There's one more:

{36} For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN." {37} And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." John 19:36-37 (NASB)

There's John quoting just a very small section of Zech. 12:10 again! So do we have other examples of this kind of selective citation in the New Testament???

YEP!

{15} And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Matthew 2:15 (KJV)

But wait! What about the rest of that passage in Hosea???

{1} When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. {2} As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. Hosea 11:1-2 (KJV)

Clearly the context of Hosea 11:1 can't possibly be referring to anyone else but Israel.

Peter does the same thing, Paul does the same thing. What gives them the right to take small snippets of OT prophecies out of their larger context?

You do exactly the same.

So you are cool with pulling verses out of there context and using them were you deem fit. Ok just wanted to clarify that.

 

[Hitch]

So you are cool with pulling verses out of there context and using them were you deem fit. Ok just wanted to clarify that.

Actually he gave a good demonstration of submitting to Apostolic interpretations and methods. Complete with NT quotes and the OT reference points.

 

[warhorse]

acts 28v25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the GENTILES, and that they will hear it.

Rom 11v25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the GENTILES be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rev 111 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the GENTILES: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

It would appear to be a period of time allowed for the word of God to reach the Gentile nations and then back to the Jews, Ending with i believe the 3 1/2 year battle between the two witnesses and the man of sin.

 

[warhorse]

Actually he gave a good demonstration of submitting to Apostolic interpretations and methods. Complete with NT quotes and the OT reference points.

No when you abandon the context you can make the bible say as you please, that is not how it is to be descearned. Those referances he used were in keeping with most day of the lord statements they are all over scripture.

 

[Hitch]

acts 28v25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the GENTILES, and that they will hear it.

Rom 11v25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the GENTILES be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rev 111 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the GENTILES: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

It would appear to be a period of time allowed for the word of God to reach the Gentile nations and then back to the Jews, Ending with i believe the 3 1/2 year battle between the two witnesses and the man of sin.

I thought the Gospel went to the jew first.

 

[Lehigh3]

PGE

Everyone believes some prophecy has come to pass, and so by definition are preterists, Christians believe in the bodily return of Christ.

No, not all Christians believe in a bodily return (as in a second time) of Jesus. Some are wise & know the nature of His coming has passed & He kept His word.

Nowhere in Scripture do you read Christ saying He would return "bodily."

And "some prophecy fulfilled" is not the definition of a Preterist. (Pls see my prior link- what is Preterism)

There is only a preterist or a futurist. (The partial preterist is just a preterist wannabe - there is no "orthodox preterist" ) Who made eschatological orthodoxy anyway?!!

The orthodox church is not the same as the kingdom of God. "In Spirit and Truth" is the kingdom universal. And not the same as a religious building with religious dogmas.

 

[Vic C.]

Care to define that?

until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

I don't know about you, but I have come across those who equate the times of the Gentiles with the fullness of the Gentiles. Then there are those who say they are two different things. :yes
I actually believe that the former took place during the Jewish revolt of the 1st. century and the latter is sometime in our future.

Nowhere in Scripture do you read Christ saying He would return "bodily."

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 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.

And "some prophecy fulfilled" is not the definition of a Preterist. (Pls see my prior link- what is Preterism)

I don't know where your link is; you could have reposted it. But when I want information on preterism, I go here:

PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology

One is either a Preterist or a futurist. Jesus & the apostles were Preterists. Full Preterists. There is no "dual fulfillment."

Really now?!?! :shocked! So everything Jesus and His apostles taught had already happened prior to their teachings?

 

[Hitch]

I don't know about you, but I have come across those who equate the times of the Gentiles with the fullness of the Gentiles. Then there are those who say they are two different things. :yes
I actually believe that the former took place during the Jewish revolt of the 1st. century and the latter is sometime in our future.

Yup. I;m with you on those two points. What is extremely difficult to support from scripture is anything following the latter.

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 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.

I think its important to admit we dont have Jesus saying he would return bodily, just as we dont have Jesus saying he created the world, or any apostle saying he was raised bodily. We have the empty tomb.

I don't know where your link is; you could have reposted it. But when I want information on preterism, I go here:

PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology


Really now?!?! :shocked! So everything Jesus and His apostles taught had already happened prior to their teachings?

LOL Its not the first time post-millenialism has been declared dead.

 

[Sam21]

Yup. I with you on those two points. Wahtis extremely hard to support from scripture is anything following the latter. I think its important to admit we dont have Jesus saying he would return bodily, just as we dont have Jesus saying he created the world. LOL Its not the first time post-millenialism has been declared dead.

Jesus just gave the disciples a lesson actually acted out so they would not get it wrong...a picture is worth a thousand words

 

[Vic C.]

I think its important to admit we dont have Jesus saying he would return bodily, just as we dont have Jesus saying he created the world.

I understand your point, but I view all scripture as one, unbroken chain. No link is more or less important than the others. In other words, scripture can interpret scripture.

So, if two men say He will return in "like manner", I believe it. Jesus, body and all, was taken up and His followers "beheld" the event. You have to admit that without twisting scripture, that's pretty clear. :yes

 

[Vic C.]

Jesus just gave the disciples a lesson actually acted out so they would not get it wrong...a picture is worth a thousand words

Thanks Sam, for adding to my point above.

 

[Hitch]

Jesus just gave the disciples a lesson actually acted out so they would not get it wrong...a picture is worth a thousand words

Yup. The empty tomb testifies toward bodily resurrection as love for the church testifies of spiritual resurrection.