Preterism

[Fortigurn]

Are you referring to my comment on Armageddon or the Beast Article (or both)?

Both.

What are your specific objections here?]

Perhaps you and I need a thread on our own. Would you like to lay out the essential case for Praeterism, and I'll show you my objections.

Most Reformed churches accept many endtimes views, except Dispensationalism.

Yes, it's very interesting to see how far the 'Reformed churches' have strayed from the Reformation. No, not interesting. Sad, really.

[puritan lad]

Perhaps you and I need a thread on our own. Would you like to lay out the essential case for Praeterism, and I'll show you my objections.

I'll work on it. May take a while.

Yes, it's very interesting to see how far the 'Reformed churches' have strayed from the Reformation. No, not interesting. Sad, really.

Your kidding right? Ever hear of the Puritans? They were almost exclusively postmillennial.

[puritan lad]

If he was referring to Nero, then he would have to be using a gematria which actually added up to a name by which Nero was commonly known, or his meaning couldn't be deciphered.

Paul, a Roman Citizen, simply refered to him as Caesar (See Acts 25:8-21). In fact, the word Caesar appears 29 times in the Bible, and only three times does is include the full name (Luke 2:1, 3:1, Acts 11:28), all three times by the Gentile Luke, and all three times in order to identify the Caesar in light of a specific time period. There is no biblical reference of any Hebrew identifying any Caesar as you have listed above. John was almost certainly referring to Nero Caesar as simply that, nrwn qsr. In light of the other evidence, this case is pretty solid.

Unfortunately you are now arguing directly against your premise that John was a Jew who wrote in Greek and thought in Hebrew. You now have him thinking in Latin.

John didn't write the Latin manuscript, but whoever did obviously knew who John was referring to, hence the number change.

[Fortigurn]

Your kidding right? Ever hear of the Puritans? They were almost exclusively postmillennial.

Yes, I am aware of that. They were also, however, almost exclusively Historicist. A large number of them were also convinced that the Jews would return to their land.

[Fortigurn]

If he was referring to Nero, then he would have to be using a gematria which actually added up to a name by which Nero was commonly known, or his meaning couldn't be deciphered.

Paul, a Roman Citizen, simply refered to him as Caesar (See Acts 25:8-21). In fact, the word Caesar appears 29 times in the Bible, and only three times does is include the full name (Luke 2:1, 3:1, Acts 11:28), all three times by the Gentile Luke, and all three times in order to identify the Caesar in light of a specific time period.

Exactly. Not 'Nero Ceasar'. Paul isn't even using his name, he is simply using the generic title of the emperor. He could be referring to anyone. It's like saying 'the king'.

There is no biblical reference of any Hebrew identifying any Caesar as you have listed above.

I agree. This doesn't affect my point in the least.

John was almost certainly referring to Nero Caesar as simply that, nrwn qsr.

This is assumption.

In light of the other evidence, this case is pretty solid.

What 'other evidence'? You've already shown that there is no evidence of any Roman emperor being referred to by name in Scripture except by Luke. You have provided no evidence that anyone would have derived 'Nero Caesar' from John's words.

The earliest expositors certainly didn't:

'…let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation…

Then also Lateinos has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is very probable, this being the name of the last kingdom.

For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this.'

Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies' Book III, chapter 30, sections 2-3, 185 AD

'His number is 666. With respect to his name, it is not in our power to explain it exactly, as the blessed John understood it and was instructed about it, but only to give a conjectural account of it; for when he appears, the blessed one will show us what we seek to know. Yet as far as our doubtful apprehension of the matter goes, we may speak...

But, as we have already said, the wound of the first beast was healed, and he (the second beast) was to make the image speak, that is to say, he should be powerful; and it is manifest to all that those who at present still hold the power are Latins.

If, then, we take the name as the name of a single man, it becomes Latinus.'

Hippolytus, 'Treatise on Christ and Antichrist', section 50, 200 AD

This 'Nero Ceasar' interpretation isn't a very natural reading, is it? Remember, it's the number of the beast, and the beast is an empire, not a person - it's the same beast as the beast in Daniel 7. Rome.

John didn't write the Latin manuscript, but whoever did obviously knew who John was referring to, hence the number change.

Firstly, that's speculation (it could simply have been a typographical error). Secondly, even if they did change it deliberately, that is no evidence that it is correct. In fact it proves that what John wrote wasn't actually supporting the theory, so the Bible had to be changed to fit the theory.

[Fortigurn]

Perhaps you and I need a thread on our own. Would you like to lay out the essential case for Praeterism, and I'll show you my objections.

I'll work on it. May take a while.

This will do for now - taken from a post of yours in another thread:

Let me give a brief overview of the partial preterist view.

1.) The great tribulation refers to the events surrounding the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Daniel's 70 week prophecy has been completely fulfilled.

2.) There is no future "world dictator". The "beast" was Nero Caesar's Roman Empire, the "little horn" in Daniel is used to describe several people, most notably Antiochus Epiphanes. The word "anti-christ" only appears 4 times in the Bible and is defined as "he who denies that Jesus is the Christ". (1 John 2:22).

3.) Most of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled, with only the Second Advent (Acts 1), the Resurrection (John 6), and the Final Judgement (2 Peter 3:7) yet to take place.

4.) We believe in the success, not the failure, of the Great Commission (Psalm 22:27-28).

5.) We do not believe that there will be a future reign on earth. We believe that the church is the New Jerusalem, the true bride of Christ, the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26; 6:16).

6.) Finally, we do not believe that the Bible contains direct prophecies about 21st Century events. Rather we believe that "He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:25-26).

We can work with that if you're still happy with it, and we can throw in your case for Nero as the beast, which you posted in the same thread. How does that sound?

[puritan lad]

Sounds Good. Let start with this...

[puritan lad]

Your kidding right? Ever hear of the Puritans? They were almost exclusively postmillennial.

Yes, I am aware of that. They were also, however, almost exclusively Historicist. A large number of them were also convinced that the Jews would return to their land.

Really? Let's see how the Reformers themselves viewed certain passages of Scriptures.

(John Calvin on Matthew 24:34)
"The meaning therefore is: "This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation will not experience."

(Martin Luther on Galatians 4:25,26 ; The End of the 'World')
"The He might take us out of this present evil world, or age, so the Greek words signify. Whereby it cannot be thought that St. Paul meant that Christians were to be immediately removed into the other world. Therefore enestwtoj aiwnoj (gk.) must signify something else than present world in the ordinary import of those words in English. Aiwnoj toutou, 1 Cor. ii. 6,8, and in other places, plainly signifies the Jewish nation under the Mosaical constitution; and it suits very well with the apostle's design in this epistle that it should do so here. God has in this world but one kingdom and one people. The nation of the Jews were the kingdom and people of God whilst the law stood. And this kingdom of God under the Mosaical constitution was called aiwnoj toutou, this age, or, as it is commonly translated, this world, to which aiwnoj enestwtoj, the present world, or age, here answers. But the kingdom of God which was to be under the Messiah, wherein the economy and constitution of the Jewish Church, and the nation itself, that in opposition to Christ adhered to it, was to be laid aside, is in the New Testament called aivwvn mevllwn, the world, or age, to come; so that Christ's taking them out of the present world, may, without any violence to the words, be understood to signify His setting them free from the Mosaical constitution."

(Jonathan Edwards Miscellany #1199)
'Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom's coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it."

(John Gill on Matthew 24:34 ; Forty Years and That Generation)
"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, etc. Not the generation of men in general; as if these sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there would always be a set of Christians, or believers of Christ in the world, till all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all things were fulfilled; see Matt. xvi.27-28, as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is that John, one of the disciples of Christ outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destoryed; as Rabbi Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan be Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not any thing that is said before, related to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and the end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the Son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state." (vol 2, 1809, p. 240)

(John Owen on Matthew 24:30)
"So upon or in the destruction of Jerusalem, Luke 21:27, the Son of man is said to 'come in a cloud, with power and great glory' - and they that escape in that desolation are said to 'stand before the Son of man, ver. 36." (vol. 9, p. 139)

(Matthew Henry on Luke 21:29)
"Christ tells his disciples to observe the signs of the times, which they might judge by. He charges them to look upon the ruin of the Jewish nation as near."
(John Gill - Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant)
"But still the carnal Jews continued them, and even sacrifices, until the destruction of Jerusalem, which put an end to them; for according to the law of God, no sacrifice might be offered but at Jerusalem, and upon the altar there; so that when the city, temple, and altar were destroyed, they ceased to offer any sacrifice, and never have offered any since; whereby that prophecy is remarkably fulfilled; "the children of Israel shall abide many days without a sacrifice" (Hosea 3:4), as they have for nineteen hundred years, and still do; not even a passover lamb is slain by them, as well as no other sacrifice offered; which yet they would gladly offer, in defiance of Christ, the great Sacrifice, were it not for the above law, which stands in their way, and by which they are awed; and which is no small instance of the wisdom and goodness of God in providence. Now it was a little before the destruction of Jerusalem the apostle wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, and therefore, with great propriety, he says of the old covenant, that it was not only decayed, and waxen old, but was "ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13)."

A few may have expected the Jews to return. A VERY few. You'll be hard pressed to find evidence of this in their writings, and you certainly won't find any belief in a return to animal sacrifices in a third Jewish temple (which also isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

[Fortigurn]

Really? Let's see how the Reformers themselves viewed certain passages of Scriptures.

I'm pretty well aware of how a number of the Reformers themselves viewed certain passages of Scripture. I find it interesting that you've quoted from those Reformers (and post-Reformation Protestants), who were Historicist in their eschatology (with the possible exception of Luther and Calvin, whose eschatology is still debated).

(John Calvin on Matthew 24:34)

At best this tells us that Calvin held the entire Olivet prophecy to be past. It does not necessitate that he was a Praeterist.

(Martin Luther on Galatians 4:25,26 ; The End of the 'World')

This shows Luther's Replacement Theology very clearly (an integral part of his vicious anti-Semitism), but does not prove that he was a Praeterist.

(Jonathan Edwards Miscellany #1199)

This shows that Edwards saw a 'coming of Christ' in the Olivet prophecy. So do Historicists. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. I direct you to his work 'History of Redemption' (particularly to here).

(John Gill on Matthew 24:34 ; Forty Years and That Generation)

At best this tells us that Gill held the entire Olivet prophecy to be past. It does not necessitate that he was a Praeterist. He most certainly was not a Praeterist (I have his commentary on the Bible), he was a confirmed Historicist, and he believed completely in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land.

(John Owen on Matthew 24:30)

This shows that Owen saw a 'coming of Christ' in the Olivet prophecy. So do Historicists. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. He most certainly was not a Praeterist (I have a couple of his works), he was a confirmed Historicist, and he believed completely in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land.

(Matthew Henry on Luke 21:29)

This tells us that Henry believed the Olivet prophecy foretold the ruin of the Jewish nation. Historicists agree. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. He most certainly was not a Praeterist (I have his commentary on the Bible), he was a confirmed Historicist.

(John Gill - Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant)

This doesn't prove that Gill was a Historicist either.

I might as well ask you to be careful about quoting from http://www.godhascastofftheJews.com. I've been reading their material (and identifying their errors), for a few years now.

A few may have expected the Jews to return. A VERY few.

Well more than 'a very few', but we'll get to that later.

You'll be hard pressed to find evidence of this in their writings, and you certainly won't find any belief in a return to animal sacrifices in a third Jewish temple (which also isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

We'll see.

I direct your attention first to Ian Murray's excellent work 'The Puritan Hope' (1971).

I quote:

In conclusion, it may be helpful to attempt a summary of the different views on unfulfilled prophecy which were current among the main-line Puritans:

1. A small number continued the view current among the early Reformers that the Scriptures predict no future conversion of the Jews and that the idea of a 'golden age' in history is without biblical foundation. The most able spokesmen for this position were Alexander Petrie and Richard Baxter.

2. A larger number appear to have held the belief of Martyr and Perkins that the conversion of the Jews would be close to the end of the world. This was probably the dominant view at least until the 1640's.

Emphasis mine. This is the first important issue - that the larger number of the mainline Puritans believed in the large scale converison of the Jewish people as a nation, to Christ, denying that they had been cast off (even if they didn't believe in a return of the Jews to their land as a nation).

These included:

* 1551 (d), Martyn Bucer
* 1560, Theodore Beza
* 1568, Peter Martyr
* 1579, William Perkins
* 1620, Elnathan Parr
* 1627, John Henry Alsted
* 1630, Richard Sibbes
* 1645, Richard Ballie
* 1650, Moses Wall
* 1657, Thomas Hall
* 1669, Increase Mather
* 1680, Richard Cameron

Murry mentions also William Strong, William Bridge, George Gillespie, Thomas Manton, John Flavel, David Dickson, George Hutcheson, Jeremiah Burroughs, and William Greenhill (I'm afraid I don't have the time to append all their personal dates, but I can direct you to Murry's work online if you wish to read it for yourself).

My question to you is 'Do you hold this same belief or not?'.

Now for a list of men who believed not only in the conversion of the Jews to Christ as a nation, but who also believed in the restoration of the Jews to their land, as a nation.

They aren't all Puritans of course, but you'll see some significant Puritan names here:

* 1605, Thomas Brightman
* 1621, William Gouge
* 1621, Sir Henry Finch
* 1649, Ebenezer and Joanna Cartwright
* 1649, John Owen
* 1654, Thomas Goodwin
* 1655, John Tillinghast
* 1657, James Durham
* 1685, Matthew Poole
* 1695, William Torrey
* 1701, Robert Fleming
* 1727, Isaac Newton
* 1748, John Gill
* 1754, Thomas Newton
* 1758, T Osborne
* 1763, Lachlan Taylor
* 1784, John Brown
* 1794, Joseph Priestley
* 1804, William Burkitt
* 1806, George Faber
* 1821, Archibald Mason
* 1831, Alexander Keith
* 1851, Albert Barnes
* 1854, J C Philpot
* 1862, Edward Elliott
* 1863, Uriah Smith
* 1870, David Steele
* 1881, B W Johnson
* 1888, Grattan Guinness

I could add more. They were correct, of course - history has proved this.

[puritan lad]

Let me get this straight. Historicists believe that the entire Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled? You're the first Historicist that I've ever met who thought that.

What would be your reaction if I were to show you that the Book of Revelation was simply John's expanded version of the Olivet Discourse?

[puritan lad]

This shows that Edwards saw a 'coming of Christ' in the Olivet prophecy. So do Historicists. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. I direct you to his work 'History of Redemption' (particularly to here).

Interesting in that the same passage that you use to refer to modern Israel (Isaiah 60) Edward's uses to refer to the church. I guess Edward's was a Replacement Theologian as well.

[Fortigurn]

Let me get this straight. Historicists believe that the entire Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled? You're the first Historicist that I've ever met who thought that.

No, I didn't say that. I did, however, make the point that such a belief is not incompatible with Historicism.

What would be your reaction if I were to show you that the Book of Revelation was simply John's expanded version of the Olivet Discourse?

I've seen that tried before. It's not very convincing, for an entire range of reasons. But you can give it a go if you like.

[puritan lad]

Let me get this straight. Historicists believe that the entire Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled? You're the first Historicist that I've ever met who thought that.

No, I didn't say that. I did, however, make the point that such a belief is not incompatible with Historicism.

What would be your reaction if I were to show you that the Book of Revelation was simply John's expanded version of the Olivet Discourse?

I've seen that tried before. It's not very convincing, for an entire range of reasons. But you can give it a go if you like.

I would like :)

[Fortigurn]

This shows that Edwards saw a 'coming of Christ' in the Olivet prophecy. So do Historicists. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. I direct you to his work 'History of Redemption' (particularly to here).

Interesting in that the same passage that you use to refer to modern Israel (Isaiah 60) Edward's uses to refer to the church. I guess Edward's was a Replacement Theologian as well.

He probably was. But he was a Historicist nonetheless, as you can see very plainly from his own words.

[Fortigurn]

I would like

Make it another thread, eh? Then we can consolidate some of these issues into one thread.