puritan lad wrote:You'd better take a closer look.
[...]
Jerome viewed that as the First Advent, not the Second.
I've had a good look. He interprets the stone as Christ's first advent, as I already made quite clear in the material in my link and the document I gave you, It's clear you haven't read either - I actually said that Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine could be said to have held an amillennial view, something I'm sure you would have leaped at if you had even bothered to read what I wrote. But of course, if you're not actually interested in a discussion, then I can't expect you to read either my posts or the material to which I think. You'll just refuse to read material which disagrees with you, and simply repost your view.
Jerome does not say that the Roman empire has yet been destroyed. He believed this was yet future, remember?
'Let us therefore affirm, agreeably to the concurrent judgment of all ecclesiastical writers, that in the consummation of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall arise ten kings, who shall share the Roman world among themselves, and that an eleventh king (the little horn in Dan. vii.) shall arise, who shall subdue three of those ten kings…'
Jerome, 'Commentary on Daniel', chapter 7 section 20, 340 — 420
'My mind is refreshed, and for the present forgets the woeful calamities that this last age labours with, groaning and travailing in pain, till he who hinders, be taken out of the way, and the feet of the iron statue be broken to pieces by reason of the brittleness of the clayey toes.'
Jerome, 'Commentary on Ezekiel', book 8, preface, 340 — 420 AD
It's quite clear. Jerome did not believe that the Roman empire had fallen, nor the ten horns/toes arisen, nor the antiChrist had come.
Also consider,
"But these events were typically prefigured under Antiochus Epiphanes, so that this abominable king who persecuted God's people foreshadows the Antichrist, who is to persecute the people of Christ.
He's speaking here of the part in Daniel 11 which I agree is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes.
And so there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity."
There is the quote you demanded. Was he wrong?
I'd like the full quote please. You haven't provided the reference, and I can't find this quote in my copy of the Schaff edition of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. I note that to date you have been unable to provide any quotes from any of the Church Fathers who believed that Nero had been the antiChrist in the 1st century, which was what I had asked for.
I certainly believe that Jerome was wrong to say that 'there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist', given the complete absence of any evidence that such a statement is true. What evidence do you have to support this statement? I've already shown that the overwhelming majority of
extant writings by the Early Fathers contain beliefs completely to the contrary.
He tells us very plainly that the events of 70 AD coincided with the coming of Christ. Which “holy oracles” do you think He was referring to? These things did not happen at His first Advent.
Er, yes all these things took place at the coming of Christ, his first advent. And the
proofs that the time had come, were what happened in 70 AD.
I'll also add…
Clearly you didn't read the links I provided. I already cited Clement myself. But of course, you omitted to mention that Clement did not believe that the Olivet Discourse had been entirely fulfilled in 70 AD.
We have Justin Martyr's own words that there were many first Century Christians who denied a literal millennium, as I pointed out. Was he wrong?
Oh no we do not. You made some serious blunders with this quote from Martyr. Firstly, Martyr was writing at around
150 AD, and was certainly not speaking of 1st century Christians, none of whom he actually knew personally because they were dead and the 1st century had passed 50 years ago.
Secondly, Martyr was
not saying that there were many Christians who denied a literal millennium. He was saying that there were many Christians who denied the
specific details of the millennium described by Trypho:
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Absolutely nothing about
whether or not the millennium will take place, but what the details will be. On the millennium itself, Martyr says:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
Very different to what you claimed.
When you claim that the majority were Premillennial, what do you base that on? Were you there for a poll? Just the writings that you currently have access to?
When I claim that the majority of the Early Fathers were Premillennial, I base that on the extant writings of the Early Fathers. It seems reasonable to me. Do you have a better idea of how to determine what the majority of the Early Fathers believed?
And if this were true, how does that pose a problem for preterism again?
As I said, the problem for Praeterism is to explain how it managed to escape the notice of Christianity until the 17th century. I'm still waiting for you to explain this.
We have Jerome stating that there were many who considered Nero to be the antichrist. Was he wrong? I wonder how that could be, since Preterism was a 17th century invention.
Firstly, until there's evidence that he was
right, you can't appeal to this quote. Secondly, the fact that none of the extant writings of any of the Early Fathers expresses this view demonstrates that it could not have been as widespread as Jerome claims. Thirdly, this of itself is not Praeterism. It is a belief compatible with Praeterism, but it does not constitute Praeterism. Praeterism is the belief that
We have two who viewed the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in 70 AD (at least in one place.) Of course, you can find where they contradict themselves in other places, for whatever that is worth.
In other words, we have two who viewed part of the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in 70 AD. I've already made the point that I believe this myself. This is not substantiating your case. You have to find Early Fathers who believed that
all of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD. Even then they might not be Praeterists. As you've pointed out, from the Praeterist point of view even the two Early Fathers you quoted contradicted themselves in other places. Why? Because they weren't Praeterists. They didn't believe that all these prophecies had been fulfilled in the 1st century. They still believed that the Roman empire hadn't fallen, that antiChrist wouldn't come until it had, and that Daniel 2, Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation were all still to be fulfilled.
We have Jerome interpreting Daniel 2 in light of Christ's First Advent. Again, a strange interpretation for a historicist.
Not at all. He still believed that the prophecies occupied all the time between the 2nd century and Christ's return. That's why he believed that the Roman empire had not yet fallen, the antiChrist had not yet come, and Daniel 7 and 2 Thessalonians 2 were still in the future. You don't. You are a Praeterist. He wasn't.
So whatever you feel that the “majority” of church fathers thought, it is quite clear that Preterism was around long before the 17th Century.
I know what the majority of the Early Fathers thought because I've actually read and studied them, unlike you. All you've done is copy/paste a few quick soundbites from the preteristarchive, which
admits that Praeterism was not around 'long before the 17th century'. You don't seem to understand just how huge a case you have to prove. You have to prove not merely that the Early Fathers held to views
compatible with Praeterism, but that they held to views
exclusive of Historicism or Futurism. Until you've done that, you haven't achieved anything.
Don't you find it embarrassing that all you can give me in the way of evidence for Praeterism in the Early Fathers is two of the Early Fathers, and only parts of their commentary on a single passage? You can't even provide me with any evidence that either of them were actual Praeterists, and you admit that they disagree with Praeterism in their interpretation of other passages.
At the beginning of the thread, you posed that there were “problems” with Preterism. So far, you have offered none.
Here they are again:
*
The evidence does not support the fundamental claim
The Praeterist insists that the language of these prophecies was chosen specifically with the first generation of Christians in mind. The Praeterist interprets these symbols in a manner which they claim would have been perfectly natural and comprehensible to the earliest Christians.
If this is truly the case, then we ought to find the earliest interpretations to be consistent with the Praeterist understanding. Indeed, evidence of such an understanding by the earliest Christians is to be expected if the Praeterist case is true. But is this what we find when we examine the earliest Christian expositions of these passages? It is not.
*
Praeterists falsely claim the Early Fathers were Praeterists
The central thesis of the Praeterist exegesis is that the key eschatological passages were fulfilled in the 1st century. It cannot be denied that this is indeed a novelty of the 17th century. It cannot be found before this time. The fact that some of the early expositors may have applied 'various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome' does not alter the fact that none of them believed that the key eschatological passages were fulfilled in the 1st century.
*
The Early Fathers were in fact Historicists
No Praeterist living after the 1st century AD would have any expectation of the return of Christ, since the Praeterist position holds that Christ's 'coming' had already occurred in the 1st century. Any expositor living after the 1st century AD who expected Christ's soon return to earth, cannot be a Praeterist. We find none of the Early Fathers holding the Praeterist view of Christ's advent.
To date, you've tried to contest the second of these points, to no avail. You haven't even attempted the other two.
Your statement that “No Praeterist living after the 1st century AD would have any expectation of the return of Christ, since the Praeterist position holds that Christ's 'coming' had already occurred in the 1st century”, is only relevant to full Preterism. You attempt to lump me in with them is disingenuous at best.
On the contrary, all Praeterists, of whatever kind, believe that Christ came in the 1st century, in 70 AD. Full Praterists believe he will never come again, Partial Praeterists believe that he will come a
third time (not a second), but have no expectation of it as the Early Fathers did (almost all of them had an imminent expectation of it, which no Praeterist I know has). All Praeterists believe he came in the 1st century, in 70 AD. If you personally believe that Christ came for the second time in 70 AD and you have an expectation of him coming a third time, you may certainly consider this point irrelevant to you.
Again, I'm sure I can find Preterism in other church documents, but that would be for another thread for when I have more time.
No you can't 'find Preterism in other church documents'. At best you can find statements in other church documents which are
compatible with Praeterism, but you can't actually find Praeterism itself. Are you sure you're certain of what Praeterism is? How familiar are you with the teaching? Have you been a Praeterist long, or is it a new thing with you?
This is supposed to be a thread that actually challenges Preterism biblically. This, you have failed to do.
Clearly you didn't even bother reading the other links and documents I provided, in which I did exactly that. If you're not actually interested in reading anything which challenges your point of view, just say so. You can say something like 'I'm happy with my view, and I don't like being challenged - I don't want to read things which disagree with my view'. I'll understand. I just don't believe that's a valid approach to Bible study.
