Evidence for God from Science

The four simplest arguments which prove the Praeterist interpretation false are:

• The lateness of its development within the Christian body: Ater decades of desparately trying to find some support for Praeterism among the early Christian witnesses (and failing), many Praeterists have now abandoned the attempt, claiming that all the true Praeterist believers were physically assumed to heaven, leaving no records of their beliefs. This stretches credulity to breaking point, and only highlights the Praeterist dilemma.
• The difficulty Praeterists have with interpreting the prophetic texts: Praeterists cannot even come to an agreement on fundamental issues such as the identity of the man of sin, the identity of Babylon, the timing of the 1,260 days, and the many alleged 'natural disasters' (such as droughts and earthquakes), which so many Praeterists find in Revelation, and which supposedly took place between Christ's ascension and AD 70.
• An inconsistent hermeneutic: The Praeterist hermeneutic switches back and forth between symbolism and hyper-literalism. Thus the stars falling are rightly understood in a symbolic sense, but hailstones are said to be catapult stones painted white (!)
• The post 1st century fulfillment of many Biblical prophecies: There are many prophecies, including those in Daniel and Revelation, which Praeterists claim were fulfilled in the 1st century but which have in fact been demonstrably fulfilled after the 1st century.
  
  Even more powerfully, there are dozens of examples of careful Bible students predicting accurately events which took place somtimes centuries after they lived, on the basis of Bible prophecy (the return of the Jews to their land - a major stumblingblock for Praeterists), is one such example

puritan lad wrote:Sean. I'm interested in the MP3. Always looking for more info.

God Bless,

PL.

PS. You are a rarity, an Arminian Preterist. I haven't met too many of those.

The MP3s are recorded by an Arminian Preterist too, so please don't be offended when you listen.
They are long and very descriptive, So I hope you have time to listen to them all.

Go to: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3table.html
Download the series called:
When Shall These Things Be?
(Also known as 'Eschatology series')

Fortigurn wrote:The four simplest arguments which prove the Praeterist interpretation false are:

• The lateness of its development within the Christian body: Ater decades of desparately trying to find some support for Praeterism among the early Christian witnesses (and failing), many Praeterists have now abandoned the attempt, claiming that all the true Praeterist believers were physically assumed to heaven, leaving no records of their beliefs. This stretches credulity to breaking point, and only highlights the Praeterist dilemma.
• The difficulty Praeterists have with interpreting the prophetic texts: Praeterists cannot even come to an agreement on fundamental issues such as the identity of the man of sin, the identity of Babylon, the timing of the 1,260 days, and the many alleged 'natural disasters' (such as droughts and earthquakes), which so many Praeterists find in Revelation, and which supposedly took place between Christ's ascension and AD 70.
• An inconsistent hermeneutic: The Praeterist hermeneutic switches back and forth between symbolism and hyper-literalism. Thus the stars falling are rightly understood in a symbolic sense, but hailstones are said to be catapult stones painted white (!)
• The post 1st century fulfillment of many Biblical prophecies: There are many prophecies, including those in Daniel and Revelation, which Praeterists claim were fulfilled in the 1st century but which have in fact been demonstrably fulfilled after the 1st century.
  
  Even more powerfully, there are dozens of examples of careful Bible students predicting accurately events which took place somtimes centuries after they lived, on the basis of Bible prophecy (the return of the Jews to their land - a major stumblingblock for Praeterists), is one such example

These are terrible "arguments"

Point #1
Don't know what you are talking about, sounds like full preterists to me, of which I disagree with. The scripture proves the case, if you care to look there instead of baseless allegations. The easiest way to argue for your view is to prove it, if you can't do that a cheap shot is to go against the others view with comments like "Everyone says it's wrong". Let's stick to the Bible

Point #2
Praeterists cannot even come to an agreement on fundamental issues such as the identity of the man of sin, the identity of Babylon, the timing of the 1,260 days, and the many alleged 'natural disasters' (such as droughts and earthquakes), which so many Praeterists find in Revelation, and which supposedly took place between Christ's ascension and AD 70

And neither can futurists, I guess were all wrong since no single "camp" completely agrees with itself. Time to pack up and go home, we all lost.

Point #3
The Praeterist hermeneutic switches back and forth between symbolism and hyper-literalism. Thus the stars falling are rightly understood in a symbolic sense, but hailstones are said to be catapult stones painted white

And it's the futurist who sees the letters to seven churches as mysically speaking of 7 ages of the church and the symbolic parts of Revelation as literal. So it's agreed than that both camps take some things literal and some symbolic. This proves nothing, except both interpret differently.

Point #4
The post 1st century fulfillment of many Biblical prophecies: There are many prophecies, including those in Daniel and Revelation, which Praeterists claim were fulfilled in the 1st century but which have in fact been demonstrably fulfilled after the 1st century.

Show me some, Where's the beef?

Even more powerfully, there are dozens of examples of careful Bible students predicting accurately events which took place somtimes centuries after they lived, on the basis of Bible prophecy (the return of the Jews to their land - a major stumblingblock for Praeterists), is one such example

That's strange, since it's not predicted anywere that the Jews will return to their land! Show me scripture!

(I'll give you a hint, all old testament references to the Jews coming back to their land were prediced before the Jews came back from Babylon, and yes, all those were fulfilled, the Jews after 70 years in captivity came back to their land. There are not post-exhilic texts predicting the Jews coming back to their land, since at that point, they had already returned from Babylon)

The new testament says otherwise:

Mat 21:33 "Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country.
Mat 21:34 When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit.
Mat 21:35 And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them.
Mat 21:37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'
Mat 21:38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.'
Mat 21:39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Mat 21:40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
Mat 21:41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
Mat 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
Mat 21:44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."

IRQ Conflict wrote: Luk 12:54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
Luk 12:55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
Luk 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
Luk 12:57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
Luk 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.
Luk 12:59 I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.

There will be signs, you just quoted some of them. All these things have to be before his second coming. I know this, as the parable of the fig tree as well.

I'll take this one first.
The signs Jesus is speaking of here is the fact that Jesus is there, doing miracles, fulfilling prophecy, proclaiming the time is fulfilled the kingdom of God is at hand, yet they were missing it. They didn't believe. This is the point Jesus is making in this passage. How do I know this?

Luk 12:56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

The present time. Not the second coming.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Did you read the parallel passages?
Luk 21:6 "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Luk 21:7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

Mar 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mar 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
Mar 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?"

and now Matthew:

Mat 24:2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

Jesus in all 3 synoptics makes a statement, the temple and buildings, notice the ones they were at that time looking at were going to be thrown down. Are they still standing today? No, they were knocked down during the Jewish war that lasted 3 1/2 years, ending in 70AD. So we know this happened, and we know it's not some future temple because Jesus said "You see these". He was talking about the ones (buildings) they were at that time looking at.

Mark and Luke ask when and what is the sign when "these things" (which Jesus just said was the temple and building being knocked down).

So why does Matthew say your coming and the end of the age? Because Matthew equates the destruction as a judgement of Christ, it's a coming in judgement. To understand this, you must be familiar with this type of language. It's used extensively in the old testament prophets. If you just want to read it the way a 21st century reader wants, you may not understand it without getting a grip on how the bible uses language.

Here are some examples:
Isa 19:1 An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Did God ride a thunderhead into Egypt? Literally? This is apocolyptic language. It's all over the prophets.

Another example:
Isa 40:3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.

This is explicity stated to be about John the Baptist, but ask yourself, did every moutian get lower, did John drive a bulldowzer? No, repentance is what John taught, this is what it means by the high places getting low, and the rough places getting smooth, it's saying "straighten up your act"! Repent!

So why weren't these passages taken literally? Were they just bone-headed preterists?

When Matthew wrote: "what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

Ask yourself. Did Matthew know, at this point, that there would be a second coming in the way that we understand it? How could he, he didn't have the Holy Spirit yet, and none of them even knew Jesus was going away yet!

Joh 20:9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

So they didn't even know this, yet they were asking about the second coming?
Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

They didn't even know he was going away and coming back until (the way we think of the second coming) until this point. They just got done asking Jesus if he was at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel, they still didn't understand He was going away. So again, How would Matthew know to ask this?

I simply say that Matthew, when later writing down the Gospel, understood that the destruction of Jerusalem as a judgement by the judge Jesus. His coming is just like God's in Isaiah 19:1. A judgement. Jesus spoke of these in his parables, like in Luke 19:27 and:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

Mathew is equating the destruction with the judgement signigying the end of the old covenant, of which the temple was the physical sign on the earth of the old covenant. Since there was a new covenant, the old was taken away.

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It did vanish away in 70AD. Gone forever, since the old covenant was replaced forever by the new, you can't go back.

Here is a good link to a thorough exegesis of Matthew 24: http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html

IRQ Conflict wrote: My concern regarding preterism is the Nero / Anti-Christ thing. I'm still studying the history of that time in rome 60-70 AD to get a better understanding of the persecution of the christians and what not.

What I see being a fundamental flaw with preterism (thus far) is the allegorical view of the Word that must be present in order to explain some of their claims.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Paul said:
Col 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel,
Col 1:6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing--as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth,

Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Luke said in a parallel passage:

Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

What Jesus is referrring to is Daniel 9
Verse 26. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary] By the "prince" Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and "the people of that prince" are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary,

Sean 2 wrote:Point #1
Don't know what you are talking about, sounds like full preterists to me, of which I disagree with.

Yes, it's an argument made by Full (Hyper), Praeterists. Partial Praeterists have yet to come up with a good explanation of why their understanding of prophecy isn't found in the earliest Christian expositions (not until the 16th century in fact).

The scripture proves the case, if you care to look there instead of baseless allegations. The easiest way to argue for your view is to prove it, if you can't do that a cheap shot is to go against the others view with comments like "Everyone says it's wrong". Let's stick to the Bible

Firstly, I am not making baseless allegations. The Praeterist view was indeed a very late development. It is a theological novelty of the last 400 years. This is a historical fact.

Secondly, it's all very well saying 'The Scripture proves the case', and I agree. But the historical witness is important too.

The prophecy entitled the 'Revelation' was intended to be exactly that - a revelation. Why was it supposedly not understood until around the 16th century? That's a bit late. That doesn't sound like a revelation, it sounds like a concealment.

The entire foundation of the Praeterist interpretation is that certain key prophecies were written specifically for the first generation of Christians, in order to instruct them, warn them, and give them confidence in God's prophetic word.

The Praeterist interpretation therefore suffers if it cannot be demonstrated that the earliest Christians understood these prophecies in the way that the Praeterist claims they were intended to.

The Praeterist argues:

* That these prophecies were to be fulfilled completely in the first century

* That for this reason they were written in language immediately accessible to the believers of the first century

* That the true understanding of these prophecies is to be reached by interpreting them in the manner which would have been most natural to the earliest Christian expositors, to whom the prophecies were specifically addressed

If this argument is true, then we should find:

* That the writings of the earliest Christian expositors will provide us with guidance for the correct interpretation of the prophecies

* That the expositions of the earliest Christians demonstrate that they held the Praeterist interpretation

We ought therefore to find that the earliest Christians understood the following prophecies to have been completely fulfilled in the first century:

* Daniel 2
* Daniel 7
* Daniel 9
* The Olivet prophecy
* 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9
* Revelation (to at least chapter 20)

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. A close reading of the earliest Christian expositors reveals that none of them understood these prophecies to have been fulfilled in the first century, with the exception of Daniel 9. This undermines significantly the Praeterist case.

The Praeterist claims that contemporary expositors do not understand these prophecies because they were written with the early Christians in mind, and that contemporary expositors lack the mindset shared by the earliest Christians.

If the Praeterist interpretation were true, then we would expect to find that the earliest expositors of these prophecies understood them as the Praeterist does. We would expect to find that the earlier the commentator, the more Praeterist would be his view.

We would expect to find clear evidence that these prophecies were first understood according to a Praeterist interpretation, and that the later commentaries would become increasingly less Praeterist, as a result of later expositors living in an environment increasingly removed from the original context in which the prophecies were intended to be read.

But in fact, what we find is the complete opposite. We find that the earliest expositors and commentaries do not reflect the Praeterist position. They reflect the Historicist position. Not only that, but we find that it is the Praeterist view which emerges very late, not the Historicist position.

In fact, we find that modern Praeterists are compelled to appeal to expositors and commentaries which were written centuries after the earliest Christian commentaries, and we find also that a complete Praeterist exposition does not appear until the late 16th century.

This is the absolute opposite of what the Praeterist insists we should find, and it is encumbent upon the Praeterist to explain this anomaly in his claims.

And neither can futurists, I guess were all wrong since no single "camp" completely agrees with itself. Time to pack up and go home, we all lost.

I'm not a Futurist, so this doesn't concern me. The real issue is that there is no widespread agreement among Praeterists on the identity of these entities in prophecy.

Now the Futurists have a small excuse, since they're guessing about what will supposedly come to pass in the future. But the Praeterists are supposedly telling us about what has already happened. Surely it should be crystal clear. The evidence should be staring us in the face. We should have plenty of early Christian writings to point to which record the Praeterist understanding of how these events were fulfilled in the 1st century.

How is it that with all the history of the 1st century in front of us, Praeterists are still scratching their heads struggling to match up times, dates, entities and events with the history? Praeterists have been trying to pin these things down for 400 years, and they still can't tell us what happened.

Why is it so hard? Shouldn't it be easier in hindsight?

And it's the futurist who sees the letters to seven churches as mysically speaking of 7 ages of the church and the symbolic parts of Revelation as literal. So it's agreed than that both camps take some things literal and some symbolic. This proves nothing, except both interpret differently.

Fortunately I'm not a Futurist, so this doesn't affect me. My point is that the Praeterist has an inconsistent hermeneutic. You want the temple of God in the letters to be symbolic, but the temple of God in Revelation 11 to be literal, then the temple of God in chapters 21-22 is symbolic again. Sometimes hailstones are symbolic, sometimes they are catapult stones painted white.

This is completely inconsistent.

Yes, some things should be understood literally and some symbolically, but when the same things are being understood literally on one place then symbolically in another place, without any ryhme or reason, then what we have is a confused hermeneutic.

Show me some, Where's the beef?

Ok, I'll show you some.

That's strange, since it's not predicted anywere that the Jews will return to their land! Show me scripture!

(I'll give you a hint, all old testament references to the Jews coming back to their land were prediced before the Jews came back from Babylon, and yes, all those were fulfilled, the Jews after 70 years in captivity came back to their land. There are not post-exhilic texts predicting the Jews coming back to their land, since at that point, they had already returned from Babylon)

Could you tell me how you get from Babylon to Israel by ship? Thanks.

Fulfilled prophecies, understood accurately before they came to pass:

• Daniel 2
• Daniel 7
• 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9
• Revelation 13
• Revelation 16

The earliest expositions of the Olivet Prophecy were Historicist, not Praeterist (see here).

Fortigurn wrote: Could you tell me how you get from Babylon to Israel by ship? Thanks.

Clarify.

As pertaining to your long post. (Know I know what it's like for people to read my long posts.)
You main point seems to be that preterism is invalid because the few early church fathers that we happen to have available (a small number) disagree?

So since Justin Martyr was historic Premil, you are too? Oh, your not? Why not? If we are going to follow not the bible, but the ECF's (early church fathers). I hope your Catholic, because if not, your not following the ECF's.

My point is this, while any commentary is nice, I'll make my own mind up thank you. I've encountered someone on anther forum who argues for historic premil using all the same arguments as you, interestingly enough. He (and you apparently) are very eager to jump on the bandwagon, as long as it goes back far enough.

The Reformation taught us one thing, just because it's tradtion, doesn't make it true.

Also I'm Amillenial, so I go back farther than you think.

Just for clarification, I don't really care when a "belief" system came into being, you should know that it doesn't make it true or false.

As far as why the documentation doesn't seem to favor preterism, We don't have complete records of what everyone belieived. So the best you can do is say that what few records we have favor your view. Does that make them right? Were not these written by men? If I found documentation that the 2nd century Christians were preterist, would you change your mind?

It seems that the thrust of your argument is from silence (since we don't have record of what all ECF's beleived) and from tradition.

I'll stick with the Bible itself. Mattew 24's context alone (as well as Revelation) dictate who it was written to and when these things would come to pass. Would you rather ignore the biblical statements in favor of early writings? Do you believe the Gospel of Thomas too? It goes way back, does that make it right?

Paul said:
2Ti 1:15 You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.

The 7 Churches of Revelation were in "Asia".

Before Paul even died there were people rejecting Paul's teaching, not to mention the problems he had with the 'circumcision' group, speading false teachings. All the documents you refer to, how do you know they are not from these people, those who have turned from sound doctrine? Can we not judge for ourselves? That's what I am saying. I mean if every ECF said Jesus was the Spirit brother of Lucifer I still would disagree with them.

Fortigurn wrote:
The earliest expositions of the Olivet Prophecy were Historicist, not Praeterist (see here).

The earliest Christians were Jews, and they thought they still had to follow the law. The earliest doesn't make it true.

Do you think I believe the Olivet Prophecy also predicts the second coming?

Fortigurn wrote:

Sean 2 wrote: Fortunately I'm not a Futurist, so this doesn't affect me. My point is that the Praeterist has an inconsistent hermeneutic. You want the temple of God in the letters to be symbolic, but the temple of God in Revelation 11 to be literal, then the temple of God in chapters 21-22 is symbolic again. Sometimes hailstones are symbolic, sometimes they are catapult stones painted white.

This is completely inconsistent.

When Paul wrote to the Church and used the word temple, he always referred to the Church as the temple. So why would you be inconsistent and say that this one time in 2 Thes 2 is must be literal? Why the change?

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?

Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

It's not my opinion that the temple is the body of Christ. The temple in Revelation 11 is both, what is measured is the holy of holies, that's preserved. It's the elect people. We see them later in Rev 21 coming out of heaven, a "bride" that "looks like a city". The bride is the Church, the cube shape is given because it's also the holy of holies, the very thing saved in Revelation 11, but not the outer court, it's been given over to be troden underfoot for 42 months.

So what do you make of the 42 months? Since this passage is basically parallel to Luke;
Luk 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So was the times of the Gentiles fulfilled in 42 months?

Sean 2 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote: Could you tell me how you get from Babylon to Israel by ship? Thanks.

Clarify.

As pertaining to your long post. (Know I know what it's like for people to read my long posts.)

You main point seems to be that preterism is invalid because the few early church fathers that we happen to have available (a small number) disagree?

No that is not my main point. That is a dramatic oversimplification of one of my points.

So since Justin Martyr was historic Premil, you are too? Oh, your not? Why not? If we are going to follow not the bible, but the ECF's (early church fathers). I hope your Catholic, because if not, your not following the ECF's.

Firstly, I am in fact a historic premil. Secondly, I am not a historic premil just because Martyr was. Thirdly, I am not suggesting that we should follow the ECFs rather than the Bible.

My point is this, while any commentary is nice, I'll make my own mind up thank you. I've encountered someone on anther forum who argues for historic premil using all the same arguments as you, interestingly enough. He (and you apparently) are very eager to jump on the bandwagon, as long as it goes back far enough.

The Reformation taught us one thing, just because it's tradtion, doesn't make it true.

I agree with this, but you haven't actually addressed my point. I am not arguing that one particular view is right because it's old. I am arguing that it is difficult to believe that the correct view could be entirely overlooked by the Christian body for around 1,500 years, despite being revealed in a book written by God called the 'Revelation'.

I happen to believe God is better at making Himself understood than that.

Also I'm Amillenial, so I go back farther than you think.

Yes, all the way to the 5th century.

Just for clarification, I don't really care when a "belief" system came into being, you should know that it doesn't make it true or false.

I agree.

As far as why the documentation doesn't seem to favor preterism, We don't have complete records of what everyone belieived. So the best you can do is say that what few records we have favor your view. Does that make them right? Were not these written by men?

No their antiquity does not make them right (I am not arguing from antiquity). No, we don't have 'complete records of what everyone believed'.

But what we do have is hundreds and hundreds of texts of early Christians from the 1st to the 8th centuries, and in none of them can we find Praeterism. We don't even find it referred to as a heresy. There is simply no evidence for it in the early Christian body whatsoever.

If I found documentation that the 2nd century Christians were preterist, would you change your mind?

No I wouldn't change my mind that Praeterism was wrong. I would change my mind that Praeterism was not posited prior to the 16th century.

It seems that the thrust of your argument is from silence (since we don't have record of what all ECF's beleived) and from tradition.

No my argument is not an argument from silence. I am not saying that Praeterism is wrong simply because we can't find any Praeterists among the early Christian witnesses.

I am simply pointing out that the available evidence contradicts certain claims made by Praeterists regarding what early Christians believed.

You can't tell people that early Christians believed in Praeterism without providing evidence for this claim. You can't tell people that the Revelation was written in a manner which would have been naturally understood as Praeterist by the earliest Christians, without providing evidence for this claim.

Paul said:
2Ti 1:15 You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.

The 7 Churches of Revelation were in "Asia".

Before Paul even died there were people rejecting Paul's teaching, not to mention the problems he had with the 'circumcision' group, speading false teachings. All the documents you refer to, how do you know they are not from these people, those who have turned from sound doctrine? Can we not judge for ourselves? That's what I am saying. I mean if every ECF said Jesus was the Spirit brother of Lucifer I still would disagree with them.

This doesn't actually address my point.

Sean 2 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:
The earliest expositions of the Olivet Prophecy were Historicist, not Praeterist (see here).

The earliest Christians were Jews, and they thought they still had to follow the law. The earliest doesn't make it true.

This misses the point again. Why didn't the earliest Christians understand this prophecy in hindsight? Why did it supposedly take around 1,500 years for Christians to understand this propyhecy?

Do you think I believe the Olivet Prophecy also predicts the second coming?

I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

Sean 2 wrote:When Paul wrote to the Church and used the word temple, he always referred to the Church as the temple. So why would you be inconsistent and say that this one time in 2 Thes 2 is must be literal? Why the change?

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?

Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

It's not my opinion that the temple is the body of Christ. The temple in Revelation 11 is both, what is measured is the holy of holies, that's preserved. It's the elect people. We see them later in Rev 21 coming out of heaven, a "bride" that "looks like a city". The bride is the Church, the cube shape is given because it's also the holy of holies, the very thing saved in Revelation 11, but not the outer court, it's been given over to be troden underfoot for 42 months.

Being a Historicist, I actually believe that the temple in all of these passages is the body of Christians. I don't believe that it refers to a literal temple anywhere here. There is therefore no problem for me in reconciling these passages.

So what do you make of the 42 months? Since this passage is basically parallel to Luke;
Luk 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So was the times of the Gentiles fulfilled in 42 months?

I see no connection with Luke 24 here. Why do you consider this a paralell passage?

I see the 42 months as speaking of a time during which the apostasy exalted itself over the body of true Christians.

Fortigurn wrote:

Sean 2 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:
The earliest expositions of the Olivet Prophecy were Historicist, not Praeterist (see here).

The earliest Christians were Jews, and they thought they still had to follow the law. The earliest doesn't make it true.

This misses the point again. Why didn't the earliest Christians understand this prophecy in hindsight? Why did it supposedly take around 1,500 years for Christians to understand this propyhecy?

Do you think I believe the Olivet Prophecy also predicts the second coming?

I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

Honestly, It doesn't bother me in the least that you can't find historical evidence for preterism.

By the way, what are you defining as preterism?

Paul said:
2Ti 1:15 You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.

The 7 Churches of Revelation were in "Asia".

Before Paul even died there were people rejecting Paul's teaching, not to mention the problems he had with the 'circumcision' group, speading false teachings. All the documents you refer to, how do you know they are not from these people, those who have turned from sound doctrine? Can we not judge for ourselves? That's what I am saying. I mean if every ECF said Jesus was the Spirit brother of Lucifer I still would disagree with them.

Fortigurn wrote:This doesn't actually address my point.

Actaully, it shows that false doctrine could have easily taken over the ECF's. You may stongly disagree, but you can't prove it. That's the point. There are sill Jews that reject Christ, why can't they look back and figure out Jesus is the Messiah?

Sean 2 wrote:Honestly, It doesn't bother me in the least that you can't find historical evidence for preterism.

I'm happy for you.

By the way, what are you defining as preterism?

Both Partial and Hyper Praeterism (see here).

Actaully, it shows that false doctrine could have easily taken over the ECF's. You may stongly disagree, but you can't prove it. That's the point. There are sill Jews that reject Christ, why can't they look back and figure out Jesus is the Messiah?

I am not disputing that false doctrine could easily have taken over the ECFs. I certainly believe a lot of false doctrine did.

But the idea that the true understanding of prophecy was lost within 20 years of it taking place, leaving absolutely no record of anyone holding to it, and that this understanding remained lost for the next 1,500 years, is truly incredible in the fullest sense of the word.

Do you honestly imagine that God is so thoroughly incapable of expressing Himself?