Evidence for God from Science

puritan lad wrote:

B. W. wrote:Historically, John is speaking about false brethren betraying believers in Christ. For us today it is important to note that a Spirit of antichrist - opponents of the Messiah — began way back then and continues onward today in growing intensity.

I have a slight disagreement, particularly with the last phrase of your statement, but I agree that "John is speaking about false brethren betraying believers in Christ". More specifically, however, he was speaking of Judaizers in the church, as made clear by 1 John 2:22-23. It is ironic that John's antichrist has become the darling of modern prophecy buffs.

Sorry about that PL - I made a typo on the last part and I do not think you would disagree with it now...

Re-edit - Typo----As for Daniels 70 years — I am of the opinion that this was fulfilled as the math shows and proves also you do NOT need this prophecy to support Futurist viewpoint.

puritan lad wrote:Of course, even if there was no hint of preterism at all in church history, it still isn't a "problem", since we have Scripture itself telling us clearly when these prophecies would take place.

Well that's begging the question, of course. And you would still have the problem of Christ writing a book called 'The Revelation', and doing it so badly that no one could understand it properly until a 17th century Catholic figured it out. Is that even remotely plausible?

As I pointed out earlier, almost all of the early church fathers thought that Christ would return in their lifetimes. This shows two things:

1.) They were wrong.
2.) They clearly understood the imminent time frame references in Scripture to be literal. Unfortunately, they pulled the age-old Hal Lindsey error of applying those references to themselves as opposed to those to whom the prophecies were actually written.

So what? This gets you nowhere.

1.) The inspired Apostle John tells his first century readers that antichrist has already come. Who are we to listen to?

Certainly let's listen to John. But what has antiChrist to do with 2 Thessalonians 2? Or Daniel 7? Or Revelation, for that matter? Absolutely nothing. None of those books say anything about antiChrist, which was a false doctrine already in John's day, and which would only increase.

2.) This isn't about what Jerome believed.

Yes it is. I was correcting the claims you made about what Jerome believed (remember, when you claimed he believed that all of Danie 2 was fulfilled, and that he was a Praeterist).

He said that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist. Was he wrong?

Without any information to support his claim (and we have absolutely no writings of anyone from the 1st to the 5th century saying any such thing), we certainly can't say he was right. But even if this is true, it doesn't make the slightest difference, since there are no prophecies regarding antiChrist which Historicism believes are yet future.

If you acknowledge that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist, then you have preterism. How does this fit into historicism? It doesn't, unless it is first century historicism (preterism).

That isn't Praterism, it's a belief compatible with Praeterism. In order to have Praeterism, you have to believe that Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11-12, the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 4-20 were fulfilled by the end of the 1st century. That's what you need to understand.

Historicists have no problem with the idea that John's 'antiChrist' prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century, especially since it wasn't so much as prophecy as a statement of fact. But it's highly unlikely that any Historicist would think that Nero was 'the antiChrist', or that Nero was the 'man of sin', and what do you know, we simply don't find any writings from the 1st to the 5th century saying that 2 Thessalonians 2 was entirely fulfilled in the 1st century, or that Nero was 'the antiChrist' and fulfilled John's 'antiChrist' statements in the 1st century.

Not that I can think of, no. But I don't need to. I only need to demonstrate that such a belief is not incompatible with Historicism, any more than believing that Napoleon was the antiChrist, as some Historicists believed.

That should be interesting. Show me this...

Easy. Historicists agree that the 'antiChrist' passages in John were already being fulfilled in the 1st century. Ta da!

Which is it Fortigurn? Is preterism a 17th Century invention, or were previous "sources...rarely "Preterist" in a developed way"? Rarely means it existed, and the phrase "in a developed way" is quite subjective.

Oh Praeterism is certainly a 17th century invention, no question. The part you (selectively), quote is simply the usual Praeterist fudge to imply that there were Praeterists earlier, though this isn't true. It's just weasel language for 'we can't find any actual Praeterists earlier than the 17th century, only a handful here and there who held beliefs compatible with Praeterism - no one held to the system of Praeterism before this time'. The other quote from the other page on preteristarchive is rather more accurate.

You say it didn't exist all all prior to the 17th Century (it was invented then, remember).

Yes, that's what I said, and that's what the site says elsewhere.

While I'm getting my material together, I wish you would oblige me with some Scriptural support of Historicism. I can't seem to find any.

Clearly you still haven't read the three links I gave you, and then reminded you about when you claimed I hadn't given you any. Is there a reason for this?

Fortigurn . . . you are really being too hard on him. I mean, if you won't let him have his preterists in the 1st century, but the best you will let him have is belief systems compatible with preterism in the first century, then he doesn't have any room to attack dispensationalism as an 18th century invention by Darby

Fortigurn wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Of course, even if there was no hint of preterism at all in church history, it still isn't a "problem", since we have Scripture itself telling us clearly when these prophecies would take place.

Well that's begging the question, of course. And you would still have the problem of Christ writing a book called 'The Revelation', and doing it so badly that no one could understand it properly until a 17th century Catholic figured it out. Is that even remotely plausible?

Again, you are mistaken. I aim to show that there were MANY preterist interpretations of Scripture,including Revelation, prior to the 17th Century. I will also show good (though scant) evidence that the first century Christians understood the prophecy exactly that way. Quoting Christians who misunderstood it over a century later doesn't help your cause.

Fortigurn wrote:

As I pointed out earlier, almost all of the early church fathers thought that Christ would return in their lifetimes. This shows two things:

1.) They were wrong.
2.) They clearly understood the imminent time frame references in Scripture to be literal. Unfortunately, they pulled the age-old Hal Lindsey error of applying those references to themselves as opposed to those to whom the prophecies were actually written.

So what? This gets you nowhere.

Yes it does. It quickly eliminates the alleged "problem" that you suggest preterism has. These men were wrong on many fronts. What makes there works any better than mine, seeing as how they were clearly wrong? One thing is clear, though. They understood the time frame references exactly how a preterist would, not a historicist.

Fortigurn wrote:

1.) The inspired Apostle John tells his first century readers that antichrist has already come. Who are we to listen to?

Certainly let's listen to John. But what has antiChrist to do with 2 Thessalonians 2? Or Daniel 7? Or Revelation, for that matter? Absolutely nothing. None of those books say anything about antiChrist, which was a false doctrine already in John's day, and which would only increase.

I agree. I'm not talking about those passages. I'm talking about John's.

Fortigurn wrote:

He said that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist. Was he wrong?

Without any information to support his claim (and we have absolutely no writings of anyone from the 1st to the 5th century saying any such thing), we certainly can't say he was right. But even if this is true, it doesn't make the slightest difference, since there are no prophecies regarding antiChrist which Historicism believes are yet future.

You are arguing from silence. Jerome says that there were "many" who believed that Nero was the Antichrist. Unless you can provide me one single historicist who holds that belief, than I'll claim a strong evidence for preterism here. (Doesn't historicism hold that the Pope is the Antichrist? At least every historicist I ever met was.)

Fortigurn wrote:That isn't Praterism, it's a belief compatible with Praeterism. In order to have Praeterism, you have to believe that Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11-12, the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 4-20 were fulfilled by the end of the 1st century. That's what you need to understand.

And if I can find just one for each passage you listed, will you retract your statement that preterism was a 17th Century invention?

Fortigurn wrote:Historicists have no problem with the idea that John's 'antiChrist' prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century, especially since it wasn't so much as prophecy as a statement of fact. But it's highly unlikely that any Historicist would think that Nero was 'the antiChrist', or that Nero was the 'man of sin', and what do you know, we simply don't find any writings from the 1st to the 5th century saying that 2 Thessalonians 2 was entirely fulfilled in the 1st century, or that Nero was 'the antiChrist' and fulfilled John's 'antiChrist' statements in the 1st century.

So you admit that, according to Jerome, there were many preterists in his day,(see bolded quote). The rest is an argument from silence again, but I intend to show that this is not true.

Fortigurn wrote:Easy. Historicists agree that the 'antiChrist' passages in John were already being fulfilled in the 1st century. Ta da!

True or not, that isn't what I asked you. I asked you specifically about Nero. (If this is true, then how can they, by your own admission, possibly believe that Napoleon was the antichrist?). However, you already admitted that "it's highly unlikely that any Historicist would think that Nero was 'the antiChrist'". Therefore, Jerome knew of many preterists in his day, at least regarding antichrist. (Unless you can find a historicist who believes that Nero was antichrist, then I'll stand by that statement.)

Fortigurn wrote:

While I'm getting my material together, I wish you would oblige me with some Scriptural support of Historicism. I can't seem to find any.

Clearly you still haven't read the three links I gave you, and then reminded you about when you claimed I hadn't given you any. Is there a reason for this?

Yes. I have read several of the links, but I do have a job to do. I want you to post Scriptural problems here. While I'm working on early church eschatology, you may consider doing that. (Not links, unless it is just one). I want scriptural arguments, which you have yet to offer. The only "problems" you've managed to dig up are extrabiblical, not bibical. And as we shall see even that is debatable.

So let me ask you one more time, so that I'm not wasting my time. If I can show you writings from church history, prior to the 17th Century, that shows Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11-12, the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 4-20 were fulfilled by the end of the 1st century, will you retract your statement? If not, you still have to show how it is a "problem" when compared to the clear teachings of Scripture. (I also intend to show that even the premillennialists, who were a minority in the early church, have very little in common with any sort of premillennialists today, historical or otherwise).

ttoews - was going to reply now, but I've got a lot of stuff I want to bring up. I have some maps here that I have to get together and all that. Details later.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Fortigurn . . . you are really being too hard on him. I mean, if you won't let him have his preterists in the 1st century, but the best you will let him have is belief systems compatible with preterism in the first century, then he doesn't have any room to attack dispensationalism as an 18th century invention by Darby

Ouch! Actually I think I'm being quite reasonable.

You are - I'm enjoying the discussion because I never really have any reason to get into historicism vs preterism. Y'all's discussion is always a bit skimpy on exegesis, but when you are about church fathers' interpretation, I guess that's the way that goes. And hey, nothing wrong with that - we should certainly give early interpretation its due consideration!

I seriously don't understand why PL is insisting that preterism existed in the early church. He wants to talk about how it's in the Bible, and that's enough for him. And I can agree with that. I say that about dispensationalism. I go on to say that while the system of dispensationalism wasn't developed until Darby came along, Darby didn't invent the ideas themselves. He simply systematized in a different way what many people had been saying down through the years, back to and including the fathers. Were the fathers dispensationalists? Absolutely not! Did they hold ideas consistent with modern dispensationalism? Yup. Did they hold ideas contrary to it? Yup. Would they have rejected dispensationalism proper? Probably. But that's the way it works with systemization.

I see the same thing with preterism. If we can prove it from Scripture, then the fact that it was systematized in the 17th century doesn't hurt its validity one bit, especially if you can show that, historically, people have held to its various tenants. But to claim that the system itself existed in the first century? By God, even the system of the Trinity didn't exist in the first century. Christology proper--complete with the hypostatic union--didn't exist until, what, the third century or so (I don't feel like dragging out my notes to check the dates).

Anyway, I'm being long winded about a simple point. Fun discussion though, even it is way off topic

I have too much to reply to on these boards

Hey Jac, we agree on something (at least somewhat). I think that this is the third time, right? Fortigurn's alleged "problem" with preterism is no problem at all.

However, I will be able to show clear preterist teachings prior to the 17th Century. (I already have with Nero as the antichrist, but there is more.) I have found statements that can only be compatible with preterism, and will share once I double-check and organize. Preterism certainly existed before the 17th Century, whether it was an actual systematic theology or not.

The big difference between preterism and dispensationalism is that there is absolutely nothing about dispensationalism (especially pre-trib) in the early church.

So my first response will be to Fortigurn. I am also working on an examination of your hermeneutic, but that will be later.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:The big difference between preterism and dispensationalism is that there is absolutely nothing about dispensationalism (especially pre-trib) in the early church.

Haha - another thread for another day, I suppose. I still have to finish replying to K and Fortigurn in the other thread, as well as ttoews in this one. When these threads get finished up, I'll probably do something on dispenational ideas in church history. Should be fun.

Jac3510 wrote:You are - I'm enjoying the discussion because I never really have any reason to get into historicism vs preterism. Y'all's discussion is always a bit skimpy on exegesis, but when you are about church fathers' interpretation, I guess that's the way that goes. And hey, nothing wrong with that - we should certainly give early interpretation its due consideration!

I have actually provided a couple of links to my personal in depth exegesis of a number of the relevant passages. I can do so again if necessary.

puritan lad wrote:I aim to show that there were MANY preterist interpretations of Scripture,including Revelation, prior to the 17th Century.

In other words, you're going to run off to preteristarchive and trot out examples of A who believed that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century (as Historicists do), B who believed Daniel 8 was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes (as Historicists do), C who believed the Olive prophecy was mostly fulfilled in 70 AD, and other bits and pieces of scraps such as these.

That is just not good enough. That does not constitute evidence that Praterism existed from the 1st century to the 17th. You need to provide examples of individuals who believed that all the key prophetic passages were fulfilled in the manner that Praeterists do. Praeterism isn't simply the believe that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century, it's an entire methodology.

I will also show good (though scant) evidence that the first century Christians understood the prophecy exactly that way.

No you won't, you'll just grab a few bits and pieces from the preteristarchive which are tortuously construed as saying that the Olivet discourse was fulfilled completely in the 1st century, and that Daniel 9 was also fulfilled in the 1st century. I already know the texts you're going to use (and the article from which you're most likely going to 'borrow').

Quoting Christians who misunderstood it over a century later doesn't help your cause.

When you say they misunderstood it, you're begging the question. But quoting them does help my case, because it constitutes early evidence of Historicism not Praeterism.

These men were wrong on many fronts. What makes there works any better than mine, seeing as how they were clearly wrong?

This is a straw man. As I have said earlier, there's nothing which makes their works any better than yours. But the fact that they were wrong about X does not necessarily mean that they were wrong about Y. That's a logical fallacy.

One thing is clear, though. They understood the time frame references exactly how a preterist would, not a historicist.

No they didn't, they very clearly understood the time frame references as referring to events which were still in their own future. They did not understand the time frame references as referring to events within the life of the apostles. They also believed that the time frame references were bounded explicitly by certain other prophecies. For example, they believed that no matter how imminent the language, certain prophecies could not be fulfilled until the Roman empire had fallen. Many of them also believed that the world had to last for at least 6,000 years, a time they believed had not yet run out, and that the prophecies could not be fulfilled before this time:

* 80-160: Epistle of Barnabas

* c.163: Aviricius Marcellus

* 110-165: Justin Martyr

* 180: Irenaeus

* 185: Tertullian

* 200: Hippolytus

* 280: Methodius

* 305: Commodianus

* 306: Lactantius

* 315-386: Cyprian

You can't call these men Praeterists when they believed in the '7,000 year plan'.

I agree. I'm not talking about those passages. I'm talking about John's.

Great! Historicists believe that John's antiChrist passages were being fulfilled in the 1st century. No problem there, we agree with Praeterists on that point. So bring out all your early expositors who believe this, and I'll agree. This is not unique to Praeterism.

You are arguing from silence.

I am not arguing from silence. It is not an argument from silence to point out that we cannot verify Jerome's claim in the absence of any evidence which supports it. Are you arguing that we can verify Jerome's claim in the absence of any evidence to support it? I am not claiming that Jerome is necessarily wrong simply because there's no evidence supporting him - that would be an argument from silence. I am simply saying that in the absence of any evidence to support him we cannot assert that he is right.

Jerome says that there were "many" who believed that Nero was the Antichrist.

Yes, but the Nero they believed was antiChrist was a Nero whom they believed would be resurrected to fulfill the prophecy. You can't find me anyone who believed that Nero fulfilled the 'antiChrist' passages of John in the 1st century. But even if you can, that wouldn't be evidence of Praeterism, because Historicists agree John's 'antiChrist' prophecy was being fulfilled in the 1st century.

Unless you can provide me one single historicist who holds that belief, than I'll claim a strong evidence for preterism here.

It's irrelevant, as I have said, because Historicists agree that the antiChrist prophecies were being fulfilled in the 1st century. You need to try the 2 Thessalonians 2 prophecy, not the prophecy in John.

(Doesn't historicism hold that the Pope is the Antichrist? At least every historicist I ever met was.)

Many Historicsist have (others have identified 'the antiChrist' as lots of other people, such as Napoleon). Many others have rightly pointed out that there is no individual called 'the antiChrist' in the entire Bible.

And if I can find just one for each passage you listed, will you retract your statement that preterism was a 17th Century invention?

Not in the least. You have do a lot more than that. You have to find at least one person who believed Praeterism, that is the view unique to Praeterism that all of these key prophecies were fulfilled by the 1st century. Finding one person who believed that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century but who believed the other prophecies were yet unfulfilled, and another person who believed the 6 seals of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD but who believed the other prophecies were yet unfulfilled, and a third person who believed that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in 70 AD but who believed the other prophecies were yet unfulfilled, does not constitute finding Praeterism.

All you're doing is what Dispensationalists do in their attempts to 'prove' that Dispensationalism was held from the 1st century onwards. They'll pick out the two Early Fathers who placed a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9, choose a later Early Father who was premillennial, find some later Reformation theologian who said the Jews would return to their land, and then say 'See, Dispensationalism was belived for centuries before the 19th century!'. Would you accept such an argument from them? Seriously now, would you?

So you admit that, according to Jerome, there were many preterists in his day,(see bolded quote).

Er no I don't, and that is not what Jerome said.

True or not, that isn't what I asked you. I asked you specifically about Nero.

And I answered. Historicists agree that the 'antiChrist' passages in John were already being fulfilled in the 1st century. It doesn't matter who people believed was fulfilling the antiChrist passages in John, if they believed they were being fulfilled in the 1st century that's standard Historicism.

However, you already admitted that "it's highly unlikely that any Historicist would think that Nero was 'the antiChrist'".

It's unlikely, but not impossible given that Historicists believed that the antiChrist prophecies were being fulfilled in the 1st century.

Therefore, Jerome knew of many preterists in his day, at least regarding antichrist.

No, Jerome knew of many people in his day (according to him), who believed that Nero was the antiChrist. But Jerome does not tell us that they believed 2 Thessalonians 2 had been fulfilled by Nero in the 1st century, which is what you really need. We know there were people who believed that Nero was the 'man of sin' in 2 Thessalonians 2. But they did not believe Nero had fulfilled that prophecy in the 1st century. They believed that Nero would fulfill it in the future by being resurrected at a later date.

Yes. I have read several of the links, but I do have a job to do. I want you to post Scriptural problems here.

Why should I copy/paste them here, when you already know where they are and claim to have already read them? If you have read them, then I await your answers.

So let me ask you one more time, so that I'm not wasting my time. If I can show you writings from church history, prior to the 17th Century, that shows Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11-12, the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 4-20 were fulfilled by the end of the 1st century, will you retract your statement?

Only if you can show me a list of people who believed that all of these prophecies were fulfilled by the end of the 1st century. Every single one. But not even the preteristarchive has been able to do that:

Today's contemporary "Partial Preterism" was primarily developed during the Reformation era in the hands of Calvin, Grotius and Hammond, though the Jesuit Alcazar is possibly the earliest to present a fully developed system.

Emphasis mine. Problem yours.

(I also intend to show that even the premillennialists, who were a minority in the early church...

You call this a 'minority in the early church'?

115 Papias

110-165 Justin Martyr

180 Irenaeus

c.163 Aviricius Marcellus

185 Tertullian

194 (b.) Clement

200 Hippolytus

280 Methodius

280 Nepos

300 Victorinus

305 Commodianus

306 Lactantius

c. 347 Cyril

c. 350 Aphrahat

315-386 Cyprian

401 Severus

407 John Chrysostom

c. 450 Theodoret

Let's see your list of amillennialists during the same time span please.

...have very little in common with any sort of premillennialists today, historical or otherwise).

That some of them had different ideas to modern premillennialists concerning what the Kingdom will be like, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that they were premillennialists. Can you provide a list of amillenialists in the early church which is at least that long? Who do you have? Eusebius? Augustine?

Fortigurn wrote:That is just not good enough. That does not constitute evidence that Praterism existed from the 1st century to the 17th. You need to provide examples of individuals who believed that all the key prophetic passages were fulfilled in the manner that Praeterists do. Praeterism isn't simply the believe that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century, it's an entire methodology.

Wrong. I don't need to do that any more than you need to show that the early church fathers believed that these passages related to Goths, Huns, Popes, and Inquisitions. All I need to do is to show Preterist Teachings prior to the 17th Century (of which there are many). Remember, you are the one claiming that Preterism is a 17th Century Invention. If that is the case, we should not be able find it in the church before then.

BTW: Not all Preterist hold that all of the passages have been fulfilled, even though I do. One thing is for sure, the Early Church Fathers did NOT agree with standard Historicists or Futurist interpretations. At best, you are in the same boat I'm in. All you can do is find teachings that are compatible with Historicism (and many that are not)

Fortigurn wrote:But the fact that they were wrong about X does not necessarily mean that they were wrong about Y. That's a logical fallacy.

I'm not the one claiming that the teachings of uninspired 2nd Century men are a problem for eschatology. If there is a logical fallacy here, it is yours for assuming that they are correct.

Fortigurn wrote:Yes, but the Nero they believed was antiChrist was a Nero whom they believed would be resurrected to fulfill the prophecy. You can't find me anyone who believed that Nero fulfilled the 'antiChrist' passages of John in the 1st century. But even if you can, that wouldn't be evidence of Praeterism, because Historicists agree John's 'antiChrist' prophecy was being fulfilled in the 1st century.

That is NOT what Jerome said. Try again. You have already admitted that is is unlikely for any historicist to have held the belief that Nero was the antichrist. Therefore, it is unlikely that these "many" that Jerome spoke of were historicists. (and thet definitely were not futurists or idealists). As far as I can see, there is only one other option.

Until you can provide me with one historicist who held that Nero was the antichrist, you have no case here.

Fortigurn wrote:No, Jerome knew of many people in his day (according to him), who believed that Nero was the antiChrist. But Jerome does not tell us that they believed 2 Thessalonians 2 had been fulfilled by Nero in the 1st century, which is what you really need. We know there were people who believed that Nero was the 'man of sin' in 2 Thessalonians 2. But they did not believe Nero had fulfilled that prophecy in the 1st century. They believed that Nero would fulfill it in the future by being resurrected at a later date.

Again, you are begging the question. That is not what Jerome said.

Fortigurn wrote:Why should I copy/paste them here, when you already know where they are and claim to have already read them? If you have read them, then I await your answers.

OK. Post me one that has scriptural arguments instead of expecting me to search through all the ones posted.

Fortigurn wrote:

(I also intend to show that even the premillennialists, who were a minority in the early church...

You call this a 'minority in the early church'?

Yes. I will show you such. Still working on it.

Regarding your first point...

Fortigurn wrote:* 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.

Interpretations of Prophecy by the Original Audience

At best, this is an argument from silence, since we have very few writing from Christians who existed during the apostolic era. (Not to mention that you misrepresented the preterist position here). Preterists doesn't merely insist “that the language of these prophecies was chosen specifically with the first generation of Christians in mind”. We hold that the language of these prophecies was chosen specifically with “specific” first generation of Christians in mind, particularly those prior to 70 AD. Preterist hold that all Scripture was completed by 70 AD, so the church fathers you quote from cannot be used to refute this premise. From what few writings that we do have, we have evidence for a preterist understanding of key prophecies. (Of course, they were futurists then, but “near futurists”.) One of the strongest examples can be found in James the Brother of Jesus (quoting Gary DeMar)

"In Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, written in the fourth century, we learn of an incident that led to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. The original story comes from the second-century historian Hegesippus who wrote his notes on the history of the church between A.D. 165 and 175. As the story is told, when James was called on by a group of Scribes and Pharisees to establish what they believed was the truth of the claimed Messiahship of Jesus, Hegesippus reports James as stating that Jesus "is about to come on the clouds of heaven." James continued: "Why do you ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven."

The Greek word mellow, "about to," "communicates a sense of immediacy." "If the author had not wished to stress the immediate aspect of Christ's coming, he could still have stressed the certainty of Christ's coming with erketai, thereby omitting the immediate factor." After hearing James' obvious allusion to Matthew 26:64, the officials of the temple cast him down from the "wing of the temple" and later stoned him and beat out his brains with a club. "Immediately after this," Hegesippus writes, "Vespasian invaded and took Judea ." James the brother of Jesus believed that Jesus' coming was "about to take place." Hegessipus identifies the coming of Jesus "on the clouds of heaven" with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70."

Certainly this could not have been a historicist or futurist interpretation in light of today's interpretation. Of course, there is one other option. James could have been wrong.

So how did those pre-70 AD Christians understand these passages? Again, we have very little in the way of their own writings (outside of Scripture, which you still haven't used in anyh of your arguments). But we can tell something by there actions. Consider…

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 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.” (Luke 21:20-24)

“Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” (Revelation 18:4-5)

We have no early exegesis on either of these passages. So how can we tell how the early church understood them?

“As Josephus was speaking thus with a loud voice, the seditious would neither yield to what he said, nor did they deem it safe for them to alter their conduct; but as for the people, they had a great inclination to desert to the Romans; accordingly, some of them sold what they had, and even the most precious things that had been laid up as treasures by them, for every small matter, and swallowed down pieces of gold, that they might not be found out by the robbers; and when they had escaped to the Romans, went to stool, and had wherewithal to provide plentifully for themselves; for Titus let a great number of them go away into the country, whither they pleased.” — (Josephus - Wars 5:10:1)

“But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.” — (Eusebius - History of the Church 3:5:3)

"The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged. For this reason they settled in Peraea and there, as I said, they lived. This is where the Nazoraean sect began." (Epiphanes Panarion 29:7:7-8)

It appears as if the earliest Christians understood these prophecies (or some sort of "Divine Revelation") relating to 70 AD. Indeed, they were blessed. The fact that church fathers who wrote at least a century later may not have understood the prophecy doesn't help your original argument at all, any more than quoting Hal Lindsey does today.

Admittedly this is a very small amount of evidence concerning what these fathers taught, but it's more than any other school of prophecy has regarding this time period. Does that mean that all of the Christians before 70 AD were preterists? No. But it does show that your first point is invalid. Preterists hold that these prophecies were expected to be understood as imminent events by those to whom they were written. You have no evidence to the contrary, so your first “problem” is invalid.

Can you give any evidence for Historicism or Futurism from extra-canonical writings prior to 70 AD? Doubtful.

What about chialism? Was it the majority view of prophecy in the early Church?

No doubt that there was chiliasm in the early church. In fact, one of the earliest church fathers was Justin Martyr, who held to millennialism. In his Letter to Trypho, he writes concerning the millennium, “I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (a literal 1000 year reign), 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." Thus we have Justin's own words that many Christians did not believe in a literal millennium in the early church. Clearly the church was never unanimously premillennial. Whether or not they were mostly premillennial is impossible to ascertain. It may be so, but it is merely an assumption. Consider this quote from Epiphanius in about 375 AD.

"There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense." (Epiphanius, Heresies, 77:26.)

It seems as if most Christians did not believe in a literal millennium by the 4th Century. Contrary to millennialist claims, there has never been anything close to a consensus on the millennium in the church. It is no accident that the subject of the millennium is never once addressed in any of the historic creeds or confessions of the church.

“But it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number. There is no trace of it in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenogoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, and other important church fathers.” (Louis Berkhof)

“Among the Apostolic Fathers BARNABAS is the first and the only one who expressly teaches a pre-millennial reign of Christ on earth. He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of six ages of labor for the world, each lasting a thousand years, and of a millennium of rest; since with God “one day is as a thousand years.” The millennial Sabbath on earth will be followed by an eighth and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord's Day (called by Barnabas “the eighth day”) is the type.” (Phillip Schaff — History of the Christian Church Vol. II, p. 617)

At this point, it might be worthwhile to examine what some on your list of premillennarians actually taught about the Millennium. Irenaeus taught that Christ would visibly return 3 ½ years after the fall of the Roman Empire and establish the millennium. Your problem, he was wrong. (Hint: The Romans Empire was destroyed over 1,500 years ago). Tertullian appealed to the Montanist prophets who taught that the Millennium would take place in Pepuza and Phrygia, not Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria, based on the imminent time frame references in Scripture, expected the millennium to be established within his lifetime. So did many others. What does that prove? It proves that they were all wrong. So before you try to point out my "logical fallacy", consider that you are the one who is parading these men as a "problem" to my eschatology. Some of these premillennialists could very well be correct. The burden of proof is on you.

In conclusion, it has been established that…

1.) The little evidence we have concerning the original recipients of these prophecies (rather than early Christians in general) suggested that they were “near” futurists (preterists). The only other option? They were wrong. The preterism claim that you have tried to debunk in point #1 has not been disproved. Instead, the little evidence we have supports it. Quoting church fathers who wrote 100 years later doesn't refute the claim, as false doctrine can appear in a church within a very short amount of time (See Galatians 1:6-7, or for that matter, the entire New Testament.) The fathers you quote were not the original recipients of these prophecies.

2.) There is no reason to believe that premillennialism was ever a dominant doctrine in the early church. Furthermore, many of those who taught it cannot be used to support the modern version of the doctrine. They were clearly mistaken, though they clearly understood the imminent time frame references in Scripture. They just applied them to the wrong people.

I'll deal with point #2 shortly, (in which you once again misrepresent the preterist position). And as I have already established, point #3 is irrelevant to me. You may argue against full preterism all you wish. As I said in my original post regarding this matter, there is very little consensus on early church eschatology. You claim that they were historicist is completely without foundation, and certainly not in the modern sense. There were clearly preterist teaching in the early church, making your claim about the 17th Century intention a falsehood. Furthermore, it is quite interesting to see what some of the early church fathers taught in regards to eschatology. I'm not sure you would want to grant them any authority over orthodox teachings in eschatology, be it preterist, historicist, or otherwise. These points will be established in my next post. Still working on it.

Regarding your first point...

Fortigurn wrote:* 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.

Interpretations of Prophecy by the Original Audience

At best, this is an argument from silence, since we have very few writing from Christians who existed during the apostolic era. (Not to mention that you misrepresented the preterist position here). Preterists doesn't merely insist “that the language of these prophecies was chosen specifically with the first generation of Christians in mind”. We hold that the language of these prophecies was chosen specifically with “specific” first generation of Christians in mind, particularly those prior to 70 AD. Preterist hold that all Scripture was completed by 70 AD, so the church fathers you quote from cannot be used to refute this premise. From what few writings that we do have, we have evidence for a preterist understanding of key prophecies. (Of course, they were futurists then, but “near futurists”.) One of the strongest examples can be found in James the Brother of Jesus (quoting Gary DeMar)

"In Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, written in the fourth century, we learn of an incident that led to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. The original story comes from the second-century historian Hegesippus who wrote his notes on the history of the church between A.D. 165 and 175. As the story is told, when James was called on by a group of Scribes and Pharisees to establish what they believed was the truth of the claimed Messiahship of Jesus, Hegesippus reports James as stating that Jesus "is about to come on the clouds of heaven." James continued: "Why do you ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven."

The Greek word mellow, "about to," "communicates a sense of immediacy." "If the author had not wished to stress the immediate aspect of Christ's coming, he could still have stressed the certainty of Christ's coming with erketai, thereby omitting the immediate factor." After hearing James' obvious allusion to Matthew 26:64, the officials of the temple cast him down from the "wing of the temple" and later stoned him and beat out his brains with a club. "Immediately after this," Hegesippus writes, "Vespasian invaded and took Judea ." James the brother of Jesus believed that Jesus' coming was "about to take place." Hegessipus identifies the coming of Jesus "on the clouds of heaven" with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70."

Certainly this could not have been a historicist or futurist interpretation in light of today's interpretation. Of course, there is one other option. James could have been wrong.

So how did those pre-70 AD Christians understand these passages? Again, we have very little in the way of their own writings (outside of Scripture, which you still haven't used in anyh of your arguments). But we can tell something by there actions. Consider…

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 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.” (Luke 21:20-24)

“Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” (Revelation 18:4-5)

We have no early exegesis on either of these passages. So how can we tell how the early church understood them?

“As Josephus was speaking thus with a loud voice, the seditious would neither yield to what he said, nor did they deem it safe for them to alter their conduct; but as for the people, they had a great inclination to desert to the Romans; accordingly, some of them sold what they had, and even the most precious things that had been laid up as treasures by them, for every small matter, and swallowed down pieces of gold, that they might not be found out by the robbers; and when they had escaped to the Romans, went to stool, and had wherewithal to provide plentifully for themselves; for Titus let a great number of them go away into the country, whither they pleased.” — (Josephus - Wars 5:10:1)

“But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.” — (Eusebius - History of the Church 3:5:3)

"The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged. For this reason they settled in Peraea and there, as I said, they lived. This is where the Nazoraean sect began." (Epiphanes Panarion 29:7:7-8)

It appears as if the earliest Christians understood these prophecies (or some sort of "Divine Revelation") relating to 70 AD. Indeed, they were blessed. The fact that church fathers who wrote at least a century later may not have understood the prophecy doesn't help your original argument at all, any more than quoting Hal Lindsey does today.

Admittedly this is a very small amount of evidence concerning what these fathers taught, but it's more than any other school of prophecy has regarding this time period. Does that mean that all of the Christians before 70 AD were preterists? No. But it does show that your first point is invalid. Preterists hold that these prophecies were expected to be understood as imminent events by those to whom they were written. You have no evidence to the contrary, so your first “problem” is invalid.

Can you give any evidence for Historicism or Futurism from extra-canonical writings prior to 70 AD? Doubtful.

What about chialism? Was it the majority view of prophecy in the early Church?

No doubt that there was chiliasm in the early church. In fact, one of the earliest church fathers was Justin Martyr, who held to millennialism. In his Letter to Trypho, he writes concerning the millennium, “I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (a literal 1000 year reign), 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." Thus we have Justin's own words that many Christians did not believe in a literal millennium in the early church. Clearly the church was never unanimously premillennial. Whether or not they were mostly premillennial is impossible to ascertain. It may be so, but it is merely an assumption. Consider this quote from Epiphanius in about 375 AD.

"There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense." (Epiphanius, Heresies, 77:26.)

It seems as if most Christians did not believe in a literal millennium by the 4th Century. Contrary to millennialist claims, there has never been anything close to a consensus on the millennium in the church. It is no accident that the subject of the millennium is never once addressed in any of the historic creeds or confessions of the church.

“But it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number. There is no trace of it in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenogoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, and other important church fathers.” (Louis Berkhof)

“Among the Apostolic Fathers BARNABAS is the first and the only one who expressly teaches a pre-millennial reign of Christ on earth. He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of six ages of labor for the world, each lasting a thousand years, and of a millennium of rest; since with God “one day is as a thousand years.” The millennial Sabbath on earth will be followed by an eighth and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord's Day (called by Barnabas “the eighth day”) is the type.” (Phillip Schaff — History of the Christian Church Vol. II, p. 617)

At this point, it might be worthwhile to examine what some on your list of premillennarians actually taught about the Millennium. Irenaeus taught that Christ would visibly return 3 ½ years after the fall of the Roman Empire and establish the millennium. Your problem, he was wrong. (Hint: The Romans Empire was destroyed over 1,500 years ago). Tertullian appealed to the Montanist prophets who taught that the Millennium would take place in Pepuza and Phrygia, not Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria, based on the imminent time frame references in Scripture, expected the millennium to be established within his lifetime. So did many others. What does that prove? It proves that they were all wrong. So before you try to point out my "logical fallacy", consider that you are the one who is parading these men as a "problem" to my eschatology. Some of these premillennialists could very well be correct. The burden of proof is on you, ie. I don't have to prove them wrong (which I've already done). You have to prove them right.

In conclusion, it has been established that…

1.) The little evidence we have concerning the original recipients of these prophecies (rather than early Christians in general) suggested that they were “near” futurists (preterists). The only other option? They were wrong. The preterism claim that you have tried to debunk in point #1 has not been disproved. Instead, the little evidence we have supports it. Quoting church fathers who wrote 100 years later doesn't refute the claim, as false doctrine can appear in a church within a very short amount of time (See Galatians 1:6-7, or for that matter, the entire New Testament.) The fathers you quote were not the original recipients of these prophecies.

2.) There is no reason to believe that premillennialism was ever a dominant doctrine in the early church. Furthermore, many of those who taught it cannot be used to support the modern version of the doctrine. They were clearly mistaken, though they clearly understood the imminent time frame references in Scripture. They just applied them to the wrong people.

I'll deal with point #2 shortly, (in which you once again misrepresent the preterist position). And as I have already established, point #3 is irrelevant to me. You may argue against full preterism all you wish. As I said in my original post regarding this matter, there is very little consensus on early church eschatology. You claim that they were historicist is completely without foundation, and certainly not in the modern sense. There were clearly preterist teaching in the early church, making your claim about the 17th Century intention a falsehood. Furthermore, it is quite interesting to see what some of the early church fathers taught in regards to eschatology. I'm not sure you would want to grant them any authority over orthodox teachings in eschatology, be it preterist, historicist, or otherwise. These points will be established in my next post. Still working on it.

ttoews wrote:I choose option four....God fulfilled His promise to give them the promised land, but b/c of their lack of faith they never completely possessed it. So the way I see it, it is you that have the difficulty based on:
1. God promised to give Abraham the promised land.
2. God makes the same promise to the people of Israel (Ex 6:8)
3. The Bible says God fulfilled all his promises to the Israelites (which of course would include the possession of the promised land) Jos 21:45, 23:14 and Acts 7:17
I interpret BOTH this promise and God's claim to having fulfilled it LITERALLY. You qualify the claim of fulfillment in order to preserve a dispensational eschatology.

Bah - it's taking to long to get the technical stuff together. Ok, there are two problems I see with your proposed solution. First off, the land promises of Genesis 15 included the area in which they were standing when they were talking about crossing over into the promised land. On the other hand, we have the promises given in Numbers 34 which exactly describe Joshua's conquest. Therefore, from a purely logical perspective, I don't see how God could have been talking about giving them all the land listed in Gen 15 at that time, especially when we have good Scriptural reason for believing that the promises fulfilled were those in Numbers 34.

Second, even if you continue to insist that the land was all the land given in Gen 15, then you also have Gen 17 which says that the land will be an everlasting possession. Therefore, you would have to believe that the land still belongs to them. Do you believe that all of Saudi Arabia currently belongs to the Jews so far as God is concerned?

So, no, I don't qualify the claim of fulfillment. There at least two distinct set of promises that Joshua 21 could have been referring to. One is the Gen 15 land promises. The other is the Num 34 land promises. I see very good reason for it being the latter. That isn't a qualification. That's just letting Scripture interpret itself . . .

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I take 3, because I TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY. You take 2. You spiritualize the text. Therefore, Abraham was INCAPABLE of understanding the promise of God.

hope I clarifed this misunderstanding of yours (I do "spiritualize" texts...but not this one)

I'm still waiting to know whether or not you think the land listed in Gen 15 still belongs to the Jews as per Gen 17. Regardless, if you believe that verses have to be spiritualized, then the underlying argument, that Scripture becomes unintelligible, remains perfectly in tact.

ttoews wrote:with my clarification you should now understand why I believe your example to be not applicable to my interpretation. My analogy would be: I promise you that I will give you possession of all three of my cars for 10 years and when it comes time to fulfill my promise, I lead you to my garage and give you the keys to the garage and the three cars. You take the keys, but only ever take possession of two cars and before the ten years are up, you decide that you would prefer a different car from the ones I offered you and throw the keys back in my face. I have fulfilled my promise.

The analogy doesn't work because God didn't promise to give the Jews the land for a specified period of time. He promised to give it to them forever. Second of all, God didn't lead them to the land promised in Gen 15. They were standing on it the entire time! The land he led them to was the land talked about in Num 34. Finally, there is no correspondence between me throwing the keys back at you and the Jews being removed from the land via exile. In your analogy, I wanted something else. The Jews didn't want to be removed. Further, in history, it was God who took them off of the land; they didn't voluntarily leave. And yet still, even removing them from the land, God no where tells them they no longer own the land. In fact, He promised to bring them back to it! To make your analogy work, you would have to say that you promised to give me the three cars forever with no strings attached, that I take only two, and that seeing me using them improperly, you took the keys from me telling me, "Yes, the cars are still yours, but according to our contract, you no longer have the right to exercise your privilege of driving it due to your misbehavior." Then, after a set amount of time, you restore to me the right to drive MY cars.

ttoews wrote:yep....so maybe we can stop applying this offensive allegation. Agreed?

Tell me how I am supposed to politely or non-offensively tell you that I believe you don't think God is telling the truth. What do you say when a non-Christian calls you offensive and closed minded when you tell them that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ? Do you apologize for believing the Bible? Of course not, nor are you trying to be offensive.

So, rather than take it personally, let's discuss the belief systems themselves. You admitted yourself you spiritualize texts. And why? Because you see apparent contradictions between your understanding of the NT and your understanding of the OT. Therefore, the God must not have meant what He actually said in the OT - He must have meant it in another way, which He told us about in the NT.

Now, I'm sorry, but I take that as not believing God told the truth. Put more forcefully, it is believing God lied. God promised Israel A, B, and C, knowing full well He was deceiving them into thinking He was promising them something that He really wasn't.

Next, I asked about OT passages that CANNOT be understood without NT revelation. You provided the following:

• Malachi 4: 5-6 "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
  
  Matt 11: 13-14 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.
  
  Matt 17: 10-13 The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things." But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

And why could this not be understood? The text says that God will send a messenger before the Messiah. That's pretty easy. And apparently, the Jews took it that way. Matt 16:14 says, "And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Notice that the OT text does NOT say that Elijah would come in his OT form. Now, there were Jews who were looking for Elijah. They thought Jesus might be him! They clearly understood the meaning of the prophecy. What Jesus was pointing was that Elijah had come in John. What made it hard to believe was not that the text was unintelligible, but because that would mean that Jesus was the Christ Himself.

So . . . still waiting on a prophecy that cannot be understood apart from NT revelation. And I'm not asking for a NT revelation that CLARIFIES an OT prophecy. I am asking for an OT prophecy that says one thing that was totally and completely incomprehensible outside the NT telling us what the text REALLY meant.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:And btw, I do, as of today, believe in future sacrifices for atonement in a Third Jewish Temple because that is what Ezekiel 40-48 says will happen. You have simply misunderstood Hebrews 10.

well, one of us has

Clearly. The fact is that Ezekiel 40-48 says that there will be future sacrifices. You either have to find some fulfillment of this in history, of which there is none, or you have to spiritualize this. I don't. I take it to mean what it says. I have no problem with this verses Heb 10, because Heb 10 does not say that there will be no sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom.

ttoews wrote:or is it that you come up with an incorrect understanding of the OT and of the NT b/c you are tied to a faulty eschatology?

That's an inherent impossibility. I don't interpret the OT in light of my eschatology. The OT CREATES my eschatology. In other words, I didn't become a dispensationalist and then interpret the OT. It is BECAUSE I interpret the OT literally that I am a dispensationalist. Quite the opposite, by your own admission, you come to your eschatology before reading the OT and the you interpret the OT in that light.

That is one of my major problems with your view. You interpret the Bible in light of theology. I try to build my theology in light of the Bible. I tell people whenever I teach on any subject, when you read the Bible--any part of it--you have to throw your theology out the window. The Bible informs our theology, not vice versa.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Wait, wait, wait - so look at what you said. The Jews had to WAIT ON FURTHER REVELATION before they could understand what God meant?!?!? So . . . Scripture was, to them at that time, unintelligible. They didn't have enough information to interpret it properly.

yah, kinda like the disciples and teachers thinking that Elijah had to come first until Jesus explained that John would have served as the fulfillment

Great, so you believe that Scripture is unintelligible. What else is there left to say?

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:You should REALLY rethink your hermeneutic, ttoews.

back at yah.

I am not the one who said Scripture was unintelligible . . .

ttoews wrote:no, I want to tell you that the reason they missed the Messiah was that they refused to listen to Jesus when He spoke....they rejected Him (and their act of rejection makes it their fault)

And on what basis did they reject Jesus? PL says it is because they had a literal view of OT prophecy and they didn't see Jesus lining up with that. If you don't hold to that, feel free to correct him and explain to me why they didn't listen to him. But to go back to what I was saying with reference to this part of the conversation, if your eschatology is right, it was not possible for the Jews to see their Messiah coming. Why? Because Scripture was, to them, unintelligible! They didn't even know what to look for! God had them believing that the Messiah was going to bring with Him an actual, earthly kingdom.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3150 wrote:Wrong. Very, very, very wrong. The only "multi-rapture" view relates to those who believe in a partial rapture. It's never been seriously considered among dispensationalists broadly.

did I say it was a broadly held dispensational view?

Oh, I see . . . so we aren't debating what I believe or the validity of that. You are just going to throw every wackjob who claims the title dispensationalist at me. Since they were wrong, I must be also? I have no interest in debating for the sole purpose of debate, and if that is all this is to you, we can stop this now. I have better things to do with my time then entertain those kinds of arguments. If you know that the multi-tribulational rapture has been rejected by dispensationalists, then don't try to bring it up as an argument why dispensationalism--much less my dispensationalism--must be wrong. Don't say that "we" believe such garbage. How about I go through all of church history and find a nut-job Amillennialist, point to one of his heresies, and say, "Well at least we don't believe THAT!" Then, when you try to say that you, and most others don't, I can just reply, "Did I say it was a widely held view?"

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Actually, Jesus "comes" at a pre-trib rapture. The Second Coming is at the end of the Tribluation, which is when he heads an army of angels and saints from heaven. There is no post-mill coming. None.

OK, thanks for the clarification...you believe in a second and a third coming and not a fourth.

Have you seriously ever studied dispensationalism? Do you know how old and tired the argument is that "OH MY GOD DISPENATIONALISTS BELIEVE IN A THIRD COMING THEY MUST BE WRONG HUR HUR HUR!!!11!!1!" is?

There are only two comings. The First Advent was the Incarnation. The Second Advent will be to establish the Kingdom. Yes, Jesus raptures the Church in between that time. So what? He isn't "coming" to earth. We are leaving it. Big difference.

ttoews wrote:I repeat, give me a passage that tells me that the Second Coming isn't a mystery...I am looking for an express statement....better yet, you must give a passage that states that no aspect of the Second Coming is a mystery. Much about Christ is revealed and explained. Much about the gospel is explained. Nevertheless, Paul still calls both Christ and the gospel mysteries.

You are aware that a "mystery" is a previously unrevealed fact, right? Therefore, if something is revealed in the OT, it, by definition, is no longer a mystery . . . Zech 14:4-5 talks about the Second Coming. The Second Coming, therefore, was revealed in the OT. The Second Coming, therefore, is not "a previously unrevealed fact." The Second Coming, therefore, is not a mystery.

The rapture, on the other hand, was not revealed in the OT. It wasn't revealed during Jesus ministry. It wasn't revealed to the Twelve. It was revealed by Paul. It was a previously unknown fact. It was a mystery. Therefore, the two events cannot be the same.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I am assuming, by the way, that you know that the word "mystery" means "a fact not previously revealed," right? It isn't something confusing or something hard to understand.

well you seem to be struggling with it....for by your reasoning Paul shouldn't have used that same word wrt the gospel or wrt Christ

The Gospel was of Christ was not revealed in the OT. The Gospel of the Kingdom was, but I don't know of anywhere that the Gospel of the Kingdom is called a mystery. Further, Paul says that the Gospel of Christ was revealed to him, and that he was not taught it by man, but by God.

And was Christ a mystery? Nope, and the Bible doesn't say He is. In fact, that I can find, there are only three references in the entire Bible where "Christ" and "mystery" are expressly linked, rather than, say, Christ's message and mystery. For your convenience, I'll quote them each here and comment on them:

• In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, (Eph 3:4, NIV)

This does not say Jesus IS or WAS a mystery. This can properly be rendered "The mystery that belongs to Christ," which is exactly what the context makes clear. Paul is talking about the mystery that was revealed to him Christ. Thus, it was Christ's mystery.

• My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, (Col 2:2)

The next verse explains what "the mystery of . . . Christ" is: "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." In other words, in Jesus is all hidden treasure and knowledge. See? Previously undisclosed information. That kind of reminds me of John 1:18 . . .

• And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. (Col 4:3)

Again, this is "Christ's mystery." It is salvation by grace through faith in Him, revealed specifically to Paul, that in Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile, but One Body called the "Church".

So much for mysteries . . .

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:And for the record, if you want to insist that the last trump in Corinthians must refer to the last trump in the Revelation, ...

never said must

Ah, well then how about you just come out and say what you believe and what you see as a problem for a pre-trib rapture. Your entire argument up until now has been that the last trump of Corinthians when taken "literally" would refer to the last literal trump of the Revelation because both books were inspired by God. Sounds a lot like "must" to me? But if you want to clarify here, then that's fine by me.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:....you are aware that the last trump in the Revelation is NOT the end of the tribulation period, right? The last trump signals the BEGINNING of the bowl judgments.

last trump? I thought it was the seventh trump that is followed by the bowls

Yes, the seventh trump blows and the seven bowl judgments are commenced. The last trump is the seventh trump. There are no other trumps recorded, and, to use YOUR argument, since they are both inspired by the same Author . . . Anyway, again, for your convenience, here are the relevant verses:

• The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever." (Rev 11:15)
  
  Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, "Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth." (Rev 16:1)

ttoews wrote:

Jac310 wrote:No matter how you cut it, this AGAIN proves the rapture to be a seperate event from the Second Coming, because Jesus does not come back when the last trump is blown, as per the Revelation.

no, what you should have said is that according to Revelation Christ doesn't come back at the sounding of the seventh trumpet.....and if the rapture occurs at the last trumpet, then logic would say that the rapture couldn't have occured before the seven trumpets of Revelation b/c then the "last" trumpet would be the "eighth to last" at best and not the last trumpet at all.

No, because that would assume that Paul have any one of the seven trumpets in mind when he said that the rapture happens at the last trump. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Trumpets were used to announce. To announce what? Lots of things. The arrival of kings. Of war. Of armies. Whatever. The last trump goes back to OT theology. It announces the Day of the Lord, which is when the Rapture occurs - at the beginning of "that day."

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Or, another possibility is that "last" has a range of meanings like . . . say . . . yom? All of which are literal?

does this range include "eighth (or more) to last" as one of the possible literal meanings?

If the Day of the Lord is the last day, and if the Day of the Lord covers the entire tribulation period through the eternal state, and if the Day of the Lord is announced by a trumpet, and if there will be no more "days" after the Day of the Lord, then there can be no more trumpets after that one.

Of course, I suppose that I could adopt your theology and argue that trumpets will be outlawed in the eternal state. After all, we can't Jesus return at the LAST trump and then have people blowing trumpets for all of eternity

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I think I'm the only one in this thread who belives God is telling the truth so far.

that does appear to be what you think

[/quote]
Between me, you, PL, and Fortigurn, it certainly is. I'm sorry if that offends you. I'm also sorry if it offends non-Christians when I tell them that I am right in saying that there is only one way to be saved. Absolute Truth is Absolute Truth, ttoews. I believe God said exactly what He meant to the Jews. I do not believe He spoke to them in some unintelligible code that they may as well have put in a dusty box until Jesus came around (not that they knew He was coming or that they would recognize Him if He did) to explain it. You might believe that. I don't.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Here's a suggestion for you. If your system creates contradictions, rather than saying one passage doesn't really mean what it says and changing the meaning, try letting Scripture decide what you believe and let IT inform your theology.

well let's see, if you mean contradictions like last trumpet = eighth to last trumpet, or fulfilled promise = unfulfilled promise then you should follow your own advice. On the other hand, if you mean contradictions such as Elijah = John the Baptist then maybe my system doesn't create contradictions.

If your entire argument against dispensationalism . . . better, against the idea that God said exactly what He meant when He spoke to the OT Jews . . . is that "last trump" has to refer to the same trumpets as John talked about and that the Jews didn't know who Elijah was, then your argument is incredibly weak indeed.

So, I'm still waiting for a prophecy I don't take literally. I would like to see one, because it would give me a chance to revise my thinking.

Now, on a personal note, I realize that you are offended that I believe that I am right and you are wrong. I realize that you are offended that I assert that you don't believe God. That's all fine and good. What I am asking YOU to do is realize that, IF I AM RIGHT, then ttoews, I am right and you are wrong, and IF I AM RIGHT, then you DON'T believe God is telling the truth. I'm not trying to score points when I make statements like that, nor am I making personal attacks. I am demonstrating to importance of the issue. One of us is calling God a liar. I think we need to admit that so that this discussion can be given the seriousness it deserves.