The Preterist Chimera is Easily Refuted

[Eugene Shubert]

To refute Preterism, you only need the presence of mind to see that three verses are parallel and then be able to exegete these verses correctly.

1. Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.” Luke 21:29-30.

2. “But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Luke 21:28.

3. “But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Luke 21:36.

Item number 1 points to Matthew 25:31-46. In brief, “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.” The words, “when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near” doesn't mean that we’re talking about the mount of transfiguration.

Item number 2 points to redemption. When does that arrive? “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” Romans 8:22-23.

Not wanting to see the consummation or the end in point number 2, one Preterist actually interpreted Luke 21:28 as saying, “When the apocalyptic end-time disasters begin to fall, straighten up and lift up your heads, because Christ’s death on the cross is about to happen.”

Item number 3 refers to “standing before the Son of Man.” This too is Matthew 25:31-46. “We will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Romans 14:10). This judgment isn’t a limited, temporal punishment as in 70AD. It’s the final judgment. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

No other conclusions are possible. The Olivet Discourse reaches to the consummation of all things. The kingdom of God and the final judgment didn’t arrive in 70AD.

[Eugene Shubert]

I will rephrase the question.

Exactly what meaning do you assign to 1) the kingdom of God, 2) redemption, and 3) standing before the Son of Man, in the three verses such that the context makes sense?

[Odyssey]

Eugene,

Thank you for the challenge!

The context of Luke 21 is the destruction of Jerusalem which is seen clearly from the context. Look closely at verse 5-7:

'Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, {6}"These things which you see——the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down." {7}So they asked Him, saying, "Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?" ' (NKJV)

Here we see clearly that the discussion/sermon that is about to take place was about the destruction of their temple. Therefore, no conclusion should take us further than 70 AD.

Jesus began describing things that the disciples (specifically and the rest of the first century church generally) would experience. This is proved by looking at the pronoun 'you' used by Jesus (he specifically used it 6 times in the KJV). Therefore, the things Jesus spoke about would be things that were specifically relevant to them. That is, he spoke about things that they would experience. Some of those things you pointed out. So let's look at them.

1. vv. 29-31. 'Then He spoke to them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. {30}When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. {31}So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near."

Let's look at verse 31 again. Jesus told the disciples "So you (i.e., the disciples) also, when you (again, the disciples) see these things happening..." What things? What things would the disciples see happening? The things he just described in the last 25 verses! One of the important things was, 'But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near...For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled' (vv. 20, 22). When would those things take place? He told us in the verse after your quote, i.e., verse 32: 'Assuredly, I say to you (the disciples), this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.' Jesus clearly tied the events of this chapter to his generation. If he had a future generation in mind he would have said 'That generation.' But he didn't. He said 'This...' meaning his and the disciples generation.

2. v. 28. 'Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.

You understand this to mean salvation. And while that can be the meaning (which I believe it does entail), the context refers to the physical deliverance from persecution. During the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, we see the 'literal' fulfillment of these words. All through the book of Acts and through some of the letters of Paul, we see the persecution of, not only the disciples, but also the first century church. By whom where they persecuted? The apostate nation of Israel. The very nation that would be judged in 70 and because of that judgment, the Christians (by and large) would be 'redeemed' from persecution.

3. v. 36. 'Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.'

Again, to whom was Jesus talking? He was talking to the disciples. He told them specifically (and the first century church generally) that they should watch and pray. Why? That they would be able 'to escape all these things will come to pass.' What things? The things He just told them about.

Furthermore, the Greek proves the above assertion. In the Greek, this verse reads, 'watch ye, then, in every season, praying that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are about to come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man' (YLT). We see that 'all those things' that Jesus was referring to was 'about to come to pass.' We cannot, in good conscience, rip these words out of their proper context and force them into the future. Jesus told the disciples things that they and the first century church would experience before their generation passed away. They either did or didn't. It's just that darn easy!

Lastly, you paralleled verse 36 with Matthew 25. If we look at those verses we see that the parables that Jesus spoke were in conjuction to and describing the events of Matthew 23 and 24. They are all together.

Grace to you,

jak

[Eugene Shubert]

I agree that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the most obvious way to interpret text. All ordinary communication uses this principle and I can’t see how to communicate without it. I therefore accept, at face-value, the many Bible texts that indicate Christ’s prophesied /intended return in the first century. I also accept the many texts which anticipate the Second Coming to arrive in the lifetime of the New Testament writers. I do not presuppose it happened just because it was predicted /anticipated.

[Odyssey]

Eugene,

I completely agree with you. It is amazing to me how people seem to 'forget' this basic rule of reading. In every other work, we take those things into consideration, but for some reason, when it comes to the Bible those things go right out the window.

With that stated however, if the parousia did not take place, what does that make of Jesus and the apostles? Were they inspired? Were they wrong? Both stated that Jesus would return in their lifetime, how do we get around that, if he didn't?

Grace to you,

jak

[Eugene Shubert]

Odyssey,

All of Scripture is God-breathed and reliable; Jesus and His teachings are infallible; the Bible writers were not inerrant. Call me inconsistent but that’s what I believe.

In regard to prophecy: what I’m proposing is a whole new paradigm for prophetic interpretation. I’m saying that Jesus prophesied a complete end-time scenario for the first century (in the Olivet Discourse), which in fact hit all the major catastrophes, and that the revealing, coming, kingdom of God, redemption, and standing before the Son of Man, is to be understood in its ultimate eschatological sense. I’m also saying that Jesus inserted a disclaimer. There would be a delay in His return.

Here’s some brief commentary:

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matthew 24:1-3.

Jesus did not answer His disciples by taking up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the great day of His coming. He mingled the description of these two events. Had He opened to His disciples future events as He beheld them, they would have been unable to endure the sight. In mercy to them He blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves. In this way, a distinct first century application was mixed with the great day of Christ’s Second Coming.

Here are the facts. In Matthew 24, Jesus presented two irreconcilable kinds of prophecies that are blended together in a seemingly compatible way. One prophecy is an exact, unmistakable delineation of future events. The other insists on your ignorance of the future and cautions you to be ready no matter what.

Most of these distinctions are in two consecutive pieces: Mt 24:1-35 and Mt 24:36-51. I think of the first prophecy as a possible end of the world in the first century. The focus in the second half is in parable form and concerns a certain indeterminable future.

Jesus continues His instruction about the second scenario in Matthew 25:

“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom” (Mt 25:1).

Verse 5 is a key verse:

“Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep” (Mt 25:5).

Following the parable of the Ten Virgins, Christ tells the parable of the Talents. Note the parallel idea:

“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them” (Mt 25:19).

I’m not basing my interpretation on the contrast between prophecy and parable alone. The book of Daniel contains a clear precedent for multiple scenarios and that’s the basis for Jesus’ multi-scenario eschatology. No major doctrine should be based on a parable. Daniel’s two-scenario eschatology is the issue we should be debating.

One last point:

Preterists need to give more weight to the powerful disclaimers given by Jesus. I honestly don’t believe that they can exegete the parables and dogmatically conclude that they were intended only for the apostolic church.

Therefore:

“Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ ” Mark 13:33-37.

[Odyssey]

Eugene,

First, I can’t really see any need to debate with you regarding this issue because you believe that the ‘Bible writers were not inerrent.’ So how can you determine when they were right and when they were wrong? The old saying is worth mentioning: ‘If something is wrong in one point, then it is wrong at every point.’ Nothing could be truer of the Bible. If the writers were wrong in their view of eschatology, then what makes us think they were correct in their view of salvation? We have no way to determine this. Therefore, we should throw out the entire New Testament and while we’re at it, we might as well get rid of the entire Bible! To echo the apostle Paul, ‘We above all men should be most pitied’ (1Cor. 15.9). If it were up to me, we would end this right here and now. However, since there are others reading these posts I will answer your statements.

You wrote;

‘What I’m proposing is a whole new paradigm for prophetic interpretation.’

What you are proposing is not new. I have heard it many times before. You are insisting on a dual sense of the prophecy and, if that doesn’t seem to work, you advocate a split in Jesus sermon. Partial Preterists have used the ‘split’ theory for years and Dispensationalists have used the dual sense theory for just as long.

To start with, there is not dual nature to this prophecy nor any prophecy for that matter. There is a ‘type’ and ‘anti-type’ within prophecy. However, the things of the New Covenant are the ‘end’ of the ‘type and shadow’. That is, the New Covenant and everything it entails is the anti-type. There is not to be anything after that. In other words, the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and is not the ‘type’ for some future fulfillment. Jesus and the New Covenant was the ‘goal’ or ‘end’ to which everything in the Old Covenant pointed (Rom. 10.4; Hebrews).

With this idea of a ‘dual’ fulfillment of Matt.24, why do we stop there? What is to keep us from insistinng that there will be another virgin birth? Another Savior? Another way to god? Another crucifixion? Etc., etc. Again, were do we know when something has been fulfilled? When it meets our physical understanding of things? When it fits into our sensual (as in our senses) ideals? We are called to not look at things in the physcial realm but the spiritual (2Cor. 5.7; 1Cor. 2.13-15).

Concerning the supposed ‘split’ of Matthew 24: I wrote the following addressing this very topic:

Another passage that Partial Preterism uses to support a future Second Advent is found in Matthew 24. Beginning with verse 36, one author asserts, "The remainder of the Olivet Discourse looks beyond the signs for ‘this generation’ (near demonstrative) to ‘that’ (far demonstrative) sign-less day and hour (Matt. 24:34-36). Thus, the Lord’s attention turns from the imminent events of that generation to the Second Advent at the end of history." Here again, Partial Preterism maintains that the Second Advent will be "at the end of history." This is an interesting interpretation of Matthew 24, for Partial Preterism believes that the chapter is divided at verse 36. Partial Preterism maintains that the first 35 verses deal with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and, as shown above, the remainder of the chapter deals with "the Second Advent at the end of history." The only reason that Partial Preterism asserts a division at verse 36 is because of "orthodox Christianity." That is, there is no Biblical warrant for this "supposed" division. Regarding the "first part" of Matthew 24, one author stated:

"The Lord was speaking to His present disciples, who had just pointed out the stones of the historical Temple (Matt. 24:1). It was that Temple which was to be destroyed (v. 2). It was His statement regarding that Temple’s coming destruction which gave rise to His entire discourse (v. 3). The signs were identified by Jesus as things that they would experience: ‘Let no one deceive you’ (v. 4), ‘they will deliver you up to tribulation’ (v. 9), ‘when you see the abomination’ (v. 15), and ‘when you see all these things’ (v. 33)."

To these statements, Consistent Preterism would give a hearty "Amen!" However, even though Partial Preterism uses very sound hermeneutics in the "first part" of Matthew 24, they completely abandon them with the rest of the chapter. Why? Because "no creed allows" such an interpretation. But let’s look at the above statement and once again, we will see the inconsistencies of Partial Preterism.

The author stated, "The signs were identified by Jesus as things that they (i.e., the disciples—JG) would experience: ‘Let no one deceive you’ (v. 4), ‘they will deliver you up to tribulation’ (v. 9), ‘when you see the abomination’ (v. 15), and ‘when you see all these things’ (v. 33)." What the writer was stating was that the personal pronoun "you" clearly indicates that Christ was referring to His disciples and that they would live to see those events. It seems amazing that after such a very sound interpretation, Partial Preterism seems to forget the "you’s" found in verses 42, 44, 47; Matthew 25:13, 14-30 (parables concerning His coming), and verses 31-46 (continues to elaborate on His coming)! The question that must be asked is, "Why do these ‘you’s’ all of a sudden refer to someone else?" Because they come after the supposed dividing point (v. 36) of the discourse? But how would the disciples have understood those personal pronouns? Wouldn’t they have thought Jesus meant them, just like He did in the first part of Matthew 24? Consistent Preterism and common sense tell us that they would. If Jesus meant another group of people, as Partial Preterism assumes, He would have used the word, "They." But, He didn’t. He stated, "You" meaning the disciples and them only. This is the only way one can interpret Matthew 24 consistently and maintain Biblical orthodoxy. There is no reason for a dividing point at verse 36. In fact, if one looks at Luke 17, a parallel passage, it can be seen that no dividing point exists.

Matthew 24................................................ ...............Luke 17
1. vv.17-18................................................ ...............2. vv.23-24
2. vv.26-27................................................ ...............4. vv.26-27
3. v. 28................................................ ....................1. v. 31
(Supposed future?)
4. vv.37-39................................................ ...............5. vv.35-36
5. vv.40-41................................................ ...............3. v.37

An explanation of this chart needs to be given. Partial Preterism’s interpretation of Matthew 24 in on the left. They assert that the first 35 verses deal with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but beginning at verse 36, Christ began teaching about His Second Advent "at the end of history." But what Partial Preterism fails to ask (and answer) is, "When did the disciples ask Jesus about His Second Advent and the ‘end of history?’ " They were concerned about the destruction of their temple and the end of the Jewish age (Matthew 24:3). As noted above, "It was His statement regarding that Temple’s coming destruction which gave rise to His entire discourse." Therefore, it seems amazing that Partial Preterism tries to insert a supposed dividing point without any Biblical warrant in the passage. The only reason this must be done is because "no creed allows" any other type of interpretation.

In light of this, however, the Bible "allows" another interpretation. The passage from Luke 17 (indicated on the right side of the chart above) shows how the entire discourse cannot be divided. Luke cited the same things but placed them in a different order. The order of Matthew 24 is 1-2-3-4-5. However, the order of Luke 17 is 2-4-1-5-3. Luke has taken one event from Section A, then one from Section B, then another from Section A, etc., etc. This presents a problem for Partial Preterism: If Matthew 24 really has two sections regarding two different time periods, then Luke’s account is wrong (and therefore, is not inspired), because he mixed up the five events into one time period—AD 70. This leaves us with only two options, (1) Luke’s account is wrong or, (2) Matthew 24 cannot be divided into two different sections. It is here that another hermeneutic principle should be used--let Scripture interpret Scripture. Consistent Preterism states the solution to this dilemma is that Matthew 24 cannot be divided into two different sections; that both Matthew and Luke were dealing with the same event—the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. At that time, all of the events mentioned in Matthew 24-25 were fulfilled, including the Second Advent. Once more we see that the very passage Partial Preterism uses to support its interpretation of the Second Advent positively refutes them.

Concerning the supposed ‘delay’ of Matthew 24: If anyone were to look at the parables that you are using, one would see the fallacy of your position. In every one of the parables, the person who left returned to the same people he left. Without fail. The person did not return to the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren of the people he left. He returned to the exact same people. The point of the delays in the parables was to show that, yes, there would be a delay. However, it would not extend beyond the first century generation.

Next, you stated,

Jesus did not answer His disciples by taking up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the great day of His coming. He mingled the description of these two events…Jesus presented two irreconcilable kinds of prophecies that are blended together in a seemingly compatible way.

First of all, there are not two different events in Matthew 24. If one looks at the parallel passages (Mark 13, Luke 17; 21) it will be seen that the disciples had only one thing on their minds—when. In every instance of the destruction of Israel in the Old Testament, it was called the ‘Coming of the Lord.’ They knew that, since Jesus just stated that not one stone would be standing in the Temple or the city, god was going to be judging the nation. Therefore, they wanted to know when.

Second, you stated that these supposed two prophecies were ‘irreconcilable’ but were ‘blended together.’ The term ‘irreconcilable’ means, ‘One of two or more conflicting ideas or beliefs that cannot be brought into harmony.’ So which is it? It can’t be both.

To reiterate, I think that this discourse is all for naught since you don’t believe in the infallability of the New Covenant writers, but, maybe, by the grace of god, someone else will be blessed by it.

Grace to you,

jak

[Eugene Shubert]

First, I can’t really see any need to debate with you regarding this issue because you believe that the ‘Bible writers were not inerrent.’ So how can you determine when they were right and when they were wrong?

I see that you’re a preterist. There are people who presuppose that Nostradamus was a prophet, that prophets are inerrant, and then they use your retro-fit, history-defines-prophecy methodology to make the predictions fit.

Man’s expectations imprison the Bible. It makes Scripture a product of his own ideas, a human creation. Your view of prophecy fits because you make it so. There’s no merit in this kind of idol worship and superstition. It isn’t reverent. I impose no demands on the word of God. I reject none of its mysteries. I prefer to allow Scripture to unfold its own message so that it may speak with the authority of God and not that of man.

Only from the straightforward simple sense of Scripture comes power, life, comfort, and instruction. Only then is the word of God “living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12).

[Odyssey]

Eugene,

Of course I'm a Preterist. Your title for this thread is 'The Preterist Chimera is Easily Refuted'. Preterists would defend what they believe. They would answer your questions and statements with what they believe to be truth. If you were not trying to disprove preterism, then why title your subject that way and show the 'errors' of the Preterist view? Did you not expect to read Preterist opposition?

Concering my making predictions fit: This is true of every biblical truth. When one realizes, by the grace of god, that Jesus was the Messiah, then one starts to 'see' him in other passages of the Old Testament. Jesus isn't 'forced' into the passages. How did the apostles realize that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb? Did they not 'make the predictions fit'? Then again, according to your view, they could have been wrong about that, too.

Furthermore, you do the exact same thing. Since Jesus did not return physically, then you have to make your understanding fit into the prophecies. To get around the 'straightforward simple sense' (more on this in a moment) of Jesus' words, you assert the dual sence and postponement views. When reading the words of the apostles, you insist that they were just flat out wrong.

Next, you wrote,

Only from the straightforward simple sense of Scripture comes power, life, comfort, and instruction.

But that view does not take into account the different styles of literature found in the Bible. There are plenty of poetic references to god. He is said to have wings and breasts. Does that mean, in the 'straightforward simple sense', that he is a bird of some kind? God is said to have eyes and arms but Jesus stated that god was a spirit. So which is it? The Bible states that god flung the stars from his fingertips and in another place he is said to have just spoken them into existence. Again, which is the 'straightforward simple sense' in that instance? Biblical interpretation has to be complete. That is, when trying to interpret and apply passages of Scripture, on must look at other passages as well to determine their meaning. One can't just read one passage islolated from the rest of Scripture.

Lastly, you did not even address any of my objections. If Preterism is 'easily refuted' then address my points. Contrary to popular opinion, I am willing to learn. You must, however, convince me from Scripture and plain reason before I change my views.

Grace to you Eugene,

jak

[Eugene Shubert]

Furthermore, you do the exact same thing. Since Jesus did not return physically, then you have to make your understanding fit into the prophecies.

The difference is, I do not approach the Bible with prejudice and bias but with reverence and respect. The prophecy of Jonah and Jesus are the same. The events didn’t happen but I don’t immediately start accusing the word, other believers or God. I have the patience that continues to listen, even if Jesus said that I would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

It sounds to me that you agree that you’re just like those who presuppose that Nostradamus was a prophet, that prophets are inerrant, and then use a retro-fit, history-defines-prophecy methodology to make the predictions fit.

[Alan Stevens]

Hi

I don't think you there yet!

But a kindly reminder.

No 'people bashing'
It's ok to feel angry, sad, or irritated and express yourself with words. It's ok to tell someone that you think they are wrong, teaching heresy, perverting the truth, or maybe a bit confused.
What you may not do is use insults, harrassment, derogatory comments, obscenity, profanity, excessive sarcasm, facetious remarks, or any hurtful jab to make a point.

Please, treat each other with respect

Cheers

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
First, I can’t really see any need to debate with you regarding this issue because you believe that the ‘Bible writers were not inerrent.’ So how can you determine when they were right and when they were wrong? The old saying is worth mentioning: ‘If something is wrong in one point, then it is wrong at every point.’ Nothing could be truer of the Bible. If the writers were wrong in their view of eschatology, then what makes us think they were correct in their view of salvation? We have no way to determine this. Therefore, we should throw out the entire New Testament and while we’re at it, we might as well get rid of the entire Bible! To echo the apostle Paul, ‘We above all men should be most pitied’ (1Cor. 15.9). If it were up to me, we would end this right here and now.

i don't know that this is an accurate conclusion/depiction of what Eugene is saying. in this case, if i were to say that the disciples were not innerrant in their expectation of things i don't mean that the Scripture they wrote was not God breathed. for example, in the Gospels, an apostles response or understanding of things is not inspired. they may be wrong in this (e.g., the disciples not understanding Jesus crucifixion). also there is much in Scripture that is penned and indicates an expectation of the writer but not 100% certainty:

Acts 18:21, (NAS), but taking leave of them and saying, "I will return to you again if God wills," he set sail from Ephesus.

Rom 1:10, (NAS), always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.

1 Cor 4:19, (NAS), But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power.

1 Cor 16:6, (NAS), and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may go.

Jas 4:15, (NAS), Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that."

perhaps this is what Eugene is referring to. this is what i mean when i would say that the NT writers were not innerrant in everything. i think there is a certain amount of expectation mixed with human uncertainty (especially as to timing) in the eschatological writings. i'm only suggesting that perhaps what you're doing in saying that Eugene or other partial preterists (such as me in the past) do not believe or question the full preterist position and interpretation of such eschatological texts that you are putting up a straw man when you imply that we must either accept your interpretation or else we must be questioning the innerrancy of Scripture. it may seem logical but i do not believe that the partial preterist is forced into this false dilemma.

and eugene i think you're (perhaps both of you are) sort of delving into ad hominem. consider OD's argument from Scripture and don't write him off just because he's a preterist.

[Odyssey]

Eugene,

Once more you have failed to address the Scriptures I quoted. You take one thing that I have stated and try to state that you are not biased and that I am. That, if nothing else, is a 'staw man' to use disciple's wording. I do not think that Nos was a prophet, and I am put off by the implication. Deal with the issues at hand.

To you, and everyone else, I have never insisted anyone see prophecy 'my way'. I do not have all of the answers and am willing to be corrected. And, yes disciple, it does seem logical to me that those are the only alternatives to the delimma. The debates I have seen about this, between a Dispensationalist and a Partial Preterist mind you, ask the same questions. The Partial Preterist insists that the Dispensationalist is wrong because of the pronouns that Jesus used. Because he stated that Jerusalem would fall within their lifetime because Jesus told them that it would happen within their generation. Now, am I doing anything different? Am I insisting anything different than the hermenutic of the Partial Preterist? No. I am using the exact same hermenutic.

Lastly, disciple, in every example that you gave, there is clear indication within the text that the writer did not know for certain if they would do this or that. However, when it came to the coming of the Lord, there was no indication what so ever. The wrote emphatically that he was near, right at the door, and about to come. I understand what you are stating and, Eugene, if this is what you meant and I wronged you, please forgive me. That was not my intension.

My thoughts about this are simple. The Holy Spirit 'moved' those men to record the things that the churches (not only the first century churches but all churches throughout the generations) needed to know. They emphatically taught the Jesus was the Messiah and none are questioning that. They emphatically wrote that only through Jesus could sin be forgiven and people could have a covenant life with god and none is questioning that either. However, they also emphatically wrote that Jesus was returning within their generation. They wrote that they were living in the 'last hour'; that 'antichrist' was then present; etc. etc. Now, for some reason that I can't seem to grasp, we are questioning their teaching on this most important subject.

Perhaps I should just step aside. I feel like I am beating my head against a wall. It seems so clear to me. Maybe one of you more learned friends and brothers and sisters could help me understand what seems so obvious.

I await your graces,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
Perhaps I should just step aside. I feel like I am beating my head against a wall. It seems so clear to me. Maybe one of you more learned friends and brothers and sisters could help me understand what seems so obvious.

I await your graces,

jak

OD i understand your frustation but i don't appreciate your implication that somehow the partial preterists here are unlearned and are missing the obvious. i don't judge you or think that you are missing the boat or lacking brain power just because you are a preterist. i expect the same courtesy.

i don't ignore the time statements i just don't put the exactness and emphasis on them that you do. as i've always believed, we (just like the apostles) are to plan as if He will not come back in our life but we are to live as if He will come immediately. i believe that the exact timing was a mystery that no one was to know (even the incarnate Christ said He didn't know). i believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write of the imminency of His return because that was how they and we are to live (as if He was returning today). otherwise we get lazy and are like those people in the parables. simply writing of the urgency of His return does not necessarily imply that He must or will return immediately (in their lifetime) if the Scripture is written not only for them but for our benefit as well today. the Holy Spirit knew that the audience would include more than just the immediate recipients. and if it is done as motivation for service and obedience (like the parables show) it has a purpose other than to instruct on the exact timing of the return. the disciples were constantly asking Jesus for information and overly curious and wanted to know more details than was necessary for their Christian walk. just seeing less emphasis on the time statements than you does not mean that the only other conclusion is that i must deny the inerrancy of Scripture and the deity of our Lord. i think this is a little unfair and i'm sorry that the partial preterist's approach is frustrating and baffling to you. i don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself by making you beat your head against a wall

[Odyssey]

disciple,

I was not implying that Partial Preterist are 'unlearned and missing the obvious.' I wrote that you were 'more learned' than I. I stated that I was confused by what seems obvious to me but not to others. It was not my intention to insult you (or others). Please forgive me.

Concering the time statements: I understand what you are stating. I have heard them before. But, to me, if that is the only thing motivating us to 'service and obedience', well, that is just sad. It's like stating that the only was a Christian can know he is a Christian is if he obeys the law. That is how it looks to me. Furthermore, if that is what the HS wanted to say, nay, needed to say, could it have been written better? Or is that one of those things that they were mistaken about? Not being critical or hurtful, just trying to understand your postion.

And speaking of postion, what exactly is your position disciple? We have been going over this stuff for a long time now, maybe I have just forgotten.

Lastly, my head is fine. Thanks.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
disciple,

I was not implying that Partial Preterist are 'unlearned and missing the obvious.' I wrote that you were 'more learned' than I. I stated that I was confused by what seems obvious to me but not to others. It was not my intention to insult you (or others). Please forgive me.

of course i forgive you. i just read sarcasm in your words. i should have asked you to clarify before i replied.

Concering the time statements: I understand what you are stating. I have heard them before. But, to me, if that is the only thing motivating us to 'service and obedience', well, that is just sad.

i don't believe i said that it was the only thing motivating us to "service and obedience." i also don't think that it is the only reason Christ's coming is imminent in the Scripture. but if you look at the parables you'll see that this was Jesus teaching in them. also when the apostles mention it in the epistles their purpose seems to be to tell the readers to be ready at any moment and to be living as an obedient subject when the King returns.

1 Tim 6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made pthe good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

Titus 2:12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

2 Pet 3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which bthe heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His apromise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,...17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

It's like stating that the only was a Christian can know he is a Christian is if he obeys the law. That is how it looks to me.

i'm not sure how this applies.

Furthermore, if that is what the HS wanted to say, nay, needed to say, could it have been written better? Or is that one of those things that they were mistaken about? Not being critical or hurtful, just trying to understand your postion.

that's an argument from silence.

And speaking of postion, what exactly is your position disciple? We have been going over this stuff for a long time now, maybe I have just forgotten.

amill (sometimes historic premill), partial preterist.

Lastly, my head is fine. Thanks.

great! i'm glad you're not injured

[Odyssey]

disciple,

I understand those verses to mean exactly what you are stating. That is, since they didn't know the exact moment ('day nor hour') that Jesus was to return, they could only give general refernces. However, Jesus told them that their generation would not pass away before his return. Therefore, they could write with some unknowing but they still taught and believed that Jesus would return before their generation passed away.

Think about it for a moment. Jesus gave them a list of things that their generation would experience before his return. Every one of them, without fail, took place within that generation. Yet, we are to still be waiting for his return.

Lastly, concerning 2Pet. 3: According to the Greek text, Peter used past and present tense verbs to describe the condition of the 'heaven, earth, and elements'. He wrote that the 'elements' were 'burning' (present tense) and the 'heavens' had already been set afire (past tense) and all those things were 'being dissolved' (present tense). Whichever view one takes on 2 Peter 3:8-9, it cannot be overlooked that the 'heaven,' 'earth,' and the 'elements' that Peter was referring to were 'being dissolved' at the time he penned his letter.

Furthermore, as you know, 'elements' is used to describe the Old Covenant rituals. Peter is clearly referring to the Old Covenantal system. The judgment of god was so close it could be 'seen' as already started.

Grace to you,

jak