Preterism vs Dispensationalism

Discussion in 'Bible Prophecy' started by Joshuastone7, Jan 19, 2021.

  1. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Timothy Kline,

    Greetings brother...

    I was interested in starting this thread to ask you a couple of questions.

    Since we have discussed your predisposed inclination toward Preterism, what prophecy in Scripture do you believe has not yet been fulfilled? I have never really been able to offer a response to this understanding without first knowing what one believes has not been fulfilled. Such as the book of Revelation that has been considered written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70ce; Do you believe what was written in this book was fulfilled before it was written? As well, are there any prophecies elsewhere you believe have not yet been fulfilled?

    Thanks...

    AJ
     
  2. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    __________

    Christian greetings, brother,

    I want to say, first, to anyone else reading this, that I certainly had no interest in having posting privileges here to push an eschatological understanding contrary to those this site supports. In fact, I wasn't going to raise the subject at all, out of respect for that very point.

    AJ and I have, over the years, exchanged private emails from time to time, even when I removed myself from this site some time back because I felt my presence and posting here was disrupting your peace.

    Even in reconsidering that decision, I expressed to AJ privately that I am torn since I know that this board and its participants approach Bible prophecy with a "looking for(ward to)" and I had deep concern for what in the world those having a disparate perception from my own and I could possibly even talk about— which is why I finally made up my mind to focus on topics more amenable, such as the Daily Texts which Jinnvisible posts, rather than respond to posts that involve eschatological matters.

    To better illustrate my concern, I had shared a picture with AJ in one of our recent emails:

    [​IMG]

    The question, of course, is who is right: the person who sees the square or the person who sees the circle?

    I've been sorely guilty of this in times past, so I can say this from personal experience: we as believers can get caught up in trying to establish rightness when we're called to seek righteousness... and not just any righteousness, but God's righteousness. (Matthew 6:33)

    If I should happen to look up at the sky whenever it's visible again here in Michigan (which should be sometime in the coming summer {Michiganian sarcasm}), and I say that's a beautiful blue sky and then someone comes along and says, well, actually, the sky is azure in color today, who's right? To what extent does one insist on their perspective? Further, what is gained by getting into a debate about it? I can present all sorts of reasons why I think the sky is blue, and the other person can present all their reasons supporting their position that the sky is azure, of course, but, again, what is gained?

    Like I said, I speak from personal experience, being guilty of this myself to an appalling extent in times past, and nowhere moreso than in matters of eschatology.

    Alright, I think I've prefaced enough for now. o_O

    Back now to your questions, brother... with one bit of thought: anything I write may very well evoke a "OK, then what about ______" and/or "OK, how do you explain _____" response from you— and anyone else who looks at this thread/discussion, which is fine and I'll try my best to address such matters— but I'm just one person and given the limited time I have available at this point in my life, it can get overwhelming, especially if everyone starts coming into the discussion with their own "OK, then what about ______" and/or "OK, how do you explain _____" responses. I'm not here to sway anyone to my perspective, having respect already for the differences between us in matters of eschatology.

    Moving ahead...

    There are two types of preterists that I am aware of: full and partial.

    I think of the partial preterist as someone with commitment issues not all that unlike an agnostic. Both seem to "hedge their bets" —the agnostic won't rule out that God exists but neither will they say that God exists. At least an atheist commits to their position. A partial preterist believes that most of the Bible's promises have been realized but that there remain some promises they look to one day see fulfilled. R.C. Sproul is one of the more well-known partial preterists of our time. Specifically, they hold a futurist view of chapters 20-22 from the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

    I am not a partial preterist, of course. I'm an all-in-or-all-out believer, whether in my earlier understanding as a futurist or currently as a preterist.

    Although it took this long a post to get to my answer to your question, I have come to believe that there remains no prophecy unfulfilled that was recorded through scripture: all prophecy was fulfilled (completed) with the destruction of Jerusalem, the priesthood, and the Temple.

    Submitted for perusal and consideration,
    Timothy
     
  3. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother...

    I understand your concerns for others' perspectives, and it is a credit to you, sir.

    As we've spoken of previously, I learn more about my own beliefs by listening to differing views. Without a differing view, how may I discount or prove my own understandings? I often learn more from studies in reply to others than I do through my own...

    We here (In my opinion) are following our Lord's admonishment to not forsake the gathering of ourselves together; while through our common faith in Christ Jesus, we encourage each other. That may be as simple as studying more, or a kind word in a world difficult to navigate.

    Although if anyone reading this finds our subjects of conversation to be counterintuitive to their own faith, I pray they continue on in their own sensibilities toward their personal faith. We must all make sure of our own selves. "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves." 2Cor 13:5

    It is not our place to tell others how to serve God's kingdom; We all serve in our own ways do we not?

    With that said...

    If you could; Would you explain how you see the book of Revelation as prophecy if it was written after the fact, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70ce?
     
  4. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    _________

    Good morning, brother,

    My first official Bible was a Scofield Reference Bible, which I especially loved because in the center column throughout he included the year so that as I moved through the Bible, I could keep track of the when of what I was reading. As you may be aware, C. I. Scofield dated the Revelation to "A.D. 96," so for most of my life I simply accepted that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. even during the time of my involvement and association with the Watchtower organization, since they likewise hold that view, as did the other religious movements I've been involved with throughout my life (Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, the Worldwide Church of God (formerly Armstrongism).

    It is, without debate, a commonly accepted view that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

    A traditional view.

    Even so, when I started down the path that began with me discovering problems with certain of the Watchtower organization's doctrines and interpretations (I'd had reservations from the start in various matters but went-along-to-get-along because I felt they were righter than my previous religious affiliations) the irony was not lost on me, this emphasis on critically examining what one's religion was teaching and promoting as truth— except when it came to those published by the Watchtower organization.

    The proverbial "can of worms" was opened, and my disillusionment with religion led to me questioning everything I'd been told I should accept and believe all my life. I couldn't be certain what to believe that I hadn't truly proven myself.

    That this took place during a time when ready access to information— scientific, scholastic, and religious— was available with mere keystrokes on a keyboard as the World Wide Web moved through its infancy was nothing short of a blessing.

    I began to appreciate what it must have been like for people as they read the Bible with their own eyes after centuries of it being dispensed and controlled by the Roman Catholic Church (in Latin, no less!!).

    Imagine everything you knowing when it comes to God, Jesus, and scripture being only what you've been told and nothing more. No copy of the Bible to read with your own eyes to acquaint yourself with— just what has been selected and dispensed by a powerful religious organization.

    We take it for granted, this immediate and ready access to the Bible— although, remarkably, people may own their own copy of the Bible yet never examine it for themselves, preferring to accept what is taught by their respective religious leader(s). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    For better or worse, I took an "all bets are off" approach following my excommunication from the Watchtower organization, endeavoring to establish a basis for the things I'd either always believed or been led to believe— beginning first with the founding views of Jehovah's Witnesses based on C.T. Russell, and then branching out into the scholastic and historic research of Christianity. Bart Ehrman and others moved me through the present-day evidences with their extensive research I had formerly never had any awareness of, although I couldn't understand how agnosticism was where it led them when I was slowly becoming even more convinced of the surety of scripture and its promises— but that's a whole other subject.

    Still, Ehrman's research became my first real introduction to the so-called "Church Fathers"— among whom is counted Irenaeus, who became the traditional, authoritative voice when it comes to dating the Revelation of Jesus Christ to a post-70 A.D. timeframe— of what would eventually become Christendom.

    I didn't stop with Ehrman's findings, however, and as the evidences continued to build during the years following my excommunication from the Watchtower organization, my perception changed to what they are today as far as when the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written.

    But you are correct: if the Revelation was written post-70 A.D., then it creates an incredible conundrum for the "preterist" view.

    If it's alright, I'll need to pick the discussion up from this point next time, focusing especially on the traditional dating of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, based on the Roman Catholic saint, Irenaeus of Lyon.

    Unfortunately, my early-morning's available time is now zero and I have to start getting around for work.

    To be continued...

    —Timothy
     
  5. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I would also have a follow-up as well if you wouldn't mind brother...

    Even if the Revelation of Christ Jesus was pre-70ce how would it have benefited those within the walls of Jerusalem? Otherwise said, if the Revelation was supposedly fulfilled in the destruction of that city, in what way was it utilized?

    Thanks.

    All love...
     
  6. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    Good morning, brother,

    Having spent the last two hours trying to gather up my notes on Iraeneus, I'm realizing this morning that my notes are too scattered for me to collate in a reasonably short time, and having never anticipated needing them for a discussion such as this (they built up over the last several years but weren't stored in the same location in my archives), I'm hoping that the alternative route of directly citing from a reference work will suffice (for now), as I'm personally far more interested in getting to the internal scriptural evidences behind my current perspective than in the non-inspired writings of Catholic saints and/or "church fathers" as a basis for my belief, faith, hope, and eschatology. (Romans 3:4)

    All scripture is inspired and reliable for establishing every matter, is my conviction. Moreso, Jesus' own words. (1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1-2).

    If agreeable with you, I'll pick up next time with the Biblical evidence itself.

    Your fellow believer,
    Timothy
     

    Attached Files:

  7. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Well, that writer was a bit winded... o_O

    The first thing that comes to mind as it pertains to so-called "early church members" is that we must take their commentary with a grain of salt. They were scholars no different than ourselves. It can also be argued we have far more factual information than they had three centuries after our Lord's sacrifice.

    We should also be aware of the admonishments to be careful of false teachers who had started to creep into the early church.

    "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." 2Cor 11:13-15

    This article admits Irenaeus' shortcomings and then goes on to contradict its own statements. As an example:

    "Unfortunately, however, “Second-century traditions about the apostles are demonstrably unreliable. And although generally reliable, Irenaeus’s writings are not without imperfection in matters historical."

    At times the writer admits the second-century traditions are "demonstrably unreliable" (as above) while later going on to say how traditions were vital in interpreting the date of the Apocalypse (as below).

    "By this is meant that constantly emphasizes the organic and living unity of the Church’s life. shows a concern to demonstrate carefully that one Christian generation is in touch with the next generation since the time of the apostles. “The men of one generation heard from the lips of the men of the previous generation what they themselves had heard and seen."


    We all know what happens to information passed down from word to mouth...

    Here is another example of the contradictory nature of the writer of this article:

    "The problem, however, is not as to overcome as might initially appear. In the first place, Domitian died in 96 and Trajan became emperor in 98 (after a very brief reign by Nerva). Swete states of Irenaeus’s reference that it speaks of John’s “having lived to the time of Trajan, i.e. to the year 98 at least.” two years It is not unreasonable to suppose that almost a century later the two years’ difference separating the two emperors could have been blurred by Irenaeus. It must be remembered that dating then was very imprecise because chronicles were not kept by Christians."

    They just shot their whole argument in the foot with rationality...

    Regardless of these discrepancies, there is one glaring issue in my summation that cannot be overlooked with the writing of Irenaeus. He is interpreting the 666 of Rev 13 as a man, an individual, and the number as the letters of this man's name.

    "He states these things the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist “As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters. . . . And farther on he says concerning the same: “We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.”

    It seems clear to me that Irenaeus is simply interpreting, not unlike many in the early catholic belief structure. Has much changed today? It seems Irenaus would fit right in today with such interpretations...

    Let me give you my own contradiction to Irenaeus from Scripture. I believe that the 666 of Rev 13 cannot be "letters" from a person's name as he assumes, but rather an entity as outlined throughout the "ancient texts."

    "He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship." 2Th 2:4

    "It exalted itself even against the Prince of the army." Dan 8:11a

    "and in his heart he will exalt himself." Dan 8:25b

    "The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods."
    Dan 11:36

    ----------

    "But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception." 2Th 2:9

    "And by his cunning he will use deception to succeed." Dan 8:25a

    "And it deceives those dwelling on the earth, by reason of the signs that were given to it to perform before the beast." Rev 13:14

    "The beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who worked the signs in his sight, with which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image." Rev 19:20

    "With flattery, he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant," Dan 11:32

    ----------

    "It was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies,"
    Rev 13:5a

    "And look! there were eyes like human eyes in this horn, and there was a mouth speaking arrogantly." Dan 7:8b

    ----------

    "so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god." 2Th 2:4b

    "And arms will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant feature. “And they will put in place the disgusting thing that causes desolation." Dan 11:31

    "And he will plant his royal tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration;" Dan 11:45

    "Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken about by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place." Mth 24:14

    ----------

    "He will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." Dan 7:25b

    "and from him the constant feature was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down." Dan 8:11b

    "And arms will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant feature." Dan 8:31b

    "and it was given authority to act for 42 months." Rev 13:5b

    "I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” Rev 11:3

    ----------

    "Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence." 2Th 2:8

    "But the Court sat, and they took away his rulership, in order to annihilate him and to destroy him completely." Dan 7:26

    "he will bring many to ruin. He will even stand up against the Prince of princes, but he will be broken without human hand." Dan 8:25b

    "and he will come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him." Dan 11:45b

    "And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who worship its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulfur." Rev 19:20

    However, my question still remains: Can it be shown anywhere that John's Apocalypse was utilized during the 66-70 Roman siege on Jerusalem?
     
  8. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    I am utterly brain-dead after a long week, so just a quick reply before I respond more fully in the morning...

    There are two schools of thought that I am aware of: those who believe that we know more than those living in the centuries following the fall of Jerusalem, and those who believe that the closer we can get to the original writings, the more accurate the original teachings and views.

    Speaking for myself personally, anything beyond scripture is suspect due to the rapid development of the proto-orthodoxy movement which eventually organized itself into Roman Catholicism which persisted for centuries.

    Absolutely.

    First, a correction: it was not John's... it was Jesus Christ's. ;)

    This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John, who testifies to everything he saw. — Revelation 1:1-2 Berean Study Bible

    And, yes, let's get on with the scriptural evidence...

    I plan on being back here tomorrow morning, bright and early.

    A fellow believer,
    Timothy
     
  9. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Thank you brother, I was actually speaking in the language of the article you shared and Irenaeus' writings. It was he who referred to it as such...

    Of this, we are in agreement. Interestingly, is it not this very idea that is upheld by Preterism, in that one must except early apocryphal writings to understand inspired works?
     
  10. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother,

    While you are contemplating your response, I was wondering if you could respond to such scripture as this inlight of what you said above? Thanks...

    "For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come." (Heb 13:14)

    Is this not a prophecy?
     
  11. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    Good morning, brother,

    I feel a little refreshed this morning (it's 2:15am here as I type this) although I could use more sleep. *yawn*

    I've done the same in the past, as well, pretty much without thinking about it before I'd speak. It's an extremely common expression, but I'm much more sensitive to the expression now and I roll my eyes now when I see someone refer to the Revelation of Jesus Christ as John's.

    I was being tongue-in-cheek with you, regardless. :p

    Hmm, not that I'm aware of. Certainly, apocryphal works are sometimes referred to either for background purposes or to establish a view held contemporaneously by God's people especially since Daniel's writings. Apocryphal writings became a "thing" in the years following the Jews' captivity to Babylon, with all except Daniel being non-canonical yet apparently all were well-known and discussed, if Biblical scholarship's findings are correct. I'm somewhat acquainted with the Enochian writings, for example, but I would never place them on-par with scripture, considering them more "filling-in-the-blanks" writings when it comes to various matters Jews gabbed about around their campfires and dinner tables on topics like the Watchers mentioned in their holy writings (Daniel 4:13, 17, 23).

    While extra-Biblical, I'm not offended at them and, arguably, neither were first century believers. They just weren't inspired scripture, nor were they given equal weight with scripture. I suppose, in a way, they were an ancient version of Christendom's Left Behind series.

    In any case, acceptance of them in order to understand the Bible isn't a prerequisite for "preterism." Do they flesh out some subjects? Sure, and they are interesting in that respect. But sola scriptura, nonetheless: the Bible does awe-inspiringly well standing on its own merits, witness, and testimony as far as I'm concerned.

    Anyhow, time's a'wastin so, back to the subject...

    In fact, speaking of time, as we move through the discussion of the Revelation, one recurring issue is imminence. This is true throughout the gospels as we've received them down in our day, the apostolic epistles, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ itself. Expressions like "the time is at hand" are found throughout the early first century scriptures which compose our "New Testament."

    For most of my life, and especially during my time with the Watchtower organization, this imminence was explained [away] as an enduring expectation that one is to have at any given point in history that "suddenly" everything would begin happening, and to be ready when it all hits the fan, as it were— living in a sense of constant expectation.

    As a result, every change on the world scene is responded to with a sense of dread and thrill (for example, knowing that a "great tribulation" was anon/imminent but not being thrilled about having to endure through it).

    This has led, invariably, to date-setting by Christians especially since the 1860's, when groups like the Millerites, C.T. Russell and his fellow believers, and Judge Rutherford's so-named "Jehovah's Witnesses" boldly called out end dates, either overtly or by implication. Back in 1999, an online poster named "Prominent Bethelite" compiled an extensive list of published statements by either C.T. Russell, J.F. Rutherford, and the Watchtower organization proper [The List v7], but historically speaking, Christendom is rife with inappropriate, uninspired proclamations [I have a compiled list from someone, but could not find it in my archives in a reasonable amount of time to include with this post but will keep my eyes peeled for it. In the meantime, some can be reviewed on this link on Wikipedia]— The Watchtower just so happens to be the loudest and most [certain] of their own predictions compared with others, resulting in endless ridicule from opposers, former members, and the world at-large.

    Non-Christians and Christians alike expected the year 2000 to manifest itself as a world-altering event, with computers and systems crashing around the world, ending life as it was known up to that time.

    The events of 9-11 likewise cast a pall over the world at-large, and suddenly uncertainty was fueling expectations and predictions all over again.

    This pattern continues to this day, in fact, with every news item fomenting speculations and assertions, playing into this perpetual imminence that has been in play since the second century, with each failure ironically leading to still more certainty that the "end" is near and that prophecy is about to unfold.

    In its wake, however, disappointment and disillusionment continues to wreak havoc with the hopes of believers, shipwrecking their faith for having believed the things heard from those taking the lead among their respective religious (and non-religious) circles, proving the wisdom of Proverbs 13:12, which says that "Expectation postponed is making the heart sick..." {snippet, noted}

    Therefore, my options as a believer are simple: accept the imminence as seen throughout the "New Testament" writings and evaluate my beliefs in light of it, or fudge away that imminence to retain the traditional view, which is to say that 1) God hit a Pause button back in the first century, or; 2) accept that imminent means imminent, as in imminent for those who lived in the time that those apostolic gospels and epistles, along with the Revelation lived-- in which case I must revisit what my own beliefs and expectations have been, and adjust them accordingly.

    Admittedly, I have long-lived with the pre-conception and prejudicial bias that while one might argue that there was some manner of fulfillment of various prophecies in the events of the first century, including the destruction of Jerusalem, believers anticipated a greater fulfillment in our day.

    This "lesser" and "greater" fulfillment is conflated with the Bible's usage of type and anti-type, as I hope to elaborate upon as this discussion progresses on the preterist vs dispensationalist views on Biblical prophecy—notably, the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

    For now, however, let me note that I reject any assertions or implications of "partial" fulfillment or prophecies "partially" fulfilled with a future "imminent" and full fulfillment. I no longer believe there is such a thing as a partial fulfillment: by it's very nature, a fulfillment is a full-fillment, not a partialment.

    I likewise reject any assertions or implications that the apostles were mistaken in their understanding or expectations following the resurrection of Jesus (especially once they received the Comforter, the holy spirit which called to their mind all the things Jesus had taught them during his short time with him as he preached to the Jewish people. Before then, sure: this is verified by Jesus himself at various places in the gospel accounts. (Cf John 14:26 with Luke 18:34 and Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-45)

    Which brings me back to the subject of imminence. The apostles expected the "end" in their generation, Jesus expected the "end" in his generation, and the "end" happened just as they expected.

    This is likewise the case with the instances where one sees "soon" in the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation. Soon must mean soon or it's not soon... it's ... well, some nondescript, uncertain time in the future.

    To illustrate: my house is on fire, I've called the fire department and they told me they'll be here soon. I'm comforted in the certainty of what they told me, am I not? Similarly, if there's a medical emergency in my family and I've called the ambulance service, and they tell me they'll arrive soon, am I not comforted in the certainty of what they told me?

    For soon to have meaning, it must mean soon. So, I wait, watching my house burn and before long, the conflagration has destroyed my home. Years pass, I rebuild my house or perhaps move to another home... and one day, when I'm old and gray, the fire department arrives... well, small comfort that will have been. Likewise in the case of the medical emergency: I keep telling my wife or my child hang on, hang in there just a little longer because the ambulance will be here soon... just hold on, OK! But they die, I endure through the subsequent grief and mourning, years pass, and one day, still more years later, the ambulance arrives, the paramedics telling me, "We told you we'd be here soon, sir," well, of what comfort shall I draw from this?

    The gospel accounts, the epistles, and the Revelation were to be a comfort and reassurance for those living in that generation which was witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecies which had been in-play from Moses onwards. But for this to be the case, soon and similar time statements had to be true and certain for the believers of that time: God did not lie nor deceive them. Nor did the apostles misunderstand the prophecies while getting (everything else) right so that, some 2,000 years later, believers are still waiting for the fire department or ambulance service to arrive. . . for the prophecies to be fulfilled— especially given the witness and testimony of scripture itself that it was imminent for those living in that generation of the first century.

    Otherwise, this amounts to the greatest fake-out ever, by God Himself. A deception of unimaginable magnitude, even! "Just kidding," God's saying, "I really meant a generation that won't be around for hundreds of centuries."

    As a believer, I reject such a notion as this. He meant what He said about the generation of that first century, Jesus meant what he said, and the apostles were testifying truthfully in what they relayed as commissioned by their Exemplar.

    This demands, reasonably, an explanation, then, for why it appears that things have continued as they have here on the world scene, since those momentous events of the first century. How is it possible, if all prophecy was fulfilled in the first century— with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the priesthood— there have been world wars, pandemics, poverty, and the continuing erosion of morality, especially in the last 40-50 years? Why do we continue to die? And a slew of other questions...!

    Submitted for perusal and consideration,
    Timothy
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2021
  12. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    My wife just caught a mis-statement on my part and the time allowed to edit one's post is past so I'm correcting myself here:

    I thought I'd written "...believers today anticipate a greater fulfillment in our day."

    /facepalm

    --Timothy
     
  13. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    I was able to locate that collection of Christendom's predictions; it was a hardcopy, so I scanned it and PDF'd it for convenience.

    End of World Predictions [from Usenet]
     
  14. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Timothy, I'm curious, do you think Daniel was fulfilled in 160-170 BCE or 70 CE?

    And if I missed it, did you answer my post #10?

    Thanks, brother... :)
     
  15. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    I'm not sure I'd classify this statement itself as a prophecy, per se, so much as an expression of the hope and expectation (assured, nonetheless) of a long-standing promise (prophecy). (Cf Hebrews 11:10, 13-16)

    I would, however, say that the writer of Hebrews is, first, making reference to the earthly Jerusalem, and then to the heavenly Jerusalem.

    If we are both in agreement that Hebrews was written before the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem (which turned out to be in 70CE), then we should likewise be in agreement as to the imminence of the arrival of the heavenly Jerusalem for believers living in the first century before 70CE, based on what the writer of Hebrews was inspired to record earlier in his epistle:

    You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire. You have not come to darkness, sadness, and storms. You have not come to the noise of a trumpet or to the sound of a voice like the one the people of Israel heard and begged not to hear another word. They did not want to hear the command: "If anything, even an animal, touches the mountain, it must be put to death with stones." What they saw was so terrible that Moses said, "I am shaking with fear." But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands of angels gathered together with joy. —Hebrews 12:18-22 New Century Version

    But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels...
    —Hebrews 12:22 New World Translation

    Whether a Bible translation has "have come" or "have approached," the imminence of access to the heavenly Jerusalem for those hearing the words of this epistle in the first century is scripturally clear to me.

    —Timothy
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2021
  16. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    The book of Daniel contains the Messianic prophecy and several others. In that respect, my brief response is that Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in the period between the arrival of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the priesthood:

    The Law and the prophets were until John. From that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone forces his way into it. —Luke 16:16 Berean Literal Bible

    In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. —Hebrews 1:1-2a Good News Bible

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
    —Matthew 5:17-18 Berean Study Bible

    It seems self-evident that believers today do not live under the Law of Moses referred to above— yet Jesus unquestionably declares that the Law (of Moses) must remain until everything is accomplished, which is to say everything written in the Law and the prophets. For example, among the requirements of the Law of Moses was the daily sacrifice— which was ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70CE.

    I can discern no scriptural justification at this point in my walk as a believer for separating the Law from the prophets, given the scriptural evidence— although I have in years past done that very thing: accepted that the Law of Moses has passed but not the prophets. This, in contradiction to the written word.

    Submitted for perusal and consideration,
    Timothy
     
  17. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother,

    Briefly: So you don't see any fulfillment of the abomination from Daniel twelve fulfilled in the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids?

    Thanks...
     
  18. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    __________

    Good morning, brother,

    I'm crunched for time this morning and will need to go back and re-read Daniel 12 to refresh my memory on the context there. I hope to respond tomorrow morning.

    May your efforts be blessed this week!
    —Timothy
     
    Joshuastone7 likes this.
  19. 3,927
    798
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother,

    I wanted to add a few things to consider in your response if you don't mind. I'm interested in learning more about what you believe...

    I asked above whether the Abomination of Daniel 12 had any fulfillment in the Seleucid revolt; but, I also would like to know what Abomination was placed in the Holy Place in 70 CE. If Antiochus Epiphanes set up a false god in the temple during that revolt, what was the Abomination set up in the temple in 70 CE? And what are the implications to Preterism if Daniel's prophecy of the Abomination was fulfilled in the Seleucid campaign?

    Can you share how Jesus separated the sheep from goats in 70 CE?

    How was Israel delivered in 70 CE, rather than scattered?

    How was the gathering of the saints fulfilled in 70 CE?

    How did the resurrection of the dead occur in 70 CE?

    How were all the nations caught up in the battle of 70 CE?

    How did Jesus come back in 70 CE?

    All love...
     
  20. 41
    18
    8
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    ____________

    Whew! Yesterday started off insane and then swiftly went downhill from there... or was it uphill? Either way, I'm happy to say that yesterday is now behind me. Yikes!!

    I'm going to say no in response to your question, for if there had been (any) fulfillment, it would have been fulfilled. Remember, I don't believe there is any scriptural sense to a partialment when it comes to Biblical prophecy, moreso when the scriptures make concise statements as to fulfillment through the use of imminency as well as the passages I mentioned earlier from the gospel accounts (e.g. "until John" and that the Law of Moses remains until all prophecy is fulfilled).

    It is not the fault of the scriptures that Christendom began to turn that imminency into a perpetual "imminency" with its "any day/moment now" that is shifted, altered, and buffeted by the evening news.

    When Jesus declares, for example, that "it is accomplished," and someone comes along saying, "No, it hasn't been (yet)" the believer has to make a choice like the Jews the day they stood before Pilate with Jesus and Barabbas on either side of him.

    Much to my own disgrace and shame, I spent most of my life looking for what has already come, much like those Jews demanding [the son of the Father] and downplaying what was right in front of me as of little or no significance. . . insufficient, even, in my own eyes and estimation.

    Submitted for perusal and consideration,
    Timothy
     

Share This Page