The 70AD events as a prophetic fulfillment - did the early Christians think so?

[Pate]

What evidence is there to suppose that the early Christian church regarded the events aroud 70AD (the destruction of Jerusalem etc) as a prophetic fulfillment? Now, I think it's pretty obvious that they thought that Jesus's words about the destruction of the temple were fulfilled at that time, and probably also some things from the book of Revelation, if it indeed was written early enough. But did they actually see those events as fulfilling the prophecy of "Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory"? Do we have any specific statements about this by any of the early church fathers?

[Reasonable]

Today @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=273655#post273655)
Pate:

What evidence is there to suppose that the early Christian church regarded the events aroud 70AD (the destruction of Jerusalem etc) as a prophetic fulfillment? Now, I think it's pretty obvious that they thought that Jesus's words about the destruction of the temple were fulfilled at that time, and probably also some things from the book of Revelation, if it indeed was written early enough. But did they actually see those events as fulfilling the prophecy of "Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory"? Do we have any specific statements about this by any of the early church fathers?

I raised this question awhile back, mostly focusing on what the ECF's thought. Basic data shows the ECF's did NOT see the 70 destruction as the final fulfillment. They did recognize some partial fulfillment but they, for the most part, were looking toward a future fulfillment as well. If I remember the Preterist reply to this it was, for the most part, 'The ECF's were wrong in their views of a future fulfillment.'

I don't agree with that because the NT is quite focused on the 2nd coming of Christ and to say the NT writers believed this to be fulfilled in 70 but the next generation who interacted with the NT writers somehow lost this belief on THE major prophecy in the NT seems odd.

Go here to see the discussion.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8504&highlight=church+fathers

[Pate]

Thanks for your comments. I'll check out the link that you gave.

[Dee Dee Warren]

11-06-2003 @ 01:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=273687#post273687)
Reasonable:



I don't agree with that because the NT is quite focused on the 2nd coming of Christ and to say the NT writers believed this to be fulfilled in 70 but the next generation who interacted with the NT writers somehow lost this belief on THE major prophecy in the NT seems odd.

That is assuming what one believes a text to speaking about and then pointing to one's assumptions as proof. No one in that former discussion believes that that the Second Coming happened. No one in that former discussion says that the NT writers believed that Second Coming to be fulfilled in aD70. That would be hyperpreterist heresy. However, the preterists in that discussion stated that the Olivet Coming passages are not about the Second Coming coming of Christ.

Of course there is still merit to point, but I needed to do a major corrective on that terminology so as my position is not portrayed as heresy.

The ECF's got many things wrongs. Adn I am meaning in this context the very early ECFs. They were not focused on systematic eschatology, and they certainly did not have the proper Jewish frame of reference IMHO after the scattering that happened after AD70 and the influx of Gentiles.

However, that is certainly one factor to consider for sure. Consistency of textual interpretation however does not allow for half to be fulfilled and half not. No ECF mentioned the Temple being rebuilt. That is a major tenet of futurism. There was a period of time when it almost done in early church history. There is not a plethora of writings of what this would mean prophetically that I have ever been made aware of. This is what we would expect if they were futurists in the modern sense, but they did not. Does that automatically make futurism wrong? But it does show that I can come up with a pertinent example for every single eschatological point of view of ECF silence.

One may argue that this one is different cause there is a lot of focus on it in the NT. Can't say I agree there cause there is a lot of focus on the person and work of Jesus and there was no shortage of error of that among early "believers." There still is not.

And also we do not have everything from that time. Actually we have very little from time.

[kendemyer]

TO: Pate


Here are a few early church father quotes:

Papias

"The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth." - Eusebius, commentary on Papias, History of the Ecclesia, book 3, ch.39 (see: "The Earliest Church Father's Eschatology" at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=436 )

Irenaeus

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.30 (see: "The Earliest Church Father's Eschatology" at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=436 ).

I would encourage you to look into this matter more deeply. To my knowledge there are non-premillennial church fathers for about the first 150 years of Christendom.

[Tim C.]

Consistency of textual interpretation however does not allow for half to be fulfilled and half not.How is it "inconsistent" in textual interpretation?


No ECF mentioned the Temple being rebuilt. That is a major tenet of futurism.Actually, Irenaeus seemed to believe it. Note that he wrote the following long after AD 70:

"For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, (i.e., one) in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself (all) satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade (men) that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do (now) worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: 'Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.' The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped-that is, above every idol-for these are indeed so called by men, but are not (really) gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which (temple) the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: 'But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.'" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.25

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577

-Tim

[spiritmech]

Tim,

Quick question, honest one:

Good quote, but why does Irenaeus refer to the temple in the past tense?

"the temple in Jerusalem was made"

Shouldn't he be referring to it in the future tense, like he does with the AntiChrist? Is this an issue of translation? I wish the grammar were a little clearer in that sentence.

[Tim C.]

Quick question, honest one:

Good quote, but why does Irenaeus refer to the temple in the past tense?

"the temple in Jerusalem was made"

Shouldn't he be referring to it in the future tense, like he does with the AntiChrist? Is this an issue of translation? I wish the grammar were a little clearer in that sentence.It is because he is refering to "the temple in Jerusalem" in a general manner. He does not break his statement down into Solomon's temple, Herod's temple, Great Tribulation temple, etc. He speaks simply of "the temple in Jerusalem." But he shows that he believes that a temple structure in Jerusalem will exist during the future Great Tribulation period.

-Tim

[Etcetera]

Tim:


No ECF mentioned the Temple being rebuilt. That is a major tenet of futurism.


Actually, Irenaeus seemed to believe it.

Barnabas also thinks that the temple will be rebuilt. Barnabas 16.3-4:

Furthermore he says again: Behold, they that pulled down this temple themselves shall build it.

So it comes to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down
by their enemies. Now also the very servants of their enemies shall
build it up.

On the other hand, Barnabas also seems to regard any future rebuilding of the temple as theologically moot, since for him the spiritual temple of Christianity has completely taken over. Barnabas 16.6-8, 10:

But let us inquire whether there be any temple of God. There is, in the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it is written: And it shall come to pass, when the week is being accomplished, that the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.

I find then that there is a temple. How then shall it be built in the name of the Lord? Understand: Before we believed on God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because we did what was contrary to God.

But it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Give heed then that the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously.

For he that desires to be saved looks not to the man, but to him that dwells and speaks in him, being amazed at this that he has never at any time heard these words from the mouth of the speaker, nor himself ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple
built up to the Lord.

So, on the one hand, Barnabas thinks that the temple will literally be rebuilt. On the other, he attaches no theological meaning to that rebuilding. It is the present spiritual temple that concerns him. And it is manifestly clear from the rest of the epistle that he would violently disagree with a future covenant between God and man based on the temple sacrificial system. Barnabas is supercessionist through and through.

I am not certain what all of this means for the preterist-futurist debate, but it seemed relevant.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Sparko]

That is one of the things that bothers me about Preterism.

I have seen lots of scriptural arguments for and against it. But it seems the most powerful evidence against it is that if Jesus came back in Judgement in AD 70, no one at the time seems to have noticed it!

I mean, the whole bible leads up to that climax, Jesus coming back in Judgement! The bowl judgements, etc. Jesus coming in the clouds where everyone will see him!

But it seemed like they blinked and missed it!

If Jesus did come back already, how come that isn't part of the root doctrine of Christianity right from the beginning? Seems like the guys who were there when it happened (and that includes the apostle John from all historical accounts, who lived until the 90's) would have made sure such a glorious event would be recorded and taught to all future followers. But there is no epilogue to Revelation. No indication that the ECF's believed that Jesus came back already. And I am not talking about vague references here and there.

Something so big, something that significant would not have slipped by with a vague reference here and there. There would be volumes of writings about it. The church would be teaching it from the beginning.

I mean, how do you miss Jesus coming back???

Matthew 24:26 "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Tim and Etc thanks for those quotes - I will take a close look at them. Tertullian made a huge deal out of the fact that it would not be rebuilt and said for God to allow it would justify rejection of Christ - so much for this eschatological consistency in the ECF. This hardline futurist approach that has been taken here cannot bear that up. How in the world did two early Fathers get it so opposite?

John as far as your question, I think you need to consider two things - you are pouring your own definition inadvertantly into "coming" (though you tried at one point not to) and no preterist defines it that way. If you define it as we do, you can hardly say that no one noticed the judgment upon Jerusalem or the significance of it. They most certainly did. If you are concerned they didn't call it a "coming" - we have ample OT evidence that it did could be in the Jewish apocolyptic language which the ECF may not have used - also in another thread, I gave an explanation of how that also could be that I have to dig up.

Also do a search here for a thread that Ken didn't choose to dig up - and that is one called "purple cows and eschatology" which shows how both sides talk past each other.

The fact is that the ECF in many ways give half and half. They do not have a consistent eschatology that fits perfectly with modern formulations.

Additionally early (and this line in the sand has been drawn by the futurist side for polemic reasons) there are indeed those of the orthodox faith that held to different options. Despite Tim's assertions to the contrary (and I note Steve Gregg affirms my position on this in Revelation: A Parallel Commentary) Justin Martyr affirmed that there was not uniformity in millennial positions and that it was an area where Christians could disagree.

[Sparko]

John as far as your question, I think you need to consider two things - you are pouring your own definition inadvertantly into "coming" (though you tried at one point not to) and no preterist defines it that way. If you define it as we do, you can hardly say that no one noticed the judgment upon Jerusalem or the significance of it. They most certainly did. If you are concerned they didn't call it a "coming" - we have ample OT evidence that it did could be in the Jewish apocolyptic language which the ECF may not have used - also in another thread, I gave an explanation of how that also could be that I have to dig up.
Well, I agree that the destruction of the Temple was a judgment on the Jewish people. But I think it is more in line with Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice and there was no longer any need for Temple sacrifices, but the Jews refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, so God destroyed the temple so they could not offer the sacrifices to him anymore. But I don't see that as Jesus coming to judge the whole world, as Revelations seems to be talking about. 1/3 of the people living being destroyed, 1/3 of the vegetation, water, stars falling from the sky, etc.

But still, even if you can explain all that away, if Jesus "came" back, however you want to define "come back" -- The event is so huge, that no one should have missed it. Jesus himself said that if anyone tries to tell you he is back, to ignore them, cuz when he comes back EVERYONE will know he is back. There won't be any guessing to it.




Also do a search here for a thread that Ken didn't choose to dig up - and that is one called "purple cows and eschatology" which shows how both sides talk past each other.
God, please, no. I can't wade through all those Ken posts. :eek:


The fact is that the ECF in many ways give half and half. They do not have a consistent eschatology that fits perfectly with modern formulations.

Additionally early (and this line in the sand has been drawn by the futurist side for polemic reasons) there are indeed those of the orthodox faith that held to different options. Despite Tim's assertions to the contrary (and I note Steve Gregg affirms my position on this in Revelation: A Parallel Commentary) Justin Martyr affirmed that there was not uniformity in millennial positions and that it was an area where Christians could disagree.
My position is not that there are various eschatalogical viewpoints within the ECF. I grant you that. My point was that an event like the fulfillment of the bible with Jesus coming back in Judgment, would be such an earthshattering event (as attested by Jesus himself in Matt 24) that NO one could have missed it. There should only be ONE eschatology after something like that! If there was enough doubt that the early church fathers could even hold varying viewpoints, then that to me is pretty hard evidence that Jesus hasn't come back yet.


Matthew 24:26 "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

[Tim C.]

Tim and Etc thanks for those quotes - I will take a close look at them. Tertullian made a huge deal out of the fact that it would not be rebuilt and said for God to allow it would justify rejection of Christ - so much for this eschatological consistency in the ECF. This hardline futurist approach that has been taken here cannot bear that up. How in the world did two early Fathers get it so opposite?Okay, so now you need to quote me an early Christian who believed preterism, and you need to show that the idea was not disputed by any other early Christians.

Thats pretty funny, Dee Dee. You find "nascent traces" of preterism in the writings of futurist premillennialists (which means you are misinterpreting their writings). But then you have the bar set way up high for futurist premillennialists, whom obviously have overwhelming evidence on their side.


John as far as your question, I think you need to consider two things - you are pouring your own definition inadvertantly into "coming" (though you tried at one point not to) and no preterist defines it that way. If you define it as we do, you can hardly say that no one noticed the judgment upon Jerusalem or the significance of it. They most certainly did. If you are concerned they didn't call it a "coming" - we have ample OT evidence that it did could be in the Jewish apocolyptic language which the ECF may not have used - also in another thread, I gave an explanation of how that also could be that I have to dig up.Don't listen to that stuff, John. All evidence indicates that the ancient church was futurist and premillennial. Nobody in the ancient church seemed to notice, AT ALL, that a coming of the Lord had occurred at AD 70. You are right. The idea that the ancient church allegedly "didn't notice" that the great tribulation had taken place, that the Lord had come, and that the smashing of Antichrist and establishing of the kingdom had taken place, is a death blow to preterism.


The fact is that the ECF in many ways give half and half. They do not have a consistent eschatology that fits perfectly with modern formulations.Bizarre. Dee Dee wants to use this idea to justify preterism, even though the ancient Christian eschatology is perfectly contrary to preterism in each and every detail. Yet, Dee Dee wants to dismiss futurism because a certain detail, the rebuilt temple, is allegedly not taught by any early Christians (see her earlier post). Not only is Dee Dee wrong on the idea that a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem was not taught by any ancient Christians, but her bias double-standard attitude is revealed.


Additionally early (and this line in the sand has been drawn by the futurist side for polemic reasons) there are indeed those of the orthodox faith that held to different options. Despite Tim's assertions to the contrary (and I note Steve Gregg affirms my position on this in Revelation: A Parallel Commentary) Justin Martyr affirmed that there was not uniformity in millennial positions and that it was an area where Christians could disagree.Disputed text alert!

-Tim

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay, so now you need to quote me an early Christian who believed preterism, and you need to show that the idea was not disputed by any other early Christians.
Not at all. First I in my Tertullain thread which I will be back to showed he had views that agreed with preterism. I don't have to show it was not disputed since my whole premise is that all views were disputed. You know that, so I don't know why you are throwing up this straw man. I have always disputed you in saying that your presentation was undisputed - however if there is one thing that I have yet to find disputed Tim, it the rejection of your distinction of Israel from the Church. You cannot hold this position when it suits you and when it kills your own position do an about face.



Thats pretty funny, Dee Dee. You find "nascent traces" of preterism in the writings of futurist premillennialists (which means you are misinterpreting their writings). But then you have the bar set way up high for futurist premillennialists, whom obviously have overwhelming evidence on their side.
Again, straw man. I set no bar here except the bar of showing that your positions are not undisputed. You know that, so why are you misrepresenting what I have consistently said on many threads?



Don't listen to that stuff, John. All evidence indicates that the ancient church was futurist and premillennial.
My Tertullian thread shows that with him (and I will get to others) there were ideas that were preteristic and futuristic. Justin Martyr acknowledged other millennial views as far as I can see whether or not Tim wants to dispute that text or not. It further makes sense for what we know of the ECF that they did not have a developed eschatology on many details. I will be more into that in my Tertullian thread.



Nobody in the ancient church seemed to notice, AT ALL, that a coming of the Lord had occurred at AD 70. You are right.
Shifiting of goalposts. Everyone noticed a judgment. What you should say is that you don't have any quotes that the ECF would call a judgment a "coming." And I think you would be right. But I trump your ECF with the OT. They also don't deny it. Don't make me sic Ken on you with Fischer.




The idea that the ancient church allegedly "didn't notice" that the great tribulation had taken place, that the Lord had come, and that the smashing of Antichrist and establishing of the kingdom had taken place, is a death blow to preterism.
There will be more on that in my Tertullian thread I don't have the wherewithall to deal with too many threads at this time. john perhaps chat with me in Paltalk



Bizarre. Dee Dee wants to use this idea to justify preterism, even though the ancient Christian eschatology is perfectly contrary to preterism in each and every detail.
That is blatantly false. Tertullian agreed that the sevety weeks were past and that the Temple to be destroyed was only the one that existed back then. Tim with your knowledge that is unexcusable.




Yet, Dee Dee wants to dismiss futurism because a certain detail, the rebuilt temple, is allegedly not taught by any early Christians (see her earlier post).
I was not aware of any. You and Etc brougth two for me to examine which I will, adn I thanked you for it. I didn't deny I said that, and I have no issue correcting information when I get better information. I would hope we would all do that.



Not only is Dee Dee wrong on the idea that a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem was not taught by any ancient Christians, but her bias double-standard attitude is revealed.
You have shown zero double-standard Tim. There is a problem with scoring points by straw men. I think you would be above that.

[kendemyer]

TO: JohnSparks

You wrote:


Something so big, something that significant would not have slipped by with a vague reference here and there. There would be volumes of writings about it. The church would be teaching it from the beginning.

I mean, how do you miss Jesus coming back???

Matthew 24:26 "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

I think we need to find Columbo or Sherlock Holmes to verify some preterism claims. I would call Scotland Yard to verify some preterism claims but they had no success in the past and they have refused to open back up the case despite Dee Dee's lobbying.

[Sheepdog]

John Sparks, we have to remember that the ECFs were decades -- and sometimes a century or more -- removed from AD70. and the majority of them were Gentiles, who may or may have not known much about what happened to Jerusalem. Or, they may not have realized the significance of Jerusalem's fall and the key passages in Scripture.

it also seems you assume the language is meant to be literal... one thing we have to ask is, would the original audiences have considered it so literal or more hyperbolic? looking at the OT and how it's prophesies were applied to events in history can help here (though, to be honest, i don't know of any studies that go indepth on this)

if we are consistent with the lightning analogy, we have to expect it go as immediately as it came.

[Tim C.]

me: Okay, so now you need to quote me an early Christian who believed preterism, and you need to show that the idea was not disputed by any other early Christians.

Dee Dee: Not at all. First I in my Tertullain thread which I will be back to showed he had views that agreed with preterism. I don't have to show it was not disputed since my whole premise is that all views were disputed. You know that, so I don't know why you are throwing up this straw man.Okay, fine, then just quote me an early Christian who believed preterism. Since you think all views existed during the earliest Christian years, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote those who believed the Great Tribulation and "coming of the Lord" had already taken place.


Dee Dee: I have always disputed you in saying that your presentation was undisputed - however if there is one thing that I have yet to find disputed Tim, it the rejection of your distinction of Israel from the Church. You cannot hold this position when it suits you and when it kills your own position do an about face.Oh I see the distinction between the church and Israel in the ancient writings. I've been discussing that here:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=122&topic_id=50449&mesg_id=50824&page=3

See also the surrounding posts.


me: Thats pretty funny, Dee Dee. You find "nascent traces" of preterism in the writings of futurist premillennialists (which means you are misinterpreting their writings). But then you have the bar set way up high for futurist premillennialists, whom obviously have overwhelming evidence on their side.

Dee Dee: Again, straw man. I set no bar here except the bar of showing that your positions are not undisputed. You know that, so why are you misrepresenting what I have consistently said on many threads?Here is your position, Dee Dee:

"Now, it must be remembered that I have consistently said that no orthodox position can claim that their view was the only one of the early church - that nascent versions of almost all eschatology can be found very early (with the exception of dispensationalism) but full-orbed systematic thought on it could not be found."

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38472

The eschatology of dispensationalism, which is "futurist premillennialism," is abundantly attested in the ancient church. In fact, it was the unanimous position of the earliest Christians. But, oh, your bias is getting in the way here. What you want are early Christians who specifically spell out each detail of dispensational theology. Okay, well then I will be just as hard on you. I want you to quote ancient Christians who believed that the Great Tribulation period was fulfilled at AD70, that a coming of the Lord occurred at AD70, that the smashing of antichrist and establishing of the kingdom occurred at AD70, and so forth. And once you have provided those quotes, then I will also need quotes of ancient Christians who believed each detail of Daniel's and John's prophecies were fulfilled at AD70, and I need quotes to show that ancient Christians distinguished between the coming of the Lord in judgment and the actual coming of the Lord. And then (here is where I will be "just as hard on you"), I need quotes to show that the early church believed that Israel had been morphed into the church, and that the time of this "morphing of Israel" was the time that "Israel" entered into the New Covenant and Kingdom Age blessings promised her.

Do you think you can meet a single one of the above challenges, Dee Dee? A single one?


me: Don't listen to that stuff, John. All evidence indicates that the ancient church was futurist and premillennial.

Dee Dee: My Tertullian thread shows that with him (and I will get to others) there were ideas that were preteristic and futuristic. Justin Martyr acknowledged other millennial views as far as I can see whether or not Tim wants to dispute that text or not. It further makes sense for what we know of the ECF that they did not have a developed eschatology on many details. I will be more into that in my Tertullian thread.Nope, Tertullian did not hold any "preteristic" ideas. You have shown zero thus far. All you can show is that he thought the destruction of the temple in AD70 fulfilled prophecy, which of course not a single eschatological position disputes.


me: Nobody in the ancient church seemed to notice, AT ALL, that a coming of the Lord had occurred at AD 70. You are right.

Dee Dee: Shifiting of goalposts. Everyone noticed a judgment. What you should say is that you don't have any quotes that the ECF would call a judgment a "coming." And I think you would be right. But I trump your ECF with the OT. They also don't deny it. Don't make me sic Ken on you with Fischer.Show me the early Christians who used the imminency passages to prove that a coming of the Lord had occurred at AD70. Oops, you can't do it. THE FOUNDATIONAL THOUGHT in preterism - THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT in preterism is absent from ancient Christian teaching. NOWHERE do they interpret the time-texts as you preterists do. And, from reading their criticisms of Gnosticism, it seems to me they would have condemned your view as heresy had it existed back then.


me: Bizarre. Dee Dee wants to use this idea to justify preterism, even though the ancient Christian eschatology is perfectly contrary to preterism in each and every detail.

Dee Dee: That is blatantly false. Tertullian agreed that the sevety weeks were past and that the Temple to be destroyed was only the one that existed back then. Tim with your knowledge that is unexcusable.Gee, lets take Tertullian over against the opinions of EARLIER Christians. You think Fischer would like that idea?


me: Not only is Dee Dee wrong on the idea that a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem was not taught by any ancient Christians, but her bias double-standard attitude is revealed.

Dee Dee: You have shown zero double-standard Tim. There is a problem with scoring points by straw men. I think you would be above that."Nascent versions" of preterism (which are usually misinterpretations of futurist premillennialists) seems to be fine with you for proving preterism, but when it comes to futurist premillennialism we need each and every detail, such as a "rebuilt temple," spelled out in an emphatic manner, else she aint valid.:lmbo:

-Tim

[kendemyer]

TO: TimC

You wrote:


I want you to quote ancient Christians who believed that the Great Tribulation period was fulfilled at AD70, that a coming of the Lord occurred at AD70, that the smashing of antichrist and establishing of the kingdom occurred at AD70, and so forth. And once you have provided those quotes, then I will also need quotes of ancient Christians who believed each detail of Daniel's and John's prophecies were fulfilled at AD70, and I need quotes to show that ancient Christians distinguished between the coming of the Lord in judgment and the actual coming of the Lord.

When are you going to stop throwing softballs to Dee Dee? LOL

You have got her on the run now bulldog!


I would challenge Dee Dee using the following rules of the historian Fischer which are taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict some of which I will quote from another thread:




(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(see: Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)


taken from: "The apparent futurist eschatology of the Apostle John's disciples and its relevancy" at: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36762

[Dee Dee Warren]

Tim can you (at my request) post that post in the Tertullian thread. I don't wish to have the same discussion in two threads, and I will once again clear up your quite blatant misrepresentations of what I said above. If you don't post it there, it likely will not get answered. I can't keep track of what is where.

Oh, and don't look now, I think Ken has a crush on you. I wonder when Ken will be consistent and get all over you about dispensationalism. Which of course I don't say is false simply because there is ZERO ECF support for it. It is A factor, but the final factor. Ken's appeals to authority duly noted.

[Glenn P]

I have seen lots of scriptural arguments for and against it. But it seems the most powerful evidence against it is that if Jesus came back in Judgement in AD 70, no one at the time seems to have noticed it!Since "come back" means "return," you need to be made aware that preterists do not teach that Jesus "came back" in AD 70. They just believe that he "came" in AD 70. And this is no fine point or word game, this is massively important. Preterists believe that Christ will return to earth. They do not believe it happened in AD 70. What happened in AD 70 is that He "came" against Israel, just as he had done in the past. Amos 4:12, 5:17

This is promised to a church that will not repent as well, in Revelation 2:5. Jesus doesn't say "I will return to you," but simply "I will come to you" in judgement.

The reference to Jesus coming witht he clouds of heaven is not confusing to a person who knows his Old Testament. have a look back at Daniel 7:
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.Jesus was seen coming with the clouds of heaven. What was htis even. Was this the return of Christ? No, as you can see - this is when Jesus went to the Ancient of Days and reigned over His kingdom. Question: When did Jesus claim all authority, and go before the ancient of Days. Is that in the past or the future? What? The past???? But how did anyone miss it?????? The answer: They did not miss it.
If Jesus did come back already, how come that isn't part of the root doctrine of Christianity right from the beginning? Seems like the guys who were there when it happened (and that includes the apostle John from all historical accounts, who lived until the 90's) would have made sure such a glorious event would be recorded and taught to all future followers. But there is no epilogue to Revelation. No indication that the ECF's believed that Jesus came back already. And I am not talking about vague references here and there.Once more for clarity, preterists do not say that Jesus has returned. They say he came against Jeruslem in AD 70, and that the references to this coming in the Gospels are in fact not talking about His future return.

Glenn

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I simply complimented another TWEB member on his work when I wrote about TimC's post. In another instance you seemed to think this was a good thing to do. I am just following your advice.

If I choose to comment further on dispensationalism (which I have done by the way) I will do so. Right now I do not want to serve as a distraction from the focus TimC has now which is mostly defending premillennial futurism and showing what I believe the gross inadequacies of preterism. I find TimC's comments help me understand many things more clearly and I appreciate TimC's work.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

You did a whole lot more than that, but suit yourself. When one is simply "complimenting" another poster one does not do it to score polemical points against another. In fact Ken that is considering "using" another person - soemthing you have a habit of. I used to do this myself until Sylas educated me that it cheapens a compliment to someone when you have to make it at the expense of another. You might learn that.

Now notice when I complimented Ted I did not say:

Go get em Ted!!! When you going to beat them up!!! You are the best!!!

I simply said:

Ted's exegesis on Daniel 9 is top notch

so that my compliment to Ted was genuine and free of any agenda

[Dee Dee Warren]

That was a wonderful post Theonomy. You explained it clearer than I. The problem with these discussions at time is the mostly inadvertant smuggling in of presuppositions.

I can make an analogy - when JWs hear us say Jesus is God they hear Jesus is the Father. But that is not what we mean by God. But they smuggle in their own definition and knock down a straw man. The "event" referred to by preterists certainly was not missed.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I did not say that TimC should "get you" (I am paraphrasing). I merely stated that I believe TimC had you on the run. Granted it is very obvious he has you on the run and perhaps needn't even be said, but I must confess I do take at least a little pleasure in seeing the queen bee preterism at TWEB on the run. I think you would be less of a escatological fugitive on the run if you simply surrendered to the obvious (earliest church fathers' eschatology, the whole tone of Revelation is futuristic, etc see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=436 ) and became a premillennial futurist!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Suit yourself Ken - your hyperliteralistic pendantism is showing again.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

You wrote:


Suit yourself Ken - your hyperliteralistic pendantism is showing again.

Ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non ei qui negat! He who asserts must prove! I think you failed to meet your onus propagandi.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Posted to our special thread instead

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

Here I thought all your recent locker room post were sour grapes. I had no idea you prefer strawberries and whipped cream! LOL

Sincererly,

Ken

[kendemyer]

Dee Dee,

Did you "remove" a post and put it somewhere else? Tut tut! I think you may find yourself in the delete post brig with me! LOL

(you can respond to this post in "our" special thread if you want! )

[Dee Dee Warren]

I moved it in full to the Locker Room. You may view it here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=763915&postcount=307

You deleted posts after responses. Members are allowed to within the time frame allowed for editing delete posts that have not been responded to.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I stand corrected. Our posts crossed.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problem. No big deal.

[Sparko]

Well, I guess this thread is dead. It has turned into another Ken/Dee Dee fight fest.

Look, I don't believe in preterism, but I REALLY don't approve of the way Tim C and Ken seem to be hammering at Dee Dee -- and their attitude towards her. There is no excuse for that. You can present evidence against preterism with out the attitude and personal attacks guys.

Theonomy: If preterists are only speaking of Jesus destroying the temple and Jerusalem in judgement, I have no problem with that. But it seems preterism goes beyond that and tries to "use up" all prophesy in AD 70.

It could be that AD 70 fulfilled part of the prophesies, but that much of revelation speaks of a future tribulation too. One that the AD 70 destruction was only a foreshadowing of. One that will encompass the whole earth. That is what my current beliefs are. Trying to explain every prophesy in Revelation with regard to AD 70 seems to really stretching things IMHO.

I don't doubt that the ECF's thought that AD 70 was a judgment from God, but I do doubt they thought it was the final tribulation from Revelation.

--


John Sparks, we have to remember that the ECFs were decades -- and sometimes a century or more -- removed from AD70. and the majority of them were Gentiles, who may or may have not known much about what happened to Jerusalem. Or, they may not have realized the significance of Jerusalem's fall and the key passages in Scripture.
First, they were not isolated from the church that was around in AD 70. They evolved from it. The people who WERE alive during the time would have passed the info on to their students, the ECFs. And the guy who wrote of the tribulation, John, was said to have lived till around AD 90. I think that he would have wanted to wrap up his previous book with the epilogue, don't you? And that would have been a pretty popular book, with lots of copies. And God, wanting us to know the fulfillment of his promises, would have made sure the book was not lost, IMHO.


it also seems you assume the language is meant to be literal... one thing we have to ask is, would the original audiences have considered it so literal or more hyperbolic? looking at the OT and how it's prophesies were applied to events in history can help here (though, to be honest, i don't know of any studies that go indepth on this)
A lot of it was meant to be figurative, in the vein of Daniel. But there also was a lot that was clearly meant to be literal too. Speaking of beasts and animals is figurative, but when they use plain language to speak of earthquakes, plagues, fire raining down from heaven, water being poisoned over 1/3 of the earth, over half of the earths population being destroyed and so on, it sounds pretty literal to me. And that never happenedn.


if we are consistent with the lightning analogy, we have to expect it go as immediately as it came.
You can take any analogy too far Sheepdog. Jesus clearly meant that his coming would not be missed. He would light up the sky. Every eye would see him. But then Theonomy in a previous post said Jesus did not come in this manner yet, just in invisible judgement against Jerusalem. But the passage in question is in Matthew 24, right after talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and he says at that time you will see him coming like the lightning is seen.

The other problem I see is that in the tribulation in Revelation, the judgement is not against Israel but against the rest of the world (the unbelieving Gentiles). Israel is redeemed and saved and the rest of the world is destroyed in Judgement. Yet in AD 70, just the opposite occurs. The Israelites are destroyed BY the rest of the world (the Gentiles) - Also in Revelation, Jesus does the destruction HIMSELF at Armageddon. In AD 70 the Gentiles did the destroying.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Theonomy: If preterists are only speaking of Jesus destroying the temple and Jerusalem in judgement, I have no problem with that. But it seems preterism goes beyond that and tries to "use up" all prophesy in AD 70. Not orthodox preterism.

Just wanted to get that in though I don't really have time for the rest of the post...

here is a thread you might want to take a look at, and we can chat some more in paltalk okay?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=611&highlight=purple

[kendemyer]

JohnSparks,

I have never attacked Dee Dee personally. I have commented on her behavior and contested some of the things she has said.

Secondly, you will note that it is not I that is active in the locker room threads anymore it is Dee Dee. I think spending more time researching and posting in the eschatology threads is more appropriate. I don't read Dee Dee's post in the locker room anymore. I did mention that TimC had Dee Dee on the run in one instance but I assure you it was said in good fun. Given Dee Dee's preoccupation with the locker room I can at least be granted a little concession to enjoy seeing Dee Dee on the run in the eschatology forum at least in my estimation. Post #298 at this thread sums up my current feeling about the locker room situation: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39959&page=19&pp=16

Thirdly, I can see how saying I take some pleasure in seeing her on the run due to Tim's argumentation could be counter productive in terms of good relations. I will fully grant you that. The Bible does say "Blessed are the peacemakers." With that in mind, I have decided not to make such comments in the future. I think my comment overall was not conduscive to generating peaceful relations between Dee Dee and I.

[Sparko]

Ken, it is not that you attack her as in insults or calling names, but more like acting in a derogotory manner towards her and her beliefs. More like acting superior towards her. Haughtiness.

And Dee Dee, I look forward to talking in Pal Talk, if you can keep the jargon down to a minimum. I am a simple guy and get lost in all the technical terms.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problem John!

[kendemyer]

TO: JohnSparks

You wrote:


Ken, it is not that you attack her as in insults or calling names, but more like acting in a derogotory manner towards her and her beliefs. More like acting superior towards her. Haughtiness.

I believe in respecting the person but I cannot say I believe in the necessity or rightfulness of respecting all beliefs. I think beliefs need to earn respect via evidence and that they are not like people who are made in the image of God for example. In short, I do not believe in political/theological correctness although I do not want to spend time debating picayune issues (like endlessly wrangling about geneologies which Paul said not to do).

It is true that I have made pointed remarks about preterism and other eschatologies as well. I would also say that relations between Dee Dee and I could not be improved and that it has not been all Dee Dee's fault. I could have been more diplomatic but I do think though that you seem to be not recognizing Dee Dee's behavior that is not conduscive to good relations and that you are not being balanced in your commentary. If you do think it is all my fault I have no problem with that. I just do not believe that is an accurate observation.

I think each person can make their own estimation of who is more at fault and there has been made comments on each side of the preterist/futurist aisle on who is more at fault. I have chosen to largely not respond to Dee Dee's locker room post other than to say I disagree with whatever she is writing there and offering a specific post in the thread for readers to go there. At this point given her petty complaints and unreasonable demands I cannot say I want to spend a lot of time addressing them in the locker room. Perhaps, if you were in my shoes you would have some more empathy in this regard.

[kendemyer]

TO: JohnSparks

I saw your name at the bottom of the thread. I was hoping you would post sooner as I have to leave shortly. I do appreciate all the time you are taking to respond though. Please do not take offense if I am not able to respond to your post quickly. Again, I wish to thank you for taking time to try to improve the Dee Dee/Ken situation.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ken, open forum threads are not the place to have an extended discussion on this issue - and I will not derail the thread by responding to you here. We have a thread for this sort of thing and that is where you should respond. If you continue to go off on this thread where responding will only drag this thread off topic, I will report the posts. You need to learn to not feel like you have to respond to every contrary opinion., but if you wish to continue to malign me and misrepresent issues, you should do so in the Locker Room thread and I will be more than glad to correct you there. And you have a methodology issue on your misuse of Pastor Hazzard to respond to there. Whenever another htread started getting too heavy into our issues I have always taken it there, and that is the direction of leadership which you should respect and do so. If you have chosen you are going to "ignore" that thread, then you have cut yourself off from having that opportunity but that is your own choice.

[kendemyer]

Dee Dee,

I have no problem keeping the thread on topic.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Tim C.]

Folks, lets get back to the original points in this thread.

Dee Dee said that no "ECF" taught that a "rebuilt temple" would take place. I think the quote from Irenaeus refutes that idea.

Now, I had asked Dee Dee:

"I want you to quote ancient Christians who believed that the Great Tribulation period was fulfilled at AD70, that a coming of the Lord occurred at AD70, that the smashing of antichrist and establishing of the kingdom occurred at AD70, and so forth. And once you have provided those quotes, then I will also need quotes of ancient Christians who believed each detail of Daniel's and John's prophecies were fulfilled at AD70, and I need quotes to show that ancient Christians distinguished between the coming of the Lord in judgment and the actual coming of the Lord. And then... I need quotes to show that the early church believed that Israel had been morphed into the church, and that the time of this 'morphing of Israel' was the time that 'Israel' entered into the New Covenant and Kingdom Age blessings promised her.

Do you think you can meet a single one of the above challenges, Dee Dee? A single one?"

A single one, Dee Dee?

As far as I can tell, John's original summary of the issue is correct, and remains to be a thorn in the side of preterism:

"...if Jesus came back in Judgement in AD 70, no one at the time seems to have noticed it!"

Not only that, but they also didn't seem to notice that the Great Tribulation had taken place, nor that the Kingdom had been established.

-Tim

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Tim I asked you to repost something in another thread where I would deal with the issue narrowly and expand out. If you don't want to honour that request that is your choice, but "winning" a point because your opponent is swamped and is trying to take things in a manageable fashion is a hollow victory. I told you what I had on my plate, but if that is how you wish to be, that is your choice. This is about truth, not about you or I or Internet debates - and cheap points matter little in truth.

[Tim C.]

And Tim I asked you to repost something in another thread where I would deal with the issue narrowly and expand out. If you don't want to honour that request that is your choice, but "winning" a point because your opponent is swamped and is trying to take things in a manageable fashion is a hollow victory. I told you what I had on my plate, but if that is how you wish to be, that is your choice. This is about truth, not about you or I or Internet debates - and cheap points matter little in truth.Just answer the points somewhere, Dee Dee. I don't care what thread you do it on. And, take all the time you need.

-Tim

[Dee Dee Warren]

Tim my life is crazy now in many ways, if you don't post in that one thread, I will forget or lose track of where the questions are, that is why I asked, not to be a pain in your rear or anything, but as a way to keep it all in once place - and just so that you know I am wanting to just deal with Tert narrowly at first, so some of your issues I just don't have the priority to get to but will in natural progress I hope.

[Tim C.]

Tim my life is crazy now in many waysAs I said, take all the time you need, Dee Dee. I am not in any hurry for anything.


if you don't post in that one thread, I will forget or lose track of where the questions are, that is why I asked, not to be a pain in your rear or anything, but as a way to keep it all in once place - and just so that you know I am wanting to just deal with Tert narrowly at first, so some of your issues I just don't have the priority to get to but will in natural progress I hope.Just let me know when you are ready to speak on (a) the beliefs of Tertullian, and/or (b) the eschatology of the ancient church. I don't care which thread you respond to, Dee Dee. Heck, start a new thread if you want to make it easier to keep track.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Dee Dee, earlier you said:

"Consistency of textual interpretation however does not allow for half to be fulfilled and half not."

I asked: How is it "inconsistent" in textual interpretation?

I would like for you to explain how it is that futurism is not "consistent" in textual interpretation.

Look at how Tertullian interpreted Luke 21:

"Being questioned by His disciples when those things were to come to pass which He had just been uttering about the destruction of the temple, He discourses to them first of the order of Jewish events until the overthrow of Jerusalem, and then of such as concerned all nations up to the very end of the world." - Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch.22

This is precisely the method of interpretation which you call "inconsistent."

Now, I feel that it is the nonpremillennial view which is "inconsistent." The prophecies were all fulfilled literally right up to a point immediately preceding the Great Tribulation, and then... *blamo!* all "spiritual" fulfillments which went unnoticed by the ancient church. Your view introduces a "pattern change" into the fulfillment of prophecy. Inconsistent.

-Tim

[Glenn P]

Theonomy: If preterists are only speaking of Jesus destroying the temple and Jerusalem in judgement, I have no problem with that. But it seems preterism goes beyond that and tries to "use up" all prophesy in AD 70.My point was only that for the preterist, there is a difference betwen the return of Christ and Christ/God coming to people.

As to whether or not Revelation teaches a future tribulation, I think a preterist can definitely affirm that this is ancient history, without running the risk of saying that Jesus has returned. But I think you know this, and I also think the fact that you have no problem with the fact that Jesus was speaking of coming against Jerusalem in judgement in 70 AD shows that you are able to accomodate this. The question I would press is why you think there needs to be another fulfilment of something that has been fulfilled.

Glenn

[Sparko]

My point was only that for the preterist, there is a difference betwen the return of Christ and Christ/God coming to people.

As to whether or not Revelation teaches a future tribulation, I think a preterist can definitely affirm that this is ancient history, without running the risk of saying that Jesus has returned. But I think you know this, and I also think the fact that you have no problem with the fact that Jesus was speaking of coming against Jerusalem in judgement in 70 AD shows that you are able to accomodate this. The question I would press is why you think there needs to be another fulfilment of something that has been fulfilled.

Glenn I think there is a future fulfullment of Jesus coming back after a future tribulation of the WHOLE world, not just Jerusalem. That's the reading I get from Revelation. Not a localized event, but a global one. And I don't get that just because futurists taught that to me, but I get that even when I go back and try to read it with a localized preterist view in mind. It just doesn't fit for me. Several times Revelations mentions the whole earth in regards to the people, and regards to the judgements.

And again, in Revelation, it seems God's judgment is against the gentile world. The earthquakes, fire from the sky, etc. And that he actually uses the time to turn Israel back to him and protect them from the beast, etc. But in AD 70, the Romans (gentile world) were the ones doing all the judgment, and got none handed to them from God. The Israelites got the short end of the stick and the gentile world went merrily on their way.