Some problems I have with Preterism

[eschaton]

Eschatology is an emotional subject. Say something against someone’s eschatology and they sometimes react as if you’ve insulted their spouse. I have problems with both preterism and premillennialism. In this post I will address preterism.

I want to start out with some statements about Bible interpretation in General. The Christological hermeneutic of the early church was based on the writings found in the New Testament and the earlier midrash methods of first century Judaism, which depended heavily on allegory and typology.

The Christolgical understanding of scriptures was the preferred method of interpretation through the time of Augustine. The church became very protective of the scriptures and discouraged the average person from Bible study for fear of incorrect interpretation and heresy. Then the age of rationalists came along led by Erasmus. Since then hermeneutics have focused on the literal. Language and history have become the tools for interpretation rather than the message of Christ.

I think it’s fair to say that most of the church fathers believed that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was a fulfillment of what Jesus spoke of in the Olivet discourse, but not all did. I think it’s also fair to say that most of the church fathers didn’t believe the prophecies of the book of Revelation had been fulfilled yet.

I believe that both the preterist and premillennial doctrines of today are derived from 16th century Jesuits as documented on this page.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

Mr. Scheifler is a Seventh Day Adventist, and I am not, but I have seen similar information elsewhere so I believe it to be accurate. Regardless, both modern premill and modern preterism depend heavily on the historical-literal interpretation of scripture that didn’t come about until around the 15th century. Admittedly such writings as the Sybiline Oracles hinted at preterism, and Iraeneus, among others, were chiliasts.

*1* "This generation," remains the cornerstone of the temple of preterist interpretation (Mat24:34). The assumption is that Jesus spoke of those physically alive when He spoke. I think Jesus used the term in the same way He did in Mat 23:36, where He spoke of the unfaithful murderers of Zechariah. Zechariah lived some 500 years earlier, so "this generation" means something other than those physically alive when Jesus spoke. Also, we don't assume that all of those living would suffer condemnation in the resurrection (Mat 12:41,42). That would mean Peter, John and all the rest who were alive would suffer condemnation in the resurrection if “this generation” meant all who were physically alive when Jesus spoke. So “this generation” always has an implied “spiritual” connotation to it.

It would be nice if there were a book in the Bible that explained exactly what was meant by generation. Actually, there is. It’s called “Generation,” the Greek word for generation is Genesis. When Jesus refers to the generation as vipers, and with OT references to Jonah we can see the spiritual connotation he attaches to the word. The generation He spoke to weren’t literally snakes, but the were as the offspring of their father Satan. Just like the Nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels. We know the Pharisees and Sadducees weren’t literally fathered by Satan, but spiritually. When Jesus used the word He used it spiritually to refer to the spiritually disobedient.

*2* Preterists refer to the literal destruction of Jerusalem as the focus of OT and NT passages. I don't see that in the OT or NT passages they give. Jerusalem, Judaism, nor the OT covenant was ended by the destruction of the temple in 70AD, regardless of what various Rabbis or scholars may declare.

Paul confirmed that just as a human last will could not changed by another person, so God's covenant with Abraham could not be changed or annulled (Gal. 3:15-17). Paul asserted that with the coming of Christ and Israel's rejection of Him, God still had a covenant to save Israel (Rom. 11:27). Paul interpreted Christ as the one who had made the meaning of the Old Testament plain, removing the veil that caused the Jews to continue looking only to Moses rather than to look to Christ as God's final revelation (2 Cor. 3:14). Paul was a minister of the new covenant, not of the old (2 Cor. 3:6), a ministry of the Spirit and of life, not of dead literalism.

Neither Jerusalem nor Judaism was finally destroyed in 70AD. The temple was not Judaism, and it does not reflect the end of the old covenant as explained above. Indeed, the temple is never mentioned in Hebrews, but the tabernacle of Moses is referred to instead.

According to Luke 19:41-44 every stone in the city, not just the temple would be separated. This didn’t happen in 70AD. Josephus said several walls and towers were left standing. There was also none of the suddenness Jesus described in the Olivet discourse, where a person wouldn’t have time to get his cloak before destruction. Instead, the Romans withdrew after surrounding the city in 67 AD, and the siege lasted five months during 70 AD. Many were allowed to leave during those months. According to Revelation 18:21 Babylon (Jerusalem) would be found no more at all, yet the Romans surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem again sixty years later.

*3* Often words that imply immanency (quickly, shortly, etc.) are referred to as proof Jesus second coming was in the first century. But those verses are often given in the idealistic sense, as in 2 Pet 1:19. Salvation is spiritual, and our absence from this world could occur at any time. I'm not talking about the rapture here. The same type of immanency is used in the OT to refer to event that happened hundreds of years later. (Isa 46:13 51:5 61:11, compare Ro 1:17 3:21-26 10:3-15 also Rom 4:17 Hab 2:3 Heb 10:37)

*4* I agree the OT should be interpreted by the NT, but this doesn't mean that those things referred to were physical in the NT. I also think it wrong to interpret the OT as strict, literal history. The purpose of the Bible is not to give us an exact historical account, but to express God's Word to us, which is spiritual in nature. There may be very little literal history in the bible.

It is true that all the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Christ's birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and rule over his kingdom, and the severance of the wicked Jews from that kingdom. But the fulfillment is not an ending fulfillment, but a beginning of fulfillment, for the fulfillment is a spiritual fulfillment (Rev 19:10). The epistle writers made it clear that all prophecy had not been fulfilled. 2nd Thessalonians is a good example.

II Pet 3:3 is not a mathematical equation. I think preterists misunderstand what I'm talking about when I refer to that verse when explaining the timelessness of God's Word. When I say a picture is worth a thousand words, I don't mean that to be an exact, corresponding exchange for example.

The OT is "spiritual" in nature. And God’s Kingdom is spiritual. Early Christians believed it described the live, death, and resurrection of the Messiah (anointed one).

Today’s interpreters take too literal of an approach to the scriptures in my opinion. There is too much argument over the mechanical meaning of words.

2 Tim 2:4 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


Thanks,
Alan

[studyhound]

Eschatology is an emotional subject. Say something against someone’s eschatology and they sometimes react as if you’ve insulted their spouse. I have problems with both preterism and premillennialism. In this post I will address preterism.

If in your opinion it draws so much emotion why are your addressing it, or at least start your thread in such a way?



I want to start out with some statements about Bible interpretation in General. The Christological hermeneutic of the early church was based on the writings found in the New Testament and the earlier midrash methods of first century Judaism, which depended heavily on allegory and typology.

The Christolgical understanding of scriptures was the preferred method of interpretation through the time of Augustine. The church became very protective of the scriptures and discouraged the average person from Bible study for fear of incorrect interpretation and heresy. Then the age of rationalists came along led by Erasmus. Since then hermeneutics have focused on the literal. Language and history have become the tools for interpretation rather than the message of Christ.



An over simplified version of early hermeneutics, but ok I don’t disagree to much.




I think it’s fair to say that most of the church fathers believed that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was a fulfillment of what Jesus spoke of in the Olivet discourse, but not all did. I think it’s also fair to say that most of the church fathers didn’t believe the prophecies of the book of Revelation had been fulfilled yet.


Agreed

I believe that both the preterist and premillennial doctrines of today are derived from 16th century Jesuits as documented on this page.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm (http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/antichrist.htm)l

Mr. Scheifler is a Seventh Day Adventist, and I am not, but I have seen similar information elsewhere so I believe it to be accurate. Regardless, both modern premill and modern preterism depend heavily on the historical-literal interpretation of scripture that didn’t come about until around the 15th century. Admittedly such writings as the Sybiline Oracles hinted at preterism, and Iraeneus, among others, were chiliasts.


Well this is a big old straw man, really any protestant that wants to discredit, another protestant uses this one, preterism, futurism, idealism, Calvinism, Arminianism, premill, amill, ect ect,.

*1* "This generation," remains the cornerstone of the temple of preterist interpretation (Mat24:34). The assumption is that Jesus spoke of those physically alive when He spoke. I think Jesus used the term in the same way He did in Mat 23:36, where He spoke of the unfaithful murderers of Zechariah. Zechariah lived some 500 years earlier, so "this generation" means something other than those physically alive when Jesus spoke.


Matt 23.36 is talking about the generation that Jesus IS talking to:

Mat 23:31-36 ESV][/color]

(31) Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

(32) Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

(33) You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

(34) Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,

(35) so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

(36) Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.





The blood of all the prophets and holy men that have been killed will be “filled up” in this group of apostates, and result in their judgment in 70 a.d.




Also, we don't assume that all of those living would suffer condemnation in the resurrection (Mat 12:41,42). That would mean Peter, John and all the rest who were alive would suffer condemnation in the resurrection if “this generation” meant all who were physically alive when Jesus spoke. So “this generation” always has an implied “spiritual” connotation to it.


Mat 12:38-41 ESV][/color]

(38) Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you."

(39) But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

(40) For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

(41) The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.





Umm 12.40,41 is about the death and resurrection of Christ. Anyway Jesus calls “this generation” “An evil and adulterous generation”.







It would be nice if there were a book in the Bible that explained exactly what was meant by generation. Actually, there is. It’s called “Generation,” the Greek word for generation is Genesis.

Well that is one way to look at it or it can also mean creation or origin:



Genesis, The Book of

Gen’esis, The Book of. (origin). The first book of the law or Pentateuch, so called from its title in the Septuagint (LXX) that is, Creation. Its author was Moses. The date of writing was probably during the forty-years wanderings in the wilderness, B.C. 1491-1451.









When Jesus refers to the generation as vipers, and with OT references to Jonah we can see the spiritual connotation he attaches to the word. The generation He spoke to weren’t literally snakes, but the were as the offspring of their father Satan. Just like the Nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels. We know the Pharisees and Sadducees weren’t literally fathered by Satan, but spiritually. When Jesus used the word He used it spiritually to refer to the spiritually disobedient.


agreed


*2* Preterists refer to the literal destruction of Jerusalem as the focus of OT and NT passages. I don't see that in the OT or NT passages they give. Jerusalem, Judaism, nor the OT covenant was ended by the destruction of the temple in 70AD, regardless of what various Rabbis or scholars may declare.



Ok where can a Jew go to offer up his sacrifice? Where is the Ark of the covenant and where would it go? What would you say is the defining point of Judism?

Paul confirmed that just as a human last will could not changed by another person, so God's covenant with Abraham could not be changed or annulled (Gal. 3:15-17).

Agreed, and further in the chapter he explains why. Christian (Greeks and Jews) are the heirs of the promise of Abraham. Gal 3.25-29



Paul asserted that with the coming of Christ and Israel's rejection of Him, God still had a covenant to save Israel (Rom. 11:27).

agreed



Paul interpreted Christ as the one who had made the meaning of the Old Testament plain, removing the veil that caused the Jews to continue looking only to Moses rather than to look to Christ as God's final revelation (2 Cor. 3:14).

Agreed



Paul was a minister of the new covenant, not of the old (2 Cor. 3:6), a ministry of the Spirit and of life, not of dead literalism.


Ok, but you add a lot of words to Paul’s definition of himself.





Neither Jerusalem nor Judaism was finally destroyed in 70AD. The temple was not Judaism, and it does not reflect the end of the old covenant as explained above. Indeed, the temple is never mentioned in Hebrews, but the tabernacle of Moses is referred to instead.



Right but all of Moses laws esp. the fulfilled sacrificial laws were exemplified in the temple, so no temple no sacrifices, so with the destruction of the temple the Old covenant was useless. The Jews recognized that had no way to atone for sins and had no way to commune with God.


According to Luke 19:41-44 every stone in the city, not just the temple would be separated. This didn’t happen in 70AD. Josephus said several walls and towers were left standing.

Literality?



There was also none of the suddenness Jesus described in the Olivet discourse, where a person wouldn’t have time to get his cloak before destruction. Instead, the Romans withdrew after surrounding the city in 67 AD, and the siege lasted five months during 70 AD.

For some one who speaks against literalism you sure are pushing the literal bandwagon.



[/quote]Many were allowed to leave during those months. According to Revelation 18:21 Babylon (Jerusalem) would be found no more at all, yet the Romans surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem again sixty years later.
[/QUOTE]


This was towards the Christians first off, second if you have read Josephus, titus








*3* Often words that imply immanency (quickly, shortly, etc.) are referred to as proof Jesus second coming was in the first century. But those verses are often given in the idealistic sense, as in 2 Pet 1:19. Salvation is spiritual, and our absence from this world could occur at any time. I'm not talking about the rapture here.

Sure if you remove words of there meaning, it can mean anything you want.



*4* I agree the OT should be interpreted by the NT, but this doesn't mean that those things referred to were physical in the NT. I also think it wrong to interpret the OT as strict, literal history. The purpose of the Bible is not to give us an exact historical account, but to express God's Word to us, which is spiritual in nature. There may be very little literal history in the bible.



Ok, that’s Vague. Not really a point against preterism. But of course its up to you to prove it.


It is true that all the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Christ's birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and rule over his kingdom, and the severance of the wicked Jews from that kingdom. But the fulfillment is not an ending fulfillment, but a beginning of fulfillment, for the fulfillment is a spiritual fulfillment (Rev 19:10). The epistle writers made it clear that all prophecy had not been fulfilled. 2nd Thessalonians is a good example.



Ahh the old dual fulfillment belief :nc:


II Pet 3:3 is not a mathematical equation. I think preterists misunderstand what I'm talking about when I refer to that verse when explaining the timelessness of God's Word. When I say a picture is worth a thousand words, I don't mean that to be an exact, corresponding exchange for example.



What do you mean “mathematical equation”.




The OT is "spiritual" in nature. And God’s Kingdom is spiritual. Early Christians believed it described the live, death, and resurrection of the Messiah (anointed one).



Argeed

Today’s interpreters take too literal of an approach to the scriptures in my opinion. There is too much argument over the mechanical meaning of words.

2 Tim 2:4 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.




Well words do have meaning and if you take that away you can pour any interpretation into the passages you want, would you like that?




Really you seem to have more of a problem with Literalism that Preterism (because as a preterists i really have never been accused of being a "literalists" in fact just the oppisite.

It may help dialoging if you just posted one or two points at a time.

:studyhound:

[eschaton]

If in your opinion it draws so much emotion why are your addressing it, or at least start your thread in such a way?
:studyhound:


Okay, I'll do one or two points at a time, and a I don't have a lot of time to respond today. I haven't mastered this type of message board either, since I post mostly at Yahoo.

Why do I want to discuss it? I think that's what you do here, and I enjoy discussing it. My beginning was just kind of my way of begging for patience, since the last time I posted I think I made people a little mad and they just pooh-poohed what I had to say. So I guess I was asking to start out on a sympathetic note. That's my way of doing it any way.

We'll see how this post looks.

[eschaton]

Well this is a big old straw man, really any protestant that wants to discredit, another protestant uses this one, preterism, futurism, idealism, Calvinism, Arminianism, premill, amill, ect ect,.


:studyhound:

I guess you're saying that all modern eschatology has developed since the 17th or 18th century. I suppose that's right, but which systems are the most similar to the views of Augustine and what the majority of those before him believed. Can the "majority" of the ealy church be summarised? I would accept Augustine's views as a summary. At least it was the a majority after his time. Correct? That is up until the eighteeth or nineteenth century. No?

By the way, we had a very informative (for me) discussion about historicism some time ago, and I want to thank you for that.

I'll get to the important parts tomorrow. Thanks again.

Alan

[dizzle]

Pooh pooh :wink:

[studyhound]

Okay, I'll do one or two points at a time, and a I don't have a lot of time to respond today. I haven't mastered this type of message board either, since I post mostly at Yahoo.

**shudder yahoo** I can say on thing for sure Yahoo= the false prophet and M$ =666 :wink:



Why do I want to discuss it? I think that's what you do here, and I enjoy discussing it. My beginning was just kind of my way of begging for patience, since the last time I posted I think I made people a little mad and they just pooh-poohed what I had to say. So I guess I was asking to start out on a sympathetic note. That's my way of doing it any way.

We'll see how this post looks.
See that makes more sense. :teeth: And I agree. Its just you start your thread agnist Preterists and then say people are touchy about their theology, its not a long reach to think you are pointing fingers.



I guess you're saying that all modern eschatology has developed since the 17th or 18th century. I suppose that's right,

Highly developed, yes, but find their roots in older teaching.


but which systems are the most similar to the views of Augustine

Augustine was an A millennial, he is the one who made it popular, to the point that most other millennial views were pushed aside. As for his view on 70 ad I know he believed that Matt (and its Parallels) was fulfilled in 70 ad (if you want some quotes I don’t have then just available).

and what the majority of those before him believed. Can the "majority" of the ealy church be summarised?


Be for Augustine there was a hodgepodge of eschatological view, Justin Martyer, was a proto-Premillennial, and he said there were many Godly and holy men who held tho the true faith that were not of his thinking (good attitude huh?)



I would accept Augustine's views as a summary. At least it was the a majority after his time. Correct?


Yep he was catholic and they took his teaching and ran with it.

That is up until the eighteeth or nineteenth century. No?




but which systems are the most similar to the views of Augustine

Agustine was an Amill, he is the one who made it popular, to the point that most other Millinnianl views were pushed aside.

and what the majority of those before him believed. Can the "majority" of the ealy church be summarised?


I would accept Augustine's views as a summary. At least it was the a majority after his time. Correct? That is up until the eighteeth or nineteenth century. No?

Well there have always been competing theories and most if not all of them have had followers for most of church history, but yes Augustinian theology has been dominate theology.



:studyhound:

[eschaton]

Matt 23.36 is talking about the generation that Jesus IS talking to:

Umm 12.40,41 is about the death and resurrection of Christ. Anyway Jesus calls “this generation” “An evil and adulterous generation”.



agreed


:studyhound:


I agree 100% that the "generation" includes the ones Jesus is talking to. I'm saying that Jesus spoke consistently. When He spoke of this or that generation it always had a spiritual meaning. Jesus always spoke on the spiritual level in the New Testament. He always taught in parables (Mat 13:34), that he often expounded later to the disciples.

That's the reason He was often misunderstood. Nicodemus thought he had to enter into his mother's womb again (Yeeeouch). The Jews thought Jesus was claiming He could destroy the temple, and rebuild it again in three days (John 2:20) etc. etc.

So I'm saying Jesus always used the word generation in the same way. There is always a timeless meaning to what He teaches. He didn't use it in a literal sense in one sentence after having used it in a spiritual sense three sentences earlier (Mat 23:33,36). I'm saying Jesus was consistent in His spiritual language.

Since He used generation to refer to children of light, or children of darkness, there's no need to limit the destruction of the temple to within forty years or any earthly time period.

How well was He understood in His time? How well do we understand Him today?

Jesus plainly told the disciples:

Matt16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be
raised again the third day.
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and
scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to
rebuke him.

Jesus talked openly about this. Maybe that's why the disciples didn't understand until after the resurrection. The one time He spoke plainly they didn't understand. Perhaps we should take note of that.

Peter had even rebuked Him, and yet he didn't fully comprehend that
it was really supposed to happen!

John 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise
again from the dead.

Others understood (Matt 27:62-64), but those who were closest to Him
didn't.

Even though He taught plainly about this, the scriptures must be
interpreted in a figurative manner to understand what He taught.
Perhaps this was another thing that confused the disciples.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

How well do we underestand these things today? Can you show me the references where in the Torah, prophets, and in the Psalms it fully explains that Messiah must suffer, and rise from the dead the third day?

Jesus spoke as if the entirety of scripture spoke about Him (John 5:29). It's evident from the way the gospel writers quoted the OT that they believed it. The early church interpreted the OT in a Christ-centric way that has been mostly abandoned.

So I'm saying that to interpret "this generation" in a literal way goes completly against the spiritual way Christ taught. We shouldn't limit it to 40 years or any earthly time period. As long as there are children of disobedience the generation Christ spoke of exists.

Alan

[eschaton]

Pooh pooh :wink:

[studyhound]

I agree 100% that the "generation" includes the ones Jesus is talking to. I'm saying that Jesus spoke consistently. When He spoke of this or that generation it always had a spiritual meaning. Jesus always spoke on the spiritual level in the New Testament. He always taught in parables (Mat 13:34), that he often expounded later to the disciples.

SO which is it he always taught spiritually or taught spiritually and literal?

So I'm saying Jesus always used the word generation in the same way. There is always a timeless meaning to what He teaches. He didn't use it in a literal sense in one sentence after having used it in a spiritual sense three sentences earlier (Mat 23:33,36). I'm saying Jesus was consistent in His spiritual language. I would agree that Jesus was consistent, but that he was consistently literal on his condemnation of “the generation” here is all the times Jesus uses the term this generation:

Mat 11:16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,



Mat 12:39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah



Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.



Mat 12:42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.



Mat 12:45 Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation."



Mat 16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." So he left them and departed.



Mat 17:17 And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me."



Mat 23:36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.



Mat 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.





But lets take a look at a example to see if he is speaking generically (spiritual), or directly (literally):



Mat 17:15][/color]

said, "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly. For often he falls into the fire, and often into the water.

Mat 17:16 And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him."

Mat 17:17 And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me."

Mat 17:18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.



Jesus is commenting on his generation, those who brought the boy, and more specifically to his disciples who in the parallel in Luke were not able to cast out the demon.





Since He used generation to refer to children of light, or children of darkness, there's no need to limit the destruction of the temple to within forty years or any earthly time period.

Jesus never uses the term Children of light, it is a term only used by Paul(Eph. 5.8 and 1st thes. 5.5), and children of darkness is not even used in the whole NT.


Jesus plainly told the disciples:

Matt16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be
raised again the third day.
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and
scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to
rebuke him.

Jesus talked openly about this. Maybe that's why the disciples didn't understand until after the resurrection. The one time He spoke plainly they didn't understand. Perhaps we should take note of that.

Wait now he is speaking plain (literality) about going to Jerusalem and dying and being resurrected, didn’t you say “Jesus always spoke on the spiritual level in the New Testament.” So really Jesus doesn’t always on a spiritual level.


John 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise
again from the dead.
Others understood (Matt 27:62-64), but those who were closest to Him
didn't.[/quote] That is a real stretch; The Pharisees and the Sadducees were just repeating Jesus’ own words and asking for gaurds at the tomb. They had no understanding of the resurrection.



Mat 27:62-64 ESV[/color]

(62) Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

(63) and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.'

(64) Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first."



Even though He taught plainly about this, the scriptures must be
interpreted in a figurative manner to understand what He taught.
Perhaps this was another thing that confused the disciples.

That is going to lead to heresy and a misunderstanding of the plain (literal) meaning of Jesus own words. If one take Jesus’ words spiritually then one could see his or our resurrection as spiritual and not real, thus heresy. We have that here in fact people take thing hyper-spiritually and deny Jesus physically rose from the dead.


Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

How well do we underestand these things today? Can you show me the references where in the Torah, prophets, and in the Psalms it fully explains that Messiah must suffer, and rise from the dead the third day?


What will this add to the discussion?


Jesus spoke as if the entirety of scripture spoke about Him (John 5:29). It's evident from the way the gospel writers quoted the OT that they believed it. The early church interpreted the OT in a Christ-centric way that has been mostly abandoned.

This has nothing to do with preterism, really because I can say unequivocally, that I see Preterism as being Christ centered, as he is the one who prophesized about 70 ad and then he was the one to judge. So Christ is the beginning and the end.

So I'm saying that to interpret "this generation" in a literal way goes completly against the spiritual way Christ taught. We shouldn't limit it to 40 years or any earthly time period. As long as there are children of disobedience the generation Christ spoke of exists.

Alan Alan you seem to be guilty of the say “crime” you accuse the literalist of being, you said that “Jesus always spoke on the spiritual level in the New Testament” well that is just untrue, even you your self said as much in this same post. Plus if you make what is literal into a spiritual you remove all the meaning.

[studyhound]

Pooh pooh :wink:
Ahh yes Dee Dee understated and profound! :teeth:










(or would that be Overstated :huh:)

:studyhound:

[eschaton]

SO which is it he always taught spiritually or taught spiritually and literal?

I would agree that Jesus was consistent, but that he was consistently literal on his condemnation of “the generation” here is all the times Jesus uses the term this generation:

But lets take a look at a example to see if he is speaking generically (spiritual), or directly (literally):


Jesus is commenting on his generation, those who brought the boy, and more specifically to his disciples who in the parallel in Luke were not able to cast out the demon.


Jesus never uses the term Children of light, it is a term only used by Paul(Eph. 5.8 and 1st thes. 5.5), and children of darkness is not even used in the whole NT.
[/font]

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your answer here. Jesus spoke of the "faithless and twisted generation." So you're saying only "those who brought the boy, and more specifically to his disciples who in the parallel in Luke were not able to cast out the demon," are the faithless and twisted generation. Is the faithless generation really Jesus' generation? This is literalness to the extreme in my opinion.

Luke 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

You just ignored the literal inaccuracies I pointed out about the destruction of Jerusalem, other than to infer I was being inconsistent. I was pointing out that if what Jesus said was meant to be understood literally then it would be accurate literally.





Wait now he is speaking plain (literality) about going to Jerusalem and dying and being resurrected, didn’t you say “Jesus always spoke on the spiritual level in the New Testament.” So really Jesus doesn’t always on a spiritual level.



Others understood (Matt 27:62-64), but those who were closest to Him
didn't That is a real stretch; The Pharisees and the Sadducees were just repeating Jesus’ own words and asking for gaurds at the tomb. They had no understanding of the resurrection.

[/font]

It says "began Jesus to show." The other scriptures indicate it was from the scriptures he "showed" these things, but they didn't understand until after His resurrection. It was understood that Jesus was supposed to rise again, that's why they posted guards.









That is going to lead to heresy and a misunderstanding of the plain (literal) meaning of Jesus own words. If one take Jesus’ words spiritually then one could see his or our resurrection as spiritual and not real, thus heresy. We have that here in fact people take thing hyper-spiritually and deny Jesus physically rose from the dead.


What will this add to the discussion?


This has nothing to do with preterism, really because I can say unequivocally, that I see Preterism as being Christ centered, as he is the one who prophesized about 70 ad and then he was the one to judge. So Christ is the beginning and the end.

Alan you seem to be guilty of the say “crime” you accuse the literalist of being, you said that “Jesus always spoke on the spiritual level in the New Testament” well that is just untrue, even you your self said as much in this same post. Plus if you make what is literal into a spiritual you remove all the meaning.

When Jesus said He already had meat to eat the disciples thought He was talking about literal food, Nicodemus thought He had to go back in his mother's womb, the Jews thought Jesus was going to destroy and rebuild the temple in three days. I could go on but what's the point? Unless you choose to expound from scriptures those questions I asked I'll leave you in your literal bliss. And Jesus never literally said children of light did he?

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.


3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Well, we all agree that sometimes Jesus speaks literally and sometimes He speaks figuratively. The trick I guess is to figure out when He is doing what.

How can we do that you might ask?

I have a three step program that will work wonders:

1) Context
2) Context
3) Context

:rant: :soapbox:

As I a said earlier in this (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24226)thread:


Well I guess that here is where we differ in our exegetical approach. I look at a passage first in context. That is in that passages context to several things:

1) The passages context within the book of the Bible it is in.
2) The passage context as it compares with other books in the bible written by the same author (if applicable)
3) The passage context as it compares to other passages in the Bible that speak to the same subject matter.
4) The passage context as it compares to other non-biblical literature in the same language/time period/literary genre.
5) The passage context as it relates to the cultural and social practices of the author and/or the original intended audience.

It would be a whole lot easier to pick and choose "what makes sense to me". But since God's ways are not our ways, I trust that his word says what in means in context regardless of whether or not it makes sense to me. I for one feel very uncomfortable making my ability to make sense of a passage be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Word of God.

As Dee Dee pointed out above, for many people the Resurrection is contrary to common sense.

I for one think it is an egregious (probably misspelled) error to place "literalism" before context.

IMHO we should consider the context of the passage first. If the context demands literalism, then we should take the passage as literal. Even if a literal interpritation leads to sensationalism. (ie the Res)

After all, my God is pretty darn sensational. (ditto the Res)

Just my :2cents:
AFAICS Preterism it the only eschatological system that consestently does this. Most others (at least those that I am somewhat familiar with, ie Dispy Futurism) IMHO let thier interpritation determine when a passage should be literal and when it should be seen as figurative.

[dizzle]

On quick note:

well maybe actualloy two, Ihave an article to slap up here too

If by this generation all Jesus meant was evil people or the Jews we have Him utterly the most silly inanity with the very solemn words "truly I say to you"

Of course evil people will still be around until all these things happen to evil peopole

doh!

Benny Hinn could make that prophecy.

It is the same thing as saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

Sillly.

I for one do not put inanities in Christ's mouth.

[eschaton]

On quick note:

well maybe actualloy two, Ihave an article to slap up here too

If by this generation all Jesus meant was evil people or the Jews we have Him utterly the most silly inanity with the very solemn words "truly I say to you"

Of course evil people will still be around until all these things happen to evil peopole

doh!

Benny Hinn could make that prophecy.

It is the same thing as saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

Sillly.

I for one do not put inanities in Christ's mouth.

Is it inane for the saints to be rewarded?

30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Is it inane for the saints to be rewarded?

30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
:eek:

Now he's putting words in Dee Dee's mouth.

:egad:

:bigpopcorn:

[dizzle]

Scared of the question/point are we?

Try answering my point. All you did was BEG the questoin and give it a bone.

So how about a little fire for that strawman and we can start over?

[studyhound]

Sorry about the delay, site down, personal stuff (just had knee surgery)





I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your answer here. Jesus spoke of the "faithless and twisted generation." So you're saying only "those who brought the boy, and more specifically to his disciples who in the parallel in Luke were not able to cast out the demon," are the faithless and twisted generation. Is the faithless generation really Jesus' generation? This is literalness to the extreme in my opinion.
How is this extreme literalism? Was Jesus talk to these people and did he not address these people? So if Jesus who is he talking to?

Luke 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Ok, must have been a version variation.



You just ignored the literal inaccuracies I pointed out about the destruction of Jerusalem, other than to infer I was being inconsistent. I was pointing out that if what Jesus said was meant to be understood literally then it would be accurate literally.
Which ones?

It says "began Jesus to show." The other scriptures indicate it was from the scriptures he "showed" these things, but they didn't understand until after His resurrection. It was understood that Jesus was supposed to rise again, that's why they posted guards. No, the guards were posted because the leadership thought (wrongly so) that the followers of Jesus would steal the Body.

Mat 27:64 ESV

(64) Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first."

When Jesus said He already had meat to eat the disciples thought He was talking about literal food, Nicodemus thought He had to go back in his mother's womb, the Jews thought Jesus was going to destroy and rebuild the temple in three days. I could go on but what's the point?
You know how hard it is to follow you? Your all over the place, rather than stay with one point you jump around, so when I answer your response is akin to “oh ya wel what about….”. Its also difficult because you don’t even use a consistent understanding of scripture. I pointed this out you either cant answer, won’t answer, or missed it totally, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Unless you choose to expound from scriptures those questions I asked I'll leave you in your literal bliss. I have expounded from scripture. You just don’t like my answer.

I hope you are not a teacher, because with a attitude like that you could not and your students would not learn anything.

[/quote]And Jesus never literally said children of light did he?

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.[/quote] Like I said above translation variation.

:studyhound;

[eschaton]

On quick note:

Of course evil people will still be around until all these things happen to evil peopole


I for one do not put inanities in Christ's mouth.

31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.
34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.


Dee Dee's summary looks lilke the straw man to me. I do not consider the reward of the saints "these things happening to evil people." This generation will continue until the resurrection. That is meaningfulf information. Unless you believe the resurrection happened in 70AD, which we do not.

[eschaton]

Sorry about the delay, site down, personal stuff (just had knee surgery)






How is this extreme literalism? Was Jesus talk to these people and did he not address these people? So if Jesus who is he talking to?

Ok, must have been a version variation.


Which ones?

No, the guards were posted because the leadership thought (wrongly so) that the followers of Jesus would steal the Body.

Mat 27:64 ESV

(64) Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first."


You know how hard it is to follow you? Your all over the place, rather than stay with one point you jump around, so when I answer your response is akin to “oh ya wel what about….”. Its also difficult because you don’t even use a consistent understanding of scripture. I pointed this out you either cant answer, won’t answer, or missed it totally, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I have expounded from scripture. You just don’t like my answer.

I hope you are not a teacher, because with a attitude like that you could not and your students would not learn anything.

And Jesus never literally said children of light did he?

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.[/quote] Like I said above translation variation.

:studyhound;

[/QUOTE]



Hi studyhound,

May God speed your surgery recovery. I had one of those myself. Not recently though. I also had trouble accessing the site Friday and haven't stopped by till this morning.

The reason I said it was extreme literalism is because the literal meaning of the word generation is emphasised over the meaning as it is used in scripture, such as the way it was used in the sons of light verse that I quoted. In other words, the context of the scripture when Jesus speaks indicates something other than 40 years, or people alive at a certain time. Jesus speaks of the generations of the sons of light and those of this world. Considering the figurative nature of the Olivet discourse, and the way Jesus spoke in general, I believe the generations He spoke of are the generation of the children of light and the generation of this world. He doesn't say children of darkness, but I think you get the picture. I don't see any need to understand "this generation" as those physically alive when Jesus walked the earth. This is a resort to literalism in my view, when Jesus was speaking in figurative language. Do stars literally fall from heaven, etc. etc. He was indeed talking to the children of this world when He spoke, but that wasn't limited to a few dozen people surrounding Him. Note His answer to Peter's question in a similar situation.

Luke12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?


I also get mixed up in versions from time to time myself. It was probably a little cheap of me to rag on this.

These are some of the historical inaccuracies I was talking about. There is really very little similarity between what Jesus spoke of and the destruction in 70AD. If Jesus' predictions were meant to understood in a literal way they would have been literally accurate.

>>According to Luke 19:41-44 every stone in the city, not just the temple would be separated. This didn’t happen in 70AD. Josephus said several walls and towers were left standing. There was also none of the suddenness Jesus described in the Olivet discourse, where a person wouldn’t have time to get his cloak before destruction. Instead, the Romans withdrew after surrounding the city in 67 AD, and the siege lasted five months during 70 AD. Many were allowed to leave during those months. According to Revelation 18:21 Babylon (Jerusalem) would be found no more at all, yet the Romans surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem again sixty years later.<<


When I say "supposed to rise again" I'm saying the same thing as you. They understood that there was a claim He was supposed to rise. That doesn't mean they thought He would rise, but they did fear His followers would make it appear that way.

I'm simply trying to point out the consistently spiritual way Jesus spoke. Sorry if I skip around to do that.

And I'm sorry if I sound haughty. I hate it when people do that. But the question I was wanting you to expound was about the Messiah suffering, dying, and rising after three days. I wanted you to show me that at least in the Law and the prophets. My point is that we should look at the scriptures through eyes of faith, not the lens of history and grammar, as has been taught since the time of Erasmus.

Alan

[studyhound]

Hi studyhound,

May God speed your surgery recovery. I had one of those myself. Not recently though. I also had trouble accessing the site Friday and haven't stopped by till this morning.


Thank you, my second knee surgery, (each one was of a different type on the same knee). Also the server was down (I think Dee Dee was messing with server :poke:)

The reason I said it was extreme literalism is because the literal meaning of the word generation is emphasised over the meaning as it is used in scripture,


Yes and there is a reason, context.


such as the way it was used in the sons of light verse that I quoted. In other words, the context of the scripture when Jesus speaks indicates something other than 40 years, or people alive at a certain time. Jesus speaks of the generations of the sons of light and those of this world. Considering the figurative nature of the Olivet discourse, and the way Jesus spoke in general, I believe the generations He spoke of are the generation of the children of light and the generation of this world. He doesn't say children of darkness, but I think you get the picture.

The Olivet discourse, is a mix of literal and non-literal teaching, to simple say it is not literal is to do injustice to the passage. He makes it clear to those who are standing there that they will see these events:







(6) And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.



Here we have the apostles asking a question and he is responding directly to them, yes many parts of it are non-literal, but he makes several emphatic points that they would see these events



you[/b] see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),



Here Matthew is trying to make it clear that the original readers would understand that they are the primary recipients of this apocalyptic writing.



I don't see any need to understand "this generation" as those physically alive when Jesus walked the earth. This is a resort to literalism in my view, when Jesus was speaking in figurative language.


The problem is the context does not allow it, and the fact that Jesus did not all way teach in a non-literal fashion, a point you have glossed over several times so far.



Do stars literally fall from heaven, etc. etc. He was indeed talking to the children of this world when He spoke, but that wasn't limited to a few dozen people surrounding Him. Note His answer to Peter's question in a similar situation.


The problem with your example of the stars falling, is that stars falling is clearly non-literal, were as the “this generation” is not. Far a star to “fall” to earth is impossible, for the earth would be destroyed long before it was ever anywhere near the earth (its sad I know more than one person who literally believes in not just one but a multitude of literal stars hitting the earth)

These are some of the historical inaccuracies I was talking about. There is really very little similarity between what Jesus spoke of and the destruction in 70AD. If Jesus' predictions were meant to understood in a literal way they would have been literally accurate.

>>According to Luke 19:41-44 every stone in the city, not just the temple would be separated. This didn’t happen in 70AD. Josephus said several walls and towers were left standing. There was also none of the suddenness Jesus described in the Olivet discourse, where a person wouldn’t have time to get his cloak before destruction. Instead, the Romans withdrew after surrounding the city in 67 AD, and the siege lasted five months during 70 AD. Many were allowed to leave during those months. According to Revelation 18:21 Babylon (Jerusalem) would be found no more at all, yet the Romans surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem again sixty years later.<<


One difficult verse does not disprove the validly of preterism. I will deal with that later. (it is more involved for the time I have right now I start phyical thearpy todoay :eek:)


When I say "supposed to rise again" I'm saying the same thing as you. They understood that there was a claim He was supposed to rise. That doesn't mean they thought He would rise, but they did fear His followers would make it appear that way.
Ok just the way you put it made it sound like the religious leader DID believe him.

And I'm sorry if I sound haughty. I hate it when people do that. But the question I was wanting you to expound was about the Messiah suffering, dying, and rising after three days. I wanted you to show me that at least in the Law and the prophets. My point is that we should look at the scriptures through eyes of faith, not the lens of history and grammar, as has been taught since the time of Erasmus.

Alan

My way of looking ot the scripture is a parallel/historical context. By this I mean I compare scripture to scripture and also look at the historical language usage and the event “surrounding the time period. Looking just with “eyes of faith” do nothing, an interesting article was posted on Tweb earlier this year or the end of last year, making the point that faith in the NT is not a blind faith but a faith proved by evidence and fact, I will try and post the link (or if someone else has it) but this is how I have faith in scriptures, because it is provable and historical.

:studyhound:

[John Reece]

. . . My point is that we should look at the scriptures through eyes of faith, not the lens of history and grammar, as has been taught since the time of Erasmus.

Alan

All too often, looking "at the scriptures through eyes of faith" is a euphemism for seeing the scriptures through the lens of one's personal presuppositions.

The end result is a subconscious distortion of what the scriptures actually say and mean.

[eschaton]

Thank you, my second knee surgery, (each one was of a different type on the same knee). Also the server was down (I think Dee Dee was messing with server :poke:)




Yes and there is a reason, context.




The Olivet discourse, is a mix of literal and non-literal teaching, to simple say it is not literal is to do injustice to the passage. He makes it clear to those who are standing there that they will see these events:







(6) And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.



Here we have the apostles asking a question and he is responding directly to them, yes many parts of it are non-literal, but he makes several emphatic points that they would see these events



you[/b] see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),



Here Matthew is trying to make it clear that the original readers would understand that they are the primary recipients of this apocalyptic writing.






The problem is the context does not allow it, and the fact that Jesus did not all way teach in a non-literal fashion, a point you have glossed over several times so far.






The problem with your example of the stars falling, is that stars falling is clearly non-literal, were as the “this generation” is not. Far a star to “fall” to earth is impossible, for the earth would be destroyed long before it was ever anywhere near the earth (its sad I know more than one person who literally believes in not just one but a multitude of literal stars hitting the earth)




One difficult verse does not disprove the validly of preterism. I will deal with that later. (it is more involved for the time I have right now I start phyical thearpy todoay :eek:)


Ok just the way you put it made it sound like the religious leader DID believe him.



My way of looking ot the scripture is a parallel/historical context. By this I mean I compare scripture to scripture and also look at the historical language usage and the event “surrounding the time period. Looking just with “eyes of faith” do nothing, an interesting article was posted on Tweb earlier this year or the end of last year, making the point that faith in the NT is not a blind faith but a faith proved by evidence and fact, I will try and post the link (or if someone else has it) but this is how I have faith in scriptures, because it is provable and historical.

:studyhound:


Where we disagree is context. That's the reason the disciples didn't understand what Jesus was plainly showing them from scripture. That's the reason I asked you to show me from OT scriptures why Jesus must suffer, die, and rise again on the Third day. If you understood the way Jesus spoke you should be able to expound the teaching from more than a hand full of scriptures.

That's why I pointed out the historical inconsistencies. If Jesus was talking about literal things they should have been historically accurate, not just close as in horseshoes.

The disciples were in a literal frame of mind, as I believe the church is today. Jesus taught spiritually. If not then you may try to prove it by the verses where Jesus critisized His disciples and enemies for not understanding scripture, like the woman that was married seven times.

That's why I pointed out the difference in the way the early church interpreted the Bible using principles found in the Bible itself. They looked through the lens of faith rather than the lens of history and grammar as we do today.

When you talk about the abomination of desolation you speak from preteristic assumptions. I make no such assumptions.

I realize it is difficult to find time to respond. I face the same problem. My spam filters keep most of the messages from this forum out of my inbox, but I'll check in from time to time.

Thanks and may God heal your knee quickly,
Alan

[studyhound]

Where we disagree is context.
Well the context is plain and unless you deal with specific verses and not speaking generalities we have hit an impasse.

That's the reason the disciples didn't understand what Jesus was plainly showing them from scripture. That's the reason I asked you to show me from OT scriptures why Jesus must suffer, die, and rise again on the Third day.
I see where your going with this and I disagree, I apostles were give a promise of interpretation, to say that extends to us is going beyond scripture:

(12) "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

(13) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

(14) He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.



If you understood the way Jesus spoke you should be able to expound the teaching from more than a hand full of scriptures. Preterism is hardly based on “a hand full of scriptures”, in reality preterist appeal to scores of both OT and NT scripture. And also to understand many of the metaphors that Jesus uses we rely on the OT for clarity. So we do not rely on hocus pocus interpretation and appeal to the scripture to explain the passages.


That's why I pointed out the historical inconsistencies. If Jesus was talking about literal things they should have been historically accurate, not just close as in horseshoes.
You have pointed out one difficult verse that would be akin to pointing out Deut. 6 as proof that there is no trinity.

The disciples were in a literal frame of mind, as I believe the church is today. Jesus taught spiritually. If not then you may try to prove it by the verses where Jesus critisized His disciples and enemies for not understanding scripture, like the woman that was married seven times.
But you spiritualize the whole of Jesus’ teaching not giving him the ability to be any thing than non-literal. You take the clearly non-literal and say “see, see, Jesus is not literal.” I could just as easy point to a literal teaching of Jesus and look his teachings are literal. So until you at least acknowledge the fact that Jesus did teach in a multi-faceted way I will have to agree with John Reece’s assessment, but I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt.


That's why I pointed out the difference in the way the early church interpreted the Bible using principles found in the Bible itself. They looked through the lens of faith rather than the lens of history and grammar as we do today.
Not true, Luke for example, is a par excellent historian and he used his knowledge of history to set the stage and explain the context of events.
Also many of the early church fathers set Matt. 24 at 70 ad.


When you talk about the abomination of desolation you speak from preteristic assumptions. I make no such assumptions.
No my understanding of the abomination is from a simple understanding of Jesus own words. I held to this before I held to a proper Preterist interpretation.

:studyhound:

[eschaton]

Well the context is plain and unless you deal with specific verses and not speaking generalities we have hit an impasse.


I see where your going with this and I disagree, I apostles were give a promise of interpretation, to say that extends to us is going beyond scripture:

(12) "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

(13) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

(14) He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.



Preterism is hardly based on “a hand full of scriptures”, in reality preterist appeal to scores of both OT and NT scripture. And also to understand many of the metaphors that Jesus uses we rely on the OT for clarity. So we do not rely on hocus pocus interpretation and appeal to the scripture to explain the passages.


You have pointed out one difficult verse that would be akin to pointing out Deut. 6 as proof that there is no trinity.


But you spiritualize the whole of Jesus’ teaching not giving him the ability to be any thing than non-literal. You take the clearly non-literal and say “see, see, Jesus is not literal.” I could just as easy point to a literal teaching of Jesus and look his teachings are literal. So until you at least acknowledge the fact that Jesus did teach in a multi-faceted way I will have to agree with John Reece’s assessment, but I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt.

Not true, Luke for example, is a par excellent historian and he used his knowledge of history to set the stage and explain the context of events.
Also many of the early church fathers set Matt. 24 at 70 ad.



No my understanding of the abomination is from a simple understanding of Jesus own words. I held to this before I held to a proper Preterist interpretation.

:studyhound:



Hi John and studyhound,

If I distort what the scriptures mean you are welcome to point it out to me. I am willing to compare scripture to scripture to see whether these things are so. I am also willing to look at history for fulfillment, but I am not willing to let history dictate what the scriptures say.

John says that looking through the eyes of faith is looking through one's personal presuppositions. I couldn't disagree more. If he is right, then from the time of the apostles until a few hundred years ago, christianity was simply a matter of personal presuppositions. Since the use of the historical critial and historical literal methods of interpretation we have seen an explosion of differing ideas with all kinds of presuppositions.

Studyhound, you say the context is plain. Plain to who? To premillennialists? To historicists? To Jews? To Catholics? To Mormons? I'm so glad it's plain so that there is never any discussion about it. Should we pray to God and thank Him for opening the eyes of a few preterists a couple of hundred years ago so that the truth is available today? Sorry if I'm a little sarcastic about this.

The veil is over the eyes of the Jews when they read the OT because they haven't turned to the Lord (2Cor3:14). So what is it they are blinded from? They are blinded from the spiritual liberty of Christ and bound to the legalism and literalism that distorts scripture.

Is there a need to go beyond scripture? I say no. Compare scripture to scripture as did the Bereans to see whether these things be so. Look at the way the way the Gospel writers quoted the OT. Is that historical literalism?

You're welcome to point out a place where Jesus taught literalism and we can discuss it. I won't rule out a literal level altogether, since it might be hard to understand morality without it, but I say the spiritual level is the meat of scripture. There comes a time to leave the milk of scripture and to take solid food (Heb 5:12-14).

You may be more familiar with Luke's use of history than I am. What part of history did Luke describe in his gospel? The census? What other historical events did he chronicle that can be confirmed from secular history? If you want to claim the entire gospel and book of Acts is history, I won't argue. But I call it the Word of God since it's in the canon of scripture.

Back to 70 AD, yes many of the church fathers, including Augustine, set the destruction of the temple as spoken of in Matthew 24 at 70AD. But how many set the rest of the events, such as the falling of stars and return of the Lord to 70 AD? That I'm not so familiar with. You're welcome to direct me to some information on that.

Jesus never said the abomination of desolation was in 70AD. And if you want to discuss what luke recorded in 19 and 21 then we will see that it isn't an accurate description of what happend in 70AD from a literal historical view. The sequence of encirling and sudden destruction isn't consistent with what Jesus said. Niether was the leveling of every stone in the city as described in 19.

Both the book of Maccabees and Josephus say that Daniel's abomination of desolation was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. If Jesus used history he would have agreed, but he didn't. He said it was still future. Of course literalists will dissect Daniel into several different abominations of desolation to match their historical view of what it should be. But if that is true, either Jesus wasn't familiar with several different abominations or He simply didn't tell us about it. I find that hard to believe. Jesus didn't view the scripture through the lens of secular history as we do today. He always looked toward the spiritual fulfillment, such as the spirit of Elijah coming in John the Baptist. Jesus said He was the fulfillment of scripture. If we believed that we would find design, purpose and meaning in scripture that explained why this is so. We would underst5and how the Law, the prophets, the psalms tell of His suffering, His death, His resurrection after three days. Or we could simply recognize what scriptures He critisized His enemies for not understanding when they quizzed Him about which husband the woman with seven husbands would belong to in the resurrection. Jesus said it was because they didn't know the scriptures. That was why they couldn't understand the resurrection.

I would be more than happy to discuss what Daniel said about the abomination of desolation if you wish, but I refuse to let history dictate meaning over what the scriptures actually say.

Alan

[John Reece]

John says that looking through the eyes of faith is looking through one's personal presuppositions.

Alan

Is it through the eyes of faith that you have distorted my comment?

[eschaton]

All too often, looking "at the scriptures through eyes of faith" is a euphemism for seeing the scriptures through the lens of one's personal presuppositions.

The end result is a subconscious distortion of what the scriptures actually say and mean.


Okay, sorry if I distorted what you said. You didn't say it was always a euphenism for one's presuppositions. You said it is too often. I believe I posted earlier that the early church looked through the eyes of faith. So do you believe the early church looked through their presuppositions all too often?

[John Reece]

All too often, looking "at the scriptures through eyes of faith" is a euphemism for seeing the scriptures through the lens of one's personal presuppositions.

The end result is a subconscious distortion of what the scriptures actually say and mean.


Okay, sorry if I distorted what you said. You didn't say it was always a euphemism for one's presuppositions. You said it is too often. I believe I posted earlier that the early church looked through the eyes of faith. So do you believe the early church looked through their presuppositions all too often?

Actually seeing the scriptures through the eyes of faith is not necessarily ever a matter of merely seeing the scriptures through one’s personal presuppositions.

However, if you are unaware of what your own presuppositions are, and how they affect what you think you see in the scriptures - and if you have not done enough critical exegesis to be able to accurately ascertain just what scriptures actually say and do not say – you may be unaware that you are seeing scriptures through the lens of your own presuppositions, while euphemistically characterizing yourself as looking "at the scriptures through eyes of faith".

By “the early church”, do you mean the authors of the New Testament?

[studyhound]

I am also willing to look at history for fulfillment, but I am not willing to let history dictate what the scriptures say.



Then you miss out on the glory and splendor of what history can add to the Bible.



For example, when John, in the revelation is addressing the church in Laodicea, he wished that they were either hot or cold. Now I have heard dozens of over spiritualized sermons on this topic and they always miss the point. Jesus here and in the gospels, made a point of using examples that his audience would understand. In Laodicea they were at the meeting of two sources of water, one from some high mountains that were renown for their rejuvenating powers, and the other was a hot spring that this sick and old would go to, they would sit in it and sore, tight muscles and joints would become well and loose. So when Jesus wishes that they were either he was wishing they had a purpose to either be a church that was a refreshing church, or a church that was healing to the broken.



Now I know this because I have studied history and geography of the area and also let the passage speak to me as if I were someone living in that area. Thos is an example of Jesus’ way of teaching, so when I say context I mean more than just the words printed on the page I mean put yourself in the shoes (er sandals) of these listening and see what they would see and understand what they would understand.

John says that looking through the eyes of faith is looking through one's personal presuppositions. I couldn't disagree more. If he is right, then from the time of the apostles until a few hundred years ago, christianity was simply a matter of personal presuppositions. Since the use of the historical critial and historical literal methods of interpretation we have seen an explosion of differing ideas with all kinds of presuppositions.


Of course a non-literal way would clear things right up. I have seen the fruit of a consistent non-literal understanding of scripture; any meaning can be poured in to any text for any reason. So your criticism is unfounded and can easily be turned back and used against your POV.

Studyhound, you say the context is plain. Plain to who? To premillennialists? To historicists? To Jews? To Catholics? To Mormons?


Yes to all those, (well I don’t know about Mormons but why are you bringing a non-Christian cult it to this discussion? the same for Jews do the have the Holy Spirit?) all the commentaries I have read (futurists, historicsts, ect are consistent on this fact that Jesus was speaking to those standing there.

I'm so glad it's plain so that there is never any discussion about it. Should we pray to God and thank Him for opening the eyes of a few preterists a couple of hundred years ago so that the truth is available today? Sorry if I'm a little sarcastic about this.


Well if this is your attitude and your argument, straw men and sarcasm, I see no real reason to continue in this over all discussion.

The veil is over the eyes of the Jews when they read the OT because they haven't turned to the Lord (2Cor 3:14). So what is it they are blinded from? They are blinded from the spiritual liberty of Christ and bound to the legalism and literalism that distorts scripture.


Or the reality of who Christ is and the meaning of his mission, that is why they could not accept him. I can, I have his Holy Spirit in me, of course unless you would like to take to task my salvation, you can not compare Christians to Jews.

Is there a need to go beyond scripture? I say no. Compare scripture to scripture as did the Bereans to see whether these things be so. Look at the way the way the Gospel writers quoted the OT. Is that historical literalism? Are you an apostle?


Yes you do need to go beyond scripture unless of course fluent in both Greek and Hebrew and understand Jewish idioms, and understand perfectly the phrases and mannerism of first century life. If you dont then your in trouble, and forbid that you ever use a commentary or listen to a pastor exponnd on the scriture. Because that would be going beyond scriptire. If you do any of these then you are gulity of the same crime you accuse me of.

You're welcome to point out a place where Jesus taught literalism and we can discuss it. I won't rule out a literal level altogether, since it might be hard to understand morality without it, but I say the spiritual level is the meat of scripture. There comes a time to leave the milk of scripture and to take solid food (Heb 5:12-14).

Mat 20:18-19 ESV
(18) "See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death
(19) and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day."



Mat 5:31-39 ESV
(31) "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
(32) But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
(33) "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'
(34) But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
(35) or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
(36) And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
(37) Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
(38) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
(39) But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.



Joh 4:21-24 ESV
(21) Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
(22) You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
(23) But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.
(24) God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Joh 5:17-23 ESV
(17) But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
(18) This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
(19) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.
(20) For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.
(21) For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
(22) The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
(23) that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.



Is that enough? These are just off the top of my head. Some moral some prophetic, some spiritual.


You may be more familiar with Luke's use of history than I am. What part of history did Luke describe in his gospel? The census? What other historical events did he chronicle that can be confirmed from secular history? If you want to claim the entire gospel and book of Acts is history, I won't argue. But I call it the Word of God since it's in the canon of scripture.


In Acts the he names the names of rulers and governors and others that until recent archeological finds, they were only in this book.

So why can it be both, a historical book and scripture? Archeologists have been using the histories found in the bible for over a hundred years.

Back to 70 AD, yes many of the church fathers, including Augustine, set the destruction of the temple as spoken of in Matthew 24 at 70AD. But how many set the rest of the events, such as the falling of stars and return of the Lord to 70 AD? That I'm not so familiar with. You're welcome to direct me to some information on that.
Most early church fathers, generally, included the whole of chapter 24 at 70 ad and did not cut it up to bits and pieces, there are some but it will take me some time to find my notes.

Jesus never said the abomination of desolation was in 70AD. And if you want to discuss what luke recorded in 19 and 21 then we will see that it isn't an accurate description of what happend in 70AD from a literal historical view. The sequence of encirling and sudden destruction isn't consistent with what Jesus said. Niether was the leveling of every stone in the city as described in 19.
As I said I would deal with that as I have a good about of time to devote to it.
Both the book of Maccabees and Josephus say that Daniel's abomination of desolation was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. If Jesus used history he would have agreed, but he didn't. He said it was still future. Of course literalists will dissect Daniel into several different abominations of desolation to match their historical view of what it should be. Perhaps it would benefit you to study the actual teachings of “literalists”. Rather than just sound off on what they might teach.


As for me there was one abomination, 70 ad. Using non-Christian and non-canonical works to prove your point does not help you and is not at all benefited to this discussion.

But if that is true, either Jesus wasn't familiar with several different abominations or He simply didn't tell us about it. I find that hard to believe. Jesus didn't view the scripture through the lens of secular history as we do today. He always looked toward the spiritual fulfillment, such as the spirit of Elijah coming in John the Baptist. Jesus said He was the fulfillment of scripture. If we believed that we would find design, purpose and meaning in scripture that explained why this is so. We would underst5and how the Law, the prophets, the psalms tell of His suffering, His death, His resurrection after three days. Or we could simply recognize what scriptures He critisized His enemies for not understanding when they quizzed Him about which husband the woman with seven husbands would belong to in the resurrection. Jesus said it was because they didn't know the scriptures. That was why they couldn't understand the resurrection.
The problem (as I said before) is your proving non-literalism by quoteing non-literalism and then saying all is non-literal. Above have demonstrated he did not always teach in a non-literal fashion. Divorce, his death burial, and resurrection, and His yealding to the father.

I would be more than happy to discuss what Daniel said about the abomination of desolation if you wish, but I refuse to let history dictate meaning over what the scriptures actually say.

Alan

I would but you have yet to address any NT preterist verses just vague, references to passages, Save Luke 19.44 which (as I have said) I will address later.

[eschaton]

Actually seeing the scriptures through the eyes of faith is not necessarily ever a matter of merely seeing the scriptures through one’s personal presuppositions.

However, if you are unaware of what your own presuppositions are, and how they affect what you think you see in the scriptures - and if you have not done enough critical exegesis to be able to accurately ascertain just what scriptures actually say and do not say – you may be unaware that you are seeing scriptures through the lens of your own presuppositions, while euphemistically characterizing yourself as looking "at the scriptures through eyes of faith".

By “the early church”, do you mean the authors of the New Testament?

I do mean the authors of the NT as well as the church at least through the time of Augustine, even up until the 14th century.

[eschaton]

Then you miss out on the glory and splendor of what history can add to the Bible.



For example, when John, in the revelation is addressing the church in Laodicea, he wished that they were either hot or cold. Now I have heard dozens of over spiritualized sermons on this topic and they always miss the point. Jesus here and in the gospels, made a point of using examples that his audience would understand. In Laodicea they were at the meeting of two sources of water, one from some high mountains that were renown for their rejuvenating powers, and the other was a hot spring that this sick and old would go to, they would sit in it and sore, tight muscles and joints would become well and loose. So when Jesus wishes that they were either he was wishing they had a purpose to either be a church that was a refreshing church, or a church that was healing to the broken.



Now I know this because I have studied history and geography of the area and also let the passage speak to me as if I were someone living in that area. Thos is an example of Jesus’ way of teaching, so when I say context I mean more than just the words printed on the page I mean put yourself in the shoes (er sandals) of these listening and see what they would see and understand what they would understand.




Of course a non-literal way would clear things right up. I have seen the fruit of a consistent non-literal understanding of scripture; any meaning can be poured in to any text for any reason. So your criticism is unfounded and can easily be turned back and used against your POV.




Yes to all those, (well I don’t know about Mormons but why are you bringing a non-Christian cult it to this discussion? the same for Jews do the have the Holy Spirit?) all the commentaries I have read (futurists, historicsts, ect are consistent on this fact that Jesus was speaking to those standing there.




Well if this is your attitude and your argument, straw men and sarcasm, I see no real reason to continue in this over all discussion.




Or the reality of who Christ is and the meaning of his mission, that is why they could not accept him. I can, I have his Holy Spirit in me, of course unless you would like to take to task my salvation, you can not compare Christians to Jews.

Are you an apostle?


Yes you do need to go beyond scripture unless of course fluent in both Greek and Hebrew and understand Jewish idioms, and understand perfectly the phrases and mannerism of first century life. If you dont then your in trouble, and forbid that you ever use a commentary or listen to a pastor exponnd on the scriture. Because that would be going beyond scriptire. If you do any of these then you are gulity of the same crime you accuse me of.




Is that enough? These are just off the top of my head. Some moral some prophetic, some spiritual.





In Acts the he names the names of rulers and governors and others that until recent archeological finds, they were only in this book.

So why can it be both, a historical book and scripture? Archeologists have been using the histories found in the bible for over a hundred years.


Most early church fathers, generally, included the whole of chapter 24 at 70 ad and did not cut it up to bits and pieces, there are some but it will take me some time to find my notes.


As I said I would deal with that as I have a good about of time to devote to it.
Perhaps it would benefit you to study the actual teachings of “literalists”. Rather than just sound off on what they might teach.


As for me there was one abomination, 70 ad. Using non-Christian and non-canonical works to prove your point does not help you and is not at all benefited to this discussion.


The problem (as I said before) is your proving non-literalism by quoteing non-literalism and then saying all is non-literal. Above have demonstrated he did not always teach in a non-literal fashion. Divorce, his death burial, and resurrection, and His yealding to the father.



I would but you have yet to address any NT preterist verses just vague, references to passages, Save Luke 19.44 which (as I have said) I will address later.



Well, I admit we totally disagree about the Revelation, and specifically the seven churches. I'm glad the passage speaks to you in a literal sense, but that's for your private enjoyment. It doesn't speak to me in that way. I don't really wish to pit reference book against reference book, but here's what the Holman Bible Dictionary says about Laodicea.

>>...The major weakness of Laodicea was its lack of a water supply. This need was met by bringing water six miles north from Denizli through a system of stone pipes (another sign of Laodicea's wealth).
Laodicea is best known today to readers of Revelation where Jesus criticized Laodicea, using imagery drawn from its daily life (Rev. 3:14-22). First, Jesus said Laodicea is neither cold (like the cold, pure waters of Colossae) nor hot (like the therapeutic hot springs of Hierapolis). Laodicea is lukewarm and provides neither refreshment for the spiritually weary nor healing for the spiritually sick (Rev. 3:15-16)....<<

There is a saying after the message to each church:
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

What does that mean to you?

I don't think you fully understand my point of view. To me spiritual interpretation should be proven by comparing scripture to scripture and sound reasoning, not by listening for an angel to whisper in my ear.

Again I will say that Jesus was speaking to those in front of Him, but I don't limit the generation to that, and if you haven't heard of the generation in some other context, then you haven't studied very much. Do you think Hal Lindsey limited the generation to those in front of Jesus? I'm only using him as an example. I don't agree with his take on that.

Sorry you take exception to what I said, but to say everybody agrees as to what "this generation" means begs sarcasm. Surely you must realize that. Here's a web page that agrees with you, but admits to the different opinions.

http://www.pghfamily.net/goodnews/Apr00-4.htm

Here's another opinion.

http://christian-truth.org/end_times/generation.html

What strawman have I set up? I think you are falsely accusing me here. I can see we are headed nowhere fast. Especially since you won't even try to answer my questions about interpreting the OT scriptures.

So what is it the Jews couldn't understand in the OT? That they should resort to legalism? You're taking this too personal. I wouldn't dare challenge your salvation. There you go accusing me again. I suppose we should end this conversation. You're making me sorry I started it. I don't like being falsely accused.

Sorry you think the message of Jesus is limited to Hebrew and Greek. The message is spiritual, but I guess I really shouldn't expect anything different here. You've hurt my feelings to the point I don't want to continue the discussion, but I'll try to finish this post.

Jesus had earlier taught the disciples from scripture what He recapitulated in Mat 20:18-19. I'll accept He spoke literally, but the OT has to be understood spiritually to understand this. Note that Peter rebuffed Him when He said this at one point, because he didn't understand the Word of God in the OT. He didn't understand the scriptures spiritually but literally.

Let me clarify something. I don't mean to say the epistles are anything but plain language. They explain scriptures and how they should be interpreted. When I say Jesus or the apostles spoke of the scriptures, I'm saying they spoke of the OT. If I said the whole Bible, OT and NT had to be interpreted in something other than a literal manner, then I misspoke, because that's not what I believe.

I do not understand the sermon on the mount literally. Are there Christians in the army? Do they turn the other cheek? I would say no because they don't resort to legalistic literalism in this sense.

I also consider the conversation with the woman at the well spiritual teaching, because He says "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." So I will accept your summation.

The Bible may contain history, but it is not a history book. Here's a definition for you.

Spiritual level - scripture's true sense, which concerns the fate of the soul, it's predicament, and its salvation.

Please give me some references to church fathers that saw all of Mat 24 fulfilled.

I'm not sure I understand your last few arguments. I quoted literalists Josephus and the book of Maccabbees.

I would make a joke and say your knee is making you cranky, but you would take it the wrong way and say I was insulting your salvation or something.

[John Reece]

. . . So do you believe the early church looked through their presuppositions all too often?

I do mean the authors of the NT as well as the church at least through the time of Augustine, even up until the 14th century.

I would make a distinction between
(a) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that produced the New Testament and
(b) the various presuppositions in the minds of men from ancient to modern times.

My answer to your question would be “no” with reference to the (a) category and “yes” with reference to the (b) category.

[eschaton]

I would make a distinction between
(a) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that produced the New Testament and
(b) the various presuppositions in the minds of men from ancient to modern times.

My answer to your question would be “no” with reference to the (a) category and “yes” with reference to the (b) category.

So John, how do the view of the NT authors and those of the ancient church differ?

I think that in general, the difference between today's interpreters and those of the ancient church is that both NT authors and church fathers looked for deeper meaning in the scriptures. Many interpreters today simply consider the shallow legalistic and literal sense.

[eschaton]

I would make a distinction between
(a) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that produced the New Testament and
(b) the various presuppositions in the minds of men from ancient to modern times.

My answer to your question would be “no” with reference to the (a) category and “yes” with reference to the (b) category.


Dr. (?) Reece,

I just looked at your public profile and I have to say I'm a bit humbled and intimidated. I want to thank you for participating in this discussion with me. I would like the opportunity to question you about these things.

Respectfully,
Alan Fuller

[John Reece]

Dr. (?) Reece

Just "John".

I just looked at your public profile and I have to say I'm a bit humbled and intimidated. I want to thank you for participating in this discussion with me. I would like the opportunity to question you about these things.

Respectfully,
Alan Fuller

Alan,

I am humbled by your respect.

I am at your service, if you will bear in mind that I am weakened by age and a complex of health problems that make me unable to think clearly when my energy is exhausted - which usually happens before my days are half through.

Blessings,

John

[eschaton]

Just "John".



Alan,

I am humbled by your respect.

I am at your service, if you will bear in mind that I am weakened by age and a complex of health problems that make me unable to think clearly when my energy is exhausted - which usually happens before my days are half through.

Blessings,

John

I am humbled by your humility.

If you find some time look over my page at:

http:\\www.thegospelprophecy.com

I express many of the ideas that I've voiced here.

If you see anything there that makes sense to you, or that doesn't make sense, you may post it here or send me e-mail at rocsy@yahoo.com,
Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you and God bless,
Alan F.

[John Reece]

I am humbled by your humility.

If you find some time look over my page at:

http:\\www.thegospelprophecy.com

I express many of the ideas that I've voiced here.

If you see anything there that makes sense to you, or that doesn't make sense, you may post it here or send me e-mail at rocsy@yahoo.com,
Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you and God bless,
Alan F.

:thumb:

[kendemyer]

TO: eschaton

You wrote:

I believe that both the preterist and premillennial doctrines of today are derived from 16th century Jesuits as documented on this page.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm




I cannot find any undisputed preterist before the Jesuits. I have to agree with you perhaps at this point. Perhaps TWEB preterists will find someone before this time.


Sincerely,

Ken