More questions for preterists

[eschaton]

What is preterism? What is the difference between preterism and what we refer to as historicism or futurism. The main difference I know of is that preterism beleives that either all or most of Bible prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD. All forms of preterism claim that what is referred to as the tribulation and any individual referred to as the antichrist, if there is such a person in the Bible, were manifested in the first century. Either all or part of the book of Revelation occured in the first century. Is there essentially anything more to preterism than that?

It seems preterists claim history is on their side. What history? Josepheus? Did Josepheus say the antichrist and the great tribulation were fulfilled in the first century? This may come as a shock to some preterists, but Josephus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jewish historian who was on Caesar's payroll.

So what is the history that says the great tribulation and the individual antichrist were fulfilled in the first century? You would think that the people living through those things would have confirmed that and would have known who the antuchrist was, and you would at least think those living immediately after those things would have known about it. Some of Jesus' apostles were alive during 70AD. They left us plenty of other writings. Wouldn't either they or their followers write about the specific fulfillment of those things?

So is that what the earliest Christians in the latter part of the first century and second century wrote about? Just the opposite. Whenever the antichrist and tribulation were spoken of it was identified as a future persecution of the church by an evil traitor and deceiver.

So where is the historical strength of preterism? My preterist friend Faramir says:

My point was that writing was expensive in the ancient world, so not everything that happened was recorded (like it is today) Plus we do not have an extant copy of everything that was written in the Roman Empire of the 1st century.

So the strength of preterism is the lack of history rather than the existance of it. It seems that since the history doesn't exist the preterist attitude is we'll just make up what we like. I think that's the approach on Dee Dee's page.

And what does preterism lead to? Look at all the congratualtions and praise for Mr. Gavin in his testimony thread "I converted to preterism, and here is why." Well, it seems Mr. Gavin is either a heretic or teetering on the verge of it, as is all of preterism!

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

What is preterism? What is the difference between preterism and what we refer to as historicism or futurism. The main difference I know of is that preterism beleives that either all or most of Bible prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD. All forms of preterism claim that what is referred to as the tribulation and any individual referred to as the antichrist, if there is such a person in the Bible, were manifested in the first century. Either all or part of the book of Revelation occured in the first century. Is there essentially anything more to preterism than that?

It seems preterists claim history is on their side. What history? Josepheus? Did Josepheus say the antichrist and the great tribulation were fulfilled in the first century? This may come as a shock to some preterists, but Josephus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jewish historian who was on Caesar's payroll.

So what is the history that says the great tribulation and the individual antichrist were fulfilled in the first century? You would think that the people living through those things would have confirmed that and would have known who the antuchrist was, and you would at least think those living immediately after those things would have known about it. Some of Jesus' apostles were alive during 70AD. They left us plenty of other writings. Wouldn't either they or their followers write about the specific fulfillment of those things?

So is that what the earliest Christians in the latter part of the first century and second century wrote about? Just the opposite. Whenever the antichrist and tribulation were spoken of it was identified as a future persecution of the church by an evil traitor and deceiver.

So where is the historical strength of preterism? My preterist friend Faramir says:

My point was that writing was expensive in the ancient world, so not everything that happened was recorded (like it is today) Plus we do not have an extant copy of everything that was written in the Roman Empire of the 1st century.

So the strength of preterism is the lack of history rather than the existance of it. It seems that since the history doesn't exist the preterist attitude is we'll just make up what we like. I think that's the approach on Dee Dee's page.

And what does preterism lead to? Look at all the congratualtions and praise for Mr. Gavin in his testimony thread "I converted to preterism, and here is why." Well, it seems Mr. Gavin is either a heretic or teetering on the verge of it, as is all of preterism!
If you want this preterist to respond see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1554471&postcount=3).

In fact I encourage all preterist, heck all Christians, to take the same stance.

If eschaton want's "truthful" debate, he needs to publically apologize to Dee Dee (and all women everywhere) for making her gender an issue.
(see this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1552742&postcount=11)):

...that silly woman Dee Dee...

Who is with me?

(BTW, escaton, once again you completely miss my point, but if you want me to explain how [in this thread, I plan on going to the Locker Room thread next to show your gaffe] you have to apologe to Dee Dee and women everywhere for your totally inappropriate comment.)

[Gavin]

Well, it seems Mr. Gavin is either a heretic or teetering on the verge of it, as is all of preterism!

I am not teetering. At least, not because of preterism. Sometimes when I think of Yxboom in those pictures of hulk hogan I want to apostasize though. :ahem:

Hey Faramir, I like your sig quote.

[Armor of God]

It seems preterists claim history is on their side. What history? Josepheus? Did Josepheus say the antichrist and the great tribulation were fulfilled in the first century? This may come as a shock to some preterists, but Josephus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jewish historian who was on Caesar's payroll.
And I see it, it just lends strength to the preterist position.

No, I don't think Josepheus mentions any antichrist or tribulation in his writings. But like you said, he wasn't a Christian. He wasn't concerned with finding someone to fit the bill of the antichrist, or whether current events were fulfilling Biblical prophecy....he had no agenda. He just recorded history unfold as he saw it, which, in my mind makes him a neutral observer.

In other words, it's a much more "objective" source that describes in detail what Biblical authors recorded.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Hey Faramir, I like your sig quote.

Thanks. I actually had a "contest" for the best sig lines. Lady G won.

I will try to dig up the thread that had the contest if I get a moment.

[dizzle]

I am not teetering. At least, not because of preterism. Sometimes when I think of Yxboom in those pictures of hulk hogan I want to apostasize though. :ahem:

Hey Faramir, I like your sig quote.

Gavin you will soon learn that eschaton is not the most productive poster in eschatology and not someone who wants a dialog. He has been "spinning" your post in multiple threads to make it seem like you said the opposite that you had said when you clearing said you had a question and were not advocating hyperpreterism.

People who "use" other people and spin things like that make me retch quite honestly and that is why he is on ignore. I get enough of seeing what he says from others who quote his posts to know keeping him on ignore is a wise move.

[eschaton]

And I see it, it just lends strength to the preterist position.

No, I don't think Josepheus mentions any antichrist or tribulation in his writings. But like you said, he wasn't a Christian. He wasn't concerned with finding someone to fit the bill of the antichrist, or whether current events were fulfilling Biblical prophecy....he had no agenda. He just recorded history unfold as he saw it, which, in my mind makes him a neutral observer.

In other words, it's a much more "objective" source that describes in detail what Biblical authors recorded.

And Josephus provides enough detail to show it wasn't what Jesus was talking about. Walls and towers were left standing. The assault lasted several months, allowing whoever wanted to escape a chance. Jesus said not a stone would be left on top of another in the entire city (Luke19:41-44), and it would happen so suddenly you should rush down from your housetop to escape(Mat24:17). And it was not a time like no other (Mat24:21). Read what Hippolytus said:



'(On this): The city is the Church ; and these months they are to persecute her and kill, when the false Christ [St. Matth. xxiv. 24] shall come, because she worships him not. Now of this said Daniel, He shall approve the covenant for many, one week; in the half of the week shall cease the sacrifice [Dan, ix. 27]. The half of the week: that is, three years and a-half; and these make the forty and two months which are mentioned. The sacrifice he speaks of is not that of sheep, but the prayers of the upright. And the holy city he speaks of is the righteous, i. e. [those] who are oppressed and trodden under foot by the horn that sprang up in the midst [Dan. vii. 8, 20, 21, 25], which is Antichrist, as Daniel said.

Hippolytus 12 otherwise interprets that which is said in the Gospel, When indeed ye shall see the pollution of desolation [St. Matth. |138 xxiv. 15] : for he says that it is not concerning the Jews, and the laying waste of Jerusalem, that these things are said, but concerning the end of Antichrist. The elect [ib. 22] he speaks of are the Christians who are in this conflict. And He says, Pray that ye fly not on the Sabbath or in winter [ib. 20] : i. e. He advises that we be not overtaken by those things that are coming on us, when we are unoccupied in righteousness, as the Jews [are unoccupied] on the Sabbath, or troubled with worldly cares and sins, as one that is in a winter storm. There shall be tribulation such as there was not like it since the beginning of the world, etc. [ib. 21 ; cp. Dan. xii. 1].

On this Hippolytus says, that in the siege of Vespasian this did not come to pass; for nothing new happened to the world in his days beyond the things that were before. If you speak of war, many times it has happened in former times : and if again of captives, there have not lacked massacres or blood-shedding that was more than that [of the siege]. And if of the eating of children and unclean beasts, lo also in the days of Ahab 13 these things were [2 Kings, vi. 28]. Accordingly it is not concerning Jerusalem that the Lord said this; for when He willed to speak concerning her, He said, When ye shall see the army compassing the city, know that the desolation thereof is nigh [St. Luke, xxi. 20]. Hence the pollution of devastations He speaks of is Antichrist. And Daniel said, [In] the half of the week standeth the abomination in the sanctuary [Dan. ix. 27 ; cp. xi. 31]. Now "Vespasian did not set up in the temple an idol, but that Legion 14 which Trajanus Quintus placed, a chief man of the Romans : he set up the idol there which is called Kôre. |139

Also the Apostle has written that these things are concerning Antichrist, Except if there come first a falling away, and the Man of iniquity be revealed, so that he as God shall sit in the temple, whom our Lord Jesus shall consume, etc. [2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8]. From these [words] it is evident that Vespasian did not call himself God, nor did he sit in the temple, nor was he killed by the Spirit of the Lord. Accordingly it is manifest that in the end tribulation arises against the Church, such as was none like it.'

[Armor of God]

And Josephus provides enough detail to show it wasn't what Jesus was talking about. Walls and towers were left standing. The assault lasted several months, allowing whoever wanted to escape a chance. Jesus said not a stone would be left on top of another in the entire city (Luke19:41-44), and it would happen so suddenly you should rush down from your housetop to escape(Mat24:17). And it was not a time like no other (Mat24:21).
I haven't read through all of Josephus' writings line by line, so I don't know if he mentions more details about the destruction of Jerusalem (the city) or if he just concentrates on the temple. But I do know from other commentaries that it looks like pretty much the entire city was leveled:

Barnes:
For the days shall come ... - This took place under Titus, the Roman general, 70 a.d., about thirty years after this was spoken.

Cast a trench about thee - The word “trench” now means commonly a “pit or ditch.” When the Bible was translated, it meant also “earth thrown up to defend a camp” (Johnson’s “Dictionary”). This is the meaning of the original here. It is not a pit or large “ditch,” but a pile of earth, stones, or wood thrown up to guard a camp, and to defend it from the approach of an enemy. This was done at the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus informs us that Titus, in order that he might compel the city to surrender by “famine,” built a wall around the whole circumference of the city. This wall was nearly 5 miles in length, and was furnished with thirteen castles or towers. This work was completed with incredible labor in ten days. The professed design of this wall was “to keep” the city “in on every side.” Never was a prophecy more strikingly accomplished.

Shall lay thee even with the ground ... - This was literally done. Titus caused a plow to pass over the place where the temple stood. See the notes at Matt. 24. All this was done, says Christ, because Jerusalem knew not the time of its visitation - that is, did not know, and “would not” know, that the Messiah had come. “His coming” was the time of their merciful visitation. That time had been predicted, and invaluable blessings promised as the result of his advent; but they would not know it. They rejected him, they put him to death, and it was just that they should be destroyed.

You might take note of that last little section.

Gill says much the same in less words, and ties his comments to Matt. 24:2

Gill:
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side: which was not only verified in the Roman armies closely besieging them; but particularly in this, as Josephus relates (t) that Titus built a wall about the city, of thirty nine furlongs long, and thirteen forts in it which reached ten furlongs, and all done in three days time; by which means they were pent up, starved, and famished, and reduced to inexpressible distress.

Luk 19:44 - And shall lay thee even with the ground,.... Beat down all the houses in it, the stately edifices, and even the temple itself; See Gill on Mat_24:2.

and thy children within thee; that is, the inhabitants of the place should be slain with the sword of the enemy, and so fall to the ground, and lie upon it;

and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon anther; such a consummate, and entire desolation shall be made, as was foretold by Daniel, Dan_9:27

He mentions Matt 24:2, so I'll throw that in too...

Gill:
verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down; or broken, as Munster's Hebrew Gospel reads it: which prediction had a full and remarkable accomplishment; and which is not only attested by Josephus (y), who relates, that both the city and temple were dug up, and laid level with the ground; but also by other Jewish writers; who tell us (z) that

"on the ninth of Ab, a day prepared for punishments, Turnus Rufus the wicked, חרש את ההיכל, "ploughed up the temple", and all round about it, to fulfil what is said, "Zion shall be ploughed as a field".''

Yes, and to fulfil what Christ here says too, that not one stone should be left upon another, which a plough would not admit of.

I'm sure if I took the time to really dig, I could find some others that thought the writings of our man JOE described the fulfillment of Scripture and related directly to what was going on at the time.

[eschaton]

I haven't read through all of Josephus' writings line by line, so I don't know if he mentions more details about the destruction of Jerusalem (the city) or if he just concentrates on the temple. But I do know from other commentaries that it looks like pretty much the entire city was leveled:...

Barnes:
For the days shall come ... - This took place under Titus, the Roman general, 70 a.d., about thirty years after this was spoken.



He mentions Matt 24:2, so I'll throw that in too...

Gill:
verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down; or broken, as Munster's Hebrew Gospel reads it: which prediction had a full and remarkable accomplishment; and which is not only attested by Josephus (y), who relates, that both the city and temple were dug up, and laid level with the ground; but also by other Jewish writers; who tell us (z) that

"on the ninth of Ab, a day prepared for punishments, Turnus Rufus the wicked, חרש את ההיכל, "ploughed up the temple", and all round about it, to fulfil what is said, "Zion shall be ploughed as a field".''

Yes, and to fulfil what Christ here says too, that not one stone should be left upon another, which a plough would not admit of.

I'm sure if I took the time to really dig, I could find some others that thought the writings of our man JOE described the fulfillment of Scripture and related directly to what was going on at the time.

Please note the difference in what modern commentators write, and what Josephus wrote. But I think what should be more important to us is what the apostles and early church taught. I think the section I gave on Hippolytus is a good example. Here is a section from Josephus describing the towers and wall that were left. Hippolytus acknowledged it was a terrible time, but he also explained the future desolation by the antichrist.



1. NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. ..

The Wars Of The Jews
Or
The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem
Book VII
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF ABOUT THREE YEARS.

FROM THE TAKING OF JERUSALEM BY TITUS TO THE SEDITION AT CYRENE

CHAPTER 1.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war7.html

[eschaton]

And also note that I am focusing on teachings during the first two hundred years of the church. It is important to say that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is also part of DF eschatology. Look in the Scofield bible in Luke 21 I think it is. That idea alone isn't the essential substance of preterism. The idea that there isn't a future individual antichrist or great tribulation is the substance of preterism.

The destruction in 70AD was seen as a fulfillment of prophecy in the early church, but there were two separate ideas about this. The one most popular in the first 200 years is exhibited by Hippolytus. Namely Mat 24:15 was about the future antichrist and Luke 21:20 was about 70AD. The idea that Christ was talking about the church in Mat. remained popular until about the time of Augustine. Then the 70AD destruction was more likely to interpreted as the fulfillment of Mat 24:15. But the church universally believed in a future antichrist and tribulation untill at least the 17th century. And nobody specifically taught the entire Olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century as most of preterism tries to.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I haven't read through all of Josephus' writings line by line, so I don't know if he mentions more details about the destruction of Jerusalem (the city) or if he just concentrates on the temple. But I do know from other commentaries that it looks like pretty much the entire city was leveled:

Barnes:
For the days shall come ... - This took place under Titus, the Roman general, 70 a.d., about thirty years after this was spoken.

Cast a trench about thee - The word “trench” now means commonly a “pit or ditch.” When the Bible was translated, it meant also “earth thrown up to defend a camp” (Johnson’s “Dictionary”). This is the meaning of the original here. It is not a pit or large “ditch,” but a pile of earth, stones, or wood thrown up to guard a camp, and to defend it from the approach of an enemy. This was done at the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus informs us that Titus, in order that he might compel the city to surrender by “famine,” built a wall around the whole circumference of the city. This wall was nearly 5 miles in length, and was furnished with thirteen castles or towers. This work was completed with incredible labor in ten days. The professed design of this wall was “to keep” the city “in on every side.” Never was a prophecy more strikingly accomplished.

Shall lay thee even with the ground ... - This was literally done. Titus caused a plow to pass over the place where the temple stood. See the notes at Matt. 24. All this was done, says Christ, because Jerusalem knew not the time of its visitation - that is, did not know, and “would not” know, that the Messiah had come. “His coming” was the time of their merciful visitation. That time had been predicted, and invaluable blessings promised as the result of his advent; but they would not know it. They rejected him, they put him to death, and it was just that they should be destroyed.

You might take note of that last little section.

Gill says much the same in less words, and ties his comments to Matt. 24:2

Gill:
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side: which was not only verified in the Roman armies closely besieging them; but particularly in this, as Josephus relates (t) that Titus built a wall about the city, of thirty nine furlongs long, and thirteen forts in it which reached ten furlongs, and all done in three days time; by which means they were pent up, starved, and famished, and reduced to inexpressible distress.

Luk 19:44 - And shall lay thee even with the ground,.... Beat down all the houses in it, the stately edifices, and even the temple itself; See Gill on Mat_24:2.

and thy children within thee; that is, the inhabitants of the place should be slain with the sword of the enemy, and so fall to the ground, and lie upon it;

and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon anther; such a consummate, and entire desolation shall be made, as was foretold by Daniel, Dan_9:27

He mentions Matt 24:2, so I'll throw that in too...

Gill:
verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down; or broken, as Munster's Hebrew Gospel reads it: which prediction had a full and remarkable accomplishment; and which is not only attested by Josephus (y), who relates, that both the city and temple were dug up, and laid level with the ground; but also by other Jewish writers; who tell us (z) that

"on the ninth of Ab, a day prepared for punishments, Turnus Rufus the wicked, חרש את ההיכל, "ploughed up the temple", and all round about it, to fulfil what is said, "Zion shall be ploughed as a field".''

Yes, and to fulfil what Christ here says too, that not one stone should be left upon another, which a plough would not admit of.

I'm sure if I took the time to really dig, I could find some others that thought the writings of our man JOE described the fulfillment of Scripture and related directly to what was going on at the time.

AoG:

Don't let Eschaton fool you. He has already been answered (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=972702&highlight=towers#post972702)(see post #26 on the linked page) on this subject, but keeps brining it up.

I do not like to reiterate myself in brief periods of time, but as I had mentioned in another thread;

I've done some research on this passage as part of my project on Yeshua Christ's prophecies (so for some pieces are hosted at DeeDeeWarren's The Preterist List and upcoming at Kyle's The Skeptical Christian in my sig), although on one level I still balk on the full interpretation of this part of the passage (in fact, I will admit that it has single-handedly hexed one part of the project. Two things are noteworthy though.

1. The referent is obviously Yeshua Christ's own generation, for He gives the accusative rationale that "you did not know the time of your visitation".
2. It is notable that Josephus, himself also a Jew of the period, uses dramatic hyperbole in his account of the depth of the destruction, for although he says only the towers remained, and that "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited" [So much for your insults on Mauro], while as my edition of Josephus notes, this is "an exaggeration" because there were a few other parts of structures left partially standing.
3. It's not fair game to play the "than the way it should have happened" card being anal-retentive about a very small number of stones standing upon stones unless you can demonstrate a first century Jew would not have used hyperbole in this type of situation, and Josephus even from the get-go offers a counter to this.

I also addressed this with Eschaton in post #14 AND #30 of this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=924887&highlight=towers#post924887).

Jesus speaks of an entire city here. Nowhere in history is it stated that every stone in Jerusalem was taken down in 70AD. Josephus states the contrary.



Well since you are fond of Matthew Henry lets see what he had to say about this:



Neglecting the great salvation often brings temporal judgments upon a people; it did so upon Jerusalem in less than forty years after this, when all that Christ here foretold was exactly fulfilled. The Romans besieged the city, cast a trench about it, compassed it round, and kept their inhabitants in on every side. Josephus relates that Titus ran up a wall in a very short time, which surrounded the city, and cut off all hopes of escaping. [2.] They laid it even with the ground. Titus commanded his soldiers to dig up the city, and the whole compass of it was levelled, except three towers; see Josephus’s history of the wars of the Jews, 5.356-360; 7.1. Not only the city, but the citizens were laid even with the ground (thy children within thee), by the cruel slaughters that were made of them: and there was scarcely one stone left upon another.



John2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

XREF's: Mt 26:60,61 27:40 Mk 14:58 15:29 Mt 12:40 27:63 1Co 3:16 6:19 2Co 6:16 Eph 2:20-22 1Pe 2:4,5 Heb 8:2



Good point. Jesus did refer to himself metaphorically as the temple. However, I think the context of the passage needs to be taken into consideration in determining when to take a spiritual meaning and when to take it literally.



In the Olivet Discourse, the disciples were coming out of the real physical temple. Jesus asked them “see these buildings”. There is no indication of a spiritual meaning. Significantly there is no mention of the temple being rebuilt. And there is on indication that the disciples believed He was talking spiritually.



So if there is any consistency here Jesus had to be looking through spiritual eyes.



Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Mk 4:12 De 29:4 Ps 69:23 115:5-8 Isa 6:9,10 42:18-20 44:18 Jer 5:21 Mt 13:14,15 Joh 12:40 Ac 28:26,27 Ro 11:8



Jesus spoke of the spiritual temple and city.



He also spoke of the physical and physical temple.





Rev21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

XREF's: Mat 16:18 1Co 3:10,11 Ga 2:9 Eph 2:20 3:5 4:11,12



I think it is a case of one verse taken out of context versus many taken in context.



I think it is case of each verse taken in its proper context. No preterist that I am aware of denies the spiritual aspect of the verses you site. I would love to hear more though. This is a new argument to me. Thanks.

As far as His statement that not one stone would be left unturned in the city? I think it was a literal statement, but not in the very strict wooded literal sense. Every stone was effectively overturned. Nothing was spared out of mercy or spared for continued use. The only thing that was spared were three towers as an "in your face" sign of Rome's might. I believe that that is Mathew Henry's position, and I agree with him.

Semitic languages are full of hyperbole. In this case every stone being turned over is not even hyperbole, but only slight exageration. For all intents and purpose, Jerusalem was completely destroyed. The "lament" would have been much weaker sounding if Jesus had said, "Almost every stone" or "every stone but three towers". And the effectual results were the same.

So it looks like you are the third person (at least) that eschaton has asked this question of. As if he did not know the answer.

So you can continue to dialog with Eschaton if you wish. But I don't want you to get the false impression that you are telling him something he does not already know.

[Armor of God]

Wow. Thanks for that, Faramir. I'll not waste any more time with him...enough has been wasted already, I see.

[eschaton]

AoG:

Don't let Eschaton fool you. He has already been answered (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=972702&highlight=towers#post972702)(see post #26 on the linked page) on this subject, but keeps brining it up.



I also addressed this with Eschaton in post #14 AND #30 of this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=924887&highlight=towers#post924887).




So it looks like you are the third person (at least) that eschaton has asked this question of. As if he did not know the answer.

So you can continue to dialog with Eschaton if you wish. But I don't want you to get the false impression that you are telling him something he does not already know.

How does anything you've just posted have to do with what I'm talking about here. You can give all the baseless opinions you want, but it doesn't change the teachings of the saints, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I don't see how the opinions you give are relavent. Will you please explain?

[eschaton]

To take it further, how does what GhostWalaiOtoko say have anything to do with Luke 19:41-44? I didn't think his comment was valid enough to warrant a response.

I don't see where your comments have anything to do with the teachings of the apostles and the early church. It's simply your opinion, and your refusal of the apostolic teaching as somewhat arrogant. You didn't answer me in any way.

[eschaton]

And I see the supposed "spiritual" interpretation of preterists, I'll give you my opinion. They simply make the scriptures say what they want it to. They rarely refer to ECF, unless they hear of something that they think kinda, sorta might agree with them. The reason for that is they usually don't know what was taught in the early church. They simply want to dictate what the scriptures mean in the literalist opinion. I believe Matthew Henry was writing in the 17th or 18th century wasn't he? I said my focus was on the first 200 years of the church. I admitted other threads of thought became more popular after Augustine, so what's your point?

[eschaton]

The idea of no antichrist and no tribulation remains a false doctrine. At least when compared to the teaching of the first 1700 years of Christian teaching.