Preterism Is Dangerous

[Jin-Roh]

I'm really only going to respond to the bold, because when someone breaks up posts into little scattered pieces that's a sure sign they really have no argument that they can lay out in a clear and aggregate manner, and the discussion just gets convoluted and lost in a bunch of mundane sub-topics.

The answer to the bold is simple. We disregard the prophet (or kill the prophet to be precise according to the Mosaic law) when what they claim doesn't come to past, and then we take a bit more caution about jumping the gun ourselves, but that doesn't mean we disregard prophecy or the method of prophecy.

How can it be said that you are willing to be "more cautious" if you are still using the same method as the people who made the false predictions?

And you are incorrect about futurism. None of the apostles were preterists. None. They didn't interpret the parousia or "coming of the Lord" as a judgment on Israel. They all interpreted the "coming of the Lord" as the Lord's return, and they correlated this with the promises of the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6) -- no such expectation of any judgment in sight -- and they were expecting this imminently.

This is all kind of baseless until you can back it up.

Interpreting Revelation as "mystical" symbols isn't evident until Eusebius, who lamented the fact that the previous fathers all interpreted Revelation literally, and were still expecting a coming antichrist, which he believed was an interpretative error.

There's that "L"-word that confuses so many futurists.

So preterism is a johnny come lately, as a result of a growing fear of failed prophecy.

So... the interpretation that came about in the United States during the 1800s is original gangster. Okay that makes complete sense.

[franktalk]

The quote above grossly misrepresents dizzle's writings, which proves that franktalk has not really read her writings ― or even looked at for a brief few seconds the one she referenced here.

You are entitled to your opinion. But the three issues remain. The blending of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 is not justified because of the clear reference to before and after the signs. The blending then allows for a misrepresentation of the abomination. And third is the signs themself which are NOT enough in magnitude to be the signs referenced in the text. But that is my opinion. You may feel that the signs listed in her writings are enough but I don't feel that way.

If these three points are in error then the whole foundation of Preterism falls. So your belief rest on three assumptions.
1. Matthew and Luke are talking about the same issue even though they take place at different places, at different times, and with different people.
2. You must ignore the fact that Luke talks about events before the signs and Matthew talks about events after the signs.
3. You must find signs to satisfy scripture that are not unique or of sufficient magnitude and believe that is enough.

Now once you go down this path then all of the rest of scripture is viewed through the lense of these assumptions. It is my position that unless it is obvious in scripture and in prophecy then we should not jump to assumptions.

[TyRockwell]

No. It means we should interpret scripture correctly to begin with. I remind you that futurism is new kid on the block, so I think that futurists are already those who are doing the re-interpreting.



Here's the problem, SeanD: Futurists have a short collective memory. I get the impression that the twin swords of fear and urgency ("the Lord is coming! Look at the signs! Get out and evangelize! Escape! Escape!") drive futurism so much that the futurist forget about every time someone said, "I believe the Lord is coming so soon, I don't buy green bananas" it and turned out to be false. So the train keeps going because nobody has a moment of self-reflection and thinks "hey this is kinda weird. Wasn't the world supposed to end at 9/11, Y2K, the Cold War, and the Cuban Missle Crisis?"

Doing the same action, and expecting different results is the "pop" definition of insanity. In this case, the same "action" is following the methods of futurism.

I have said it before and I will say it again: one of the reasons why I reject futurism is that it to often makes false prophecies. If I am going to condemn Joseph Smith for failed predictions about the end of the world in the 19th century, and the JW's about failed predictions in the 20th century, than I will also condemn futurism for every failure it has made.



This is kind of an irrelevant rabbit trail that is not worth chasing.



Do you not believe that Duet 18:20-22 instructs us to disregard false prophets due to false prophecies? Can you explain how your method and brand of futurism is any different from any of the "nut-jobs" you want to disassociate from?

I don't like coming to the "rescue" of the kind of futurists we both disagree with, but it is wrong to smear all futurists with the errors of some.

Plus, the Deut. 'false prophet' was one who told the people to do something contrary to what God had said.

The vast majority of futurists hold to Jesus' words that no man knows the day or the hour of his coming. The vast majority always hold that it is wrong to predict dates.

At the same time, it isn't wrong to 'look up,' expecting our redemption is drawing near.

My personal perspective is to take action, so I 'look up' less often. I believe, when our work achieves what the Lord wants done, that will be the day and hour he comes.

I believe, as Peter said, that we can "speed his coming" by learning what actions to take, and doing those things.

[seanD]

So... the interpretation that came about in the United States during the 1800s is original gangster. Okay that makes complete sense.

It didn't "come about" in the 1800's. This is why I don't play the forum post tag game. The method is to pull apart the posts in order to respond to everything out of context, which is why you separated the response above from the my post below that addressed this...

None of the apostles were preterists. None. They didn't interpret the parousia or "coming of the Lord" as a judgment on Israel. They all interpreted the "coming of the Lord" as the Lord's return, and they correlated this with the promises of the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6) -- no such expectation of any judgment in sight -- and they were expecting this imminently. Interpreting Revelation solely (emphasis on the word "solely") as "mystical" symbols isn't evident until Eusebius, who lamented the fact that the previous fathers all interpreted Revelation literally, and were still expecting a coming antichrist, which he believed was an interpretative error. So preterism is a johnny come lately, as a result of a growing fear of failed prophecy.

None of the apostles were preterists. They were dispensationalists. They believed in a coming "man of lawlessness," they believed that this would precede the return of the Lord and was imminent, and they believed that this correlated with the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6), everything that is fundamental to the dipsy view, nor did they express any expectation of a judgment of Israel and nowhere in scripture can you find such an expectation.

[TyRockwell]

Idealists tend to look at the "unveiling" of revelation as not exclusively future events, but revealing of the spiritual powers that are actually running things via violence and brute power. This was given to early Christians so that they could understand why there were not to resist Rome with more violence as I am sure many were tempted to do.

I mostly agree, but take the position that there are a few important things in Revelation, i.e. the trumpets, that remain for the church to put into action.

Preterists generally take phrases like "Kingdom of God" to be an imminently spiritual political designation. The Kingdom of God is a new political order in which people, here and now live according different politics than the secular political order. This inspires all sorts of action from very dramatic actions like like starving nations and adopting children, to more subtle actions like praying for someone in prison.

The Kingdom of God is not very political, though has "salt and light" applications. The Kingdom is more a matter of spiritual authority, dominion.

When Preterists say "the Kingdom of God is at hand" they do not mean "God is going to take all the Christians away and then smite the planet." Preterists might mean something like, "We intend to liberate sex slaves in eastern Europe."

Good answer.

Just add to it, that you put spiritual enemies under your feet.

[gharfish]

.....One of the reasons why I am a preterist is that preterists can describe their own methods and the methods of futurists. .....
Futurists, on the other hand, do not seem to be able to understand what preterist do. .....

They allegorize, "spiritualize," prophetic scriptures ? This allegorizing makes Jesus not make a big false prediction in Matthew 24: 34, for ex. Simultaneously many preterists will look down on the fururist for his/her inferior interpretation of this difficult verse ?

I swear, evangelicalism is the only demographic I know of where being less well read, having lower intelligence is actually what gets you credibility.

That could be messing with the term's actual meaning, Jin-Roh, and that'd be unfair. But I'll admit the term has taken on a false new meaning for many and a new purpose. For example, these days, self-described "evangelicals" are getting into politics in droves. Partly, it's the 80s Moral Majority all over again and their civil religion is very bad for the Church.

I have a better idea. Why don't just explain your hermeneutic? I had a big thread about that awhile ago, and every futurist that answered it thought that the act of interpreting was the same a explaining the method of interpretation.

I was in that thread and I said that we interpret literally (but not in a wooden fashion) when the text seemingly calls for that. We interpret in a historical-grammatical fashion while recognizing and interpreting what appears to be symbolic as symbolic.

~eta: my computer stalled up and I had to restart it, and I had wanted to say one last thing. That is that prophecy is the hardest part of the Bible to get right - figure out.




>

[Darfius]

Oh please... the "h"-word hardly earns you credibility if you can't back it up with a better definition that what you just described.

You mean I won't earn any credibility from a guy who thinks heresy should have a "better definition" than "that which obstructs from a saving knowledge of Christ?" There isn't enough sarcasm in the universe to lend explanatory power to how little I care.

One of the reasons why I am a preterist is that preterists can describe their own methods and the methods of futurists. This means they have some way to arbitrate between both. It is like knowing Italian and Spanish. Only then can you look at book written in one of those languages and identify which once best makes sense in order to translate into English.

Translate Satan being bound in 70 AD into English for me, please. And then explain my method to me. I thought it was pointing out the inherent absurdities in your position and the Scriptural consistency of mine, but since thou art on high, I beseech thee to enlighten us with thine wisdom, O Eschatalogically Fluent One.

Futurists, on the other hand, do not seem to be able to understand what preterist do. Your statement is evidence to that.

I think I understand what you do. See something that's difficult to explain and claim that it doesn't need an explanation because the explanation is spiritual. Oh, and you also sneer a lot and pretend that the notion of the antichrist being the same as the man of lawlessness who is the same as the beast is absolutely absurd without ever explaining why.

On a more serious note, you also laden the Jews with all of the Biblical curses for disobedience and bless the Gentiles with all of the Biblical rewards for obedience without reconciling that with either God's immutability or the global scale of endtime prophecy.

I swear, evangelicalism is the only demographic I know of where being less well read, having lower intelligence is actually what gets you credibility.

If that were the case, this run on sentence of yours should have put you higher in my estimation. That is, assuming the idea you have in your head of "evangelicals" was what I was. As it is, I'm left wondering what childhood trauma of yours you are projecting onto me.

Hey Darfius, if I found some semi-literate preacher with an IQ of 85, who spoke in double negatives and endorsed preterism, would you think it is a better view then?

You misunderstood what I meant by cerebral, which is probably why the response you made after looking up the definition made more sense. I said that how cerebral preterism was contributed to the pride of preterists, not to the likely falsehood of preterism. Unfortunately, you were so ready to posture your intelligence and denigrate mine that you proved my point in the process.

Besides, it is hardly cerebral. Any preterist (especially those who lean towards idealism) can tell you the eschatology has plenty of ways to motivate action.

"Help make the world more of a Christian kingdom! That is, until Satan gets out again and ruins all the work we did. But then Christ will come back and blow us all up, so that's ok!"

There's a pep talk for the ages.

And if you understood preterism, you'd probably understand that too.

So along with English, Italian, preterist and futurist, you also speak needlessly condescending. Will you explain what I don't understand about preterism? Speak slowly so I can keep up.

I have a better idea. Why don't just explain your hermeneutic? I had a big thread about that awhile ago, and every futurist that answered it thought that the act of interpreting was the same a explaining the method of interpretation.

Why stop at my hermeneutic? Wanna take a bite out of my epistemology and sneak a peak at my ecclesiology?

Had you paid attention, you would know my opinion on legal jargon that in no way acts as an aid to clarity.

I thank you, Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them unto babes.

[Darfius]

Is it a talent for saying stupid things each time you post or is it just dumb, and I do mean dumb, luck.

I am one of the owners of the forum. I am presently the only owner actively posting in debates. I am a preterist. I also have veto power in who is on staff etc ad nauseam. Don't you think if I wanted a preterist takeover, it would be pretty easy? Sheesh fellow, do you ever THINK before posting?

The majority of our staff isn't preterist. It could be. It isn't. When another preterist is nominated for moderator, I am the first to point out that we want theological diversity in our staff.

I guess I'm not much of a "stand up" if you don't get my jokes, Dee Dee. But for the sake of theological diversity, I am hereby volunteering to be a moderator.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have read your writings before.

I believe you are fibbing. I pointed you to MY SOLE major work on the subject, and you accused me of linking to someone else. Admit it. You never have, and still haven't, read my commentary.

You basically start off by assuming that Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are talking about the same event.

Quote precisely where I "assume" that. Tick tock. You are looking like a royal clown right now. Why don't you just buck up and admit that you haven't read my writings (I don't write much, that is my major work) and thus you were so unfamiliar with it that you thought I linked to someone else.

You are caught.

Your characterization further shows you still haven't read a thing.

You asked for an exposition whining and muling that no preterist would ever give you one. I gave you one. Then you pout that you don't like it since you never even read it. Well I met your challenge and showed you to be shooting your mouth off.

I see the signs as unique and in a magnitude where there will be no question about them never having been done before. This would make Matthew future for me. You are free to use what ever signs you feel for your own interpretation.

This paragraph REALLY proves that you haven't read my argument.

You are looking like a Caner-size ass right now. Admit that you haven't read it.

Please also point me to "my writings" that are an exposition of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that you claim to have read.

Run along now.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I guess I'm not much of a "stand up" if you don't get my jokes, Dee Dee. But for the sake of theological diversity, I am hereby volunteering to be a moderator.

No thank you. We don't take volunteers to begin with. Staff is chosen by nominations by other staff members. Most staffers were really surprised when they got the email inviting them to join the staff.

[Jin-Roh]

You mean I won't earn any credibility from a guy who thinks heresy should have a "better definition" than "that which obstructs from a saving knowledge of Christ?" There isn't enough sarcasm in the universe to lend explanatory power to how little I care.

You definition of "heretic" is based on an empty assertion that is supported by nothing more than your subjective perspective. Try to come up with something a bit more objective, take two pills, and see me in the morning.

Translate Satan being bound in 70 AD into English for me, please. And then explain my method to me. I thought it was pointing out the inherent absurdities in your position and the Scriptural consistency of mine, but since thou art on high, I beseech thee to enlighten us with thine wisdom, O Eschatalogically Fluent One.

I've been trying to get Futurists to explain to me for ages. So far I can only tell that scripture should be read like this:
1. All thing in the Bible are either Metaphorical/allegorical or literal. Literal is always best, until it doesn't make sense any more.
2. Read the newspaper.
3. If something in the newspaper sounds like it is end times, it is.
4. If we are confused by a position, than it is wrong.

If you think I am joking about number 4, I am not. I have heard futurists say that they reject the opinions of a preterists for no other reason than it is "confusing"!

What I think you misundertand about preterism is in your opening post you ascribed to preterism a bunch of thing preterists don't do. Like an unrestrained, unguided, and "inevitible" allegorization of everything.

Why stop at my hermeneutic? Wanna take a bite out of my epistemology and sneak a peak at my ecclesiology?

Darfius, if you think you can explain the futursit's hermenutic, the gauntlet is still before you.

Had you paid attention, you would know my opinion on legal jargon that in no way acts as an aid to clarity.

Hey man, I'm as guilty as a lot of people when it comes to jargon. I try my best to eschew it. Please, describe your hermenutic as jargon-free as possible. That will help everybody!

I thank you, Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them unto babes.

So I need to find that semi-retarded preterist to convince you that it is not a heresy then? You know this "yer to learn'ed to understand the bible" thing is only about as old as dispe-futurism is, right?

[franktalk]

I believe you are fibbing. I pointed you to MY SOLE major work on the subject, and you accused me of linking to someone else. Admit it. You never have, and still haven't, read my commentary.

I scanned it for what I find to be the major flaws in Preterism. I will admit that once I found them the rest to me is worthless and I did not read it.

Quote precisely where I "assume" that. Tick tock. You are looking like a royal clown right now. Why don't you just buck up and admit that you haven't read my writings (I don't write much, that is my major work) and thus you were so unfamiliar with it that you thought I linked to someone else.

As stated in your introduction.

"Although Christ's words are recorded in three parallel passages (Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24), our foundational text will be the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Matthew 24 with reference to the Marcan and Lukan accounts, as well as other passages as needed."

When someone says parallel passages they normally are saying that each passage deals with the same issue or issues. If you did not intend to link the three together then you should have not stated that they were.

You asked for an exposition whining and muling that no preterist would ever give you one. I gave you one. Then you pout that you don't like it since you never even read it. Well I met your challenge and showed you to be shooting your mouth off.

It is hard to get anyone to give details of the Preterist position. On this site they pretty much refer to you. Which is fine, you seem to have studied the subject well. So my challenge was to get someone to respond which you did. I am sorry if you find my methods offensive. But they do work.

Please also point me to "my writings" that are an exposition of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that you claim to have read.

I have only read sections of your work that you linked to. But in my investigation of Preterism I have read several books and many online commentaries. They all share the same foundational problems in my view. Once I found the same in your work I stopped reading.

None of this matters. I would like to discuss the issues I have already brought up. I prefer to stay on subject if we can. Personal attacks although they make one feel good they do little to win a logical argument.

[Jin-Roh]

I don't like coming to the "rescue" of the kind of futurists we both disagree with, but it is wrong to smear all futurists with the errors of some.

Plus, the Deut. 'false prophet' was one who told the people to do something contrary to what God had said.

The vast majority of futurists hold to Jesus' words that no man knows the day or the hour of his coming. The vast majority always hold that it is wrong to predict dates.

At the same time, it isn't wrong to 'look up,' expecting our redemption is drawing near.

My personal perspective is to take action, so I 'look up' less often. I believe, when our work achieves what the Lord wants done, that will be the day and hour he comes.

You're correct to point out that most futurists do not try to tack down precise dates. I would never want to exaggerate my case to say otherwise. However, as long at futurists are point to such-and-such current event, calling it a sign, and then it later turns out not to be, I do not think they can so easily escape the charge of making false predictions.

I believe, as Peter said, that we can "speed his coming" by learning what actions to take, and doing those things.

I am not sure that preterists would entirely deny any of this. The disagreements would probably be disagree with what many of those actions are.

It didn't "come about" in the 1800's. This is why I don't play the forum post tag game. The method is to pull apart the posts in order to respond to everything out of context, which is why you separated the response above from the my post below that addressed this...

Whether you believe that dispensationalism was "recovered" or "invented" in the 1800s, its loudest, most common expression has its roots there. To assert otherwise is sheer intellectual dishonesty.

None of the apostles were preterists. They were dispensationalists.

Sophistry. Every Christian believes that the views they hold were the views held by the apostles. "None of the Apostles were protestants. They were Catholices..."

They believed in a coming "man of lawlessness," they believed that this would precede the return of the Lord and was imminent, and they believed that this correlated with the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6), everything that is fundamental to the dipsy view, nor did they express any expectation of a judgment of Israel and nowhere in scripture can you find such an expectation.

Have you ever read the Gospel of Matthew?

[Hitch]

A 3 1/2 or 7 year period is fairly 'imminent' as compared to 2000 years, Hitch, and that is assuming that people are able to discern the signs of the time, which is doubtful, since there will be a deception so great that if possible it will deceive even the elect. And I have not advocated a 'pre-trib rapture', so please stick to what I say.

'Fairly imminent' next you're going to tell us you're kind of pregenant?

Come now, Hitch, don't you as a preterist believe that Satan must be released to deceive the nations before Christ returns? Perhaps you think that his release will be as inconspicuous as his imprisonment was and therefore will not count as a 'sign.'

I asked you to show me this literal prison and you have yet to respond ,,,, why?

Actually, I consider all of the events surrounding the breaking of the seals to be the return of my Master onto the world scene, culminating at some point with His physical arrival to gather His elect. All of which is imminent and will catch those who are not prayerfully watching unaware.

A nice vague redifinition, a handy place to hide a little man.

I think His feet will touch the Mount of Olives. I doubt you think that, since you consider His return to coincide with the destruction of the physical universe. Wouldn't be much point to landing on a mountain that's about to be destroyed in a few seconds. There's some more Scripture you have to ignore.



More accurately, the generation Jesus appeared to was representative of the Jewish generation as a whole. They indeed suffered the punishments due to the Jewish generation as a whole, but had they accepted Him, they would have garnered the blessings on behalf of the Jewish generation, as well. Never could that generation or the generation as a whole have been cast off by God, however, as His gifts and calls are irrevocable. Which is something you disagree with Jesus and Paul on. Jesus and Paul knew that God would "hide His face" from them for a little while, to see what their end would be, but nowhere in Scripture will you find support for your replacement heresy.

LOL I saw your run to Moses. Why not go through the 11 or 12 times generation is used in Matthew Darf? Im besidses that it blows your scheme? Some idiot did the same thing with 'soon' the other day, went to some obscure passage in Issy hoping no one would remember the hundred or more NT uses of the term , , it worked as well as your pathetic attempt.

Ok:

Zechariah 2:1-6

Then I looked up—and there before me was a man with a measuring line in his hand! I asked, "Where are you going?"
He answered me, "To measure Jerusalem, to find out how wide and how long it is."
Then the angel who was speaking to me left, and another angel came to meet him and said to him: "Run, tell that young man, 'Jerusalem will be a city without walls because of the great number of men and livestock in it. And I myself will be a wall of fire around it,' declares the LORD, 'and I will be its glory within.'

"Come! Come! Flee from the land of the north," declares the LORD, "for I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven," declares the LORD.

I don't know if you know this, but one of the first things the exiles did when returning from Babylon was build walls, and Jerusalem certainly had walls during the time of Christ. I await your spiritualizing of the verse.

I have no idea what your point is here

Also note the similarity to what John was instructed to do in Revelation with the measuring line. That is your first clue.

Zechariah 8:3-8

This is what the LORD says: "I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain."

Zechariah 8:3-8

So you have a distinct hatred of NT doctrine, why do you think that is a good thing? Hebrews 12;22 . I know its far beyond the reach of your disfigured spiritual understanding

This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Once again men and women of ripe old age will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with cane in hand because of his age. The city streets will be filled with boys and girls playing there."

This is what the LORD Almighty says: "It may seem marvelous to the remnant of this people at that time, but will it seem marvelous to me?" declares the LORD Almighty.

This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."

<Sarcasm>

I must have missed when Jerusalem had its name changed to "The City of Truth."

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

Missing truth is your strongest point , What is it that crippled you ?

Note the phrase "at that time", which is often used in eschatalogical contexts.

Oh you mean at that time when the living water flows? Wow you got one right , or maybe not , John says the living water started flowing when Jesus was still alive, I wonder if you have a correction for John's error ?

And was Babylon both east and west of Jerusalem?

Cartography isnt your thing

Israel being reestablished as a nation in the land of their inheritance "may seem marvelous" to you, but it certainly isn't marvelous to the God of Christ Jesus, through whom and by whom all things are possible.

So this is why you wear the foil helment? I get it . I asked for scriptures prophcying a return to the land after the Babylonian exile and since you cant find any you're playing pretend right?

And those are just a couple of such Scriptures. Out of curiosity, though, why do you restrict me to post-Babylonian exile for the verses I can provide?

It has to do with NT theology and scriptural interpretation ,nothing you're interested in

Are you really suggesting that a trickling back of a couple of tribes represented the "glorious restoration" of Israel--proof that God miraculously acted on behalf of His people and showed that He alone was God? For that matter, do you really understand the 70 years as sufficient time for the world at large to "scoff" over Jerusalem and understand her desolation as proof that God no longer cared for either His land or His people, particularly when during that 70 years He acted in such ways as to make not one but two leaders of the world declare to the world that He was indeed the Most High?

Are you sugesting that the return from Babylon was not prophecied and fulfilled ?

So your inability to speak coherently is coupled with an inability to read comprehensively. That's a pity. I was not suggesting that we "all just get along." I was suggesting that we stop making the truth a matter of legal jargon and consistency a matter of preference.

I must say that you are quite the "hitch" in the preterist plot to take over TWeb and thereby the world.

So you dont have any scriptures in support of a future return to the Land , you should have just said so.

[seanD]

Okay, guess I'll respond to these three sub-topics you've created out of one. Let's see how many sub-topics you can then break up in the next response. I'm going for perhaps SIX.

Whether you believe that dispensationalism was "recovered" or "invented" in the 1800s, its loudest, most common expression has its roots there. To assert otherwise is sheer intellectual dishonesty.

I wouldn't doubt it. The church has gone through a series of historical reformations as a result of veering off course into heretical territory. Of course the furturist believes that Satan is still alive and well, so this comes with the territory. When the church gets off track and is led astray from its original state, God usually jolts the church back into truth form (reformation), and this jolt is usually distinct enough to be traced at a specific point of history.

Sophistry. Every Christian believes that the views they hold were the views held by the apostles. "None of the Apostles were protestants. They were Catholices..."

Have you ever read the Gospel of Matthew?

And the strange thing is, Paul nor any of other apostles in their letters ever mentioned any such judgment. Romans 11 says nothing about a judgment, in fact just the opposite if anything. Paul must have been seriously missing the mark. Not only in Acts 1:6 does Jesus not mention any annihilation and replacement theology, but this passage makes it clear that they were expecting a restoration -- as per OT messianic prophecy, i.e. the restoration of the tribes of Jacob. They said nothing about a total annihilation and then a spiritual replacement. There's apparently some serious interpretive error going on here that was never corrected.

Matthew discusses three basic things (Mat 24:3): the destruction of the temple, his coming (parousia), and the end of the age. He mentions the destruction of the temple ("holy place") in Mat 24:15. But to then assume that this same judgment stretches through Mat 24:23-30, all the way to Mat 24:30-31 and assume that is also the same destruction -- the coming, the tribes mourning, sending fourth the angels, the gathering the elect from the four winds -- I'm sorry, but is laughable, and is the very thing that actually causes me to sometimes scorn preterism for its outright dishonesty and absurdity.

Matthew 24:48 "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming"

Luke 12:45 "But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken"

1 Corinthians 1"7 "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"

1 Thess 3:13 "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints"

1 Thess 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep."

2 Thess 2:1 "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him."

Jam 5:8 "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh."

This is why the futurist makes this claim of the apostles about the dipsy view. Notice that Matthew 24:48 put "coming" (parousia -- Mat 24:3. 24:27. 24:37. 24:39) in the context of the Olivet Discourse. I can't speak for Catholics, but the futurists can conclude that the apostles clearly interpreted parousia, the same word used throughout Matthew's OD, as the Lord's return. So we have a "man of lawlessness, a coming (parousia) and gathering of the Lord (2 Thess 2:1), and a restoration. Only alternative you have is to argue that they not only interpreted Israel's restoration and providence totally wrong, but the whole concept of the parousia wrong.

Did I say you'd break this up into six sub-topic pieces. I'm going for at least TEN.