Best arguments against the great trib being first century?

[zwan]

Best arguments against the great trib being fulfilled in the first century?

Best arguments against the "coming of the son of man" being fulfilled in the first century?

[seanD]

Do you want to hear the arguments or are you going to refute them? I'll list my strongest arguments but I'm not interested in another debate about it.

[Racer X]

The holocaust was a far worse event than those of 70AD, so the "and never will be" doesn't make much sense if the GT happened back then.

"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short."

[zwan]

Do you want to hear the arguments or are you going to refute them? I'll list my strongest arguments but I'm not interested in another debate about it.

Well I'm not preterist, but it's always possible I could think particular arguments against preterism aren't very good...

[zwan]

Here is one argument:


"However, the Thessalonian epistles are essential to our understanding of both the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation....


Through exploring the linguistic links and the flow of arguments in both epistles, it is well established that Paul places all these events within the same time frame.29 And these events must occur within the context of the second coming because Paul unambiguously affirms that the resurrection of believers happens at this time (1 Thess. 4:16-17). So how does this point speak to the subject of preterism?

The two Thessalonian epistles contain at least 24 allusions or references to the Olivet Discourse.30 Most of the time, a handful of allusions will firmly establish that a Biblical author is drawing on a particular previous portion of Scripture. Yet, the Thessalonian epistles are replete with not only linguistic allusions but chronological ones as well.31 Renowned New Testament scholar, D.A. Carson states that “the discourse itself is undoubtedly a source for the Thessalonian epistles.”32 Paul draws upon Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse to encourage and exhort the church in Thessalonica regarding the second coming of Christ and the events associated. These are not cryptic, apocalyptic writings, but straight-forward prose to a suffering church regarding “the blessed hope.”33

If Paul viewed and utilized the teachings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse to declare the events surrounding the second coming, then we are on solid, “inspired” ground to affirm the Olivet Discourse is a prophecy primarily yet to be fulfilled34

Using the principle of “Scriptural synergy,” as Hanegraaff defines it, we do see the “apocalypse code” cracked, just not in the manner he suggests. As has been demonstrated, Paul draws on the teachings of Christ in the Olivet Discourse to teach on the translation and resurrection of believers, the arrival of the man of lawlessness, and the wrath of God upon the ungodly. The inspired Apostle places these events in the context of the second coming of Christ which has yet to transpire. This provides compelling evidence that Paul understood and taught that the Olivet Discourse was not a teaching about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but rather the events surrounding the bodily return of Christ to resurrect His elect and repay the wicked. Only the most strained and dissuasive interpretations of the Thessalonian epistles will fail to recognize these dynamics."


http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue100.htm

[seanD]

Yeah, that's one of the things on my list that work against preterism. The similarities between Mat 24:30-31 and Paul’s “coming of the Lord” and “the gathering” in 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, 1 Thess 4:13-17, and 2 Thess 2:1 -- the latter three passages all unmistakeably resurrection events -- look like they correlate.

[eschaton]

So Sean, I guess they weren't completely fulfilfilled in the first century, or we have to accept the full preterist view. Is that right?

[seanD]

So Sean, I guess they weren't completely fulfilfilled in the first century, or we have to accept the full preterist view. Is that right?

I do believe that the OD has a mixture of both first century and future fulfillment (or IOW, the OD benefited Christians of the first century because it gave them the signal to get out of dodge and not take part in the rebellion), but I don't believe that Mat 24:30-31 is describing the destruction of Jerusalem. And the fact that some of the same imagery and language correlates with 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, 1 Thess 4:13-17, and 2 Thess 2:1 is a strong support for that.

[eschaton]

Here is one argument:


"However, the Thessalonian epistles are essential to our understanding of both the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation....


Through exploring the linguistic links and the flow of arguments in both epistles, it is well established that Paul places all these events within the same time frame.29 And these events must occur within the context of the second coming because Paul unambiguously affirms that the resurrection of believers happens at this time (1 Thess. 4:16-17). So how does this point speak to the subject of preterism?

The two Thessalonian epistles contain at least 24 allusions or references to the Olivet Discourse.30 Most of the time, a handful of allusions will firmly establish that a Biblical author is drawing on a particular previous portion of Scripture. Yet, the Thessalonian epistles are replete with not only linguistic allusions but chronological ones as well.31 Renowned New Testament scholar, D.A. Carson states that “the discourse itself is undoubtedly a source for the Thessalonian epistles.”32 Paul draws upon Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse to encourage and exhort the church in Thessalonica regarding the second coming of Christ and the events associated. These are not cryptic, apocalyptic writings, but straight-forward prose to a suffering church regarding “the blessed hope.”33

If Paul viewed and utilized the teachings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse to declare the events surrounding the second coming, then we are on solid, “inspired” ground to affirm the Olivet Discourse is a prophecy primarily yet to be fulfilled34

Using the principle of “Scriptural synergy,” as Hanegraaff defines it, we do see the “apocalypse code” cracked, just not in the manner he suggests. As has been demonstrated, Paul draws on the teachings of Christ in the Olivet Discourse to teach on the translation and resurrection of believers, the arrival of the man of lawlessness, and the wrath of God upon the ungodly. The inspired Apostle places these events in the context of the second coming of Christ which has yet to transpire. This provides compelling evidence that Paul understood and taught that the Olivet Discourse was not a teaching about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but rather the events surrounding the bodily return of Christ to resurrect His elect and repay the wicked. Only the most strained and dissuasive interpretations of the Thessalonian epistles will fail to recognize these dynamics."


http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue100.htm

It looks like preterism has been refuted.

[seanD]

On a scale of one through ten of the top ten arguments that refute preterism -- one being the strongest -- I'd give that one a seven.

[eschaton]

On a scale of one through ten of the top ten arguments that refute preterism -- one being the strongest -- I'd give that one a seven.

Did you read the article on the link?

[seanD]

Did you read the article on the link?

The article covered a few topics (two of which were more like solutions to problems against futurism -- which I agree with). I was referring to the connections between the Thessalonian passages and passages of the OD, which I feel is just one among many other stronger arguments against preterism.

[zwan]

which I feel is just one among many other stronger arguments against preterism.

Are you going to list them?

[seanD]

Nah I decided not to. What difference does it make. I will say that I think the number one issue is the unlikeness that John had his Revelation before 70 CE.

[eschaton]

As I read through the Critical Issues commentary I noticed this seeming inconsistency. The preterist sees the language in the Olivet discourse as figurative, but when it comes to the term "this generation" they insist on a very literal interpretation.