In the prophecies it mentioned a ball of fire being launched into the sea and killing a large portion of people, also, doesn't it mention the sea being poisoned? When did this happen?

In addition, it also mentions false prophets, that "many will come in my name saying..." who were these people at the time of the prophetic fulfillment in the preterist time period?


How does Preterism answer these questions?

Originally posted by Crucificer

In the prophecies it mentioned a ball of fire being launched into the sea and killing a large portion of people, also, doesn't it mention the sea being poisoned? When did this happen?

In addition, it also mentions false prophets, that "many will come in my name saying..." who were these people at the time of the prophetic fulfillment in the preterist time period?


How does Preterism answer these questions?

Yawn.... 'These people' were the literalist screwballs of the time, the first century, gadding about professing direct revelation from God wrt his promises of deliverence in the face of the Roman occupation. They are the antcedants of todays hucksters promising deliverance through rapture complete with claimed or at least implied special revelation...

Originally posted by Crucificer

In the prophecies it mentioned a ball of fire being launched into the sea and killing a large portion of people, also, doesn't it mention the sea being poisoned? When did this happen?

Not sure what scripture you are referencing here. However, it sounds like it is from Revelation (with my apologies if I am wrong).

I can not give a specific answer without knowing which scripture you are referring to.

However, as a general rule, most preterist see the book of Revelation as largely symbolic in nature. And the "short answer" would most likely be, the "event" described happened sometime in the first century. (again, without a specific scripture reference I am limitted in what my response will be.)

But realize that the event that happened in the first century was most likely not a literal ball of fire being launced into the sea etc., but the fulfillment of the symbolic meaning of that passage.

I find that many people who do not understand preterism tend to ask this type of question, i.e. "When did X event happen according to preterism".

The answer to that type of question will almost invariably be either "AD 70 or thereabouts" OR "that event has not yet taken place".

Which is not really informative, though it does answer the quetion asked.

What is likely to get a more detailed response (and I assume the type of response you are looking for, but please correct me if I am wrong) is a question like, "Scripture says X (in your case the boiling sea), how do preterist interpret that passage (and providing a reference is always helpful).

Do you see the difference, the question you asked "When did it happen" can be answered with AD 70. But most people want to know "what the actual event was".

So if you can provide a scripture reference I will try to get back to you with an answer to your question and to the question I assume you want the answer to (i.e. how do preterist interpret this verse). However, I do not recall this verse so I do not have a "ready answer" and make no promises that I can get one (note: the fact that I may not have an answer is not an indication that a preterist answer does not exist, it just means that THIS preterist does not have an answer, but I am a lay person, why should I have an answer for every possible question on eschatology?)

Now your next question, I recognized the scripture reference (Mt. 24:5 I assume)

In addition, it also mentions false prophets, that "many will come in my name saying..." who were these people at the time of the prophetic fulfillment in the preterist time period?

I do have a ready answer for this one (in fact I was speaking with Mrs. Faramir about this verse just yesterday).

In her comentary on Mt. 24, our own Dee Dee warren list several contenders for this honor:

Dee Dee's Comentary on Mt. 24

Messianic Kings:

Menahem (grand)son of Judas the Galilean
John of Gischala son of Levi
Simon bar Giora of Gerasa

Messianic Prophets:

• The Anonymous Samaritan
• The Anonymous Egyptian (Jew)
• An Anonymous "Imposter"
• Jonathan the refugee

---

© source where applicable

Dee Dee references Glenn Miller's (a futurist IIRC) site as her source for these names.

And these are just a few names. Very little that was written in the first century survives to this day, and very little of what happened in the first century was recorded. So this small sample is likely just the tip of the ice burg. But even if these names were all we had, they are suffecient to fulfill the prophecy.

I think Miller is a historicist

Originally posted by Faramir

Not sure what scripture you are referencing here. However, it sounds like it is from Revelation (with my apologies if I am wrong).

I can not give a specific answer without knowing which scripture you are referring to.

However, as a general rule, most preterist see the book of Revelation as largely symbolic in nature. And the "short answer" would most likely be, the "event" described happened sometime in the first century. (again, without a specific scripture reference I am limitted in what my response will be.)

But realize that the event that happened in the first century was most likely not a literal ball of fire being launced into the sea etc., but the fulfillment of the symbolic meaning of that passage.

I find that many people who do not understand preterism tend to ask this type of question, i.e. "When did X event happen according to preterism".

The answer to that type of question will almost invariably be either "AD 70 or thereabouts" OR "that event has not yet taken place".

Which is not really informative, though it does answer the quetion asked.

What is likely to get a more detailed response (and I assume the type of response you are looking for, but please correct me if I am wrong) is a question like, "Scripture says X (in your case the boiling sea), how do preterist interpret that passage (and providing a reference is always helpful).

Do you see the difference, the question you asked "When did it happen" can be answered with AD 70. But most people want to know "what the actual event was".

So if you can provide a scripture reference I will try to get back to you with an answer to your question and to the question I assume you want the answer to (i.e. how do preterist interpret this verse). However, I do not recall this verse so I do not have a "ready answer" and make no promises that I can get one (note: the fact that I may not have an answer is not an indication that a preterist answer does not exist, it just means that THIS preterist does not have an answer, but I am a lay person, why should I have an answer for every possible question on eschatology?)

Now your next question, I recognized the scripture reference (Mt. 24:5 I assume)



I do have a ready answer for this one (in fact I was speaking with Mrs. Faramir about this verse just yesterday).

In her comentary on Mt. 24, our own Dee Dee warren list several contenders for this honor:

Dee Dee's Comentary on Mt. 24

Messianic Kings:

Menahem (grand)son of Judas the Galilean
John of Gischala son of Levi
Simon bar Giora of Gerasa

Messianic Prophets:

• The Anonymous Samaritan
• The Anonymous Egyptian (Jew)
• An Anonymous "Imposter"
• Jonathan the refugee

---

© source where applicable

Dee Dee references Glenn Miller's (a futurist IIRC) site as her source for these names.

And these are just a few names. Very little that was written in the first century survives to this day, and very little of what happened in the first century was recorded. So this small sample is likely just the tip of the ice burg. But even if these names were all we had, they are suffecient to fulfill the prophecy.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Farramir. Plenty survives from the first century, and even more from the second century that reflects what was taught in the first century:

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
100-200 Odes of Solomon



101-220 Book of Elchasai
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
110-140 Polycarp to the Philippians
110-140 Papias
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
111-112 Pliny the Younger
115 Suetonius
115 Tacitus
120-130 Quadratus of Athens
120-130 Apology of Aristides
120-140 Basilides
120-140 Naassene Fragment
120-160 Valentinus
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
120-180 2nd Apocalypse of James
120-180 Trimorphic Protennoia
130-140 Marcion
130-150 Aristo of Pella
130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness
130-160 Ophite Diagrams
130-160 2 Clement
130-170 Gospel of Judas
130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
140-160 Ptolemy
140-160 Isidore
140-170 Fronto
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
150-160 Martyrdom of Polycarp
150-160 Justin Martyr
150-180 Excerpts of Theodotus
150-180 Heracleon
150-200 Ascension of Isaiah
150-200 Acts of Peter
150-200 Acts of John
150-200 Acts of Paul
150-200 Acts of Andrew
150-225 Acts of Peter and the Twelve
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
150-250 Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
150-300 Authoritative Teaching
150-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
150-300 Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
150-300 Melchizedek
150-400 Acts of Pilate
150-400 Anti-Marcionite Prologues
160-170 Tatian's Address to the Greeks
160-180 Claudius Apollinaris
160-180 Apelles
160-180 Julius Cassianus
160-250 Octavius of Minucius Felix
161-180 Acts of Carpus
165-175 Melito of Sardis
165-175 Hegesippus
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
167 Marcus Aurelius
170-175 Diatessaron
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
170-200 Muratorian Canon
170-200 Treatise on the Resurrection
170-220 Letter of Peter to Philip
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons
175-185 Rhodon
175-185 Theophilus of Caesarea
175-190 Galen
178 Celsus
178 Letter from Vienna and Lyons
180 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
180-185 Theophilus of Antioch
180-185 Acts of Apollonius
180-220 Bardesanes
180-220 Kerygmata Petrou
180-230 Hippolytus of Rome
180-250 1st Apocalypse of James
180-250 Gospel of Philip
182-202 Clement of Alexandria
185-195 Maximus of Jerusalem
185-195 Polycrates of Ephesus
188-217 Talmud
189-199 Victor I
190-210 Pantaenus
193 Anonymous Anti-Montanist
193-216 Inscription of Abercius
197-220 Tertullian
200-210 Serapion of Antioch
200-210 Apollonius
200-220 Caius
200-220 Philostratus
200-225 Acts of Thomas
200-250 Didascalia
200-250 Books of Jeu
200-300 Pistis Sophia
200-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
203 Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
203-250 Origen


Take a look at the e-Catena project for many references from the Ante-Nicene writings to particular New Testament passages.

Go to the Online Books page for many classic scholarly works.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

There's more than you'll ever read in your lifetime, and there's plenty on eschatology, so get your facts straight.

Eschaton, you do realize don't you, that the dates on your list that pertain to NT books comprise just one opinion of many? In fact, there are many reputable scholars, both religious and secular, that would date the whole of the NT pre-70.

Maybe the facts aren't as "straight" as you believe.

UGH!!! Must we do this AGAIN???

Originally posted by Armor of God

Eschaton, you do realize don't you, that the dates on your list that pertain to NT books comprise just one opinion of many? In fact, there are many reputable scholars, both religious and secular, that would date the whole of the NT pre-70.

Maybe the facts aren't as "straight" as you believe.

What's your point? Farramir said that very little exists from the first century. My point is that there's more from the first century than he'll probably ever read. And there's much more from the second century that talk's about what was taught in the first century. So IMO Farramir doesn't have a clue.

There's a mass of non-Christian material from the first century that might also be examined, such as the first century Jew Philo, and pre-first century Jewish writings such as the Enoch books and Jubilees. Early Christians often referred to these non-canonical books. Then there's the ancient writings of the Greeks, Egyptians and Summerians that were sometimes mentioned by early Christian writers. I'm not saying we need to look at all these writings in the same way we look at the Biblical writings, but they can add clarity to the way ancient people thought. They may not have looked at the world in exactly the same way modern perterists do.

Originally posted by eschaton

What's your point? Farramir said that very little exists from the first century. My point is that there's more from the first century than he'll probably ever read. And there's much more from the second century that talk's about what was taught in the first century. So IMO Farramir doesn't have a clue.

There's a mass of non-Christian material from the first century that might also be examined, such as the first century Jew Philo, and pre-first century Jewish writings such as the Enoch books and Jubilees. Early Christians often referred to these non-canonical books. Then there's the ancient writings of the Greeks, Egyptians and Summerians that were sometimes mentioned by early Christian writers. I'm not saying we need to look at all these writings in the same way we look at the Biblical writings, but they can add clarity to the way ancient people thought. They may not have looked at the world in exactly the same way modern perterists do.

I was going to respond in detail, but why bother.

You completely missed my point.

Do you really think that the books you listed count for everything that was written in the first century? Do you think it is even a small fraction of things that were written in the first century? Do you think the books you listed contain every detail of every person that lived in the entire Roman Empire during the first century (when most of the books you listed are Christian in nature and would have no reason to mention say a competitior Messiah.

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.

And if you had actually read what I was saying instead of reacting to it, you would realize that your list that you are so proud of, only supports my point.

My point (if you would have bothered to actually read my post) was that absenese of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because only a few candidates for false messiahs were listed does not mean there were not more.

There is more written in just one day, in just this country (USA), than is on that list. More than you will read in a life time, I am sure.

How much of that will still be around 2000 years from now (even if we assume there is no dark ages between now and then)? Will we have Ms. Jones shopping list from May 21, 1998 around 2000 years from now (is it even around today)?

And we are in a highly literate society where nearly every one can read and write, and where writing is cheap and easy. We have materials that last much longer than the writing materials used in the first century.

So you say I have "no clue" when I say that "Very little that was written in the first century survives to this day, and very little of what happened in the first century was recorded."

You pound out some list that is somehow supposed to refute that statement. It does not. If you think it does, you are the one who is clueless.

Originally posted by Faramir

I was going to respond in detail, but why bother.

You completely missed my point.

Do you really think that the books you listed count for everything that was written in the first century? Do you think it is even a small fraction of things that were written in the first century? Do you think the books you listed contain every detail of every person that lived in the entire Roman Empire during the first century (when most of the books you listed are Christian in nature and would have no reason to mention say a competitior Messiah.

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.

And if you had actually read what I was saying instead of reacting to it, you would realize that your list that you are so proud of, only supports my point.

My point (if you would have bothered to actually read my post) was that absenese of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because only a few candidates for false messiahs were listed does not mean there were not more.

There is more written in just one day, in just this country (USA), than is on that list. More than you will read in a life time, I am sure.

How much of that will still be around 2000 years from now (even if we assume there is no dark ages between now and then)? Will we have Ms. Jones shopping list from May 21, 1998 around 2000 years from now (is it even around today)?

And we are in a highly literate society where nearly every one can read and write, and where writing is cheap and easy. We have materials that last much longer than the writing materials used in the first century.

So you say I have "no clue" when I say that "Very little that was written in the first century survives to this day, and very little of what happened in the first century was recorded."

You pound out some list that is somehow supposed to refute that statement. It does not. If you think it does, you are the one who is clueless.

Like I said, I dont think you have a clue. Regardless of whether you think much was written or little was written, you seem to disregard what was written. Are you saying you have read every thing I've listed? You totally disregard the writings of what the church received from the apostles, plus you disregard other writings that might help augment what the Bible is saying. You don't know what was taught and you deny that anybody else can. Instead you want us to rely on that silly woman Dee Dee who just writes whatever pops into her imagination that will possibly support a doctrine that has little real basis in fact. If it did the Christian writings that were given to us by the saints and martyrs would support it. The writings of the church fathers are overwhelmingly futurist and there is very little preteristic thought in the first couple of hundred years of Christianity.

Now, what does any of that have to do with the OP?

Originally posted by eschaton

Like I said, I dont think you have a clue. Regardless of whether you think much was written or little was written, you seem to disregard what was written. Are you saying you have read every thing I've listed? You totally disregard the writings of what the church received from the apostles, plus you disregard other writings that might help augment what the Bible is saying. You don't know what was taught and you deny that anybody else can. Instead you want us to rely on that silly woman Dee Dee who just writes whatever pops into her imagination that will possibly support a doctrine that has little real basis in fact. If it did the Christian writings that were given to us by the saints and martyrs would support it. The writings of the church fathers are overwhelmingly futurist and there is very little preteristic thought in the first couple of hundred years of Christianity.

eschaton. Your statements are not relative to this thread, nor are the relative to the comment I made. I will not continue to discuss this with you here, it is of no value.

If you want to discuss this further take it to the Locker Room, (or at least start another thread in eschatology) I will not disrupt this thread any further by responding to your nonsense.

Oh that was funny I can't avoid reading nonsensical posters who are on ingore when someone quotes them.

I am sooo glad that eschaton is reduced to belittling gender based insults. It shows him for the shallow debater that he is. However, I will not be reduced to insulting his person out of respect for the knowledgeable historicists on this board, and my respect for the historic views of others, including futurists and historicists. Generally the one who belittles the loudest has the weakest case.

Originally posted by Tuck Xena

Oh that was funny I can't avoid reading nonsensical posters who are on ingore when someone quotes them.

I am sooo glad that eschaton is reduced to belittling gender based insults. It shows him for the shallow debater that he is. However, I will not be reduced to insulting his person out of respect for the knowledgeable historicists on this board, and my respect for the historic views of others, including futurists and historicists. Generally the one who belittles the loudest has the weakest case.

Not bad,,,,for girl.

Originally posted by Darth Xena

Oh that was funny I can't avoid reading nonsensical posters who are on ingore when someone quotes them.

I am sooo glad that eschaton is reduced to belittling gender based insults. It shows him for the shallow debater that he is. However, I will not be reduced to insulting his person out of respect for the knowledgeable historicists on this board, and my respect for the historic views of others, including futurists and historicists. Generally the one who belittles the loudest has the weakest case.

What happened to the ignore button? Go back to sleep Dee Dee. You never discuss the issues with me anyway.