Aionios in 2Tim 1:9, Titus 1:2 and Rom 16:25

[davo]

Did the coming of the Son of Man occur around 70 A.D.? Did He gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other? Was the sun darkened? Did the moon not give its light? Did the stars fall from heaven?

This is the deficiency of popular literalist futurism… it fails to grasp (or just plainly ignores because this has been pointed out before) the biblical use/pattern of biblical prophetic language.

Given that you’re waiting for a physical cosmic catastrophe you’ll be waiting for a while. But IF when appealing for understanding… looking back into the Scriptures this can be found and deemed useful in helping determine to what Jesus was referring to via his mini apocalypse…

Gen 37:9-10 Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?”

In biblical parlance Joseph’s father and brothers UNDERSTOOD COMPLETELY this cosmic metaphor, symbolic of headship and eldership i.e., leadership FALLING before him. Again, with reference to THE FALL of Babylon Isaiah’s prophetic oracle uses such cosmic language…

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

Likewise there is Joel’s prophetic words towards Pentecost which follow on from what Peter had declared “this IS that” which would be in their lifetime, followed by…

Joel 2:30-31 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.

Such cosmic language was used to demonstrate the height of the significance of the things spoken… and THEY would have UNDERSTOOD IT accordingly. The world of the old covenant was near to FALL and those that clung to it would lose all, but those enduring who believed Jesus’ words would be “saved.”

Josephus who wrote in detail of the events concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple around 70 A.D. never referred to that coming.

YEAH AND… would you expect such a clear delineation from someone NOT associated with the faith; seriously?! But that said, Eusebius certainly makes valid reference to Josephus’ accounts of that era…

The Christians of the second century never mentioned it, and there is no historical record of it.

REALLY?…

This makes interesting reading from Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea (AD. 264-339)

Book III. Chapter VII.—The Predictions of Christ.

1. It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events.

2. His words are as follows: “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

3. The historian ([size=85]Josephus[/size]), reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain. But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand.

4. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said:

5. “If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground.”

6. And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, “For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” And again: “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”

7. If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvellously strange.

8. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the Saviour’s passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, it is not necessary to add anything to the account of the historian.

9. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,—during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent.

10. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work.

Book III. Chapter VIII.—The Signs which preceded the War.

1. Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he records in the sixth book of his History. His words are as follows: “Thus were the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false prophets; but they did not heed nor give credit to the visions and signs that foretold the approaching desolation. On the contrary, as if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes nor understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God.

2. At one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and a comet, which lasted for a whole year; and again before the revolt and before the disturbances that led to the war, when the people were gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus, at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone about the altar and the temple that it seemed to be bright day; and this continued for half an hour. This seemed to the unskillful a good sign, but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as portending those events which very soon took place.

3. And at the same feast a cow, led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

4. And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.

5. And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of such signs. For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@davo

This makes interesting reading from Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea (AD. 264-339)

Wiki research does uphold this viewpoint at Eusebius

Eusebius is fairly unusual in his preterist, or fulfilled eschetalogical view. Saying “The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ. Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies…The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions.” (Demonstratio Evangelica VIII)

It’s time to celebrate the 4th of July - in the US

[Paidion]

Okay, some of you preterists did a fine job of showing that there is figurative language in the Old Testament concerning astronomical phenomenae. I’m well aware of it, and have heard it expressed several times previously. However, that is not the matter of which I said that there is no evidence. I said that there is no evidence of the second coming of Christ in or around A.D. 70, the coming in which “every eye shall see Him.”

Davo, Eusebius’ writing that you quote refers only to the part of our Lord’s predictions that refer to the events of A.D. 70 or thereabouts. Nowhere did Eusebius indicate that the predicted coming of Christ occurred then. The historic evidence that Christ returned around 70 A.D. is totally absent. Maintenance Man, the fact that I was not there in 70 A.D. is irrelevant to the fact of there is not a shred of historical evidence that Christ returned at that time.

Paul’s fellow-worker Clement (A.D. 30-100)—See Philippians 4:3—wrote a powerful letter to the Corinthians after Paul and Peter’s deaths. His letter is believed to have been written around A.D. 90. In ch. XXIII, he referred to a coming of the Lord as future to his time. If the Lord had returned in 70 A.D., he would have been well aware of it (as would everyone else at that time (Every eye shall see Him).

Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) in his "Dialogue With Trypho referred to “the second coming of Christ” as a future event in Chapters XLV, LIV, and CX.
Irenæus (A.D. 120-202) wrote in “Against Heresies” of a coming of Christ future to his time in ch. XXIII.

But which of the early writers wrote of a coming of Christ in 70 A.D.? The answer—no one. For in their day, no one had ever heard of such a thing.

[davo]

However, that is not the matter of which I said that there is no evidence. I said that there is no evidence of the second coming of Christ in or around A.D. 70, the coming in which “every eye shall see Him.”

To be truthful Paidion you made the bold claim, that… “The Christians of the second century never mentioned it, and there is no historical record of it.” Your bogus claim has been found wanting by the contrary evidence amply supplied.

Davo, Eusebius’ writing that you quote refers only to the part of our Lord’s predictions that refer to the events of A.D. 70 or thereabouts. Nowhere did Eusebius indicate that the predicted coming of Christ occurred then.

Again Paidion… no matter the weight of evidence contrary to your particular partisan belief you WILL NOT SEE anything other than what your myopia permits – case in point, this quote supplied by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie above makes a mockery of your fraudulent claim…

Eusebius is fairly unusual in his preterist, or fulfilled eschetalogical view. Saying “The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ. Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies…The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions.” (Demonstratio Evangelica VIII)

How you can continue to peddle such misinformation on this as you do is beyond me.

But which of the early writers wrote of a coming of Christ in 70 A.D.? The answer—no one. For in their day, no one had ever heard of such a thing.

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Emoticons/Unhuh_zpsd20a14b4.gif Again this is just blind adherence to a position that cannot / will not countenance that which threatens sacred cows.

Okay, some of you preterists did a fine job of showing that there is figurative language in the Old Testament concerning astronomical phenomenae. … I said that there is no evidence of the second coming of Christ in or around A.D. 70, the coming in which “every eye shall see Him.”

Still you fail to see that the bible’s “cloud coming” language IS the language of Yahweh’s Coming in Judgment… which is demonstrably clear from the texts already shown. Jesus CAME in-kind in the POWER/AUTHORITY of Yahweh. THAT’S what the Parousia was all about… judgment on the OLD by the fullness of the NEW!

“Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Heb 8:13

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Hi Davo. Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. I looked at the Protestant site Got Questions article entitled What is the preterist view of the end times?. I’m curious how you would respond to this segment:

The problems with preterism are many. For one thing, God’s covenant with Israel is everlasting (Jeremiah 31:33–36), and there will be a future restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:12). The apostle Paul warned against those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, teach falsely “that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17–18). And Jesus’ mention of “this generation” should be taken to mean the generation that is alive to see the beginning of the events described in Matthew 24.

Eschatology is a complex subject, and the Bible’s use of apocalyptic imagery to relate many prophecies has led to a variety of interpretations of end-time events. There is room for some disagreement within Christianity regarding these things. However, full preterism has some serious flaws in that it denies the physical reality of Christ’s second coming and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem.

The Got Questions site elaborates on their meaning of “this generation”, in What did Jesus mean when He said, “this generation will not pass”?

I thought I would use the article at Preterism Biblical Commentary, to define a couple terms, from the Got Questions article (note: to present a balanced perspective, this site is pro-Preterism).

Full Preterism is the belief that all end time prophecies have been fulfilled.

Partial Preterism is the belief that some end time prophecies have been fulfilled. Most Biblical scholars are partial preterists to varying degrees. Though the following commentary will show that all end time prophecies have been fulfilled, this is not evidence against the partial preterist view. Rather, it is evidence of both preterist view points: The events that fulfill all end time prophecies may be types or shadows pointing to the ultimate fulfillment of these predictions again in the distant future.

I assume Davo is a full pretertist.

As an aside, another Protestant site did render a fuller criticism at Why Preterism is not an Accurate Interpretation of Bible Prophecy. But there are those out there, that side with you - according to this article:

As with any theological position there are those who are looked to as being more knowledgeable in this area. Known preterist’s are Max King, John L. Bray, and Gary DeMar who is president o American Vision, is one of Preterism’s most active and vocal promoters today; Hank Hannegraff of the Bible Answerman broadcast also joins their ranks. “Preterist” means past in fulfillment, and “Futurist” which means future in fulfillment. To preface this article we need to know there are two different kinds of Preterism; partial and full Preterists.

Here is a Wiki article on Hank Hanegraaff
Here is a Wiki article on Gary DeMar

Hum I wonder what known, contemporary figures (other than open theists), side with Paidion’s position

[Paidion]

However, that is not the matter of which I said that there is no evidence. I said that there is no evidence of the second coming of Christ in or around A.D. 70, the coming in which “every eye shall see Him.”

To be truthful Paidion you made the bold claim, that… “The Christians of the second century never mentioned it, and there is no historical record of it.” Your bogus claim has been found wanting by the contrary evidence amply supplied.

Davo, what do you take as the reference of that “it”? You seem to suggest my “it” was something other than the supposed coming of Christ in A.D. 70.

Here is the exact quote of me in context:

Thus we can be sure that when Jesus returns, everyone will know it. But no one knew of any coming of Christ in 70 A.D Josephus who wrote in detail of the events concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple around 70 A.D. never referred to that coming. The Christians of the second century never mentioned it, and there is no historical record of it. So if He came in 70 A.D. one may say that “no eye ever saw Him.”

I still stand by this assertion. There is no historical evidence of a coming of Christ in A.D. 70. Absolutely zilch.

I will be responding to your quote of Eusebius at a later time.

Meanwhile, I wish you the best, and trust you will consider some of your statements more thoughtfully, such as, “Your bogus claim has been found wanting by the contrary evidence amply supplied.” I don’t think there’s anything “bogus” about my claim that there is no historical evidence of Christ having returned in A.D. 70. You have not yet supplied a single piece of such historical evidence. On the other hand, I have provided the testimony of Clement, Paul’s fellow labourer, who lived during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, who in his letter to the Corinthians around A.D. 90, never mentioned a coming of Christ in A.D. 70. but rather predicted a future coming. I also stated that Justin Martyr had referred in his “Dialogue With Trypho” to a future “second coming of Christ” three times, and Irenæus also wrote of a future coming. This seems to be clear evidence that these early Christians expected a second coming of Christ future to the time in which they lived. If Justin Martyr had believed that Christ returned in A.D. 70, he would have referred to the future coming of Christ as a “third coming” rather than a “second coming.”

[Paidion]

Again Paidion… no matter the weight of evidence contrary to your particular partisan belief you WILL NOT SEE anything other than what your myopia permits – case in point, this quote supplied by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie above makes a mockery of your fraudulent claim…

Eusebius is fairly unusual in his preterist, or fulfilled eschetalogical view. Saying “The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ. Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies…The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions.” (Demonstratio Evangelica VIII)

Again, Davo, I suggest you watch your language. It is inflammatory. Are you saying these things in a spirit of love?

I could call your claim that Christ returned in A.D. 70 fraudulent. But I don’t do that. I respect you in spite of the fact that you haven’t earned that respect. I don’t think you are a fraud;I think you are sincere in your full-preterist belief. Surely you can at least acknowledge that I am sincere, rather than suggesting that my claims are fraudulent (claims made in order to intentionally deceive). I don’t mind you making the best arguments of which you are capable, but I don’t appreciate your calumnious attacks. They don’t give any measure of support to your belief that Christ returned in A.D. 70., but rather tend to cast doubt on you for resorting to such tactics instead employing carefully reasoned statements or historical evidence for any return of Christ during the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

As for the quote of Eusebius above, the context makes clear that he was not writing about any supposed coming of Christ in A.D 70. Rather he was writing about the coming of Christ, as a human being, having been born through his mother Mary (often referred to as the “first” coming of Christ).

The paragraph immediately preceding the quote from Eusebius is as follows:

I HAVE proved by how many prophecies the coming of the Word of God to men was foretold, and that it was announced by the Hebrew prophets whence He should come, and where and how He should be seen by men on earth, and that He was actually the Person, the eternal pre-existent Son of God, Whom we have learned to recognize by the other names of God and Lord and Chief Captain, and Angel of Great Counsel and High Priest. And I begin at this point, in continuance of the preceding proof, to give the evidence with reference to the period of His Appearing drawn again from prophetic predictions.

This paragraph clearly indicated that he is writing about the coming of Christ when He was seen by many people on earth.

After making references to a few more events surrounding the coming of Christ, Eusebius sums it all up as follows:

Such, then, is my account of the reasons why the Christ of God shone forth on all men now and not long ago.
We will now, retracing our steps, examine in detail the signs portending His Coming, first noting what is said in the Gospels about the date of His Birth. Matthew then records the date of His appearance in the flesh, thus: “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judrea, in the days of Herod the king”; and a little later, he says: “Hearing that Archelaus reigned over Judaea, instead of Herod his father.” And Luke shewed the date of His teaching and manifestation, saying :
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother, Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and the land of Trachonitis; and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being High Priests.”

[Paidion]

Hum I wonder what known, contemporary figures (other than open theists), side with Paidion’s position

Are you referring to my position that the second coming of Christ is future to our time? If so, then as far as I know, all Christians except full preterists (and maybe some very liberal Christians) believe that Christ will come again in the future (including Catholics). Even partial preterists hold that the second coming is yet future. That belief is what defines them as partial preterists. Steve Gregg is a partial preterist.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Hum I wonder what known, contemporary figures (other than open theists), side with Paidion’s position

Are you referring to my position that the second coming of Christ is future to our time? If so, then as far as I know, all Christians except full preterists (and maybe some very liberal Christians) believe that Christ will come again in the future (including Catholics). Even partial preterists hold that the second coming is yet future. That belief is what defines them as partial preterists. Steve Gregg is a partial preterist.

Hi, Paidion. I’m just playing the “Holy Fool” and clowning around. I do respect Davo and his knowledge and exposition of scripture. But if I did side with Perterism, it would be as a partial Perterist. i agree with a future coming of Christ. I believe (as you do) that most of the contemporary Christian bodies (i.e. Roman Catholic , Eastern Orthodox and Protestant), would agree with a future (or possibly present) coming of Christ.

There might be people here I disagree with, but I might respect how they present their position. But since we are human beings (and not Mr. Spock or Mr. data - from the Star Trek series), emotions could easily cloud our presentations. But emotional reaction can be minimized, by training in such things as “real” martial arts, Zen or Insight Meditation (or hanging around “Holy Fools” and “P-Zombies”). We just have to be as cool as Fonzie - from Happy Days.

How about a Zombie love song, to get everyone back to cool Hum. What if the end-times, is like the Walking Dead? Some of us go to heaven, some stay behind for a while - as humans? And the worst become P-Zombies? And the humans have to live with them - for a while. And if universalism is true, we all go to the same place eventually. And the P-Zombies become human again. Oh, dear. Oh, My. How does everyone like my vision, of the end-times?

[maintenanceman]

Randy posted:

As with any theological position there are those who are looked to as being more knowledgeable in this area. Known preterist’s are Max King, John L. Bray, and Gary DeMar who is president o American Vision, is one of Preterism’s most active and vocal promoters today; Hank Hannegraff of the Bible Answerman broadcast also joins their ranks. “Preterist” means past in fulfillment, and “Futurist” which means future in fulfillment. To preface this article we need to know there are two different kinds of Preterism; partial and full Preterists.

On whatever side you fall on in this debate, I would recommend listening to some of Gary DeMar’s American vision episodes. I do not think he considers himself a full preterist (unless something has changed in the last few years), but his delivery and knowledge seem to be pretty top notch. Real good stuff.

[davo]

Again, Davo, I suggest you watch your language. It is inflammatory. Are you saying these things in a spirit of love?

Sorry Paidion… you are right, I can get a little overly and descriptively robust at times, my bad; absolutely nothing of a personal nature intended. I will get back to your posts presently.

[davo]

Randy posted:

As with any theological position there are those who are looked to as being more knowledgeable in this area. Known preterist’s are Max King, John L. Bray, and Gary DeMar who is president o American Vision, is one of Preterism’s most active and vocal promoters today; Hank Hannegraff of the Bible Answerman broadcast also joins their ranks. “Preterist” means past in fulfillment, and “Futurist” which means future in fulfillment. To preface this article we need to know there are two different kinds of Preterism; partial and full Preterists.

On whatever side you fall on in this debate, I would recommend listening to some of Gary DeMar’s American vision episodes. I do not think he considers himself a full preterist (unless something has changed in the last few years), but his delivery and knowledge seem to be pretty top notch. Real good stuff.

DeMar is a partial prêterist. My journey to a fuller and inclusive prêterism (what I call pantelism) came naturally via partial prêterism and at the time greatly helped by DeMar’s brilliant book… Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church.

[maintenanceman]

Randy posted:

As with any theological position there are those who are looked to as being more knowledgeable in this area. Known preterist’s are Max King, John L. Bray, and Gary DeMar who is president o American Vision, is one of Preterism’s most active and vocal promoters today; Hank Hannegraff of the Bible Answerman broadcast also joins their ranks. “Preterist” means past in fulfillment, and “Futurist” which means future in fulfillment. To preface this article we need to know there are two different kinds of Preterism; partial and full Preterists.

On whatever side you fall on in this debate, I would recommend listening to some of Gary DeMar’s American vision episodes. I do not think he considers himself a full preterist (unless something has changed in the last few years), but his delivery and knowledge seem to be pretty top notch. Real good stuff.
DeMar is a partial prêterist. My journey to a fuller and inclusive prêterism (what I call pantelism) came naturally via partial prêterism and at the time greatly helped by DeMar’s brilliant book… Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church.

Well, I have not read DeMar’s book, though I will look into it.

David your passion for truth is evident in both your knowledge (and thus study) of the topic at hand and also your willingness to take on all comers when it comes to what you view as the truth of the fulfilled eschatology view. Those who have not seen your web site owe it to themselves to view your posts… very thoughtful and very insightful. For those who don’t Know, go to pantelism.com

The full preterist view is some what flawed in my opinion as I do believe in the universalist view of scripture. David deals with this in what he says is inclusionary… I hope I said that right. The view that death has been put away allows all to be included into God’s reconciliatory act of sending us the Christ… The Messiah. Through Israel, all the nations (humanity) will be blessed.

Please don’t think I am speaking for David, I am just voicing my agreement with his published idea’s on the subject.

[davo]

Let me ease your “concern” qaz… I’m good with all the above.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Before the continuing debate between Davo and Paidion (i.e. Pantelism vs Futerist), I have a message for everyone. Get them while they’re hot.

You can find a definition of Dave’s postion - Pantelism - here.

Pantelism, is a recent term in Christian eschatology that refers to what some see as an extension of Full Preterism. This view maintains that the Scriptures both prophetically and redemptively, were entirely fulfilled in the person and work of Christ and consummated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Accordingly, this consummation included not only Christ’s Second Coming, but the final judgment, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the reconciliation of all things. The unorthodox aspect of this view is that the reconciliation accomplished in 70 A.D was such that there no longer remains a lost condition in humanity and therefore no present need for conversion – which reduces to a form of universalism where all are saved and one must simply realize what has been done for all humanity.

We find a definition of Futurism (Christianity) here

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets portions of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.[1]

By comparison, other Christian eschatological views interpret these passages as past events in a symbolic, historic context (Preterism and Historicism), or as present-day events in a non-literal and spiritual context (Idealism). Futurist beliefs usually have a close association with Premillennialism and Dispensationalism.

“Life always offers you a second chance. It’s called tomorrow.”-- Author Unknown

Oh, yes. A question for Davo. If everything was achieved in 70 AD, then why is everyone still waiting and suffering

And from Questions Preterists Wished You Would Not Ask:

, “Who is the False Prophet of Revelation 13?”

“Who is the Great Harlot of Revelation?”

Now back to our sponsor.

[maintenanceman]

Before the continuing debate between Davo and Paidion (i.e. Pantelism vs Futerist), I have a message for everyone. Get them while they’re hot.

http://lowres.jantoo.com/food-drink-concession-concession_stand-movie-negotiate-cinema-09501908_low.jpg

You can find a definition of Dave’s postion - Pantelism - here.

Pantelism, is a recent term in Christian eschatology that refers to what some see as an extension of Full Preterism. This view maintains that the Scriptures both prophetically and redemptively, were entirely fulfilled in the person and work of Christ and consummated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Accordingly, this consummation included not only Christ’s Second Coming, but the final judgment, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the reconciliation of all things. The unorthodox aspect of this view is that the reconciliation accomplished in 70 A.D was such that there no longer remains a lost condition in humanity and therefore no present need for conversion – which reduces to a form of universalism where all are saved and one must simply realize what has been done for all humanity.

We find a definition of Futurism (Christianity) here

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets portions of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.[1]

By comparison, other Christian eschatological views interpret these passages as past events in a symbolic, historic context (Preterism and Historicism), or as present-day events in a non-literal and spiritual context (Idealism). Futurist beliefs usually have a close association with Premillennialism and Dispensationalism.

“Life always offers you a second chance. It’s called tomorrow.”-- Author Unknown

Oh, yes. A question for Davo. If everything was achieved in 70 AD, then why is everyone still waiting and suffering

And from Questions Preterists Wished You Would Not Ask:

, “Who is the False Prophet of Revelation 13?”

“Who is the Great Harlot of Revelation?”

Now back to our sponsor.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/food-drink-concession-picnics-movie_theaters-picnic-movie_theatres-rcln318_low.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMXdRK0m2II

Actually, unless I have missed something, The Holy Fool has changed his post from preterism to pantelism… Am I wrong?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Actually, unless I have missed something, The Holy Fool has changed his post from preterism to pantelism… Am I wrong?

You are right, Chad. It’s to reflect this quote by Dave, so I could share the right term and definition.

DeMar is a partial prêterist. My journey to a fuller and inclusive prêterism (what I call pantelism) came naturally via partial prêterism and at the time greatly helped by DeMar’s brilliant book… Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church.

[maintenanceman]

Actually, unless I have missed something, The Holy Fool has changed his post from preterism to pantelism… Am I wrong?

You are right, Chad. It’s to reflect this quote by Dave, so I could share the right term and definition.

DeMar is a partial prêterist

. My journey to a fuller and inclusive prêterism (what I call pantelism) came naturally via partial prêterism and at the time greatly helped by DeMar’s brilliant book… Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church.

Thanks Randy.

I appreciate your post.

[davo]

The problems with preterism are many. For one thing, God’s covenant with Israel is everlasting (Jeremiah 31:33–36), and there will be a future restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:12).

Like most apparent “problems” they only appear as such because said objectors are unable to conceive that there might just be another approach to understanding the biblical message.

1. “Everlasting” was only ever “everlasting” while God was dealing with a specific people in a specific way and by the nature of the case, for a specific time… example: “circumcision” was instituted under the OC as a perpetual or “everlasting” condition of covenant, AND YET we understand “in Christ” and the NC this took on a whole new reality… in fact it’s originally intended reality (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4) of which this fleshly work was but a foreshadow. Thus not a prêteristic problem.

2. To be sure, Israel’s “future restoration” was to be literal as in it would happen, BUT IT WAS NOT fleshly… it was COVENANTAL i.e., the New Covenant/Creation wherein “righteousness dwells” equates to Israel’s “resurrection” – their promised (Ezek 37:1-14) resurrection (covenant restoration) which would be the catalyst for humanity’s reconciliation. Thus not a prêteristic problem.

The apostle Paul warned against those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, teach falsely “that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17–18).

Again the futility of futurism’s logic… IF the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus were advocating the popular casket resurrection HOW on earth could anyone’s faith have been overthrown? All anyone would have to had done to disprove this would be to point out the window to all the graves, open, and those who had occupied them walking around. THAT didn’t happen because Hymenaeus and Philetus were not advocating a casket resurrection. Hymenaeus and Philetus understood the NATURE of the resurrection, i.e., it spoke to covenant renewal; what they had wrong was the TIMING. While the Temple stood (and it still did at that time) the old covenant though in remission, remained, and yet Hymenaeus and Philetus’ claims fed into the Judaisers (Acts 15:1, 5, 10, 24) mantra of Law-abidance for righteousness… something Paul said such advocates should go the whole way, as per Gal 5:12.

And Jesus’ mention of “this generation” should be taken to mean the generation that is alive to see the beginning of the events described in Matthew 24.

Jesus said… “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” – there must be some very, very old people still walking this world.

There is room for some disagreement within Christianity regarding these things. However, full preterism has some serious flaws in that it denies the physical reality of Christ’s second coming and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem.

These again are charges based off their own propositions. Said physicality relates to the destruction that played out on the old covenant system in AD70, i.e., it literally (actually) happened. As for “and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem” – read Josephus’ account of these times and there is NO downplaying of this at all, so this claim is shear bunkum.

Oh, yes. A question for Davo. If everything was achieved in 70 AD, then why is everyone still waiting and suffering

Well not everyone is “waiting and suffering” but there are way too many believers who are, due to this postponed and forlorn ‘hope’ of futurism. But what says Prov 13:12 “Hope deferred makes the heart sick…”. Futurism in delaying and postponing to its own timetable “the hope of Israel” i.e., covenant resurrection/renewal, has robbed the church of its “tree of life” and in consequence left many a believer “waiting and suffering”.

“Who is the False Prophet of Revelation 13?”

There are a number of option considered within prêterism but as a pantelist I’d nominate the functioning High Priest of the day.

“Who is the Great Harlot of Revelation?”

Jerusalem… where the Lord was crucified Rev 11:8.

[davo]

I still stand by this assertion. There is no historical evidence of a coming of Christ in A.D. 70. Absolutely zilch.

You have not yet supplied a single piece of such historical evidence.

The “historical evidence” you are not seeing IS the ‘AD70 Destruction of Jerusalem’… THAT IS (from a covenant eschatological view) WHAT the ‘Coming of Christ’ was. Jesus came in the power and authority i.e., in the likeness of the Father, meting out Judgment & Reward as per faithfulness OR unfaithfulness. Thus the DoJ is understood as this event and as such understood in the same manner of Yahweh’s other demonstrated interventions (comings) in history (at least as identified in the bible)… secular historians of course wouldn’t attach that meaning, but then why would they?

IOW… there is NO future expected event where Jesus “physically” does a lap around the globe on literal clouds that comes to a screaming halt over Jerusalem to suck all and sundry up into the self-same literal clouds, etc. NO… Jesus’ presence is to be understood in terms of the Divine Judgment ON and deliverance FROM the old covenant mode of existence.

I know it’s hard to grasp because this is looking at ‘biblical prophecy’ through a completely different window, a totally other grid, i.e., it is a comprehensive paradigm shift… been there done that. So I fully get your scepticism and reticence. When it dawned on me and I finally grasped the realisation that Jesus’ “end of the world” predictions spoke NOT to the end of OUR time-space universe BUT rather to the end of THEIR old covenant world (age) things changed, everything changed.

On the other hand, I have provided the testimony of Clement, Paul’s fellow labourer, who lived during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, who in his letter to the Corinthians around A.D. 90, never mentioned a coming of Christ in A.D. 70. but rather predicted a future coming.

This is not that convincing IMO because the likes of Justin Martyr or Irenæus or Clement would be like comparing our respective views, that is to say, like you and me they carried certain beliefs/perspectives but that doesn’t mandate correctness. There were/are many views… it then comes down to comparing prophetic prose with historic evidence, i.e., *what was. *

Prêterism/pantelism doesn’t have to invent a future, it simply looks at the past for fulfillment in the HISTORY of the day as it played out, AS prophesied by Israel’s prophet par excellence Jesus. I remember as a kid, according to Futurism the bad eggs of Revelation were the Russians, now magically it’s Islam… good ole’ fashioned ‘newspaper theology’.