Gentry’s view is my view Randy. The new heavens and earth began in 70 AD but hasn’t fully developed or worked itself out. We haven’t reached the full consummations yet. I believe things have been slowly improving since the NT times and 70 AD destruction. There are setbacks but It will overall continually get better and better until the full consumation of the new heaven and earth where there will be no more death or suffering.
Yep that’s the partial prêterist postmillennial view.
Al-K-Hall to Davo!
We need a short video, to illustrate this sentiment. 
Dave to Chad.
How about THIS future, Dave?
Perhaps I should include, a video discussing Preterism? This does back the partial preterist view.
I thought I explained this before. FYI -
I’m not a dispensationalist and I don’t believe in the futurist view of Daniel’s 70TH week. They’re obsessed with Daniel’s 70th week. So I disagree with some futurist on the timeframe of ages.
From creation to the time of Noah is the first age. Most call it the first dispensation but I don’t like calling any of the ages a ‘dispensation’.
The second age or ‘dispensation’ is from the flood - the time Noah - to the time of Christ. Call it what you like, the Old Covenant age or the age of Judaic and Mosaic law. That Old Covenant was fulfilled at Christ first advent especially when he was Crucified and the curtain was torn. That signified the end of the age.
FROM THAT TIME (30-33 AD) -
We are living in the church age - the age from the time of Christ to the resurrection or return of Christ at the PAROUSIA - it’s the period of time the Church is on earth. After that -
Is the Millennial age or the 1,000 years mentioned 6 times in Revelation 20. We could also say that age begins at the Parousia and goes through eternity.
What age is Paul talking about in 1 Cor. 10:11? Look at the context. As I said in a previous post -
Twice Paul says that this is all an example for them - that they need to learn from Moses’ mistakes. The age he’s talking about is the one that began with Noah - the time of Moses which ended at the time of Christ.
“Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
I’m all for debating such interpretations. But that those who have faced harsh rejection and bucked the orthodox paradigm of heresy hunters by embracing universalism, or often even questioning the classic Trinitarian view of God, should then call brethren who embrace some minority view of eschatology blasphemous heretics just sounds absolutely bizarre to me.
And it doesn’t suggest much chance of overcoming the tendency we all have to focus on ad hominem attacks rather that trying to understand the substance of how we arrive at differing interpretations.
Most Christians who accept Trinitarianism have no clue of the pagan origins of the Trinity. It’s a doctrine that was devised by the Catholic’s under dyer circumstances. Trinitarians often condemn non-Trinitarians. I don’t condemn anyone, but I do believe Preterism was inspired by the evil ones.
I believe Jesus when he said the Father is greater.
I believe him when he said he doesn’t know the day or hour of his return.
I believe him when he says he can do nothing on his own.
I also believe him when he said blasphemy against him will be forgiven but blasphemy against the holy spirit will not. If they were the same person blasphemy against one would be blasphemy against the other.
IF the holy spirit is the same yet separate person “why doesn’t the holy spirit have a name, and why isn’t he found in or around the Throne of God?” I can tell you why. The Holy Spirit IS the Seven Spirits of God.
We know that God cannot be tempted and He cannot sin. IF Jesus were God that makes the cross a hoax and Jesus a fraud because Jesus - being God - could not have sinned anyway!
As a nonTrinitarian or preterist, I appreciate your confirmation of what I find totally bizarre. Frankly when anyone’s case for their beliefs emphasizes accusing those arguing a different hermeneutic of being blasphemous heretics, I lack trust the discussion will be able to calmly engage the substance at issue.
The torn veil/curtain behind the altar of Holy of Holies signified the end of the law. Mankind’s separation from God had been removed by Jesus’ sacrifice at Calvary.
1 Like
Thank you for the admonition.
J. Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy lists 1,239 prophecies in the Old Testament and 578 prophecies in the New Testament, for a total of 1,817. I’m not sure how many are END-TIME prophecies. The 578 in the NT are mostly end-time.
I believe people accept Preterism because it’s so easy to say “it already happened,” and they don’t want to speculate or take a chance being wrong on an interpretation.
I like Al’s analysis of eschatology as to me it makes the most sense but everything has presumptions. Al is taking mostly OT verses and applying it to modern day Islamic countries because of very logical reasons which i agree with , but it’s not a slam dunk.
Every view does this including Preterism which makes assumptions of resurrections and the return of Jesus and judgments & other things with no physical evidence. Many things in the NT reference 70AD but not everything and i don’t see Revelation in a highly symbolic way repeating events supposedly in 70AD when those events were already described clearly in the gospels such as the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. If Revelation was about 70AD, it would be the ultimate example of overkill.
Lastly Jerusalem was slowly strangled to death in 70AD , not the sudden destruction described in the actual end times.
Why is it “easy” to say all the prophecies “already happened”? (I think it’s hard to show that) And why is there “no chance” that Preterism IS wrong on its interpretation?
I actually perceive that it’s more difficult going against the grain of the majority tradition and supporting preterism. More important, psychologizing and demonizing motives for someone else’s exegesis is besides the point. All that matters is engaging the textual substance and exegesis.
1 Like
Sorry Bob - I ‘liked’ that comment of yours and actually did like it! 
I’ve called blasphemy many times. I’ve repented since then and received even more healing. I ask for forgiveness for my hatred.
1 Like
Well, let’s look at Got Questions again. And some stuff, that is relevant here.
Well, I don’t see Got Questions complaining about the Trinity - being a “Catholic” concept.Or having “Pagan” origins.
Regardless of its origins, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and major Protestant denominations (i.e. Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc.) - subscribe to it. As well as non-denominational, Bible and community churches.
Are they “heretics”? The brightest of the bright theologians have historically - and contemporary - brought into it.
And prestigious Christian colleges - like Wheaton College - teach it.
It’s here to stay. Like it or not.
Now let me let my anger out.
Having said that…and this is a thread on Preterism…I would consider Partial Preterism, an orthodox view…even if I don’t subscribe to it. And I would consider Full Preterism, a non-Orthodox view.
Just a comment on the devil. We can classify things by three causes:
-
It’s from God
-
It’s from the devil and evil angels
-
It’s from scientific and natural causes
Before we rule something from the devil or God (AKA Preterism), we must first rule out scientific and natural causes.
And sometimes a thread gets bogged down by back and forth “dialogue”. And it’s hard to tell, who is who - without a scorecard.
And sometimes threads can prompt folks, to go to war - even calm and collected Holy Fools
But rest assured, they have ample cause.
That’s close to what I said. It ENDED the age - it was NOT the beginning of the end for it! 70 AD has nothing to do with the end of any age! 30-33 AD ended an era or age and the new covenant began!
1 Like
Gotquestions doesn’t have detailed answers to anything. They’re trinitarians anyway so why would they explain anything about its origins.
I shouldn’t do this because I’m basically derailing the thread -
The Trinity doctrine developed from a power struggle between Arius and Athanasius. Arius was non-trinitarian, and Athanasius developed Trinitarianism. It became more of a political argument than a theological or biblical one. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, power within the church became political. Arius and Athanasius had significant followings and they both wanted power. The two groups fought savage battles with each other and were rioting against each other over it. Trinitarian Athanasius was more brutal, more powerful, and more emotional about his beliefs and literally destroyed his opponent Arius and his followers, so Constantine sided with him.
The state religion of Rome was in trouble and Constantine realized that Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state religion. The issue of how to formulate a creed about the nature of Jesus became a political dispute, not a religious one. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that.
“There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around.” (See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.)
The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces.” (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.)
I know that, and Saturday Sabbath keepers say the same thing. Do the Hebraist even believe in Christ? We can argue this ‘til the Lord returns’ and never agree. The bottom line is 70 AD has zero to do with the closing or beginning of an age.
I’ve ALREADY shown that qaz, from the NT, but typically it was ignored and the likes of Al who has no answer to it. And as you can see from his answer has NOT understood your point 