The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Question for full preterists

Theology Eschatology
#73

If anyone is interested here’s the orthodox views on Revelation. Kenneth Gentry’s Preterism is the view I hold to. Revelation has been fulfilled and the new heavens and earth were established in 70 AD. It hasn’t reached it’s full consummation yet though. It’s in the process of working itself out. It’s the already/not yet view of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. We have not reached the full consummation of the new heaven and earth but the Bible states that it will happen. There’s even a scripture that speaks of death in the new heavens and earth at a particular stage in it’s development. Granted we haven’t reached this stage yet but the new heavens and earth will contain death until it’s final consummation as described in Revelation.

Isaiah 65:17-25

New Heavens and a New Earth

“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
“Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

Notice at this future stage in the new heavens and earth there’s still death.

#74

What stuns me is that a Christian can believe that…

I will forever be amazed.

#75

Saying it doesn’t make it so. Anybody can say something like the moon is made of cheese but it doesn’t make it so. You can be amazed all you want but it is an orthodox view based on scripture.

#76

From what I’ve studied, 70 AD had very little to with anything, theologically. It came, it went, but Christ still rules the world and is still the way, truth and Life. He was bodily raised and will come to judge the quick and the dead with justice and mercy, and raise all to a new body and great hope - perhaps soon, perhaps later. Granted, that doesn’t mean I’m ‘right’, but it does mean I am not blind to the arguments on both sides.

1 Like
#77

No but when you condemn orthodox views as heresy you bring condemnation on yourself.

#78

Great analogy - the same applies to you!

#79

There’s nothing orthodox about Preterism - ZILCH! Who in the world convinced you of that?

#80

You are correct. 70 AD had very little to do with anything. Yes some old and new testament prophecies were fulfilled, but to change the date John penned the Revelation and claim the entire book, entire chapters from other prophets, and hundreds of verses were fulfilled in 70 AD is illogical and absurd. It truly is an abomination.

#81

I did find him on Wiki. He appears to be ‘well educated’.

You learn something new each day. :wink:

Well, I’m still a futurist. It’s hard for a Calvinist scholar or theologian, to “reeducate” a Holy Fool like me. I’m a lost cause. Orthodox, but still a lost cause. That’s why I like St. Jude a lot. He’s the Roman Catholic declared patron saint, of hopeless cases. The Orthodox also consider him a saint, but haven’t “labeled” him. :rofl:

But then again, in the Native American world…I like the Medicine Men, Holy Men and Roman Catholics Fools Crow and Black Elk. Fools Crow had a biography, written by a white Lutheran minister. And Black Elk has been…well, this article says it all:

#82

That’s not true whatsoever. There are damnable and undammable heresies and very few damnable heresies. Trinitarians say non-trinitarians aren’t Christian and that’s bogus. I’m non-trinitarian because not only does the Trinity doctrine make Jesus a fraud and the cross a hoax, the very words of Jesus DEBUNK Trinity. The only thing that brings condemnation upon believers is when one judges and condemns another believer, or one denies the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ.

“Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

#83

Just an observation. I find it interesting you consider Preterism “non-Orthodox” and reference the Church fathers’ views. Yet both the church fathers and reformers, subscribe to the Trinitarian view.

But then again, we do have non-Trinatarians here - on the forum.

Perhaps you were a pastor, of something like a Oneness Pentecostal church?

#84

Michael, I’m not condemning anyone’s views as heresy; there is no ‘heresy’ anyway unless some group sets itself up as the ones determining what is Orthodox and what is not; and I don’t recognize those groups. And I’m totally ok with your opinions on this 70 AD thing, as well as Davo’s and anyone else’s. I disagree, but I’m ok with it. :slight_smile:

#85

The church fathers knew nothing about Preterism. They documented historical and religious facts of the time. Preterism ‘tendencies’ have always been a minor - miniscule voice in the church, nothing like it is today.

There’s no certainty who devised the doctrine. Some think it was Alcazar, some think Ribera, some say 14th century popes. These people were futurist who had Preterist tendencies, nothing like we know today as partial Preterism.

#86

Tertullian and - another one (forgot who) were the only ones who began tossing around the idea of a trinity. Tertullian came up with the word but NOT the doctrine. It took a little over 100 years for the Catholic bishops to devise the Trinity doctrine. It had failed passage twice in vote count - maybe three times, then when it did pass in 325 - I think it was, - it did so by a very narrow margin of votes.

#87

Modern New Testament Scholarship

In this highly accessible discussion, Bart Ehrman examines the most recent textual and archaeological sources for the life of Jesus, along with the history of first-century Palestine, drawing a fascinating portrait of the man and his teachings.

Ehrman shows us what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament (and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter), Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet–a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth. According to Ehrman, Jesus’ belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world’s social organization not only underscores the radicalism of his teachings but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society’s outcasts and the threat he posed to Jerusalem’s established leadership.

#88

For the record, here’s the history of the Trinity doctrine (with scholarly footnotes)

Just a footnote here. The church was one until about 1054 A.D. So the Trinity doctrine development was not only a Roman Catholic consideration…But also an Eastern Orthodox consideration. And the Protestant reformers kept this doctrine.

And if I look at this article:

If I look at the list towards the end…which of these groups I selected, follow the Bible “correctly”?

  • Oneness Pentecostal

  • Church of Christ, Scientist

  • Unitarian Christians

And what is the “criteria”, for considering who is “Orthodox”?

Perhaps we should sing out - who is “wrong”? :crazy_face:

#89

Tom Wright takes apart that whole Ehrman thing pretty extensively in a number of his books. Of course, Ehrman would not agree. Surprise! :slight_smile:

#90

It’s modern scholarship with no bias in preserving ancient Christianity. Solid scholarship from expert historians in the field.

#91

When I got baptized at the age of 15 I started reading the New Testament for the first time. I came across passages that said Jesus would return in the generation of those living at the time. I got scared and fearful because it was obvious to me that this meant Jesus was a false prophet. I started asking preachers and pastors for an explanation and they all gave me different explanations that just seemed absurd to the core. It wasn’t until I read RC Sproul “The Last Days According to Jesus” that I felt relief and an explanation of the passages. I later read Gentry and became convinced. Of all the things throughout my lifetime that I have changed my mind on this isn’t one of them. I’m now 45 and still believe the Bible teaches Jesus return in 70 AD. It’s so obvious there’s no need to debate it really. It has been obvious to me my whole life.

#92

Really?? I think you’ll find both Ehrman and Wright very much on the same page on some of this.