WHY I BECAME A PRETERIST

With a measure of teeth gnashing, and years of study—I became convinced that the preterist view of eschatology is the correct one. Here are some reasons why.

1. I could no longer ignore, in good conscience, the over 100 time-statements in the New Testament that limit fulfillment of the prophesied events to the lifetimes of the New Testament writers. (There really are over 100 of them.) Preterism 101

2. I looked up every mention in the New Testament of the “last days,” “end,” or “end times” and found that all 19 such mentions are consistent. Without exception, the writers of the New Testament wrote that THEY were living in the last days. So, unless they were false teachers, the last days had to be the end of the old covenant world―not the end of the physical universe. While the new covenant began at the cross, the old covenant ended in finality in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed (Hebrews 8:13).

3. I realized that I was ignorant about what happened in Jerusalem in AD 70―and the theological significance of these events, especially surrounding the destruction of the temple and the sacrificial and priestly systems.

4. I heard some Christians, including pastors, say that “The disciples expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes, but they were simply wrong.” Knowing that the disciples got their views from Jesus himself, and believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, I cannot accept that they were wrong. But it was either they were wrong, or else Christians have misunderstood what the writers meant by Jesus’ Parousia. At least some of the passages about the timing of the Second Coming must have been about Jesus “coming in judgment” against apostate old covenant Israel in AD 70, much like YHWH “came in judgment” against nations in the Old Testament―as preterists teach. That answers the skeptics who said Jesus was a false teacher.

5. I realized that if Jesus and his disciples were wrong about the timing of fulfillment of the prophetic events, the charges against Christianity concerning Jesus being a false teacher would be true. The preterist view is the only one that answers the critics’ charges. Jesus kept his word. He was not a false prophet. There is no need to make excuses for Him or gloss over passages that don’t fit your presuppositions from the echo-chamber.

6. I was interested to discover that Jesus, as well as his disciples, stated that virtually all OLD TESTAMENT prophecy would be completed in their literal generation—that is, the first century (Luke 21:22; Acts 3:24).

7. It became excruciatingly clear that many high-profile preachers, especially dispensationalists, have made glaringly false predictions about the rapture, Second Coming, and the end of the world. These charlatans (yes, that’s a strong but deserved charge) include Hal Lindsey, Edgar Whisenant, Benny Hinn, Grant Jeffrey, Jerry Falwell, John Walvoord, Harold Camping, Perry Stone, etc., etc. These men added to false predictions by Christians for 2000 years, making a continuous mockery of Christianity. Something has been very wrong about prophecy. False Prophets

8. I noticed that Christians tend to interpret the Bible through the lens of the daily news events (“newspaper eschatology”)—and have accordingly been making false and embarrassing predictions about the end of the world for 2,000 years. The preterist view restores credibility to Christianity. If they would be reading through the lens of the original audience instead, they would get a different picture.

9. I have heard Christians argue that language such as “moon turning to blood,” “coming on clouds,” “make the heavens tremble,” etc. should be understood literally. I was always skeptical about literalizing these phrases, and my closer investigation revealed that my skepticism was warranted. Such phrases are typical non-literal Hebraic apocalyptic language to describe God’s intervention (usually judgment) on nations in history. Apocalyptic Language

10. I learned that over 130 competent scholars have been identified as teaching that Revelation was written prior to AD 70, and that Revelation is mostly about the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple during the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-70. Recommended book: Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry.

11. I discovered that there are over 30 passages in Revelation that (a) demand fulfillment soon after being penned, and (b) Revelation does not introduce new concepts, but rather connects the events described there with the same ones mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. Revelation Theme

12. I noticed that objections to preterism are shallow, disjointed, biased, arbitrary, and inconsistent. Objectors are willfully blind about key passages and mostly regurgitate things they have heard from people who have not really studied the issue either. I particularly noticed that my preterist posts on Christian websites were mostly answered with anger and snark, with very little actual substantive biblical exegesis. I find this quite telling.

13. Bible teachers to whom I had been listening could not give meaningful answers to my challenging questions about prophecy. Worse, they seemed less interested in truth, and more interested in defending a presumptive position. I wanted to follow the Shepherd, not the sheep. I wanted to defend God’s Word, not an institution or creed.

14. I was really surprised at how professing conservative Christians take such pains to explain away the obvious in the Bible. They can twist Scripture and think they are doing the Bible a favor. For example, Jesus said “Truly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION will not pass away until all these things take place.” We can be sure that “this generation” means the generation to whom Jesus was speaking (and not some distant generation). Why? Because every other mention of “this generation” in the New Testament is clearly about the first-century generation. Study more about Scripture Twisting in this article:

>>Comical reply. However, you question was an outlandish one...and remains so. Now that you’ve been called on it you’re trying to excuse the stupidity of the question.<<

Don’t be silly. You are either too ignorant to recognize a rhetorical question, too proud to admit you were not following the conversation, or you are gaslighting.

>>>>It appears from your attitude that you are having difficulty handling the conversation.<<<<

>>Comical again.<<

Translation: the conversation is too difficult for ealgeone to follow.

>>Trust me...I’ve had debates with people far more knowledgeable than you.<<

You must hide your knowledge in a lock box because I have read nothing but quips and quibbles from you in this thread.

Mr. Kalamata

>>>>Regarding Church history, when the inspired people (the elect) were raptured about 66 AD, inspired writings abruptly ceased.<<<<

>>Ok...we’re not dealing in reality any longer in this conversation.<<

I suspected you are ignorant of Church History. You cannot so much as muster up an intelligent challenge to anything I have written.

>>You display a complete lack of knowledge of the Bible, Greek and overall history. You can have the last word.<<

Maybe someday you will enrich our lives with some of the vast knowledge of which you boast. LOL!

Mr. Kalamata

>>Some of the early church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Victorinus) wrote that the Apostle John experienced exile on the island of Patmos during the Roman Emperor Domitian’s reign (1:9).3 They wrote that the government allowed John to return to Ephesus after Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. Consequently many conservative interpreters date the writing of this book near A.D. 95 or 96.4 There is good evidence that this was the last of John’s inspired writings.<<

Somehow I missed this post. It has been a busy day (fixing the microwave.)

The list of ECFs that believed John was on Patmos in the 90s seem to have based their understanding on this obscure statement by Irenaeus:

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in Roberts & Donaldson, “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers.” Charles Scribner’s Sons, Amer. Ed, 1913, Bk V.30.3, pp.559-560]

Two paragraphs before that one, Irenaeus wrote:

“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;” [Ibid. Bk V.30.1, p.558]

It appears Irenaeus is saying that “ancient copies” were seen “almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign,” not the original.

>>”5 Kenneth Gentry argued that John wrote Revelation in the late 60s.6 Several writers have refuted this view.7”<<

Gentry makes many good arguments for an early date. I have read statements from many authors who dismiss it, but from none that have refuted it.

There are several arguments in support of an early date that are difficult to dismiss:

1) Not once in the New Testament is the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned as a past event.

Source: John A. T. Robinson, “Redating the New Testament.” Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1976, Chap 2, p.13

2) The seven churches in Asia are not “seven OF the churches in Asia,” but “THE seven churches in Asia.” One biblical scholar wrote that there was only one small window of time when there were exactly seven churches in Asia — the early 60s.

Source: Denis Callaghan, “What You Were Never Told About the Book of Revelation.” Academia.edu

That article by Dr. Callaghan is 155 pages, loaded with data on the Revelation. I highly recommend it.

Mr. Kalamata

Quote
There will be some who will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom” — I always thought that was a reference to the appearing of Jesus in the period up to Ascension and the immediately-following revelation of the holy spirit to the faithful at Pentecost.
........

What follows His stating this is an event called the Mount of Transfiguration where He and a remnant went up the mount and saw Him Transfigured, and in the presence of Elijah and Moses, as in the Kingdom.

3 of His disciples didn’t taste death before they saw that.

All the rest had to taste death to see Him in His Kingdom..

And a note to that specific message in Mathew,Mark and Luke.

Only Mathew and Mark state that about 6 days after He said that, the Mount of Transfiguration occurred.

In Luke, it was a two-day delay . About 8 days later..

They didn’t wait two more days and literally go back up the Mount in Luke.

That two day delay in Luke is prophecy unfulfilled..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.