Preterism is true....no bones about it. Right?

[CrowCross]

Christ did not "return" on the Mount of Trasnsfiguration. Nor were angels present. Nor were rewards given out according to every mans works. This is a common method of trying to wriggle out of Christ's very plain statement in Matthew 16:27-28 that He would return while some of those in the crowd of people were still alive. But that "popular" method of interpretation doesn't work at all according to the context.

I don't read in the bible where Jesus returned in 70 AD....with the angels.

These Matthew 27:52-53 saints came out of their graves "AFTER" Christ's resurrection that same day. It was the newly-crowned Son of Man in heaven, sitting on a cloud, that by Himself harvested those saints out of their graves with that first sickle (as in Revelation 14:14-16).

They raised from the grave when Christ was still on the cross.

50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

It is not physically possible for these Matthew 27:52-53 saints to have died again. That idea goes against every scripture rule.

Didn't lazurus die again?

Even though I hear that idea constantly propounded, there is absolutely no scripture proof of resurrected individuals physically dying a second time. It's not even remotely possible.

Christ said for that particular (second) bodily resurrection event that these dead would be coming "from all nations" (Matt. 25:32). Every saint from creation forward until AD 70's Pentecost day stood before Christ on that occasion, and were judged for the works done while in their body, with rewards given out according to what they had done. The "Great Tribulation" had already taken place in Judea from AD 66 until AD 70, as the "Days of Vengeance" against those of His own people who had rejected Him.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't read in the bible where Jesus returned in 70 AD....with the angels.

Of course you don't read about Jesus's second coming return with the angels as a past historical event in scripture, because all the scriptures were written before that AD 70 year had arrived. The scriptures in multiple places present that soon-to-come resurrection of the dead as an event that was about to happen. Moses, Zechariah, Malachi, Christ, Peter, Paul, James, John, Luke, etc. all testified of this soon-to-come bodily resurrection event at Christ's second coming return.

They raised from the grave when Christ was still on the cross.

50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

No, they didn't rise from those graves when Christ was still on the cross. Finish the entire sentence of these verses 52-53. "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves AFTER his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." As you yourself have written, these Matthew 27:52-53 saints were the "multitude of captives" which the ascended Christ led out of the grave that day, and gave as "gifts to men" (Ephesians 4:8-12).

Didn't lazurus die again?

This isn't even scripturally possible for Lazarus to have died again. Christ did not perform resurrections that could be undone. What kind of demonstration of God's power would that have shown anyway, if those bodily resurrections could have been withdrawn? The Pharisees might have wished they could kill Lazarus again, but it wasn't even physically possible for them to do this.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, all that proves is that you think the rapture and the resurrection of Christians, those "dead in Christ," occurs at the same time. That verse states absolutely nothing about those dead outside of Christ. Technically, that verse doesn't mention the word "rapture" or "resurrection;" it simply states the dead in Christ will rise.

But a "rapture" of the resurrected did take place at the same time. Paul wrote that those dead saints who would rise would then be "caught up" (harpazo) in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. They would immediately be joined by those who had already been made "alive", but who had "remained" on the earth in their resurrected bodies until that time (for example, like the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had already been raised from the grave as the "First-fruits" of the "First resurrection" event back in AD 33).

But you are right that Paul in 1 Thess. 4 said nothing about the dead outside of Christ rising. That is because the physical bodies of the wicked dead never rise. Isaiah 26:14 testifies of the wicked who do not belong to God, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." This is in contrast to the righteous, of whom Isaiah 26:19 testifies, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise." Christ testified that for those who believe in Him, their destiny is that "they shall never perish".

Only the spirits of the wicked dead are resurrected to stand before Christ in "the judgment to damnation". For these, Christ is able to destroy both body and soul in the judgment for those who do not belong to Him (Matthew 10:28).

 

[CrowCross]

Of course you don't read about Jesus's second coming return with the angels as a past historical event in scripture, because all the scriptures were written before that AD 70 year had arrived.

Not Revelation.

The scriptures in multiple places present that soon-to-come resurrection of the dead as an event that was about to happen. Moses, Zechariah, Malachi, Christ, Peter, Paul, James, John, Luke, etc. all testified of this soon-to-come bodily resurrection event at Christ's second coming return.

Even historical records don't come close to the fulfillment of Revelations.

No, they didn't rise from those graves when Christ was still on the cross. Finish the entire sentence of these verses 52-53. "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves AFTER his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." As you yourself have written, these Matthew 27:52-53 saints were the "multitude of captives" which the ascended Christ led out of the grave that day, and gave as "gifts to men" (Ephesians 4:8-12).

No, it says.... "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose...Go back to the beginning.... 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised

Veil was torn
earth quaked
Rocks split
tombs broke open
bodies raised.

You do know it's dangerous to build a theology around a verse we know very little about.

It does sound like they hung out in the tombs and didn't leave until after the resurrection.

This isn't even scripturally possible for Lazarus to have died again. Christ did not perform resurrections that could be undone. What kind of demonstration of God's power would that have shown anyway, if those bodily resurrections could have been withdrawn? The Pharisees might have wished they could kill Lazarus again, but it wasn't even physically possible for them to do this.

Interesting, your theology teaches all those who were raised from the dead...didn't die again. To be honest, I'm not buying that.

 

[Josheb]

But a "rapture" of the resurrected did take place at the same time. Paul wrote that those dead saints who would rise would then be "caught up" (harpazo) in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. They would immediately be joined by those who had already been made "alive", but who had "remained" on the earth in their resurrected bodies until that time (for example, like the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had already been raised from the grave as the "First-fruits" of the "First resurrection" event back in AD 33).

But you are right that Paul in 1 Thess. 4 said nothing about the dead outside of Christ rising. That is because the physical bodies of the wicked dead never rise. Isaiah 26:14 testifies of the wicked who do not belong to God, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." This is in contrast to the righteous, of whom Isaiah 26:19 testifies, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise." Christ testified that for those who believe in Him, their destiny is that "they shall never perish".

Only the spirits of the wicked dead are resurrected to stand before Christ in "the judgment to damnation". For these, Christ is able to destroy both body and soul in the judgment for those who do not belong to Him (Matthew 10:28).

Are you full pret?

 

[CrowCross]

No, it wasn't and I provided evidence of the statements veracity with a Dispensationalist pastor teaching four resurrections.

No, all that proves is that you think the rapture and the resurrection of Christians, those "dead in Christ," occurs at the same time. That verse states absolutely nothing about those dead outside of Christ. Technically, that verse doesn't mention the word "rapture" or "resurrection;" it simply states the dead in Christ will rise. The Greek "anistemi" (G450) also means stand up, rise up, set up, or appear, and it is used in all those ways in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

My comment is not a false statement. Dispensationalism teaches multiple resurrections. EVERYONE is raised to face God's judgment, and some Dispensationalists, like Peter Goeman, who teach as many as four resurrections. No other theology in Christendom teaches a multiple-resurrections (or a separation of the rapture from the resurrection).


Not even preterists believe that .


Here's a chart showing various beliefs from various eschatological points of views:
View attachment 1003


That chart* was made by a Dispensationalist, Timothy Paul Jones, in his book. the "Rose Guide to End-Times Prophecy." Note that the chart plainly states Dispensationalism holds the rapture and the resurrection do NOT occur at the same time, while everyone else believes they do. Historic Premillennialism sides with everyone else. Dispensational Premillennialism is the outlier. Now, to bring it back to this op, which is specifically about preterism, there are some preterists who believe the prophesied resurrection has occurred. They are called full preterists but full preterism is a statistical and normative outlier and NOT the position held by most preterists.


In other words, unlike the opening post of this thread, I used Dispensationalist views taken from Dispensationalists and measured Dispensationalism by what Dispensationalism teaches relevant to scripture. This op attempts to measure full preterism by implicitly conflating full preterism with all preterism and measuring full preterism by what Dispensationalism teaches, not what preterism teaches relevant to scripture. It's not hard to find full preterist sources. Neither is it hard to find partial preterism in all the other views that shows the differences between full preterism and partial preterism (and I provided some information helpful for that purpose).

The irony is that you, apparently, believe something different than the rest of Dispensational Premillennialism teaches! Believing the rapture and resurrection occur simultaneously is clearly something different than what Dispensationalism teaches. That chart shows Dispensationalism holds the rapture is a raising of Christians only and the resurrection of everyone else occurs on another occasion...... according to their view of end times. AND the impulse to prove that position unified position here in this thread is so compelling that it prompts a digression from this op, which is supposed to be about full preterism, not partial preterism and not Dispensationalism.

Now, if desired, I can post a few quotes from full preterists speaking about full preterism relevant to scripture to further help the discussion of this op. I can also post a few quotes by leading partial prets and leading dispies pertaining to what each point of view teaches about itself and/or about the separated rapture and the multiple resurrections but 1) that's not my responsibility since I'm not the one asserting this op (and that evidence should have already been posted), and 2) the quotes from Dispensationalists are all going to be off-topic (non-preterist) and prove my earlier point that Dispensationalists chronically misrepresent preterism as a whole and invariably conflate full preterism and partial preterism. Most do not portray preterism correctly. That makes them false teachers. If a boogieman is going to be created, then they should at least identify the boogieman correctly. For the sake of the efficacy of this op, those commonly occurring mistakes should be avoided.

My statements are correct, demonstrably correct, and the evidence proving their veracity has been provided. Consider this information an aid to this op's purpose and adjust future posts accordingly.









* keep in mind the end times view of Idealism is not shown in the chart but as far as the chart goes, its views would largely overlap that of Amillennialism, and all four views contain some degree of preterism.
.

I'll stick with the dispensationalist pretribulation view.

You had said....Dispensationalism holds the rapture and the resurrection do NOT occur at the same time,

Technically true...the resurrection happens first...the immediatly after that there is the rapture.

 

[Josheb]

I'll stick with the dispensationalist pretribulation view.

The evidence shows you don't but that's Irrelevant.



Try correctly understanding full preterist viewpoints before criticizing them and stick to scripture properly exegeted when criticizing them. If the thread is simply a comparison between DPism and a strawman of FPism then nothing worth reading will be accomplished. Even if FPism is correctly presented, if its sole measure is DPism then all that will be accomplished is a comparative view and the veracity of neither relevant to scripture will be proven. There are a few different ways to accomplish that task but one of the simplest and most effective is to simply identify who is full pret and then ask them what they understand is the full-pret view of X or Y. Or a Google/Bing search of the differences between full preterism and partial preterism (like this one, or this one, or this one) could be conducted but that's going to run the risk of appeals to authority, anecdotal evidence, and construction fallacies AND most of them get it wrong in some way, too. Most preterists do NOT believe 70 AD fulfilled ALL prophecy. Only full preterists do so. That is what makes the full preterists. Most critics of preterism fail to acknowledge the pervasiveness of preterism (a misrepresentative lie of omission) and attribute its existence to post hoc arguments (like Got Questions). One more complication in finding the correct facts about preterism s that some sources changed their views over time. R. C. Sproul, for example was a late-dater, or at least unconvinced of an early date, until he was persuaded by Gentry's case presented in "Before Jerusalem Fell." Sproul makes this change very clear in his lecture series, "The Last Days According to Jesus Christ." Therefore, anyone using early Sproul will not correctly understand late Sproul views.


No one cannot point to a Pontiac and argue against Ford using Pontiac metrics as a Chevrolet. Doing so is irrational. No one can point to a strawman and argue against full preterism using Dispensationalist metrics as a rational Christian. Get the facts of full preterism correct before criticizing that viewpoint.

 

[Josheb]

But a "rapture" of the resurrected did take place at the same time. Paul wrote that those dead saints who would rise would then be "caught up" (harpazo) in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. They would immediately be joined by those who had already been made "alive", but who had "remained" on the earth in their resurrected bodies until that time (for example, like the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had already been raised from the grave as the "First-fruits" of the "First resurrection" event back in AD 33).

But you are right that Paul in 1 Thess. 4 said nothing about the dead outside of Christ rising. That is because the physical bodies of the wicked dead never rise. Isaiah 26:14 testifies of the wicked who do not belong to God, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." This is in contrast to the righteous, of whom Isaiah 26:19 testifies, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise." Christ testified that for those who believe in Him, their destiny is that "they shall never perish".

Only the spirits of the wicked dead are resurrected to stand before Christ in "the judgment to damnation". For these, Christ is able to destroy both body and soul in the judgment for those who do not belong to Him (Matthew 10:28).

Where did you learn this perspective? (please do not answer, "scripture")

AND...


Can you see any of the many inconsistencies that post has with scripture?

 

[CrowCross]

Most preterists do NOT believe 70 AD fulfilled ALL prophecy.

Which would show most of Revelation is future.

 

[CrowCross]

Where did you learn this perspective? (please do not answer, "scripture")

AND...


Can you see any of the many inconsistencies that post has with scripture?

Sorry, but I have to answer with scripture...it's what the bible teaches.
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

Put another way..

1 Thes 1:10 and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.
1 Thes 5:6 9 For God has not appointed us to suffer wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, yes, I can use scripture to show a pre-trib rapture from the tribulation wrath...the hour of testing.

 

[Josheb]

Which would show most of Revelation is future.

Sorta, not quite.

A partial preterist will read Revelation to say the things revealed in John's vision were about events that were going to happen quickly because the time was then near (Rev. 1:1-3) and understand that some of what was contained in that vision were events that had already transpired prior to John having the vision, some of the events were occurring at the time of the vision, and some of the events were in John's future (Rev. 1:19). A debate ensues regarding what in John's future is still in our future because only that which speaks of a far distant event can and should be understood to be in our future and that must be understood in a manner consistent with the whole of scripture. Partial preterists look forward to a future return of Christ. That point of view is found in Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism. Only the full preterist believes the second coming (a phrase that is nowhere found in scripture, btw) has already occurred. Only the full preterist believed all of Revelation has already occurred.

Post 89 is another example of your lack of knowledge. It is very clear, blatantly self-evident that you do not adequately or correctly understand preterism as a whole, or the important differences between partial preterism and full preterism. That lack of knowledge and understanding becomes increasing self-evident with every post.

Sorry, but I have to answer with scripture...

No, you don't. It's not necessary, invited or appreciated.

Post #90 abuses scripture. It makes evident the lack of knowledge on your part of which I have already posted. If the goal of this opening post is to engage full preterists about their view of the resurrection, then limit comment and inquiries to the full prets! From the beginning of my entrance into this discussion my points are fairly simple and, therefore readily and easily grasped:

• Do not conflate full preterism with partial preterism.
• Learn what full preterism teaches and address those positions instead of arguing strawmen.
• If the scope of the op is limited to full preterism then limit inquiry and comment accordingly.
• Measure (an accurate view of) full preterism by the standard authority of well-exegeted scripture and not the biases inherent within Dispensationalism.

Do it because this op and everything else I have read in this thread fails to do all of that. Ignorance will beget more ignorance, not truth, and little is accomplished with mere comparison of doctrinal viewpoints.




Now, if you do not mind, would you please wait until @3 Resurrections has spoken for himself and answered my questions before belaboring the point and responding further? Thx His last post was three hours ago. It appears he's left the forum. If and when he returns, he can decide for himself whether to respond to my inquires at all and, if so, how. He may provide you exactly what you're looking for (or not). Be patient .

 

[CrowCross]

Sorta, not quite.

A partial preterist will read Revelation to say the things revealed in John's vision were about events that were going to happen quickly because the time was then near (Rev. 1:1-3) and understand that some of what was contained in that vision were events that had already transpired prior to John having the vision, some of the events were occurring at the time of the vision, and some of the events were in John's future (Rev. 1:19). A debate ensues regarding what in John's future is still in our future because only that which speaks of a far distant event can and should be understood to be in our future and that must be understood in a manner consistent with the whole of scripture. Partial preterists look forward to a future return of Christ. That point of view is found in Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism. Only the full preterist believes the second coming (a phrase that is nowhere found in scripture, btw) has already occurred. Only the full preterist believed all of Revelation has already occurred.

Post 89 is another example of your lack of knowledge. It is very clear, blatantly self-evident that you do not adequately or correctly understand preterism as a whole, or the important differences between partial preterism and full preterism. That lack of knowledge and understanding becomes increasing self-evident with every post.

No, you don't. It's not necessary, invited or appreciated.

Post #90 abuses scripture. It makes evident the lack of knowledge on your part of which I have already posted. If the goal of this opening post is to engage full preterists about their view of the resurrection, then limit comment and inquiries to the full prets! From the beginning of my entrance into this discussion my points are fairly simple and, therefore readily and easily grasped:

• Do not conflate full preterism with partial preterism.
• Learn what full preterism teaches and address those positions instead of arguing strawmen.
• If the scope of the op is limited to full preterism then limit inquiry and comment accordingly.
• Measure (an accurate view of) full preterism by the standard authority of well-exegeted scripture and not the biases inherent within Dispensationalism.

Do it because this op and everything else I have read in this thread fails to do all of that. Ignorance will beget more ignorance, not truth, and little is accomplished with mere comparison of doctrinal viewpoints.




Now, if you do not mind, would you please wait until @3 Resurrections has spoken for himself and answered my questions before belaboring the point and responding further? Thx His last post was three hours ago. It appears he's left the forum. If and when he returns, he can decide for himself whether to respond to my inquires at all and, if so, how. He may provide you exactly what you're looking for (or not). Be patient .

You can stop with your long post that are meaningless to me...full-preterism as well as partial-Preterism isn't as biblical as you want it to be. Sorry.

 

[TMSO]

Oh, those two men. Of course...I agree absolutely that Christ was to return "in like manner" - both bodily and visibly. Which He already did back in AD 70, and was witnessed by every eye of "those who pierced Him" (Rev. 1:7).

7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

I know you will try to say this speaks only of Israel, but there is a reason why it says EVEN the Israelites/Jews will see Him. Everyone will, them included. You would think that something of that magnitude would be recorded by, say, Josephus who would have seen Jesus personally. Where does He record Jesus second coming?

The traditions of men are often false. Peter on the day of Pentecost told the crowds at the temple that Christ Jesus had already been given the throne of His father David. He was already enthroned at God's right hand at that point (Acts 2:29-36). Christ also testified of His own earlier enthronement - even before His final ascension - when He said "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth..." (Matthew 28:18). Christ is already Prophet, Priest, and King (after the deathless order of Melchizedek). This has been the case ever since AD 33.

I read what Peter said again, and He didn't say that.
"
34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

No, Satan was cast out at Christ's resurrection-day ascension, ending that war in heaven, with Satan losing forever the ability to accuse the brethren. " There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ..." (Romans 8:1). And "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34).

Are you loathe to recognize context. "There is therefore..." So, what is the therefore there for?

"31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was [l]raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of [m]Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written,

“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

Nowhere does it say here that Satan cannot and does not accuse us. It says that since God stands for us, who can stand against us. Satan can accuse all he wants, but it won't change the fact that it is God who charged us and justified us, and it is Jesus who condemns us, but intercedes for us. Why would he need to intercede if none stand to accuse?

What "violation" are you talking about? God granted those few individuals a bodily resurrection back in the OT - and those bodily resurrections were never withdrawn. NOBODY physically dies twice. ONCE only, according to the Hebrews 9:27 standard. There is no difference between those OT resurrection events and any other bodily resurrection mentioned in scripture. ALL of them were to the condition of immortality and incorruptibility.

How do you explain Enoch and Elijah, who never died. They have to die right? I already know you said that God couldn't have told Elijah to write a letter to Ahab before he left and leave it with Elisha to give to Ahab at the proper time, proving that it was God and that it was a prophecy. It would really mean something to Ahab to receive a letter of prophecy from a prophet who was already gone. It would have no meaning if that isn't what happened.

Daniel 12:11-13 predicted the exact day in which the bodily resurrection event of Daniel 12:1 would occur - namely, on the 1,335th day after two very specific events had taken place. These two events took place in the same season of the year back in AD 66, beginning that countdown of 1,335 days until a bodily resurrection took place at Christ's second coming return. That day fell on AD 70's Pentecost Day.

So again, why didn't Josephus or any other historian who saw the event, according to Revelation 1:7, report it? I mean, the whole world stopping because everyone is mourning is kind of a big deal. Also, I understand you don't believe Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, since there is a little boy resurrected by Elisha who maintains that distinction in your view. You think that someone would have mentioned seeing him a few hundred years later. Also, the sacrifice didn't end until 70 AD, with the abomination of desolation, so it would not be 70 AD.

"11 From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the [m]abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! 13 But as for you, go your way to the [n]end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the [o]age.”"

"For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered."

From Judaism101. Based on this, your calculation of AD70 is wrong.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Not Revelation.

Yes, Revelation was also written before AD 70. By Revelation's own internal witnesses of several datable events, it was written sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the AD 60 catastrophic earthquake at Laodicea.

Even historical records don't come close to the fulfillment of Revelations.

The problem comes with the common, inflated expectations of what those seals, trumpets, and vials would involve. For example, when Rev. 9:15 says that "a third of men" were to be slain by the horsemen, most people assume that this is one third of the entire planet's population. But if you look closer at the events of this sixth trumpet judgment, those deaths would take place within the city of Jerusalem alone. One third of men in that sixth trumpet judgment amounted to only 7,000 names of men who were slain (plus the murder of the two witnesses left unburied in the streets of Jerusalem).

Any interpretation of Revelation should NOT begin with the statement, "I don't believe these things could have all been fulfilled back then, so they weren't." It begins first with checking John's time statements in Revelation 1:1 &3, 1:19, and 22:6 & 7 & 10 & 12 & 20 of when he said those events would be fulfilled.

You do know it's dangerous to build a theology around a verse we know very little about.

Of course, that is a given. But it's not just a single verse we have about the many saints bodily raised in Matthew 27:52-53. Ephesians 4:8-12 speaks of them also. The already-ascended Christ led that "multitude of captives" out of their graves and gave them as gifts to men.

This was what an anointed high priest back in the OT did, as in Hebrews 8:3. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." Christ as the newly-anointed Great High Priest in heaven that resurrection day raised those Matthew 27:52-53 saints out of their graves and gave those resurrected individuals as "gifts" to the early church. These bodily-resurrected saints served as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, to perfect the saints for the work of the ministry, and to edify the body of Christ. That means they could not have been resurrected until "AFTER" Christ's resurrection, just as their resurrection is portrayed in Revelation 14:14-16 in the first sickle "harvest" by the Son of Man in heaven.

And these are certainly not the only scripture verses that refer to the Matthew 27:52-53 saints and the work they performed in the early church before Christ's second coming return in AD 70. There are other texts that speak about them.

Interesting, your theology teaches all those who were raised from the dead...didn't die again. To be honest, I'm not buying that.

If you can't agree with this, then in effect you are stating that your own bodily resurrection when it occurs in the future will not be an assured thing either. All through eternity, you will be fearfully wondering if your resurrected, glorified status will be revoked. Scripture says that it won't be. Just as any resurrected person in scripture from the OT days to the NT would never be able to die again either.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Are you full pret?

There are many Full Preterist teachings I do not ascribe to.

Chiefly, I do NOT agree with the Full Preterists when they state that there is no bodily resurrection for the saints. This is standard Full Preterist teaching, and it is clearly false.

I see scripture teaching not just ONE group of bodily resurrected saints being raised, but THREE bodily-resurrection events staged over the span of human history; one at Passover week in AD 33, the second at Pentecost day in AD 70, and the third one in our future in AD 3033 at the time the Feast of Tabernacles would have ordinarily been celebrated under the OT.

I disagree with the FP in their millennium dating, which they state is not a literal thousand years. The millennium is past, and lasted a literal thousand years from 968 / 967 BC until AD 33, ending with the "First resurrection" of Christ and the many Matt. 27:52-53 saints.

The FP do not teach that the Satanic realm is destroyed. I see scripture texts teaching that the entire Satanic realm of creatures is dead as a doornail since AD 70.

The FP teach that there is no 1 Thess. 4 "rapture" (harpazo). I see scripture teaching that this 1 Thess. 4 event was already fulfilled in AD 70's bodily resurrection event.

Many FP teach that Christ no longer retains His bodily-resurrected form, but discarded as He ascended, and exists in spirit form only today. This is utterly false, according to scripture.

Many FP teach that the terms of Christ establishing our salvation were not completed until AD 70. This is also utterly false.

FP teach that ALL prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 - bar none - with nothing intended for fulfillment in our future. Not true, since the "sealed up" prophecies of Revelation 10:4 were to be reserved for distant future fulfillment.

And many FP have some really strange creation views, which I won't go into here.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Where did you learn this perspective? (please do not answer, "scripture")

I have been continually studying these eschatology themes for about 12-13 years by now (which tends to affect all fields of biblical study). I have paid a price for the Preterist positions I now hold. My spouse calls me a heretic with perverted doctrine, and 7 years ago, to preserve the peace, I left my 16-year membership with the church where my spouse still attends. We never speak of religious subjects at all anymore, in order to keep things as stable as can be.

As you can probably tell, I am obsessed with the subject of the bodily resurrection for the saints. It is an endless marvel to me, and I never weary of speaking and writing about it. My main study tools have been the Interlinear and the LXX, with repeated referrals to the original languages the best I can manage. I have just a handful of books (maybe 3 or 4) that present the Preterist position from various angles - none of which I agree with completely. "Before Jerusalem Fell" was my first introduction to Preterism, but personally, I think Dr. Gentry needs to correct much of that book's content to pin down the dating of Revelation more accurately to the actual AD 59 / 60 composition time frame. His teaching about Revelation 17's seven "kings" is totally off the mark, for example. And he is messed up on the identity of the two witnesses and the millennium, etc.

Josephus is a basic source, as is Ussher's Annals of the World, and Eusebius' history. One day I will purchase Ed Stevenson's book that puts dates on the first-century events (he is a variety of FP). But I range all over the map to glean information that assists in interpretation - from videos of the past damage on Herculaneum's shore buildings that confirms Christ's prediction of "the sea and the waves roaring" in the AD 60's, to reports of the Jerusalem ossuary discoveries and the Siebenberg House Museum in Jerusalem with its AD 70 ash layer excavations, to records of the high priest "kings of the earth" who served in the temple, to archeological dig sites in the kikar of Jordan where "Gog's" army was buried, to numismatic studies of the history of the Tyrian shekel "mark" giving homage to the Roman Sea Beast, etc., etc.. It's quite an eclectic mix of collected evidence, but all of it points to Revelation's seals, trumpets and vials all being fulfilled (with the Rev. 10:4 exception of the "sealed up" prophecies the seven thunders uttered).

Can you see any of the many inconsistencies that post has with scripture?

Perhaps you can list what you think those inconsistencies might be? Then I can address them.

I appreciate your counseling patience in getting a response from me. I'm self-employed and am struggling to meet some Christmas workroom deadlines that need to install before the holidays. I'd love nothing better than to sit and engage online all day long, but you know...gotta put peanut butter on the table and feed the 5 cats...

 

[3 Resurrections]

I know you will try to say this speaks only of Israel, but there is a reason why it says EVEN the Israelites/Jews will see Him

The "tribes of the earth" was referring to those tribes of Israel which Zechariah spoke about in Zechariah 12 who would be doing that mourning in the city of Jerusalem.

The word "even" is taken from the Greek word "kai" in this verse. One of the meanings of this word "kai" indicates "specifically", or "namely".
Every eye would see Him, NAMELY (kai) "those who pierced Him". This was NOT going to be every person on the entire planet who would see Christ bodily descending on the Mount of Olives at His return in AD 70. The Israelites who had rejected Him as their Messiah and who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of Christ saw Him returning to the Mount of Olives from their besieged position inside the city of Jerusalem.

You would think that something of that magnitude would be recorded by, say, Josephus who would have seen Jesus personally. Where does He record Jesus second coming?

I believe the scripture testimony of Christ and the earthquake archaeological evidence lying in the Kidron Valley today of Christ having returned to the Mount of Olives, just as Zechariah 14:4-5 had predicted. Having Josephus make a record of Christ's return, if he did see it, would just be icing on the cake. We don't need it. You might be interested in the Caiaphas ossuary burial cave discovery in the Peace Forest, which proves a past bodily resurrection took place.

Nowhere does it say here that Satan cannot and does not accuse us.

The Revelation 12 account of the war in heaven tells us that Satan lost his ability to accuse the brethren at that point. Those in heaven testify, "NOW is come salvation, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down which accused them before our God day and night." These brethren had just overcame Satan "by the blood of the Lamb", which had just been offered in heaven's temple by the ascended Christ.

John warned his readers that Satan at that time had already come down to the earth in great wrath, knowing he had just a "short time" left to operate in this world as John was writing. That means Satan had already been cast out of heaven down to earth as John was writing. Which means his ability to accuse the brethren was over and done with also before then.

How do you explain Enoch and Elijah, who never died. They have to die right?

Nowhere in scripture does it say that Elijah never died, or even that he ascended to God's presence in heaven. Enoch is the one and only man who was ever to be translated so that he would not see death. I believe the translated Enoch was the same man as Melchizedek (having an endless life), as I have stated on this website before. The translation of this single man Enoch / Melchizedek was performed, I believe, so that the deathless order of Melchizedek's priesthood could be established. This was the superior priesthood of which Christ would become our Great High Priest after this order (and not the lesser Levitical order). And Melchizedek was still alive as Hebrews 7:8 was being written ("...of whom it is witnessed that he liveth").

Also, I understand you don't believe Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, since there is a little boy resurrected by Elisha who maintains that distinction in your view

Wrong - I DO believe Christ was the "First-fruits". He shared that title with the other 144,000 "First-fruits" of Rev. 14:4, which happened to be the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints resurrected that same day when the "First resurrection" occurred. These all shared the same "First-fruits" title because they shared the same "First resurrection" event.

The title of the "First-fruits" is a PLURAL one for multiple participants in that same group "First resurrection" event. But what made Christ totally unique among them all was His title of "the FIRST-BORN" or "the FIRST-BEGOTTEN". This is different. It means that Christ was the first one to ascend to heaven to the Ancient of Days in a bodily-resurrected form. Nobody who had been resurrected to life before Christ was able to ascend to heaven before Christ had first opened up the way to God's presence. That is why Christ told Nicodemus "NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven..." (John 3:13).

Also, the sacrifice didn't end until 70 AD, with the abomination of desolation, so it would not be 70 AD.

"11 From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the [m]abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! 13 But as for you, go your way to the [n]end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the [o]age.”"

"For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered."

The "daily sacrifice" being taken away (as in Daniel 12:11) was removed in AD 66 when Eleazar, the governor of the temple, convinced the priests to stop offering the daily sacrifice for Rome and the Roman emperor. This broke the terms by which the Jews were able to practice Judaism as a state-approved "religio licita". This offense, along with the murder of Roman troops at Masada and the Antonia Fortress, caused Nero to send Cestius Gallus during that same season to come and surround Jerusalem with armies (as in Luke 21:20 - the same as the "abomination that maketh desolate"), to put down this rebellion in Jerusalem in October of AD 66.

The 1,335-day countdown to the resurrection started from the day in October when Cestius Gallus's troops broke into Jerusalem, and were undermining the temple wall, preparing to burn the temple gates (the abomination "standing where it ought not"). Counting 1,335 days after this contact with the temple wall, Christ returned to the Mount of Olives - and it was on AD 70's Pentecost Day.

 

[TMSO]

The "tribes of the earth" was referring to those tribes of Israel which Zechariah spoke about in Zechariah 12 who would be doing that mourning in the city of Jerusalem.

The word "even" is taken from the Greek word "kai" in this verse. One of the meanings of this word "kai" indicates "specifically", or "namely".
Every eye would see Him, NAMELY (kai) "those who pierced Him".

"7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen."
I looked up kai, and it is a conjunction, so no, not specifically or namely. (I looked it up in a lexicon to make sure. The lexicon said it is normally a copulative conjunction.)

"A copulative conjunction, also known as an additive conjunction, is a type of coordinating conjunction that indicates that something has been added. It shows that the second word, phrase, clause, or sentence conveys a fact that is related to the first."

In other words every eye on earth, EVERY EYE ON EARTH, will see Him, and that will include those who pierced Him. All the tribes of Earth will mourn. I believe this is prior to Jesus fulfilling His own prophecy from Matthew. What prophecy was that? As He left Jerusalem, He said that Jerusalem will not see Him again until they say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord". That is, Jerusalem will not see Jesus again until they accept and proclaim Him as Messiah King. They rejected Him last time, leading to Jesus pronouncement of this. I believe this will be at the end of Revelation 19, when Jesus comes down and defeats the armies and allies of the beast and his image. This is His second coming. It will be visible, all will see, and all will know they are doomed. And then Jesus will visit Jerusalem and Israel, and they will recognize Him as King.

I believe the scripture testimony of Christ and the earthquake archaeological evidence lying in the Kidron Valley today of Christ having returned to the Mount of Olives, just as Zechariah 14:4-5 had predicted. Having Josephus make a record of Christ's return, if he did see it, would just be icing on the cake. We don't need it. You might be interested in the Caiaphas ossuary burial cave discovery in the Peace Forest, which proves a past bodily resurrection took place.

If Jesus return was not visible, did not result in every person mourning, and the Jesus' personal visit to Jerusalem, which He specifically stated would not happen until Jerusalem says "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord", namely all Jerusalem accepts Jesus as Messiah King, then it didn't happen. If Josephus didn't see it, then according to Revelation 1:7, it didn't happen. I read about the ossuary, and... no.

The Revelation 12 account of the war in heaven tells us that Satan lost his ability to accuse the brethren at that point. Those in heaven testify, "NOW is come salvation, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down which accused them before our God day and night." These brethren had just overcame Satan "by the blood of the Lamb", which had just been offered in heaven's temple by the ascended Christ.

Revelation 12 has not happened yet. The whole reason for the war is when God "violates" Satan's kingdom, some believe with the rapture, taking people out of Satan's domain by force. Hence Satan goes to war with heaven, and loses.

John warned his readers that Satan at that time had already come down to the earth in great wrath, knowing he had just a "short time" left to operate in this world as John was writing. That means Satan had already been cast out of heaven down to earth as John was writing. Which means his ability to accuse the brethren was over and done with also before then.

No, it does not mean that it happened as John was writing. He saw visions of a future event, and He was recording it. It is a future event.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that Elijah never died, or even that he ascended to God's presence in heaven.

The belief is that Elijah was translated to "Paradise" for some future purpose. The historical traditional belief is that Elijah and Enoch are the two witnesses in Revelation who die after their witness is complete, thus bringing about the bible verse that says every man dies once, then judgment. This is the earliest historical tradition, with some saying Jeremiah instead of Enoch, I believe. However, I believe this came later.

Enoch is the one and only man who was ever to be translated so that he would not see death. I believe the translated Enoch was the same man as Melchizedek (having an endless life), as I have stated on this website before. The translation of this single man Enoch / Melchizedek was performed, I believe, so that the deathless order of Melchizedek's priesthood could be established. This was the superior priesthood of which Christ would become our Great High Priest after this order (and not the lesser Levitical order). And Melchizedek was still alive as Hebrews 7:8 was being written ("...of whom it is witnessed that he liveth").

It is possible that he is Melchizedek, but that enters a huge realm of mysticism and gnosticism. Really crazy stuff. I believe it was so that he could be the second witness of Revelation, at which time he will face his appointed time of death with Elijah. Others believe it is Jeremiah, and that Jeremiah never died. Jesus is both King and High Priest by the line of Melchizedek as Melchizedek was both King and High Priest. Uzziah faced the wrath of God for trying to combine king and priest. It is also believed that Salem, the seat of Melchizedek, was/is in Jerusalem.

Wrong - I DO believe Christ was the "First-fruits". He shared that title with the other 144,000 "First-fruits" of Rev. 14:4, which happened to be the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints resurrected that same day when the "First resurrection" occurred. These all shared the same "First-fruits" title because they shared the same "First resurrection" event.

The title of the "First-fruits" is a PLURAL one for multiple participants in that same group "First resurrection" event. But what made Christ totally unique among them all was His title of "the FIRST-BORN" or "the FIRST-BEGOTTEN". This is different. It means that Christ was the first one to ascend to heaven to the Ancient of Days in a bodily-resurrected form. Nobody who had been resurrected to life before Christ was able to ascend to heaven before Christ had first opened up the way to God's presence. That is why Christ told Nicodemus "NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven..." (John 3:13).

Incorrect. The greek word ἀπαρχή is singular nominative. Some believe that it may be awkward in english, but it is singular in greek. And it is actually translated as the singular in two places, properly. So it should actually be first fruit. However, that does actually sound awkward in english, whereas firstfruits sounds better. Make no mistake, in greek this noun is actually singular. It is speaking only of Jesus.

The "daily sacrifice" being taken away (as in Daniel 12:11) was removed in AD 66 when Eleazar, the governor of the temple, convinced the priests to stop offering the daily sacrifice for Rome and the Roman emperor. This broke the terms by which the Jews were able to practice Judaism as a state-approved "religio licita". This offense, along with the murder of Roman troops at Masada and the Antonia Fortress, caused Nero to send Cestius Gallus during that same season to come and surround Jerusalem with armies (as in Luke 21:20 - the same as the "abomination that maketh desolate"), to put down this rebellion in Jerusalem in October of AD 66.

"NATHAN W. BINGHAM: This week, I’m joined by the Old Testament professor at Reformation Bible College, Dr. Ben Shaw. Dr. Shaw, what happened to the Old Testament practice of animal sacrifices?

DR. BEN SHAW: Well, it stopped. And there’s really two reasons: the practical reason, and then the theological reason. The practical reason is they stopped in 586 BC when the Babylonians destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, although they were restarted after the exile and continued then until the temple was destroyed again by the Romans in AD 70. So that’s the practical reason. The theological reason is they stopped because Christ fulfilled them. And we have that lined up for us in the book of Hebrews."

It is also said that though some believe there was a shortage of animals at that time, that wasn't the case. But, when you have an incorrect view of prophecy, mistakes like this happen. They forced it to fit their interpretation of prophecy, not because of reality.

The 1,335-day countdown to the resurrection started from the day in October when Cestius Gallus's troops broke into Jerusalem, and were undermining the temple wall, preparing to burn the temple gates (the abomination "standing where it ought not"). Counting 1,335 days after this contact with the temple wall, Christ returned to the Mount of Olives - and it was on AD 70's Pentecost Day.

But the sacrifices did not cease until 70 AD. Only the Gentile sacrifices and Roman sacrifices ceased in 66AD.

 

[Josheb]

There are many Full Preterist teachings I do not ascribe to.

I take that to mean you are not a full preterist.

Chiefly, I do NOT agree with the Full Preterists when they state that there is no bodily resurrection for the saints. This is standard Full Preterist teaching, and it is clearly false..............

Which would mean you're not a full preterist..

And many FP have some really strange creation views, which I won't go into here.

I agree. THANK YOU for those forthcoming answers (even though a simply, "No," would have sufficed).

I have been continually studying these eschatology themes for about 12-13 years by now (which tends to affect all fields of biblical study).............. Josephus is a basic source, as is Ussher's Annals of the World, and Eusebius' history......................

Thank you, again, for the forthcoming answer. They are much appreciated, and I hope the example will serve as an example to others. Much, much better than hesitancy and defensiveness or the adversarial responses common on such occasions.


I am, however, disappointed the first and foremost answer was not "The Bible." When preterist resort to the histories they are risking two problematic things that undermine their argument: 1) making a post hoc argument ("See, our interpretation is correct because history proves it," and 2) proving their confirmation bias (going fishing in the historical record for evidence of an already existing belief is the equivalent of eisegesis in scriptural analysis). I am sure much of your preterism is built on the simple fact scripture itself plainly states things that make us preterist (like the aforementioned Rev. 1:1-3, 19 - see Post #91). If scripture explicitly states something already happened, then it already happened. We do not need to go search history to see how it happened, or the specific day, month, or year it happened. We accept and believe scripture exactly as written. The appeal to Josephus or any other ancient history is simply our endeavor to better understand what scripture plainly, declaratively, explicitly states. The end times fell in the first century, according to 1 Corinthians 10:11. As someone devoted to the proper reading of God's word, I submit my views to the authority of God's word, and I do not subordinate scripture to secular history. Neither do I trust otherwise earnest Christian teachers who mess with God's word to make it say things it nowhere states (like John Darby and Dispensationalism does). That is what makes me a preterist. I don't read scripture with a preterist mindset; I have a preterist mindset because that is what scripture makes me. Dispensationalists do the exact opposite of the affirming post hoc confirmation bias when they ask, "When did that happen?" That is quite possibly one of the most stupid questions ever asked because in inherently and necessarily implies 1) history overrules scripture, and 2) scripture read exactly as written is not believed (which is why I rarely answer that foolishness when asked).

The histories are useful, but scripture is the reason every Christian should be a partial preterist .

Perhaps you can list what you think those inconsistencies might be? Then I can address them.

In other circumstances I would add to what I just posted but you all know I am loath to go far afield of an op and it's been established the focus is on full preterism. I could have been arguing partial preterism with @CrowCross but it's not the subject of this op and it would be disrespectful to hijack his op for the partial preterist apologetic agenda. I trust you understand.

I appreciate your counseling patience in getting a response from me. I'm self-employed and am struggling to meet some Christmas workroom deadlines that need to install before the holidays. I'd love nothing better than to sit and engage online all day long, but you know...gotta put peanut butter on the table and feed the 5 cats...

Yes, that end-of-the-year stuff running a business is bothersome (I farm most of it out to my manager, accountant, and service vendors). I'll keep you in my prayers for the next few days in hope you'll meet your deadline (and succeed in persuading Crow of the truth and authority of scripture when read exactly as written. Unless you live on a farm, I'll also prayer God brings you back to sanity regarding the five cats .



The bottom lines are these: Partial preterism is true, no bones about it. To know and understand that all we need is scripture (although the ancient histories are useful confirming what scripture plainly states). Scripture is the reason a preterist is a preterist. All Christians are Christological and soteriological preterists. All Christians should also be eschatological partial preterists (to one degree or another). Full preterism is a normative and statistical outlier and, sadly, Dispensationalist leaders are not correct when they conflate the two and leave out the truth of scripture's inherent affirmation of preterism. Those that do not know the facts are incompetent and those that do know the facts but misrepresent the truth are liars but, either way, they are false teachers.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I take that to mean you are not a full preterist.

Others have often assigned me to that position, simply because I recognize that Christ bodily returned to the Mount of Olives back in AD 70 to gather all the resurrected saints who had died up until then, as Christ and the scriptures predicted He would do in that first-century generation. But when I used to post on a Full Preterist website, they would call me a Futurist because I posted material that testified of a future THIRD coming of Christ with a final THIRD bodily resurrection event. By now, I am used to not having a label that fits everybody's expectations.

I am, however, disappointed the first and foremost answer was not "The Bible." When preterist resort to the histories they are risking two problematic things that undermine their argument:

Did you catch this statement below that I posted first of all?

My main study tools have been the Interlinear and the LXX, with repeated referrals to the original languages the best I can manage

From my early childhood up until my Preterist studies began, I used to read and refer exclusively to the KJV. It was the only version allowed in the cult church in which I was trapped for 16 years until the 90's. Once I discarded that KJV-only mindset and began to study using the Interlinear and the LXX (as well as checking other translations), the intent of the terminology in the original languages began to open wide the doors of interpretation. Particularly the time-relevant terms with which the NT is saturated. THIS is the foundation upon which my Preterist studies were based and continue to be founded. The histories and all the other eclectic mix of evidences which I have collected by now are merely the backup confirmation of scripture's presentation of prophetic events that have been fulfilled in the past.

The responses to using historical evidences (such as Josephus) are mixed. Some disdain all historical evidences as being totally corrupted and useless. Almost a sin to use for consultation. Others demand those historical evidences, rather like "doubting Thomas". It's impossible to please everybody, but I do try to meet each one on the ground they are standing upon.

Scripture is the reason a preterist is a preterist.

Absolutely true.

Unless you live on a farm, I'll also prayer God brings you back to sanity regarding the five cats .

LOL we woke up this morning with a puddle of hairball on the quilt at our feet. Yesterday it was feces down the hall that I accidentally stepped in and tracked into the bedroom. Cats with their issues are an acquired taste, for certain. But the hard-won purr of a cat is something that cannot be bought.