Greetings again Josheb,
My impression is that Preterism suggests that most of the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled in the events surrounding AD 70. I am not sure, but you seem to label everything else that does not accept this past fulfillment as future or "Futurism". There are many different views that believe that much of the Book of Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future times since the Apostles.
I am going to speak plainly to you.
You need to pay attention.
I'd put that in larger letters but that's as big as the forum permits. I have explained ALL these things to you and done so many times before. It is incomprehensible that you or anyone else would think what you just said if they'd read what I and others of similar mind have posted. Nearly ALL Christians look for a future return of Christ. The only ones that do not do so are the full-preterists and the modern futurists like to put (wrongly) anyone with the slightest preterist sensibilities into the same group with the full-preterists.
We ALL look forward to a future return of Christ.
We do not all look forward to a future return of Christ the way modern futurists do. In point of fact, MOST Christians do not subscribe to the eschatological views that originated in the 19th century (like Christadelphianism). It is not a
future return of Christ that is the problem. The problem is the
modern perversions of that futurism that are the problem.
That "
impression" reeks of idiocy.
I have outlined for you and every other reader in this forum (and many others) the history of Christian eschatology, beginning with scripture, sampling the ECFs, chronically the formalization of each view, occasionally addressing specific points in Christian history (like the Great Schism or the Reformation), addressed the matter of de Alcazar and Papal vitriol, and most importantly explained in great detail the new and completely different apocalyptic views of the 19th century's Restoration Movement sects. I have also surveyed scripture, from beginning to end, AND especially with YOU, to show very real and legitimate problems in ALL premillennial views (like the biased inferential readings, the ignoring of explicit report, the silence of scripture in comparison to the additions of men, and the unassailable fact Revelation does not have Jesus coming until chapter 21.....
IN THE FUTURE!!!
I am not sure, but you seem to label everything else that does not accept this past fulfillment as future or "Futurism".
No, you're not sure and the reason you're not sure is because you haven't been paying attention. We are ALL futurists. We are not all
modern futurists. YOU are a modern futurist. You believe a particular unique futurism that was invented in the 19th century. You unabashedly acknowledge you follow the views of John Thomas, not Jesus Christ.
The usual meaning of Futurism is that most of the events of Revelation will be fulfilled in the events immediately before and during the Second Coming of Jesus.
In other words most of the Book of Revelation is still future.
No. That is completely false. That is a viewpoint held ONLY BY MODERN FUTURISTS!!!!!
The Continuous Historic View is not new and definitely not a 19th Century invention as you claim.
Which is exactly what I said. Historicism is the oldest of our eschatological doctrines. It dates all the way back to the 100s AD, although its roots can be found in the earlier ECFs. The problem is the Historic view is radically different than the modern view and that is why the Historicists call their point of view
historical!!! Those who subscribe to Historical Premillennialism do not share the same end times views as modern premillennialists. The Historicists do not separate the rapture from the final coming of Jesus and they do not think Israel, or its temple, its priesthood, or its sacrifice are relevant to
Christian eschatology.
The following commentators have subscribed to this view:
John Purvey 1390, Savanarola 1497, John Bale 1495-1563, Heinrich Bullinger 1557, David Chytraeus 1571, William Fulke 1573, Thomas Cranmer 1582, John Foxe 1587, Franscisco Ribera, James 1st 1601, Thomas Brightman 1605 and at least another 21 individuals before the 19th Century.
Have you ever read those authors for yourself, or was that list obtained from a second- or third-hand source? Where these men were premillennial, they were NOT premillennial like Christadelphianism teaches (or like Dispensationalism teaches, either). In other words, when modern futurists cite other premillennialists to justify their more modern views they are either ignorant or lying. Ignorant because thy haven't actually read what the early premils believed or lying because they have read them and seek to deceptively justify their position any way.
Take Bullinger, for example. In his sermons on the Apocalypse," he wrote,
"By these, St. John declareth him self, expounding what those thousand years shall be. Not such, doubtless, as very many (amongst whom are accounted also the Millenaries or Chiliasts) do imagine with themselves, in the which they say, there should be tranquility upon earth, and in the which years the saints here in Earth shall reign corporally with Christ in most exquisite pleasures and joys."
That is directly and overtly opposite of what Christadelphianism teaches. Chialism is the belief the 1000 years of Rev. 20 is literal, and during that fixed, literal 1000-year period Jesus will establish a physical earthly kingdom prior to the final judgment. Now you know two things: 1) Bullinger was not Chiliast, and 2) whoever told you he was
lied to you. This kind of deceit is very common among modern futurists. I was appalled when I discovered its enormity. It is one thing for the average internet poster to say something he may or may not have investigated but theologians are (supposedly well-educated and well-read. There is no excuse for a ThD to write something he has not verified (that qualifies as incompetence). It is reprehensible that he would write something he has investigated and knows not to be true, especially when he does so to justify something not actually stated in scripture.
So take whoever it was that told you Bullinger shared Christadelphian views off your list of trusted and reliable sources. And start paying attention.
). The revolt began in Caesaria, then moved quickly to Galilee (on the shores of that sea) before moving south to Jerusalem and the south to Masada. The entire country was covered in war, destruction, and bloodshed. The entire countryside was destroyed at one point or another. In ancient times, when wars were fought hand to hand with swords and spears the places of battle would be marked by the blood spilt. The ground and ground waters turned red.
