1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A question for preterists:

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Daniel David, Apr 21, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. If the early church were preterists, why were they in Jerusalem for so long?

    In other words, God told them to be his witnesses throughout the world, but according to Acts, they were in Jerusalem for quite awhile. There was no spreading out until the Lord brought persecution.

    If they thought that judgment would come upon the city within their particular generation (a sine qua non for preterists), why were they in Jerusalem at all? Why not base out of a different city that wouldn't be destroyed? The entire church would have been eradicated from the earth. Either they were extremely foolish, or they weren't preterists.
     
    #1 Daniel David, Apr 21, 2004
  2. Glory Bound

    Glory Bound New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's just Preterist who believe that Jesus was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24.

    Perhaps they grew complacent. Perhaps a lot of them did not know of the prophecy. But then again, maybe that's why they were able to escape - because they were ready.
     
    #2 Glory Bound, Apr 21, 2004
  3. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Jesus gave them signs that would precede the Destruction. Let me quote you from another thread:

    So according to your own beliefs they should have left the city. For they thought, just like every other generation thought, they would see the fulfillment of this. Perhaps they understood what Jesus meant when He said this:

    Luke 21:20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.21 Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein.22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

    History tells us this is exactly what happened. When Titus surronded the city, then for unknown reasons back off, the Christians got out of Jerusalem and went to Pella. Notice Revelation:

    Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

    Now, I ask you why should we put this event into the future when it just coincidently happened within a generation of when Jesus said it would?

    GloryBound is correct. Most before 1900 understood it to be the Fall of Jerusalem. It wasn't until we started getting our Eschatology from the newspaper and not the Bible that we began to put this event into the future.

    Yet even John MacArthur in his study Bible says Matt. 24:2 was "literally fulfilled in A.D.70.
     
    #3 Grasshopper, Apr 21, 2004
  4. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    GH, I don't think they should have left Jerusalem at all. They didn't go anywhere because they knew they weren't going to be there when the tribulation started.

    How exactly does Revelation 12 refer to the church? I didn't realize preterists believe the church gave birth to Christ. That is certainly interesting.

    As far as that generation, none of those events happened. You twist the meaning of actual words to symbolize the events by using the commentary of lost Jews (notably Josephus who was conveniently hired by the Romans to explain their glorious war - yeah that isn't media hype).

    As far as the church goes, the fathers were UNQUESTIONABLY chiliasts. Um, that means they were premillenial. ALL OF THEM. It wasn't until Origen (who was an Arian or in modern terms, a Jehovah's Witness) introduced the allegorical method. This was followed by Augustine, who looked around and didn't see the kingdom, so he created a new nature for the kingdom. So, you follow an Arian and the catholic starter as your guide to eschatology. Nice.

    Btw, of course the temple was destroyed in AD 70. That was one of the questions the disciples asked.
     
    #4 Daniel David, Apr 21, 2004
  5. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    You really need to do some studying. The woman is Israel. Where do you get the church? Even Pre-Mills know this.

    Interesting. You don't believe Titus surrounded Jerusalem? OK.

    Wow you must have a very large History book to prove 100% of all scholars believed like you.

    So the Kingdom is not spiritual? Jesus was mistaken...again? And you call me the heretic.

    Oh, so now you beleive A.D.70 does have some prophetic significance. Your making progress.
     
    #5 Grasshopper, Apr 21, 2004
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought you were saying the woman was the church. What was your point about Revelation 12 then?

    I know Titus surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem. That isn't what Christ was saying though. Again, the destruction of a little town with a million people is hardly the worst thing history has ever known. I think we did worse to Japan in WWII.

    Nobody doubts that the fathers were chiliasts. Well, unless you want to. Even Berkhoff (a die-hard amill, anti-dispy) admits this point.

    Of course the kingdom is spiritual. It is EXCLUSIVELY spiritual though.

    The disciples asked about the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. That would be two questions, not one. Two is one more than one.
     
    #6 Daniel David, Apr 21, 2004
  7. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

    It mirrors Luke 21. The believing Jews got out and went to Pella during the three and a half year war.

    OK, I'll try 1 more time. The book was written to Jews in the 1st century, not us in the 21st. Suppose on 9/11 terrorist not only hit the twin towers but also the White House and hundreds of other sites around the nation. Suppose this country was somehow overtaken by our enemies and american citizens were killed by the millions and those who survived were taken as prisoners in a foreign land. Suppose this country as we knew it no longer existed and became a satallite nation of the terrorist of the Middle East. Would there ever be an event in our past or future that would be worse than that? Especially if we had no future.
    Now keeping in mind Jesus is speaking to Jews and about Jews, AD70 fits the abouve example.

    I want to. Perhaps I'll take the time to show you later. Even so, does that make them right? Most probably baptized infants also.

    So Augustine was right. It wasn't a physical Kingdom.

    It is speaking of the same thing though. What age were they expecting to end? The church age or the Jewish age?

    Luke 21: 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    7 And they asked him, saying, Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?
     
    #7 Grasshopper, Apr 21, 2004
  8. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I meant to say that the kingdom isn't exclusively spiritual.
     
    #8 Daniel David, Apr 21, 2004
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Where does Jesus speak of a physical Kingdom?
     
    #9 Grasshopper, Apr 21, 2004
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The kingdom throughout the O.T. was thought of as physical.

    Christ did nothing to change that. The spiritual aspect of the kingdom has always existed. That is hardly what Christ said was 'at hand'.

    Further, the revelation of himself given to John includes a text which says we will rule on the earth (5:10), and of course chapter 20 which states the duration of his earthly davidic rule.
     
    #10 Daniel David, Apr 22, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...