Preterism is a Better View of the Bible than Futurism for Someone Suffering

No separate post needed. Your comments here are imprecise and random, not reflecting at all what was mentioned before. I hardly know where to begin on this - or whether I want to.

Let me just underline the problem areas of your post above. "Seems not to have been exiled"? I just cited a page with several sources that overrule your "seems".

"All writings"? Hardly. Write instead "all writings that I bothered to read". Once again, see my page cited.

"None set a date prior to AD 70". Once again...oh nevermind.

Did you read that page at all?

 

the pretierist faces big problems when appealing to history, as MOST of those who recorded it would support a late date for revelation and other Johainne letters..

Even bigger problem is that the Bible does NOT support the second Coming in the means/way they envisioned it as already happening!

Still waiting to read in Bible and secular historians how graves openned up, bodies went off in air, Lord Jesus was seen visibly, and How He stepped back on Earth, and set up His Millenium reign on earth then!

 

Did you check history at all?
Where in scripture does the writer of Acts talk about John being exiled since it would have to have been at the same time as Paul was imprisoned in Rome? Paul I am sure in one of his epistles especially to Ephesus would have said and John your pastor having been exiled to Patmos or mentioned it somewhere. But nowhere in scripture except the writer of Revelation ever mentions the fact that John was exiled. Yet we see Paul imprisioned and James executed, Stephen stoned and throughout the Acts of the Apostles we have these things recorded and yet it just fails to mention that John was in exile during Nero's rule. The really telling fact is that when Paul wrote to the believers at Ephesus in 63 A.D. he didn't mention John having been their pastor. We also know that if Christ returned as you say in 70 A.D. John would not have been around to Pastor that church alater than that because he would have gone to be with the Lord. But all of the early church fathers mention John as the Elder of that church.
When Paul writes to Timothy in his second epistle 65 - 67 A.D or he mentions nothing of John in exile. Yet John would have had to accomplish all of this in that period of time and I am sure if John was suffering all these things at the time of the writing of the epistles that the Holy spirit would nt have left that important piece of information out. 2 nd Peter written sometime betwwen 64 to 68 A.D. would also seem to have contained some mention of it but nope, nothing.

So why no mention of John being in exile until the book of Revelation tells us he was in exile when it was written. Why didn't the writer of Acts, Paul or Peter write about the exile expecially with Johns prominence.

John the writer of Revelation was in exile on the Isle called Patmos, from all historic indications it was in the 90 A.D.'s. To fit your preterism doctrine you must dispell history, both church and extrabiblical to make your doctrine fit. For my belief of Physical literal return of Christ for His bride the church and then to reign in His kingdom I only need to go to scripture to find it. Interseting isn't it. To try and prove your point incorrect we go to Eusabius and Jerome and other early writers who you now challenge there writing too. It is interesting you have to disprove many things in order to fit your doctrine. I don't need to disprove anything on my eschatological view to prove what I believe, very interesting how that works isn't it.

 

You'll have a loooong wait, because you are waiting for something that will never happen... and never did happen.

 

well, Apostles John/peter/paul must all be still waiting for second Coming to happen to....

So am in good company waiting for jesus to come back!

Again, prefer to take as "Gospel" actually those inspired by God to author divine scriptures, as oppossed to ALL of us who misinterpret it at times!

 

I take this response to mean that you think I was being snide when I asked if you had read what I cited. But I wasn't. I asked because you brought up objections, all of which (all but one) were answered by the page I cited.

And, yes, I did "check history". I am constantly checking history. It is a learning process for me.

No, it would have been later. The Book of Acts closes while Nero is still very much in power. At any rate, the lack of mention of John is not on par to the lack of mention of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Once again, see above. Also, this reminds me. According to your version we have John imprisoned as an old man (about 100 years old) and then released to Ephesus, going on n evangelistic circuit according to Revelation. Unlikely in the extreme.

All that I have time for now.

 

Of course if John were that old then extra-biblical history that says he was carried about to preach would actually be fairly close to truth.
If John were that old that too would fulfill Jesus prophecy in John 21:
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Jesus signified John would live a long life and extra-biblical history backs that up. But a 70 A.D. return of Christ would do away with that seeing as how Christ took the church and all the apostles by that theory. Even fulfilling revelation and all that John wrote.

 

"Took the church and all the apostles."????

I have no idea what you are talking about. You think that is Preterism, or what?

I'm taking a break from this. If I read something coherent and sensible I will come back to this.

 

If Christ returned and set up His Kingdom that is what scripture says would happen. You say He came in 70 A.D. and fulfilled all prophecy correct? So that would mean all believers were taken at that time. 1st Thessalonians fulfilled, 1st Corinthians fulfilled, revelation 19 and 20 fulfilled, what is left we will all face the Great white throne. that is what you and every preterist has been saying, no more prophecy to fulfill since the Kingdom has coome and Christ second coming was in 70 A.D. according to scripture every prophecy ends at the second coming with the kingdom set up and the final prophecy the unbelievers face the great white throne judgeemnt and the earth renovated by fire 1000 years after the kingdom is set up. Since you say Christ is already reigning and has been in his kingdom since 70 A.D. the 1000 years has come an gone so WHY are we still here?

 

Don't take this wrong, but I will wait until you write a coherent post to me. I can't make heads or tails of what you wrote here.

 

If as you said Christ returned in 70 A.D. scripture says that would mark him setting up the kingdom, which in another post I believe you said He was reigning in Heaven right now. Correct or not?

Also if I have understood you properly all prophecy has been accomplished since 70 A.D. that includes revelation 19 and 20. Correct or not?

Which all prophecy would include 1 Thessalonians the dead rise first then we who are alive and remain meet them in the air. Correct or not it is fulfilled?

All prophecy would include 1 Corinthians when the last trump sounds we will be changed. This is the church being taken out by Christ at his return 70 A.D. would mean fulfilled correct or not?

What is left we will all face the Great white throne revelation 21 and following. Correct or not?

Is that not what you and every preterist have been saying, no more prophecy to fulfill. Correct or not?
Since the Kingdom has come and Christ second coming was in 70 A.D.
Then according to scripture every prophecy ends at the second coming with the kingdom set up. correct or not?

The final prophecy the unbelievers face the great white throne judgement and the earth renovated by fire 1000 years after the kingdom is set up. Correct or not?

Since you say Christ is already reigning and has been in his kingdom since 70 A.D. the 1000 years has come and gone, so WHY are we still here?

 

Thank you for dividing your questions up neatly like this. I appreciate it. When I can get back to the computer I will answer these.

 

We are still waiting to see the evidence though that shows that when Jesus returned in AD 70 that He raised the dead saints physically out of their graves, the saints alive than were raptured, and that he set up his physical Kingdom upon the earth...

Hope that you do not hold that THIS present earth has been directly ruled by jesus, satan is now bounded, do you?

 

The Jews looked for a physical kingdom, totally missing the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God. Modern futurists are following in their footsteps - with the same results.

Yes, this present Earth is being ruled right now by Christ. I guess you don't believe the Bible.

Hebrews 1
The Son is the "brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,"

The Father says of the Son “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom."

That word "righteousness" is a very, very important clue. This is why you are missing the kingdom's presence. You are looking for a kingdom of outward regulations (sacrifices, Judaic trappings, outmoded religious injunctions). The true Kingdom that is right now is a spiritual one.

Romans 14:17
"for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

But you will ignore these verses too, and return to your literal laundry list of what you think the kingdom should be - contrary to Scripture.

 

There you go again asking someone to prove Jesus didn't do something. The burden of proof is on you. You are asserting that Jesus returned in 70 AD. Prove it.