A Curious Omission

[George Antonios]

How? I am missing part of your argument.

Many Amils claim that 70 A.D. was the 2nd coming of Christ.

 

[Lodic]

Many Amils claim that 70 A.D. was the 2nd coming of Christ.

Many Preterists (including myself) believe that while Christ "came" in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, the actual 2nd Coming is still in our future.

 

[AustinC]

Many Amils claim that 70 A.D. was the 2nd coming of Christ.

Preterist...which is a small minority of amillenialist believers.
Amillenialist's simply don't manufacture a non-biblical "pre-trib" rapture not ever discussed in the Bible.

 

[George Antonios]

Preterist...which is a small minority of amillenialist believers.
Amillenialist's simply don't manufacture a non-biblical "pre-trib" rapture not ever discussed in the Bible.

Let's stay on topic.

 

[37818]

Many Amils claim that 70 A.D. was the 2nd coming of Christ.

Does not answer my question. Orthodox Preterists do not hold that view.

 

[Yeshua1]

Does not answer my question. Orthodox Preterists do not hold that view.

Not the ones that I have read and talked with!
They see Second Coming still a future event!

 

[AustinC]

Let's stay on topic.

You brought it up and showed you don't know amillenialism and who holds it.

 

[George Antonios]

You brought it up and showed you don't know amillenialism and who holds it.

Ok @AustinC

 

[kyredneck]

Such events can be omitted by the scriptures.

I'm glad the HS has your permission to do so....

 

[George Antonios]

I'm glad the HS has your permission to do so....

This is reflective of knee-jerk contentiousness. That comment was really tone-deaf.

The comment was in response to the OP's statement:

for inspired writers to neglect writing of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable

I answered that the scriptures can indeed silently pass over monumental events and illustrated it by pointing out that Daniel never mentions the return of the captive Jews.

Therefore, by "can" I did not mean "permission", but rather, evidently to those who do not make a man an offender for a word (Isa.29:21), meant that the scripture can ignore anything they want, should the word of God so choose.

And I can't believe I had to explain that.

 

[asterisktom]

This is reflective of knee-jerk contentiousness. That comment was really tone-deaf.

The comment was in response to the OP's statement:



I answered that the scriptures can indeed silently pass over monumental events and illustrated it by pointing out that Daniel never mentions the return of the captive Jews.

Therefore, by "can" I did not mean "permission", but rather, evidently to those who do not make a man an offender for a word (Isa.29:21), meant that the scripture can ignore anything they want, should the word of God so choose.

And I can't believe I had to explain that.

Not the same thing. I am writing about the silence of all the writings of John. And you are making the very tail end of the life of Daniel (one to three years maybe) as your counter-point. Years after the angel told him "Go your way, Daniel". The two are not comparable.

I am not interested in arguing about this, George. I made my point. I don't think it needs repeating.

 

[George Antonios]

I am not interested in arguing about this, George. I made my point. I don't think it needs repeating.

I wasn't even talking to you! I was replying to @kyredneck! Hold your sting-reflexes, will you guys?

 

[asterisktom]

I wasn't even talking to you! I was replying to @kyredneck! Hold your sting-reflexes, will you guys?

You said "The comment was in response to the OP's statement:"

I wrote the OP.
You quoted me.

And then you fault me for responding?

 

[George Antonios]

You said "The comment was in response to the OP's statement:"

I wrote the OP.
You quoted me.

And then you fault me for responding?

...wow (and I see you edited your initial reply). The conversation was between me and @kyredneck.
The tenor of your initial reply was out of any sense of that consideration.
Nor had you and I argued about anything...
Again, I can't believe I have to explain such things.
Then again, this is the kind of mentality boards attract.

 

[asterisktom]

...wow (and I see you edited your initial reply). The conversation was between me and @kyredneck.
The tenor of your initial reply was out of any sense of that consideration.
Nor had you and I argued about anything...
Again, I can't believe I have to explain such things.
Then again, this is the kind of mentality boards attract.

Is editing a reply some kind of character flaw?

Basic forum etiquette:
Person A quotes person B (In this case, persons B and C)
Persons B and C have a perfect right to respond.

I can't believe I have to explain such things.

Feel free to respond or not. I only have one other person on ignore. In a minute it will be two.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Isn't that like asking what the prophecies warning Israel about coming events are doing in the Bible when those events came to pass centuries ago? Of course Revelation is relevant to us today, but not as a warning about the "End Times", "the Antichrist", etc. As John tells us at the beginning, this is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

But by the time the book had been written and a few copies made, it would already have been out of date.! I agree that we are not supposed to be setting dates for the "Antichrist" to appear. Many of them had already come when John wrote his first letter. The purpose of the book is for the understanding and encouragement of people all through the ages.

I suggest that our understanding of eschatology is affected by our understanding of when it was written. For instance, if Revelation was written in the 90s, Nero wouldn't fit as the "6th king" (Rev 17:10). This would affect the way we interpret large parts of the rest of the prophecy. The early date is very much a key to the Preterist interpretation. The late date view pretty much eliminates the Preterist view. Considering the significance of the Temple, it is very curious that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple are absent if Revelation was written in the 90s. While we may not agree on when it was written, I am fully convinced of the early date because it fits the prophecies best.

The problem you have is that Nero is actually only the fifth 'king.' Julius Caesar, as you will know if you know your Shakespeare, turned down the crown three times when it was offered to him.

'You all did see that on the Lupercal,
I thrice did offer him a kingly crown
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?'

It was Augustus who claimed him as the first Emperor to consolidate his own legitimacy as Caesar's heir and Preterists claim him because without him their system doesn't work. But I do assure you that he never, ever claimed to be king or Emperor..
But yes, I know that the early date is crucial to Preterism, which is one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt. But so long as you believe in a physical future return of Christ, I'm not going to fall out with you. Therefore I shall stop my participation on this thread here.

 

[AustinC]

Not the same thing. I am writing about the silence of all the writings of John. And you are making the very tail end of the life of Daniel (one to three years maybe) as your counter-point. Years after the angel told him "Go your way, Daniel". The two are not comparable.

I am not interested in arguing about this, George. I made my point. I don't think it needs repeating.

@asterisktom, since when did silence become a sound argument?
Yet, if you wish to go there, we have no text, anywhere, that says Jesus returned and raptured the elect at 70CE, only to have the elect continue to evangelize and suffer persecution from 70CE to the present hour.
In this matter, silence would eliminate preterism as a valid theory entirely. Do you still wish to argue from silence?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Many Amils claim that 70 A.D. was the 2nd coming of Christ.

This one doesn't.

 

[AustinC]

Ok @AustinC

Yes, your behavior is what you condemn in others.
You tried to state that most amillenialist's are preterists, which is false. Historically, the church has been amillenial and not preterist.

 

[asterisktom]

@asterisktom, since when did silence become a sound argument?
Yet, if you wish to go there, we have no text, anywhere, that says Jesus returned and raptured the elect at 70CE, only to have the elect continue to evangelize and suffer persecution from 70CE to the present hour.
In this matter, silence would eliminate preterism as a valid theory entirely. Do you still wish to argue from silence?

Austin, first of all, I appreciate the pun in the first sentence, intended or not.

Arguing from silence is actually legitimate, but it is not something I would rely on totally. Also important is the internal evidence that Revelation was written while the Temple was still standing. But the other pieces of evidence are the numerous time statements (which I will gladly go into) combined with the Scripture teaching that when the Parousia happens (happened) the canon is closed. So, yes, we do have texts - in many places. All these evidences combine together to make a good case for both a pre-AD 70 date for all Scripture as well as for Full Preterism in general.

What I think you are overlooking is audience relevance. Much of the New Testament was not written primarily to us. There came the rapture and the resurrection from the dead, just as it is written in Thessalonians. Then there was a brief time when there were no Christians on the Earth. Then the next Christians started, grew in numbers, faced persecutions (this time mostly from various Roman administrations) and on and on up to our time.

Nowhere is there a promise that Christians on Earth would be free from hardships. And though Christ rules from that time on, it is a "rule in the midst of enemies".