(1) Please tell me how you apply your verse, "Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" to AD 70. Please quote the first century post-Calvary Christian historian who saw this happen in AD 70.
That's an easy one. Josephus. Now how about explaining vs 27 to me. This is what usually happens I am required to explain my verses from a Preterist position yet my questions get avoided.
(2) Is Daniel 7 literal? Was Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece and Rome literal? Yes, yes, yes in case you missed it. You make all of Daniel literal except the Second Coming of Christ to rescue literal Israel.
Re-read my post. I believe the 2nd coming was literal. Just as the comings in the OT were literal. More on that later.
(3) When do you think Revelation was written? Most say around AD 96. Therefore, if it was written about 26 years AFTER AD 70, then why does it portray the second coming of Chrisdt as yet future?
Yes that was one of my major problems. If Revelation was post AD70 all forms of Preterism go out the window. So I decided to study that subject. You might be suprised to learn how many scholars through the years believed that Revelation was written pre-AD70. If you really want to study the subject pick up "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. I think you will find most pre-1800's scholars understood Revelation to be a pre-AD70 book.
Interestingly this is the statement by Irenaeus that most of the late date scholarship is based on:
:"
We, therefore, do not venture to affirm anything with certainty respecting the name of antichrist. For were it necessary that his name should be clearly announced to the present age, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it has not been long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, about the end of Domitian's reign."
Here is a statement about an early church father. Pre Hal Lindsey.
Clement of Alexandria (head teacher at the Catechetical School at Alexandria) was a contemporary of Irenaeus. He wrote his Miscellanies (or Stromata) in c. A.D. 190-195. In 7:17 he condemns certain teachers who were writing counterfeit scriptures. Clement explained that those teachers and their scriptures were counterfeit because they had appeared after the close of the teaching of the Apostles. According to Clement, the close of the teaching of the Apostles (which includes the writing of the Scriptures) "ends with Nero." Nero died in A.D. 68. Clement of Alexandria thus implied that the "New Testament," including the book of Revelation, was written before A.D. 68.
(4) Do you or other Preterists partake of communion? Christ said that this would continue UNTIL his coming!
Very good question. That is one I'm still not sure of. Here are some beliefs for continuation:
The word “until” does not necessarily imply a termination. For example, Christ was to reign “until” He put all His enemies under His feet. (I Cor. 15:25; cf. I Tim. 4:13) “Until” cannot mean a termination in that verse because Christ reigns forever. (Dan. 7:14; Lk. 1:33; Heb. 1:8) “Until” in I Cor. 11:26 implies a culmination and establishment, not a termination.
“Until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”
“Fulfilled” does not necessarily imply a change from material to non-material. The truth that the Lord's Supper represents was brought to fullness in Christ in A.D. 70, but that does not mean that the Lord's Supper itself was to cease. Christ partakes of the Lord's Supper with us now in the Spirit as we partake of it physically on Earth.
“Until that Day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom”
Since A.D. 70, Christ takes the Lord's Supper with us in a “new” way, i.e., with “new” meaning. The Lord's Supper is no longer a somber remembrance, but it is a celebration feast. Now He has Communion with us spiritually when we partake of the literal bread and wine.
5) Do you think life will continue as usual forever without God intervening? Some say the sun will explode millions of years from now. Is that the end you foresee?
There are certain passages that lead one to believe the earth abides forever and His Kingdom continues to increase. Another area I'm not sure about.
(6) The early church was not preteristic, at least until Augustine preached about the falss kingdom of the church. There were many movements proclaiming the soon second coming of Christ. The Montanaists were active doing this in the third century. Throughout non-Roman Catholic history there have always been second coming groups.
I would say the early church had quite a bit of partial preterist leanings, however I do not dispute the fact that the second coming was also taught.
7) I am not learning much logical Bible from you, but I am learning a lot about Preterists.
I think that is a slam.
RC Sproul has an excellent book on the partial/full Preterist positions called the "Last Days According to Jesus". Well worth the read no matter what your view. There are other web-sights that are much better at this than I.
Now concerning the "Parousia".
Milton Terry (1898)
The Consummation of the pre-Messianic Age and the Parousia of Christ - Excerpts from Biblical Apocalyptics
The words parousia, commonly translated coming, is so constantly associate, in current dogmatics, with the ultimate goal of human history, that ordinary readers lose sight of its simple meaning in New Testament usage. The word means presence as opposed to absence. For example, we read in Phil. ii,12, "Sop then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence (en te parousia mou) only, but now much more in my absence (en te apousia mou), work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." But as the personal presence of any one implies a previous coming, so this word is not improperly rendered coming in many passages, and the verb erchomai, to come, is often employed to denote the appearance and kingdom of Christ. [2] But to assume that this coming or presence of Christ must needs be spectacular in any physical sense, a literal display of his person in the atmosphere of this earth, is to involve the doctrine in great confusion. Why must the coming of the Son of man on the clouds to execute judgment on that generation be understood or explained in any other way than we explain Jehovah's "riding upon a swift cloud," and coming to execute judgment on Egypt, as prophesied in Isa. xix,1? Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with [p. 245] the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of the elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.
It wasn't until I familiarized myself with the OT did I begin to understand how His coming could be in any way non-physical.
Coming of the Lord
Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, Jehovah rideth upon a swift cloud, and cometh unto Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Ps. 18: 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind.
Micah 1: 3 For, behold, Jehovah cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.
Ex. 3: 8 and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians
And how about "comings" associated with clouds:
Exodus 16:10 - It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud.
Exodus 19:9 - The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
Exodus 34:5 - The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.
Leviticus 16:2 - The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.”
Numbers 11:25 - Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him....
Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to have “come,” He “descended,” “came down,” and “appeared.” This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference to His own second coming. Question: was the “body” of Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations of Yahweh “bodily and physical?” The answer is obvious.
Psalm 18:912 - He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew; and He sped upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness of waters, and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, hailstones and coals of fire.
Psalm 97:23 - Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round about.
Psalm 104:3 - He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind...
Isaiah 19:1 - The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
Daniel 7:13 - I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.
Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end or pass away (see Daniel 7:14). Preterist believe the latter.
Joel 2:12 - Blow a trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, so there is a great and mighty people; there has never been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to the years of many generations.
Nahum 1:3 - The LORD is slow to anger and great in power and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.
Zephaniah 1:1415 - Near is the great day of the LORD, near and coming very quickly; listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness...
Note also that many of the references to Yahweh coming in or with the clouds have to do with His bringing judgment upon His enemies and those who rebelled against His covenant. Again, there was no physical, bodily coming of Yahweh at these times.
I began to realize there is no way to interpret NT prophecies unless you use the OT as your guide. Most all the words or concepts used in Revelation and other NT prophecies are found in the OT. The fun is finding them.
