http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days or End Times refer to events which actually happened in the first century after Christ's birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past". Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.

In addition, certain statements from classical theological liberalism are easily mistaken for Preterism, as they hold that the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation.

Preterism versus Futurism
Like most theological disputes, the divide between Preterism and its opposite, Futurism, is over how certain passages of Scripture should be interpreted. Futurists assert that Preterists have ignored prophecy recently fulfilled and spiritualized prophecies they interpret as describing literal, visible events, whereas Preterists believe that Futurists do not take certain passages such as Matthew 16:28 literally enough and do not give sufficient weight to scriptures that seem to show that the first century Church believed that a major eschatological event would certainly take place in their lifetime.[citation needed] Many "time texts" in the New Testament appear to indicate this, e.g., Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24:34, Matthew 26:64, and Rev. 1:1-3. Full Preterists would assert that there are passages which also place the Second Coming and Resurrection at that time (Dan. 7:18; 12:1-7). Partial Preterists, however, assert that there are additional long-term indicators and futuristic goals of the Consummation that include the complete eradication of sin and the restoration of the Earth from its fallen state.








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism
Amillennialism (Latin: a- "not" + mille "thousand" + annum "year") is a view in Christian eschatology named for its denial of a future, thousand-year, physical reign of Jesus Christ on the earth, as espoused in the premillennial and some postmillennial views of the Book of Revelation, chapter 20. By contrast, the amillennial view holds that the number of years in Revelation 20 is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the church age (or more rarely, that it ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70[citation needed]); and that while Christ's reign is spiritual in nature during the millennium, at the end of the church age, Christ will return in final judgment and establish permanent physical reign.

[] Teaching
Amillennialism teaches that the Kingdom of God will not be physically established on earth throughout the "millennium", but rather

that Jesus is presently reigning from heaven, seated at the right hand of God the Father,
that Jesus also is and will remain with the church until the end of the world, as he promised at the Ascension,
that at Pentecost, the millennium began, as is shown by Peter using the prophecies of Joel, about the coming of the kingdom, to explain what was happening,
and that, therefore the church and its spread of the good news is Christ's kingdom.
Amillennialists cite scripture references to the kingdom not being a physical realm: Matthew 12:28, where Jesus cites his driving out of demons as evidence that the kingdom of God had come upon them; Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus warns that the coming of the kingdom of God can not be observed, and that it is among them; and Romans 14:17, where Paul speaks of the kingdom of God being in terms of the Christians' actions.

Hi C7,

Excellent idea for a thread. I hope you get lots of responses.

I listed myself as "preterist" because that is the most accurate, but unfortunately many futursits are so unprincipled in their bible study and criticism that they have propogated many confusions and outright falsehoods and deceptions about the meaning of preterism. Thus, I will clarify my personal beliefs.

I call myself "preterist" because the Bible plainly and explicitly declares with perfect clarity that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in its entirety in the first century (see my proof here). Unlike most of the futurist speculations that have no confirmation in Scripture at all, the entire prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse unite with a single voice to confirm the preterist understanding which also is confirmed by the incontrovertible facts of History.

But as for "all prophecies" being fulfilled, while I think this is probably true, I do not teach it as doctrine because the Bible does not plainly state it as such.

Richard

You should also include "Futurism", "Premillennialism", and "Post-Millennialism" (though the latter two are merely specific instances of "Futurism", of course). You could also include, as a sub-heading under "Futurism", a poll on one's views on the Tribulation, and include the following options: "Pre-Tribulationism", "Mid-Tribulationism", "Post-Tribulationism" (these referring to when one thinks the Rapture would take place, in relation to the timing of the Tribulation).

For myself, I hold to "Pre-Tribulationism" and "Premillennialism". I believe there will be a (likely in the not-too-distant) future 7-year Tribulation, that the Rapture will occur prior to the start of the 7-year Tribulation, and that Jesus' Second Coming, which has not yet occurred, will occur prior to the start of the Millennium (meaning, the Millennium is yet future).

Click here: Prophecy in the End-time Church, by James White
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/ori/jwh-petc.php

I VOTED IN THE : ' my personal foundation is ` ( list it )

I believe in all of the following, due to my personal experience.

crownsevenalphabet




Excerpt from:
The Spirit of Prophecy
Authored by James White, originally published in Review and Herald, January 25, 1870

Luke, in giving account of his travels with Paul and others, when a quarter of a century of the Christian age had passed, after speaking of entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, says: “And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus” (Acts 21:9-10). Still later we see the beloved John on the Island of patmos, filled with the Spirit of Prophecy in all its fullness. The wonderful Revelation was given to him when more than a half a century of the Christian age had passed. And here the New Testament record leaves us without the slightest hint that the gifts of the Spirit should cease from the church till the day of glory should be ushered in by the second appearing of Jesus Christ.

To this, the words of the prophet agree:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God,) I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out, in those days, of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come (Acts 2:17-20).
The Spirit of prophecy is here seen among the special signs of the last days. Its revival in the last days was to be one of the most notable signs of the approaching end. This is evident from its being classed with the most prominent signs, in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars, and such wonders in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, as blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.

Richard,

QUOTE

I call myself "preterist" because the Bible plainly and explicitly declares with perfect clarity that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in its entirety in the first century (see my proof here).

No, it does not. In fact, Matthew 24:29-31 completely and clearly refutes, with absolute clarity, your preterist view espoused above. The following is Matthew 24:29-31, from the NKJV:

QUOTE

" 'Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.' "

None of that has ever come close to happening in history (ignoring for the moment the issue of the Sun and Moon being darkened, which I would claim is not, in this case, referring to a "mere" solar eclipse). The "powers of the heavens" is clearly referring to astronomical "signs", as is also indicated by the context of Jesus' having just mentioned the Sun and Moon. Also, at no point in history has any "sign of the Son of Man" appeared in heaven, in the sky, and at no time have "all the tribes of the earth" mourned due to their having seen "the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory", because the Son of Man has yet to come "on the clouds with power and great glory", or to visibly return to Earth (as is described in Revelation 19:11-21). Moreover, in Matthew 24:38-39 (NKJV), Jesus says:

QUOTE

" 'But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.' "

This couldn't have described the conditions at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., for several reasons. First, Jerusalem was beseiged for several months, or years, before it was finally destroyed - during that time, the people of Jerusalem most certainly wouldn't have been in "blissful ignorance" of their impending destruction, as was the case for the wicked people just prior to the Flood. Second, Jesus compares the people at the time of the Flood to the people at the time of His coming - but the people at the time of the Flood included the whole world, not just a particular ethnic group, while the only ones who were effectively "destroyed" in 70 A.D. were Jews, in particular those in Jerusalem. Third, it is the "coming of the Son of Man" in "power and great glory" upon "the clouds" which "initiates" the judgment of that time upon the wicked - this coming is described, in Matthew 24:27 (NKJV), as follows:

QUOTE

" 'For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.' "

Thus, the coming of the Son of Man will be quick, as in taking only a few seconds, at most. The coming of the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem took far longer, and even figuratively was not "lightning quick", if historians are to be trusted.

Furthermore, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus describes how He will separate the wicked from the righteous at His coming, calling the former "goats" and the latter "sheep". He will make this judgment when He "will sit on the throne of His glory", which is after " 'the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him' " (Matthew 25:31). " 'All the nations will be gathered before Him' " at that time. This has NEVER happened in history.

QUOTE

Unlike most of the futurist speculations that have no confirmation in Scripture at all, the entire prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse unite with a single voice to confirm the preterist understanding which also is confirmed by the incontrovertible facts of History.

Nope. As I have just conclusively shown, at the very, very least the Olivet Discourse disproves the preterist understanding. The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation further confirm the failings of the preterist understanding, and quite clearly point to a futurist view of the majority of the prophecies at issue.

Honestly I waffle too much. I definitely think much was fulfilled with Jesus and many of our modern profiteers try to assert those to current events, However I do see things that can only be references to future events,
( future from Jesus forward) I definitely do not believe in a pretrip rapture. And I think most of the 1000 year stuff is taken out of context and leads to much misinformation. An area that I watch is concerning Israel. I can definitely see how "Israel" is a reference to the Church whole, but Israel the nation does seem to fit in biblical prophecy. I have not made up my mind on that issue so I just stay open to either. So I don't think I fit the labels.

God Bless,
K.D.

Hi Godsword!

Thank you for your comments. I am very happy to discuss this with you.


There are many problems with your argument here. First, you have started with the latter part of the Olivet Discourse. We need to start with the beginning to establish the context. When we do that, we see that Christ is talking about the destruction of the first century Temple, and the Great Tribulation - the Time of Jacob's Trouble - when Jeruselam was utterly desolated and the Jews killed or led away captive.

Another big problem is that you interpreted the sun and moon as literal rather than symbolic, when we know that God has taught us that those astonomical words are symbols for the earthly ruling powers. We know this with great certainty because God used those very symbols when He judged Babylon, Egypt, and Edom. For example:

Isaiah 13:9-10 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. 10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

That language is identical to Christ's prophecy in the Olivet Discourse. I see no warrant whatsoever to suggest that He meant us to intepret those symbols literally.

Another point of strong disagreement is your interpretation of "earth" as referring to the entire globe of planet earth. That's not what He was talking about at all! He was talking about the judgment that was soon coming on the land (earth/erets/gey) of Israel.

QUOTE (Godsword @ May 8 2008, 10:40 AM)

Moreover, in Matthew 24:38-39 (NKJV), Jesus says:

QUOTE

" 'But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.' "

This couldn't have described the conditions at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., for several reasons. First, Jerusalem was beseiged for several months, or years, before it was finally destroyed - during that time, the people of Jerusalem most certainly wouldn't have been in "blissful ignorance" of their impending destruction, as was the case for the wicked people just prior to the Flood.

On the contrary, Josephus reports that Jerusalem was enjoying a time of great wealth and prosperity before being destroyed by Rome. Indeed, the city was overflowing with a million pentecostal pilgrims at the time the Roman army surrounded the city and trapped them. It seems pretty obvious that those million people were "blissfully ignorant" of the desolation that was about to befall them.

QUOTE (Godsword @ May 8 2008, 10:40 AM)

Second, Jesus compares the people at the time of the Flood to the people at the time of His coming - but the people at the time of the Flood included the whole world, not just a particular ethnic group, while the only ones who were effectively "destroyed" in 70 A.D. were Jews, in particular those in Jerusalem.

Granted, He used the judgment of the flood as one metaphor. But He also used the local judgment on Sodom as similar to His Coming in Judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD:

Luke 17:26-30 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Thus, the essential point is not the "global" nature of the judgment, but the fact of JUDGMENT which is what the "coming of the son of man" in 70 AD was all about.

Note also the Josephus explicitly declared that God Himself was using Titus to destroy Jerusalem because of their outrageous sin. Indeed, Josephus described that the zealots themselves were the ones who desolated the temple with the abomination of many corpses.

QUOTE (Godsword @ May 8 2008, 10:40 AM)

Third, it is the "coming of the Son of Man" in "power and great glory" upon "the clouds" which "initiates" the judgment of that time upon the wicked - this coming is described, in Matthew 24:27 (NKJV), as follows:

QUOTE

" 'For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.' "

Thus, the coming of the Son of Man will be quick, as in taking only a few seconds, at most. The coming of the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem took far longer, and even figuratively was not "lightning quick", if historians are to be trusted.

You are abolutely correct that the lightning metaphor was meant to imply "quickness" but there is absolutely no warrant to suggest a "few seconds at most." That is misunderstanding the nature of metaphors. As everyone knows, the idea of "quickness" is relative. A sudden destruction is all that is meant. You can not extened it to calculate actual units of time.

And as for the speed of destruction: First there was a siege that lasted roughly three and a half years (i.e. forty two months, or 1260 days - do those numbers ring any bells?) and then there was sudden destruction that happened.

QUOTE (Godsword @ May 8 2008, 10:40 AM)

QUOTE

Unlike most of the futurist speculations that have no confirmation in Scripture at all, the entire prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse unite with a single voice to confirm the preterist understanding which also is confirmed by the incontrovertible facts of History.

Nope. As I have just conclusively shown, at the very, very least the Olivet Discourse disproves the preterist understanding. The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation further confirm the failings of the preterist understanding, and quite clearly point to a futurist view of the majority of the prophecies at issue.

I disagree with your assesment, of course. If you would like to pursue this - which I think would be wonderful - we should start with the context and agree on the fundamentals before getting lost in endless disputes about things that depend on men's opinions.

My fundamental rule of biblical hermeneutics states that we must establish our doctrines on those things that God has established in the Bible by at least two or three witnesses. When we apply this principle to eschatology, most of the futurist doctrines are immediately eliminated as viable possiblilities. I'm speaking of things like the 2000+ year gap in Daniel 9:26-27, the doctrine of the rebuilt Temple, the doctrine of a millennial reign of Christ on earth, etc. Not one of those doctrines is supported by "two or three clear an unambinguous passages." They all are just invented and imposed on the Bible.

Looking forward to exploring with you the true doctrines that will withstand the test of God's Word.

Richard

STUDY shekel's views on this subject...........i think he's right

the 7 year trib will start soon

the a/c will appear on the world scene soon

i don't know if the resurrection/rapture is pre, mid, or post trib........or something else

we'll soon have a famine and economic collapse........(i'm simply repeating what shekel said)...........shekel is the expert

shekel predicted the exact date of saddam's death...........and the method of death

the current economic crisis and food shortages are the leading edges of shekel's predicted famine and Depression (i'm speculating).............check with shekel on this

the events of 70 AD may have been a little tiny picture/foreshadow of the Great Trib 1900 years later (i heard somebody say that)


the First Coming of Christ .............the prophecies WERE LITERALLY FULFILLED
the Second Coming of Christ.............will be LITERALLY FULFILLED
(i think)

at the First Coming,,,,,,,,,,the disciples COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD it, if they had studied Scripture (OT) Prophecy.
(same for the Second Coming)

Jesus rebuked the disciples because they had NOT studied.............and they didn't believe ANYTHING until they saw it with their own eyes

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The Bible does not teach that there was or will be a "seven year tribulation." That idea is an invention of the futurists. If we want to know what the Bible really teaches about the "end times" we need to adhere to what the Bible really teaches. We must follow the fundamental rule of Biblical Hermeneutics, which states that anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

• Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistimology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.

Case in point: the Bible says nothing about any "antichrist" who will be a "global dictator." As everyone knows, the Biblical definition of the antichrist has nothing to do withy a political leader. It is a term used ONLY in reference to those who teach one or both of two false doctrines that 1) Christ did not come in the flesh, or 2) Christ was not Messiah. That's it. That's the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of anyone who is called "antichrist."

Therefore, the doctrine of a world dictator called "Antichrist" is UNBIBLICAL. It is not taught in the Bible.


Those look like "newspaper predictions" to me. Sure, things are looking a little "rough" right now with oil at $123 and food shortages. But there is no reason to panic, and certainly no reason to think that the "Biblical end times" are upon us because of a few worries in the world. If that were the case, Christ would have come back during the Black Death of the 14th century which was a million times worse than anything going on now. The only way anyone can believe that Christ is coming "soon" in the sense of "in a short time" is to misread the Bible which plainly states that His coming was "soon" in the first cerntury. So either we need to change our definitions of fundamental words like "soon" and "for the time is at hand" and "this generation" and "for the coming of the Lord is near" or we need to adjust our eschatology to match what the Bible actually teaches.

If "soon" means "2000 years in the future" then should we expect Christ to return in the year 4033 AD?



Really? Please tell me more!


Yes, I've heard that too, but I think it discounts the overwhelming significance of the events of 70 AD. This is really important becuase the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was predicted in Daniel as happening soon after the Messiah came to fulfill the 70 weeaks, and so 70 AD is a primary proof of the Bible prophecy. And Christ himself confirmed the prophecy, and predicted the destruction of the Temple that then standing in the first century. Futurist's ignore or discount the words of Christ and destroy the prophetic witness with their endless unbibilical speculations about a future antichrist, rebuilt temple, great tribulation, and all that. Futurism is entirely destructive to biblical eschatology, ecclesiology, and soteriology.

The facts can not be dismissed nor denied. The Olivet Discourse is explicitly about the destruction of the Temple in the first century:

Luke 21:20-22 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

This happened in 66-70 AD. Those were the days when the warnings of Christ were fulfilled:

Matthew 23:34-36 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Upon whom? Upon that generation of Jews. And all this is confirmed again in Revelation, which reveals first century apostate Israel to be the Great Harlot Babylon:

Revelation 18:21-24 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It was the generation that murdered Christ that also received the wrath of God in 70 AD, exactly as Christ predicted, and in a way that explicitly fulfilled His prophetic warnings.

The Books of Daniel and Revelation form an integrated prophetic complex with the Olivet Discourse in which all the witnesses mutually confirm each other. There is no speculation or invention like the 2000+ year gap, the rebuilt temple, the wanna be dictator antichrist, etc. It seems to me that Preterism is the ONLY eschatological system that can stand up under the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics.

Richard

The most important confession is that which is contained in the creed which all true Christians uphold, namely that Jesus Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. I have not been able to find an authoritative Catholic source which absolutely refutes the future millenium period where Christ will rule physically flesh and blood humans on the earth as described literally in the Book of Revelation. However they may well be some. The catechism of the church states the bundles this teaching into a bucket of all kinds of wierd variations on the theme such as Adolph Hitlers claim that he was introducing a thousand year reign of peace. It then distances itself from these teachings. A reference to a further catholic doctrine more specifically related to the millenial rule of Jesus Christ states that this teaching "may not be safely taught". No doubt that this is from the churches ages of experience that this teaching may so easily be twisted and distorted to terrible harm by misguided people. It can be used inappropriately to teach rebellion against the existing government of the day.

However if we look at Iraneus Against Heresies, he specifically supports the belief that there will be an earthly kingdom. Whilst the authority of the magisterium exceeds that of Iraneus the church would be careful not to alienate those believers who agree with Iraneus, provided that they do not "go about" defying the church and teaching it openly. Let each man be convicted in his own mind.

Suffice it to say that the essential point is that Jesus Christ will come again after the reign of the antichrist to judge the earth and to resurrect the saints. Large numbers of Christians have held this understanding with only vague awareness of what happens after that. Some believe that the New Heaven and New Earth will come again straight away, others believe that he will rule on earth for about 1000 years.

Therefore the Amillenial position is not heresy according to the church. However Preterism is a heresy because it denies that there is a future return of Jesus Christ to come in glory. It also false denies that there will be a future reign of the Antichrist. Preterism must be rejected as a false teaching.

As for me, I have a literal belief in the book of Revelation and believe that the millenium will be like a universal garden of Eden. After the release of Satan and rebellion of Gog and Magog the earth and heaven will be destroyed in fire and the New Heaven and New Earth will replace it.

"Preterism" does not deny that there will be a "future return of Jesus Christ to come in glory." There may be, there may not be. THe issue is WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH? Of course, there are "preterists" that may deny aspects of the early creeds, but then, there are sedevacantist Catholics who assert that the last few popes including the current one were rank heretics and not really popes at all. This is why it is a logical fallacy to judge a teaching by the errors of individuals who may claim to believe it.

The problem is that there is a wide variety of ideas that get classed as "preterist" just as there are a wide variety of ideas classed as "futurist." It is meaningless to say that that any of these systems are "heretical" because the words are not sufficiently well defined for such accusations to have any real meaning.

Preterism in its essence asserts that most or all of prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled in or before the first century. Preterists tend to classify themselves in accordance to what, if any, prophecies are yet to be fulfilled. But even the so-called full preterists can not be called "heretical" if their assertion is true and Biblical! That's why most opponents appeal to the early creeds of the church rather than the Bible when they attack Preterism. Everyone knows that the early church formulated creeds that teach a future "return" of Christ to judge the world. No problem there. But that has nothing to do with preterism which is concerned solely with how to understand the prophecies that are actually found in the Bible. Preterism makes assertions about the BIBLE and what it teaches. Preterism does not make assertions about the early creeds of the church. The question is if the BIBLE teaches a yet future return of Christ or if the verses that futurists use to support their ideas are taken out of context and/or misinterpreted and so forth. That's the discussion.

Therefore, it is absurd to attempt to defeat preterism by simply dismissing it as a "heresy." It's not that easy. You have to actually deal with the preterist intepretation of what the Bible really teaches.

Oh, and as for assertion that preterism is "false" because it "denies that there will be a future reign of the Antichrist" - that is ridiculous because the doctrine of a future rule of an "Antichrist" dictator is entirely UNBIBLICAL. It may be "consistent" with the Bible in the sense that it does not explicitly contradict other Biblical doctrines, but it most certainly is not explicilty taught anywhere in the Bible. In the Bible, the term "antichrist" refers exclusively to someone who teaches false doctrine. The Bible does not teach that that there will be a world dictator known as "the Antichrist."

Richard

Full Preterism teaches that the resurrection has already occurred and that Jesus has returned in 70AD. The absurdity of this teaching is evident by just taking a look out the window and seeing the horrors of this world.

Partial Preterism is for those who don't actually want to believe in Preterism but want to be differentiated from Amillenialists in that there is no future coming Antichrist.

Therefore I take it you are a Partial Preterist. (This also means that you are an amillenialist by the way)

The catechism of the church states

This happily leaves open to interpretation what is beyond and within history. It shows however that an eschatological judgment must occur before the glorious kingdom of God is implemented. This shows that Jesus MUST return FIRST, visibly and gloriously before his eternal kingdom is implemented. Personally I don't see how this statement refutes my belief in a millenial kingdom which Christ rules after he returns to judge the earth.

The main point however is that the antichrist will setup a deceptive and false messianic kingdom BEFORE the true coming of Jesus Christ.
There are many such false movements throughout history, but the big daddy of these will occur before the coming of Jesus.
Described here
2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, [1] 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth [2] that he might be revealed in his time.

This individual will personally be destroyed by Jesus Christ.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Its not any more absurd than the plain teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ:

John 11:23-27 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

The meaning of the resurrection in the Bible is widely misunderstood. Futurists falsely assert that it is necessarily "physical" because it is "bodily" - they don't realize that there is no reason to assume that the resurrected body will be limited to this "physical" domain. It apparently will be a much greater and more real body than any mere collection of dust and dirt. And they assert that it must be "visible" when there is nothing in the Bible that necessitates that. It seems extremely likey that the Bible teaches that we receive our resurrection body after we die without anyone on earth seeing any evidence of that fact. That could explain the presence of Elijah and Moses with Christ at His transfiguration. But that's all just speculation. The important point is that folks try to invalidate preterism with sophistry and tricks that have nothing to do with the essential teachings or reason for preterism in the first place, which is NECESSITATED by the plain meaning of an entire INTEGRATED PROPHETIC COMPLEX of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse. I can assure you that preterists would be much happier if God had not mixed in the resurrection prophecies with those other prophecies that were obviously fulfilled in the first century.


That doesn't make any sense. The millennium doesn't have anything to do with whether a person is a partial preterist or not. The REAL issue is the problem of understanding the so-called "Second Coming" (which should be called the "Coming of the Son of Man) and the association fo the resurrection with the events of the first century. I can't think of any person who claimed to be a partical preterist for the reasons you just listed.

And again, the doctrine of a "future coming Antichrist" is not found in the Bible. Anyone who teaches it is teaching an unbiblical doctrine. That's ok - you may have some other source of revelation (the Magisterium, private interpretations, dreams, rumors, whatever) - but it's not biblical and so will not be accepted in any serious biblical discussion.


As mentioned above, there is no connection between partial vs. full preterism and Amillennialism as far as I know. But you are correct ijn that I hold to the plain fact that the Bible does not support the doctrine of the Millennium according to the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which demands at least two or three unambiguous passages to establish any doctrine. There is only one passage that mentions a thousand year reign of Christ, and it doesn't say a word about where that reign is (on heaven or earth) and the doctrine is missing in its entirety from the previous 1187 chapters of the Holy Word (that's 99.7%), and it is found in the book that is the most densely symbolic in all the Bible. Therefore, common sense and principled biblical study mitigates against any doctrine that teaches a future earthly millennial reign of Christ. It may be consistent with Scritpure, but it most certainly is NOT TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE as such.


There are a number of different ways to interpret that passage. Some people note that the "Temple" in the NT is the Church, and suppose the "man of sin" to represent a false Christian leader. But to me it seems much more likely that Paul was refering to the literal Temple that still stood in Jerusalem and was soon desolated by the abomination of a wicked and apostate High Priest. There is nothing in that passage that demands a future fulfillment. On the contrary, it fits very well with the Olivet Discourse and the second beast of Revelation (the false prophet) who had identical powers to deceive. Thus we see the integrity of the preterist understanding of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse.

Richard

great post C7a, I need to settle the concept of , I struggle with, the 1000 reign of Christ as being now.

can any one help me here, Please make it to the point. Lengthy threads give me squirrely brain.
Or mail direct to my page.

Does PRETEREST hold this idea of is Christ ruler now. Thank you Patrick

All Christians believe that Christ rules now, from the "Throne of His father David" in heaven, as it is written:



Christ is ruling upon His Throne as King of Kings and Lord of Lords even now as we speak.



And again:



Seems like a done deal to me.

As for the "thousand years" - there is no need to sweat over that one right now. Its a single passage from a highly symbolic book. It would be foolish to focus on such "inscrutible" issues if you have not yet come to a clear understanding of the main and plain things of eschatology that are taught by God with many witnesses in both Old and New Testaments.

Richard

POSTED FOR EDUCATIONAL REVIEW . . . for reader's not certain about the topic
discussion . . .

http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/millenialPF.php


PRETERISM:

Preterism often goes hand in hand with postmillennialism, and holds that the bulk of the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The preterist does believe in a final judgment following a metaphorical millennial kingdom, but believes that all other prophecy has been fulfilled. This is the “been there, done that” view of Revelation.



AMILLENNIALISM:

The amillennialist does not accept the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. The thousand years is figurative, and shouldn’t be taken literally. The millennium is a spiritual representation of the church age, in which we are now living. This view holds that Satan was bound at the first coming of Christ. The good in the world comprises the kingdom of Christ, and the evil in the world is part of Satan’s kingdom. The kingdom of Christ is the church itself. This view was first proposed by St. Augustine in the fourth century, and has been the favored position of the Roman Catholic church ever since. It is also a view that is common among reform protestant denominations. The amillennialist holds that Christ will reign through his church until His second coming, which will mark – not the millennial reign – but the beginning of eternity for believers.

If I had a simple list of scriptures to answer. 123456789 etc.

then I would have to do a bible study to decide on what I believe.

Other wise Im just not that smart.

As for the rapture , I am definatly not a pre trber any longer. I dont even see a positive mid trib.

mail is welcome in my personal page.
Thank you. Patrick

Amazon.com: William Rhea's review of A Case for Amillennialism...
Perhaps this critique stems from my position as both an amillennialist and a partial preterist, but the author's argument is typically as follows . . .



http://www.amazon.com/review/R1F5P78BZCVM0Q

Kim Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism is a fantastic defense of the amillennialist position that overcomes the numerous difficulties inherent in the covenant-amillennial system. Though a Rome-leaning Lutheran myself, I have often found non-scholarly Reformed theology more thorough than many other traditionalist/classic Christian perspectives. However Riddlebarger's exegesis exceeds even his Reformed brethren; Michael Horton and RC Sproul (to be sure, I am fans of both) would do well to take literary tips from this author. Though not entirely readable, as the back-cover reviews might suggest, I have rarely encountered such thorough, Hebrew/Greek-oriented, and testament-conscious exegesis outside the great modern systematic theologians (Barth, Tillich) and historical Third Questers (Wright, Meier).
As one wholly negative review observed, this book may be better titled 'A Case Against Disspensationalism.' That is quite true. But when, in the history of theology, have the most relevant challenges to other beliefs not defined positives cases? We might call the events at Nicea and Chalcedon 'The Case for Two Natures, Two Wills, and One Person in Christ,' but the Lord was defined as such simply because the orthodox believers were making their case again Gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite heretics. Granted, this does lead to certain failings. While the argument against disspensationalism is excellent and against postmillennialism similarly poignant, the case against preterism is lacking. Perhaps this critique stems from my position as both an amillennialist and a partial preterist, but the author's argument is typically as follows: partial (orthodox) preterism is better than full preterism, but here is critique [x] of full preterism, and therefore all preterism fails the tension/kingdom/whatever test. One would do well to read The Last Days According to Jesus (Sproul) or the Lamb's Supper (Hahn) as appropriate counterarguments for partial preterism in light of this failing.
This is not to say that Riddlebarger is not thorough- anything but. One of the highlights of this book is its ability to place amillennial eschatology in its covenant context (while revealing the narrative and hermeneutical problems in disspensationalism). A large portion of the book is devoted to developing the proper background theology- covenant, kingdom of God, already/not yet tension. This proves simultaneously its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Amillennial eschatology is extremely dependent on the preceding theological assumptions, even more so than with disspensationalism. Its defender must therefore convince the reader not only of amillennial eschatology, but also a host of assumed covenantal theology. Yet Riddlebarger performs this task admirably. Given the space allotted, I was pleased to see an adept defense of the covenantal hermeneutic, enough that I went on to supplement it with the books God of Promise (Horton), A Father Who Keeps His Promises (Hahn), and The Symphony of Scripture (Strom).
Amillennialism faces the challenge that its conclusions are neither thrilling nor entertaining. It is a simple system that greatly reduces the number of end-times prophecies. It does not provide a massive framework for writing an series of seemingly endless novels. Yet entertainment and marketing do not determine faith- the Scriptures and the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ determine our beliefs. On the basis of both, Kim Riddlebarger has written an avid defense of a much-needed doctrine in this age of anxiety.

I do not believe in either. I cannot say with certainty when I think rapture will happen either, but I can say I do not believe in a Pre-trib rapture. I do know the next major thing to look for as a Christian, regardless of when it happens is the return of the Lord. I don't agree with preterism because I think that prophecy has steadily been fullfilled since the vision was given to John - and this doesn't fall into either category, futurists, or preterist. I think some has been fulfilled, and some obviously hasn't or it wouldn't be like this. As to when and how it's all going to happen, I'd prefer not to go mad thinking of it. I think the simple points and general information gleaned from prophecy is enough for me. For instance, if the Bible says:

-> Rev 1:1 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: '

I will simply believe that this means after this was written these things began to pass. Obviously, we're not through the entire thing or Jesus would have come back by now, but it is certainly telling us they will 'shortly come to pass'. So at least in God's calendar, that's a relatively soon fulfillment. If not, you're calling God a liar which is why I also have issues with futurism. Assuming God halted the progression of prophecy for the last 2000 years is exactly that - an assumption.

Anyhow, we also can't forget the Bible itself talks of interpreting Prophecy -

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Thank you,

Very thought provoking !

I found this information : Due to the 'God's Calendar`, you spoke of :

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/feasts.htm


THE BIBLICAL FEAST DAYS - GOD'S CALENDAR


7. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) - An eight day feast of ingathering.

The first day was the 15th day of the 7th month (Ethanim / Tishri)
Exo 34:22, Lev 23:34-36, 39-43, Num 29:12
A convocation / Sabbath day. No servile work done.
Travel to the Sanctuary in Jerusalem required of all men (Exo 23:14,17, Exo 34:22, Deut 16:16).
Fruit Harvest - Firstfruits presented to the Lord (Exo 23:19)

For seven days the people moved out of their homes and lived in temporary shelters called "Sukkah" as a reminder of their wanderings in the desert for forty years. The branches cut from palm, willow and other trees were to be waved in celebration to the Lord during the first seven days of the feast (Lev 23:40).

This final feast of the year is a celebration of ingathering at the end of the harvest (Exo 23:16) and is a time of rejoicing and fellowship. It symbolizes the gathering or harvest of God's people, who leave earth for the marriage supper of the Lamb, to be celebrated in heaven after the second coming of Jesus. This begins the millennium.