Interesting preterist argument

[Davidpt]

John declared it was the last hour because many antichrists had gone out from the church - a mass falling away from the church (1 John 2:18-19).

Obviously, the last hour is not meaning a literal 60 minutes. I'm certain you obviously agree with that. Therefore, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by telling you something you don't already obviously know. I said it in order to lead up to my points that follow. That it means the last hour involves an undisclosed amount of time. If the last hour can involve 10 years, for example, why can't it also involve 100 years, or 1000 years, or 2000 years?

What about the following passages where this 'last hour' is also found within the text?

Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.


Obviously, this last hour has to have a beginning. I don't have any issues with that beginning possibly meaning 2000 years ago. What's in question, when is the end of this last hour? Unless one argues something absurd, that this---who should walk after their own ungodly lusts--is not even applicable today, that it was only applicable 2000 years ago, that should tell any objective person, that even though this last hour may have initially began 2000 years ago, we are obviously still in this same last hour as we speak. And this for one proves it--mockers, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.


Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.


As if, one should only do that 2000 years ago and not today as well. This assuming this last hour began 2000 years ago. Verse 21 is what one should be doing all throughout this last hour. Verse 21 is not what one should only be doing in the first century. They should also be doing it in the 2nd century, the 3rd century, so on and so on, all the way up until this last hour has passed. And that verse 18 is not what one should be doing all throughout this last hour, except they do it, regardless.

Then there is this passage.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:


Should we remove this from the passage--- at the appearing of Jesus Christ---since that never occurred 2000 years ago, thus is still future as we speak? In verse 5 it talks about this last hour in question. In verse 7 it talks about the appearing of Jesus Christ. What is the connection? No connection at all?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let me lay something out for you to consider, though I suspect your doctrinal bias may make it difficult to fully engage with what I’m trying to show here---

LOL!!! Says the most doctrinally biased person on the entire forum. <Yawn>

especially since you're not even a Preterist, yet agree with them that Matthew 24:21 is meaning 70 AD. My concern is with your interpretation of Matthew 24:21, which you suggest refers to 70 AD.

Yes, because it is clearly a parallel verse to Luke 21:20 which only someone with doctrinal bias can deny. And you agree that Luke 21:20 refers to 70 AD.

I would argue that this verse more properly applies to the final days of this age.

Yes, I'm well aware that you argue that because I actually remember things that you say to me.

You claim that Noah’s flood qualifies as “tribulation”, which then would mean, if true, that it surpasses in greatness the tribulation described in Matthew 24:21. If that's true, then by your logic, Jesus was apparently using hyperbole in Matthew 24---since, according to you, the flood was an even greater event of suffering.

I'm not using the argument that He was using hyperbole. The poster claninja made that argument and I argued against that. You misrepresent almost everything I believe. It's insane.

My argument, that I've told you many times, is that Jesus was saying it would be great tribulation unlike any other great tribulation that happened anywhere in the world and I do believe that what happened in 70 AD is unlike any other tribulation event that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Is there anything you don't understand about what I just said?

That would imply Jesus wasn’t being literal, which raises significant interpretive issues---assuming the flood truly counts as “tribulation.”

I never claimed that He wasn't being literal. Why do you just make up things in our head that I supposedly have said that I never actually said? I don't get it.

Let’s consider 2 Peter 3:5–6:

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”

You interpret this as a parallel to verses 10–12 in the same chapter---but not by water this time around, but by literal fire. Fair enough. But here’s the inconsistency: you argue that the Day of the Lord (DOTL) happens after the tribulation, not during it---yet you still claim the flood, which you connect with the DOTL, is itself tribulation.

There are different kinds of tribulation. Do you understand that? I do not say that the DOTL happens after God's wrath. Do you understand what I'm telling you right now? Jesus comes after a time of spiritual tribulation involving increased persecution, deception, apostasy and wickedness according to passages like Matthew 24:9-13, Matthew 24:23-26 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. That's tribulation that believers go through. Christ's wrath then comes against unbelievers on the day He returns and that is another type of tribulation. Do you understand what I'm telling you? Why do you act as if there is only one type of tribulation? There isn't. But, that is why you are so confused.

This is where your position begins to contradict itself.

Nope. This is where the position of your straw man contradicts itself, which means nothing to me.

If the DOTL follows tribulation and marks the return of Christ (which is a standard post-tribulation view), then how can the flood---which you compare to the DOTL---be tribulation, when the DOTL is not meaning tribulation?

The DOTL is also tribulation, but not the same type of tribulation that occurs just before that day comes. Is there some reason why you can't understand that there are different types of tribulation? Did you just ignore the verses I showed you that described God's wrath as tribulation?

By your own logic, it should come after tribulation, not represent it. Post-trib means just that: events happen after the tribulation, not during it.

In other words, if you believe the DOTL is post-tribulational (as I do), and you compare the DOTL to the flood, then logically the flood cannot be considered part of the tribulation either. That makes your assertion inconsistent.

You waste so much time making straw man arguments. Do you not think that fire coming down on the earth and destroying unbelievers qualifies as tribulation? Do you deny that God's wrath also can be considered tribulation?

I’m arguing that Noah’s flood does not qualify as tribulation for the very reason that the DOTL does not qualify as tribulation---it comes after it.

LOL. Let me put this as nicely as I can. That is stupid nonsense. God's wrath, which will occur on the DOTL most certainly qualifies as tribulation. But, it's a different type of tribulation than the tribulation that occurs before the day Jesus returns. Why can you not understand such a simple concept?

Meaning the DOTL comes after tribulation. Noahs flood did not follow anything. It certainly didn't follow after tribulation the way the DOTL follows after tribulation.

Define the tribulation that you believe occurs before the DOTL. In my view, there was tribulation before the flood in the sense of there being a lot of deception and increased wickedness before that which was the reason that God decided to destroy the world with a flood in the first place. And I'm sure Noah and his family had to endure tribulation before then in terms of people mocking them for building a giant boat in a place where there was no water.

The DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood.

Yes, it is, but do you really believe that? Both Jesus and Peter indicated that the scope of the destruction on the DOTL is equivalent to that of Noah's flood in terms of how the flood destroyed all unbelievers. Jesus said in relation to that "so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:39). He was saying that just as the flood destroyed all unbelievers, that is what will happen when He comes again as well.

And that the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation, it follows it. That’s why I say I hold to a true post-trib position. But can you really say the same, based on what you've been asserting?

Yes, I can. The DOTL follows tribulation in the sense of a time of increased persecution, deception, apostasy and wickedness, but tribulation in the form of God's wrath will occur on the DOTL as well.

Typically, only Preterists and Pretribbers insist that the DOTL is equivalent to the tribulation itself.

I don't insist that. Your straw man version of what you think I believe insists that, but I don't. I do not equate the DOTL with "the tribulation of those days", in other words. But, tribulation in the form of God's wrath occurs after that tribulation. This is a very simple thing to understand, yet I doubt that you will understand it.

Since neither of us holds those views, I find it odd that you're still treating Noah’s flood as if it were part of tribulation, especially when you’re also comparing it to the DOTL, which you acknowledge is after the tribulation.

You clearly do not read my posts carefully at all. I already talked about there being different types of tribulation and how God's wrath can also be considered to be tribulation. What do you not understand about that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct it is a parable. The parable comes with no explanation as to the meaning of each component.

Some spiritual discernment is required to understand it, but I think you are quite lacking in spiritual discernment because of being duped by preterism.

That being said - the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding hall occurs POST the destruction of the city in the narrative. In what manner it is supposed to be interpreted - whether about the gentiles being gathered into the wedding hall or good and bad being gathered before the king - It reflects and mirrors Jesus statement in the OD that there would be a gathering POST destruction of Jerusalem before this generation passed away.

Be specific here. What is this gathering exactly that you think took place right after 70 AD? I don't even know what you are talking about, so please explain exactly how you understand the parable.

 

[claninja]

Obviously, the last hour is not meaning a literal 60 minutes. I'm certain you obviously agree with that

Correct, in the context of 1 john 2:18, it does not mean 60 literal minutes.

According to thayer’s lexicon, “hour” means the following in the context of 1 John 2:18:

• “the last hour i. e. the end of this age and very near the return of Christ from heaven (see ἔσχατος, 1, p. 253b), 1 John 2:18 “
• (https://biblehub.com/greek/5610.htm)

Additionally, the verb “it is” in 1 John 2:18 is present indicative active. In other words, John is stating that it is a fact that it is presently the last hour, ie, end of the age and very near to the return of Christ.

John could only know that for a fact, if he was living through the events of the Olivet discourse.

 

[claninja]

Some spiritual discernment is required to understand it, but I think you are quite lacking in spiritual discernment because of being duped by preterism.

if your hermeneutic is correct, you shouldn’t need ad hominems

Be specific here. What is this gathering exactly that you think took place right after 70 AD? I don't even know what you are talking about, so please explain exactly how you understand the parable.

I think it’s the gathering into the kingdom of God that took place within Jesus’ first century generation