not necessarily Preterism

[Randy Kluth]

I'll have to say it again, because some still don't get it. Those who believe that *some* biblical prophecies were fulfilled historically are not necessarily Preterists. Before Preterism was invented (Alcazar in the Catholic Counter-Reformation), Christians normally interpreted some biblical prophecies as "already fulfilled."

For example, Jesus "already fulfilled" the prophecies of his birth and dying on the cross--both were prophesied events in the Bible. Many Christian scholars, including the Church Fathers, believed that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled in the 1st century of the Church, in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. They of course saw Jesus also referred to his 2nd Coming, but that didn't mean he didn't specifically identify the time of the Jewish desolation in 70 AD, leading to the Jewish Diaspora.

The belief that the "Abomination of Desolation" was the Roman Army is *not* necessarily Preterism. It is an historically-interpreted Bible prophecy!

I find that Futurism is so popular today in some places that if I propose the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse I'm instantly called a "Preterist." This is false. Sometimes it is honestly thought that I'm a Preterist for believing in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Sometimes, those who cannot handle disagreement resort to deliberate name-calling. Decide who you want to be.

 

[APAK]

I'll have to say it again, because some still don't get it. Those who believe that *some* biblical prophecies were fulfilled historically are not necessarily Preterists. Before Preterism was invented (Alcazar in the Catholic Counter-Reformation), Christians normally interpreted some biblical prophecies as "already fulfilled."

For example, Jesus "already fulfilled" the prophecies of his birth and dying on the cross--both were prophesied events in the Bible. Many Christians scholars, including the Church Fathers, believed that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled in the 1st century of the Church, in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. They of course Jesus also referred to his 2nd Coming, but that didn't mean he didn't specifically identify the time of the Jewish desolation in 70 AD, leading to the Jewish Diaspora.

The belief that the "Abomination of Desolation" was the Roman Army is *not* necessarily Preterism. It is an historically-interpreted Bible prophecy!

I find that Futurism is so popular today in some places that if I propose the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse I'm instantly called a "Preterist." This is false. Sometimes it is honestly thought that I'm a Preterist for believing in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Sometimes, those who cannot handle disagreement resort to deliberate name-calling. Decide who you want to be.

Yes, I agree with your OP Randy. I'm onboard with you here. Even calling what you write here being partially preterist will also get you booed down, in 'their' short-sightedness and ignorance.

Futurism, in general is way too overrated and wrong on many levels, and is brute-forced into scripture by design. And they call it good after their usual incoherent ramble of mix ideas on their meanings of symbolism in scripture... and it still never amazes me about it all.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, I agree with your OP Randy. I'm onboard with you here. Even calling what you write here being partially preterist will also get you booed down, in 'their' short-sightedness and ignorance.

Futurism, in general is way too overrated and wrong on many levels, and is brute-forced into scripture by design. And they call it good after their usual incoherent ramble of mix ideas on their meanings of symbolism in scripture... and it still never amazes me about it all.

I have this major eschatological belief in common with Preterists, as well as with the early Church Fathers, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Only Satan wishes to divide and conquer. True or mature Christians try to find commonalities and debate, in a good spirit, the differences.

 

[APAK]

I have this major eschatological belief in common with Preterists, as well as with the early Church Fathers, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Only Satan wishes to divide and conquer. True or mature Christians try to find commonalities and debate, in a good spirit, the differences.

And that's the way I like it, as two or more get to learn something worthwhile and new. To start with the common anchor points first if we agree and know we are building the same structure for truth.

 

[Keraz]

Despite there being ample signs and indications of forthcoming dramatic events, people like you randyK, hang onto your comfortable beliefs that the Prophesies are fulfilled already, or have no relevance to we Western Christians.
Many end times Prophesies say how the Lord send His vengeance and wrath to destroy His enemies and clear the holy Land. We are told this will happen suddenly and will shock the world. Isaiah 47:9-11

It will happen - it must happen; because if it doesn't, then God has forsaken His Creation and abandoned mankind.
Will God, the God of love, who Promises restoration from our fallen state, will He kill billions and devastate the world? YES He will and to prove it, He did it before and the lesson of Noah's Flood shows that a virtual wipe out and a restart of our civilization is necessary.

Zephaniah 3:8-10 .....wait for the day, when I stand up to accuse you......the whole earth will be consumed by the fire [I will send, Isaiah 66:15-17, 2 Peter 3:7] THEN; I will give My people a pure language, so they may bring praise and offerings to Me.

 

[O'Darby]

I'm not sure why I would be offended by or even care about a label like Preterist being hurled at me. The labels do nothing but divide and alienate.

The reality is, the events of Nero's reign and the fall of the Second Temple would have been viewed as cataclysmic, End of Time events by many Christians and Jews. It stands to reason they are reflected in the Gospels and Revelation. I have no idea how much of what is attributed to Jesus is what He actually said and how much may have been inserted by the NT authors to fit what was taking and had taken place, but the fact is that the words and events mesh nicely. If that earns me the label Preterist, Partial Preterist or Fruitcake, I really don't care.

Could those same passages also apply to future events in a specific or general way? Sure. What Jesus says in Matthew 24 could not reasonably have been expected to occur in the immediate future (wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation, famines and earthquakes, all as merely the beginning of birth pangs). What is taking place today does uncannily seem to mesh, even to the extent of resembling quickening labor points. I don't happen to believe Revelation is a roadmap to any of it, Matthew 24 being quite sufficient. Whether this makes me a Futurist, Partial Futurist or Fruitcake just isn't important to me.

 

[covenantee]

What Jesus says in Matthew 24 could not reasonably have been expected to occur in the immediate future (wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation, famines and earthquakes, all as merely the beginning of birth pangs).

Could and did.

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

Matthew: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (24:6, 7).
Mark: “And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be, but the end is not yet, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (13:7, 8).
Luke: “But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by [immediately]. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (21:9, 10).

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

FAMINES, PESTILENCES, EARTHQUAKES

Matthew: “And there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (24:7, 8).
Mark: “And there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles. These are the beginning of sorrows” (13:8).
Luke: “And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines and pestilences, and fearful sights” (21:11).

The Bible records that there was famine “throughout all the world. . . in the days of Claudius Caesar” (Acts 11:28). Judea was especially hard hit by famine. “The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethern which dwelt in Judaea” (verse 29). Paul’s instructions concerning this “collection [of fruit] for the saints” is recorded in First Corinthians 16:1-5; Rom. 15:25-28.

Historians such as Suetonius and others mention famine during those years. Tacitus speaks of a “Failure in the crops, and a famine consequent thereupon.” Eusebius also mentions famines during this time in Home, Judea, and Greece. Yes, there were famines in those years before the fall of Jerusalem.

Along with famines, Jesus mentioned pestilences; that is plagues, the spread of disease, epidemics. Famine and pestilence, of course, go hand in hand. When people do not have proper food or insufficient food, pestilence results. Suetonius wrote of “pestilence” at Home in the days of Nero which was so severe that “within the space of one autumn there died no less than 30,000 persons.” Josephus records that pestilences raged in Babylonia in A.D. 40. Tacitus tells of pestilences in Italy in A. D. 66. Yes, there were pestilences in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

During this period, Jesus said there would also be earthquakes in many places. Tacitus mentions earthquakes at Rome. He wrote that “frequent earthquakes occured, by which many houses were thrown down” and that “twelve populous cities of Asia fell in ruins from an earthquake.”

Seneca, writing in the year 58 A. D., said: “How often have cities of Asia and Achaea fallen with one fatal shock! how many cities have been swallowed up in Syria! how many in Macedonia! how often has Cyprus been wasted by this calamity! how often has Paphos become a ruin! News has often been brought us of the demolition of whole cities at once.” He mentions the earthquake at Campania during the reign of Nero. In 60 A. D., Hierapous, Colosse, and Laodicea were overthrown — Laodocia being so self-sufficient that it recovered without the Imperial aid furnished other cities. In 63 A. D., the city of Pompeii was greatly damaged by earthquake. There were earthquakes in Crete, Apamea, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, and Judea. Earthquakes in divers places.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm not sure why I would be offended by or even care about a label like Preterist being hurled at me. The labels do nothing but divide and alienate.

It's a distraction to call you by a name other than what you are called. If I said you were prejudiced by your Catholicism, when you're not a Catholic, or you're prejudiced by your gender, when that is not known, or when someone says you have not studied the Bible at all, when you have, it's insulting, because the person is obviously attempting to delegitimize your arguments publicly so that nobody will benefit from your knowledge. For whatever reason, they want to destroy you and your value as a person, in return for you having offended them.

The reality is, the events of Nero's reign and the fall of the Second Temple would have been viewed as cataclysmic, End of Time events by many Christians and Jews. It stands to reason they are reflected in the Gospels and Revelation. I have no idea how much of what is attributed to Jesus is what He actually said and how much may have been inserted by the NT authors to fit what was taking and had taken place, but the fact is that the words and events mesh nicely. If that earns me the label Preterist, Partial Preterist or Fruitcake, I really don't care.

That's just you.

Could those same passages also apply to future events in a specific or general way? Sure. What Jesus says in Matthew 24 could not reasonably have been expected to occur in the immediate future (wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation, famines and earthquakes, all as merely the beginning of birth pangs). What is taking place today does uncannily seem to mesh, even to the extent of resembling quickening labor points. I don't happen to believe Revelation is a roadmap to any of it, Matthew 24 being quite sufficient. Whether this makes me a Futurist, Partial Futurist or Fruitcake just isn't important to me.

If you're so disinterested, why are you here?

 

[Jack]

We have one here who says Jesus already came and isn't coming again. Is that Preterist?

 

[APAK]

Could and did.

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

Matthew: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (24:6, 7).
Mark: “And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be, but the end is not yet, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (13:7, 8).
Luke: “But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by [immediately]. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (21:9, 10).

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

FAMINES, PESTILENCES, EARTHQUAKES

Matthew: “And there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (24:7, 8).
Mark: “And there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles. These are the beginning of sorrows” (13:8).
Luke: “And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines and pestilences, and fearful sights” (21:11).

The Bible records that there was famine “throughout all the world. . . in the days of Claudius Caesar” (Acts 11:28). Judea was especially hard hit by famine. “The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethern which dwelt in Judaea” (verse 29). Paul’s instructions concerning this “collection [of fruit] for the saints” is recorded in First Corinthians 16:1-5; Rom. 15:25-28.

Historians such as Suetonius and others mention famine during those years. Tacitus speaks of a “Failure in the crops, and a famine consequent thereupon.” Eusebius also mentions famines during this time in Home, Judea, and Greece. Yes, there were famines in those years before the fall of Jerusalem.

Along with famines, Jesus mentioned pestilences; that is plagues, the spread of disease, epidemics. Famine and pestilence, of course, go hand in hand. When people do not have proper food or insufficient food, pestilence results. Suetonius wrote of “pestilence” at Home in the days of Nero which was so severe that “within the space of one autumn there died no less than 30,000 persons.” Josephus records that pestilences raged in Babylonia in A.D. 40. Tacitus tells of pestilences in Italy in A. D. 66. Yes, there were pestilences in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

During this period, Jesus said there would also be earthquakes in many places. Tacitus mentions earthquakes at Rome. He wrote that “frequent earthquakes occured, by which many houses were thrown down” and that “twelve populous cities of Asia fell in ruins from an earthquake.”

Seneca, writing in the year 58 A. D., said: “How often have cities of Asia and Achaea fallen with one fatal shock! how many cities have been swallowed up in Syria! how many in Macedonia! how often has Cyprus been wasted by this calamity! how often has Paphos become a ruin! News has often been brought us of the demolition of whole cities at once.” He mentions the earthquake at Campania during the reign of Nero. In 60 A. D., Hierapous, Colosse, and Laodicea were overthrown — Laodocia being so self-sufficient that it recovered without the Imperial aid furnished other cities. In 63 A. D., the city of Pompeii was greatly damaged by earthquake. There were earthquakes in Crete, Apamea, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, and Judea. Earthquakes in divers places.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

Great info of some critical history for scripture that I've read before. And it fits in very well with the near-term prophecies spoken of by our Christ, and in and for his generation, and of his 'return.'

This futuristic view of what we read in Matthew for example is all wrong today. It anticipates the future to look exactly or very similar, with the same intensity like what occurred in the 33 -100 AD time period. They needed some life placed back into the prophecies of Christ. And it was urged on by the every accelerating modern times with new technologies and new ways of warfare and the every increasing inter-national dealings and travel and information sharing. Modern society and politics egged on for a new way to see Biblical prophecies.

This modernistic view in prophecy really did not take off until the time of Darby and others a few centuries back. They placed modern lenses on to see a future of their own with only one way to interpret the prophecies of Christ. And the rest is now some skewed form of history, and we are living with this ridiculous nauseating drum beat today.

I believe that the history and events occurring in and soon after Christ's generation should be must taught areas in Sunday schools and in the seminaries...might get some sanity and balance back into Eschatology.

Today we have a broken and skewed view of the prophecies. There's work still needed to be done to not only correct these errors to also get a better view of our future as well.

 

[Jay Ross]

Today we have a broken and skewed view of the prophecies. There's work still needed to be done to not only correct these errors, but to also get a better view of our future as well.

So true.

 

[Truth7t7]

I'll have to say it again, because some still don't get it. Those who believe that *some* biblical prophecies were fulfilled historically are not necessarily Preterists. Before Preterism was invented (Alcazar in the Catholic Counter-Reformation), Christians normally interpreted some biblical prophecies as "already fulfilled."

For example, Jesus "already fulfilled" the prophecies of his birth and dying on the cross--both were prophesied events in the Bible. Many Christians scholars, including the Church Fathers, believed that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled in the 1st century of the Church, in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. They of course saw Jesus also referred to his 2nd Coming, but that didn't mean he didn't specifically identify the time of the Jewish desolation in 70 AD, leading to the Jewish Diaspora.

The belief that the "Abomination of Desolation" was the Roman Army is *not* necessarily Preterism. It is an historically-interpreted Bible prophecy!

I find that Futurism is so popular today in some places that if I propose the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse I'm instantly called a "Preterist." This is false. Sometimes it is honestly thought that I'm a Preterist for believing in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Sometimes, those who cannot handle disagreement resort to deliberate name-calling. Decide who you want to be.

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

Wikipedia: Preterism
A Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".[1] Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70.

Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614) during the Counter-Reformation.

In the preterist view, the Tribulation took place in the past when Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 during the end stages of the First Jewish–Roman War, and it affected only the Jewish people rather than all mankind.

Christian preterists believe that the Tribulation was a divine judgment visited upon the Jews for their sins, including rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. It occurred entirely in the past, around 70 AD when the armed forces of the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.

 

[APAK]

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

Wikipedia: Preterism
A Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".[1] Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70.

Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614) during the Counter-Reformation.

In the preterist view, the Tribulation took place in the past when Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 during the end stages of the First Jewish–Roman War, and it affected only the Jewish people rather than all mankind.

Christian preterists believe that the Tribulation was a divine judgment visited upon the Jews for their sins, including rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. It occurred entirely in the past, around 70 AD when the armed forces of the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.

And that the Book of Revelation was written down before 65 AD and not in the 90s AD when John would have been at least 90 if he was of Jesus' age group, and generation. Possible although nor probable for writing at such an age. He then might have used a ghost writer?

And that the Book's written date between 90-98 AD is based on opinions of the 2nd century where 3 of 4 sources claimed it, and then only based on one of these 3 sources who gauged Christ's death when he was in his 50s. One other source placed the date of writing in the 60s AD range. And also because John was not a Roman citizen and therefore not a prisoner on Patmos at the time of his preaching and writings. Scholars and readers alike assume he was in prison because he was in tribulation. John was in tribulation for sure, as many others, during the series of major Roman Army incursions into Judea and Jerusalem and with the zealots running amuck within the walls of Jerusalem; even though he was on the Island of Patmos at the time, the then gateway to Asia minor, Greece and Rome. He must have seen many Roman soldiers...

 

[Randy Kluth]

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

Wikipedia: Preterism
A Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".[1] Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70.

Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614) during the Counter-Reformation.

In the preterist view, the Tribulation took place in the past when Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 during the end stages of the First Jewish–Roman War, and it affected only the Jewish people rather than all mankind.

Christian preterists believe that the Tribulation was a divine judgment visited upon the Jews for their sins, including rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. It occurred entirely in the past, around 70 AD when the armed forces of the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.

Yes, and I would emphasize the part here:
"This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond"."

The belief system tends to view most all prophecy as already fulfilled--it is not just a particular prophecy, such as a prophecy in Dan 9 or a prophecy in the Olivet Discourse. It tends to view most all of Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation as fulfilled in the Early Church. It is *not* just the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, which many non-Preterists adhere to.

But this is a reasonable definition for the term Preterist. Thank you.

As to those who confuse my own view with Preterism I would just say this. Partial Preterists do allow for a small amount of future prophecy still to be fulfilled, most importantly the future Return of Jesus to earth. But I don't know that they allow for the restoration of Israel in the Millennium as I do. They are not premillennial, as I am. And I think only few of them see the prophecy of Antichrist as a future prophecy, as I do.

This is important to note when people throw the "Preterist" label at me, or try to bind the "Partial Preterist" label on me. I just tend to agree with Preterism on their view of some important prophecies, such as the Olivet Discourse, which I think the schools of Futurism have gotten wrong.

 

[Timtofly]

And that the Book of Revelation was written down before 65 AD and not in the 90s AD when John would have been at least 90 if he was of Jesus' age group, and generation. Possible although nor probable for writing at such an age. He then might have a used a ghost writer?

And that the Book's written date between 90-98 AD is based on opinions of the 2nd century where 3 of 4 sources claimed it, and then only based on one of these 3 sources who gauged Christ's death when he was in his 50s. One other source placed the date of writing in the 60s AD range. And also because John was not a Roman citizen and therefore not a prisoner on Patmos at the time of his preaching and writings. Scholars and readers alike assume he was in prison because he was in tribulation. John was in tribulation for sure, as many others, during the series of major Roman Army incursions into Judea and Jerusalem and with the zealots running amuck within the walls of Jerusalem; even though he was on the Island of Patmos at the time, the then gateway to Asia minor, Greece and Rome. He must have seen many Roman soldiers...

If Patmos was not a prison colony for Rome, like Australia was for England, was John a missionary to the most deserted island in Greece?

There would not have been any Roman soldiers on the island at all. It was not a tourist destination for retirement, nor large enough for the need to house Roman soldiers at all.

The only thing the Romans would have used the island for, was to exile those whom they would not crucify immediately. John did not have to be a Roman citizen to be sent there.

The wording was also used for those beheaded: Revelation 20:4

"I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God."

"Was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."

If John was just evangelizing the island, is being beheaded also a form of evangelism?

We know that John was there unless that was a lie, or conspiracy that he was someplace else altogether.

The island was not a prison. That is the whole point. No one had to oversee them. It was a small island where people were exiled to, and they had no means of leaving the island, so they had to make do, with what wildlife was on the Island to even survive. Thus tribulation, and not your normal daily life with an abundance of food at the local market.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'll have to say it again, because some still don't get it. Those who believe that *some* biblical prophecies were fulfilled historically are not necessarily Preterists. Before Preterism was invented (Alcazar in the Catholic Counter-Reformation), Christians normally interpreted some biblical prophecies as "already fulfilled."

For example, Jesus "already fulfilled" the prophecies of his birth and dying on the cross--both were prophesied events in the Bible. Many Christians scholars, including the Church Fathers, believed that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled in the 1st century of the Church, in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. They of course saw Jesus also referred to his 2nd Coming, but that didn't mean he didn't specifically identify the time of the Jewish desolation in 70 AD, leading to the Jewish Diaspora.

The belief that the "Abomination of Desolation" was the Roman Army is *not* necessarily Preterism. It is an historically-interpreted Bible prophecy!

I find that Futurism is so popular today in some places that if I propose the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse I'm instantly called a "Preterist." This is false. Sometimes it is honestly thought that I'm a Preterist for believing in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Sometimes, those who cannot handle disagreement resort to deliberate name-calling. Decide who you want to be.

I've given up on labels. Happy Easter Randy!

 

[APAK]

If Patmos was not a prison colony for Rome, like Australia was for England, was John a missionary to the most deserted island in Greece?

There would not have been any Roman soldiers on the island at all. It was not a tourist destination for retirement, nor large enough for the need to house Roman soldiers at all.

The only thing the Romans would have used the island for, was to exile those whom they would not crucify immediately. John did not have to be a Roman citizen to be sent there.

The wording was also used for those beheaded: Revelation 20:4

"I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God."

"Was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."

If John was just evangelizing the island, is being beheaded also a form of evangelism?

We know that John was there unless that was a lie, or conspiracy that he was someplace else altogether.

The island was not a prison. That is the whole point. No one had to oversee them. It was a small island where people were exiled to, and they had no means of leaving the island, so they had to make do, with what wildlife was on the Island to even survive. Thus tribulation, and not your normal daily life with an abundance of food at the local market.

Your first question surely is not inspired from my words when I said that John was not a prisoner himself on the Island, or even stranded or in exile as we know the words today. And I never said Patmos was a prison colony or not. Historically though, it was more of a supply logistical stop-over point, a very vital one back them. And there were many military and military supplies I suspect on the Island, moving through to either the East or the East, and South in the Mediterranean Sea.

And yes I agree the term tribulation was also for other things I never intended to list.

I do not know the answer the John's beheading and it relationship with his preaching, do you? I suspect he was getting on the locals' nerves at least to the point of anger.

And I too believe John was on the Island, primarily to preach the gospel and having the freedom to write and sent messages to the fledgling start up 7 churches in Asia Minor across to the mainland.

I do not know how John ate and what food supplies he had on hand. I suspect since it was a major supply point he had no problem acquiring food if he could pay for it.

It might be quite difficult to get his messages out to the 7 churches, the main audience of the Book of Revelation, if he was exiled without any outside contact don't you think.

And then again, he might not have written the Book, 1st hand, and had a revisionist or ghost writer to capture all his words....

 

[Truth7t7]

This is important to note when people throw the "Preterist" label at me, or try to bind the "Partial Preterist" label on me. I just tend to agree with Preterism on their view of some important prophecies, such as the Olivet Discourse, which I think the schools of Futurism have gotten wrong.

Your a (Partial Preterist) you believe some things in the Olivet discourse have been fulfilled in 70AD, it's that simple

 

[ScottA]

I'll have to say it again, because some still don't get it. Those who believe that *some* biblical prophecies were fulfilled historically are not necessarily Preterists. Before Preterism was invented (Alcazar in the Catholic Counter-Reformation), Christians normally interpreted some biblical prophecies as "already fulfilled."

For example, Jesus "already fulfilled" the prophecies of his birth and dying on the cross--both were prophesied events in the Bible. Many Christians scholars, including the Church Fathers, believed that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled in the 1st century of the Church, in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. They of course saw Jesus also referred to his 2nd Coming, but that didn't mean he didn't specifically identify the time of the Jewish desolation in 70 AD, leading to the Jewish Diaspora.

The belief that the "Abomination of Desolation" was the Roman Army is *not* necessarily Preterism. It is an historically-interpreted Bible prophecy!

I find that Futurism is so popular today in some places that if I propose the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse I'm instantly called a "Preterist." This is false. Sometimes it is honestly thought that I'm a Preterist for believing in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Sometimes, those who cannot handle disagreement resort to deliberate name-calling. Decide who you want to be.

Yeah, the name-calling is just a copout excuse. Usually an indication that the person themselves is caught on the ferris wheel of previous interpretations stemming from foretold false teachers....which, go figure, most deny.

Alternatively, we should have only cautiously followed the teachings of men with the foreknowledge that strong delusion and great apostacy by the works of Satan were already at work when the apostles warned of it during that first century. But many have not. On the foundation of the gospels there should have been that red flag of warning, coupled with expectations of the further promises of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth in spite of false teaching, and the finish of the complete mystery of God before the end, only formerly told to His servants the prophets.

But no, scoffers were also foretold...and they got that wrong too. Little did they know--it's them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your a (Partial Preterist) you believe some things in the Olivet discourse have been fulfilled in 70AD, it's that simple

No, you're a living example of what I'm talking about. But I already explained the differences. I don't know whether you're just rebellious or you just don't get it?

I'm not a Partial Preterist because I don't believe the book of Revelation, Antichrist, or the Salvation of Israel were already fulfilled. And I'm a Premillennial. Partial Preterists believe these things were fulfilled in the past and are not Premillennialists.

As I've already pointed out, those who view much of the Olivet Discourse in an historical way were *not* Preterists before Louis of Alcazar came along (1554–1613). The Church Fathers, who held to this view, were *not* Preterists, though they and you may want to read that school back into the past, where it did not yet exist.