Preterism, What is it? Is it truth?

[Timtofly]

Looks like we've covered the same territory. I've been through these various interpretations before, and have held several of them at different times. I never seemed to find the answer until I began to look at each of the views and accept what was right about each one.

The Early Church, much closer to the Apostle John in time and place, viewed the AoD as the Roman Army or as something related to what that Army did to Jerusalem. That's because Jesus plainly said, in Luke 21, that Jerusalem would be encompassed by an Army and destroyed, based on Dan 9, where we are told that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed by a certain people.

There have been varied interpretations of what the AoD is, and it seems some of the confusion comes from conflating one AoD with another AoD. Daniel, in his book, actually mentions two different AoDs, one belonging to Antiochus 4 in the 2nd century BC and the other belonging to the Army that would destroy Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

The Romans were an "abomination" to the Jews because they desecrated the temple simply by their pagan presence in its vicinity. When they surrounded Jerusalem as an invading Army, they were the "abomination of desolation." That is, they were pagans set to desolate, or destroy, Jerusalem and the temple.

Since Antiochus 4 did something similar in his day, it is thought that Jesus was talking about something more related to what Antiochus did. Antiochus corrupted Jewish worship by killing the more orthodox Jews, forcing the Jewish People to disobey the Law of God, and by installing idol worship in the temple area.

But this is not what made the AoD a "desolation." It made it indeed an "abomination" incited by pagans. But the "desolation" had to do with Antiochus' murder of thousands of Jews, and with his destructive acts in and around Jerusalem. This is precisely what the Romans did in 70 AD. They forced the Jews to give up their worship, and destroyed both the people and the city.

Daniel did not write it would be in 70AD. There is no way to tell until it happens like Daniel said. The Roman army did what Jesus said, but not necessarily anything close to what Daniel wrote.

Daniel wrote about Christ on earth. Christ will be present when Daniel is fulfilled. Christ was not gathering the final harvest in the first century. The abomination will be during the final harvest and Christ will be on the earth at that time.

 

[Timtofly]

In A.D. 62 Vespasian invaded and took Judea 8. Seven years later, Rome surrounded the city of Jerusalem in an identical way as spoken of by Luke. They would overtake and burn the Jewish temple. As the sanctuary of the temple was burning, Roman legionnaires set up symbols of Rome in the temple and offered up sacrifices. The Jews would have viewed this action as the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision when the burnt offering ceased and the abomination of desolation was set up. Luke’s description of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, which would have been Roman armies – appears to affirm this theory of a Roman abomination. This event was reminiscent of what Antiochus Epiphanes did to profane the temple and altar more than two centuries before. When Rome overtook Jerusalem, it brought with it many abominations and desolation. This event fits perfectly within the generation time-frame that Jesus mentioned in his discourse.

This is not the historical account. This is trying to fictionalize a movie portrayal to make a point. The Romans were too busy killing humans that they did not want to stop and even put the fire out. They could have cared less about killing animals or even set up emblems. Your account never happened. Yes, Jerusalem and the Temple was made desolate, but there was never Daniel's abomination. It was not God's timing of Daniel's prophecy. It was merely the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's carnal Temple.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is not the historical account. This is trying to fictionalize a movie portrayal to make a point. The Romans were too busy killing humans that they did not want to stop and even put the fire out. They could have cared less about killing animals or even set up emblems. Your account never happened. Yes, Jerusalem and the Temple was made desolate, but there was never Daniel's abomination. It was not God's timing of Daniel's prophecy. It was merely the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's carnal Temple.

Amen, the people of the future prince will destroy the city and Sanctuary leaving them desolate.

not an abomination or idol which makes a holy place unclean,

2 events.

 

[Renniks]

This is not the historical account. This is trying to fictionalize a movie portrayal to make a point. The Romans were too busy killing humans that they did not want to stop and even put the fire out. They could have cared less about killing animals or even set up emblems. Your account never happened. Yes, Jerusalem and the Temple was made desolate, but there was never Daniel's abomination. It was not God's timing of Daniel's prophecy. It was merely the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's carnal Temple.

Merely?
Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus was present in Jerusalem when the city was captured and the Temple was burnt. He described the event in this manner:

The Romans, though it was a terrible struggle to collect the timber, raised their platforms in twenty-one days, having as described before stripped the whole area in a circle round the town to a distance of ten miles. The countryside like the City was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City. (Ref. 3)

 

[Timtofly]

The Great Tribulation does not refer to the reign of Antichrist, though it includes that. Rather, it is the punishment that began with Israel and then extends to other nations. In the end, all nations, including Israel, will be judged, to make ready the Christianization of the earth. Perhaps not all nations will submit to being a Christian country. But they will all have to submit to the judgments of Christ on earth.

There is no such thing as Christianization of the earth. The church is not a temporal construct. Christians are a segment of the church in Paradise. Only Jacob's physical offspring will soon die and be resurrected on earth to carry out a physical Kingdom that will last 1000 years. The church is not involved one iota in an earthly Kingdom. This last 1990 years of the church was not in any prophecy either OT or NT. The church was the Steward of the vineyard for almost 1991 years. Now the Lord of the vineyard is coming and the time of the church as Steward is at an end.

 

[Timtofly]

Amen, the people of the future prince will destroy the city and Sanctuary leaving them desolate.

not an abomination or idol which makes a holy place unclean,

2 events.

Satan will be allowed to set up the abomination himself. Then Satan gets 42 months, if the Covenant is confirmed and found wanting. Satan will either be defeated immediately or given 42 months, depending on the condition at the time, the Covenant is confirmed.

This is still a future event.

 

[Timtofly]

Merely?
Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus was present in Jerusalem when the city was captured and the Temple was burnt. He described the event in this manner:

The Romans, though it was a terrible struggle to collect the timber, raised their platforms in twenty-one days, having as described before stripped the whole area in a circle round the town to a distance of ten miles. The countryside like the City was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City. (Ref. 3)

Yes, temporal earthly works are just that. Merely temporal. Jerusalem was desolate for hundreds of years after that. That is not the condition of Christ's rule on earth in the near future. It will be the opposite of desolation.

 

[Renniks]

Yes, temporal earthly works are just that. Merely temporal. Jerusalem was desolate for hundreds of years after that. That is not the condition of Christ's rule on earth in the near future. It will be the opposite of desolation.

You know why people like me have pretty much giving up on end times theory? Because there's well over 100 theories and almost no two Bible scholars agree on everything. At least in preterism, I can see the completion of some of the picture. I can see that the prophecies really do line up with events that actually happened already.
It really doesn't matter if there are gaps, because we don't know everything about history. It's always an incomplete picture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no such thing as Christianization of the earth. The church is not a temporal construct.

I'm sorry, unless you're a Gnostic or a Spiritualist, we are in fact material people. Not only is the earth of a temporal substance, but nations do get "Christianized." To think God doesn't want that makes God look bad for wanting all Israel to be a theocracy.

Christians are a segment of the church in Paradise. Only Jacob's physical offspring will soon die and be resurrected on earth to carry out a physical Kingdom that will last 1000 years.

That seems to be a form of Dispensationalism, dividing Israel's history from the Church's history. There is no basis for that except Jesus implying that Israel would be "last" to be Christianized.

The church is not involved one iota in an earthly Kingdom.

The Church has had many earthly kingdoms in history. If you're talking exclusively about the eschatological Kingdom of Christ, that by definition is not yet. And we would agree on that. I'm a Premillennialist.

This last 1990 years of the church was not in any prophecy either OT or NT. The church was the Steward of the vineyard for almost 1991 years. Now the Lord of the vineyard is coming and the time of the church as Steward is at an end.

You've got to be kidding! Jesus himself predicted that the Church would expand to all nations in the Great Commission!! The Church was anticipated as far back as the beginning, when God told Man to "fill the earth," as opposed to just fill a single nation. And the promise God made to Abraham also anticipated the international Church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Daniel did not write it would be in 70AD. There is no way to tell until it happens like Daniel said. The Roman army did what Jesus said, but not necessarily anything close to what Daniel wrote.

Daniel wrote about Christ on earth. Christ will be present when Daniel is fulfilled. Christ was not gathering the final harvest in the first century. The abomination will be during the final harvest and Christ will be on the earth at that time.

Okay, it's obvious you're going to disagree with me. All I can say is that I see Daniel depicting a 70 Weeks period that was to end with 2 things: the death of Christ and the destruction of the temple. That is precisely what I believe Jesus was referring to in the Olivet Discourse. These are not, in my opinion, 2 different contexts, one in Jesus' generation, and another in the endtimes. But I'll leave it there.

 

[Timtofly]

You know why people like me have pretty much giving up on end times theory? Because there's well over 100 theories and almost no two Bible scholars agree on everything. At least in preterism, I can see the completion of some of the picture. I can see that the prophecies really do line up with events that actually happened already.
It really doesn't matter if there are gaps, because we don't know everything about history. It's always an incomplete picture.

The Bible shows us the complete history of Creation. Accepting it is a totally different paradigm. Satan has deceived the church in both the science and doctrines of the church.

No one wants to be deceived nor wrong, but unfortunately that is not up to us, like it was not up to Job, when he was sifted by Satan. We even have such an example, and it is overlooked by many.

Only those who trust God and are obedient will endure to the end.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm sorry, unless you're a Gnostic or a Spiritualist, we are in fact material people. Not only is the earth of a temporal substance, but nations do get "Christianized." To think God doesn't want that makes God look bad for wanting all Israel to be a theocracy.



That seems to be a form of Dispensationalism, dividing Israel's history from the Church's history. There is no basis for that except Jesus implying that Israel would be "last" to be Christianized.



The Church has had many earthly kingdoms in history. If you're talking exclusively about the eschatological Kingdom of Christ, that by definition is not yet. And we would agree on that. I'm a Premillennialist.



You've got to be kidding! Jesus himself predicted that the Church would expand to all nations in the Great Commission!! The Church was anticipated as far back as the beginning, when God told Man to "fill the earth," as opposed to just fill a single nation. And the promise God made to Abraham also anticipated the international Church.

Making disciples is not the same thing as Christianization of civilization.

If you are talking about making disciples, that is one thing. Calling this world some kind of religiously controlled form of government is something else.

Adam messed up the church. No one got it much right after that. Not that the church was without representation throughout history. Many trusted God. More chose not to.

 

[Renniks]

The Bible shows us the complete history of Creation. Accepting it is a totally different paradigm.

It doesn't show us the complete history of mankind. I'm not sure how knowledge about creation helps me know the particulars of the end times.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Okay, it's obvious you're going to disagree with me. All I can say is that I see Daniel depicting a 70 Weeks period that was to end with 2 things: the death of Christ and the destruction of the temple. That is precisely what I believe Jesus was referring to in the Olivet Discourse. These are not, in my opinion, 2 different contexts, one in Jesus' generation, and another in the endtimes. But I'll leave it there.

If you read daniel, what was supposed to happen was this


Daniel 9:24 (NKJV): Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,

we see right here, this concerns the people of daniel only, namely Isreal

To finish the transgression,

has not yet been fulfilled

To make an end of sins,

again, not yet fulfilled
To make reconciliation for iniquity,

completed at the cross, at the end of the 69th week

To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,

still a project in process, as there is still prophecy to be fulfilled,

And to anoint the Most Holy.

Anointed and sitting at the right hand of God will be anointed again when he returns to earth. OST people who interpret daniel 9 as fulfilled interpret it not from an Israel point of view. If we read the beginning, Daniels prayer was for his people, his city and his sanctuary, and the promise God made all the way back with Abraham.

the 70 weeks are an answer to Daniel’s prayer

 

[Timtofly]

Okay, it's obvious you're going to disagree with me. All I can say is that I see Daniel depicting a 70 Weeks period that was to end with 2 things: the death of Christ and the destruction of the temple. That is precisely what I believe Jesus was referring to in the Olivet Discourse. These are not, in my opinion, 2 different contexts, one in Jesus' generation, and another in the endtimes. But I'll leave it there.

The 70th week was God on earth at a time when Jacob experienced trouble. The first half was the first coming. The last half will be at the Second Coming. No one seems to accept Christ the Lamb is on earth prior to Satan's 42 months. The final harvest is before Satan is allowed Stewardship.

After Satan's time will be the 1000 years of perfect rule with an iron rod for Jacob. The church is always in Paradise until New Jerusalem comes down AFTER the NHNE.

 

[Timtofly]

It doesn't show us the complete history of mankind. I'm not sure how knowledge about creation helps me know the particulars of the end times.

Mankind, not really. Mankind is not the history of creation. Mankind is only one segment, and we have the worse of mankind in Scripture, not really the best.

Creation is a finite time, and it is all recorded in God's Word. Mankind does not teach the whole of God's Word. Mankind get stuck in ruts and hardly ever get out of them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The 70th week was God on earth at a time when Jacob experienced trouble. The first half was the first coming. The last half will be at the Second Coming. No one seems to accept Christ the Lamb is on earth prior to Satan's 42 months. The final harvest is before Satan is allowed Stewardship.

After Satan's time will be the 1000 years of perfect rule with an iron rod for Jacob. The church is always in Paradise until New Jerusalem comes down AFTER the NHNE.

Yea, that's Pretrib. I don't see any evidence for it in the Scriptures. But Darby was a smart man--I'm sure he concocted lots of reasons to believe the Church should escape from tribulation.

God would never, in my judgment, give the world over to Satan for 42 months, with no Church, no testimony of judgment, and no prophecy against wickedness. The Church has always been active in times of tribulation, from the persecutions of the ancient Roman Empire to a variety of problems today. The purpose of the Church is to testify against sin in the present age, and to hopefully bring some to repentance, in preparation for the coming Kingdom of Christ.

But you can believe what you will. I'll believe as I will. Just take Christ with you wherever you go with this. And I will do the same.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you read daniel, what was supposed to happen was this
Daniel 9:24 (NKJV): Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
we see right here, this concerns the people of daniel only, namely Isreal

I agree. This had to do with Israel. At that time, only that nation was the people of God. Later, in the NT, what applied to Israel came to apply to other nations, as well.

To finish the transgression,

Israel's sin came to maturity at the crucifixion of Christ. His death completed the guilt of Israel, preparing them for a final age of great punishment, or tribulation, until the restoration of the nation in Christ's Kingdom.

To make an end of sins,

Israel's sins were brought to an end with a decisive defeat of Israel by the Romans in 70 AD.

To make reconciliation for iniquity,

Christ died on the cross to express God's forgiveness towards those willing to return to God through the life of Christ.

To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,

Christ established a righteousness for the Church which is indestructible, despite our continuing state of sinfulness. Those who put their faith in Christ's atonement have access to his life and righteousness, and will no longer be subject to eternal death.

Christ completed the vision and hope of atonement for Israel under the Law by completing final atonement for Israel in his own death. This fulfilled redemptive prophecy.

And to anoint the Most Holy.

The Most Holy was Christ, who fulfilled the place of the Holy of Holies. He was the presence of God in the ark of his physical body.

This is another way to look at the 6 things the 70 Weeks were supposed to bring about. It would bring Israel to a place of final divorce from God, and out of the ashes would emerge Salvation. This happened in the time of Christ, and in the time immediately following, in 70 AD.

If you will stand back and look at this prophecy, it was given in a time when Israel was just going to be restored from a long 70 year judgment. Instead of promising final national restoration, it promised only a limited and temporary restoration, ultimately leading, once again, to national failure and judgment.

This prophecy indeed spoke of Israel's condition up until the 1st coming of Christ, and immediately following, when Israel was deported or killed by the Romans. It was not a prophecy of the end of the age. That's how most of the Church Fathers interpreted it. And so do I.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Making disciples is not the same thing as Christianization of civilization.

I suppose we could argue about what "Christianization" means to you or me? But for me, the apostles and those who succeeded them led many in Europe and beyond to become disciples of Jesus. And this led to a Christianization of Europe, and to the Christianization of many nations. To refuse to see this seems a bit obtuse. Of course, you will want to claim "Christianization" means something different?

If you are talking about making disciples, that is one thing. Calling this world some kind of religiously controlled form of government is something else.

I see--this then is your definition of "Christianization"--a religious bureaucracy constituting theocratic government? Yes, I get into arguments over the word "theocracy," as well.

For me, a Christian government is, by definition, a kind of theocracy. But today, the word "theocracy" has a very bad connotation. Liberal Education chooses to view Christianity as by nature oppressive, and cites as examples of oppression the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Though there is truth in that, I must say that all nations suffer serious flaws in their constitution, whether religious or not, whether Christian or not. Not all who claim to be Christian actually live Christianity.

Nevertheless, a nation that adopts Christianity as its moral/spiritual system is doing, I think, the right thing. Even though it is imperfect, and seriously fails in the end, it is always good when the society adopts Christian morals, and when the public at least agrees on Christian values.

To live it is another thing altogether, and I would agree that "Christianization" would not be able to accomplish it this side of Christ's Kingdom--at least not for very long.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The 70th week was God on earth at a time when Jacob experienced trouble. The first half was the first coming. The last half will be at the Second Coming. No one seems to accept Christ the Lamb is on earth prior to Satan's 42 months. The final harvest is before Satan is allowed Stewardship.

After Satan's time will be the 1000 years of perfect rule with an iron rod for Jacob. The church is always in Paradise until New Jerusalem comes down AFTER the NHNE.

Where do you come up with this belief if I may ask

the 70th week is a seven year period not a 2000+ Year period