Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
I take a literal approach to Revelation and most Eschatology. And btw, what really destroys the preterist's view that most of the events happenned in 70 AD, is a very simple fact about Revelation. IT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 95 AD - THEREFORE NONE OF IT WAS ABOUT 70AD. The Letters to The Seven Churches confirms this. The Church of Symrna didn't even exist in 70AD. Polycarp, a disciple of John, was the 1st Bishop of Symrna and since he was born around 70AD, he was in diapers.You say preterists are deceived, but everything you’ve just said is built on the very framework Darby and Scofield invented, whether you’ve read them or not. You’re repeating their theology word-for-word — from the 3½ year fragmentation of Daniel, to a still-future temple, to a political Antichrist, and a literal Armageddon over in Israel — none of which the early Church taught, and none of which the New Testament supports.
Let’s dismantle this one brick at a time:
1. 3½ years = Scofield's glue for a future “Great Tribulation”
Yes, Revelation uses phrases like “42 months” and “time, times, and half a time.”
But it never once says these are tied together to create a future 7-year tribulation. That gap theology is completely manufactured. Daniel’s 70th week was fulfilled in Christ. No early Christian stretched it into the future — only Darby and his followers did.
2. Revelation is full of symbols — not timelines for CNN
Revelation is apocalyptic, not predictive newsprint.
The “beast empowered for 42 months” was Rome’s imperial persecution.
Revelation 11? Jerusalem is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, not “God’s holy land.”
That’s first-century judgment, not 21st-century speculation.
“These things must shortly come to pass.” — Revelation 1:1
“The time is near.” — Revelation 1:3
You ignore the timeline Revelation gives you, and replace it with one Scofield gave him.
3. Jesus is not building a third temple.
He already built the real one — His Body.
“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it in three days.” — John 2:19
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple?” — 1 Corinthians 3:16
He tore the veil, fulfilled the sacrifice, and sat down.
Any doctrine that says “He’s coming back to build another temple” is spitting on the Cross and treating His finished work as incomplete.
“But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God.”— Hebrews 10:12
He’s not coming back to sacrifice lambs and supervise blueprints.
That’s blasphemous theology, not prophecy.
4. The Antichrist was never one guy at the end.
“Even now there are many antichrists.” — 1 John 2:18
“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist.” — 1 John 2:22
Not future. Not political. Anyone who denies the Son is antichrist. That includes false prophets, governments, cults — and yes, even unbelieving modern Israel.
Nero was the historical fulfillment of Revelation’s “beast” — brutal, blasphemous, persecuting Christians.
Your obsession with the Ayatollah is geopolitical fearmongering — not biblical eschatology.
5. 70 A.D. wasn’t “small change.” It was the end of the Old Covenant.
Jesus didn’t compare it to the Flood — He compared it to the Days of Noah:
A sudden judgment when no one listened.
70 A.D. was the day Jerusalem — the covenant-breaking city that crucified the Messiah — was judged and burned to the ground, exactly as Jesus prophesied.
“This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.” — Matthew 24:34
You’re waiting for something that already happened, and ignoring what it meant.
You’re not defending the Gospel.
You’re defending a system built by men, sold to the Church by a drunk criminal, and fueled by fear, charts, blood moons and Middle Eastern nationalism.
I’ll stick with what the Apostles taught:
One return. One resurrection. One Kingdom. No third temple. No secret escape. No fictional timelines.
Christ reigns now — and when He returns, it’s to judge the living and the dead.
No tanks. No red heifers. No Zionist script.
Just glory, fire, and final judgment.
Most of the rest of these churches were just getting started in the 60's, they wouldn't have had these problems. Paul would have mentioned the problems about Ephesus that John was concerned about (in Revelatio in his Ephesians epistle. The reports would conflict. No, John wrote about Ephesus 30 years later than Paul.
No sense to continue; as usual, we are on different sides of the fense ( Pre-Millennial vs. Amillennial).
The main event missing from your " It all happened in 70AD" view is the Second Coming of Christ. Do you believe He returned, scorched the nations with fire ( after only giving them a few decades to receive the Gospel); and resurrected all the believers? That would have a big piece of history, which happens to be missing. The Gospel was just getting started to go out into the world.