Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Davy]

I'm sorry but I have to keep saying this. Belief that the Olivet Discourse had to do primarily with Jesus' own generation is not always Preterism!

OK then, Historicism also! which has many alignments with false theories of Preterism. Sometimes, it's difficult to tell the two apart.

The Church Fathers believed that Jesus was speaking of the Roman siege laid against Jerusalem and about the destruction of the temple. And they were *not* Preterists.

Like I said, sometimes it's difficult to tell Preterism and Historicism apart, because Historicism also... believes much of Christ's Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D. So enough of your bickering, you haven't proven Christ's Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D., no matter how much you might want to try.

 

[covenantee]

OK then, Historicism also! which has many alignments with false theories of Preterism. Sometimes, it's difficult to tell the two apart.



Like I said, sometimes it's difficult to tell Preterism and Historicism apart, because Historicism also... believes much of Christ's Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D. So enough of your bickering, you haven't proven Christ's Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D., no matter how much you might want to try.

Tell that to the Judean Christians, whose flight proved the fulfillment of Jesus' warnings.

There wasn't a df in the bunch.

No matter how much you wish there was.

 

[Davy]

Tell that to the Judean Christians, whose flight proved the fulfillment of Jesus' warnings.

There wasn't a DF in the bunch.

No matter how much you wish there was.

Very... weak... argument.

 

[covenantee]

Very... weak... argument.

The Judean Christians didn't agree.

It saved their lives.

 

[Davy]

The Judean Christians didn't agree.

It saved their lives.

Weak argument still, because NO "abomination of desolation" event happened in 70 A.D. Jerusalem!

The Romans who tried... to get possession of the Jerusalem temple FAILED, because the temple burned down before they could seize it (per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived in 100 A.D.). And a STANDING TEMPLE is required... to fulfill the "abomination of desolation" prophecy!!!

Matt 24:15-16
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
KJV

 

[covenantee]

Weak argument still, because NO "abomination of desolation" event happened in 70 A.D. Jerusalem!

The Romans who tried... to get possession of the Jerusalem temple FAILED, because the temple burned down before they could seize it (per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived in 100 A.D.). And a STANDING TEMPLE is required... to fulfill the "abomination of desolation" prophecy!!!

Matt 24:15-16
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
KJV

An argument that saved their lives is no weak argument!!!!

Why did you omit Luke 21:20, which identifies the abomination of desolation?????

The Roman armies!!!!!!!!!

 

[Keraz]

Hal Lindsey held that Jesus was speaking of the last generation, who would see all of these signs--earthquakes, famines, persecution, etc.

Hal was not wrong about everything!
As we know from anthropological evidence and the historical record, the average human life span at that time, was 35-40 years.
Life Expectancy in Ancient Rome (earlychurchhistory.org)

70 AD is about 40 years since the Crucifixion of Jesus. If any of the people alive to see Jesus were still alive when Rome conquered the Jews, they would have been 50, more likely 60. Very unlikely!

In Matthew 24:32-34, Jesus was prophesying to us today. WE are the generation who will see all of the end time events, starting with the establishment a the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.

You are exalting your own opinions at the expense of people more learned than you!

I am exalting what the Prophets actually said.
What Jesus plainly said in Matthew 11:25-26, proves that the 'wise and learned' are actually unable to know and understand the Prophetic Word. This includes the ECF's and all scholars up to today. As so well proved by the variety of opinions and wild guesses about prophecy.

You spend all your time arguing about "seeing," when the real question is, What are you seeing?

I see the truth of the Prophetic Word.
As Daniel 12:10 says; a few people will understand God's plans for our future.

 

[ewq1938]

I've heard this a number of times, but could never understand the argument. I understand Why someone would want to divide the Olivet Discourse, which I think started at the temple.

The temple discourse is different than the Olivet Discourse because WHERE things are said matters.


Second, you divide the Olivet Discourse not me. You don't accept that one generation would see "all these things", just after describing the second coming and gathering of the saints (the rapture). You divide those two events from the other events, dividing the Olivet Discourse. So, you add something not part of the Olivet Discourse to the Olivet Discourse then you divide the last two events the one generation will see. That is pure eisegesis.

But from the construction in the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse there seems to be a seamless presentation of the fact of the fall of Jerusalem and the question When it will take place.

This places the entire conversation in the same basket.

No it doesn't because Christ never answered the question of when the temple would fall, if they even asked about that. Christ focused on the events that would precede his second coming and the day of that coming. He didn't talk about anything else. He spoke of pre-trib sorrows, the Great Tribulation and the second coming and rapture. That's it.

It all pertains to the fall of Jerusalem, as predicted by the Prophet Daniel in ch. 9. Anyway, I suppose we'll have to leave it there?

Not one word is about Jerusalem being destroyed physically by anyone.

So Jesus attempted to persuade his Disciples not to try to anticipate his Coming, and to focus instead on their own time and ministry.

Except that little part where he described his coming. Obviously that and all the other events one generation would see didn't apply to them.

The time of his Coming was excepted from the list of things to happen in their generation.

Wrong. The second coming and rapture were spoken just prior to his declaration that one generation would see "all these things" He didn't say, "some of these things" as you teach.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm sorry but I have to keep saying this. Belief that the Olivet Discourse had to do primarily with Jesus' own generation is not always Preterism!

It is the very definition of Preterism.

Wiki:

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.

That's you Randy.

What is the preterist view of the end times? | GotQuestions.org

Preterists usually point to a passage in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse to bolster their argument. After Jesus describes some of the end-times happenings, He says, “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34). The preterist takes this to mean that everything Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24 had to have occurred within one generation of His speaking—the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was therefore “Judgment Day.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

OK then, Historicism also! which has many alignments with false theories of Preterism. Sometimes, it's difficult to tell the two apart.

Davy, Historicism as a system of interpretation tends to be rooted in Reformation eschatology, which saw the events of Revelation fulfilled not in a future Antichrist, but in a then-current Catholic Antichrist. To interpret something historically, we would say that the prophecy of Christ's virgin birth was fulfilled in history, in the literal birth of Christ.

We all agree on this. So this kind of historicist interpretation is non-controversial. But historicists in the Reformation are known for rejecting any notion of a future Antichrist beyond that of the then-current Catholic Church. And I don't want to be aligned with that thinking either.

Again, the Church Fathers were not Preterists because they pre-existed Preterism and held to an historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. But they still believed in a future Antichrist, mentioned in the book of Revelation. That is, they did not necessarily interpret the book of Revelation as being fulfilled in the then-current Roman Empire, although I'm sure some did see it that way.

I'm *not* a Preterist. Those who say I am are being "difficult." They have repeatedly ignored my explanation here, and only wish to be malicious, thinking that by identifying my belief as something wayward that my arguments will be rejected as well. But they might as well then reject the Church Fathers and many Christian scholars throughout history, who did believe the Olivet Discourse was about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and still believed in a future Antichrist.

Argue the points, if you will, and ignore all of the banter than is more typical of the world than Christianity. We are brothers and sisters discussing, in a good spirit, our various viewpoints. We may or may not come to any agreement, but our unity is based on Christ--not complete doctrinal homogeneity.

Like I said, sometimes it's difficult to tell Preterism and Historicism apart, because Historicism also... believes much of Christ's Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D. So enough of your bickering, you haven't proven Christ's Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D., no matter how much you might want to try.

Bickering? I have no idea why you think I'm bickering? I never said you have to agree with me. I'm just making my argument for my position, thinking that I can help you and others. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. But holding to my position is not "bickering!" Calling me something that is a false label is, however, a form of slander. And I would politely correct you and others on that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hal was not wrong about everything!

Never said he was. In many ways I like Hal Lindsey. His book was very interesting to me in the time it was written. It opened a lot of eyes at that time to the significance of Israel's rebirth as a a nation. It also started a lot of Christians, like myself, looking at current news with an eye on prophecy.

As we know from anthropological evidence and the historical record, the average human life span at that time, was 35-40 years.
Life Expectancy in Ancient Rome (earlychurchhistory.org)

70 AD is about 40 years since the Crucifixion of Jesus. If any of the people alive to see Jesus were still alive when Rome conquered the Jews, they would have been 50, more likely 60. Very unlikely!

I know some people lived much longer than 40 years! Consider the Apostle John! Jesus was saying that the same people, including their children, who were engaged at the time in false religion and inward malice were going to be judged in their lifetime. It wasn't intended to be a math problem, but rather, a condemnation of the times, generally speaking.

Yes, literally 40 years after Jesus said this Jerusalem fell, which argues for the sense that Jesus intended to convey a single generation. That is literally how many Christians of the succeeding centuries came to interpret this Address.

In Matthew 24:32-34, Jesus was prophesying to us today. WE are the generation who will see all of the end time events, starting with the establishment a the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.

You can believe that if you want. It doesn't make sense to me. Jesus was clearly addressing his own Disciples, as I read it. Please quit touting yourself and your abilities, and generalizing most of Christianity as "blind."

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is the very definition of Preterism.

Wiki:
That's you Randy.

What is the preterist view of the end times? | GotQuestions.org

You should show link and full quotes, because what you showed fell short. A half truth is as bad as a lie. As I said, Preterism is not just belief that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the 1st century. More, it is belief that most future prophecies were fulfilled at that time, including the book of Revelation.

You neglected to point that out, which makes what you posted a half truth, or a misrepresentation of the facts.

So no, brother--that's not me. I'm not a Preterist. Preterism began later in history, well after the Church Fathers who viewed both that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem, but also that the book of Revelation depicted a future Antichrist.

By contrast, Preterism believes that the Antichrist has already been fulfilled in the ancient Roman Empire. I don't believe that, and accept that the book of Revelation is focused on a future period of 3.5 years in which Antichrist will reign and persecute the Church.

You copied a false caricature of Preterism, produced as a summary of the position--an inadequate one at that. If you will read down into the full article, you will see that it involves much more than just that ill-fitting summary. The way it is described below could fit virtually any Christian eschatological position!

Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened.

Who doesn't believe that *some* prophecies of the Bible have already happened? Do you believe that the prophecy of Messiah's death has already been fulfilled? If so, does that make you a Preterist? Of course not!

But if you read down into the Wiki article it will tell you that Preterism takes not just the Olivet Discourse but nearly the whole book of Revelation, and views them as having already been fulfilled in the ancient Roman Empire! That is much more than just believing *some* prophecies have already happened!

 

[ewq1938]

You should show link and full quotes, because what you showed fell short. A half truth is as bad as a lie. As I said, Preterism is not just belief that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the 1st century. More, it is belief that most future prophecies were fulfilled at that time, including the book of Revelation.

Anyone who believes most of the Olivet Discourse was already fulfilled is a partial preterist whether or not they believe the same about Revelation. But let's explore how much of a Partial Preterist you are. Did Revelation 13 happen in the past?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Anyone who believes most of the Olivet Discourse was already fulfilled is a partial preterist whether or not they believe the same about Revelation. But let's explore how much of a Partial Preterist you are. Did Revelation 13 happen in the past?

You seem to be making up your own definition of Partial Preterism. Partial Preterists do not just believe the prophecy of the Olivet Discourse was already fulfilled. They also believe that the book of Revelation was largely fulfilled in the ancient Roman Empire.

I don't care how many times you wish to convey differently--this is a fact! Some PPs state that there are some elements of futurism that they can agree with. But that makes them Futurists--not Preterists. Believing that the Olivet Discourse, and its focus on the fall of Jerusalem, was fulfilled in 70 AD, does not make a Futurist like me a Preterist!

Clearly, Jesus said the temple would fall in "this generation." That's what he said, and many early Christians believed and stated that 70 AD was the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, in that regard.

There are other elements in the Olivet Discourse that are future. For example, I believe the fall of the temple was just the start of an age-long Jewish Punishment that I believe Jesus predicted. Furthermore, the 2nd Coming was said by Jesus to be beyond the prophecies he referred to as in "this generation."

The "birth pangs" Jesus mentioned were preliminary to the fall of Jerusalem, and presaged the fall of Israel for the longest diaspora in their history. I'm just reading the book, brother.

To answer your question, Rev 13 refers to the future Antichrist and False Prophet, who will reign for 3.5 years, persecuting the saints. That is not commonly a Preterist position. If a Preterist does take that position, he has abandoned Preterism, in my opinion.

 

[ewq1938]

To answer your question, Rev 13 refers to the future Antichrist and False Prophet, who will reign for 3.5 years, persecuting the saints. That is not commonly a Preterist position. If a Preterist does take that position, he has abandoned Preterism, in my opinion.

In my experience, some Partial Preterists believe Revelation 13 is fulfilled and some do not. However the large majority all believe the Olivet Discourse is fulled except the second coming and the gathering.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In my experience, some Partial Preterists believe Revelation 13 is fulfilled and some do not. However the large majority all believe the Olivet Discourse is fulled except the second coming and the gathering.

Brother, I'm not trying to be rude to you. We've know each other for a long time, via various forums. I have to respect the time you've put in. But we each have different interests. I respect yours, and I hope you'll respect mine?

Believing that a major focus of the Olivet Discourse was on the 66-70 AD ordeal is not Preterism. It is a major focus of Preterism, but it holds this view in common with many good Christian scholars, including many of the Church Fathers. They weren't all Preterists. Preterism came along late in history to join them in their view that Jesus was warning his generation of Jews that judgment was about to befall their nation.

Some Partial Preterists do try to do a "balancing act" by embracing the Preterist label, while at the same time accepting some futurist positions. But in my opinion, the moment they accept futurist prophecies, they cease to be Partial Preterists.

In other words, Partial Preterism is not just the belief that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD. Much more than that, it is a system of interpretation that believes most all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the Early Church. I do not wish to be associated with that, and I should *not* be associated with that because I don't believe that.

There are, I believe, some very important prophecies yet to be fulfilled. The Gospel continues to reach out to all nations, the persecution of the saints continues in all nations. And the Jewish Punishment continues until the end of the age.

Also, the Antichrist and the False Prophet have yet to appear. Unlike many historicists, I do *not* believe the Catholic Church was the Antichrist, although the apostasy of the Church as a whole may figure into the rise of Antichrist over Europe, and throughout the world.

These beliefs are not consistent with a Preterist Theology. I am clearly *not* a Preterist, nor were the Church Fathers, who held these positions, Preterists. If you think a single interpretation of the Olivet Discourse constitutes Preterism, then your definition certainly falls short of the truth. Even more, one can believe that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD and still have a different view of the Olivet Discourse than Preterists do!

 

[Keraz]

literally 40 years after Jesus said this Jerusalem fell, which argues for the sense that Jesus intended to convey a single generation.

Very few elderly people who heard Jesus prophecy: Matthew 24:32-34, would have be alive by 70 AD.
I reject the belief that Jesus intended His warnings for the people alive in circa 30 AD. The part of His prophecy that warned the Christians to get out of Jerusalem, was for that time and it was heeded, as they went to live in Pella.


The above is one reason, but a better reason is how the fig tree, that is Judah, the Jews - did not flourish and become regenerated, but instead were killed en masse and the survivors sold into slavery.

The historical fact of the new Jewish State in part of the holy Land, being established in 1948, clinches the issue and is the real fulfilment of Jesus prophecy.
This means that WE, the people alive now, are the people who will see it all, That is: all of the end time events and the glorious Return of Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

It also means that we should know what will happen next and to not be in the dark about our future.

 

[ewq1938]

These beliefs are not consistent with a Preterist Theology. I am clearly *not* a Preterist, nor were the Church Fathers, who held these positions, Preterists. If you think a single interpretation of the Olivet Discourse constitutes Preterism, then your definition certainly falls short of the truth. Even more, one can believe that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD and still have a different view of the Olivet Discourse than Preterists do!

In every theological position, there are the mainstream and then there are others who have some different beliefs. This is how I view your position. A lot of it is classic Partial Preterism and some of it is non-classic with a little futurism tossed in. Believing any part of the Olivet Discourse is Partial Preterism, the term meaning "fulfilled in the past" regarding certain prophecies. While I am 100 perfect a futurist because I believe all of the Olivet Discourse is yet to come and same with corresponding parts of Revelation. Futurists also generally believe the AoD is the antichrist and what he does.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Very few elderly people who heard Jesus prophecy: Matthew 24:32-34, would have be alive by 70 AD.
I reject the belief that Jesus intended His warnings for the people alive in circa 30 AD. The part of His prophecy that warned the Christians to get out of Jerusalem, was for that time and it was heeded, as they went to live in Pella.


The above is one reason, but a better reason is how the fig tree, that is Judah, the Jews - did not flourish and become regenerated, but instead were killed en masse and the survivors sold into slavery.

The historical fact of the new Jewish State in part of the holy Land, being established in 1948, clinches the issue and is the real fulfilment of Jesus prophecy.
This means that WE, the people alive now, are the people who will see it all, That is: all of the end time events and the glorious Return of Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

It also means that we should know what will happen next and to not be in the dark about our future.

That is very poor logic, brother. There is no evidence that the "fig tree" referred to Judah in this particular context. On the contrary, Jesus is explicitly saying that the "fig tree" is the maturing of divine judgment against Israel--certainly not the rebirth of the State of Israel in modern times!

You deny that Jesus was speaking to his generation, and then admit he was telling his Disciples to "get out of town." That's a contradiction. And the fact Jesus assigned blame to people living at that time, and mentioned "you" when addressing his disciples, indicated he was, in fact, addressing his own generation.

Again, it isn't just 30 years old in 30 AD we're speaking about. Rather, we're speaking about an entire generation living in the time Jesus said this, including children and grandchildren. They would all partake of the sins of their fathers, making this judgment real in their lifetime.

That was the point, that Jesus was acting as a prophet, declaring that judgment had come to Israel, just as Jeremiah and the other Prophets foretold the arrival of God's judgment as sins reached their peak.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In every theological position, there are the mainstream and then there are others who have some different beliefs. This is how I view your position.

I know, and that wouldn't be correct. You are moving goalposts and altering boundaries. The definition of Preterism is pretty clear--it is a system of eschatological interpretation that views nearly all biblical prophecy as complete in the time of ancient Rome. That is how they view the Olivet Discourse, and that is how they view the book of Revelation.

What you're saying is that even those who don't believe that, and yet share with Preterists the belief that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD, cause them to be labeled "Preterists." Again, that is false. Those who do not share the Preterists' system of eschatological interpretation are not, by definition, Preterists.

Yes, there are a few outliers who hold to Preterist theology, allowing for some future fulfillments. But if they are truly to adhere to a Preterist theological system, they would interpret all of the Olivet Discourse and nearly all of the book of Revelation as fulfilled in the earthly ministry of Christ, and in the Early Church.

All this means is that some people will not fully be consistent with their own theological system, or think they can make exceptions that render their system inept. Or, there are people who simply don't know any better, and say anything they like, consistent or not.

Some who believe the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman Army do not believe that all of the Olivet Discourse and most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the Early Church. I for one do not believe that!

So I do not share the Preterist theological system and should not be labeled a Preterist. Those who do so are changing the definition of a Preterist, or do not understand the particularities of their theological system.

A lot of it is classic Partial Preterism and some of it is non-classic with a little futurism tossed in. Believing any part of the Olivet Discourse is Partial Preterism, the term meaning "fulfilled in the past" regarding certain prophecies. While I am 100 perfect a futurist because I believe all of the Olivet Discourse is yet to come and same with corresponding parts of Revelation. Futurists also generally believe the AoD is the antichrist and what he does.

That is a false dichotomy. Futurism does not require 100% fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in the Last Days. Preterism does require that most all the Olivet Discourse and most of the book of Revelation are already fulfilled from the time of the ancient Roman Empire.

Again, I do *not* believe that. You clearly do not understand what a Preterist is, nor do you understand their theology. You define them purely by one element of their view of the Olivet Discourse, which is that the AoD was the Roman Army.

Believing that does not make one a Preterist. Again, virtually all of the early Church writings indicated belief in that.

One more thing I'd like say, which may help you understand Preterism better. They appear to act like Dispensationalists, who believe that the gifts of the Spirit and the era of prophecy came to an end in Jesus' generation. They don't seem to want to believe that any more prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, after the birth of the initial Church. They want to believe that with the creation of the canon of NT Scripture we need no more prophecy, but only need the word of God to live a Christian life.

That seems to be how Preterism operates, marginalizing prophecy and limiting it to the Early Church and its beginnings. Since then, we just live by the word of God, and refuse to speculate about the future, no longer considering it prophetically-determined.

Well, I'm a believer in the idea that the gifts of the Spirit never ended, nor that prophecy ended. Prophecy is still being fulfilled in history, and will until the end. That's why I'm a futurist, and not a Preterist. I don't fit into their system.