The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

Well at 2:30 is where he makes a case that Luke and Matthew are speaking about two different events. But he makes a mistake. Notice what's said...


Matthew 24-4-16 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Famines

- Earthquakes

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Lack of brotherly love

- The abomination of DESOLATION; Flee to mountains!

- Time of Great Tribulation begins

- Days cut short because of the elect

- Fearful events & signs from heaven



Mark 13-4-16 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Earthquakes

- Famines

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Lack of brotherly love

- The abomination of DESOLATION; Flee to mountains!

- Days of Tribulation begins

- Days cut short because of the elect

- Fearful events & signs from heaven



Luke 21:8-21 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Earthquakes

- Famines

- Pestilences (diseases)

- Fearful events & signs from heaven ("but before this")

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Betrayal of kin

- Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its DESTRUCTION is near; Flee to mountains!

- Time of Great Tribulation begins (lit. wrath against these people; Jews) until time of gentiles fulfilled

- Fearful events & signs from heaven (mentioned again)


-----------

So it was the "fearful events & signs from heaven" that were mentioned early in Luke. Aside from that, everything else in Luke's account lines up with the other two accounts. Testimony of two or more establishes truth, so we have to rely on Matthew & Mark as the foundation for the sequence to confirm Luke's account.

Thank you for this keen observation about Luke 21 mentioning Jerusalem is surrounded, while other Synoptic Gospels don't.

However, there is another keen difference I see, that in Luke 21:8 it says, "Jesus replied...," implying that Jesus delivered basically the entire Olivet Discourse then and there. However, Matthew and Mark show that there is a big time lapse between when Jesus says, "Not one stone will be left atop one another..." and the discourse which actually happened on the Mount of Olives. The first few verses of Matthew and Mark were set on the Temple Mount; the remainder are set on the Mount of Olives.

I find it hard to believe, though, that Jesus would say the exact same thing to the exact same people twice, in the exact same location--followed by the same disciples asking Jesus the exact same question again in the same second location. Thus I have to conclude that the Synoptic Gospels are all covering the same incident; albeit with "contradictions" (which are easily resolved).

However, I find it similarly difficult to believe that Jesus would say that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies sometime in the future--except the first time doesn't count. He really means sometime in the DISTANT future when Jerusalem is surrounded a SECOND time. I don't buy that. Was Jesus trying to confuse the disciples?

He translated Revelation into English.

He interpreted Revelation to be historicist.

One may interpret Revelation according to any of the four models and still translate it correctly. Translation is (primarily) a matter of know both languages reasonably well. Interpretation does sometimes colour translation, but that can only be proven with actual verse-by-verse evidence, not logically fallacious arguments.

Thank you for this keen observation about Luke 21 mentioning Jerusalem is surrounded, while other Synoptic Gospels don't.

However, there is another keen difference I see, that in Luke 21:8 it says, "Jesus replied...," implying that Jesus delivered basically the entire Olivet Discourse then and there. However, Matthew and Mark show that there is a big time lapse between when Jesus says, "Not one stone will be left atop one another..." and the discourse which actually happened on the Mount of Olives. The first few verses of Matthew and Mark were set on the Temple Mount; the remainder are set on the Mount of Olives.

I find it hard to believe, though, that Jesus would say the exact same thing to the exact same people twice, in the exact same location--followed by the same disciples asking Jesus the exact same question again in the same second location. Thus I have to conclude that the Synoptic Gospels are all covering the same incident; albeit with "contradictions" (which are easily resolved).

However, I find it similarly difficult to believe that Jesus would say that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies sometime in the future--except the first time doesn't count. He really means sometime in the DISTANT future when Jerusalem is surrounded a SECOND time. I don't buy that. Was Jesus trying to confuse the disciples?

Here's the thing:

John Wycliffe died for his faith. He translated Revelation into multiple languages. Gutenberg and he are responsible for putting the Bible in the hands of thousands--if not millions--of people. His resume beats all of us. He is more qualified to preach than all of my pastoral staff, save for the minor detail that he's dead.

And I (and probably also you) think *HE* is wrong about historicism. The reason I believe I am right and he is wrong on this one is simple: because Wycliffe did not have the benefit of the last 500 years to look back on in hindsight. But make no mistake: if I was preaching on Revelation one Sunday, and John Wycliffe walked in and wanted to take over, then I'm stepping down and giving him the pulpit. That is a far cry from what I am hearing from other people: "Historicists are all wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. I do. Listen to me, I am a guy on the internet."

Here's the thing:

John Wycliffe died for his faith. He translated Revelation into multiple languages. Gutenberg and he are responsible for putting the Bible in the hands of thousands--if not millions--of people. His resume beats all of us. He is more qualified to preach than all of my pastoral staff, save for the minor detail that he's dead.

And I (and probably also you) think *HE* is wrong about historicism. The reason I believe I am right and he is wrong on this one is simple: because Wycliffe did not have the benefit of the last 500 years to look back on in hindsight. But make no mistake: if I was preaching on Revelation one Sunday, and John Wycliffe walked in and wanted to take over, then I'm stepping down and giving him the pulpit. That is a far cry from what I am hearing from other people: "Historicists are all wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. I do. Listen to me, I am a guy on the internet."

God sends strong delusion to siphon off the tares.

Why can't we discuss these things openly and honestly, sharpening one another, without resorting to "heresy" accusations?

You should be aware that the literal Second Coming of Christ is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Therefore its denial is a heresy.

Indeed it is embedded in both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.
"And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end."

So when anyone denies this and claims that Christ has already returned "spiritually" in AD 70, that is both a lie and a heresy, since it overthrows the faith of some. Paul had something to say about this in 2 Timothy 2:16-18:

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Why would Nero KILL the other Apostles but save 1 for exile?

Even your own reasoning is absurd.

Many Preterists contend that there are two major reasons from the Book of Revelation itself that provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that since John refers to a Temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-2), then it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the Temple's destruction in A.D. 70. Next they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-16 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that “one is” (Rev. 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and “the other is not yet come” (Rev. 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. This would mean, according to Preterists, that Revelation was written while Nero was still alive. In rebuttal to the first Preterists argument, it must be remembered that in the Book of Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in some way to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word "saw" is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events through a vision. It does not matter at all whether the Temple is thought to be standing in Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision since that would not have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by an angel to “measure the temple” (Rev. 11:1). Measure what Temple? He is to measure the Temple in the vision. Even if there were a temple still standing in Jerusalem, John was on the Island of Patmos and would not have been allowed to go and measure that Temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a Temple (Ezek. 40—43) was told to measure that Temple. When Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a Temple there was not one standing in Jerusalem (Preterists agree). Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical Temple standing in Jerusalem at the same time

The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.

Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around A.D. 66–67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence at Smyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this strongly favors the late date.

The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.

Here is another reason that Jesus letter to Ephesus was later than Paul's letter to Ephesus. Paul said they were known for their love. Jesus said they had left their first love. There was a time gap between Paul's writing and Revelation. Thus 95 AD ... Strong evidence.

External Evidence:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus (A.D. 120- 202) around A.D. 180).

Irenaeus was from Asia Minor. The Apostle John was an elder in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faith by Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link between the one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility of Irenaeus and his statement.

Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date of Revelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the very area to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in the territories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However, these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. It appears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine, then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a 30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is not what happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong support for the late date view. (Thomas D. Ice Liberty University)

Ironically history proves the gt is future.
The mark
The flying scorpions
Hailstones of fire
The planet destroyed
And on and on.

Historicist view is debunked quite easily.