The double-standards of the preterist and why I left that system

[SomeDisciple]

The church is comprised of true believers only, not fake ones, the fake christians arent the temple of God. The living stones are built up to the spiritual temple. That is why it can only be fulfilled by a physical temple

I think the argument (from the preterist side) is that Paul's man of lawlessness is also a metaphor; but that's convoluted. If the Apostles taught that the eschatological Day of the Lord was just the 70 destruction of Jerusalem; the why would the Thessolonicans care? What would it matter to them if it was still coming, or already came and went? Why would John write a huge scroll with all these metaphors about the destruction of Jerusalem? They already heard it was going to happen, so why do they need a cryptological "revelation" about something they already knew.

 

[GaryA]

How do you understand 3-13 then?; because I don't see how that lines up with the historic events if John is measuring the historic temple.

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).

Why is it that it cannot be possible?

As Somedisciple asked. Why not? I think it can only be referring to a physical building because of the connection to Mark 13, seeing the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be. { What connection? }

Even if we were to concede that you are correct and the AoD already occured, it would still lead one to question how could 2 Thess 2:4 be fulfilled by the church? The church is comprised of true believers only, not fake ones, the fake christians arent the temple of God. { Neither is any physical building. } The living stones are built up to the spiritual temple. { Exactly. } That is why it can only be fulfilled by a physical temple { That is why it cannot be fulfilled by a physical temple. }

What exists today (or can/could exist today) that the Bible would consider to be legitimately called 'the temple of God'?

 

[GaryA]

I think the argument (from the preterist side) is that Paul's man of lawlessness is also a metaphor; but that's convoluted. If the Apostles taught that the eschatological Day of the Lord was just the 70 destruction of Jerusalem; the why would the Thessolonicans care? What would it matter to them if it was still coming, or already came and went? Why would John write a huge scroll with all these metaphors about the destruction of Jerusalem? They already heard it was going to happen, so why do they need a cryptological "revelation" about something they already knew.

Just to clarify - "just in case" - I am 'historicist' and not 'preterist' - I believe the 'Day of the Lord' is still yet future - I do not believe it was circa 70 A.D.

 

[Mem]

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).



What exists today (or can/could exist today) that the Bible would consider to be legitimately called 'the temple of God'?

Scripture says that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body when He declared that it would be raised in 3 days. And a verse that strikes me as a parallel verse is the one speaking in comparison between Moses and Jesus, the house and the builder of the house. That coupled with the consideration that not even Jesus declared himself God apart from answering, "I AM," it would seem to me that anybody 'declaring himself to be god' would effectively be embodying at least the spirit of the AOD.

 

[Komentaja]

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).



What exists today (or can/could exist today) that the Bible would consider to be legitimately called 'the temple of God'?

Tell us now. What does exactly 2 Thess 2:4 mean. We know what you believe its not, tell us what it is

 

[SomeDisciple]

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).

That seems like odd time jump from one verse to the next... but I suppose if we think of vv 1&2 as attached to the previous chapter (eating the scroll like Ezekiel) and then the following verses as referring to Zechariah (the 2 witnesses) then maybe it isn't such an awkward jump. I dunno. I guess I can't hate on, or be mad at, that POV. And the fact that it's once described in months and then in days might even reinforce the idea that the time periods are "similar but different" ?

I still maintain that if construction of a temple in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel is constructed, then no one has a biblical basis to object; It is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen in our immediate timeframe; but I don't think it's impossible.

I say we have no biblical basis to object, because Jesus while he walked the earth was the temple of God, and he co-existed with the brick-and-mortar temple of God and it was still the temple of God. Then the church was the temple of God on earth and it co-existed with the same temple for forty years: and even though the OC had been superseded, at no point was the church ever instructed to ignore, disregard, or disrespect the temple or the levitical priesthood. Just because it isn't part of the new covenant doesn't mean that it isn't ordained by God for a purpose and carry legitimacy and authority from God.

Just to clarify - "just in case" - I am 'historicist' and not 'preterist' - I believe the 'Day of the Lord' is still yet future - I do not believe it was circa 70 A.D.

Yeah, I think we've actually had this conversation before- this is just a really hard bible study topic; and I've prayed, and asked the Lord to please, please, please just make me *poof* understand everything... still waiting on that one. But, I just wanted to emphasize how far preterists can go to shove everything into 70AD. Full pret has some "strong" points; but it's really a paper tiger.

 

[GaryA]

If-and-when the site ever stays up long enough for me to post a reply...

 

[CommodoreTeach]

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is where the preterist double standard comes in. They will read verse 34 which says THIS GENERATION shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled, and they keep telling us this all happened. When you press them on the issue, many will either admit ok Jesus didnt return and gather the elect or will continue in the false doctrine of preterism and claim that Jesus did return, but not bodily. It is sloppy at best, but thats two returns, the same doctrine for which they critique pre-tribbers of!

The preterist plight gets worse, when you look at Revelation 12:6 and the woman (Israel) fleeing to the wilderness, which is clearly the same escape mentioned in the olivet discourse, this flight lasts 1260 days, the two witnesses prophecy 1260 days, the beast rules for 42 months. If the preterist believes all this took place in AD70, where is Jesus at? Why hasn't He returned yet? Oh you mean there would be a timegap between the 1260 days and His return? A timegap of over 2000 years now you say? Hold on, isn't that something preterists accuse premillennialists of all the time? That we are adding a gap to the 70 weeks of Daniel when no gap allegedly exists in the text?

I came across an interesting belief recently. Is it possible that Jesus did return, and reigned for a thousand years, and we are now living in the time post the millennial kingdom, where Satan is loosed and deceiving the nations? Obviously, there are significant historical objections (i.e. much of history post 70 AD would be a lie). But it would explain a lot of prophecy from the New Testament which described the things to come as imminent. I was looking for any theological objections, such as logical arguments that follow which would make such a view heretical.

Revelation 20:4 - 10
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

[HeIsHere]

But, I just wanted to emphasize how far preterists can go to shove everything into 70AD. Full pret has some "strong" points; but it's really a paper tiger.

It is actually not the one year but from the life, death and resurrection of Christ onward to the complete fulfillment in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

 

[HeIsHere]

and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I think it is important to see if the word was exactly "a thousand" or a word which means a "long period of time."

 

[GaryA]

It is actually not the one year but from the life, death and resurrection of Christ onward to the complete fulfillment in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

The "complete fulfillment" of what exactly-and-precisely? How does the destruction of Jerusalem become the "complete fulfillment" of all End Times Scenario prophecy? Otherwise, what is left to be fulfilled?

If Jesus returned circa 70 A.D. - how do you "explain away" all of the things the Bible indicates will occur at/after His Second Coming before his reign begins? (please understand the context)

If the first resurrection has already occurred - that only leaves the second resurrection before the GWTJ. How do the "tribulation saints" that do not worship the beast or accept the mark of the beast - and, reign with Christ - fit into this? Are they in their 'glorified body' right now "reigning with Christ" on the earth?

Had the beast system and the mark of the beast already been brought into existence and enforced before/by circa 70 A.D.?

Armageddon? When did that happen? What about the great valley?

Where are the 144,000?

The Two Witnesses? The Trumpets? The Vials? Stars fall from heaven? Everything moved out of its place? When did these things happen?

Bible prophecy puts all of these things - and more - at the time of the Second Coming of Christ - before the 1000-year reign gets started.

There does not seem to be any historical evidence for many of the 'details' of End Times Scenario prophecy.

What do you believe is literal? And, how do you explain the things you believe are not?

Please help me and others understand your view by explaining the 'detail' of it - how it correlates to/with scripture and history.

 

[HeIsHere]

The "complete fulfillment" of what exactly-and-precisely? How does the destruction of Jerusalem become the "complete fulfillment" of all End Times Scenario prophecy? Otherwise, what is left to be fulfilled?

If Jesus returned circa 70 A.D. - how do you "explain away" all of the things the Bible indicates will occur at/after His Second Coming before his reign begins? (please understand the context)

If the first resurrection has already occurred - that only leaves the second resurrection before the GWTJ. How do the "tribulation saints" that do not worship the beast or accept the mark of the beast - and, reign with Christ - fit into this? Are they in their 'glorified body' right now "reigning with Christ" on the earth?

Had the beast system and the mark of the beast already been brought into existence and enforced before/by circa 70 A.D.?

Armageddon? When did that happen? What about the great valley?

Where are the 144,000?

The Two Witnesses? The Trumpets? The Vials? Stars fall from heaven? Everything moved out of its place? When did these things happen?

Bible prophecy puts all of these things - and more - at the time of the Second Coming of Christ - before the 1000-year reign gets started.

There does not seem to be any historical evidence for many of the 'details' of End Times Scenario prophecy.

What do you believe is literal? And, how do you explain the things you believe are not?

Please help me and others understand your view by explaining the 'detail' of it - how it correlates to/with scripture and history.

I could but is not allowed on here so I follow the rules.

 

[GaryA]

I could but is not allowed on here so I follow the rules.

What rule would you be breaking?

 

[HeIsHere]

What rule would you be breaking?

The rule that only "futurist" view is allowed.
I am a "complete fulfilled prophecy" person, because it is the only thing that makes sense and it supports the words of Jesus,

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Perhaps go back and reconsider/reevaluate what the Abomination of Desolation is?

Amen

 

[Pilgrimshope]

The Temple comes down from Heaven that is what you believe, correct?

amen

“The LORD is in his holy temple, The LORD's throne is in heaven: His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭11:4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

but one thing is after the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth …..the new creation has the living temple and not a building where Gods spirit dwells tbat needs to be rebuilt bit rather within our hearts through the lamb Jesus Christ

“And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21:22‬ ‭

Jesus already rebuilt the true temple his body

 

[GaryA]

The rule that only "futurist" view is allowed.

Where did you get that idea? Who told you that? Has someone pressured you into believing it?

Eschatological views are not on the 'heresy' level sufficient to be banned or reprimanded. Deity-of-Jesus is a necessary believe/view for this site; eschatological views are not - as long as they do not somehow cross any actual 'heresy' lines as determined by the site owner/staff. Then, it would no doubt be considered 'heresy' for a non-purely-eschatological reason.

There is a difference between believing that a particular eschatological view is 'heresy' and believing that it is [simply] wrong.

I consider neither Preterism nor Futurism to be heretical - just plain wrong - not biblical truth. I believe both have caused many Christians to be led astray from scriptural truth. But, in the greater picture of the necessity of Christian fellowship - especially in the context of an internet platform like this site - you have to allow for it. And, it should go without saying that eschatology should be discussed in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:40.

I realize that - if you take the word 'heresy' to its finite definition - anything-and-everything that does not align perfectly with scripture may be considered 'heresy'. However, because we are all human - and, can all be wrong about things - there has to be a limit (or, cut-off point) where we allow for others to have opinions different than our own. So then - it might be said that there are different "levels" of 'heresy' to be considered - with only the "highest" level(s) not being allowed to be "violated" without corrective recourse.

I am quite sure that the site owner/staff does not consider eschatological views to be "high enough" on the 'heresy' scale to necessitate ban or reprimand just for expressing or explaining it to others. I am pretty sure that - as long as the discussion is made in an appropriate manner - all is well and good as far as they are concerned (with regard to the operation of the site).

(If I am wrong about any of this, the site owner/staff is more than welcome to correct me on it.)

I am a "complete fulfilled prophecy" person, because it is the only thing that makes sense and it supports the words of Jesus,

I am truly interested in better understanding your view - because, it does not make sense to me - and, I want to know how it is that it does make sense to you. The Historicist view is the only thing that makes sense to me as being supported by scripture. The Preterist and Future views create too many unanswered questions and misalignments to/with scripture. And, I have-been-there-and-done-that with the Future view. I left it long ago (circa 1980 IIRC) - moving to the Historicist view.

What words of Jesus? Can you give me a list of verses?

I understand if you just do not want to discuss your view with others; however, something is seriously wrong if you have somehow been pressured into believing that you are not allowed to express your eschatological view.

Would you consider a PM with me to discuss it?

I am serious about understanding your view better. And - I think you know me well enough by now - I am not trying to get you into any trouble with the site. Nor do you have to be concerned about me being anything-less-than-a-gentleman in my words or actions toward you.

 

[GaryA]

Perhaps go back and reconsider/reevaluate what the Abomination of Desolation is?

Amen

Amen indeed!

Everyone needs to reconsider/reevaluate what the Abomination of Desolation really actually was - when in history it really-actually-and-only happened (once) - and, keep this in mind when interpreting scripture...

 

[GaryA]

Scripture says that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body when He declared that it would be raised in 3 days. And a verse that strikes me as a parallel verse is the one speaking in comparison between Moses and Jesus, the house and the builder of the house. That coupled with the consideration that not even Jesus declared himself God apart from answering, "I AM," it would seem to me that anybody 'declaring himself to be god' would effectively be embodying at least the spirit of the AOD.

I think you missed the point. The issue is - would the Bible call something 'the temple of God' that God did not actually consider to be valid?

Or, are we to assume that the phrase is strictly being used from the perspective of the son of perdition?

 

[GaryA]

Tell us now. What does exactly 2 Thess 2:4 mean. We know what you believe its not, tell us what it is

Well - this happens to be a case of not being able to tell you what it is so much as what it is not. With the exception of the phrase 'the temple of God', the verse as a whole certainly makes sense as fitting into a future-time event. But we know that - the moment "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" (Mark 15:38) - there could no longer be a legitimate 'the temple of God' in the form of a physical building/structure. The only valid answer to this phrase would seem to have to be "in the abstract" somehow and not referring to an actual physical building/structure of any kind.