View Full Version : Preterism and the book of Daniel
On another forum I belong to I asked this about the book of Daniel light in of preterist eschatology.
In Daniel 7 we are told that:
Dan 7:23 ¶ Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom [are] ten kings [that] shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. Dan 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
In that the book of Daniel is a chiastic book (written in chiasim) and that chapter 2 mirrors chapter 7 we know that the fourth kingdom, represented by iron, is Rome. My questions, which are many, are these:
1) If Jesus returned in 70AD, as my preterist friend believes, then when did the ten kingdoms arise out of Rome? 2) Who is the other horn that comes out of the midst of the ten kings that subdues these three kings? When did this happen? Who are these three kings? 3) Why did Rome continue as a nation and continue to subdue the earth long after 70AD? 4) What are the words that this horn spoke against the Most High that came from the midst of the ten horns? 5) What laws and times were changed by this other horn? 6) Who were the saints that this other horn ware out and when did this happen? 7) Why was this other horn given "a time and times and the dividing of time" and what does this time period represent, especially since the siege of Jerusalem began in 66AD?
Anyway, that was the gist of my post and questions for now. I haven't gotten any answers as yet but when I do I'll be sure to share them.
I would like to note that I found this entry from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) interesting in that it confirms an earlier post I made on the subject titled: The Historicist View of Eschatology
"The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism" (http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/antichrist.htm)
"Proponents of Preterism sometimes argue that this position was the original eschatological understanding of the Early Christian church.[1][2], a claim contested by Historicists.[3] One Preterist has been said to hold that the view was developed in the 17th century,[4] a view also held by many non-Preterists.[5][6][7]
There has historically been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation.[8][9] Preterist Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's Preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[10] and Preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[11]
Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the Preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[12] Among Protestants it was first accepted by Hugo Grotius, [13][14] a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[15] His first attempt to do this was entitled ‘Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist’ (1640), in which he attempted to argue that the texts relating to Antichrist had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. This was not well received by Protestants,[16] but Grotius was undeterred and in his next work ‘Commentaries On The New Testament' (1641-1650), he expanded his Preterist views to include the Olivet prophecy and Revelation.
Preterism still struggled to gain credibility within other Protestant countries, especially England.[17] The English commentator Thomas Hayne claimed that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century (‘Christs Kingdom on Earth’, 1645), and Joseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel’s prophecies (‘The Revelation Unrevealed’, 1650), but neither of them applied their Preterist views to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the Englishman Henry Hammond. Hammond sympathized with Grotius’ desire for unity among Christians, and found his Preterist exposition useful to this end.[18] Hammond wrote his own Preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though he gives pride of place to Grotius.[19] Hammond was Grotius’ only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Grotius’ interpretation of Revelation was overwhelmingly rejected by Protestants and gained no ground for at least 100 years.[20][21][22]"
So far this is the only response I have received an article from Dr. David R. Reagan:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Solo1307/Preterism-70ad.gif
Dr. David R. Reagan
Preterism is a system for the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its strange name comes from a Latin word meaning past tense. The word is appropriate because this view holds that either all or most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the First Century!
The Origin of the Viewpoint
The view was developed in the 17th Century by a Jesuit priest named Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613). His purpose was to defend the Catholic Church against the attacks of the Reformers. He denied the Reformers' charge that the book of Revelation was a prophecy about the apostasy of the Roman Church. Instead, he argued that the book was a prophecy about the Church's struggles during its early years. Chapters 4 through 11 were interpreted as depicting the Church's fight against Judaism, culminating in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Chapters 12 through 19 were viewed as the Church's struggle against paganism, ending with the fall of Rome in 476. Chapters 20 through 22 were interpreted to be a symbolic description of the glories of papal Rome. Using this clever approach, Alcazar was able to limit the range of Revelation's prophecies to the first 500 years of the Christian Era.
Alcazar was a mild Preterist. A more radical form of Preterism gained popularity in the latter part of the 20th Century and is today the most widely held version of this interpretive approach. It sees nearly all the prophecies of Revelation as fulfilled in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem, except for the resurrection of believers and the Second Coming of Jesus. It assigns the Tribulation to the fall of Israel, the great apostasy to the First Century Church, and the last days to the period between Jesus' ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem. The beast is viewed as a symbol of Nero in particular and the Roman Empire in general. The False Prophet is equated with the leadership of apostate Israel. Needless to say, many of the spokesmen for this viewpoint are anti-Semitic.
There is a more extreme form of Preterism whose advocates consider themselves to be "consistent Preterists." They take the position that all so-called "end time prophecy" was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. -- including the Second Coming and the resurrection of believers! They do not look forward to any future resurrection or any end of history. They believe we are currently living in the eternal state.
The Cornerstone of the Viewpoint
The cornerstone of the Preterist position is a belief that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This belief flies in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.
The internal evidence of the book regarding the Roman Empire and the external testimony of the Church Fathers both point to a date of authorship around 95 A.D., 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The type of widespread Roman persecution of the Church that is pictured in Revelation did not occur until the reign of Domitian (81 - 96 A.D.). The persecutions of Nero were limited to the area of Rome. One of the Church Fathers, Iranaeus (c. 130 - c. 202), wrote that the book of Revelation was authored by the apostle John "toward the end of Domitian's reign." Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp (c. 70 - c. 155 A.D.) who, in turn, had been discipled directly by John himself.
References to the Temple
One of the arguments for an earlier date is based on a reference to the Temple in Revelation 11:1-2. John is told to measure the Temple, which in this case seems to be a command to assess the Temple's spiritual condition. This reference to the Temple, it is argued, must mean that the book was written before the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
But this argument ignores the fact that the Scriptures teach there are going to be two future Temples, one during the Tribulation which the Antichrist will desecrate (Daniel 9:27 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), and another during the Millennium which Jesus Christ will consecrate (Ezekiel 40-46).
The Temple mentioned in Revelation 11 must be the Tribulation Temple since the passage says it will be trampled down by the Gentiles for 42 months (the last half of the Tribulation). It also says this will be immediately preceded by the testimony of the two witnesses for 1,260 days (the first half of the Tribulation).
An Eclectic Observation
I can agree with the Preterists when they insist that the book of Revelation contained a message of encouragement to First Century Christians, assuring them that the Church would ultimately triumph over the Roman Empire. I can also relate to the Reformation Historicists when they argue that the prophecies of Revelation relate to the corruption of the Roman Church and its persecution of true believers.
In other words, I believe the book of Revelation has always had a continuing relevance as a source of encouragement to suffering Christians throughout the history of the Church. It has always served as a reminder that the Church will ultimately triumph over all its oppressors.
That's why I can even agree with the liberal, Idealist viewpoint when it argues that the ultimate message of the book is that good will triumph over evil. How can anyone argue with that conclusion when the book clearly teaches that Satan will be crushed and Jesus will emerge totally triumphant?
But I also believe in the Futurist view that most of the book of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled and is to be fulfilled in its plain sense meaning. In other words, I believe there's going to be a real Antichrist and not just a symbolic Antichrist. Yes, there have been symbolic antichrists in the past, but there is going to be a fulfillment in a literal Antichrist in the future. I also believe the Tribulation, Millennium and Eternal State are all yet future.
Relating the Views to Each Other
As I look at these four systems of interpretation (Historicist, Preterist, Idealist, and Futurist) and consider their relationship to each other, I am reminded of how an overhead projector works. You can put a transparency on the projector that shows the land of Israel in the time of Joshua. Then you can lay on top of that transparency another one that shows the boundaries of the land at the time of Jesus. Another overlay could show the land's boundaries during the time of the Crusaders. A final overlay could outline the boundaries as they exist today. Each transparency contains an element of truth about the land. The light shines through all the transparencies to give you the full picture, showing you how the boundaries have changed over the years.
I think that's the way these schools of interpretation relate to each other. Each one of the four contains an element of truth. The problem comes when you accept only one and reject all the others. We must never forget that the book of Revelation contained a very relevant message to First Century Christians. It assured them of their ultimate victory over the Roman Empire. We must also remember that the book has been given relevant application to the struggles of the Church throughout history.
Looking to the Future
But we must also keep in mind that the Futurist view is correct when it says that the ultimate fulfillment of the book's prophecies is yet future.
There really is going to be a seven year period of Tribulation. A Jewish temple is going to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. A real person empowered by Satan will march into that temple, blaspheme God, and declare himself to be a god. This Antichrist will become the scourge of the earth. He will attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. Just as he appears to be on the verge of victory in accomplishing this satanic goal, the Lord Jesus will break from the heavens with all His holy ones, returning to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem from which He ascended into Heaven. The Lord will crush the Antichrist and inaugurate the greatest kingdom the world has ever known. The earth will be flooded with peace, righteousness and justice -- as the waters cover the sea.
TheForgiven
11-05-2009, 04:32 PM
Greetings RND. I'm glad that you elected to start a thread on Daniel. Fortunately, there are plenty of threads on here that show our discussions of the subject in question.
Here is a website that should answer all of your questions. What this person presents is nearly the same arguments I'd present.
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html
The 11th horn is a description of Emperor Vespasian, who subdued three kings prior to his ascension to power. The three who were subdued were Golbo, Otho, and Vitelius....forgive the spelling.
It was Vespasian who were able to over-power the Saints, and to defeat them.
Rome was permitted to exist after 70AD, but only for a time. It would be Christ who overcomes the Roman Empire by advancing His Kingdom upon the Roman world. Since the Jews were the first to receive the Gospel, it was only right that they be the first to be judged. The Christians all throughout the Roman dominated earth would not be left untouched; for they too suffered horrors from the declining Roman government. By the end of the first century, Rome had become weakened through declining profits lost from vanishing participants of the temple markets. Pliny the Younger writes a letter to Emperor Trajan asking what to do about their problem with declining temple members; most were converting over to the sect called Christianity. Trajan's response was not to waste money and time hunting down the Christians, but if a Christian should face trial, then he/she was to be judged according to Roman law. Of course, we know from history what happened to most of them; they were tortured beyond belief, and eventually executed. Some were executed in what was once called "The Circus". This was the infamous execution of Christians by releasing wild untamed animals upon them, or for sport/fun by the Galdiators, and/or Roman soldiers; this took place in the Roman Arena.
There's much more to discuss, but please read the sight, and tell me what topic you wish to discuss. But please keep it limited to one discussion at a time. Answering too many questions ends up in very long posts, which most do not read.
God bless, and may the Lord bless you.
Joe
Greetings RND. I'm glad that you elected to start a thread on Daniel. Fortunately, there are plenty of threads on here that show our discussions of the subject in question.
Here is a website that should answer all of your questions. What this person presents is nearly the same arguments I'd present.
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html
The 11th horn is a description of Emperor Vespasian, who subdued three kings prior to his ascension to power. The three who were subdued were Golbo, Otho, and Vitelius....forgive the spelling.
It was Vespasian who were able to over-power the Saints, and to defeat them.
Rome was permitted to exist after 70AD, but only for a time. It would be Christ who overcomes the Roman Empire by advancing His Kingdom upon the Roman world. Since the Jews were the first to receive the Gospel, it was only right that they be the first to be judged. The Christians all throughout the Roman dominated earth would not be left untouched; for they too suffered horrors from the declining Roman government. By the end of the first century, Rome had become weakened through declining profits lost from vanishing participants of the temple markets. Pliny the Younger writes a letter to Emperor Trajan asking what to do about their problem with declining temple members; most were converting over to the sect called Christianity. Trajan's response was not to waste money and time hunting down the Christians, but if a Christian should face trial, then he/she was to be judged according to Roman law. Of course, we know from history what happened to most of them; they were tortured beyond belief, and eventually executed. Some were executed in what was once called "The Circus". This was the infamous execution of Christians by releasing wild untamed animals upon them, or for sport/fun by the Galdiators, and/or Roman soldiers; this took place in the Roman Arena.
There's much more to discuss, but please read the sight, and tell me what topic you wish to discuss. But please keep it limited to one discussion at a time. Answering too many questions ends up in very long posts, which most do not read.
God bless, and may the Lord bless you.
Joe I'm actually familiar with that site. I was hoping that these questions could be answered here.
1) If Jesus returned in 70AD, as my preterist friend believes, then when did the ten kingdoms arise out of Rome? 2) Who is the other horn that comes out of the midst of the ten kings that subdues these three kings? When did this happen? Who are these three kings? 3) Why did Rome continue as a nation and continue to subdue the earth long after 70AD? 4) What are the words that this horn spoke against the Most High that came from the midst of the ten horns? 5) What laws and times were changed by this other horn? 6) Who were the saints that this other horn ware out and when did this happen? 7) Why was this other horn given "a time and times and the dividing of time" and what does this time period represent, especially since the siege of Jerusalem began in 66AD?
Richard Amiel McGough
11-05-2009, 05:45 PM
Hey there RND!
Thanks for posting this. I've been meaning to review some of Reagan's articles.
So far this is the only response I have received an article from Dr. David R. Reagan:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Solo1307/Preterism-70ad.gif
I've always enjoyed that cartoon!
Dr. David R. Reagan
Preterism is a system for the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its strange name comes from a Latin word meaning past tense. The word is appropriate because this view holds that either all or most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the First Century!
This statement is inaccurate. Preterism is a system for interpreting the integrated prophetic complex of the entire Bible. It is centered primarily on Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse but it includes everything from Genesis to Revelation.
But Reagan was correct that preterism teaches that "all or most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century."
The False Prophet is equated with the leadership of apostate Israel. Needless to say, many of the spokesmen for this viewpoint are anti-Semitic.
It is sad to see Reagan descend into the gross fallacy of ad hominum in the third paragraph of his article. It degrades his argument significantly.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is filled with judgments against apostate Jews. Here is what the Lord Jesus Christ said to the apostates that were ultimately judged in 70 AD:
Matthew 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
It appears that Dr. Reagan is grossly ignorant of the most basic elements of the Holy Bible - or perhaps he believes that Jesus was anti-Semitic? :lmbo:
The Cornerstone of the Viewpoint
The cornerstone of the Preterist position is a belief that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This belief flies in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.
This line of attack is a favorite amongst futurists because they imagine that they can refute the preterist position without actually addressing what the Bible really says. It is a fundamental and inexcusable error for anyone presenting themselves as a "Bible teacher." The date of Revelation is not the "cornerstone" of preterism. The Cornerstone of Preterism is the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that the plain text says the prophecies would be fulfilled in the first century. Futurists like Reagan dispute the plain reading and say it does not mean what it "seems" to mean. That's fine. Perhaps they are correct. But they can not deny that the plain reading indicates the coming of Christ in the first century unless they are willing to remove themselves from all rational discourse.
The internal evidence of the book regarding the Roman Empire and the external testimony of the Church Fathers both point to a date of authorship around 95 A.D., 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Granted that the imagery of Rev 17-18 can be interpreted as applying to the Roman empire, but that fails for any Bible believer because the Roman empire did not suffer the destruction predicted for Mystery Babylon. And neither does the interpretation of the Great Harlot as Rome make an BIBLICAL sense. The story of the Bible was centered on Jerusalem, not Rome.
As for the date of Revelation, there NO non-speculative internal evidence that indicates a late date. On the contrary, the internal evidence indicates a pre-70 AD date. See Redating the New Testament.
References to the Temple
One of the arguments for an earlier date is based on a reference to the Temple in Revelation 11:1-2. John is told to measure the Temple, which in this case seems to be a command to assess the Temple's spiritual condition. This reference to the Temple, it is argued, must mean that the book was written before the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
But this argument ignores the fact that the Scriptures teach there are going to be two future Temples, one during the Tribulation which the Antichrist will desecrate (Daniel 9:27 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), and another during the Millennium which Jesus Christ will consecrate (Ezekiel 40-46).
This exhibits how far Reagan has departed from Scripture. The Bible teaches NOTHING about a "future temple." Not one word. I have been meaning to write a refutation of Reagan's article on the future temple for some time. Perhaps now is that time. In that article, Reagan says this in his article The Third Temple, When will it be built? (http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_jews10.php):
The Bible clearly teaches that a new temple — which will be called The Third Temple — will be built in the future. The First Temple was the one that Solomon built and which was destroyed in 586 BC. The Second Temple (516 BC to 70 AD) was built after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. The platform on which it sat was greatly expanded and beautified by King Herod, as was the temple itself, but since the sacrifices were never stopped during this renovation and expansion, the new temple was still considered to be The Second Temple.
The Third Temple will exist during the Great Tribulation. Daniel refers to this temple when he says that "the prince who is to come" (the Antichrist) will enter it and stop the sacrifices in the middle of the Tribulation (Daniel 9:27). The Apostle Paul mentions it when he declares that the "man of lawlessness" will profane the temple by entering it and declaring himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). The Third Temple is also mentioned in the book of Revelation when John is told to measure it — a symbolic way of telling him to assess its spiritual condition (Revelation 11:1-2).
It is amazing how much speculation is passed off as something that is "clearly taught" in the Bible. Reagan's argument is pure speculation. Daniel 9:27 is speaking about the Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. It says nothing about a 2000+ year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks which MUST be invented and inserted into Scripture in order for Reagan's claim to be true. Likewise, the Temple was still standing at the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, so there is no BIBLICAL evidence that is was referring to an imaginary third temple that would be built two thousand years in the future. And there is nothing in Rev 11 that suggests a future temple. So not one of Reagan's arguments stands up to scrutiny, and his statement that the Bible "clearly teaches" there will be a third temple is exposed as utterly without merit.
The Temple mentioned in Revelation 11 must be the Tribulation Temple since the passage says it will be trampled down by the Gentiles for 42 months (the last half of the Tribulation). It also says this will be immediately preceded by the testimony of the two witnesses for 1,260 days (the first half of the Tribulation).
Here Reagan has introduced the fallacy of "Petitio Principii" (Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)). He assumes the point he claims to be proving. He began by assuming preterism is false when he asserts that the Tribulation is future, and then pretends to prove that preterism is false because there must be a future temple in the future tribulation!
An Eclectic Observation
I can agree with the Preterists when they insist that the book of Revelation contained a message of encouragement to First Century Christians, assuring them that the Church would ultimately triumph over the Roman Empire. I can also relate to the Reformation Historicists when they argue that the prophecies of Revelation relate to the corruption of the Roman Church and its persecution of true believers.
In other words, I believe the book of Revelation has always had a continuing relevance as a source of encouragement to suffering Christians throughout the history of the Church. It has always served as a reminder that the Church will ultimately triumph over all its oppressors.
That's why I can even agree with the liberal, Idealist viewpoint when it argues that the ultimate message of the book is that good will triumph over evil. How can anyone argue with that conclusion when the book clearly teaches that Satan will be crushed and Jesus will emerge totally triumphant?
That's good. I can agree (in part) with all those view too. Revelation was written by the infinite Wisdom of Almighty God and contains an infinite depth of wisdom and many multi-faceted applications.
But I also believe in the Futurist view that most of the book of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled and is to be fulfilled in its plain sense meaning. In other words, I believe there's going to be a real Antichrist and not just a symbolic Antichrist. Yes, there have been symbolic antichrists in the past, but there is going to be a fulfillment in a literal Antichrist in the future. I also believe the Tribulation, Millennium and Eternal State are all yet future.
Well there you have it. Reagan does not understand the Biblical definition of "Antichrist." This is perhaps the most widespread of all biblical fallacies.
As for his assertion that it "is to be fulfilled in its plain sense meaning" - I guess we better keep an eye out for the Great Red Dragon and the Jesus with a literal sword sticking out of his mouth.
I think your response here Richard is illustrative of why both the preterist and futurist eschatological views are sorely lacking.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-05-2009, 07:15 PM
I think your response here Richard is illustrative of why both the preterist and futurist eschatological views are sorely lacking.
I'd be delighted to know the evidence that supports your conclusion, if there is any. (Don't bother with the futurism - I already know why that system is false.)
I'd be delighted to know the evidence that supports your conclusion, if there is any. (Don't bother with the futurism - I already know why that system is false.) Because we know that both the preterist and futurist view were popularized by the RCC and the Jesuits.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-06-2009, 01:18 PM
Because we know that both the preterist and futurist view were popularized by the RCC and the Jesuits.
Your statement is a text-book example of the Genetic Fallacy and is therefore utterly irrelevant to the question of the truth or falsehood of preterism.
You failed to understand my question. You made an empty and unsupported assertion that "your response here Richard is illustrative of why both the preterist and futurist eschatological views are sorely lacking." I wanted to know if you had any evidence to back up that claim or if it was merely yet another empty bluster. I wanted to know if you had any evidence that could refute anything I had written. Unfortunately, all you did was respond with a common logical fallacy. So at this stage, everything I wrote above remains unrefuted.
Your statement is a text-book example of the Genetic Fallacy and is therefore utterly irrelevant to the question of the truth or falsehood of preterism. Modern preterism was indeed and invention of Rome. You'll either have to accept or reject that notion. The bottom line is that preterism is false.
You failed to understand my question. You made an empty and unsupported assertion that "your response here Richard is illustrative of why both the preterist and futurist eschatological views are sorely lacking." I wanted to know if you had any evidence to back up that claim or if it was merely yet another empty bluster. Richard, I have already provided a number of references that confirm that preterism was in fact invented by the Jesuits during the Reformation.
I wanted to know if you had any evidence that could refute anything I had written. Already posted.
Unfortunately, all you did was respond with a common logical fallacy. So at this stage, everything I wrote above remains unrefuted. What you wrote came after I posted my references. You haven't said anything about those references so then my references remain unrefuted.
The papacy suffered a major setback through the Reformation. The help of the monastic orders was sought, but they were so decadent that they had lost the respect of the people. The Dominicans and Franciscans, peddling relics and indulgences, had become the butt of ridicule and mockery.
At this crisis Loyola and his companions offered their services, to go wherever the pope should designate, as preachers, missionaries, teachers, counselors, and reformers. A new order was created, authorized in 1540, which infused a new spirit and spread rapidly in Europe. Like a wounded giant, Romanism arose in desperation to recover her lost prestige and shrunken territory.
Their ambitious goal was to become the universal and principal order of the Roman church. Though they took the name Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the Protestants termed them Jesuwider (against Jesus).
Their influence was immediately felt. They grew more powerful and comprehensive year by year, employing science, art, culture, politics, foreign missions, trades and industry. They began to preach, as Protestants were accustomed to do, in the streets and marts, coming to be among the most eloquent preachers of the age. The churches were too small to accommodate the multitudes that flocked to hear them. At Rome, they were scattered throughout the various churches. Then they began to spread throughout Italy, Portugal, Germany, and especially Austria and Bavaria. They hemmed in the Protestant movement on all sides. Some cities, such as Ingolstadt and Cologne, opened their doors; others opposed them.
In 1558 Lainez was elected second general of the order. At the Council of Trent he successfully exerted his power and skill in behalf of papal supremacy. The Jesuits became entrenched in universities throughout various countries. They were among the best teachers in the land. Even Protestants began to send their children to them because of the scholastic progress they could make.
The conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism was basic and irreconcilable. The Romanist believed in the authority of the church; the Protestant, in that of the Bible. The one yielded his conscience to the priest; the other to God alone. The Romanist believed in the pope as the visible representative of Christ on earth; the Protestant looked, instead, upon the pope as Antichrist. The one regarded the church—meaning the hierarchy—as the depository of all spiritual truth; the other looked upon the clergy as ministers of the church, not as the church itself. The Romanist, satisfied with the teaching of the church, was content to leave the Bible to the learned; the Protestant, on the other hand, held that it was to be diligently and reverently studied, by all, as the word of God. The one dreaded its spread as tending to heresy; the other multiplied translations as the assurance of soundness, and sought to introduce them to every household. Between the time of Luther’s appeal to a general council, in 1518, and the convening of the Council of Trent in 1545, Bibles in German, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and English (Tyndale’s New Testament and Coverdale’s complete Bible) had been published, and the Reformation established in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and England.
The two systems stood forth in absolute and irreconcilable opposition at the Council of Trent, where the council expressly condemned what the Reformation taught.
The Council of Trent—beginning in 1545 under Paul III and ending in 1563 under Pius IV—crystallized its actions into decrees that became permanent law of the Catholic church. Reformation truths were there rejected and stigmatized as pestilential heresy. In one sense Trent became the culmination of the Counter-Reformation. It was Rome’s definitive answer to the Reformation.
The molding Jesuit influence was attested to by the fact that the two noted Jesuits, Salmeron and Lainez, who served as the pope’s theologians, and who had been enjoined by Loyola to resist all innovation in doctrine, were invited to preach during the council. They soon ingratiated themselves into the good will of the delegates. And by their unusual knowledge of the fathers, the conclusions of scholastic philosophy, and of Catholic doctrine, they came to wield a preponderant influence in the council.
Jesuits Introduce Futurist Counterinterpretation
For some time following the launching of the Reformation, Roman Catholic leadership carefully avoided exposition of the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse. They seemed unable to parry the force of the incriminating Protestant applications of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, which were undermining the very foundations of the Catholic position. Upon the first outbreak of Luther's antipapal protest two Catholic doctors, Prierias and Eck, in the true spirit of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), had boldly reasserted the Lateran theory and declared the papal dominion to be Daniel's fifth monarchy, or reign of the saints, and identified the existing Roman church with the New Jerusalem.
But the reformers, with declarations by pen and voice, forcefully stated that the Papacy was the specified Antichrist of prophecy. The symbols of Daniel, Paul, and John were applied with tremendous effect. Hundreds of books and tracts impressed their contention upon the consciousness of Europe. Indeed it gained so great a hold upon the minds of men that Rome, in alarm, saw that she must successfully counteract this identification of Antichrist with the Papacy, or lose the battle. The Jesuits were summoned to aid in the extremity, and cleverly provided the very method needed both for defense and for attack.
From the ranks of the Jesuits two stalwarts arose, determined to lift the stigma from the Papacy by locating Antichrist at some point where he could not be applied to the Roman church. It was clearly a crisis of major proportions.
Two Conflicting Alternatives Brought Forth
Rome’s answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Salamanca, Spain, and Bellarmine, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her futurist interpretation. Almost simultaneously Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, advanced the conflicting preterist interpretation. These were designed to meet and overwhelm the Historical interpretation of the Protestants. Though mutually exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome. The one (preterism) accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of papal Rome's career. The other (futurism) achieved it by making it overleap the immense era of papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still distant future, just before the great consummation. It is consequently often called the gap theory.
According to the Protestants, the vision of Babylon and the supporting Beast is divinely interpreted in chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. It was on this that the Reformers commonly rested their case—the apostate woman, the Roman church; the city, seven-hilled Rome; the many waters, the many peoples; the Beast, the fourth, or Roman beast of Daniel; the sixth head, the Caesars; and the seventh, the popes.
Roman Catholics as well as Protestants agree as to the origin of these interpretations. The Roman Catholic writer G.S. Hitchcock says:
* 'The Futurist School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian dispensation.
* 'The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D.' (G.S. Hitchcock, The Beasts and the Little Horn, p. 7.)
Similarly, Dean Henry Alford (Protestant), in the "Prolegomena" to his Greek Testament, declares:
* 'The founder of this system [Futurist] in modern times…appears to have been the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580." (Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 2, part 2, p. 351 [bottom numbering].)
* 'The Praeterist view found no favour, and was hardly so much as thought of , in the times of primitive Christianity. … The View is said to have been first promulgated in anything like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar … in 1614.' (Ibid, pp. 348, 349 [bottom numbering].)
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591).
About 1590 Ribera published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the Protestant application of Antichrist to the Church of Rome. Ribera’s death at fifty-four halted the preparation of further commentaries. Those that were printed passed through several revised editions—at Salamanca about 1590, Lyons and Antwerp in 1593, Douay in 1612, and Antwerp in 1603 and 1623.
Since its inception his basic thesis has been virtually unchanged. He assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half year’s reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world—all in this brief space of three and one half years!
* Places Antichrist’s coming at the close of the seals
* Places trumpets under the seventh seal
* Death of the witness is literal time
* Antichrist's persecutions last three and one half years
* Judgements upon Rome for ultimate apostasy—in Revelation 17 Ribera admits the woman to be not only pagan Rome but also Rome Christian after a future falling away from the pope. (Francisco Ribera, Sacram Beati Ioannis … Apocalypsin Commentarij, chap. 14, pp. 282, 283).
* Repudiates Augustinian earthly millennium
* Antichrist’s reign counted by literal days
* Babylon is Rome past and future, not present
Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), focused his attack on the year-day principle.
* Capitalized on Luther’s hesitation over Apocalypse
* Main assault centered on year-day application
* Assigns symbols to past and future, thereby eliminating application to the long papal ascendancy of the Middle Ages.
* Exploits variations on time of the Antichrist
The heart of Bellarmine’s thesis was both clever and plausible, though deceptive. (1) Antichrist is an individual Jew, and not an apostate Christian system. (2) Therefore the length of his exploits must harmonize with the life period of one man—three and one half literal years, and not 1260 years.
Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613), Spanish Jesuit of Seville.
* Made the seals the early expansion of apostolic Christianity
* God’s longsuffering, warnings, and punishments were allotted to the Jews
* The trumpets were judgments on fallen Judaism
* The two witnesses—the doctrine and holy lives of the Christians
* After the persecutions Christianity would arise with new glory and convert many Jews
* Revelation was the apostolic church, bringing forth the Roman church
* The first beast of Revelation 13 declared to be the persecuting arrogance of pagan Rome—the second beast, its carnal wisdom
* Revelation 17, the mystical meaning of idolatrous ancient Rome
* Revelation 18, its conversion to the Catholic faith
Richard Amiel McGough
11-06-2009, 04:25 PM
RND,
When you post a page from another website, please cite the source and put a link to the original page. I did a google search and found the article here:
http://www.gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm
Is this where you got it?
RND,
When you post a page from another website, please cite the source and put a link to the original page. I did a google search and found the article here:
http://www.gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm
Is this where you got it? Yes, This is where I got it. My bad, I hadn't realized I did source it.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-06-2009, 05:24 PM
Yes, This is where I got it. My bad, I hadn't realized I did source it.
No worries. It's a good reminder for everyone.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-06-2009, 06:16 PM
A quick review of the article from http://www.gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm (http://www.gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm) proves only one thing - it's totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not preterism is the Biblical truth. The reason is simple: The article accurately describes two facts:
1) The Reformers wrote historicist stuff to attack the RCC
2) The RCC wrote preterist and futurist stuff to defend itself.
Big deal. There is nothing in those facts that says a word about which eschatological system is Biblically correct. To say otherwise only exposes the protagonist's gross ignorance of the meaning of the Genetic Fallacy, and why it is called a logical fallacy.
TheForgiven
11-06-2009, 06:36 PM
I'd be delighted to know the evidence that supports your conclusion, if there is any. (Don't bother with the futurism - I already know why that system is false.)
Because we know that both the preterist and futurist view were popularized by the RCC and the Jesuits.
Reply With Quote
:lol: Oh my, I once believed that garbage about the Jesuit conspiracy. Okay, if I'm not mistaken, the Jesuit conspiracy was supposedly dreamed up by the RCC in order to take the heat away from the Pope, as he was being accused by the Heuganauts (German Protestants) of being the Anti-Christ, or at least the system being used to eventually bring about the Anti-Christ.
I'd suggest you research the writings of the early fathers. Not all of them agreed, and some of them even changes opinions. St. Eusebius, although not very popular among most Christians, believed in what we could now call Partial Preterism. Although his eschatology was not called Preterism, his writings certainly held to the view.
He himself taught in Book VIII chapter 2 that all of Daniel's Seventy Sevens are fulfilled. His conclusions are different from ours (Preterist) is that he seems to interpret "the ruler being cut off" as the time frame of Herod. Here's a link if you're interesting in reading his writings:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.html
Now both the Historicist's, and the Futurist's believe in what some of the early fathers taught as Chilliasm. Let's see what Eusebius states regarding the father of Chilliasm (my opinion) Papias:
"This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)
Now go figure! :lol: A 3rd century church father calling Papias pretty much a block head. Obviously that wasn't the words he used, but in a nut shell, that's pretty much what Eusebius thought of Papias's rather strange teaching, which had absolutely NO historical support, nor Apostolic support. Instead, Papias claimed that this teachings were passed down from the Apostles. Funny how the Apostles never recorded such an event except in the figurative book called "Revelation".
Now I do not believe everything Eusebius taught. Like many of the other fathers, they were certainly not without error.
My point is simply this. The Jesuit conspiracy WAS NO conspiracy. All the Jesuits did was simply rehash eschatology debates that existed even in the 2nd century. Thus, I find it quite humorous that the Historicist beholders act as though they were the innocent, and unbroken eschatology that's been preserved within their line of thinking. As a matter of fact, the Historicist's teaching didn't even exist in the early church. For one, there was no RCC for them to point the finger at. Not even Iranaeus viewed of such an eschatology.
If there's one thing that is certain, no form of eschatology, be it Futurist, Historicist's, or even Preterist, can cling to an early church father as their sole support; especially not the so called Jesuit conspiracy. That is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned, and is obviously not true. They did not invent Futuristism, or Preterism; they merely introduced what already existed.
Now when you're ready to debate Daniel, let us begin.
Joe
Richard Amiel McGough
11-06-2009, 07:03 PM
:lol: Oh my, I once believed that garbage about the Jesuit conspiracy. Okay, if I'm not mistaken, the Jesuit conspiracy was supposedly dreamed up by the RCC in order to take the heat away from the Pope, as he was being accused by the Heuganauts (German Protestants) of being the Anti-Christ, or at least the system being used to eventually bring about the Anti-Christ.
I'd suggest you research the writings of the early fathers. Not all of them agreed, and some of them even changes opinions. St. Eusebius, although not very popular among most Christians, believed in what we could now call Partial Preterism. Although his eschatology was not called Preterism, his writings certainly held to the view.
He himself taught in Book VIII chapter 2 that all of Daniel's Seventy Sevens are fulfilled. His conclusions are different from ours (Preterist) is that he seems to interpret "the ruler being cut off" as the time frame of Herod. Here's a link if you're interesting in reading his writings:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.html
Now both the Historicist's, and the Futurist's believe in what some of the early fathers taught as Chilliasm. Let's see what Eusebius states regarding the father of Chilliasm (my opinion) Papias:
"This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)
Now go figure! :lol: A 3rd century church father calling Papias pretty much a block head. Obviously that wasn't the words he used, but in a nut shell, that's pretty much what Eusebius thought of Papias's rather strange teaching, which had absolutely NO historical support, nor Apostolic support. Instead, Papias claimed that this teachings were passed down from the Apostles. Funny how the Apostles never recorded such an event except in the figurative book called "Revelation".
Now I do not believe everything Eusebius taught. Like many of the other fathers, they were certainly not without error.
My point is simply this. The Jesuit conspiracy WAS NO conspiracy. All the Jesuits did was simply rehash eschatology debates that existed even in the 2nd century. Thus, I find it quite humorous that the Historicist beholders act as though they were the innocent, and unbroken eschatology that's been preserved within their line of thinking. As a matter of fact, the Historicist's teaching didn't even exist in the early church. For one, there was no RCC for them to point the finger at. Not even Iranaeus viewed of such an eschatology.
If there's one thing that is certain, no form of eschatology, be it Futurist, Historicist's, or even Preterist, can cling to an early church father as their sole support; especially not the so called Jesuit conspiracy. That is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned, and is obviously not true. They did not invent Futuristism, or Preterism; they merely introduced what already existed.
Now when you're ready to debate Daniel, let us begin.
Joe
Wow! Excellent post Joe. Thanks!
:signthankspin:
You made a most excellent point - it is a total cop-out when folks rely on the opinions of men just because they happened to live a long time ago. We have one authority, it is the BIBLE.
Here's a link to the precise section of Eusebius comments on Papius:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
11-06-2009, 08:40 PM
I found this old post (http://biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=3792#post3792) from 11/26/2007 produced by our diligent brother Joe (TheForgiven) in which he explained the error of the Jesuit conspiracy theory of preterism. It is definitely worth repeating:
Hello friend.
Ah, the Jesuit conspiracy. :pop2: I used to believe that after reading the same Internet article a few years ago. But after reading the documents of the Early Church Father's, you will find that this Jesuit conspiracy is false.
PRETERISM
The Jesuit Priest who supposedly invented the Full Preterist doctrine is a lie. Why? Because there are numerous early church father writings that spoke of Matthew 24's fulfillment. St. Eusebius had a belief similar to the Preterist teaching, although he seemed to disbelieve that their exists a hell, at least that's what I've been told. However, I haven't studied his numerous writings that much yet because they are a bit long. St. Eusebius was an early church father in the 3rd century who believed that Christ did come in 70AD proving this through the signs Josephus spoke about. His eschatology seems to fit more with the Partial Preterist. The Jesuit conspiracy supposedly came about after the 13th or 15th century; somewhere around that time frame.
FUTURISM
Supposedly another Jesuit Priest developed the Futurist theory. Again, there are numerous early Church writings of particular fathers who did believe that Jerusalem would be rebuilt, and that Christ would rule Jerusalem from there for a 1000 years. It's my opinion that these were Jews who argued with Roman and Greek Christians who started this teaching; a teaching which IMO stemmed from the writings of Enoch. Papias and Barnabus both quote scriptures NOT found in the Bible, but are located on the writings of Enoch. The idea of Futurism existed even with Iranaeus of the 2nd century, who also believed in a future 1000 year Jerusalem....physical Jerusalem. However, he believed that most of Daniel's vision was fulfilled, but the feet with 10 iron toes and clay was occurring in his day. He then says, "Let us first await the dividing of the Kingdom (Rome) into 10...." indicating that he expected Revelation to be fulfilled during his life time.
The RCC's primary belief is a mixture of Preterism, while others are Historicism. It depends on which perish we're dealing with. For the most part, there are many RCC Preterist who believe that Matthew 24 was fulfilled. However, they believe THEY are the 1000 year Kingdom of Christ, and that an AC will come in the future to claim the Papacy. Even though they accept that Nero Caesar is John's 666 Beast, they believe he will come again.
The Greek Orthodox Church doesn't seem to have any solidity in their belief. Based on what I can gather, they seem to be a mixture of Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism. They believe in the "Kingdom Now" understanding, that the Church is the Kingdom of Christ. However, they too believe that Jerusalem will rebuild a temple and that an AC will rule as the false Christ from Jerusalem. They also view the "Trampling of the Gentiles" as the Muslim occupation. But like the RCC, opinions and beliefs vary. For the most part, they view Revelation much like the Old Testament, where only pockets of scripture are future, while using past events to tell a story. By their understanding, they view Islam as the present day threat, and according to a Greek Father many centuries ago, he predicted the rise and fall of the Muslim Empire (Ottoman). I was verbally told that Islam would eventually be destroyed around the year 2040. However, I object to any mode of prophesy after the 1st century.
The RCC used the Jesuit conspiracy to remove claims that the Pope was the AC. The Heuganauts (Martin Luther camp) believed that the Pope was the AC; the same belief seemed to have spread among Greek Orthodox Churches. In the same way, the RCC accused the Heuganauts as being pawns of the devil. They even challenged the Protestants to drive out a demon which supposedly possessed a Nun. The Protests failed, while the Bishop was successful after three days. To fight off the AC accusation, the RCC developed the Jesuit conspiracy in order to take the pressure away from them. And no doubt, the Spanish Inquisition, combined with the murderous crusades by the RCC (Spain and England) certainly made it appear that the RCC was the Beast. This error seems to have been passed down to the present day 7th day Adventist. They view the RCC as the Beast of Revelation.
The only belief which fits the scriptures logically and consistently is Preterism. Without the understanding of Matthew 24 being fulfilled, all eschatology is throne to the ground. Historicists and Futurists make so many errors in their beliefs, that taking any of them serious is almost impossible; at least to those in their right mind. Futurist are perhaps the worse of the bunch. History has certainly proved the falsehood of the Futurist eschatology, with centuries of failed predictions. Historicists have an appearance of fulfillments, but quite frankly, their eschatology is not that different from the Futurist EXCEPT in the literal vs. Figurative understanding. They tend to view the entire book of Revelation as history spanning the entire Christian age. This cannot be because the Christian age doesn't truly begin to rule in power until the 1000 years begin, IMO.
Do not believe the fabricated Jesuit conspiracy theory. It's all a lie to give the RCC some leverage, again depending on which RCC we're talking about.
Joe
TheForgiven
11-07-2009, 10:48 AM
OMG! :lol: Hard to believe I've been debating on line this long. Actually, I found one of my very first presentations on Preterism, on an old Catholic website:
Here's a link:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007eJp
Man, that was written back in 2002. If you read, you'll notice that most of my knowledge was based on Partial Preterism. :lol:
I'm certainly proud to have continued my contributions towards Preterism for almost 8 years now. Even though that was my first line of posts, my journey towards Preterism began in 1996 prior to my short tour in South Korea. I met a lot of wonderful Asian brothers there, who love the Lord, and love traditional Hymnals. It's hard to believe that South Korea is about 88% percent Christianity. They have a huge mountain called Prayer Mountain. There Christians pray and fast upon little sections of rock spread out all over the mountain, where they kneel before the Lord God and sing hymns of Praise; some in English, while some in Korean. It's amazing.
Link: Prayer Mountain South Korea
http://aaronwymer.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-prayer-mountain.html
God bless.
Joe
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
11-07-2009, 12:02 PM
Modern preterism was indeed and invention of Rome. You'll either have to accept or reject that notion. The bottom line is that preterism is false.
The preterism of the catholic church is not at all the same as the preteism of today or of Barnabus and the apostles. The preterism of the catholic church would have looked like historicism to a person living in 500 AD.
Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):
* Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
* Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
* Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
* Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.
I truly get tired of position bashing and not considering the actual hermeneutics and passage study behind them.
Preterism is the assembled perspective of scripture that results from the consistent historical/grammatical/Literary/inductive approach that FIRST seeks to determine what was meant to the original hearer and to the original or intended audience. Historical information is reviewed to consider the potential fulfillments of the intended statements and prophecies. Futurism denies the first century fulfillment of 'end times' possibly out of ignorance or because that would close out the mosaic covenant.
It makes me wonder if this is also the continued goal of historcism due in part to the RND's and historicist adherence and exaltation to the 10 and their reluctance to envision Daniels, the Olivets and Revelations fulfillment as the end of the mosaic covenant that was prophesied right in the covenant.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.