Re: [asa] A theology question

From: David Heddle <>
Date: Thu Oct 16 2008 - 08:54:35 EDT

I had the same thought as Jack. One tack-on to his comment: there is also a
fairly well established position of *moderate* or *partial* preterism. Like
full blown preterism, the partial pretereist argues that many* *of the
prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70. But unlike full preterism, it accepts
that not all have come to pass. It leaves, an ultimate end-of-history return
of Christ where the dead are judged and a general ressurection occurs.
Preterism offers (in my opinion) the only self-consistent view of the Olivet
Discourse, and it avoids many problems of an apparently erroneous
expectation of a imminent return.

The possibility of preterism stands or falls on the date that Revelation was
written. If the traditionally accepted date ~AD 90 is correct, then
preterism is dead in the water. You can't have a book prophesying about
events that occurred ~20 years earlier. Preterism as a legitimate
possibility demands that Revelation is dated to have been written prior to
AD 70. For some scholarly work in that regard, see Gentry's book *When
Jerusalem Fell*.

For anyone not familiar with this view, I humbly offer an introduction in a
 blog post of mine entitled: Tribulation to start in -1940 years!
David P. Heddle,
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University, &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Jack Syme <> wrote:

> I am sorry that I have missed this thread up until now.
> And if what I am about to say has been mentioned I apologize, but I doubt
> it has been mentioned. I will try to catch up on other posts later today.
> But, one interpretation Bernie that you need to be is aware of is perhaps
> Christ and John, and Paul etc were correct about the return of Christ in the
> first century.
> One interpretatation of the Bible, and first century events is that Christ
> returned in 70 AD, the tribulation was the Roman war with the Jews. Christ
> returned at that time to end the old covenant, to judge the dead, the temple
> was destroyed and it was the end of the age. It was the beginning of "the
> age to come" which is now, the time of the Church the bride of Christ.
> I will not go into details here about this because it is not a science
> related topic and I am surprised that a topic like this has been allowed to
> go on for so long. But, as you know there are many many time statements
> throughout the NT pointing to a first century return and fulfillment. And
> either they were wrong, or they were right and most of the church throughout
> history has been mistaken about the events that happened in the first
> century.
> For further reading google "preterism". I will be happy to answer any
> questions you might have, but that is probably better done off list.
> Jack Syme
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dehler, Bernie <>
> *Cc:*
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 07, 2008 6:01 PM
> *Subject:* [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
> Here's a question I have.
> In the NT, it is obvious that the disciples thought Jesus would return at
> any time and that the end was near. For example, that's why in Acts it says
> the believers had everything in common- sold what they had and shared
> everything. We would too if we seriously thought Christ would return
> tomorrow, but we don't really believe it. So we keep our own money- our
> retirement and college plans for our kids. We don't believe in the imminent
> return of Christ like the first believers did, as evidenced by our behavior.
> *Here's my question: *Was Jesus wrong when He taught about the immediate
> return? How do we explain his slowness in coming, when they all thought it
> would have happened almost 2,000 years ago? And since it has been so long
> already, what's the big deal if Jesus waits another 2,000 years? I know
> that's inconceivable to most evangelical Christians, just like if you told a
> Christian in 100AD that Christ still did not return by 2000AD.
> No need to post scripture about "scoffers who say Christ isn't going to
> return." That isn't the question. The question is how to you resolve the
> fact that Christ clearly taught, and His disciples clearly believed, in the
> imminent return, which didn't happen yet? There was no imminent return. If
> Christ returns today, it was not imminent.
> It is a genuine problem that I have and am pondering, as a believer.
> …Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 16 08:55:24 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 16 2008 - 08:55:24 EDT