The Dangerous Lie of Preterism

[Guest shiloh357]

The New Last Days Scoffers

DR. EDWARD HINDSON
Assistant to the Chancellor
Liberty University

The Second Coming of Christ is one of the fundamental doctrines of Scripture.  Jesus emphatically said, “I will come again” (John 14:3).  The questions raised by believers over the centuries have always been “When?” and “How?”  The answers to these questions divide Christians into various views of eschatology (“last things”).  Some believe He will come before the Tribulation.  Some believe He’ll return during it; and some after it.  Some believe He will come at the end of the Church Age and some think He will come after the millennium.


One of the most bizarre interpretations of eschatology is the view that He has already come back!  No, I’m not talking about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who think Jesus returned in 1914.  I’m talking about a viewpoint called Preterism, which teaches that Jesus returned in AD 70 when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.

You may be thinking that no sensible person really believes that Jesus already came back.  Well, it may surprise you to know that Preterism is experiencing a new wave of interest these days thanks to the encouragement of popular radio personalities like R.C. Sproul and Hank Hanegraaff.  Sproul openly admits he is a “partial preterist” and Hanegraaff claims he is seriously considering it.

I have watched various eschatologies come and go over the past 40 years.  Some last a few weeks (like “88 Reasons the Rapture will be in 1988”) and some a few years (like the fast-fading so-called “Pre Wrath view”).  But none have had more insidious implications than Preterism – the idea that Jesus already came back and we missed it!  In fact, the Bible warns us: “there shall come scoffers in the last days…saying, where is the promise of his coming” (II Peter 3:3-4).

What is Preterism?

The term preterist is Latin for “past.”  Thus, preterists believe that Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the past.  Therefore, they view the major prophetic passages of Scripture, such as the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation, as already fulfilled.  Preterism is the exact opposite of Futurism, which views these major biblical prophecies as being fulfilled in the future.

Extreme preterists, who prefer to call themselves “consistent preterists,” hold that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.  They view this event as the Second Coming of Christ and reject any belief in a future return of Christ.  Thus, they deny a future bodily resurrection of believers and a literal return of Christ to earth.  Extreme preterists believe we are already in the “New Heavens!”  Their view is not only ludicrous, but it is also heretical and places them outside the parameters of biblical orthodoxy.

Moderate preterists, like R.C. Sproul, claim they still believe in a future Second Coming, but still insist on interpreting the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation as basically already fulfilled in the past.  As a result, they reject such basic concepts as: Rapture of the Church; Literal Seven Year Tribulation Period; Literal Antichrist; Conversion of Israel; Battle of Armageddon; 1000-year Millennium; Future Binding of Satan.

In contrast to the basic beliefs of premillennialism, moderate preterists believe that God is finished with biblical Israel.  They see no prophetic future for national Israel.  The fact that the State of Israel exists today is blamed on an “accident of history” perpetrated by “ignorant premillennialists” who supported the Balfour Declaration that eventually led to the formation of the modern state of Israel in 1948.  While most preterists would insist they are not anti-Semitic, their theology certainly leans in that direction.  One of the symbols of the current preterist movement is an artist’s rendering of the smoldering ashes of Jerusalem in AD 70, as though they are rejoicing in the destruction of the Holy City.

http://www.according2prophecy.org/Preterism.html

[Guest shiloh357]

As a rule, moderate preterists tie their belief system to a postmillennial vision in which the church becomes the new “Israel” and must bring in the Kingdom on earth in order to prepare the world for the return of Christ.  Most preterists believe the following:
 

1. Nero was the Antichrist.  There will be no future individual Antichrist.

2. The Tribulation Period is already over.  It occurred when the Roman army besieged Jerusalem in AD 66-70.

3. Christ “returned” in the clouds in AD 70 to witness the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.

4. God replaced Old Testament Israel with the Church.  Therefore, all the biblical promises to Israel belong to the Church.  

5. Armageddon already happened in AD 70.  The fall of “Babylon” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

6. Satan is already bound in the abyss and cannot hinder the spread of the Gospel.  Revelation 20 has already been fulfilled.

7. We are already in the Millennium, but it is not literal.  Some preterists equate the entire Church Age as the Millennium.  The 1,000 years are not literal but figurative, even though they are mentioned six times in Revelation 19-20.
 

The basic assumptions of preterism rest on passages that refer to Christ coming “quickly” (Revelation 1:1), or “this generation will not pass” (Matthew 24:34).  They insist these must be related to and limited to the first century.  By contrast, premillennialists believe that Christ’s coming is imminent and; therefore, could occur at any moment.  Darrell Bock of Dallas’ Theological Seminary counters the preterist view, observing: “What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end.  When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations.  It will happen within a generation.”

Fallacious Reasoning

Preterists insist they are defending the Bible by making its prophecies fulfilled in the past.  That way, they can’t be accused of making false assumptions about the future.  In other words, their interpretive methodology might be called: “back up and punt!”  By confining predictive prophecy to a past fulfillment they eliminate any real need for eschatology.  However, their fallacious reasoning and flimsy logic leaves them supporting a series of ridiculous conclusions that fly in the face of the whole history of biblical interpretation.

For example, the idea that Satan is already “bound” is clearly contradicted by Peter’s statement: “the devil, as a roaring lion, wanders about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8).  The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2).  One would have a difficult time convincing Peter and Paul that Satan was already bound by the power of the cross.  If Satan is bound today, why are the nations still deceived?

If we are already in the Millennium, why is there still war in the world?  When did the lion lay down with the lamb?  And when did the nations beat their weapons into plowshares?  If the 1,000 years are only symbolic, then is the reign of Christ only symbolic?  If God broke His everlasting covenant with Israel, how do we know He will not break His covenant of everlasting life with us?

If God is finished with ethnic Israel, why did Paul ask: “Has God cast away his people?”  And why did he respond so emphatically, “God forbid!” (Romans 11:1)?  Why did Paul ask of Israel, “Have they stumbled that they should fall?”  And why did he respond again: “God forbid!” (Romans 11:11)?  Why did Paul state that “blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes” (Romans 11:25)?  Why did he believe, “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26) if God is already finished with Israel?

If the Church replaces Israel and becomes the Kingdom of God on earth, why did the disciples ask Jesus at the ascension: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).  That was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to tell the disciples that He was finished with Israel and that they were the new “Israel.”  But He did not!  He simply told them it was not for them to know that time which the Father has predetermined for Israel to have the kingdom (Acts 1:7).

http://www.according2prophecy.org/Preterism.html

[Guest shiloh357]

Practical Implications

Theologian Tom Ice writes: “Because of the current spread of preterism, pastors and teachers need to be prepared to defend orthodox eschatology from this attack.”  Those who believe that Christ already came back in AD 70 can hardly obey our Lord’s command to “keep watching” until He comes (Matthew 24:42).

Preterism rests on a faulty hermeneutic and raises serious concerns for sincere students of Scripture. Consider the following; Preterism:

1. Destroys the Literal Meaning of the Bible.   Once you start arguing that the language of prophecy cannot be taken literally, you are not that far removed from not taking the rest of the Bible literally either.  Preterists are following the dangerous path of liberalism which began denying predictive prophecy and soon rejected the literal interpretation of creation, the flood, the virgin birth of Christ, His vicarious death and bodily resurrection.

2. Distorts the Promise of the Second Coming.  Placing the return of Christ in the past robs the Church of a confident expectation about the future.  We are left on earth trying to “make the best of it” without any real hope of divine intervention.  It leaves the Church trying to “bring in the Kingdom” without the King.

3. Diminishes the Hope of the Believer.  Preterism negates the biblical commands to “watch” and “be ready” for the coming of Christ.  It limits those injunctions to the first century believers prior to AD 70.  In fact, it limits every biblical command related to the return of Christ.  The phrase “until He comes” would have to be limited to AD 70.  How can we “build the church” (Matthew 16:18) or “occupy until he comes.”  In fact, how do we celebrate the communion service to “show forth the Lord’s death until he comes” (I Corinthians 11:26)?  Should we stop celebrating the Lord’s Supper because He already came in AD 70?

4. Deprives Israel of Her Future.   Preterists insist that God is finished with Israel.  Many of them teach that it is actually Jesus who breaks the covenant with Israel in Daniel 9:26-27.  In essence, Preterism pits Jesus against Israel and therefore smacks of anti-Semitism.  Preterists actually teach that the “Babylon” of Revelation 17-18 is Jerusalem!  Therefore, the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 represents Christ’s ultimate triumph over unbelief.

5. Denies the Power of Christ.   While most preterists would insist they are defending the power of Christ, they are actually denying it.  They are trying to “bring in the Kingdom” without the King.  And might I add, they are fighting a losing battle!  Christianity is under attack like never before.  We are not winning the battle for world dominion and we never will.  Yes, the church will continue to grow (Matthew 16:18), but so will the resistance of Satan (1 Timothy 4:1).  God will continue to do marvelous things in this world.  But the Church will never bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth until the King of Heaven returns in person.

http://www.according2prophecy.org/Preterism.html

[Guest shiloh357]

Preterism and Zechariah 12–14

Dr. Thomas Ice

In January of this year I taught a course on Eschatology (Bible Prophecy) in Orange, California at Chafer Theological Seminary. Since preterist Ken Gentry lives only a few miles from Chafer Seminary, I invited him to come and speak to our class. Even though Chafer Seminary is dispensational, I thought it healthy to expose our students to the exact opposite of our views with Dr. Gentry's visit. Dr. Gentry was gracious enough to come in and give a presentation of his preterist views on the Book of Revelation to our class. Even though I just completed a long series on Preterism in Pre-Trib Perspectives, I want to revisit the issue at least once more.

During a time of questions I ask Dr. Gentry about Zechariah 12-14 and preterism. I first asked him if he believed, as a preterist, that Zechariah 12-14 was a parallel passage to the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5-36). He answered, "Yes." I agree! I then noted that Zechariah speaks of "all the peoples" (12:2), "all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it (Jerusalem)" (12:3), and "I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle" (14:2). "This does not sound like the Romans in A.D. 70," I said. Further, Zechariah goes on to say, "In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (12:8) and "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle" (14:3). I concluded that this does not fit with what happened to Jerusalem in A.D. 70 when the Romans conquered Israel. Finally, it says that the Lord will rescue Israel, in that day (14:3), whereas, in A.D. 70 the Lord judged Israel as Luke 21:20-24 notes. "How does a preterist say that Zechariah speaks of A.D. 70 when the Lord is rescuing His people in that passage," I asked Dr. Gentry?

Now keep in mind that Dr. Gentry is one of foremost preterist spokesmen on the planet. His answer, in essence, was to say that the Church had replaced Israel. This is similar to what the late David Chilton had said in his preterist commentary on Revelation:

Another passage parallel to this is Zechariah 12, which pictures Jerusalem as a cup of drunkenness to the nations (Zech. 12:2; cf. Rev. 14:8-9), a laver of fire that will consume the heathen (Zech. 12:6; Rev. 15:2). The irony of Revelation, as we have seen repeatedly, is that first-century Israel herself has taken the place of the heathen nations in the prophecies: She is consumed in the fiery laver—the Lake of Fire—while the Church, having passed through the holocaust, inherits salvation.[1]

I then told Dr. Gentry that his answer was nothing more than theologizing. He had merely stated his theological conclusion on the matter, but failed to give a textual interpretation. I asked his point blank, "Could you give a textual interpretation of this passage in Zechariah?" He responded, "No."

A preterist cannot give a textual interpretation of Zechariah 12-14 because they believe it is to be equated with God's judgment at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70 upon Israel- error number one. Greg Beale notes that, "Zechariah 12 does not prophecy Israel's judgment but Israel's redemption."[2] Zechariah 12-14 clearly speaks of a time when Israel is rescued by the Lord from an attack by "all the nations of the earth," not just the Romans- error number two. In this context, Israel must refer to Israel. Since that it true, then the event of Zechariah 12-14 has not yet happened in history. This means that it is a future event. Dr. Beale makes a comment about Daniel that applies to Zechariah as well:

the burden of proof rests on these preterists to provide an exegetical rationale both for exchanging a pagan nation with Israel as the primary object of Daniel's final judgment and for limiting the last judgment mainly to Israel and not applying it universally.[3]

Preterists and Futurists, like myself, both agree that Luke 21:20-24 prophesied the A.D. 70 Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Using Luke 21:20-24 as a baseline, notice the contrasts between it and Zechariah 12-14, as observed by Randall Price.

Contrasts Between Luke 21:20-24 and Zechariah 12-14

Luke 21:20–24 •Past fulfillment—

• “led captive to all nations (vs 24)
• Day of the desolation of Jerusalem (vs. 20) •Day of vengeance against Jerusalem (vs. 22)
• Day of wrath against Jewish nation (vs. 23)
• Jerusalem trampled by Gentiles (vs. 24)
• Time of Gentile dominion over Jerusalem (vs. 24)
• Great distress upon the Land (vs. 23)
• Nations bring the sword to Jerusalem (vs. 24)
• Jerusalem destroyed (A.D. 70) “in order that all things which are written (concerning the Jewish People) may be fulfilled” (in the future), (vs. 22)
• Jerusalem’s desolation is given a time limit: “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (vs. 24).  This implies that a time of restoration for Jerusalem will then follow.
• The Messiah comes in power and glory to be see by the Jewish People only after “these thing”—the events of vss. 25–28—which are yet future to the events of vvs. 20-24.

Zechariah 12—14

• Eschatological fulfillment—“in that day” (12:3–4,6,8,11; 13:1–12; 14:1,4,6–9)
• Day of deliverance of Jerusalem (12:7–8)
• Day of victory for Jerusalem (12:4–6)
• Day of wrath against Gentile nations (12:9; 14:3,12)
• Jerusalem transformed by God (14:4–10)
• Time of Gentile submission in Jerusalem (14:16–19)
• Great deliverance for the Land (13:2) •Nations bring their wealth to Jerusalem (14:14)
• Jerusalem rescued and redeemed that all things written (concerning Jewish People) may be fulfilled (13:1–9); cf. Rom. 11:25–27)
• The attack on Jerusalem is the occasion for the final defeat of Israel’s enemies, thus ending the “times of the Gentiles” (14:2–3,11)
• The Messiah comes in power and glory during the events of the battle (14:4–5)4

Because of the differences between the above contrasted passages, it is impossible to harmonize with events that have already taken place. Impossible as long as two plus two continues to equal four. But some of the best minds that preterism has to offer attempt to place round pegs into square holes.

Preterist Gary DeMar recently attempted an interpretation of Zechariah 14.[5] Predictably, he says that Zechariah 14 "describes events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70."[6] DeMar cannot show from the text of Zechariah the destruction of Jerusalem. DeMar approached the passage in what I would call a thematic approach. He hopped-skipped-and-jumped around the passage, denuding it of its context. Worse, he repackaged it into a false context. Dealing only with chapter 14, DeMar fails to produce any evidence that God is judging Israel, as is clearly used in Luke 21:20-24. In fact, the Lord is judging the nations for the text says, "I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (12:9), and "I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle . . . the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations" (14:2-3). Instead, the Lord is defending (12:8) and rescuing (14:3) Israel from those nations. Just as in Matthew 24, no where does the text speak of the Lord coming in judgment against His people. Both Zechariah and Matthew speak of Israel's rescue (cf. Matt. 24:31) and this is why the prophecy of both passages are yet future.

Conclusion

The only way that preterists can attempt to deal with Zechariah 12-14 is not by taking the words and phrases of the passage in its literary context, but by simply declaring—as done by Chilton and Gentry—that the church replaces Israel. The text of Scripture is supposed to be the basis upon which we develop sound theology. Instead, preterists have to impose their false theological beliefs upon God's inerrant Word. Walt Kaiser is on the mark in commenting on this passage the following:

In no other chapter of the Bible is the interpretation of the name "Israel" more important than in Zechariah 14. To say that "Israel" means the "Church," as many have done, would lead to a most confusing picture in this chapter and in the end of chapter 13. For example, 13:8-9 affirms that two-thirds of the land (Israel) will die, but few would be willing to say two-thirds of the Church will be slaughtered in the final day. Clearly "Israel" refers to that geo-political unit known today as the nation of Israel.[7]

God's Word wants His Church to be forward looking to a secure and certain future of victory. Such a perspective enables a believer to live faithfully in the present because of the future. The past is equally important. However, a false view of the past will rob a believer in the present of the hope needed to live boldly for our Lord. Maranatha!

[Guest shiloh357]

The lynch pin for Preterism is the date of the book of Revelation.  Preterism argues that it was written prior to 70 AD. But that is not really the case.  There is evidence from the early church fathers from the early 2nd century, just a couple of decades or so after the death of John that the book of Revelation was written late in the 90s, AD.

Look at what Irenaeus said: "In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.” (Rev_17:12, etc.) It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord." (Against Heresies, Book 5:26)

Irenaeus was from Smyrna, which was where one of the copies of Revelation was originally sent to (120-202), and was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John.   Irenaeus did not believe that the Antichrist had come as can be seen above from his own writings.

He also says, "“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 [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign" (Book 5:30)

That's interesting because Domitian reign began in 81 AD and he was assassinated in 96 AD. So near the end of his reign would place the book of Revelation around the mid 90s like around 94-95 AD, well after the destruction of the Temple.  

But, it's not just Irenaeus.   Jerome states that John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian.   Church historian Eusebius dates Revelation to the reign of Domitian.  Clement who was a contemporary with Irenaeus states that John was exiled on Patmos under Domitian and 

So there is ample historical evidence for the book of Revelation being written during the time period of the reign of Domitian in the mid 90s AD.

 

[Willie T]

I don't hold to the views of "Full Preterists", but a thinking person cannot read Before Jerusalem Fell by: Kenneth L. Gentry, and still believe in a late date of the writing of the book of Revelation.  It is just flat impossible to do so.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Willie T said:

I don't hold to the views of "Full Preterists", but a thinking person cannot read Before Jerusalem Fell by: Kenneth L. Gentry, and still believe in a late date of the writing of the book of Revelation.  It is just flat impossible to do so.

Sorry, but the historical sources quoted above pretty much put Gentry's ideas to bed.   Not only that, but Thomas Ice refuted Gentry's take on Zechariah 14 and Luke 21 as you can also see in a post above.

[frienduff thaylorde]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The New Last Days Scoffers

DR. EDWARD HINDSON
Assistant to the Chancellor
Liberty University

The Second Coming of Christ is one of the fundamental doctrines of Scripture.  Jesus emphatically said, “I will come again” (John 14:3).  The questions raised by believers over the centuries have always been “When?” and “How?”  The answers to these questions divide Christians into various views of eschatology (“last things”).  Some believe He will come before the Tribulation.  Some believe He’ll return during it; and some after it.  Some believe He will come at the end of the Church Age and some think He will come after the millennium.


One of the most bizarre interpretations of eschatology is the view that He has already come back!  No, I’m not talking about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who think Jesus returned in 1914.  I’m talking about a viewpoint called Preterism, which teaches that Jesus returned in AD 70 when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.

You may be thinking that no sensible person really believes that Jesus already came back.  Well, it may surprise you to know that Preterism is experiencing a new wave of interest these days thanks to the encouragement of popular radio personalities like R.C. Sproul and Hank Hanegraaff.  Sproul openly admits he is a “partial preterist” and Hanegraaff claims he is seriously considering it.

I have watched various eschatologies come and go over the past 40 years.  Some last a few weeks (like “88 Reasons the Rapture will be in 1988”) and some a few years (like the fast-fading so-called “Pre Wrath view”).  But none have had more insidious implications than Preterism – the idea that Jesus already came back and we missed it!  In fact, the Bible warns us: “there shall come scoffers in the last days…saying, where is the promise of his coming” (II Peter 3:3-4).

What is Preterism?

The term preterist is Latin for “past.”  Thus, preterists believe that Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the past.  Therefore, they view the major prophetic passages of Scripture, such as the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation, as already fulfilled.  Preterism is the exact opposite of Futurism, which views these major biblical prophecies as being fulfilled in the future.

Extreme preterists, who prefer to call themselves “consistent preterists,” hold that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.  They view this event as the Second Coming of Christ and reject any belief in a future return of Christ.  Thus, they deny a future bodily resurrection of believers and a literal return of Christ to earth.  Extreme preterists believe we are already in the “New Heavens!”  Their view is not only ludicrous, but it is also heretical and places them outside the parameters of biblical orthodoxy.

Moderate preterists, like R.C. Sproul, claim they still believe in a future Second Coming, but still insist on interpreting the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation as basically already fulfilled in the past.  As a result, they reject such basic concepts as: Rapture of the Church; Literal Seven Year Tribulation Period; Literal Antichrist; Conversion of Israel; Battle of Armageddon; 1000-year Millennium; Future Binding of Satan.

In contrast to the basic beliefs of premillennialism, moderate preterists believe that God is finished with biblical Israel.  They see no prophetic future for national Israel.  The fact that the State of Israel exists today is blamed on an “accident of history” perpetrated by “ignorant premillennialists” who supported the Balfour Declaration that eventually led to the formation of the modern state of Israel in 1948.  While most preterists would insist they are not anti-Semitic, their theology certainly leans in that direction.  One of the symbols of the current preterist movement is an artist’s rendering of the smoldering ashes of Jerusalem in AD 70, as though they are rejoicing in the destruction of the Holy City.

http://www.according2prophecy.org/Preterism.html

One of the most bizarre interpretations of eschatology is the view that He has already come back!  No, I’m not talking about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who think Jesus returned in 1914.  I’m talking about a viewpoint called Preterism, which teaches that Jesus returned in AD 70 when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem

Shiloh .   is THIS real .   are you telling me PEOPLE actually BELEIVE JESUS already CAME BACK .     PHEW WEE,  man I am so happy I never once sat in theology classes .

PHEW WEE.  

[Guest shiloh357]

Those who argue for an early date (pre-70AD) for the book of Revelation argue that Nero was the Antichrist.   Here is why that is simply not possible.

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:"
(2Th 2:8)

When does this passage say the Antichrist will be destroyed?   At the Lord's coming.  Now, Preterists claim that the Lord's coming happened in 70 AD at the destruction of the Temple.   So when did Nero die?   Nero died in 68 AD.   How does Paul say the Antichrist would die?  The Lord will destroy him.  How did Nero die? He committed suicide.  So, that on its own precludes Nero from being the Antichrist.

Daniel 9:27 tells us that the Antichrist will confirm a 7-year peace treaty with Israel.  Nero never did that.  

The Antichrist according to II Thess. 2:4 is supposed to take his seat in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. Nero was never even in Jerusalem.
 

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

One of the most bizarre interpretations of eschatology is the view that He has already come back!  No, I’m not talking about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who think Jesus returned in 1914.  I’m talking about a viewpoint called Preterism, which teaches that Jesus returned in AD 70 when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem

Shiloh .   is THIS real .   are you telling me PEOPLE actually BELEIVE JESUS already CAME BACK .     PHEW WEE,  man I am so happy I never once sat in theology classes .

PHEW WEE.  

Yes, Preterists do not believe the Bible when it speaks of a literal, bodily return of Jesus to earth.   They reject the truth of Scripture on that and many other things.   It is a really terrible belief system.  It's actually quite carnal.