What do YOU think ?

Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.  They will be posted shortly upon receipt
 

Comments

"It is not easy to accept something at first - even one of the authors of this book (upon hearing about [Preterism] the first time from his roommate at Harding University in 1978) told him, "if you believe like that, you will GO TO HELL." (p.35)

Date:

19 Dec 2003

Time:

11:47:43

Comments

"Upon completing the book I have to say..WoW! So many questions that I've had have finally been answered. This book puts all the end times theology in perspective. Thanks to Tom & Steve Kloske for all your fine work." A++..-Kevin Knipping

---

Date:

20 Dec 2003

Time:

11:04:59

Comments

I had the pleasure of reading this book prior to publishing and am reading again to assist with with some grammatical improvements.

This book is one with which others must contend. The authors have certainly done extensive research and have provided the results of their investigation in a well-presented format. For those who don't wish to read every book out there on eschatology, or at least haven't the time, here is a volume that has done the work for you. In the final analysis, by considering what is presented, how presented, and the vast extensiveness of information within the presentation, this volume ranks with that of "The Parousia" and "Last Days Madness."

Any one of these three books should set any nonpreterist back on their heels. The only issue I take with the book (and the authors are aware) is their explanation of the resurrection. This remains a tough area for preterists to come to agreement, and I believe there is a solid answer (my own, of course). But despite this one disagreement, it does not in any way diminish the solid Biblical argument presented. One does not deny a hundred obvious truths because one point is questionable or even wrong. Way to go, guys. You definitely have put another book on the market which thoroughly and clearly contends for the preterist view and proves it. -- Christopher Alsruhe, n/OHS

Date:

22 Dec 2003

Time:

15:45:45

Comments

I never have believed Christ would come in 1988 or any other predicted time. No one knows when Christ will come back physically but i believe he will at some point in the future. I believe that 70 A.D. was a time of judgment for the nation Israel and that Christ came to bring judgment upon them in accordance Mat.23:30-36 and 24:3-34. It is lunacy to teach that Christ has already come and that the resurrection has already been. If that had happened in 70 A.D. I would ask where is the church ?

The Church if the resurrection was only spiritual would have been gone in 70 A.D. and if it were physical all of the Church people of 70 A.D. would still be living today because resurrected people live eternally. This doctrine cannot be right on the most important doctrine found in the bible. Hugh Clark

Date:

23 Dec 2003

Time:

14:02:25

Comments

I do not want to get into a "running debate" with others, but would like to say this, "Until one READS our book, one should not comment on it." Perhaps the wisdom of Dr. Gordon D. Fee applies, see his: New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, (1983), pp. 45-46. --Tom Kloske And if someone reads it and still does not agree with us, that's their right, just do it in a Christ-like way.

Date:

24 Dec 2003

Time:

14:35:06

Comments

I have not read the book in question and therefore can not comment on it. However I do have some problems with some of the things the consistent preterist teach. I too as Christopher Alsruhe commented on the subject have some questions about the resurrection of the body. The consistent preterist may be confusing the regeneration which takes place at the conversion of the soul with the resurrection of the body.

The resurrection is very important and basic to the truth of the gospel and I can not treat it lightly. I would like for someone from the system to write a statement explaining exactly where they stand on the subject. Hugh Clark

Date:

24 Dec 2003

Time:

16:10:51

Comments

Thank you for that honest assessment. Very clear and concise. I would state the particular point in question like this: Do the New Testament resurrection passages support the concept that 1) The "resurrection of the body" is generally synonymous with the dispensing of redemption at the end of that age. Anyone care to take a stab for or against? Thanks! TD

Date:

24 Dec 2003

Time:

20:55:31

Comments

Hugh, your question is legitimate while at the same time not an easy one to answer. Why do I say this? Because it appears from all that I have read it matters not what eschatological position one takes a unanimous conclusion on the resurrection, type and nature, has not been reached.

Consider the opposing books by Norman Geisler and Murray Harris, two wonderful scholars who have much in common, yet disagree as to the nature of the body at the resurrection. In our book we have proposed that death is the one constant (Heb 9:27) therefore resurrection is necessary for the Christian. As to the nature of it I believe Paul puts it best..."it is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body"...1 Cor 15:44 If one concludes a physical body resurrection I will not make it an issue unless the one making the argument binds or requires it upon me or others.

The biggest issue, in my opinion is the timing of the resurrection. And yes I believe it occurred at the coming in AD 70. And since that time all Christians immediately go to be with the Father, Son and Spirit upon death but only because the Son secured, procured and assured that this is the case. In fact in our book, which I hope you get and read, we end our chapter on the Nature Of the Second Coming p490 with a note declaring we do not speak for all preterists. So since the issue is complex for every eschatological system we simply ask that we be given the same consideration that we offer others. (provided it is based in Scripture and not tradition) We stayed with the text throughout our study and hope all others would do the same.

 We appreciate your interest and hope you continue your personal study, we will do the same. In Christian love, Steve Kloske

Date:

25 Dec 2003

Time:

12:58:38

Comments

Thank you Steve for your humble and expert explaination of some of my questions. However I still have some questions about your contention of a 70 AD resurrection.

One thing that won't go away is if the saved who were alive at the time of the event were taken away why didn;t people like Clement know about it? There are some writings by Clement in the first century and I think he would have mentioned something about it. Another thing is why were people who were believers at that time not included in the resurrection? The point being if they were in the resurrection why were they still here on earth?

Another thing is it seems to me is that if all of the church members were taken out of the world there would be no witnesses for the church and therefore could not exist as a church because there were no saved people in the world. You stated that in the post resurrection which is supposedly after AD 70 when the saved die they go to the Father , Son and Holy Spirit and i don't have a big problem with that but what happens to the lost? When a lost person dies is he judged and put in a place of punishment at the point of death? It is not my intention to argue about these things but we need to explore all avenues .

Hugh Clark

Date:

25 Dec 2003

Time:

20:22:32

Comments

Hugh, the books my brother, Steve mentioned are: The Battle for the Resurrection, by Norman Geisler and From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament, by Murray J. Harris.......not easy reading!

Please let me just mention that Harris points out (pp. 277-280) that "Creeds" state these three: "The Resurrection of the FLESH"....."The Resurrection of the DEAD".....and "The resurrection of the BODY." He also points out the Biblical Expressions: 1) "The resurrection of the DEAD".....and 2) "The resurrection from the DEAD" as to which is correct, it's difficult, but "you and I" must decide.

We realize that there are different opinions concerning the "resurrection," for example, when J. Stuart Russell wrote his book in the 1800s, he believed in a "literal.....physical" resurrection which occurred in A.D. 70 (others believe that way too). However, we don't, we argue/discuss in our book that the "general resurrection" did indeed occur in A.D. 70 since Jesus said in Matthew 13:39, 49 that the "Judgment" is at "the end of the age" which we interpret and define as TIME of "A.D. 70." BUT we do NOT believe that the "lives ones" were taken at that time! Only those who had DIED up to that time.

And we also believe that it happened in the "spiritual sphere," in other words, NOBODY saw "the general resurrection" God simply "called their spirits" to Heaven (and/or Hell) at that time. AND ever since that time.....people either go to Heaven or Hell. Hope this helps and answers your question of, "Why were people who were believers at that time not included in the resurrection?: .....we argue in our book BECAUSE one has to be dead in order for RESURRECTION to occur!

We agree with you that ALL avenues need to be explored and we appreciate your questions. Again, hope this helps, and please let us know. Yours in Christ, Tom Kloske

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

06:05:43

Comments

TD, I hope our discussion is answering your question as to the relevency of N.T. passages "dispensing redemption at the end of the age." We believe the end of the age is the end of Jewish covenantal age and not the end of the Christian age or end of the world. Tom discusses this briefly below with Matt 13. We cover it more thoroughly in our book. As to the dispensing of redemption God dispenses it according to Paul's letter to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 15:20-23. Again, our book covers this in more detail. Thanks for your interest and question. SK   [Thank you! - TD]

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

11:29:54

Comments

Thanks to the brothers Kloske, Tom and Steve for being so gracious in answering some of my questions about the resurrection.

However i still have a couple of questions about 1st.cor.15. The verses are 51-52;

Behold i show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Is Paul not saying here that the people of God living at that time would be changed to a different kind of body? Why did you not deal with this in your book? You said that the dead preceding AD 70 were the only people involved in the resurrection and it only involved their spirit. You said that people had to be dead to be involved in the resurrection well what about verses 51-52? Everything Paul had to say in ch.15 was concerning the resurrection. 

In the name of Christ. Hugh Clark

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

13:17:27

Comments

Thanks Hugh. Yes, we also did deal with the 1 Cor. 15 passage, see pages 459-490 so there is no way I could sum up what we wrote. I'm not trying to "make a sale" but I really think you would really enjoy our book and it will give you a LOT of information about this entire issue! In Christ, Tom
 

Date:

03 Feb 2004

Time:

19:16:11

Comments

I would like to buy the book to see the details about the subject and to learn more.

Date:

03 Feb 2004

Time:

20:16:05

Comments

If interested in the book you can purchase it through Preterist Archives with Pay Pal or by contacting us at Tomstevekloske@yahoo.com.

Date:

15 Feb 2004

Time:

11:15:33

Comments

How do you ship? I need to know whether You need a Street address or if a PO Box will do. The book I'm interested in is:The Second Coming:Mission Accomplished. Thanks, Cecil E. Nichols e-mail: IAM3X@aol.com

Date:

15 Feb 2004

Time:

16:58:24

Comments

Cecil, We usually ship by the United States Post Office so either a "street address" or a P.O. Box is fine. Let us know if we can serve you. --Tom Kloske

Date:

26 Feb 2004

Time:

21:16:13

Comments

Thanks Kevin for all the kind words stated in your review.

Yes, it has been a difficult, scary journey. However, let me clarify a few things. Admittedly, the "way" you stated some things make your "review" sound more serious than it actually is.

In regard to Max King, both Steve and I attended a weekend Seminar by Max King and his son, Tim in St. Louis and in addition, have subscribed to their magazine, "The Living Presence," listened to their tapes on the resurrection, and therefore, know a "little" of their position. So we were not "totally blind" concerning their view of the resurrection which we disagree with. (Readers need to be aware of this.) Admittedly, this could have been better brought out in the book. However, the intention of our book was not be "interact" with Max King as much as to attempt to "prove" Preterism (if that could be done....it doesn't seem to be easily done, at least not without a lot of debate). Again, we simply tried to "prove" Preterism by the Scriptures and what various "scholars" have written through the years. It is a compelling study and we certainly did not simply want to consult "one man" as this study is much more comprehensive than one man. This is why we used numerous scholars. I have purchased Max's books but, admittedly, have not had time to read his massive volume yet. Perhaps now that our volume is completed, I will read his. But Preterism can be written about without consulting every single author who writes on the subject. God only knows we tried to use as many writers that we knew added to the subject, but since Max has been considered so controversial (and we knew we disagree with him about some things), we simply did not use his works and this needs no apology. Maybe he's "light years" ahead of me and after reading his works, if I "change" I will be the first to admit it. Again, as we admitted in our book, "We admire King's boldness for 'standing up' for what he truly believed" (p. 8). And I enjoyed meeting him in St. Louis, but just because I disagree with one aspect of his understanding does not mean that I am "obligated" to filter everything through his writings. Again, to be clear, we set out to attempt to prove Preterism without being "coached" or influenced by Max King so that "others" could NOT say, "You've simply LET MAX INFLUENCE YOU!" Now, NO ONE can say that because I (we) have not even read his books! (Now do you understand WHY?) Trust me, I'm planning on reading his books.....(now). I really thought this explanation was necessary, sorry if any of my words hurt. But, quite frankly, some words in this review could have been left out (if more information was acquired). Let's stick to the issue of Preterism, and not make this a "personality" issue! Should we "trust in the scholars?" Only as much as they shed light upon the Scriptures!

May God help us all to be thoughtful as we write about this difficult issue! I truly believe "futurism" has no future at all!

Tom Kloske

Date:

26 Feb 2004

Time:

21:24:25

Comments

All in all, I think Kevin Beck's review of our book is shortsighted. Our motivation was not to "reaffirm" the truth of the already convinced preterist. We know they do not need our assistance. What we hoped to do was get some who are confused and asking questions about end times to consider some basic and simple ideas concerning the issue. Our approach was to get the non-theologians to examine an alternative viewpoint. The jury is still out. Concerning the apparent inconsistency of not reading Max's books yet disagreeing with him, it is a matter of reading the Living Presence Magazine, as well as his booklet on Romans and attending one of his seminars in St. Louis that affords us information that led us to conclude differently. In addition we have read and heard many others recite Max's views through printed material and audio tapes. The criticism is valid to a point and we respect Kevin's right to express it. Where I disagree is the raising up of Max to a position of such prominence that makes it sound like the absence of Max's presence in the volume somehow weakens the substance of the book. Our "distancing ourselves" from Max was not designed to offend him. We respect him for the work he has done and continues to do. But we did not want to be considered "disciples of Max King" or anyone else that matter. And while we quote many men through out the book we are "disciples" of none of them. That may be percieved as a weakness in others opinions but we believe it is strength that helps us stay more objective. May we all seek to follow only the Christ...1 Cor 1:12. This reply is not intended to defend the criticism of Kevin's review, we will work to improve our writing, rather the implication that our book suffers and is less worthy for not giving Max a more prominant role in it. What we tried to present was a conviction that a fulfilled eschatology is a more accurate, consistent and conservative understanding of end times. Some have benefited from it others have disliked it. Seems to be the way of any issue that is controversial. (or maybe just any issue) Todd, thanks again for this forum. Kevin thank you for reading the book. Max thank you for having the courage to express your thoughts and thank you to all who are taking the time to examine a "hard subject". May God Bless us all on our journey, Steve Kloske

Date:

27 Feb 2004

Time:

05:36:10

Comments

Hey Guys, On page 364 of your book, you mention two articles for the reader to review: Albert Bell's article and B. M. Newman's article. Is there a web-site that I can go to and read these since they're both under "New Testament Studies?" Thanks for your time and a great book. Vinnie

Date:

27 Feb 2004

Time:

23:07:47

Comments

Vinnie, I am unaware if "New Testament Studies" is online anywhere (I really don't think those articles that old are on the web). But any "good" theological library would carry them. They will be worth the trip, esp. J. Christian Wilson's article, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation," NTS 39 (1993): 587-605. Good luck and let us know what "you think." And thanks for the compliments, we appreciate them. --Tom Kloske P.S. Remember Dr. Kenneth Gentry's book is absolutely the most brilliant study concerning the dating of the Book of Revelation in our opinion to date!

P.S. "New Testament Studies" is a journal (not a book). --Tom

Date:

24 May 2004

Time:

20:10:02

Comments

To Whom it may concern, I am the "Spirit of truth" that Christ spoke of. Please help me. I feel so alone. Where are all of the true disciples of Christ? I've only found a few. With Love, Amenine Magdalene Divinegreene amenine9@yahoo.com

Date:

16 Jun 2004

Time:

08:30:03

Comments

Suggested site: Sermons resources from Voicings Publications Serving clergy worldwide since 1970 http://www.voicings.com

Date:

09 Aug 2004

Time:

13:23:36

Comments

One of the best books ever!

Date:

13 Aug 2004

Time:

21:01:34

Comments

Whoever wrote the comments on "Aug. 9th" we'd just like to say, thank you very much! And if you will e-mail me, I'd like to send you a book (if needed), thanks. Our e-mail address is: Tomstevekloske@yahoo.com

Date:

18 Sep 2004

Time:

14:51:24

Comments

Amazing copy of first chapter! Comparing with my copy of the actual book, only the notes are different from the book; the original began numbering from No. 1 on each page. The Rev. Rollin S. Polk, Jr. rpolk1@grandecom.net

Date:

03 Oct 2004

Time:

10:17:10

Comments

Book 1 Chapter 1 is nice, but where can i find the entire collection to use for reference in studies I am undertaking?

Date:

24 Nov 2004

Time:

15:09:55

Comments

Life changing! What a refreshing difference from the knee jerk, reactionary, dumb slogan thinking that pervades the preaching and teaching of the "Church Leaders" of today. A real scholarly work that is as dynamic as it is compelling!!! This volume is daunting in its scope and challenging in scale but if you are willing to press through and read the whole book you can only be blessed!!!! Thank you for this web site!!! Craig Smith San Jose CA

Date:

04 Dec 2004

Time:

19:49:31

Comments

Thanks Craig Smith, we appreciate your kind remarks very much! --Tom/Steve Kloske

Date:

09 Feb 2005

Time:

17:11:25

Comments

I would like to make a comment on what Christopher Alsruhe had to say about the subject in Dec.2003. He said that it was well written and to his opinion it had been well researched and i would agree with him. He concluded his comment by saying that there were many good points but he had a disagreement on one point. I also have a disagreement and it is on the same point that Christopher finds wanting. That point is the resurrection and i like Christopher can not agree that it took place in 70 A D or any other time in the past. If the resurrection was in the past that would mean that we were resurrected before we were born. The Preterest say that it was not a tangible body but take a look at Luke 24:39, is Christ mistaken? The resurrection of Christ was model for his people in the church. 1 Cor.15:23. The preterist call the resurrection a spiritual body , well it is because that means it is spirit motivated not carnally as the natural body is. A spiritual body is not necessarily non tangible but it is according to the body that Christ had and it was plain that he could be touched and handled Luke 24:39 and john 21:13- 14. In christ Hugh Clark

Date: 28 Nov 2005
Time: 14:59:12

Comments0:

I beleive the resurrection was the 2nd Coming, that the apostles kept missing the message. Jesus went to the cross to end ignorance. He destroyed the concept of sin and along with that satan ,hell and every other lie that has kept humankind in bondage. Constaintine had the books compiled that became the bible, to manipulate and conqueor the masses.
Joe