Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic


End Times Chart

Introduction and Key


AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.    Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell.    Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.


"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website.  The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor).  The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.  Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.



  • Coming Soon, Showing instances of AD70 Dispensationalism

Systematic Hyper Preterism
(aka "Full Preterism")

Study Archive

Jesus: "It is finished" (AD30)
cf. Hebrews 10:19-22

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

Hyper Preterism: Defining "Hyper Preterism"- Criticisms from the Inside - Criticisms from the Outside || Progressive Pret | Regressive Pret | Former Full Preterists | Pret Scholars | Normative Pret | Reformed Pret | Pret Idealism | Pret Universalism

William Bell
Max King
Don Preston
Larry Siegle
Kurt Simmons
Ed Stevens


It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view.   Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view.   Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:


  • All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70

  • Atonement Incomplete at Cross ; Complete at AD70

  • The Supernatural Power of Evil Ended in AD70

  • The Spirit of Antichrist was Destroyed in AD70

  • "The Consummation of the Ages" Came in AD70

  • "The Millennium" is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70

  • Nothing to be Resurrected From in Post AD70 World ; Hades Destroyed

  • The Christian Age Began in AD70 ; Earth Will Never End

  • "The Day of the Lord" was Israel's Destruction ending in AD70

  • The "Second Coming" of Jesus Christ Took Place in AD70-ish

  • The Great Judgment took place in AD70 ; No Future Judgment

  • The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. Utterly Defeated in AD70

  • "The Resurrection" of the Dead and Living is Past, Having Taken Place in AD70

  • The Context of the Entire Bible is Pre-AD70 ; Not Written To Post AD70 World

(under construction)

  • Baptism was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Lord's Prayer was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Lord's Supper was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Holy Spirit's Paraclete Work Ceased in AD70 (Cessationism)

  • The Consummation in AD70 Caused Church Offices to Cease (Cessationism)

  • The Resurrection in AD70 Changed the "Constitutional Principle" of Marriage (Noyesism)

  • Israel and Humanity Delivered into Ultimate Liberty in AD70 (TransmillennialismTM)

  • The Judgment in AD70 Reconciled All of Mankind to God ; All Saved (Preterist Universalism)

  • Adam's Sin No Longer Imputed in Post AD70 World ; No Need to be Born Again (Preterist Universalism)

  • When Jesus Delivered the Kingdom to the Father in AD70, He Ceased Being The Intermediary (Pantelism/Comprehensive Grace?)

  • The Book of Genesis is an Apocalypse; is About Creation of First Covenant Man, not First Historical Man (Covenantal Preterism)



On the Resurrection

By Larry Siegle

The IBD view steps backwards and seeks to find a physical application to that which God intended to be spiritual in nature.

Salvation Surgery

Although I have not studied all of the material presented by Ed Stevens regarding the IBD view, I would comment that in the context of the discussion, the comment of Ed is based upon the following:

A distinction is being made between the state of the "dead ones"--physically (I Cor. 15:51ff) and "we who are alive and remain"--physically I Thess. 4:16, 17).

The act of being "raised" would be applied to the "dead ones" (physically) while the act of being "changed" would apply to those living (physically) who were "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (I Thess. 4:17).

The problem I have with this concept is that it detracts from the covenantal significance of the resurrection, and makes a physical transformation the focus of attention.

Whether one accepts the IBD concept or that of the change of modes of existence--the hermeneutic used to arrive at the conclusion one draws must remain consistent.

Is the apostle Paul dealing with matters related to the individual destiny of believers as it relates to their biological existence? Or, is he addressing various misconceptions believers had about the transition period they were in at the time the letter was written to them?

I believe the NT writers had as the center of focus, the redemptive implications of what was occurring in their midst at the time--the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises.

Ed goes to great lengths in his explanation to define the difference between "the dead ones in Hades" to whom he applies the term, "raised." No death. No resurrection. Those "who are alive and remain" are not resurrected because they have not died. No death. No resurrection.

The problem is resolved if one understands that the primary meaning of the Greek word "raised" is 'to cause to stand.' From God's perspective, a person's stance spiritually before Him is the eternal issue at hand. From a redemptive perspective, everyone needed a "resurrection" out of the realm of sin-death. From the standpoint of the apostle Paul, the resurrection was already in process, and therefore, those who were "alive and remain" would simply complete the work of being "transformed into the same image from glory to glory" at the time of the parousia (II Cor. 3:18).

The covenantal time of "change" was in progress--the resurrection had begun with Christ and the "firstfruits" (I Cor 15:23).

The IBD view (as I understand it) steps backwards and seeks to find a physical application to that which God intended to be spiritual in nature. The scriptures are silent about specifics related to our biological (physical) existence (Deut. 29:29). The scriptures speak volumes about our soteriological (salvation) existence.

God created the environment in which we live and we have all of the tools to sustain continued physical bodily existence. God has also created the environment beyond the realm of the physical and will. at the time of our biological demise, provide all of the tools to sustain continued existence. Has He described every detail in His word? No. Would I like to know what life beyond this realm has in store? Yes. It is only natural.

However, since God has not seen the need to describe such matters in the pages of His word, why waste our time and effort debating it?

When a person dies today, and his body is planted, does he receive another body, or is his body also changed? If so, have many "bodies" does a person have, and how do they differ from each other? The singular use of the "it" in the seed analogy precludes the possibility of multiple "bodies" "IT" is sown an natural body, "IT" is raised a spiritual body (I Cor. 15:44). If I understand the IBD concept, there must of necessity be TWO bodies. The one sown (in physical death) and the other raised from physical death.

Please correct me if I misunderstand. Thanks

Larry Siegle

Walnut Creek, CA

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


23 Apr 2004




Larry, you repeately say "the IBD ....." I don't know what IBD is?


23 Apr 2004




Immortal body at death.


23 Apr 2004




***Is the apostle Paul dealing with matters related to the individual destiny of believers as it relates to their biological existence? Or, is he addressing various misconceptions believers had about the transition period they were in at the time the letter was written to them? I believe the NT writers had as the center of focus, the redemptive implications of what was occurring in their midst at the time--the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises.*** Great article Larry, short, sharp and to the point. davo -


25 Apr 2004




The doctrine is the "resurrection of THE DEAD," where "the dead" are always contrasted to "THE LIVING." These are two different groups. The implication of the doctrine, therefore, is for the dead ones in hades. The dead ones are raised. The "living" are not under consideration, for they are not dead. The doctrine is the "resurrection of THE DEAD."


02 May 2004




I Cor. 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: -- you don't plant a plant or a tree; you plant a seed which becomes one. 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. -- There are all kinds of fleshly bodies ro flesh. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. --That is not to say that the physical body is 'bad,' but that it has a purpose and is a glory of God, being His work. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. -- there are definitely two bodies.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. -- The point Paul made before is proven through the allegory of Adam and Jesus. See Romans for this comparison of the first and the second "Adam." 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. -- Paul uses allegory and even pun in his speech; he is really rather witty.

For example, in Romans 2:29, he says, "Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Well, Judah means praise, so on the onehand, he is saying "let your praise come from God and not man." On the other hand, "Be a child of Judah in the spirit from God, not in the flesh from lineage."

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 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. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? -- He said we (they) would all be changed -- from corruption to incorruption, from one body to the next.

It all seems pretty clear to me looking at I Corinthians. I think there is a fleshly vessel, and a spiritual vessel, and each hold the soul of a person. One is terrestrial, and the other is spiritual. One is for a useful life on Earth, one is for a life in Heaven.

PretCosmos Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:59:46 -0700
   From: "Larry Siegle" <>
Subject: Collective Clarification Comments


I have been away for a few days and therefore have not had the time to respond to the comments you made recently in your summary of the various views regarding the resurrection of the dead.

First, let me mention that when Max King wrote his Spirit of Prophecy (1971), it is obvious that he had not at that point in time formulated his current view regarding the resurrection of the dead.  At that time, his application contained some elements of his present view, and some elements of the IBD concept.

Second, in the 784 pages of The Cross and the Parousia of Christ (1987), Max was seeking to bring to the table a formula for a more consistent use of language in the NT.  (e.g. "flesh" and "spirit").

Third, my application to the "collective" view provides for the inclusion of the "individual" as having been implied in the text.

The "first resurrection" (Rev. 20:4-6) had application to those of the "firstfruit" believers, the "144,000" and those who had been put to death during the transition period (Rev. 6:9-11).  All of the above were including in the age-changing reign of Christ to defeat death and refer to the same group of people (Although, the apostle John mentions their "fellow-servants" whom I understand to be the righteous dead and the prophets who were awaiting the "end of the age" vengeance that was going to take place (Matt. 23:34-37; Luke 21:22).  All of the above "lived" in the sense that Christ was enthroned and empowered to bring about the total defeat of death, hell and the grave.

The "rest of the dead" would include the resurrection of all who were in the graves at the time of the parousia.

My point is that the text seems to imply a two-stage event, or as Paul referred to it, "each in his own order"  (I Cor. 15:23).

My primary objection to the concept of the IBD view (as I understand it) is that it provides for something more to occur for individuals living beyond the "end of the age"  My understanding affirms that people living today who are believers are given "the life" at the point of their conversion (I John 5:11-12).  My further understanding is that unbelievers are "condemned already" (John 3:18).

Life after death following A.D. 70 is not about progressive resurrection for either the righteous or the wicked.  The resurrection, like the parousia and the judgment are an accomplished fact--never to be repeated--individually or otherwise.

Life after death today is not about biology, it is about ones stance before God.  Millions of people today are spiritually dead today because they have not accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour and because of that fact, they are in a state (position) of condemnation before God.

My perspective is that with the "end of the age" all of the dead in Hades were released and judged.  Since that time, there is no longer a place of waiting or separation from the presence of God for the righteous, and the wicked receive their punishment at the point of biological death.  The only thing that has changed is location.

The whole recent "side-bar" regarding "law" and "grace" (as though the two are mutually exclusive) misses the point.  If believers are in covenant with God, then of necessity there must also be terms included in that covenant.

The NC is positionally one where "grace" is extended to include absolute forgiveness of sins and justification before God based upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  The concept of "grace" under the OC only made provision for ones sins to be "covered" awaiting the time when Jesus would go to the Cross to die for the "sin of the world" (John 1:29).

It is a mistake to discount the directives given through inspiration during the transition period as being meaningless beyond that event.  The nature of God is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, including all of his moral character attributes.  Murder is sin today in the same sense it was sin under the OC because the nature of God remains unchanged.

Believers today cannot afford to fall into the trap of accepting that today we live in a spiritual state in which no rules exist through which our lives must be directed.  The principles found in the Scriptures are of eternal benefit to us--lest we fall into the same error as first century believers who concluded that grace gave them an excuse for sin.

In fact, our standard of living is higher now that ever before because we live in the restored presence of God.  Our conscience must be more sensitive than during the OC time when God put everything in writing--all of the "do's" and the "don'ts"

I have "resurrection" life today.  I have "dominion" restored to me today.  I am a child of God.  I live in victory.  (We would do well to listen to some of the principles of those who espouse the so-called "positive confession" concept, because I am convinced that most of us are living our lives far below what God has provided for us to walk in).  I believe that we are empowered today to live above sin (as long as we are trusting fully in Jesus Christ, who is our righteousness).

Mike, by way of history, I was licensed to preach in the SBC (southern Baptist Convention) in 1977, I pastored a Calvary Chapel in Crane TX in 1982, and preached within the Churches of Christ from 1986-1999.  I am not sure if my background makes me "mixed up" or wiser in my journey of faith.  (Like yourself, at one time, I was a fan of pastor Chuck Smith--it was an amazing movement during the late 60's and 70's).

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

Date: 19 Sep 2009
Time: 12:31:55

Your Comments:


Hello there. I finally finished the paper on baptism and I'd like to forward it to you. I don't know what happened with my computor, but I lost your e-mail address. If your still interested, please send me your e-mail again. I obviously don't expect you to rewrite and post this anymore as originally intended, it has grown to large for that. But I know you would undoubtedly appreciate the new material, especially from pages 26 thru 29. Thanks again and hope your all mended from your leg problems! Nevin

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ Opened in 1996