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

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)



Church-State Relations and the Book of Revelation
An Introduction to The Parousia: A Careful Look at the New Testament Doctrine of the Lord's Second Coming
by James Stuart Russell (1878) // Written by
Todd Dennis, Curator
 


Modern Preterism
Modern Preterism Study Archive
Study Archive

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

MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke

Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P. Warren
Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
 

THE PRÆTERIST INTERPRETATION

Frederic W. Farrar
(c.1831-1903) ; D.D., F.R.S.

VOLUME II, CHAPTER II

From

The Early Days of Christianity
1882 - London

CLICK HERE TO READ THE PDF FILE

"It has been usual to say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar.. was the founder of the Præterist School.. But to me it seems that the founder of the Præterist School is none other than St. John himself."


There have been three great schools of Apocalyptic interpretation :- 1. The Præterists, who regard the book as having been mainly fulfilled.  2.  The Futurists, who refer it to events which are still wholly future.  3.  The Continuous-Historical Interpreters, who see in it an outline of Christian history from the days of St. John down to the End of all things.  The second of these schools -- the Futurists -- has always been numerically small, and at present may be said to be non-existent. 

The school of Historical Interpreters was founded by the Abbot Joachim early in the 13th century, and was specially flourishing in the first fifty years of the present century. [There are two school of the interpreters who make the Apocalypse a prophecy of all Christian history.  The school of Bengel, Vitringo, Elliott, &c., make it mainly a history of the Church.  Another school regards it more generally, and less specifically, as an outline of Epochs of the History of the world and the great forces which shape it into a Kingdom of God.  To this latter school belong Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Auberlen, &c.]

The views of the Præterists have been adopted, with various shades of modification, by Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, Bousset, Eichorn, Hug, Wetstein, Ewald, Herder, Zullig, Bleek, DeWette, Lucke, Moses Stuart, Davidson, Volkmar, Krenkel, Dusterdieck, Renan, and almost the whole school of modern German critics and interpreters.  It has been usual to say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar, in his Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalpysi (1614), was the founder of the Præterist School, and it certainly seems as if to him must be assigned the credit of having first clearly enunciated the natural view that the Apocalypse, like all other known Apocalypses of the time, describes events nearly contemporaneous, and is meant to shadow forth the triumph of the Church in the struggle first with Judaism and then with Heathendom.  But to me it seems that the founder of the Præterist School is none other than St. John himself.  For he records the Christ as saying to him when he was in the Spirit, "Write the things which thou sawest, and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and the things which are about to happen after these things."  No language surely could more clearly define the bearing of the Apocalypse.  It is meant to describe the contemporary state of things in the Church and the world, and the events which were to follow in immediate sequence.  If the Historical School can strain the latter words into an indication that we are (contrary to all analogy) to have a symbolic and unintelligible sketch of many centuries, the Præterist School may at any rate apply these words, "THE THINGS WHICH ARE," to vindicate the application of a large part of the Apocalypse to events nearly contemporary, while they also give the natural meaning to the subsequent clause by understanding it of events which were then on the horizon.  The Seer emphatically says that the future events which he has to foreshadow will occur speedily [Compare Tachu (Rev. 22. 5,16 ; iii.11; xi.14 ; xxii.20).  It is curious to see with what extraordinary ease commentators explain the perfect simple and ambiguous expression "speedily" to mean any length of time which they may choose to demand.  The word "immediately," in Matt. xxiv.29, has been subject to similar handling, in which indeed all Scripture exegesis abounds.  The failure to see that the Fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Mosaic Dispensation was a "Second Advent" -- and THE Second Advent contemplated in many of the New Testament prophecies -- has led to a multitude of errors..] and the recurrent burden of his whole book is the nearness of the Advent.  Language is simply meaningless if it is to be so manipulated by every successive commentator as to make the words "speedily" and "near" to imply any number of centuries of delay.   The Præterist method of interpretation does not, however, interfere with that view of prophecy which was so well defined by Dr. Arnold.  This is the view of those who have been called the "spiritual" interpreters.  It admits of the analogical  application of prophecy to conditions which, in the cycles of history, bear a close resemblance to each other.  It applies to all times the principles originally laid down with reference to events which were being then enacted, and starts with the axiom of Bacon, that divine prophecies have steps and grades of fulfillment through divers ages. [De Augment. Scient. ii.11.]  All that is really valuable in the works of the Historical Interpreters may thus be retained.  No importance can be attached to  their limitation of particular symbols, but the better part of their labours may be accepted as an illustration of the manner in which the Apocalyptic symbols convey moral lessons which are applicable to the conditions of later times.

But, apart from St. John's own words, it cannot be conceded that the central conception of the Præterist exegesis is a mere novelty of the 17th century.  On the contrary, we can trace from very early days the application of various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome.  Thus Justin Martyr believed that the Antichrist would be a person who was close at hand, who would reign three and a half years. [Dial. c. Tryph. p. 250]  Irenaeus also thought that Antichrist, as foreshadowed by the Wild Beast, would be a man ; and that "the number of the Beast" represented Lateinos, "a Latin," [Iren. Haer. v. 25 Hippolytus compares the action of the False Prophet giving life to the Beast's image, to Augustus inspiring fresh force into the Roman Empire. [De Antichristo, p.6]  Later on, I shall furnish abundant evidence that a tradition of the ancient Church identified Nero with the Antichrist, and expected his literal return, just as the Jews expected the literal return of the Prophet Elijah.  St. Victorinus (about A.D.303) counts the five dead emperors from Galba, and supposes that, after Nerva, the Beast (whom he identifies with Nero) will be recalled to life. ["Bestia de septem est quoniam ante ipsos reges Nero regnavit."]  St. Augustine mentions a similar opinion. [De Civ. Dei, xx.19]  The Pseudo-Prochorus, writing on Rev. xvii. 10, says that the "one which is" is meant for Domition.  Bishop Andreas, in the fifth century, applies Rev. vi.12 to the siege of Jerusalem, and considers that Antichrist will be "as a king of the Romans."  Bishop Arethas, on Rev. vii., implies that the Apocalypse was written before the Jewish War.  The fragments of ancient comment which we possess cannot be said to have much intrinsic value ; but such as they are they suffice to prove that the tendency of modern exegesis approaches quite as nearly to the earliest traditions as that of the Historical School.  It is a specially important fact that St. Augustine, as well as many others, recognized the partially retrogressive and iterative character of the later visions, and thereby sanctioned one of the most important principles of modern interpretation. [Id. ib. 17.]

The internal evidence that the book was written before the Fall of Jerusalem has satisfied not only many Christian commentators, who are invidiously stigmatised as "rationalistic," but even such writers as Wetstein, Lucke, Neander, Stier, Auberlen, Ewald, Bleek, Gebhardt, Immer, Davidson, Dusterdieck, Moses Stuart, F.D. Maurice, the author of "The Parousia," Dean Plumptree, the authors of the Protestanten-Bibel and multitudes of others no less entitled to the respect of all Christians.

If, however, the reads still looks with prejudice and suspicion on the only school of Apocalyptic exegesis with unites the suffrages of the most learned recent commentators in Germany, France, and England, I hardly know where he is to turn.  The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it.  It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself, and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive.  A few specimens may suffice to show how completely other systems float in the air.

Let us suppose that the student has found out that in viii.13 the true reading is "a single eagle," not an angel ; but, whether eagle or angel, he wants to know what the symbol means.  He turns to the commentators, and finds that it is explained to be the Holy Spirit (Victorinus); or Pope Gregory the Great (Elliott); or St. John himself (DeLyra); or St. Paul (Zeger); or Christ himself (Wordsworth).  The Præterists mostly take it to be simply an eagle, as the Scriptural type of carnage--the figure being suggested not by the resemblance of the word "woe!" ("ouai") to the eagle's screams, but by the use of the same symbol for the same purpose by our Lord in His discourse about the things to come. [Matt. xxiv.28.]

But this is nothing!  The student wishes to learn what is meant by the star fallen from heaven, in ix.1.  The Historical school will leave him to choose between an evil spirit (Alford); a Christian heretic (Wordsworth); the Emperor Valens (DeLyra); Mohammed (Elliott); and, among others, Napoleon (Hengstenberg) !

The confusion deepens as we advance.  The locusts are "heretics" (Bede); or Goths (Vitringa); or Vandals (Aureolus); or Saracens (Mede); or the mendicant orders (Brightman); or the Jesuits (Scherzer); or Protestants (Bellarmine).

The same endless and aimless diversity reigns throughout the entire works of the Historical interpreters ; none of them seems to satisfy any one but himself.  The elaborate anti-papal interpretation of Elliott--of which (to show that I am far from prejudiced) I may mention, in passing, that I made a careful study and a full abstract when I was seventeen years old-- is all but forgotten.  Mr. Faber admits that there is not the least agreement as to the first four trumpets among writers of his school, and he rightly says that "so curious a circumstance may well be deemed the opprobrium of Apocalyptic interpretation, and may naturally lead us to suspect that the true key to the distinct application of the first four trumpets has never yet been found."

Not that this school leave us any better off when we come to the seven thunders.  They are seven unknown oracles (Mede); or events (Ebrard); or the seven crusades (Vitringa); or the seven Protestant kingdoms (Dunbar); or the Papal Bull against Luther (Elliott).

The two wings of the great eagle in xii.14 are the two Testaments (Wordsworth); or the eastern and western divisions of the empire (Mede, Auberlen); or the Emperor Theodosius (Elliott).

The number of the Beast -- which may be now regarded as certainly intended to stand for Nero -- has been made to server for Genseric, Benedict, Trajan, Paul V., Calvin, Luther, Mohammed, Napoleon -- not to mention a host of other interpretations which no one has ever accepted except their authors. [The majority of guesses which have the least seriousness in them point to Rome, the Roman Empire, or the Roman Emperor.]

It is needless to multiply further instances.  They might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but their multiplicity is not so decisive of the futility of the principles on which they are selected, as is the diversity of results which are wider than the poles asunder.  What are we to say of methods which leave us to choose between the applicability of a symbol to the Holy Spirit or to Pope Gregory, to the Two Testaments or to the Emperor Theodosius?  Anyone, on the other hand, who accepts the Præterist system finds a wide and increasing consensus among competent enquirers of all nations, and can see an explanation of the book which is simple, natural, and noble -- one which closely follows its own indications, and accords with those to be found throughout the New Testament.  He sees that events, mainly contemporary, provide an interpretation clear in its outlines, though necessarily uncertain in minor details.  

It he takes the view of the Spiritualists, he may at his pleasure make the symbols mean anything in general and nothing in particular. 

If he is of the Historical School he must let the currents of Gieseler or Gibbon sweep him hither and thither at the will of the particular commentator in whom he for the time may chance to confide.

But if he follows the guidance of a more reasonable exegesis, he may advance with a sure step along a path which becomes clearer with every fresh discovery.


Date:

12 Jan 2002
Time:
22:33:34

Comments

This is the best defense of the view I have ever read!


Date:
14 Jan 2002
Time:
03:15:25

Comments

Excellent Work,

We modern Preterists must still understand the influence of Jesuit Alcasar on our thinking and world view.

Farrar here clearly lays out the great limitation of the Historicist view. Primarily Historicism is wholly Eurocentric. While the Papal influence claimed by Historicists emanates from Rome the vast bulk of the Church is not European.

In short this is a great work. Perhaps the madness of British Dispensationalism would have been tempered had those under Farrar's ministry more readily accepted his eschatology.

(Elsewhere on this site we find that Farrar was the Chaplain to Queen Victoria, From 1871-1876. Headmaster of Marlborough College. Canon of Westminster Abbey, Rector of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, Archdeacon of Westminster, and Dean of Canterbury.)

AJP


Date:
15 Jan 2002
Time:
00:16:56

Comments

Well, this clears up a lot! Let us not be swayed by the so called 'catholic' origins of Preterism! Great defense. Great offense as well! Thanks for the article. Keep up the good work it's much appreciated. Michael Overbay reformershammer@aol.com


Date:
15 Jan 2002
Time:
15:00:54

Comments

I have a rebound copy of this work by Farrar and in my early studies it was very helpful. Commendations to you on the new articles on the, The ,"What's New", on your Web site. I hope the men are using the information of Doctrine.net and PBS Frontline to get a better grasp of 'Christianity?'. Your Brother, usmc1div@earthlink.net


Date:
27 Sep 2002
Time:
02:47:17
Remote User:

Comments

Wow! How come this guy isn't better known?


Date:
13 Oct 2002
Time:
11:25:07
Remote User:

Comments

I think that preteism misses the boat.There is no proof that Rev. was written before AD70. Not to ment ion that there are far to many elements having to do with the last days that have not been fulfilled. 1Jn. 3:2 says "We shall see Him as He is" & so be "like Him". "Every eye shall see Him"Rev.1:7 etc. etc. When Yeshua comes back we will all know it without any dought & every knee will bow, that my friends has not happened yet. I believe you are falling into the trap of the corinthians in beieving that the part is the whole. Some things are fulfilled in part but not in total. There is much left to happen just wait & see. In Messiah's love Daniel S. Farley Pastor-Faith Bapist Falls City. Ne. dfarley@sentco.net


Date:
10 Dec 2002
Time:
15:01:34

Comments

Don't you understand that God has not abandoned his chosen people the Jew's. The Abrahamic Covenant is "unconditional" and God keeps His promises. If the Rapture, the Second Coming, the Tribulation and the Millennium have already taken place, shouldn't we be in Heaven now, why are we stil here? Oh! I get it, you Preterist don't really believe in the Bible.


Date:
06 Feb 2003
Time:
14:23:08

Comments

"Unconditioal covenant" hey, more dispensational denial; read the text and you'll find the "Abramic covenant" is nestled between God's command - CONDITION [verse 1], and Abrams obedience - condition fulfilled [verse 4]. Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. Gen 1:4 So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. Notice God's words "get out!" and Abrams response - he departed. davo www.pantelism.com


Date:
14 Jul 2003
Time:
19:55:39

Comments

You are correct in that most of the Revelation has been fullfilled. However you attempt to understand the Revelation within yourself, and by your own reasoning. God, the Holy spirit, gives understanding. The rapture has not already taken place, now will it ever. The rapture is a creation of Man. Such a thing is not taught in the Bible. The rapture, or should I say belief in the rapture, leaves one to beliewve there will be a second chance to make things right for eternity. There will be no second chance! It goes something like this... Jesus returns and raptures away the church. The rest of the world rem,ains here to endure the Tribulation. Then Jesus returns when Antichrist claims to be God. Christ sets up his Kingdom. He reigns here on earth for a thousand years, during this time the Devil is tied, and bound. This makes a good story maybe, full of action, ready made for Hollywood. But truth is. When Jesus returns it will be in a moment of time. During this moment all those Chritians that have ever lived will be caught up, in the air weith Christ. Then those that are alive, along with all the resat of mankind will also be caught up. Jesus will divide the sheep from the goats. sinner, from Saint. Then the Judgement will take place. The christiands will enter into Heaven, the rest will be thrown into everlasting punishment. and eternal seperation from God. I might add that the number of Christians will be few. The Bible says few there be that find it. (Narrow way) All God's children walk the High way of Holiness, which is the narrow way, trod by very few. In Noah's day only 8 people of of the whole world survived the flood. Only Lot, and his daughters, survived Sodom. Only the Harlot survived Jericho. Those who stand true to God, are few in number. Those who live according to the flesh, in their own way, and lusts are many. We are living in a day and time of Lukewarmness. People who claim salvation, but don't truly have it. God says that he would rather for you to be Hot, or Cold (saint, or sinner) than to be Lukewarm. This is a grievious thing to God. He detests it. If this troubles you, the reader, you must ask why?? If you profession is real, you have nothing to be worried about. But if there are stains in your life. Watch out. No sin will enter into Heaven. May God shed light on your soul (reader).


Date:
21 Jul 2003
Time:
16:37:07

Comments

I am so interested to learn that there is actually a name for the group of people who have come to the same logical conclusions that I have come to in my studies... Preterists! No man has taught me these things, the spirit of God truly leads us into all truth. I am keeping in mind however that often times things will be repeated or happen twice.One example is Elijah returns as John the baptist. So it is logical to me that the futurists can be correct AND the preterists can be also. Is there a name for people who hold this doctrine? For example: the destruction of the "world" meant the Roman Empire to the contemporaries of the writings whild it may mean the literal entire world to those of the future. God often employs these kinds of overlapping meanings and interpretations thruout scripture. I resign myself to be open to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, proving all things and keeping that which is good.


Date:
26 Oct 2003
Time:
04:59:31

Comments

How convenient it is that Dispensationalism originated in the Christian Church about the same time Zionism came onto the world stage.This so-called theology is nothing more than the propaganda tool of World Zionism. If you never read the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", then you can't appreciate its outlined Zionist ploy in using Christians to create theological conflict within themselves, leading to their own religion's destruction, (by way of Dispensationalism) while creating a groundswell of benevolet worship to the Zionist manufactured state of Israel. Its deadly tentacles have now also completely strangled our government and easily explains our current insanity in the Middle East which eventually will become an epic diaster for this country. Have just read John Stewart's "Parousia" and what a refreshing light is throws on reading and interpreting the New Testament after it strips all "Jewish Fables" from its contents. If the Book of Malachi's the last book of the OT, then one would expect the prophet to herald in a forthcoming peaceful and prosperous future for the existing Jewish kingdom under a predicted Messiah. Yet, it contains nothing but dark and dire predictions of agony, death, and destruction for Jerusalem and Israel. How appropriately intuitive of our Lord's Second Coming in 70A.D.


Date:
29 Nov 2003
Time:
19:32:38

Comments

Armstrong's rendering of Revelations make more sense than anything I've read so far ! When pointing to Daiel 7:14 thru 25, Who can argue with WHO the Beast, 666-man ,and what the 666-man DID that "MARKED the "BEast"----The Roman CIVIL System and Church !! Constantine Indeed was the 666-MAN !!! Rest is history Deffinately Proven !!!!!Can you name anyothe Law of GOD's Ten Eternally Bindi nding one that's EVER been CHANGED and Times of observence ?????? SUN day stand's guilty !!! It's "MARKED the world since 325 A.D. The Date and Day of PASSOVER is the other "Change Times and Laws !!!!! Can anything be plainer?????

Don't anyone be fooled by the term "lord's-day in the English New testiment !!! It Does NOT appear in the Bible no where in the Original Greek nor Hebrew original texts !! It's another FALSE gift from the Pagan INFLUENCED Traslaters 800 yrs. After the original texts were written !!! Now the words "DAY of the Lord DOES appear in the PROPHETIC scriptures 30 some times , and have NOTHING to do with a DAY OF THE WEEK !

I've studyed God's word for 50 years now , and What the Spirit has revealed to me in the Past 10 years , out does anything I'd previously learned !!!! Why? Because I was merely studing stuff written in the past 100yrs. ,by Totally unlearned Denominational QUACKS !!! Bring up "QUOTABLE Notes and Notable Quotes" on http;/members.Aol.com/KHoeck2/notes. Html Read all the Admissions of the Church LEADERS that Know the DAY OF WORSHIP has been changed to "BAAL-DAY" the feast-day of Satan's Pagan Church everysince NIMROD'S founding of His {BAALizm} religious system on the 1st day of the week against GOD in rebellion !!! Read every one of the QUOTES !! Yes the world has Accepted the "MARK"------- of the beast !!![ROME's CIVIL system}under CONSTANTINE !!!! Remember "BAAL" is the Semetic Language's name meaning Lord---thus you have "lord's-Day" the heathens have used everysence Nimrod's days back in Noah's time !! What DAY did Jesus tell the Pharisiees He is LORD of ????? I don't think he said it's SUN-day !!!!


Date:
09 Feb 2004
Time:
20:56:18

Comments

What a waste of time... If you can't rightly divide the scriptures then stay away from them and get to writing fiction stories... that's all this stuff is! I won't spend the time to point out the many errors of thought presented here. Anyone who reads this stuff better go study the word under Spirit led writers. This stuff will bend your brain except that the Spirit of the Living God still is the teacher of the word of God and has gifted teachers to give the truth revealed by Him alone. Don't waste your time!


Date:
18 Aug 2004
Time:
12:42:37

Comments

Wow. "Let no man be your judge regarding food or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or the new moon, or of the sabbath," comes to mind. [Col 2:16] And now that I mention it, so does "Who are you that judges another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Yes, he shall be held up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regards the day, regards it to the Lord, and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it." I think you should find better things to do with your time than fill up message boards with unscriptural doctrine. Seventh Day Adventist, yes? I'm unimpressed with your fifty years of studying the Bible. Further, and on another note: You folks coming on here to criticize and judge preterists ought to educate yourselves on the doctrine before condemning it. Your comments stink of arrogance, and they remind me of Rush Limbah who said, "So you've basically run out of intelligent things to say and have resorted to calling me names." One of these posts, "... you Preterists don't really believe in the Bible," I find especially offensive, and likewise hypocritical. The fact of the matter is, the Bible is exactly what we believe. It is the premillenialist arguement that defies scripture. Jesus said he was coming back during the liftime of some of the Apostles. I believe Him. If no one documented the specifics ... then I guess I just don't have the specifics. He said He was coming, I believe He was telling the truth, and it is my duty to Him to have faith that He did as He claimed He would and try to understand how, by the faith I have in His promises, His return happened. The Premillenialist, on the other hand, has taken to defying the words of Christ Himself, believing that because they didn't see it, or have no evidence of it (an adulterous generation seeks a sign), it must not have happened, thus negating the promise of Christ through faithless denial. So who, exactly, doesn't believe in the Bible? He said he was coming in their lifetimes. I believe it. You don't. Be mindful of how you treat other Christians. Jesus tells us: "... whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (or empty headed), shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire." The insulting criticisms don't fall very short of that mark. If you believe we are wrong, then refute us properly, and with a Christian attitude: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God will by chance give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth ..." [2 Tim 2:24-26] I thought this was a good article. I would like to ask, since I can't find the place on the Home Page ... is there a way I can submit an article for review and possibly to be posted? A.M. Frazier


Date: 30 Mar 2007
Time: 16:08:34

Comments:

Just one point Yeshua/Jesus never said that he would come back while the first apostles were alive. I still stand by my first responce there are just to many things that have not happened yet whether reading from Rev, Daniel etc. I hold to the prewrath view Messiah will come back to take his own living & died after that his wrath. Dan Farley

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 PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com