Why Partial Preterism Does Not Work

Some Christians, who call themselves partial-preterists, claim that there are multiple comings of Jesus after his crucifixion. In this video I show why their arguments don't work and this proves fatal for partial-preterism and Christianity.

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Absolutely love your videos bro!

[@CMGigas1803]

Again, excellent work. I look forward to your upcoming information. Thanks.

[@plantedbythewaters2813]

Where in Matthew 24:34 does Jesus say “his generation”? You said “ his generation” in this video but that is not what the text says. It says “this generation”! That is the generation he is prophesying about!

[@scienceexplains302]

The term “son of man” just meant “human male” in Daniel 7:13, but the NT authors thought it had to be some kind of Superman, so they applied the term to Jesus.

[@v4854]

Exactly Super. man. A super (god) yet a man

[@DavidRodriguez-yo7zw]

Your videos are very helpful. Thanks!

[@scienceexplains302]

The people most disrespectful to the Biblical text are the people who claim to believe it.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@toddoman4636 Yes, it was a generalization. What is your definition of Christianity that the American evangelicals don’t meet? All of them would agree, I think, to the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, except maybe the part about one “Catholic” church.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@toddoman4636 There were at least two gospels preached in the first generation. Paul records disagreements among Christians. He said his opponents were cursed by God. And if it is just something within you, anyone can claim it is in them and not in someone else.

[@Dream-bebe]

Jesus doesn’t play! You will be in for a big shocker of your life when Jesus return. It could be any day now !

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Dream-bebe Not according to Matthew 26:57-64, where Jesus tells Caiaphas that he will see the son of man at the right hand of god, etc. Caiaphas died a few years after this supposed meeting, about 36 CE. Prophecy failed. Jesus doesn’t play? What has he been doing while church leaders rape children while hiding behind Jesus’ reputation? If he exists (apparently not), he is a useless “god”.

[@drewjohnson4811]

Trying to understand...in your view, his kingdom started and ended simultaneously? Jesus said his kingdom would start at the end of his generation. Seems It would need some time to grow from a stone to a mountain that fills the earth (Dan. 2:44). I Cor. 15 and Rev 20 seem to line up exactly. Those who were his were raised at his coming (fall of Jerusalem) and reign with him now (Millennium). Then the end comes when death is destroyed and he hands the kingdom over (White Throne Judgment/Second Resurrection). Passages like Phil. 3:11 and Luke 20:35 speak of people needing to be worthy to attain that first resurrection. BTW, I believe all of the Olivet discourse and the Book of Daniel are fulfilled. Also, full Preterism seems to leave the Jews scattered without any later action to "restore their fortunes" and regather. The actions with Israel stop with Deut. 28 judgment and desolation but Deut. 30 and other prophets promised later restoration. When we see the battle of Gog/Magog in Revelation 20, Israel is back in the land living safely. This has to be later because Jerusalem was just desolated in ch. 6-19. This is consistent with Ezekiel 37,38 that puts this battle after the regathering from being scattered among all nations and the land being "restored from sword" - Ez. 38:8.

[@escapingchristianity8765]

What I am saying in this video is Paul believed when living believers were transformed that Death, the LAST enemy (1 Cor 15:26, 51-55), would be destroyed. The resurrection of the wicked AND righteous dead would occur at the same exact moment as the transformation of living believers (1 Thess 4:15-17, Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15). What I also should have mentioned in my video was that the living wicked would be judged at the same moment too (Luke 12:46-48, Mat 25:14-30, Rev 11:15-18 et al). You can see this even more clearly in the sheep and goats judgment of Matt 25:31-46. In verse 32 it contains "Ethnos" in the plural form for all the nations of the world. In Matt 24:31 we see Christ gathering his elect from the four winds of heaven at the trumpet blast which is also found in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4. The Jesus character says just three verses later in Matt 24:34 that ALL that he had just described would happen in his generation. This means there can be no resurrection outside the disciples generation. Humans, made of dust, that decay and die and still behave imperfectly (sin), still exist today. This proves that Paul and the NT writers were not telling the truth.

[@drewjohnson4811]

@@escapingchristianity8765 Thank you for replying. Just a little push back. Luke 12:46-48 isn't about resurrection and eternal judgment of the wicked. It's about a person being caught in the earthly judgment (war) because he/she wasn't ready when Jesus "came". I agree that everything he described in Matt. 24 is done, but Matt 24 only describes the resurrection of the elect. The rest is earthly judgment and proclamation that the war would be the start of the kingdom echoing Daniel 7 where it was prophesied that the war would precede the start of the kingdom. Also, 1 Thess 4 only references believers (those "in Christ") being resurrected at the time of his coming. Consistent with 1 Cor. 15 and Rev. 20. Also, Matt 25:31-46 may not be about eternal destiny of individuals. The soteriology would be off if people were condemned to eternal destruction because they didn't visit those in prison, etc. Maybe cross reference Joel 3 with that passage. It could be related to how nations treat Israel during the period of scattering. Joel 2 is about the scattering when the sun is darkened. This corresponds to Matt 24 - Matt:25:1-30. Just curious, if you can see the fulfillment of passages like Daniel 2,7,9,10-12 down to the prophesied detail of the movement of the Roman emperors at the time (i.e. the things we can see), why do you feel the apostles were lying about the things we can't see like resurrection? I guess I'm wondering how you feel those prophecies giving the events surrounding the start of the kingdom were fulfilled if not by God?

[@escapingchristianity8765]

@@drewjohnson4811 The book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE forgery. This is a common view among bible scholars. This would explain its detail (and also its errors). If you are a Christian I don't expect you to believe that. That's why I made this video. To present an argument that is hard to ignore from the NT's own words. Please re-read my last comment to you and it might be helpful to watch my video again as well. Heb 9:28 and 10:37 do not allow for another coming outside the first century generation.

[@drewjohnson4811]

@@escapingchristianity8765 Hebrews 9:28 - " appear...to those who eagerly await Him" is also consistent with I Cor. 15 and Rev. 20 that those who were his, the elect, waiting expectantly, would be raised to reign with him. That was the first resurrection. If you take on the scholarly view of Daniel, it makes me wonder whether you've looked closely into those prophecies. It kind of helps me understand the disconnect in understanding the kingdom. The kingdom was prophesied to start in the Roman Empire and grow to fill the earth. Those prophecies are the link and they don't end with Greece the way secular scholars would lead one to think. Take Daniel 7 with respect to Matthew 24. The emperor prophesied in Daniel 7 is very precisely the one who was emperor at the war with Rome and temple destruction. Jesus and Daniel are pointing to the exact same event as the start of the kingdom. Secular scholars can't see it because they've completely eliminated Rome from their review of the prophecies. Thanks for the conversation. All the best.

[@escapingchristianity8765]

@@drewjohnson4811 Paul believed that the old Adamic body that was flesh and blood, made of dust, and prone to sin, would not exist anymore before his generation died out. This would be accomplished by the second coming of his messiah. The fact that humans (both believers and unbelievers) have been walking around in that body for the last 2,000 years is, as far as I can tell, a fatal problem for Christianity. Thank you for sharing your comments and perspective and I wish you all the best as well.

[@MrCGal220]

Don't divide Matthew 24 into sections. The prophecy is fulfilled in type in 70 AD and then in full at the Parousia. Many prophecies have this kind of duality within them. Isaiah 9, for instance, speaks of the child Jesus being born, who will sit on David's throne and rule from that time and forever. In Isaiah 7 we have an example of a dual prophecy concerning: "The virgin (young woman) will conceive and give birth to a son,c and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (Isaiah 7:14-16). In Chapter 8 we learn the name of the child: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isaiah 8:1). "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:4). In the same way that this historical example points to its future fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ, 70 AD also points to its future fulfillment. In fact, 70 AD and the Parousia are often linked together. In the following sets of dual verses (Matthew 16:27-28; Mark 8:38-9:1; Luke 9:26-27) we see Jesus speaking of His Parousia with His holy angels. Then He says, "Verily I say to you..." This phrase is often used by Jesus to make an additional statement to emphatically show why his first statement is 100% true. It is the equivalent of saying, "Not only that but..." or "Well, you think that is amazing,l let me tell you something else." Partial Preterists are right in saying that 70 AD was prophecied by Jesus Christ, but they are wrong to suppose saying that most of the book of Revelation is fulfilled. It's not. The tribulation of the first century was fulfilled, but it will occur again. Hence, dual fulfillment. Partial Preterists do not believe in a future tribulation, so they don't believe in a dual fulfillment of Matthew 24. Many of them have directly confronted me when I spoke of dual fulfillment. Not only that, but the tribulation of Revelation has not happened yet. It is yet to come.

[@henrybarrick7205]

MrCGal220 says the tribulation happened in 70 but will happen again. Jesus says no double trib... Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

[@henrybarrick7205]

As an I.B.V. preterist I dont know how to argue with the scriptures and logic presented here. In 1 Corinthians 15 I have no good reason to think that Paul was writing about a resurrection at a different time than the one at the end of Revelation 20. How many times can death be destroyed? Same thing with Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 20:13. How many times can every man be judged? What do you think about the dating of the new testament? Why do you also reject the Hebrew bible? Thanks for laying it down straight up.

[@escapingchristianity8765]

@henrybarrick7205 When it comes to Paul’s letters I think the currently accepted dating by biblical scholars makes a lot of sense. Paul probably wrote 1 Thess in the late 40’s and the rest of his letters throughout the 50’s. I am convinced Paul’s letters were the first books written in the NT. The gospels were written later and this confuses some Christians because they are the first books in the NT. If your question is mainly in reference to the gospels and Revelation I think there is no doubt at all (at least in my mind) they were written post 70 CE. My main reason for believing this is because of the Olivet Discourse but also there are many parables in the gospels that allude to the Jews’ destruction (Matt 21:33-46, Matt 22:1-14, Matt 23:1-38, Luke 20:9-19 et al). There is an obvious anti-Jewish polemic that pervades the gospels for rejecting the new Christian religion. Let me summarize what I am convinced happened 2,000 years ago: 1) The gospel writers see the Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans between April 14 and September 8, 70 CE. This is the siege of Jerusalem and is well attested to by many historical sources. 2) The gospel writers claim that their Jesus predicted this and record it in their gospels in the Olivet Discourse in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. 3) As previously pointed out the gospels are filled with parables that bash the Jews. This also explains why Christianity has been very hostile towards the Jews throughout most of history. 4) It was a very clever tactic by the gospel writers to claim their Jesus “predicted” the destruction of the temple and the Jews for rejecting him. It would have won lots of converts to the religion. 5) I don’t know if the gospel writers did it on purpose or they simply had sources that claimed Jesus predicted it. Regardless, those sources were remembering Jesus saying something he probably never said. 6) Paul suffers from hallucinations which 1 Cor 14:2,14,18, Gal 1:11-12, 2 Cor 12:1-7 and even the conversion story in Acts 9 allude to. How do I know this is true? To me there is a simple logical argument that proves this is true: 1) Over 100 eschatological time statements that demand a second coming of Jesus in the first century 2) This coming of the Son of Man would result in the arrival of the kingdom of God 3) This would result in an instant transformation of the universe (Rom 8:18-23, Rev 21-22) and of believers/righteous (1 Cor 15:50-57). 4) Flesh and blood bodies could not inherit the kingdom of god in Paul’s mind because they are disgusting to him and under the power of sin (Rom ch. 5-8, 1 Cor 15:50, Rom 7:18,23-25, Rom 8:23, Phil 3:21, Rom 8:29, et al) 5) All wicked people would physically die at the second coming (Luke 17:26-30, Matt 24:37-39) plus lots of other judgment parables and passages that reinforce this idea (Matt 13, Matt 25, Luke 12:35-48, Matt 24:45-51 and a ton more) Did flesh and blood physical bodies, like you and I have today, cease to exist two thousand years ago in the first century? Was everything made perfect? Did death, pain, suffering, injustice and “sin” disappear forever in that generation? This is how I know the first century Christians, as well as the writers of the NT, were an apocalyptic cult. They did not tell the truth to people. They may have sincerely believed it but they were sincerely wrong. As far as the Hebrew Bible goes I will just state bluntly what I am convinced of: The Jews who wrote the OT were clever. They had a small nation of people. They were not powerful compared to the people surrounding them. This is why you see them constantly being conquered throughout the historical record. So they created a clever story to try and stop that but it didn’t work. They said the true god of the universe had blessed them. That they were the chosen people of god and that other nations should not attack them or they would suffer his wrath. Of course nations like Babylon, the Medes, the Greeks and the Romans ignored this and conquered them anyway. Nothing bad happened to them proving the Jews were, to put it bluntly, full of shit. Of course the Jews who wrote the OT stories tried to present it as if their god did punish nations who oppressed Israel like Egypt and Babylon but there is no historical evidence for this at all. Now I think it is very possible that some of the Jews who wrote the OT really believed the things they were writing but like most loopy religious people they were full of you know what. The passage of time has proven that. Also, many of the apocalyptic Jewish books like Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, et al, present the Jewish law going on forever and their god never abandoning them. (I know the NT claims it was a hidden mystery that the Jewish law would disappear but this is bullshit and simply the Christians trying to re-write the Bible which they constantly do when they don’t like what it says. The obvious proof of this is thousands of denominations of Christianity that exist today). But then why has their god been missing for 2,500 years from the Jews? Why did he disappear? Why did Ezekiel’s temple never happen? The answer is obvious. He never existed but the moving poetry that you find in some of the OT books compels people to believe it. It is an emotional story (same can be said about the NT) that certainly has resonated with lots of people just like it did me when I was a Christian for 32 years. I de-converted from Christianity 3.5 years ago. I am certain that I know the truth now. All I care about is the truth (love, compassion and tolerance are important too but not at the expense of truth in most cases). The Christian god cannot exist. The logical problems I have pointed out are fatal to the possibility of his existence. But religious people aren’t logical. Most of them won’t listen to a word I said. I cannot help them other than to plant a seed. If they are lucky, when they are emotionally strong enough to face the truth, that seed will bloom and they will be free from the lie. But for most of them that day will never come in this life. Sorry for the long response. I hope it was helpful to you in some way.

[@henrybarrick7205]

@@escapingchristianity8765 Thanks for the response. The thing that I can't get is why the gospel writers (assuming they wrote post 70) would write the olivet discourse prediction in because it contains a "prediction" of redemption at the parosia (luke 21:28) or a gathering of the elect (matthew 24:31). This would seem to be self defeating. Wouldnt the readers reject it since there was no redemption or gathering of the elect (resurrection and rapture)? Maybe the gospels are pre 70 based on an educated guess about the fall of Jerusalem but the resurrection and kingdom prediction failed. But then again, Jesus said the kingdom does not come with observation. Super frustrating. The new testament is all over the place! Very hard to get a handle on. All of the denominations should be expected. I came to be all but full preterist a couple of years ago, I studied myself out of trinitarianism and got kicked out of Church for it a year ago, I realized Paul is probably a false apostle and was a rogue teacher and now Im realizing that preterism almost certainly doesnt work. Im not ready to forget God though. It does seem reasonable that we are living in a designed reality. That is a very strong argument for a creator (the watch must have a watch maker). It also seems reasonable that there would be one supreme God who alone has aseity. It also seems reasonable that what seem like hardwired morals are designed. I know Im rambling here sorry. Last thoughts... Could it be that God created man and then man created religion? To me, even if I lose both testaments of the bible I still feel an obligation to serve God and other people. People like to argue about what that should look like but I think deep down we all know to some extent how we ought to be. I appreciate your blunt honesty. Not enough time in this life to beat around the bush.

[@escapingchristianity8765]

@@henrybarrick7205 Biblical scholars today hold that Mark was written around 70 CE (Marcan priority as the first gospel written), Matthew about 80 CE, Luke about 80-85 CE and John 90-100 CE. These are just educated guesses from these men and these dates have changed throughout time. No one really knows for sure. Maybe Matthew and/or Mark were written before 70 CE? Does this solve the problem for Christians? No, it probably makes it worse. If these gospels were written before 70 CE then it really does look like the Jesus of the gospels predicted it. But the problem still remains and it makes this Jesus look like a liar. The cosmos and believers were not changed into an immortal, sinless, utopian state in the first century and all the wicked did not physically die like the days of Noah and Lot (Luke 17:26-30, 1 Cor 15:50). Also, Matthew could have been written before Mark. Many of the early church fathers say this and this is what scholars thought until the 19th century. There are still some scholars who think this today. Nobody really knows for sure. This would help explain why Matthew uses “immediately” in Matt 24:29, Mark uses “in those days” (not as pressing as the word immediate) in Mark 13:24, Luke uses “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” in Luke 21:24, and John doesn’t mention the embarrassing Olivet Discourse at all. Notice that from Matthew to John each gospel tries to lengthen the time for the second coming after the destruction of the temple. Matthew could have been written during the siege of Jerusalem by someone who saw the writing on the wall for the Jews and that their time was up and this writer thinks (hopes) it will happen “immediately” after the siege is over by the Romans. Mark says it will happen “in those days” which sounds to me like there could be a delay of at least a few years but I can see how others might not read it that way. Luke makes it even longer though. Luke says after the destruction of the temple Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles (Luke 21:24) for some period of time before the second coming. There seems to me to be this subtle attempt to make excuses for the delay in the Parousia from Matt to John. Then you have letters that were written much later like 2 Peter 3 and 2 Tim 3 that clearly address people that were making fun of the Christians because their Parousia obviously didn’t happen (and the Christians had been telling everybody it was going to just like dispensationalists do today) and the writers of these books make excuses for it (2 Peter 3:9). It really doesn’t matter whether the gospels were written before or after 70 CE. A new universe with only glorified people (Rom 8:18-23, Rom 8:29, Phil 3:21, 1 Cor 15:50-57, 1 Thess 4:13-17) did not occur in the first century which is a logically fatal problem for Christianity. You mentioned Luke 17:20-21 and that “the kingdom of god does not come with observation” and hinted this might be a reason for the kingdom not physically appearing. This won’t work. My explanation for Luke 17:20-21 is simply that the Jesus character is explaining the righteous character of the kingdom can be experienced within them if they repent and believe in him. Luke 17:22-37 which immediately follow those verses (and are Olivet Discourse material) definitely describe a kingdom that comes with observation just like Matt 16:27-28, Mark 8:38-9:1, Luke 9:26-27 and of course many passages from Paul and others. So the NT authors definitely did not think it was only some spiritually internal kingdom. It would arrive physically and the whole world would know it. With regard to your last thoughts, my official position is that I am agnostic. We simply don’t know if there is something after we die. That’s because either the atheists are right and there is nothing to tell us that there is nothing after we die or if there is something it does not want us to know. Either way we don’t get to know in this life. So although my official position is agnostic my hope is that there is a “god” or “divine source” or whatever you want to call it. In fact I think it is more probable that there is something after we die than that there is nothing but I could easily be wrong. I believe this because it just seems implausible to me that all of this happened by chance. Near death experiences are also very interesting but unfortunately not conclusive. You can still choose to be a “good” person and help people. I want to do this myself. One way for me to do that is writing this response to you to help you believe what I am convinced is true.

[@scienceexplains302]

The day and the hour are different from the age, but the NT repeatedly says the things will happen in that age and specifically while Caiaphas and Paul are alive. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 Matthew 26:57-64 Paul supposedly died in 64, Caiaphas in 36. Returning in 70 would still be a failed prophecy,

[@Preterism.]

"No one knows the day ot the hour" refers to the Feast of Trumpets, where the high priest would send out two or three witnesses to sight the new moon in order to mark the beginning of the feast. There was uncertainty as to the exact day this would occur, hence the phrase. The Greek Interlinear describes both the "yous" included in the following sentence as plural: "Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man..." (Matt 26:64). Paul was including others in his address ("we who are alive and remain"). This, even at full stretch, cannot be used in the manner which you have suggested. This I would say is simply being dishonest. Science depends on honesty, integrity and is not based on emotion and hate.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Preterism. There was no emotion or hate in my post. You should apologize for these baseless claims. It is possible I misunderstood something, but my analysis was based on reading the text, not emotion or hate. I gave references and reasons, not emotion or hate.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Preterism. The day and hour was tangential to my point, but it is not limited as you said Matthew 24:34-36 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. *But about that day or hour* no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. So “Matthew” is claiming that Jesus prophesied that the great events would occur in that generation, but the specific day and hour were known only by god [NIV]

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Preterism. Matthew 26:64 has a plural You. That makes my case stronger, since if any one of them died before Caiaphas, the prophecy was even more wrong. Same with Paul. It doesn’t matter that he included others. *He* was supposed to still be alive when Jesus returned

[@Preterism.]

@@scienceexplains302 If I am wrong, then you will need to demonstrate how it is possible that you can honestly use 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in order to support your claim that Paul had to be alive, and that there was no other option (such as those he was writing to might srill be alive after he had died).

[@AAwildeone]

Very good exposition via a literary, NOT a historical, analysis. Hamlet, for instance, is a very short play compared to all the nonsense believing brains have to deal with. One would think such people could make sense of Hamlet in no time at all. Except you can't...

[@xavier4206]

Im starting to understand

[@Chris2Flock]

Great video even though I'm no longer a Christian. 😁

[@escapingchristianity8765]

Neither am I.

[@Chris2Flock]

@@escapingchristianity8765 That's good news.