To: Jamey who wrote (27582 ) 10/8/1999 9:09:00 AM From: Brumar89 Respond to of 39621
Thanks for posting. I know that Christians have interpreted the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem as a fulfillment of prophecy. But that is only a part of preterism. It also maintains that Jesus' 2nd Advent occurred at the same time. This is definitely not a traditional Christian belief and is a defining element of preterism that separates it from historical Christian beliefs. Note the following passage from Tertullian included in the preteristarchive URL:Therefore, since the vaticinations of the FIRST ADVENT obscured it with manifold figures, and debased it with every dishonour, while the SECOND (was foretold as) manifest and wholly worthy of God , it has resulted therefrom, that, by fixing their gaze on that one alone which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the SECOND, which is in honour and glory), they have been (not undeservedly) deceived as to the more obscure--at all events, the more unworthy--that is, the FIRST. And thus to the present moment they affirm that their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty; while they are ignorant of(9) the fact that He was first to come in humility. Here Tertullian is saying there will be two advents - the first in humility, the second in honor, glory, majesty. He notes that the Jews don't believe in Jesus because they are expecting only the one manifest advent (fixing their gaze on that one alone which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the SECOND, which is in honour and glory . . . thus to the present moment they affirm that their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty ). This passage reveals the traditional historical Christian belief - that there will be a second advent to come. None of the early citations in the preterist archive reveal a belief that second coming had occcurred in 70AD. The early Christians quoted did believe the destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of prophecy but that alone is not the defining element of preterism which sets it apart. I do note that the later dated citations from the 1800's are from preterists. The citations from the 1700's may be as well which would push preterism's origins back at least to the mid-1700's.