Dons followers are so enamored with him, and with the belief that they possess some form of esoteric knowledge, they refuse to listen to reason, or even acknowledge when their own teacher is wrong/inconsistent. Consider Dons inconsistency when it comes to appeals to extra-biblical sources. He poo-poos the creeds, the understanding of the early church, the writings of the reformers, and so on, claiming that the bible alone is the source for his claims, yet he turns around and **arbitrarily** relies on appeals to ‘Jewish rabbinical literature’ to PROVE (not merely ‘support’) his arguments. For instance, as you pointed out, the context of 2Peter3 and the New Heavens and New earth described therein-is the entire world, not the Temple located in Jerusalem. This is beyond dispute when one simply reads 2Peter3:5-7 without a predetermined bias. Peter says the heavens and earth/world “THEN” were flooded, and the heavens and the earth that exist “NOW” are being kept for the same sort of judgment-the final judgement through fire as opposed to water. Clearly, the flood was GLOBAL, -- (See Peter refer to the SAME event one chapter prior 2Peter2:5 saying the ancient *WORLD* was not spared) -- and one must accuse Peter of unbelievable equivocation to say that the heavens and the earth that are “now” -is all the sudden a reference to the temple in Jerusalem. Who could read Peters words, written in prose, and infer that without having an agenda? Peter is clearly saying that what happened “then” will happen later (by fire as opposed to water), the problem is that in Noahs day, there was no localized destruction of the mosaic temple, therefore Dons argument is laid waste. In light of this clear evidence, considering the obvious context of these verses, what does Don do? He runs to Jospehus, a pagan, and says that because he referred to the temple as heaven and earth, thats what Peter MUST have meant. How Don could infer that is beyond me. Don totally disregards the context of 2Peter and essentially says “Because Peter and Josephus were Jews according to the flesh, and they used the phrase ‘heaven and earth’ they MUST have been referring to the same thing” which is by itself, fallacious, seeing that-that is simply an assertion that begs the question,-and that doesn’t even deal with the fact that Josephus, as you pointed out, described other objects as emblematic of “heavens and earth”. So, even if we granted Dons posit, he is still guilty of arbitrarily focusing on one statement of Josephus while ignoring others. Don does the same thing with the millennium in Rev 20. Running away from the Bible, apparently he ‘proves’ his claim that the millenium is 40 years because some rabbis taught that. The astute listener, the one who gets his theology from the ‘Bible alone’ should obviously ask…”okaaayyyyyyy but HOW could they substantiate such a claim from scripture? It is one thing to say Rabbis believed something, it is another thing to prove their notion can be justified from the scriptures ”. Scriptural proof is all the more needed in Dons case, since “1000” and “thousands” when used everywhere else in scripture, always denotes something large in scale. For it not to mean that in Rev 20, don would have rely on more than the mere speculations of Rabbis..Of course, Don does not ask and subsequently answer this question, and questions like this, because he cant, and hopes his followers are as simple minded as him.
the flood did not destroy the planet. The planet remained and survived the deluge . I dont think God is interested in destroying the entire universe for the sake of a few ungodly men. He is the creator, not he destroyer. And Jospehus is not a pagan. Stop lying.
Heaven and earth were ancient Jewish metaphors for thier universe, thier religion , nation and temple. Just like all languages are full of idioms and metaphor, the ancient Hebrew nation had their own terms . When the temple burned, that was the Jews heaven and earth being destroyed so to speak. The rabbis that witnessed it recorded thier horrors at this event and astonishment in their writings. You people come along 2000 years later and think you know everything. You really dont know much at all about those years .
@@BertGraef "The flood did not destroy the planet" Correct, and I never stated that the world, as in the substance of the planet, was destroyed. Contextually, "the world" (2Peter2:5a) is obviously and explicitly referring to "the world of the ungodly" (2Peter2:5b). So "destruction" came upon the wicked people that dwelled on the earth in Noah's day. Peter is quite obviously referring to the same thing in 2Peter 3, and he is quite obviously saying that what happened in Noah's day, will happen at a future day, albeit with fire as opposed to water. "I don't think God is interested in destroying the entire universe for the sake of a few ungodly men" That is not my position nor is that the position of creedal, historic orthodox Christianity. We do not believe that God will destroy the earth at Christ's second coming. Rather, we believe the Lord will cleanse the earth of all the sin, impurity, and sinners that were in the world, and **renew** the earth in marvelous glory and splendor. "He is the creator not a destroyer" What? Are you saying that God being the creator , necessitates the inference that he does not ever destroy? If so, that is a fallacious argument, and moreover, that runs counter to several express statements of scripture. God "destroys" those who destroy his people (1Corinthians 3:17/Zechariah12:9) God is said to "destroy " sinners out of the land (Isaiah 13:9). As a judgement against Judah, God said he bring destruction on the temple in which the people vainly trusted (Jeremiah 7:14). My friend, what are you going on about? "And Josephus is not a pagan. Stop lying" Oh brother, give me a break. I was speaking in hyperbole to make a point. Namely that Don cannot find any reputable Christian scholar, from any Christian tradition, whether from antiquity or present day, to substantiate his claims, so he runs to a unbelieving Jew in order to "prove his point". Moreover my main point was that Don neglected the rather elementary teaching that words and phrases are **defined by their context**. To point out that Josephus used the phrase "heaven and earth" when referring to one thing, does not prove that Peter was using the same phrase in the exact same way. He merely begs the question with such asinine assertions and those who are too gullible to know any better fall for it. Moreover, as I pointed out, Josephus used the phrase "heaven and earth" to refer to other things besides the temple, so Don is guilty of arbitrarily emphasizing Josephus's use of that phrase in one instance, and ignoring how he used it in other instances. Doesn't surprise me, as only an ignoramus could make such sloppy mistakes. My friend, if you are full Preterist, I encourage you to repent. You have been deceived, as I was, as I was once a full preterist and was almost excommunicated from my reformed church because of it. It wasn't until I was humbled, and was honest with what scripture, and the universal catholic church (not Roman catholic) taught, that I was disabused of my erroneous belief in Full Preterism. May God have mercy on you and grant you repentance.
@@BertGraef "Heaven and earth were ancient Jewish metaphors for their universe, their religion, their nation, and temple" See, this is the simple-mindedness that I was referring to. I do not deny that there are passages in scripture that use "heaven and earth" in a restricted sense. But surely you are not so dull as to think that the phrase "heaven and earth" in the Old Testament ALWAYS referred to the Jewish temple/religion, right? In Genesis 1, when God was said to create the "heavens and the earth" are we to believe Moses meant that he created the mosaic temple, which didn't come into existence until several centuries after the Genesis 1 narrative ? My goodness you cannot be serious. See how easily your arguments are reduced to absurdity by possessing basic scriptural literacy.
16:21 I believe I recall Peter in 1 Peter 5:8 saying that the devil was still out there looking for someone to swallow. Saying that he was defeated in less than 20 years after Peter wrote this is lunacy. Satan CONTINUES to look for people to turn away from the Lord.
Preston is a very smart guy but I instantly refute him with the respected body. Jesus’ body was physical. Paul tells us we will have a new incorruptible body
You're right. I don't know why he won't let go of that non-physical Resurrection idea. At least 4 historians documented the physical return of Jesus and physical resurrection of the dead in 66AD.
@@johno2277 I think it’s far more hopeful waiting for the promises of a resurrected body and no more pain. His view is depressing. Remember no church fathers ever taught this heresy
The pride of man.....there will always be men who have a new path to truth interpreting the Bible. They are the persons who have special new answers and they are the ones who lead people into error. If it be possible and yet the Lord said " if it be possible" it is not possible to go astray with the Lord to keep us. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.
Upholding traditions is the ultimate form of pride of man. There were the Pharisees, then the Catholics, and now we have the reformed Christians. It is not that rare for popular and established opinions to be wrong.
@@justanother240 I agree with you. Historic Premilennialism has been lost to the uprising of Dispensational Premilennialism. A Great Tribulation from the time of Jesus’s resurrection to the second coming has been lost to fantasies of a Pre-Trib Rapture and the insistence that the Temple will be rebuilt and redestroyed. However, Full Preterism also features the pride of man, saying how we have experienced our spiritual Resurrection and are the Church that dwells in Righteousness (2 Peter 3:13) No man before the 1800s believed in any of these things. We need to go back to scripture and realize what is truly being said. And scripture clearly teaches that the hope of Christ extends from this world (1 Corinthians 15:19)
I do like the video and I see some of the points you make but I also see the points made by full preterists. I'll admit that revelation 20 with the 1000 year millennium never sat well with me when I was adopting the preterist view but putting that aside for a sec and just going over statements made by jesus and the apostles always get me too. I think Luke 21 22 where christ was written as saying concerning the ad 70 event " these are the days of vengeance so that ALL THINGS written may BE FULFILLED." Convinced me of the full preterist view and Have not found hardly one bible commentary note trying to explain that one. Of course any1 can say that "all things" isn't literally, it just means all things concerning physical Israel but nowhere in the text does it suggest a non literal meaning.Or Peter in 1 Peter 4 7 when he said "the end of ALL THINGS is at hand." I mean to me, it seems like Christians do many mental gymnastics to try to explain these away but like I said, I get both arguments.
Acts 13:29 says the Jews and Pontious Pilate fulfilled "all things" concerning Jesus. So, according to your logic, after Jesus was crucified, there were no more prophecies concerning Jesus that were left to be fulfilled, including his second coming. That is obviously absurd. Also, Luke 21:22 is clearly qualified by the phrase "days of vengeance" which was clearly an invocation of the covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. So "all things written" is restricted to the covenant curses that were to be inflicted on the Jews by the Romans. Also, just using simple logic, if Luke 21:22 referred to the fulfillment of all prophecies without qualification, as Full Preterists maintain, it is a wonder that the disciples asked in Acts 1, when the kingdom would be restored! It is also a wonder why Jesus would respond by saying "its not for you to know the times or seasons" (Acts 1:7) when he literally, according to Full Preterists, goes to great lengths to explain the "times and seasons" the apostles were to be **looking for to signify his second coming** (i.e the restoration of the kingdom) in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. According to your paradigm, shouldn't Jesus have responded saying "Uhhh guys, I already told you when these things would happen! It's going to happen at the destruction of the temple and most of you will be alive to see it!" Obviously Jesus did not respond with that because Matthew 24 , Luke 21 and the rest of the scriptures do not teach that the 2nd advent was to occur with the destruction of Jerusalem. In light of all this, your paradigm has Jesus blatantly and irreconcilably contradicting himself which is again, absurd. Lastly , 1Peter4:7 does not necessitate the inference that "all" prophecy without qualification was "about" to fuffilled. See Calvin or John Gill on the verse. You have been conned my friend. Don Preston and his ilk have no idea what they are talking about and they sound really smart because they hit you with Alot seemingly strong points all at once. But, when you slow down, you realize how full of it they are. Full Preterism is easily debunked, and there is a reason that it has never been taken seriously by any scholar of repute in a Christian denomination or sect
@@jeremybamgbade Matthew 24 does teach that the coming of Jesus on the clouds was to occur at the time of the destruction of the temple. That is how the disciples understood it and we know this by Sharp's Rule in Matt 24: 3...The burden of proof is on you to show how and why the disciples misunderstood and were incorrect about that! Give it a shot.
@@SugoiEnglish1 "Sharps rule" do you mean the Granville Sharpe rule which you clearly know nothing about with respect to the relevancy of that rule in this case? Also, without even wasting time on addressing your argument from the Greek , one need only point out that the gospels record the apostles (and several people who heard Jesus speak) misunderstanding Jesus on a number of occasions. Therefore, even if we granted that the Apostles, in Matthew 24, understood Jesus as saying that he would return in the first century in AD 70, it in no way follows that their understanding in that particular instance was necessarily correct. That's the problem with your silly little "audience relevance" arguments. The task of the exegete/interpreter is not to discover how the **audience** would have understood the author/text, but to discover what the **author** meant when he wrote the text . The audience's understanding or interpretation is not ispo facto infallible, only the scriptures are, so even if you could somehow prove that the audience of 1st century Christians understood the time texts, and prophecies, in the way you say they would have, it doesn't necessarily follow that their understanding was correct. So, it turns out the burden of proof lies with you my friend. It is one thing to say the apostles, in Matthew 24, understood Jesus as saying he was returning in the 1st century. It is another thing to prove their understanding, at that time, was correct. Also, as a side note, you don't understand the so called time texts.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Also, you tellingly didn't address any of the arguments I laid out in my original response. Probably because they are fatal to your paradigm. Please repent.
Woe to those (DON PRESTON) who wish to "spiritualize" things that they just cannot understand. That's the easy way out of an argument. Yep, just spiritualize it away! I question their definition and use of "spiritualize" in the first place.
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14) The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that his teachings were spiritually discerned. He also told them that carnally minded men think this is foolishness.
@JasinBoggs Spiritual Discernment: Pharoah = Satan Moses = Jesus Egypt = Bondage to sin Wandering desert = Christian Walk Crossing Jordan = Christian natural death Promised Land = Eternal Life in Heaven Carnal a. Promised Land = Small piece of real estate in the Middle East b. Promised singular seed = Isaac c. Those that get the Land are the circumcised plural seed of Isaac. Spiritual Promised Land = Heaven Promised seed = Jesus Those who get eternal life are the plural seed of Jesus. Carnal Family Line of Jews Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel) Spiritual Family of God Abraham, Jesus, YOU Noah's Ark = Rapture Jonah 3 days 3 nights = Jesus death, resurrection. Passover = Jesus The Carnal Mind is the same as expository preaching. Next time Jonah is preached, the preacher will say what a bad man that Jonah was, because he didn't want to go to Nineveh. So be obedient. But, Jesus said that he fulfilled all the prophets, which includes Jonah. 3 days, 3 nights. Spiritual vs carnal
Awesome video! As a partial-partial Preterist, who often gets accused of full Preterism (or heading in that direction), it was refreshing to hear a faithful refutation of the heresy we reject.
Name calling (heresy) doesn't make a doctrine false. Ask me anything, I can answer it logically from the preterist view. I guarantee that my partial friends cannot coherently answer my questions.
@@johno2277 Naming calling would be the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Affirming what all orthodox theologians for the past 2,000 years have affirmed to be heresy cannot be considered a logical fallacy. You may not like it, but it's not illogical. Why is FP heresy then? Very simply because, contra 1 Cor. 15, it denies the bodily resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. This Last Day is in our future because Jesus must first put all His enemies under His feet and then, He will defeat His final enemy death through the resurrection of all the living and the dead. According to St. Paul, to deny the physical resurrection of the dead is to deny the physical resurrection of our Lord, which makes our faith out to be a lie. This is why FP is heresy.
@@allthingsbing1295 The topic in the Olivet Discourse switches from Jesus metaphorically coming in judgement on the covenant-breakers of Israel to Jesus coming on the Last Day in Matthew 24:45-51. These verses act as a bridge so that, by the time we enter ch. 25, we're firmly in a discussion about the Last Day and the final judgement.
8:27 that is just gnostic heresy. Jesus died PHYSICALLY and rose PHYSICALLY. He died to atone for the death of Adam and rose so that everyone could rise forever. While it’s true he’s not the only one to rise from the dead, he’s the only to rise from the dead and REMAIN ALIVE, therefore conquering the death of Adam. Don’s exegesis is actually terrible and poisons people’s faith.
The only thing I disagree with you on this video on is that you called Don a doctor... he's not one. He got an honorary degree from a paper mill. He's not a truthful person at all.
I knew the circumstances of his honorary doctorate, but since he uses the title, I used it and tried to focus my criticisms on things that were clear-cut.
I can't believe he called God a liar while he is saying he is proclaiming the truth. That really angers me how loose he is with his tongue about my Lord and Savior Ha'maschiach, Yeshua.
Don doesn't call God a liar. Jesus said that all these things would be fulfilled in that generation, those who put it off until our future generation are saying Jesus lied.
@@jeremybamgbade Much of Dr. Preston's teachings are free. Most of his books are free on Kindle Unlimited. It's best to study this issue from the source instead of relying on critics.
@@justanother240 I used to be a full Preterist (and was willing to be excommunicated from my church) and have read several of Preston's books and I have watched many of his videos. This video accurately represents how asinine the FP paradigm is.
The only thing I agree with him on is that the passing of the temple and old covenant system was the passing of the old heaven and earth, symbolically.
I am more than NOT impressed by this video, that is based on sooo many suppositions and false assumptions-- not to mention logical fallacies. Tradition is strong-- even stronger than solid exegesis, sound hermeneutic and proper logic-- it seems. In the near future, I will be producing some videos exposing some of these fallacies. Kinda revealing that I cited Josephus proving that the temple represented heaven and earth, but the objector says that because Josephus does not use the precise words "The temple represented heaven and earth" that this means that the temple was not called heaven and earth. This is a sad twisting of the facts. The Objector acknowledges that Josephus calls the MHP heaven and he admits that Josephus called the HP earth, but he says that because the HP's crown also was referred to as representing heaven and earth! And yet, his admissions refute his rejection of my claims! When a commentator can only say that "there are clearly things in the Bible that is not fulfilled" and yet does not engage in exegesis, that is more than revealiing. For those watching this video, ask yourself why the Objector does not so much as mention the multitude of NT passages that posit the end of the age, the judgment and the resurrection for the first century?? Do you catch the power of this omission???
I left this reply on your channel on your stupid video that you did on Isaiah 2:4 so all can see just how desperate Full Preterists have to be to fit everything into AD 70. Don teaches that Isaiah 2:4 is talking about the difference between Old covenant Israel, and the New Covenant people, and he teaches that the kingdom of God being solely Spirtual, Isaiah 2:4 is referring to the fact that the kingdom of God would no longer be sustained by the sword. There are so many errors that may be dealt with, but my argument only addresses a a few and is as follows (has been edited) "Some false systems of theology are so complex, so multifaceted, that only those who are "learned" can hope to ascertain the requisite information needed to refute them. This is not the case with Full Preterism. It is so easily refuted, that anyone with a tiny semblance of biblical literacy, can debunk it. Lets take Dons stupid argument presented here. No one without an agenda, would read Isaiah 2:4 and think God was simply talking about "Old Covenant Israel" no longer being sustained by the sword. Further, Old Covenant Israel was not "sustained" by the sword (notice he cites no verses to substantiate his claim) BUTTT by their covenant faithfulness to God-- which is why obeying the covenant stipulations/commands literally constituted "life and death" and the ability to "prolong their days in the land" (Deuteronomy 32.46-47). Don says around 2:55 that Israel, prior to Ad 70, could not "beat their sword into plowshares because there were enemies round about" BUTTTT The Bible says "“The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.” (Ex14:14) and "The LORD your God, who goes before you, will fight for you, just as you saw Him do for you in Egypt" (Deut 1:30) and "Wherever you hear the sound of the horn, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us!"(Neh4:20)... When Israel trusted and obeyed God they never "needed" swords per se, as a matter of fact, the men could leave their land UNSUPERVISED and DEFENSELESS when they traveled 3 times a year for their feasts because God MADE SURE that no one would covet their lands when they were gone (Ex34:23-24). We even have instances where God had Israel go out to battle against an army of far greater numbers and of far greater might, just to prove to the Israelites that it was God and not their military prowess that sustained them (Judges7:2) But..... when they didn't trust God, their Sword could not "sustain" them nor protect them. This is clearly seen in Isaiah 30:15-16 Where God rebukes Israel saying "For thus says the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel: “In returning and rest you shall be saved; In QUIETNESS and CONFIDENCE shall be *YOUR STRENGTH*. "But you would not,16 And you said, “No, for we will flee on horses”-Therefore you shall flee! And, “We will ride on swift ”-Therefore those who pursue you shall be swift".. Indeed the sons of korah proclaim that the sword does not save from enemies (psalm 44:6) --- Does this sound like "the sword" sustained Israel ? Moreover, since Don wants to restrict Isaiah 2-4 to AD 30-70 he cant even deal with the simple facts of history. Israel had been subjugated by Rome for many years during the time of Christ. They had no autonomous "sword" to "beat into the plowshares" in the first place, and in some instances, they couldn't even kill Jews according to their law, without the permission of the state, as was clearly seen in the case of Paul in Acts. The only plowing of swords that occurred in AD 70 was owing to Israels defeat at the hands of Rome, NOT their submission to God, which is the point of Isaiah 2 lol. So as we see don is wrong right off the bat and thus herein-- his whole argument is laid waste. But to kick Dons stupid exegesis while its down, consider: Isaiah 2:4 has always been understood by rabbis and Christians commentators alike, as being the end of all war. This is because the verse is clear, free from ambiguity, and alltogther perspicuous. It literally says"nation will not lift sword against nation, neither will THEY learn war anymore". This is said of course, immediately after "all the nations have been gathered together in judgement" (Isaiah2:4a) So, even if we granted (for the sake of argument) that one of the "nations" is "The spiritual kingdom of God/Old Covenant Isreal" what is being said of one "nation" is clearly being said of the other(s). Thus, there must be some non Christian entity, presumably all the "other" nations, that have "learned war no more" which clearly.....obviously...has not happened. This is the problem with Full Preterism, they have to completely redefine the language of clear prophecies in order to make it fit into the "All things fulfilled by AD 70" box. They are no different than Jehovah's witnesses. The JW harp on a few verses that APPEAR to teach that Jesus is lesser than the Father and completely deny: 1. Verses that clearly teach his Divinity. 2. Logically valid explanations that shed the true light on those verses that they BELEIVE substantiate their positions. So what did the Jehovah witnesses do in light of this? They created their own version of the bible (New World Translation) , and removed the many passages that teach the Divinity of the Son. The only difference between them and the Full Preterist-- is that the JW's were at least honest enough to realize the bible didn't teach what they wanted it to teach, so they created their own Bible. A Bible -- translated NOT according to the original languages, but from their theological bias. Sure, they're all going to hell (so long as they dont repent) but at least they were intelligent enough to recognize the problem. The problem being, again, that their view could not align with or be harmonized with --THE BIBLE. What does the FP do when they are presented with verses that plainly contradict their system? What do they do when you point out numerous prophecies that could not POSSIBLY be fulfilled? They ignore the question point to all the time texts (texts they don't even understand lol) or "connect dots" in other verses .. and then say "Well it all had to be fulfilled in AD 70." How convenient. This is their issue. In our formative years wherein we learned the basic rules of English and grammar, we were all taught the 5 "W's". This is "Who, What, When, Where, and why". For the full Preterist the "When" (as they understand it) controls EVERYTHING -- to point where the "What" of many prophecies are either absurdly redefined (like in the case of Isaiah 2:4) or ignored all together. Full Preterists say "he had to return WHEN promised in the first century or else Jesus was a liar" while totally forgetting that the "when" does not exist in the absence of "what". I thought God would end the persecution of his people BECAUSE the EARTH would be filled with his knowledge (Is11:9) I thought he'd take away their reproach from all the earth (Isaiah 25:8) and seeing that millions upon millions of Christians have been perseucuted and reproached since AD70, and that they have relied on such verses for sources of comfort, if FP is true then God is a duplicitous and cruel liar -- certainly not worthy of serving".........To any Full Preterist reading this, realize that Don is a False (and inept) Teacher, Full Preterists are not Christians, your precious time texts can be explained, and you need to repent before you draw your last breath. I say this a recently de-converted Full Preterist who will never again, by the Grace of God return to the odious doctrine of Full Preterism."
Mr. Preston, you keep trying to draw people into a narrow focus on the time texts. They're supposed to be undeniable and justify a complete redefinition of the Christian faith, but instead of the entire church being in darkness for over 1800 years, the simple fact is that the time texts don't mean what you claim. The video demonstrates you have to force a meaning on Daniel 12 to make it fit 70 AD. You assert, but don't prove that Daniel 11:45 transports us over 200 years in the future and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11 isn't the same abomination of desolation in the explanation given in Daniel 12. Appealing to unnamed scholars is a poor substitute for actual exegesis. Josephus said the Holy of Holies represented heaven, just as he said the mitre on the head of the high priest represented heaven. It's only wishful thinking on your part that anyone would have understood Peter to mean that the temple was the heavens and earth reserved for fire in 2 Peter 3:7. The immediately preceding verses make clear the heavens and earth that are in view, but you have to ignore that to make everything fit your system. I won't rehearse everything in the video. I could have dealt with far more, but I tried to keep it simple and focused on your personal teaching. You argue by gratuitous assertion and caricaturing your critics. You mock but rarely actually answer, so I'm done interacting with you. The truth is out there for anyone who is willing to listen. I pray for you and those you are leading into error.
@@ancientpathstv Don is a simpleton and he knows it. He rarely engages with actual scholarship. He is a charlatan and more and more people are realizing this.
@MrDonPreston I was a full preterist for 15 years. I attended conferences where you spoke and debates where you engaged, often people you knew would be reeled in by your used-car-salesman like prooftexting tactics. But you can't fool "one of your own". Catch the power of this Don, to use your own phrase. You admitted you were a novice when you adopted full preterism. You were smacked dead in the face with it of all places, a women's Bible study. YOUR OWN WORDS. Your coC minister father and your fake seminary "professors" couldn't help you to understand basic eschatology. YOUR OWN WORDS. Now, you have invested years into promoting preterism. In 2007 or so, you even told us you made over $97K just on speaking about preterism. We understand why you can't walk away now even though your buddies like Sam Frost, Jason Bradfield, Todd Dennis and others finally saw the flaw in this private interpreters playground. You're stuck. I get it. You've invested too much to turn back now. Without full preterism who is Don Preston, but just an old man sipping coffee in front of a podcast camera spouting his personal beliefs? (beliefs stated = creeds, Don's Creed) rodericke.com/apret
Don, I'm sorry but you are the full preterist version of Jack Van Impe, impressing the weak-minded with your onslaught prooftexting that ignores that you're almost the only one that interprets the way you do.
I'll listen to the complete video but I already see an issue. At about the 8 minute mark Preston talks about God telling Adam he would die on the day he ate the fruit. But since Adam didn't then either God lied or God meant something else. Most men that have searched out the Scriptures know that what God actually said was that in the day you eat of the fruit...dying you will die. So God told Adam he would begin to die and he would eventually die, like the animals. Many think the animals wouldn't die until after the curse, but careful reading of the Scriptures do not say that. So in the day Adam ate his spirit was dead towards God and alive to sin. Later he died in body also. Once we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, we become alive to God once more and dead to sin. Meditation on those verses where Paul teaches these things is needed to make that truth a reality in our lives.
Amen, brother. Great video. And that Preston fellow sounds like a crooked snake oil salesman. He tries to use strong speech to bolster his ridiculous butchery of the scriptures. I don’t think I’d trust him to feed my dog. lol
I think almost all scatological positions can be supported by the scriptures at some point (i am a historical pre millenist mtself), but full preterism is something so much off the scripture that it changes everything on spirituality , congregationalism and etc, the only scatological position that you can call full blown heresy,
@@ancientpathstv well, where has Hal Lindsey and Hagge and and all the futurists led us to? Worship of an antichristian nation and religion bent on genocide? What happened to John 3:16 on the way. Now all Arabs and Palestinians and anyone in the zionist path is subject to divine wrath, a "non person" an evil being, a beast, Amalek, Philistines or still under Ishmaels curse or Esaus curse? You people can take your dispensational racial nonsense pack to the pit it came from. I wont have any part of this horrendous theology that is so contrary to the universal gospel of Christ. Youve all removed the cross of Christ and replaced it with a flag for antichrists. Long live preterist truth,and btw you only have a few years left before your generation runs out of time. Actually it did, 40 years ago.
Full Preterism, unlike Orthodox Preterism, is both Anti-Semitic and completely contradictory. Daniel 12:7 is a Full Preterist’s favorite verse, describing the shattering of the “Holy People.” Yet they will immediately go around and say that the Jews are Satan in Revelation 20. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
@@kylec8950I've answered his arguments. He hasn't answered mine. Until he's willing to answer with more than "(unnamed) scholars say," there's no point in doing that in person.
@@kylec8950 Eastern Orthodox play the same game, ignoring their critics and saying, "Debate Jay Dyer." He and Preston both prefer "debates," because both are good at blustering and ignoring the glaring errors in their systems.
@@JR-rs5qs One Gospel: Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
@@JR-rs5qs No joke. You asked a question, I answered. In Genesis 3:5, the serpent said Ye shall be AS gods. In John 10:34, Jesus said Ye ARE gods. Stop believing your father, the devil.
Really well done. In one presentation laying out many of the crippling contradictions for full preterism: - supposing that death (and resurrection) is not first and foremost always actual 'death', applied spiritually by analogy and metaphor, - missing the parallels within Daniel 7-12 that place the immediate context in the Antiochene crisis and negate reading Daniel 12 into the siege of 70 AD, - confusing the 2T discussion of the length of the Messianic reign (varied) with John's proposed length (1,000 years) as equal to 40 years, - supposing that in the 2T period 'H&E' was an idiomatic reference for the temple, which it never is in any extant writings, and - lack of any ECF support for the theological construct of FP. And there are more, but this is a great collection. While well intentioned, especially contra "last days madness" (hat tip GD), there is really no intellectual or scholarly grounding for full preterism. It is unfortunately a forced construct that contorts scripture and the historical record to fit a contrived paradigm, attempting to resolve perceived (but not actual) hermeneutical challenges. Through moderate (in tone), thoughtful, and reasoned resources like this (e.g. Samuel Frost, et al), hopefully those considering exiting balanced and considered exegesis, and ultimately the church, will pause, or pullback, ask questions and keep an open mind toward orthodoxy. Thank you.
Thank you for the kind encouragement. This is our 25th documentary-style video on this channel. Please check out the rest of our content and help us get out the word. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv Amen to that! And when they read and study the actual evidence instead of the slander that so often characterizes the attacks on Covenant Eschatology, they will soon discover that all futurist eschatologies teach a failed Messiah, deluded apostles, and uninspired Scriptures! Your view of Christ and his coming means that he failed his own challenge: If I do not do the works that my father has given me, do not believe me." You claim that he did not fulfill the Father's works--he did not come again--- therefore, you say that he either lied, he failed, or was perhaps deluded. I much prefer to teach and proclaim 'Our God reigns" and He is faithful because he did exactly what he said he would do, when he said he would do it.
hyperpreterism MUST MUST MUST, advocate that God failed to maintain a proper understanding of the Bible for 2000 years. Until along comes men like Preston.
@@zacharyfeinberg2374 Not anymore. I live way out in the forest now. The woods are my church now. :-) However, when I was part of the visible assembly, I really enjoyed my membership with the RPCNA -- Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
@@zacharyfeinberg2374 Yes, I believe the Bible teaches the "TULIP". I believe exclusive-psalmody is a good practice. I believe that churches were meant to have a group of elders rather than a CEO pastor and his board of deacons. I believe the Bible advocates the communion table should be "closed" to at least professing Christians.
As much I like exposing Don Preston for being wrong Daniel 8 and Daniel 12 are two different events. Daniel 8 concerns Alexander the Great leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 12 involves the Romans leading up to Vespasian. So one about the Greeks and the other about the Romans. They both use terms like last days but they are different events, just like the bible uses the day of the lord for different events.
The Bible does use the Day of the Lord to describe different events, but as demonstrated in the video, the context of Daniel 12 is Antiochus. His work was echoed in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, but that doesn't change the context of Daniel 12.
Don cannot be as ignorant has he appears when it comes to the "comings" of Jesus. Through the old testament we has the judgement of nations described as God coming on the clouds. Jesus, in qouting Daniel 7:13-14 again in Matthew 26:64 to Caiaphas, is echoing not only Daniel but his own words in chapters 23-24. 70AD was a coming, just not the final coming. He makes the same mistake as the futurist in insisting they're one in the same. "This generation" and "that day" are not synonyms. Jesus himself differentiated the 2 with verse 36 of Matthew 24.
No he didn't. Matt 24:15 is clear and says "IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of those days...the lord's coming would occur...See NON-PRETERIST Donald Hagner's Comm on Matthew Word Commentary... Speak up!
You need to understand what ‘the man Jesus Christ means’. Please note that there will never be any other mediation done for man other than that which had already been done through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. This is the everlasting mediation. This is the everlasting gospel. Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary forever making intercession for the believers. The blood is forever speaking better things than that of Abel. It’s the blood of the everlasting Covenant speaks for man!
You completely ignore the context and demonstrate what Peter described. . . they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16) I pray for your repentance.
@Ophiuchus13 The video doesn't deal with it, because the identity of Babylon doesn't have much to do with the demonstrable lies of Don Preston. It's also not as explicit as you seem to think. Jerusalem was clearly Sodom and Egypt in Revelation 11, but the text doesn't say Jerusalem is Babylon in 1 Peter 5. It may have been Jerusalem, Rome, or the literal Babylon. You say the literal Babylon no longer existed, but it did. Despite the deportation of many of its people in the third century B.C. it still existed in the first century and was captured by Trajan in 116 A.D. The Jews also referred to the area of lower Mesopotamia as Babylonia. It's from that area we get the Babylonian Talmud.
@@funtimefreddy4204 I have neither the time nor energy to debate people who advocate for a flat earth or a 40-year millennium. Your position has been refuted, whether or not you want to admit it.
@@ancientpathstv I was agreeing with you. My position is yours. Satan is free when Peter is writing, after 30 AD and before 70. Satan has to be bound during this time under Full Preterism, yet he isn’t.
Here is Biblical proof that ALL prophecy was NOT fulfilled by the first century: The prophesied re-gathering of Israel didn't really kick into gear until May 14, 1948. This certainly appears to be prophecy fulfilled nearly two thousand years AFTER the first century. Jeremiah 30:1-8 says, "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 “Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: ‘Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the Lord. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.’ 4 Now these are the words that the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah. 5 “For thus says the Lord: ‘We have heard a voice of trembling, Of fear, and not of peace. 6 Ask now, and see, whether a man is ever in labor with child? So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins Like a woman in labor, and all faces turned pale? 7 Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it. 8 ‘For it shall come to pass in that day,’ Says the Lord of hosts, ‘That I will break his yoke from your neck, and will burst your bonds. Foreigners shall NO MORE ENSLAVE THEM." The whole context of this passage is God will bring Israel back into their land, NEVER TO BE ENSLAVED AND TAKEN FROM THEIR LAND AGAIN. All the way up to Rome, the Jews suffered periods of enslavement. And AFTER Rome the Jews did NOT possess Israel UNTIL May 14, 1948. God says, "For behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the Lord. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.’ AND..."Foreigners shall NO MORE enslave them." Remember Nazi Germany enslaved them in concentration camps, all the way up to May 14, 1948. Is this NOT fulfilled prophecy that came two thousand years AFTER the first century?
What about PARTIAL preterism and initial and ultimate fulfillments of apocalyptic prophecy APTV? Orthodox? The first two hyper-preterists: [2 Timothy 2:17-18 NKJV] "[17] And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, [18] who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."
Is Matthew 10:23 about 70 AD, or is it about Jesus coming as the King to Israel? The answer is found below in Zech. 9:9. Did Jesus "cometh" as the King of Israel riding on a donkey during the week He was crucified? If Matthew 10:23 is about 70 AD, Peter ignored the commandment given by Jesus in Matthew 10:5-7, when Peter went to the house of Cornelius. It did not take the disciples forty years to take the Gospel to Israel. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period of the Gospel going "first" to Israel is found in Matt. 10:5-23, and Acts chapter 2, and Acts 10:36-38, and Galatians 1:14-18. Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. The Old Covenant age died at Calvary when God ripped the temple veil in half from the top to the bottom at the moment His Son died at Calvary. There is no record in the NT of any person coming to salvation outside of the New Covenant between Calvary and 70 AD. Hebrews 7:12 proves there was a change in the law before 70 AD. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant Church of Mount Zion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24. This passage was written in the present tense before 70 AD. If the Hyper-Preterists were correct the Old Covenant age would come back into existence if a temple were rebuilt, and animal sacrifices are renewed. Any basic book on Astronomy proves we are not now living in the "eternal" New Heavens and New Earth, because the sun only has a limited amount of nuclear fuel. We now understand the nuclear reaction inside the core of the sun, because of the testing of thermonuclear weapons. ====================================================== Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem (subtitles from eSword) Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. (Mat 24:15 "Therefore when you see the 'ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), (Look at the reference to Hanukkah in John 10:22, if you want to know what the Jews of Jesus time understood about Antiochus Ephiphanes attacking the city during 167 BC, when his forces killed thousands of Jews, and stopped the sacrifices. Those two things also happened during 70AD. A Roman army under the command of Cestus Gallus surrounded the city during 66 AD and then left for some unknown reason. The Jews killed thousands of Romans during the retreat. Based on tradition, the early followers of Christ left the city before the final siege of 70 AD.) Luk 21:21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. (Mat 24:16 "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.) Luk 21:22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Luk 21:23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. (See also Luke 23:28-31.) (Mat 24:19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! ) Luk 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Almost all Bible scholars agree that the first part of the verse above is about 70 AD. At the end of the verse we find a period of time known as “the times of the Gentiles”. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken “first” to the Jews, and then to the Greeks (Gentiles). We are now in that time period when the Gospel is being taken to the whole world. Paul also referred to this time period in Romans 11:25, and Acts 28:28. In the verses that follow we find the future Second Coming of Christ. ) The Coming of the Son of Man Luk 21:25 "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; (Mat 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.) Luk 21:26 men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luk 21:27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (Mat 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.) Luk 21:28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near." (Mat 24:33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near-at the doors!) .
If Matthew 10:23 is about Jesus coming as a King to Israel, riding on a donkey, then when we’re children causing their parents to be put to death before Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem in Matthew 21, as 10:21 indicates?
Also, when were the disciples brought before councils, and scourged in synagogues, or brought before kings, before Jesus rode the donkey into Jerusalem? (Matthew 10:16-18)
The truth is, the apostate Jewish persecution of the 12 disciples didn’t begin until the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. The context surrounding Matthew 10:23 proves that it is a reference to the coming of the Son of man, in judgment of the cities that rejected and persecuted the disciples. “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (10:15)
@@JasinBoggs When was the "coming" in the verse below fulfilled? Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
When Peter spoke with Cornelius in Acts 10, he didn’t violate the command that Jesus gave in Matthew 10:5-7. He was given a vision by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit told Peter to go to Cornelius (Acts 10:9-20).
So what? As shown in the video, Preston creates a crazy quilt of such unbiblical speculations to try to make everything fit his system. Since you engage nothing in the video, I have to ask, did you bother to watch it?
In the video, you claimed that no one taught a 40 year reign of the Messiah. I responded. While I agree that Don's teachings on many things are wrong (such as the death of Adam and many others), the timing of events is scripturally sound and consistent from the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself. @@ancientpathstv
@@michaele5075 You seem to be hearing what you want to hear. I didn't say no one taught a 40-year reign of Messiah. Obviously Don and others do, and I was aware of Akiva and others who thought it would mirror David's 40 year reign. I said no one in Scripture taught it. A 40-year millennium isn't scripturally sound nor consistent with the prophets, apostles, or Jesus.
@@allthingsbing1295Preston avoids answering direct questions. He talks fast and mocks his opponents, but he doesn't actually debate. The issues are spelled out in the video, and no one has yet answered them.
@@CCMDrummer Before the millennium Revelation 20:4-5 (KJV) 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. After the millennium Revelation 20:13 (KJV) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
@@drewjohnson4811 okay, I will give you credit for one thing, you are the first PP who actually came out and made a delineation between 70AD and the end of time resurrection. Now the rationale you used to arrive at that conclusion and whether or not it is biblically sound is a whole nother matter.
Once you grasp Full Preterism, you will never look at the Bible the same way. There's really nothing complicated or secret about it. It has been rediscovered by Christians throughout the centuries. We are still living under the shadow of first century's Great Apostasy." It should come as no surprise that the majority opinion on scripture is often wrong. The Jews missed the 1st coming of Christ while the Christians missed the 2nd.
@@ancientpathstv It seems to me that you need to interact with Dr Preston to clear up some misunderstandings. He has plenty of books that are practically free through Kindle Unlimited. I encourage everyone to check them out. Even if you disagree you will still walk away with more knowledge and understanding of the Bible.
Re. the Fall and the Covenant Curse of biological death, APTV, doesn't God in the text promise Adam literally that on the day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, "dying, you will die"? While that could be a Hebrew idiom for "surely die" (hence, the intensifying double "die"), instead it might mean in the context of what actually occurred, "beginning to die you will (eventually) die". IOW, "you will begin the process of dying and therefore eventually die" or "becoming mortal you will die". IDK, I'm not a scholar. None of the versions I have access to have anything other than "certainly die" or "surely die", but I'm pretty sure the Hebrew is "dying you will die". Dying is a process (long or short) and death is the end of that process.
Yes, I found it in English in Young's Literal Translation: 16 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; 17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it-dying thou dost die.' Perhaps I can find it in an interlinear. It doesn't paste well, but IHOT has the same word H4191 repeated twice translated twice as "thou shalt surely die". forH3117ביוםin the dayH398אכלךthat thou eatestH4480ממנוthereofH4191מותthou shalt surely die.H4191תמות׃thou shalt surely die.
There is another version of Full Preterism that does recognize physical death as part of the fall, plus even Partial Prets see the New Heavens and Earth language as being symbolic of the New Covenant age we are in now, like Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson. Maybe even DeMar and Gentry.
@@ancientpathstv Christ's Kingdom came to be fully consummated when He returned in judgement against old covenant Israel when He permanently destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and all of the Old blood covenant system. There is a very significant distinction between all the old testament accounts of the destruction of the Temple verses the destruction that occurred in AD 70. All of the destructions prior to the one in AD70, never vitiated the old animal blood covenant. But the destruction in AD70, clearly completely vitiated the old animal blood covenant. That's what makes Jesus' return in AD70 the full consummation of His New blood covenant Gospel Kingdom in the Earth. The old blood covenant Temple is NEVER, EVER going to be reinstituted. That would be an insult and an abomination to Christ's perfect blood sacrifice in the Earth that takes away the sins of man. Christ's consummation of His new blood covenant Kingdom doesn't involve the end of pro-creation, nor the end of time. That is a false assumption that you've been indoctrinated with, that has no evidence from scripture.
@@boughtdeadbyChrist No he hasn't lol, I know for a fact. He is simply asking questions that the Partials haven't been able to answer. I have the same questions, this will hopefully lead to more people asking questions and seeing what conclusions we can come to. God-bless
Wonder it is possible the last generation started when Jerusalem was recognized as Israel's capitol (say 2019)? Or could be be 1967 when Israel got Jerusalem, or at the birth of Israel in 1948? But then another problem what is the length of a generation? Some might say possibly 20, 40, or 120 years, and others might assert some other duration? The point is God knows, only safe thing is when people will ask "Where is He? And mock those who think if or when he would return... Or as Christ Himself said "At an hour you think not..." ah there is that pesky thing God always desires.... "Faith"...? Faith that He will be true to what He has said, faith that just like for His first coming, no one knew, and actually if you dig in Biblically it was a huge conundrum? Why would His second coming be any different. Point is God will make it work out exactly according to His plan... Right. But a preterist view simply can't be reconciled with the Bible. Like from history it is clearly documented John was sent to Patmos in 85-90A.D. Hahah, really prophetic to write about events that occurred in 70A.D. Explain that, which no one will be able to if they hold to a preterist view...
@@mlwilson2956 Ummm, sorry the points you make simply shows you haven't studied, or simply willing to invent your own history and lie... It is a matter of record Domitian was the ruler who exiled John to Patmos. I was going off memory for the time range, it is 81 -> 96A.D. for you to say Revelation was written in before 70 A.D. Simply shows how truthful you are... NOT!
The only fault Don has in his doctrine is that he still believes, (as most who will read this) they people today are still coming into Christ, and that "all mankind" needs biblical salvation. For Don to be 100% consistent in his view, he has to also show that the entire biblical narrative is only about the 12 tribes of Israel...this the Bible CLEARLY teaches. This simple truth makes ALL Dons claims 100% true.
Sure. . . ignore Genesis 17 (Abraham being the father of many goyim) and everything that goes after, and you can claim anything you want. How about actually dealing with the content of the video?
@@ancientpathstv I don't need to...Don is vastly closer to the truth than any futurist Eschatology. With the exception of dealing with "the body" of Christ at the ascension...Don handed the good Pastor his a** In that Walace debate. BTW, Did Abraham "convert" any of his inlaws? Take consideration of Psalms 147 19,20 and Amos 3.2 (and there is many more) YHWH NEVER gave mankind his laws, and as Paul taught in Roman's 4.15. And 5.13, where there is no law, no sin is imputed...what "law" do you think you are under? AD70 abolished the law...this is FACT...ALL ISRAEL was saved! If a futurist eschatology was true in any way, that temple would still be standing...waiting for the gathering of Israel.
@ancientpathstv you showed that the things that were supposed to happen at the end of the age didn't happen. Don has to reinterpret things to make then work on his theory according to yourself. If all of the things reported that were supposed to happen didn't happen, then it fails.
@@dustinellerbe4125 The day of the Lord came against Samaria in the eighth century B.C., against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and will come against the whole world. They're not a single event. If you conflate all of God's judgments, the fault is yours, not God's.
@ancientpathstv context is relevant. There was more than one day of the lord. However, Don and others do a good job of putting the pieces together of when those things should take place. The wedding, the resurrection of the dead, the of the age, etc.. you can't leave those out. They were supposed to take place at a certain time and place and for an elect people. The story is over with in its own context. It had a beginning, middle, and end. The keys were handed back over to thr Father after Jesus did his short work.
@@dustinellerbe4125 As shown in the video, Preston doesn't do a good job. Rather than trying to shoehorn everything into 70 A.D., you should recognize that the problem is your system, not God's Word.
Hagee is absolutely preaching a "different gospel."
@@outofthebox7 you aren't really trying to compare the two, are you?
I also love Alexander Scourby reading the KJV.
I like how as you summarise his claims, you begin almost laughing mid-sentence at times.
Dons followers are so enamored with him, and with the belief that they possess some form of esoteric knowledge, they refuse to listen to reason, or even acknowledge when their own teacher is wrong/inconsistent.
Consider Dons inconsistency when it comes to appeals to extra-biblical sources. He poo-poos the creeds, the understanding of the early church, the writings of the reformers, and so on, claiming that the bible alone is the source for his claims, yet he turns around and **arbitrarily** relies on appeals to ‘Jewish rabbinical literature’ to PROVE (not merely ‘support’) his arguments.
For instance, as you pointed out, the context of 2Peter3 and the New Heavens and New earth described therein-is the entire world, not the Temple located in Jerusalem. This is beyond dispute when one simply reads 2Peter3:5-7 without a predetermined bias. Peter says the heavens and earth/world “THEN” were flooded, and the heavens and the earth that exist “NOW” are being kept for the same sort of judgment-the final judgement through fire as opposed to water.
Clearly, the flood was GLOBAL, -- (See Peter refer to the SAME event one chapter prior 2Peter2:5 saying the ancient *WORLD* was not spared) -- and one must accuse Peter of unbelievable equivocation to say that the heavens and the earth that are “now” -is all the sudden a reference to the temple in Jerusalem. Who could read Peters words, written in prose, and infer that without having an agenda? Peter is clearly saying that what happened “then” will happen later (by fire as opposed to water), the problem is that in Noahs day, there was no localized destruction of the mosaic temple, therefore Dons argument is laid waste.
In light of this clear evidence, considering the obvious context of these verses, what does Don do? He runs to Jospehus, a pagan, and says that because he referred to the temple as heaven and earth, thats what Peter MUST have meant. How Don could infer that is beyond me. Don totally disregards the context of 2Peter and essentially says “Because Peter and Josephus were Jews according to the flesh, and they used the phrase ‘heaven and earth’ they MUST have been referring to the same thing” which is by itself, fallacious, seeing that-that is simply an assertion that begs the question,-and that doesn’t even deal with the fact that Josephus, as you pointed out, described other objects as emblematic of “heavens and earth”. So, even if we granted Dons posit, he is still guilty of arbitrarily focusing on one statement of Josephus while ignoring others.
Don does the same thing with the millennium in Rev 20. Running away from the Bible, apparently he ‘proves’ his claim that the millenium is 40 years because some rabbis taught that. The astute listener, the one who gets his theology from the ‘Bible alone’ should obviously ask…”okaaayyyyyyy but HOW could they substantiate such a claim from scripture? It is one thing to say Rabbis believed something, it is another thing to prove their notion can be justified from the scriptures ”.
Scriptural proof is all the more needed in Dons case, since “1000” and “thousands” when used everywhere else in scripture, always denotes something large in scale. For it not to mean that in Rev 20, don would have rely on more than the mere speculations of Rabbis..Of course, Don does not ask and subsequently answer this question, and questions like this, because he cant, and hopes his followers are as simple minded as him.
Perverts follow after other like minded perverts.
the flood did not destroy the planet. The planet remained and survived the deluge . I dont think God is interested in destroying the entire universe for the sake of a few ungodly men. He is the creator, not he destroyer. And Jospehus is not a pagan. Stop lying.
Heaven and earth were ancient Jewish metaphors for thier universe, thier religion , nation and temple. Just like all languages are full of idioms and metaphor, the ancient Hebrew nation had their own terms . When the temple burned, that was the Jews heaven and earth being destroyed so to speak. The rabbis that witnessed it recorded thier horrors at this event and astonishment in their writings. You people come along 2000 years later and think you know everything. You really dont know much at all about those years .
@@BertGraef "The flood did not destroy the planet"
Correct, and I never stated that the world, as in the substance of the planet, was destroyed. Contextually, "the world" (2Peter2:5a) is obviously and explicitly referring to "the world of the ungodly" (2Peter2:5b). So "destruction" came upon the wicked people that dwelled on the earth in Noah's day. Peter is quite obviously referring to the same thing in 2Peter 3, and he is quite obviously saying that what happened in Noah's day, will happen at a future day, albeit with fire as opposed to water.
"I don't think God is interested in destroying the entire universe for the sake of a few ungodly men"
That is not my position nor is that the position of creedal, historic orthodox Christianity. We do not believe that God will destroy the earth at Christ's second coming. Rather, we believe the Lord will cleanse the earth of all the sin, impurity, and sinners that were in the world, and **renew** the earth in marvelous glory and splendor.
"He is the creator not a destroyer"
What? Are you saying that God being the creator , necessitates the inference that he does not ever destroy? If so, that is a fallacious argument, and moreover, that runs counter to several express statements of scripture. God "destroys" those who destroy his people (1Corinthians 3:17/Zechariah12:9) God is said to "destroy " sinners out of the land (Isaiah 13:9). As a judgement against Judah, God said he bring destruction on the temple in which the people vainly trusted (Jeremiah 7:14). My friend, what are you going on about?
"And Josephus is not a pagan. Stop lying"
Oh brother, give me a break. I was speaking in hyperbole to make a point. Namely that Don cannot find any reputable Christian scholar, from any Christian tradition, whether from antiquity or present day, to substantiate his claims, so he runs to a unbelieving Jew in order to "prove his point". Moreover my main point was that Don neglected the rather elementary teaching that words and phrases are **defined by their context**. To point out that Josephus used the phrase "heaven and earth" when referring to one thing, does not prove that Peter was using the same phrase in the exact same way. He merely begs the question with such asinine assertions and those who are too gullible to know any better fall for it. Moreover, as I pointed out, Josephus used the phrase "heaven and earth" to refer to other things besides the temple, so Don is guilty of arbitrarily emphasizing Josephus's use of that phrase in one instance, and ignoring how he used it in other instances. Doesn't surprise me, as only an ignoramus could make such sloppy mistakes.
My friend, if you are full Preterist, I encourage you to repent. You have been deceived, as I was, as I was once a full preterist and was almost excommunicated from my reformed church because of it. It wasn't until I was humbled, and was honest with what scripture, and the universal catholic church (not Roman catholic) taught, that I was disabused of my erroneous belief in Full Preterism.
May God have mercy on you and grant you repentance.
@@BertGraef "Heaven and earth were ancient Jewish metaphors for their universe, their religion, their nation, and temple"
See, this is the simple-mindedness that I was referring to. I do not deny that there are passages in scripture that use "heaven and earth" in a restricted sense. But surely you are not so dull as to think that the phrase "heaven and earth" in the Old Testament ALWAYS referred to the Jewish temple/religion, right? In Genesis 1, when God was said to create the "heavens and the earth" are we to believe Moses meant that he created the mosaic temple, which didn't come into existence until several centuries after the Genesis 1 narrative ? My goodness you cannot be serious. See how easily your arguments are reduced to absurdity by possessing basic scriptural literacy.
Excellent work.
I had never heard of Billy Preston, but I really enjoyed the video. Very well done folks. :-)
Billy Preston is a musician.
I too never heard of him.
16:21 I believe I recall Peter in 1 Peter 5:8 saying that the devil was still out there looking for someone to swallow.
Saying that he was defeated in less than 20 years after Peter wrote this is lunacy. Satan CONTINUES to look for people to turn away from the Lord.
Loving these brother. Thanks be to God!!!
Preston is a very smart guy but I instantly refute him with the respected body. Jesus’ body was physical. Paul tells us we will have a new incorruptible body
You're right. I don't know why he won't let go of that non-physical Resurrection idea. At least 4 historians documented the physical return of Jesus and physical resurrection of the dead in 66AD.
@@johno2277 because he has argued his view for so long . If he admitted he was wrong he would loose all his supporters and credibility
@@OrthodoxJoker That makes sense. Sad. I've changed my mind a few times. RC Sproul has too. No big deal.
@@johno2277 I think it’s far more hopeful waiting for the promises of a resurrected body and no more pain. His view is depressing. Remember no church fathers ever taught this heresy
@@johno2277 and don’t worry brother, I too change my mind on eschatology a lot. It’s normal!
Oh boy, this gets so technical, but, I'll keep listening.
Amen!
The pride of man.....there will always be men who have a new path to truth interpreting the Bible. They are the persons who have special new answers and they are the ones who lead people into error. If it be possible and yet the Lord said " if it be possible" it is not possible to go astray with the Lord to keep us. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.
Upholding traditions is the ultimate form of pride of man. There were the Pharisees, then the Catholics, and now we have the reformed Christians. It is not that rare for popular and established opinions to be wrong.
@@justanother240 LOL. And. your tradition or basis of interpretation is correct?
@dionsanchez2775 We should strive to make sure all of our core beliefs are provable by scripture.
@@justanother240 I agree with you.
Historic Premilennialism has been lost to the uprising of Dispensational Premilennialism. A Great Tribulation from the time of Jesus’s resurrection to the second coming has been lost to fantasies of a Pre-Trib Rapture and the insistence that the Temple will be rebuilt and redestroyed.
However, Full Preterism also features the pride of man, saying how we have experienced our spiritual Resurrection and are the Church that dwells in Righteousness (2 Peter 3:13)
No man before the 1800s believed in any of these things. We need to go back to scripture and realize what is truly being said. And scripture clearly teaches that the hope of Christ extends from this world (1 Corinthians 15:19)
I do like the video and I see some of the points you make but I also see the points made by full preterists. I'll admit that revelation 20 with the 1000 year millennium never sat well with me when I was adopting the preterist view but putting that aside for a sec and just going over statements made by jesus and the apostles always get me too. I think Luke 21 22 where christ was written as saying concerning the ad 70 event " these are the days of vengeance so that ALL THINGS written may BE FULFILLED." Convinced me of the full preterist view and Have not found hardly one bible commentary note trying to explain that one. Of course any1 can say that "all things" isn't literally, it just means all things concerning physical Israel but nowhere in the text does it suggest a non literal meaning.Or Peter in 1 Peter 4 7 when he said "the end of ALL THINGS is at hand." I mean to me, it seems like Christians do many mental gymnastics to try to explain these away but like I said, I get both arguments.
Acts 13:29 says the Jews and Pontious Pilate fulfilled "all things" concerning Jesus. So, according to your logic, after Jesus was crucified, there were no more prophecies concerning Jesus that were left to be fulfilled, including his second coming. That is obviously absurd.
Also, Luke 21:22 is clearly qualified by the phrase "days of vengeance" which was clearly an invocation of the covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. So "all things written" is restricted to the covenant curses that were to be inflicted on the Jews by the Romans.
Also, just using simple logic, if Luke 21:22 referred to the fulfillment of all prophecies without qualification, as Full Preterists maintain, it is a wonder that the disciples asked in Acts 1, when the kingdom would be restored! It is also a wonder why Jesus would respond by saying "its not for you to know the times or seasons" (Acts 1:7) when he literally, according to Full Preterists, goes to great lengths to explain the "times and seasons" the apostles were to be **looking for to signify his second coming** (i.e the restoration of the kingdom) in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. According to your paradigm, shouldn't Jesus have responded saying "Uhhh guys, I already told you when these things would happen! It's going to happen at the destruction of the temple and most of you will be alive to see it!" Obviously Jesus did not respond with that because Matthew 24 , Luke 21 and the rest of the scriptures do not teach that the 2nd advent was to occur with the destruction of Jerusalem. In light of all this, your paradigm has Jesus blatantly and irreconcilably contradicting himself which is again, absurd.
Lastly , 1Peter4:7 does not necessitate the inference that "all" prophecy without qualification was "about" to fuffilled. See Calvin or John Gill on the verse.
You have been conned my friend. Don Preston and his ilk have no idea what they are talking about and they sound really smart because they hit you with Alot seemingly strong points all at once. But, when you slow down, you realize how full of it they are. Full Preterism is easily debunked, and there is a reason that it has never been taken seriously by any scholar of repute in a Christian denomination or sect
@@jeremybamgbade Matthew 24 does teach that the coming of Jesus on the clouds was to occur at the time of the destruction of the temple. That is how the disciples understood it and we know this by Sharp's Rule in Matt 24: 3...The burden of proof is on you to show how and why the disciples misunderstood and were incorrect about that! Give it a shot.
@@SugoiEnglish1 "Sharps rule" do you mean the Granville Sharpe rule which you clearly know nothing about with respect to the relevancy of that rule in this case? Also, without even wasting time on addressing your argument from the Greek , one need only point out that the gospels record the apostles (and several people who heard Jesus speak) misunderstanding Jesus on a number of occasions. Therefore, even if we granted that the Apostles, in Matthew 24, understood Jesus as saying that he would return in the first century in AD 70, it in no way follows that their understanding in that particular instance was necessarily correct.
That's the problem with your silly little "audience relevance" arguments. The task of the exegete/interpreter is not to discover how the **audience** would have understood the author/text, but to discover what the **author** meant when he wrote the text . The audience's understanding or interpretation is not ispo facto infallible, only the scriptures are, so even if you could somehow prove that the audience of 1st century Christians understood the time texts, and prophecies, in the way you say they would have, it doesn't necessarily follow that their understanding was correct. So, it turns out the burden of proof lies with you my friend. It is one thing to say the apostles, in Matthew 24, understood Jesus as saying he was returning in the 1st century. It is another thing to prove their understanding, at that time, was correct.
Also, as a side note, you don't understand the so called time texts.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Also, you tellingly didn't address any of the arguments I laid out in my original response. Probably because they are fatal to your paradigm. Please repent.
That was an excellent response sir, saved me having to comment @@jeremybamgbade
Woe to those (DON PRESTON) who wish to "spiritualize" things that they just cannot understand. That's the easy way out of an argument. Yep, just spiritualize it away! I question their definition and use of "spiritualize" in the first place.
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:11-14)
The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that his teachings were spiritually discerned. He also told them that carnally minded men think this is foolishness.
@JasinBoggs Spiritual Discernment:
Pharoah = Satan
Moses = Jesus
Egypt = Bondage to sin
Wandering desert = Christian Walk
Crossing Jordan = Christian natural death
Promised Land = Eternal Life in Heaven
Carnal
a. Promised Land = Small piece of real estate in the Middle East
b. Promised singular seed = Isaac
c. Those that get the Land are the circumcised plural seed of Isaac.
Spiritual
Promised Land = Heaven
Promised seed = Jesus
Those who get eternal life are the plural seed of Jesus.
Carnal Family Line of Jews
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel)
Spiritual Family of God
Abraham, Jesus, YOU
Noah's Ark = Rapture
Jonah 3 days 3 nights = Jesus death, resurrection.
Passover = Jesus
The Carnal Mind is the same as expository preaching.
Next time Jonah is preached, the preacher will say what a bad man that Jonah was, because he didn't want to go to Nineveh. So be obedient. But, Jesus said that he fulfilled all the prophets, which includes Jonah. 3 days, 3 nights.
Spiritual vs carnal
@@JasinBoggs Solid argument, yet, SPIRITUALY DISCERNED does not mean SPIRITISM.
Awesome video! As a partial-partial Preterist, who often gets accused of full Preterism (or heading in that direction), it was refreshing to hear a faithful refutation of the heresy we reject.
Name calling (heresy) doesn't make a doctrine false. Ask me anything, I can answer it logically from the preterist view. I guarantee that my partial friends cannot coherently answer my questions.
@@johno2277 Naming calling would be the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Affirming what all orthodox theologians for the past 2,000 years have affirmed to be heresy cannot be considered a logical fallacy. You may not like it, but it's not illogical.
Why is FP heresy then? Very simply because, contra 1 Cor. 15, it denies the bodily resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. This Last Day is in our future because Jesus must first put all His enemies under His feet and then, He will defeat His final enemy death through the resurrection of all the living and the dead. According to St. Paul, to deny the physical resurrection of the dead is to deny the physical resurrection of our Lord, which makes our faith out to be a lie. This is why FP is heresy.
Can you show me where you put the 2000 year gap in the Olivet discourse
@@allthingsbing1295 The topic in the Olivet Discourse switches from Jesus metaphorically coming in judgement on the covenant-breakers of Israel to Jesus coming on the Last Day in Matthew 24:45-51. These verses act as a bridge so that, by the time we enter ch. 25, we're firmly in a discussion about the Last Day and the final judgement.
@@boughtdeadbyChrist What do you view Matthew 16:27,28 as describing?
He uses WINDOWS. So he's suspect right off the bat.
Yep if he was using Linux it would all be different
Mark of the beast right there, along with sambsung.
8:27 that is just gnostic heresy. Jesus died PHYSICALLY and rose PHYSICALLY. He died to atone for the death of Adam and rose so that everyone could rise forever. While it’s true he’s not the only one to rise from the dead, he’s the only to rise from the dead and REMAIN ALIVE, therefore conquering the death of Adam.
Don’s exegesis is actually terrible and poisons people’s faith.
The only thing I disagree with you on this video on is that you called Don a doctor... he's not one. He got an honorary degree from a paper mill. He's not a truthful person at all.
I knew the circumstances of his honorary doctorate, but since he uses the title, I used it and tried to focus my criticisms on things that were clear-cut.
Maybe you should debate Don.
@@allthingsbing1295 sure. I’ll do it. He would lose.
I can't believe he called God a liar while he is saying he is proclaiming the truth. That really angers me how loose he is with his tongue about my Lord and Savior Ha'maschiach, Yeshua.
Don doesn't call God a liar. Jesus said that all these things would be fulfilled in that generation, those who put it off until our future generation are saying Jesus lied.
@@manderbos So you obviously did not engage with the video at all.
@@jeremybamgbade Much of Dr. Preston's teachings are free. Most of his books are free on Kindle Unlimited. It's best to study this issue from the source instead of relying on critics.
@@justanother240 I used to be a full Preterist (and was willing to be excommunicated from my church) and have read several of Preston's books and I have watched many of his videos. This video accurately represents how asinine the FP paradigm is.
@@jeremybamgbade I applaud you for making an informed opinion, even if it's one I disagree with.
The only thing I agree with him on is that the passing of the temple and old covenant system was the passing of the old heaven and earth, symbolically.
I am more than NOT impressed by this video, that is based on sooo many suppositions and false assumptions-- not to mention logical fallacies. Tradition is strong-- even stronger than solid exegesis, sound hermeneutic and proper logic-- it seems. In the near future, I will be producing some videos exposing some of these fallacies.
Kinda revealing that I cited Josephus proving that the temple represented heaven and earth, but the objector says that because Josephus does not use the precise words "The temple represented heaven and earth" that this means that the temple was not called heaven and earth. This is a sad twisting of the facts.
The Objector acknowledges that Josephus calls the MHP heaven and he admits that Josephus called the HP earth, but he says that because the HP's crown also was referred to as representing heaven and earth! And yet, his admissions refute his rejection of my claims!
When a commentator can only say that "there are clearly things in the Bible that is not fulfilled" and yet does not engage in exegesis, that is more than revealiing.
For those watching this video, ask yourself why the Objector does not so much as mention the multitude of NT passages that posit the end of the age, the judgment and the resurrection for the first century?? Do you catch the power of this omission???
I left this reply on your channel on your stupid video that you did on Isaiah 2:4 so all can see just how desperate Full Preterists have to be to fit everything into AD 70. Don teaches that Isaiah 2:4 is talking about the difference between Old covenant Israel, and the New Covenant people, and he teaches that the kingdom of God being solely Spirtual, Isaiah 2:4 is referring to the fact that the kingdom of God would no longer be sustained by the sword. There are so many errors that may be dealt with, but my argument only addresses a a few and is as follows (has been edited)
"Some false systems of theology are so complex, so multifaceted, that only those who are "learned" can hope to ascertain the requisite information needed to refute them. This is not the case with Full Preterism. It is so easily refuted, that anyone with a tiny semblance of biblical literacy, can debunk it. Lets take Dons stupid argument presented here. No one without an agenda, would read Isaiah 2:4 and think God was simply talking about "Old Covenant Israel" no longer being sustained by the sword. Further, Old Covenant Israel was not "sustained" by the sword (notice he cites no verses to substantiate his claim) BUTTT by their covenant faithfulness to God-- which is why obeying the covenant stipulations/commands literally constituted "life and death" and the ability to "prolong their days in the land" (Deuteronomy 32.46-47). Don says around 2:55 that Israel, prior to Ad 70, could not "beat their sword into plowshares because there were enemies round about" BUTTTT The Bible says "“The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.” (Ex14:14) and "The LORD your God, who goes before you, will fight for you, just as you saw Him do for you in Egypt" (Deut 1:30) and "Wherever you hear the sound of the horn, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us!"(Neh4:20)... When Israel trusted and obeyed God they never "needed" swords per se, as a matter of fact, the men could leave their land UNSUPERVISED and DEFENSELESS when they traveled 3 times a year for their feasts because God MADE SURE that no one would covet their lands when they were gone (Ex34:23-24). We even have instances where God had Israel go out to battle against an army of far greater numbers and of far greater might, just to prove to the Israelites that it was God and not their military prowess that sustained them (Judges7:2)
But..... when they didn't trust God, their Sword could not "sustain" them nor protect them. This is clearly seen in Isaiah 30:15-16 Where God rebukes Israel saying "For thus says the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel: “In returning and rest you shall be saved; In QUIETNESS and CONFIDENCE shall be *YOUR STRENGTH*. "But you would not,16 And you said, “No, for we will flee on horses”-Therefore you shall flee! And, “We will ride on swift ”-Therefore those who pursue you shall be swift".. Indeed the sons of korah proclaim that the sword does not save from enemies (psalm 44:6) --- Does this sound like "the sword" sustained Israel ? Moreover, since Don wants to restrict Isaiah 2-4 to AD 30-70 he cant even deal with the simple facts of history. Israel had been subjugated by Rome for many years during the time of Christ. They had no autonomous "sword" to "beat into the plowshares" in the first place, and in some instances, they couldn't even kill Jews according to their law, without the permission of the state, as was clearly seen in the case of Paul in Acts. The only plowing of swords that occurred in AD 70 was owing to Israels defeat at the hands of Rome, NOT their submission to God, which is the point of Isaiah 2 lol. So as we see don is wrong right off the bat and thus herein-- his whole argument is laid waste. But to kick Dons stupid exegesis while its down, consider:
Isaiah 2:4 has always been understood by rabbis and Christians commentators alike, as being the end of all war. This is because the verse is clear, free from ambiguity, and alltogther perspicuous. It literally says"nation will not lift sword against nation, neither will THEY learn war anymore". This is said of course, immediately after "all the nations have been gathered together in judgement" (Isaiah2:4a) So, even if we granted (for the sake of argument) that one of the "nations" is "The spiritual kingdom of God/Old Covenant Isreal" what is being said of one "nation" is clearly being said of the other(s). Thus, there must be some non Christian entity, presumably all the "other" nations, that have "learned war no more" which clearly.....obviously...has not happened.
This is the problem with Full Preterism, they have to completely redefine the language of clear prophecies in order to make it fit into the "All things fulfilled by AD 70" box. They are no different than Jehovah's witnesses. The JW harp on a few verses that APPEAR to teach that Jesus is lesser than the Father and completely deny:
1. Verses that clearly teach his Divinity.
2. Logically valid explanations that shed the true light on those verses that they BELEIVE substantiate their positions.
So what did the Jehovah witnesses do in light of this? They created their own version of the bible (New World Translation) , and removed the many passages that teach the Divinity of the Son. The only difference between them and the Full Preterist-- is that the JW's were at least honest enough to realize the bible didn't teach what they wanted it to teach, so they created their own Bible. A Bible -- translated NOT according to the original languages, but from their theological bias. Sure, they're all going to hell (so long as they dont repent) but at least they were intelligent enough to recognize the problem. The problem being, again, that their view could not align with or be harmonized with --THE BIBLE.
What does the FP do when they are presented with verses that plainly contradict their system? What do they do when you point out numerous prophecies that could not POSSIBLY be fulfilled? They ignore the question point to all the time texts (texts they don't even understand lol) or "connect dots" in other verses .. and then say "Well it all had to be fulfilled in AD 70." How convenient.
This is their issue. In our formative years wherein we learned the basic rules of English and grammar, we were all taught the 5 "W's". This is "Who, What, When, Where, and why". For the full Preterist the "When" (as they understand it) controls EVERYTHING -- to point where the "What" of many prophecies are either absurdly redefined (like in the case of Isaiah 2:4) or ignored all together. Full Preterists say "he had to return WHEN promised in the first century or else Jesus was a liar" while totally forgetting that the "when" does not exist in the absence of "what".
I thought God would end the persecution of his people BECAUSE the EARTH would be filled with his knowledge (Is11:9) I thought he'd take away their reproach from all the earth (Isaiah 25:8) and seeing that millions upon millions of Christians have been perseucuted and reproached since AD70, and that they have relied on such verses for sources of comfort, if FP is true then God is a duplicitous and cruel liar -- certainly not worthy of serving".........To any Full Preterist reading this, realize that Don is a False (and inept) Teacher, Full Preterists are not Christians, your precious time texts can be explained, and you need to repent before you draw your last breath. I say this a recently de-converted Full Preterist who will never again, by the Grace of God return to the odious doctrine of Full Preterism."
Mr. Preston, you keep trying to draw people into a narrow focus on the time texts. They're supposed to be undeniable and justify a complete redefinition of the Christian faith, but instead of the entire church being in darkness for over 1800 years, the simple fact is that the time texts don't mean what you claim.
The video demonstrates you have to force a meaning on Daniel 12 to make it fit 70 AD. You assert, but don't prove that Daniel 11:45 transports us over 200 years in the future and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11 isn't the same abomination of desolation in the explanation given in Daniel 12. Appealing to unnamed scholars is a poor substitute for actual exegesis.
Josephus said the Holy of Holies represented heaven, just as he said the mitre on the head of the high priest represented heaven. It's only wishful thinking on your part that anyone would have understood Peter to mean that the temple was the heavens and earth reserved for fire in 2 Peter 3:7. The immediately preceding verses make clear the heavens and earth that are in view, but you have to ignore that to make everything fit your system.
I won't rehearse everything in the video. I could have dealt with far more, but I tried to keep it simple and focused on your personal teaching.
You argue by gratuitous assertion and caricaturing your critics. You mock but rarely actually answer, so I'm done interacting with you. The truth is out there for anyone who is willing to listen. I pray for you and those you are leading into error.
@@ancientpathstv Don is a simpleton and he knows it. He rarely engages with actual scholarship. He is a charlatan and more and more people are realizing this.
@MrDonPreston I was a full preterist for 15 years. I attended conferences where you spoke and debates where you engaged, often people you knew would be reeled in by your used-car-salesman like prooftexting tactics. But you can't fool "one of your own". Catch the power of this Don, to use your own phrase. You admitted you were a novice when you adopted full preterism. You were smacked dead in the face with it of all places, a women's Bible study. YOUR OWN WORDS. Your coC minister father and your fake seminary "professors" couldn't help you to understand basic eschatology. YOUR OWN WORDS. Now, you have invested years into promoting preterism. In 2007 or so, you even told us you made over $97K just on speaking about preterism. We understand why you can't walk away now even though your buddies like Sam Frost, Jason Bradfield, Todd Dennis and others finally saw the flaw in this private interpreters playground. You're stuck. I get it. You've invested too much to turn back now. Without full preterism who is Don Preston, but just an old man sipping coffee in front of a podcast camera spouting his personal beliefs? (beliefs stated = creeds, Don's Creed) rodericke.com/apret
Don, I'm sorry but you are the full preterist version of Jack Van Impe, impressing the weak-minded with your onslaught prooftexting that ignores that you're almost the only one that interprets the way you do.
I'll listen to the complete video but I already see an issue. At about the 8 minute mark Preston talks about God telling Adam he would die on the day he ate the fruit. But since Adam didn't then either God lied or God meant something else. Most men that have searched out the Scriptures know that what God actually said was that in the day you eat of the fruit...dying you will die. So God told Adam he would begin to die and he would eventually die, like the animals. Many think the animals wouldn't die until after the curse, but careful reading of the Scriptures do not say that. So in the day Adam ate his spirit was dead towards God and alive to sin. Later he died in body also. Once we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, we become alive to God once more and dead to sin. Meditation on those verses where Paul teaches these things is needed to make that truth a reality in our lives.
Please keep watching.
Amen, brother. Great video. And that Preston fellow sounds like a crooked snake oil salesman. He tries to use strong speech to bolster his ridiculous butchery of the scriptures. I don’t think I’d trust him to feed my dog. lol
Do you hold the view that fourth beast in the book of Daniel is Greek/ Seleucide Empire?
1. Babylonian
2. Medo-Persian
3. Greek
4. Rome
@@ancientpathstv In the video you said that Daniel 12 is about Antiochus
@@flavius1139 It is.
@@ancientpathstv The little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 wouldn't be Antiochus?
@@flavius1139 The little horn in Daniel 7 is Nero. The little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus.
I think almost all scatological positions can be supported by the scriptures at some point (i am a historical pre millenist mtself), but full preterism is something so much off the scripture that it changes everything on spirituality , congregationalism and etc, the only scatological position that you can call full blown heresy,
You mean eschatological. Scatological means something very different. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv well, where has Hal Lindsey and Hagge and and all the futurists led us to? Worship of an antichristian nation and religion bent on genocide? What happened to John 3:16 on the way. Now all Arabs and Palestinians and anyone in the zionist path is subject to divine wrath, a "non person" an evil being, a beast, Amalek, Philistines or still under Ishmaels curse or Esaus curse? You people can take your dispensational racial nonsense pack to the pit it came from. I wont have any part of this horrendous theology that is so contrary to the universal gospel of Christ. Youve all removed the cross of Christ and replaced it with a flag for antichrists. Long live preterist truth,and btw you only have a few years left before your generation runs out of time. Actually it did, 40 years ago.
@@BertGraefYou are insane.
Full Preterism, unlike Orthodox Preterism, is both Anti-Semitic and completely contradictory.
Daniel 12:7 is a Full Preterist’s favorite verse, describing the shattering of the “Holy People.”
Yet they will immediately go around and say that the Jews are Satan in Revelation 20.
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
Debate Don Preston.
The arguments are in the video. He ignores and tries to spin them.
@@ancientpathstv So you won't debate him?
@@kylec8950I've answered his arguments. He hasn't answered mine. Until he's willing to answer with more than "(unnamed) scholars say," there's no point in doing that in person.
@@ancientpathstv I think many people would disagree. It would be very helpful to hear some of this real time, not playing video tag.
@@kylec8950 Eastern Orthodox play the same game, ignoring their critics and saying, "Debate Jay Dyer." He and Preston both prefer "debates," because both are good at blustering and ignoring the glaring errors in their systems.
“…the Biblical prophets and apostles prophesied far more than what was accomplished in 70 AD” at the 7:15 mark...
^Can you give some examples?
It's in the video, if you'd actually watch it all.
Could you point me to a good resource on what Daniel 12 is actually about?
E.J. Young's Commentary on Daniel
@@ancientpathstv thank you
@@JR-rs5qs
One Gospel:
Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
@@qwerty-so6ml that's funny...good joke
@@JR-rs5qs
No joke.
You asked a question, I answered.
In Genesis 3:5, the serpent said Ye shall be AS gods.
In John 10:34, Jesus said Ye ARE gods.
Stop believing your father, the devil.
Really well done. In one presentation laying out many of the crippling contradictions for full preterism:
- supposing that death (and resurrection) is not first and foremost always actual 'death', applied spiritually by analogy and metaphor,
- missing the parallels within Daniel 7-12 that place the immediate context in the Antiochene crisis and negate reading Daniel 12 into the siege of 70 AD,
- confusing the 2T discussion of the length of the Messianic reign (varied) with John's proposed length (1,000 years) as equal to 40 years,
- supposing that in the 2T period 'H&E' was an idiomatic reference for the temple, which it never is in any extant writings, and
- lack of any ECF support for the theological construct of FP.
And there are more, but this is a great collection. While well intentioned, especially contra "last days madness" (hat tip GD), there is really no intellectual or scholarly grounding for full preterism. It is unfortunately a forced construct that contorts scripture and the historical record to fit a contrived paradigm, attempting to resolve perceived (but not actual) hermeneutical challenges. Through moderate (in tone), thoughtful, and reasoned resources like this (e.g. Samuel Frost, et al), hopefully those considering exiting balanced and considered exegesis, and ultimately the church, will pause, or pullback, ask questions and keep an open mind toward orthodoxy. Thank you.
Thank you for the kind encouragement. This is our 25th documentary-style video on this channel. Please check out the rest of our content and help us get out the word. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv This is not a documentary. It is a fictional creation.
@@MrDonPreston Hopefully, people will check these things out for themselves and not be persuaded by name-calling.
@@ancientpathstv Amen to that! And when they read and study the actual evidence instead of the slander that so often characterizes the attacks on Covenant Eschatology, they will soon discover that all futurist eschatologies teach a failed Messiah, deluded apostles, and uninspired Scriptures! Your view of Christ and his coming means that he failed his own challenge: If I do not do the works that my father has given me, do not believe me." You claim that he did not fulfill the Father's works--he did not come again--- therefore, you say that he either lied, he failed, or was perhaps deluded. I much prefer to teach and proclaim 'Our God reigns" and He is faithful because he did exactly what he said he would do, when he said he would do it.
@@MrDonPreston And still all you offer is more name-calling and bluster.
hyperpreterism MUST MUST MUST, advocate that God failed to maintain a proper understanding of the Bible for 2000 years. Until along comes men like Preston.
Very good point!
Are you a member of a protestant Church?
@@zacharyfeinberg2374 Not anymore. I live way out in the forest now. The woods are my church now. :-) However, when I was part of the visible assembly, I really enjoyed my membership with the RPCNA -- Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
@@roderickeauthor do you still hold to some of the teachings of the RPCNA?
@@zacharyfeinberg2374 Yes, I believe the Bible teaches the "TULIP". I believe exclusive-psalmody is a good practice. I believe that churches were meant to have a group of elders rather than a CEO pastor and his board of deacons. I believe the Bible advocates the communion table should be "closed" to at least professing Christians.
As much I like exposing Don Preston for being wrong Daniel 8 and Daniel 12 are two different events. Daniel 8 concerns Alexander the Great leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 12 involves the Romans leading up to Vespasian. So one about the Greeks and the other about the Romans. They both use terms like last days but they are different events, just like the bible uses the day of the lord for different events.
The Bible does use the Day of the Lord to describe different events, but as demonstrated in the video, the context of Daniel 12 is Antiochus. His work was echoed in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, but that doesn't change the context of Daniel 12.
Don cannot be as ignorant has he appears when it comes to the "comings" of Jesus. Through the old testament we has the judgement of nations described as God coming on the clouds. Jesus, in qouting Daniel 7:13-14 again in Matthew 26:64 to Caiaphas, is echoing not only Daniel but his own words in chapters 23-24. 70AD was a coming, just not the final coming. He makes the same mistake as the futurist in insisting they're one in the same. "This generation" and "that day" are not synonyms. Jesus himself differentiated the 2 with verse 36 of Matthew 24.
No he didn't. Matt 24:15 is clear and says "IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of those days...the lord's coming would occur...See NON-PRETERIST Donald Hagner's Comm on Matthew Word Commentary... Speak up!
Let us attend to the sacred texts. The Scriptures do not anywhere teach an invisible second coming. True or false?
Are you an Amilennial or a Postmilennial?
Yes 🙂
You need to understand what ‘the man Jesus Christ means’. Please note that there will never be any other mediation done for man other than that which had already been done through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. This is the everlasting mediation. This is the everlasting gospel.
Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary forever making intercession for the believers. The blood is forever speaking better things than that of Abel. It’s the blood of the everlasting Covenant speaks for man!
You completely ignore the context and demonstrate what Peter described. . . they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)
I pray for your repentance.
@Ophiuchus13 The video doesn't deal with it, because the identity of Babylon doesn't have much to do with the demonstrable lies of Don Preston. It's also not as explicit as you seem to think. Jerusalem was clearly Sodom and Egypt in Revelation 11, but the text doesn't say Jerusalem is Babylon in 1 Peter 5. It may have been Jerusalem, Rome, or the literal Babylon. You say the literal Babylon no longer existed, but it did. Despite the deportation of many of its people in the third century B.C. it still existed in the first century and was captured by Trajan in 116 A.D. The Jews also referred to the area of lower Mesopotamia as Babylonia. It's from that area we get the Babylonian Talmud.
Milennium is AD 30-70.
In this time Satan is in his prison.
1 Peter 5:8 ring a bell?
40 years doesn't come anywhere close to 1000.
@@ancientpathstvAgree.
My point is, Peter writes about Satan being free during the 40 year Milennium.
@@funtimefreddy4204 I have neither the time nor energy to debate people who advocate for a flat earth or a 40-year millennium. Your position has been refuted, whether or not you want to admit it.
@@ancientpathstv I was agreeing with you. My position is yours.
Satan is free when Peter is writing, after 30 AD and before 70. Satan has to be bound during this time under Full Preterism, yet he isn’t.
@@funtimefreddy4204 Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Here is Biblical proof that ALL prophecy was NOT fulfilled by the first century:
The prophesied re-gathering of Israel didn't really kick into gear until May 14, 1948. This certainly appears to be prophecy fulfilled nearly two thousand years AFTER the first century.
Jeremiah 30:1-8 says, "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 “Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: ‘Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.
3 For behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the Lord. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.’
4 Now these are the words that the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah.
5 “For thus says the Lord: ‘We have heard a voice of trembling, Of fear, and not of peace.
6 Ask now, and see, whether a man is ever in labor with child? So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins Like a woman in labor, and all faces turned pale?
7 Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.
8 ‘For it shall come to pass in that day,’ Says the Lord of hosts, ‘That I will break his yoke from your neck, and will burst your bonds.
Foreigners shall NO MORE ENSLAVE THEM."
The whole context of this passage is God will bring Israel back into their land, NEVER TO BE ENSLAVED AND TAKEN FROM THEIR LAND AGAIN.
All the way up to Rome, the Jews suffered periods of enslavement.
And AFTER Rome the Jews did NOT possess Israel UNTIL May 14, 1948.
God says, "For behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the Lord. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.’
AND..."Foreigners shall NO MORE enslave them."
Remember Nazi Germany enslaved them in concentration camps, all the way up to May 14, 1948.
Is this NOT fulfilled prophecy that came two thousand years AFTER the first century?
Hyper-preterism is wrong, but Dispensationalism is self-fulfilling "prophecy." Please watch this. th-cam.com/video/Zj8GXw-gbg0/w-d-xo.html
What about PARTIAL preterism and initial and ultimate fulfillments of apocalyptic prophecy APTV? Orthodox?
The first two hyper-preterists:
[2 Timothy 2:17-18 NKJV] "[17] And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, [18] who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."
Debate him son!
Let him respond to what's in the video with more than bluster.
@@ancientpathstv He does. This dude is scared. LOL. Ask Don to debate...here...scared? th-cam.com/video/rLNxA-fAXzU/w-d-xo.html
@@ancientpathstvPerhaps you could debate Don.
@@allthingsbing1295Perhaps Preston can stop blustering and answer the content of the video.
What is your definition of immortal? What is God's definition of immortal? Was Adam Created immortal?
Is Matthew 10:23 about 70 AD, or is it about Jesus coming as the King to Israel? The answer is found below in Zech. 9:9. Did Jesus "cometh" as the King of Israel riding on a donkey during the week He was crucified? If Matthew 10:23 is about 70 AD, Peter ignored the commandment given by Jesus in Matthew 10:5-7, when Peter went to the house of Cornelius. It did not take the disciples forty years to take the Gospel to Israel. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period of the Gospel going "first" to Israel is found in Matt. 10:5-23, and Acts chapter 2, and Acts 10:36-38, and Galatians 1:14-18.
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
The Old Covenant age died at Calvary when God ripped the temple veil in half from the top to the bottom at the moment His Son died at Calvary. There is no record in the NT of any person coming to salvation outside of the New Covenant between Calvary and 70 AD. Hebrews 7:12 proves there was a change in the law before 70 AD. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant Church of Mount Zion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24. This passage was written in the present tense before 70 AD.
If the Hyper-Preterists were correct the Old Covenant age would come back into existence if a temple were rebuilt, and animal sacrifices are renewed.
Any basic book on Astronomy proves we are not now living in the "eternal" New Heavens and New Earth, because the sun only has a limited amount of nuclear fuel. We now understand the nuclear reaction inside the core of the sun, because of the testing of thermonuclear weapons.
======================================================
Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem (subtitles from eSword)
Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.
(Mat 24:15 "Therefore when you see the 'ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand),
(Look at the reference to Hanukkah in John 10:22, if you want to know what the Jews of Jesus time understood about Antiochus Ephiphanes attacking the city during 167 BC, when his forces killed thousands of Jews, and stopped the sacrifices. Those two things also happened during 70AD. A Roman army under the command of Cestus Gallus surrounded the city during 66 AD and then left for some unknown reason. The Jews killed thousands of Romans during the retreat. Based on tradition, the early followers of Christ left the city before the final siege of 70 AD.)
Luk 21:21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
(Mat 24:16 "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.)
Luk 21:22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luk 21:23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. (See also Luke 23:28-31.)
(Mat 24:19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! )
Luk 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
(Almost all Bible scholars agree that the first part of the verse above is about 70 AD. At the end of the verse we find a period of time known as “the times of the Gentiles”. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken “first” to the Jews, and then to the Greeks (Gentiles). We are now in that time period when the Gospel is being taken to the whole world. Paul also referred to this time period in Romans 11:25, and Acts 28:28. In the verses that follow we find the future Second Coming of Christ. )
The Coming of the Son of Man
Luk 21:25 "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;
(Mat 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.)
Luk 21:26 men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Luk 21:27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
(Mat 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.)
Luk 21:28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."
(Mat 24:33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near-at the doors!)
.
If Matthew 10:23 is about Jesus coming as a King to Israel, riding on a donkey, then when we’re children causing their parents to be put to death before Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem in Matthew 21, as 10:21 indicates?
Also, when were the disciples brought before councils, and scourged in synagogues, or brought before kings, before Jesus rode the donkey into Jerusalem? (Matthew 10:16-18)
The truth is, the apostate Jewish persecution of the 12 disciples didn’t begin until the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. The context surrounding Matthew 10:23 proves that it is a reference to the coming of the Son of man, in judgment of the cities that rejected and persecuted the disciples.
“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (10:15)
@@JasinBoggs When was the "coming" in the verse below fulfilled?
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
When Peter spoke with Cornelius in Acts 10, he didn’t violate the command that Jesus gave in Matthew 10:5-7. He was given a vision by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit told Peter to go to Cornelius (Acts 10:9-20).
Rapture is the mark of the beast, Baal worship
Rabbi Akiva taught a 40 year reign of the Messiah.
So what? As shown in the video, Preston creates a crazy quilt of such unbiblical speculations to try to make everything fit his system. Since you engage nothing in the video, I have to ask, did you bother to watch it?
In the video, you claimed that no one taught a 40 year reign of the Messiah. I responded. While I agree that Don's teachings on many things are wrong (such as the death of Adam and many others), the timing of events is scripturally sound and consistent from the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself. @@ancientpathstv
@@michaele5075 You seem to be hearing what you want to hear. I didn't say no one taught a 40-year reign of Messiah. Obviously Don and others do, and I was aware of Akiva and others who thought it would mirror David's 40 year reign. I said no one in Scripture taught it. A 40-year millennium isn't scripturally sound nor consistent with the prophets, apostles, or Jesus.
@@ancientpathstvHave you considered a proper debate with Don Preston? I am sure he would be happy to oblige.
@@allthingsbing1295Preston avoids answering direct questions. He talks fast and mocks his opponents, but he doesn't actually debate. The issues are spelled out in the video, and no one has yet answered them.
Don Sounds Gnostic
Spiritual thinking not physical
Documented evidence, not gratuitous assertions.
There are two resurrections - one at the fall of Jerusalem and one in the future at the Great White Throne judgment.
What Bible verses do you use to back up "in the future at the Great White Throne of judgment."?
@@CCMDrummer
Before the millennium
Revelation 20:4-5 (KJV) 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
After the millennium
Revelation 20:13 (KJV) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
@@drewjohnson4811 okay, I will give you credit for one thing, you are the first PP who actually came out and made a delineation between 70AD and the end of time resurrection.
Now the rationale you used to arrive at that conclusion and whether or not it is biblically sound is a whole nother matter.
@@drewjohnson4811 Do you think what Jesus said in Mt 16: 27 & 28 is before or after the millennium?
@@CCMDrummer Before
Once you grasp Full Preterism, you will never look at the Bible the same way. There's really nothing complicated or secret about it. It has been rediscovered by Christians throughout the centuries. We are still living under the shadow of first century's Great Apostasy." It should come as no surprise that the majority opinion on scripture is often wrong. The Jews missed the 1st coming of Christ while the Christians missed the 2nd.
Instead of "bearing your testimony" like a cultist, how about actually engaging the content of the video?
@@ancientpathstv It seems to me that you need to interact with Dr Preston to clear up some misunderstandings. He has plenty of books that are practically free through Kindle Unlimited. I encourage everyone to check them out. Even if you disagree you will still walk away with more knowledge and understanding of the Bible.
Jesus is clear as to when his return would be--Matthew 24:34, Matthew 16:27,28
“If we only hope for Christ in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
-1 Corinthians 15:19
@@funtimefreddy4204Why don't you read it in context??? And use the KJB next time, not a watered down version.
Re. the Fall and the Covenant Curse of biological death, APTV, doesn't God in the text promise Adam literally that on the day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, "dying, you will die"? While that could be a Hebrew idiom for "surely die" (hence, the intensifying double "die"), instead it might mean in the context of what actually occurred, "beginning to die you will (eventually) die". IOW, "you will begin the process of dying and therefore eventually die" or "becoming mortal you will die". IDK, I'm not a scholar. None of the versions I have access to have anything other than "certainly die" or "surely die", but I'm pretty sure the Hebrew is "dying you will die". Dying is a process (long or short) and death is the end of that process.
Yes, I found it in English in Young's Literal Translation:
16 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; 17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it-dying thou dost die.'
Perhaps I can find it in an interlinear. It doesn't paste well, but IHOT has the same word H4191 repeated twice translated twice as "thou shalt surely die".
forH3117ביוםin the dayH398אכלךthat thou eatestH4480ממנוthereofH4191מותthou shalt surely die.H4191תמות׃thou shalt surely die.
I know Hebrew, it does mean "surely die" because it the first word is an infinitive absolute I know hebrew.
@@followerofyeshua9210 Thank you.
@@arthur6157 No problem
There is another version of Full Preterism that does recognize physical death as part of the fall, plus even Partial Prets see the New Heavens and Earth language as being symbolic of the New Covenant age we are in now, like Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson. Maybe even DeMar and Gentry.
Christ's kingdom has clearly been inaugurated, but it hasn't been fully consummated.
@@ancientpathstv Christ's Kingdom came to be fully consummated when He returned in judgement against old covenant Israel when He permanently destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and all of the Old blood covenant system. There is a very significant distinction between all the old testament accounts of the destruction of the Temple verses the destruction that occurred in AD 70. All of the destructions prior to the one in AD70, never vitiated the old animal blood covenant. But the destruction in AD70, clearly completely vitiated the old animal blood covenant. That's what makes Jesus' return in AD70 the full consummation of His New blood covenant Gospel Kingdom in the Earth. The old blood covenant Temple is NEVER, EVER going to be reinstituted. That would be an insult and an abomination to Christ's perfect blood sacrifice in the Earth that takes away the sins of man.
Christ's consummation of His new blood covenant Kingdom doesn't involve the end of pro-creation, nor the end of time. That is a false assumption that you've been indoctrinated with, that has no evidence from scripture.
DeMar sadly has joined the FP camp. Please pray his deliverance from this destructive heresy.
@@boughtdeadbyChrist No he hasn't lol, I know for a fact. He is simply asking questions that the Partials haven't been able to answer. I have the same questions, this will hopefully lead to more people asking questions and seeing what conclusions we can come to. God-bless
@@boughtdeadbyChristWhat is the best passage in your view for defeating full preterism.
Wonder it is possible the last generation started when Jerusalem was recognized as Israel's capitol (say 2019)? Or could be be 1967 when Israel got Jerusalem, or at the birth of Israel in 1948? But then another problem what is the length of a generation? Some might say possibly 20, 40, or 120 years, and others might assert some other duration? The point is God knows, only safe thing is when people will ask "Where is He? And mock those who think if or when he would return... Or as Christ Himself said "At an hour you think not..." ah there is that pesky thing God always desires.... "Faith"...? Faith that He will be true to what He has said, faith that just like for His first coming, no one knew, and actually if you dig in Biblically it was a huge conundrum? Why would His second coming be any different. Point is God will make it work out exactly according to His plan... Right. But a preterist view simply can't be reconciled with the Bible. Like from history it is clearly documented John was sent to Patmos in 85-90A.D. Hahah, really prophetic to write about events that occurred in 70A.D. Explain that, which no one will be able to if they hold to a preterist view...
It is absolutely NOT documented that John was sent to Patmos in 85-90 AD. He wrote the book of Revelations prior to 70 AD
@@mlwilson2956 Ummm, sorry the points you make simply shows you haven't studied, or simply willing to invent your own history and lie... It is a matter of record Domitian was the ruler who exiled John to Patmos. I was going off memory for the time range, it is 81 -> 96A.D. for you to say Revelation was written in before 70 A.D. Simply shows how truthful you are... NOT!
@@dand4485please explain the basis for your belief that revelation was written in the 90s.
There was no city called Philadelphia after AD 69. Do you think John wrote a letter to a non existent city?
The only fault Don has in his doctrine is that he still believes, (as most who will read this) they people today are still coming into Christ, and that "all mankind" needs biblical salvation.
For Don to be 100% consistent in his view, he has to also show that the entire biblical narrative is only about the 12 tribes of Israel...this the Bible CLEARLY teaches.
This simple truth makes ALL Dons claims 100% true.
Sure. . . ignore Genesis 17 (Abraham being the father of many goyim) and everything that goes after, and you can claim anything you want.
How about actually dealing with the content of the video?
@@ancientpathstv I don't need to...Don is vastly closer to the truth than any futurist Eschatology. With the exception of dealing with "the body" of Christ at the ascension...Don handed the good Pastor his a** In that Walace debate. BTW, Did Abraham "convert" any of his inlaws? Take consideration of Psalms 147 19,20 and Amos 3.2 (and there is many more) YHWH NEVER gave mankind his laws, and as Paul taught in Roman's 4.15. And 5.13, where there is no law, no sin is imputed...what "law" do you think you are under? AD70 abolished the law...this is FACT...ALL ISRAEL was saved! If a futurist eschatology was true in any way, that temple would still be standing...waiting for the gathering of Israel.
That’s such a scary view, way too unbalanced
You make a good case on why the whole of the Bible is nonsense and failed.
You make a bad case of answering the video and the Bible.
@ancientpathstv you showed that the things that were supposed to happen at the end of the age didn't happen. Don has to reinterpret things to make then work on his theory according to yourself. If all of the things reported that were supposed to happen didn't happen, then it fails.
@@dustinellerbe4125 The day of the Lord came against Samaria in the eighth century B.C., against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and will come against the whole world. They're not a single event. If you conflate all of God's judgments, the fault is yours, not God's.
@ancientpathstv context is relevant. There was more than one day of the lord. However, Don and others do a good job of putting the pieces together of when those things should take place. The wedding, the resurrection of the dead, the of the age, etc.. you can't leave those out. They were supposed to take place at a certain time and place and for an elect people. The story is over with in its own context. It had a beginning, middle, and end. The keys were handed back over to thr Father after Jesus did his short work.
@@dustinellerbe4125 As shown in the video, Preston doesn't do a good job. Rather than trying to shoehorn everything into 70 A.D., you should recognize that the problem is your system, not God's Word.