When Don Preston comments on the written work of Dr Sam Frost, one will seldom find a worse distortion and manipulation of the post than that which Preston offers. Full Preterism is what he bids as the “truth” but ignores the fact that Frost fully understood the preterist paradigm and rejected it when the glaring inconsistencies became too hard to ignore. Since his journey away from FP, Frost’s life is characterized by a spiritual journey to understand scriptures through a deep questioning of every facet. Realizing that any paradigm designated as the truth must withstand the scrutiny of time for its consistency, coherence, and logic. Any major failure on any point will result in a catastrophic collapse of the system.
On the heels of Thomas Aquinas, Frost leaves no stone unturned in his questioning and reasoning through sometimes very difficult passages. Following the logic of an argument to its logical conclusion, while incorporating the written scholarship of years of theologians and a vast bible knowledge that begins with the very languages of the bible, Frost has been left with the understanding there is no one person who has a corner on the market of truth as we simply do not have enough information on every subject to make the assertion, “we understand everything better than you.” The real scholar lives with questions and never comes to rest thinking that he understands it all. As new information is gathered, and thoughts explored, changes come to one’s thinking and beliefs without ever compromising the word of God. The goal for Frost is not to create an airtight paradigm to defend at all cost but to get to the truth even if is costs him turning his back on things he believed previously.
Often when a FP claims they are only teaching the word, they always fail to mention that many scriptures can be understood two different ways. The FP demands their version is the right version because the other version doesn’t make sense. Yet the FP version is based in a presupposition and assumptions of “truth” created by a paradigm that must defended at all costs. And still in return when refuting future paradigms, FP accuse the futurist of assumptions and presuppositions because the futurist system just cant be right on any level.
In defense of Frost, who doesn’t really need it, the primary issue that must be addressed is that FP is a deception and according to the nature of deception it divides and separates truth from reality. A major characterization of Preston’s presentation is always a subtle twisting of a bible passage or of a person’s views and statements. Preston’s goal is to delegitimize the person in the eyes of his readers so often make inflammatory remarks up front and at the end of a rebuttal. There is no greater animosity directed towards a person than Preston’s feud with Sam Frost who was once a leading teacher, conference speaker, and most educated Full Preterist, who was “shown off” by Preston as the next greatest thing since sliced bread, so you can imagine the blow when Frost renounced his FP beliefs and went back to scriptures for truth that made logical sense.
It’s a simple fact that the subtilties of Frost position and comments are often lost on FP readers, including Preston. While one statement made might be assumed to contradict a later statement, one must simply examine the comment carefully and understand the context of the comment. The first thing Preston brings up is concerning Matt 24:3. Frost as saying,
“They did not “link” any “age” to the destruction of the temple. The temple was “destroyed” and the ages continued to march on….not end….”
The obvious “…” within the quote means material was left out. Preston took editorial privilege to reduce the quote to what he felt was pertinent as he understood and not as the author wrote using the specific words for a reason. This is the evidence that points back to Preston’s arrogance. It also brings into question his interpretation skills if he is willing to bend a person words, then as he bends scriptures through these subtle twists to make it teach what he seeks to prove.
In context the FP demands that the destruction of the temple was the end of the age. Frost noted that the there was no end of the age, or even the end of the world was to happen with the destruction of the temple, as if the end of the age was determined by a singular event or that the space time continuum would collapse in on itself if everything was not fulfilled. The FP has the “ages” ending with the destruction of the temple by affirming the “new heavens and earth” had arrived. The terms of the New Covenant would continue forever so that in their theology, time will never come to an end, so therefore the end of all things was AD 70 and yet nothing ended but the temple and Israel itself as a nation.
In the next quote what Sam pointed out was not a contradiction to his previous words but a difference in perspective. This is the point which the “uneducated” Preston did not grasp, and I am sure many readers did not either. The disciples upon hearing for the first time it is very probable they would have thought Jesus was talking about the end of the world. Later as their understanding grew, they came to understand that time continued to march on and there was no intent of Jesus to indicate the end of the space time continuum on the day of Jerusalem’s judgment, yet there would be that end yet to come. The apostles then did not equate the AD 70 as the end of time, but His second appearing as the last days, and the ending of time.
The reasoning of the FP goes thus:
If Jesus spoke of the parousia, and the parousia was to happen in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple, in that generation and yet the heaven and earth did not end, (Matt 5:17,18) then the end foretold is the end of the old covenant age in which all prophecies were to be fulfilled. Heaven and earth have no end therefore time does not end. The heaven and earth that ended was the temple itself, which the jews claimed was “heaven and earth.”
Preston accused Frost of “underlying false assumptions and presuppositions upon which all of his claims are built.” In reality Frost or/and even the biblical writers themselves did not include every detail in every mention when they presented their eschatology. Frost’s paradigm is built on two thousand years’ worth of systematic and biblical theology presented by scholars going back from the beginning of the church. Yet Preston demands he explain his presuppositions and assumption every time he explores a passage of scripture yet does not impose the same on himself. Preston often makes statements that were never proven true or upon scriptures meanings where he never proved the verse to mean any such thing in the first place. For example its just understood Jesus was raised in the same “carnal” body he died in and never grasp the truth of Rom 6:9. The FP just assumes Jesus shed his body when he ascended without ever having a direct verse that says or implies such a thing. Another example, you will not find any reference in any NT letter indicating when or how the thousand years takes place. Except in Revelation itself. If this is so important to the “wilderness wanderings analogy” the FP hype up why is it never mentioned by By Paul or even in John’s letters who wrote the boof of Revelation. Yes, there is a host of scriptures Preston and all FP ignore that make their paradigm completely corrupt such as Rom 6:9.
FP theology is not based in true scholarship. The mere fact they ignore the testimony of the early church fathers who were appointed by the apostles themselves, and claiming them as being “apostate” reveals the nature of their case. No biblical scholar ever simply ignored these writting and yet Preston has the gaul to argue with modern day scholars and use their writting to either support his views or argue against them which is pure hypocrisy when they ignore the testimony of ECF and the facts they present. The FP often conflates facts with “doctrines.” If Christ second appearing took place in AD 70 then that should be offered as a historical facts that can be proven with testimony of men who witnessed these events. But in the absence of witnesses, they are forced to claim “spiritual fulfillment.” They often castigate the ECF as uninspired works of men and what they taught, and yet write books themselves intended to teach people what they believe is the truth.
Often Preston will refute the glaring holes created by partial preterists or writings of very uneducated people, while ignoring real scholarly works. They cant allow an ECF to upset the apple cart so they are dismissed on every level or quotes are taken completely out of context in order to be used to support there view. Many ECF declared there was a coming of Christ in AD 70, in judgment, but never as in the second appearing.
Secondly, Preston is not trained/educated in orthodox systematic theology. He is a product of the doctrines and theology of the Church of Christ which rejects creeds, pastors, musical instruments, baptism necessary for salvation, and have other aberrant teachings. Denying they are a denomination and yet act like a denomination, going so far as to say true salvation can only be found in their church. They wonder why we as orthodox Christians do not trust their scholarship.
What I present next in refutation is a narrative or timeline of the historical record that the FP has grossly misrepresented.
Jerusalem was destroyed for the first time by a word of command of Judgment in about BC 536. The people regathered and history takes us into the Roman empire when Christ was born, died, and resurrected. It was Christ who pronounced a second judgment against Israel for the blood of the prophets and their rejection of the Messiah.
When Christ died he fulfilled the terms of the law, and the law of Moses came to an end on the cross when the sacrifice was accepted and the curtain veil was torn in two, opening the way into the most holy place. Christ did not die a spiritual death in order to atone for sin but had to shed his own blood for the covering over of sin. The new covenant was then given to Israel, as prophesied by Jeremiah and reiterated through the Apostles. The people rejected this covenant and so according to the OC terms they were judged and condemned, which happens upon a single generation. In AD 70 Jerusalem was destroyed. There was not a second appearance, or a resurrection of the dead. The final great throne judgment did not take place nor did the new heaven and earth arrive.
The full preterist knows full well that not one person declared the resurrection took place or that there was even a “spiritual” resurrection. The Christian writers following AD 70, Barnabas, Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and John affirmed that Jerusalem was destroyed according to the prophecy of Jesus, and that he came in judgment, but did not appear. They all place the second appearing future. The Church taught the bodily resurrection of the saints and the visible return of Christ as a foundation to what is the tenets of Christianity.
The FP insist that their interpretation of the time statements indicates that all prophecy was to be fulfilled in that generation. That first century generation never had a bible. Luke was written after AD 64, Matt 68-71, Mark possible as early as the 40’s. John’s gospel was long after AD 70. (Including Revelation) So Barnabas and the others are not reading time statements and declaring that all prophecy had to be fulfilled by AD 70. In fact of those who read Matthew in later years never looked at the “time statements” and concluded he came in AD 70.
Which begs the question; For two thousand years men have been reading the bible, great men, well educated men, and not once did anyone declare “time statements demand it all was fulfilled in AD 70”. We have some partial works in the 1800’s but were quickly rejected. But now here in the twenty first century the devil has found people who will listen to this “doctrine of demons.”
When the ECF works are read the reader can grasp that the church taught and believed a visible future second coming and bodily resurrection as the Apostles creed was disseminated among the churches as the “faith passed on from the ages.”
…. is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
the resurrection of the body,
From the earliest known church documents post AD 70, the Didache,
then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.
While the church rejects the idea of these documents being inspired texts, it reflects the beliefs of the early church where no contradiction exists among them concerning the creeds teaching as based upon scriptures. These unifying beliefs then were all upheld by testimony of those who were alive during the events of AD 70, and then those who defended the positions through the ages.
The FP comes along 2000 years later and say they were all wrong we have a better understanding of how to interpret scriptures then invent their own creeds and hermeneutics. This is the hallmark of every new cult that has developed in the last two hundred years without exception.
One last point, Preston states, “But if one adopted Frost’s new “Dispensational like” literalistic hermeneutic, the end of time should have occurred in that earlier destruction.” Which shows two things. Preston does not have grasp on “futurist” eschatology, theologically. Meaning he cannot demonstrate how we come to our conclusions using scriptures. All that Preston completed was a two-year bible program. Secondly the rules of hermeneutics begins with the literal approach to interpretation starting with the meaning of words, context, genre, grammar, etc etc. Preston starts with the idea that you begin your study with a “spiritualization” of the texts. The golden rule of biblical interpretation begins with,
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.
The problem of course is obvious if the plain sense of the words contradict the FP paradigm then the passage must be interpreted spiritually thus removing the literal intent of the author’s words. In most cases the FP cannot justify why a passage should not be interpreted literally.
Preston concludes his article with several question. Even though I am just a lowly nobody I think I can answer Preston’s questions.
☛ #1 – WERE THE APOSTLES CONFUSED, IGNORANT, OR SIMPLY WRONG, TO LINK THAT SINGULAR CONSUMMATION WITH THE COMING DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.
The issue with the question is that there is no presentation of a “singular consummation in the Olivet.” Meaning in the FP paradigm they assume the last days, the end of everything was a singular event where all prophecy was fulfilled in that generation and so assumes in his question that it is a given fact. This is built on the false notion that all prophecy was to be fulfilled in that generation. This is a problem with a majority of answers he gives, he assumes, as many full preterists do, that their interpretation is the correct one. The apostles never assumed these events were a singular consummation outside of fulfilling prophecy concerning the “days of Vengeance,” a judgment against that generation. IN every past historical account it was always a generation that was judged.
Paul’s revelation and teaching points to a day when Christ returns bodily and visibly, the dead in Christ are raised physically. It was John who declared to the churches of Asia Minor, in his 1 st letter that when Christ comes again they would see him. So based on the ignorant hermeneutics of “audience relevance,” the churches of Asia should have seen Christ come in that generation and yet they were completely silent on his return as was the whole church. Imagine that Christ is to come in glory and power, and everyone missed the fact it was an invisible spiritual coming.
One of the most glaring contradictions that FP hold to is that that the OD describes the Parousia, coming of Jesus. It is Paul who states that at his parousia he would manifest as the king of kings, and that he would come as a thief. Thieves do not give signs or warning as to what season they are coming. The events leading up to AD 70 were not signs of the second appearing of Christ. They were signs of the impending judgment upon them, as warnings to flee.
The word parousia has two uses as Preston pointed out in a FACEBOOK conversation with me,
Here is what Arndt and Gingrich says: “A visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or, by some deed of power by which its presence is made known.”[1] (Second Edition, 1979, 304). Notice the last part of that quote and see that if flatly refutes Stephen Whitsett and vindicates the preterist claims.[2]
I had a lengthy discussion with Don K Preston about the Greek word “Parousia,” and I insisted Paul used the word in one specific way, “the physical bodily presence” of a person who has been absent.” a king who comes for a royal visit. Don responded.
Stephen, as usual; you distort the lexical evidence, making ungrounded claims. May I suggest you do some more extensive research as to the definition and use of Parousia in the first century? It did not demand– or intrinsically mean– a bodily presence. That is totally unfounded.
Yet one verse does translate the word to be “bodily Presence”. (For they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence ([Parousia] is weak, and his speech of no account.” (2 Cor 10:10). Then Paul states the parousia of Stephenos was a bodily presence, , or does Preston think it was a invisible spiritual coming of Stephanos? Secondly he himself provided the lexical evidence of two meanings in which the first means a personal appearance by the person being mentioned in context.
I have never figured out how one distorts the Lexical evidence when all you must do is quote what they wrote.
Later he quotes a lexicon in the discussion doing the exact same thing.
My position that I stated to Don is that the Parousia as used by Paul, is in the first part of the quote, “A visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, in the form of a personal appearance.” Taken from the exact same source that Don posted concerning and showing two different uses of the word historically, yet he says that is unfounded.
Let’s make a very important point lost on Don: A visible manifestation of a hidden divinity by some deed of power by which its presence is made known- HAS TO BE SEEN BECAUSE IT’S A VISIBLE MANIFESTATION.
Don replies,
Folks, when Stephen Whitsett pontificates about the definition of a Greek word, you best be very, very cautious, for he has consistently abused the Greek!
Then Don also states in a different discussion.
It is also interesting that you cite the “comments” of the lexicographers as if it were authoritative. Sorry, but their comments are no more authoritative than yours. And cutting and pasting their comments proves nothing.
Yet he did himself! Then Don stated,
Then, as I noted, Josephus used Parousia to speak of YHVH’s actions in history. Whitsett castigated me– making some obfuscatory self-contradictory arguments. I noted how false his argument was, by pointing out that Josephus is the one that used Parousia to refer to God’s actions in the OT. Whitsett rejected that, but then, again, cites Wright who says precisely what I did about Josephus’ use of Parousia!
Obviously Preston was not paying attention to the discussion but seemed absent minded in his remarks, almost a twinge of dementia. Here is the quote I used from N T Wright in my discussion with Don.
The second meaning emerges when a person of high rank makes a visit to a subject state, particularly when a king or emperor visits a colony or province. The word for such a visit is royal presence: in Greek, Parousia.
The point I made was Paul is not Josephus in how he used the word. Paul insisted when Stephanos came it was bodily and his personal appearance.
Now here is what floored me when I heard this, Michael Miano in commenting on the Don Preston Vs. Dr Brown debate from several years ago. Going to the YouTube video and hearing the quote personally, this is what Preston stated,
The terms Parousia and apantesis1 as technical terms as used and understood in the first century world, negates the idea of a removal of Christians from the earth …. The terms parousia2 and apantesis…were used in the ancient world to speak of a king or royal dignitary that was to make a visit to a given city. As he approached the city for his visit (his Parousia), the citizens of that city, being watchful for him, would, when his entourage was sighted, leave their city and go out and meet (apantesis) him. They would then escort him back to their city. The city was the destination of the dignitary.[3]
(Palm Sunday?)
Was the Royal visit of the King to a given city invisible or not bodily?
In his book, “Like Father Like Son; On Clouds of Glory: A Study in The Nature of His Coming” Preston stated the same,
The word Parousia, as used by the disciples in Matthew 24:3 was not a word that meant a return, but a manifestation of the Divine glory. Further, Jesus’ referent to the Old Covenant predictions of the Day of the Lord against Jerusalem for her persecutorial ways all but demands that when the disciples asked about the sign of Christ’s Parousia, they were not thinking of an end of time event. They were thinking of a “typical,” but consummative, in-history Day of the Lord against the temple.[4]
I hope you catch the power of that answer. The events of AD 70 were not to be “an end time of event.”
Don states,
In 1 Timothy 6:14-15 the apostle told his favorite “son” to remain faithful until the appearing (epiphany) of Jesus, “which shall manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings.” Jesus’ parousia would prove that He is the Son of God because He would do what the Father had always done.[5]
In so doing, Don uses one of six passages in which the noun form of the word “epiphaneia” is used concerning the “event” of the Second Coming. Epiphany is an abstract English usage of the Greek word which implies “the height of an experience” – a moment of sudden revelation or insight. Yet even in Google dictionary it adds, a manifestation of a divine or supernatural being.
In the Roman world when the king sat on the throne, he became Caesar, he became a God, it was his Epiphany, the manifestation of a God on earth. Paul borrowed this meaning to use of Christ’s appearing. It was his manifesting into the world view in power and in glory. He becomes the manifestation of a God who sits on the throne of His father David, in the city he loves. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 he uses both words in conjunction, “the appearing at his coming.” (epiphaneia, parousia) It is the appearing of Jesus himself, based on I Thessalonians 4, “Jesus himself descends.” His feet will stand on the mount of Olives (Zech 14:4.)
In his book, Don stated,
The word parousia, as used by the disciples in Matthew 24:3 was not a word that meant a return, but a manifestation of the Divine glory.[6]
This is exactly my point and argument, the one point which I stand in agreement with Preston on. Therefore, we must turn to passages in the Epistles that do talk of his return, since Jesus was not talking about his return in the Olivet, it cannot be about his second coming.
Hallelujah !
Parousia, as used by Mathew, is never meant to mean a personal presence, or a personal coming as Don implies the same,
Caiaphas understood that only Deity rides the clouds (see Psalms 104:3). Jehovah makes His way in the whirlwind (Nahum 1:3). Only God rode the clouds into Egypt (Isaiah 19:1). Only the Almighty makes His abode in the clouds (Psalms 97:2). The coming on the clouds of heaven was linked with the Deity (Cf. DeMar, 1994, 154). For Jesus, therefore, to claim that he was going to come on the clouds of heaven[7] was not a claim to come physically, nor visibly with the human eye.[8]
Hallelujah again we agree that is how Mathew uses the term, Don applies this meaning across the board but then never addresses the differences in the Epistles. Why is the word parousia used of Stephen or Fortunus when they came after being absent? Why did the translators translate parousia as “bodily presence” when it concerned Paul, or the coming of the “man of lawlessness” also as a type of Parousia? (2 Thess 2:9) These are questions Preston needs to address.
☛ #2 – WHAT AGE DID THAT JERUSALEM TEMPLE REPRESENT AND SYMBOLIZE?
Much of what Preston pontificates on is based on the idea that Parousia means the second coming. Since Matt used the word in Matt 24:3 as noted above, Preston agrees that AD 70 was not the second coming. Yet in his other books he says it’s the second coming. This contradiction is the hallmark of deception as lies create other lies until the whole thing is one big lie.
If AD 70 was not the second coming then the second “appearing” is still the future.
Preston stated that,
Frost is affirming that after the end, there would not be– could not be- in his paradigm – any further wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilence etc. And if one grants his unproven assumption that “the end” is referent to the end of time, he is, of course, correct.
Everyone affirms that what ended in AD 70 was Israel and the temple but no age ended. The Old Covenant came to its end at the cross. In maybe that one sense a new age began. If the Old Covenant has ended then the people needed to see that the temple was no longer needed. God himself destroyed the temple in his judgment. Christ became the last sacrifice needed so the temple sacrificial system was useless.
The proof of time coming to an end is based on Revelation 21, 22.
In the futurists scenario of the last days Christ returns to bring judgment on the beast and his kingdom for the persecution of the NT Prophets and saints (Rev 13:7-10.) Christ returns in defense of his people and Jerusalem and the kings of the earth gather in the valley of Megiddo. Christ comes with his armies and destroys the beast and false prophet and throws the two alive into the lake of fire. The millennial kingdom begins with the dead in Christ raised to rule and reign with him over the nations that survived the war against Jerusalem (Zech 14:16).
At the end of the thousand years satan is released and gathers the armies against “the camp of the saints, the city he loves,” Jerusalem and He calls down fire to burn up the earth (not total destruction so that it ceases to exist.) The great white throne takes place next in heaven in which every living soul who has ever lived from Adam to the last man, named on the last page of the book of life, stands before him and every knee bow and then people are judged by the deeds they have done and if their name was written in the lambs book of life or not.
This is when time ends.
The judgment takes place in heaven where, “From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.” In the very next chapter John states, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” – the earth has been made like new, the former things have passed away, “Behold, I am making all things new.” The rest of the chapter describes the New Jerusalem, the city, and after it comes down to earth,
And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. -—and there will be no night there. (22) 5And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
When heaven and earth are united into one realm there is no need for a sun or a moon to tell time. In “heaven” there is but one day that never ends, hence, world without end. The end of time. So the assumption is proven based on a literal interpretation. Preston has never provided an exegesis of Rev 21, 22 without affixing them to the AD 70 date and spiritualizing the text since it had to be all fulfilled in that Generation. Hence the passage can not be interpretated outside of those parameters and by such they create severe contradictions. Rev 19 Jesus comes with his saints and literally kills the beast and his armies and yet the beast destroys and wins the victory in AD 70.
Since the world continued after AD 70 and he believes the end came in AD 70, then he has no choice but to spiritualize the language in order to fit his paradigm. That is the problem, specific passages are spiritualized to fit a presuppositional paradigm. The FP does not allow the passage to speak plainly. Preston claims that “Frost imposes a literalistic hermeneutic on metaphoric language.” And yet does not prove what is literal and what is metaphorical, (yet claiming the Jewish wars as literal and Rev 17-18 describing the literal destruction of Jerusalem) as it is confirmed that in the OD the wars and events are very literal, and so Preston does not see his “conundrum.” “Hebraic apocalyptic, non-literal language” is almost always used to describe the nature of the literal event. Again it is the rules of hermeneutics that demands a meaning derived from the “literal language” when its used.
Matt 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
The quote is found in many places of the OT and yet in Joel,
Joel 2 30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.
Why should we assume these description are not literal when Joel says they are? “I will show wonders” demands what follows is something literal and to be seen as a demonstration of God’s power and glory, as each phenomenon can be explained in the natural world through science.
So when Preston concludes:
- 1. Audience Relevance is a false hermeneutic as in how it’s used by FP.
- 2. Preston can claim “false assumption and presuppositions” but if they are based on an interpretation that has been held by the church for 2000 years, using scriptures to back up every claim, then Preston is simply unaware of the precedence. Or can he explain away the difference with any sense of logic.
- 3. We ignore the FP interpretations of Mark and Luke eschatology.
- 4. Again a false understanding of timing and what is the end.
- 5. Asserting the claim of Hebraic Apocalyptic on literal passages.
- 6. Ignoring the fact that Paul said there would be no signs concerning his second coming.
Jesus never said that all prophecy would be fulfilled during the days of vengeance. He claimed that that all prophecy concerning the days of vengeance would be fulfilled. The same concept is reiterated in Luke 24:44
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Mathew stated,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
So when the FET comes to Luke 21:22
for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
they narrowly interpret it to mean, that every prophesy ever made in the OT must be fulfilled during the days of vengeance, and yet it has been grammatically understood for hundreds of years to mean, that all prophecy concerning HIM must be fulfilled, the prophecies concerning the days of vengeance must also be fulfilled. (Duet 28)
It is so simple to show that many of the accusations Preston makes against others are nothing more than a reflection of his conscience that condemns others, ” blaming others for what you yourself do.
For many months Preston has taught that the saints ascended into heaven in AD 70 when Christ came out of heaven for salvation. His teaching has been that the saints coming out of Hades was a/the resurrection. Yet in another statement made to an individual he says,
The Millennium began in the ministry and resurrection of Jesus and his taking of the Old Testament martyrs and Saints with him at his ascension.
So again we see the inconsistency and lack of coherence from Preston as this statement undermines every FP paradigm concerning the forty years. But it is easily seen as to why Preston waffles on this. The forty years is supposed to be the transition period between the Old and New Covenant and yet it’s also suppose to be the beginning of the Millennium. Folks it simple cannot be a time of transition and the Millennium at the same time. Preston knows full well the implication of such a contradiction.
And the house of cards fall.
[1] Arndt and Gingrich make not that it is used in two different ways, would it be incumbent on the scholar to discover where that two different uses are?
[2] Personal FACEBOOK discussion saved in PDF
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Ec1GyfKxs
[4] Preston, Like Father Like Son, 3245
[5] Ibid 1764, Yet unlike the father, the son came and appeared in the lowly form of a baby.
[6] Preston, Like Father Like Son 297
[7] Again, it needs to be noted when Jesus said “coming on clouds” he was not talking about his physical bodily appearance on earth but in heaven before the Ancient of Days. Jesus never said a word about a second coming in the gospels.
[8] Preston, Like Father Like Son, 1648
Leave a Reply