Full preterist/ failed prophet dilemma

Status
Not open for further replies.

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
I have encountered a forceful argument from a atheist that I have no rebuttal too

The outline is this.
P1 Jesus predicts the second temple will fullfill daniel's ressurection story
P2 The second temple is gone for reasons other daniel's story
C Jesus is a fake prophet

This argument is supported without reference to the usual suspect verses like "this generation shall not pass away"

Essentially the atheist says Luke 21's version of "when you see the abomination of desolation run away " verses from Matthew and Mark read as "When you see jerusalem surrounded by armies run away".

The reason this is important is this.

It is 100% the case Luke and mark/mathew are talking about the same speech.

The events immediately before in mark/luke are the same (Jesus fighting the pharasees, seeing the widow donate money and being asked about the temple's doom)
Mathew's version ommits the widow story but its clearly the same moment too.
Since all three versions of Jesus' quotes differ in wording there is paraphrasing going on but the spirit of the meaning is captured by all three.

Thus when Luke says his run away line he is discussing the same event as Matthew/Mark.

The problem is Luke's version makes it clear that the subject of the prophecy is the second temple.
Its not the temple as a institution or legacy, but literally the stones the apostles saw with there eyeballs the moment Jesus spoke.

"5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and [g]vowed gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are observing, the days will come when there will not be left one stone upon [h]another, which will not be torn down.”

7 They asked Him questions, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the [i]sign when these things are about to take place?” "

Thus it seems here Christ predicts not that the temple will be destroyed by the man of sin/evil one daniel fortold of after the temple is destroyed in 70ad.

Rather it seems hes saying the second temple will be destroyed by the man of sin.

This clearly did not happen.

Thus we have a dillema if we cant solve this problem by attacking its premises.

If Jesus really did intend the above reading then we are left with full preterism or false prophet as options

Anyone got any suggestions?
 
Wouldn't dual fulfillment resolve the issue? Link with some examples of dual fulfillment for context in case it is helpful.
 
Not in this case
All duel fulfillment cases sanctioned by the bible take the format of "Direct regular speech explicit interpretation/ vague thematic fulfillment"

Example "out of Egypt i called my son" read normally is about Israel and read poetically is about Jesus.

The problem is if the atheist im dealing with is right then to invoke double fulfillment creates the problem of the signal "run when you see X because this is the big one" being useless.

The text is worded such that the direct plain text meaning is the end war, to say 70 ad fulfilled it poetically would make it impossible to know to run when the armies surrounding Jerusalem are spotted. (as in luke's version)

You could know to run just in case this is the end war, but that's not how the prophecy is worded.

Jesus says run because this is THE BIG WAR, THE MAIN EVENT.
 
The atheist chooses darkness because his deeds are evil. His problem isn’t the nuances of interpretation of the Olivet discourse.
 
The atheist chooses darkness because his deeds are evil. His problem isn’t the nuances of interpretation of the Olivet discourse.
True but his argument is somewhat compelling.

The way I used to read it seems gerrymandered to me now.

As such I seek to find a pro-Jesus reading without unnatural awkwardness
 
Well, I don’t follow the argument as you’ve laid it out. I need more exegesis behind the premises. But I wouldn’t let the atheist drag you in to his smokescreen. In terms of the apologetic, I would ask him if he would become a Christian if you could give him an adequate explanation.
 
I can't make any sense of the argument you are trying to make.

Nevertheless, I have no problem with atheists not understanding scripture and prophesies.

In Jesus' day, the religions leaders of Israel didn't even understand the scripture and prophesies.
 
Several thoughts:
1) I don't really understand the argument.
2) There are ways to read "this generation" that do not involve any preterist reading.
 
This argues that the two passages are not identical and that Luke is in the future.
 
Continuing the above, "this generation" can plausibly refer to a class of people in a derogatory sense.
 
What does P1 mean? What is "Daniel's resurrection story"?

In the Olivet discourse Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple within that generation. That happened. I dont see the dilemma.
 
What does P1 mean? What is "Daniel's resurrection story"?

In the Olivet discourse Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple within that generation. That happened. I dont see the dilemma.
Jesus' great tribulation and the resurrection is a reference to daniel 12:1-2

Essentially you agree with 90% the atheists point, the only difference is the atheist adds the idea that the "this generation destruction" was supposed to be done by the end times king Daniel talks about.

From here on ill call him the man of lawlessness as this is what Paul calls him

"For it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God"

The above is also ripped from Daniel 11 by Paul
 
Jesus' great tribulation and the resurrection is a reference to daniel 12:1-2

Essentially you agree with 90% the atheists point, the only difference is the atheist adds the idea that the "this generation destruction" was supposed to be done by the end times king Daniel talks about.

From here on ill call him the man of lawlessness as this is what Paul calls him

"For it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God"

The above is also ripped from Daniel 11 by Paul
The atheist says these are connected. He doesn’t say why. I’ve rebutted his main point
 
The atheist says these are connected. He doesn’t say why. I’ve rebutted his main point
Matthew 24 literally name drops
daniel “So when you see the abomination of desolation wspoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in xthe holy place (ylet the reader understand),
 
Matthew 24 literally name drops
daniel “So when you see the abomination of desolation wspoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in xthe holy place (ylet the reader understand),
And I've given several good reasons why that is not exclusively (if at all) referring to AD 70.

Yes, some of the Olivet looks like AD 70, but similarity is not identity.
 
Here is the nail in the coffin: Interesting how Preterists (and atheists) ignore Mt. 23:35 where Jesus tells His contemporaries that they murdered Abel and Zechariah, neither of which were contemporaries of His contemporaries.
 
Matthew 24 literally name drops
daniel “So when you see the abomination of desolation wspoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in xthe holy place (ylet the reader understand),
Calvin, in his commentary, and Gentry have interesting takes on it that do not demand that the resurrection is immediate.
 
If that's his "syllogism" then, no, it's not compelling.
I suppose a rough reworking might look like this

MP-Only a false prophet would predict the second temple as the fulfillment of Daniel’s resurrection story

mp-Jesus predicts the second temple as the fulfillment of Daniel’s resurrection story

C-Therefore, Jesus is a false prophet.
 
In a more formal sense, you and your interlocutor are affirming the consequent. (If P, then q; therefore, q).
I don't think so the above is my vulgar attempt to paraphrase his argument (im not educated)

He phrased it conditionally, something like If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

Reconstructed better its
P1 If Jesus is a true prophet then the second temple was destroyed by the evil one fortold by Daniel .
P2 The second temple was not destroyed by the evil one foretold by Daniel
C Jesus is not a true prophet
 
I don't think so the above is my vulgar attempt to paraphrase his argument (im not educated)

He phrased it conditionally, something like If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

Reconstructed better its
P1 If Jesus is a true prophet then the second temple was destroyed by the evil one fortold by Daniel .
P2 The second temple was not destroyed by the evil one foretold by Daniel
C Jesus is not a true prophet
I see no reason to accept the first premise as stated
 
“I really don’t like God telling me what to do, so I’m going to pretend I fully understand biblical prophecy and claim Jesus was a false prophet.”
 
The man himself says hes making a youtube video so you can see for yourself how he argues in a short time

I suppose so. My general rule of thumb is unless the person in question is a peer reviewed scholar or otherwise reputable on a topic, I generally do not care. I cannot see myself watching some random atheist internet video. In any case, my reference to that generation killing Abel, which they most certainly did not do, sealed the debate.

I do commend him for connecting preterism with atheism, although he is about 70 years too late. Bertrand Russell already did that. Actually, Nietzsche did it long before Russell.
 
You understand though that he's not making an appeal to the this generation verse.

His arguments would go through if successful even if Jesus meant something like "the last generation will not pass or this race will not pass"

His argument is utterly unrelated to this generation shall not pass.

It's just an argument of equivalence.

Luke 21 speech is the same speech as Matt 24

Since Luke's talks about the surrounding of the city the surrounding of the city being the sign to run should be taken to be the start of the Great tribulation.

I don't know why you think " this generation is important here"
 
You understand though that he's not making an appeal to the this generation verse.

His arguments would go through if successful even if Jesus meant something like "the last generation will not pass or this race will not pass"

His argument is utterly unrelated to this generation shall not pass.

I don't understand. Either he isn't very clear or you aren't in portraying his argument (or both).
Luke 21 speech is the same speech as Matt 24

It is not. They are similar, but Luke refers to the "times of the gentiles."
Since Luke's talks about the surrounding of the city the surrounding of the city being the sign to run should be taken to be the start of the Great tribulation.

I agree. It is actually when Antichrist offers the abomination of desolation that the Great Tribulation starts. The Greek, not that the atheist would know it, is quite clear.
I don't know why you think " this generation is important here"

Because if the generation isn't the one Jesus is talking to, but rather a future one, then by definition Jesus can't be a false prophet. The event has not happened yet.
 
Jesus' great tribulation and the resurrection is a reference to daniel 12:1-2

Essentially you agree with 90% the atheists point, the only difference is the atheist adds the idea that the "this generation destruction" was supposed to be done by the end times king Daniel talks about.

From here on ill call him the man of lawlessness as this is what Paul calls him

"For it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God"

The above is also ripped from Daniel 11 by Paul
All of this happened ~70 AD. But it does not commit one to FULL preterism.
 
Isn't Jesus' response also given in the context of him being asked  two questions?

"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying,
¹“Tell us, when will these things be? ²And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them: ..."

Matt 23 : 3-4

Superscripts added by me for emphasis.

So he isn't bound by responding in reference to  one event only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top