Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)

STUDY ARCHIVE

Main Page

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

EARLY CHURCH

Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St. Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus

HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis
Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale
Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus

David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce

Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards

E.B. Elliott
Heinrich Ewald
Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg
Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull
Johann Lange

Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther

James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
 Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink

Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius

Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John Smith
C.H. Spurgeon

Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong
St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield

Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott
William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright

John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke

Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P. Warren
Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
 

FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any Particular Eschatology)

Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm. Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd
E.B. Elliott
G.S. Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice

Benjamin Jowett
John N.D. Kelly

Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce

Eduard Reuss

J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith

Norman Snaith
"Televangelists"
Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord

Quakers : George Fox | Margaret Fell (Fox) | Isaac Penington


PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM | MODERN PRETERISM | PRETERIST IDEALISM

"For example, Billy Graham and Barbara Streisand -- two people on different ends of the spiritual spectrum"
 

 

Gary DeMar

Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church

  • 3/4/3: Was the Preterist Interpretation the Invention of Jesuits? "As Frank Gumerlock and others have shown with the advent of translated works that have never been in English, there is a long history of Christians going back long before either Ribera or Alcasar who interpreted parts of Revelation in a preteristic way."

  •  Is Jesus Going to Reign on Earth? (2011) "There are lots of things that people believe the Bible teaches that just aren’t there. I have developed a Bible test that makes this point. Here’s one of them: Did Noah’s ark land on Mt. Ararat? The answer is no. The ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat (Gen. 8:4). "

  • Defending Dispensationalism at All Costs (2011) "Dave Hunt continues to ask questions about a preterist interpretation of Scripture. They’re true by definition because they support dispensationalism. Mr. Hunt knows that he no longer has to defend his position because there is a willing audience that will believe any listing of them"

  • Matthew Ervin Responds to Gary Demar's Eisegesis of Zechariah 14. Part 1 "Gary Demar has some rather odd things to say about Zechariah 14 in his effort to make the chapter fit his brand of preterism."

  • Are there one people of God or two? (2011)

  • Q&A for Gary DeMar: Q: “What do you say in response to all of the people saying that you are secretly a friend to hyperpreterists?” A: "I am willing to listen to their arguments since preterism in its present form is only now coming to its own as we shake off the dust of dispensationalism that has so distorted our interpretation of prophecy. I am willing to cut those full preterists some slack who are attempting to do real exegetical work. Many partial preterists are not willing to do this. To my mind, this approach is counterproductive. Honest analysis of the Bible is required. I want to be challenged by the best arguments possible, whether they come from full preterists or dispensationalists. I refuse to adopt a position because I’ve been told to do so. To quote Posey from The Dirty Dozen, “I don’t like being pushed.”" (The Christian Worldview Forum)

President and general director of American Vision and the author of numerous books on biblical worldview issues.  The staff of American Vision conducts seminars on worldview issues.  For more information concerning lectures, debates, radio interviews and seminars, please contact American Vision

“It is unbiblical to use the term ‘Antichrist’ for a present-day or future political ruler. The proper context is theological and pre-A. D. 70” (Last Days Madness, p.204).

Biblical Minimalism and "The History of Preterism" | The Early Church and the End of the World | Time's Puff Piece: The Devil is in the Details | The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel | Will the Real Anti-Prophets Please Stand Up? | Zechariah 14 and the Coming of Christ | Defending the Indefensible | No Fear of the Text | Dispensationalism : Being Left Behind | The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth

  • A Defense of Dispensationalism (2009) The same “hyper” argument can be applied to Calvinism. Seeing that MacArthur is a Calvinist, I can just hear some of his Arminian friends saying, “It is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by Calvinists like John MacArthur is what laid the foundation for the hyper-Calvinism error.” Amillennialist David Engelsma, also a preterist critic, follows a similar slippery slope argument. Engelsma writes that partial “preterism will become consistent preterism.”[3] This is curious coming from Engelsma since he defends Calvinism against those who maintain that Calvinism inevitably leads to hyper-Calvinism or that Calvinism is in fact hyper-Calvinism. He writes in Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel,

In most cases the charge “hyper-Calvinist” is nothing but a deceptive attack upon Calvinism itself. Someone who hates Calvinism, or the uncompromising, consistent defense of Calvinism; yet he hesitates to attack Calvinism openly and forthrightly, and therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on “hyper-Calvinism” and “hyper-Calvinists.”

This is exactly what Engelsma does in his attack on preterism. Instead of dealing with the detailed arguments of preterists, he immediately attacks hyper-preterism as if partial and hyper-preterism are synonymous. Let’s modify the hyper-Calvinist paragraph above by substituting hyper-preterist for hyper-Calvinist.

In most cases the charge “hyper-preterist” is nothing but a deceptive attack upon preterism itself. Someone who hates preterism, or the uncompromising, consistent defense of preterism; yet he hesitates to attack preterism openly and forthrightly, and therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on “hyper-preterism” and “hyper-preterists.”

  • A Review of "Understanding End Times Prophecy" (7/2008) "Benware and other dispensationalists claim that the only way Revelation can be interpreted is literally. Let’s put their standard to the test. “The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters” (Rev. 8:10). If one star hits the earth, the earth will be vaporized in an instant. In fact, if a star gets even close to the earth, the earth is going to burn up before it hits. Then there’s Revelation 8:12: “Then the fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were smitten, so that a third of them might be darkened and the day might not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way.” How can a “third of the sun” be smitten without catastrophic results on the whole earth and not just a third of it? All of this language is drawn from the Old Testament and only has meaning as it is interpreted in light of its Old Testament context—the judgment and destruction of nations (Isa. 14:12; Jer. 9:12–16). To ignore how a passage is used in the Old Testament is like trying to interpret Egyptian hieroglyphics without the Rosetta Stone."

GARY AND TOMMY ICE

  • Tommy Ice: Ezekiel 38 & 39 "As I have thought more critically about literal interpretation and this passage while doing this series, I have come to disagree with a statement made by Mark Hitchcock and I where we said: "Ezekiel spoke in language that the people of his day could understand. If he had spoken of MIG-29s, laser-fired missiles, tanks, and assault rifles, this text would have been nonsensical to everyone until the twentieth century."[10] Instead, I have come to agree with DeMar who says: "A lot has to be read into the Bible in order to make Ezekiel 38 and 39 fit modern-day military realities that include jet planes, 'missiles,' and 'atomic and explosive' weaponry."[11] Even though I think DeMar is right on this one point, it does not mean that his conclusion is correct."

  • The Global Proclamation of the Gospel - Thomas Ice "The preterist arguments for a first-century fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 are much less than compelling. Their insistence that oikoumene in Matthew 24:14 must refer to the ancient Roman Empire has no traction." | The Gospel Preached to All the World | Two | Three | Four

  • "Shreds of Preterism" Among First Century Writers "Much of the debate over preterism comes down to when the document was written.  This is especially true for the book of Revelation.  If a document was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in A.D. 70, then any statement about future prophetic events could be a reference to that event."

  • Tommy Ice and Dispensationalism under the Microscope -- Again "The difference is, preterism is right and dispensationalism is wrong, and because it’s wrong, it’s dangerous to Jews and the rest of us and those people who are reading the Left Behind series as if the prophetic content is actually taught in the Bible. As I’ve demonstrated in End Times Fiction, it’s not."

  • Thomas Ice and the Time Texts - "By never raising the issue of how the second person plural ("you") is used throughout Matthew 10, he is counting on his loyal readers not to notice. And who would think to go to Mark's account of the Transfiguration to see that the "disciples" is a larger group than Peter, James, and John? Of course, we all know the answer to this question: Preterists would."

  • Bible Minimalism and "The History of Preterism" "Ice and LaHaye get off on the wrong foot in their analysis of preterism. The historical argument is a death blow, or to use Mark Hitchcock's metaphor from his chapter on the dating of Revelation, "A Stake in the Heart" to their brand of futurism. The earliest historical sources, the Didache, the testimony of James, the brother of Jesus, and 1 Clement demonstrate that preterism's history is a first-century history."

  • 7/9/7: Norman Geisler, "You," & "Zechariah the Son of Berechiah" "Geisler’s argument on the second person plural does not stand up to exegetical scrutiny. By not dealing with the above arguments, he shows that he is not a trustworthy critic of the preterist interpretation of prophecy."

"Why are Jews wanting to rebuild the temple.? For the same reason that the temple was maintained prior to its destruction in AD 70 - they do not believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah. If the Jews once again build a temple and begin to offer sacrifices, this will only solidify their rejection of the need for the atoning blood of Jesus. It was this rejection that led to the destruction of the temple that was standing in Jesus' day.”

(On Matthew 16:27-28)
"If we maintain that the event Jesus is describing is still in our future, then how should we interpret His statement that some of those with whom He was speaking would still be alive when He did in fact 'come in the glory of His Father with His angels'?" (Last Days Madness, p. 43)

(On Matthew 24:13)
"Even for those who interpret the 'end' in Matthew 24:13 to be some future 'end,' that future 'end' is not the end" (Last Days Madness, GA: American Vision, p. 63)

(On Matthew 24:14)
"These commentators understood that all the events prior to Matthew 24:34 referred to events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70." (Is Jesus Coming Soon? Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999, p. 17)

"Beginning with the book of Acts, we see that famines were prevalent in the period prior to Jerusalem's destruction in A.D.70.. Contemporary secular historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus mention other famines during the period prior to A.D.70." (Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th ed., Atlanta, GA: American Vision, p.79)

"In an article published in the November 2002 issue of Midnight Call magazine, Thomas Ice presents the dispensational case that Matthew 24:14 was not fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Tommy should be commended for finally doing what preterists have been asking dispensationalists to do for quite some time--deal with preterist arguments by actually interacting with preterist published works and by comparing Scripture with Scripture. I would be willing to wager that Ice's analysis of Matthew 24:14 is the first time any dispensationalist has attempted to reconcile this passage with global-language passages which indicate that the gospel had been preached to the "whole world" before Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 (Col. 1:6, 23; Rom. 1:8; 16:25–26)."

"The history of biblical interpretation is against Ice's view. Is it any wonder that he fails to inform his readers that a majority of commentators stand against the dispensational interpretation of Matthew 24? If the grammatical-historical approach of interpretation is followed, there can be no other conclusion than that the gospel had been preached to the world of Jesus’ day before that generation passed away. For a point by point study of the arguments raised by Ice and a comprehensive study of how oikoumene is used in the New Testament, go to parts 2 and 3."

"The events of Matthew 24 are to take place before "this generation" passes away (v. 34). Jesus always uses "this generation" in reference to His contemporaries (Matt. 11:16; 12:41, 42; 23:36; Mark 8:12; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 17:25; 21:32). "This generation" is never used to describe a future generation.

"The English translation "whole world" in 24:14 is based on the Greek word oikoumene which is best translated "inhabited earth" rather than the more global word (from our perspective) "world" (kosmos). This means that the gospel had to go no further than the census decreed by Caesar Augustus. Most modern translations (e.g., NASV and NIV) translate oikoumene in Luke 2:1 as "the inhabited earth."

"The use of "all the nations" is not always a reference to every nation on earth. In many cases it refers only to those known nations in which one could travel (Matt. 24:9; Acts 2:5).

"The end" to which Jesus refers to in 24:14 is the same end described in 24:3 and 6--the "end of the age": the end of the old covenant (Heb. 1:1–2)." (The Gospel Preached to All the World)

Footnote 1 - "For example, Arno C. Gaebelein's rambling and rabidly dispensational commentary, first published in 1910, dismisses without argument any view that is not dispensational; Ed Glasscock’s commentary in the Moody Gospel Commentary series (1997) assumes a futurist view of Matthew 24:14 with no mention of oikoumene or any consideration of how the New Testament uses oikoumene in other contexts; Leon Morris’s The Gospel According to Matthew (Eerdmans, 1992) does not discuss oikoumene; Craig S. Keener’s massive Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1999) and his abridged commentary for InterVarsity Press (1997) assume a futurist view with no discussion of oikoumene except in a footnote; in more than two pages of commentary on Matthew 24, William Hendriksen makes no mention that oikoumene is used (Baker 1973); dispensationalist Stanley D. Toussaint avoids any discussion of oikoumene in his Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Multnomah, 1980) and in his unpublished paper "A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse" (no date); John F. Walvoord’s Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Moody, 1974), says nothing about oikoumene and its possible relation to an A.D. 70 fulfillment, and there is no discussion of verse 14 in his The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook which claims to include "all the prophecies of Scriptures" (Victor, 1990); while Lutheran scholar R.C.H. Lenski does mention that oikoumene is used, there is no discussion of its possible significance (Augusburg, 1943); the dispensational Liberty Bible Commentary (1982) defaults to an end-time, pre-tribulational reading of the text; the same is true for Louis Barbieri's exposition of Matthew in the Bible Knowledge Commentary (Victor, 1983); J. Barton Payne's only comment on Matthew 24:14 in his 754-page Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy is that it refers to "universal gospel preaching" (Harper & Row, 1973)." (The Gospel Preached to All the World)

(On Matthew 24:27)
"Is the "coming of the Son of Man" in Matthew 24:37 different in time and kind from the "coming of the Son of Man" in verses 27 and 30?  There is no indication that Jesus is describing two comings separated by an indeterminate period of time.  What would have led the disciples to conclude that Jesus was describing a coming different from the one He described moments before when He uses identical language to describe both of them?" (Last Days Madness, 4th rev., pp. 199-200)

(On Matthew 24:35 ; New Heavens and Earth)
"Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the disciples that "heaven and earth will pass away." Rather, He merely affirms His prior predictions, which are recorded in Matthew 24:29­31. Verse 36 is a summary and confirmation statement of these verses.(6) Keep in mind that the central focus of the Olivet Discourse is the desolation of the "house" and "world" of apostate Israel (23:36). The old world of Judaism, represented by the earthly temple, is taken apart stone by stone (24:2). James Jordan writes, "each time God brought judgment on His people during the Old Covenant, there was a sense in which an old heavens and earth was replaced with a new one: New rulers were set up, a new symbolic world model was built (Tabernacle, Temple), and so forth."(7) The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new tabernacle (John 1:14), and a new temple (John 2:19; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21). In essence, a new heaven and earth."

(On Matthew 24:1-3)
"The temple that Jesus said would be destroyed is the same temple with the same stones that was pointed out to Jesus by His disciples.  No future temple is in view.  Jesus gives no indication that He has a future temple in mind.  But what if the Jews rebuild the temple?  Such a temple will have nothing to do with the fulfillment on any part of this prophecy."  [Last Days Madness: The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return (Atlanta: American Vision, 1977), 29.]

"Not one verse in the New Testament mentions the need for a rebuilt temple.  In fact, just the opposite is stated.  The temple of God in the New Testament is quite obviously the church of Christ with Jesus as the 'cornerstone' (1 Peter 2:7) [Last Days Madness: The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return (Atlanta: American Vision), 59.]

(On Great Tribulation, Matthew 24:16)
"Any tribulation the Jews experience in other countries is not in view here.  The death of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis did not take place in the land of Israel.  The great tribulation is a description of what happened to Jews living in Israel in the first century.  Over one million Jews died at the hands of the Romans.  Nothing will ever compare to it because of Israel's special covenantal status.  Her sin was great, therefore her judgment was great."  (Last Days Madness, p. 129, n 22.)

"The tribulation period cannot be global because all one has to do to escape is flee to the mountains.  Notice that Jesus says "let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" (Matt 24:16).  Judea is not the world; it's not even the nation of Israel!" (ibid., p. 121)

(On
Matthew 24:29-31 ; New Heavens and Earth)
"The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that "heaven and earth will pass away" (24:35). In other contexts, when stars fall, they fall to the earth, a sure sign of temporal judgment (Isaiah 14:12; Daniel 8:10; Revelation 6:13; 9:1; 12:4). So then, the "passing away of heaven and earth" is the passing away of the old covenant world of Judaism led and upheld by those who "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8). (Taken from:
The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth)

"The Old Testament is filled with solar, lunar, and stellar language depicting great political upheaval.  The rise of kingdoms is compared to the brightness of the sun, moon, and stars.  The brightness of these heavenly bodies means that a nation is in ascendancy.  When a nation is described as falling - coming under the judgment of God - it is compared to the sun and moon going dark and stars falling from the sky." [Last Days Madness: The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return (Atlanta: American Vision, 1996),96.]

(On Matthew 24:34)
". . . notice how many times Jesus uses the word you (second person plural) in Matthew 24 and in the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21 . . . . Now, if you heard Jesus say that all these things would happen to "this generation" and in every other instance of its use "this generation" meant the present generation, and you also heard Him speak of when "you" see these things, what would you have concluded?" (No cite)

"It is quite obvious that the disciples connected Jesus' "coming" with the "end of the age." The "coming" of Matthew 24:3 refers to the coming of Jesus in judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70. James, as well as other New Testament writers, is clear about the nearness of Jesus' coming: "the coming of the Lord is at hand" (James 5:8), at hand for those who first read the epistle." (The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth)

(On Hebrews 9:26; Forty Years and That Generation)
"But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). Jesus was manifested, not at the beginning, but "at the consummation of the ages." The period between A.D. 30 and 70 is, as the apostle Peter describes it, "these last times" (1 Peter 1:20). As time drew near for Jerusalem's destruction, Peter could say that "the end of all things was at hand" (4:7).

(On James 5:8)
"Consider James 5:8­9, a passage that MacArthur uses to support his contention that Jesus could come "at any moment," even though 2000 years have passed.6 "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand" (v. 8). "At hand," or "near," cannot be made to mean "any moment." "At hand" is defined for us by the Bible in the next verse: "Behold, the Judge is standing right at the door" (v. 9). "At hand" = "right at the door." How far from the door is Jesus in Revelation 3:20? Being "right at the door" means being close enough to knock. MacArthur is either oblivious to the debate surrounding this issue or he tactically decided to steer his readers around the topic so as not to raise a very big red flag."  (Defending the Indefensible)

(On I Peter 4:7)
"If Peter had meant that the physical earth would be literally destroyed in the near future, he was simply wrong. Some people would take another view of this verse and say that the "at hand" does not mean "in the near future." If that is the case, there is little meaning in Peter's words at all. Peter deliberately put a time indicator in his prophecy. Peter meant that all old things, all the things of the old covenant, would pass away in the destruction of Jerusalem." (The Reduction of Christianity, p. 160)

(On the Significance of A.D.70)
"All the signs listed in Matthew 24 have reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70." (ibid., p. 124)

 

(On J.S. Russell's Book, The Parousia)
"How many times have you struggled with the interpretation of certain Biblical texts related to the time of Jesus' return because they did not fit with a preconceived system of eschatology? Russell's Parousia takes the Bible seriously when it tells us of the nearness of Christ's return. Those who claim to interpret the Bible literally, trip over the obvious meaning of these time texts by making Scripture mean the opposite of what it unequivocally declares. Reading Russell is a breath of fresh air in a room filled with smoke and mirror hermeneutics." - (Gary DeMar - Author of Last Days Madness)

(On Parousia/Second Coming)
"The word translated as 'coming' in verse 1 is the Greek word parousia, best translated as 'presence' in other contexts (2 Cor. 10:10; Phil 2:12)"  (Last Days Madness, 4th rev. ed.; Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999, p. 274)

"Jesus would be coming "just as the lightening comes from the east," that is, quickly and without warning.  In the Bible, lightening often signifies the presence of the Lord and His coming in judgment (Ex. 19:16; 20:18; Job 36:30; Ezek. 21:15,28; Zech 9:14).  God was not physically present during any of these Old Testament comings, but His presence was obvious, as the reaction of the people will testify:  "And when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance (Ex. 20:18)." (ibid., pp. 123,124)

(On the Battle of Armageddon)
"A study of the context of Rome's battle with Israel indicates that the plain of Megiddo was in view as was the city of Jerusalem.  This only reinforces an A.D.70 fulfillment.. So then, whether we understand this battle to be a symbolic was with Israel, using the Megiddo imagery to show God's covenantal judgment, or to be another literal Megiddo battle, the was is over." (Last Days Madness., 319)

(On Gog and Magog)
"Edwin M. Yamauchi, noted Christian historian and archeologist, writes that rosh "can have nothing to do with modern 'Russia,'" and "all informed references and studies acknowledge that the association with Moscow and Tobolsk is untenable."  (Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church, Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1996, p. 363)

"Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg writes that 'the poor Russians have been here very unjustly arranged among the enemies of God's people.  Rosh, as the name of a people, not not occur in all the Old Testament." (ibid., p. 364)

(On the Early Date of Revelation)
"The Book of Revelation was written before AD 70. Its purpose was to describe events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem…. The prophecy is describing events that refer to the first-century church" (Last Days Madness, pp. 182, 183).

(On the Seventy Weeks)
"Dispensationalists need a gap between the feet and the toes of Nebuchadnezzar's statue.."  (Last Days Madness, p. 172)

(On the Antichrist)
“It is unbiblical to use the term ‘Antichrist’ for a present-day or future political ruler. The proper context is theological and pre-A. D. 70” (Last Days Madness, p.204).

(On The Rapture)
"The idea of a pre-tribulational rapture must be assumed by the reader and imposed on the text.  Sound biblical interpretation, however, requires textual proof before a doctrine can be formulated.. No mention is made of the church being raptured either before or after a tribulation period.  Nothing in the text even points to a tribulation period."   (Last Days Madness, p. 221).

"Like the dispensational hermeneutical methodology in general, the pretribulational rapture is a gigantic hoax.

Because the pretribulational rapture is a pillar of the dispensational system, we should expect to find proof of its existence in clear texts.  Even one text would suffice. There is not a single passage that clearly and dogmatically supports a pretribulational rapture." (ibid, p. 221)

"Readers of Left Behind should be aware that the pretrib Rapture is the keystone to the entire multi-volume series.  If there is no pretrib Rapture, then no one is left behind." (End Times Fiction, p. 19)

(On Hermeneutical Principles)
"Reading modern-day concepts, whether scientific, geographical, or academic,
2 back into the Bible can cause insurmountable interpretive problems. For example, how many times have you heard a minister claim that the gospel is like "dynamite"? The comparison is made because the Greek word dunamis, translated "power" (Rom. 1:16), is the same word Alfred Nobel chose in 1866 to name his explosive concoction. Since "power" and "dynamite" share the same Greek word (dunamis), the New Testament use of "power" must share the characteristics of dynamite. D.A. Carson describes this as "an appeal to a kind of reverse etymology,"3 reading modern definitions of words back into ancient writings. The effects of dynamite were unknown by the New Testament writers. Paul was not thinking of exploding sticks of dynamite when he used dunamis to describe the power of the gospel any more than he was thinking about the power expended when the Space Shuttle takes off from Cape Canaveral. Our understanding of the biblical use of dunamis has to be understood in terms of how it was understood in Paul's day. "[Gordon] Fee and [Douglas] Stuart rightly emphasize that ‘the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken.’4 We must first determine what a text meant ‘in their town’ before we can determine what it means and how we should apply that meaning to our own time and culture. - 3. See D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996), 34. 4. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 26." (The Gospel Preached to All the World in Part Two)

(On Aion / World)
"Notice that the disciples did not ask about the dissolution of the physical heaven and earth or the judgment of the "world" (kosmos). After hearing Jesus pronounce judgment on the temple and city of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37­39), His disciples ask about the end of the "age" (aion). When did the "end" occur? The only proximate eschatological event that fits the "end of the age" framework is the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The disciples knew that the fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the Old Covenant order and the inauguration of a new order. As Jews who were familiar with Old Testament imagery, the disciples recognized the meaning of this restructuring language. Jesus nowhere corrects or modifies the multi-faceted question of the disciples..  The "age to come," therefore, is simply a designation for the Christian era, an era that was long ago prophesied by the prophets. Abraham, for example, "rejoiced in order to see [Jesus'] day; and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). The old covenant with its attendant animal sacrifices and earthly priesthood passed away when God's lamb, Jesus Christ, took away the sins of the world." (
The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth)

"The Early Church and the "End of the World"

"Since the futurist perspective has been promoted as an early church reality by so many for so long, few people today actually question it. The Early Church and the "End of the World" is the first book to question the prevailing futurist view by a careful study of the historical record.  It will show that some of the earliest writers, most likely writing before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, were referring to the judgment coming of Jesus, an event that the gospel writers tell us was to take place before that first-century generation passed away (Matt. 24:34). Adding to the confirmation of this view are the writings of the church’s first historian, Eusebius Pampilus of Caesarea (c. 260–341), whose Ecclesiastical History is a window on the first few centuries of the church. " ($6.95) | Book Review

The claim has been made by a number of prophecy writers that the early church was predominately premillennial on millennial issues and exclusively futuristic on almost everything else. This means that early Christian writers who commented on prophetic passages like the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) believed and wrote that the biblical authors were always referring to events in the distant future just before the return of Christ. While these claims have been made with certainty, there has always been a lack of clear historical documentation to back them up. Sometimes the historical record has been stretched and exaggerated to fit an already developed theory. But since the futurist perspective has been promoted as an early church reality by so many for so long, few people today actually question it. The Early Church and the "End of the World" is the first book to question the prevailing futurist view by a careful study of the historical record.

The Early Church and the "End of the World" asks this fundamental question: What did the earliest of the early Christian writers actually believe about prophetic events? We can only answer this question by actually studying what they wrote. Unfortunately, we do not have a complete record of the period. To make our historical investigation even more difficult, there are translation issues. Many of the works of those who wrote soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and beyond remain untranslated.

This booklet seeks to remedy some of these problems. Thomas Ice, in his chapter on the history of preterism in The End Times Controversy, makes some bold historical claims that cannot be supported when the historical record is actually analyzed. The early church was not monolithic in its views of Bible prophecy. There was no unanimous acceptance of either premillennialism or a distant futurism.

The Early Church and the "End of the World" will show that some of the earliest writers, most likely writing before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, were referring to the judgment coming of Jesus, an event that the gospel writers tell us was to take place before that first-century generation passed away (Matt. 24:34). Adding to the confirmation of this view are the writings of the church’s first historian, Eusebius Pampilus of Caesarea (c. 260–341), whose Ecclesiastical History is a window on the first few centuries of the church.

In addition, Francis X. Gumerlock has undertaken the task of translating a number of ancient and medieval commentators who have written on Matthew 24. He shows that many early and medieval writers believed that these prophecies  had already been fulfilled before the “end” of Jerusalem, that is, before its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70. (Booklet, 83 pages with extensive footnotes)
 

WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID

  • The scholar Gary Demar has written a book which does nothing but chronicle all the occasions in the last 2000 years when Christian preachers and teachers have predicted that the end of the world was at hand. It’s quite a thick book. Even Martin Luther believed that he must be living in the End-Times.

Barbara Rossing
Another interpretation of this passage is in regards to the word “meet.” The following is Rossing’s deconstruction of the interpretation: “the word for ‘meeting’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is from the Greek word ‘apantesis,’ which is used to describe a delegation going out to meet an important dignitary to escort them back. It doesn’t mean going out to meet the dignitary and them leaving with them.”   Rossing references a conservative, evangelical critic by the name of Gary Demar. In his book, “End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology,” he says the dispensationalist script is unsupported because there is no evidence of it in the Bible. " (Uses and Abuses of Bible Prophecy (Rossing Influenced by DeMar)

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..



 

Date:

11 Sep 2003

Time:

15:39:53

Comments

I have a question for you Mr. DeMar. I have read alot of your material, and it is quite convincing, but I have a problem and I wanted to ask you or any other partial preterist who cares to step up to the plate and help me out. I am trying to understand the "this age" as your Jewish Age, and what is referred to as "the age to come" the Age we are supposedly in now. Jesus described the "age" to come, and it sure doesn't seem like it because evil is still here, and people are still getting married, etc. Also Jesus said that His coming would be visible as the lightning. Would it be more appropriate look at the questions that the apostles asked and then look at how Jesus answered them. I have just read a new book in my study of eschatology called "A Case for Amillenialism" by Kim Riddlebarger, and I must say he does bring up some good arguments against partial preterism. Any clarification would be helpful. My e-mail is scottpiland@hotmail.com. In Christ


Date:

06 Nov 2003

Time:

23:21:34

Comments

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL Dear Mr. DeMar: I have a legal case that has interested the NLRB. Having done research to learn about the NLRB, I followed Mr. Brame’s treatment during his attempted appointment to the NLRB Board closely. It is frightening when an individual’s personal views affect their professional opportunities. I am approaching you for advice as much as direction. The legal case I have initiated has caught the attention and interested the NLRB due to the following: ¨ I worked in NYC for a major, well-known jewelry retail establishment. ¨ As a result of my discussions with my peers, it became evident that there was a substantial disparity in the wages among us, (despite the fact that we all performed the same tasks and had the exact same responsibilities, titles and terms of employment.) ¨ The management of this establishment instructed me in writing not to discuss my compensation with other employees. ¨ I discussed my salary with other employees. ¨ When I suggested to my peers that we approach management and request as a cohesive unit that the company equilibrate our wages, I was terminated. ¨ I have sought legal advice. ¨ Surprisingly, the NLRB representative agreed to present our case before the NLRB board. However, there is a specific reason that caused me to discuss my salary with other employees. I was hired simultaneously with another man. It was a period during which we were both temporary employees. We had identical experience professionally. We were both offered permanent employment at the same time by this company. He was offered 30% more salary. I questioned the management as to why there was a disparity in our compensation. Naturally they could provide no reason and I was instructed not to discuss compensation with other employees. The reason I was offered less than my associate is because he is a very handsome gay man and our manager was (is) gay and very attracted to my former associate. My former company is known for being heavily represented by this sexual persuasion. The homosexual discrimination aspect is not information that can ever be revealed or broached during or in any legal proceedings. My lawyer does not have significant experience before the NLRB. I am endeavoring to discuss, in confidence, my situation with legal experts versed in NLRB litigation and/or labor law. Can you advise me? Regards, MT Finley


Date:

06 Nov 2003

Time:

23:22:39

Comments

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL Dear Mr. DeMar: I have a legal case that has interested the NLRB. Having done research to learn about the NLRB, I followed Mr. Brame’s treatment during his attempted appointment to the NLRB Board closely. It is frightening when an individual’s personal views affect their professional opportunities. I am approaching you for advice as much as direction. The legal case I have initiated has caught the attention and interested the NLRB due to the following: ¨ I worked in NYC for a major, well-known jewelry retail establishment. ¨ As a result of my discussions with my peers, it became evident that there was a substantial disparity in the wages among us, (despite the fact that we all performed the same tasks and had the exact same responsibilities, titles and terms of employment.) ¨ The management of this establishment instructed me in writing not to discuss my compensation with other employees. ¨ I discussed my salary with other employees. ¨ When I suggested to my peers that we approach management and request as a cohesive unit that the company equilibrate our wages, I was terminated. ¨ I have sought legal advice. ¨ Surprisingly, the NLRB representative agreed to present our case before the NLRB board. However, there is a specific reason that caused me to discuss my salary with other employees. I was hired simultaneously with another man. It was a period during which we were both temporary employees. We had identical experience professionally. We were both offered permanent employment at the same time by this company. He was offered 30% more salary. I questioned the management as to why there was a disparity in our compensation. Naturally they could provide no reason and I was instructed not to discuss compensation with other employees. The reason I was offered less than my associate is because he is a very handsome gay man and our manager was (is) gay and very attracted to my former associate. My former company is known for being heavily represented by this sexual persuasion. The homosexual discrimination aspect is not information that can ever be revealed or broached during or in any legal proceedings. My lawyer does not have significant experience before the NLRB. I am endeavoring to discuss, in confidence, my situation with legal experts versed in NLRB litigation and/or labor law. Can you advise me? Regards, MTF


Date:

11 Nov 2003

Time:

05:44:11

Comments

Thank you Mr DeMar. Once upon a time I was trapped in the spiritual bondage of Dispensationalism. I was increasingly at odds with my faith because my mind could no longer believe what was being passed as "sound doctrine." Since I thought that Dispensationalism was part of the core of what Christianity taught, for a time I was in outright apostacy. After reading some of your books and books by others (including Bishop Spong, Thomas Cahill, etc.) I realized that it wasn't Christianity that I was disillusioned with, but what I now recognize as a pernicious heresy - Dispensationalism.


Date:

24 Apr 2004

Time:

17:36:07

Comments

Someone on here is asking Gary how he handles "this age" (as the Jewish age per DeMar) and "the age to come" - and what he [DeMar] believes it is. Man please someone share with me what his answer is. Gary have you ever answered this? Please ref. me to an article or email or something. Questioner did you get a response? In Christ, Mike Sullivan


Date:

28 May 2004

Time:

23:12:14

Comments

dear sir In light of your belief pride is a very difficult problem to over come in desputing who is right and who wrong.My statement to you is be not many teaches or be careful what you teach.Mt 24v21 tribulation such as was not since the beginining of the world to this "TIME"no nor "EVER" shall be.To believe what teach makes GODS WORD A LIE CLEARLY TRIBULATION HAS HAD FAR WORSE TIMES SINCE AD70


Date:

09 Aug 2004

Time:

16:12:47

Comments

Gary--Here's something I've always wondered about, but I have not found it addressed yet by a preterist. I'm assuming it has been, but I just haven't come across it yet. What is the preterist interpretation of the little horn in Daniel 7:8, 11, 20 and 24. I agree that the passages (Daniel 7-0), as a whole, seem to fit best in the past, within the preterist model. However, I am really perplexed about this "little horn." In your opinion, what is it/he/etc.? I would be grateful if you would give me your perspecitve on this issue. Thanks. --Phil PDL2school@yahoo.com


Date:

02 Sep 2004

Time:

05:55:45

Comments

Gary, you mean to tell me that Daniel 11:40-45 in reference to end of age happened in AD 70.? Also that Romans 11 pertains to events around Ad 70? Israel went into global dispersion...(predicted and fulfilled) Israel and Jerusalem restored 1948 &1967 (predicted & fulfilled) I f you want to get the truth from scripture you cannot get it from Scholarly research, only by the Holy Spirit, The Bible promotes this method,and experience verefies it.


Date:

06 Dec 2004

Time:

10:03:53

Comments

To Mr. Demar: I am amazed that any reputable Christian book publisher would ever print your book: "Myths, Lies, & Half-Truths." I could not even undertake to read it because the basic premise is based on a personal vanity uncharacteristic of any true Christian. That premise? That you and you alone have uncovered some biblical truths hidden from the rest of the Church since the days of Christ's earthly ministry. Can you not see the vanity, the massive ego involved here? Cannot you not discern that this very premise has been used by every false prophet since the dawn of time? There are other statements, which were supposedly taken from your book, which are blatantly false and a clear contradiction of historic Christianity and Holy Scripture. I regret to say this because I haven't read your book, nor do I intend to do so; but you appear to place yourself upon very dangerous ground that, you above all men throughout the Christian era have been given special light to see Divine Truth and the rest of the professing, albeit woefully ignorant ministers of the Gospel, some of them acknowledged giants of the faith, fell far short of your lofty position as special prophet of God. Among many others - Joseph Smith and Jim Jones shared that selfsame throne of a special prophet, specially anointed to wake up the ignorant, fallen Body of Christ on earth. I pray the Lord will open your eyes before it's too late! Rev. David R. Miser 707-427-8283 Fairfield, CA miserd@comcast.net


Date:

05 Jan 2005

Time:

13:46:59

Comments

Did you know that bible israel is not today israel because God promise was from the euphrates to the nile river which include all of: Syria , Lebanon , Jordan , Palastine and two thirds of Iraq and part of Egypt where the nile river is . If you don't believe me go to zionism data-page , it will have the greater israel map before 1948. All I wrote is a fact of logic which the dispensationalist don't have.


Date: 03 Sep 2005
Time: 11:44:46

Comments:

The issue avoided by preterism is thatGod makes the stone of Danielwhich crushes the nations. It is a stone formed without hands. When you confuse Christ's agenda for the Church with God's plan for Israel, you are distracted from Christ's great commission. He will bring in his kingdom regardless of world conditions.
It is easy to be involved in name calling. But to read the Book of Revelation through the glasses of Matt. 24 does not do justice to the text. All the name calling in world cannot displace the horrors described there. To say that they are past history is to deny the severity described there. Has history discribed half of the population of the earth destroyed in a short period. Yet this is what Revelation predicts. We do not base our interpretation on a magisterium of the church fathers. We must allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves. Jesus never claimed infallibility for those that follow. Some of the wolves of whom he warned were in fact those how turned from the literal, normal interpretaion to the non-literal allegorical approach. It is so easy to become followers of men even the Church Fathers. We must prove all things and be taught of the Spirit of God as the Bereans did and were commended.


Much of the name calling must stop. Instead prove all things and reason from the scriptures. Otherwise there is little here which glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ!


Date: 03 Sep 2005
Time: 11:44:46

Comments:

The issue avoided by preterism is thatGod makes the stone of Danielwhich crushes the nations. It is a stone formed without hands. When you confuse Christ's agenda for the Church with God's plan for Israel, you are distracted from Christ's great commission. He will bring in his kingdom regardless of world conditions.
It is easy to be involved in name calling. But to read the Book of Revelation through the glasses of Matt. 24 does not do justice to the text. All the name calling in world cannot displace the horrors described there. To say that they are past history is to deny the severity described there. Has history discribed half of the population of the earth destroyed in a short period. Yet this is what Revelation predicts. We do not base our interpretation on a magisterium of the church fathers. We must allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves. Jesus never claimed infallibility for those that follow. Some of the wolves of whom he warned were in fact those how turned from the literal, normal interpretaion to the non-literal allegorical approach. It is so easy to become followers of men even the Church Fathers. We must prove all things and be taught of the Spirit of God as the Bereans did and were commended.


Much of the name calling must stop. Instead prove all things and reason from the scriptures. Otherwise there is little here which glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ!


Date: 24 Oct 2005
Time: 07:19:15

Comments:

Hello, I was wondering if anyone there would have any information on the following topic. ONCE I HEARD A STORY on how our constituion was created and part of the story was none of them could agree on what to put in it ect they just could not agree lots of tempers flying ect.. Then the group of men decided to close themselves off from others and do like a prayer retreat and through that - because of that praying is how they came to agree and then wrote the constitution. Anyone know that story or where i could find it. I am desprate for this information. Please.


Date: 02 Jan 2006
Time: 13:36:48

Comments:

I believe Mr.DeMar's belief on christianity makes perfect sense. I want to tell all these fundamental dispensationalist christian , did you know alot of the israelis left the israeli state because they see its caused alot of bloodshed. Not all of the Jews support the israeli state ----- especially the Orthodox Jews. "Jews against zionism" ----- this evidence proves that dispensationalism is false.


Date: 02 Jan 2006
Time: 13:51:58

Comments:

Mr.Demar here is a speech from a Rabbi who opposes the israeli state , this could help your position on refuting dispensationalism.

Speech by Rabbi Yisroel P. Feldman of Neturei Karta Int.at the rally hosted by the New England Committee to Defend Palestine, to protest the "Boston Celebrates Israel Festival" in Boston, Mass. on Sunday, June 15, 2003


With God’s help may the words that we speak here today sanctify God’s name and may it bring peace and brotherhood amongst His creations.
A – salaam aleikum

We have come to Boston today to protest the celebration of the founding of the blasphemous and heretical Zionist state taking place here. We represent Torah true Jews who remain loyal to authentic Judaism, who know that the root cause of the conflict and instability plaguing the Middle East, and hence the entire world, is the heresy against G d called Zionism, and the heinous crimes committed in the name of its illegitimate “State of Israel”.

Zionism! An ideology that is antithetical to Judaism, one fomented by unabashed atheists, heretics and even some ostensibly “religious” collaborators who have sold their souls to the irreligious Zionists for money and power.

The founding of the Zionist state is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Torah, which forbids the establishment of a Jewish state and commands Jews to remain in exile until they are released therefrom by G-d himself, without any human intervention, at which time all nations of the world will live together in peace, and serve their Creator in unity.

Two thousand years ago, at the time of the Temple’s destruction, the Jewish people were forbidden by the Creator (Tractate Ketuboth 111a)

To go up en masse to the Holy Land
To rebel against the nations
To in any way attempt to end the exile
Jews faithful to the Torah are enjoined by the Torah to conduct themselves as loyal, upright and grateful citizens in their host countries throughout the world.

The Torah commands us to emulate G-d and to be compassionate. We are forbidden to unlawfully expropriate land, to subjugate or to oppress another people. Therefore we protest and mourn the murder, deportation, subjugation, and oppression of the Palestinian people by the Zionist hooligans who invaded their homeland, in violation of the Torah, and have caused so much needless suffering. The list of their crimes is endless.

The cause of the past, current and, G-d forbid, future suffering is the aforementioned rebellion against G-d. The tragic and seemingly intractable conflict in the Middle East is directly attributable to the wicked actions of the Zionist regime against the indigenous population of Palestine, against whom the Zionists have been waging war for more than a century. Thus, the only solution to bring about peace and harmony is not more war and strife, but rather regime change in historic Palestine! The Torah’s solution to this dilemma would be for the world community to actively work towards the dismantling of the illicit Zionist regime and the restoration of full Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Palestine. We firmly believe that such a solution would not result in Jews being slaughtered indiscriminately by the Palestinians. In fact, the very existence of the Zionist state endangers Jewish lives because it constitutes an open rebellion against G-d. Only when the Palestinian people

It is a hollow mockery and a desecration of everything sacred to Judaism that the Zionist heretics base their specious claims to the Holy Land on the Bible, justifying their mass invasion, colonization, expropriation and displacement of the native inhabitants of Palestine, who, according to the Torah, are entitled to sovereignty over the whole of their native homeland.

By establishing the “state of Israel”, the Zionists have openly rebelled against the will of G-d’s and the laws of the Torah and thereby have caused immense pain and immeasurable suffering to both Jews and non-Jews. At occasions like this where people celebrate the establishment of the state of “Israel”, Torah true Jews lament the invidious attempts by the Zionists to transform Judaism from a religion into a secular, hypernationalistic and fundamentally racist creed and their sinister efforts to uproot the Torah’s teachings from the Jewish people.

We mourn the pernicious effects Zionism has had on the Jewish people and the Holy Land, including the ongoing desecration of the Sabbath, the introduction of immodest dress, and immoral media into Jewish society, and a litany of violations against many of the laws of our faith, not the least of which is the commandment to be compassionate toward our fellow man.

The United Nations acquiesced to the establishment of the Zionist state in the aftermath of World War II with good intentions of providing assistance and shelter to persecuted Jews. Yet Zionism and Israel have been a curse and source of suffering for the Jewish people ever since! Where else have so many Jews died since World War II if not in the Zionist state? All because of the craven ambition of the Zionists for power in their brazen defiance of the teachings and values of Judaism! Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history and current events knows that the Zionist state has been one of the greatest tragedies for the Jewish people, creating conflict with Muslims and Arabs, with whom Jews have lived in peace and harmony for many centuries throughout the world from Morocco to Iraq, from Casablanca to Baghdad!

Judaism is not Zionism! Judaism is the faith of the Jewish people in G-d and His Torah. Zionism is the racist anti-Jewish ideology of a band of gangsters who managed to deceive so many Jews into thinking that only they can protect Jews from external threats to their existence. These criminals are known to have actively encouraged anti-Jewish feeling throughout the world in order to compel Jews to immigrate to the Zionist state as a safe haven. Need we remind ourselves of what the Zionists did to fool Jews in Yemen, Iraq and Egypt into moving to their state by planting bombs in synagogues, assassinating innocent Jews and beguiling G-d-fearing Jews with their false proclamations that the Messianic era had arrived and that the promised ingathering of the exiles had begun?

Anti-Jewish prejudice is the lifeblood of Zionism! Without it, Zionism could not survive! Zionism seeks to label anyone opposing its policies as “anti-Semitic,” which is utterly false, both logically and factually!

We implore the Jewish people to return to G-d and His Torah, to totally disavow the blatant heresy of Zionism and its so-called “State of Israel”. Repent and return! G-d and his Torah are waiting for you. Only in this manner will G-d stop punishing us. Only with the Jewish people's collective rejection of Zionism will the tragic reports of carnage and terror in the Holy Land cease.

We beseech the Muslim community not to make the tragic mistake of equating Judaism with Zionism. You must know that they are in fact two extreme opposites. Do not accuse the Jewish people of being Zionists. Do not accuse the Jewish people of being your enemies. The fact is that the Jewish people commiserate with your suffering. The Jewish people truly feel your pain. We are totally embarrassed, horrified, and pained by the actions of our wayward brothers. Let us recall our past friendship and let us work to restore it.

We plead with the honorable leaders of the great powers to carefully consider the underlying reasons for the anger and conflict in the Holy Land! It is of the utmost urgency that leaders realize and acknowledge that the true source of this is the injustice committed the creation of a Zionists State!

We who are loyal to our Torah and the teachings of our authentic rabbis throughout history pray and yearn for the speedy and peaceful dismantling of this Zionist State of “Israel”. We anxiously await the day of messianic redemption when the entire world will serve G-d in brotherhood and harmony.

As the prophet Isaiah says (11:9):
“For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the L-rd, as waters cover the sea.”

And as the Psalmist declares that one day all nations will unite in the service of G-d (Psalms 102:23):

“…when the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the L-rd.”
And finally, as Jews each year on Rosh HaShannah express their desire for mankind to recognize the Creator and to worship Him in brotherhood and unity

“…and they will be joined in one united group to do Your will wholeheartedly.” Amen.
 



Date: 27 Dec 2006
Time: 16:09:19

Comments:

Dear Gary,

I just finished reading your article, The Abrahamic Covenant: postponed or Fulfilled? I truly enjoyed it. But I would like to make an addition to the term "everlasting or eternal" if I could.

The dispensationlist argues that the land would be an inheritance to the Jews "forever." How is it possible to be an owner of the land forever if (according to dispensatonalists) after the millenium the earth and the heavens are burned up and a new heavens and earth are made? That is only for 1000 years if in fact that is to happen. You're right, literal interpretation takes on a whole new meaning when applied to the viewpoint of the dispensationlist. Keep up the fine Bible studies you are putting together for the church.
Thanks
Steve


Date: 04 Dec 2007
Time: 06:22:18

Comments:

I am currently reading demars book(END TIMES FICTION). I find it interesting and am becoming convinced that money seeking people in the late sixties were tryin to cash in on those uncertain times in this country. These people did succeed.its tragic because a lie should not be used to lead people to THE TRUTH.


Date: 01 Sep 2009
Time: 10:36:46

Your Comments:

I agree with most of your prepterist positions, since most are the same as mine.

Question: If we preterists are correct, what, if anything, does the Bible say about the coming of Christ again, and the destruction of this planet?
I don't even believe that 2 Peter 3:10 is talking about that event, I believe it refers to the Destruction of Jerusalum.

I guess my question is "What's next, and how/where do we find the answer"?

You may email me at lmarshalllsu@yahoo.com


Date: 07 Sep 2009
Time: 15:20:27

Your Comments:

Mr Demar,
I would strongly suggest that you get on the web and listen to Dr. S. Lewis Jonhson's remarks about what you are so disallusiioned about. You can listen to him at Believer'sChapel.org. He was a Greek scholar and knows more about teaching the bible than you ever will. Please listen to him before you send millions of Americans down the wrong road that you are leading them down. You know that you are very accountable for what you teach.
Frances in Garland


Date: 24 Aug 2011
Time: 18:43:09

Your Comments:

Gary I am very interested in study with you, or others like you. I live in Kennesaw Ga. Can you please tell me how I can find a study group? email me at kent.liberto@yahoo.com
 

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com