Full-Preterism is Dangerous, Orthodox Eschatological Views, and Israel w/ Anthony Rogers PT.1

The Charge That Jesus and the Apostles Were Wrong About His Coming

Liberals have had a field day attacking the Christian faith, saying that Jesus and the apostles predicted that his coming was near, and yet it's been 2 ,000 years. And what they're pointing to are texts that are about Jerusalem's coming destruction, which was near.

And so I think that what's happened, and in fact, I could pull up quote after quote, where you get full preterists, hyper preterists, basically getting momentum from this, saying, if you don't recognize that this is what the New Testament is talking about, well, then you have no argument against these people who say that Christ and the apostles were wrong in predicting a soon coming.

Post-Tenebrous Lux, after darkness, light. And well, it is good to be back with you all to talk about everybody's favorite topic. Apparently, you all know this has not been a commonplace for me, not because I don't think the Bible speaks to the issue, not because I don't think it's important, not because I don't have definite convictions on the matter, but for various reasons I may or may not mention, I haven't spent a lot of time on this channel discussing it.

Why Full Preterism Is Dangerous and Why the Topic Matters

Some of you have asked me to do so, and I kind of pushed it off until a friend of mine, Jeremiah Nortier, otherwise known as the Apologetic Dog. He has a YouTube channel. If you haven't seen it, go check it out.

But Jeremiah approached me. He's been dealing with a particular group. You see it in the title of the video, full preterism. I tend to refer to it as Pantelism. I think it's a better term because it distinguishes it from what is otherwise an orthodox approach to eschatology known as preterism.

But in any case, Jeremiah approached me to discuss this because a lot of different things have been happening lately. Some of you have probably paid more attention to it than I have. But before I bring Jeremiah on, let me tell you a little bit about him.

I've already mentioned that he runs a YouTube page called The Apologetic Dog. It's linked, I think, in the title of the video. But Jeremiah was born and hails from Jonesboro, Arkansas, which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually a hotbed for full preterism, at least to some degree.

He can tell us more about that. But Jeremiah's been in ministry for about seven years now. He serves as a pastor at 12 .5 Church. He loves the Lord. Otherwise, I wouldn't have him on the channel. He also loves theology, apologetics.

He's done many debates. But he also has, which is essential if somebody's going to be a pastor and do all these things well, a love for Christ's people. And that, I think, is behind much of his motivation in wanting to talk about this topic, which we've called the dangers of hyperpreterism or full preterism.

So because it's a system that presents a number of dangers, he has taken up an interest in it. And that's why he's on the show with me today. He also is married. He has a wife named Allie. They've been married since 2015.

They were blessed to have a child last year, JJ Nortier, whom I am told has been called the apologetic puppy because, of course, Jeremiah's the apologetic dog. So his newborn son is the apologetic puppy.

In any case, that is my guest. And here he is. So good to have you on, Jeremiah.

Thanks so much for having me, Anthony. This is round two that I've been on.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. I think you were my first official guest. I might've had a few people come on like very briefly at one point. But in terms of doing an interview or addressing a topic, you and I did something on justification by faith alone, another topic that's very relevant to your neck of the woods where you're situated over there.

Yeah, that's so true. I think you had a debate one evening on I think Marlon's channel, The Gospel Truth. And was that what it was? You were debating Seraphim?

Yes, yes.

On the topic of justification by faith alone. And I was on Donnie's channel. I think you know Donnie Brzezinski. I could be saying his last name wrong, at Standing for Truth. And I was debating contending for justification by faith alone against a church of Christ.

Like you were saying, that's kind of in my area, that's where I evangelize the most. I've often said this is my Nineveh, outreaching the church of Christ because baptism is kind of preeminent in their mind.

Your sins get washed away in the waters of baptism.

So what would you say. Was your whale experience where you spewed forth on the...

My whale experience was last year, I actually engaged in a debate at ASU, the university...

Where you spewed forth on the steps of ASU?

Yes, I was. And I debated church of Christ preacher. And this was how I felt like Jonah. Like it was over 200 people in attendance and all the front few rows were church of Christ giving me the beaming eyes.

I wanted to give that short sermon like Jonah did.

Restorationism, the Church of Christ, and the Rise of Preterist Ideas

So, you know, interesting. So you heard me say that I haven't talked much about the subject of eschatology. And I think some people will assume from that that I haven't spent much time in the area. And that would be far from the truth.

Part of it might just be that I kind of got wore out on the whole thing. In my Christian experience, I knew a lot of people that as soon as they became Christians, assumed they were experts in eschatology or should be.

And they neglected weightier matters. Not that there aren't exceedingly important issues in eschatology, but they weren't focusing per se on those things. They were looking at some of the more debatable issues that Christians can well debate about.

But I did study the topic at, you know, I was an avid reader. And in fact, so I have to point this out to you. I got this, I don't know if it was like something like almost 30 years ago. Okay, this is, and it looks pretty worn.

If you look at it, it's got coffee stains. I don't remember how that happened.

Max King.

This is written by Max King. I'm sure you know who that is. Max King is a Church of Christ guy. The work is called the Abrahamic Covenant. Here's what it says on the first page. Just one little quote.

It says, there is nothing more explicit in the New Testament than the imminency of Christ's second appearing. And so the whole thing is written with an eye to demonstrating that. And so this is something that has been found in Church of Christ, and not now only in the Church of Christ, but it is certainly something that is part of that movement.

So why are you uniquely positioned?

Isn't that weird? I was gonna say, starting out, you know, contending with the Church of Christ for the gospel of grace. Ironically, full preterism has its origins in the same place. So there's a weird convergence there.

And so like you said, it's been a hotbed in Jonesboro, Arkansas. It's been wild, Anthony. I've spoken on this on other shows, but there have been two churches in Jonesboro that are full preterist. One came into an SBC church, Southern Baptist Church, that essentially was, they've left the SBC now.

They've left the local convention, the state convention. They still call themselves Baptist. And the other one, by God's grace, has shut down. They spent a year preaching the Olivet discourse. And then I guess it was time to close shop because where do you go from there?

So yeah, anyway, a bunch of those people just went to the other church. And so that's just right in my backyard. And so I have a lot of people in my area. Other pastors have sought me out and said, Jeremiah, what is full preterism and why is it dangerous?

So I've had many sit-down conversations with pastors explaining kind of the redefining of our blessed hope. And Anthony, we love homeschool here in Jonesboro. And I've had the privilege of getting to speak to a board of directors of the homeschool group because these families were wanting to infiltrate.

And I basically told them this is a different Jesus that leads to that, a different Jesus. This is a different gospel. This is a different blessed hope and should be warned against. And so I've had a lot of unique opportunities being able to talk on this subject.

Orthodox Eschatology and the Essentials Full Preterism Denies

Yeah, so one other thing, just to sort of get us into some of this, and I know there are several things that you mentioned were on your mind that you'd like to discuss and bring up, and I'm sure will range well beyond all of that.

But one of the ways that I was introduced to all of this, so in my context, I became a Christian in a context where I was surrounded by a lot of different groups. And among them were a number of groups that came out of restorationism, like the Church of Christ, right?

The Church of Christ is a quintessential restorationist movement. So for those that don't know, in the 1800s, there were a number of groups that originated out of the idea that the church ceased to exist and it needed to be restored.

And of course, it was being restored by every Tom, Dick, and Harry that got the wild idea that he was God's man of the hour, right? So Charles Tate's Russell, who started the Millennial Dawnists, or otherwise known as the Jehovah's Witnesses, was one such character.

And in these movements, one of the things that you see is a fervor for eschatology. They expected the final coming of Christ to come upon them. That's why the Jehovah's Witnesses were originally called the Millennial Dawnists.

They expected the millennium to dawn in their lifetime. And in the Jehovah's Witness movement, there were a number of predictions that were made, which of course didn't come to pass. Well, the movement leaders got so tired of kicking the ball down the road further and saying, oh no, no, we meant next year.

We meant 10 years from now. We meant, you know, they got tired of doing that. And so in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than kick the ball further down the road after their last prediction failed, they decided to redefine Christ's coming.

So instead of Christ's coming being a visible, audible, spectacular event, right? Instead of it being that sort of thing, which Christians had believed for 2000 years, they decided to say that Christ's coming was invisible.

And one of the things that this did, there are a number of different ways you can try and go with this sort of thing. But in their case, what they did was they had to redefine the nature of Christ. If Christ returned and it was invisible, then what do you say about Christ as the resurrected Lord?

And so as many people know, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus currently is the incarnate one. They don't believe that he's both God and man. They don't believe that he's man. They believe that he was an angel, stopped being an angel, became a man, and then stopped being a man and became an angel again.

So the resurrection, that's just a term they use in their system that means something entirely different. So here's the point of all this. So I used to deal with a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses and I would talk about different things with them, including their redefinition of Christ's resurrection.

And of course, if consistent, it would mean a redefinition of our resurrection. But one day I ran into somebody who was a hyper-preterist and I had never heard of such a creature. And as I was talking to this person, they said, and what was interesting is it was in the context of a study that an elder at our church was doing on Revelation.

The elder was not teaching hyper-preterism, but there was a person in the class that I was talking to afterwards. And as this person was talking to me, they mentioned that they think everything happened in AD 70.

And I immediately thought of the Jehovah's Witnesses and I said, so what do you think about Christ? What do you think about nature of Christ's resurrected, glorified existence? And the person said, without hesitating, they don't think that Christ is physically raised from the dead.

They think that Jesus is just a spiritual being. And in keeping with that, they think that our resurrection is also to be explained in a similar fashion. And I noticed

Those go together, his resurrection and our resurrection.

Right. You wanna throw something in on that?

Yeah, one thing that people have came to me to say, well, Jeremiah, this is

Your mic for some reason cut out. I think you hit mute. For some reason, it's still muted. The end of all things is here. Well, I don't know what happened. I don't think it's on my end. But while Jeremiah works on that microphone issue, okay, so it says it's not muted on my side, but I'll just say this as you're working on that mic.

And as soon as I hear you, then I will say, I hear you. But one of the things that I said to the person, because I had a background engaging Jehovah's Witnesses on this matter. And so, you know, here we're dealing with like things.

This person didn't deny the deity of Christ, didn't deny There you are.

I have no idea what happened.

Okay, go ahead.

As I was saying, a lot of people, I won't touch the mic this time. People have said, Jeremiah, this is just a different eschatological position. Why are you being so mean? And what I say is this is not just a different eschatology.

This is a overhaul of redefining Christianity as a whole. And something that you mentioned is it actually touches on Christology. Because there's a tight connection with Jesus's resurrection, with his ascension and his return.

And so, when I talked to a lot of full preterists, they acknowledged that Jesus did resurrect bodily because most aren't gonna go try to say it's not. I mean, I get that you've met people that did take that view, but it's kind of the ascension is where it all kind of goes wild in my experience is because I think it's Acts 1 .11 that just the angels telling the apostles the way that you see him ascend essentially is the way that he will return.

And they redefine this as, well, he's kind of ascending authoritatively, right? Ignore the fact that he's ascending bodily because their particular interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 is flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, meaning a tangible physical body.

Don't look at the sin cursed aspect and the rest of the context 1 Corinthians 15, but Jesus's body somehow didn't make it into the heavenlies. And so you have a huge problem because now Jesus no longer is our perfect high priest who intercedes on our behalf because he's our federal head.

And so at some point, Jesus lost the body. And so when he returned in 70 AD, well, that's spiritual, right? And so when he goes back to heaven, there's not a bodily aspect. But some, Don Preston is kind of a leader in this movement, says that he was reabsorbed as the eternal Logos back into the Godhead.

And he has memories.

Reabsorbed?

Yeah.

There's some Trinitarian confusion going on there too. So let me just add some things here real quickly. So you point out a number of important points, right? Christ's present session, representing us before the father or at his right hand.

Christ is representing us as our federal head, our high priest, our mediator. In addition to that, and in connection with that, there are explicit statements, there are explicit statements in scripture about Christ's currently embodied existence, right?

So for example, in 1 Timothy 2, Paul says, there is, he uses the present tense, there is one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus. So it's important to note both aspects here, one that he calls Christ a man, the other that he uses the present tense.

This is obviously post-resurrection, post-ascension, post-session. He's in session at the right hand of God. And Paul says that he, as a man, is mediating between us and God. So that would already blow at least that way of trying to deal with this out of the water.

But here's another thing, a couple of other passages, there's really a smorgasbord of these, but in Colossians 2, 9, Paul says, in Christ dwells, it's present tense, in Christ right now dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.

Now, Don Preston, how does this mesh with your view of Christ as the Logos being reabsorbed into the, first of all, there's nothing to be reabsorbed. Christ never ceased to be fully God. All the fullness of deity is embodied in Christ, but notice embodied in Christ.

Christ is still the incarnate Lord. But then finally, Acts 17, 31. And this is, it's irrelevant whether the hyper-preterist wants to say this refers to AD 70, maybe we'll talk more about this text. It's not about AD 70, but in Acts 17, 31, Paul says that God has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed.

And he's given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. So notice it's the resurrected man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who's going to conduct the final judgment. And so again, whether you think that's AD 70 or later, it's referring to Christ as a real man, but this does, there's more problems in the passage, but this does throw out of gear the whole hyper-preterist project, because it means that the judgment is being carried out by a man.

He's embodied. And if that's not what happened in AD 70, well, then AD 70 is not the event that they think it is. And it's not the event in view in that passage.

One other passage to kind of piggyback on what you're saying is 1 John 4. Same idea with the present tense. John says, beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Verse two, by this you know the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come, present tense, is basically from God. That Jesus has come in the flesh is from God. And so Jesus coming in the flesh is continual.

And it goes into the doctrine that you're bringing up is because he perfectly represents us. And he's our judge. And so there's that human aspect. So yeah, I don't know the response to the perfect tense other than, well, it found its totality in 70 AD, and that's the continual aspect.

The Orthodox View of Christ's Bodily Resurrection and Present Ministry

Okay, yeah, so how about, so we've sort of broached the issue a little bit. We're not yet there to the major direction that we're moving in in this, but I just wanted to give people a little idea up front of kind of what we're working towards.

But we're talking about the dangers of full preterism. And you already said, you know, some people ask you, why are you making a big deal out of this? There are differences among Christians, aren't there?

There are different eschatological views. Maybe you wanna kind of summarize some of them or.

Absolutely. Historically, there's kind of three major views of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. And, you know, there's differences within each one of those umbrellas. But a lot of this is talking about the timing of Jesus's coming in relation to the millennial reign.

And so I used eight years, I held to a premillennial dispensational eschatology, and I came out of it. But this is orthodox. And so premillennialism says that Jesus comes pre before a thousand-year reign.

And then you have the eternal.

I wanna underscore something really quickly. So you're saying premillennialism, though that's not your particular viewpoint, you're saying that is an orthodox position for people to hold.

Yes, yes.

Because what we're gonna get into, these three views differ on non-essentials of eschatology, but we all hold firmly the essentials of eschatology. So we'll kind of touch on those here in a second too.

So premillennialism just sees Jesus's second return before the thousand-year reign. And typically, premillennialists see the millennial reign as a literal thousand years. I know that you got historic premillennialism.

I don't think they make a hard stance on it being a thousand years. But anyway, Jesus comes before the millennium. And so all millennialism and post-millennialism see kind of the millennial reign from Jesus's first coming all the way to his second coming with the overlap of the ages, this age and the age to come.

The coming age was inaugurated at Jesus's first coming. And we still live in this already, not yet, this temporal age until the end of this age, which will be met with the consummation of the age to come.

And so there's differences between all-mill and post-mill in terms of kind of the marching orders, as we've said. Both all-mill and post-mill would look at the Great Commission as our marching orders.

But I think perhaps in the effect of how it's going to impact the world, post-mill says the world will be like the kingdom of God expanding, right? Like a little leaven rises when it comes to bread. And a lot of post-millennialists, which you may speak to this a little bit later, but you look at the 12 apostles, right?

And now look at the world of Christianity today. There's been massive expansion. And so I would imagine the all-millennials kind of just kind of see the rule of Christ's reign as where the throne is, which is kind of above, and ruling and reigning through the hearts of Christians in the church.

And I think post-mill is really close in that. But like you were saying, these are the three kind of orthodox positions that unite closely around the essentials of eschatology, which this is how I would classify these.

Anthony, I'd love your thoughts. Number one, the second coming of Jesus is in our future. And when he returns, it will be bodily. This is so important. And it's unfortunate almost that I have to qualify that a lot, but full preterists deny that Jesus' second coming is in our future, but in our past.

They'll say it was audience relevance in the first century. It was in their future, right? And so his coming was invisible, spiritual. And another key essential in eschatology is the resurrection of the dead, right?

This is when all believers will be resurrected bodily, given bodies fit to rule and reign with Christ for all eternity. And there's a general resurrection of the dead where even those outside of Christ will be raised bodily, but they will be judged eternally, right?

And so, and then kind of lastly, at Jesus' return, his parrhesia, he's going to judge the world in righteousness and restore all things at this apocalypsis, this unveiling of his coming. And it's gonna be a new heavens and new earth.

All of creation has been tainted and touched by sin. And so those are the essentials and full preterism redefines each one of them because the resurrection of the dead, that's back at 70 AD. Most take this corporate body resurrection that Old Testament Israel is who resurrected at 70 AD.

We can touch on that. And so, and the new heavens and the new earth, well, this is just simply coming to faith in Jesus. This, and they say that there's no future, not yet. It's already, and check this out, Anthony, everything that we observe now continues on into infinity.

Right, right. So let me just summarize some of that. Sometimes it helps hearing two people say the same thing, but also I wanted to underscore a couple of things. So you have these three major positions with respect.

You've defined eschatology in relation to the millennium and the return of Christ. And so those three positions all have various ways of relating these two things. But even within these camps, there are differences.

So for example, you briefly mentioned dispensational premillennialism, but there's also classic or historic premillennialism. So you have a distinction, even within premillennialism, a different way of approaching things.

And then of course, within that, you've got a variety of views with respect to things like the rapture and that in relation to the final coming of Christ and so forth, various other issues. But the same thing is true within post-millennialism.

Some post-millennialists have viewed the millennium to refer to a period of future glory, not yet presently experienced by Christians, whereas others have defined the millennium as the interadvental age, just like most amillennialists do.

And they just view this in terms of the progress of the gospel, so that even though at the beginning, it may not look significantly different from the world that Christ entered into, at the end, it will have reached full flowering and so forth.

So there are shades of differences within these views, but where they don't differ is on the fact that Christ is going to return, that it will be visible and audible. In fact, it reminded me when you were talking, you emphasized the physical nature of this.

Years ago, I remember hearing a Baptist pastor named Ken Jones. He was a pastor in Compton, California. I grew up in Southern California. And Ken Jones was reflecting on 1 Thessalonians 4, where it talks about Christ himself, that's critically important, Christ himself descending from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet call of God.

And he said that some people in their eschatology reduced the trumpet call of God to a cosmic dog whistle. In other words, nobody heard this thing that supposedly happened for some in 1870. And then others have their own way of reducing the noise of that trumpet.

But in any case, he was just emphasizing the fact that this is a very loud, noisy, spectacular event as it's described in scripture, and not at all the sort of thing that the hyperpreterist talks about.

So the return of Christ is essential to any biblical eschatology, which is why premillennialists, amillennialists, postmillennialists, all still get to wear the name of Orthodox Christian, even though they differ in other respects.

As well, the general resurrection that there's going to be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust, scripture's clear on that. And it will be just like Christ's resurrection. It's not a spiritual event.

There will also be a final judgment in which Christ separates the righteous from the wicked, the sheep from the goats, consigning them to their eternal lots, right? The righteous will be told, enter into the joy of the Lord, and the wicked will be told, depart from me, accursed into everlasting torment, right?

And then, as you mentioned, there'll be a consummation of the present system, the present order. Christ will deliver it from its bondage to decay, and it will, along with the sons of God, enjoy the liberty, right, from the curse and everything that we otherwise don't like, right?

Death, tears, suffering, right? So those are the essentials, and all of those are denied by hyper-preterism.

Why the Full-Preterist Position Rewrites Christianity

Yeah, and so sometimes I pour a little gas on the fire, and I tell full preterists, your position denies Christianity in three ways, historically, logically, and exegetically. They don't like it when I say any of those things, but it's pushing the point that this is a redefining and overhaul of all of Christianity.

Last week, I was able to interview Doug Wilson, and he presses a really good point of saying, when we quote from the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy chapter two about Hymenaeus and Philetus, he's like, is Paul just mad because they got their math wrong, right?

They just thought the resurrection was just a handful of years just before. It's like, no, no, no. To put the resurrection and the implication, it's the resurrection of the dead, in the past, midway, in the midway of history versus the end, this is a redefining of an entire worldview.

And so it's not just a small disagreement, but Anthony, I would say there's logical problems with full preterism because of how they understand this world going on and on and on and on. In fact, last year, last summer, I reached out to Dr. Sam Frost.

He was a lead speaker advocate in the full preterist movement and came out of it after 10 years. Incredible testimony has written books on the subject. And so one of his articles that really intrigued me was the problem of infinity because he made an interesting distinction between saying that which is eternal is not identical with infinity, but infinity is more our inability to comprehend that which is eternal and infinity kind of rests within a sequences of time events.

And so his point is when you have procreation of humanity going on and on, because you gotta think, they see sin existing for infinity, all the evil, all the things that we see continues on as is into infinity.

So when you have the elect being open-ended and infinite number, we see, okay, well, this actually is gonna touch on necessary attributes of who God is like his omniscience. Because as you know, the Westminster talks about there's a set number of the elect.

God knows all who are his. That's just simple Bible understanding. And so in full preterism, God couldn't consistently and logically be omniscient because the moment you say he knows all of his own, well, all entails a set because you could always add one more.

Well, now he knows. Well, then you could add one more. And then you have verses that say all will come under judgment. Well, not all, because you could always add one more. And so this is just one of those things that pumps out the other end of full preterism.

You kind of have these logical absurdities.

The Olivet Discourse, This Generation, and the Two Questions Jesus Answered

Yeah, so what would you say gives impetus to the hyper-preterist position? I have my own thoughts here. I suspect, I'd agree with yours. You might agree with mine. They might be the same exact things, but what would you say?

What is it that really fuels this? Where do they get their momentum from?

This is a great question. And there could be various reasons. I mean, they will tell you, we're just convinced by scripture and scripture alone. And so they'll do it under the banner of sola scriptura, regardless of what history has said, what the saints of old have said and passed down.

And so I think it's firstly an abuse of sola scriptura. They're really redefining it into solo scriptura, kind of like my Bible, me under the tree, no creed but Christ. I mean, that's what it kind of turns into.

That's a line right out of the Church of Christ.

Well, we know they touch, right? This full preterist and Church of Christ, they come from the same place.

For those who don't know, let me just throw this in real quick. So Thomas and Alexander Campbell, the Campbellites who inaugurated the Church of Christ movement, they separated from their former Presbyterian roots and started their own group.

They restored the church and they were trying to do away with everything that had come before. And so one of the things they said was no creed but Christ. Now, obviously those who advocate creeds are not saying that the creeds have absolute authority or are infallible, but it's quite another thing to just say they're flat wrong and don't have any authority.

It's, you know, our parents aren't infallible, right? But I'd like to see anybody here with children just, you know, pretending like their word means nothing and their kids can just flippantly dismiss it, right?

Nobody actually functions that way. So we believe the Bible is the ultimate authority and we believe that the church has a role in interpreting scripture, though it's submissive to scripture. Its authority is ministerial, not magisterial as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox think.

But these groups are basically saying we don't need anything but our own thoughts and, you know, we can come up with all these things on our own, right?

Yeah, something Pastor Doug Wilson said, I laughed. He's a hilarious individual. But when we say the creeds don't have ultimate authority, that's scripture, but the creeds have more authority than you.

And that's so good. It's like, it's a red flag if someone comes up with a brand new idea in the last 50 years or a hundred years. And Max King, I believe he kind of, you know, coined this transmillennialism, it's under different names, covenant eschatology.

I mean, it's about 30 years old. I mean, I think, was that work that you held up, was that kind of from the nineties around there?

So that's when I got it. And I mean, I can't say how, I don't see a date on it.

It's not very old. So I'm just saying the full preterists understand this. So they really dig their heels in and say, it doesn't matter, right? It's not the ultimate authority. Therefore, there's a chance that it could be right.

So that's kind of the mentality that gets them in the door, if that makes sense.

Here's what I was thinking, and you can key off of this as well, but it is the fact or it is a fact that scripture speaks to AD 70. There are things in scripture that speak to this. One of the things when you were talking about different eschatological systems, I meant to say this before, but you were speaking of it in relation to the millennium, but even within these different groups, millennial views, you have different approaches to certain texts of scripture, certain sections of scripture, even certain books of scripture.

And here you have four different approaches. And this can be held pretty much by any of these different millennial views, but I'd say it neatly fits more with certain ones than others. But you have, for example, with respect to the Olivet Discourse.

So for those that don't know, the Olivet Discourse is that discourse that Christ gave when the disciples approached him on the Mount of Olives after he quit the temple, right? There's this dramatic scene that takes place.

Matthew's Gospel gives us the full background to it. Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces a series of seven woes upon the religious leaders for voting their doom, right? They were going to be judged for rejecting him.

And it says that Jesus left the temple. And you're supposed to read that as a decisive leaving of the temple along the lines of God departing from the temple in the Old Testament, right? When you get the statement, Ichabod, the glory has departed, which signals that the temple is going to be destroyed as it was under the Babylonians, right?

So here you have Jesus leaving the temple after he's been rejected by them. And so the disciples come to him and they point out to him all the buildings and how beautiful they are, especially the temple.

And the kind of the idea, just sort of reading between the lines is, yeah, you spoke so harshly about the temple, but look how, I mean, this is gonna last forever, right? It's sort of like, if you look at the prophets, one of the things Jeremiah says to the people is, quit saying the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, because what people were doing when Jeremiah was predicting coming destruction is they were basically saying that can't happen.