Partial Preterism

Hi everyone.

I was wondering what the Catholic position was on preterism. Not full preterism (Like Jesus’ final coming and the resurrection taking place in the 1st century)

I’m taking about Partial Preterism, where much of the prophecy we consider to be of the end of the world, was fulfilled in 1st century AD. (Olivet discourse, etc.)

I get most of my info from this site:
tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html

I want to know if I can be a partial preterist (Something like how this site describes) and still be in line with Catholic doctrine.

Thanks so much!!!

You want to be an Apocalypse Denier? :smiley: Well, there is a growing number of Catholics, including prominent “orthodox” Catholics, and Protestants too, who are apparently pretending they don’t know why the word “Apocalypse” came to mean what it means. Jesus’ Olivet discourse was a dual prophecy about God’s judgment on Israel and His judgment on the world. The Book of Revelation (The Apocalypse of St. John) was written about 95AD and is a book of prophecy primarily about the end times, using the events of the first century as a type for the end time tribulation. But the devil wants Christians to believe the Apocalypse was written before 70AD so they won’t recognize the signs of our time, and so they won’t be able to recognize the main (evil) characters in this book. But there is no other book in the Bible that has more (written) witnesses for the date of it’s writing. Why do you think that is? Its because its the most important book in the Bible to know when it was written so it can be properly interpreted. And because God knows the end from the beginning and made sure we would have this strong tradition. So hold fast to the tradition that has been handed to us, and you won’t be deceived. Robert Sungenis put together a compilation of the Church’s tradition on the dating of the Apocalypse. You should start there before you listen to what modern interpreters say. God bless.

Wow, thanks for providing that link. I’m reading through the document now, and it is very eye-opening.

You’re welcome. :slight_smile: As Sungenis has shown, the case from tradition for the “late date” of the Apocalypse is overwhelming. Catholics, at least, should be united on this point.

I talk about it here litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/The+1000+Year+Reign-Millennium.

Wow, John, your website is growing in leaps and bounds! Its good to have truly orthodox and traditional Catholic teachings on this topic - another highly recommended website! :thumbsup:

Thank you so much, you made my day!!

Thanks everyone for the links!!!

Well, by the looks of it, some elements of partial preterism are pretty good, which is good.

I hope I can ask another question:
Why does Jesus say in the book of Revelation (i.e. 22:27) that he is “coming soon”? I mean, nearly 2000 years later and he still hasn’t come…

(In partial preterism it says that Jesus was referring to a different coming alongside the destruction of Jerusalem.)

That other site addresses that, even with the original languages examined.

So why would Jesus say “I come quickly” and “I am coming soon” if it really isn’t quick at all?

Oh and this question actually just (literally just) came to my head. Didn’t Jesus say that he didn’t know the time or the hour? (No one except the Father) So in any case, how can he say “I come quickly”, if he doesn’t know when???

Thanks for answering all my questions. This is an excellent forum. :slight_smile:

“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.” (Revelation 22:12)

Jesus is obviously talking about the Second Coming. So the whole argument they make that He must have meant His judgment on Israel in 70AD because He said “soon” is ludicrous. But do not forget…

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:8-9)

And that point, from our first pope, comes right after his amazing prophecy about the times we live in. And then there’s this:

“After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” (Hosea 6:2)

Yes, He is “at the door”! (Matthew 24:32-33) And right on schedule! After 2000 years He will revive us…

Oh and this question actually just (literally just) came to my head. Didn’t Jesus say that he didn’t know the time or the hour? (No one except the Father) So in any case, how can he say “I come quickly”, if he doesn’t know when???

Thanks for answering all my questions. This is an excellent forum. :slight_smile:

Jesus is God. :bowdown: He is and was omniscient. He spoke the truth when He said “the Son” doesn’t know the last day, because He didn’t know from His human nature when the last day would be. But, of course, He did know from His divine nature - He just didn’t reveal that to His audience. But He has revealed Himself to us! :thumbsup:

Thanks, Luke!

This is everything I was looking for! Thank you very much, all!!!

I haven’t taken the time to read the whole website, but partial preterism is in line with Catholic doctrine. The overwhelming majority of ECF’s believed the millennium started after Christ’s first advent.

That was a great article. What he doesn’t address is the authors intended frame of reference.

A good example is the book of Daniel. Regardless if it was written in 570-536 B.C. or 175-164 B.C., the intended frame of reference of the book is during the Babylonian Captivity. The same is true of the Apocalypse. It’s intended frame of reference is the years surrounding the Jewish-Roman war.

Thanks, Ryan! Sometimes, too much futurism can get just plain wacky (I mean, Christ returns for the Rapture, and then returns again for a third time???) I take it that many elements of partial preterism are just fine, even encouraged.

(By the way, if this thread is still going, what do the think the Whore of Babylon is? I heard that, taking a preterist view of parts of the Apocolypse, the Whore is Ancient pagan Rome and the Beast is Nero. Is this so?
If so, is Nero the antichrist figure? Is the beast supposed to be the antichrist?)

God Bless.

The sea-beast is the Roman empire. Nero is the primary focus (mortally wounded wounded head) because he was the emperor starting the great tribulation. He is the sixth head/emperor in the Julio-Claudio dynasty. Vespasian didn’t come from that line, but he was the seventh head/emperor when the Jerusalem was sacked.

The land-beast is the Sanhedrin and those Jews who revolted againt the Messiah. They had two horns like the lamb but spoke like a dragon. They were given authority by Rome in the provincial government and they encouraged and cooperated with the persecution of Christians.

The identity of Babylon is hotly contested. It is certainly not the one in Iraq, which had been in ruins. Some say Rome some say Jerusalem. I go with the Sanhedrin being the “whore” and “Babylon” as code for Jerusalem. Rome ended up destroying Jerusalem when she revolted (the beast made the harlot desolate and naked, and ate her flesh and burned her up with fire).

1 Like

a key definer of the whore of babylon is the blood on her hands. In Rev. " all the blood ever shed on earth is on her hands" That takes her all the way back to Abel. When Cain killed bel Abel’s blood was all the blood ever shed on earth. The earth opened it’s mouth to recieve Abel’s blood. Abel’s blood cries out for justice. These are all hinted at in Rev.

Eve experienced the whole theme that underlies scriptures Woman becomes whore becomes spotles bride.

When Cain is born she is the whore who say’s in Rev. I" I am queen on my throne and am no widow and am not in mourning.

The reference to mourning means she is not childless and not a widow means she has a husband.

’ I have got me a man with the help of God" Eve’s view of herself in relation to creation and god is revealed in that statement especially contrasted with what she say’s when Seth is born. Eve has undergone a profound conversion.

“God has granted another offspring” Adam didn’t seem to be in the picture when Cain is born but when Seth is born the lineage of the Image of God is restated re-establishing a patriarchal culture for the foundation of human society. Seth is the first born in his father’s image.

Jesus uses the word ‘generation’ interchangeably as meaning the particular people of His time and to mean all humanity generated from Adam and Eve.

“John is the greatest man born of woman.” This is a statement referencing all who are born of Eve generated by Adam. Jesus implicates this in what He teaches immediately following that statement.

When Jesus say’s 'this generation will not pass away before these things come to pass He means both the generation born during that time and the generation of Adam and Eve.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.