Shooting Stars!

Shooting Stars!

By Richard P. Joseph

I remember when I was a kid and looking up into the night sky I noticed a streak
of light zipping by and asked what it was.  I was told it was a “shooting star”.
Recently my wife and I were watching tv in the evening and all of the sudden the
sky lit up.  Since it was not raining we thought maybe there was a storm
approaching. However, about 30 seconds later the house shook. We saw in the
news later that it was a meteorite that struck the earth about 40 miles away.  I
was shocked when recently I heard an adult talking about “shooting stars” as if
they were really stars shooting across the sky.

As any educated person knows, a meteor is not a real star but rather a small
rock or other extraterrestrial debris that enters into the earth’s atmosphere and
burns up (thankfully) due to the friction.  Of course there is evidence that quite
large meteorites have struck the earth in times past and have left craters on our
planet. I obviously had to explain this to my friend that real stars are not striking
the earth!

But don’t tell that to most Christians or you’ll get an ear full.  They will start
quoting scriptures like Matthew 24:29

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and
the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of
the heavens will be shaken.

Most Christians are still waiting for Jesus to return in the sky and the sun will
turn off, the moon will not reflect and the stars will fall down.  If you are someone
who believes that in a literal sense can you please tell me which way the stars
will fall? Do they fall up, down, to the side, which way is up, which way is down?
Where do they fall to? These articles are mostly written for those that have
been taught faulty theology their entire life. My short articles are to introduce
you to the proper way to interpret scripture.  I certainly do not know everything
but I can lead you to real scholars that do. What I do here is what most pastors
ask us to do; they say “check my sermon out in scripture”. So I do and many
times they are mistaken.  To not understand the blatant theme that the “second
coming” of Christ was an event that was to occur in the first century is a huge
miscalculation. So, back to the stars falling down.

The 19th century scholar, James Stuart Russell says this in his book (page 289)
The Parousia:

“The key to the interpretation of this passage is to be found in the prophecy of
Haggai.  On comparing the prophetic symbols in that book it will be seen that
‘shaking heaven and earth’ is evidently emblematic of, and synonymous with,
‘overthrowing thrones, destroying kingdoms,’ and similar social and political
revolutions (Haggai ii.21,22).  Such tropes and metaphors are the very elements
of prophetic description, and it would be absurd to insist upon the literal
fulfilment of such figures.”

When Jesus and the apostles used such dramatic language, the people of that
day understood it.  Nobody who was listening to Jesus on the Mount of Olives
thought the stars were going to fall down.  It is only “us” that think that. They
would have understood that he meant that kings and thrones and eras were
coming to an end.  Jesus assured them that the end of their way of life under
the Mosaic law was coming to a close and that a new order was at hand. All of
the New Testament writers understood it that way as they all preached an
imminent close to the current age they were in.  They were expecting to
experience Christ at his appearing and rejoice in it. Not one writer ever
expressed a long and protracted wait for this to happen.

It is only us in these days that have misinterpreted apocalyptic language and

have made it mean something that no one in the first century ever dreamed it
would mean.  The prediction Jesus made is an interesting story that most
church goers never even heard of. If you want to learn more about it ask and I
can suggest where to go. So don’t worry, the stars are not going to fall to the
earth, they already did 2,000 years ago!

Full or Partial Preterism?

Full or Partial Preterism?

By Richard P. Joseph

I just read a short article by Dr. Ron Rhodes.  His article shows his
unfamiliarity with preterism, scripture, hermeneutics and history.   I will try to
give a short critique of his article.

Rhodes starts out with this statement; “There are two forms of preterism:
moderate (partial) preterism, and extreme (full) preterism.”

I would like to make a correction to all who believe that there are really two
forms of preterism by showing you that there is really one form.  Full preterism
believes the bible at its word without inserting ridiculous semantic
interpretations to what the disciples really heard. In other words if John used
words like soon, shortly, at hand etc in the book of revelation and never used
any long term denotations, then the full preterist believes that John was correct
that those events would take place shortly after they were written, not millenia
later.  There is no reason to believe that anyone who first read that book would
interpret it to mean thousands of years later; period. So a full preterist believes
the bible as it is interpreted from its own context, not the context of someone
living in the United States 2,000 years later. Those that interpret the bible from
a modern time frame and different culture are called futurists.

Futurists are people who insert their own presuppositions into scripture to make
it fit their modern day paradigm.  This is an extremely dangerous thing to do as
there is no limit to what any one person from any particular culture at any given
time in history can come up with.  Scripture should always be interpreted in
context of when it was written, to whom it was written, of which culture it was
written and what purpose it was written. That is how full preterists interpret
scripture (at least the conservative Individual Body View Rapture Preterists do).  
I will not get into the cultish preterists who lean toward universalism called the
corporate body view preterists. So what do futurists and partial preterists have
in common?

Any studious futurist cannot deny that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem
but they interpret that as a separate event as the second coming of Christ.  They
use fanciful hermeneutics in order to come up with something that I have yet to
find in scripture. They put time splits in all of scripture especially in the Olivet
discourse and in the book of Revelation that the apostles never found or
commented on.  The apostles always interpreted it as to occur within their
lifetime. There is not one verse in the entire New Testament that shows the
disciples thinking that the parousia would occur thousands of years later. If
there is I would like to see it. So how does this relate to partial preterists?

Partial preterism is really full futurism.  I personally cannot find any
delineation between the two.  They both believe that Jesus did in fact
predict the fall of Jerusalem and they both believe it was not associated
with the second coming of Christ.    Any difference is really semantical.
Jesus smoothly placed all of the events in one sermon on the mount.
Futurists/partial preterists believe Jesus slipped in tricky and mystical time
splits that none of his disciples were ever able to unravel.  This turns
Jesus into the Wizard of Oz by promising them something that he would
never be able to provide even two thousand years later! It is beyond this
article, but history proves that Jesus really did mean soon. So how does
Rhodes deal with real history and real scripture?

After listing several statements that Jesus and the apostles made
concerning the quick return of Jesus, his answer is; “Many evangelicals
believe...."     Who cares what anyone believes? I am interested in the
proper interpretation of a historical document, not what someone feels it
means to fit their own paradigm.   Since all of the New Testament writers
fully believed that the end was coming in their personal generation of time
then why would I “feel” that a theologian today knows more than Jesus,
Peter, Paul, John, Stephen etc?  In other words, Rhodes believes that the
seminarians are the inspired writers of scripture and the apostles were not.
Stop and process that for a moment!

In conclusion I would like to restate that there is always only one truth and
it is our duty to find it, not create it.  It is clear that Jesus and the apostles
did not make any mistakes and that the parousia did occur between
AD 66-70. We are to now live in the everlasting kingdom that Jesus gave
his blood for and to, not only spread the gospel, but to utilize it in a
functional way to produce a better world and to lead many to Christ and
his eternal heavenly kingdom.