The Preterist Position - I have a Question

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Matthew24:34
Are you saying that most of Jesus' disciples died before His resurrection? He assured those who were some standing right there with Him that some of them would not die before they themselves saw Him coming in His kingdom. Certainly there had to be enough time for most of them to die (but not all) before He came. The Transfiguration and His resurrection do not fit. Note also that right before Jesus said that, He spoke of His coming "in the glory of the Father with His angels" at which time He would "reward each according to his works" (verse 27). Clearly, some of those standing right there with Him were going to live to see Him coming in His kingdom--in the glory of the Father with the angels--and there would then be judgment. These two verses must be seen together!

The three significant things that keep partial preterists (or partial futurists, as you appear to be) from becoming full preterists are the parousia, the resurrection, and the judgment. As for the parousia, Jesus and His inspired writers spoke of it as an event for their generation. Sadly (and perplexingly), the many places where they plainly stated as much are manipulated, perhaps sincerely and unconsciously, by those who simply cannot accept the truth of it. Why is that, Drew? Is it not due in great part to the concept of the nature of His parousia that has been propagated throughout the Church? IF Jesus was to physically and visibly to all who have ever lived on this earth, stand on the Mount of Olives and actually split it in two, then the concept of a first-century return is a hard sell. But is that what the Scriptures teach concerning His parousia?

There appear to be three main sources for this futurist perspective--Acts 1, the Sermon on the Mount, and Revelation 1:7. According to the futurist take on these passages, Jesus must come visibly in the clouds (Acts 1), great upheavals in the heavens must occur (Mat. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and every eye of everyone who has ever lived or will ever live must see Him simultaneously. But is that what these verses teach?

You yourself have properly recognized that the heavenly and earthly upheavals mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24 are to be recognized as apocalyptic language. The failure to accept this causes most futurists to redefine and manipulate the plain meaning of Jesus' words found in verse 34--"this generation will by no means pass away till ALL these things take place." They wrongly reason that since the catastrophic occurrences in the heavens and on the earth have not yet happened, how could Jesus have already returned? They are then forced to redefine "this generation." Not doing so demands that they accept that the ALL things, including those very upheavals in the heavens, actually happened in that first-century generation. It also requires great exegetical gymnastics to disavow that Jesus was telling His disciples right there with Him that they were to recognize the signs of His coming as clearly as they recognized the signs of the coming of summer. In fact, everything that Jesus told those very disciples has to be stripped of any relevance to them whatsoever. They must also deny that a short time later, Jesus told those same disciples that they were to watch and be ready. The point is this--there are really only two approaches. (1) IF we insist on the popular view of the nature of Christ's return, we MUST redefine such time statements as "near," "soon," "at hand," and "shortly" and give Jesus' expression "this generation" a meaning He never gave it in the many other texts in which it is found. (2) IF we take Jesus and the inspired writers at their word (and we most definitely should), we must reassess the commonly accepted view of the NATURE of His coming, the resurrection, and the judgment in order to fit the clear first-century time frame in which they placed these things.

Jesus indeed associated His return with the attendant figurative heavenly upheavals and placed them within the time frame of His generation. That Jesus was to return in like manner as the disciples saw Him go in no way teaches that He was to literally touch down on the Mount of Olives and split it in two. This is yet another example of strict literalism leading to a false concept. It is assumed that "like manner" points to the physical, visible nature of His return. But as with other comings of God in judgment, there are the attendant clouds! Jesus Himself spoke of coming in the clouds (Mat. 24:30). He looked directly at the Sanhedrin, especially Caiaphas, and condemned them for their false accusation against Him of blasphemy and said, "YOU will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the CLOUDS of heaven" (Mat. 26:64). How must we twist this to mean anything other than what it says--those very flesh-and-blood leaders of Israel were to see His coming! But twist it futurists must, because it does not play into their eschatological scheme!

What about "every eye" seeing Him? First of all, if this is taken out of the clear time frame in which the entire Revelation is placed ("the things which must SHORTLY take place" because "the time is NEAR"), there will be confusion. Furthermore, if the attendant players involved in the events of this verse are ignored, there will be confusion. Who are the players that shed light on the "every eye?" This event clearly was to involve "the tribes of the land" and "those who pierced Him." If we remove the critical Jewish element of the book of the Revelation, we can easily fall prey to the Hal Lindsey doctrine of "last things" which incorrectly makes everything about us and the world at large. The forefathers of that generation of Jews upon whom Jesus pronounced the woes and whom He judged guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth (Mat. 23) "saw" His coming in the destruction of the city and the Temple by the Romans! It is hard to imagine that anyone living in the time in which Jerusalem and the Temple were considered wonders of that world could not have "seen" their destruction as a judgment of the Jewish God upon them! According to Josephus, even Titus openly admitted as much. The whole world "saw" the ruin of the twin towers on September 11, 2001. "Every eye" of that first century world, especially of the Jews, saw His coming! It is an extreme stretch to make the "every eye" statement of Revelation 1:7 mean every eye of all people throughout all time simultaneously! Again, we must place statements in their contexts!

This is getting quite long. I will cover the resurrection and judgment in another post!

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Ecclesiastes 10:11 Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.

Ecclesiastes 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

Job 15:3 “Should he reason with unprofitable talk? or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?â€Â


Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Are you going to post some Scripture anytime soon Matthew? The opinionated preterist sales pitch is wearing thin. And still no answer from the full-preterists on my question concerning Nero, the beast, and Revelation 17. If you want people to listen to you, why don’t you quit avoiding the actual questions that would verify if your view is Scriptural or not?

 

[Drew]

I have no idea about the preterist debate surrounding Israel. I am sorry I didn't know I had to be an expert in the view to ask a question about the view. I am on record not knowing and wanting to learn.

My point was basically this: Your view about what will happen in the future appears to be built on the belief that there is Biblical prophecy about a return to Israel by the Jews. I am arguing that there is no such prophecy. So I do see the Israel question as relevant in a discussion of the views of the various animals we have here - preterists, semi-preterists, historicists, futurists - whatever. I defer to Vic C and others who know what these terms really mean. I do not. I think I fall somewhere between you and M2434 on the "preterist" scale.

I trust that you understand that just because the Jews did indeed return to Israel doesn't automatically mean that this is something that has been prophecied.

I asked a very fare question on something I could see happening with world events in the next few years. You are clearly offended and avoiding my answer. I think you and I should move on from each other as your clearly upset and I don't anticipate you will be giving me an answer soon.

I am not upset at all. Can you please clearly re-state your question, or point me to the specific post which you think I have not addressed. I will not leave questions to me unaddressed - that is what I often challenge others about so I need to be true to my own standard. I must have missed something or misunderstood you.

 

[Drew]

I want to make a very brief statement - that I have already made - about what I see as a key fundamental issue.

My assertion is this: End of the world language - talk of stars falling, the moon turning red, etc. - has a distinct mode of use in both testaments: it is used metaphorically to invest "non-end-of-the-world" events - like the fall of Babylon and the events of 70 AD - with their theological significance.

To the extent that people take such stuff literally, they reason as follows:

1. Prophecy X has "end of the world" language in it:
2. The end of the world has not happened;
3. Therefore, prophecy X has yet to be fulfilled.

Now, do any of you brave souls wish to challenge me on my fundamental assertion?

 

[nonbelieverforums]

Original Question:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38322&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p461592

 

[Drew]

Re: I have a NEW Question

I have a new question/s.

1. What deomonation of church do Preterist's attend?

I do not appear to be a preterist - I may fall into the "partial preterist" category - I believe that some prophecies - taken by many to be about events in and around the "end times" - have actually already been fulfilled in the events of the first century.

I do not know if there exists any kind of relationship between certain denominations and preterism

2. Does the Preterist views make any attempt to bring newcomers to Christ like is it in their game plan?

I cannot speak for "full preterists". For myself, I believe in evangelism.

As for your question 3, I have largely addressed it - the entire question is based on the premise that the preterist position is wrong. I am not sure what kind of answer I can give, except to say that I think that God wants us to determine what His Word says on these issues and advocate for that.

Now, is there any question of yours that I have not fully addressed?

 

[Matthew24:34]

Greetings, Drew. Are you saying that most of Jesus' disciples died before His resurrection?

Definitely not. I am not saying that at all.

[quote="Matthew24:34":kdcylvos]He assured those who were some standing right there with Him that some of them would not die before they themselves saw Him coming in His kingdom. Certainly there had to be enough time for most of them to die (but not all) before He came. The Transfiguration and His resurrection do not fit.

I believe that Jesus reference to his coming in his kingdom is indeed a reference to the events of the cross - crucifixion and resurrection. Here is the text from Matthew 16:

21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." 24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Note verse 21 - I suggest that it supports the assertion that Jesus is addressing the matter of his death and resurrection. And he concludes this discussion with a statement that some will not taste death before they see all this happening.

There are other reasons to believe that Jesus equates "coming in His Kingdom" with his death and resurrection. Consider this from Mark 10:

James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You." 36And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?" 37They said to Him, "Grant that we (AH)may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory." 38But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"

I am going to suggest that when Jesus "enters his glory" really is the same event as "attaining his Kingship". You may well dispute this. But here, I think Jesus is telling James and John that He (Jesus) comes into his glory on the cross. And, of course, the reason why Jesus tells them "you do not know what you are asking" is that, of course, it is the two criminals who will on his left and his right when He comes into his glory.

There are, I suggest many more reasons to understand that Jesus' entry into kingship is achieved at the cross. There is this, from Romans 1, for example:

1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

I think I do not need to convince you of the necessity to understand the scriptures in their time. The term "Lord", at that time, was what you called Ceasar. Paul is saying that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead constitutes Him - establishes Him - as king of the universe. This is a direct challenge to Ceasar - who sees himself as lord - and this is why Paul gets into so much trouble.

I could go on, but I won't (in this post).

I do understand your objection about verse 27. As of now, I concede that I see verse 27 as a reference to the second coming and verse 28 as a reference to the resurrection. True, this does seem contrived. But, in my defence, I will suggest that there is Biblical precedent for such disjunctions. For example, Paul, in Romans 11, uses the term "Israel" in one verse to denote the nation of Israel and then in the next verse uses it to refer to the church. I know that this is an entirely different kind of disjunction, but there it is.

I am not sure about your argument that "there needs to enough time for some of the disciples to die, and therefore the resurrection does not fit". Is it not true that at least one disciple - Judas - is dead before the resurrection.

I understand that this post is a very partial response - you have written about many other things that I cannot get to now. I hope to get back to this.[/quote:kdcylvos]

Greetings, Drew: Your view seems to suggest that Jesus was to come into His glory more than come in His glory. I understand where you are coming from in regard to Matthew 16:27 and 28 , but I do not see the disconnect nor the need for one.

May I respectfully ask you a question--a question I asked of myself before transitioning from a partial preterist to a full preterist? IF you were not committed to a yet future coming of Christ and a resurrection and a judgment, would you still see that disconnect between those two verses?

Was not this cloud-coming the same one Jesus told Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin they would personally see (Mat. 26:64)? When did they recognize His coming in glory at His death and resurrection? They did not. They attempted to cover up any report of His resurrection and persisted in their unbelief. If you would find a disconnect between verses 27 and 28 of Matthew 16, then you must find some disconnect in Jesus' statement concerning His cloud coming and glory coming in Matthew 24:30 and 31. In other words, the "all these things" Jesus stated would happen in that very generation, according to your perspective, cannot include verses 30 and 31--they must be some type of parenthesis! But is that what the text says? ALL those things happened in that generation or none of them did--unless you create some unnatural disconnect!

The turning point for me was my in-depth study of 2 Thessalonians. It became impossible for me to any longer deny that when He was "revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels" (parousia, coming) it was to involve those very people of that generation. Paul instructed those Thessalonians of his day in his personal letter to them that they themselves would be given rest from the great persecutions they were then suffering when He was revealed from heaven with His mighty angels! At that very same time, those very ones who were troubling them with these great persecutions were going to have the tables turned on them by God when He was revealed from heaven with His mighty angels. Did not those Jews of that day suffer such tragedy within the walls of Jerusalem in A. D. 70?

There are really only two ways to look at this passage in 2 Thessalonians. Either Paul was teaching them that at some time in the very distant future, long after they had died, they would be resurrected and given this rest OR that at some time while they were yet living they would be given rest. The problem with the first scenario is that they would have to be resurrected and again be persecuted in the same way by the same "troublers" so that they could be rescued!

The Thessalonians and all the saints of that day are part of the WE that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. IF we are willing to accept the clear time restraints placed on the Revelation (things which were to "shortly" take place because the time was then "near), we might see that the
"last trump" of 1 Corinthians 15 and the "trumpet of God" in 1 Thessalonians fall within that same time period and fit the last trumpet of the Revelation! It is a strange thing to me that Paul would say "we" so boldly and plainly and not in some way include himself and those whom he was directly addressing--in their lifetimes. There is no mystery in his words "WE shall all be changed" and "WE who are alive and remain." All of these things are connected--the timing clearly delineated in Revelation 1 and 22; "this generation," the numerous time statements, the personal inclusion of Paul and his first-century readers in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4, etc. To deny this makes the Scriptures nearly totally irrelevant to the situations in which those believers of the first century lived. "Therefore, comfort one another with these words," ultimately has no meaning!

When Paul wrote his second letter to those very Thessalonians, he addressed issue that they themselves were then enduring. It was from those very troubles then being inflicted upon them that they, while yet living, were to be given rest--"when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels." What else could Paul have meant by those words? I suppose a case could be made that this revealing (apocalupsis) and the Parousia or coming refer to different events, but I think that is a stretch.

More respectful questions, Drew: Are you certain that your understanding of the nature of Christ's parousia, the resurrection, and the judgment is biblical? Do you find that your perspective raises more questions than it answers? If the resurrection and the gathering together to Christ was to include Paul and his contemporaries (as indicated by Paul's use of "We") and Christ's revealing from heaven with His mighty angels was to involve those very Thessalonians as indicated by the context of 2 Thessalonians 1, then is it not possible that the popular concept of these things is erroneous?

I clearly see your love for the Word in your posts, and I do not believe our differences break asunder any fellowship we have in the Lord Jesus Christ. And in spite of how others have characterized me on these threads (unsaved heretic), I am not closed to correction. They mistake my resistance to change my understanding of Scripture to be a groundless stubbornness against correction. But those who accuse me of such things never present biblical, well-exegeted, and hermeneutically sound arguments against my positions! Let me assure you that I am always reassessing my beliefs. When I come to a well-known portion of Scripture that I think I understand, I still look at it as though I have never seen it before. I do not want to wrongly divide the word of truth and be found to be a workman needing to be ashamed. I insist that arguments be based upon personal and thorough study of the Bible and not upon opinions and "I believes!" Please feel free to hold me to that standard, Drew! Iron sharpens iron! Thanks!

Matthew24:34

 

[Drew]

If you would find a disconnect between verses 27 and 28 of Matthew 16, then you must find some disconnect in Jesus' statement concerning His cloud coming and glory coming in Matthew 24:30 and 31. In other words, the "all these things" Jesus stated would happen in that very generation, according to your perspective, cannot include verses 30 and 31--they must be some type of parenthesis! But is that what the text says? ALL those things happened in that generation or none of them did--unless you create some unnatural disconnect!

I am not necessarily committed to my take on Matthew 16. My present take on Matthew 24 is this: verses 29-31 are not a description of the second coming, but a symbolic description of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. This is a "coming of Jesus" in judgement. However, I think that the scriptures do indeed point to to a future return of Jesus to consummate the redemptive plan of God.

So - in short - I think Matthew 24 is indeed about "the first century". I shall have to see if I need to modify my take on Matthew 16.

 

[Drew]

The Thessalonians and all the saints of that day are part of the WE that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4.

I have one thing to say for the present about 1 Cor 15. Granted, Paul refers to a "we" that will be "transformed". But this is not a strong argument that he must literally have included himself in that "we". There are other cases, most notably Romans 7, where Paul uses a similar "unrealistic" rhetorical style in respect to pronoun use.

In Romans 7, Paul uses the "I" to refer to the unbelieving Jew under Torah. But, as we all know, he personally is no such animal - he is a believer.

So we have precedent of Paul using pronouns in a rhetorical mode. I suggest that he is doing the same in 1 Cor 15 - using "we" to refer to Christians who be alive at an event that can reasonably be understood as taking place long after Paul himself has died.

 

[parousia70]

How is it unconstitutional if it comes in the way of safety and peace from such a wonderful man.

Are you saying if Obama required you to take the mark you would, since he didn't arise out of the EU?

It seems clear you can not look to the bible for anything to do with tomorrow.

Since tomorrow I could be hit and killed by a Bus, I definitely look to the Bible to make sure I know where I'm headed if that happens.

I would be stocking up on that goat cheese and milk and those vegtables if I were you.

Already am!

 

[parousia70]

There are really only two ways to look at this passage in 2 Thessalonians. Either Paul was teaching them that at some time in the very distant future, long after they had died, they would be resurrected and given this rest OR that at some time while they were yet living they would be given rest. The problem with the first scenario is that they would have to be resurrected and again be persecuted in the same way by the same "troublers" so that they could be rescued!

Even more detrimental to the futurist view is the fact that even in death, the Thessalonians were to continue being persecuted by those same troublers and must, by necessity of the view, be being persecuted by them right now, to this day and beyond, since ONLY Christ's coming was to give them rest from that persecution. Not Death, not the passage of Millennia, but Christ's Coming ALONE.

 

[nonbelieverforums]

Are you saying if Obama required you to take the mark you would, since he didn't arise out of the EU

Obama doesn't match any of the scriptural requirements of the antichrist. So I guess that would depend if he was trying to force me to worship him and take the mark and where we are in the order of events in the endtimes of the bible (in the view you don't believe). Unlike your view I would be looking to the bible constantly for guidance, speaking with pastors, working with chruches etc..

Depending on the endless rapture/trib debates I have no problem being persecuted or beheaded for my faith if required. I won't be going underground eating veggies, milk and cheese bartering with my neighbour.

Save your breath, I know your response already !!! We need not look to the bible in the end days, we just lable everything a coincidence no matter how close the current event matches scripture. I got it.

 

[Drew]

We need not look to the bible in the end days, we just lable everything a coincidence no matter how close the current event matches scripture. I got it.

What "current events" match what you see as prophecies that were not fulfilled in the 1st century?

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by parousia70
and must, by necessity of the view, be being persecuted by them right now, to this day and beyond, since ONLY Christ's coming was to give them rest from that persecution. Not Death, not the passage of Millennia, but Christ's Coming ALONE.

Please elaborate on the specifics of that statement if you would.

 

[nonbelieverforums]

We need not look to the bible in the end days, we just lable everything a coincidence no matter how close the current event matches scripture. I got it.

What "current events" match what you see as prophecies that were not fulfilled in the 1st century?

Drew I get it .. I understand the view. You totally believe that everything that is happening now and to follow is a concidence. It already happened. I don't need to make a list.

So just so were clear. In the next few years to follow, If an alliance of Russia (lead by Putin) and the Non-Arab Muslim States were to attack Israel and these armies were defeated and it took seven months to burry the dead... You Pretrerist believe to be a coincidence correct??

 

[Drew]

Drew I get it .. I understand the view. You totally believe that everything that is happening now and to follow is a concidence. It already happened. I don't need to make a list.

I never said anything like this. Please answer my question. You say that you are here to learn but you seem to avoid answering questions.

So just so were clear. In the next few years to follow, If an alliance of Russia (lead by Putin) and the Non-Arab Muslim States were to attack Israel and these armies were defeated and it took seven months to burry the dead... You Pretrerist believe to be a coincidence correct??

If these things happened, then, yes, I would reconsider my position. But, of course, to assume that they are going to happen is to beg the very question at issue.

 

[nonbelieverforums]

I never said anything like this. Please answer my question. You say that you are here to learn but you seem to avoid answering questions.

Should I spend hours me quoting a current event then you relating to a previous event allready fulfulled in scripture? Is that what you expect me to do? That's not my argument or my question. We will be here forever. I am not avoiding your question. I am a simple man studying scripture learning as I go. I am only in this arugment with you lions so I may be prepared for all challenges and views I will be faced with in my ministry. I consider this boot camp for things to follow with this view.

My arugment is I find the view dangerous to the faith and it could lead people into the hands of the antichrist when you deny a modern day antichrist. A huge gamble, massive aided and abetted by you.

You say ignore the modern day signs, pay no attention to the media or modern day events and do not in anyway relate todays world or events into biblicial scripture. So nothing is holding our hand in days to follow. If you do see these things it's a big concidence ignore them do not prepare and do not warn others. Why would you.

I find the view a gamble to the faith, logic and all probability in regard to the events that are happening to our world now. I am sorry my view will not change and I apprecate the effort you all took.

To make it even worse you people need to see how this looks to an outsider. "Well I am sort of Preterist" or "I'm a partial Preterist" then you have the preterists arguing with the perterists. It's facinating.

To a non believer considering faith you make us look all confused like you/we can't come together in scripture, or our faith.

God help you and the others you lead down this path if your wrong, the only way I can see that happening is for you to continue to study scripture, but yes I really think you need to pay attention to the media and world events more. Keep your eyes on Europe, Israel, Iran, Russia and China and at some point I hope your eyes open and stop using the word concidence.

I am done with this thread and the topic as I am hurt by these views to our faith.

In Christ.

NBF

 

[Drew]

Should I spend hours me quoting a current event then you relating to a previous event in scripture. Is that what you expect me to do. That's not my argument or my question. We will be here forever. I am not avoiding your question. I am a simple man studying scripture learning as I go. I am only in this arugment with you lions so I may be prepared for all challenges and views I will be faced with in my ministry. I consider this boot camp for things to follow with this view.

All I am asking you to do is to simply identify any factual event - something that has already happened - after AD 100 that you deem to be a fulfillment of prophecy. You do not have to explain anything - just identify the event. Its perfectly fine to answer "I know of no factual events that have occurred since AD 100 that I consider to be a fulfillment of prophecy". That would not work against the view that there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled - a view that I hold myself.

Is my question clear enough?

My arugment is I find the view dangerous to the faith and it could lead people into the hands of the antichrist when you deny a modern day antichrist. A huge gamble, massive aided and abetted by you.

I cannot speak for the others, but I have stated no firm position on this matter. So I am not "aiding and abetting anyone".

You say ignore the modern day signs, pay no attention to the media or modern day events and do not in anyway relate todays world or events into biblicial scripture.

I am giving the chance to make your case by asking you the very question that I have asked - and which you will not answer. Tell us anything at all about things that have happened in the last hundred years or so that you consider to be fulfillment of scripture. Why are you so resistant to answering this question?

I am sorry my view will not change and I apprecate the effort you all took.

Your view will not change? I thought you were here to learn. My view has changed a little just today, based on something that M24:34 has posted.

To make it even worse you people need to see how this looks to an outsider. "Well I am sort of Preterist" or "I'm a partial Preterist" then you have the preterists arguing with the perterists. It's facinating.

I have no idea why you see this as a problem. I see it as an open discussion among people who do not entirely agree with one another.

God help you and the others you lead down this path if your wrong,...

Indeed, God help anyone who misleads...that goes for everyone.

I am done with this thread and the topic as I am hurt by these views to the faith.

I suggest that you are simply not addressing clear questions that challenge your position.

You made a claim about a prophetic return of the Jews to Israel. I challenged that claim with an exceedingly detailed argument. Why have you not responded?

 

[Sinthesis]

I believe it so deeply because the events that are happening to our world right now (2009 forward) are completely accurate as prophesied to the point we as believers know the events to follow in order.

Please enlighten us. What endtime event just happened, and how was it prophesied? What endtime event will happen next, and how is it prophesied?

 

[nonbelieverforums]

I must confess I am exhausted.

You know of the events to follow that I am speaking of are you pretending you don't? I have already mentioned a few of them in various posts. My views on events are no diffrent that of Hal Lindsay, Grant Jeffrey, Hitchcock, Hagge thousands and thousands of others. Yes I know you have a problem with each of them. That's a thread for another day.

This is a loose loose argument one that can only satisfied as the days follow. I will say "scripture" you will say "coincidece". We will be here forever. It won't end on and on.

Your position like that of the non-believer won't change unless you see it with your own eyes. As many of you refuse to pay attention to the events of our world then I guess your eyes won't open. Again I can only say that I feel sorry you and god help you of the mess you made if your wrong.

Drew can we argue about Israel another day ? Perhaps another thread.

Can you imagine if you gentlemen were to take all this time you spending fighting on this view and concentrated on bringing new commers to christ. Imagine how many you would save wow.

I am sorry I won't be going back and forth on any more. You have me exhasted did I say that already.

 

[Drew]

I must confess I am exhausted.

Well you certainly cannot be exhausted by answering questions. More than one poster has asked you clear and simple questions, yet no answer from you.

You know of the events to follow that I am speaking of are you pretending you don't? I have already mentioned a few of them in various posts.

Yes and Israel was one of them. I responded and you ignored my response. I will try again - pick any event you like for us to talk about. Your choice.

Your position like that of the non-believer won't change unless you see it with your own eyes. As many of you refuse to pay attention to the events of our world then I guess your eyes won't open.

How can you say this? At least two of us are willing to address any specific prophetic event you wish. But you evade on specifics.

Can you imagine if you gentlemen were to take all this time you spending fighting on this view and concentrated on bringing new commers to christ. Imagine how many you would save wow.

Do you reallly not see the problem with this view? You are effectively saying that if we do not fall in line with your view on prophecy, we are working against the gospel. How is that fair?