How to identify a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing in this section of the board.

[DavidPT]

Seems rather simple to me, how to do that. That's assuming that there are actually Full Preterists in Partial Preterist's clothing in this section of the board. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Any Preterist posting in this section of the board, where it's questionable as to whether they are Partial or Full, simply request that they submit any Scripture that proves to them there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

And if they can and do, they obviously can't be Full Preterists then. But if they can't or unwilling to, it's a no-brainer then, it's because they are a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, since it is ludicrous to insist one believes that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, meaning a literal bodily advent as was the first advent, but then not being able to produce one single Scripture they feel supports this.

Though, I disagree that any coming of Christ recorded in the Discourse is involving a coming of Christ in 70 AD in any sense, that hardly makes one a Full Preterist if they interpret any of those comings in that manner. What makes them a Full Preterist, thus a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, is if they insist that that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, but then can't produce one single Scripture in all of the Bible they feel supports this.

How is it reasonable to insist there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, and then not even being able to produce one single Scripture that supports that, thus showing that that person does not actually believe that, otherwise they would be able to produce Scripture that they feel supports it. And so what if they don't feel any coming recorded in the Discourse supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age? Once again, that alone does not make them a Full Preterist unless they can't produce one single Scripture from elsewhere that they do feel supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

One point of this thread is this. I have noted certain other members attaching to certain other members, the "Full Preterist' label. And that they should not be doing that unless they can undeniably prove they are indeed Full Preterists pretending to be Partial Preterists. What I have proposed in the OP would be one way to undeniably prove they are Full Preterists, if the one being accused of this, when asked to produce any Scripture they feel supports a 2nd advent in the end of this age, that they then can't do that or unwilling to do that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Seems rather simple to me, how to do that. That's assuming that there are actually Full Preterists in Partial Preterist's clothing in this section of the board. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Any Preterist posting in this section of the board, where it's questionable as to whether they are Partial or Full, simply request that they submit any Scripture that proves to them there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

And if they can and do, they obviously can't be Full Preterists then. But if they can't or unwilling to, it's a no-brainer then, it's because they are a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, since it is ludicrous to insist one believes that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, meaning a literal bodily advent as was the first advent, but then not being able to produce one single Scripture they feel supports this.

Though, I disagree that any coming of Christ recorded in the Discourse is involving a coming of Christ in 70 AD in any sense, that hardly makes one a Full Preterist if they interpret any of those comings in that manner. What makes them a Full Preterist, thus a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, is if they insist that that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, but then can't produce one single Scripture in all of the Bible they feel supports this.

There is one partial preterist poster here, who I won't name and will leave it up to him to reveal himself if he wants, who doesn't believe there is any scripture that speaks of a future second coming. But, he believes in it because it's mentioned in some old creed that he apparently puts a lot of trust in. I can't recall which creed it is, though. I find that to be rather odd. Why would it be referenced in the creed but not in scripture? Where else did those who came up with the creed get their beliefs that are expressed in the creed except from scripture?

Anyway, other than a rare exception like this, I agree that if someone can't reference any scripture that they believe supports the belief that there will be a future coming of Christ, then I think we can only assume that they are actually a full preterist pretending to be a partial preterist.

How is it reasonable to insist there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, and then not even being able to produce one single Scripture that supports that, thus showing that that person does not actually believe that, otherwise they would be able to produce Scripture that they feel supports it. And so what if they don't feel any coming recorded in the Discourse supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age? Once again, that alone does not make them a Full Preterist unless they can't produce one single Scripture from elsewhere that they do feel supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

Again, I agree, except for the one exception I mentioned earlier. But, I doubt there are many like that who can't point to anything in scripture to support that belief, but they still believe it because of some creed or whatever the case may be.

One point of this thread is this. I have noted certain other members attaching to certain other members, the "Full Preterist' label. And that they should not be doing that unless they can undeniably prove they are indeed Full Preterists pretending to be Partial Preterists. What I have proposed in the OP would be one way to undeniably prove they are Full Preterists, if the one being accused of this, when asked to produce any Scripture they feel supports a 2nd advent in the end of this age, that they then can't do that or unwilling to do that.

This was a good idea. So, I would encourage any partial preterists reading this to share which scriptures they believe refer to a future second coming of Christ. This can help them avoid being falsely accused of being full preterists.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This was a good idea. So, I would encourage any partial preterists reading this to share which scriptures they believe refer to a future second coming of Christ. This can help them avoid being falsely accused of being full preterists.

John 6:39–40
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[Jipsah]

There is one partial preterist poster here, who I won't name and will leave it up to him to reveal himself if he wants,

That would be me.

who doesn't believe there is any scripture that speaks of a future second coming.

Your first overt lie. You apparently fail to pay any attention to anything I've actually said, preferring to simply make stuff up. I find that kind of behavior contemptible

But, he believes in it because it's mentioned in some old creed

I'll note in passing that the rejection of one of the "old creeds" (the Nicene Creed, to be specific) disqualifies you from participation in this forum. But I did, in fact give you Scripture to as to my belief on our Lord's return. Between that and my tag line "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again", my position should be obvious even to a beginning ESL student.

I can't recall which creed it is, though.

Now there's a shocker!

I find that to be rather odd. Why would it be referenced in the creed but not in scripture?

Apparently you were able to read one and not the other, Here's a refresher for you: " "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Seems rather plain spoken to me. Maybe the Elizabethan English proved too difficult for you to fathom.

nyway, other than a rare exception like this, I agree that if someone can't reference any scripture that they believe supports the belief that there will be a future coming of Christ

Or that you're able to read, apparently.

, then I think we can only assume that they are actually a full preterist pretending to be a partial preterist.

And I can only assume that such studied aversion to the truth ill-serves one who sets about to square away Christians with whose doctrine he bitterly disagrees.

This was a good idea. So, I would encourage any partial preterists reading this to share which scriptures they believe refer to a future second coming of Christ. This can help them avoid being falsely accused

Never fear, I'm sure you'll find some pretence for making false accusations

 

[sovereigngrace]

John 6:39–40
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

You always come across as a genuine Partial Preterist who believes in a literal physical visible return of Christ in a last day event that sees a resurrection/judgment of humans.

 

[sovereigngrace]

There is one partial preterist poster here, who I won't name and will leave it up to him to reveal himself if he wants, who doesn't believe there is any scripture that speaks of a future second coming. But, he believes in it because it's mentioned in some old creed that he apparently puts a lot of trust in. I can't recall which creed it is, though. I find that to be rather odd. Why would it be referenced in the creed but not in scripture? Where else did those who came up with the creed get their beliefs that are expressed in the creed except from scripture?

Anyway, other than a rare exception like this, I agree that if someone can't reference any scripture that they believe supports the belief that there will be a future coming of Christ, then I think we can only assume that they are actually a full preterist pretending to be a partial preterist.


Again, I agree, except for the one exception I mentioned earlier. But, I doubt there are many like that who can't point to anything in scripture to support that belief, but they still believe it because of some creed or whatever the case may be.


This was a good idea. So, I would encourage any partial preterists reading this to share which scriptures they believe refer to a future second coming of Christ. This can help them avoid being falsely accused of being full preterists.

But many say they believe in a future coming but secretly believe it happens upon the death of the believer. So you have to be very careful. They are not being totally transparent. They do not believe in a literal physical visible return of Christ in a last day event that sees a resurrection/judgment of humans.

 

[Jipsah]

How is it reasonable to insist there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, and then not even being able to produce one single Scripture that supports that, thus showing that that person does not actually believe that, otherwise they would be able to produce Scripture that they feel supports it.

The "one Scripture" asked for was provided, but alas, our Jewish friend apparently didn't notice it or was unable to read it. It's simple but to the point: " "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." As they say in the old country, "Nuff said!" There are obviously others, but I felt disinclined to make an exhaustive list.

 

[Jipsah]

But many say they believe in a future coming but secretly believe it happens upon the death of the believer.

But of course you're privy to those secret beliefs. Very spiritual indeed, aintcha?

So you have to be very careful. They are not being totally transparent. They do not believe in a literal physical visible return of Christ in a last day event that sees a resurrectionjudgment of humans.

So you're psychic, then, yes?

 

[seekingHiswisdom]

Hmmmm. I best stay quiet on this one.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But many say they believe in a future coming but secretly believe it happens upon the death of the believer. So you have to be very careful. They are not being totally transparent. They do not believe in a literal physical visible return of Christ in a last day event that sees a resurrection/judgment of humans.

That underlined portion pretty much sums up the view of the majority of Full Preterists. It is not a view that I share.

And by the way, the Nicene Creed never uses the term "SECOND coming" for that literal, physical return of Christ we expect for ourselves in a future last day event that sees a resurrection/judgment of humans.

What if it is not the "second" coming we are presently anticipating (which Hebrews 9:28 wrote about), but a third coming instead? Zechariah 14 shows that after Christ bodily returns to the Mount of Olives in Zech. 14:4-5, that there is "year to year" activity of the nations on earth remembering the Feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14:16-19). This tells us that normal human history of the nations was to continue on this planet after Christ's bodily return in Zechariah 14:4-5. And since scripture says that "...we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ", wouldn't that necessarily demand yet another third bodily return of Christ? That would be the only way for the rest of humanity from the "year to year" span of history in Zech. 14:16-19 to also give a required account of themselves in another resurrection/judgment event subsequent to that Zechariah 14:4-5 bodily return of Christ.

This idea does not fall in either the Partial Preterist or the Full Preterist category, but at the very least it does not contradict the Nicene Creed.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That would be me.

Your first overt lie. You apparently fail to pay any attention to anything I've actually said, preferring to simply make stuff up. I find that kind of behavior contemptible

I was not talking about you. Are you paranoid? Are you a narcissist who thinks people only think about you? I was referring to someone else here who I have talked to well before I ever talked to you.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Your second overt lie.

And the third.

It is not a lie, so you are lying about me. And you will be reported for this. I was talking about someone else and I'm not lying about that. There is another person here who believes Jesus will return in the future, but does not believe that is taught anywhere in scripture. He believes it because it's mentioned in one of the creeds, but I can't remember which one he referenced exactly since this was about two years ago when I discussed it with him.

You do believe Christ's return is referenced in scripture, right? So, how could I be talking about you when I'm talking about someone who doesn't believe that? So, take Jesus's words seriously and don't judge me or else you will be judged with the same measure that you're judging me.

 

[claninja]

Seems rather simple to me, how to do that. That's assuming that there are actually Full Preterists in Partial Preterist's clothing in this section of the board. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Any Preterist posting in this section of the board, where it's questionable as to whether they are Partial or Full, simply request that they submit any Scripture that proves to them there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

And if they can and do, they obviously can't be Full Preterists then. But if they can't or unwilling to, it's a no-brainer then, it's because they are a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, since it is ludicrous to insist one believes that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, meaning a literal bodily advent as was the first advent, but then not being able to produce one single Scripture they feel supports this.

Though, I disagree that any coming of Christ recorded in the Discourse is involving a coming of Christ in 70 AD in any sense, that hardly makes one a Full Preterist if they interpret any of those comings in that manner. What makes them a Full Preterist, thus a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, is if they insist that that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, but then can't produce one single Scripture in all of the Bible they feel supports this.

How is it reasonable to insist there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, and then not even being able to produce one single Scripture that supports that, thus showing that that person does not actually believe that, otherwise they would be able to produce Scripture that they feel supports it. And so what if they don't feel any coming recorded in the Discourse supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age? Once again, that alone does not make them a Full Preterist unless they can't produce one single Scripture from elsewhere that they do feel supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

One point of this thread is this. I have noted certain other members attaching to certain other members, the "Full Preterist' label. And that they should not be doing that unless they can undeniably prove they are indeed Full Preterists pretending to be Partial Preterists. What I have proposed in the OP would be one way to undeniably prove they are Full Preterists, if the one being accused of this, when asked to produce any Scripture they feel supports a 2nd advent in the end of this age, that they then can't do that or unwilling to do that.

As I’ve said in the past, for me, it’s a most likely revelation 20:12-15, along with the idea that the Olivet discourse (christ’s presence in judgement upon Israel) typifies the end of the literal world.

 

[Jipsah]

It is not a lie, so you are lying about me. And you will be reported for this.

By all means.

I was talking about someone else and I'm not lying about that.

That's four.

There is another person here who believes Jesus will return in the future, but does not believe that is taught anywhere in scripture. He believes it because it's mentioned in one of the creeds, but I can't remember which one he referenced exactly since this was about two years ago when I discussed it with him.

What an amazing coincidence!

You do believe Christ's return is referenced in scripture, right?

Go back and read what I posted.

So, take Jesus's words seriously and don't judge me or else you will be judged with the same measure that you're judging me.

I suggest you stop digging.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That's four.

What an amazing coincidence!

And you continue to falsely accuse me of lying. There is something very seriously wrong with you.

What reason do I have to lie about this? None. Have I given the impression that I would want to not expose YOUR false teachings? Clearly not. And you're not trying to hide your beliefs, so why would I talk about not wanting to give your name in regards to your beliefs? That makes no sense.

I'm not giving this person's name out of respect for that person since I'm not sure that he wants everyone to know that he doesn't see Christ's return as being taught in scripture. He could get hassled because of that even though he does believe Christ will return in the future because of what is written in a creed that he trusts in.

Go back and read what I posted.

I'm not going to go back and read all of your posts. Why can't you just answer the question? I seem to recall you saying that you believe Christ's return is taught in scripture. Yet, I'm talking about someone who doesn't believe that. So, how could I be talking about you in that case?

 

[Zao is life]

Seems rather simple to me, how to do that. That's assuming that there are actually Full Preterists in Partial Preterist's clothing in this section of the board. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Any Preterist posting in this section of the board, where it's questionable as to whether they are Partial or Full, simply request that they submit any Scripture that proves to them there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

And if they can and do, they obviously can't be Full Preterists then. But if they can't or unwilling to, it's a no-brainer then, it's because they are a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, since it is ludicrous to insist one believes that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, meaning a literal bodily advent as was the first advent, but then not being able to produce one single Scripture they feel supports this.

Though, I disagree that any coming of Christ recorded in the Discourse is involving a coming of Christ in 70 AD in any sense, that hardly makes one a Full Preterist if they interpret any of those comings in that manner. What makes them a Full Preterist, thus a Full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, is if they insist that that there is indeed a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, but then can't produce one single Scripture in all of the Bible they feel supports this.

How is it reasonable to insist there will be a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age, and then not even being able to produce one single Scripture that supports that, thus showing that that person does not actually believe that, otherwise they would be able to produce Scripture that they feel supports it. And so what if they don't feel any coming recorded in the Discourse supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age? Once again, that alone does not make them a Full Preterist unless they can't produce one single Scripture from elsewhere that they do feel supports a 2nd advent of Christ in the end of this age.

One point of this thread is this. I have noted certain other members attaching to certain other members, the "Full Preterist' label. And that they should not be doing that unless they can undeniably prove they are indeed Full Preterists pretending to be Partial Preterists. What I have proposed in the OP would be one way to undeniably prove they are Full Preterists, if the one being accused of this, when asked to produce any Scripture they feel supports a 2nd advent in the end of this age, that they then can't do that or unwilling to do that.

Partial Preterism is Preterism in part. It should be called Preterism 2.0 IMO, because even though they may believe in the future bodily return of Christ, they still believe everything else the Preterists believe, such as their belief that the Revelation was written before 70 A.D and almost everything written in it, and in 2 Thessalonians 2 has already taken place, having taken place in the first century, around the time of the destruction of the temple.

I've found that Preterists in part (Partial Preterists) or Preterism 2.0 has an obsession with A.D 70 to the extent that you'd think all of time centers around that event, rather than around the death and resurrection of Christ. Preterists-in-part do not qualify as non-Preterists IMO. It's Preterism 2.0 - especially because the Preterists in part have argued with me that the law that was abolished in the flesh of Christ was still in place until 70 A.D. Apparently God needed to use it against the Jews to punish them (but they use different ways to say that, of course).

I find it dishonest to begin with for someone to claim to not be a Preterist, and yet your theology still carries the name Preterism- in-part, and you follow all of Preterism's other beliefs, with the exception only of the belief of Preterists-in-part that the Lord's return is still future, and will be a bodily return. Partial Preterism is still Preterism, albeit in part, and should be considered Preterism 2.0, IMO. Believing that the law was still in effect until 70 A.D is as much of a heresy as not believing in the future return of Jesus in bodily form, IMO (in a sense it's even a worse heresy).

 

[DavidPT]

Partial Preterism is Preterism in part. It should be called Preterism 2.0 IMO, because even though they may believe in the future bodily return of Christ, they still believe everything else the Preterists believe, such as their belief that the Revelation was written before 70 A.D and almost everything written in it, and in 2 Thessalonians 2 has already taken place, having taken place in the first century, around the time of the destruction of the temple.

I've found that Preterists in part (Partial Preterists) or Preterism 2.0 has an obsession with A.D 70 to the extent that you'd think all of time centers around that event, rather than around the death and resurrection of Christ. Preterists-in-part do not qualify as non-Preterists IMO. It's Preterism 2.0 - especially because the Preterists in part have argued with me that the law that was abolished in the flesh of Christ was still in place until 70 A.D. Apparently God needed to use it against the Jews to punish them (but they use different ways to say that, of course).

I find it dishonest to begin with for someone to claim to not be a Preterist, and yet your theology still carries the name Preterism- in-part, and you follow all of Preterism's other beliefs, with the exception only of the belief of Preterists-in-part that the Lord's return is still future, and will be a bodily return. Partial Preterism is still Preterism, albeit in part, and should be considered Preterism 2.0, IMO. Believing that the law was still in effect until 70 A.D is as much of a heresy as not believing in the future return of Jesus in bodily form, IMO (in a sense it's even a worse heresy).

While it's on my mind, I have been wanting your opinion on something for awhile now, but keep forgetting to ask you, or that you're absent from this site for great lengths of time at times, therefore, not available to ask you. Since this thread already involves Preterism and the Discourse as well, what is your opinion on the following?

The Discourse seems to be mainly involving Matthew 24, maybe Matthew 25 as well, plus Mark 13 and Luke 21. Yet, there is also Luke 17 and the following which does not appear to be meaning during the Discourse when Jesus taught these things.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.


What I'm wondering, since some of these events sound like events recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, do you take these events to be involving the same events recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, or do you take these events to be involving entirely different events altogether?

For example, verse 31 above.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Compared with.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


Not only are there Preterists that apply verses 15-18 to the first century and 70 AD, there are also interpreters who apply Matthew 24:30 to the 2nd coming in the end of this age, thus are not Preterists, yet apply verses 15-18 to the first century and 70 AD.

If, in Luke 17:31, Jesus has in mind the same events involving Matthew 24:17-18, note where Matthew 24:17-18 places Luke 17:31. It places it during the AOD and great tribulation.

If one has decided that Matthew 24:15-18 is involving the first century and 70 AD, but that Luke 17:31 is involving these same events, how is it reasonable per any of the following below, that any of this could remotely be involving the first century and 70 AD?

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Seriously, does verse 33, for example, even remotely give the impression that verse 31 might be involving 70 AD? Imagine applying verse 33 to unbelieving Jews in the first century when everyone should already know via other Scriptures how this was being applied by Jesus in the past and to whom it was being applied to. For example.



Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

If nothing else, this passage proves that Luke 17:31-33 has zero to do with 70 AD, since it would basically mean Luke 17:31-33 is involving discipleship in general, which then is involving not falling away vs. falling away. Therefore, if Matthew 24:17-18 are the same events Jesus has in mind per Luke 17:31, how can anyone then insist Matthew 24:17-18 is involving 70 AD when Luke 17:31, obviously, clearly, isn't?

Of course though, all my arguments are moot if what Luke 17:31 is involving is not what Matthew 24:17-18 is involving, thus one reason I'm interested in your opinion involving Luke 17:31 vs Matthew 24:17-18.

 

[Zao is life]

The Discourse seems to be mainly involving Matthew 24, maybe Matthew 25 as well.

Matthew 25 most certainly is part of the Olivet Discourse. Chapter and verse divisions were only inserted into the Bible in 1227 A.D - but Matthew's gospel contains 8 very clear sections, where the third to seventh of the divisions closes with words similar to:

"And it happened when Jesus finished all these sayings, ... "

Divisions of Matthew's gospel (this was noticed by scholars long ago - I never knew this until I read about it because scholars had mentioned it long ago):

1. Birth, childhood and background of Jesus. Matthew 1:1 - 2:23.
2. Baptism and temptation of Jesus. Matthew 3:1 - 4:11.

3. Early ministry (calling the apostles), earliest teaching and sermons of Jesus. Closes with:

"And it happened, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His doctrine. For He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:28-29).

4. Miracles of Jesus and of the apostles. Closes with:

"And it happened, when Jesus had finished commanding His twelve disciples, He left there to teach and to proclaim in their cities." (Matthew 11:1).

5. Teaching, more miracles and parables of Jesus. Closes with:

"And it happened when Jesus finished these parables, He departed from there." (Matthew 13:53).

6. More miracles, as well as rebukes, and the first of the prophecies. Closes with:

"And it happened, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came into the borders of Judea beyond Jordan." (Matthew 19:1).

7. More miracles, as well as prophecy and parables about the coming kingdom of heaven, leading up to His final entrey into Jerusalem and the Lord's crucifixion. This section has Jesus telling His disciples that He was going to be delivered up to be killed. Closes with:

"And it happened when Jesus finished ALL these sayings, He said to His disciples, You know that after two days the Passover comes, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified." (Matthew 26:1-2).

The Olivet Discourse is the 7th section of Matthew's gospel, and it closes with the words

"And it happened when Jesus finished all these sayings, He said to His disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover comes, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.", which the chapter and verse divisions that were added later have at the beginning of Chapter 26.

8. Arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection.

Yet, there is also Luke 17 and the following which does not appear to be meaning during the Discourse when Jesus taught these things.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you." Matthew 12:28

"Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst." Luke 17:20-21, NETfree version.

Some versions translate Luke 17:21 as "the Kingdom of God is in your midst." (rather than "within you").

In other words, the Pharisees wanted to know when the Kingdom of God was coming, and Jesus basically said, 'Don't look for signs. I am here, in your midst'.

So that statement is another one of those statements in the New Testament that can be taken differently, in accordance with the theological position of whoever wants to interpret it in accordance with their theological position.

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
etc

IMO, there is nothing in the gospels to suggest that Jesus never repeated things. The opposite is evidenced in the gospels - Jesus did indeed often repeat things He had said earlier - especially to His disciples. For example, He spoke more than once about the fact that He was going to be betrayed and was going to die and rise again, and He did not say it all on the same day, or only once.

I've never had a problem with Luke 17, because I always just take it for granted, when I read the gospels that Jesus often repeated things He had already said before, on a different day. So to me it's just obvious that Luke 17 is Jesus repeating what He had said before, on the Mount of Olives (when He gave the Olivet Discourse). He's speaking to His disciples again.

The context of Luke 17:20-37 is what?

It's The coming of the Kingdom:

20 Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

To me, it's not surprising at all that we read straight afterward that Jesus then said to his disciples exactly what He said on the Mount of Olives about His coming.

 

[DavidPT]

I've never had a problem with Luke 17, because I always just take it for granted, when I read the gospels that Jesus often repeated things He had already said before, on a different day. So to me it's just obvious that Luke 17 is Jesus repeating what He had said before, on the Mount of Olives (when He gave the Olivet Discourse). He's speaking to His disciples again.

The context of Luke 17:20-37 is what?

It's The coming of the Kingdom:

20 Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

To me, it's not surprising at all that we read straight afterward that Jesus then said to his disciples exactly what He said on the Mount of Olives about His coming.

What some might object to is this. If one is going to argue, me in this case, that since Luke 17:31 is also recorded Matthew 24:17-18, therefore, the former proving the latter can't be meaning 70 AD, one then shouldn't be doing the exact opposite per the following then.

Luke 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains----
23 But woe unto them that are with child---

Compared with.

Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!


And then argue per these 2 accounts, that even though they too record the same things, the same events are not meant, though. IOW, where is the consistency in these arguments? How can Luke 21:21 and verse 23 and Matthew 24:16 and verse 19 record the same things, yet not be involving the same events? While the opposite is true per Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17-18. These too record the same events, except this time they must be involving the same events.

I get it, as to why one might object to arguing these things in this manner. Yet, Luke 17:31, if it is indeed referring to the same events recorded in Matthew 24:17-18, undeniably proves Matthew 24:17-18 can't be involving 70 AD. There is not one single thing recorded anywhere in Luke 17 that might give the impression the events involving 70 AD are meant.

What we basically end up with is this. If some of these interpreters that insist Matthew 24:15-21 is involving 70 AD, but then conclude that nothing recorded in Luke 17 is, they are doing the exact same thing they are complaining about me doing. They argue, even though Luke 17:31 records the same thing in Matthew 24:17-18, these are not referring to the same events. While I argue, even though Luke 21:21 and verse 23 and Matthew 24:16 and verse 19 record the same things, these are not referring to the same events. IOW, we are arguing in the same manner.

How then can these interpreters criticize the way I'm arguing that, when they are arguing in the exact same manner per Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17-18 that I am? IOW, why is it ok for them to argue in that manner, but it is not ok for me to do so? Trust me, I guarantee you that there are some interpreters out there who take Matthew 24:17-18 to be involving 70 AD but do not take Luke 17:31 to be involving 70 AD. Yet, these same interpreters find fault with how I'm arguing some of Luke 21 vs some of Matthew 24. Go figure.

 

[Zao is life]

What some might object to is this. If one is going to argue, me in this case, that since Luke 17:31 is also recorded Matthew 24:17-18, therefore, the former proving the latter can't be meaning 70 AD, one then shouldn't be doing the exact opposite per the following then.

Luke 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains----
23 But woe unto them that are with child---

Compared with.

Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

And then argue per these 2 accounts, that even though they too record the same things, the same events are not meant, though. IOW, where is the consistency in these arguments? How can Luke 21:21 and verse 23 and Matthew 24:16 and verse 19 record the same things, yet not be involving the same events? While the opposite is true per Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17-18. These too record the same events, except this time they must be involving the same events.

I get it, as to why one might object to arguing these things in this manner. Yet, Luke 17:31, if it is indeed referring to the same events recorded in Matthew 24:17-18, undeniably proves Matthew 24:17-18 can't be involving 70 AD. There is not one single thing recorded anywhere in Luke 17 that might give the impression the events involving 70 AD are meant.

What we basically end up with is this. If some of these interpreters that insist Matthew 24:15-21 is involving 70 AD, but then conclude that nothing recorded in Luke 17 is, they are doing the exact same thing they are complaining about me doing. They argue, even though Luke 17:31 records the same thing in Matthew 24:17-18, these are not referring to the same events. While I argue, even though Luke 21:21 and verse 23 and Matthew 24:16 and verse 19 record the same things, these are not referring to the same events. IOW, we are arguing in the same manner.

How then can these interpreters criticize the way I'm arguing that, when they are arguing in the exact same manner per Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17-18 that I am? IOW, why is it ok for them to argue in that manner, but it is not ok for me to do so? Trust me, I guarantee you that there are some interpreters out there who take Matthew 24:17-18 to be involving 70 AD but do not take Luke 17:31 to be involving 70 AD. Yet, these same interpreters find fault with how I'm arguing some of Luke 21 vs some of Matthew 24. Go figure.

I'm going to have to read the above post a few times. But I would like you to consider this:

Matthew was an eye-witness, Luke was not an eye-witness, yet everyone assumes that Luke wrote a chronological account, because Luke said:

Acts 1
1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

Luke 1
1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.
3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

Lots of people assume that the above means that whatever Luke wrote, is written in the chronological order in which the things were said and took place.

Yet Matthew - an eye-witness - traces each stage of the ministry of Christ by placing them into sections, and ending each section with words similar to "When Jesus had finished these sayings .."

So what does Matthew close the section containing the Olivet Discourse with?

Matthew 26
1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he told his disciples,
2 "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."

Compare what Luke writes in Luke 21 with what he writes in Luke 12:

Luke 21:12-15
But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name.
This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses.
Therefore be resolved not to rehearse ahead of time how to make your defense.
For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.

Luke 12:11
But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say.

We see the same thing that is happening with Luke 21 and Luke 13:20-31, happening with the day the Olivet Discourse was given and what Jesus said in the temple that same day He gave the Olivet Discourse, and Luke 13:34-35:

Luke 13:34-35
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!
Look, your house is forsaken! And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

Matthew 23:37-39
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!
Look, your house is left to you desolate!
For I tell you, you will not see me from now until you say, 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

The above was said on the same day that Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, and Matthew records the Olivet Discourse following immediately after the above was said, so how does Luke record it in Luke 13, but only record the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21?

This is why I neither believe we should assume that Luke had everything in perfect chronological order, nor do I believe that we should assume that Jesus never repeated in the Olivet Discourse some of the things He had already said previously on a different day, in a different location.

But now I'm going to read your post above more carefully, because it needs a lot of concentration.

.. which I have now done, and the gist of it is this:

Trust me, I guarantee you that there are some interpreters out there who take Matthew 24:17-18 to be involving 70 AD but do not take Luke 17:31 to be involving 70 AD. Yet, these same interpreters find fault with how I'm arguing some of Luke 21 vs some of Matthew 24. Go figure.

Exactly. IMO they keep proving that they will make the scriptures say what they want the scriptures to say, i.e always make futile attempts at interpreting the scriptures in such a way as to make scripture comply with a particular eschatological theory, and the theology based on it. But you have just proved how they contradict themselves in the process.

I'm honest enough with myself and with the scriptures to know that although there is nothing in the grammar of the text of Matthew 24 that suggests that Matthew 24:15 is not speaking about Matthew 24:9-14, and Matthew 24:21-22, and Matthew 24:29-31, yet what Luke says about fleeing Jerusalem when they see armies gathered against the city seems to contradict (I say "seems to" because I do not believe scripture contradicts itself) the reason Matthew gives for fleeing Jerusalem,

and the only thing I can think of as a possible reason, is that Zechariah chapters 12-14 is a prophecy about the armies of all nations gathering against Jerusalem and the coming of Messiah occurring right then, when He sets his feet on the Mount of Olives and goes out and fights against the armies of all nations - which ties in with the return of Christ, bearing in mind that the Mount of Olives is where He gave the Olivet Discourse, and where He ascended to heaven from, when angels appeared to the disciples watching him ascend and said to them:

"Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into the heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the way you have seen Him going into Heaven.".

The truth is that Preterism-in-part/Partial Preterism promotes Preterist theology and eschatology because the only difference is the belief of Preterists-in-part that Jesus has not yet returned. Otherwise, it's Preterism - Preterism 2.0, so though Preterists are not allowed to post in this board, yet whatever they teach (with the exception of the timing of the return of Christ) gets posted anyway by the Preterists-in-part.

@DavidPT And as far as the non-Preterists and non-Preterists-in-part are concerned, who argue that Matthew 24:15 to .. (Mat.24:something?) are speaking about 70 A.D, but Matthew 24:9-13 and the rest of the verses (after whatever verses they cut off from the return of Christ and place in A.D 70) are talking about the return of Christ,

it's just ridiculous IMO to cut the text of Matthew 24:9-31 up that way.

The grammar does not allow it, to begin with. Then there's the fact that Matthew 24 - including its mention of the AoD - ties in with what is said in 2 Thessalonians 2 about the falling away, the lawlessness, and the man of sin seating himself up in the temple, and then there's the fact that the abominations associated with the temple in Daniel 9:27 are written in the plural form (at least in all English translations) but the AoD of Matthew 24:15 in the singular. Then there's the fact that A4E is the type of the man of sin, and the AoD he placed in (the holy place of) the temple in Jerusalem in his own day did not cause the destruction of either city or sanctuary. It was cleansed afterward and reconsecrated to God.

Finally there's the fact that the holy place is not the temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D. The holy place is where the Spirit of God dwells, and His Spirit does not dwell in temples made with human hands, not since the veil in the holy place of that Jerusalem temple was torn in two - in 30 A.D, not in 70 A.D.