post-Trib, Pre-mill RAPTURE

[Jamdoc]

How do you figure? How do you define partial preterism?

Full preterism believes that this is the new heavens/new earth because Jesus already came back in AD70
Partial preterism believes in a future return of Christ but believes that AD70 was the great tribulation and Abomination of Desolation and Antichrist, and that the first resurrection was when Christ resurrected, I don't know if I've ever met a premillennial partial preterist.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Full preterism believes that this is the new heavens/new earth because Jesus already came back in AD70

Yeah, I know. There's a reason why that view is not allowed here.

Partial preterism believes in a future return of Christ but believes that AD70 was the great tribulation and Abomination of Desolation and Antichrist, and that the first resurrection was when Christ resurrected, I don't know if I've ever met a premillennial partial preterist.

They typically believe that the entire Olivet Discourse is fulfilled, but I don't. And they also typically believe that all of the book of Revelation is fulfilled up to at least Revelation 19, and I don't believe that, either. So, you seem to have a pretty narrow definition of partial preterism.

 

[ewq1938]

How can you say that Him smiting the nations and treading them in the winepress of God's wrath is present tense?

Because the word is written in the Greek future tense. John was there to see the events. He saw the smiting and killing happening so he wrote those in present tenses, but the ruling of the nations was not seen at that time because it happens after the events of Revelation 19 which is why he used a future tense term. Anyone who claims the ruling happens at the same time as the smiting is wrong.

This is why Premill is correct that a lot of people of the nations are alive past the second coming and they are kept alive for the sole reason to be ruled over.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because the word is written in the Greek future tense. John was there to see the events. He saw the smiting and killing happening so he wrote those in present tenses, but the ruling of the nations was not seen at that time because it happens after the events of Revelation 19 which is why he used a future tense term. Anyone who claims the ruling happens at the same time as the smiting is wrong.

This is why Premill is correct that a lot of people of the nations are alive past the second coming and they are kept alive for the sole reason to be ruled over.

I disagree, but you already know that. I did address what you said about Revelation 19 as you requested. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but I have nothing more to say about it right now.

So, can you tell me how your interpretation lines up with scripture like 2 Peter 3:3-13? I have yet to see a Premill give an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:3-13 that makes any sense.

 

[ewq1938]

I disagree, but you already know that. I did address what you said about Revelation 19 as you requested. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but I have nothing more to say about it right now.

So, can you tell me how your interpretation lines up with scripture like 2 Peter 3:3-13? I have yet to see a Premill give an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:3-13 that makes any sense.

I have something written about that whole chapter but I think it's a bit off topic from discussing the verb tenses in Revelation 19 and what is happening at that time and what is not happening at that time. We cannot just ignore the verb tenses.

Start a thread on 2 Peter and tag me and I will post what I have there. Let's stick with the verb tenses in Revelation 19 because they support a future rule over the nations which proves the idea of all unsaved humanity dying at Armageddon to be false.

Also, you can still be an Amill but drop the part about everyone on Earth dying at the second coming...

 

[Jamdoc]

Yeah, I know. There's a reason why that view is not allowed here.

They typically believe that the entire Olivet Discourse is fulfilled, but I don't. And they also typically believe that all of the book of Revelation is fulfilled up to at least Revelation 19, and I don't believe that, either. So, you seem to have a pretty narrow definition of partial preterism.

Well, how much of the "partial" one is varies, but I don't know of any full futurist amillennials either. There's always some element of preterism or historicism involved.
at the very least.. that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 has already taken place.

 

[Jamdoc]

Because the word is written in the Greek future tense. John was there to see the events. He saw the smiting and killing happening so he wrote those in present tenses, but the ruling of the nations was not seen at that time because it happens after the events of Revelation 19 which is why he used a future tense term. Anyone who claims the ruling happens at the same time as the smiting is wrong.

This is why Premill is correct that a lot of people of the nations are alive past the second coming and they are kept alive for the sole reason to be ruled over.

Yeah really hard for each individual Christian to rule and reign when there's nobody to reign over, everyone's a king, and all subject to the king of king's then I guess ... everyone... is king over themselves.. but not king over themselves because they're all subjects of Jesus.
have to have a very allegorized view of "ruling" to go with the everyone dies in Revelation 19 interpretation, but then again, Amills believe we're ruling right now, even when we will get handcuffed and dragged away to camps to die we're "ruling" over those people who are arresting us I guess.

 

[DavidPT]

You don't have to be a preterist to believe that Matthew 24:21-22 applies to what occurred in 70 AD. I believe many make the mistake of believing the Olivet Discourse either has to all be already fulfilled or all be fulfilled in the future. Neither is true.

I believe Luke 21:20 pertains to 70 AD but disagree that Matthew 24:21-22 does. Gedge is not a Premil though, he is an Amil. Unless I'm misunderstanding him, he's the only Amil on this board, maybe other than Tribsigns, that I'm aware of, that has actually agreed with Jesus in regards to the timing of Matthew 24:21-22, since I don't recall any other Amils on this board applying that to anything but 70 AD and the first century.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Also, you can still be an Amill but drop the part about everyone on Earth dying at the second coming...

How is that possible?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yeah really hard for each individual Christian to rule and reign when there's nobody to reign over, everyone's a king, and all subject to the king of king's then I guess ... everyone... is king over themselves.. but not king over themselves because they're all subjects of Jesus.
have to have a very allegorized view of "ruling" to go with the everyone dies in Revelation 19 interpretation, but then again, Amills believe we're ruling right now, even when we will get handcuffed and dragged away to camps to die we're "ruling" over those people who are arresting us I guess.

Yes, we are. Your understanding of what it means to reign with Christ is completely flawed.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You naively think that being dragged away to camps to die would change our status in Christ. No, it would not. Paul made it clear that no matter what we go through "we are more than conquerors through him who loved us".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I believe Luke 21:20 pertains to 70 AD but disagree that Matthew 24:21-22 does.

Yes, I know that.

Gedge is not a Premil though, he is an Amil.

Yes, I know that.

Unless I'm misunderstanding him, he's the only Amil on this board, maybe other than Tribsigns, that I'm aware of, that has actually agreed with Jesus in regards to the timing of Matthew 24:21-22, since I don't recall any other Amils on this board applying that to anything but 70 AD and the first century.

LOL at you saying they "actually agreed with Jesus". I agree with Jesus that the temple buildings would be destroyed just as He said they would and, unlike you, I believe His answer to the question of when the temple buildings would be destroyed is recorded in Matthew 24. Matthew 24:15-22 clearly relates to the timing of the temple buildings being destroyed since it is about things happening in and around Jerusalem.

Tell me, David, if Matthew 24:15-22 has a future fulfillment then why did Jesus say it would be dreadful for nursing mothers and pregnant women at that time? Why would that be a problem in today's day and age? He also said to pray that their flight would not be in the winter. Again, why would that be a problem in today's day and age?

He clearly was saying those things would be a problem because He knew it was going to happen at a time when the only mode of travel would be to go on foot. It's clear that Jesus knew that what He was talking about there would be fulfilled in the not too distant future when traveling by foot quickly would be a problem for some people.

 

[Christian Gedge]

You don't have to be a preterist to believe that Matthew 24:21-22 applies to what occurred in 70 AD. I believe many make the mistake of believing the Olivet Discourse either has to all be already fulfilled or all be fulfilled in the future. Neither is true.

Yes, there are some prophecies (not all) that have a 'near-far' fulfillment. Undoubtedly, those experiencing the collapse of the Jewish nation would have heard those words and understood them to apply at that dreadful time.

"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."​

But now we hear those same words and there is obviously an ultimate fulfillment to come. I wish part-preterists and futurists would give this precursor concept a fair go. It would explain a lot for them.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, we are. Your understanding of what it means to reign with Christ is completely flawed.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You naively think that being dragged away to camps to die would change our status in Christ. No, it would not. Paul made it clear that no matter what we go through "we are more than conquerors through him who loved us".

You're not exactly having authority over those who are arresting and dragging you away, You can't even tell them to stop.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, there are some prophecies (not all) that have a 'near-far' fulfillment. Undoubtedly, those experiencing the collapse of the Jewish nation would have heard those words and understood them to apply at that dreadful time.

"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."​

But now we hear those same words and there is obviously an ultimate fulfillment to come. I wish part-preterists and futurists would give this precursor concept a fair go. It would explain a lot for them.

I'm a full blown futurist.
and I accept the "type fulfillment" or "precursor" concept.
What I don't accept is people claiming that the main fulfillment was AD70, Jesus wasn't telling them that some of this would be fulfilled soon and some later. He was telling them it would all be fulfilled within a short period of time when it happened, within one lifetime.

So if some SEEMED to have been fulfilled in AD70 but not the full thing... then that's a precursor/type fiulfillment, but not the ultimate fulfillment. That stands out as obvious to me.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You're not exactly having authority over those who are arresting and dragging you away, You can't even tell them to stop.

Thank you for once again showing that you don't know what it means to reign with Christ. You clearly don't understand what Romans 8:35-39 means. If you did you would know that it says we are more than conquerors even if we are being arrested and dragged away.

 

[Jamdoc]

Thank you for once again showing that you don't know what it means to reign with Christ. You clearly don't understand what Romans 8:35-39 means.

To rule or reign is to have authority.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, there are some prophecies (not all) that have a 'near-far' fulfillment. Undoubtedly, those experiencing the collapse of the Jewish nation would have heard those words and understood them to apply at that dreadful time.

"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."​

But now we hear those same words and there is obviously an ultimate fulfillment to come. I wish part-preterists and futurists would give this precursor concept a fair go. It would explain a lot for them.

That's not how I understand Matthew 24:21-22, but that's okay. At least you recognize that the Olivet Discourse is not only about the future.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

To rule or reign is to have authority.

Exactly. How are you not having authority if you are more than a conqueror? You clearly have no idea of what Romans 8:35-39 means.

 

[ewq1938]

How is that possible?

Amill means no future Millennium. Nothing else is required to be Amillennial. That means you could accept the verb tenses in Revelation 19, that the rule is future to the present tense verb actions of the smiting etc.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Amill means no future Millennium. Nothing else is required to be Amillennial.

Maybe in a very technical sense that could be true, but not really. All Amills believe that Christ is reigning now, for example. That's a core belief of Amillennialism. So, for you to say that nothing else is required to be an Amill except to believe that there is no future Millennium is not really true.

That means you could accept the verb tenses in Revelation 19, that the rule is future to the present tense verb actions of the smiting etc.

Are you just saying that someone could technically be Amill, but believe that Christ will rule over His enemies in the future for a time period that isn't a literal thousand years? If so, I don't know why you're making that point since no one even believes that.