Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[sovereigngrace]

Since my last one was not refuted, I thought I would go a different direction.

How is that unbiblical? You made the claim. Back it up.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up n

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.


Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Prove it. You made the claim. Back it up.

Your evasive posts are a classic case-in-point. They are obsessed with speaking about Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. Your posts are also devoid of Scripture. You reinforce my argument.

 

[Jipsah]

They are obsessed with speaking about Titus

FWIW, you've mentioned Titus more than any pretrerist I've ever heard. I have to wonder who has the actual obsession.

and AD70

Fairly significant year in Christian history, wouldn't you say?

I wonder if you'd fault an American history buff for obsessing about 1776, or mentioning the Civil War too often. Now if you believed that those event in history somehow didn't count, then your not wanting to hear about them would be easier to explain, n'est-ce pas?

Your posts are also devoid of Scripture.

LIke this one?

 

[Hammster]

Your evasive posts are a classic case-in-point. They are obsessed with speaking about Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. Your posts are also devoid of Scripture. You reinforce my argument.

Evasive? You’re the one who made claims about preterism, which is what the thread is about. Reread the OP, if you aren’t sure. My inquiries are simple. Defend what you say is true. If you cannot, then why should a preterist engage arguments with no substance?

 

[Jipsah]

Your evasive posts are a classic case-in-point. They are obsessed with speaking about Titus and AD70

A charge that you you've often repeated but never shown to be true.

instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world.

What would you like to share on that topic? I'd be keen to hear it.

Your posts are also devoid of Scripture.

Here's some:
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Now, were these verses written for the edification of God, or for that of the "His servants", to whom the letter was sent?

If for God, why was the letter necessary, since God Himself must be the Author if we accept this Revelation as prophecy?

If for His servants, then why would He choose to tell them that the events of which He was to warn them "must shortly come to pass" and that "the time is at hand", since the events being warned of warning would not occur in their lifetimes.

It boots nothing to claim that it was written in God's reckoning of time, since "God's time" could have no meaning for mortal men whose reckoning of time is altogether different. But if the warning is given using God's reckoning of time, it was no warnng at all, since the events foretold would not actually occur until at least two thousand years had passed (which thing God would obviously know anyway.)

Right out the gate you have a serious problem if you insist that the Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return, and the "God's time" response is simply an attempt to evade that fact.

 

[Jipsah]

A charge that you you've often repeated but never shown to be true.

What would you like to share on that topic? I'd be keen to hear it.


Here's some:
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Now, were these verses written for the edification of God, or for that of the "His servants", to whom the letter was sent?

If for God, why was the letter necessary, since God Himself must be the Author if we accept this Revelation as prophecy?

If for His servants, then why would He choose to tell them that the events of which He was to warn them "must shortly come to pass" and that "the time is at hand", since the events being warned of warning would not occur in their lifetimes.

It boots nothing to claim that it was written in God's reckoning of time, since "God's time" could have no meaning for mortal men whose reckoning of time is altogether different. But if the warning is given using God's reckoning of time, it was no warnng at all, since the events foretold would not actually occur until at least two thousand years had passed (which thing God would obviously know anyway.)

Right out the gate you have a serious problem if you insist that the Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return, and the "God's time" response is simply an attempt to evade that fact.

 

[claninja]

To attribute the coming of Titus in AD70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the "end of all things" is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”

Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

As Eric said, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.

Peter informs us that “end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of ALL things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’ Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.

The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.

In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.

Ah yes, seems you’ve changed your Tune and acknowledge that “near” really does mean near or imminent. So you’ve now got to double down on the ol’ “God’s time” argument, effectively rendering the time statements given by Jesus and the apostles as completely useless.

At first your argument was “near” doesn’t mean “imminent” it means “approaching”. Now it’s, “near” means near in “God’s Time”……..

So when Jesus said “when you see all things know that he is near at the very door”, it means absolutely nothing because “near” could be thousands of years.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Ah yes, seems you’ve changed your Tune and acknowledge that “near” really does mean near or imminent. So you’ve now got to double down on the ol’ “God’s time” argument, effectively rendering the time statements given by Jesus and the apostles as completely useless.

At first your argument was “near” doesn’t mean “imminent” it means “approaching”. Now it’s, “near” means near in “God’s Time”……..

So when Jesus said “when you see all things know that he is near at the very door”, it means absolutely nothing because “near” could be thousands of years.

This relates to the time preceding the coming of Christ - when heaven and earth will really pass away.

 

[sovereigngrace]

A charge that you you've often repeated but never shown to be true.

What would you like to share on that topic? I'd be keen to hear it.


Here's some:
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Now, were these verses written for the edification of God, or for that of the "His servants", to whom the letter was sent?

If for God, why was the letter necessary, since God Himself must be the Author if we accept this Revelation as prophecy?

If for His servants, then why would He choose to tell them that the events of which He was to warn them "must shortly come to pass" and that "the time is at hand", since the events being warned of warning would not occur in their lifetimes.

It boots nothing to claim that it was written in God's reckoning of time, since "God's time" could have no meaning for mortal men whose reckoning of time is altogether different. But if the warning is given using God's reckoning of time, it was no warnng at all, since the events foretold would not actually occur until at least two thousand years had passed (which thing God would obviously know anyway.)

Right out the gate you have a serious problem if you insist that the Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return, and the "God's time" response is simply an attempt to evade that fact.

I have never insisted that Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return. Where did you get that?

 

[claninja]

This relates to the time preceding the coming of Christ - when heaven and earth will really pass away.

Right, but if near, In relation to eschatology, only ever means near in “God’s time” which could be thousands of years in human time, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:33 is completely useless.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Right, but if near, In relation to eschatology, only ever means near in “God’s time” which could be thousands of years in human time, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:33 is completely useless.

I don't agree.

 

[Jipsah]

I have never insisted that Revelation is strictly an account of things that would occur only at our Lord's return. Where did you get that?

Ah, so you're back to beinhg a partial preterist again?

 

[Jipsah]

I don't agree.

Really? What information would "the time is at hand" impart to a human reader when it's based on a scale of time where it may mean "tommorow afternoon" or it may mean "in 2000+ years"?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Ah, so you're back to beinhg a partial preterist again?

We should all be partial preterists and partial futurists. Revelation, like other Scriptures, teaches about both past and future events. The problem is: most Preterists are so fixated with AD70 they fail to see the many references pertaining to Christ's coming and the end. That is all they want to talk about. Most Futurists fail to recognize fulfilled Scripture and dump it all at the second coming. The biblical balance is seeing both.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Really? What information would "the time is at hand" impart to a human reader when it's based on a scale of time where it may mean "tommorow afternoon" or it may mean "in 2000+ years"?

Jesus gives an example of nearness from a human perspective in Luke 21:30-33. He gives an earthly illustration on nearness. The wording and context are clear and indisputable. He said in Luke 21:30-33: “Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.”

This is speaking about events preceding the return of Christ. It is that generation that is alive that will sees the preceding signs of His return.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How do you make the verses I quoted in the post #45 compatible with your view?

The statements there do not seem to be about just a possibility, at all. They seem certain.

Yes, most of them are talking about a certainty, but some of them are not even talking about the bodily return of Christ at the end of the age.

You quoted a lot of verses, so I will address some of them and not all of them for the sake of time.

"There are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Mt 16:27

"there are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God having come in power. "
Mk 8:38

"there are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the kingdom of God. "
Lk 9:26-27

These 3 all refer to the same thing, obviously. I simply believe that Jesus was referring either to His transfiguration here, which was described immediately following those verses. Or He could have been referring to the kingdom of God coming in power spiritually on the day of Pentecost. Either way, these verses have nothing to do with the Olivet Discourse and with the bodily second coming of Christ that scripture prophesies (Acts 1:9-11).


"But this is that having been spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And it will be in the last days...the sun will be darkened, moon into blood, blood, fire, vapor..."
Act 2:16

I don't deny that the last days had already begun by the time the day of Pentecost occurred long ago. If you read all of Acts 2:16-21, you should see that the last days continue on while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. So, we are still in the last days today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord and being saved. The last days will continue until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4) at which point the heavens and the earth will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10-12).


"The time that remains is short."
1 Cor. 7:29

Paul was referring here to the certainty of the end of time continually approaching. For all anyone knew, it could occur in the lifetimes of his readers at the time. The Greek word translated as "short" there is only used in one other verse, so it's hard to determine how the word could be used. I don't see that it has to be used in terms of referring to a literal short amount of time.

...the ends of the ages are arrived.
1Cor 10:11

Jesus was asked about the end of the age, not the ends of the ages. This verse has no direct relation to the end of the age that Jesus talked about. The context is different. Jesus thought of ages in the sense of there being a temporal age during which people get married and they die and an eternal age during which people don't get married and don't die (Luke 20:34-36). The ends of the ages refer to all the generations leading up to the first coming of Christ.

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..."
1 Cor. 15:51

"Then we the living who remain shall be caught away together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
1 The 4:17

"...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. "
1 The 5:23

How are you concluding that any of the 3 above verses indicate that His coming was literally soon?

Who was manifest in these last times for you
1 Pt 1:20

These last times probably should be understood in the same context as "the last days" which we're still in today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord to be saved.

The end of all things is at hand.
1 Pt 4:7

That was written by Peter who went on to indicate that the Lord was not being slow to come again and bring about the end of all things because it's not possible for Him to be too slow from His eternal perspective. I believe Peter was writing from the perspective in 1 Peter 4:7 as well. From the Lord's eternal perspective, the end of all things is always at hand.


The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
Rev 1:1

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy...because the time is near.
Rev 1:3

What things exactly do you believe these verses are referring to? Everything in the book? If so, then what do you make of this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Clearly, John did not only write about things that would happen soon, so you should not read verses like Revelation 1:1,3 without taking Revelation 1:19 into consideration.


"Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pierced him’; and all peoples on earth ‘will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.”
Rev 1:7

This has clearly not yet happened, so what was your point in quoting this verse?


"Behold, I am coming quickly:"
Rev 22:7

"And, behold, I come quickly;"
Rev 22:12

"...Surely I am coming quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
Rev 22:20

I believe in these verses Jesus was talking about how whenever He came, He would come quickly. As quickly as lightning shines from the east to the west (Matt 24:27). I don't believe these verses have anything to do with indicating the amount of time until He would come.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ah yes, seems you’ve changed your Tune and acknowledge that “near” really does mean near or imminent. So you’ve now got to double down on the ol’ “God’s time” argument, effectively rendering the time statements given by Jesus and the apostles as completely useless.

At first your argument was “near” doesn’t mean “imminent” it means “approaching”. Now it’s, “near” means near in “God’s Time”……..

So when Jesus said “when you see all things know that he is near at the very door”, it means absolutely nothing because “near” could be thousands of years.

Are you somehow not able to understand that scripture sometimes speaks of time from man's perspective and sometimes from God's perspective?

Do you think Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8-9, is talking about how long until the second coming of Christ from man's perspective or God's perspective when he indicates that the Lord wasn't being slow to fulfill the promise of His second coming? Clearly, it's from God's perspective, right? Is that the only passage in all of scripture that speaks of God's perspective when it talks about the timing of Christ's return? I don't believe so. Was the concept Peter talked about in 2 Peter 3:8-9 something he had not yet known about when he wrote 1 Peter 4:7? I doubt that. So, why couldn't he have been speaking from God's perspective there like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9? I see no reason why not.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Peter never said the scoffers didn’t understand near should be understood as “God’s time”. Peter compares them to the scoffers of Noah’s day. Just as the pre diluvian heavens and earth were destroyed by water, so too would their present heavens and earth be destroyed by fire. The prediluvian scoffers also scoffed at Noah. It is this that they overlook, as their present heavens and earth were to be destroyed by fire. This has nothing to do with the scoffers misunderstanding “near”

Peter, instead, exhorts his audience that 1,000 years is like a day, AND a day is like 1,000 years, for the purpose of more coming to repentance - ie the Hebrews coming to repentance. Audience relevance = Hebrews amongst the diaspora. To the Jew first. Peters audience, in his epistles, was the Hebrews. God was being patient so that the hebrews, his chosen people, would come to repentance. Was there possibly some huge event, literally near the timing of of 1st and 2nd Peter, where many Hebrews would be judged and even their children slayed for not recognizing the Timing of Christs first advent? Absolutely! And God had been patient with them for forty years, long suffering that they would turn to Christ and repent.

2 peter 3:1 this is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved

1 Peter 1:2 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised.

And they were in fact suffering around the world.

1 Peter 4:12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial that has come upon you, as though something strange were happening to you.

1 Peter 5:9 9Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

The scoffers and persecutors correctly understood Peters belief that the “end of all things was literally near”. They Just overlooked the fact that just as in the days of Noah the scoffers world was destroyed by water, so too would their world be destroyed by fire.

You are mistaken about who Peter wrote his letters to. He was addressing both Jew and Gentile Christian exiles. It wasn't only Jewish Christians in Israel who were exiled. There were also Gentile Christians like Cornelius and his family who lived in Israel and were exiled out of the country. Peter was addressing them as well. Yes, Peter's priority was preaching to the Jews, but did you somehow forget that he did also preach to Gentiles like Cornelius and his family?

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

You think Peter was talking only about Jews here? Were the Jews "in time past not a people" of God before that time? No. They obviously were the people of God well before that time, so Peter could not have been speaking only of the Jews here.

Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Who are the people who are called and are one people of God? The Jews? No, it's Jew and Gentile believers together who were not the people of God but now are the people of God because of the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:11-13). Peter was addressing both Jew and Gentile believers. There is no doubt in my mind about that. It is both Jew and Gentile believers who make up the "royal priesthood" (Rev 1:5-6) and the "holy nation" of God (Spiritual Israel) that Peter referenced.

Also, I can't take any view seriously which denies that 2nd Peter 3 is talking about a global event rather than a local or regional one and denies that it's talking about God's desire for all people, not just the Jews, to repent (Acts 17:30).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

To attribute the coming of Titus in AD70 in 1 Peter 4:3-7 as the "end of all things" is laughable, unbiblical and irrational. It states: “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand.”

Peter continues in verse 13 of the same passage, whilst speaking of that great final event, by encouraging the believers, saying, “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

Exactly. The context is clearly in relation to judgment day when all people will have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of themselves to Christ. That event, portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46, has clearly not yet happened.

As Eric said, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is near to God since He is not limited to time. What is more, what is considered near to Him can seem like a long time to us.

Right. I see no reason at all that Peter could not have speaking in 1 Peter 4 in the same sense that he was speaking in 2 Peter 3:8-9, which was in terms of God's perspective, not man's. He had to be because the end of all things has not yet occurred! Jesus has not yet returned. The judgment of all mankind from throughout history has not yet occurred. The burning up of the heavens and the earth has not yet occurred!

Peter informs us that “end of all things” occurs at the Second Advent – the time when Christ shall judge “the quick and the dead” (or the living and the dead). Moreover, he indicates, whilst the day of revelation of Christ is an awful day of woe for the wicked, it is a day of joy and reward for the righteous. Notwithstanding, and significantly, the judgment of the wicked and “the end of ALL things” is said to be “at hand” or ‘eengiken’ meaning ‘to be near’ or ‘approaching.’ Notably, it is from the usage of this word that the Pretribbers argue for an imminent secret return of Christ rather than an impending all-consummating final return, as is biblical. Notwithstanding, whether one understands the term “at hand” as imminent or impending isn’t particularly important here, it is the fact that the judgment of the wicked coincides with the one final future all-consummating Second Advent. Also, the clear allusion of the judgment of “the living and the dead” unquestionably proves a general judgment as the A and Postmillennialists believes.

Agree. No such event occurred in 70 AD.

The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old, temporal, sinful and corrupt. His return introduces the beginning of all things new, eternal, righteous and God-glorifying.

In the new heavens and new earth there is going to be no more grief, grave stones or goodbyes. There is coming a day in the future when dying, crying, pain, sorrow and the curse will cease. Or put differently, there is going to be no sea, no sepulchers, no sorrow, no suffering. All the awful effects of sin have finally and eternally been expunged, namely death, disease, disaster, disappointment, depression, and despair. All things are now new.

Agree.

 

[trophy33]

These 3 all refer to the same thing, obviously. I simply believe that Jesus was referring either to His transfiguration here, which was described immediately following those verses. Or He could have been referring to the kingdom of God coming in power spiritually on the day of Pentecost. Either way, these verses have nothing to do with the Olivet Discourse and with the bodily second coming of Christ that scripture prophesies (Acts 1:9-11).

You are not sure what they are about, but you are sure they are not about second coming.... why? You gave no reasoning.

I don't deny that the last days had already begun by the time the day of Pentecost occurred long ago. If you read all of Acts 2:16-21, you should see that the last days continue on while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. So, we are still in the last days today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord and being saved. The last days will continue until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4) at which point the heavens and the earth will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10-12).

Such view quite erases the meaning of the "last days" phrase, if it already lasts 2x longer than the whole Mosaic Covenant. The point of the "last days" is that those days are last, not the first in many.

Paul was referring here to the certainty of the end of time continually approaching. For all anyone knew, it could occur in the lifetimes of his readers at the time. The Greek word translated as "short" there is only used in one other verse, so it's hard to determine how the word could be used. I don't see that it has to be used in terms of referring to a literal short amount of time.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

How are you concluding that any of the 3 above verses indicate that His coming was literally soon?

Because Paul says "we". And Timothy is not alive today.

These last times probably should be understood in the same context as "the last days" which we're still in today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord to be saved.

What reasoning is there to think that people will not be calling the name of the Lord to be saved "after the last days"?

That was written by Peter who went on to indicate that the Lord was not being slow to come again and bring about the end of all things because it's not possible for Him to be too slow from His eternal perspective. I believe Peter was writing from the perspective in 1 Peter 4:7 as well. From the Lord's eternal perspective, the end of all things is always at hand.

Well, we cannot use "thousands years are a day" as some kind of a blank check. It would cover all prophecies ever.

What things exactly do you believe these verses are referring to? Everything in the book? If so, then what do you make of this verse:

Yes, everything in the book, because its both in the beginning and in the end of the book.

This has clearly not yet happened, so what was your point in quoting this verse?

Those who pierced Him are no longer alive. The point of mentioning them is quite clear and easily compatible with all other verses saying everything will happen in their generation. You will probably offer the explanation "they will be resurrected first", but such statement would have no actual meaning, in the context.

I believe in these verses Jesus was talking about how whenever He came, He would come quickly. As quickly as lightning shines from the east to the west (Matt 24:27). I don't believe these verses have anything to do with indicating the amount of time until He would come.

If somebody says to you "I will come quickly", you do not suppose he will come soon? In real life? I do not like explanations that are "possible", but obviously not how the language is commonly used.

 

[Hammster]

We should all be partial preterists and partial futurists. Revelation, like other Scriptures, teaches about both past and future events. The problem is: most Preterists are so fixated with AD70 they fail to see the many references pertaining to Christ's coming and the end. That is all they want to talk about. Most Futurists fail to recognize fulfilled Scripture and dump it all at the second coming. The biblical balance is seeing both.

Another unsupported claim.