A basic flaw in Partial Preterist interpretation

jgr · Mar 19, 2020

keras said:
When did I ask you to take my word?
What I do expect you to believe is the scriptures I present.

Seems to be a contradiction there.

Why would anyone believe what you present over what the historical true Church for many centuries has presented?

The historical true Church has presented many Scriptures.

Often at the cost of their lives.

Thereby validating those Scriptures.

I'll take the historical true Church's wise discernment over carnal unskillful babes, any time and every time.

keras · Mar 19, 2020

jgr said:
Seems to be a contradiction there.

Why would anyone believe what you present over what the historical true Church for many centuries has presented?

The historical true Church has presented many Scriptures.

Often at the cost of their lives.

Thereby validating those Scriptures.

I'll take the historical true Church's wise discernment over carnal unskillful babes, any time and every time.

Until you explain, in a proper and non-derogatory manner, how Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:9-14 were fulfilled by the conquest of Rome, then you remain a false teacher.

jgr · Mar 19, 2020

keras said:
Until you explain, in a proper and non-derogatory manner, how Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:9-14 were fulfilled by the conquest of Rome, then you remain a false teacher.

To what "conquest of Rome" do you refer?

sovereigngrace · Mar 20, 2020

keras said:
... then you remain a false teacher.

That is way out of order! Many could call you that with the amount of error you espouse, but we do not. There are different schools of thought that good men disagree on. You need to withdraw this.

I do not agree with jgr on this, but he is definitely not a false teacher.

sovereigngrace · Mar 20, 2020

DavidPT said:
Clearly, Zechariah 12:10-14, Matthew 24:30, and Revelation 1:7, are all referring to the same events. This does not present a problem for me since I have always understood ever since I can remember, that Zechariah 12:10-14 and Revelation 1:7 are connected with the bodily return of Christ in the end of this age.

I suspect Zechariah 12:10-14 might cause a problem for sovereigngrace though, since I'm assuming he likely applies Zechariah 12:10-14 to the first century, likely involving Christ's death. I don't know for a fact that he does, but every Amil similar to him that I have ever encountered in the past does. So I assume he does too. Because, if Zechariah 12:10-14 is referring to the same events connected with Matthew 24:30 like you and I tend to think, he can't have the former occurring in the first century and the latter occurring in the end of the age, then expect some of us to seriously consider that interpretation, as if it could be correct or something.

The book of Zechariah is saturated in profound detail pertaining to our Lord’s first advent in the whole of the Old Testament.

Zechariah 3:8-10 declares, “behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.”

Zechariah 6:12 predicted how Christ would be “The BRANCH” which would “grow up out of his place” and would “build the temple of the LORD” – His Church. And describes how He would be a mediator King and Priest for His people. Zechariah 6:13 says, “he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”

Zechariah 9:9 predicted his entry into Jerusalem: “thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Zechariah 11:12-13 predicted Judas and the price that he would pay to betray the Master, saying, “If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”

You wrongly apply Zechariah 12 to the Second Advent rather than the First. “In that day” appears six times in that chapter thus indicating the harmonious nature of it. Matthew quoted from it explaining how it explicitly related to the First Advent and specifically the cross.

I think that Zechariah's audience, focus and responsibility was Jews as he lived in the OT era, that did not mean the Gentile wasn't in view in regard to the new covenant only they were merely secondary at this juncture in history. Zech 13:1 and Zech 12:10 connect. Israel's Redeemer/Messiah and Lord already came 2,000 yrs ago - many believed, many didn't.

Zechariah 12:10 says, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

This relates to when Messiah appeared nearly 2,000 years ago. As predicted, salvation flowed out from the Cross – firstly to Israel, then to the nations. Many, many Jews have accepted Christ and His sacrifice for sin since then. Many came to a personal faith in Christ after the resurrection. Since then, countless Gentiles have entered into the joy of sins forgiven. The cross is man’s only hope; it is the only means by which sinful man (Jew or Gentile, pre-Calvary or post) can enter into union with God. It is the only way that man can be reconciled onto sinful creatures and experience the wonderful quickening “spirit of grace.” The Holy Spirit came like rivers of living water to all who would believe in Christ. Jews by the thousands, as well as new Gentile converts were the welcome recipients of this following Calvary.

John 19:30-37 says, “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken (speaking of Psalms 34:20). And again another scripture (speaking of Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”

Christian Gedge · Mar 20, 2020

You’ve given us a lot to think about SG.

jgr · Mar 20, 2020

keras said:
Until you explain, in a proper and non-derogatory manner, how Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:9-14 were fulfilled by the conquest of Rome, then you remain a false teacher.

I believe John Wycliffe's wise discernment before any carnal unskilled babe, any time, every time.

“Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws.” (Daniel 7:8, 25 quoted) …”For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head.” Translated from Wyclif’s, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263

DavidPT · Mar 20, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
The book of Zechariah is saturated in profound detail pertaining to our Lord’s first advent in the whole of the Old Testament.

Zechariah 3:8-10 declares, “behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.”

Zechariah 6:12 predicted how Christ would be “The BRANCH” which would “grow up out of his place” and would “build the temple of the LORD” – His Church. And describes how He would be a mediator King and Priest for His people. Zechariah 6:13 says, “he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”

Zechariah 9:9 predicted his entry into Jerusalem: “thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Zechariah 11:12-13 predicted Judas and the price that he would pay to betray the Master, saying, “If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”

You wrongly apply Zechariah 12 to the Second Advent rather than the First. “In that day” appears six times in that chapter thus indicating the harmonious nature of it. Matthew quoted from it explaining how it explicitly related to the First Advent and specifically the cross.

I think that Zechariah's audience, focus and responsibility was Jews as he lived in the OT era, that did not mean the Gentile wasn't in view in regard to the new covenant only they were merely secondary at this juncture in history. Zech 13:1 and Zech 12:10 connect. Israel's Redeemer/Messiah and Lord already came 2,000 yrs ago - many believed, many didn't.

Zechariah 12:10 says, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

This relates to when Messiah appeared nearly 2,000 years ago. As predicted, salvation flowed out from the Cross – firstly to Israel, then to the nations. Many, many Jews have accepted Christ and His sacrifice for sin since then. Many came to a personal faith in Christ after the resurrection. Since then, countless Gentiles have entered into the joy of sins forgiven. The cross is man’s only hope; it is the only means by which sinful man (Jew or Gentile, pre-Calvary or post) can enter into union with God. It is the only way that man can be reconciled onto sinful creatures and experience the wonderful quickening “spirit of grace.” The Holy Spirit came like rivers of living water to all who would believe in Christ. Jews by the thousands, as well as new Gentile converts were the welcome recipients of this following Calvary.

John 19:30-37 says, “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken (speaking of Psalms 34:20). And again another scripture (speaking of Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”

All of this still misses the point. If anything in Zechariah 12 is referring to anything in Matthew 24:30, one can't have the former meaning events in the first century, while at the same time, have the latter involving events in the end of this age. If nothing in Matthew 24:30 is meaning anything in Zechariah 12, then there is no confict between these passages. But, if anything in Zechariah 12 is meaning anything in Matthew 24:30, then there is a conflict between those two passages, per an interpretation such as yours.

So the question is, is anything in Matthew 24:30 referring to anything in Zechariah 12? If the answer is yes, what ever era of time one places the events of Zechariah 12 in, so must that same one do the same with Matthew 24:30.

If the answer is no, one can then have each passage occurring in different eras of time without there be a conflict between these passages.

So this mainly has to do with methodology and consistency, being the point I'm trying to make.

I'm guessing most interpreters do indeed think that some of Zechariah 12 and Matthew 24:30 involve the same events. And those that do wouldn't have the former involving an era of time that the latter wouldn't be involving. That would be a contradiction.

keras · Mar 20, 2020

jgr said:
I believe John Wycliffe's wise discernment before any carnal unskilled babe, any time, every time.

“Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws.” (Daniel 7:8, 25 quoted) …”For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head.” Translated from Wyclif’s, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263

You still manage to be derogatory and to promote the final fulfilment of Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:9-14, is error.

sovereigngrace said:
That is way out of order! Many could call you that with the amount of error you espouse, but we do not. There are different schools of thought that good men disagree on. You need to withdraw this.

I do not agree with jgr on this, but he definitely not a false teacher.

You have yet to prove me wrong on anything.
Anybody who actively teaches theories and doctrines on end time events, that are not Bible supported, is a false teacher.

However this issue of an end times empire, of a similar nature as the Roman Empire, is not critical and I will withdraw from this discussion.
The Prophets will be vindicated!

sovereigngrace · Mar 20, 2020

DavidPT said:
All of this still misses the point. If anything in Zechariah 12 is referring to anything in Matthew 24:30, one can't have the former meaning events in the first century, while at the same time, have the latter involving events in the end of this age. If nothing in Matthew 24:30 is meaning anything in Zechariah 12, then there is no confict between these passages. But, if anything in Zechariah 12 is meaning anything in Matthew 24:30, then there is a conflict between those two passages, per an interpretation such as yours.

So the question is, is anything in Matthew 24:30 referring to anything in Zechariah 12? If the answer is yes, what ever era of time one places the events of Zechariah 12 in, so must that same one do the same with Matthew 24:30.

If the answer is no, one can then have each passage occurring in different eras of time without there be a conflict between these passages.

So this mainly has to do with methodology and consistency, being the point I'm trying to make.

I'm guessing most interpreters do indeed think that some of Zechariah 12 and Matthew 24:30 involve the same events. And those that do wouldn't have the former involving an era of time that the latter wouldn't be involving. That would be a contradiction.

Who cares what "most interpreters do indeed think," Jesus nails it for us. There is no room for further debate, personal opinion, speculation to fit man's paradigms, when He locates it.

sovereigngrace · Mar 20, 2020

keras said:
You still manage to be derogatory and to promote the final fulfilment of Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:9-14, is error.

You have yet to prove me wrong on anything.
Anybody who actively teaches theories and doctrines on end time events, that are not Bible supported, is a false teacher.

However this issue of an end times empire, of a similar nature as the Roman Empire, is not critical and I will withdraw from this discussion.
The Prophets will be vindicated!

With such a loose rendering of that term, many could deem you that. The terms "false teacher" is used in Scripture to describe those who peach a false gospel. It is wrong for you to hurl that at jgr. You should remove that slur and apologize.

jgr · Mar 20, 2020

keras said:
You still manage to be derogatory and to promote the final fulfilment of Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:9-14, is error.

I'm completely Scriptural, and so are John Wycliffe and the Reformers.

You'll have to argue with him and them.

Which would be the equivalent of taking a knife to a gunfight.

Andrewn · Mar 20, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
You wrongly apply Zechariah 12 to the Second Advent rather than the First. “In that day” appears six times in that chapter thus indicating the harmonious nature of it. Matthew quoted from it explaining how it explicitly related to the First Advent and specifically the cross.

sovereigngrace said:
Who cares what "most interpreters do indeed think," Jesus nails it for us. There is no room for further debate, personal opinion, speculation to fit man's paradigms, when He locates it.

What did the Lord say about Zec 12:3-9?

sovereigngrace · Mar 20, 2020

Andrewn said:
What did the Lord say about Zec 12:3-9?

Matthew 23 and 24.

DavidPT · Mar 20, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Matthew 23 and 24.

It's anyones guess as to which verses in those 2 chapters you are meaning. Hopefully you are not making the same mistake that is typical of most Preterists, and apply Zechariah 12:3-9 to that of what happened in 70 AD. Clearly the Romans came against Jerusalem and that the unbelieving Jews were the ones who lost their lives in great numbers, thus they were the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time. Yet Zechariah 12:8 says---In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem---undeniably proving that what happened in 70 AD could not possibly be meant here. But who cares about all these minor details such as this, that undeniably prove something wrong, right?

sovereigngrace · Mar 20, 2020

DavidPT said:
It's anyones guess as to which verses in those 2 chapters you are meaning. Hopefully you are not making the same mistake that is typical of most Preterists, and apply Zechariah 12:3-9 to that of what happened in 70 AD. Clearly the Romans came against Jerusalem and that the unbelieving Jews were the ones who lost their lives in great numbers, thus they were the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time. Yet Zechariah 12:8 says---In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem---undeniably proving that what happened in 70 AD could not possibly be meant here. But who cares about all these minor details such as this, that undeniably prove something wrong, right?

It is important that we let the text speak for itself, not speak on its behalf in order to support false doctrine.

claninja · Mar 21, 2020

Andrewn said:
Even if I agree about this, what would you do w/ Zech 12:3-9?

I believe zechariah 12:2 is regards to literal sieges faced by Jerusalem. I believe zechariah 12:3-9 points to the new covenant under Christ, which is the result of Christ being crucified and "pierced". However, I have not studied these verses enough to provide NT support to this. Thus, this would be my personal opinion, for right now at least.

Andrewn said:
Christians mourn for the Lord as they contemplate his cross.

While that certainly can be an application, it wouldn't be a fulfillment/completion of a prophecy.

Andrewn said:
Jewish clans will mourn for him at his second coming.

I believe it fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. All prophecies of vengeance against Jerusalem were fulfilled/found their completion in 66-70ad as specifically stated by scripture:

Luke 21:22 For these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

Andrewn said:
I've read different interpretations for this, some in this thread. But the way I look at this verse is different. To me it's like after the Lord had made a long speech covering to the end of times, he came back a full circle to directly address his hearers.

While that is one possibility, and a good one I might add, it still doesn't make sense to say "this generation will not pass away until ALL these things occur" after including the sign of the son of man coming on the clouds.

I still hold that the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad was a "coming of Christ" in judgment upon Israel. While the "coming of Christ" to judge the living and the dead applies to all generations past and future.

Andrewn said:
You convinced me that it's not completely future. It looks like what I initially said about Zec 12:10 applies to the whole passage Zec 12:10-14. Continuous fulfillment started in 30 AD and will culminate in the 2nd coming.

I slightly disagree. I see the fulfillment of "they will look on him whom they pierced" as fulfilled/completed at Christ's crucifixion (john 19:37). I see the fulfillment of the tribes of the land will mourn at Jerusalem's destruction in 66-70ad (Matthew 24:30a).

I don't believe future generations of Jews are responsible for all the righteous blood shed, only the generation attributed by Christ. Thus they are the ones who mourned at their destruction, in fulfillment of scripture as a result of crucifying Christ.

Matthew 23:35-36 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Luke 19:43-44 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will barricade you and surround you and hem you in on every side. They will level you to the ground—you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.

Matthew 22:5-7 But they paid no attention and went away, one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.7The king was enraged, and he sent his troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city.

Matthew 21:38-40 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they seized him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard returns, what will he do to those tenants?”

Andrewn said:
We have more in common than with Dispensationalists who seem to be ignorant of history and of God's plan of salvation.

Indeed Brother

Andrewn · Mar 21, 2020

claninja said:
I believe zechariah 12:2 is regards to literal sieges faced by Jerusalem. I believe zechariah 12:3-9 points to the new covenant under Christ, which is the result of Christ being crucified and "pierced". However, I have not studied these verses enough to provide NT support to this. Thus, this would be my personal opinion, for right now at least.

My position is in agreement with the concept of near/far fulfillment of prophecy explained in:

The Near/Far Phenomenon in Bible Prophecy

Prophecy may be fulfilled gradually and over a long period of time. I don't think we can put a check mark beside prophecies that have been fulfilled and look forward to the ones that do not seem, in our interpretation, to have been fulfilled. Perhaps this sounds like a combination of the historicist and idealist views of revelation.

Both preterits and futurists engage in that "yes or no" approach to prophecy, when prophecy is actually "being" fulfilled. In this thread, Zechariah's prophecies that have been fulfilled were mentioned. But it's difficult to say that Zech 14 has been fulfilled or that Zech 12 & 13 have been completely fulfilled.

Mar 13:19 In those days there will be great suffering such as the world has never before seen and will never again see.

Was 66-70 AD the greatest disaster in history?

claninja said:
While that is one possibility, and a good one I might add, it still doesn't make sense to say "this generation will not pass away until ALL these things occur" after including the sign of the son of man coming on the clouds. I still hold that the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad was a "coming of Christ" in judgment upon Israel.

The way "ALL" is used in the NT is problematic to our scientific minds. But even in daily conversations we may say "all" when we mean "most" or "a majority" or "a large number." At least I do

.

claninja said:
I see the fulfillment of "they will look on him whom they pierced" as fulfilled/completed at Christ's crucifixion (john 19:37). I see the fulfillment of the tribes of the land will mourn at Jerusalem's destruction in 66-70ad (Matthew 24:30a).

Zec 12:10 says, "They will look to me, the one whom they pierced; they will mourn over him" Did the Jews in 66-70 AD mourn specifically over Jesus or mourn over themselves and their disaster?

claninja said:
I don't believe future generations of Jews are responsible for all the righteous blood shed, only the generation attributed by Christ. Thus they are the ones who mourned at their destruction, in fulfillment of scripture as a result of crucifying Christ.

Why was Jesus' generation responsible for the blood of prophets from Abel to Zechariah? How do you interpret Zec 14? How do you interpret Rev 20:7-9?

Rev 20:7 Now when the thousand years are finished, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to bring them together for the battle. They are as numerous as the grains of sand in the sea. 9 They went up on the broad plain of the earth and encircled the campof the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and devoured them completely.

DavidPT · Mar 21, 2020

Andrewn said:
Zec 12:10 says, "They will look to me, the one whom they pierced; they will mourn over him" Did the Jews in 66-70 AD mourn specifically over Jesus or mourn over themselves and their disaster?

This is what destroys a 70 AD interpretation of those verses. The verses that follow in that chapter are meaning the same reason for the mourning in verse 10.

IOW----

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn(meaning all the tribes of the earth, apparently), every family apart(shall mourn for him); the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart(shall mourn for him); the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart(shall mourn for him);
13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart(shall mourn for him); the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart(shall mourn for him);
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart(shall mourn for him).

Obviously a destroyed city can't be what the mourning is all about. Plus we have to factor in Matthew 24:30 if any of that mourning is involving any of this mourning in Zechariah 12.

DavidPT · Mar 21, 2020

claninja said:
While that is one possibility, and a good one I might add, it still doesn't make sense to say "this generation will not pass away until ALL these things occur" after including the sign of the son of man coming on the clouds.

I'm probably wasting my time here since it's possible that you apply events in 2 Peter 3 to that of the first century, thus everything in that chapter is fulfilled. But in the event you don't, consider the following.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Heaven and earth shall pass away----in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night----But of that day and hour knoweth no man

Obviously, these are referring to the same events. All one needs to do is get the timing of 2 Peter 3:10 correct, in order to get the timing of Matthew 24:35-36 correct. That of course presents a major problem if one can't even get the timing of 2 Peter 3:10 correct.

A basic flaw in Partial Preterist interpretation

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads