Full Preterists - Mt 24:21

[parousia70]

I had already stated what "soon" is: - When mans time is at 6 days = 6,000 years.

I remember your musings about this 6000 years = 6 days thing, but am unclear as to where the Bible teaches it to you, or what it has to do with "soon".

Do I know what the "true date" is today? Nope. But since you have this thing about forcing me to give some date , assuming to make me a "date setter" to "accuse" me with: I'll GUESS it to be less than 100 years.

Contrary to your assertion, I have no interest in accusing you of "date setting". I am merely interested in how you arrive at the length of time you understand "Soon" to encompass, and what you know that the apostles didn't.

All of the apostles believed and taught that the Lords return was "Soon" to them, so, you believe either that they were wrong, since "soon" to you has an outside limit of 100 years, or you have some good reason to interprate "Soon" entirely different from the apostles.

Which is it?

Also, remember my line of questioning was derrived from this previous comment of yours:

"You will be forced into the wilderness "Soon" bro....."

I took this as a sure and certain warning from you about something you had absolute confidence in the fact that it would happen TO ME.

Now you are telling me soon might be 100 years away?

I'm 38, so any forcing into the wilderness that takes place 100 years from now I will have no part in as I will have already shed this earthly tent.

As I suspected, you really aren't sure at all if I will be forced out in the wilderness soon or not.

In the future, I'd ask you refrain from speaking in such absolutes about things you admittedly have no certain knowledge of.

It only damages your credibility to our readers.

 

[GodsWatchman]

I remember your musings about this 6000 years = 6 days thing, but am unclear as to where the Bible teaches it to you, or what it has to do with "soon".

I believe I explained it quite clear and concise. You have "choosen" not to accept this.

Contrary to your assertion, I have no interest in accusing you of "date setting". I am merely interested in how you arrive at the length of time you understand "Soon" to encompass, and what you know that the apostles didn't.

Ok - my bad.

All of the apostles believed and taught that the Lords return was "Soon" to them, so, you believe either that they were wrong, since "soon" to you has an outside limit of 100 years, or you have some good reason to interprate "Soon" entirely different from the apostles.

Which is it?

There is a third and fourth choice you left out.
3) Just because the Lord came doesn't mean He won't come again.
4) You only understand partially what the apostles have taught.

Also, remember my line of questioning was derrived from this previous comment of yours:

"You will be forced into the wilderness "Soon" bro....."

I took this as a sure and certain warning from you about something you had absolute confidence in the fact that it would happen TO ME.

Now you are telling me soon might be 100 years away?

I'm 38, so any forcing into the wilderness that takes place 100 years from now I will have no part in as I will have already shed this earthly tent.

As I suspected, you really aren't sure at all if I will be forced out in the wilderness soon or not.

Point well taken - and I "repent" of that. My drive is in my optimism. Those things that I "see" in the Word I believe are revelations from the Lord to me. And I am not alone in my eye-sight either. There are a number of us out there that are beggining to understand a great deal more of the Word of God than that which is currently taught. I believe alot of the 'Spiritual' interpretations taught by the preterists are true. However, I believe you all have stifled the Word of God by claiming to Know it.

Re 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

By virture of the fact that the full preterist claims the book is open and done, he must know all these things - and condemns himself on that front.

Da 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Only when the seals are loosed can we know the full Word of God. I don't know the Word of God, only He does.

 

[stauron]

I believe I explained it quite clear and concise. You have "choosen" not to accept this.

Well the rest of us don't, regardless of your belief. Can you explain it slowly and with one syllable words for me? I don't see how your previous posts convey anything meaningful about the way "soon" is used. Especially since you violate this yourself. Just in case your are unsure, the best way to help me out would be to say "soon means <<insert a definition>> and a verse from the Word where it is used this way is <<insert verse here>>". I am pretty sure I will get it, and I know the other boys [and girls (CM] are smarter than me.

There is a third and fourth choice you left out.
3) Just because the Lord came doesn't mean He won't come again.
4) You only understand partially what the apostles have taught.

So, the apostles believed and taught the same thing you are? Can you show us the places where the apostles taught us to look for things the way you are? So far you have been taking "hints" from obscure verses and trying to connect them out of context based on your experience. So even if both of your options are true, you need to supply the evidence, which is of course the whole purpose for the rest of us laboring here...

Point well taken - and I "repent" of that. My drive is in my optimism. Those things that I "see" in the Word I believe are revelations from the Lord to me. And I am not alone in my eye-sight either. There are a number of us out there that are beggining to understand a great deal more of the Word of God than that which is currently taught. I believe alot of the 'Spiritual' interpretations taught by the preterists are true. However, I believe you all have stifled the Word of God by claiming to Know it.

Re 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

By virture of the fact that the full preterist claims the book is open and done, he must know all these things - and condemns himself on that front.

Why are we ever going to know this name? There is nothing in the verse to indicate that. God has secret knowledge that we never get (Deut 29:29) but what he has revealed is to be understood. This is tortured exegesis. You are commiting several logical and exegetical fallacies. Without the context that you claim to have been divinely given, there is no way to get this.

Da 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Only when the seals are loosed can we know the full Word of God. I don't know the Word of God, only He does.

Please, OH PLEASE, read my post from 24th January 2004 08:02 AM and answer it. What is the purpose of context? Why are you ignoring this? John certainly had Daniel 12 in mind when he was writing Rev 22:10.

22:10 Then he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy contained in this book, because the time is near.

According to your scheme, we would never be able to prove a false prophet. If these time frames and fulfillments are as elastic as you claim, then every false prophet could just say "that was part of it, but wait 100 years and then you'll see". This is ludicrous.

 

[Justme]

Hi Parousia70 and G/watch,

It is, of course, your soap and your water, but what origonally started this off was:

Scripture cements the parousia to the 1st century.

Just thought I'd mention it in case.....

Justme

 

[parousia70]

Hi Parousia70 and G/watch,

It is, of course, your soap and your water, but what origonally started this off was:
Scripture cements the parousia to the 1st century.


Just thought I'd mention it in case.....

Justme

Thanks Justme!

I of course was responding to G/Watchmans following comment:

That Parousia has *not* happened as you claim. What has happened is - erchomai in us. Parousia is his coming in personage.

I just did a study on that word - after reading from a 'pret' sight and caught them mixing the two words together. The site I read from was claiming

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

...is the Parousia. No- it is not. That is the erchomai in us. That is Christ in US.

That is interesting. Lets test it shall we G/Watch?

Based on the above, you must also feel Revelation 1:7 is not the Parousia but Christ in us?

Behold, he come [erchomai] th with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

And neither is this the Parousia, but Christ in us?

Behold, I come [erchomai] as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)

Please explain how the above verses are not describing the parousia of Christ?

The Bible does not teach that Christ comes as a thief multiple times, you apparantly need it to, but it dosen't.
Simply put, the thief's coming is the "day of the Lord", and the day of the lord int he NT is the parousia of Christ. (2Peter 3:10, cf. Revelation 16:15, 3:3, Matt 24:43, Luke 12:39)

And in Revelation 3:3, Christ directly applies His coming as a thief to the first century Church at Sardis, thus CEMENTING the Day of the Lord coming as a thief, the PAROUSIA OF CHRIST, to the 1st century.

Jesus must be right and therefore futurism must be wrong concerning the timing of the parousia.

 

[GodsWatchman]

According to your scheme, we would never be able to prove a false prophet. If these time frames and fulfillments are as elastic as you claim, then every false prophet could just say "that was part of it, but wait 100 years and then you'll see". This is ludicrous.

Things that Nero did?
Re 13:13 "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men"??

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Really?

And I scoured the preteristarchive for the 'mark'. The explanation appears to be 'missing' from there. Why is that? What is "the mark"? What does it mean to have the mark "on the right hand" or "in the forehead"? I know what it means from the Word - but what do you say it means?

I also cannot find an explanation to this:
Re 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

I did, however, upon further searching the preteristarchive, find this stumbling block:
Furthermore, Jesus "must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death" (1 Cor. 15:25-26). At that time "he shall wipe away every tear from [the believer's] eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more" (Rev. 21:4). Realized eschatologists would have us believe that all of these things were accomplished in ad 70. Again, however, their focus is too narrow. The curse of physical death and corruption came not only upon the human race but also upon all creation. The ground itself was cursed (Gen. 3:17; see Gen. 4:11; 8:21); therefore, the whole creation yearns for its deliverance from the curse (Rom. 8:18-23) and to be free from the defilement of sin. Only then can there be "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13; see Isa. 65:17-25; 66:22-24; Rev. 21:1). Only then "there shall be no curse any more" (Rev. 22:3) because "death and hades" will have been "cast into the lake of fire" with the devil and his angels (Rev. 20:14).

I am ferverishly studying your "theology" - or as stauron might say - I'm studying your exegesis, hermeneutics, eschatology Redaction Criticism & Diachronic Analysis - Wow - 'dem sum $100.00 words there 'eh?

 

[parousia70]

What does it mean to have the mark "on the right hand" or "in the forehead"? I know what it means from the Word - but what do you say it means?

I'd say it means the same thing it means here:

And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.(Ex 13:9)

and also here:

And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. (Deu.6:8)

and also here:

Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. (Deu. 11:18)

Wouldn't you?

Being "Marked" on the hand and forehead is nothing new in the Bible, and the nature of such "marks" is easily discerned by comparing all previous "hand and forehead markings" found in scripture.

The curse of physical death and corruption came not only upon the human race but also upon all creation. The ground itself was cursed (Gen. 3:17; see Gen. 4:11; 8:21); therefore, the whole creation yearns for its deliverance from the curse

Interesting you cite Genesis 8:21 as a proof text for your assertion that the ground is currently cursed by God.

I read exactly the opposite where it says:
"I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake"

God clearly lifts this curse in 8:21, saying "NOT AGAIN will I curse the ground ANY MORE"

G/Watch, now that you have said that soon = no more than 100 years, perhaps you could tell us how long you think "NOT AGAIN ANYMORE" is?

 

[stauron]

I am ferverishly studying your "theology" - or as stauron might say - I'm studying your exegesis, hermeneutics, eschatology Redaction Criticism & Diachronic Analysis - Wow - 'dem sum $100.00 words there 'eh?

Very funny epithet. I'm laughing; no, really, you crack me up.

Can you maybe just answer some of the questions? There are answers to all the concerns you raise, but we haven't even got off the blocks yet and you want to change the track.

P70 is trying to narrow your reasoning down about "soon". I have asked several times for an explanation about context. All the rabbit trails can be traced and answered, but we need to establish some common ground before we can actually communicate.

So far it seems that your hermeneutic is random verses threaded together by some ecstatic experience you have had. Each time you bring up a verse, P70 and I bring up the context that refutes or mitigates your point and you put us in our place by changing the subject.

Normally a debate/discussion is where we each take turns discussing the main subject, bringing arguments and proof to back up our point.

As an example you say

What is "the mark"? What does it mean to have the mark "on the right hand" or "in the forehead"? I know what it means from the Word - but what do you say it means?

And then I say, it is the same kind of mark as this:

14:1 Then I looked, and here was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him were one hundred and forty-four thousand, who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

So we see that in context the mark was ownership and allegiance. Do you think that the 144,000 have something scribed in their flesh between the eyebrows? This is the literal at all cost hermeneutic. Not the biblical one.

My point again is that we do not agree on the principles we use for evidence from scripture so we will endlessly quote back and forth to no effect.

Let's step back and look at a few basic things. Like definitions and what the rules of context are. You are welcome to bring up some too, but you need to support them.

 

[GodsWatchman]

Interesting you cite Genesis 8:21 as a proof text for your assertion that the ground is currently cursed by God.

I read exactly the opposite where it says:
"I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake"

God clearly lifts this curse in 8:21, saying "NOT AGAIN will I curse the ground ANY MORE"

Not my writing - as I stated - I "snagged" that chunk of text from the preteristarchive. However, I will say that the word for 'curse' here is
qalal kaw-lal'
Where as the 'curse' put on the ground in Gen 3:17 is 'arar aw-rar'. So let us just say the gentleman that wrote that should remove the reference to 8:21 (Flood) and the rest Stands for what it is.

 

[parousia70]

Not my writing - as I stated - I "snagged" that chunk of text from the preteristarchive.

preteristarchive is an excellent cite, filled not only with pro-preterist commentaries, but also, evidenced by the quote you "snagged", an equal amount of commentaries critical of the preterist view.

preteristarchive is probably the most fair and balanced overview of preterism available anywhere.

I know you certainly won't find ANY pro preterist commentaries on ANY anti preterist site, but we preterists have no fear of publishing any and all critical articles side by side with those in support of our view, letting the reader decide.

I merely assumed you were in agreement with that fella since it appeared you "snagged" it because it supported your caviat with preterism.

Now I am unclear why you snagged it all. What point were you trying to convey by pasting that anti preterist passage if not to display your agreement?

The person you quoted certainly dosen't speak for preterists or preterism.


BTW, I know we are all looking forward to your response to our comments about the nature of being "marked" on the hand and/or forehead in scripture.

Ohhhh.. and BBTW, I eagerly await your reply regarding my post on your definition of come [erchomai] !

 

[GodsWatchman]

BTW, I know we are all looking forward to your response to our comments about the nature of being "marked" on the hand and/or forehead in scripture.

Not much to say. I concur with on this. The Word is quite clear about the mark ..for a comparison example see the opposite of Rev 13:16 = Exodus
13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.

I am working on a decent reply to some of your many many questions - I don't have that neat "dish" to dig from as you do - I have to research and pray for my answers. In reference to the orginal question, however, I ask you for an example of an "idiom" that we use today in English. Perhaps you could give me any two such "idioms" that we use today.

 

[GodsWatchman]

Based on the above, you must also feel Revelation 1:7 is not the Parousia but Christ in us?

Behold, he come [erchomai] th with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

And neither is this the Parousia, but Christ in us?

Behold, I come [erchomai] as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)

Please explain how the above verses are not describing the parousia of Christ?

The Bible does not teach that Christ comes as a thief multiple times, you apparantly need it to, but it dosen't.
Simply put, the thief's coming is the "day of the Lord", and the day of the lord int he NT is the parousia of Christ. (2Peter 3:10, cf. Revelation 16:15, 3:3, Matt 24:43, Luke 12:39)

And in Revelation 3:3, Christ directly applies His coming as a thief to the first century Church at Sardis, thus CEMENTING the Day of the Lord coming as a thief, the PAROUSIA OF CHRIST, to the 1st century.

Jesus must be right and therefore futurism must be wrong concerning the timing of the parousia.

The word 'erchomai' is a very very common base word used widely throughout the NT/Greek in many different contexts.

to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively):--accompany, appear, bring, come, enter, fall out, go, grow, X light, X next, pass, resort, be set.

Rev 1:7 is clear to what it is - Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (BTW - Clouds are defined as the "cloud of witnesses" Heb 12:1). Yes, in this reference it is used of his 'Physical' return, but due to its totally wide use it is not exclusive (akin to words such as "in" "on" "upon" ect). In view of the word 'Parousia' though, I had found that that preterist website was using the word 'Parousia' and then using the reference of "coming" which was from the greek word 'erchomai' and IMPLYING that all references to "coming" were = the Parousia. To wit - I totally disagree. The Parousia is Physical and visible::

Mt 24:3
Mt 24:27
Mt 24:37
Mt 24:39
1Co 15:23
1Co 16:17
2Co 7:6
2Co 7:7
2Co 10:10
Php 1:26
Php 2:12
1Th 2:19
1Th 3:13
1Th 4:15
1Th 5:23
2Th 2:1
2Th 2:8
2Th 2:9
Jas 5:7
Jas 5:8
2Pe 1:16
2Pe 3:4
2Pe 3:12
1Jo 2:28

The Bible does not teach that Christ comes as a thief multiple times, you apparantly need it to, but it dosen't.
Simply put, the thief's coming is the "day of the Lord", and the day of the lord int he NT is the parousia of Christ. (2Peter 3:10, cf. Revelation 16:15, 3:3, Matt 24:43, Luke 12:39)

Sure it does - you aren't listening. Once He comes IN US ..then He comes FOR US. (The word 'Parousia' always means FOR US).

 

[parousia70]

In reference to the orginal question, however, I ask you for an example of an "idiom" that we use today in English. Perhaps you could give me any two such "idioms" that we use today.

Any Idiom?

Only two?

1) My Grandpa kicked the bucket last year.

2) I'm keeping tabs on you.

 

[parousia70]

The word 'erchomai' is a very very common base word used widely throughout the NT/Greek in many different contexts.

Agreed

I had found that that preterist website was using the word 'Parousia' and then using the reference of "coming" which was from the greek word 'erchomai' and IMPLYING that all references to "coming" were = the Parousia. To wit - I totally disagree.

I'd sure like to see that page. Can you link it?

I agree with you that not all references to coming = parousia, but as you agree with me, many instances of erchomai do indeed refer to the parousia, including the one you previously mentioned, Matt 16:28, which you are attempting to divorce from 16:27. Scripture however, dosen't allow for your extraction of 16:28 from the context of 16:27.

16:27 is the parousia, and so is 16:28

The Parousia is Physical and visible::

Purely your presupposition. none of the verses you cite prove physicality or opticality.

Sure it does - you aren't listening. Once He comes IN US ..then He comes FOR US. (The word 'Parousia' always means FOR US).

It's you who aren't listening. I'll restate this fact.
The Bible does not teach that Christ comes AS A THIEF multiple times.
You need it to, but it does not.

There is only one coming of Christ AS A THIEF prophesied in scripture, and Christ Himself applies that one and only coming AS A THIEF to first century peoples.

Christ must be right, and futurism must be wrong concerning the timing of the thiefs coming, the Day of the Lord, the Parousia.

 

[GodsWatchman]

Any Idiom?

Only two?

1) My Grandpa kicked the bucket last year.

2) I'm keeping tabs on you.

Ok - Would we ever say

My Grandpa punted the barrel last year?
or
The bucket was hurled by my Grandpa last year?

How about:
My tabs are being stored on you.
or
You have tabs stored by me on you.

Would you find that to be normal of an Idomatic expression? Do we not maintain the normal expression in a finite set of words in a fixed manner?

 

[parousia70]

Ok - Would we ever say

My Grandpa punted the barrel last year?
or
The bucket was hurled by my Grandpa last year?

How about_:
My tabs are being stored on you.
or
You have tabs stored by me on you.

Would you find that to be normal of an Idomatic expression? Do we not maintain the normal expression in a finite set of words in a fixed manner?

My grandpa Kicked it, kicked over, kicked off, kicked.

In the proper context, I would understand those as synonymous with "Kicked the bucket", even though they are not the same "finite set of words in a fixed manner".

So, no, I'd say there is room for mere similarity in idioms. The need for exactitude of detail does not exist as you suggest.

 

[stauron]

My grandpa Kicked it, kicked over, kicked off, kicked.

In the proper context, I would understand those as synonymous with "Kicked the bucket", even though they are not the same "finite set of words in a fixed manner".

So, no, I'd say there is room for mere similarity in idioms. The need for exactitude of detail does not exist as you suggest.

The beauty of idiom and similar forms of expression (metaphor, double entendre, et al) is that they relate and cause you to think about the substance (deeper meaning) in a new way. Caird's "The Language and Imagery of the Bible" goes into great depth to show the way language is alive and active. This also highlights the richness of language because many different idioms may mean the same thing and one idiom may be used in many ways, depending on the context.

As it is used it changes, it gets corrupted and manipulated. So it drives us to context more and more for true understanding.

This is especially true of biblical Language and other older languages. The tendancy is to go from complex to simple. Idiomatic language might be considered a 'short-hand' for a more sophisticated idea that becomes common.

Basically we need to examine the passage, chapter, book and all the books to understand the words and phrases in the context or they will be non-sensical "sound bites" that can prove anything anyone wants.

 

[roadie432002]

a good site to see the truth about preterism is www.conservativeonline.org/articles/preterism.

 

[stauron]

a good site to see the truth about preterism is www.conservativeonline.org/articles/preterism.

NO, a good site to see the truth about futurism is http://www.preteristarchive.com/

No wait a minute...a site that has a half-dozen articles critical of preterism and with an obvious bias towards the literal at all cost hermeneutic started by that scottish lass a couple of hundred years ago is where you go to find out about preterism? That is a joke right?

Their articles are certainly not in the form of honest discussion. at least at preterist archive they are willing to take everyone's views.

The one point that is valid is that they bring up hermeneutics. Of course they are so far off the mark that it is laughable... the allegorical hermeneutic has a much better witness in church history than dispensational futurism does. And it is a trumped up charge any way. Even recent president of Dallas Theological Seminary S. Lewis Johnson admited that the literal hermeneutic left much to be desired. And preterism doesn't adhere monolithically to allegory.

Since they [the apostles] are reliable teachers of biblical doctrine, they are also reliable teachers of hermeneutical and exegetical procedures. It is just this that is lacking in so much of our biblical interpretation today. Failing to examine the methodology of the scriptural writers carefully, and following too abjectly and woodenly the limited rules and principles of human reason’s presuppositions, we have stumbled and lost our landmarks along the pathway toward the understanding of Holy Scripture. Scriptura sui ipsius interpres [Scripture is its own interpreter] is the fundamental principle of biblical interpretation. The analogy of faith pertains to both doctrine and exegesis. (The Old Testament in the New, p. 83)

 

[GodsWatchman]

Mt 24:21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.

Today - I'm a bit tired. I read from my fellow 'futurists' sites and find flaws in flesh reading...as well as the preterists flaws in flesh reading.

The fact of the matter is that BOTH are right and BOTH are wrong. The futurists ignore the "fullfillments" layed out in the NT for Jerusalem at 70AD. The Preterists are much much worse in that they have turned the Bible into a history book and ignore the fact that the fullments of those prophecies in the NT are for the LITERAL ISRAEL only -

The prophecies MUST be fullfilled for * ALL ISRAEL * - Today *WE* the church are Israel. Paul makes this very clear. And that all those things (including the NT) are written as types and shadows for what will befall us in the end days.

Another "Idiom" I suppose?
Lu 21:34 But take heed to yourselves, lest haply your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you suddenly as a snare: for so shall it come upon all them that dwell on the face of all the earth.

The ONLY way that Gods Word can be satisfied is for BOTH the preterists to be right AND the futurists to be right. I tell you this - The futurists are only guilty of missing the 'types and shadows' laid out for them in the NT for our end of days which is upon us, but the Preterists are guilty of much worse because they have (at least from what I've read on preteristarchive.com) denied the power of God and destroyed His gifts, claiming that the gifts of God were "for them only" and not for us. Furthermore, being that things were written "for them only" allows the preterist to "pick and choose" what things he can apply to his Christian walk. After all, that 'LETTER' was just something written to 'Timothy' or 'The Church of Sardis' or 'The Corinthians' and isn't %100 applicable to us. For this reason I say you preterists fit the realm of this and I'm beginning to wonder how much the full preterist mindset was 'foreseen' by our Father in Heaven:

2 Peter 3*Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4*And saying, Where is the promise of his coming (since He came already)? for since the fathers (Apostles) fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

There are just TOO MANY solid facts that the preterist has to "pole vault" over to get kill a future 'Day of the Lord' - Too many. Preterists: Listen - you are right in the LITERAL ISRAEL fullfillments - but you MUST see the needed spiritual fullfillment to complete those things that are written. You cannot hurdle over Luke 21:34 & Mat 24:21 - those things are very very plain. For me - you cannot accuse of me because I accept those things you've said, with exclusion to your cessation of gifts and blindness to the 6DAys of man = 6,000 years (type and shadow - very clear and very obvious).