How I came to embrace Preterism.

[Bananna]

Agree. All prophecies concerning the "second coming" of Christ and the "time of the end" have been fulfilled. But the ones like Is 9:7 that concern the eternal state of the kingdom continue to be fulfilled throughout the eons.

Can you think of another scripture that has a continuing fulfillment besides that one in Isaiah? Is there anything else yet to be fulfilled besides the continued growth of the eternal kingdom within the hearts of men?

There are tons of unfulfilled by Jesus prophesies. But one is good enough for me.
Most of Revelation qualifies for me though. Hebrews says the feast of Sukkot will be held forever. Sabbaths will be kept forever etc...
bananna

 

[Hidden Manna]

I'm still not clear. Why do you call yourself a "partial" preterist? Do you believe Jesus returned in 70AD after being gone for 40 years? Do you believe the book of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel etc have been fulfilled?

Has the resurrection of the dead happened?
Has the kingdom been established?
Has Jesus cast Satan into the Lake of Fire?
Are we living in the new heaven and new earth spoken about in Revelation?

You know....all the stuff that prets believe. Do you believe it?

I think I understand what you're getting at.

You are leaving the possibility open that Jesus COULD do a myriad of other things in OUR future that the bible doesn't foretell and that those things could be considered "comings" of Jesus. RIght?

If that is what you're saying....I agree.

But I don't really consider that a partial preterist. I consider it a full preterist who won't put God in a box

I agree with this, and would consider a conbination of a Full Preterist-Ideaist view, Like Christ coming is ongoing everytime he comes to live in a new believer's heart. Also history has a way of repeating it's and that could be the reason why every generation has thought that they were in the end times.

I also think God can or will do things now that were never written in scripture. His word cannot be chained as people think canonization has done.

2 Timothy 2:9
for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, [even] to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained.

 

[Hidden Manna]

Hay HM.

Couple questions:
Why the disclaimer?
Why would you say Christ has only come in many ways "after" AD70?

As Bananna pointed out, Christ appeared as a man prior to the incarnation and also appeared to Paul and Stephen prior to AD70.
I'm curious why you would say these were not "comings of Christ"?

Secondly, and this is just my personal bent, I don't subscribe to the notion that all scripture was completely and totally fulfilled at AD70 and will never realize any greater level of fulfillment. You may, but I suspect when pressed, you'd agree with me that there are certain scriptures that, by their very nature, are in a permament state of being fulfilled in an ongioing fashion, and will never reach "complete fulfillment".

For Example:
Isaiah 9:7
"of the Increase of His government and of His peace there shall be no end"

Was that scripture completely fulfilled in AD70, or is it continuing to be fulfilled today, and indeed will be fulfilled in a far greater scope in our future?

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, and simply arguing semantics, but I've found that being clear in affirming it was "all Biblical ESCHATOLOGY" that was fulfilled in AD70 and not "all scripture", better articulates the preterist position to those who question it, and takes away a common objection before it can be raised.

Agree?
Disagree?

I agree for the most of it, however when it comes to the Lords coming in scripture most would agree that it is referring to what Matt. 24 and Luke 21 have in mind when Jesus said He would come in the glory of the Father.

You are right that Jesus did come before AD70, it all started on the third day after His death when He rose from the dead. However that was not like in the glory of the Father was as a spiritual event.

On of the strongsest points of Jesus ongoing coming for today or post AD70 is that Jesus is glorified in the saints because He still abides in those who are born of the Spirit.

2 Thess 1:10
when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

 

[parousia70]

I'm still not clear. Why do you call yourself a "partial" preterist? Do you believe Jesus returned in 70AD after being gone for 40 years? Do you believe the book of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel etc have been fulfilled?

I believe all Biblical eschatology has been fulfilled, yet, as a Catholic, I believe Creedal Eschatology points to a future consumation not fortold in scripture. The time, mechanics and nature of which are unknown to man, so I make no claim know ANY specifics about it.

Has the resurrection of the dead happened?
Has the kingdom been established?
Has Jesus cast Satan into the Lake of Fire?
Are we living in the new heaven and new earth spoken about in Revelation?

You know....all the stuff that prets believe. Do you believe it?

I believe the dead are raised in Christ.
That Physically dead Christians are now raised into heavenly places with Him.
This is not something they are waiting for.

I believe the Kingdom is currently being established.

I believe Satan is in the Lake of Fire, but I do not believe that him being there inhibits his ability to decieve the non-elect. Only the elect have victory over his powers of deciet. The non-elect will NEVER share that victory.

I believe the New H&E spoken of in in Isaiah & Revelation is the current age.

You are leaving the possibility open that Jesus COULD do a myriad of other things in OUR future that the bible doesn't foretell and that those things could be considered "comings" of Jesus. RIght?

History indicates to me that the probability of such is High.
Christ is not a passive observer of His kingdom.
He is actively involved in it's outgrowth.

If that is what you're saying....I agree.

But I don't really consider that a partial preterist. I consider it a full preterist who won't put God in a box

I once was a Full preterist, however with my conversion to Catholicism, I chose to abandon that view in favor of very strong partial preterism.

Since I could not find any scripture that taught that 70AD was the end all / be all of Christ's comings, I had no concrete scriptural rebuttal for the creedal eschatological proclaimation of "He will come again", therefore, I found that choosing to accept the notion of a future to us coming in no way excludes acceptance of Christ's coming in 70AD as the fulfillment of scriptural eschatology.

Suprisingly enough, this is a very standard, generic Catholic Eschatological view Championed by Catholic thelogins such as Scott Hahan and James Akin.

So, in short,
I'm a "Biblical Preterist-Creedal Futurist".

 

[EchoPneuma]

I believe all Biblical eschatology has been fulfilled, yet, as a Catholic, I believe Creedal Eschatology points to a future consumation not fortold in scripture. The time, mechanics and nature of which are unknown to man, so I make no claim know ANY specifics about it.

Ah, I understand....as a Catholic you adhere to the creeds of the church. I gotcha.

I believe the dead are raised in Christ.
That Physically dead Christians are now raised into heavenly places with Him.
This is not something they are waiting for.

I'm in total agreement. I also believe the dead in Christ were raised in 70AD....the "dead in Christ" being the OT saints who were waiting in sheol for the Messiah to pay for their sins and usher them into the presence of God the Father. They were raised then also. Do you agree?

I believe the Kingdom is currently being established.

I believe it is already established and continually grows throughout the eons. Semantics.....

I believe Satan is in the Lake of Fire, but I do not believe that him being there inhibits his ability to decieve the non-elect. Only the elect have victory over his powers of deciet. The non-elect will NEVER share that victory.

Question. If Satan is in the LOF....how can he still have the ability to impact men? How does it work according to your understanding?

I believe the New H&E spoken of in in Isaiah & Revelation is the current age.

I agree. We are living in the New Heaven and New Earth of the everlasting covenant of grace.

History indicates to me that the probability of such is High.
Christ is not a passive observer of His kingdom.
He is actively involved in it's outgrowth.

True. I also believe Jesus will continue to be an active participant in the affairs of men as long as we exist.

I once was a Full preterist, however with my conversion to Catholicism, I chose to abandon that view in favor of very strong partial preterism.

I understand. I still consider what you believe to be full preterism however. But you can define yourself however you wish.....you have my permission

Since I could not find any scripture that taught that 70AD was the end all / be all of Christ's comings, I had no concrete scriptural rebuttal for the creedal eschatological proclaimation of "He will come again", therefore, I found that choosing to accept the notion of a future to us coming in no way excludes acceptance of Christ's coming in 70AD as the fulfillment of scriptural eschatology.

Couldn't your rebuttal have been that the scriptures never speak of another coming? In other words....once Jesus came back in 70AD.....He NEVER left again....He is with us always now.....so how could He "come" again when He has never left again? See what I mean?

Suprisingly enough, this is a very standard, generic Catholic Eschatological view Championed by Catholic thelogins such as Scott Hahan and James Akin.

Yes, I have heard of Scott Hahn. It's interesting that Catholics believe the partial preterist view.

So, in short,
I'm a "Biblical Preterist-Creedal Futurist".

Good label I myself am a Preterbapticostalfundamentalist.

 

[Hidden Manna]

Sounds like a Pretersmorgistboardist to me.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Sounds like a Pretersmorgistboardist to me.

Praise God and pass the gefiltefish

 

[parousia70]

I'm in total agreement. I also believe the dead in Christ were raised in 70AD....the "dead in Christ" being the OT saints who were waiting in sheol for the Messiah to pay for their sins and usher them into the presence of God the Father. They were raised then also. Do you agree?

I believe Hades was emptied in the apostolic generation.
I am not dogmatic about whether some left with Christ when he went there at His death, and some left at 70AD and some in-between, or they all left at 70.... but I do not believe it is a place for the dead anymore....

I believe it is already established and continually grows throughout the eons. Semantics.....

Agreed... I believe Christ established His kingdom during His earthly ministry, and it continues to be established by His body, the Church.

Question. If Satan is in the LOF....how can he still have the ability to impact men? How does it work according to your understanding?

Well, since the non-elect will never share in Christ's victory over the influence of Satan, there is no "location" that Satan can be which would, in effect, shelter the non-elect from his influence.

Does that make sense?

I understand. I still consider what you believe to be full preterism however. But you can define yourself however you wish.....you have my permission

You are not alone.
Many people here have refused to accept my personal rejection of full preterism.

Couldn't your rebuttal have been that the scriptures never speak of another coming? In other words....once Jesus came back in 70AD.....He NEVER left again....He is with us always now.....so how could He "come" again when He has never left again? See what I mean?

Well, since the doctrine of the Coming of Christ finds as it's background, the many OT comings of Yahweh, and since Revelation 14 shows the 70AD coming as an event that occoured in the heavenly realm, that Christ's words and actions in the heavenly realm resulted in various tribulation disasters upon earth, I don't see how Christ's comings can be limited to such a linear fashion, namely that He was absent, and now present. Rather, I see the testimony supporting the notion that "comings" are always depicted as the heavenly actions of a very earthly present God, and as such, are not dependant on God/Jesus being in a specific location.

Yes, I have heard of Scott Hahn. It's interesting that Catholics believe the partial preterist view.

Well, most Catholics don't pay much attention to eschatology, they are very much in the "now", focused on kingdom building, stewardship and social justice, but the Catholics that do study eschatology come down very strongly on the preterist side.

Good label I myself am a Preterbapticostalfundamentalist.

It's all Greek to me..........

 

[parousia70]

I agree for the most of it, however when it comes to the Lords coming in scripture most would agree that it is referring to what Matt. 24 and Luke 21 have in mind when Jesus said He would come in the glory of the Father.

Agreed. Mostly. (see below)

You are right that Jesus did come before AD70, it all started on the third day after His death when He rose from the dead. However that was not like in the glory of the Father was as a spiritual event.

When He appeared to Paul on the Road to Damascus, He was certainly "in the fathers Glory" was He not?

Whe He appeared to Stephen at his stoning, He was also in the Fathers Glory, yes?

As I stated, I have come to believe these "comings" were in fulfilment of Acts 1:11, which fortold a different coming than the Olivet.

 

[gort]

I feel the urge to make a comment here, fellers. If you don't mind. thanx.

While you all are haggling over the correct definition of preterism, which entails just when it was the "2nd coming of Christ Jesus was", and how He did it, and how satan "has or has'nt got power from the Lake of Fire", and just exactly what is and is'nt included in the "fulfillment of all prophecy" and all the rest of the gobblty gook that is inherit with preterism, try not to point yer fingers at us futurists and say we are calling Jesus a false prophet and liar.

You all are'nt looking too good right now, seeing how there seems to be some disagreement amongst yourselves, having different interpretations and all.

btw, this is for edification purposes.

thanx

<><

 

[Hidden Manna]

Agreed. Mostly. (see below)



When He appeared to Paul on the Road to Damascus, He was certainly "in the fathers Glory" was He not?

Whe He appeared to Stephen at his stoning, He was also in the Fathers Glory, yes?

As I stated, I have come to believe these "comings" were in fulfilment of Acts 1:11, which fortold a different coming than the Olivet.

Yes I agree with you that Jesus did appear in the Father glory that being in the Spirit. The Olivet coming was a coming in judgment which is what I was referring to as His coming. Thanks for being that to my attention, I'm still learning the things that futurism had held me bound from knowing.

I may not be fine tuned as Daneel would expect but one thing I know for sure is that Jesus keeps His word and He did come within the first century as promised and not soon as in a very long time.

 

[parousia70]

You all are'nt looking too good right now, seeing how there seems to be some disagreement amongst yourselves, having different interpretations and all.

Could you please point me to a time when Futurists were in 100% agreement with one another about futurism??

If that is your criteria in determining the correctness of the view, Futurism has far more points of disagreement within it's ranks than does preterism. By a mile.

I mean, you've got your pre trib, mid trib, post trib, pre mil, amil, Dispy, mid acts dispy etc....etc......... makes the head spin as far as i'm concerned.

I think you're misconstruing our dialogue here.
We aren't in disagreement.
We all come at preterism from different backgrounds, and we are sharing how those backgrounds shape our understanding and learning from each other's different takes.

At least that's the way I see it.
Far more civil than 99% of the Dispy vs Covenant theology knock down drag outs I'v seen.

 

[EchoPneuma]

I believe Hades was emptied in the apostolic generation.
I am not dogmatic about whether some left with Christ when he went there at His death, and some left at 70AD and some in-between, or they all left at 70.... but I do not believe it is a place for the dead anymore....

I'm in total agreement. As to the exact mechanics of the resurrection I don't think anyone will know....but as to the WHEN, we agree. It was emptied by 70AD and then was cast into the LOF.

Agreed... I believe Christ established His kingdom during His earthly ministry, and it continues to be established by His body, the Church.

Like I said....I knew it was just semantics. We agree.

Well, since the non-elect will never share in Christ's victory over the influence of Satan, there is no "location" that Satan can be which would, in effect, shelter the non-elect from his influence.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense I guess. I'm sure you consider him a defeated foe since he's in the LOF.....and that's all that matters.

You are not alone.
Many people here have refused to accept my personal rejection of full preterism.

Again, it may be semantics. I consider myself a full preterist and yet we agree. TOM-AYE-TOE ---- TOM-AH-TOE

Well, since the doctrine of the Coming of Christ finds as it's background, the many OT comings of Yahweh, and since Revelation 14 shows the 70AD coming as an event that occoured in the heavenly realm, that Christ's words and actions in the heavenly realm resulted in various tribulation disasters upon earth, I don't see how Christ's comings can be limited to such a linear fashion, namely that He was absent, and now present. Rather, I see the testimony supporting the notion that "comings" are always depicted as the heavenly actions of a very earthly present God, and as such, are not dependant on God/Jesus being in a specific location.

I can see your point. Once again, it's semantics. I think of "coming" as the greek word "erchomai" defines it......"moving from one place to come to another"....hence there is a "location" factor involved. But if you define "coming" as Jesus dealing with mankind and interacting with the affairs of men.....then it is ongoing and happens MANY times. Perhaps preterists are in need of clarifying with one another the terms they use to avoid confusion.

Well, most Catholics don't pay much attention to eschatology, they are very much in the "now", focused on kingdom building, stewardship and social justice, but the Catholics that do study eschatology come down very strongly on the preterist side.

Interesting....that's good to know.

It's all Greek to me..........

I know how ya feel...

 

[EchoPneuma]

I feel the urge to make a comment here, fellers. If you don't mind. thanx.

Fire away!

While you all are haggling over the correct definition of preterism,

No one is "haggling" over the correct definition of preterism. We all agree as to the definition of the word. What we are DISCUSSING is what we consider OURSELVES to be in light of the preterist perspective.

which entails just when it was the "2nd coming of Christ Jesus was", and how He did it,

Yes, and we have also seen that it was an issue of semantics, not actual disagreement. Once we clarified with each other what we MEANT by what we were saying....we are in total agreement.

and how satan "has or has'nt got power from the Lake of Fire"

Well, since none of us KNOW because the bible doesn't say one way or the other, we are just giving our IDEAS about it... .. without disagreeing But we are in TOTAL AGREEMENT that Satan is IN the LOF as of this moment and is a defeated foe.

, and just exactly what is and is'nt included in the "fulfillment of all prophecy"

Once again, it was a matter of semantics. Once we clarified that the prophecies that Parousia70 was talking about that haven't been fulfilled are the ones about the ongoing eternal nature of the kingdom.....we are in total agreement. Those prophecies are in a perpetual state of BEING fulfilled because the kingdom will continue through the eons to increase. And we are ALSO in total agreement that ALL eschatological prophecies concerning the "end times", "resurrection of the dead", "new heavens and new earth", the book of Revelation, "the beast", "antichrist" etc etc etc have all been fulfilled.

and all the rest of the gobblty gook that is inherit with preterism,

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "gobbity gook". It's a clear teaching of scripture that the three of us preterists ALL agree on, once we clarified with each other what we MEANT by our semantics.

try not to point yer fingers at us futurists and say we are calling Jesus a false prophet and liar.

I call 'em like I see 'em. If Jesus says to the disciples standing around him in approx. 30AD... "Some of you STANDING HERE will not die until you see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".... and He tells the High Priest in approx 30AD..."YOU will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory" and He tells the 12 disciples that He's sending out to the cities of Israel to spread the gospel...."You will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes".....and then a group of people living in 2005 say "He STILL hasn't come yet". Well....you do the math.

You all are'nt looking too good right now, seeing how there seems to be some disagreement amongst yourselves, having different interpretations and all.

I think we look pretty unified and edified as to our preterist beliefs. You're just angry that you have no answer to those statements of Jesus that clearly say WHEN He was returning...and you don't like that fact that you find yourself disagreeing with Jesus.

And if your criteria for embracing a belief is that there is unity in interpretation...then I guess you will give up being a futurist RIGHT NOW correct? No two of you guys can agree on hardly anything....much less ALL of it. Pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, amil, premil, postmil, idealist, dispesationalist, yada yada yada....

btw, this is for edification purposes.

thanx

<><

Thanks, but your erroneous observations of our discussion really haven't edified anyone.....except perhaps you.

 

[gort]

EP quotes:

I think we look pretty unified and edified as to our preterist beliefs. You're just angry that you have no answer to those statements of Jesus that clearly say WHEN He was returning...and you don't like that fact that you find yourself disagreeing with Jesus.

I've given many answers to these statements, showing clearly from Scripture and history that your views are in error. I have no disagreement with what Jesus had to say, other than what you perceive in your mind. And neither am I angry. It's such a sad thing to see you proclaim someone as calling Jesus a liar and false prophet over something secondary as eschatology. If it were primary, as in reference to the gospel of Grace, then you have the right to proclaim someone as such.

But as eschatology is right in the same area as infant baptisms, as I've stated earlier to you.

We had a discussion over the 2 angels that told the disciples that Jesus would return the same way that He left. Did I point you out as making the word of God a liar? No. Your view of a spiritual return was moot at that point.

I call 'em like I see 'em. If Jesus says to the disciples standing around him in approx. 30AD... "Some of you STANDING HERE will not die until you see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"....

Had you read the Scriptures (chapt 17) you would find that indeed, some of the disciples (standing there) did see the Son of Man coming in Glory. This prophecy happened 6 days later. You would also have to piece together what Ezekial saw, when he wrote of seeing the Glory of God leaving the tabernacle and going up to the MOunt of Olives and departing. It was on the Mount of Olives that the disciples saw Jesus in His Glory.

Was this the time that is spoken of as THE second coming? With the angels at the sound of the 7th trumpet? No. But it was the Son of Man in His GLory.

Anyway, when you feel you can have a reasonable discussion without the cognitive dissonance of what Scripture has to say, and can put away the ad hominum attacks against others that might disagree with your secondary beliefs, and your maturity level grows up somewhat, perhaps we can discuss.

Until then, I bid you good day.



<><

I would really rather gain a brother that lose one. There's enough bs around as it is.

 

[Hidden Manna]

It's such a sad thing to see you proclaim someone as calling Jesus a liar and false prophet over something secondary as eschatology. If it were primary, as in reference to the gospel of Grace, then you have the right to proclaim someone as such.

But as eschatology is right in the same area as infant baptisms, as I've stated earlier to you.

Where did Jesus say that there are two different levels of His word?

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and [they] are life.

John 8:47
"He who is of God hears God's words ; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

John 12:48
"He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words , has that which judges him -- the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

 

[EchoPneuma]

I've given many answers to these statements, showing clearly from Scripture and history that your views are in error.

You have done no such thing. You have put forth your interpretations of Jesus words instead of letting Jesus speak for Himself....and you have ignored all historical evidences of His return in 70AD.

I have no disagreement with what Jesus had to say, other than what you perceive in your mind. And neither am I angry.

And you STILL haven't explained ANY of the statements of Jesus where He said He was coming back within the generation of those He was speaking to. Ignoring them is NOT the same as explaining them. When Jesus says to the High Priest "YOU will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory"....but YOU says He hasn't returned yet....THAT is disagreeing with Jesus...even if you don't want to admit it.

It's such a sad thing to see you proclaim someone as calling Jesus a liar and false prophet over something secondary as eschatology.

What does that have to do with it? Do you think if you call Jesus a liar over a salvation issue it is somehow worse than if you call Him a liar over an "end time" issue? That's ludicrous. Jesus made CLEAR statements concerning WHEN He would return......and you say He DIDN'T do what He said He was going to do, when He spoke to those people. No matter how you cut it....that is calling Jesus a liar.

If it were primary, as in reference to the gospel of Grace, then you have the right to proclaim someone as such.

That's absurd. I have the right ANYTIME that someone says Jesus didn't do what He said He was going to do, to say they are calling Jesus a liar. It doesn't matter WHAT the issue is. One issue is no more important than another when it comes to saying that Jesus wasn't truthful about it.

But as eschatology is right in the same area as infant baptisms, as I've stated earlier to you.

And your point is what? I already said what you believe about eschatology doesn't affect your salvation. That has NOTHING to do with calling Jesus a liar over something He declared in scripture.

We had a discussion over the 2 angels that told the disciples that Jesus would return the same way that He left. Did I point you out as making the word of God a liar? No. Your view of a spiritual return was moot at that point.

You gave your INTERPRETATION and OPINION of what you believed the angel said. That's fine. It proved nothing. My point was not moot at all. You STILL didn't admit that only a few saw Jesus leave (meaning only a few would see Him return)...and a cloud hid Him from their sight (meaning a cloud would hide His return) ......ALL you focused on was that Jesus had to return PHYSICALLY instead of seeing that it said "in like manner". There was nothing to accuse me of saying Jesus was a liar. I believe everything He said....word for word. It is YOU who have to interpret it away or change the context to make it say something else.

Had you read the Scriptures (chapt 17) you would find that indeed, some of the disciples (standing there) did see the Son of Man coming in Glory. This prophecy happened 6 days later.

That transfiguration had NOTHING to do with the second coming. Jesus hadn't even ascended yet. He hadn't GONE ANYWHERE, so how could that be considered His "Coming in His kingdom"? It was to show His glory....but it had nothing to do with the second coming. But I can see how you have to stretch it to try to make it fit.

You would also have to piece together what Ezekial saw, when he wrote of seeing the Glory of God leaving the tabernacle and going up to the MOunt of Olives and departing. It was on the Mount of Olives that the disciples saw Jesus in His Glory.

Yep, and it STILL has nothing to do with the Second Coming. It was to show Jesus glory to his disciples. To say that it was the "coming of the kingdom" is a real stretch.

Was this the time that is spoken of as THE second coming? With the angels at the sound of the 7th trumpet? No. But it was the Son of Man in His GLory.

Nice try. But Jesus specifically used the words "COMING in His kingdom"..not the Son "glorified." Again, you are giving YOUR interpretation and adding words that aren't there to try to make it fit your beliefs.

Anyway, when you feel you can have a reasonable discussion without the cognitive dissonance of what Scripture has to say,

I am extremely reasonable....and I ALWAYS look at what the scriptures have to say.

and can put away the ad hominum attacks against others that might disagree with your secondary beliefs,

No one attacked you. This is the second time you've said this. I have said that by disagreeing with the clear statements of Jesus concerning WHEN He would return, you have in essence called Jesus a liar. You have YET to show how that is not true.

and your maturity level grows up somewhat, perhaps we can discuss.

Heh heh....yeah...maturity level...right. What was that about "ad hominem" attacks? Pot meet kettle.

Until then, I bid you good day.



<><

I would really rather gain a brother that lose one. There's enough bs around as it is.

Adieu.

 

[gort]

EP quotes:

And you STILL haven't explained ANY of the statements of Jesus where He said He was coming back within the generation of those He was speaking to. Ignoring them is NOT the same as explaining them. When Jesus says to the High Priest "YOU will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory"....but YOU says He hasn't returned yet....THAT is disagreeing with Jesus...even if you don't want to admit it.

No, I'm disagreeing with YOUR interpretation of it. Not Jesus.

You gave your INTERPRETATION and OPINION of what you believed the angel said. That's fine. It proved nothing. My point was not moot at all. You STILL didn't admit that only a few saw Jesus leave (meaning only a few would see Him return)...and a cloud hid Him from their sight (meaning a cloud would hide His return) ......ALL you focused on was that Jesus had to return PHYSICALLY instead of seeing that it said "in like manner". There was nothing to accuse me of saying Jesus was a liar. I believe everything He said....word for word. It is YOU who have to interpret it away or change the context to make it say something else.

Again, my interpretation simply comes from the fellows visibly watching Jesus depart, and 2 angels saying He will come back in like manner. "LIke manner" referring to what can be seen visibly. As in "all eyes", etc., etc., etc.

And now, using Swart's favorite reversal of the invective, "it is YOU who have to interpret it away or change the context to make it say something else."

And we also have these verses to contention over also....

Luk 17:24 For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of Man be in His day.

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man.

....denoting still a visible return.

Yep, and it STILL has nothing to do with the Second Coming. It was to show Jesus glory to his disciples. To say that it was the "coming of the kingdom" is a real stretch.

Yep. And were you able to read a little farther, you would see that I said.....

daneel quotes:

Was this the time that is spoken of as THE second coming? With the angels at the sound of the 7th trumpet? No. But it was the Son of Man in His GLory.

I am extremely reasonable....and I ALWAYS look at what the scriptures have to say.

As do I.

No one attacked you. This is the second time you've said this. I have said that by disagreeing with the clear statements of Jesus concerning WHEN He would return, you have in essence called Jesus a liar. You have YET to show how that is not true.

Very well, then. Any view other than preterism is calling Jesus a liar. Can we move on now? or would you like to keep at it?

Heh heh....yeah...maturity level...right. What was that about "ad hominem" attacks? Pot meet kettle.

Nice to meet you kettle.

Adieu.

I may never leave.....

<><

 

[gort]

P70 quotes:

Could you please point me to a time when Futurists were in 100% agreement with one another about futurism??

If that is your criteria in determining the correctness of the view, Futurism has far more points of disagreement within it's ranks than does preterism. By a mile.

I mean, you've got your pre trib, mid trib, post trib, pre mil, amil, Dispy, mid acts dispy etc....etc......... makes the head spin as far as i'm concerned.

I think you're misconstruing our dialogue here.
We aren't in disagreement.
We all come at preterism from different backgrounds, and we are sharing how those backgrounds shape our understanding and learning from each other's different takes.

At least that's the way I see it.
Far more civil than 99% of the Dispy vs Covenant theology knock down drag outs I'v seen.

If preterism has even one differing view amongst yourselves, is it really Righteous enough to say that others who hold different eschatological views are calling "Jesus a liar and false Prophet?"

I mean, you've got your pre trib, mid trib, post trib, pre mil, amil, Dispy, mid acts dispy etc....etc......... makes the head spin as far as i'm concerned.

Yep. And I don't know Jack Diddley about any of them. But I do know how to live day by day, as Jesus taught, and wait for THAT Day.

And preterism makes my head spin and ache....
So we are even steven.....

But I'm not going to say you are calling Jesus a liar and false prophet simply because you hold differing views of the end times.



<><

 

[parousia70]

If preterism has even one differing view amongst yourselves, is it really Righteous enough to say that others who hold different eschatological views are calling "Jesus a liar and false Prophet?"

When Have I said that?

But I'm not going to say you are calling Jesus a liar and false prophet simply because you hold differing views of the end times.

Again, you attribute this comment to me. Can you quote me on it?