Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[Jipsah]

Anyone, in your mind who challenges Preterism, is "a Jehovah's Witness or some other brand of fringie." How sad! This shows how vulnerable Preterism is.

Oh, I don't think you're a jay-dub. In fact, never said you were. I'm beginning to think that your problem actually is reading comprehension.

 

[Jipsah]

You have avoided every point. You have to. To address it would be to renounce Preterism.

There ya go! You've declared victory, you've struck fear into the heart of the heretic, you're a true Defender of the Faith, and an Internet Legend! You can run along now, grown folk do sometimes talk here.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Oh, I don't think you're a jay-dub. In fact, never said you were. I'm beginning to think that your problem actually is reading comprehension.

The Op remains unaddressed and unchallenged. The time for talking is over.

 

[Jipsah]

The Op remains unaddressed and unchallenged. The time for talking is over.

Unaddressed? I seem to have addressed it at wearisome length. Unchallenged? OK, I challenge it as baseless, being in fact founded on your feeeeeelings about preterism and preterists. When asked about specific beliefs, you danced a few variations of The Sidestep, and swerved off onto a ridulous tangent as to whether my beliefs came from the creeds or Scripture, and how one could identify what you have decided that orthodox preterists really believe. Again, rubbish.

Preterists believe that prophecies IN SCRIPTURE, that have been fulfilled, HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, whatever addle-pated doctrine may force anyone to deny it. Wanna argue that the Temple hasn't been destroyed? Go for it, but the arguments will necessarily be asinine. The Temple's just not there. Think that sacrifice didn't really end? Fine, but accept that such a contention requires a really vivid imagination. Jerusalem wasn't sacked? Really? Nor was it beseiged? And of course, accepting that the words used in the Revelation mean what they said is unacceptable, because, well, it just can't have really meant that, right?

I believe what the Scripture says on those questions, You, sir DO NOT! Blather about the creeds aside, you simp[ly don't believe what the Scripture literally says. You have to pass it through your futurist filters to make it "say" what your doctrine requires. It's all part of a continuous pattern of intellectual, and possibly even personal, dishonesty.

Anyway, you've declared your victory over the evil old preterist, so you should be happy. Run along then, there's a good lad.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I am afraid its not allowed to speculate about it here.

But do you agree that Jesus and apostles, from Matthew to Revelation, expected it to happen soon, in the life time of their generation?

Of course not. It's pretty obvious that I'm not a full preterist, isn't it? Anyone who has read my posts knows that.

Preterists are trying to follow the timeframe, futurists are trying to follow their understanding of "how". Which inherently makes preterism much simpler and futurism full of complex charts and predictions.

Both preterism and futurism are too extreme. Neither are true. The Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation talk about things that happened long ago, things that were happening at the time, things that would happen from then on and things that would happen in the future when Christ returns.

But let us not forget historicism. There are not just those two.

Of course. That is my point above. But I am more idealist than anything and you forgot about that. The truth is found in a mixture of all those views. Just taking one of those views is a case of being too narrow minded.

Anyway, I think that most Christians do not have any systematic eschatology or they have some unordered mix.

What is this based on? That's not what we see on forums like this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Preterists believe that prophecies IN SCRIPTURE, that have been fulfilled, HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, whatever addle-pated doctrine may force anyone to deny it.

You don't have to be a preterist to believe that some prophecies have been fulfilled.

Wanna argue that the Temple hasn't been destroyed? Go for it, but the arguments will necessarily be asinine. The Temple's just not there. Think that sacrifice didn't really end? Fine, but accept that such a contention requires a really vivid imagination. Jerusalem wasn't sacked? Really? Nor was it beseiged? And of course, accepting that the words used in the Revelation mean what they said is unacceptable, because, well, it just can't have really meant that, right?

You really make yourself look bad with comments like this. The person you're talking to doesn't believe any of these things. What is the name of the straw man you're arguing with here?

I believe what the Scripture says on those questions, You, sir DO NOT!

Where did he say that he doesn't believe the temple was destroyed? He didn't. You seem to think that the only views people have are extreme preterism or extreme futurism with nothing in between. That's ignorance on your part.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Anyone, in your mind who challenges Preterism, is "a Jehovah's Witness or some other brand of fringie." How sad! This shows how vulnerable Preterism is.

I agree. It's such a joke. It's hard to find many people on these forums that I can take seriously. Most are very extreme with their views. It's just madness on these forums most of the time. Very little intellectual honesty to be found.

 

[claninja]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes their error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

So then it’s 100% understood by the objective bible scholar, critic, or general interpreter that the apostles definetly knew Christ’s coming was thousands of year away, and not within their generation, and not literally soon, correct?

 

[Jipsah]

You don't have to be a preterist to believe that some prophecies have been fulfilled.

Believing that some prophecies have been fulfilled is what makes one a partial, or orthodox, preterist.

"Preterism, a Christian eschatological view or belief that interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already been fulfilled in history."

Further evidence that you don't really know what you're babbling about.

You really make yourself look bad with comments like this.

At least I know what the words mean, for crying out loud! You come in railing against preterism, all the while not even knowing that you yourself are, by definition, at the very least a partial preterist! You just can't make this stuff up! <LOL>

The person you're talking to doesn't believe any of these things.

Which person and what things?

What is the name of the straw man you're arguing with here?

Once again, learn what a term means before you use it, else you'll always end up looking goofy.

Where did he say that he doesn't believe the temple was destroyed? He didn't.

Ergo he, whoever he is, believes that prophecy has been fulfilled, and is ths at least a partial preterist. Or else "he" believe that the Temple wasn't destroyed, or that its destruction "didn't count", in which case puts themn back in the camp of the DFs. Pick one.

You seem to think that the only views people have are extreme preterism or extreme futurism with nothing in between. That's ignorance on your part.

You've repeated the accusation of "extremism", but to accuse one of "extreme preterism" falls pretty flat when you've just demonstrated that you didn't/don't really know what "preterism" means.

Helpful hint: if you're not sure what a word means, look it up befgore you use it. It'll save you embarrassment.

 

[Jipsah]

Of course not. It's pretty obvious that I'm not a full preterist, isn't it?

It's become fairly obvious that you only have a tenuous grasp on what a preterist is at all.

Both preterism and futurism are too extreme. Neither are true.

So believing that events that were prophesied, then happened, fulfill the prophecy that foretold them, is "too extreme".

So, once again, is the more moderate position that those events never happened at all, or that they "didn't count"? I personally find either one of thgose options ludicrous.

The Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation talk about things that happened long ago

Careful matey, that's a a pretertist position, and you've declared preterism to be false. Make up your mind.

Of course. That is my point above. But I am more idealist than anything and you forgot about that.

At this point I have no clue what you mean by "idealist", and suspect that you may not know any more than I do. Be good enough to define your terms.

The truth is found in a mixture of all those views.

So the Temple may still be there, or it may be gone, and its destruction (assuming it happened) may or may not have counter towarsd fulfilling prophecy. And you think we ought to embrace all of those possibilities, yes?

Just taking one of those views is a case of being too narrow minded.

So the broad minded view would be that the Temple may still be there? Interesting...

What is this based on? That's not what we see on forums like this.

If we had some ham we could have a ham sandwich if we had some bread.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So then it’s 100% understood by the objective bible scholar, critic, or general interpreter that the apostles definetly knew Christ’s coming was thousands of year away, and not within their generation, and not literally soon, correct?

You should read what he said again because that was definitely not his point. What he (and people with similar views like me) believes is that they knew HIs coming COULD be a long time coming, but also that it COULD be soon. No one knew when it would be. That is why Peter said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. He said what he did there to let people know that no matter how long it took for Him to return, no one could say He was taking too long since from His eternal perspective no amount of time makes any difference to Him. You act like any of them knew one way or the other whether it would be soon or a long time. No, they did not.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Believing that some prophecies have been fulfilled is what makes one a partial, or orthodox, preterist.

"Preterism, a Christian eschatological view or belief that interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already been fulfilled in history."

Further evidence that you don't really know what you're babbling about.

That would mean everyone (every Christian) who believes Jesus will return in the future is a partial preterist since everyone believes that the prophecies regarding Christ's first coming were fulfilled long ago. Which would mean that even dispensationalists are preterists. If you're going to have such a broad definition for terms then there is no point in even using these terms. But, everyone else besides you understands that what makes someone a partial preterist is the belief that all or most of the Olivet Discourse and most or all of Revelation was fulfilled by 70 AD while also believing that Jesus will return visibly and bodily in the future.

At least I know what the words mean, for crying out loud! You come in railing against preterism, all the while not even knowing that you yourself are, by definition, at the very least a partial preterist! You just can't make this stuff up! <LOL>

LOL. You are the one who has decided that you are going to be different from everyone else and define a partial preterist as being ANYONE who believes Jesus will return in the future. You are making yourself look very bad here with your ignorance.

Which person and what things?

LOL! You really need to take a step back and actually think about what is being discussed here and who you're talking to. You're not keeping anything straight. You don't even know who you were talking to? It was sovereigngrace. Do I really need to tell you the things you were talking to him about? Good grief. Are you for real?

Once again, learn what a term means before you use it, else you'll always end up looking goofy.

Say that to yourself. You are the one using a different definition of partial preterism than anyone else here uses.

You've repeated the accusation of "extremism", but to accuse one of "extreme preterism" falls pretty flat when you've just demonstrated that you didn't/don't really know what "preterism" means.

You are clearly the one who is unaware of how a vast majority of people understand the term "partial preterism". I'm getting the sense that you are very new to forums like this.

Helpful hint: if you're not sure what a word means, look it up befgore you use it. It'll save you embarrassment.

I'm embarrassed for you because you don't even take your own advice.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's become fairly obvious that you only have a tenuous grasp on what a preterist is at all.

It's very obvious to me that you are new to forums like this and have no clue about how the rest of us understand these terms. You have decided to redefine the terms that other people have been using for many years in debates like this. But, you don't get to do that.

So believing that events that were prophesied, then happened, fulfill the prophecy that foretold them, is "too extreme".

No, what is extreme is you thinking that a vast majority of prophecies have already been fulfilled. And some futurists think the vast majority of prophecies are unfulfilled. That is too extreme. Why do I have to spell everything out to you?

Careful matey, that's a a pretertist position, and you've declared preterism to be false. Make up your mind.

You're a silly one.

At this point I have no clue what you mean by "idealist", and suspect that you may not know any more than I do. Be good enough to define your terms.

I didn't realize that you were so ignorant about others' beliefs. Don't make me do all your homework for you. Make some effort. There's this thing called the Internet where you can get some info. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time spelling everything out to you. Basically, the idealist view, when it comes to the book of Revelation, is that there are spiritual truths taught there using symbolism that apply to the entire New Testament era rather than referring to specific events of the past or the future. That doesn't mean I believe everything in the book should be understood from that perspective, but some of it should. That's why I say I hold to a mix of the various views because the book talks about things that occurred in the past, things that were occurring at the time, ongoing things and things that would occur in the future.

So the Temple may still be there, or it may be gone, and its destruction (assuming it happened) may or may not have counter towarsd fulfilling prophecy. And you think we ought to embrace all of those possibilities, yes?

What? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say anything whatsoever that would give this impression. The temple obviously was destroyed at some point since it isn't still there. Right? That's obvious, right? Hello? We all know this. I do believe it was destroyed in 70 AD. What I'm saying has nothing to do with denying what happened in 70 AD. I'm saying that not all of the Olivet Discourse and not all of the book of Revelation are about 70 AD. And I think there is less about those events in those passages that partial preterists typically believe is the case. Do you understand what I'm saying?

So the broad minded view would be that the Temple may still be there? Interesting...

LOL! That is not at all what I'm saying. The temple is obviously still not there and that can easily be proven. Why in the world would I want to suggest otherwise? LOL! I'm not sure it's worth my time talking to you anymore since you can't seem to understand anything I'm saying (yet other people have no problem understanding me - think about that).

 

[Jipsah]

It's very obvious to me that you are new to forums like this and have no clue about how the rest of us understand these terms.

I posted the definition I use, which is the one most commonly used by English speakers, but finding that you have a definition of your own would not surprise me in the least.

You have decided to redefine the terms that other people have been using for many years in debates like this. But, you don't get to do that.

So far you haven't seen fit to define your terms, which is no great surprise at this point.

No, what is extreme is you thinking that a vast majority of prophecies have already been fulfilled.

Really? Which of the ones I've mentioned to you take exception with?

And some futurists think the vast majority of prophecies are unfulfilled.

Here's a hint: there's a reason they're called "futurists".

That is too extreme. Why do I have to spell everything out to you?

Probably because you make up your terminology on the fly. For the same reason that I'd have to explain the term "logical defenestration" to you (although you could possibly figure that out with a dictionary, maybe.)

I didn't realize that you were so ignorant about others' beliefs. Don't make me do all your homework for you.

Hey, that's what you get when you have no earthly idea what you're blathering about, and thus have to make up your own definitions of what you think things mean.

Basically, the idealist view, when it comes to the book of Revelation, is that there are spiritual truths taught there using symbolism that apply to the entire New Testament era rather than referring to specific events of the past or the future.

That was suitably vague. Tell us abolut your idealist take on the Revelation,I'm keen to hear it. I have no doubt that it's, shall we say, unique. And how do you idealize the Olivet Discourse? Or the "End Times" prophecies of Daniel? We know what you don't like, tell us what you do believe. I'm sure it'll be enlightening, one way or another.

What? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Well here's your chance to set it right! Tell me where I've gone wrong, and specifically what I've said (other than calling you out for obvious mendacity) that you find shickingly false? Maybe you can open my eyes to my eschatological errors.

The temple obviously was destroyed at some point since it isn't still there. Right? That's obvious, right? Hello?

Are you sure you want to embrace such a frighteningly pretertist (look it up) position? You can always hedge it by saying that it "didn't count", which allows for an escape hatch.

I'm saying that not all of the Olivet Discourse and not all of the book of Revelation are about 70 AD.

And precisely no one that I know says they are. Beating a straw man again, aren't you?

And I think there is less about those events in those passages that partial preterists typically believe is the case.

For instance?

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Better than you do in a good many cases <Laugh>

I'm not sure it's worth my time talking to you anymore since you can't seem to understand anything I'm saying

Kinda like all those Indians who can't understand what I'm talking about at all, even though my Hindi is perfect. Something is obviously wrong with them. <LOL>

(yet other people have no problem understanding me - think about that).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I posted the definition I use, which is the one most commonly used by English speakers, but finding that you have a definition of your own would not surprise me in the least.

It's not the one used by people who discuss eschatology on online forums like this. Your definition, which says that believing any prophecy was fulfilled in the past, would mean all dispensational futurists are also partial preterists. How ridiculous. There's no point in using these terms if they end up including almost everyone.

So far you haven't seen fit to define your terms, which is no great surprise at this point.

I did. You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.

Really? Which of the ones I've mentioned to you take exception with?

You missed the point. I'm saying that to believe a vast majority of prophecies are already fulfilled is extreme. Which is true. Does something being extreme automatically make it untrue? Not necessarily. But, I just think your view is too extreme.

I've already discussed things I disagree with preterists about, so I'm not sure why you're asking me that question as if I haven't.

Here's a hint: there's a reason they're called "futurists".

But they also fit your definition of partial preterism. Think about that.

Probably because you make up your terminology on the fly. For the same reason that I'd have to explain the term "logical defenestration" to you (although you could possibly figure that out with a dictionary, maybe.)

LOL. I can't take you seriously. You obviously are very new to forums like this. I'm using terminology that has been used for many years and no one has the same understanding of partial preterism as you do.

Hey, that's what you get when you have no earthly idea what you're blathering about, and thus have to make up your own definitions of what you think things mean.

LOL. You do nothing but blather, so you can't talk about someone else supposedly doing that.

That was suitably vague. Tell us abolut your idealist take on the Revelation,I'm keen to hear it. I have no doubt that it's, shall we say, unique. And how do you idealize the Olivet Discourse? Or the "End Times" prophecies of Daniel? We know what you don't like, tell us what you do believe. I'm sure it'll be enlightening, one way or another.

This shows that you don't even pay attention to what I'm saying. I've said more than once that my view is a mix of all the views including idealism. So, I'm not saying I interpret everything from the idealist perspective. Understand? I don't know if I can take this much longer when I constantly have to spell everything out to you. I don't have time for that.

Well here's your chance to set it right! Tell me where I've gone wrong, and specifically what I've said (other than calling you out for obvious mendacity) that you find shickingly false? Maybe you can open my eyes to my eschatological errors.

I'm not going to go back and look at everything you've said. I've already responded to things you've said, so I don't need to go back and do it again. I've expressed the things I disagree with preterists about. Particularly Matthew 24:29-31 and Revelation 19. I believe those are clearly about the future second coming of Christ, but preterists think they relate to 70 AD. I assume that includes you?

Are you sure you want to embrace such a frighteningly pretertist (look it up) position? You can always hedge it by saying that it "didn't count", which allows for an escape hatch.

LOL. Your ignorance continues to shine through with every comment you make. I have no problem with acknowledging that some things have been fulfilled in the past. You're acting like you're talking to some hyper-futurist dispensationalist here, which I am not.

And precisely no one that I know says they are. Beating a straw man again, aren't you?

It's true that what I said mainly applies to full preterists, although there are some (not many) partial preterists that my statement applies to. Anyway, I should have said a vast majority or most of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, not all.

For instance?

For instance what I mentioned earlier. Matthew 24:29-31 and Revelation 19.

Better than you do in a good many cases <Laugh>

You misunderstand at least half of what I say, so this is definitely not true.

Kinda like all those Indians who can't understand what I'm talking about at all, even though my Hindi is perfect. Something is obviously wrong with them. <LOL>

It's very hard to take you seriously.

 

[trophy33]

What is this based on? That's not what we see on forums like this.

Most Christians do not visit forums like this.

 

[trophy33]

Of course not. It's pretty obvious that I'm not a full preterist, isn't it? Anyone who has read my posts knows that.

I was not asking if you are full preterist, I was asking if you agree that the biblical (New Testament) authors expected all to be finished during their life times.

There are many non-preterists who see that in the text, but have some explanation like "it was not inspired, God changed that later like in the times of Jonah" and similar, allowing for their beliefs to be different than the beliefs of the NT authors.

 

[claninja]

You should read what he said again because that was definitely not his point. What he (and people with similar views like me) believes is that they knew HIs coming COULD be a long time coming, but also that it COULD be soon. No one knew when it would be. That is why Peter said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. He said what he did there to let people know that no matter how long it took for Him to return, no one could say He was taking too long since from His eternal perspective no amount of time makes any difference to Him. You act like any of them knew one way or the other whether it would be soon or a long time. No, they did not.

I don’t see anywhere In the OP that it says the apostles COULD have believed Christ’s coming was literally soon, that’s literally why I asked the question. ONE of His arguments was that preterism misrepresents scripture by using the literal definitions of near, soon, and quickly when they should, instead, be understood from God’s time.

As for Your argument on using 2 peter 3 , it makes zero sense. The context of 2 peter 3 is the addressing of the last days scoffers who are scoffing “where is coming?”. Peter, in his last epistle, had taught the end of all things had drawn near, so of course scoffers would be scoffing “where is his coming?”. If Peter taught that Christs coming was possibly thousands of years away, then it makes zero sense for scoffers to scoff “where is his coming”, and it makes zero sense for Peter to exhort his audience to “hasten” and “anticipate”. His argument for God being slow, in human time, but not God’s time due to his eternal nature, was to comfort the suffering church, as they “hasten” and “anticipate” God’s promises.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I was not asking if you are full preterist, I was asking if you agree that the biblical (New Testament) authors expected all to be finished during their life times.

No, I don't agree with that. I think they believed it could be finished during their lifetimes, but that it could also be a long time because no one knew when it would happen. That is why Peter wrote what he did in Peter 3. He indicated there that the second coming of Christ and end of all things as we know them, including the heavens and the earth, would be seen by some as taking a long time by human standards. But, he indicated that from the Lord's perspective it could not be seen as a long time no matter how long it takes because no amount of time, including a day and a thousand years, makes any difference to Him from His eternal perspective.

There are many non-preterists who see that in the text, but have some explanation like "it was not inspired, God changed that later like in the times of Jonah" and similar, allowing for their beliefs to be different than the beliefs of the NT authors.

I'm not one of those. I believe the NT authors wrote from the standpoint of expecting that it could happen soon for all they knew (only the Father knows - Matt 24:36) so everyone should always be prepared for it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don’t see anywhere In the OP that it says the apostles COULD have believed Christ’s coming was literally soon, that’s literally why I asked the question. ONE of His arguments was that preterism misrepresents scripture by using the literal definitions of near, soon, and quickly when they should, instead, be understood from God’s time.

I agree with that argument. When you look at 1 Peter 4:7, for example, I believe Peter was talking from God's perspective just like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-12. From God's perspective, the coming of Christ and the end of all things is always near since no amount of time makes any difference to Him. What is near to Him can seem like a long time to us, which is what Peter pointed out in 2 Peter 3:8-9.

As for Your argument on using 2 peter 3 , it makes zero sense.

It makes complete sense to me. We think so differently that very little of what you believe makes any sense to me and vice versa. So be it. Not much we can do about that.

The context of 2 peter 3 is the addressing of the last days scoffers who are scoffing “where is coming?”. Peter, in his last epistle, had taught the end of all things had drawn near, so of course scoffers would be scoffing “where is his coming?”.

Right, because, like you, they didn't understand that he was speaking from God's perspective of time, not man's. Which is why Peter said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. It seems that from your perspective Peter said what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9 for no reason at all. Yet, I would think you believe he said it for a reason. So, what do you think that reason is?

In verse 9, for example, do you think Peter pointed out that the Lord is not slow in keeping His promise because He was going to be coming literally soon? Peter said the reason that the Lord would come in His timing is because of His desire for everyone to repent, which means He wants to give everyone enough time to repent, as He sees fit. Is that no longer true? Does 2 Peter 3:9 no longer apply today? Did it only apply up until 70 AD?

If Peter taught that Christs coming was possibly thousands of years away, then it makes zero sense for scoffers to scoff “where is his coming”,

You're not getting it. The scoffers, like you (not saying you're a scoffer, but just saying you are mistaken about the timing like they were/are), didn't understand that His coming was not necessarily going to be literally soon. Can't you see that Peter was saying they were mistaken in their perspective (again, see 2 Peter 3:8-9)? Why are you acting as if the scoffers had the correct perspective of the timing of Christ's second coming? They didn't. They didn't know anything. That's why Peter felt the need to correct that mistaken notion by saying what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9.

and it makes zero sense for Peter to exhort his audience to “hasten” and “anticipate”.

Why not? If it could potentially happen in the lifetimes of his readers (his readers include you and me, by the way), then why wouldn't anyone reading his message want to heed his words? Do you think people should only "hasten" and "anticipate" something if it's guaranteed to happen in their lifetimes? No one should "hasten" and "anticipate" if something can happen in their lifetimes, but not for certain? Well, let me tell you something. I don't know when Jesus is coming, but I believe it could happen in my lifetime. But, even though He may not come in my lifetime I'm still hastening and highly anticipating it. It's sad that preterists like yourself are not.

His argument for God being slow, in human time, but not God’s time due to his eternal nature, was to comfort the suffering church, as they “hasten” and “anticipate” God’s promises.

Let's look at the text itself to see if it supports your claim.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

I don't see anything here about comforting the suffering church. Instead, I see a description that the Lord is taking His time to keep His promise because of his desire to give people time to repent so that they don't perish. Did the Lord stop wanting to give people time to repent after 70 AD or does this passage still apply today? I believe it clearly still applies today. The Lord is holding off on destroying the earth (as Peter proceeded to talk about after that passage) because of His desire to give people as much time as He sees fit to repent first.