Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It matters to me that Jesus claimed He'd be taking their power away - and He did (quite effectively).
So you see the destruction of Jerusalem and the killing of millions of Jews at the time, as a glorious event? I would think Christ coming in glory might actually involve something glorious instead, such as the following, as an example.
2 Thessalonians 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Surely you don't apply that to 70 AD events, do you?
As per this forum:
Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70 or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero. The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.
I fully agree. I am going to reword it.Actually, it's not limited to a Full Preterist view. I'm a partial preterist - I believe in a still future coming of Christ and future resurrection - but I also believe Christ Jesus "came with the clouds in glory and in power" at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That's not a coming to earth.
I'm grateful this forum recognizes that perspective as Orthodox partial preterism (not all pp agree on that - as there are varying degrees of belief in fulfillment).
Some of those alive at that time would still be around to know of the destruction of the temple.If context counts for anything, in context He clearly was not meaning during the lives of those alive at the time. It clearly matters where He said that in the Discourse. He did not say that in first century context. If He was wanting to apply it to the first century, He would have said it in a context involving 1st century events and not in a context involving the 2nd coming instead.
Those aren't full preterist beliefs. As much as you've been trying to prove over this past year (2019 included).
I fully agree. I am going to reword it.
Thanks
Correct! We are all partial Preterists to a degree!No, as I said, there are different degrees. This forum has it defined properly.
The worst is Jesus Christ of Nazareth already came and we are living on the new earth. But his is also hyper Preterism where EVERYTHING is fulfilled. A rare view.Can you provide some things full Preterists believe, which you fully disagree with? I would think that should put this to rest once and for all. For the record I don't think you are a full Preterist. Yet some apparently think you are for some reason.
Some of those alive at that time would still be around to know of the destruction of the temple.
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
If context counts for anything, in context He clearly was not meaning during the lives of those alive at the time. It clearly matters where He said that in the Discourse. He did not say that in first century context.
If He was wanting to apply it to the first century, He would have said it in a context involving 1st century events and not in a context involving the 2nd coming instead.
I am not sure why Jesus would switch from "this generation" to some future generation when He was specifically talking to His Disciples. But I do understand that we are all swayed by our theological system.In the verses surrounding the verse in question, the temple is not even mentioned one single time. But Jesus did speak of the temple in question though, but earlier on in the Discourse. If He was wanting to apply it to that period of time He would have said it earlier in the Discourse when He was actually talking about the temple in question, and not later in the Discourse when He was no longer talking about the temple in question.
In the verses surrounding the verse in question, the temple is not even mentioned one single time. But Jesus did speak of the temple in question though, but earlier on in the Discourse.
We also have to remember that not even Christ knew what generation he would return in so using language that can be understood in multiple ways is understandable.
Actually he mentioned the temple before the discourse, not during any part of it. The OD was spoken when Jesus sat on the Mt. Of Olives. The temple was mentioned earlier as he was leaving the temple and was walking towards the Mt. No part of the OD took place outside of the Mt of Olives nor when he was walking.
As you said, "the temple is not even mentioned one single time" and that is correct regarding the real OD.
I am not sure why Jesus would switch from "this generation" to some future generation when He was specifically talking to His Disciples.
You're really failing to understand partial preterist don't all view these things the way you describe. That's all I'll say on that. Many of the things you cite above are views of full preterism.Your form of Partial Preterism is only a thin paper wall away from Full Preterism. It is far from balanced. To say the following is balanced is erroneous and absurd, and a misrepresentation of scriptural truth.
- They have the old covenant ending in AD70.
- They have the new covenant commencing in AD70.
- They have “this age” ending in AD70.
- They have “the age to come” starting in AD70.
- They have “the last days” finishing in AD70.
- They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring in AD70.
- They have “the day of redemption” happening in AD70.
- They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving in AD70.
- They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
- They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
- They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced in AD70.
- They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing in AD70.
The qualifying factor is that to be considered "full" preterism one would believe ALL prophecy has been fulfilled - that nothing is left for the future (no physical resurrection - no future return of Christ).Can you provide some things full Preterists believe, which you fully disagree with? I would think that should put this to rest once and for all. For the record I don't think you are a full Preterist. Yet some apparently think you are for some reason.
You're really failing to understand partial preterist don't all view these things the way you describe. That's all I'll say on that. Many of the things you cite above are views of full preterism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?