Soonness: A fact that needs to be dealt with

[Grasshopper]

Why is it that you seem to be unable to restrain yourself. I know you can do it if you try. I believe in you

I will try.
　

There is no 'theory' to it. It is simply a fact.

Fact? Any proof or are we all just to take your word for it?

How many prophesies, especaially about Jesus and His coming were two fold prophesies?

Tell me, how many and where are they.

Was 70 ad a fulfillment of prophesy? Yes, but it is also only a shadowy picture to what is coming.

Types and shadows are found in the OT, not the NT. The prophesies pointed to this event. Are there any OT prophesies you believe point to AD70?
　

We also know it is two fold, because not all of them have been fulfilled according to how 'scripture' states they will come to pass.

No, how you think scripture says they will come to pass.
　

And since scripture states once all these things happen the end shall come with Jesus coming in the clouds, seen by all. An by this we can KNOW that it has not all come to pass.

Coming in the clouds is a Hebrew idiom found throughout the OT. You can continue to ignore that but it doesn't change the FACT. It is up to you to demonstrate that the NT prophets intended the language to be understood differently than how the OT prophets used it.

It has been just over 2000 years since you say (and also Full Prets), they have been fulfilled but still there is not nor has there been, an end - no Jesus coming as was prophesied.

Then Peter was wrong:
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
　
The "end", was the end of the Mosaic economy.

If you are going to tell me what I said brother, please do so correctly. I never made any such statement. What I said is that 'near or soon' can be understood according to context. However the very terms themselves do not speak of a specific moment only of a moment to come, though the timing can be obtained regarding sometime quickly or sometime later.

Using your method, you cannot know when it is near or at hand. People have been predicting this "end" all throughout Church history. In my own lifetime scholar after scholar has said His coming was near. Apparently you seem to be saying you will know, so can you tell us with current events, is His coming near? Yes or No? If you can't answer definitively one way or the other, my point is proven.
　

Yes, and all the apostles and their disciples though Jesus was coming back in their lifetime because it seems prophesy was being fulfilled all around them.

Once again you have defeated your own argument. The NT writers believed and taught the near coming of Jesus. However you say they were WRONG! What else were these supposedly inspired writers wrong about?

Now you believe all the apostles and their disciples believed Jesus was coming back in their lifetime. Why??? Is it their words that led you to believe this? Yet it is these very words you say must be taken in "context". Did the all the inspired apostles take "near" and "at hand" out of their context like us preterist do?
　

They assumed this because when the prophesy was fulfilled according to those same prophesies, Jesus will come back.

What prophecies did they see fulfilled?
　

It was for this reason they had such expectations. Yet note the prophesy in Mat 24:
Note that scripture is SPECIFIC that when all these things are fulfilled Jesus will come. Please to special note 'the generation' that sees all these things, they were to understand that it [the end] is near even at the doors. And "this generation" (the one that sees it) shall not pass away / die till it is ALL fulfilled - that INCLUDES Christ's coming in the clouds.

They DID see those things! Gill, Spurgeon, Barnes, Clarke all understood this.

Thomas Newton
"Our Saviour proceedeth in the same figurative style, ver. 30 - ' And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.' The plain meaning of it is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will be led from thence to acknowledge Christ and the Christian religion. In the ancient prophets, God is frequently described as coming in the 'clouds' upon any remarkable interposition and manifestation of his power; and the same description is here applied to Christ. The destruction of Jerusalem will be as ample a manifestation of Christ's power and glory as if he was himself to come visibly in the clouds of heaven." (ibid., p. 408-409)
　

Therefore, in light of biblical evidence we know these prophesies are all fulfilled and thus preterism (both full and partial) are bibilcal not only in correct but incompatable with scripture. This can be primarily based (but not soley based) on Mat 24:33-34.

Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

The inspired NT writers disagree with you. They loudly proclaimed it was near.

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
　
FF Bruce:
"The phrase "this generation" is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, p. 227)

　

 

[Grasshopper]

Acts does not speak of many false christs nor does Josephus speak about many false christ's. Both actaully speak to false prophets and Josephus speaks of magicians as well. The terms 'seducers and imposters' typically referces to false prophets or false messengers of God. These are not the same as false christs and in fact Jesus even distinquishes between the two by stating both groups will abound.

Once again I quote Gill:

There were others also besides these, that set up for deliverers, who called themselves by the name of the Messiah. Among these, we may reckon Simon Magus, who gave out that he was some great one; yea, expressly, that he was the word of God, and the Son of God (e), which were known names of the Messiah; and Dositheus the Samaritan, asserted himself to be Christ (f); and also Menander affirmed, that no man could be saved, unless he was baptized in his name (g); these are instances before the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirm the prophecy here delivered.

"... from the death of Herod the Great.. to the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish History is filled with the names of false Christs and false prophets who deceived both the Jews and Samaratins. None appeared before this period, and not more than one for five or six centuries after it." (Kett, 3rd Edit. vol I, o. 168)

Thomas Newton
For very soon after our Saviour's decease appeared Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, 10,-- ' and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying This man is the great power of God! He boasted himself likewise among the Jews, as the Son of God. Of the same stamp and character was also Dositheus the Samaritan, who pretended that he was the Christ foretold by Moses.

Do you still refute this? If so why? Are you married to your view so much?

It was not addition at all but a contextual analysis. Since nation will be against nation and Kingdom against Kingdom, it is a world wide unrest. Nothing incorrect about it.

You read your interpretation into the text. The Roman Empire was made up of many nations.

"So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men... but when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go home..."
(Josephus, The Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:3)

"And now it was that a great sedition arose between the Jews that inhabited Cesarea, and the Syrians who dwelt there also... they came to throwing stones at one another; and several were wounded, and fell on both sides, though still the Jews were the conquerors. But when Felix saw that this quarrel was become a kind of war, he came upon them on the sudden, and desired the Jews to desist; and when they refused so to do, he armed his soldiers, and sent them out upon them, and slew many of them..."
(Josephus, The Antiquities Of The Jews, 20:8:7)

"The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disaster, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword, there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time."
(Tacitus, The Histories, 1:2)

Gill
Poor blinded creatures! when these very things were the forerunners of their destruction. And so it was, the Jewish nation rose up against others, the Samaritans, Syrians, and Romans: there were great commotions in the Roman empire, between Otho and Vitellius, and Vitellius and Vespasian; and at length the Romans rose up against the Jews, under the latter, and entirely destroyed them; compare the writings in 2 Esdras:
"And one shall undertake to fight against another, one city against another, one place against another, one people against another, and one realm against another.'' (2 Esdras 13:31)

Again, context demonstrates. If the list still has much more to go before it is at it's end then the logical conclusion, is that the end is not yet, or IOW - not close yet.

Then Peter was WRONG!
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

While Lightfoot is correct in what transpired with Rome (a single nation), it give no credence to the prophesy of nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom. This infers more than one nation at odds with others.

It was the Roman Empire, not the Roman nation.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

The above that Lightfoot speaks to, is actaully an internal battle known as the battle of four Emperors or the Year of Four Emperors. It was a civil war of Rome and only last about a year. This was not nations against nation against nation nor kingdom against kindom.
There is no reason for me to respond to the rest of your quoting as, like you, I can call up many commentators for my view as well.

Like Thomas Ice?

http://www.preteristvision.org/articles/on_thin_ice.html

Ice like you, also likes to read into the text.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x02OxlzbNt0C&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=Thomas+Ice,+this+generation&source=bl&ots=s_7PisqS6P&sig=qZbldRDmMsgrysiQXznXbGVA6gM&hl=en&ei=y0S1S-yfHZKuNtDXlPIJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CBsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Ice%2C%20this%20generation&f=false

However what is the clincher of THIS discussion and disprover of the preterists views is what I have already posted previously regarding the Matthew passage.

You have clinched it for my position and history has clinched it for my position. Sure you don't want to discuss further verse 14?

 

[Allan]

You need to take into account more the manner in which God uses imagery, esp. in the OT:

Isa. 19: 1 The burden against Egypt.

Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud,
And will come into Egypt;
The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence,
And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.

2 “ I will set Egyptians against Egyptians;
Everyone will fight against his brother,
And everyone against his neighbor,
City against city, kingdom against kingdom.

Are the Egyptians also awaiting a double fulfillment here, since the Lord did not come to them in a literal cloud? No, they got their fulfillment if the OT - just as the Jews got theirs in AD70.

This is what I have found to be common (not a dig at you but in general) when one spiritualizes scripture to often. The don't take into account the context and what is supposed to be imagry and what is supposed to be literal.
First, I never stated that Jesus was going to come back on a literal cloud, I was merely quoting the passage. The imagry of clouds with respect to God ALWAYS refers to His majesty (being far above all things), His might (no one can stop the storms), ect.. The imagry of the cloud is representitive of God's coming as well as how He will come - quickly. Jesus return is distinctly different than your Isa passage because scripture tells us He will physically return again, even the angels who were there at His ascension stated - "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven"

How was He recieved into heaven, according to the on lookers - "while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight."
While Jesus 'might' have been using OT imagry concerning His literal return, it is logical to assume, based off the angels testimony, that His return will be like His ascension and that means coming in the clouds, which also received Him out of their sight.

Second - Other than that minor quaff you made I'm not sure why you quoted the above passage. The judgment, as stated in the scripture, was against Egypt itself and thus God states - Egyptians against Egyptians. And since Egypty was known as a single people group it was also known to be divided into both the Lower and Upper Egypt groups. This is not the same with the Roman Empire which was one kingdom, comprised of different people groups. It was one nation comprised of conquered nations who lost their soveriegnty and rule.

 

[Allan]

I will try.

That would be appreciated.

Fact? Any proof or are we all just to take your word for it?

Read up on it. It isn't just my, it's been around for centuries.

Tell me, how many and where are they.

Since this is a known fact to the vast majority of bible students, I will assume you are kidding here. However if you aren't then it would be prudent to study it out a bit more for your benifit, if for nothing else, debates such as these.
One such example was the OT prophecy of the birth of the messiah via a virgin from the book of Isaiah. This prophecy specifically dealt with with regard to/for King Ahaz. If there is no 'dual' prophecy then the prophetic view that Jesus must be born of a virgin, is a contrived man-made view.

Some other examples (and there are many)from here:

The promises to David are quoted with reference to Solomon; compare:

1 Chronicles 17:12,13 with 22:9,10. This is because Solomon's reign was a type of Christ's Kingdom; compare 1 Kings 4:25 with prophecies of the Kingdom in Jeremiah 23:6 and Micah 4:4. However, their complete fulfilment comes with Christ; see Luke 1:32,33 and Acts 13:33.

Other examples. Micah 4,5 was initially fulfilled by Hezekiah in relation to the Assyrian invasion, but will be more completely fulfilled by Christ setting up the Kingdom. Some features of Psalm 72 were fulfilled by Solomon's kingdom, but the psalm will be completely fulfilled in the future reign of Christ.

A typical fulfilment later

Some Bible prophecies are fulfilled completely initially but this fulfilment is typical of something greater to come.

Example. Isaiah 17 was fulfilled in the Assyrian invasion in Hezekiah's time, culminating in the destruction of the Assyrian host (v. 14). Yet this fulfilment is also typical of the host which invades the land at the time of Christ's return, and is destroyed.

Other examples. Jeremiah 50 and 51 are prophetic of the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, but the extensive use of the language of these chapters in Revelation 17 and 18 shows that this overthrow was typical of the overthrow of spiritual Babylon at Christ's return. Psalm 41 (not strictly prophecy) is about David's experiences in the revolt of Absalom, but his betrayal by Ahithophel is typical of Judas's betrayal of Christ (v. 9, quoted in John 13:18).

Types and shadows are found in the OT, not the NT. The prophesies pointed to this event. Are there any OT prophesies you believe point to AD70?

Not with respect to prophecy. Yes, some prophecies did speak to that event. I have not denied this, but that does not negate the point being made that the prophetic point listed in Mat 24 are all fullfilled in 70 ad. The biggest proof there is to this is that Jesus has not yet come back. Scriptrure immediately after those tribulation... he will come back.

I would like to know from you, how come Jesus did not fufill not only His promise but prophecy, that at the end of the tribulation (70ad) Jesus would return? Where is He?

Coming in the clouds is a Hebrew idiom found throughout the OT. You can continue to ignore that but it doesn't change the FACT. It is up to you to demonstrate that the NT prophets intended the language to be understood differently than how the OT prophets used it.

You really don't understand do you? You make us stuff and then make your arguement, not against my points, but your own contrived assumption.

First, show me where I said Jesus must float down on a cloud. I was merely quoting the verse in my explanation. It is not a fact I ignore, I just assumed others already knew this and figured I didn't have teach about idoms and that 'this' idiom doesn't affect Jesus statement that He will return [bodily]. To requote what I have already stated to astrictom:
The imagry of clouds with respect to God ALWAYS refers to His majesty (being far above all things), His might (no one can stop the storms), ect..

The imagry of the cloud is representitive of God's coming as well as how He will come - [powerfully and] quickly. Jesus ... scripture tells us .. will physically return again, even the angels who were there at His ascension stated - "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven"

How was He recieved into heaven, according to the on lookers - "while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight."
While Jesus 'might' have been using OT imagry concerning His literal return, it is logical to assume, based off the angels testimony, that His return will be like His ascension and that means coming in the clouds, which also received Him out of their sight.

Then Peter was wrong:
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
　

*Sigh.. It isn't all that difficult to understand and no, Peter was not wrong.

But you do make me a little worried. I stated "

It has been just over 2000 years since you say (and also Full Prets), they have been fulfilled but still there is not nor has there been, an end - no Jesus coming as was prophesied.

"
To which you state - "Then Peter was wrong:"

Are you arguing that Jesus HAS ALREADY come?
I hope that isn't you view.

However as I said, no Peter isn't wrong, you just aren't reading it in relation to Jesus own statements. When these things are happening (vs 6 of Mat 24) the end is near, because these things are part of what must happen before Jesus returns. Thus when they begin, though in the beginning the end is still some way off, it is still understood that the 'end - is at hand' or is definately on it's way.

Here is a fact that you have yet to deal with. Jesus stated that immediately at the end of the tribulation (which ended in 70 ad or there abouts) He would return. Where is His return? Again - It has been just over 2000 years since you say (and also Full Prets), they have been fulfilled but still there is not nor has there been, an end - [we know this because there was] no Jesus coming as was prophesied.

Mat 24:29 ¶ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The 'and then' translates simply the very next thing as it is a continuation of events, one after another (like domino's). What gives the 'and then' the immediacy of the next even stems from the intial marker of these events in verse 29 - immediately after..

Using your method, you cannot know when it is near or at hand. People have been predicting this "end" all throughout Church history. In my own lifetime scholar after scholar has said His coming was near.

Are you saying He has already come?
Scripture tells us to be in that state of antisipation of His appearing. They are correct, like the apostles to continually state (and have been stating for just over 2000 years) the end is near. Just as Noah preached every day 120 years - end is near/the judgment of God is coming, Jesus tells us it will be just like those days (the days of Noah). Much like the apostles states of those days where they say - where is the promise of His coming?

We know the end is near because prophecy is not yet fulfilled for IF it were then IMMEDIATELY...Jesus would come.

Apparently you seem to be saying you will know, so can you tell us with current events, is His coming near?

Why is it you make stuff up as you go along. Deal with what "I" said and not your assuptions and made up arguments in 'your' head.
I didn't say I know the 'day' when He will come because Jesus even told us He didn't know the day nor the hour of His coming but to be watchful of the signs. By these we know the time is drawing closer.

Is the end near - YES! because scripture/prophesy is not yet fulfilled. Since Christ has not come, we KNOW this.

Once again you have defeated your own argument. The NT writers believed and taught the near coming of Jesus. However you say they were WRONG! What else were these supposedly inspired writers wrong about?

Once again you speak without understanding. Read the above. It isn't complicated but is simply biblical and easy to grasp.

What prophecies did they see fulfilled?

Some of those already mentioned.　

 

[Allan]

They DID see those things! Gill, Spurgeon, Barnes, Clarke all understood this.

Yes, they saw some being fulfilled but not all, and of those we see dual fulfillment as well. Again and agian, no one is denying this. Please deal with what is said and not your imagination.

Thomas Newton
"Our Saviour proceedeth in the same figurative style, ver. 30 - ' And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.' The plain meaning of it is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will be led from thence to acknowledge Christ and the Christian religion. In the ancient prophets, God is frequently described as coming in the 'clouds' upon any remarkable interposition and manifestation of his power; and the same description is here applied to Christ. The destruction of Jerusalem will be as ample a manifestation of Christ's power and glory as if he was himself to come visibly in the clouds of heaven." (ibid., p. 408-409)

　
Sorry but Newton did a very poor Job here. The text states ALL the tribes of the earth (meaning all mankind) and Newton ascribes this to only the Jews - all the tribes of the Hebrews.
Secondly, that the destruction was a sign that Christ had come. He seems to forget about The sign of the Son of Man in heaven as well from which all the tribes will mourn, and they will SEE the Son of Man 'Coming'... with power and glory.

Not after the destruction they percieve this was God and only Jews mourned, after all these things, thinking this must be Jesus who did this.
That was very funny though, Thank you.

 

[Allan]

Once again I quote Gill:

There were others also besides these, that set up for deliverers, who called themselves by the name of the Messiah. Among these, we may reckon Simon Magus, who gave out that he was some great one; yea, expressly, that he was the word of God, and the Son of God (e), which were known names of the Messiah; and Dositheus the Samaritan, asserted himself to be Christ (f); and also Menander affirmed, that no man could be saved, unless he was baptized in his name (g); these are instances before the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirm the prophecy here delivered.

"... from the death of Herod the Great.. to the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish History is filled with the names of false Christs and false prophets who deceived both the Jews and Samaratins. None appeared before this period, and not more than one for five or six centuries after it." (Kett, 3rd Edit. vol I, o. 168)

Thomas Newton
For very soon after our Saviour's decease appeared Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9, 10,-- ' and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying This man is the great power of God! He boasted himself likewise among the Jews, as the Son of God. Of the same stamp and character was also Dositheus the Samaritan, who pretended that he was the Christ foretold by Moses.

Do you still refute this? If so why? Are you married to your view so much?

I refute it, yes. While there were people proclaimed themselves christ's, of which I never denied, these 'few' do not establish a 'many' context. Jesus stated MANY not 10 or 12 or 15, many shall claim to be christ.

It has nothing to do with being 'married' to a view. Scripture and history (<--in accordance with scripture) do not give credence that preterism is even a biblical view. What I said is based upon facts not a personal desire. Your biggest problem is the fact Jesus stated after the trbulation He will return (bodily), and the angels at His ascension also stated the same thing and other passages of scripture (OT and NT) as well state the same. And this happens after the tribulation.

You read your interpretation into the text. The Roman Empire was made up of many nations.

Yes, it was formed from many nations. Did I state it was not?
Yet they were no longer nations (as in soverign entities) but were now - as one nation, a Roman nation/empire. While the term nation here is not speaking of equal rights nor native people to a particular land, it establishes the solidity of in terms conhesiveness but is better defined with the term Empire. Yet in either case, it is neither here nor there in reality.

"So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men... but when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go home..."

Yes, yes.. I already stated this. The wars were almost entirely Roman against Roman, not the nation of the Goths with the other nations rising up agaisnt the Romans as well as each other. You have people of various nations under each of the 4 wanna-be rulers of Rome who fought each other.

(Josephus, The Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:3)

"And now it was that a great sedition arose between the Jews that inhabited Cesarea, and the Syrians who dwelt there also... they came to throwing stones at one another; and several were wounded, and fell on both sides, though still the Jews were the conquerors. But when Felix saw that this quarrel was become a kind of war, he came upon them on the sudden, and desired the Jews to desist; and when they refused so to do, he armed his soldiers, and sent them out upon them, and slew many of them..."
(Josephus, The Antiquities Of The Jews, 20:8:7)

Yes, yes, but again, this does not fit the bill for nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom. It fit more in line with quarrels and rumors of big quarrels that were easly dispersed. This isn't even speaking of a real war of nations or kingdoms but more along the lines of a large civil unrest of which did not last very long due to Felix stopping their squabbles.

Then Peter was WRONG!
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

I have already dealt with this earlier.

It was the Roman Empire, not the Roman nation.

It was both.

Like Thomas Ice?

Why is it you have such trouble dealing with the substance given and not adding your own thoughts as if they are mine. It is this reason few enjoy engaging debate with you. We are trying to deal with text written buy you keep adding your opinions and additions of what another is supposed to believe, hold, or think and not of what they are saying.

You have clinched it for my position and history has clinched it for my position. Sure you don't want to discuss further verse 14?

Well believe what you wish, but thus far you have given no proof of substance but remain still with many gaping holes. Primarily, since the tribulations are over, where is Christ since scripture tells He will return immediately after the tribulations. But believe as you wish.

 

[HankD]

Using your method, you cannot know when it is near or at hand. People have been predicting this "end" all throughout Church history. In my own lifetime scholar after scholar has said His coming was near. Apparently you seem to be saying you will know, so can you tell us with current events, is His coming near? Yes or No? If you can't answer definitively one way or the other, my point is proven

Hi Grasshopper, I hope you and yours are all well.

I admire your tenacity.

Step away from your point of view for just a moment.
Look at this Scripture and there is a simple yet sublime answer (from my point of view) to your question concerning why these men were wrong (assuming that Jesus Christ indeed has not yet returned):

Luke 10

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.​

We just don't know when it will be.​

Another Scripture even presents the idea of a "delayed" coming​

Luke 12

40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.​

I believe it was RC Sproul (non-dispensational) acknowledges the following difficulty with preterism:

The Times of the Gentiles.

Matthew 24
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.​

The prophecies of astronomical and geological "signs" of 25-28 will not happen "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".​

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.​

Since the "fulness of the gentiles" is a mystery (unrevealed) until it happens in actuality, we don't know when it will occur either.

One thing we do know: Israel is still being "trodden down" by the "Goyim" of both Chistendom and Islam with the Temple site and other holy places of Judaism under the control of Christians and Moslems.

Admittedly verses Matthew 24:25-27 can be looked at as metaphor and/or imagery but the word "signs" (IMO) give greater credence to a literal view especially since "signs in the sun" is given the locative form.

HankD​

 

[kyredneck]

...Yes, it was formed from many nations. Did I state it was not? Yet they were no longer nations (as in soverign entities) but were now - as one nation, a Roman nation/empire. While the term nation here is not speaking of equal rights nor native people to a particular land, it establishes the solidity of in terms conhesiveness but is better defined with the term Empire. Yet in either case, it is neither here nor there in reality.

Allan, at it's best, this 'explaining away', this 'dance', you're doing is extremely weak.

Yes, yes, but again, this does not fit the bill for nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom. It fit more in line with quarrels and rumors of big quarrels that were easly dispersed. This isn't even speaking of a real war of nations or kingdoms but more along the lines of a large civil unrest of which did not last very long due to Felix stopping their squabbles.

“1 (1) WHEREAS the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; ......
2 Now at the time when this great concussion of affairs happened, the affairs of the Romans were themselves in great disorder. Those Jews also who were for innovations, then arose when the times were disturbed; they were also in a flourishing condition for strength and riches, insomuch that the affairs of the East were then exceeding tumultuous, while some hoped for gain, and others were afraid of loss in such troubles; for the Jews hoped that all of their nation which were beyond Euphrates would have raised an insurrection together with them. The Gauls also, in the neighborhood of the Romans, were in motion, and the Geltin were not quiet; but all was in disorder after the death of Nero.....” - Josephus, preface to WARS OF THE JEWS

“On the 19th of December a.d. 69, the Roman Capitol, with its ancient sanctuaries, was set on fire. Eight months later, on the 9th of Ab a.d. 70, the Temple of Jerusalem was given to the flames. It is not a coincidence but a conjunction, for upon the ruins of heathenism and of apostate Judaism was the Church of Christ to be reared.” - Edersheim

“………civil commotions and international feuds, were rife in those days, especially between the Jews and their neighbours. In Alexandria, in Selucia, in Syria, in Babylonia, there were violent tumults between the Jews and the Greeks, the Jews and the Syrians, inhabiting, the same cities. 'Every city was divided,' says Josephus, 'into two camps.' In the reign of Caligula great apprehensions were entertained in Judea of war with the Romans, in consequence of that tyrant's proposal to place his statue in the temple. In the reign of the Emperor Claudis (A.D. (41-54), there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign the famine in Judea was so severe, that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius.”-Russell

Christ, The Prophet, was speaking to the Jews, and telling them what was going to happen to THAT GENERATION OF JEWS......but believe what you want Allan. Keep up the dance, keep on explaining it away. It won't stop this preterist roller coaster. Folks are waking up.

 

[asterisktom]

Christ, The Prophet, was speaking to the Jews, and telling them what was going to happen to THAT GENERATION OF JEWS......but believe what you want Allan. Keep up the dance, keep on explaining it away. It won't stop this preterist roller coaster. Folks are waking up.

This has been my main incentive in writing on this topic: not to argue with those who will not be convinced, but to present to others a Christ-honoring hermeneutic that makes sense out of all of scripture. The preterist system takes full advantage of the consistent spiritual usage of scripture (Old and New Testaments).

 

[HankD]

This has been my main incentive in writing on this topic: not to argue with those who will not be convinced, but to present to others a Christ-honoring hermeneutic that makes sense out of all of scripture. The preterist system takes full advantage of the consistent spiritual usage of scripture (Old and New Testaments).

Hi Tom,

I have a few questions for you and any full preterist concerning this material universe.

These are sincere questions and not meant to trip anyone up or to take an opportunity to belittle the answers (although there might be a challenge).

My presumption is that full preterists believe in a resurrection.

Will the resurrected child of God have a "spritual" body or does it include a material body as Jesus had, able to eat and drink?

Will the material universe go on forever in the corruption of Romans 8 or will there be an eternal state where what is called "entropy" by science or "sin and death" by Scripture will cease?

Romans 8

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.​

A rather course scientific definition of "entropy" is sometimes called "the heat death of the universe" where all the energy of the universe is dissipated and the universe returns to ????

If sin and death come to an end, what will that transition look like and what are the events accompanying that transition.

What Scripture do you use as a description of that transition?

The reason I ask is that I have confusion concerning the preterist belief of the resurrection of the body and the nature of the eternal state (and the transition from mortal to eternal).

One preterist disclaimed 2 Peter 3 as that description:

2 Peter 3

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?​

This was a surprise to me and I have wondered concerning these things giving rise to the questions I am asking above. Can you or anyone help.​

There will be no ridicule from me but perhaps more questions and maybe even a challenge.​

Thanks
HankD​

 

[saturneptune]

And the dance begins.

Baptists dont dance.

 

[Winman]

What Preterists conveniently overlook is that when the Lord Jesus returns, it is to save his people and re-establish his kingdom, not destroy it. There are dozens of prophesies in the OT where God promises to gather his people from the four corners of the earth and they will dwell in safety forever. This is the 2nd coming.

Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

This is just one of many OT prophesies where God promises to gather the Jews back to their country and they will dwell in safety and peace forever.

Did Jesus re-establish his kingdom in 70 A.D.? No, the Jews were dispersed into all the world. It is only in this century that they have been brought back and have a homeland again. But do they dwell in peace and safety? No, that has not been fulfilled yet.

You teach the opposite of what the scriptures say, Jesus is returning to deliver and save his people, not destroy them.

 

[webdog]

Baptists dont dance.

Not good, at least

 

[Winman]

Not good, at least

You meant to say "well" didn't you?

Now, here is some bad dancing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwVa06LSlxk&feature=related

 

[kyredneck]

Baptists dont dance.

Not good, at least

You meant to say "well" didn't you?

Now, here is some bad dancing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwVa06LSlxk&feature=related

Heheh, you all speak for yourselves..... ......the wife and I both came from dancing families, two stepping, clogging, square dancing; we even took ball room dancing years ago....... we're not bashful about 'cutting a rug'........ Ah, the childhood memories of those bluegrass shindigs; the old and young alike danced.


[edit] I just watched that video Winman; ours twern't nothing like that.........

 

[Winman]

You Preterists still haven't answered what I said. When Jesus comes again it is to save the Jews, not destroy them. There are dozens of prophesies concerning this in the OT.

Zech 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

When Jesus comes he will fight against the nations that come against Jerusalem, not destroy it. The mount of Olives will divide in two and allow the Jews a way to escape these advancing armies. When Jesus destroys these armies then Jerusalem will see no more utter destruction but will be safely inhabited (vs. 11)

Even you Preterists cannot say this happened in 70 A.D.

 

[Grasshopper]

Some other examples (and there are many)from here:

The site does just as you do, assume dual fulfillments but never proves it. Who gets to decide when something has a dual fulfillment? Secondly you seem to confuse type/antitype with dual fulfillment.


In short, using the "dual fulfillment" principle to warn of a future Great Tribulation is a practice of sensational desperation, not sound Biblical exegesis. Dispensationalism in any form is a theology with an exiled Christ, with no kingdom today relevant to the earth in which we live. While we may not know the exact order of events leading up to the Second Advent, we can know that the Great Tribulation, as well as the other events of the Olivet Discourse, is past history. They happened within the apostle's generation (Matthew 24:34), never to be repeated.

http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2008/12/dual-fulfillment-and-future-tribulation.html

The biggest proof there is to this is that Jesus has not yet come back. Scriptrure immediately after those tribulation... he will come back.

Typical Dispie hermeneutic, it didn't happen the way I think it will therefore it didn't happen. You have much in common with 1st century Jews.

I'll try it too, the biggest proof that Jesus has returned is the fact that the Tribulation and all the other events of Matthew 24 occured.

I would like to know from you, how come Jesus did not fufill not only His promise but prophecy, that at the end of the tribulation (70ad) Jesus would return? Where is He?

http://www.breadsite.org/lyrics/180.htm

You really don't understand do you? You make us stuff and then make your arguement, not against my points, but your own contrived assumption.

First, show me where I said Jesus must float down on a cloud.

I will as soon as you show me where I said you said "Jesus would float down on a cloud".

Here is what you said:

And since scripture states once all these things happen the end shall come with Jesus coming in the clouds, seen by all.

So if you don't believe the clouds are literal then we can move on.

I was merely quoting the verse in my explanation. It is not a fact I ignore, I just assumed others already knew this and figured I didn't have teach about idoms and that 'this' idiom doesn't affect Jesus statement that He will return [bodily]. To requote what I have already stated to astrictom:
The imagry of clouds with respect to God ALWAYS refers to His majesty (being far above all things), His might (no one can stop the storms), ect..

Dang, if the Dispies I read and learned from growing up had taught me this I would have come to the preterist position much sooner. You are the first I have ever seen acknowledge Jesus won't be coming in literal clouds.

*Sigh.. It isn't all that difficult to understand and no, Peter was not wrong.

So Peter was correct in teaching Jesus' return was at hand. Would you agree then that His coming has been at hand all throughout Church history? I'm trying to understand what you mean by "at hand" and "shortly." Imminence?

But you do make me a little worried. I stated ""

To which you state - "Then Peter was wrong:"

Are you arguing that Jesus HAS ALREADY come?
I hope that isn't you view.

That would be my view. The parousia was Christ's coming in judgment in AD70.
parousia
Thayer Definition:
1) presence
2) the coming, arrival, advent
2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold
the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God

Albert Barnes comments interest me greatly:

The coming of the Son of man - It has been doubted whether this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the coming at the day of judgment. For the solution of this doubt let it be remarked:
1. that those two events are the principal scenes in which our Lord said he would come, either in person or in judgment.
2. that the destruction of Jerusalem is described as his coming, his act.
3. that these events - the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment in many respects greatly resemble each other.
4. that they "will bear," therefore, to be described in the same language; and,
5. therefore, that the same words often include both events, as properly described by them.
The words had, doubtless, a primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but they had, at the same time, such an amplitude of meaning as also to express his coming to judgment.

My question is why does Barnes and Gill and others assume it has another fulfillment? On this point I find full-preterism more consistent. I find no evidence for two "parousias".

However as I said, no Peter isn't wrong, you just aren't reading it in relation to Jesus own statements. When these things are happening (vs 6 of Mat 24) the end is near, because these things are part of what must happen before Jesus returns. Thus when they begin, though in the beginning the end is still some way off, it is still understood that the 'end - is at hand' or is definately on it's way.

Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

But you have been arguing these "all things" have not happened! But since you acknowledge Peter was correct in pronouncing the end was at hand then by your own words "all these things" must have happened.

Here is a fact that you have yet to deal with. Jesus stated that immediately at the end of the tribulation (which ended in 70 ad or there abouts) He would return. Where is His return? Again - It has been just over 2000 years since you say (and also Full Prets), they have been fulfilled but still there is not nor has there been, an end - [we know this because there was] no Jesus coming as was prophesied.

You would have stuck out like a sore thumb in the pre-Darby pre-Scofield days. Most of the commentaries I have read pre-Darby along with men like Spurgeon believed the Tribulation was a 1st century event. It is for this very reason I believe Christ's parousia occured.

Are you saying He has already come?

Matthew 24, Matthew 26:64, Matthew 10:23 Revelation 1:1,3, Rev 22:10,12, James 5:8 etc....tell me so.

Scripture tells us to be in that state of antisipation of His appearing.

"us" or those to whom the letter was written?

They are correct, like the apostles to continually state (and have been stating for just over 2000 years) the end is near.

I hope everyone is getting this.

Just as Noah preached every day 120 years - end is near/the judgment of God is coming,

Did Noah say the end was near? Secondly since people lived for a few hundred years in those days, "near" meant in ones lifetime!

Jesus tells us it will be just like those days (the days of Noah). Much like the apostles states of those days where they say - where is the promise of His coming?

But if people in that day understood words like "near" and "at hand" as you say, they would not have asked such a thing. Perhaps they understood them in the normal usage and were truly asking because the apostles told them it was near.

We know the end is near because prophecy is not yet fulfilled for IF it were then IMMEDIATELY...Jesus would come.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Why is it you make stuff up as you go along. Deal with what "I" said and not your assuptions and made up arguments in 'your' head.

I have to assume because your views seem to morph as we go along. For example we now find out you don't believe in a literal clouds coming.

Is the end near - YES! because scripture/prophesy is not yet fulfilled. Since Christ has not come, we KNOW this.

It is statments like these that make me have to assume things about your position.

Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

You say it is near

Jesus said you would know it is near when you see all these things

Therefore you have to believe all these things have occured

Jesus said the generation that saw these things would not pass till all were fulfilled

Included in the "all these things" was the parousia

welcome to preterism

 

[Winman]

You would have stuck out like a sore thumb in the pre-Darby pre-Scofield days. Most of the commentaries I have read pre-Darby along with men like Spurgeon believed the Tribulation was a 1st century event. It is for this very reason I believe Christ's parousia occured.

Yes, in their day the worst thing that had ever happened to the Jews was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. But I would bet if all of these men would have seen the Holocaust of this last century where over six million Jews were gassed, baked in ovens, ripped apart for medical experiments, and starved to death for years in concentration camps, they would quickly change their former opinions.

You seem to believe that just because certain men believed that the tribulation occured in the 1st century it must be true. But the problem still is, the scriptures clearly show the Lord is coming to save his people, not destroy them.

Zech 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

I guess the Lord didn't do a very good job of defending Jerusalem as he promised to do if your doctrine is correct. He didn't destroy the armies that came against Jerusalem also.

 

[Grasshopper]

I refute it, yes. While there were people proclaimed themselves christ's, of which I never denied, these 'few' do not establish a 'many' context. Jesus stated MANY not 10 or 12 or 15, many shall claim to be christ.

You are now deparate. Tell us all, when Jesus said "many" how many did He mean since you obviously know?

Secondly how many more occured that are not recorded in history?

Your biggest problem is the fact Jesus stated after the trbulation He will return (bodily), and the angels at His ascension also stated the same thing and other passages of scripture (OT and NT) as well state the same. And this happens after the tribulation.

Yea, I missed that bodily part. Where is that in Matthew?

Why is it you have such trouble dealing with the substance given and not adding your own thoughts as if they are mine. It is this reason few enjoy engaging debate with you.

At least people know what they are getting when they debate me. I'm not here to play footsie with scripture. I ask questions and expect answers and I assume those who are debating me expect the same. If I don't know an answer I say so. I'm not here to prove how educated I am. In fact I'm sure many if not most on here are much more educated than I. Never been to seminary or any kind of Bible College. What I have learned I've learned by reading and listening to others who know much more that I.

But what they don't get from me is word games and changing answers depending on the question. Nor do they get obvious vague answers in order to avoid answering questions I don't know the answer to. What I try to give is clarity in answer so there is no confusion where I stand or in the point I'm trying to make. Apply that however you wish.

We are trying to deal with text written buy you keep adding your opinions and additions of what another is supposed to believe, hold, or think and not of what they are saying.

Lets see, on the one hand you argue these things haven't happened, another time you say some have, another time you claim double-fulfillment which would indicate they have been fulfilled but will be so again. Somebody has to know what you think so I might as well give it a try.

Well believe what you wish, but thus far you have given no proof of substance but remain still with many gaping holes. Primarily, since the tribulations are over, where is Christ since scripture tells He will return immediately after the tribulations. But believe as you wish.

Too bad Gill and Spurgeon are dead, we could ask them too.

 

[Grasshopper]

Hi Grasshopper, I hope you and yours are all well.

I admire your tenacity.

Always a pleasure HankD.

Step away from your point of view for just a moment.
Look at this Scripture and there is a simple yet sublime answer (from my point of view) to your question concerning why these men were wrong (assuming that Jesus Christ indeed has not yet returned):

Luke 10

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.​

We just don't know when it will be.​

1. You had this former farmboy believing he was going senile when I looked up Luke 10:32.

2.You say "we". But to whom was Jesus speaking in this passage?

3. No one is claiming that anyone knew the day or the hour. Surley you are not saying they would not know when it was near and at the door?

4. At this time Jesus did not know, but the Father at some point told the Son.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Another Scripture even presents the idea of a "delayed" coming​

Luke 12

40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.​

It is an evil servant that says that.​

Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

I don't know how you could use this as a prooftext that Jesus delayed His coming. Daniel 2 predicted the time of the coming of the Kingdom. If there was a delay then his prophecy was wrong.​

Heb 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. ​

I believe it was RC Sproul (non-dispensational) acknowledges the following difficulty with preterism:

The Times of the Gentiles.

Matthew 24
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.​

The prophecies of astronomical and geological "signs" of 25-28 will not happen "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".​

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.​

Since the "fulness of the gentiles" is a mystery (unrevealed) until it happens in actuality, we don't know when it will occur either.

One thing we do know: Israel is still being "trodden down" by the "Goyim" of both Chistendom and Islam with the Temple site and other holy places of Judaism under the control of Christians and Moslems.

Admittedly verses Matthew 24:25-27 can be looked at as metaphor and/or imagery but the word "signs" (IMO) give greater credence to a literal view especially since "signs in the sun" is given the locative form.

1. RC Sproul seems to be very much a preterist. In fact his book "The Last Days According to Jesus" pretty much folllows a partial-preterist view. He is very close to full-preterism but the hurdle he will not cross is the resurrection hurdle. It has been a few years since I read his book but I don't remember his objections to the times of the Gentiles. You can go to his website and watch some of his lectures dealing with the Olivet Discourse.

2. You need a new Bible! Luke is where Matthew should be.

3. Is the times of the Gentiles not 42 months?

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

4. I'll have to study on Romans 11:25

5.
Luk 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Fits with what Sir Isaac Newton wrote:

"The figurative language of the prophets is taken from the analogy between the world natural and an empire or kingdom considered as a world politic. Accordingly, the world natural, consisting of heaven and earth, signifies the whole world politic, consisting of thrones and people, or so much of it as is considered in prophecy; and the things in that world signify the analogous things in this. For the heavens and the things therein signify thrones and dignities, and those who enjoy them: and the earth, with the things thereon, the inferior people; and the lowest parts of the earth, called Hades or Hell, the lowest or most miserable part of them. Great earthquakes, and the shaking of heaven and earth, are put for the shaking of kingdoms, so as to distract and overthrow them; the creating of a new heaven and earth, and the passing of an old one; or the beginning and end of a world, for the rise and ruin of a body politic signified thereby. The sun, for the whole species and race of kings, in the kingdoms of the world politic; the moon, for the body of common people considered as the king's wife; the starts, for subordinate princes and great men; or for bishops and rulers of the people of God, when the sun is Christ. Setting of the sun, moon, and stars; darkening the sun, turning the moon into blood, and falling of the stars, for the ceasing of a kingdom." (Observations on the Prophecies, Part i. chap. ii)

Now perhaps you would be so kind to answer a couple.

1. What did Jesus mean here:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

2. Did this literally happen?

3 Look! The LORD is coming from his dwelling place;
he comes down and treads the high places of the earth.
4 The mountains melt beneath him
and the valleys split apart,
like wax before the fire,
like water rushing down a slope.