Looking for info: Partial Preterism

I really and truly don't mind you holding onto what you believe to be true. How strong would your convictions be if you didn't hold onto them? What I do mind is that you won't just drop it when it's obvious that we will not agree.

One thing that we do agree on is that Gorship does realize that most Baptists reject all forms of Preterism. He would have to be blind to miss that. I won't drop it because I do understand the truth of this view. Hopefully, the Preterist view will continue to grow throughout the entire Christian world.

 

Only pre-trib seems to affirm immanency. That said, if I'm wrong, and I see the 7 years starting, I'll definitely be crossing my fingers for the mid-trib.

The one thing you give up with those views is the doctrine of immanency. When the 7 years start, you can then count down 3.5 years to the rapture. The rapture can't come now or at any moment, because the tribulation period has to start first. While you don't know the day or hour, you know the rapture won't be today, and once the clock starts you will know the day.

With post-trib it gets a little strange because you're raptured, but then you make an immediate u-turn in the air and then return with Christ to immediately set up his millennial kingdom and celebrate the marriage supper. Maybe in that case it'll be a quick wedding in the air, I don't know. You also lose the doctrine of immanency with this view.

 

You are ignoring the issue. Sure, "kosmos" is used in Matthew 24. However, "oikumene" is used in Luke's account of the same teaching. So, what do you do with "oikumene"? You can't ignore it, or pretend that Jesus didn't say it. Incidentally, He did return right after the tribulation He had described. This was a return in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 - not to be confused with the 2nd Advent, which is still in our future.

 

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question. Where do you see the 7 years of tribulation in the Bible? Revelation has several periods of 3 1/2 years, but none of 7 years? I am guessing that you put a couple of these back-to-back. If this is the case, what specific passages make up this 7 year tribulation?

 

Lodic, this was your argument. You banged on the table claiming that the tribulation of Matt. 24 had to be local because the word kosmos was not used. Then when found out it was indeed used, you changed your argument. Now you want to demote kosmos based on another word from another context. Interpretation doesn't work that way.

I'm merely agreeing with your strong original argument about kosmos.

 

Let's look at that passage again:

Matthew 24:30
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

The first part of the verse mentions "the sign of the Son of Man" appearing in the sky, not the Son of Man appearing in the sky. Whatever that sign is, it is not the same thing as the Son of Man Himself.

The second part of the verse, simply states (in ancient Hebrew prophetic imagery) that the divine Jesus will bring powerful and glorious judgment upon that generation. Simply reasserting your view is not evidence.

 

Yes there's the mention of back to back 3.5 year periods in Revelation. The covenant of Daniel 9 is also a big clue, prophesying a future 7 year covenant, sometime after the destruction of the city, broken at the midpoint.

 

My argument is from these two accounts of the Olivet Discourse. You are okay with using "kosmos" from Matthew's gospel because it fits your view. You are ignoring "oikumene" from Luke's gospel because it could present a problem.

 

Thank you. I really didn't know which time periods you put together.

 

You can put this on me all you like, but it was your argument. You would have stuck with it had you been correct. You thought the absence of kosmos was the savior of your local small tribulation. Then you found out Jesus did describe it as a kosmos. The case is closed. You're begging to go back and time and change your own argument but it's too late. We both agree, kosmos is a game changer.

 

It's only a "closed case" if you ignore Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse. We can both agree that oikumene would make this a game changer.

 

It's closed for Matt. 24, in this particular passage. You made your case. I believe you were correct in your original assessment of the importance of the greek word.

You can definitely move to other passages (you have no choice), you can move to Luke and try to make a case from it, I understand. I go everywhere on this debate.

But Matt 24 is clear, and your argument has been debunked. We can stick a fork in that one. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

Why would oikumene be any less important than kosmos? Oikumene makes a "world" of difference (pun intended). This was used in Matthew 24:14, where Jesus predicted that the gospel shall be preached in the whole world (Roman Empire), and then the end shall come. This came to pass just as He said, as @kyredneck and @Covenanter have pointed out earlier in this thread. Yet, you futurists insist this is still a future event.

 

It's not, it's just in a different context, from a different statement. If Luke recorded this word from a different statement then you have to look at that statement in its own context, to determine meaning.

In the context of the statements Matthew recorded, the context is clear that Jesus was speaking of a worldwide judgment, immediately followed by the second coming. You made the argument yourself that kosmos would refer to a worldwide event if it was used. Then, when you found out it was, you suddenly changed your mind. Sorry, that's how it played out.

Also, you seem confused about how words are used in all languages. You don't just look up the semantic range and apply any meaning you like. You look at context. You agreed, that in this context, kosmos, if used, would mean worldwide.

Yes, you were mistaken, but that's the breaks. If you were genuine about this argument, you would now change your interpretation of Matt. 24.

 

It only played out that way when you took my misquoted reference and ran with it. Not that I blame you, as I did make it easy for you. But, in so doing, you are making the parallel passage in Luke to be a completely separate event so you can bypass your "oikumene" problem. That simply ain't so. On that note, it's not a question of how kosmos could be used, but how was it used. The context shows you to be wrong.

If you compare scripture with scripture, you easily see that Matthew and Luke are quoting from the same context. Matthew 24:1-44 and Luke 21:5-36 cover the same topics during the same period when Jesus and the disciples came out of the temple. Why would He speak of a worldwide judgment in Matthew, but speak of the judgment of Jerusalem in Luke? It has to be one or the other. History and Scriptures support the view that Jerusalem was in mind.

We see "oikumene" used in Rev. 3:10, where Jesus speaks of the hour of testing that is "about to come upon the whole world". This clearly speaks of the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70. When you let Scripture be it's own interpreter, everything makes perfect sense.

 

Now you're just being disingenuous. I'm going to move on.

 

I didn't think so, but as you wish. Take care.

 

Kosmos - the Old Covenant 'arrangement':

20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18