Looking for info: Partial Preterism

That was in response to what robycop3 said here...

"If they saw the great trib, then Jesus' words in Matt. 24:30 are not true. Can't be both ways!"

They didn't see what? The tribulation or the Lord's return? If they fled to the hills they had to see something, right? If you're talking about Christ return, we are told every eye shall see him, right? Jesus said in Mathew 24:33-34, "So likewise ye, when ye shall SEE all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

I know you're going to say that the generation of AD70 is the generation Jesus is talking about, however my point is whatever generation he IS talking about SEES the events PASS mentioned between verses 3-31!

MT. 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.

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

When one author mentions thing another doesn't it becomes an excuse to interpret things differently. Every author in the bible records thing differently. Daniel did mention the abomination and mentions is being "set up."

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate SET UP, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Jesus...
"When ye therefore shall SEE the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

Regardless if you're referring to the tribulation or return of Christ the KJV says THEY WILL SEE BOTH!

Absolutely not, the sun, moon, and stars are LITERAL! I'm amazed at some of the outrageous claims preterist make.

"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:"

The word HEAVEN Jesus used is 'ouranos' and it refers to the literal sky and universe...
ouranos...
the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
the universe, the world
the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
the sidereal or starry heavens
the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings
___________________________________________________________

I don't remember what Christian forum it was but some of them are now inundated with Preterist and it destroys the eschatology section.

A slight misquote from who? How about a major fabrication from you.
Simple hermeneutics help us determine if a passage is literal or figurative. It really isn't that difficult. You always seem to interpret the word temple figuratively, however, CONTEXT is usually what determines whether a word is interpreted figuratively or literally. If it makes no sense literally, it's figurative and vice-versa.

Now you've confused me. As a Preterist, I don't know where you're coming from.

 

According to the Preterist movement, Revelation NOT was NOT written between 90-95 AD but in 65-70 AD, and Mathew was NOT written between 80-90 AD, but 60-65 AD.

It makes no sense that John would write a prophetic book (in 65-70 AD), that we've broken down into 22 chapters, that had no time to be distributed, copied, read, preached or remotely understood throughout the inhabited world before its fulfillment. Even IF they were written before 70 AD, that makes Revelation and Mathew 24 USELESS to the generation of that time. Little to NOTHING was understood in the book of Revelation in 70 AD. (It wasn't even written at that time anyway)

The entire context of Mathew 24 between V. 3-51 is Christ' answer to the question.... "WHEN shall these things be. (one stone on top of another) WHAT shall be the sign of thy coming. WHAT shall be the sign of the consummation of the age." Not one word in verse 3 or the entire passage suggest that "the consummation of the age" ended in 70 AD, and not ONCE does the passage suggest Jesus is deviating from talking about "the end of the AGE/AION."

The generation Jesus is referring to is the one that SEES and endures ALL of the events he mentions between verses 3-33.

 

"See the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky/heaven..." is different than simply seeing the Son of man. That is a Hebrew way of referring to divine judgment.

 

So you keep trying to tell us. Except, the proof is in their fulfillment.

 

You reject what I present as undeniable proof, just as I reject what you view as proof.

 

The more that people study history - especially the history of the Jewish Wars, the more they will realize the preterist view makes perfect sense. @Gorship is a smart guy, and I'm sure he will make up his own mind. Whether or not he sticks to the preterist view, at least he is giving this an honest and unbiased evaluation. That is really all we can ask of anyone.

 

As a partial preterist, even I am surprised at that. I wonder if this has just started. Personally, I am hopeful that it catches on in the Baptist circles. For that matter, throughout all of Christendom.

 

If Revelation was written in the 60s, as we preterists believe, there is no reason the book would not have reached the majority of Christians in the Roman Empire before its fulfillment. At the very least, this would have reached the 7 churches that John specifically addressed the "letter" to. It's only our modern generation that has so much trouble with understanding the prophecies in this book. The original readers, being very familiar with their particular situation (Roman persecution, etc.) would have understood this very clearly. Remember, John told his original audience that they would be able to calculate who the number of the Beast pointed to. This wouldn't be possible unless it was someone they knew about, one of their contemporaries.

The disciples' question in Matthew 24:3 is specifically about the end of the age. The KJV incorrectly uses the phrase "end of the world". The Greek word in question is "aeon", not "kosmos". History shows that Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed exactly as Jesus described in this passage. In Matthew 24:34, He said that "this generation" would not pass away until all these things take place. "This generation" always means those alive at the time of the speaker. If Jesus meant a future generation, He would have said "that generation". While some argue that He meant "race", that really doesn't make sense in this context. The generation He was speaking of did see and endure all the events He spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, which culminated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.

 

No you haven't you have all shown you ignorance of scripture by keep repeating what you have been indoctrinated with, the teaching of the heretic Scofield

 

You are getting there.

The seven candlesticks were the seven churches. So we know that candlesticks are churches. The seven churches represent the whole church. The two candlesticks represent the witnessing church in its reduced state during the tribulation imposed by the RCC, two or three being the minimum number of legal withesses. They were fed by the oil of the spirit represented by the two olive trees.

 

That is what the Irvingites believed, except they taught it waould happen in the summer of 1833.

 

The seventieth week was completed by the Lord Jesus by his eartly ministry. According to Paul.

• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

What promises could they be but the covenant?

 

US baptists maybe. Here most baptists that I know would beleiev in some sort of a-mil historicism. Liberal baptists like thos in the Baptist union may accept anything, but then thet accept women ministers, and RC docrines like Lent, some even transubstantiation.

 

I must confess that I know very little of Baptist doctrine outside of the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm not familiar with the Baptist union, but they certainly do sound very liberal. Are they "wannabe Methodists", or trying to go "mainline" Protestant?

 

No, the Scriptures are LITERAL. Mr. Kent finds them inconvenient, so he tries to reduce them to "symbolic' status. That's simply not true. Proof? Those parts of the Oliver Discourse which HAVE been fulfilled were done so LITERALLY, AS WRITTEN.
Rev. 13 says the image will be set up in the temple

 

In the past, the British worked vigoroulsy against the Baptists, namely the "Anabaptists". 'Tis no marvel that aberrant doctrines are common among British Baptists, including YOURSELF.

 

This makes no sense. There's nothing in the verse to support your assertion. If fact, that's kind of a pattern for you.

 

And, of course, the preterist movement is wrong about those things, same as they are about many others.

It was written between 90-96 AD, during Diocletian's reign.

And that generation hasn't yet come unless it's this one.

 

I myself am IFB; our church does nor believe ANY man-made doctrine of faith/worship.

 

What are the differences between the different Baptist churches? I only know SBC views.