Featured Watch for the beast!

Audience relevance is irrelevant to dispies. It kills the buzz.

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.

2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

 

But the pret view makes Jesus a false prophet.

 

Hard to mis-interpret words that are so clearly spoken. Your "proof" is more like circular reasoning - it hasn't happened yet because you don't believe it's happened yet.

The "great city" of Rev 17:18 is the same "great city from Rev 11:8 - Jerusalem.

Rev 1:7 says "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth (land) will mourn over Him". In context, the Jews would understand the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple to be His return in judgment.

If there were only one possible interpretation for much of what we are debating, we would not disagree in the first place. The time indicators in the rest of Revelation, the Olivet Discourse, and other NT prophecies prove these events were to take place in the 1st Century. While I'm not positive as to what Rev 19:19 does mean, I am positive as to what it cannot mean.

Your "proofs" are nothing more than your opinions and interpretations.

 

Every generation from the Ascension until the return of Jesus is to carry out the Great Commission. This doesn't affect the prophecies of the Great Tribulation, Abomination of Desolation, etc.

 

Jesus did not say that all who heard His words would see those things happen, but that their generation would see those events fulfilled. Certainly some were dead before AD 70. That doesn't affect my interpretation. I am fully aware of other Greek words that some people try to apply to the Olivet Discourse. What truly gives a word its meaning is the context. In context, "race" or "kind" makes even less sense than trying to change Christ's words to mean "that generation" instead of "this generation". There is no place in the NT where "genea" is translated as "race". Imagine changing "genea" to mean "race" in Matthew 1:17. All the "races" from Abraham to David were 14 "races". Obviously that means "generation".

Yes, I do agree that much of Revelation simply provides more details to describing the same events. Jesus told His disciples that their generation would see those events take place. I do believe Revelation was written in the 60s, before the fall of Jerusalem. Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" provides very compelling arguments for this view. Well worth the 400 page read.

 

I'm sure @kyredneck won't mind my jumping in here. Earlier I posted why I believe the "futurist" view would make Jesus a false prophet. Why do you think the Preterist view would make Him a false prophet?

 

For one thing, he has not returned.

 

LOL there are absolutely no compelling arguments for the early date. None. Historical evidence also shows the later date. As far as all, I was not suggesting all had to see it, there was something you had said that made me write it that way but I can't remember what it was at the moment. My main point is that the events have not happened. They haven't. There is no amount of twisting you can do to say that they have. They have not. Christ has not returned to this earth. He hasn't. Anyone who says he has is either delusional or dishonest. That alone shows there must be a different understanding of what generation is being discussed.

 

His 1st Century audience saw the sign of His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem.

To the contrary, there is much more evidence for an early date than there is for a late date. Rather than digress into a debate about that, I'll follow your lead. The main point is that those events have happened. I don't have to twist Scripture to make my point. The actual, physical 2nd Coming of Christ is definitely in our future. As you say, anyone who says otherwise is mistaken or lying.

 

Yes. You just need to realize it's the Preterist interpretation instead of the Futurist Fantasy.

You Futurists cannot provide a Biblical to refute the fact that the "time indicator" texts all point to a 1st Century fulfillment of the Great Tribulation, AOD, etc. "Soon" means soon - unless Jesus said it. "Near" means near - unless Jesus said it. "This generation" means this generation - unless Jesus said it when discussing future events. You would be wise to stop trying to change what Jesus meant, and try to understand HOW these events were fulfilled.

 

Precisely my point. This exactness included the prophecy that all those events would be fulfilled within the generation of His immediate audience. Either they were not fulfilled exactly as He said and He actually meant something else, or the events did come to pass.

 

But with all due respect, that was only part of what Jesus prophesied. The destruction that is, that was not him coming.

The Coming of the Son of Man
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mt 24:29–31.


When have these things happened? Please be specific.

 

Sure we can and have. You have the bigger problem of the events not having taken place.

 

I really appreciate the fact that truly do argue your points with respect, and not just with me.
Having said that, I must disagree, Brother. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus told His disciples "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

When did the tribes of the earth (land) mourn? When did they "see" the Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven? When did He send out His angels with the trumpet call? The time for each of those events is the same, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. I believe Jesus was using symbolic language with the "clouds of heaven" and "sending out His angels". I believe that passage refers to the spread of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem.

I don't see where the Partial Preterist view has a problem at all. These events were fulfilled within the generation of Christ's immediate audience. The "time indicator" texts support this view perfectly.

 

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Our main points of disagreement:

1. The meaning of generation.
2. The literalness of the event of Christ's coming.

 

It was a return in judgment....not the second coming.