Search results

To state the obvious, we have entirely different interpretations, and will not agree. I say the Futurist view is wrong and you say the Preterist view is wrong. Each of us give the same arguments. Don't you feel like a broken record?

The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, plus the end of the Old Covenant system is the topic of the entire Olivet Discourse. Jesus didn't literally, but He did return when He "came" in judgment in 70 A.D. Revelation doesn't tell us that the Beast will rule kosmos, but oikumene. Big...

A lot of people see separate topics in the Olivet Discourse. It's clear that Jesus points to the destruction of the Temple at the beginning, when He answered thequestions. He never changed the topic.

Of course the Holy Spirit doesn't lie. I ask the same of you. You are unable to provide anything except opinions and conjecture. I've proven Preterism many times. You remain willfully blind to the evidence.

Oddly enough, I used to be guilty of "newspaper eiseges", reading prophecies in the news because that's what I was looking for. Now I carefully study Scripture and see where prophecies have been fulfilled in history. That is, it's because I understand the Bible and history that I have a...

I don't see how that is distorting the language of Scripture. Most Christians agree that Revelation uses a lot of symbolism. Just a matter of proper interpretation.

Agreed. The unanswered questions were more about how the prophecies play out. When looking at the prophecies as fulfilled in 67-70 A.D., the puzzle came together.

The Holy Spirit has led me to the true views of the "End Times". That's why I am a Partial Preterist. I'm don't have time to rehash the same arguments now. It doesn't matter what I say though. You have your views, I have mine, and time will tell.

I was just thinking of a scene from "The Princess Bride". Indigo: "Let me explain. No, it's too much. Let me sum up." I adopted the Preterist view after a detailed study of the Olivet Discourse. I never bought into the Dispensational view, but I became disillusioned with the futurist view...

As I've said before, the Beast was Nero/Rome; False Prophet was apostate Israel; the Mark of the Beast may not have been a literal mark, just as those marked for Christ don't have a literal mark. All life in the sea dying and the waters becoming red with blood both refer to the massive...

That's the point - Scripture said they would happen, and history shows they have. Repeating the same points over and over doesn't change anything. Neither of us are saying anything we haven't said before. Shall we just accept the fact that neither of us will change the other's mind?

The flip side of that also holds. No amount of rhetoric can change these events to future fulfillment, nor change any past fulfilled events. Just a circular argument.

Many Christians - including a lot of Partial Preterists - hold that view full Preterism is heresy. Personally, I think it's unorthodox, but not heretical in the sense of denying the Trinity or the divinity of Christ.

I am a Partial Preterist, still looking for Christ to return again.

My views are based on much more than this passage, so I stand by my Preterist views. However, I concede that you ask serious questions. It will be a couple of weeks before I have much time, though.

I totally agree that Christ's 2nd Coming is still in our future. How do you figure that this refutes the passage in question? We obviously have different interpretations of the Seals, Trumpet, and Bowl judgments.

That's been our disagreement all along.

Oops - you did make your case then. While I'm not totally sure about these "locusts" not being permitted to kill, we know that modern attack helicopters are very effective killing machines. I still believe Tom is right about those early "stingers". It simply makes more sense.

Although I can see how you wouldn't think this historical fact really makes any real difference in the futurist vs Preterist debate, I can't see how this could possibly refute Preterism. I'm sure you will try to find a way, though.

Although I've been a Preterist for several years, I didn't know that. Quite interesting, and that clearly supports the Preterist position. And I'd always thought Stingers were just Air Defense Artillery weapons☺