Search results

I KNEW you couldn't resist the "Ford Corvette" comment. Then again, my daughter teases me for being predictable :). For a guy who obviously knows history better than most, I'm surprised that you don't believe what I said regarding the images in the temple. Where does Scripture tell us that a...

Chapter and verse, please.

With all those passages, I can't accuse you of not providing Scripture to make your point :). I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make with the first 9 passages. Israel was multiplied and ultimately glorified when the Messiah came from their line. Points 1 and 2 are related, so I...

The "Sea Beast" of Revelation was Emperor Nero (the 6th King). Why the reference to a physical resurrection of the saints?

Good points, Sir, and you are absolutely right. However, the Jews were still practicing their animal sacrifices in the Temple until AD 70. That was the final nail into the Old Covenant's coffin. I also agree that this was part of the "days of vengeance". While you make good points regarding...

Since you wish to use historical events to support your point, you have to concede that historical events are EXACTLY what prove the Preterist view. Specifically, the well-documented Jewish War and Destruction of Jerusalem. You are looking for a worldwide catastrophe that will never happen...

While that is one possible explanation, and it fits your eschatological view, that is not the only way to interpret this passage. From the Partial Preterist view, I believe that "those who pierced Him" recognized it as His judgment. In any case, it doesn't have to be a literally "see". We...

The reason Preterism IS the correct view is because the signs that Jesus prophesied came to pass just as He said, beginning with the Jewish Wars, culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. He was not speaking of the end of the world, but of the end of the Old...

An important note that I forgot to bring up - especially for @Yeshua1 , @Calminian , and @church mouse guy - The main point about the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, and other "end of the world" prophecies is not that it's about the literal end of the world, but about the end of the Old Covenant...

I don't remember (nor care) who brought up what passage, because it's all relevant. Neither Tom nor I ever claimed that there are no more Jews. That is absolutely absurd. You completely misunderstand Paul's meaning about the "true Jew". Note that Paul himself uses that term in Philippians...

It's easy to produce a long list of Biblical scholars who support the early (pre-AD 70) dating of Revelation. We look at internal and external evidence for the dating of Revelation. The strongest external dating is a quote from Iraneaus, but that quote is not very clear. Iraneaus also said...

Amen, Brother. It totally blew me away to learn of the Preterist view. The more I studied, the more I realized that I had to forget everything I thought I knew about the "End Times" to learn what Scripture actually teaches us.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 shows that his immediate audience expected it in their day. He speaks to them, not about some future generation. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul speaks of the "Man of Lawlessness" as though it is someone they knew. Try to read the Scriptures through the eyes of their...

As President Trump would say, "that is YUUUGE!" I'm still shaking my head over the "no big deal" comment earlier. So many clues - near time statements, use of "you" and "we", the history of what was happening - it all adds up. Unless you refuse to see it, of course.

There is strong evidence that the entire NT was finished between 66-68.

You still haven't made the case for the Church always seeing Preterist views as heresy. Regardless, the Scriptures leave room for interpretation either way.

While you've made the case as to why you disagree with it, you haven't made the case why it is not a valid Biblical interpretation. There are many doctrines with which we may disagree, but those who hold to them have a Biblical case.

Oddly enough, the Scriptures are why Preterists hold the view they have. Some very prominent ECF held preteristic views as well. Are we at an impasse?

What makes you think the Premil position was the dominant one? What are your sources?