Featured A Curious Omission

Many Amils claim that 70 A.D. was the 2nd coming of Christ.

 

Many Preterists (including myself) believe that while Christ "came" in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, the actual 2nd Coming is still in our future.

 

Preterist...which is a small minority of amillenialist believers.
Amillenialist's simply don't manufacture a non-biblical "pre-trib" rapture not ever discussed in the Bible.

 

Let's stay on topic.

 

Does not answer my question. Orthodox Preterists do not hold that view.

 

Not the ones that I have read and talked with!
They see Second Coming still a future event!

 

You brought it up and showed you don't know amillenialism and who holds it.

 

Ok @AustinC

 

I'm glad the HS has your permission to do so....

 

This is reflective of knee-jerk contentiousness. That comment was really tone-deaf.

The comment was in response to the OP's statement:

I answered that the scriptures can indeed silently pass over monumental events and illustrated it by pointing out that Daniel never mentions the return of the captive Jews.

Therefore, by "can" I did not mean "permission", but rather, evidently to those who do not make a man an offender for a word (Isa.29:21), meant that the scripture can ignore anything they want, should the word of God so choose.

And I can't believe I had to explain that.

 

I wasn't even talking to you! I was replying to @kyredneck! Hold your sting-reflexes, will you guys?

 

...wow (and I see you edited your initial reply). The conversation was between me and @kyredneck.
The tenor of your initial reply was out of any sense of that consideration.
Nor had you and I argued about anything...
Again, I can't believe I have to explain such things.
Then again, this is the kind of mentality boards attract.

 

But by the time the book had been written and a few copies made, it would already have been out of date.! I agree that we are not supposed to be setting dates for the "Antichrist" to appear. Many of them had already come when John wrote his first letter. The purpose of the book is for the understanding and encouragement of people all through the ages.

The problem you have is that Nero is actually only the fifth 'king.' Julius Caesar, as you will know if you know your Shakespeare, turned down the crown three times when it was offered to him.

'You all did see that on the Lupercal,
I thrice did offer him a kingly crown
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?'

It was Augustus who claimed him as the first Emperor to consolidate his own legitimacy as Caesar's heir and Preterists claim him because without him their system doesn't work. But I do assure you that he never, ever claimed to be king or Emperor..
But yes, I know that the early date is crucial to Preterism, which is one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt. But so long as you believe in a physical future return of Christ, I'm not going to fall out with you. Therefore I shall stop my participation on this thread here.

 

@asterisktom, since when did silence become a sound argument?
Yet, if you wish to go there, we have no text, anywhere, that says Jesus returned and raptured the elect at 70CE, only to have the elect continue to evangelize and suffer persecution from 70CE to the present hour.
In this matter, silence would eliminate preterism as a valid theory entirely. Do you still wish to argue from silence?

 

This one doesn't.

 

Yes, your behavior is what you condemn in others.
You tried to state that most amillenialist's are preterists, which is false. Historically, the church has been amillenial and not preterist.