Let Jesus be Jesus and Preterism Rings and Reigns all through the Bible

[HeirofSalvation]

So your best argument is to try to confuse the issue with Greek gobbledygook to say they actually could have literally seen God riding the clouds. Really now?

1.) I was merely supplying an ENGLISH definition to a translation of a HEBREW word.
2.) I don't assume they "literally" saw anything....because I believe that prophecy to be yet future anyways. So I am not really committed to defending a point of view which I don't hold to anyway.
3.) They might (concievably) "see" in the sense of visions and or dreams, without necessarily being required to have done so with their Physical eyes.

You can believe what you wish about preterism or what-not....I am merely critiquing what I think was a bad argument in the OP.

"And what of Death?....I shall tell her a story, and she shall be kind to me."

Alexandre Dumas

 

[Logos1]

So would I be correct in thinking you don’t really have an argument against preterism you just choose not to believe it regardless of all the evidence demanding a first century return of Christ?

The flip side of that is that you don’t really have a futurist argument you just choose to believe it.

There are no bible verses to support a coming of Christ that is future to us. Given all the direct and specific language that His coming would be soon and in the life time of the generation having the gospel preached to them by the Apostles it would be pure folly to elevate your opinion above the teaching of the inspired Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit. If they were wrong then the Holy Spirit was wrong. If the Holy Spirit can be proven wrong then we don’t really have any foundation for Christianity.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So would I be correct in thinking you don’t really have an argument against preterism

No, not at all. You haven't asked anybody for arguments against Pre-terism. I have been keeping all of my responses to the topic as directly presented in the OP......You're Welcome.

you just choose not to believe it regardless of all the evidence demanding a first century return of Christ?

*sigh*...If, there is, in fact this dearth of evidence which demands a first Century return of Christ...then you haven't provided it thus far. You have presented basically, ONE argument....which consists essentially of an alternative interpretation for one independent clause contained in only one verse...An alternative explanation, Which, (even if completely accurate) does not even defeat the use of the verse by futurists, because it isn't contradictory to (but possibly ancillary to) any explanation a futurist might use it for.

The flip side of that is that you don’t really have a futurist argument you just choose to believe it

.

I have limited my response to basically directly addressing the OP. I am not attempting to debate against Pre-terism as a whole; you haven't asked anyone to. You were attempting to prove it. You were attempting to provide positive evidence for your Preterist position. I simply haven't bothered to offer any positive evidence for my own P.O.V. I don't have to. I have not decided to take upon myself any burden of proof...Why would I? You assummed that responsibility with the OP. The whole point I have tried to convey, is that, thus far, I think yours is simply not a very good argument. I am sorry. Perhaps you could bolster it, or go into better detail with it. Maybe I simply don't understand the argument which you think to be such an irrefutable slam-dunk.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ladies and Gentlemen it’s good to be back.

One night early last January as I sat down in front of the PC I knew I was overwhelmed with work and it wouldn’t be over anytime soon with rollouts and projects and certifications and away vacations scheduled and knew I had to give up something so I decided not to take on any more posting till my schedule would give a little breathing room. In fact I gave up even reading BP so I wouldn’t be tempted to respond to anything. Of course I knew Jesus wouldn’t be back in the mean time so I figured I had plenty of time to tackle other projects and give the futurists time to get their act together and come up with some new arguments, insults (heretic shows no originality), and reasons to put off their inevitable conversion to preterism—resistance is futile because if you don’t convert in this life it is for certain you will in the next. And, now without further adieu let Jesus be Jesus.

Mark 14:61-64
61 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

In verse 62 many of our time often visualize this verse as meaning Jesus will ride a cloud bank to earth slay Satan and his armies and rescue Jerusalem at a moment of high drama. The High Priest questioning Jesus didn’t think of it this way at all.

He related to this answer the only way he could which is the way the cloud incarnations of God’s presence had been described to him in the Holy Scriptures for hundreds of years. As in Isaiah 19:1

See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.
Of course no one actually saw God riding on a literal cloud. Many times in the Old Testament a cloud is spoken of when God’s presence was represented by a cloud. You didn’t see God, but you knew his work was being done and that His Providence was being worked out in the events being written about like the Assyrians invading Egypt.

The High Priest only knew this as the way to interpret the cloud comings of God so unless Jesus gave him a new definition of coming on the clouds he was limited to the way it has always been used before. Of course Jesus gave him no new interpretation so he had to have the correct understanding. Secondly, when Mark recorded the book he didn’t provide his audience any new interpretation either so they would have looked at it the same way as well.

Thus we have two proofs from the Bible that Jesus was using language familiar to the High Priest to speak of cloud comings similar to the OT use of the term. This totally refutes any future coming of Christ.

The whole bible fits together in perfect harmony when read from this perspective.

We see this prophecy fulfilled not in our future, but in our past when the Romans sieged and sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Guess the angels were wrong as :" this SAME jesus will return in LIKE matter"

paul guess wrong, as he saw there being the resurrection of ALL saints,into gloried form, as his returning, as did John...

Jesus said that he returning would be as lightning flashing, ALL eyes would see the Son of man returning in his glory...

Guess you had some extra revelation, maybe same one JW got? Spiritual returning/resurrection?

 

[thomas15]

How do Dispensationalists deal with the already-but-not-yet aspects of so many passages of Scripture? I think there is a lot of Scriptural prophecy yet to be fulfilled (Christ will return and catch away His Bride and judge the Earth, etc), but that in a very real and historically real sense has already been fulfilled. Jesus' use of the Daniel passage seems to demonstrate that even He thought prophetic passages have "multiple fulfillments" and multiple applications.

This dispy deals with the already- not -yet this way.

I confessed my sin and trusted in Jesus for my Salvation and received eternal life.
already: I'm a child of God

When Jesus returns for the saints, I will be resurrected, my body will be changed and glorious
not-yet: I'm saved now but waiting for my glorified resurrected body that I will use in the kingdom.

 

[Logos1]

It's a simple revelation anyone can fine in the scriptures

Guess the angels were wrong as :" this SAME jesus will return in LIKE matter"

paul guess wrong, as he saw there being the resurrection of ALL saints,into gloried form, as his returning, as did John...

Jesus said that he returning would be as lightning flashing, ALL eyes would see the Son of man returning in his glory...

Guess you had some extra revelation, maybe same one JW got? Spiritual returning/resurrection?

Welcome Yeshua1,

I appreciate your at least taking a stab with verse references to back up your view point; however, these don’t really support a future to us coming of Christ.

As for returning in like manner note in Act 1:9 He passes out of their sight since they can’t see nor say where he went the two angels are testifying that he “returned into heaven” in like manner as he “left earth”. It is necessary to provide proof that he is the Son of God and only the Son of God would go to heaven at that time since souls weren’t yet going there upon death. This has nothing to do with his return to earth—that is dealt with later, but not here.

All saints into glorified form means at the end of the old covenant and the full beginning of the new covenant which would have been in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and his return in judgment that saints would be resurrected to heaven from sheol or the pit where ever souls were kept until the time of his return. You wouldn’t actually see them rising from the grave in physical form. This was spiritual remember he said His kingdom would come without observation.

As far as lightening flashing this is simply apocalyptic language such as Zechariah 9:14, Jehovah's influence would go forth as lightning. There are many such examples through the OT that aren’t meant for us to literalize them. I’m sure you must be familiar with such writing.

As far as all eyes seeing Him in Rev 1:7 it seems you didn’t realize that use of “see” means perceive with the mind not see with the literal eyeball. It is easier to understand when you read a little further when it says including those who pierced Him. Obviously His return has to be in the first generation for those who pierced Him to still be alive at the time of His return—you don’t want to claim they are still alive today 2,000 years later do you? LOL.

So no special revelation was necessary on my part, but I hope I have helped to clear up some of the confusion on your part.

Also, note that none of the verses you alluded to suggested he would come a long time in the future—I challenge you to find just one verse in the entire bible that says he would come back a long time removed from the first generation or thousands of years in the future. Upon any period of study on this matter I’m sure you will realize that all references to his return say soon, quickly, this generation etc., etc.

Obviously, if he didn’t return soon as the inspired writers promised then the bible wouldn’t be a reliable source of information on any subject such as how to get to heaven, obtain eternal salvation, get sins forgiven or anything else.
Preterism is the only prophetic scheme consistent with the bible being inerrant.

Have a good day.

 

[Logos1]

I have limited my response to basically directly addressing the OP. I am not attempting to debate against Pre-terism as a whole; you haven't asked anyone to. You were attempting to prove it. You were attempting to provide positive evidence for your Preterist position. I simply haven't bothered to offer any positive evidence for my own P.O.V. I don't have to. I have not decided to take upon myself any burden of proof...Why would I? You assummed that responsibility with the OP. The whole point I have tried to convey, is that, thus far, I think yours is simply not a very good argument. I am sorry. Perhaps you could bolster it, or go into better detail with it. Maybe I simply don't understand the argument which you think to be such an irrefutable slam-dunk.

I’m sure you must have heard the expression that something in the bible can’t mean something that it never meant before—at least if the inspired writers didn’t redefine it for us so obviously cloud references were never given to mean the literal, visible incarnation of God nor in this case Jesus.

They implied His presence was found in the events accompanying the cloud reference such as His coming in judgment against Jerusalem in the form of the Roman army laying waste to Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. Obviously this provides two references from scripture one from Christ and one from Mark who recorded it which rules out a literal, visible, physical riding on the clouds either past of future. Maybe the tense of the language was confusing you.

Surely you don’t mean to imply Christ or the Apostles were wrong when they promised a soon coming of Christ? There is no scripture reference for such a belief.

 

[thomas15]

...Surely you don’t mean to imply Christ or the Apostles were wrong when they promised a soon coming of Christ? There is no scripture reference for such a belief.

The problem is not the Apostles thinking or our early 21st century view of the matter, it is your use of the language to make your theological decisions. There are many signs of Christ's coming. Those signs are not evident in the first century.

Consider the possibility that perhaps there is another logical interpretation of what you might call the "time texts". It would be one thing if there existed 2000 years of even occasional writings as a witness to a first century return.

 

[Logos1]

Thomas you just made the Preterist case for me

The problem is not the Apostles thinking or our early 21st century view of the matter, it is your use of the language to make your theological decisions. There are many signs of Christ's coming. Those signs are not evident in the first century.

Consider the possibility that perhaps there is another logical interpretation of what you might call the "time texts". It would be one thing if there existed 2000 years of even occasional writings as a witness to a first century return.

He that never changes his opinions never corrects his mistakes and will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today….Tryon Edwards 19th century theologian.

Thomas I want to thank you for helping me prove the sterling truth of preterism and expose the hollowed out, disemboweled emptiness of futurism.

You have provided a great example of what futurism is—all commentary and no scripture.

On the one hand you say there are MANY signs of Christ’s coming that are not evident in the first century, but given all these MANY opportunities you can’t provide one, single example from scripture that would stand up to any scrutiny to support your case—that would be because there in fact aren’t any.

On the other hand you say there is another logical interpretation of the time texts, but you can’t actually provide one single example of such other logical interpretations—that would also be because there in fact aren’t any.

I’m calling you out on it Thomas—prove me wrong. If I’m wrong I want to know about it. I want legitimate scripture backed examples that will stand up to a little scrutiny. Please prove me wrong. Futurism is plain and simple a mockery of the inspired words of Christ and the Apostles. Please prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong I want you to—Indeed I dare you to—I just don’t think you got anything. I think you are a total bluff and futurism is a sad, pathetic, laughable joke that has lead its victims astray for 2,000 years and 2 billion years from now will still be laughable, example less, scripture less, and even more viewed as a twisted, mocking of the inspired words of Christ and the Apostles.

 

[Logos1]

Don’t be a victim of futurism.

In yet another sterling example of how preterism is proven by actual inspired scripture just look at 2 Thess. 2: 2 when it says not to be upset by a message or letter alleging that the Day of the Lord has come.

Here is obvious that the Thessalonians understand that the Day of the Lord is not a time ending, world ending event and somehow they missed the end of the world. LOL, LOL.

It’s clear they know every eye won’t literally see Jesus come back riding on a literal cloud in a physical manner.

It’s indisputable they realize that the coming of the Lord could happen and it not be physically evident that the event had happened.

Further, when Paul tells them that the event hasn’t happened yet he doesn’t tell them they are wrong that it will be the end of time and the end of the world—if they were wrong obviously he would have corrected their understanding of the nature of the Day of the Lord.

They clearly understand the nature of the return of Christ they just didn’t get timing of the event right.

Further in 1 Thess. 4:14 For we say this to you by a revelation from the Lord: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep.

Notice Paul says by Revelation from the Lord we who are still alive—he is talking present tense, writing to a contemporary audience in that generation. He is not saying a future generation, people who live after us or any other such futuristic nonsense which mocks the words of the Lord. So either the Lord came back in their generation or they are still alive today. Anybody want to vote on the latter?

Here we have in on revelation from the Lord—inspired holy verses that Christ came back in the lives of the first century saints. Any other rendering is pure mockery of the words of Christ.

Lesson to take away from this example from scripture—don’t be a victim of futurism which disputes the very words of Christ. Futurism leads its victims down a road which is in direct conflict, total disagreement, mockery, and blasphemy against the very words of Christ.

 

[thomas15]

I’m calling you out on it Thomas—prove me wrong. If I’m wrong I want to know about it. I want legitimate scripture backed examples that will stand up to a little scrutiny. Please prove me wrong. Futurism is plain and simple a mockery of the inspired words of Christ and the Apostles. Please prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong I want you to—Indeed I dare you to—I just don’t think you got anything. I think you are a total bluff and futurism is a sad, pathetic, laughable joke that has lead its victims astray for 2,000 years and 2 billion years from now will still be laughable, example less, scripture less, and even more viewed as a twisted, mocking of the inspired words of Christ and the Apostles.

Have a blessed day Logos1!!!

 

[Logos1]

Have a blessed day Logos1!!!

LOL. I don’t blame you a bit Thomas. If I was in your shoes trying to defend the undefendable chaos of futurism I would do the same thing. Believe me I’ve looked the scriptures over high and low and I can’t find any defense for it either.

The only difference between you and me (I use to be as big a dispy as anybody ever was) is that when I realized the Apostles were preterists I decided to align my position with them instead of trying to wiggle their position to fit mine.

I’m sure in time you will want to make that decision as well.

Have a good day Thomas.

 

[thomas15]

..... Believe me I’ve looked the scriptures over high and low,,,

Try reading and study instead of just looking my friend. And while you are at it ditch the bluster.

 

[Logos1]

Try reading and study instead of just looking my friend. And while you are at it ditch the bluster.

Chuckles my friend, I would ask you to give me some pointers on reading and study, but you don't seem to be able to provide any scripture whatsoever to support your own view. I suggest you try reading the bible from a preterist perspective and you will be amazed at how it suddenly comes into complete harmony instead of having such tension and conflict as when you do the futurist thing and see Jesus say he is coming in this generation or there are some standing here that shall not die before his return and then have to torture the scripture beyond recognition to pretend it means His return thousands of years in the future. You my friend are a victim of futurism--free yourself instead of being enslaved to your preconceived notions that have been wrong for 2,000 years and get more wrong every day.

 

[Logos1]

Don’t be a victim of futurism II

Luke 21: 20-24 ESV

Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Note verse 22 says to fulfill all that is written. This happens when Jerusalem is destroyed. The Roman war against the Jews which culminated in the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple and brought the Old Covenant to a close lasted 3.5 years or as the bible says The time, times, and half a time.

Hence we know that Christ had to come back not to end the world or time but His coming back was in judgment against Jerusalem since as verse 22 says to fulfill all that is written at the time Jerusalem is destroyed. This would positively and totally rule out any coming of Jesus in the future that could be predicted in the bible since there is no mentioning of Jerusalem being rebuilt after 70 AD to be destroyed again.

All that was written including His second coming so to speak would have to have been fulfilled in 70 AD. To dispute that point is to blasphemy the inspired scripture and very words of Christ.

Don’t be a victim of futurism.

 

[Winman]

Luke 21: 20-24 ESV

Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Note verse 22 says to fulfill all that is written. This happens when Jerusalem is destroyed. The Roman war against the Jews which culminated in the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple and brought the Old Covenant to a close lasted 3.5 years or as the bible says The time, times, and half a time.

Hence we know that Christ had to come back not to end the world or time but His coming back was in judgment against Jerusalem since as verse 22 says to fulfill all that is written at the time Jerusalem is destroyed. This would positively and totally rule out any coming of Jesus in the future that could be predicted in the bible since there is no mentioning of Jerusalem being rebuilt after 70 AD to be destroyed again.

All that was written including His second coming so to speak would have to have been fulfilled in 70 AD. To dispute that point is to blasphemy the inspired scripture and very words of Christ.

Don’t be a victim of futurism.

I would disagree. Jesus WAS speaking of the future. He is speaking of when he shall return and set foot on the Mount of Olives. The mountain will divide in two, creating a great valley where the Jews will escape. When Jesus returns it will be to defend Jerusalem and the Jews, not destroy it.

Zech 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

When Jesus returns it will be very similar to when Moses parted the Red Sea and the Jews escaped Pharaoh. The Mount of Olives will divide and create a great valley through which the remnant of Jews shall escape. And just as Pharaoh was destroyed when he pursued after the Jews, this great "flood" or army shall be destroyed when they pursue after the Jews.

This is where Preterism fails, when Jesus returns it shall be to fight for Jerusalem and to defend the Jews against all these nations that come against it, not destroy Jerusalem as happened in 70 A.D..

Zech 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

 

[thomas15]

Chuckles my friend, I would ask you to give me some pointers on reading and study, but you don't seem to be able to provide any scripture whatsoever to support your own view. I suggest you try reading the bible from a preterist perspective and you will be amazed at how it suddenly comes into complete harmony instead of having such tension and conflict as when you do the futurist thing and see Jesus say he is coming in this generation or there are some standing here that shall not die before his return and then have to torture the scripture beyond recognition to pretend it means His return thousands of years in the future. You my friend are a victim of futurism--free yourself instead of being enslaved to your preconceived notions that have been wrong for 2,000 years and get more wrong every day.

At times it appears that you and your buds think (in error) that only hyper/cal/a-mil/preterist/reformed covenant are the only enlightened and that the only thing holding us dispies back from being clones of youall is a lack of study and understanding, we are stiff-necked and probably if the truth were known you think we probably don't have the HS and are not of the elect either.

The truth of the matter is that the modern preterism movement is actually "modern" and you are the one that has to make your case against 2000 years of a lack of a historical record.

 

[Logos1]

Of things stiff-necked and scriptural or lack thereof

At times it appears that you and your buds think (in error) that only hyper/cal/a-mil/preterist/reformed covenant are the only enlightened and that the only thing holding us dispies back from being clones of youall is a lack of study and understanding, we are stiff-necked and probably if the truth were known you think we probably don't have the HS and are not of the elect either.

The truth of the matter is that the modern preterism movement is actually "modern" and you are the one that has to make your case against 2000 years of a lack of a historical record.

All of us need to be constantly asking ourselves what it is which we want to be true and whether our desires so to believe are stronger than our desires to know the truth however uncongenial to us that truth may be. Antony Flew

Sir Thomas I haven’t brought the HS or your standing with the elect into this conversation. I’m sure when we meet on the over side in the great beyond we will be best of friends and you will then finally be a preterist too (if not before then) and I’m not going to remind you that I got there first.

I know all about dispies be stiff-necked I use to be that way when I was a dispy too. But when I found out about John Darby and dispies getting their start in the 1800s I couldn’t put devotion to my preconceived notions ahead of seeking truth in the Lord.

When I read the bible honestly just seeking truth no matter where that journey took me there was just no honest way to read the scriptures and not realize the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit believed and wrote and taught that Christ’s return would be in their generation. No one who reads their words honestly can come to a different conclusion. I decided it was time for me to get with the Apostle’s program and be a preterist too.

Reading the bible that way provided so much more clarity and harmony than reading it like a dispy. I’m grateful the Holy Spirit lead my searching to such satisfying answers—which no one has been able to dispute based on scripture yet—but if you want to try go ahead. I’ll read your posts.

So far your MO has not been to put up a scripture based argument, but to deny, deny, deny. I’d love for you to find some way to find any biblical truth in your argument to convince me with, but you seem reconciled to not being able to find any and just dig in your heels on your preconceived, stiff-necked notions without even being able to point to why you believe them from a scriptural stand point.

Prove me wrong!

 

[Logos1]

Don’t be a victim of futurism III

As a preterist Zechariah is a book that is a joy to read. But instead of culling out a few verses to take out of context let’s focus more on the end chapters as a whole.

Obviously Zechariah ch 12-14 focuses on a battle at Jerusalem. Is it past or future. One quick fact assures us without question that it has to be past to us and invalidates the whole notion that it could possibly be in the future.

Anything that pertains to the Jewish people, Jerusalem, the temple, Israel as a nation, etc., etc is a convention of the Old Covenant and can only exist in the Old Covenant therefore we know the battle at Jerusalem spoken of in Zechariah would have to take place no later than when the Old Covenant existed and it ended completely with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD therefore the latest date this prophecy could have possibly been fulfilled is 70 AD. That is a given.

There is so much to say in regard to Zechariah but for the sake of time tonight I won’t cover all of it. First does the bible really say God will fight on behalf of the Jews or not.

Look at verse 12:14

This will be the plague the LORD strikes all the peoples with, who have warred against Jerusalem: their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. HCSV

At first glance with one of the modern translations that seems to be the case, but ahh—not so fast.

Lets look at this verse in a Hebrew Interlinear bible and instead of saying the people who have warred against Jerusalem it says the people which they muster on Jerusalem. On has emphasis as on top of or pressing down on.

Obviously this is not referring to those fighting against the Jew, but the Jews who are in Jerusalem. Further the flesh, tongues, and eyes rotting is a good description of starvation which is exactly what was happening to the people in Jerusalem.

Which view is consistent with the bible? If you put the fulfillment thousand years in the future you have stepped outside the time guidelines provided for Christ’s return since every reference is soon, shortly, this generation etc ; however, 70 AD is within the time statements in the bible given for Christ’s return.

Splitting mountains –basic apocalyptic language found all over the Old Testament. In the interest of brevity I’ll leave it at that for now.

Fought against those nations that are fighting against Israel. If you read a more literal translation like Darby it says fight with those nations. Obviously fight with can mean ally with those nations. Read this way it is consistent with the time statements and the balance of Zechariah.

Much more could be added to the preterist case here, but I’ll stop here since this post is a bit long already.

Don’t be a victim of futurism.

 

[thomas15]

....Don’t be a victim of futurism.

Over the last 6-12 months I have many times asked for but not received much Biblical support for the covenants of works, redemption and or grace. Even on the puritain board where your spiritual bros hang out no one seems to be able to offer clear Biblical support for those (two or three) covenants.

Before any thinking dispy can make the leap to post mil/preterism theology, the Biblical proof of the three covenants I mention should be made. For that reason you have little useful advice to offer with your many words, some even within quotation marks and large colorful fonts.