K, I have decided long ago after an unpleasant experience on the BB to not enter into a prolonged debate about these things and it looks as if that mindset is always brewing on the BB.Actually a futurist such as John Gill saw it this way, that it's not "sight with physical eyes" (Gill had probably never even heard of 'Preterism' before):
"....nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the son of man, sitting at the right hand of power ...... not, that they should see him at the right hand of God with their bodily eyes, as Stephen did; but that they should, or at least might, see and know by the effects, that he was set down at the right hand of God; as by the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon his disciples, on the day of pentecost; by the wonderful spread of his Gospel, and the success of it, notwithstanding all the opposition made by them, and others; and particularly, by the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more especially designed in the next clause; and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner...."
I'm not a 'full preterist' but I don't find it in the least as objectionable as the blatant war mongering Zionism that Dispensationalism has morphed into. It's the most dangerous cult in the world.
Haven't the least idea what you're referring to. Perhaps you could clarify just a little, example or two?
My biggest objection is the carnality of your view. We're told that 'the kingdom cometh not with observation', and that we've 'not come to a mount that might be touched', yet dispies are longing for something that can be seen with the eye and touched with the hand.
My other biggest objection is the blatant disregard by dispies of the many time indicators in the scriptures surrounding/concerning the coming of the Son of Man:
101 time indicators
I am no exception and being who I am I would become offensive again as I did years ago here on the BB
My own position on the second coming is focused on Acts 1:9-12 which I have already said.
I don't want to bruise any feelings - primarily because although my own position which has its focus on Acts 1:9-12 it is not chiseled in concrete. I fully admit to the problems of the futurist point of view.
Anyone who wants to delve further into this subject concerning my own personal opinion and preferences concerning Last Things (which opinions and preferences have been modified over the years) can scan "HankD" and review them.
Concerning the 101 items. For many centuries Christian authors would make an apologetic to many of the 101 items quoting that portion of "My lord delayeth his coming".
I value your friendship and don't want to engage in a debate with you.
Finally I know your position from past threads, posts, etc and you just might be right. It's possible, you make some very good points.
HankD