Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

[John of Japan]

Once again, I'll delete the juvenile SW references and the empty rhetoric.

... those events each and every one confirm that His coming and the end of the age are near such as Hebrews 8:13 When it says “new, it makes the first obsolete. And if something is old and outdated, it’s close to disappearing.”

You notice the timing here also confirms that the old covenant is in its last days.

Heb. 8:13 is talking about the covenant that began with Christ's death and resurrection--the reason why the NT is the NT. So?

Or Hebrews 10:25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Yes, it is drawing near. So? The truth is, this verse could refer to 70 AD (and maybe it does) and have no effect on my theology at all.

You're proof texting. Try exegesis.

Or Hebrews 10:37 Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;

Once again, the preterist has the same problem as the futurist in these time statements. Hebrews was written 50-60 AD. Even if it was written in 60 AD, that is still ten years until 70. Same problem with the time statements for both of us.

Besides, it says "the coming one will come." But you think He only came spiritually. Sorry. "Every eye shall see Him" (Rev. 1:7) but no one saw Him in 70 AD.

1 Cor 7:29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,

The Corinthians were written in 51-52 according to Carson, Moo & Morris. That makes it almost 20 years until you think He came. Once again you have a time statement problem, whether or not you admit it. Is 20 years "very short"? Not in any way shape or form. The obvious answer is that Paul was taught to expect Christ at any time, and encouraged others to do so. If we expect Him at any time with will live righteous lives as John urged: "2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (1 John 3:2-3)."

 

[John of Japan]

Omitting the trash talk:

1 Corinthians 15:50 tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

I have no problem with this. The resurrection body is a spiritual body constructed of something besides flesh and blood, something far better. But it is still a physical body. The resurrected Christ is not a disembodied spirit as you think. It is a different kind of body, but still a body.

For example, 1 Cor. 2:15 (But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.) is referring to a living believer with flesh and blood, yet he is spiritual. See also 3:1, 14:37, etc.

And need I remind you about John 18:36 His Kingdom not being of this world.

Are you paying attention? I pointed out that was present tense and did not rule out Christ's kingdom being of this world inthe future. Think man. You had bonehead English did you not? Remember that present tense? (And this time I'm not even invoking the Greek, even though it is a continuative present.)

You are left to surmise your own scheme for your claims and I quote bible verses.

So you do realize you are proof-texting. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

Omitting the extraneous material:

And here is some of the internal evidence that is the real meat of the argument--none of which is on your side I might add:

1. Revelation says the events must soon take place--if it is written in the 60's then the destruction of Jerusalem is near at hand. If it is written in the 90's no historical events were near at hand.

You preterists are the only people I know who think ten years is "soon." Wriggle all you want, preterists have a time statement problem. But maybe that's because preterists do not believe in literal interpretation. They take upon themselves the Holy Spirit's prerogative to interpret.

"Mable, I'm leaving, but I'll be back soon, maybe in ten years or so." Yeah, right, "soon." :laugh: :tongue3:

2. There is no mention of the destruction of the temple. Since Jesus prophesized its destruction no Apostle writing Revelation would fail to mention how Christ's prophecy had been fulfilled in such sweeping fashion.

Yes, this is a point for my side. There is no mention of the destruction of the temple in Revelation for good reasons.

In Ch. 1 we have the resurrected Christ. No need for mention of the temple there. Ch. 2-3 are about 7 churches nowhere near Jerusalem. It would be strange if these passages were about the temple. Revelation is a book of prophecy after ch. 3, so starting there is where the destruction of the temple should be mentioned if it were in the future. But nowhere in 3-22 is the destruction of the temple prophesied. If Revelation were written before 70, it would be very strange if the destruction of the temple were not mentioned, because Christ Himself prophesied it while He was on earth and this is the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

3. In Chapter 11 John is sent to measure the temple which bears witness to the fact that the temple is still standing at the time of the writing. In the 90's there is no temple to go measure since it was destroyed in 70 AD

Well, duh, it's prophecy! So this is talking about a future temple, not the one destroyed in 70 AD. This fits my premil position perfectly!

4. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 indicate the Judaizers are persecuting the churches. This is consistent with all the bible verses telling of how the Jewish leaders are persecuting the Christians.

And your point is what? You think the Jews all of a sudden stopped persecuting the churches in 70 AD?

5. Revelation 2:2 speaks of other apostles indicating that not only John, but some of the other apostles are still alive at the time of the writing since it is plural--futurists point to tradition that claims all the other apostle, but John were dead by the 90's so this would force an earlier dating.

Guess what. I believe that an "apostle" is simply a church-planting missionary. So of course there were apostles well after 70 AD, and in fact there are apostles in the 21st century. In fact, the Didache mentions apostles in its day, and it is usually dated the end of the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd century.

I don't blame you for just ignoring my post from yesterday--you don't have any scripture verses to make your case with either from a future to us coming or a physical coming. And, today you just dug the proverbial hole deeper by letting me illustrate how the internal evidence of Revelation all supports the early dating.

Um, I did say, "Out of time." I'm a missionary pastor. Saturday is my busiest day. But it's Sunday evening, and I have taken time to answer every one of your points from Revelation. :type:

 

[Winman]

Since the book of Revelation was written a few years before 70 AD even by your own definition of quickly it would only be a few years until His return in judgment in 70 AD. (Don’t waste time trying to say Revelation was written after 70 AD—Tom has bested you in that discussion every time you drudge it up)

It is you my young Padawan who has no answer for all those instances in the bible where other issues are being addressed beside the specific timing of Christ’s return and those events each and every one confirm that His coming and the end of the age are near such as Hebrews 8:13 When it says “new, it makes the first obsolete. And if something is old and outdated, it’s close to disappearing.”

You notice the timing here also confirms that the old covenant is in its last days.

Or Hebrews 10:25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Or Hebrews 10:37 Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;

1 Cor 7:29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,

Wouldn’t you have to agree how amazing it is that all these little indirect references to the timing of Christ’s return sprinkled all through the bible that are dealing with other issues all support the preterist view that Christ is coming soon and not a single one of them supports a far off coming of Christ or the futurist view.

False, there is absolutely scripture that supports Jesus would return after a long period of time.

Mat 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Mat 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

 

[Herald]

LOL, Futurists--they are all insults and no verses to support their bankrupt ideas. Of course when the Holy Scriptures don't provide any verses to make your point with that leaves you only insults to work with. It's not really your fault so I don't take umbrage. In fact I appreciate your dropping by to insult me because it proves the total truthfulness of preterism and the deception of futurism.

Thank you my good fellow.

Oh, my. You are the pot calling the kettle black. And I was not casting insults. I was commenting on your boorish and unchristian-like behavior.

 

[Grasshopper]

False, there is absolutely scripture that supports Jesus would return after a long period of time.

Mat 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Mat 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

John of Japan has pointed out that 30 years is a long time. He did so by saying it is not near. Secondly, it is the evil servant that says the Lord delayeth his coming.

For me Christ did return in judgment in AD70 as pointed out by many of the verses cited. I have no problem with the views of Demar and Gentry and pretty much havee gone to lean to their position. Once one accepts their views, then full preterism becomes a factor to consider. After spending several years flirting with it I finally came to the conclusion that I was just not convinced enough to go full board. John of Japan has pointed out some of these reasons in other posts (mello) for example.

I would ask those who reject partial preterism because of their rejection of full preterism to not throw out the baby with the bath wash. Time statements do matter.

 

[Logos1]

And now for something completely different

Just a personal note to JoJ tonight. I’ll answer your post tomorrow.

John I’m really beginning to appreciate you. With friends like yours you don’t need enemies. Thomas just put his tail between his legs and sulked off, OR can’t find any scripture to support the position.

You don’t get any support from any of them in this thread. They all just hide behind and ride on your coattails.

Never do they come up with any verses to support futurism.

(Don’t get me wrong—their insults serve me well—but I digress).

I appreciate that there aren't really verses to work with, but at least you are creative in trying to defend the impossible. You make a good effort.

I like that you approach it from different angles, change the tense, try examples, and do things that others don’t think of.

I know I goad you a little (well maybe more than a little sometimes—but it’s never personal) I just want to motivate you to dig down deep and really throw me your best pitch.

I don’t come here just to show the superiority of preterism—I want to be challenged, forced to think in different ways and defend my beliefs first to my own self before defending it to others. Beliefs that can’t withstand legitimate challenge aren't worth having.

I think of you as the best of the futurists and I enjoy your responses.

 

[John of Japan]

Just a personal note to JoJ tonight. I’ll answer your post tomorrow.

...

(Don’t get me wrong—their insults serve me well—but I digress).

Have you not thought that maybe your insults don't serve you well? They have given people a bad impression of you and several have said so on this thread. You should learn from Tom. I disagree with his doctrine, but he is a gentleman.

I know I goad you a little (well maybe more than a little sometimes—but it’s never personal) I just want to motivate you to dig down deep and really throw me your best pitch.

Insults are always personal.

And I always try to do my best for my Savior and when discussing the Word of God.

I think of you as the best of the futurists and I enjoy your responses.

Thank you.

 

[Logos1]

Have you not thought that maybe your insults don't serve you well? They have given people a bad impression of you and several have said so on this thread. You should learn from Tom. I disagree with his doctrine, but he is a gentleman.
Insults are always personal.

And I always try to do my best for my Savior and when discussing the Word of God.

Thank you.

You have done a lot of work on your earlier posts today and I respect that. Futurists in general seem to be a rather lazy lot in general. That said they do have an impossible task since there aren’t any bible verses that actually support the futurist fantasy. Most of them just don’t bother once you really pin them down on something. At least you try and I like that.

One of the differences between you and me is you have it easy being a futurist since most people still are and you have rather thin skin. (Sorry if that insults you, but it is the truth). Being a preterist I developed thick skin a long time ago. It helps a a lot when you are a preterist.

You get your righteous indignation up rather quickly. I don’t think it is possible that anybody here could make me mad or upset me.

I never mind what insults come my way here—I expect them every day and have never returned them as I get them. I don’t feel any need to.

I would disagree that I have really insulted anybody here—futurists are very thin skinned, but even if I could manage to be the sweetest person here every day—futurists would think me insulting when I disagree with them and point out their error.

Of course what you choose to take umbrage or insult with is your business. I’m not going to try to curry favor with you or anyone else or worry over your opinion of me.

Whether you think me a gentleman or not—not likely I’ll lose any sleep over it John. Sorry. I don’t think I would convince anyone to be a preterist by being sweet to them or make them listen any more than they do now.

At any rate, keep up the good work.

Tomorrow I’ll point out the error in your posts today time permitting.

Have a good night John.

 

[John of Japan]

I would disagree that I have really insulted anybody here—futurists are very thin skinned, but even if I could manage to be the sweetest person here every day—futurists would think me insulting when I disagree with them and point out their error.

You mean you really don't see these statements in Post #4 as insults?

Your fundamental problem John is that you are still a one trick pony and anytime you can’t maneuver the issue to a question of who has the best greek text you are out of your depth.

And you really don't see these statements in Post #10 as insults?

You have proven me right...—you try to turn every issue into a battle over greek text and you are sadly out of your depth when you can’t do it.
...
In three post you haven’t attempted an honest counter argument just twists and denials and ill-fated comparisons without scriptural support for your contentions.

And you really don't see these statements in Post #22 as insults?

John My young Padawan I have to laugh at how you will cherry pick scripture to make a twisted point instead of taking the balance of it on a given point as a whole as if Preterists don’t know about related text in the NT.
...
But I digress just to point out the poor bible knowledge or intentional taking out of context you routinely demonstrate to support the unsupportable contention that Christ will come back in the future in bodily form.
...
In your posts today you were out of your depth even in the greek text trying to twist them to suit your desired view point.

And you really don't see these statements in Post #41 as insults?

...you are a one trick pony and hopelessly out of your depth when not regaling us with your ability to channel the greek authors

...Is it possible that you actually believe that the way you cherry pick verses out of Acts 1:1-11 and selectively apply meaning to them in order to twist them into meaning...

I'm going to stop there so I don't overload the post.

So you can say I have no depth in the Word of God, you can say I twist the Scriptures, you can say there are places in the Bible I don't like, you can accuse me of "cherry picking the Scriptures," and you can attack my honesty. And then you think none of those things are insults?

Frankly, my feelings are fine with this, and I'm not really mad or upset, because I figured out that most of the content your posts are simply "trash talking." I've simply been arguing around those parts of your posts. That way I'm actually able to interact with you in a sensible way without responding to your trash talk. And my use of the term "trash talk" is a rebuke. And taking the time to figure out and post this one is also a rebuke. I'm hoping you'll see what you are doing wrong and take it to heart.

When I was a junior high and high school wrestler in the 1960's we were taught mutual respect. We had to shake hands at the beginning of every match. We weren't allowed to taunt or verbally attack our opponent. We were taught that what counted was our skills and strength, not our mouth. Maybe it's the poor ethics of this generation, I don't know, but in recent years in the NFL they've been using a new term, and giving penalties for "taunting" as a form of unsportsmanlike conduct. I urge you to reconsider your debating method and prove your position by exegetical skills, leaving out the trash talking and taunting.

 

[Logos1]

Pride is the main thing that stands in the way of preterism

You mean you really don't see these statements in Post #4 as insults?

And you really don't see these statements in Post #10 as insults?

And you really don't see these statements in Post #22 as insults?

And you really don't see these statements in Post #41 as insults?

I'm going to stop there so I don't overload the post.

So you can say I have no depth in the Word of God, you can say I twist the Scriptures, you can say there are places in the Bible I don't like, you can accuse me of "cherry picking the Scriptures," and you can attack my honesty. And then you think none of those things are insults?

Frankly, my feelings are fine with this, and I'm not really mad or upset, because I figured out that most of the content your posts are simply "trash talking." I've simply been arguing around those parts of your posts. That way I'm actually able to interact with you in a sensible way without responding to your trash talk. And my use of the term "trash talk" is a rebuke. And taking the time to figure out and post this one is also a rebuke. I'm hoping you'll see what you are doing wrong and take it to heart.

When I was a junior high and high school wrestler in the 1960's we were taught mutual respect. We had to shake hands at the beginning of every match. We weren't allowed to taunt or verbally attack our opponent. We were taught that what counted was our skills and strength, not our mouth. Maybe it's the poor ethics of this generation, I don't know, but in recent years in the NFL they've been using a new term, and giving penalties for "taunting" as a form of unsportsmanlike conduct. I urge you to reconsider your debating method and prove your position by exegetical skills, leaving out the trash talking and taunting.

No I wouldn’t.

I could agree that your bible skills are such that know these things John, you just can’t make a futurist point that will stand up so you weasel the point, you distract, you intentionally obfuscate, simply ignore when you don’t have a legit counter point.

I could agree your bible skills are sufficient to know when you can’t meet the point so you are falling back on other tactics to slide the reader’s attention past what you know you can’t argue straight up.

You fall back on whining about being insulted, whining about not being treated fair, etc.

You do a lot of whining John—I’ve found it to be a basic futurist trait. You guys can dish it all day, but you can’t take it for one second.

I think you choose to take offense and charge insults when you don’t have a bible argument.

I think you bible skills are good enough to know you can’t match the point—you are just driven by preconceived notions and devoted to them to the point of being maniacal about them.

I think a lot of futurists have come to realize they are wrong on prophecy they have just gone on record as futurists and are too embarrassed to say I was wrong and change their position because their pride won’t let them.

To a degree I can relate to that. I was a futurist most of my life—but I wanted to find truth above all else and that out weighted even the blow my pride had to take in admitting I was in error in futurist beliefs.

Pride is the biggest hindrance to preterism.

 

[OldRegular]

Once again good old fashion preterism points the way to true understanding of bible prophecy.

Full preterism makes a liar out of the Author of the Bible; therefore, full preterism is a false doctrine at best and has even been labeled a heretical doctrine by many.

Full preterism denies the resurrection of the body. Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body. God through the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Church at Corinth tells us why the resurrection of the body is necessary:

1 Corinthians 15:1-6
1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

The Apostle here is simply reviewing for these folks the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, a body that was seen by all the Apostles, except Judas, and then by 500 believers at the same time. The Gospels make clear that this body was not a spirit or an apparition, though Paul will tell us later in the chapter that the resurrection body is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

There you have it folks, in good old King James English; the resurrection of all the dead. But the story is the same in whatever language it is written. {Not that I have read all but the Bible is the Word of God!}

The above Scripture is crucial to the validity of our salvation. If there is no resurrection of the dead then Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ was not raised. If there was no resurrection of Jesus Christ then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. The Apostle Paul tells us in his letter to the Church at Rome that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ established the validity of the incarnation and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So you see folks the semantic meanderings of "word-1" above are not insignificant, they strike at the very heart of the Gospel.

Without the resurrection the cross is just another tragedy in a world full of tragedies and we are still in our sins and are of all people most miserable and deluded. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact and one great and glorious day:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, KJV
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

[OldRegular]

Pride is the biggest hindrance to preterism.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the biggest hinderance to Full preterism.

 

[Greektim]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the biggest hinderance to Full preterism.

The implications of this statement are pretty big. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[OldRegular]

The implications of this statement are pretty big. Can you explain what you mean?

Read post 22. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that if the dead are not resurrected then Jesus Christ was not resurrected. If Jesus Christ is still in the grave then there is no Gospel. But He is not in the grave, the Gospel and the resurrection of the dead are Biblical truth, and that truth when refutes Full Preterism!

 

[HisWitness]

Read post 22. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that if the dead are not resurrected then Jesus Christ was not resurrected. If Jesus Christ is still in the grave then there is no Gospel. But He is not in the grave, the Gospel and the resurrection of the dead are Biblical truth, and that truth when refutes Full Preterism!

the dead have already been resurrected--it was not only the body but the SOUL that was resurrected(read other post about life and death)SOUL death was the death passed from adam to allmankind--we have no need for a resurrection today--the FINAL ENEMY (SOUL -DEATH) had been taken care of and today NNE dies a SOUL DEATH-only bodily

 

[John of Japan]

...
No I wouldn’t.
...

Well, Logos1 just posted a big long harangue about how attacking someone's character is not insulting and if you confront someone about it that is whining. My quote here his post is the whole of what he said that was worth responding to. The rest was empty rhetoric. All I can say is, he doesn't respond well to rebuke.

Prov. 10:19--"In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

 

[OldRegular]

the dead have already been resurrected--it was not only the body but the SOUL that was resurrected(read other post about life and death)SOUL death was the death passed from adam to allmankind--we have no need for a resurrection today--the FINAL ENEMY (SOUL -DEATH) had been taken care of and today NNE dies a SOUL DEATH-only bodily

Death, physical and spiritual, was passed from Adam to all mankind. The Salvation provided by Jesus Christ regenerates the soul dead in sin. The resurrection at the Second Coming will give life to the body of those who die in Jesus Christ. Those who die in unbelief, in Adam, will be resurrected and cast into the Lake of Fire along with Satan! That is the second death.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No I wouldn’t.
I could agree that your bible skills are such that know these things John, you just can’t make a futurist point that will stand up so you weasel the point, you distract, you intentionally obfuscate, simply ignore when you don’t have a legit counter point.

No, he doesn't...John has real points, and he has made them repeatedly and you refuse to engage them.....Even if he "obfuscates" as you claim (and he's not) he certainly isn't doing it intentionally. He has legit counter-arguments, and you aren't engaging them....they may not be perfect defeaters, but you haven't shown us lurkers why it isn't so. You might engage his arguments and prove your points first before you stand upon your victory box.

I could agree your bible skills are sufficient to know when you can’t meet the point so you are falling back on other tactics to slide the reader’s attention past what you know you can’t argue straight up.

Yes....he wasted our time by spending about 4 sentences objecting to some jit spending a week repeatedly calling him "Young Padawan". If I were 61, and as accomplished as his resume is for the cause of Christ...I might have objected somewhat earlier and in less civil terms. But he is more mature than I in those regards, and he has proved one thing at minimum....the single most out-spoken preterist on this board is one tenth the man he is.

You fall back on whining about being insulted, whining about not being treated fair, etc.

In John's moment of weakness...he unforgivably objected (rather politely) to a constant strain of patronization...How DARE HE!!!!

You do a lot of whining John—I’ve found it to be a basic futurist trait. You guys can dish it all day, but you can’t take it for one second.

Only, no one has "dished" anything like that to you....I won't be on this thread much because I would....John has endured your constant insults and abuse in a manner of Christ-likeness neither you or I could dream of achieving...

I think you choose to take offense and charge insults when you don’t have a bible argument.

I'm gonna tell you this....John's advice to you was dead on:
Learn from an adult, and a man.....Tom.
Compared to Tom, you are a petulant 12 year old...

I think you bible skills are good enough to know you can’t match the point—you are just driven by preconceived notions and devoted to them to the point of being maniacal about them.

Right...so he adamantly refuses to concede Biblical truth when he know inescapably that his previous views were wrong. He would rather "kick against the pricks" than alter his views on that...oh, ok.....that's a reasonable proposition.

To a degree I can relate to that. I was a futurist most of my life—but I wanted to find truth above all else and that out weighted even the blow my pride had to take in admitting I was in error in futurist beliefs.

Can I tell you something? I can relate to where you are coming from...and I used to think that ALL people struggle with Pride as much as I do... but, they honestly don't all suffer from pride as much as I do. John, is not as proud as I am....and he is not so proud as you. I have no doubt he deals with his own struggles...but I know Pride when I see pride. And only Pride would cause you to assume that you are the only one who has been intellectually honest with themselves and assumes that anyone who would disagree (namely John)...could only possibly be hindered by his pride. You are projecting your pride onto him....I know how you feel, I do the same thing...It's a damned tough demon to control.

Pride is the biggest hindrance to preterism.

For some Dispensationalists...that is probably true. For you, as a preterist....your own pride would also be your greatest hindrance to Dispensational Pre-millenialism.

 

[John of Japan]

You again completely ignore the 100 plus time statements in the bible about his soon return by trying to schmooze over them.
...
The timing statements alone prove futurism is bogus. Since you can’t deal with them you just ignore all 100 plus of them.

I keep thinking about this in the midst of all the rest of the hoopla, and I think it is completely bogus. Logos1 accused futurists of being lazy, but I think he is being lazy here, probably repeating something he read on the Internet without actually checking it out. There is nowhere near this number of time statements about the return of the Lord. In fact, I defy him to find even a dozen.

There are four statements of "quickly" in Revelation that the preterissts like to invoke (3:11, 22:7,12,20), but those speak of the manner of His coming and not strictly a time statement but rather statements of the kind of action (adverbs, not adjectives like "soon"). There are occasional statements of imminency, which I have no problem with. For almost 2000 years now we have know to expect the coming of the Lord at any time, but imminency and immediacy are not the same. Even including these two possibilities (manner of coming and imminency) I doubt if he can find a whole dozen time statements.

Beyond that, as I have pointed out, preterists have the same problem as any other view on the time statements. His only answer? Ten years can be soon! Yeah, right. :smilewinkgrin: