Death will be no more, due to no more births.

[WPM]

No, your obsession with claiming the old covenant vanished at the cross is blinding you to the truth.

LOL. Preterists possess their own Bible. They make Jesus out to be a liar.

The cross is constantly shown as the introduction point of the new new covenant and the termination point of the old covenant. The old covenant is dead. It is gone. AD70 was not the end of the old covenant. That occurred 40 years earlier.

When Christ said "it is finished" on the cross that was the end of the old covenant arrangement. From a heavenly perspective the renting of the veil finished the temple sacrifices forever. Whilst Matthew doesn’t identify what Christ said before He gave up the ghost John does in 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

The continued practice of the Jewish sacrifice system and the strict religious laws that the apostate Jewish religious leaders enforced after Christ's death did not in any way negate the abolition of the old covenant at the cross. To say otherwise is to fight with multiple NT Scripture.

The book of Hebrews shows the removal of the old covenant arrangement and its replacement by the new superior covenant. Hebrews 8:6 declares (before AD70): “now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

Hebrews 8:7-8 explains (before AD70), “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

The old covenant was faulty or defective. It had many limitations. It had to be replaced. Those who suggest it was still active and useful between Calvary and AD70 undermine the cross and fight with clear and repeated Scripture.

Albert Barnes contends: “it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul which was desirable. It was merely ‘preparatory’ to the Gospel.”

The Preachers Homiletical states: “Not merely ‘free from defect’, but ‘incomplete’, unable fully to meet man’s case. The old system was complete enough for its limited sphere and purpose: fault was found with its limitations.”

John Wesley explained: “For if the first had been faultless - If that dispensation had answered all God's designs and man's wants, if it had not been weak and unprofitable unable to make anything perfect, no place would have been for a second.”

Scripture (before AD70) describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

The sad thing is: many Preterists today speak on this subject as if the cross never happened. They talk as if the old covenant still exists and is still relevant today or in the future. They fail to see that it has been eternally removed and the new covenant has replaced it. This is why they get messed up when they get to this subject. They want to go back to the old imperfect arrangement or they want Israel to go back to the old imperfect arrangement. They yearn for an old-covenant-type physical kingdom that is focused on the natural, temporal and earthly.

Equally, they want to elevate Israel to a place that they no longer own in the New Testament. Many want to render circumcision (the sign of the old covenant) meritorious or advantageous when the New Testament says it avails nothing.

The fact is, on the authority of God’s Word, we are never going back to the shadow, the type and the abolished. The reason being: God was, and is, fully and eternally satisfied with the new covenant. It doesn’t need modified, added to or replaced. The cross did it all!

The old covenant was only a signpost to the new covenant – the substance, fulfilment and the reality. It simply pointed to the new covenant arrangement that was focused on the real Jerusalem (the heavenly), not Christ-rejecting carnal Jerusalem. The old has been eternally abolished.

Hebrews 10:1 (before AD70) makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things."

The old Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which is now destroyed, served as an impressive physical, yet, imperfect temporal type of the living temple of God – the Lord Jesus Christ and His mystical body. It was the focal-point for the whole Judaic sacrificial system for many centuries.

Paul the Apostle addresses this in Galatians 4:9-10 (before AD70), asking, “now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

The New Testament writer is referring here to the old covenant ceremonial calendar. His contention is simple: why would a liberated Christian want to go back to the old elaborate abolished Jewish arrangement? This phrase “days, and months, and times, and years” refer to the many holy days, feasts and festivals that Israel had to carefully maintain until Jesus died on the cross. All of these were a heavy bondage to them. Paul despaired because some believers were looking back to the bondage of the old that was gone. This is so opposed to the freedom that comes in Christ.

The phrase “Ye observe” is one Greek word paratēreō meaning you ‘assiduously observe’ or you ‘painstakingly observe’. The word translated “weak” here (asthenes) means strengthless or impotent. The word interpreted “beggarly” in this passage (ptochos) relates to the condition of a pauper. It is derived from the original word ptoeo meaning fallen or flown away. The word “bondage,” which relates to the old Judaic system, is the word douleuo, meaning to be a slave.

As we piece these original Greek words together, we start to get a real sense of how the New Testament viewed the whole Old Testament ceremonial law. The old covenant ritualistic system has been abolished because it is expressly ‘impotent, impoverished and slavish’. The old covenant could not remove sin. It could never eradicate a guilty conscious. It was destitute. It has fallen and flown away. It has been rendered redundant. It is obsolete!

It has no ongoing purpose in the plan of God because of its weakness. It could never secure eternal salvation because it was not an eternal covenant. It had an expiration date. The coming in of the new perfect covenant removed the old imperfect system. When Christ came, He introduced “the everlasting covenant,” thus making the old temporal system useless. The shadow simply pointed to the substance.

Why would God ever want to bring back an insolvent and ineffective religious system that has been replaced by a perfect arrangement?

 

[grafted branch]

LOL. Preterists possess their own Bible. They make Jesus out to be a liar.

The cross is constantly shown as the introduction point of the new new covenant and the termination point of the old covenant. The old covenant is dead. It is gone. AD70 was not the end of the old covenant. That occurred 40 years earlier.

When Christ said "it is finished" on the cross that was the end of the old covenant arrangement. From a heavenly perspective the renting of the veil finished the temple sacrifices forever. Whilst Matthew doesn’t identify what Christ said before He gave up the ghost John does in 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

The continued practice of the Jewish sacrifice system and the strict religious laws that the apostate Jewish religious leaders enforced after Christ's death did not in any way negate the abolition of the old covenant at the cross. To say otherwise is to fight with multiple NT Scripture.

The book of Hebrews shows the removal of the old covenant arrangement and its replacement by the new superior covenant. Hebrews 8:6 declares (before AD70): “now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

Hebrews 8:7-8 explains (before AD70), “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

The old covenant was faulty or defective. It had many limitations. It had to be replaced. Those who suggest it was still active and useful between Calvary and AD70 undermine the cross and fight with clear and repeated Scripture.

Albert Barnes contends: “it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul which was desirable. It was merely ‘preparatory’ to the Gospel.”

The Preachers Homiletical states: “Not merely ‘free from defect’, but ‘incomplete’, unable fully to meet man’s case. The old system was complete enough for its limited sphere and purpose: fault was found with its limitations.”

John Wesley explained: “For if the first had been faultless - If that dispensation had answered all God's designs and man's wants, if it had not been weak and unprofitable unable to make anything perfect, no place would have been for a second.”

Scripture (before AD70) describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

The sad thing is: many Preterists today speak on this subject as if the cross never happened. They talk as if the old covenant still exists and is still relevant today or in the future. They fail to see that it has been eternally removed and the new covenant has replaced it. This is why they get messed up when they get to this subject. They want to go back to the old imperfect arrangement or they want Israel to go back to the old imperfect arrangement. They yearn for an old-covenant-type physical kingdom that is focused on the natural, temporal and earthly.

Equally, they want to elevate Israel to a place that they no longer own in the New Testament. Many want to render circumcision (the sign of the old covenant) meritorious or advantageous when the New Testament says it avails nothing.

The fact is, on the authority of God’s Word, we are never going back to the shadow, the type and the abolished. The reason being: God was, and is, fully and eternally satisfied with the new covenant. It doesn’t need modified, added to or replaced. The cross did it all!

The old covenant was only a signpost to the new covenant – the substance, fulfilment and the reality. It simply pointed to the new covenant arrangement that was focused on the real Jerusalem (the heavenly), not Christ-rejecting carnal Jerusalem. The old has been eternally abolished.

Hebrews 10:1 (before AD70) makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things."

The old Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which is now destroyed, served as an impressive physical, yet, imperfect temporal type of the living temple of God – the Lord Jesus Christ and His mystical body. It was the focal-point for the whole Judaic sacrificial system for many centuries.

Paul the Apostle addresses this in Galatians 4:9-10 (before AD70), asking, “now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

The New Testament writer is referring here to the old covenant ceremonial calendar. His contention is simple: why would a liberated Christian want to go back to the old elaborate abolished Jewish arrangement? This phrase “days, and months, and times, and years” refer to the many holy days, feasts and festivals that Israel had to carefully maintain until Jesus died on the cross. All of these were a heavy bondage to them. Paul despaired because some believers were looking back to the bondage of the old that was gone. This is so opposed to the freedom that comes in Christ.

The phrase “Ye observe” is one Greek word paratēreō meaning you ‘assiduously observe’ or you ‘painstakingly observe’. The word translated “weak” here (asthenes) means strengthless or impotent. The word interpreted “beggarly” in this passage (ptochos) relates to the condition of a pauper. It is derived from the original word ptoeo meaning fallen or flown away. The word “bondage,” which relates to the old Judaic system, is the word douleuo, meaning to be a slave.

As we piece these original Greek words together, we start to get a real sense of how the New Testament viewed the whole Old Testament ceremonial law. The old covenant ritualistic system has been abolished because it is expressly ‘impotent, impoverished and slavish’. The old covenant could not remove sin. It could never eradicate a guilty conscious. It was destitute. It has fallen and flown away. It has been rendered redundant. It is obsolete!

It has no ongoing purpose in the plan of God because of its weakness. It could never secure eternal salvation because it was not an eternal covenant. It had an expiration date. The coming in of the new perfect covenant removed the old imperfect system. When Christ came, He introduced “the everlasting covenant,” thus making the old temporal system useless. The shadow simply pointed to the substance.

Why would God ever want to bring back an insolvent and ineffective religious system that has been replaced by a perfect arrangement?

And this is always your only argument against preterist concerning this. I didn’t say the old covenant remained valid after the cross, only that it hadn’t vanished.

You have to argue that I somehow think the old covenant was still in force in order to make a straw man argument. How about telling us clearly why you think the old covenant hadn’t vanished yet when Hebrews was written and when exactly did it vanish? Or maybe you think the old covenant hasn’t vanished yet, I don’t know.

 

[WPM]

And this is always your only argument against preterist concerning this. I didn’t say the old covenant remained valid after the cross, only that it hadn’t vanished.

You have to argue that I somehow think the old covenant was still in force in order to make a straw man argument. How about telling us clearly why you think the old covenant hadn’t vanished yet when Hebrews was written and when exactly did it vanish? Or maybe you think the old covenant hasn’t vanished yet, I don’t know.

It was dead in AD30. The new arose then also. That is all that matters. The corpse simply needed buried. So, what? That is no grounds to obsess on the burial date. It is totally secondary to the cross.

• Christ was the central figure in history, not Titus, as you obsess.
• The cross was the central event in history, not AD 70, as you obsess.

 

[grafted branch]

It was dead in AD30. The new arose then also. That is all that matters. The corpse simply needed buried. So, what? That is no grounds to obsess on the burial date. It is totally secondary to the cross.

• Christ was the central figure in history, not Titus, as you obsess.
• The cross was the central event in history, not AD 70, as you obsess.

Ah, so you do have to admit there was a burial date! Are you obsessed with Titus and 70AD? Because if anyone else even mentions 70AD that’s your go to defense.

 

[WPM]

Ah, so you do have to admit there was a burial date! Are you obsessed with Titus and 70AD? Because if anyone else even mentions 70AD that’s your go to defense.

I focus in on the cross and the climactic return of Christ. You are obsessed with the coming in Titus in AD70. That is all you want to talk about. None of the Bible writers were so.

 

[Earburner]

I agree both Pentecost and Christ's transfiguration make good arguments. I believe another argument for which I hold is also valid and
comes from how the Greek word translated 'see' is defined.

εἴδω eídō, i'-do - be aware, behold, × can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot.

IOW the verse can be read - some standing there would not die until they have come to know/understand/perceive the Kingdom of God has come. Seeing, NOT with physical sight, but with mental or heartfelt conviction or eyes of faith. Unlike the Greek word ὀπτάνομαι optánomai, op-tan'-om-ahee that is translated "they shall see" with eyes wide open, or physical sight the Son of man coming in the clouds.


Exactly! The 'last time/times' is properly understood as the 'ends of, last, latter end, lowest, uttermost'. The ends of time Christ ushered in is what John symbolically writes "a/the thousand years". Symbolizing time given the church on earth to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God unto all the nations of the earth that the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven would be complete. When the ends of time/a thousand years have been fulfilled then time for this earth shall be no longer.

I agree with your understanding, however in the following you wrote: "When the ends of time/a thousand years have been fulfilled then time for this earth shall be no longer."

You must always be clear in helping the "literists" to know that the factor of "a 1000 years" is not literal, and not in some far off future, but rather it is NOW and in the figurative. As I have shown in my post #90, the context of 2 Peter ch. 3 is straight forward in truth about the promise of God's plan of salvation being fulfilled during His Age of Grace through Jesus.
As you know, God has put no time limit or end date on the Age of His Grace.

 

[grafted branch]

I focus in on the cross and the climactic return of Christ. You are obsessed with the coming in Titus in AD70. That is all you want to talk about. None of the Bible writers were so.

I have barely mentioned 70AD in this thread yet anytime that date is mentioned, all you want to do is divert the conversation back to the cross. I agree that the cross is of utmost importance but you seem to be obsessed with diverting and dismissing any discussion about 70AD.

I’m surprised the Premil folks don’t use that same tactic on you when a discussion comes up about when Satan will be loosed.

 

[WPM]

I have barely mentioned 70AD in this thread yet anytime that date is mentioned, all you want to do is divert the conversation back to the cross. I agree that the cross is of utmost importance but you seem to be obsessed with diverting and dismissing any discussion about 70AD.

I’m surprised the Premil folks don’t use that same tactic on you when a discussion comes up about when Satan will be loosed.

What are you talking about? That is all you want to talk about. You never want to talk about the cross. You never want to talk about the literal physical future return of Jesus. Why not? You are fixated with the coming in Titus and AD70.

 

[grafted branch]

What are you talking about? That is all you want to talk about. You never want to talk about the cross. You never want to talk about the literal physical future return of Jesus. Why not? You are fixated with the coming in Titus and AD70.

I’m interested in talking about what the Bible says. If a passage is referring to the burial of the old covenant then I want to acknowledge that. Many people simply will refer to that burial as 70AD because that is the date it happened.

I can compare your thoughts about preterist being obsessed with the burial as Amils are obsessed with Satan being bound. I can say Amils are obsessed with Satan, not the cross. But both you and I know that’s not true.

 

[WPM]

I’m interested in talking about what the Bible says. If a passage is referring to the burial of the old covenant then I want to acknowledge that. Many people simply will refer to that burial as 70AD because that is the date it happened.

I can compare your thoughts about preterist being obsessed with the burial as Amils are obsessed with Satan being bound. I can say Amils are obsessed with Satan, not the cross. But both you and I know that’s not true.

Not true. Amils speak on countless events/issues. We have many strings to our guitar. You have one string and it makes a monotonous and boring tune. We focus on the cross as the means of our hope and eternal life. We speak much about Christ's glorious, and climatic literal physical future return.

 

[grafted branch]

Not true. Amils speak on countless events/issues. We have many strings to our guitar. You have one string and it makes a monotonous and boring tune. We focus on the cross as the means of our hope and eternal life. We speak much about Christ's glorious, and climatic literal physical future return.

So are you admitting that you don’t talk about the burial of the old covenant then? Or is it that you can’t defend the Amil position when that string is plucked?

 

[Earburner]

And this is always your only argument against preterist concerning this. I didn’t say the old covenant remained valid after the cross, only that it hadn’t vanished.

You have to argue that I somehow think the old covenant was still in force in order to make a straw man argument. How about telling us clearly why you think the old covenant hadn’t vanished yet when Hebrews was written and when exactly did it vanish? Or maybe you think the old covenant hasn’t vanished yet, I don’t know.

Many do not understand KJV Dan. 9:27.

[27] And he [Jesus] shall confirm the [New] covenant with many for one week [7 years]: and in the midst of the week [3.5 years] he [Jesus] shall cause the [animal] sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations** he [Jesus] shall make it desolate [destroyed and void of God], even until the consummation [the very end of time], and that determined [vs. 24] shall be poured upon the desolate [Pentecost-those who are void of God]. Acts 2:17-18, 10:45.

**Note:
The overspreading of abominations is the Jews continuing their animal sacrifices after the fact of God's sacrifice of His Son, the Lamb of God.
Therefore, EVERY animal sacrifice that the Jews performed in their temple upto 70 AD, was to God an "overspreading of abominations" against Him and the sacrifice of His Son.

 

[WPM]

So are you admitting that you don’t talk about the burial of the old covenant then? Or is it that you can’t defend the Amil position when that string is plucked?

I talk about it but am not obsessed with it like you and your Full Preterist friends. What a sad life to live.

 

[grafted branch]

Many do not understand KJV Dan. 9:27.

[27] And he [Jesus] shall confirm the [New] covenant with many for one week [7 years]: and in the midst of the week [3.5 years] he [Jesus] shall cause the [animal] sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations** he [Jesus] shall make it desolate [destroyed and void of God], even until the consummation [the very end of time], and that determined [vs. 24] shall be poured upon the desolate [Pentecost-those who are void of God]. Acts 2:17-18, 10:45.

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the Old Greek of Daniel 9:27 but from what I understand it the oldest known copy in existence. Here is Daniel 9:27 in the Old Greek, you might find it interesting.



Daniel 9:27(OG) And the covenant will prevail for many, and it will return again and be rebuilt broad and long. And at the consummation of times [even after seven years and seventy times and sixty-two times] [until the time of the consummation of the war even desolation will be removed] [when the covenant prevails for many weeks]. And in half of the week the sacrifice and the libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolations until the consummation of a season, and a consummation will be given for the desolation.”

Here’s how I interpret that rendering …

Starting with this phrase “And at the consummation of times [even after seven years and seventy times and sixty-two times]” it’s meaning is at the fulfillment of the 69th week (after week 69).

Next phrase “[until the time of the consummation of the war even desolation will be removed] [when the covenant prevails for many weeks]” means until the fulfillment of the war, the destruction will not happen, when the covenant is in effect, this state of affairs is for many weeks.

Next phrase “And in half of the week the sacrifice and the libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolations until the consummation of a season, and a consummation will be given for the desolation” means at the half way point of week 70 the sacrifices stop, in the temple the abomination of desolations occurs until the fulfillment of the state of affairs, and then the fulfillment of the war happens for the desolation.

Putting it altogether it looks like this to me …

At the fulfillment of the 69th week (after week 69), until the fulfillment of the war, the destruction will not happen, when the covenant is in effect, this state of affairs is for many weeks. At the half way point of week 70 the sacrifices stop, in the temple the abomination of desolations occurs until the fulfillment of the state of affairs, and then the fulfillment of the war happens for the desolation.

**Note:
The overspreading of abominations is the Jews continuing their animal sacrifices after the fact of God's sacrifice of His Son, the Lamb of God.
Therefore, EVERY animal sacrifice that the Jews performed in their temple upto 70 AD, was to God an "overspreading of abominations" against Him and the sacrifice of His Son.

I agree with you on this, I also think the first sacrifice made after the veil was torn was an abomination that made desolate. The way I harmonize that with Luke 21:20-21 and the instructions to flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies instead of when they see the AOD, is in how I interpret Matthew 24:22.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The days were shortened and when you shorten a period of time you have two choices, you can either end that time period earlier or start that time period later. Since the indicator of when to flee in Matthew 24 is different than the indicator of when to flee in Luke 21, it stands to reason that when the days were shortened, those days started later than originally anticipated.

I see the days that were shortened as the days without hope. After Israel rejected going into the promised land they had no hope for forty years as they wandered in the wilderness. After the cross they did have hope, even if they initially rejected Jesus and continued the sacrifices.

 

[Davidpt]

I already rebutted this and you already ignored it. That seems to be the way you engage.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here (namely Peter, and James, and John), which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
Mat 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Mat 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Mar 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here (namely Peter, and James, and John), which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Mar 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here (namely Peter, and James, and John), which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Luk 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
Luk 9:29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
Luk 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
Luk 9:31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

While some give a good argument for Jesus speaking about Pentecost here, it seems more likely (in context) that He was talking about His transfiguration. There is nothing here that would suggest AD70, which Preterist are obsessed with.


This is simply alluding to the last days that Jesus ushered in.

Neither views are good arguments, IMO. Good arguments are formed when one pays close attention to texts that are providing crystal clear clues. Such as the following.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

this---For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels--is obviously meaning this--till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Was anything in verse 27 fulfilled some days later during the transfiguration? What about in 70 AD? Was either of those events pertaining to this---then he shall reward every man according to his works? Obviously, meaning this verse in Revelation 22--And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

But let's just ignore verse 27 altogether and insist the transfiguration or maybe even 70 AD provides us with the timing. Or let's admit verse 27 involves the 2nd coming in the end of this age except there is no connection to verse 28 whatsoever.

As to verse 28, I guess there is no such thing as a resurrection from the dead once Christ returns, which then explains how some wannabee disciples standing there at the time(not meaning His main disciples) can taste of death when they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Think Revelation 1:7 here, for one.

Which, BTW, this appears to favor Amil better than it does Premil. But even so, I predict you will still reject it as a valid argument. At least everything I brought up can explain verse 27. The transfiguration nor 70 AD can explain verse 27. And I didn't even bring up Matthew 25:31 yet---When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, which obviously explains this in verse 27---For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels

The contexts match then. Matthew 25:31-46 also involves tasting of death, in regards to the goats when they are cast into the LOF and taste of the 2nd death. After all, in some cases, meaning pertaining to the lost, there are two deaths involved. It's not like death always means the first death every single time. Sometimes it means the 2nd death.

Plus, let's not forget what these verses below record, where it obviously has everything to do with what is recorded in Matthew 16:27-28.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Not to mention, this should remind us of what is recorded in Luke 17 verses 31-33, as well.

 

[HealthyShape]

I was thinking of the whole world being judged in the end of this age of grace.

The New Testament does not know any "age of grace" or its end...

 

[HealthyShape]

Where are all the Christian testimonies of this great historic appearing?

At one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and a comet, which lasted for a whole year.
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 2

If you are asking about all the persons in the first church, mentioned for example by name in the epistles or in gospels... they all seem to mysteriously disappear from history, right? No writings, no tombs, no place in the church tradition, no family trees of such important people, nothing. Interesting. Why do you think that is?

I see this logical options:
1. They did not exist, they were fictional
2. They all died in the great tribulation 66-70
3. They were taken as promised
4. They were just lethargic and did not care to write or to do anything and church did not care about them, about their tombs, their relatives etc.
5. They continued to live and write, but church did not find their writings convenient and so destroyed those writings or simply did not copy them and so erased them from the official "orthodox" tradition

Any other option?

 

[HealthyShape]

He ascended up physically before man and He will descend the same. Hello! It does not need explained away by Preterists to support their error.

He did not descend physically on Pentecost or in transfiguration. So, your answer is not making any sense. You reject the event that was full of various fulfillments and fits precisely into the prophecised time frame and you offer other events that fulfilled nothing about the coming, instead.

Make that make sense.

 

[IndianaRob]

I’m interested in talking about what the Bible says. If a passage is referring to the burial of the old covenant then I want to acknowledge that. Many people simply will refer to that burial as 70AD because that is the date it happened.

I can compare your thoughts about preterist being obsessed with the burial as Amils are obsessed with Satan being bound. I can say Amils are obsessed with Satan, not the cross. But both you and I know that’s not true.

The old covenant went away when the testator of the new covenant died.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

I see, you could not find anything actually saying "physically". You could only find verses about visibility, so you try to hide it into it.

Answer me this, but clearly and concisely: Why do you insist that "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" must be either transfiguration or the Pentecost (even though these events were not related to any sign mentioned with the coming), but you reject the 70 AD which was full of the sings mentioned with His Coming?

The resurrection was the second coming of Christ.

 

[HealthyShape]

The resurrection was the second coming of Christ.

If you mean the resurrection of Jesus, then no - the verses about His coming are after His resurrection.