a non-eschatological Coming?

[Randy Kluth]

If you believe and one of the 3 items below are fulfilled your (Partial Preterist)

If you believe all 3 items are fulfilled your (Full Preterist)

If you believe all are future unfulfilled your (Futurist)

Your (Partial Preterist) as you believe and teach Matthew 24:15 in Daniel's AOD was fulfilled in 70AD, this is about the 3rd time I have explained this to you, as you continue to deny your Preterist in your eschatology

1. Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2. Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3. Matthew 24:29-30 The Second Coming

You're obviously very ignorant on the subject, because this isn't an accurate definition of Partial Preterism, or at best is insufficient information about it. Let me reiterate: Partial Preterism is not strictly one who believe that the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman Army in 70 AD. The Early Church Fathers were largely believers that the AoD was fulfilled by the Romans in 70 AD or thereabouts. And they were *not* Partial Preterists. Do you understand this?

What makes one a Partial Preterist is the belief that virtually all of the book of Revelation, as well as the Olivet Discourse, is about the early centuries of the Church during the Roman Empire. I *DO NOT BELIEVE THIS!"

So repeat things all you like. But thinking you'll get a different result makes me question your motive.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes you Promote Preterism, you believe and teach Matthew 24:15 in Daniel's AOD was fulfilled in 70AD, stop claiming otherwise

I will *always* claim otherwise because you seem woefully ignorant on the subject. You are clearly ignorant of what Partial Preterism is. Just believing in one particular element in Partial Preterism does not make me a Partial Preterist. It is belief that the book of Revelation is largely already fulfilled that would make me a Partial Preterist. And I do *not* believe this!

At least acknowledge my point, rather than blindly repeating the same thing? You have yet to recognize that you even understand it. If so, it's impossible to argue with someone who is intellectually incapable of understanding the argument, or simply unwilling to do so.

 

[Truth7t7]

You're obviously very ignorant on the subject, because this isn't an accurate definition of Partial Preterism, or at best is insufficient information about it. Let me reiterate: Partial Preterism is not strictly one who believe that the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman Army in 70 AD. The Early Church Fathers were largely believers that the AoD was fulfilled by the Romans in 70 AD or thereabouts. And they were *not* Partial Preterists. Do you understand this?

What makes one a Partial Preterist is the belief that virtually all of the book of Revelation, as well as the Olivet Discourse, is about the early centuries of the Church during the Roman Empire. I *DO NOT BELIEVE THIS!"

So repeat things all you like. But thinking you'll get a different result makes me question your motive.

If a person believes any part of the Olivet discourse as explained has been fulfilled, they are in the preterist camp

Once again you believe Matthew 24:15 in Daniel's AOD was fulfilled in 70AD, your in the (Partial Preterist ) camp, you can claim otherwise all you want, the shoe fits and your wearing it

 

[Truth7t7]

I have another question.


Revelation 2:1 KJV
[1] Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Why is Jesus telling John to weite these epistles to Angels. The Truther should have no problem answering this one seeing he has all the truth.

Revelation 1:11KJV
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Ok, I’ll try again. This time I’ll write slower.


John 18:20 KJV
[20] Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

SO, in the above scripture what is Jesus referring to as the world?
The gospel went into all the world. I don’t see how this is so hard to understand.

No I will go slow like a turtle.......Mattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 24:14 sayyssssssssssss when the gospelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll has ben preachedddddddddddddddddd unto the whole world. THEN the end (70th weekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk) would COMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If a person believes any part of the Olivet discourse as explained has been fulfilled, they are in the preterist camp

Once again you believe Matthew 24:15 in Daniel's AOD was fulfilled in 70AD, your in the (Partial Preterist ) camp, you can claim otherwise all you want, the shoe fits and your wearing it

No, your constantly bearing this false witness against me is just another opportunity for me to explain it to others who may be reading. Thankyou, I'd like anybody and everybody to know what a Partial Preterist is and isn't.

A Partial Preterist believes that most all of Revelation was fulfilled in the early centuries of the Church during the Roman Empire. Partial Preterism believes, like me, that much of the Olivet Discourse is about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but that alone does not make a Partial Preterist.

They must also believe that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the Early Church. Since I don't believe that, I'm not a Partial Preterist.

You must claim this all you like because you like to do this to distract away from the facts? But here I am, declaring to you the facts, because once again, it is an opportunity to expose your misconception and misapplication.

The Early Church Fathers believed, as I do, that the Olivet Discourse was primarily about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, as do perhaps most conservative biblical scholars in history. Modern Futurists want as many prophecies as possible to be about the endtimes because that is their game. They like to predict the future, like crystal ball gazers.

But the prophetic Scriptures tell the story about both the past and the future, in order to explain to us how we should live today, and what we're living for tomorrow. The Olivet Discourse did this for believers among the Jewish People. And in principle it applies to Christians in all ages.

So there it is. Every time you call me a Partial Preterist you ignore the main part of the definition of a Partial Preterist, which is that they believe most all future prophecies were already fulfilled in the Early Church. And I don't believe this.

I believe much of the book of Revelation is about a future Antichrist who reigns for 3.5 years before the Coming of Christ to destroy him and to set up his Millennial Kingdom.

And I believe the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People began in 70 AD and continues throughout the age until the Return of Christ to set up his Kingdom. This is not Preterism!

Furthermore, I believe Christ did not Return in 70 AD like some Preterists do. I believe a Coming of God in judgment took place at that time, which Christ identified with. But this was not his Coming down from heaven to set up his Kingdom.

This was an appearance of God in judgment, ie in the act of judging Israel at that time. Partial Preterists may indeed believe this. But that certainly doesn't make me a Partial Preterist like you like to keep on saying.

So there you have it. Once again I get the opportunity to explain to people why your claims are false. The Scriptures say that there must be divisions between us so that it may be shown who has God's favor and who doesn't.

And when you declare falsehoods like this to in a sense slander me and my beliefs, you do not have God's favor--I assure you. You really need to apologize.

 

[Waiting on him]

No I will go slow like a turtle.......Mattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 24:14 sayyssssssssssss when the gospelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll has ben preachedddddddddddddddddd unto the whole world. THEN the end (70th weekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk) would COMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

No, that isn’t at what it says. You’ve added to His words. I told you what the world is, and you can’t seem to grasp it.

 

[bbyrd009]

There was no gift of tongues in the OT?

well, or so you say, yes
can you think of any other NT concept that has no OT counterpart though?

Tongues as spoken of in Cornthians is a gift from the Holy Spirit given to the church.

Surely there are many different languages in the world; are any of them meaningless? But if i dont know the meaning of someone’s language, i am as foreign to him as he is to me, right?

However, fwiw i will say that your gnostic statement there may hide more than it reveals, rn, although im not sure how i might illustrate the point (and in irl convo i would just prolly agree with you and move on)
i could say that tongues are not a gift, at least in the same manner that we understand the other gifts of the Spirit, but of course we do have a verse to that effect; at least the one. I could say that “given to the church” may not be true—i dont think it can be Quoted—but that would prolly be a bit too far from the point to make any sense right now, so maybe we could just do a little review from Cor 14,

1Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.
2For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
3But he who prophesies speaks to men for their edification, encouragement, and comfort.
4The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
5I wish that all of you could speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be edified.
6Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

so, is SiT really like you are characterizing it? Are you sure?
after this passage, why would Paul say that he hoped we would speak in tongues?

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, when eternity intersects with the finite world of time, there has to be a bit of a disconnect in our understanding

aion: a space of time, an age

so no offense but that is almost completely self-inflicted imo, although granted the Bible helps a little there i guess

 

[Timtofly]

No, your constantly bearing this false witness against me is just another opportunity for me to explain it to others who may be reading. Thankyou, I'd like anybody and everybody to know what a Partial Preterist is and isn't.

A Partial Preterist believes that most all of Revelation was fulfilled in the early centuries of the Church during the Roman Empire. Partial Preterism believes, like me, that much of the Olivet Discourse is about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but that alone does not make a Partial Preterist.

They must also believe that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the Early Church. Since I don't believe that, I'm not a Partial Preterist.

You must claim this all you like because you like to do this to distract away from the facts? But here I am, declaring to you the facts, because once again, it is an opportunity to expose your misconception and misapplication.

The Early Church Fathers believed, as I do, that the Olivet Discourse was primarily about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, as do perhaps most conservative biblical scholars in history. Modern Futurists want as many prophecies as possible to be about the endtimes because that is their game. They like to predict the future, like crystal ball gazers.

But the prophetic Scriptures tell the story about both the past and the future, in order to explain to us how we should live today, and what we're living for tomorrow. The Olivet Discourse did this for believers among the Jewish People. And in principle it applies to Christians in all ages.

So there it is. Every time you call me a Partial Preterist you ignore the main part of the definition of a Partial Preterist, which is that they believe most all future prophecies were already fulfilled in the Early Church. And I don't believe this.

I believe much of the book of Revelation is about a future Antichrist who reigns for 3.5 years before the Coming of Christ to destroy him and to set up his Millennial Kingdom.

And I believe the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People began in 70 AD and continues throughout the age until the Return of Christ to set up his Kingdom. This is not Preterism!

Furthermore, I believe Christ did not Return in 70 AD like some Preterists do. I believe a Coming of God in judgment took place at that time, which Christ identified with. But this was not his Coming down from heaven to set up his Kingdom.

This was an appearance of God in judgment, ie in the act of judging Israel at that time. Partial Preterists may indeed believe this. But that certainly doesn't make me a Partial Preterist like you like to keep on saying.

So there you have it. Once again I get the opportunity to explain to people why your claims are false. The Scriptures say that there must be divisions between us so that it may be shown who has God's favor and who doesn't.

And when you declare falsehoods like this to in a sense slander me and my beliefs, you do not have God's favor--I assure you. You really need to apologize.

Can any poster name one person who was alive in 30AD who was still alive in 70AD?

That generation passed, and the next generation passed prior to 70AD. 40 years is plenty of time to kill off 2 generations. So that generation was not the generation to still be alive. The generation that sees the blooming of the fig tree, is the generation. Except no one is willing to interpret the blooming of the fig tree. How is the 20 years leading up to 70AD, described as the blooming of the fig tree?

 

[bbyrd009]

And based on Scripture, what I believe is true.

a singularly dangerous declaration, imo

 

[Randy Kluth]

aion: a space of time, an age

so no offense but that is almost completely self-inflicted imo, although granted the Bible helps a little there i guess

I have no clue what you're saying. What's "self-inflicted?"

 

[bbyrd009]

I have no clue what you're saying. What's "self-inflicted?"

there has to be a bit of a disconnect in our understanding

or iow there is surely a disconnect of understanding because the word (eternal, eternity) is defined incorrectly to us
or, there does not have to be a disconnect in our understanding; it is self-inflicted, by choice

 

[Randy Kluth]

Can any poster name one person who was alive in 30AD who was still alive in 70AD?

Note this, brother:

Num 14.1 Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth, 22 not one of those who saw my glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times— 23 not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their ancestors. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it....
34 For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ 35 I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this wilderness; here they will die.”

Do you see what I'm saying. It wasn't that the whole generation of Moses would live until the time to enter Canaan and suddenly fall dead. Rather, over time they would all die until not one was left to enter into Canaan, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb.

It wasn't that Jesus wanted the whole of his generation to die in 70 AD, but that he was inflicting the same kind of judgment on his generation as was inflicted upon Moses' generation. Indeed, it was 40 years after Jesus said this, just as the wilderness judgment lasted 40 years.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's a reasonable position to take, and I used to take it. I can no longer hold to that position for the reasons already given. I've lined up the verses in each version of the Olivet Discourse, and both Matt 24 and Mark 13 line up exactly with Luke 17 and 21. There are no substantial differences. Two do not focus on the future, while one focused on the then-present. We'll have to agree to disagree, unless you want to see how I line these verses up?

I would like to see how you line them up. I am certain it is the way I used to long ago.

 

[ScottA]

You have a very different way of looking at things, which is more akin to Gnosticism than to Christian Revelation. You pose knowledge in the form of a dichotomy between the transcendent and what we can understand. Actually, thinkers have understood this metaphysical problem for ages, thinking that finite man can only grasp the finite God through symbols.

But Christian Revelation has always opposed this limitation on our knowledge by declaring that God is *in* finite communications to Man, such that what is transcendent actually communicates directly through finite words divine truth that Man can comprehend. It is not a puzzle or riddle to be resolved, but rather truth that impresses itself both upon the mind and conscience of Man.

That is, the Holy Spirit is not interpreting things, but communicating things. He's not resolving riddles, but rather, informing our conscience what is right.

Prophecy is no less clear about what God is saying--it is not a riddle to be "spiritually interpreted." Yes, Paul spoke of a hidden wisdom, not at all referring to Gnosticism, but rather, to the experience that Christians choose to receive from God by revelation. Those who do not choose to receive that revelation obviously don't experience it, and thus that experience and truth is hidden from them. The certainty is gone.

It's too bad you think what I have been saying is "very different", because this is where I get it from:

• Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. Genesis 11:7-9

• “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.” Isaiah 6:10

• They do not know nor understand; For He has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, And their hearts, so that they cannot understand. Isaiah 44:18

• It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

• But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

• And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it. So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.” Revelation 5:1-5

But what you describe is nearly opposite. And when I repeat what God has said, you reject it, and associate me with things I do not prescribe to, "referring to Gnosticism" as a criticism.

What is your problem--is it all too spiritual for you?

What is it that you find disagreeable about us becoming perfect as God whom is spirit, is perfect?


Nonetheless, there is hope:

• These also who erred in spirit will come to understanding, And those who complained will learn doctrine.” Isaiah 29:24

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think you're right. However, the Gifts of the Spirit do seem to have OT counterparts, to some degree. For example, interpreting dreams may be similar to interpreting tongues.

I think that is stretching "interpreting" beyond where it should og.

One is dreams and the other is language. They may both be interpretations but for vastly different things, and dreams were not a gift given by the Spirit to edify Israel.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

well, or so you say, yes
can you think of any other NT concept that has no OT counterpart though?

Yes all the gifts of the Spirit. Israel did not have gifts given to them to edify the body. These were dispensed to the church.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Surely there are many different languages in the world; are any of them meaningless? But if i dont know the meaning of someone’s language, i am as foreign to him as he is to me, right?

YOu are speaking of the varied languages while I am speaking specifically of the gift of tongues Whether it be tongues of men or of angels as Paul said.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

However, fwiw i will say that your gnostic statement there may hide more than it reveals, rn, although im not sure how i might illustrate the point (and in irl convo i would just prolly agree with you and move on)
i could say that tongues are not a gift, at least in the same manner that we understand the other gifts of the Spirit, but of course we do have a verse to that effect; at least the one. I could say that “given to the church” may not be true—i dont think it can be Quoted—but that would prolly be a bit too far from the point to make any sense right now, so maybe we could just do a little review from Cor 14,

Wow you sound more indefinite that an evoutionary scientist.

Your false witness of my "gnostic statements" are just ad-hominems.