Interesting preterist argument

[NotTheRock]

None of the OD events were, nor did.

The guy in the video is (I understand) and "full preterist". I understand that there are also "partial preterists". What is one called who believes that the events described in the OD will occur in the future?

 

[ewq1938]

The guy in the video is (I understand) and "full preterist". I understand that there are also "partial preterists". What is one called who believes that the events described in the OD will occur in the future?

Futurist.

 

[claninja]

Yes, the interpretation of the OD events having already happened is incorrect. None of the events have happened and we know that because all the events have to be seen by one generation and that includes the second coming and when the SC happens, all the saved dead resurrect and reign on Earth with Christ. Look around, no resurrected dead are here reigning with Jesus.

The disciples did not know when the Coming would happen so anything that seems to suggest it happening during their lives was merely hopeful wording.

If your interpretation is right, and all of the writers claimed it would happen in their lives, they all would be wrong and NT scripture would be untrue. He hasn't returned and none of the second coming events like the resurrection of all the saved dead etc clearly did not happen and I am not ok with watering everything down to make the claim that the Coming happened but He doesn't have to be here reigning and no resurrected dead need to be here etc etc etc.

Full Preterism is a heresy for a reason, a good reason.






Misinterpretation, false claims of a historical second coming that clearly never happened, ignoring of most of the clear events described that had to happen, but historically has not happened. I've explained how your interpretation is wrong many times with no actual response to the actual evidence.

I’m having a hard time following your response here. My question was specific: What external framework is being applied to Matthew 24:1–34 to conclude that it has been fulfilled? Simply labeling opposing views as “misinterpretations” or “false claims” isn’t an actual framework—it’s a judgment about the outcome, not an explanation of the method.

For instance, you argue that certain events described in Revelation haven’t occurred yet. That’s fine—but when you use that interpretation to argue against the fulfillment of Matthew 24, you are importing an external interpretive framework from Revelation into the Olivet Discourse. Likewise, when you assume that “the coming of the Son of Man” must refer to a future, bodily descent of Jesus from heaven, you’re applying a theological assumption—again, external to the immediate context of Matthew 24.

That’s what I mean by importing external ideas: using conclusions drawn from other texts or theological systems to override or reinterpret what Matthew 24 may plainly say within its own literary and historical context.

What specific external framework or external theological assumption am i importing onto the olivet discourse in order to conclude it was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation?

Your evidence is basically, "It sounds like the disciples expected the return in their generation." Yes, they certainly did but that is not evidence. It's belief and hope, and they all were wrong and basing a position on that level of wrong is also wrong but multiplied into a fur5ther wrong unknown in their own generation.

Just a reminder: when Greek verbs are in the indicative mood, they express what the speaker presents as reality — a statement of fact, rather than hope, possibility, or command. The statements in James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37, 1 Peter 4:7, and 1 John 2:18-19, in regards to the nearness of the coming, are statements of fact from the author - NOT hope, possibility, or probability. so, right, your framework does require the writers of the NT to have been wrong.

Moreover, the belief that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation is not based on those external statements by apostles. Quite the opposite, those statements are interpreted through framework of a fulfilled Matthew 24:1-34. And what is more, The belief that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation is derived from the text itself, not something external:

• CONTEXT - Jesus answers the disciples’ questions
• GRAMMAR - the antecedent to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 refers to a the events in Matthew 24:4-31
• LINGUISTIC - the majority of evidence points to genea meaning those living at the same.

So I’m still not sure what external framework you are claiming is being imported in order to draw the conclusion that Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled within Jesus’ generation?