Preterism

In response to your statements I would like to repost a message I have posted in the past.

I believe that there might have been some things that may have occured in ad 70, a local judgment of some kind, but that doesn't negate the future fulfillment of all the prophecies in Matthew 24.

You have the burden of proof to show that it was all fulfilled in ad 70 and that it will not happen in the future. We know you cannot do this. In fact you would have to go to a questionable source outside the Bible for your alleged proof.

You are the one that has to spiritualize passages to fit it into your ad 70 assumption.

Tell me what the Futurist is assuming.

The Rrrrrrrrrrrrest of the Story

Many prophecy students are experts at seeing their particular viewpoint regarding the endtimes, but become exclusive in the process. We are all probably guilty of that of one degree or another.

For example some that the prophecies of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were all fulfilled in A.D. 70 in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Some interpret the verses having to do with the Lord promising he would come soon and that some of his followers would not taste death, until they saw Jesus coming in power, differently

What they often end up doing with the other prophetic scriptures is spiritualizing the PLAIN SENSE scriptures that were meant to be taken at their literal and physical interpretation. They do all this to make it all fit into their definition of a soon coming Christ.

They spiritualize the kingdom while at the same time denying the physical reality of the kingdom.

They take verses about Jesus coming and splitting the Mount of Olives and spiritualize them so that there is no need to look forward to a literal and Divine Dividing of this Mountain.

They deny that Israel will ever be regathered again because in their view Israel has already experienced a regathering in Old Testament times and now Israel is mostly in rebellion against God.

They focus on the unfaithfulness of Israel and deny the faithfulness of God.

What they miss is the Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrest of the Story

For example:

Some argue that the Kingdom of God is within (Luke 17:20,21), so it is NOT necessary to believe the scriptures concerning a physical kingdom and in a Messiah that will literally and physically sit on the Davidic Throne.

Let us see what the Rest of the Story says concerning the Kingdom of God and its King.

Luke 17:20-21 "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here!, or lo there? for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Do you think that maybe he is saying that one cannot predict it by looking out their window and observing that it is happening in Arizona?

In other words it is not going to happen locally, it will happen globally.

Then right after these verses Jesus says,

"The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you WILL NOT see it. Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them."

Does this mean that He will not literally and physically come again?

Because Christ is in our heart does that mean that we cannot see Him and that He is ONLY a Spirit?

God Forbid!

"For the Son of Man IN HIS DAY will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But FIRST he must suffer many things and be rejected by THIS GENERATION." (Luke 17:20ff NIV)

What about these verses:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jesursalem, and to an innumberable company of angels" (Heb 12:22)

Does believing in a heavenly Jerusalem deny the existence of an earthly Jerusalem?

1 Cor, 3:17 "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

Does believing that we are the temple of God exclude the reality of a literal and physical temple that people worship in?

When Jesus said 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up' did it ONLY apply to the temple of his body?

Is there to be a destruction of another temple? (Luke 21:6)

There are some interesting interpretations of the following verses.

Some conclude that the interpretation of: 'Assuredly, I say to you, there are SOME STANDING HERE who SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH till they see the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM.' is that Jesus came back in A.D. 70 fulfilling all the prophecies. Because he obligated himself to come before some of his followers died.

Another interpretation is that there will be some that would live to a long age, possibly John and that he is one of the prophets in Revelation.

Then there are a few other possibilities that I noticed all on my own, that probably has been noticed by someone before. Compare the different gospel accounts of the previous statement by Jesus and tell me if you see it.

What I am seeing is rather than just slightly different gospel accounts and aspects of the kingdom there could be two different predictions here.

In all the gospel accounts it says, "There are some standing here that will not taste death till".

However, what follows is varies from one gospel account to the other.

"till they SEE the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM." (Matthew 16: 28)

"till they SEE the KINGDOM OF GOD PRESENT WITH POWER." (Mark 9:1)

"But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD God." (Luke 9:27)

Does this demonstrate Contradiction or Divine Complexity?

Only one of these accounts includes the physical and literal coming of Christ and that is the Matthew account.

Could it be that the Matthew account will happen at the end of the World when Jesus comes back and the other accounts could have a more IMMEDIATE fulfillment, a kingdom of God within experience?

Could the Mount of Transfiguration experience qualify as 'Kingdom of God present with power'?

How about the destruction of Jerualem in A.D. 70?

What about the prophetic accounts in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 concerning the end?

Walvoord thinks that Luke 21:20-24 speaks more specifically of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 but that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 refer to the end of the world. Quote: "The section of prophecy in Luke 21:20-24 should be distinguished from the other prophecies dealing with signs of the end because Luke 21:24 has already been literally fulfilled while the other aspects of its signs, as in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, are yet to see complete fulfillment. Only Luke gives the specific answer to signs of the destruction of Jerusalem" (Every Prophecy of the Bible, Walvoord, pg 386)

Again, part of the Luke account is referring to a more IMMEDIATE fulfillment while the Matthew and Mark accounts refer to a much later fulfillment.

God is so Awesome!!

Too many have assumed that all three gospel accounts refer to exactly the same thing.

With this in mind can we see the possibility that peculiar prophetic viewpoints such as Preterism might be limiting the range and multifaceted aspects of prophecy and even try to limit God.

Wouldn't you think it would be wise to first get the Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrest of the Story before one starts making exclusivistic statements?