Partial Preterism

[Bambi]

Here is the foundation verse in the Gospel on which all the various Preterist viewpoints are based.

Actually I changed from being a Futurist to a Preterist through studying Revelation and Daniel. Matt 24 didn't come till later.

So the dilemma exists, the interpretation of 'all' leaves no room to move within the

interpretational approach. Thereby the position of Partial Preterism is refuted within
the wording of this one verse. One cannot choose to interpret 'all these things' as
'almost all these things'. Because this partial interpretation would be a paradox as 'all'
either means everything or it does not mean everything! One cannot say 'all things' means
'not all things' that is a paradox.

What kind of interpretation emphasizes the phrase 'all these things' as literal then
retreats to a meaning of 'almost all these things'. I have trouble understanding the
double interpretation of the verse?

I think I’m getting sea sick.

My former pastor has a saying, “All means all and that’s all, all means” This is bad exegesis.

There is a video on youtube. It’s manly about Limited Atonement, but D. James Kennedy has a way with dealing with my former pastor and your bad exegesis. It takes 9:32 mins. Or if you want, skip to 8:20 time on the video.

Jesus Christ's Limited Atonement? - YouTube

 

[Bambi]

Most Partial Preterists writing on the subject contend that they are in agreement and conformity with the historic ecumenical creeds of the church and articulate the doctrine of the resurrection held by the early church fathers. But is this true? Let us look at some of the fathers statements regarding these events…
Brother Paul

You know I've been on both sides of this argument and I'm not going there with you.

 

[Bambi]

Yes! The Lord bless you and keep you...but I will disagree on the this generations....the generation spoken of in 23 are those who were present and approved of the things (when they slew the prophets etc.,) and the this generation in 24:34 is that generation alive when these things occur (the appearing/coming, the gathering together unto Him when the dead are raised)...

If you look at these two passages...

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

We see that with these events the people will not expect or know until it happens suddenly (at least to the children of darkness, but we are of the day that ir should not overtake us as a thief in the night) but in 70 A.D. the Romans had long expressed their intent and began this process in 67 1/2 A.D....for 2 1/2 years they knew (the Christians had left already) and still resisted...they were given opportunity to escape...by 70 A.D. it was pure stupid pride that caused the Jewish people who remained to stay. Nothing sudden here...the two scenarios cannot be equated at all...

When Jesus comes in judgment the sheep and the goats will be divided and judged and the condemned will be cast into the lake which burns (whether that be literal or figurative)...and that would mean THIS is the new Earth (whether new or renewed) which it clearly is not.

Also the timing in Daniel 12 does not fit...when the daily sacrifice ceased (when the Temple was sieged and the priests died or escaped) and Titus entered into the Temple was within the same year and not 1290 days. If it were speaking of this time, the daily sacrifices would have had to have ceased in 67 1/2 A.D. but Titus did not lay actual siege on the city until Passover (April) of 70 A.D. and tore down the Temple (his abomination taking place shortly before) in September of 70 A.D.

Brother Paul

Check out my dialogue with James1523 in my post 70th Week of Daniel. This may explain why my beliefs don't add up to yours.

 

[Brother Paul]

You know I've been on both sides of this argument and I'm not going there with you.

Thats fine B...I know you are my sister and being His child is "all" that really matters only the OP here was

1 Have the prophecies in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Revelations been fulfilled already?

2 Did Christ really return in AD70?

Let's examine the eschatology of Partial Preterism and see what we find!

So I thought we were to discuss these things (the Partial Preterist scriptural positions) ...for example for DHC (and I am not totally clear on his position)....I believe "all" means "all" not some or almost all (but sometimes in scripture it does mean some or a part), but as I see it, all means all that He just referred to not everything that has come before the word was used in each dialogue. So if just a poll...

1) no
2) no

in His love

brother Paul


​

 

[Bambi]

Thats fine B...I know you are my sister and being His child is "all" that really matters only the OP here was

1 Have the prophecies in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Revelations been fulfilled already?

2 Did Christ really return in AD70?​

Are you asking me? If so my answers are this.

1. Yes and No Some have, some have not. Rev Chapters 4-20:6, I believe have been fulfilled. Rev 20:7-22:21 are still to be fulfilled

2. No, but Jesus did come in judgment in 70 AD. This coming in 70 AD was not a physical appearance.

....I believe "all" means "all" not some or almost all (but sometimes in scripture it does mean some or a part), but as I see it, all means all that He just referred to not everything that has come before the word was used in each dialogue. So if just a poll...

So you believe that "all" in Matt 24 means "all" as "all" not just some? I believe that it means all in context of Matt 23 and 24, only. Not referring to all other prophecies, unless other books of the bible prophecies go with this prophecy. For example, the rapture isn't part of Matt 24, but the first part of Revelation is. Some would say that the 70 weeks of Daniel should be a part of Revelation. The only part of Daniel's prophecy in chapter 9 that does go with Matthew and Revelation is the part where it talks about the destruction of the city and the temple. The 70 weeks are not part of the Revelation prophecy. But I believe Daniel chapter 12 would go with Matthew and Revelation.


​

 

[Brother Paul]

All most often means all in relation to the matter immediately being discussed (thus all in 23 applies to the things just mentioned in 23 not 24, and the all in 24 to the things just mentioned in 24 not 23...grammatically this would be absurd as Greek is a very precise language unlike Hebrew) however, "all" does not always mean every and in some instances (taken from the context) the word means some of or most of...for example if we were to say "all" the people of Judea came out to hear Him we would obviously not be speaking of every single individual or when the Bible says "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." when it is again obvious not all will die because some are saved and not all live because some will be condemned despite the opportunity for salvation Christ's atonement provided for whosoever will that would come.

As for "But I believe Daniel chapter 12 would go with Matthew and Revelation."...

I have already shown how that is not possible as far as 70 A.D. is concerned, so believe as you will, but it just does not fit the historical reality. So since this is true, Matthew 24 and Revelations if speaking of 70 A.D., cannot be related to Daniel 12...

Did the daily sacrifices cease in Antiochus' time? Yes!

Did he also not make desolate by his abomination? Yes!

It is more likely 1290 days can be fit in here than in 70 A.D. but certainly that is also just another type....

 

[Lamar]

Wow, Brother Paul, I just want to commend you for your clarity in this discussion... very interesting. Thank you and may God continue to bless you and us all.

 

[Brother Paul]

Thanks Lamar, I just see too many unexplainable discrepancies. For instance, Did men and women throughout the earth receive the mark of the beast on their right hand or forehead in 70 A.D. (Rev. 13:11-19)? Were men and women throughout the earth forbidden to buy or sell goods unless they had the mark of the beast on their right hand or forehead (Rev. 13:11-19)? Was one-fourth of the earth’s population killed (Rev. 6:7-8)? I don't think so, in fact I know not...Did every mountain and island move out of its place (Rev. 6:12-17)? Again this is just not the case. Did men and women throughout the earth hide in caves and mountains out of sheer fright (Rev. 6:12-17)? Maybe a few in Judea, but it just does not jibe with the actual facts....the problem with all the allegorical and symbolic schools is that they all have different interpretations of these allegories and symbols, I say start with the plenary meaning except where it would otherwise be absurd (allowing for metaphor and simile, etc.,) and then speculate on what is left...different schools of thought have different approaches I understand but where reality is abjectly opposed to a matter it must be we who are in error not the scriptures.

Having said that (just my opinion) I am open to discuss individual claims and passages...I have been corrected here before and love to learn, but so far I cannot go with either the full or partial preterists that I have read...it is just too far off base.

In His love

Paul

 

[Bambi]

All most often means all in relation to the matter immediately being discussed (thus all in 23 applies to the things just mentioned in 23 not 24, and the all in 24 to the things just mentioned in 24 not 23...

But in context with the disciples questions both 23 & 24 of Matt go together. In 23 Jesus tells what will happen to Pharisees. Jesus, in chapter 24 explains more on what was said in chapter 23.

But I believe Daniel chapter 12 would go with Matthew and Revelation."...

I have already shown how that is not possible as far as 70 A.D. is concerned, so believe as you will, but it just does not fit the historical reality. So since this is true, Matthew 24 and Revelations if speaking of 70 A.D., cannot be related to Daniel 12...

Read my posts in 70th week of Daniel. http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/46236-70th-week-daniel.html#.UnlwTvnf-ps

Did the daily sacrifices cease in Antiochus' time? Yes!

Did he also not make desolate by his abomination? Yes!

Antiochus' abomination was Daniel chapter 11 not 12. Titus didn't perform an abomination in 70 AD. Read my posts.

 

[Brother Paul]

But in context with the disciples questions both 23 & 24 of Matt go together. In 23 Jesus tells what will happen to Pharisees. Jesus, in chapter 24 explains more on what was said in chapter 23.

Read my posts in 70th week of Daniel

Sorry no! In Matthew 23 Jesus is addressing a multitude and His disciples in the Temple...in 24 He is addressing only His disciples after leaving the Temple...so no...it is not simply a continuation of the same conversation...

Antiochus' abomination was Daniel chapter 11 not 12. Titus didn't perform an abomination in 70 AD. Read my posts.

Well first off I never said Antiochus' abomination was what is being spoken of in Daniel 12...I was simply showing since the Titus abomination and destruction of that Temple followed the ceasing of the daily sacrifices so closely Daniel 12 CANNOT BE 70 A.D. = There simply is not enough time for the 1290 days....(I only brought up Antiochus to demonstrate how "Types" recapitulate until the fulfillment, which clearly has not come yet...as witnessed by what the Apostles themselves taught the churches first leaders)

I will read your 70th week post now...I am looking forward to it...thanks

 

[DHC]

[/B]
Actually I changed from being a Futurist to a Preterist through studying Revelation and Daniel. Matt 24 didn't come till later.



I think I’m getting sea sick.

My former pastor has a saying, “All means all and that’s all, all means” This is bad exegesis.

There is a video on youtube. It’s manly about Limited Atonement, but D. James Kennedy has a way with dealing with my former pastor and your bad exegesis. It takes 9:32 mins. Or if you want, skip to 8:20 time on the video.

Jesus Christ's Limited Atonement? - YouTube

Hello Bambi.

Sorry for inducing the feeling of sea sickness in you with my last post, but I had to emphasize
the very important verse (Matthew 24:34). It is the key verse in Preterism and how one reads
that verse will determine the interpretation of the discourse of Jesus.

I also watched the video presentation you suggested and yes Bambi, I agree with you that 'all'
does have the more general, common usage of 'nearly all these things' in the English language.
But now I will disagree Bambi with this figurative approach to reading this verse.

Here are the reasons why I would read (Matthew 24:34) as literal and not figurative.

Our Bible is translated from the Koine Greek into English, the Greek language is not
as flexible or loose as our language is. When Jesus says 'all' in the Greek, He means 'all'.

Every prophetic passage in the OT that has been fulfilled, has always been a literal
fulfillment that I am aware of. Usually the fulfillment is to the letter of the prophetic text.
So I see no need to depart from the literal reading of 'all these things' or any other prophecy
that Jesus gave.

Jesus was giving a profound warning to the disciples and to those who heard him. This was
divine prophecy and identical to OT prophecy, fulfillment will always be to the very letter of the
prophecy. Jesus is specific and accurate in the prophetic utterance given to the disciples.

So what does Jesus mean when He says 'all these things'?

Context is king in scripture and we must adhere to the context at all times in our interpretation.

If we have a quick look at the phrase again, we notice 'these things', hence we know Jesus has
mentioned 'these things' previously. Turning back to the previous chapter we will read the following.

37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!
How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

There can be no doubt that 'these things' refers to the desolation of the house of Israel.
In other words we have the termination of the Covenant of Moses by God within these
passages. Let's look at another passage.

34 Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify,
and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may
fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah,
the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things
will come upon this generation.

Yes Bambi 'all these things' appears again in the above verses and is qualified this time. Historical Israel is
guilty and will be punished by God. The temple is the core of the Mosaic Covenant and this temple will
be taken apart 'stone by stone'. The Covenant God made with Israel which is the all, the everything that
defines Israel is null and void. Your house is left to you desolate, meaning the covenant is finished.
Truly 'all these things' will come upon this current generation and it did!

Context tells us that there are two components of prophecy in this discourse (Matthew 24).
One series of prophecy for physical Israel and the other series of prophecy for all people whether
Jew or Greek. One is for the here and now for Israel alone, the other concerns the distant future.
That is why the three questions are so vital and context is the key to understanding scripture.

 

[Bambi]

Our Bible is translated from the Koine Greek into English, the Greek language is not
as flexible or loose as our language is. When Jesus says 'all' in the Greek, He means 'all'.

I have a hard time believing that when you translate a word from one language, Greek, Hebrew or Latin, into English that it would have such a fixed definition. I also know traveling around the world even in the English language we may have many definitions for a word or many words for a definition. So I don't buy your opinion on the word "all". According to Strong's concordence the word all in verse 34 has many definitions.


G3956 pas Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

Every prophetic passage in the OT that has been fulfilled, has always been a literal
fulfillment that I am aware of. Usually the fulfillment is to the letter of the prophetic text.
So I see no need to depart from the literal reading of 'all these things' or any other prophecy
that Jesus gave.

You're right every prophecy has a literal fulfillment, but that doesn't mean that Christ coming in judgment isn't a literal fulfillment. God came in judgment against Israel and the enemies of Israel. But you don't see God in physical form. Just like they didn't see Christ come in physical form in the fulfillment of this passage.

 

[DHC]

God came in judgment against Israel and the enemies of Israel. But you don't see God in physical form. Just like they didn't see Christ come in physical form in the fulfillment of this passage.

Hello Bambi.

God came in judgment against Israel and the enemies of Israel. But you don't see God in physical form.

Yes Bambi, God is spirit and not flesh and blood, so we cannot see God unless God reveals Himself
to us. How can you say that Israel did not see God in physical form?

Contrary to what you may be thinking, Israel did see God in the OT, here I will show you the passages.

Exodus 13
21 The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire
by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.

Somehow the moving pillar of fire at night would not be mistaken for some meteorological phenomonen?

Exodus 24
9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they
saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky
itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God,
and they ate and drank.

The scripture plainly states 'they saw the God of Israel', and 'they saw God, and they ate and drank'.
Your saying that Israel did not see God in physical form but they did see God Bambi.

Exodus 24
17 And to the eyes of the sons of Israel the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming
fire on the mountain top.

A visual display of the Glory of the Lord, there was no doubt in anyone's mind at the time. That the
entity on top of the mountain was God, it was visual and God spoke to the people.

 

[Bambi]

Hello Bambi.

God came in judgment against Israel and the enemies of Israel. But you don't see God in physical form.

Yes Bambi, God is spirit and not flesh and blood, so we cannot see God unless God reveals Himself
to us. How can you say that Israel did not see God in physical form?

Contrary to what you may be thinking, Israel did see God in the OT, here I will show you the passages.

Exodus 13
21 The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire
by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.

Somehow the moving pillar of fire at night would not be mistaken for some meteorological phenomonen?

Exodus 24
9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they
saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky
itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God,
and they ate and drank.

The scripture plainly states 'they saw the God of Israel', and 'they saw God, and they ate and drank'.
Your saying that Israel did not see God in physical form but they did see God Bambi.

Exodus 24
17 And to the eyes of the sons of Israel the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming
fire on the mountain top.

A visual display of the Glory of the Lord, there was no doubt in anyone's mind at the time. That the
entity on top of the mountain was God, it was visual and God spoke to the people.

I mean what I say, and say what I mean.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

 

[Brother Paul]

I mean what I say, and say what I mean.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

All this means is that when the OTSaints saw or heard YHVH it was the Son...

 

[Bambi]

All this means is that when the OTSaints saw or heard YHVH it was the Son...

Read the verses again it doesn't say that.

 

[Brother Paul]

Read the verses again it doesn't say that.

"GOD" is the Father, is the Son, and is the Holy Spirit....the Son says "no man has seen the Father nor have they heard His voice" (John 5:37)...

But as pointed out by DHC...many times in the OT God has appeared to and spoken with many people (Noah, Abraham, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, and more). Sometimes He has appeared (in divers manner)...in His glory (the Shekinah), sometimes in the form of a man, sometimes in a pillar of smoke, sometimes as "the Angel of the LORD" like in Exodus 3....

So if Jesus is telling the truth (which I believe He is)...these were God, but not the Father...so who do you say they were?

 

[DHC]

I mean what I say, and say what I mean.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Hello Bambi.

This thread is becoming much more interesting now.

How do you read the following verses Bambi.

Genesis 32
24 Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak.
25 When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him.
26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.”
28 He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.”
29 Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”

There is a profoundly deep revelation in these verses Bambi.
Look at the line '29 Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.”'
Notice that Jesus does not identify Himself yet, for the time is not right, but Jacob knows this is God.
All through the scriptures we never see God the Father, only Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, in other words Jesus was and is the material manifestation of God!
All the Old Testament revelations of God are in fact revelations of Jesus Christ, who is visible or revealed to us.
There is a much deeper revelation of the Christ in scripture than most would understand or imagine Bambi.

 

[Brother Paul]

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me he that is to be ruler in Israel (Messiah, the Word, the Son, the King of kings and LORD of lords); whose goings forth (plural) have been from of old, even from everlasting (eternity). Amen...God with us!

 

[Bambi]

Spock - Fascinating! - YouTube

I believe you two have proven my point.

1. Jesus came in 70 AD, but not in his true self. He came in the form of clouds.
2. God showed himself to Old Testament people not in his true self, but in clouds, fire, etc.
3. Jesus will come again in the future in his true self.
4. God if he showed his true self to those in the Old Testament, people would have instantly died, so he had to hide himself. Moses was the only one who just had a glimpse of God's true self but never saw the face of God. Exo 33:20

I hope this explains better my interpretation of Matt 24:30.