Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183645 | ||
Hello jonp, Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure if they were directed to me, as I have a bit of trouble connecting what you said to the matter of Preterism. Did I miss something? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183649 | ||
Hi Brad, My point is partly that we do not necessarily have to say 'this position is right' or 'this position is wrong'. Very often there is truth in a number of positions because the Bible has a number of factors in mind. That is why people have garnered them from The Scriptures. Thus the fact that Jesus in some way 'came' in the destruction of Jerusalem does not necessarily signify that He will not come personally at His second coming, and vice versa. The problem lies in our trying to fit divers verses into a single picture. See the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Morant61 | 183679 | ||
Greetings Jonp! One problem with your position here is that preterist's don't claim Jesus came in some sense in 70 a.d. and that He will also come again in the future. They claim that Jesus did return in 70 a.d. and that is the end of the story. :-( So, these two positions cannot be harmonized. They are mutually exclusive. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183685 | ||
Hi Tim. The danger with labels is that we can begin to isolate ideas. As with Futurists there are different types of Preterist. There are many who both believe that Jesus in some sense came at the destruction of Jerusalem (and at Pentecost) but still believe in His return in glory. Cearly those who do not believe in a visible return of Christ must be seen as stretching Scripture, but that is not true of all Preterists. See the Commentary on Revelation at http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ which coul be described as both preterist and futurist. It is all a matter of definition. Best wishes jonp | ||||||