Preterism and Matthew 23:39

Grasshopper, I don't mean to insult you or anyone else. But, to answer your questions would mean that I would have to start at the beginning of basic communication methods of the English language. This is something I'm not willing to do since A. you clearly have the skills but elect not to use them, and B. you have not made a serious attempt to answer my questions so this exercise really serves no purpose.

I have no need to engage in a battle of wills, especally when the other person in the discussion makes no real attempt to address the topic at hand.

As an observation, one of the methods covenant A-Mills use to convince people that dispensationalism is in their minds false is that there is this sensational aspect of the (dispensationalists) end times viewpoint and they, the amills try to frame the discussion as being between logical, sensable, highly educated and realistic people (a-mills) vs. kooks who get their theology from religious novels and think Jesus is going to rapture the church and end the world sometime next year (dispensationalists). Preterism comes to the dispies rescue in that they try to make up historical facts that are no where recorded in any history book and attempt to make the clear language of the Bible mean something totally different from the normal useage and plain meaning of those words. So we have that to be thankful for.

 

Not looking to get caught up in a childish game with you but it would be noted by anyone without a dog in this fight that my questions from the OP have gone unanswered. Why? because there is no logical or Biblical answer coming from the preterist camp. And of course, as stated before, why should I start chasing my tail simply to amuse you, for what purpose I ask?

On the other hand, in the final analysis, how academic could a discussion possibly get with an individual who thinks Rome sacking Jerusalem 2000 years ago meets the God ordained judgements against Babylon?

 

You basic logic is this:

The Bible plainly teaches in Revelation 17 and 18 that in the end times Babylon will be judged by God and destroyed in 1 hour, never to be built again. Your view is that since Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70, Jerusalem is actually this same Babylon spoken of by John. Therefore, Jesus must have returned in the 1st century and those poor misguided dispies, in order to be in your opinion consistant and literal must have ancient Babylon rebuilt before their (the dispies) end times scenerio can take place.

So, if the preterists scenerio correct, which I have serious doubts it is, could you at least explain to this poor misguided fool why the early (AN) church fathers and or Josephus didn't tell us that the Savior Jesus returned in the 1st century? Can you tell us why Covenant theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards had no clue that Jesus retuned in AD 70?

Does this understanding of yours, that is Jerusalem actually being Babylon not make it reasonable to assume that Daniel, speaking about the time of the end, actually wrote the book that bears his name from Jerusalem, since in preterist Bible code Jerusalem is actually Babylon and not a city in the land of shinar as he clearly states in Daniel ch 1? Why did Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon come to Jerusalem to besieged it when Babylon is actually Jerusalem, would he not have already been at that location?

 

You throw out a lot of words but refuse to answer specific questions. Why you insist on avoiding specific answers to the OP questions is a mystery to me. But to answer your specific question above, the answer is found in a literal reading of II Timothy 2:15, Matthew 5:18 and Titus 2:11-13

 

Again, to avoid answering the question, you try to change the direction of the conversation.

But...

Do you think, in your wildest imagination that Jonathan Edwards was a preterist? Is that what you really think?

Have you ever read anything by Jonathan Edwards besides http://www.preteristarchive.com ?

 

You have removed any doubt that I might have had that you are a serious conversationalist.