Jesus is not coming back. He already did in 70 A.D.

I believe the phrase "the TIMES [plural] of the Gentiles" [refers to that which] started in 606bc (and refers to 'Gentile domination over Israel' [read: Neb's "image/statue" with Neb as "head of gold"]) and which will not end [be concluded] until Christ's Second Coming to the earth (Rev19), per Rev11:2. And BTW, it isn't referring to "the Church age" as some make it out to mean (not that you've suggested this); and it is not the exact equivalent to the similar phrase: "the FULNESS of the Gentiles [be come in]".

How do you see the phrase in Revelation 17:8, "when they behold the beast that was, and IS NOT, and yet shall be," in view of your "70ad-all-is-done" idea?? ("and IS NOT" means what? and "and yet shall be" means what?) Thanks.

No Jesus does not say that! First He gives us a list of signs that must take place prior to His return. Then He makes a comparison that just as when you see the trees blossoming, in the same way when you see all of these signs taking place, then you will know that the end of the age is near.

You have it backwards! You exclude the literal signs, forcing them into the generation that Jesus was speaking from, when the signs themselves identify the generation that He is referring to. Not only would we have to have fulfillment of all that is written in Matt.24, but you would also have to have all of the seals, trumpets and bowl judgements having taken place, which we haven't. If I could paraphrase the scripture, it would read like the following:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door.

Truly I tell you, this generation (the one where those signs appear) will not pass away until all these things have happened.

Without the signs, you have no fulfillment. What you and others have to do is force those signs as taking place during the generation that Jesus was living in which never happened and still hasn't happened.

Since the majority of the book of Revelation is a detailed account of that last generation and more specifically the last seven years leading up to Christ's return to end the age, then all of God's wrath described from Revelation chapters 6 thru 19 would have to take place, as well as everything mentioned in Matt.24.

That said, one of the signs mentioned in Matt.24 is the setting up of the abomination, which takes place in the middle of the seven and which is still future, because it hasn't happened. We haven't even seen that ruler, the antichrist yet!

Once again, that prophecy was fulfilled a week after Jesus spoke it when He was transformed into His glorified state:

Some standing here = Peter, John and James

The Son of Man coming in His kingdom = Peter, John and James get a glimpse of Christ in His glorified state. Also stated as "until they see the kingdom of God coming in power" and "Until they see the kingdom of God."

Regarding this phrase "the kingdom of God upon you" I will post it again where it was used elsewhere and did not refer to the end of age:

"But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

So in verse above, "the kingdom of God coming upon them" had nothing to do with the end of the age, but referred to Jesus driving out demons by the power of God. It is the same meaning with "until they see the kingdom of God coming with power" in Luke 9:27-28, Matthew and Mark. It refers to Peter, John and James seeing Christ in His glorified stated, ergo, the Son of Man coming in His glory.

You continue to demonstrate that you have no idea of what takes place at the end of the age. To be clear, the end of age is NOT referring to the destruction of the temple, but the end of all human government and the beginning of the Lord's millennial kingdom.

What do you think, that Jesus returned to the earth to end the age sending out His angels to first gather all of the wicked and then the wheat. And after that He went back to heaven, leaving 1900 years of His church here in limbo? That's not what scripture says.

When Jesus returns, the majority of the earths population will have been decimated and all human government dismantled. This is supported by the following scripture, as well the results of the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments in Revelation:

"For at that time there will be great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again. If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened. "

Great tribulation unmatched from the beginning of the world until now and never to be seen again, would include the flood and any catastrophe's from the beginning of history until now. Though the destruction of the temple was terrible and many died, it pales in comparison to what is coming upon this earth when God begins to pour out HIs wrath. We have no fulfillment of the greatest tribulation to ever take place upon the earth.

There is nothing Preterist about my post. I wish people on site would bother to actually read about the Preterist position before using the term.

This post is to get one thing straight. I don't adhere to any of the complete eschatological positions loved and cherished by people
on this site because none of them are completely right so sticking a label on my views is a waste of time. This may result in a great deal of anguish to some readers who prefer to think that they have all the answers. I could name them but I think everyone knows
who they are. I hold to my approach because I don't have all the answers. I am still learning are you?

Here we have a poster inserting "statements" into Jesus' words that don't exist but based on fawlty interpretation and presuppositions reading into the text things that are not there.

Jesus specifically stated that the signs would be when Jerusalem was compassed which we know from history happened in the generation that heard him in the war of 66-70 AD

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
.
.
Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Therefore the quoted posters statements are invalid.

I don't think your preterist but that's because Ive read your post in many other threads(others might not be as familiar of you yet,lol)...

In Thessalonians 2:2 it begins by pointing out that they thought the coming had already came and them shaken in thinking it was at hand ,,,ect. And Paul did not see them as outcast because they saw that as past tense in their time(we should remember that today,that not understanding eschatology did not mean they were cast out) and Paul even though they did not see everything still loved them as brothers and sisters...

I mean of my own self the same as you said when I say that "I'm outside the camps",,I'm just listening to everyone,,,scratching my head,,,and comparing it to the bible...

Then you agree there's no point in inserting a MoS or AoD,mark ect. without concrete proof right?

If I have "inferred" correctly from your many posts on here you would fall under partial preterist whether it's amill or post mill - I don't think you have stated which - it would be "nice" if you would come out of the closet.

Yo Bro - in my view these can't from the preterist point of view be definitely stated - I just accept that they happened but with the proviso that John's statement in the Revelation may not be totally literal as John spoke with apocalyptic/hyperbolic visionary language.

"I'm still learning are you?",,,I agree and support your closing statement Tanakh(no need to re-post a position)....

Like on the fence?

The poster you quoted may say the same in what they accept in their post though right?

lol, and I'll just sit right there until camp A,B,or C can explain it and not drift off into a foggy grey area at the end...

Of course - but having been in that posters situation and argued for it i don't think our "positions" are the same.

Bit like a catholic turning protestant and then debating a catholic - let's face it - this poster claims to have come to a dispenstationalist view without any previous knowledge of dispensationalism.

Like I've said in the past Bro - FP makes the most sense to me, while not being able to fully explain every detail of scripture - to find one that does is in my view unobtainable.

The chance of my abandoning FP is very remote - it took me a long time to abandon my previous "understanding" and was not done lightly and with considerable angst.

lol, If true though none of the writers of the letters or books we refer to as NT could have held a preterist position seeing all was written before ad70 and so they would all have been futurist seeing they all spoke of things going to happen?

You were once dispy...futurist?

Yis I was - I fought "tooth and nail" in another forum for it over quite a few years. But when I dug deeper into both positions I ended up in the FP camp as you like to call it.

I can't say I ever agreed with the amill postmill positions and still think they are incomplete but WAY better than any of the dispensational "variants".

In a sense that would be correct, they would be "futurists" but not in the dispensational/amill/postmill positions - some of the things they wrote about had yet to come to pass.

In post #355 you said you cant explain everything and it was to you unobtainable so if you think about you are in the the same camp as me and tanakh,,,learning,up on the fence,,outside the camps ect.,,,not really FP.