Posted on 01/03/2014 10:33:49 AM PST by P-Marlowe
Partial, hardly any difference from the full preterists. Is there such a thing as partial pregnant?
I’m a Historic Premill, I agree with your assessment of Zionism.
Historic Premill is the alternative you should consider. Most of the Preterist/Amillennialist view point out the errors of dispensationalism, then falsely presenting their view as the only alternative.
Hardly any difference, except a belief in a literal resurrection and a literal Second Coming. But why let that get in your way?
Yeah, but the full preterists are “fullish”.
We all are a little partial in terms of things fulfilled. To be fair, though, even the partial preterists go way too far in their finding of things fulfilled.
I choke, though, at the 70 AD return of Christ. Gotta admit, that one is too big to swallow. :>)
I think the fulls are correct in calling the partials “inconsistent” preterists. At least the fulls are consistent.
Both interpret the Olivet discourse (Matthew and Mark), and the whole of Revelation as already fulfilled in the past. That’s where they, partials and fulls, have gone around the bend, in my view.
Despite the fact that the resurrection and 2nd coming are intrinsic to the Olivet discourse (conflating the Thessalonian epistles with it), the partials caught so much heat they opted to remove both from the standard “this generation shall not pass” scenario. I think they were inconsistent, and dishonest, in doing it.
If you are going to use “this generation shall not pass” as preterists, partial and full, apply it to the Olivet discourse, then, to be consistent, the resurrection and 2nd coming had to have taken place in 70 AD.
Yeah, I choke with you, and so did the partials. See my last post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.