>>>So my advice is to present your case for prederism and see if it can stand without trying to compare it to other views.<<<
The more I read your responses, the more I am convinced you have never bothered to read my posts. Otherwise you would know that I always post scriptural references in support of my views.
This is what I believe, in a nutshell:
Christ fulfilled all of the old testament prophecies (Luke 21:22, John 5:39.) He also inherited all the old covenants (Gal 3:16.) He was only sent to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (Mat 15:24,) and those were also the only ones to whom he sent his disciples (Mat 10:5-6,) until much later: around the 10th Chapter of Acts, when they were also sent to the Gentiles, along with the new apostle, Paul. Christ said his apostles would not have gone over the cities of Israel until his first coming (Mat 10:23.) He also said some would not taste death before his coming (Mat 16:28,) and that it would occur in the generation of his disciples (Matt 24:34.)
That paragraph, with references, provides the foundation for the interpretation of other parts of the New Testament.
The reason Christ was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was because they were his elect. It fulfilled the O.T. prophecy were he bound up Judah and Israel into one fold. Those lost sheep, along with the disciples and apostles, were resurrected around A.D. 70, in the generation in which Jesus said they would be resurrected. That was the First Resurrection, spoken of in Rev 20. They are also identified as the 144,000 in Rev 7 and 14, and as the firstfruits, redeemed from among men. They were all from the children of Israel: the faithful remnant. In other words, Israel was, and will always be, the chosen people; but only those of the first resurrection. Since their resurrection they have served as priests to Christ, the high priest, in his holy temple, as indicated in Rev 20. The disciples sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28,) and are partially identified in the first clause of Rev 20:4.
The destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in the generation that Christ said it would occur, was mentioned in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, along with various references in the Revelation in which the city is named, Babylon the Great. John wrote the book of Revelation around 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia: hence the four references to the seven churches in Asia. The Revelation was written primarily for the seven churches, but also for the other servants of Christ.
The Revelation has five main themes: the destruction of Jerusalem; the rise and fall of the beast, Nero; the first resurrection; the binding, loosing and eventual destruction of Satan; and the second coming, aka, the final judgement. The destruction of Satan and final judgement have not occurred, to date. I do believe Satan has been loosed upon us already, and he is coming after the Church, world-wide (e.g., the breadth of the earth.)
I have no scriptural support for the statement I made about Satan being loosed already. Just call it a hunch; but I have plenty for the other statements.
The First Resurrection carried to heaven, at a minimum, all who had received the awesome power of the holy ghost, and chose to remained faithful (there was a falling away prior to the resurrection.) The rest of us are saved by hearing the Word by preachers that He sends (Rom 10:13-15,) which is exactly the way I was saved about 40 years ago.
There you have it. My super-brief, nutshell version of post-millennialism. Nothing fancy.
Philip
Thanks. Your nutshell view is precisely partial prederist. You did a good job attributing hard historical events with your view of literal prophetic fulfillment but only partially. Some of what you assert is a literal interpretation some is not.
To have a consistent hermeneutic you would then have to explain for example how Nero was thrown in the lake of fire and how his victorious (not defeated) army became worm and fowl food after the Army of Christ crushed them. Of course you would have to shift to an allegory to explain that away as would every eye would see Christ come again. The Scriptures are clear Christ is coming to defeat the armies of the beast. Not help the beast destroy Jerusalem. The beast is defeated in Revelation not victorious. The history does not match even the allegory. Plus Nero was no where near Jerusalem and led no armies there.
In summary the cold hard historical facts we all know to be accurate do not match your interpretation of Revelation. If you think Darby and Scofield are confused what about Ireneaus and other early theologians? View all of Book V of Against Heresies. Let me know what a Christian in the second century after the wars of 70 and 132 AD thought about the tribulation and the beast. Synopsis? Did not happen yet.