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.
He would also have to explain how Nero desolated the Temple in 70AD when he had already died two years earlier in 68AD.
Then they have to explain how God doesn’t keep His promises to the nation of Israel.
Genesis 17: 7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
The land of Canaan had specific dimensions and covered a specific area of land as described in Numbers 34.
God has once again established the nation of Israel on part of that land but will soon give them the entire area promised them for an “everlasting possession”.
One simply needs to read what Christ said prior to that statement. “This generation” refers to the generation that sees all of those things fulfilled. Forcing all of those conditions into the years from Christ’s death and resurrection until 70AD does not work. One in particular stands out.
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
History alone shows us of times worse than 70AD.
There is no such thing as a "partial" preterist, by definition of the word preterist. While we are on this subject, which you seem to be obsessed with, you may want to reconsider your misspelling of preterist.
>>>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.<<<
Are you referring to the Army of Christ that was fighting from heaven? Maybe you can explain to us how an army in heaven fights on the earth.
While you are at it, maybe you can explain how anyone is thrown into the lake of fire. I am not burdening you with the restriction of a particular individual. I am asking, how do we know when anyone is thrown into the lake of fire?
And how do you know it was Nero's army that became worm and fowl food? History has recorded that there was no one left to bury the 1.1 million Jews killed in Jerusalem; so many of them became the "feast" of the buzzards, eagles and wild dogs. Moses, himself, mentioned that would happen during his Deuteronomy 28 prophecy on the future siege and destruction of Jerusalem:
"And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away." (Deu 28:26 KJV)
To maintain a consistent hermeneutic, shouldn’t you allow for the fact that there was no mention whatsoever that Nero's army became worm and fowl food? One could make an uneducated guess that Nero's army was part of the "remnant" mentioned in Rev 19:21; but are we not bound by consistent hermeneutics?
"And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." (Rev 19:17-21 KJV)
redleghunter, your arguments are very difficult to follow without scriptural support. All I see are your unsubstantiated opinions. It would be helpful if you cite biblical verses for your arguments. Even better, if you would quote the scripture and highlight the parts (bold, underline, …) supporting your arguments. Otherwise, I just don't have enough time left in this life to figure out what you are trying to say.
>>>Of course you would have to shift to an allegory to explain that away as would every eye would see Christ come again.<<<
Do you think that is literal, in light of all the old testament documentation associating the Lord coming in clouds, dating all the way back to Moses?
Also, when referring to "those who pierced him," who also saw him coming with clouds, are you literally interpreting "those" to mean the Roman soldier who speared him, or the Jews who had Christ condemned (where the judgement actually lay?) Or are you spiritualizing the scriptures so that statement means some future group of Jews? Which is it? Literal or Spirtual?
>>>The Scriptures are clear Christ is coming to defeat the armies of the beast. Not help the beast destroy Jerusalem. <<<
It is not clear at all. You made that up, or someone did. It is quite a stretch to assume that the gathering together of those in opposition to Christ-- the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies--are the armies of the beast. Your statement is in no way fact, but is rather a clear case of spiritualizing the scriptures to maintain your bias that the "beast" is some "all-powerful," modern-era creature.
>>>Plus Nero was no where near Jerusalem and led no armies there.<<<
No, he was only torturing and murdering the early Christians in horrendous ways, up until the time of this death. No big deal.
>>>In summary the cold hard historical facts we all know to be accurate do not match your interpretation of Revelation. <<<
I would recommend you read Ken Gentry's book, Before Jerusalem Fell, before making again such a brash, uneducated statement.
Frankly, I am, at this point, unimpressed with your understanding of the scriptures. If you care to cite scriptural references to support your claims, I will be happy to evaluate them.
Philip