Wow. That is a significant change on your part, TC.
You are now allowing the possible legitimacy of the post-70 AD dating of the Book of Revelation.
I'm glad to hear it because it is by far the stronger case.
That means that any inclined to be preterist must switch to some form of "historical" fulfilling of those items which preterists have already agreed are in need of fulfillment; i.e., not symbolic.
That is a remarkable concession.
No change at all, you have just misread all my previous comments on the subject.
You are now allowing the possible legitimacy of the post-70 AD dating of the Book of Revelation.
I have always allowed for a post-AD70 date for the Book of Revelation since when a book of the Bible was written is not a point of infallible revelation. IOW, we cannot know for sure since God has not left us with the infallible means to know for sure.
Do you agree and do you hold the same position for the somewhat popular AD90's view?
That means that any inclined to be preterist must switch to some form of "historical" fulfilling ...
And what exactly would force me to make such a switch? The answer you give to this question will be telling as to whether or not you really understand my position.
I'm glad to hear it because it is by far the stronger case.
That means that any inclined to be preterist must switch to some form of "historical" fulfilling of those items which preterists have already agreed are in need of fulfillment; i.e., not symbolic.
That is a remarkable concession.
= = = =
I agree. It's a remarkable concession. Probably a hurried oversight. I certainly wouldn't count my tulips before they're picked.