>>>Dude ... you are now splitting hairs ... I am well aware that Gentry draws his line at Rev 19<<<
NO, DUDE! IN YOUR POST #4 YOU CLAIMED DR. KEN GENTRY AND I BELIEVED THE BOOK OF THE REVELATION WAS FULFILLED IN 70 AD. THAT IS NOT TRUE.
PHILIP
I have tried to correct myself by stating that I cannot read your mind ... while at the same time ignorning your remark that you can read mine ... "I know what you believe. You obviously don't know what I or Dr. Ken Gentry believe ..."
I clarified my remarks by being more precise concerning Gentry's position. Perhaps in the heat of the moment you missed that.
Let me spell out my position clearly. I have argued that there is no such thing as a partial, mild, or modern ... preterist.
There is only a consistent preterism (what most people call full or radical) and inconsistent preterism (what most people call partial, mild, or modern).
Why do I make this distinction? Because to believe that everything up to Rev 19 was fulfilled in 70 AD (Gentrys position) but Rev 20-22 is still future (he allows a second Second Coming, a final judgment, yadda, yadda) is to ignore the charge in Rev 22:10 that the time is near for these things; which ironically (in light of Rev 1:3) is one of the pillars of the preterist argument for why Rev 6-19 must have described the events of 70 AD.
How can the fulfillment of 6-19 be assured because the time is near (Rev. 1:3) but Rev 20-22 is still future ... even though the time is near (Rev. 22:10)? Its the double edged sword of seeing 'the time is near' as requiring the 70 AD event.
This is why I argue that there is no such thing as mild or partial preterism; there is only inconsistent or consistent preterism. Gentry's brand is inconsistent preterism. By what you have told me, namely, that Rev 6-20:6 happened in 70 AD but that all of Rev has not been fulfilled ... my conclusion is that you are an inconsistent preterist with Gentry. You admitedly have differences with him, but in the sine qua non, you are an inconsistent preterist. Perhaps you mix in some additional flavors of eschatological thought (historical premill, reconstruction, post-mill) into your view, AND THAT IS FINE. We both have the burden to defend our particular position.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ...
I'll give you the last word ...