Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

[arc111]

If we are in the 'millennium' now, does it not demand that the tribulation already happened, and that it was in fact relative to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem?

Why would any amil reject partial preterism? I don't recognize the distinction. (I do recognize the distinction of full preterism).

Just curious.

BTW, I am pre-mil rapturist (rapture before the millennium, not sure of when)

[petepet]

If we are in the 'millennium' now, does it not demand that the tribulation already happened, and that it was in fact relative to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem?

Why would any amil reject partial preterism? I don't recognize the distinction. (I do recognize the distinction of full preterism).

Just curious.

BTW, I am pre-mil rapturist (rapture before the millennium, not sure of when)

Lol what is a partial preterist? How do you define one? (I hate these labels. They convey a false impression. I obtain my beliefs from the Bible, not from some camp or other. In the UK we don't have such 'camps').

Firstly of course most a mills do not believe that there will be a seven (or 3 1/2) year period called The Great Tribulation in the final days of the age. They find no reference to it in the Bible. The 'great tribulation' (no article) of Matthew 24 was and is the tribulation of the Jewish people from 70 AD onwards. The great tribulation of Rev 2 (no srticle) is a period to be experienced in 1st century AD. The great tribulaton in Rev 7 refers back to that. The article indicates that. Thus that too refers back to 1st century AD although of course contiinuing to be repeated through the centuries.

Yes there will be tribulation in the final days of the age, probably even intensified tribulation, but not limited to a period. The church has always gone through tribulation. As Paul said in Acts 14, 'we must through much tribulation enter the Kingly Rule of God'.

Saints in many parts of the world today are suffering great tribulation.

In rev 20, from which the idea of the millennium comes, (a concept totally unknown to Jesus, Paul or Peter), the 1000 years simply indicates a long but unknown period of time. When we moderns read 1000 we immediately think mathematically. But the ancients did not think mathematically. Most could not count beyond twenty. To them 1000 was just a large number.

This is evidenced throughout the Old Testament by an examination of all texts which spoke of 'a 1000'. E.g 'to a thousand generations', 'the cattle on a thousand hills', 'a thousand years'. etc.

The question of the use of numbers in the Bible is a very complicated one, but the lack of numeracy among the ancients must always be remembered. Numeracy was left to specialists.

Thus amills in general believe that Jesus Christ began His reign at His resurrection (ACTS 2.36; Matthew 28.18) and that the martyrs and non-worshippers of the wild beast are the spirits of Christians who reign with Christ at the present time, having partaken in Christ's resurrection Who was the firstfruits (1 Cor 15.20; Ephesians 2.6) awaiting the final resurrection.

The second coming of Christ will bring in the final Judgment, and that will be the end of time. It will be followed by the new heavens and the new earth in which dwells righteousness.

[DurbanDude]

If we are in the 'millennium' now, does it not demand that the tribulation already happened, and that it was in fact relative to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem?

Why would any amil reject partial preterism? I don't recognize the distinction. (I do recognize the distinction of full preterism).

Just curious.

BTW, I am pre-mil rapturist (rapture before the millennium, not sure of when)

Remember in some sense we are all partial preterists, because we do believe some events prophesied were fulfilled by Jesus in the first century.

Petepet seems to be taking a partial preterist point of view, but I have come across amills who probably would not regard themselves as partial preterists.

[Raybob]

If we are in the 'millennium' now, does it not demand that the tribulation already happened, and that it was in fact relative to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem?

Why would any amil reject partial preterism? I don't recognize the distinction. (I do recognize the distinction of full preterism).

Just curious.

BTW, I am pre-mil rapturist (rapture before the millennium, not sure of when)

Personally, as far as Preterit, I believe all the prophecies of the coming kingdom of the Lord on earth, came at the cross. except the 'new earth' prophecies. The new earth will appear when this one melts with fervent heat at the Lord's return. As for "great tribulation" mentioned by Jesus, in Matthew 24, I believe that was in reference to the temple being torn down. Jesus was with the disciples, outside the temple and the disciples asked Him a few questions. One was when would all the stones of the temple be no longer one upon the other, as He just claimed they would be. They also asked for "the sign" of His coming and the end of the world.

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(Mat 24:3)

He answered their first question of the temple in verses 4-26. Verses 27-51 answer their second question.

IMO,
Raybob

[Diggindeeper]

I really don't think the OP has really studied what all happened from 66 AD to 70 AD. You just don't understand well enough to comment about what other people believe and why they do. That's a fact! Now concering partial preterism........

I will clue you in on this much for now. (Going to bed real soon. Will get into more detail tomorrow.)

Jesus, on the cross, suffering, in pain, forsaken, dying, cried out, "IT IS FINISHED!" He was paying the ultimate sacrifice! No more would the blood of bulls or goats or a lambs or doves or any other creature be acceptable, ever again! The blood of Christ was absolutely THE only sacrifice that would ever be needed on earth again.

And yet...the temple remained and the people continued to go there all the time, taking their 'offerings' to the temple to be sacrificed. On and on they continued. UNTIL THAT UPRISING AND WAR THAT LASTED FROM MID-66 AD TILL 70 ad! Christians were hunted down, taken from their homes and businesses, and fed to hungry lions. Age did not matter. Little babies, old parents, everyone who was a Christian was targeted! Not only by Nero, but a couple of other succeeding leaders at the time.

It was during this time when most of the Apostles were tortured to death too, for their faith! Some (as were all the Christians of that time) were run through with spears, some beheaded, some crucified, some killed by the sword. Christians were actually impaled on long poles...meaning, the pole or tall stick was stuck through them (like a Popsicle on a stick), they were covered with pitch and the stake rammed into the ground. Those Christians suffered too much agony for us to try to imagine as they hung there for hours and hours, and finally at dark...they were torched. And used as 'lights' for Nero's garden! (Now, I've heard, the grounds where the Vatican stands!)

Thousands and thousands died during that time! Only for the cause of Christ!

Now, you tell me...has their ever since then been a more horrible time of such tribulation? Not that I can find. The Romans were DETERMINED to wipe out Christians and the Jews from the face of the earth and they almost succeeded.

And before it all ended...indeed, Jerusalem lay a pile of rubble and trash! AND THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED! Totally destroyed.

Hey, since then, have you not noticed there has never been another REBUILT temple....and the offerings of blood sacrifices ceased from that time forward! That was 40 years after either the death of Jesus or else his resurrection!

Truly, IT IS FINISHED! Never again will God accept any offering of any animal that is sacrificed to him! Why should he?

But there is much more that you could research, if you'd take the time. Partial Preterism has its place here and that is for a good reason.

Best to learn about something in its entirety before tossing out an opinion against it! Or things you've heard that speak so adamantly against it.

I'll share more tomorrow. Just too sleepy tonight.

[petepet]

Remember in some sense we are all partial preterists, because we do believe some events prophesied were fulfilled by Jesus in the first century.

Petepet seems to be taking a partial preterist point of view, but I have come across amills who probably would not regard themselves as partial preterists.

As I don't know what you mean by a 'partial preterist' I can't confirm or deny it. But you have just brought out the folly of labels. I seek to interpret each passage in terms of its context and my general understanding of Scripture. I don't worry about what is taught by 'schools of thought'. They are so varied, and often mixed up, that they are relatively meaningless.

Views are so varied that to put people in camps is ridiculous. No one fits precisely into a camp. It is more possible with pre-mills because they clearly believe in 1000 year reign after the second coming, but even then there are huge differences between them as to its content, and as to intepretation of various passages. They do not speak with one voice.

Strictly for example I am not an amillennialist because I believe in a millennium. I believe we are in it now. But while I believe Revelation speaks of the 1st century AD onwards I am not a believer in searching for specific fulfilments as though what is described only happened once. Revelation was written and revealed in such a way that it has a message for all centuries (Just as Mark 13 has). So while I believe in its histroical fulfilment I am not an Historicist (depends of course what you mean by the title).

[arc111]

Remember in some sense we are all partial preterists, because we do believe some events prophesied were fulfilled by Jesus in the first century.

Petepet seems to be taking a partial preterist point of view, but I have come across amills who probably would not regard themselves as partial preterists.

I don't think that Jesus 'first advent' prophetic fulfillments fits the classic 'partial preterist' definition. My experience is that partial preterists will believe that at least some of the "Olivet Discourse" (Matt 24) prophecies were fulfilled during the 70 AD Roman conquest of Jerusalem/Temple.

Have you met amils who did not believe that some of the Matt 24 prophecies were fulfilled in the 70 AD Roman conquest of Jerusalem?

Could amillennialism exist at all without the 70 AD Rome/Jewish war?

For the record, I don't believe that ANY of the Olivet Discourse prophecies have been completely fulfilled to date. The disciples of Jesus KNEW the Jewish scriptures taught that the Messiah would arrive at the Mt of Olives at the end of the age, and that a huge earthquake would take place in the Jerusalem environ upon His arrival. I think they knew that this earthquake would throw down every stone from on top of another. I believe that they were correct and the Matt 24 prophecies will all be fulfilled completely in the few years anticipating the Second Coming.

[petepet]

I don't think that Jesus 'first advent' prophetic fulfillments fits the classic 'partial preterist' definition. My experience is that partial preterists will believe that at least some of the "Olivet Discourse" (Matt 24) prophecies were fulfilled during the 70 AD Roman conquest of Jerusalem/Temple.

Well as I certainly believe (along with Luke who makes it quite clear) I am, along with all the Gospel writers, a believer in the fact that the Olivet discourse speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

If you carefully put Matthew 24 and Luke 21 alongside you can come to no other conclusion, especially as the discourse was specifically dealing with the question of when Jesus comments about the destruction of the Temple that they were looking at would be fulfilled.

Have you met amils who did not believe that some of the Matt 24 prophecies were fulfilled in the 70 AD Roman conquest of Jerusalem?

Could amillennialism exist at all without the 70 AD Rome/Jewish war?

Lol of course amillennialism could exist without the 70 AD Jewish war. Its main disagreement is with the false interpretation by many of Rev 20. But as Jesus was talking about a Jewish war at the same time as the Temple was destroyed, clearly there had to be one for Jesus' words to be fulfilled. Jesus SAID that the Temple would be destroyed. Then the Temple was destroyed. Yes we did believe that Jesus' prediction would be fulfilled. Didn't you?

For the record, I don't believe that ANY of the Olivet Discourse prophecies have been completely fulfilled to date.

So you are saying that Jerusalem was never surrounded by armies? (Luke 21. 20) Or that the Jews were never scattered? (Luke 21.24).

Do you really think that Jesus didn't care about anything but some nebulous far off future time?

The disciples of Jesus KNEW the Jewish scriptures taught that the Messiah would arrive at the Mt of Olives at the end of the age, and that a huge earthquake would take place in the Jerusalem environ upon His arrival.

Or perhaps they did not equate YHWH in Zechariah 14 with the Messiah? There is no mention there of the Messiah.

I think they knew that this earthquake would throw down every stone from on top of another.

But Jesus was talking about the Temple THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT. He even pointed to the great stones. 'Do you see these great buildings?' (Mark 13.2; compare Matthew 24.2; Luke 21.5-6). And even you must believe that that Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Or don't you? Thus the throwing down of the stones was nothing to do with an earthquake, unless of course there was an earthquake in 70 AD (which is quite possible).

I believe that they were correct and the Matt 24 prophecies will all be fulfilled completely in the few years anticipating the Second Coming

No lol you believe that YOU are correct. Don't read your ideas into the Apostles without any evidence.

[arc111]

I really don't think the OP has really studied what all happened from 66 AD to 70 AD. You just don't understand well enough to comment about what other people believe and why they do. That's a fact! Now concering partial preterism........

I will clue you in on this much for now. (Going to bed real soon. Will get into more detail tomorrow.)

Jesus, on the cross, suffering, in pain, forsaken, dying, cried out, "IT IS FINISHED!" He was paying the ultimate sacrifice! No more would the blood of bulls or goats or a lambs or doves or any other creature be acceptable, ever again! The blood of Christ was absolutely THE only sacrifice that would ever be needed on earth again.

And yet...the temple remained and the people continued to go there all the time, taking their 'offerings' to the temple to be sacrificed. On and on they continued. UNTIL THAT UPRISING AND WAR THAT LASTED FROM MID-66 AD TILL 70 ad! Christians were hunted down, taken from their homes and businesses, and fed to hungry lions. Age did not matter. Little babies, old parents, everyone who was a Christian was targeted! Not only by Nero, but a couple of other succeeding leaders at the time.

It was during this time when most of the Apostles were tortured to death too, for their faith! Some (as were all the Christians of that time) were run through with spears, some beheaded, some crucified, some killed by the sword. Christians were actually impaled on long poles...meaning, the pole or tall stick was stuck through them (like a Popsicle on a stick), they were covered with pitch and the stake rammed into the ground. Those Christians suffered too much agony for us to try to imagine as they hung there for hours and hours, and finally at dark...they were torched. And used as 'lights' for Nero's garden! (Now, I've heard, the grounds where the Vatican stands!)

Thousands and thousands died during that time! Only for the cause of Christ!

Now, you tell me...has their ever since then been a more horrible time of such tribulation? Not that I can find. The Romans were DETERMINED to wipe out Christians and the Jews from the face of the earth and they almost succeeded.

And before it all ended...indeed, Jerusalem lay a pile of rubble and trash! AND THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED! Totally destroyed.

Hey, since then, have you not noticed there has never been another REBUILT temple....and the offerings of blood sacrifices ceased from that time forward! That was 40 years after either the death of Jesus or else his resurrection!

Truly, IT IS FINISHED! Never again will God accept any offering of any animal that is sacrificed to him! Why should he?

But there is much more that you could research, if you'd take the time. Partial Preterism has its place here and that is for a good reason.

Best to learn about something in its entirety before tossing out an opinion against it! Or things you've heard that speak so adamantly against it.

I'll share more tomorrow. Just too sleepy tonight.

Firstly, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! I have in all liklihood read as much of the Jewish war of 70 AD as you have. Where would the preterist theory be without dear old saint Josephus?

Secondly, you are really defensive. Has it occured to you that I really DO want to know whether amillennialism and preterism ALWAYS seem to go hand in hand? The OP here is more than an extension of our little discussion on the other thread- this isn't all about you. Didn't Carly Simon sing a song about that?

I am premil and I do believe there will be a 'catching away' prior to the second coming. Practically every premiller that I know believes that an antichrist will arise at the end of this age - that is to say almost all premillennialist believe in THE future coming antichrist, which means that practically all reject that Nero was the fulfillment of antichrist prophecy. That means that practically all premillers are ANTI-PRETERIST! And yet, no one wears the label 'anti-preterist'. It is a given, that premil and anti-preterism go hand in hand. IS IT SOMEWHAT REDUNDANT TO WEAR THE LABEL OF PRETERIST AND AMIL OR POSTMIL? Are they truly distinct?

I would be very interested in whether you think that Jesus returned in 70 AD? I would prefer your answer to this single question than any other false accusations that you may throw my way....

[Cyberseeker]

If we are in the 'millennium' now, does it not demand that the tribulation already happened, and that it was in fact relative to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem?

Why would any amil reject partial preterism? I don't recognize the distinction.

My Amill point of view differs from partpret inasmuch as I see the 70 AD destruction as a precursor to a greater fulfillment yet to come. I see the 'loosing of Satan for a little season' (Rev.20:3) as being synonymous with the final tribulation period.

[arc111]

Well as I certainly believe (along with Luke who makes it quite clear) I am, along with all the Gospel writers, a believer in the fact that the Olivet discourse speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

Are you positive that all of the Gospel writers lived to witness the 70 AD war?

If you carefully put Matthew 24 and Luke 21 alongside you can come to no other conclusion, especially as the discourse was specifically dealing with the question of when Jesus comments about the destruction of the Temple that they were looking at would be fulfilled.

The other conclusion is that they were questioning Him about His return. In fact, they were questioning Him about 'the Temple stones, His return, and the 'end of the age'.

Lol of course amillennialism could exist without the 70 AD Jewish war. Its main disagreement is with the false interpretation by many of Rev 20. But as Jesus was talking about a Jewish war at the same time as the Temple was destroyed, clearly there had to be one for Jesus' words to be fulfilled. Jesus SAID that the Temple would be destroyed. Then the Temple was destroyed. Yes we did believe that Jesus' prediction would be fulfilled. Didn't you?

I am not so sure that the amil idea would have evolved if not for Josephus. I believe that Jesus predictions have YET to be fulfilled. I still believe that they WILL be fulfilled, every jot and tittle.

So you are saying that Jerusalem was never surrounded by armies? (Luke 21. 20) Or that the Jews were never scattered? (Luke 21.24).

The city was surrounded, and it will be surrounded again! The 70 AD tribulation was tragic, but a greater one is coming! The Jerusalem stones were partially thrown down, but they will be utterly thrown down in the future! If there were signs in the heavens in 70 AD, there will be more significant signs in the heavens preceding His return! Nothing was fulfilled completely and finally in 70 AD. There will be another temple and another (actual) antichrist. There will be a future abomination.

Do you really think that Jesus didn't care about anything but some nebulous far off future time?

I don't think that a couple of days is so nebulous, do you?
2 Peter 3:8–9 reads: ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Perhaps He will return early on the 'third day'. You know....NOW...early in the 3 millenia after His ascension. (3 days)

Or perhaps they did not equate YHWH in Zechariah 14 with the Messiah? There is no mention there of the Messiah.

Are you saying that Peter and company were not familiar with Zecheriah 14 and Isaiah 29? They were standing upon the Mt of Olives with Jesus!

Are you saying that these disciples did not associate Jesus with being the person that would return to the Mt of Olives according to Zech 14? What did they mean 'and of thy coming' when they questioned Him in Matt 24? ( 3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? )
They clearly equated the throwing down of the temple with the end of the age AND the coming (again) of the messiah (Jesus). How could they have more clearly associated the stones being removed with the return of the Messiah?

But Jesus was talking about the Temple THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT. He even pointed to the great stones. 'Do you see these great buildings?' (Mark 13.2; compare Matthew 24.2; Luke 21.5-6). And even you must believe that that Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Or don't you? Thus the throwing down of the stones was nothing to do with an earthquake, unless of course there was an earthquake in 70 AD (which is quite possible).

Temple buildings, to be precise. How many buildings constituted the 'Temple'? One building was the temple, but The disciples here were clearly referring to the entire Herodian complex, royal stoa, Solomon's porch, temple gates etc... And many stones from that same temple complex THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT remain standing till this day.

No lol you believe that YOU are correct. Don't read your ideas into the Apostles without any evidence.

Are you not reading your ideas into the Apostles? The clearly associated the 'temple stones destruction', the return of the messiah, and the end of the age. What have I read into it except what they said? They associated the temple destruction with the coming of Messiah and the end of the age. Why do you think they associated those things? A wild guess?


Regarding the prophecy, Jesus mentioned that EVERY STONE IN JERUSALEM would be thrown down.

LUKE 19:41 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Do you truly believe that EVERY STONE in Jerusalem was thrown down? Now you can quote Josephus, but you can also go over and look for yourself. Do you think that it is difficult to find stacked Herodian stones that were within Jerusalem and have remained stacked for the last 2000 years? The largest stones in Jerusalem comprised the retaining walls of the temple mount. Now half of these 'stones' (at least half) were/are WITHIN Jerusalem. The Eastern and part of the Northern walls may be considered the 'city walls'. But the Southern and Western walls are clearly within the city and are additionally and arguably part of the Herodian temple complex 'buildings' that were mentioned in Matt 24. THOSE STONES ARE WITNESS THAT JESUS HAS NOT RETURNED AND THE END OF THE AGE HAS NOT HAPPENED. Is it not ironic that THOSE VERY STONES ARE THE MOST FAMOUS STONES IN ALL OF JERUSALEM IF NOT ALL THE WORLD? To see a photo of Jerusalem is to see those stones!

There will be a future total destruction of Jerusalem, along with a worse tribulation than the 70 AD one. There will be a time when every jot and tittle of Jesus words will be fulfilled. Not partially, but fully.

The Temple 'sanctuary' was thrown down in 70 AD. The rest of Jerusalem was not completely thrown down...or do you think that it was? Do you have some fanciful theory as to Jerusalem being relocated so as to eliminate all of the Herodian 'standing stones'? Many preterist do just that btw. Remember, Jesus said that not ONLY every stone of the temple buildings would be removed, but that every stone in Jerusalem would be removed from on top of another. Those are His precise words.

It is, of course, your right to interpret as you please. We will all be judged individually.

A haughty attitude is not what my Lord desires.

[arc111]

My Amill point of view differs from partpret inasmuch as I see the 70 AD destruction as a precursor to a greater fulfillment yet to come.

Interesting! That is precisely as I see it!

I see the 'loosing of Satan for a little season' (Rev.20:3) as being synonymous with the final tribulation period.

Noted.

What of the regathering of national Israel? What about the 'end times antichrist'?
Thank you, btw, for your comments.

[DurbanDude]

I don't think that Jesus 'first advent' prophetic fulfillments fits the classic 'partial preterist' definition. My experience is that partial preterists will believe that at least some of the "Olivet Discourse" (Matt 24) prophecies were fulfilled during the 70 AD Roman conquest of Jerusalem/Temple.

Ok you are probably right about this, I don't know the full definition of "partial preterist". I thought a historical view of verses like Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11, and the book of Rev were also important to that view.

Have you met amils who did not believe that some of the Matt 24 prophecies were fulfilled in the 70 AD Roman conquest of Jerusalem?

Actually I haven't . I am post-trib and premill and am also a partial preterist, believing that parts of Matt 24 were fulfilled at 70AD.

Could amillennialism exist at all without the 70 AD Rome/Jewish war?

I think it could, remember that the interpretation of Rev 20 is the focus of the amill/premill debate.

[arc111]

As I don't know what you mean by a 'partial preterist' I can't confirm or deny it. But you have just brought out the folly of labels. I seek to interpret each passage in terms of its context and my general understanding of Scripture. I don't worry about what is taught by 'schools of thought'. They are so varied, and often mixed up, that they are relatively meaningless.

Views are so varied that to put people in camps is ridiculous. No one fits precisely into a camp. It is more possible with pre-mills because they clearly believe in 1000 year reign after the second coming, but even then there are huge differences between them as to its content, and as to intepretation of various passages. They do not speak with one voice.

Strictly for example I am not an amillennialist because I believe in a millennium. I believe we are in it now. But while I believe Revelation speaks of the 1st century AD onwards I am not a believer in searching for specific fulfilments as though what is described only happened once. Revelation was written and revealed in such a way that it has a message for all centuries (Just as Mark 13 has). So while I believe in its histroical fulfilment I am not an Historicist (depends of course what you mean by the title).

While I agree with you in spirit, labels are convenient. I am solidly premil but shy away from the 'pre/mid/pre-wrath/post trib' labels. Most of the amillennialists that I have known believe that we are in the millennium now; some call it the gospel millennium. I think that is the common understanding.

[shepherdsword]

The problem with pre--mil is the bloody sacrifices having to be re-instituted for Isa 46-48 to be fulfilled. The Daniel countdown being stopped can be explained. This cannot. The problem with a-mill is prophecy interpretation. For instance when we say that the sign of the Lord's coming and the end of the world is the destruction of the temple we have a problem. The Lord didn't return at that time.When we say he did we have crossed over into full preterism. The Jews have continued to suffer tribulation since 70AD. Six million Jewish bodies in mass graves in just a few years last century.That body count exceeds anything that happened in 70AD.
And once again,Israel is a nation.I think it was Napoleon that said the strongest evidence he has seen for God's existence is the survival of the Jews as a race. I wonder what he would have thought had he seen them become a nation again? This fact alone casts suspicion on the a-mil/preterist position. However,the a-mills have a good understanding of the Kingdom of God and it's reign in the Spirit. The pre-mils have real problem when it comes to bloody animal sacrifices. This is something that cannot be ignored.I have a pre-mil eschatology that has been refined and worked on for years but this little necessity of animal sacrifice to complete my interpretation is a real issue for me. Always has been.Nothing can atone for sin except the Savior's own blood.Therefore I have abandoned the position. I haven't adopted the amil position though,far too many instances of forcing an interpretation of prophecy into their viewpoint. I have resolved to not understand. Therefore you may call me a fool,maybe being a fool the Lord will make me wise.Perhaps we are in the same predicament that Israel was when the Lord first came,no one really saw it going down that way either.