Thanks.
* I hope you are not thin skinned and take offense when others choose to have and express an opposing view. I am fact oriented. And I in no wise am any sort of Preterist.
I came to the conclusion that you were a "partial Preterist" early on.
Unfortunately, you are saying it both ways from my standpoint. And we can never have it both ways. *
It is a matter of where you decide Jesus changed horses. Of course we each think the over is in error.
In choosing the spot that you did you, you unfortunately relegate the Second Coming, which is described in very accurate detail as 'seen by all and quite glorious', to a non-event of the first century of which there is no record. It then becomes 'spiritualized' to the point that it evaporates and it undermines the Christian hope by telling a story of a 'parousia past'.
Jesus contrasted the false teachers, just prior to His Second Coming (Mt 24:23-26),with the reality of His coming (Mt 24:27-31) it being, not hidden like some cowardly act, but glorious and for every eye to see, like lightening filling the entire sky from east to west.
Jesus even twice makes mention of the subsequent 'taking away' of His chosen ones, what some call the 'rapture', during this monumental event. This did not happen in 70ce and if it all did, then Christians hold faith for nothing.
How could one teach that the Second Coming took place as you tell it, in the first century, and then teach that it's also future? We cannot have it both ways.
I noticed that you didn't show any reasons why my views above are in error. You have stated your views several times, but not demonstrated why mine are in error. I have tried to do this with your work. I feel I have.
May I ask you to please refrain from cut-and-paste and respond to our conversation on a point by point basis. Having had discussions with others in the past, I've seen much of the information you cut and paste, much of which I find of no value. Please refer to the Scriptures instead of cut and paste, I have copies. Thanks so much