Question about Mat. 24 for partial preterists.

[benandgrace]

most partial preterists claim that v. 29-30 tell of the yet future coming of the son of man in judgement of israel. On the other hand, another popular partial preterist interp, in regards to v. 16, etc. seems to be the fleeing during the roman/jewish war, which was supposedly not before the coming in judgement. v. 29 is after the judgement of israel but partial preterism uses v. 29 etc. for support of that judgement. Isn't this a contradiction? Thanks for any help if I'm overlooking something.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Really? Most partial preterist I know (myself included) do NOT say that v. 29-30 are yet future. In fact I have read a good deal (not extensively but not a minute amount) of preterist material.

If preterist do put a gap for a future (to us) fulfilment of Mt. 24, it is usually around v v. 34-35.

I myself have vigorously defended a past fulfilment of v. 29-.30 (with special attention on v. 30).

With that said. Yes. If you place v. 29 in the future (to us) and try to use it to support the past judgment on Israel, then at the very least you are being inconsistent.

Just my :2cents:

[dizzle]

It's not future. And someone who claims so is not a preterist if the word has any meaning.