Hey Steve(Gregg)...

[RV]

Does anyone have a thought or answer to my question?

Am I wrong to assume that this subject in its entirety is nothing more than speculation? Either path you take, it boils down to guess work. This question isn't directed toward Mike or Steve, but not limited to their impute as well.

[psychohmike]

So Mike... compelling evidence that those things actually took place?

I could expand more on this "not on Christmas Eve" if you would like. But quite simply...If Jesus was to say, "A, B, C, D, E, F & G," are to take place within 40 years and we can see historically that A, B, C, D & E, happened with no justification for a gap in the original promise then I have no problem accepting that F & G could very well have taken place.

Pmike

[RV]

I could expand more on this "not on Christmas Eve" if you would like. But quite simply...If Jesus was to say, "A, B, C, D, E, F & G," are to take place within 40 years and we can see historically that A, B, C, D & E, happened with no justification for a gap in the original promise then I have no problem accepting that F & G could very well have taken place.

I like the illustration, but Steve may come back and say: Well, I agree that A, B, C & D happened, but I don't think that E did (for such and such reason).

Therefore, it becomes simply speculation. Neither position being able to with overwelming evidence end the argument.

Did Jesus die on the cross? Very few would argue, that historically that event didn't happened. The debate comes when interpretation of what His death on the cross meant.

If it was as black and white as we claim it to be in our position, there (in my mind) wouldn't really be any debate.

This subject, along with a couple others (this one more than any other), seems to constantly be nothing but speculation.

I think Steve to be a pretty honest and reasonable thinker (I'm just using him for this example, many on this board are). But you can lay out your best case and probably won't change his mind. Is it because you're arguments aren't really good... NO. Is it because Steve is so stuck in his position and prideful he can't understand... doubt it.

I think it's because it's purely speculation.

Some, please prove me wrong.

Allyn has laid out some of the best arguments I've read for the Full Pret. But at the end of the day, it's simply speculation.

Again... someone please prove me wrong.

[psychohmike]

Let me try and rephrase it a little.

Let's presuppose that Jesus said to His apostles that A, B, C, D, E, F & G would happen within 40 years.

Now...If I could demonstrate to you clearly and concisely that A, B, C, D & E took place within 40 years...Shouldn't we then also logically and reasonably be able to conclude that F & G also took place?

Pmike

[RV]

Now...If I could demonstrate to you clearly and concisely that A, B, C, D & E took place within 40 years...Shouldn't we then also logically and reasonably be able to conclude that F & G also took place?

No, we would conclude that F & G did take place. But watch this... Steve can you chime in to demonstrate my point.

[steve]

Sorry, RV, I am not sure which point you want me to back you up on.

My position would be stated more like this: If I thought Jesus had predicted that A, B, C, D, E, F and G would take place within 40 years, but only A, B, C, D, and E took place, and F and G did not...Shouldn't I reconsider my interpretation of what I thought Jesus was predicting?

[RV]

Sorry, RV, I am not sure which point you want me to back you up on.

My position would be stated more like this: If I thought Jesus had predicted that A, B, C, D, E, F and G would take place within 40 years, but only A, B, C, D, and E took place, and F and G did not...Shouldn't I reconsider my interpretation of what I thought Jesus was predicting?

Certainly...

But more importantly my main point is: it's simply speculation. Neither you nor Pmike can positively state your case with 100% certainty.

Pmike may indeed present a good case for the Full Pret. view, and you indeed may reconsider your interpretation of the scripture, but at the end of the day, you're still simply speculating... Yes??

Am I wrong? For instance, are you (or anyone else) as convinced of your eschatology as you are that Christ died on a cross?

It seems to me, this subject on this board wouldn't exist. If it did, it would have very few responses if any.

Rarely do I see anyone debating whether or not Christ actually died on a cross or existed.

I truely believe you (Steve) would reconsider your interpretation if you could be presented a strong enough case.

To say that these things all actually happened in AD 70 is, in my judgment, counterintuitive. This alone does not damn the view, but it places it under the requirement of presenting compelling evidence that these things occurred in history, though no historian recorded it, and it does not appear to be true.

On the other side, I believe Pmike would do the same.

Problem: No body really knows = simply speculation.

[RV]

Nobody wants to touch this huh?

[RV]

Anyone care to address my question?

Can you do anything with Eschatology besides speculate?

[Michelle]

Anyone care to address my question?

Can you do anything with Eschatology besides speculate?

Nope. My answer. *shrug*