"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu

[Guest]

First of all, I agree with most of what you posted, now on to the rest.

Its basically replacement theology...
Crusader

Depends on what you mean, most of the time this term is used in a negative way. The question is, will God ever cast Jesus away and replace Him with ethnic Jews? Read on...

ISRAEL - They believe that ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’s Kingdom. They say that the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation.

This is not correct, as I stated many times already.

First of all Peter (a Jew) said to other Jews : "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own posession" (1 Peter 2:9)

Clearly, ethnic Israel is not cast off. We shouldn't be swinging to extremes here. In all honesty, the Dispensationalist are the ones teaching replacement theology. They teach that the church replaces Israel (till the times of the gentiles are fulfilled) until the rapture, then Israel is reinstated. This is replacement theology. Preterists like me believe that the Church is the remnant of Israel with Gentiles grafted on. After the fulness of the Gentles, we enter the eternal state described in Revelation 21-22.

Read Romans 11. Who is the olive tree? Israel. Who is grafted onto Israel? Gentiles. Notice God doesn't plant a new Gentile "wild olive tree" that is seperate from the original and stop the growth on the first one. Instead, God continues to work with the original olive tree (Israel) and grafts Gentiles onto that.

What has been replaced is the Old Covenant. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. That is, the remnant.

THE NEW JERUSALEM - Most preterists believe that this is the Church, both now and forever!

One other thing I forgot to mention that this reminded me of:

Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem

So what is the holy city Jerusalem? What does the text say "it" is?
The Bride, the wife of the lamb. This is the Church:

2 Co 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

The bride of Christ is the Church, the Bride is also the holy city Jerusalem.

Please explain how this is incorrect.

There are no two peoples of God, we are all one in Christ (Eph 2&3, Gal 3).

[Guest]

I have not participated in this thread because others have said most of the things I would have said, leaving me free to write elsewhere. I would just like to make some observations about the discussion here.

I agree that this discussion has been conducted in a friendly tone, which is very encouraging. It takes more than mere friendliness of interaction, however, to debate fruitfully. It also requires hearing and understanding what the other person believes and is saying.

There has been much repetition in this thread, mostly due to the fact that Crusader either has very little acquaintance with the non-dispensational views of people like Sean, Allyn and JD (and myself), and is, as a consequence, unable to present arguments relevant to their presuppositions. The non-dispensationalists, by contrast, are intimately acquainted with the views and arguments of dispensationalism (most of us having once been dispensationalists ourselves).

While I am not just trying to plug my own recorded lectures on this subject, I think that Sean was correct in suggesting that Crusader might benefit from hearing them—not so that he can be convinced of my views, but rather that he might be acquainted with them and then, if still unconvinced, can post some better-aimed arguments against them for his own side. It is frustrating to read dispensational assertions that simply take for granted all the dispensational interpretations of the relevant texts, when a greater familiarity with non-dispensational (read: "historic Christian") theology would save him a lot of his powder.

If Crusader's statement about not needing human teachers to help him understand the Bible is his response to the suggestion that he hear my tapes, I would simply point out that he may not be aware of the degree to which he owes his dispensational beliefs to the influence of human teachers. It requires much input from dispensational teachers to find dispensationalism in the scriptures. As soon as someone begins to read the Bible independently of such teachers, dispensational concepts begin to totter.

The surprisingly late recognition (in Crusader's most recent post) that Sean is a preterist, and his thanking him for "being honest" about admitting to this, was an example of how little Crusader has discerned of the presuppositions of those with whom he is seeking to debate. One ought only to engage in debate with those whose positions he has been able to ascertain in advance. Otherwise, how does one know that he disagrees with a person, and wants to debate against him?

The majority of the beliefs of "preterists" that Crusader catalogues are not distinctives of preterism, per se, but of historic Christian theology in general (most of which actually was not preterist). I hold to the beliefs that he lists (and am "honest" enough to say so), but that is not admitting to adherence to some heresy, but to the Christianity of the historic church, and, arguably, of the apostles themselves.

The fact that dispensationalists, for the most part, are unaware of this fact bears witness to the provincialism and theological isolation which their teachers have engendered, by calling everyone who does not accept their novel theories "heretics," and discouraging their followers from giving any other view than their own a fair hearing.

Note to JD—

I'm sorry but I have no special expertise or insight into the range of meanings or nuances of the term "apodeiknumi" in 2 Thess. 2:4. I suggest that commentators or lexicons may serve you better than I can in this matter. I appreciate your asking. God bless.

[Guest]

If Crusader's statement about not needing human teachers to help him understand the Bible is his response to the suggestion that he hear my tapes, I would simply point out that he may not be aware of the degree to which he owes his dispensational beliefs to the influence of human teachers. It requires much input from dispensational teachers to find dispensationalism in the scriptures. As soon as someone begins to read the Bible independently of such teachers, dispensational concepts begin to totter.

You are so right on here Steve. I used to believe in dispensational concepts so to speak. Like you said, once I began to read the Bible independently of the teachings I just couldn't find them.

[Guest]

I really dont think there is much to debate since the preterist view is so aberrant to Christian eschatology. I mean if you can read Matthew 24 and think all that has happened and the Lords has physically returned then what can I say to change your mind? Except maybe ask you where He is? If you can read Romans 11 and think Gods finished with Israel then what can I possibly show you that will change your mind? If you can read this in Ezekiel 37 where it plainly says Daivd will literally be in the land of Jerusalem after hed been dead for 400 years..there really isnt much I can say. As far as listening to Steve's messages I really wouldnt.I knew him in Santa Cruz before he got on such a Narrow Path. I think just knowing a person is a preterist is enough for me to really honestly just not debate it..Ive got a great site you can go to though and read Thomas Ice..he's taken a great interest in revealing the errors of the preterist position. Its not a main stream position and has so many weaknesses its easy to refute.You actually have to choose to believe it over the Bible and thats not something an honest debate can even change. When you can pick and choose which verses you want to be literal and allegorical its a lost cause as far as debate goes. But against it all is the anti Semitic theme which smacks of replacement theology...although it is solidly refuted by an old Testament prophet Ezekiel who wrote 400 hundred years after David had died these revealing words...

" Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "

One Nation Under One King
 15 The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, 'Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.' Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, 'Ephraim's stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.' 17 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.

 18 "When your countrymen ask you, 'Won't you tell us what you mean by this?' 19 say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim's hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.' 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, [b] and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

 24 " 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.' "

Check out Thomas Ice

http://www.pre-trib.org/index.php

[Guest]

Crusader, I don't believe you will find one preterist here, including yourself (because you too are a preterist) who believes that Jesus has already made His second appearing. We have had much to say about this on another thread (maybe some will find it and link to it) and the preterist view - as to the one we hold to - is quite different from what you suppose.

You have made a broad statement saying

the preterist view is so aberrant to Christian eschatology.

but yet you have failed to prove your points scripturally on every occasion. I have heard many of Steve's lectures and I know without a doubt that you are depriving yourself of the truth concerning eschatology.

We have addressed the Thomas Ice articles and how he knows nothing of what he speaks of when it comes to understanding Bible prophecy let alone the preterist view, so dropping that name carries very little weight.

If you can read Romans 11 and think Gods finished with Israel then what can I possibly show you that will change your mind? If you can read this in Ezekiel 37 where it plainly says Daivd will literally be in the land of Jerusalem after hed been dead for 400 years..there really isnt much I can say.

These two statements of yours simply do not make sense and you misrepresent our Bible held views to-boot.

Be that as it may, as you said you got your side out there for others to read and you are right - no matter how flimsy it is.

[Guest]

Incredible.

"I really dont think there is much to debate since the preterist view is so aberrant to Christian eschatology."

Actually, there is much to deate, because dispensationalism came on the scene 200 years ago. Tell the Apostle Paul that Jesus didn't bring two people, Jew and Gentile, into one body, but that the church has replaced Israel for two thousand years, only to be replaced one day again by atheist Jews who only will believe in Jesus when they see Him return, go into a rebuilt temple and offer blood sacrifices, and your theology may be looked at as aberrant.

"I mean if you can read Matthew 24 and think all that has happened and the Lords has physically returned then what can I say to change your mind?"

Straight from the dispensationalists handbook. Not all preterists believe all of Matthew 24 is fulfilled. If you can look at all the times Jesus says "this generation" and say that suddenly, in this one passage of Scripture, He means "that generation", what I can say to change your mind?

"Except maybe ask you where He is?"

He is seated at the right hand of God, ruling over a kingdom that He said would not come with signs. He will rule until He has put all his enemies under His feet. Unless of course, you believe that His kingdom is delayed because national Israel didn't receive Him, and therefore Jesus Christ, King of Kings, is the only king without a kingdom.

"If you can read Romans 11 and think Gods finished with Israel then what can I possibly show you that will change your mind?"

Who said God is finished with Israel? We are debating, in part, who Israel is. If you ignore multiple posts that show you otherwise, what else can I possibly show you to change your mind?

"If you can read this in Ezekiel 37 where it plainly says Daivd will literally be in the land of Jerusalem after hed been dead for 400 years..there really isnt much I can say."

"And I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'"

If you can tell me that unbelieving Jews have the Holy Spirit, there isn't much I can say.

"As far as listening to Steve's messages I really wouldnt.I knew him in Santa Cruz before he got on such a Narrow Path. I think just knowing a person is a preterist is enough for me to really honestly just not debate it"

Incredible. I still listen to teachers I don't agree with, being open to them convincing me otherwise. These teachers include those who attribute Messianic passages to Satan and the Antichrist. (Dan. 9:24-27)

"Ive got a great site you can go to though and read Thomas Ice..he's taken a great interest in revealing the errors of the preterist position."

I think just knowing a person is a dispensationalist is enough for me to really honestly just not debate it.

"he's taken a great interest in revealing the errors of the preterist position"

And in so doing, helped convince people like me, who were looking for good evidence to back up their position, to realize it was un-back-up-able.

"Its not a main stream position and has so many weaknesses its easy to refute."

Yes it is, and you have done nothing to refute it, other than what you accuse others of doing (which they haven't), stringing together verses without explaining them.

"You actually have to choose to believe it over the Bible and thats not something an honest debate can even change."

No, you can choose, as many people are doing, to believe it because of the Bible.

"When you can pick and choose which verses you want to be literal and allegorical its a lost cause as far as debate goes."

Well, amen, brother! "This generation" doesn't mean this generation. "Horsemen" means tanks. "Mark" means credit cards. Tough, indeed.

"But against it all is the anti Semitic theme which smacks of replacement theology"

Textbook. You get an A+, and I lost the office pool as to how long it would take to hear that one. Though I commend you, Crusader, you held on a long time.

Fair enough. What is anti-Semitic about declaring, as Jesus and the apostles did, that we are saved by faith in Christ?

Which position declares that most Jews, for 2,000 years, are in Hell because God has blinded them? Which position declares that there awaits a future holocaust for Israel? Which position has led to millions of dollars going to this holocaust project, i.e., paying for the return of the Jews to the land, so that they can be slaughtered by an antichrist?

Which group takes tours to the future land of the holocaust? My goodness! If I knew the future in the year 1900, and took field trips to Auschwitz before the Holocaust, this would be considered macabre, don't you think?

In a court of evidence, who would be considered anti-Semitic?

"although it is solidly refuted by an old Testament prophet Ezekiel who wrote 400 hundred years after David had died these revealing words..."

Stop. At this rate, you will have cut and pasted the entire Bible by Easter.



Regards,
JD

[Guest]

I really dont think there is much to debate since the preterist view is so aberrant to Christian eschatology. I mean if you can read Matthew 24 and think all that has happened and the Lords has physically returned then what can I say to change your mind? Except maybe ask you where He is? If you can read Romans 11 and think Gods finished with Israel then what can I possibly show you that will change your mind? If you can read this in Ezekiel 37 where it plainly says Daivd will literally be in the land of Jerusalem after hed been dead for 400 years..there really isnt much I can say. As far as listening to Steve's messages I really wouldnt.I knew him in Santa Cruz before he got on such a Narrow Path. I think just knowing a person is a preterist is enough for me to really honestly just not debate it..Ive got a great site you can go to though and read Thomas Ice..he's taken a great interest in revealing the errors of the preterist position. Its not a main stream position and has so many weaknesses its easy to refute.You actually have to choose to believe it over the Bible and thats not something an honest debate can even change. When you can pick and choose which verses you want to be literal and allegorical its a lost cause as far as debate goes. But against it all is the anti Semitic theme which smacks of replacement theology...although it is solidly refuted by an old Testament prophet Ezekiel who wrote 400 hundred years after David had died these revealing words...

" Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "

One Nation Under One King
15 The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, 'Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.' Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, 'Ephraim's stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.' 17 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.

18 "When your countrymen ask you, 'Won't you tell us what you mean by this?' 19 say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim's hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.' 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

24 " 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.' "

Check out Thomas Ice

http://www.pre-trib.org/index.php

What exactly is the point of quoting Ezekiel 37?

Do you know about the Davidic covenant?

2Sa 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
2Sa 7:14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.

So who is to rule? David or his son? Clear this up for me.
Notice it also says this happends when "you lie down with your fathers". Meaning, when David is dead.

Peter agrees:

Act 2:29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,
Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

So we got your opinion, and Peter's. Either David is going to rule, or one of his descendants is (Jesus). I guess you could say that Ezekiel is in the wrong. There is an easy way to figure this out, listen to the Apostles! Calling Jesus David is perfectly normal since His name was not revealed yet. Just as Paul calls Jesus the "last Adam".

God swore an oath to this. Peter said this is talking about Jesus. Now, we can either believe Peter or CC and Thomas Ice. I prefer Peter.

You see, you are correct. You can't just interpret scripture any way you want. It's a good thing we have the Apostles writings. Here's a simple test you can do. Go through Acts and Paul's writings and note every time an OT passage is quoted. Then see how literally they take it. You will find (like Acts I quoted above) that they spiritualize OT promises many times. Peter said that the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of the oath God swore to seat one of David's descendants on the throne. Do you believe him?

Have you noticed that the Ezekiel passage is quoted by John in Revelation 21, and that John applies the holy city Jerusalem to the Church. Yet you won't respond to this, instead you sling mud. Have you noiced how dispensationalist live in the OT. Please, read the NT. The OT has been interpreted for you.

Mat 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

What do you make of this? Dispensationalist crumble and leave their literal interpretation at the door here. They say this isn't literally His coming, nor did He establish His kingdom. Yes, you are right. It's difficult to discuss this issue when you aren't consistent in your interpretation. Thing is, that's what you are accusing us "preterists" of doing.

[Guest]

Sean
I know you must hate that Ezekiel passage because it pretty well says that Israel will return to thier land,and David will be a prince ruling there,obviously Jesus will be the Ruler...dont you know that David had been dead for four hundred years when this was written..You might want to use the other preterest arguement here...that since the Jews rejected Christ all these prophecies are nullified ( which they arent) or maybe use you allegorical escape and say they arent literal ( which they are).

On the Scripture you quoted you are really getting out there.

Mat 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

If you take it the way your implying then you have Jesus returing in A.D. 70 which as we have discussed before is so far out there its really not something I want to refute. If you will read it carefully you will see it doesnt say they wont taste death it just says they will see Him in His Kingdom...heres what Jesus really meant..

"A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here…” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more individuals within the scope of its meaning, since “some” is plural and coupled with a plural verb, “to be.” The word “some” nicely fits the three disciples, Peter, James, and John (Mt. 17:1) who were the participates with our Lord at the transfiguration. On the other hand, Peters notes that “John only survived”[45] till the destruction of Jerusalem among the 12 disciples.

In all three instances of this parallel passage (Mt. 16:28; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27) they are all immediately followed by the account of the transfiguration. This contextual relationship by itself is a strong reason to favor our interpretation and shifts the burden of proof on those opposing this view.  In other words, Jesus made a prediction about a future event and in each instance, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the fulfillment of that prediction in the passage that follows. The contextual fact is supported by the grammatical construction that connects these passages. Alva J. McClain notes that “the conjunction with which chapter 17 begins clearly establishes the unbroken continuity of thought between 16:28 and 17:1, as also in the accounts of Mark and Luke where no chapter division occurs.”[46
All three accounts of the prophesied event speak of seeing and the kingdom. Matthew says they will see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” emphasizing the person of the Son of Man coming.  Mark says, “they see the kingdom of God” and he adds that it will come “with power.” Luke simply that “they see the kingdom of God.”  The transfiguration fits all aspects of the various emphasis found in each of the three precise predictions.

Matthew’s stress upon the actual, physical presence of the Son of Man is clearly meet in the transfiguration because Jesus was personally and visibly present. Matthew says, “He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light” (17:2). The preterist interpretation does not meet Matthew’s criteria, since Jesus was not personally present in the later destruction of Jerusalem."

Crusader

[Guest]

Crusader,

What is the meaning of the transfiguration? Why did Moses and Elijah appear? Why not Abraham? Could it be because of their peculiar relation to The Law; Moses, as law-giver, and Elijah as law-restorer? And Peter rashly suggests building three tabernacles, one for each as though they were equals. God loudly rebukes Peter saying "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him". Moses and Elijah vanish and Jesus remains.

I see this as God's sign that The Law is finished, replaced by "The Law of Christ". Moses and Elijah lay their mantles at Jesus' feet. Jesus is King and remains King, or is there some parenthesis, say a couple thousand years or so, where he is no King at all?

(Whoever came up with that "parenthesis" idea came up with a whopper! Talk about non-literal!)

[Guest]

Sean
I know you must hate that Ezekiel passage because it pretty well says that Israel will return to thier land,and David will be a prince ruling there,obviously Jesus will be the Ruler...dont you know that David had been dead for four hundred years when this was written..You might want to use the other preterest arguement here...that since the Jews rejected Christ all these prophecies are nullified ( which they arent) or maybe use you allegorical escape and say they arent literal ( which they are).

Well, as I said. I let the NT interpret the OT. Not the other way around. Did you look to see how the apostles interpreted this? Also, as I mentioned before, where were the Jews when Ezekiel was written? Did God put them back in their land?

You said:

obviously Jesus will be the Ruler

Show me where it says that in Ezekiel 37. It doesn't say that, it says David. Is David literally Jesus? You seem to be adding something to the text. If you are going to show me how to interpret this literally, your going to have to explain how Peter got his interpretation wrong. You don't ever address any NT passages I bring up. You can't ignore them.

On the Scripture you quoted you are really getting out there.

Mat 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

If you take it the way your implying then you have Jesus returing in A.D. 70 which as we have discussed before is so far out there its really not something I want to refute. If you will read it carefully you will see it doesnt say they wont taste death it just says they will see Him in His Kingdom...heres what Jesus really meant..

"A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here…” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more individuals within the scope of its meaning, since “some” is plural and coupled with a plural verb, “to be.” The word “some” nicely fits the three disciples, Peter, James, and John (Mt. 17:1) who were the participates with our Lord at the transfiguration. On the other hand, Peters notes that “John only survived”[45] till the destruction of Jerusalem among the 12 disciples.

In all three instances of this parallel passage (Mt. 16:28; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27) they are all immediately followed by the account of the transfiguration. This contextual relationship by itself is a strong reason to favor our interpretation and shifts the burden of proof on those opposing this view. In other words, Jesus made a prediction about a future event and in each instance, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the fulfillment of that prediction in the passage that follows. The contextual fact is supported by the grammatical construction that connects these passages. Alva J. McClain notes that “the conjunction with which chapter 17 begins clearly establishes the unbroken continuity of thought between 16:28 and 17:1, as also in the accounts of Mark and Luke where no chapter division occurs.”[46
All three accounts of the prophesied event speak of seeing and the kingdom. Matthew says they will see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” emphasizing the person of the Son of Man coming. Mark says, “they see the kingdom of God” and he adds that it will come “with power.” Luke simply that “they see the kingdom of God.” The transfiguration fits all aspects of the various emphasis found in each of the three precise predictions.

Matthew’s stress upon the actual, physical presence of the Son of Man is clearly meet in the transfiguration because Jesus was personally and visibly present. Matthew says, “He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light” (17:2). The preterist interpretation does not meet Matthew’s criteria, since Jesus was not personally present in the later destruction of Jerusalem."

Crusader

So you admit the scripture can say "see the son of man coming" and it not mean the "second coming/rapture"? Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So in Matthew 24 when it uses the same language, you admit it can mean something other than His second coming.

You made my point for me. Look at the greater context:

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
Mat 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

So Jesus came with his angels and repayed everyone according to what they had done at the transfiguration?

You see, you've proven that Jesus' "coming" doesn't have to be His second coming. You don't believe Jesus second coming was the transfiguration and I don't believe Jesus second coming was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. You can't accuse me of not taking Matt 24 literally without accusing yourself of the same error in Matt 16.