@@outofthebox7 you aren't really trying to compare the two, are you?

Perverts follow after other like minded perverts.

the flood did not destroy the planet. The planet remained and survived the deluge . I dont think God is interested in destroying the entire universe for the sake of a few ungodly men. He is the creator, not he destroyer. And Jospehus is not a pagan. Stop lying.

Heaven and earth were ancient Jewish metaphors for thier universe, thier religion , nation and temple. Just like all languages are full of idioms and metaphor, the ancient Hebrew nation had their own terms . When the temple burned, that was the Jews heaven and earth being destroyed so to speak. The rabbis that witnessed it recorded thier horrors at this event and astonishment in their writings. You people come along 2000 years later and think you know everything. You really dont know much at all about those years .

@@BertGraef "The flood did not destroy the planet" Correct, and I never stated that the world, as in the substance of the planet, was destroyed. Contextually, "the world" (2Peter2:5a) is obviously and explicitly referring to "the world of the ungodly" (2Peter2:5b). So "destruction" came upon the wicked people that dwelled on the earth in Noah's day. Peter is quite obviously referring to the same thing in 2Peter 3, and he is quite obviously saying that what happened in Noah's day, will happen at a future day, albeit with fire as opposed to water. "I don't think God is interested in destroying the entire universe for the sake of a few ungodly men" That is not my position nor is that the position of creedal, historic orthodox Christianity. We do not believe that God will destroy the earth at Christ's second coming. Rather, we believe the Lord will cleanse the earth of all the sin, impurity, and sinners that were in the world, and **renew** the earth in marvelous glory and splendor. "He is the creator not a destroyer" What? Are you saying that God being the creator , necessitates the inference that he does not ever destroy? If so, that is a fallacious argument, and moreover, that runs counter to several express statements of scripture. God "destroys" those who destroy his people (1Corinthians 3:17/Zechariah12:9) God is said to "destroy " sinners out of the land (Isaiah 13:9). As a judgement against Judah, God said he bring destruction on the temple in which the people vainly trusted (Jeremiah 7:14). My friend, what are you going on about? "And Josephus is not a pagan. Stop lying" Oh brother, give me a break. I was speaking in hyperbole to make a point. Namely that Don cannot find any reputable Christian scholar, from any Christian tradition, whether from antiquity or present day, to substantiate his claims, so he runs to a unbelieving Jew in order to "prove his point". Moreover my main point was that Don neglected the rather elementary teaching that words and phrases are **defined by their context**. To point out that Josephus used the phrase "heaven and earth" when referring to one thing, does not prove that Peter was using the same phrase in the exact same way. He merely begs the question with such asinine assertions and those who are too gullible to know any better fall for it. Moreover, as I pointed out, Josephus used the phrase "heaven and earth" to refer to other things besides the temple, so Don is guilty of arbitrarily emphasizing Josephus's use of that phrase in one instance, and ignoring how he used it in other instances. Doesn't surprise me, as only an ignoramus could make such sloppy mistakes. My friend, if you are full Preterist, I encourage you to repent. You have been deceived, as I was, as I was once a full preterist and was almost excommunicated from my reformed church because of it. It wasn't until I was humbled, and was honest with what scripture, and the universal catholic church (not Roman catholic) taught, that I was disabused of my erroneous belief in Full Preterism. May God have mercy on you and grant you repentance.

@@BertGraef "Heaven and earth were ancient Jewish metaphors for their universe, their religion, their nation, and temple" See, this is the simple-mindedness that I was referring to. I do not deny that there are passages in scripture that use "heaven and earth" in a restricted sense. But surely you are not so dull as to think that the phrase "heaven and earth" in the Old Testament ALWAYS referred to the Jewish temple/religion, right? In Genesis 1, when God was said to create the "heavens and the earth" are we to believe Moses meant that he created the mosaic temple, which didn't come into existence until several centuries after the Genesis 1 narrative ? My goodness you cannot be serious. See how easily your arguments are reduced to absurdity by possessing basic scriptural literacy.

You're right. I don't know why he won't let go of that non-physical Resurrection idea. At least 4 historians documented the physical return of Jesus and physical resurrection of the dead in 66AD.

@@johno2277 because he has argued his view for so long . If he admitted he was wrong he would loose all his supporters and credibility

@@metaldisciple That makes sense. Sad. I've changed my mind a few times. RC Sproul has too. No big deal.

@@johno2277 I think it’s far more hopeful waiting for the promises of a resurrected body and no more pain. His view is depressing. Remember no church fathers ever taught this heresy

@@johno2277 and don’t worry brother, I too change my mind on eschatology a lot. It’s normal!

Billy Preston is a musician.

I too never heard of him.

Upholding traditions is the ultimate form of pride of man. There were the Pharisees, then the Catholics, and now we have the reformed Christians. It is not that rare for popular and established opinions to be wrong.

@@justanother240 LOL. And. your tradition or basis of interpretation is correct?

@dionsanchez2775 We should strive to make sure all of our core beliefs are provable by scripture.

@@justanother240 I agree with you. Historic Premilennialism has been lost to the uprising of Dispensational Premilennialism. A Great Tribulation from the time of Jesus’s resurrection to the second coming has been lost to fantasies of a Pre-Trib Rapture and the insistence that the Temple will be rebuilt and redestroyed. However, Full Preterism also features the pride of man, saying how we have experienced our spiritual Resurrection and are the Church that dwells in Righteousness (2 Peter 3:13) No man before the 1800s believed in any of these things. We need to go back to scripture and realize what is truly being said. And scripture clearly teaches that the hope of Christ extends from this world (1 Corinthians 15:19)

E.J. Young's Commentary on Daniel

@@ancientpathstv thank you

Yep if he was using Linux it would all be different

Mark of the beast right there, along with sambsung.

1. Babylonian 2. Medo-Persian 3. Greek 4. Rome

@@ancientpathstv In the video you said that Daniel 12 is about Antiochus

@@flavius1139 It is.

@@ancientpathstv The little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 wouldn't be Antiochus?

@@flavius1139 The little horn in Daniel 7 is Nero. The little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus.

Yes 🙂

I knew the circumstances of his honorary doctorate, but since he uses the title, I used it and tried to focus my criticisms on things that were clear-cut.

Maybe you should debate Don.

@@allthingsbing1295 sure. I’ll do it. He would lose.

It's in the video, if you'd actually watch it all.

Acts 13:29 says the Jews and Pontious Pilate fulfilled "all things" concerning Jesus. So, according to your logic, after Jesus was crucified, there were no more prophecies concerning Jesus that were left to be fulfilled, including his second coming. That is obviously absurd. Also, Luke 21:22 is clearly qualified by the phrase "days of vengeance" which was clearly an invocation of the covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. So "all things written" is restricted to the covenant curses that were to be inflicted on the Jews by the Romans. Also, just using simple logic, if Luke 21:22 referred to the fulfillment of all prophecies without qualification, as Full Preterists maintain, it is a wonder that the disciples asked in Acts 1, when the kingdom would be restored! It is also a wonder why Jesus would respond by saying "its not for you to know the times or seasons" (Acts 1:7) when he literally, according to Full Preterists, goes to great lengths to explain the "times and seasons" the apostles were to be **looking for to signify his second coming** (i.e the restoration of the kingdom) in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. According to your paradigm, shouldn't Jesus have responded saying "Uhhh guys, I already told you when these things would happen! It's going to happen at the destruction of the temple and most of you will be alive to see it!" Obviously Jesus did not respond with that because Matthew 24 , Luke 21 and the rest of the scriptures do not teach that the 2nd advent was to occur with the destruction of Jerusalem. In light of all this, your paradigm has Jesus blatantly and irreconcilably contradicting himself which is again, absurd. Lastly , 1Peter4:7 does not necessitate the inference that "all" prophecy without qualification was "about" to fuffilled. See Calvin or John Gill on the verse. You have been conned my friend. Don Preston and his ilk have no idea what they are talking about and they sound really smart because they hit you with Alot seemingly strong points all at once. But, when you slow down, you realize how full of it they are. Full Preterism is easily debunked, and there is a reason that it has never been taken seriously by any scholar of repute in a Christian denomination or sect

@@jeremybamgbade Matthew 24 does teach that the coming of Jesus on the clouds was to occur at the time of the destruction of the temple. That is how the disciples understood it and we know this by Sharp's Rule in Matt 24: 3...The burden of proof is on you to show how and why the disciples misunderstood and were incorrect about that! Give it a shot.

@@SugoiEnglish1 "Sharps rule" do you mean the Granville Sharpe rule which you clearly know nothing about with respect to the relevancy of that rule in this case? Also, without even wasting time on addressing your argument from the Greek , one need only point out that the gospels record the apostles (and several people who heard Jesus speak) misunderstanding Jesus on a number of occasions. Therefore, even if we granted that the Apostles, in Matthew 24, understood Jesus as saying that he would return in the first century in AD 70, it in no way follows that their understanding in that particular instance was necessarily correct. That's the problem with your silly little "audience relevance" arguments. The task of the exegete/interpreter is not to discover how the **audience** would have understood the author/text, but to discover what the **author** meant when he wrote the text . The audience's understanding or interpretation is not ispo facto infallible, only the scriptures are, so even if you could somehow prove that the audience of 1st century Christians understood the time texts, and prophecies, in the way you say they would have, it doesn't necessarily follow that their understanding was correct. So, it turns out the burden of proof lies with you my friend. It is one thing to say the apostles, in Matthew 24, understood Jesus as saying he was returning in the 1st century. It is another thing to prove their understanding, at that time, was correct. Also, as a side note, you don't understand the so called time texts.

@@SugoiEnglish1 Also, you tellingly didn't address any of the arguments I laid out in my original response. Probably because they are fatal to your paradigm. Please repent.

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14) The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that his teachings were spiritually discerned. He also told them that carnally minded men think this is foolishness.

@JasinBoggs Spiritual Discernment: Pharoah = Satan Moses = Jesus Egypt = Bondage to sin Wandering desert = Christian Walk Crossing Jordan = Christian natural death Promised Land = Eternal Life in Heaven Carnal a. Promised Land = Small piece of real estate in the Middle East b. Promised singular seed = Isaac c. Those that get the Land are the circumcised plural seed of Isaac. Spiritual Promised Land = Heaven Promised seed = Jesus Those who get eternal life are the plural seed of Jesus. Carnal Family Line of Jews Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel) Spiritual Family of God Abraham, Jesus, YOU Noah's Ark = Rapture Jonah 3 days 3 nights = Jesus death, resurrection. Passover = Jesus The Carnal Mind is the same as expository preaching. Next time Jonah is preached, the preacher will say what a bad man that Jonah was, because he didn't want to go to Nineveh. So be obedient. But, Jesus said that he fulfilled all the prophets, which includes Jonah. 3 days, 3 nights. Spiritual vs carnal

​​@@JasinBoggs Solid argument, yet, SPIRITUALY DISCERNED does not mean SPIRITISM.

Name calling (heresy) doesn't make a doctrine false. Ask me anything, I can answer it logically from the preterist view. I guarantee that my partial friends cannot coherently answer my questions.

@@johno2277 Naming calling would be the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Affirming what all orthodox theologians for the past 2,000 years have affirmed to be heresy cannot be considered a logical fallacy. You may not like it, but it's not illogical. Why is FP heresy then? Very simply because, contra 1 Cor. 15, it denies the bodily resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. This Last Day is in our future because Jesus must first put all His enemies under His feet and then, He will defeat His final enemy death through the resurrection of all the living and the dead. According to St. Paul, to deny the physical resurrection of the dead is to deny the physical resurrection of our Lord, which makes our faith out to be a lie. This is why FP is heresy.

Can you show me where you put the 2000 year gap in the Olivet discourse

@@allthingsbing1295 The topic in the Olivet Discourse switches from Jesus metaphorically coming in judgement on the covenant-breakers of Israel to Jesus coming on the Last Day in Matthew 24:45-51. These verses act as a bridge so that, by the time we enter ch. 25, we're firmly in a discussion about the Last Day and the final judgement.

@@boughtdeadbyChrist What do you view Matthew 16:27,28 as describing?

You mean eschatological. Scatological means something very different. 🙂

@@ancientpathstv well, where has Hal Lindsey and Hagge and and all the futurists led us to? Worship of an antichristian nation and religion bent on genocide? What happened to John 3:16 on the way. Now all Arabs and Palestinians and anyone in the zionist path is subject to divine wrath, a "non person" an evil being, a beast, Amalek, Philistines or still under Ishmaels curse or Esaus curse? You people can take your dispensational racial nonsense pack to the pit it came from. I wont have any part of this horrendous theology that is so contrary to the universal gospel of Christ. Youve all removed the cross of Christ and replaced it with a flag for antichrists. Long live preterist truth,and btw you only have a few years left before your generation runs out of time. Actually it did, 40 years ago.

@@BertGraefYou are insane.

Very good point!

Are you a member of a protestant Church?

@@zacharyfeinberg2374 Not anymore. I live way out in the forest now. The woods are my church now. :-) However, when I was part of the visible assembly, I really enjoyed my membership with the RPCNA -- Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

@@roderickeauthor do you still hold to some of the teachings of the RPCNA?

@@zacharyfeinberg2374 Yes, I believe the Bible teaches the "TULIP". I believe exclusive-psalmody is a good practice. I believe that churches were meant to have a group of elders rather than a CEO pastor and his board of deacons. I believe the Bible advocates the communion table should be "closed" to at least professing Christians.

Thank you for the kind encouragement. This is our 25th documentary-style video on this channel. Please check out the rest of our content and help us get out the word. 🙂

@@ancientpathstv This is not a documentary. It is a fictional creation.

@@MrDonPreston Hopefully, people will check these things out for themselves and not be persuaded by name-calling.

@@ancientpathstv Amen to that! And when they read and study the actual evidence instead of the slander that so often characterizes the attacks on Covenant Eschatology, they will soon discover that all futurist eschatologies teach a failed Messiah, deluded apostles, and uninspired Scriptures! Your view of Christ and his coming means that he failed his own challenge: If I do not do the works that my father has given me, do not believe me." You claim that he did not fulfill the Father's works--he did not come again--- therefore, you say that he either lied, he failed, or was perhaps deluded. I much prefer to teach and proclaim 'Our God reigns" and He is faithful because he did exactly what he said he would do, when he said he would do it.

@@MrDonPreston And still all you offer is more name-calling and bluster.

Don doesn't call God a liar. Jesus said that all these things would be fulfilled in that generation, those who put it off until our future generation are saying Jesus lied.

@@manderbos So you obviously did not engage with the video at all.

@@jeremybamgbade Much of Dr. Preston's teachings are free. Most of his books are free on Kindle Unlimited. It's best to study this issue from the source instead of relying on critics.

@@justanother240 I used to be a full Preterist (and was willing to be excommunicated from my church) and have read several of Preston's books and I have watched many of his videos. This video accurately represents how asinine the FP paradigm is.

@@jeremybamgbade I applaud you for making an informed opinion, even if it's one I disagree with.

Please keep watching.

The arguments are in the video. He ignores and tries to spin them.

@@ancientpathstv So you won't debate him?

@@kylec8950I've answered his arguments. He hasn't answered mine. Until he's willing to answer with more than "(unnamed) scholars say," there's no point in doing that in person.

@@ancientpathstv I think many people would disagree. It would be very helpful to hear some of this real time, not playing video tag.

@@kylec8950 Eastern Orthodox play the same game, ignoring their critics and saying, "Debate Jay Dyer." He and Preston both prefer "debates," because both are good at blustering and ignoring the glaring errors in their systems.

40 years doesn't come anywhere close to 1000.

@@ancientpathstvAgree. My point is, Peter writes about Satan being free during the 40 year Milennium.

@@funtimefreddy4204 I have neither the time nor energy to debate people who advocate for a flat earth or a 40-year millennium. Your position has been refuted, whether or not you want to admit it.

@@ancientpathstv I was agreeing with you. My position is yours. Satan is free when Peter is writing, after 30 AD and before 70. Satan has to be bound during this time under Full Preterism, yet he isn’t.

@@funtimefreddy4204 Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The Bible does use the Day of the Lord to describe different events, but as demonstrated in the video, the context of Daniel 12 is Antiochus. His work was echoed in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, but that doesn't change the context of Daniel 12.

Documented evidence, not gratuitous assertions.

If Matthew 10:23 is about Jesus coming as a King to Israel, riding on a donkey, then when we’re children causing their parents to be put to death before Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem in Matthew 21, as 10:21 indicates?

Also, when were the disciples brought before councils, and scourged in synagogues, or brought before kings, before Jesus rode the donkey into Jerusalem? (Matthew 10:16-18)

The truth is, the apostate Jewish persecution of the 12 disciples didn’t begin until the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. The context surrounding Matthew 10:23 proves that it is a reference to the coming of the Son of man, in judgment of the cities that rejected and persecuted the disciples. “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (10:15)

@@JasinBoggs When was the "coming" in the verse below fulfilled? Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

When Peter spoke with Cornelius in Acts 10, he didn’t violate the command that Jesus gave in Matthew 10:5-7. He was given a vision by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit told Peter to go to Cornelius (Acts 10:9-20).

You completely ignore the context and demonstrate what Peter described. . . they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16) I pray for your repentance.

​@Ophiuchus13 The video doesn't deal with it, because the identity of Babylon doesn't have much to do with the demonstrable lies of Don Preston. It's also not as explicit as you seem to think. Jerusalem was clearly Sodom and Egypt in Revelation 11, but the text doesn't say Jerusalem is Babylon in 1 Peter 5. It may have been Jerusalem, Rome, or the literal Babylon. You say the literal Babylon no longer existed, but it did. Despite the deportation of many of its people in the third century B.C. it still existed in the first century and was captured by Trajan in 116 A.D. The Jews also referred to the area of lower Mesopotamia as Babylonia. It's from that area we get the Babylonian Talmud.

So what? As shown in the video, Preston creates a crazy quilt of such unbiblical speculations to try to make everything fit his system. Since you engage nothing in the video, I have to ask, did you bother to watch it?

In the video, you claimed that no one taught a 40 year reign of the Messiah. I responded. While I agree that Don's teachings on many things are wrong (such as the death of Adam and many others), the timing of events is scripturally sound and consistent from the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself. @@ancientpathstv

​@@michaele5075 You seem to be hearing what you want to hear. I didn't say no one taught a 40-year reign of Messiah. Obviously Don and others do, and I was aware of Akiva and others who thought it would mirror David's 40 year reign. I said no one in Scripture taught it. A 40-year millennium isn't scripturally sound nor consistent with the prophets, apostles, or Jesus.

@@ancientpathstvHave you considered a proper debate with Don Preston? I am sure he would be happy to oblige.

@@allthingsbing1295Preston avoids answering direct questions. He talks fast and mocks his opponents, but he doesn't actually debate. The issues are spelled out in the video, and no one has yet answered them.

Yes, I found it in English in Young's Literal Translation: 16 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; 17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it-dying thou dost die.' Perhaps I can find it in an interlinear. It doesn't paste well, but IHOT has the same word H4191 repeated twice translated twice as "thou shalt surely die". forH3117ביוםin the dayH398אכלךthat thou eatestH4480ממנוthereofH4191מותthou shalt surely die.H4191תמות׃thou shalt surely die.

I know Hebrew, it does mean "surely die" because it the first word is an infinitive absolute I know hebrew.

@@followerofyeshua9210 Thank you.

@@arthur6157 No problem

No he didn't. Matt 24:15 is clear and says "IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of those days...the lord's coming would occur...See NON-PRETERIST Donald Hagner's Comm on Matthew Word Commentary... Speak up!

Instead of "bearing your testimony" like a cultist, how about actually engaging the content of the video?

@@ancientpathstv It seems to me that you need to interact with Dr Preston to clear up some misunderstandings. He has plenty of books that are practically free through Kindle Unlimited. I encourage everyone to check them out. Even if you disagree you will still walk away with more knowledge and understanding of the Bible.

Jesus is clear as to when his return would be--Matthew 24:34, Matthew 16:27,28

“If we only hope for Christ in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.” -1 Corinthians 15:19

@@funtimefreddy4204Why don't you read it in context??? And use the KJB next time, not a watered down version.

Let him respond to what's in the video with more than bluster.

@@ancientpathstv He does. This dude is scared. LOL. Ask Don to debate...here...scared? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qLJ-q6Rey6e8qok.html

@@ancientpathstvPerhaps you could debate Don.

@@allthingsbing1295Perhaps Preston can stop blustering and answer the content of the video.

I left this reply on your channel on your stupid video that you did on Isaiah 2:4 so all can see just how desperate Full Preterists have to be to fit everything into AD 70. Don teaches that Isaiah 2:4 is talking about the difference between Old covenant Israel, and the New Covenant people, and he teaches that the kingdom of God being solely Spirtual, Isaiah 2:4 is referring to the fact that the kingdom of God would no longer be sustained by the sword. There are so many errors that may be dealt with, but my argument only addresses a a few and is as follows (has been edited) "Some false systems of theology are so complex, so multifaceted, that only those who are "learned" can hope to ascertain the requisite information needed to refute them. This is not the case with Full Preterism. It is so easily refuted, that anyone with a tiny semblance of biblical literacy, can debunk it. Lets take Dons stupid argument presented here. No one without an agenda, would read Isaiah 2:4 and think God was simply talking about "Old Covenant Israel" no longer being sustained by the sword. Further, Old Covenant Israel was not "sustained" by the sword (notice he cites no verses to substantiate his claim) BUTTT by their covenant faithfulness to God-- which is why obeying the covenant stipulations/commands literally constituted "life and death" and the ability to "prolong their days in the land" (Deuteronomy 32.46-47). Don says around 2:55 that Israel, prior to Ad 70, could not "beat their sword into plowshares because there were enemies round about" BUTTTT The Bible says "“The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.” (Ex14:14) and "The LORD your God, who goes before you, will fight for you, just as you saw Him do for you in Egypt" (Deut 1:30) and "Wherever you hear the sound of the horn, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us!"(Neh4:20)... When Israel trusted and obeyed God they never "needed" swords per se, as a matter of fact, the men could leave their land UNSUPERVISED and DEFENSELESS when they traveled 3 times a year for their feasts because God MADE SURE that no one would covet their lands when they were gone (Ex34:23-24). We even have instances where God had Israel go out to battle against an army of far greater numbers and of far greater might, just to prove to the Israelites that it was God and not their military prowess that sustained them (Judges7:2) But..... when they didn't trust God, their Sword could not "sustain" them nor protect them. This is clearly seen in Isaiah 30:15-16 Where God rebukes Israel saying "For thus says the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel: “In returning and rest you shall be saved; In QUIETNESS and CONFIDENCE shall be *YOUR STRENGTH*. "But you would not,16 And you said, “No, for we will flee on horses”-Therefore you shall flee! And, “We will ride on swift ”-Therefore those who pursue you shall be swift".. Indeed the sons of korah proclaim that the sword does not save from enemies (psalm 44:6) --- Does this sound like "the sword" sustained Israel ? Moreover, since Don wants to restrict Isaiah 2-4 to AD 30-70 he cant even deal with the simple facts of history. Israel had been subjugated by Rome for many years during the time of Christ. They had no autonomous "sword" to "beat into the plowshares" in the first place, and in some instances, they couldn't even kill Jews according to their law, without the permission of the state, as was clearly seen in the case of Paul in Acts. The only plowing of swords that occurred in AD 70 was owing to Israels defeat at the hands of Rome, NOT their submission to God, which is the point of Isaiah 2 lol. So as we see don is wrong right off the bat and thus herein-- his whole argument is laid waste. But to kick Dons stupid exegesis while its down, consider: Isaiah 2:4 has always been understood by rabbis and Christians commentators alike, as being the end of all war. This is because the verse is clear, free from ambiguity, and alltogther perspicuous. It literally says"nation will not lift sword against nation, neither will THEY learn war anymore". This is said of course, immediately after "all the nations have been gathered together in judgement" (Isaiah2:4a) So, even if we granted (for the sake of argument) that one of the "nations" is "The spiritual kingdom of God/Old Covenant Isreal" what is being said of one "nation" is clearly being said of the other(s). Thus, there must be some non Christian entity, presumably all the "other" nations, that have "learned war no more" which clearly.....obviously...has not happened. This is the problem with Full Preterism, they have to completely redefine the language of clear prophecies in order to make it fit into the "All things fulfilled by AD 70" box. They are no different than Jehovah's witnesses. The JW harp on a few verses that APPEAR to teach that Jesus is lesser than the Father and completely deny: 1. Verses that clearly teach his Divinity. 2. Logically valid explanations that shed the true light on those verses that they BELEIVE substantiate their positions. So what did the Jehovah witnesses do in light of this? They created their own version of the bible (New World Translation) , and removed the many passages that teach the Divinity of the Son. The only difference between them and the Full Preterist-- is that the JW's were at least honest enough to realize the bible didn't teach what they wanted it to teach, so they created their own Bible. A Bible -- translated NOT according to the original languages, but from their theological bias. Sure, they're all going to hell (so long as they dont repent) but at least they were intelligent enough to recognize the problem. The problem being, again, that their view could not align with or be harmonized with --THE BIBLE. What does the FP do when they are presented with verses that plainly contradict their system? What do they do when you point out numerous prophecies that could not POSSIBLY be fulfilled? They ignore the question point to all the time texts (texts they don't even understand lol) or "connect dots" in other verses .. and then say "Well it all had to be fulfilled in AD 70." How convenient. This is their issue. In our formative years wherein we learned the basic rules of English and grammar, we were all taught the 5 "W's". This is "Who, What, When, Where, and why". For the full Preterist the "When" (as they understand it) controls EVERYTHING -- to point where the "What" of many prophecies are either absurdly redefined (like in the case of Isaiah 2:4) or ignored all together. Full Preterists say "he had to return WHEN promised in the first century or else Jesus was a liar" while totally forgetting that the "when" does not exist in the absence of "what". I thought God would end the persecution of his people BECAUSE the EARTH would be filled with his knowledge (Is11:9) I thought he'd take away their reproach from all the earth (Isaiah 25:8) and seeing that millions upon millions of Christians have been perseucuted and reproached since AD70, and that they have relied on such verses for sources of comfort, if FP is true then God is a duplicitous and cruel liar -- certainly not worthy of serving".........To any Full Preterist reading this, realize that Don is a False (and inept) Teacher, Full Preterists are not Christians, your precious time texts can be explained, and you need to repent before you draw your last breath. I say this a recently de-converted Full Preterist who will never again, by the Grace of God return to the odious doctrine of Full Preterism."

Mr. Preston, you keep trying to draw people into a narrow focus on the time texts. They're supposed to be undeniable and justify a complete redefinition of the Christian faith, but instead of the entire church being in darkness for over 1800 years, the simple fact is that the time texts don't mean what you claim. The video demonstrates you have to force a meaning on Daniel 12 to make it fit 70 AD. You assert, but don't prove that Daniel 11:45 transports us over 200 years in the future and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11 isn't the same abomination of desolation in the explanation given in Daniel 12. Appealing to unnamed scholars is a poor substitute for actual exegesis. Josephus said the Holy of Holies represented heaven, just as he said the mitre on the head of the high priest represented heaven. It's only wishful thinking on your part that anyone would have understood Peter to mean that the temple was the heavens and earth reserved for fire in 2 Peter 3:7. The immediately preceding verses make clear the heavens and earth that are in view, but you have to ignore that to make everything fit your system. I won't rehearse everything in the video. I could have dealt with far more, but I tried to keep it simple and focused on your personal teaching. You argue by gratuitous assertion and caricaturing your critics. You mock but rarely actually answer, so I'm done interacting with you. The truth is out there for anyone who is willing to listen. I pray for you and those you are leading into error.

@@ancientpathstv Don is a simpleton and he knows it. He rarely engages with actual scholarship. He is a charlatan and more and more people are realizing this.

@MrDonPreston I was a full preterist for 15 years. I attended conferences where you spoke and debates where you engaged, often people you knew would be reeled in by your used-car-salesman like prooftexting tactics. But you can't fool "one of your own". Catch the power of this Don, to use your own phrase. You admitted you were a novice when you adopted full preterism. You were smacked dead in the face with it of all places, a women's Bible study. YOUR OWN WORDS. Your coC minister father and your fake seminary "professors" couldn't help you to understand basic eschatology. YOUR OWN WORDS. Now, you have invested years into promoting preterism. In 2007 or so, you even told us you made over $97K just on speaking about preterism. We understand why you can't walk away now even though your buddies like Sam Frost, Jason Bradfield, Todd Dennis and others finally saw the flaw in this private interpreters playground. You're stuck. I get it. You've invested too much to turn back now. Without full preterism who is Don Preston, but just an old man sipping coffee in front of a podcast camera spouting his personal beliefs? (beliefs stated = creeds, Don's Creed) rodericke.com/apret

Don, I'm sorry but you are the full preterist version of Jack Van Impe, impressing the weak-minded with your onslaught prooftexting that ignores that you're almost the only one that interprets the way you do.

What Bible verses do you use to back up "in the future at the Great White Throne of judgment."?

@@CCMDrummer Before the millennium Revelation 20:4-5 (KJV) 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. After the millennium Revelation 20:13 (KJV) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

@@drewjohnson4811 okay, I will give you credit for one thing, you are the first PP who actually came out and made a delineation between 70AD and the end of time resurrection. Now the rationale you used to arrive at that conclusion and whether or not it is biblically sound is a whole nother matter.

@@drewjohnson4811 Do you think what Jesus said in Mt 16: 27 & 28 is before or after the millennium?

@@CCMDrummer Before

It is absolutely NOT documented that John was sent to Patmos in 85-90 AD. He wrote the book of Revelations prior to 70 AD

@@mlwilson2956 Ummm, sorry the points you make simply shows you haven't studied, or simply willing to invent your own history and lie... It is a matter of record Domitian was the ruler who exiled John to Patmos. I was going off memory for the time range, it is 81 -> 96A.D. for you to say Revelation was written in before 70 A.D. Simply shows how truthful you are... NOT!

@@dand4485please explain the basis for your belief that revelation was written in the 90s.

There was no city called Philadelphia after AD 69. Do you think John wrote a letter to a non existent city?

Sure. . . ignore Genesis 17 (Abraham being the father of many goyim) and everything that goes after, and you can claim anything you want. How about actually dealing with the content of the video?

@@ancientpathstv I don't need to...Don is vastly closer to the truth than any futurist Eschatology. With the exception of dealing with "the body" of Christ at the ascension...Don handed the good Pastor his a** In that Walace debate. BTW, Did Abraham "convert" any of his inlaws? Take consideration of Psalms 147 19,20 and Amos 3.2 (and there is many more) YHWH NEVER gave mankind his laws, and as Paul taught in Roman's 4.15. And 5.13, where there is no law, no sin is imputed...what "law" do you think you are under? AD70 abolished the law...this is FACT...ALL ISRAEL was saved! If a futurist eschatology was true in any way, that temple would still be standing...waiting for the gathering of Israel.

Christ's kingdom has clearly been inaugurated, but it hasn't been fully consummated.

@@ancientpathstv Christ's Kingdom came to be fully consummated when He returned in judgement against old covenant Israel when He permanently destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and all of the Old blood covenant system. There is a very significant distinction between all the old testament accounts of the destruction of the Temple verses the destruction that occurred in AD 70. All of the destructions prior to the one in AD70, never vitiated the old animal blood covenant. But the destruction in AD70, clearly completely vitiated the old animal blood covenant. That's what makes Jesus' return in AD70 the full consummation of His New blood covenant Gospel Kingdom in the Earth. The old blood covenant Temple is NEVER, EVER going to be reinstituted. That would be an insult and an abomination to Christ's perfect blood sacrifice in the Earth that takes away the sins of man. Christ's consummation of His new blood covenant Kingdom doesn't involve the end of pro-creation, nor the end of time. That is a false assumption that you've been indoctrinated with, that has no evidence from scripture.

DeMar sadly has joined the FP camp. Please pray his deliverance from this destructive heresy.

@@boughtdeadbyChrist No he hasn't lol, I know for a fact. He is simply asking questions that the Partials haven't been able to answer. I have the same questions, this will hopefully lead to more people asking questions and seeing what conclusions we can come to. God-bless

@@boughtdeadbyChristWhat is the best passage in your view for defeating full preterism.

You make a bad case of answering the video and the Bible.

@ancientpathstv you showed that the things that were supposed to happen at the end of the age didn't happen. Don has to reinterpret things to make then work on his theory according to yourself. If all of the things reported that were supposed to happen didn't happen, then it fails.

@@dustinellerbe4125 The day of the Lord came against Samaria in the eighth century B.C., against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and will come against the whole world. They're not a single event. If you conflate all of God's judgments, the fault is yours, not God's.

@ancientpathstv context is relevant. There was more than one day of the lord. However, Don and others do a good job of putting the pieces together of when those things should take place. The wedding, the resurrection of the dead, the of the age, etc.. you can't leave those out. They were supposed to take place at a certain time and place and for an elect people. The story is over with in its own context. It had a beginning, middle, and end. The keys were handed back over to thr Father after Jesus did his short work.

@@dustinellerbe4125 As shown in the video, Preston doesn't do a good job. Rather than trying to shoehorn everything into 70 A.D., you should recognize that the problem is your system, not God's Word.