From my New Book Middleism Eschatology :

 A Premillianlism / Post-Trib Second Coming

When people begin to set dates for his coming as Harold Camping did or profess to know who the beast is or other such nonsense it becomes a good idea to avoid such men. Understanding in these present times we begin by recognizing the world’s corruption will grow darker and darker and the influence of the church becomes nonexistent as we have become more and more like the world in behaviors and attitudes. This can be seen currently in the divide in the church between those who falsely accept abortion or homosexuality or the appointment of a transgender person as an “Elder” in the United Methodist church. The failures from the pulpit, not only by example but also theology and doctrine, has made the world reject any authority of the church by the nature of the conflict from one denomination to another. The existence of many denomination proves to the world that even the church doesn’t and cannot get it right. This does not mean every denomination is wrong, but many people fail to see the distinction that some denominations differ based on purpose and mission and not necessarily doctrine. The one thing every mainstream Christian denomination holds to is the essentials of what is Christianity as expressed by the Nicene or Apostles creed. We can have differing opinions over secondary issues like baptism: sprinkling or emersion since these are not salvific issues but we do not divide over trinity, incarnation, or deity of Christ. As every mainstream denomination holds to these truths to be called Christian. Every cult is labeled as such as they deny one of these essential doctrines. Yet the world does not see these distinctions. The whole question of “are we in the last days” or not, is a difficult question to answer without prophetical biblical specifics of events that happen just prior to this tribulation period. We can believe that we are in the last days beginning in A.D. 33 with the birth of the church as it can be said the earth has more year’s past than what is in front. We generally derive a chronology from the book of Revelation that gives us an overall idea but until these events begin to unfold we presently see through a mirror darkly.

The Olivet Discourse

The Olivet Discourse found in Mathew 24, (Mark 13, Luke 21) becomes Christ own prediction of the Judgment soon to come upon Jerusalem which is did in A.D. 70. The Early Church Father's all believed these prophecies came true yet also believed in a future coming of Christ. The Modern Church today has fallen into a quandary. They all believe the Olivet speaks of a Second Coming of Christ, therefore the prophecies must all be future. The Preterist also looks at the timing statement made by Jesus that "all these prophecies must be fulfilled in the "generation".  To them all these prophecies then are in the past, which includes the idea Jesus returned a second time in that Generation, ie: The events of A.D. 70 was also the second coming. Now since Revelation also talks about the Second Coming therefore all of the Revelation events must also come to pass at the same time, in A.D. 70. What I argue in my book is why all these events listed in the Olivet are all past.

The revelation of John

The Book of Revelation begins with an introduction to what is contained in the pages, warnings to the seven churches of what needs change, and a series of events that are to happen in the last days. Yes we believe these Revelations are all about our future and not the past. When many details are presented of what is to happen they simply cannot be reconciled with the events of A.D. 70. In A.D. 70 the Roman army came and besieged Jerusalem and the destroyed it and the temple. In Revelation Christ returns with his army of saints in defense of the City. It is not logical to claim God sent an army to Judge and destroy Jerusalem then at the same time say that Jesus comes with his army to defend Jerusalem from the very army sent by God? Of Course the Preterist has to literalize the coming of the Roman army but spiritualize the second coming of Christ, which means it never happened literally but spiritually. It all happened in the "spiritual" realm and no one saw it or observed this "coming". This is one of the major reasons Preterism s to rejected. They spiritualize the literal events in saying they came when they did not.

Dating the Book of Revelation

In Revelation 1 John tells us he was on the Island of Patmos when he received the Revelation and was able to write it all down once he was released and returned to his home church in Ephesus. The Early Church Fathers testify that John was on the island during the reign of Domitian until his death in A.D. 68. When he was released, John soon died between 98 and 100 A.D. So we have a problem. If Revelation was written after A.D. 70 about events to happen then those events could not have happened in A.D. 70. So it becomes a Preterists conundrum. Their answer is to assert the late date is in error by "uninspired" people who were too apostate to not know Jesus returned in A.D. 70, which of course would have included John, so now the Preterist does everything to prove John died, as did all the apostles, before A.D. 70. Yet we have Barnabus writing about the destruction and still looking forward to the second coming. The Preterist answer is again to call the letter fake. The desperation employed by Preterist to prove all church historical accounts wrong is driven by the need to prove Jesus retuned in A.D. 70. Instead of answering the problem they simple create more.

"Son of Man Coming on Clouds:

Quite simply in my book I argue, with many other scholars, that the phrase "son of man coming on clouds" in Mathew 24:34 has nothing to do with a second coming but being  quote from Daniel 7:13-14 implies this coming is to the father, which he did in his ascension after His resurrection from the dead. This phrase was never to be about a "second coming" where Jesus is coming back but is intended to talk about his reign in heaven at the right of the father. Therefore the Olivet never ever speaks about a second coming but instead point out the fact, because this generation rejected him, he would ascend to heaven judgment upon them and also establishing a new Covenant by ending the old.

His Second Appearing

In order for Preterist to justify he came in A.D. 70, they have to start by denying he was to appear at his coming. They have to deny the bodily existence as fully man in heaven or they can not prove he came invisible since a bodily form demands he would have been seen. They then also have to prove the Resurrection of the dead is also an invisible event, or completely change the meaning of "resurrection of the dead".  So for complete answers and a full apologetic over these topics and more....

Order my book from and get the full details