gregor

The preterist position is illogical (and is only held by an insignificant minority).

First, it assumes all gospels written before 70 ce

Second, it assumes the second coming of Jesus (with the darkness & trumpets) was intended to reference the temple's destruction.

Third, the temple's destruction occurred. They claim that the elements of the second coming listed by Jesus in the Olivet discourse were all intended to be metaphorical - he didn't really mean that he would appear in the clouds and that all people would see him.

Fourth, they ignore 2 Peter (or assert it was written before 70 CE, too).

2 Peter destroys the preterist position. Here, we have a book written after 70 ce. The book clearly points out that the 'predicted' second coming has not occurred, yet. The book does not indicate that the temple's destruction it the bill. It's telling people in 100 ce or later to keep the faith, the second coming will really occur.

doubtingthomas

Not only does 2nd Peter destory the preterists position. It also is devestating to Christians who want to alledge that "genea" meant race instead of Jesus' contemporaries. Clearly the people of that time were asking the same question of Christians that we are today "And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation." Of course here the author gives the absurd apologetic "A day is as a thousand years with the lord", which fails to address the fact that Jesus did not return in the lifetime of those spoke to in Matthew 24:34 and Matthew 10:28. I'm not sure how any honest person can look at these errors and still say Jesus was God.