<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I really don't fully understand partial preterist, although others have tried to explain it to me. I just had the opinion that most advocates of partial preteriest believed in the early dating of John, in the late 60s AD. <br><br>In a way it appears as the advocates of partial preteriest are developing a new theory, just as the hated dispensational pre-mills did in the early part of the 20th century. Is it one extreme to another? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Oh no, this is not new at all. Calvin, Matthew Henry and other notables held to this view. In a nutshell, it sees Matthew's account of the Olivet Discourse the same as Luke's. Jesus said that "all these things" would be fulfilled in the generation of his hearers. Just as he promised, the temple was destroyed. Many a dispensationalist appreciates that Luke's gospel is referring to 70 A.D. However, they deny that Matthew was referring to the same catastrophic events. I could get into the details of their reasoning if you like, but I'd probably put most people to sleep.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron<br><br>