Peter, Thank you, for once again setting forth your futurist perspective.  I am very much aware of this perspective as I wasted a good portion of my life mired in its clammy grips. What do you understand the “preterist position” to be?   You wrote that you find the “idea” of two thrones “unsubstantiated by scripture.  In that context, I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what you think that this verse means: “"To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me in My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father in His throne. (Revelation 3:21 NKJV)” It certainly seems to me that here Jesus refers to two thrones.  Does He not refer to His Father’s throne (throne 1) and also refer to His throne (throne 2)?  I can find no where in Scripture the notion that The Sovereign God every vacated His throne (Throne 1) or ever had plans to vacate His throne; and I find no where in Scripture the notion that the Father was sitting on “David’s throne. Surely you do not conclude that God was sitting on David’s earthly throne, do you?  However, the Scripture clearly declares that “The Lord God will give Jesus the throne (#2) of His father David.”   In your understanding, what is “the Throne of David”?  Does it only refer to an earthly throne? If so, how when and where did/will Jesus ever sit on an earthly throne?  It seems to me that there is substantial evidence in Scripture for “two thrones.”  (Throne A) – The throne which the Father God always occupies as the Sovereign God. The one of which Jesus declared, “I sat down with My Father in His throne.” When this Sovereign God declares that He is going to give Jesus a “throne” (throne B) I am compelled to understand that as a throne apart from the throne which God always and forever occupies. The idea of two thrones is also implied in the narrative in 1Cor 15:27-28.  If that is “esoteric” so be it.  Frankly, I see nothing “esoteric” about it.  I am sorry that this is to “literal” for you.  I think that it is just plain practical. You wrote,  “At his ascension, Jesus had overcome death (through his resurrection) and the powers that lay behind death, on our behalf. The proof of that was in the outpouring of life on those who believed - the Holy Spirit, which now became the means of identifiying the people of God, in place of the OT law.” I agree that Jesus overcame death through His resurrection and that His resurrection was the means whereby He became “a life giving Spirit” (1Cor 15:45) capable therefore to give life to His followers through there own resurrection from the dead unto His heavenly kingdom. However, are you saying that the reception of the Spirit at Pentecost was some form of “resurrection from the dead”?  If so, having just finished reading the 2006 discussion between you and Virgil, it would seem to me that you have now abrogated your position in that discussion and are now advocating Virgil’s.  As far as I can tell, there was no resurrection at Pentecost. You assert and I agree that the, “kingdom of God is not one single event in history.”  However, it is my understanding that the beginning or initiation of “the kingdom of God” referenced in 2Samuel 7:10ff, Daniel 2:44, 7:13-14, 18, 22, 27, and throughout the NT was a “single event in history.” You have asserted on several occasions (falsely imo) that the kingdom is “the evidence of God’s active power on earth, especially through His people.”  However, I have yet to see you offer a single piece of Biblical evidence to support such a conclusion, let alone a comprehensive explanation of such a notion.  Therefore, I must completely disagree with what I think to be your unsubstantiated notion.  I would rework that statement to say something like this “the work of God’s active people on earth in the present is the evidence that Jesus’ kingdom has been established in the heaven by the powerful preaching of the Gospel of this Kingdom, which when preached continues to bring increase to the kingdom.” In reference to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus stated: “"So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. (Luke 21:31 NKJV)” The word “near” does not mean “here”!  It seems to me that in this statement Jesus plainly stated that the “kingdom of God” did not exist yet, 40 years after Pentecost, so, how in the world could it have existed at Pentecost or any other time between 30 and 70 AD as you assert? If I understand you correctly, you write that someday in the future “the kingdoms of the world will one day become the ‘kingdom of our God’” for which you cite Revelation 11:15 as your source.  I must respectfully insist that that is a misinterpretation of Revelation 11:15 the salient portion of which reads: “…great voices in heaven declaring ‘became the kingdom of the world of the Lord (Jesus Christ) of us and of the Christ of Him (the Father) and He (the Christ) shall reign into the ages of the ages.” Who are the possessors of the “great voices” described in this passage?  I would submit that the are the “great voices” of the people just resurrected in the Parousia of Jesus Christ (1Cor 15:23c; cf. 1Thess 4:14-17).  In context, the seventh (last) trumpet has just sounded and as a direct result great loud voice in heaven burst forth in praise to Jesus Christ and the declaration that His heavenly has now become a great reality.  Thus it seems that here John is describing the same events which are described in 1 Thess 4:14-17.  Note especially sounding of the “trumpet of God” in verse 16.  In 1Cor 15:52 Paul refers to this as the “last trumpet.”  Jesus, Paul, and John certainly seem to be in agreement here.    I am sorry, but I simply cannot see where this verse, which was fulfilled in the first century “in the Parousia of Jesus Christ”, says anything like “the kingdoms of the world will one day (in our future) become the ‘kingdom of our God.’” In the Parousia of Jesus Christ, Jesus became the King of the resurrected world, i.e. His world.  According to the forth Gospel (John18:36) Jesus stated, “My kingdom is not of this world.”  I do not mean to be unkind, but what part of “is not of this world” do you not understand?  Jesus stated that His kingdom is not of this world.” The obverse of that statement is “my kingdom is of another world, i.e. a heavenly world.”  According to the Bible Jesus’ “kingdom world” is a resurrection world that can only be entered by resurrection.  Revelation 11:15 confirms this view. I am very sorry that you cannot see “a parousia” in Matthew, Mark or Luke, “which marks a significant eschatological shift of the kind” that I have presented.  Unfortunately for you and many others the fact that “you cannot see” it does not mean that it is not there or that it is untrue. You wrote: “Here, and elsewhere in the NT, the focus is on a more significant parousia which is yet to come. Parousia has a double significance.”  How can a Parousia get “more significant” than the one which I have presented?  Essentially we see the same one and only Parousia.  The problem is that you see it from a purely “futurist - earthly” perspective and I see it as a real first century heavenly event which today, continues the world in which we live because of the preaching of the gospel of this kingdom – thus giving to mankind a true hope for an incredible future life.   Contrary to your again unsubstantiated assertion the “parousia” does not “have a double significance.”  As used in the NT the Parousia has only one significance and that is the incredible significance of the event of the arrival and continuing presence of the King of kings and the Lord of lords and His resurrected ones continuously present in the heavenly kingdom, i.e. “…ever be with the Lord” as Paul put it in 1Thess 4:14-17.  This, btw, is the same event which John is describing in Rev 21:3-5. You are exactly right to state that the true Biblical meaning of the Parousia is “an imperial procession, in which the emperor (King Jesus and His imperial procession of resurrected saints) entered a city (the New Jerusalem), bestowing on the (resurrected) people and the place (His heavenly kingdom, 2Timothy 4:18) His imperial presence. And I whole heartedly agree that “the NT reflects this sense of the word.  The problem is your interpretation of this event as a future earthly event when, in fact, according to the Bible it occurred as a true heavenly event in the first century. I respectfully request that you show me those places in the NT that “anticipates the return of Jesus to earth…”  I respectfully submit that the NT simply does not anticipate any “return to earth” of Jesus Christ, in the first century or at anytime in the future.  The concept of a “return to earth” for Jesus is totally foreign to the NT as well as the OT.  Plain and simple, the notion that Jesus is going to return to earth to stay is not presented in the NT. The only, coming for them event, anticipated by the first century disciples was this: I go the My Fathers house…where there are many dwelling places…to prepare a place for you in my Father’s house…and I will come again to receive you unto myself that where I am in my Father’s house you may be there with me in my Father’s house. (My paraphrase of the salient portion of John 13:1 and 14:1-3) Would you be so kind as to list and explain a few of these “…all kinds of esoteric consequences ensue from regarding the AD 70 event as a reflection of some kind of significant development in Jesus’s heavenly status.”  What, exactly, are all these “esoteric consequences” to which you refer? While I simply cannot agree with your far fetched and possibly “esoteric” notions about the “until” in Psalms 110:1, I am delighted to see that you at least acknowledge that the word “until” is in that verse and it does actually mean something. In light of your suggested understanding of 1Corinthians 15:25, let us take another look at Psalm 110:1-2: <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."  The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! (Psalms 110:1-2 NKJV) Now the question that we need to answer is – does the context of this passage support or negate your suggested understanding of 1Corinthians 15:25?  I submit that it does not support your view, rather it negates it. This Psalm is not ambiguous.  It clearly states that YHWH invites David’s “Lord” to sit at YHWH’s right hand “until I (i.e. YHWH) put all your (JC’s) enemies under your (JC’s) authority.  Then the thought of the passage (Ps 110:1-2) continues, when all the enemies of Jesus Christ have been placed under His authority – YHWH will send the rod of Christ’s strength out of Zion (i.e. the New Jerusalem kingdom) that Jesus Christ might then reign in the midst of enemies.  Thus Paul states, for He must reign from the Parousia until He has put down all rule, and all authority and all power and has subdued all things unto Himself, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him (YHWH) who put all things under His authority and shall deliver up the “kingdom” to God, even the Father who put all things under Christ’s authority. From the first century Parousia until today – YHWH has been “sending the rod of Christ’s strength out of Zion” and Christ is reigning in the midst of His enemies. It does not seem to me that your suggested explanation of 1Corinthians 15:25 will stand under the rigorous scrutiny of Psalm 110:1-2. Jesus Christ, God’s Messiah, is King of kings and Lord of lords.  He sits in the throne of His glory upon the throne of David.  He reigns today and His reign is everlasting and of His reign there shall be no end!  He shall reign for ever and ever.

 Lloyd