PDA

View Full Version : The Preterists and Matthew 24:34



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Jerry Shugart
June 5th, 2015, 09:10 AM
The preterists say the following about Matthew 24:34:


I have spent hundreds of hours studying Matt 24:34. There is a book written on just this one verse.

I have yet to see anyone show Matt 24:34 is a future event without twisting the verse into a pretzel.

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "generation" is "family":


"genea, a/j, Ion. geneh,, h/j( h`, Ep. dat. geneh/fi: (gi,gnomai): I. of the persons in a family, 1. race, stock, family, Hom., etc.; Pria,mou g. Il.; evk geneh/j according to his family, Ib.; geneh/| by birth-right, Od.; geneh.n Aivtwlo,j by descent, Il.:-of horses, a breed, Ib.:-generally, geneh,n in kind, Hdt.:-also a tribe, nation, Persw/n g. Aesch. 2. a race, generation, oi[hper fu,llwn geneh. toih,de kai. avndrw/n Il.; du,o geneai. avnqrw,pwn Ib. 3. offspring, Orac. ap. Hdt.; and of a single person, Soph. II. of time or place in reference to birth: 1. a birth-place, geneh. evpi. li,mnh| Gugai,h| Il.; of an eagle's eyrie, Od. 2. age, time of life, esp. in phrases geneh/| new,tatoj( presbu,tatoj youngest, eldest, in age, or by birth, Hom. 3. time of birth, evk geneh/j Hdt.; avpo. g. Xen" (Lidell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon).

Now it will now be demonstrated that "family" is the correct translation at Matthew 24:34.

By the Lord Jesus' own admission the "times" and "seasons" have been put in the Father's power (Acts 1:7; Mt.24:36). It is not as if the Lord Jesus had been given a vision in regard to the time when all these things would be fulfilled. Instead, He was the Prophet described here:


"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:18).

The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore, the correct translation of the following passage is as follows:


"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This family shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt.24:33-34).

Of course the "family" refers to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob..

The Lord Jesus' sermon in Matthew 24 foretold of the "great tribulation," a time when Israel will be attacked unmercifully in an attempt to destroy the whole family of the Israelites. Therefore it would not be unusual for the Lord Jesus to assure them that they will not be wiped out and that they will continue to exist. Therefore, He told them that the family would still be in existence when He returned to the earth.

In fact, this is not the first time that such assurance had been given to the family of the Israelites, as witnessed by these words:


"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: If this fixed order departs From before Me, declares the LORD, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever" (Jer.31:35-36).

According to the Lord as long as the sun and moon remain in the sky the offspting of Israel will remain "being a nation" before Him. So there is nothing odd about the Lord Jesus telling the Israelites that "this family shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," especially with the great tribulation in view.

The ideas of the preterists are based on the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know the time when the great tribulation would happen despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports that false idea.

jamie
June 5th, 2015, 09:34 AM
One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "generation" is "family":


The NT is about two families. There is the family from Jacob given the Mosaic law and there is the family from Abraham apart from Jacob.

When God met with Abraham the man was an uncircumcised Gentile and God promised through Abraham all families of the earth would be blessed.

Today there are physical descendents of Jacob and there are spiritual descendents of Abraham.


Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7 NKJV)

Descendents from Jacob are welcome to join those who are of faith.

Jerry Shugart
June 5th, 2015, 10:42 AM
The NT is about two families. There is the family from Jacob given the Mosaic law and there is the family from Abraham apart from Jacob.

When God met with Abraham the man was an uncircumcised Gentile and God promised through Abraham all families of the earth would be blessed.

Today there are physical descendents of Jacob and there are spiritual descendents of Abraham.


Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7 NKJV)

Descendents from Jacob are welcome to join those who are of faith.

What specific point are you trying to make in regard to my post?

jamie
June 5th, 2015, 03:56 PM
What specific point are you trying to make in regard to my post?


Family.

Nimrod
June 5th, 2015, 05:30 PM
Does Jerry apply "family" to every instance of genea?

Of course not.

Jerry is not consistent in his hermeneutics.
All of dispensationalism is this way. Inconsistent with God's Word.

In Matt 24:34 it specifically says in Jerry's interpretation.
"This family will not pass away until these things take place".
Yet, Jerry, being inconsistent, says the "family" will not pass away even after when the things take place.

Jerry how do you twist Scripture to make "until these things take place" to mean something completely opposite?

daqq
June 5th, 2015, 09:36 PM
There are four generations to the first age of every man in Messiah like the four seasons of the one full year: autumn, winter, spring, and the summer of your harvest.

Proverbs 30:11-15 KJV
11. There is a generation [1] that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
12. There is a generation [2] that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
13. There is a generation, [3] O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
14. There is a generation, [4] whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.
15. The horseleach [5] hath two daughters, [6-7] crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough:

Notice that the fourth generation has teeth of swords and jaw teeth of knives: these instruments of murder and war are of old time made from iron and likewise the prophet Daniel reveals by visions that the fourth beast of the carnal man has great teeth of iron, (Daniel 7:7). Notice that the fourth generation in the above passage likewise has a horseleach on its back with two daughters making the count seven heads. This is no coincidence either but flows through the typology of the written word. These things are first taught in Torah:

Exodus 20:5-6 KJV
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Exodus 34:6-7 KJV
6. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

This cannot be speaking a so-called "generational curse", as some believe and teach, because Torah itself makes it clear that the fathers shall not be put to death for the sins and transgressions of the children, and the children shall not be put to death for the sins and transgressions of the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin:

Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV
16. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18 teaches the same thing:

Ezekiel 18:1-4 KJV
1. The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying,
2. What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? [Jeremiah 31:29-30 New Covenant language]
3. As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:19-20 KJV
19. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Therefore how can statements such as Exodus 20:5 be true? It can only be that there are indeed four generations to the first "age" of the man and in the fourth generation all of things foretold shall come to pass, (each in his or her own appointed times). These four generations of a man, (and seven heads) are made manifest in the Testimony of Yeshua, that is, to him with eyes to see:

Matthew 12:38-45 KJV
38. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation [1] seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, [2] and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
42. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, [3] and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
43. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation [4].

Therefore when your Assyrian fig branch becomes tender and begins to put forth his foliage you know that the summer of your harvest is near, even at the door: And YHWH Tsabaoth shall lop off the bough with terror, and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled, and He shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and the white heart mountain of Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one. :)

StanJ
June 5th, 2015, 10:33 PM
Does Jerry apply "family" to every instance of genea?

Of course not.

Jerry is not consistent in his hermeneutics.
All of dispensationalism is this way. Inconsistent with God's Word.

In Matt 24:34 it specifically says in Jerry's interpretation.
"This family will not pass away until these things take place".
Yet, Jerry, being inconsistent, says the "family" will not pass away even after when the things take place.

Jerry how do you twist Scripture to make "until these things take place" to mean something completely opposite?


I find this a common occurrence on TOL...many people taking one connotation and making it the base of their dogmas. It's pretty sad that they disrespect all the efforts CREDENTIALED scholars put into the work of translating the Greek into English. Of course those scholars are OUT in the open and validated.

tetelestai
June 5th, 2015, 11:22 PM
One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "generation" is "family":

Jerry, you need to make up your mind

:juggle:

In the following you claim "generation" means "race"


The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "generation" is "race."

Next, you claim "this" refers to "you"




In my initial post on this thread I said the following about Matthew 24:34:

The word "this" is translated from the Greek word houtos, and one of the meanings of that word is:

"It refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Next, you claim it refers to the people (ye)


The subject immediately preceding "this generation" is the people (ye) who will see the signs:

Are you sure you don't want to include STP's explanation where he claims "all these things" doesn't really mean "all these things"?

Or maybe musterions explanation where he claims there's a secret Greek word hidden in the verse?

Or maybe Danoh's explanation where he claims there is a subjunctive mood in the verse?

Or maybe the pat Dispie explanation where they claim "this" really means "that"

I've seen them all Jerry. No matter how hard you guys try, the verse means what it says.

The demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation". When proper grammar is applied "this generation" can only describe the generation of Jesus' contemporaries.

Dan Emanuel
June 5th, 2015, 11:50 PM
The preterists say the following about Matthew 24:34:"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

The Temple was destroyed within a generation, almost, if not, exactly.

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain. Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret? Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.


Daniel

Aaron the Tall
June 6th, 2015, 12:51 AM
The ideas of the preterists are based on the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know the time when the great tribulation would happen despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports that false idea.

So, are you saying that Jesus' point was that the Jews would not pass away before the things spoken of concerning the Jews would happen to them?

If so, I can't think of a more meaningless statement.

That's like telling your friend "God told me that such and such is going to happen to you." "When is it going to happen to you?" "It will happen to you before you die."

If God says it is going to happen to the guy, it is obviously going to happen before he dies.

If God says the Jews would go through a great tribulation, it would obviously occur before that "family" passes away. There would be no reason to make the statement.

For this reason and others, I side with the preterist on this verse.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 07:56 AM
The demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation". When proper grammar is applied "this generation" can only describe the generation of Jesus' contemporaries.

That is why I changed my mind and now I believe that the following translation is the correct one:


"Truly I say to you, this family will not pass away until all these things take place."

I have answered you and you have yet to prove that anything I said is in error. But your whole idea about this verse is based on the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know exactly which generation would see the Lord Jesus retun to the earth. You have not been able to answer what I said here:

By the Lord Jesus' own admission the "times" and "seasons" have been put in the Father's power (Acts 1:7; Mt.24:36). It is not as if He had been given a vision in regard to the time when all these things would be fulfilled. Instead, He was the Prophet described here:


"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:18).

The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

I keep waiting for you to answer this and so far you have come up empty handed.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 07:59 AM
So, are you saying that Jesus' point was that the Jews would not pass away before the things spoken of concerning the Jews would happen to them?

If so, I can't think of a more meaningless statement.

Why meaningless?

The Lord wanted to assure them that the nation would not be destroyed during the great tribulation or during the world wide harvest which would follow. In fact, this is not the first time that such assurance had been given to the Israelites, as witnessed by these words:


"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: If this fixed order departs From before Me, declares the LORD, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever" (Jer.31:35-36).

According to the Lord as long as the sun and moon remain in the sky the nation of Israel will remain "being a nation" before Him. So there is nothing odd about the Lord Jesus telling the Israelites that "this race shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," especially with the great tribulation in view.

jamie
June 6th, 2015, 08:02 AM
The demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation". When proper grammar is applied "this generation" can only describe the generation of Jesus' contemporaries.


And since it applies to the resurrected Jesus, we are "this" generation. So far the Father has had only one generation of sons and daughters.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:07 AM
Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.


Jerry, your "family" argument is a joke.

Get yourself a concordance, and look up every time the phrase "this generation" is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Each time "this generation" is used in Matt, Mark, and Luke, it specifically refers to the generation of Jesus' contemporaries.

Also, there are other verses that line up perfectly with Matt 24:34

(Matt 16:28) “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

(John 21:22) Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

(Matt 26:64) Jesus replied, "You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."

(Rev 22:7) "Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll."

(Rev 3:11) I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 08:10 AM
It has been shown several times on TOL that Christ's foretelling of these events hinges on a conditional particle in the Greek that goes largely unacknowledged in all English translations; that IF a certain condition was met, the generation standing before Him would have lived to see those events come to pass. However, that condition did not come to pass, so that generation did not see what He said they might.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:10 AM
And since it applies to the resurrected Jesus, we are "this" generation. So far the Father has had only one generation of sons and daughters.

That doesn't make any sense.

Every time the word "generation" is used in the Bible it refers to a specific group of people who lived approximately 40 years.

The word "generation" in the singular is never used in the Bible for anything else.

When the demonstrative adjective "this" precedes "generation" simple grammar tells us it specifically means the present generation Jesus was referring to.

It's amazing how you guys try so hard to make a simple verse mean something it does not.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 08:12 AM
Jerry, your "family" argument is a joke.


Your whole idea about this verse is based on the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know exactly which generation would see the Lord Jesus retun to the earth. You have not been able to answer what I said here:

By the Lord Jesus' own admission the "times" and "seasons" have been put in the Father's power (Acts 1:7; Mt.24:36). It is not as if He had been given a vision in regard to the time when all these things would be fulfilled. Instead, He was the Prophet described here:


"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:18).

The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

Where is your answer?

daqq
June 6th, 2015, 08:14 AM
That is why I changed my mind and now I believe that the following translation is the correct one:


"Truly I say to you, this family will not pass away until all these things take place."

I have answered you and you have yet to prove that anything I said is in error. But your whole idea about this verse is based on the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know exactly which generation would see the Lord Jesus retun to the earth. You have not been able to answer what I said here:

By the Lord Jesus' own admission the "times" and "seasons" have been put in the Father's power (Acts 1:7; Mt.24:36). It is not as if He had been given a vision in regard to the time when all these things would be fulfilled. Instead, He was the Prophet described here:


"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:18).

The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

I keep waiting for you to answer this and so far you have come up empty handed.

Actually the portion I have placed in red emphasis is not true either. The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur, (which is precisely what his talmidim asked him about in Matthew 24:3, "the end of the age", or "consummation of the age"). Yeshua answers this question in the final "punch line" statement of the Olivet Discourse but I still have yet to find anyone without a biased paradigm that will believe what he says in that final line of the discourse. Most prophecy buffs seem not to even have the patience to actually read all the way to the end of the discourse, (in the Matthew account). Just read the discourse until Matthew tells you it is finished and you will see the answer to Matthew 24:3, (if you will receive it). But of course Yeshua speaks of his own end of the age, (each in his or her own appointed times which only the Father knows). :)

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:16 AM
It has been shown several times on TOL that Christ's foretelling of these events hinges on a conditional particle in the Greek that goes largely unacknowledged in all English translations; that IF a certain condition was met, the generation standing before Him would have lived to see those events come to pass. However, that condition did not come to pass, so that generation did not see what He said they might.

You and Jerry should have a contest for which one of you can butcher Matt 24:34 more than the other.

Read the whole chapter.

Jesus told of many events that had to take place before He returned.

Those were the conditions.

All the events that Jesus said had to happen (the conditions) before He returned did in fact happen before 70AD.

Thus, there were still some people still alive from the generation of Jesus' contemporaries before He returned.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:21 AM
The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

The Lord Jesus Christ most certainly knew He would return before the generation of His contemporaries all passed away.

Countless times in the NT we are told it was the end of the ages, the last days, etc.

Jesus twice in Revelation said He "was coming soon". John tells us "things which must shortly come to pass"

The writer of Hebrews refers to the first century as "in these last days"

Why do you think the gospel had to go to the Jew first?

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 08:21 AM
You and Jerry should have a contest for which one of you can butcher Matt 24:34 more than the other.

I simply showed what's in the Greek text that is not in any English translation I'm aware of. So as I've said for the better part of a year now, your argument here isn't with me, it's still with the Greek.

There is a conditional statement there that overrides everything else Christ said about these events, making them all dependent upon something else. For a brief time, seeing the particle an and the subjunctive mood knocked you back and stunned you. Then you rallied and said it's basically meaningless because you cannot make it fit your preconceived preterist bias, but neither can you explain or refute it. So you write it off as if it's not really there. I think I recall you once saying people like Darby inserted it into the Greek texts. That shows how dishonest and wicked you really are.

So I reposted these graphics for the edification of others. Not for you -- you're a lost cause.

User Name
June 6th, 2015, 08:31 AM
There is a conditional statement there that overrides everything else Christ said about these events, making them all dependent upon something else.

What is the something else that Matthew 16:28 was conditional upon?


(Matt 16:28) “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:37 AM
I simply showed what's in the Greek text that is not in any English translation I'm aware of. So as I've said for the better part of a year now, your argument here isn't with me, it's still with the Greek.

You're making a big deal about a Greek participle that has no direct English translation.


There is a conditional statement there that overrides everything else Christ said about these events, making them all dependent upon something else.

No there is not.


For a brief time, seeing the particle an and the subjunctive mood knocked you back and stunned you.

Er, no.

It made me see how really desperate you guys are, and the extremes you guys go to in order to try and make a simple verse mean something it does not.

You guys do this because your Dispensationalism/Futurism falls apart when the verse is understood for what it means.


Then you rallied and said it's basically meaningless because you cannot make it fit your preconceived preterist bias, but neither can you explain or refute it.

There's nothing to refute.

There is no secret hidden word that makes that overrides everything else Christ Jesus said.

Do you even listen to yourself?

You're claiming some secret word overrides everything Christ Jesus said.


So you write it off as if it's not really there.

I'm not saying the Greek participle [an] isn't there, I'm saying it has no bearing on the verse.

Every English Bible translator agrees with me.


I think I recall you once saying people like Darby inserted it into the Greek texts. That shows how dishonest and wicked you really are.

I never said that.

Now you're just making stuff up.


So I reposted these graphics for the edification of others. Not for you -- you're a lost cause.

There's nothing in the graphs you posted that change what the verse means.

It's a really simple verse to understand.

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 08:41 AM
What is the something else that Matthew 16:28 was conditional upon?
(Matt 16:28) “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Good question. I view both passages as conditioned upon the same thing, but I'll ask you: What one thing was God's prophesied, overarching purpose for Israel conditioned upon throughout the four Gospel accounts and in the book of Acts?

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 08:42 AM
I'm not saying the Greek participle [an] isn't there, I'm saying it has no bearing on the verse.

It's plainly there in the Greek, in at least TWO relevant passages...yet it means nothing.

You are of the Devil.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:45 AM
Good question.

He was being rhetorical.

He knows there was no condition in Matt 16:28


I view both passages as conditioned upon the same thing,

Nowhere in Matt 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13 is there any condition for the events prophesied by Jesus to happen.

Nor is there any "condition" for Jesus not to return before that generation all passed away.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 08:48 AM
It's plainly there in the Greek, in at least TWO relevant passages...yet it means nothing.

The graph you supplied says it cannot be translated with one English word.

Why don't you show us a translation from an English Bible that incorporates the Greek participle that you are so hung up on into the verse?


You are of the Devil.

You're the John Nelson Darby follower, not me.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 08:56 AM
Actually the portion I have placed in red emphasis is not true either. The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur, (which is precisely what his talmidim asked him about in Matthew 24:3, "the end of the age'

The Lord's answer was indeed about the end of the age. And by His answer we can know that at that time there will be a world wide harvest:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

That did not happen to a first century generation so the following translation is in error:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

There was never a world wide harvest in the first century so the word "generation" is the wrong translation.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 09:07 AM
There was never a world wide harvest in the first century so the word "generation" is the wrong translation.

Jerry, since you like to refer to Greek words, the Greek word used in the verse is "oikoumene"

We find that Greek word in Luke 2:1

(Luke 2:1 ) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world [Oikoumene] should be taxed.

Oikoumene does not mean the whole world. The Greek word "kosmos" means the whole world.

The following verse shows the Greek word "kosmos" being used to actually describe the whole world

(Mark 14:9) Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world [kosmon], this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

The harvest happened in 70AD.

It happened in Judaea, not the whole world.

Unless of course you want to argue that the Mayans in Central America paid taxes to Caesar Augustus in 30AD

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 09:09 AM
Does Jerry apply "family" to every instance of genea?

Of course not.

Jerry is not consistent in his hermeneutics.
All of dispensationalism is this way. Inconsistent with God's Word.

I never said that there is but one meaning of the Greek word. In fact, I quoted many different meanings of the word.


In Matt 24:34 it specifically says in Jerry's interpretation.
"This family will not pass away until these things take place".
Yet, Jerry, being inconsistent, says the "family" will not pass away even after when the things take place.

The Greek word translated 'until' "has no exact English equivalent" (Strong's Greek Lexicon).

So your ideas are based on the idea that the word "until" conveys the meaning you want to place on it even though that English word is not equivalent to the Greek word.

User Name
June 6th, 2015, 09:13 AM
What is the something else that Matthew 16:28 was conditional upon?


(Matt 16:28) “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”


Good question.


He was being rhetorical.

Well, I wasn't exactly being rhetorical. True, I'm not aware of any conditions attached to Jesus' statement in Matthew 16:28, but I am willing to consider the opinions of others who think that such a situation does exist.


I view both passages as conditioned upon the same thing, but I'll ask you: What one thing was God's prophesied, overarching purpose for Israel conditioned upon throughout the four Gospel accounts and in the book of Acts?

Obviously, the overarching purpose for Israel conditioned upon throughout the four Gospel accounts and in the book of Acts was their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. However, Jesus himself prophesied many times before this statement that they would reject him, and yet he still stated with absolute assurance ("Verily I say unto you...") that there were some standing there who would live to "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." So I don't see Israel's acceptance of Jesus' messiahship as a requirement in order for Matthew 16:28 to be literally fulfilled--unless you can convince me otherwise.

jamie
June 6th, 2015, 09:13 AM
Every time the word "generation" is used in the Bible it refers to a specific group of people who lived approximately 40 years.

The word "generation" in the singular is never used in the Bible for anything else.


You have taken Jesus' information to his disciples completely out of context if you are applying "this generation" to unregenerate Jews.


Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3 NKJV)

The word "us" being his disciples.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 09:16 AM
You have taken Jesus' information to his disciples completely out of context if you are applying "this generation" to unregenerate Jews.

(Luke 17:25 KJV) But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 09:18 AM
The Greek word "kosmos" means the whole world.

The following verse shows the Greek word "kosmos" being used to actually describe the whole world

(Mark 14:9) Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world [kosmon], this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

The harvest happened in 70AD.

It happened in Judaea, not the whole world.

Yes, and this passage is speaking of a world wide harvest and it will take place at the end of the age:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world (kosmos); the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

At Matthew 24 the Lord's words were in regard to what will happened at the end of the age:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

Since no world wide harvest happened in the first century it is obvious that the generation living then never saw the things of which the Lord Jesus spoke.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 09:20 AM
(Matt 23:36 KJV) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Who was Jesus talking to?

Answer: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees"

"This Generation" refers to the Jews who were the contemporaries of Jesus in the first century. Both believing and unbelieving Jews.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 09:22 AM
Since no world wide harvest happened in the first century

Jerry, I already explained to you that the harvest happened in Judaea.

Go back and read some secular history books that describe what happened to Judaea from 66AD - 70AD

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 09:42 AM
I find this a common occurrence on TOL...many people taking one connotation and making it the base of their dogmas. It's pretty sad that they disrespect all the efforts CREDENTIALED scholars put into the work of translating the Greek into English. Of course those scholars are OUT in the open and validated.

I did not do that. I never said that there was just one meaning of the Greek word genea and that meaning is "family." In fact, I quoted many different meanings of the word in my initial post.

Did you even read my initial post?

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 09:48 AM
Jerry, I already explained to you that the harvest happened in Judaea.

Of course you do not believe the Lord Jesus when He said that the field is the world (kosmos) (Mt.13:38).

You even said that word means "the whole world:


The Greek word "kosmos" means the whole world.

Do you think that Judaea is the whole world? LOL

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 09:58 AM
Of course you do not believe the Lord Jesus when He said that the field is the world (kosmos) (Mt.13:38).

When were a third of the angels and satan thrown out of Heaven?

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 10:14 AM
(Matt 23:36 KJV) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Who was Jesus talking to?

Answer: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees"

"This Generation" refers to the Jews who were the contemporaries of Jesus in the first century. Both believing and unbelieving Jews.

The correct translation is not "generation" at Matthew 23:36. Instead, this is the meaning:


"Serpents, offspring of vipers, how should ye escape the judgment of hell?...Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this brood" (Mt.23:33,36).

The reference is not to the first century generation because the context is speaking of blood shed by people who were members of previous generations:


"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Mt.23:35).

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 10:20 AM
When were a third of the angels and satan thrown out of Heaven?

When it is shown that you are in error about your teaching you never face up to it. Instead, you change the subject as fast as you can. Now address the fact that at the "end of the age" there will be a world wide harvest.

john w
June 6th, 2015, 10:49 AM
When it is shown that you are in error about your teaching you never face up to it. Instead, you change the subject as fast as you can. Now address the fact that at the "end of the age" there will be a world wide harvest.

Vegas has it at 1/2 that, eventually, noTetesterone Craigie will fall back on his "Hail Mary," of "Darby...Bullinger...Don't you believe the bible?.....Dispensationalists want you to believe..................Not one dispensationalist can answer.....," spam, stumper, as his satanic "argument" gets picked apart, and dismantled, and he implodes, and goes into his crybaby/wimp routine....

daqq
June 6th, 2015, 10:53 AM
The Lord's answer was indeed about the end of the age. And by His answer we can know that at that time there will be a world wide harvest:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

That did not happen to a first century generation so the following translation is in error:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

There was never a world wide harvest in the first century so the word "generation" is the wrong translation.

Did you read to the end of the Olivet Discourse where the author says that the discourse is finished, as I stated, where the answer would be found? It does not appear that you did.

Underlined Question:

Matthew 24:3
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what is the sign of thy parousias, and of the consummation of the age?

Underlined Answer:

Matthew 26:1-2
1. And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2. Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

These things are hidden in idioms, tabernacle-temple allegories, and sayings. For instance "the powers of the heavens" are symbolic of the four pillars from which the sky blue veil was hung in the Tabernacle. The sky blue veil represents the heavens which divide between the figurative place of God, (Holy Holies) and the earth, priesthood, and congregation, (secondary Holy Place of the Tabernacle). The sky blue veil had everything mystical in the heavens embroidered upon it with the only exception being the twelve signs, (because they are representations of living creatures). Thus the veil had the sun, the moon, and most definitely the seven stars-planets upon it. Yeshua therefore prophesies the renting in two of the veil when he states that the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, (the four pillars which held the sky blue veil) and the stars shall fall from the heavens, (because they were on the sky blue veil when it tore and fell to the earth from the shaking of the pillars which is also prefigured in Isaiah 6:4).

It is all at Golgotha: take up your own stake and go see for yourself. :)

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 11:02 AM
True, I'm not aware of any conditions attached to Jesus' statement in Matthew 16:28, but I am willing to consider the opinions of others who think that such a situation does exist.

It's right there in the Greek. :idunno:


Obviously, the overarching purpose for Israel conditioned upon throughout the four Gospel accounts and in the book of Acts was their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Exactly right...from John, through Christ, to Peter, they were commanded to repent, and they had to do so nationally (Ex 19:6).

Follow-up question: did Israel, as a nation, repent unto Messiah?


However, Jesus himself prophesied many times before this statement that they would reject him, and yet he still stated with absolute assurance ("Verily I say unto you...") that there were some standing there who would live to "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." So I don't see Israel's acceptance of Jesus' messiahship as a requirement in order for Matthew 16:28 to be literally fulfilled--unless you can convince me otherwise.What other condition could there be, if not that one?

There IS a condition in what He said, as is the subjunctive mood in Matthew 24, as you've seen for yourself. But whatever it is, that condition was clearly never met since (despite Tet's delusions) those events have not taken place.

So if it wasn't the repentance of Israel that made the whole discourse conditional, what was it?

PS As a side-note, some say this - in the very next chapter - is what He referred to about some there seeing Him in His kingdom glory:


After six days Jesus took with Him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 11:07 AM
When it is shown that you are in error about your teaching you never face up to it. Instead, you change the subject as fast as you can.

EVER.

User Name
June 6th, 2015, 11:11 AM
It's right there in the Greek. :idunno:

Saint John W will not be pleased.

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 11:12 AM
Saint John W will not be pleased.

:idunno:

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 11:35 AM
take up your own stake and go see for yourself.

Torture stake?

patrick jane
June 6th, 2015, 11:44 AM
preTeterists win - Jesus returned and all has been fulfilled. everything is finished, so preterists should just kick back and relax; nothing more to do or talk about -

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 11:54 AM
You would think. But some of them slide into reconstructionism and theonomy in order to force the earthly manifestation of the Kingdom they say is already here. It's almost as if they can't live consistently with what they say they believe...can't imagine why...

Theonomists tend to be postmillenial and...well...of possible interest:

https://www.google.com/search?q=postmillenialism+preterism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

john w
June 6th, 2015, 11:59 AM
"Yes, we are living in the millennial reign right now."-noTettosterone

"....we now live in the greatest time period since the creation of planet earth"-noTettosterone




"The kingdom where there is no more death, tears, and sadness exists right now." -noTettosterone

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 01:07 PM
There IS a condition in what He said, as is the subjunctive mood in Matthew 24, as you've seen for yourself. But whatever it is, that condition was clearly never met since (despite Tet's delusions) those events have not taken place.

Jesus begins Matt 24:34 with the word "Verily", which is translated "Truly" in most modern translations.

The reason Jesus began the verse with "Verily" is to assure those standing there that He would return before all of them passed away.

There was no condition, which is why the verse begins with the word "Verily"


So if it wasn't the repentance of Israel that made the whole discourse conditional, what was it?

The whole discourse wasn't conditional.

Christ Jesus knew that most of the Jews were going to reject Him, and that the destruction of the temple would happen while that generation was still alive.

And that's what happened in 70AD. Not one stone was left standing upon another just as Jesus had said, and some of the men that were alive when Jesus was alive, lived to see the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 01:12 PM
When it is shown that you are in error about your teaching you never face up to it. Instead, you change the subject as fast as you can. Now address the fact that at the "end of the age" there will be a world wide harvest.

The fallen angels and satan were cast out of heaven the same time Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD

Josephus describes what was seen in the skies above as Jerusalem was being destroyed:

"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" " (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

As did the Roman historian Tacitus:

"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure" - (Histories, Book 5, v. 13)

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 01:16 PM
preTeterists win - [B]Jesus returned and all has been fulfilled. everything is finished,

The "thousand years" isn't over yet.

Satan still has to be released for a little while.

Most of Revelation 20 hasn't been fulfilled yet.


so preterists should just kick back and relax; [B]nothing more to do or talk about

You guys are planting trees in the Middle East, and setting rapture dates.

Some of you in the Midwest are even trying to breed a perfect red heifer.

Such is the life of the Darby follower.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 01:17 PM
You would think. But some of them slide into reconstructionism and theonomy in order to force the earthly manifestation of the Kingdom they say is already here. It's almost as if they can't live consistently with what they say they believe...can't imagine why...

Theonomists tend to be postmillenial and...well...of possible interest:

https://www.google.com/search?q=postmillenialism+preterism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The kingdom of God is not of this world.

Christ Jesus, nor any other Saint is ever coming back to planet earth to set up a kingdom.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 01:28 PM
The correct translation is not "generation" at Matthew 23:36.
All these things shall come upon this brood"

Now you claim "generation" means "brood"

Earlier, you claimed "generation" means "family"


Now it will now be demonstrated that "family" is the correct translation at Matthew 24:34.

Was the temple destroyed in 70AD?

john w
June 6th, 2015, 01:39 PM
Josephus describes....

You are a Josephus follower, who was a Christ rejector. But, then again, so are you, Craigie...."-After its own kind..."(Genesis).

Why do you follow the teachings of fallable men, Craigie, such as Christ rejector Flavey Joe? You taught us that satanic spam-we learned that from you.

john w
June 6th, 2015, 01:40 PM
The kingdom of God is not of this world.

Christ Jesus, nor any other Saint is ever coming back to planet earth to set up a kingdom.

Spam. Proved satanic, 4 years ago.

Try again, wimp.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 01:55 PM
Now you claim "generation" means "brood"

Earlier, you claimed "generation" means "family"

There is more than two meanings in regard to the Greek word translated genea:


"genea... 1. those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind gener. as in Lk 16:8 eivj th.n g. th.n e`autw/n the people of the world are more prudent in relation to their own kind than are those who lay claim to the light (difft. GBeasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mk 13, 57, 99-102). 2. the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and freq. defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries" (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ).

One of the meanings of the word "brood" is "a group having a common nature."

And that group is spoken of here:


"Serpents,[B] offspring of vipers, how should ye escape the judgment of hell?...Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this brood" (Mt.23:33,36).

Now it is your turn to finally answer what I said previously. Your whole interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is based on the idea that the Lord Jesus would know which generation would see returning to the earth.

By the Lord Jesus' own admission the "times" and "seasons" have been put in the Father's power (Acts 1:7; Mt.24:36). It is not as if He had been given a vision in regard to the time when all these things would be fulfilled. Instead, He was the Prophet described here:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:18).

The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Despite any proof to the contrary you continue to base your interpretation of Matthew 24:34 on a mere assumption. Where is your evidence from the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus knew the times and the seasons despite what He said here?:


"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7).


The kingdom of God is not of this world.

Now you are being deceptive because I told you many times that the Lord said that "now" the kingdom is not of this world.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 01:59 PM
You are a Josephus follower

No, the writings of Josephus confirm the prophecies of Christ Jesus.

For example:

Prophecy from Christ Jesus:

(Rev 16:21 KJV) And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

The fulfillment as recorded by Josephus:

" Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent , and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color"

I know, I know,..... it's just a really big coincidence that Rev 16:21 says hail the weight of a talent (about 100 pounds) would fall upon Jerusalem, and the fact that the Romans catapulted stones the weight of a talent that were painted white at Jerusalem in 70AD.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Jerry, I already explained to you that the harvest happened in Judaea.

Of course you do not believe the Lord Jesus when He said that the field is the world (kosmos) (Mt.13:38).

You even said that word means "the whole world:


The Greek word "kosmos" means the whole world.

Do you think that Judaea is the whole world? LOL

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 02:11 PM
Now it is your turn to finally answer what I said previously. Your whole interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is based on the idea that the Lord Jesus would know which generation would see returning to the earth.

He did know all these things would happen before that generation all passed away.

That's the whole point of chapter 24 in Matthew, chapter 21 in Luke, and chapter 13 in Mark.

Why do you think the gospel had to go to the Jew first?

Answer: Because Jerusalem was about to be destroyed.

That's why Jesus said the following:

(Luke 21:21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

It was very important that those who believed in Christ Jesus were nowhere near Jerusalem when the destruction began in 66AD. Jesus told those there to run to the hills, and those who didn't live there not to go there.

God waited 40 years before He destroyed Jerusalem so that as many Jews as possible could be saved:

(2 Peter 3:9) The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

What was the promise?

The promise was that the temple would be destroyed before that generation completely passed away.

You're a fool to claim Christ Jesus didn't know any of this.

StanJ
June 6th, 2015, 02:14 PM
I did not do that. I never said that there was just one meaning of the Greek word genea and that meaning is "family." In fact, I quoted many different meanings of the word in my initial post.

Did you even read my initial post?


No Jerry, I commented on Nimrod's post, or did you not SEE that?

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 02:16 PM
Do you think that Judaea is the whole world? LOL

Jerry, I already explained to you that while the destruction of Jerusalem took place from 66AD - 70AD, the fallen angels and satan were also cast out of heaven.

"Kosmos" can be translated as "universe" also.

It only happened in Judaea, which is why Jesus only told those in Judaea to run to the hills.

(Matt 24:16) then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

If it's a future worldwide event (your claim), then why are only those in Judaea (which doesn't even exist anymore) supposed to run to the hills?

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 02:51 PM
Note well, gentlemen, the glimpse this thread has provided into the darkened mind of Tetelestai.

Josephus: Not only not in the Bible, but of equal authority to the Bible.

Greek particle an and the subjunctive mood: In the Bible, but meaningless.

Now observe, his reply will contain some or all of the following words: Darby, Bullinger, Scofield, Stam, Crowley, dispensationalism, 1800s.

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 02:55 PM
The kingdom of God is not of this world.

Christ Jesus, nor any other Saint is ever coming back to planet earth to set up a kingdom.

So there are toddlers in heaven who can safely stick their hands into heavenly serpent dens? If that's been fulfilled already, it ain't happening ANYWHERE on this planet.

Or are you really a Mormon and all of this is happening on another planet?

You're so far gone you have no idea how embarrassing to yourself you are.

musterion
June 6th, 2015, 03:17 PM
http://postimg.org/image/5tsi797xp/http://s14.postimg.org/dzak5ew6p/Tetzo_Quits.png

Danoh
June 6th, 2015, 03:26 PM
http://postimg.org/image/5tsi797xp/http://s14.postimg.org/dzak5ew6p/Tetzo_Quits.png

Hah, that boss guy reminds me of Stam in his old offices - sick em, Stam, lol

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 03:45 PM
Note well, gentlemen, the glimpse this thread has provided into the darkened mind of Tetelestai.

No, what this thread has shown is how desperate Dispensationalists/Futurists become in order to make Matt 24:34 say something it does not.


Josephus: Not only not in the Bible, but of equal authority to the Bible.

Nope

I never said the writings of Josephus were equal with the Bible, I said the writings of Josephus confirmed the prophecies of Jesus.


Greek particle an and the subjunctive mood: In the Bible, but meaningless.[/COLOR]

Nope

I said there is not some secret condition in the verse like you suggest.


Now observe, his reply will contain some or all of the following words: Darby, Bullinger, Scofield, Stam, Crowley, dispensationalism, 1800s.


I don't need to.

The fact that you make up stuff about what I said is proof that you can't defend your false theory.

Matt 24:34 speaks for itself.

You hate that verse because it's a deathblow to your Dispensationalism/Futurism.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 03:54 PM
So there are toddlers in heaven who can safely stick their hands into heavenly serpent dens?

It's a metaphor.

Are the lion, wolf, and leopard literal in the following verse?

(Jer 5:6 KJV) Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.

Israel is portrayed as a lamb, or as sheep in the OT.

Wolves and lambs lying down together is a description of the New Covenant.

Former enemies, now have peace together.

(Eph 2:15) 5 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


If that's been fulfilled already, it ain't happening ANYWHERE on this planet.

There is no longer a difference between Jew and Gentile.


You're so far gone you have no idea how embarrassing to yourself you are.

You've been so brainwashed by Darby, you can't comprehend anything else.

You actually think that one day lions and lambs are literally going to play together and lie down with each other.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 03:56 PM
No Jerry, I commented on Nimrod's post, or did you not SEE that?

Yes, I saw it. And his point about me was false and despite that you praised his post.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 03:57 PM
http://postimg.org/image/5tsi797xp/http://s14.postimg.org/dzak5ew6p/Tetzo_Quits.png

Interesting how you lumped Darby and Aliester Crowley together.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 04:00 PM
Or are you really a Mormon and all of this is happening on another planet?

Dispensationalism was invented around the same time Mormonism was invented. Most people refer to those days as "the days of the cults"

Mormons are followers of Joseph Smith, Dispensationalists are followers of John Nelson Darby.

tetelestai
June 6th, 2015, 04:04 PM
Hah, that boss guy reminds me of Stam

Stam was an early Darby follower.

Just go to Jerry Shugart's website and see for yourself HERE (http://www.twonewcovenants.com/epistles/epistles5.html)

Cornelius Stam is not alone about his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2. Matthew Henry wrote:....John Nelson Darby understood the verse in the same way, writing the following:....A.R. Fausset comments on the verse matches the commentary of both Stam and Darby:

At least Jerry knows where his Dispensationalism came from.

Most Dispies on TOL are in denial.

Jerry Shugart
June 6th, 2015, 04:08 PM
"Kosmos" can be translated as "universe" also.

It only happened in Judaea, which is why Jesus only told those in Judaea to run to the hills.

I will go through this again for you and perhaps this time you can actually grasp what the Lord Jesus said. His words found in the 24th chapter of Matthew were in answer to this question:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

Earlier the Lord Jesus had told us one of the things which will happen at the end of the age:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

The fact of the matter, a fact which you will refuse to believe, is that no world wide harvest has yet to happen. Therefore, the end of the age of which the lord Jesus spoke remains in the future.

It will not be until the end of the age when the Lord Jesus will return and the end of the age remains in the future. therefore, His return also remains in the future.

The Lord Jesus' words at Matthew 13 contradicts and refutes the teachings of the preterists.

john w
June 6th, 2015, 04:12 PM
It's a metaphor.

Are the lion, wolf, and leopard literal in the following verse?

(Jer 5:6 KJV) Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.

Israel is portrayed as a lamb, or as sheep in the OT.

Wolves and lambs lying down together is a description of the New Covenant.

Former enemies, now have peace together.

(Eph 2:15) 5 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;



There is no longer a difference between Jew and Gentile.



You've been so brainwashed by Darby, you can't comprehend anything else.

You actually think that one day lions and lambs are literally going to play together and lie down with each other.

He plagiarized that, as usual, from his alleged infallible teacher J. Stuart Russell, who taught him his satanic "AD 70-ism"-straight from this book(and others):


https://cmrc1.logoscdn.com/www.logos.com/images/products/49333.jpg?309036822112


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Vaduva_russell_colored.jpg

And the deceiving spineless one Craigie, pretends like teachers, such as Darby, never taught him anything, as he learned his satanic "AD 70-ism" just from glancing at the bible.


You're a punk, noTettosterone-even you know it.

john w
June 6th, 2015, 04:19 PM
Stam was an early Darby follower.

Just go to Jerry Shugart's website and see for yourself HERE (http://www.twonewcovenants.com/epistles/epistles5.html)

Cornelius Stam is not alone about his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2. Matthew Henry wrote:....John Nelson Darby understood the verse in the same way, writing the following:....A.R. Fausset comments on the verse matches the commentary of both Stam and Darby:

At least Jerry knows where his Dispensationalism came from.

Most Dispies on TOL are in denial.

Spam. Punk.

john w
June 6th, 2015, 04:29 PM
Interesting how you lumped Darby and Aliester Crowley together.

I am sorry to hear about your loss, tetelestai. A death in the family is always tough. My condolences.

Danoh
June 6th, 2015, 04:35 PM
He did know all these things would happen before that generation all passed away.

That's the whole point of chapter 24 in Matthew, chapter 21 in Luke, and chapter 13 in Mark.

Why do you think the gospel had to go to the Jew first?

Answer: Because Jerusalem was about to be destroyed.

That's why Jesus said the following:

(Luke 21:21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

It was very important that those who believed in Christ Jesus were nowhere near Jerusalem when the destruction began in 66AD. Jesus told those there to run to the hills, and those who didn't live there not to go there.

God waited 40 years before He destroyed Jerusalem so that as many Jews as possible could be saved:

(2 Peter 3:9) The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

What was the promise?

The promise was that the temple would be destroyed before that generation completely passed away.

You're a fool to claim Christ Jesus didn't know any of this.

No, Tel, that promise is this here - Acts 3:

18. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21. Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.


Peter has Him coming back to blot out Israel's sins after He returns to destroy every soul from among the people - Israel - that will not hear Him.

Look at what Peter wrote of this delay to those assemblies who had believed Peter's basic, Acts 2 and 3 message - look what he wrote at some point after that promised coming was interrupted per Paul.

2 Peter 3:

1. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2. That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4. 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.

This is a Prophesied coming - interrupted by the Mystery revealed to and through an odd, unexpected, one Apostle too many to Israel's already existing Twelve - the Apostle of Israel's very enemies - the Gentiles: the Apostle Paul.

Romans 9:

22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Romans 11:

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles
be come in.

Here, in Romans 11 also, is that promised coming that Peter is asserting was delayed by God in this longsuffering that Paul related in Romans 9 - here is Peter's/Israel's promised coming, in Romans 11:

26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.
29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Thus, it is that we read in 2 Peter 3:

14. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter ends that with describing you, in your errors in this Tel - "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Back in Romans 9, we also read:

27. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28. For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

In His Mystery longsuffering He has delayed "the promise of His coming" He had prophesied thru Israel's prophets.

What Mystery longsuffering is this that has God having delayed the promise of His Coming - what is this longsuffering according to?

1 Timothy 1:

11. According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
12. And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13. Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
16. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Its that all longsuffering that God first made known in Acts 9 - after Israel's fall - at Acts 7:51, per Matthew 12.

Its that salvation first revealed through this odd new Apostle - for, under the old - he was un-save-able - for he had blasphemed the Holy Spirit:

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Here is Israel's fall per that blasphemy - Acts 7:

51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Paul is an oddity due to this all longsuffering salvation that began with him - he had been the chief sinner of those of Israel resisting the Holy Spirit - Acts 26:

11. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
12. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13. At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks.
15. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17. Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18. To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
19. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20. But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Notice - "and from the Gentiles" - "the whole world" was now "under sin" - Israel having joined the world's rebellion against the LORD and His Christ, Acts 4, and with it, God's wrath was set to fall, Acts 4, but for God's Mystery longsuffering.

In this, Paul's salvation is odd in this "all longsuffering" of the Lord's toward him "first."

The Lord just showed up and saved him! No confession, no "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" just - "Boom; here I am you so hell bound in your zeal - against Me - its over, you now serve me - any objections - didn't think so - now here is what I saved you for; I want you too..."

Why? Who was this Lord? As Ananias put it - "the God of our fathers" - "that Rock which followed them" which "was Christ."

Now, you - Tel - you show up two thousand years later with your Josephus and all the rest of your nonsense to blaspheme that all over again.

Be thankful we are all on this side of God's all longsuffering that began with Paul in Acts 9 for pattern to them which should hereafter believe - be thankful your Preterist heresy is covered under the terms of this longsuffering salvation.

Try doing some works meet for repentance for a change - try living out this all longsuffering salvation that God revealed to Peter through Paul has the promise of His return on hold "til the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Supposedly, you repented - supposedly, you changed your mind about your merits and trusted the merits of the Cross ALONE.

His longsuffering all these centuries afforded you this opportunity.

How's about keeping the change - for His sake?

You changed your mind - keep the change!

daqq
June 6th, 2015, 08:40 PM
Torture stake?

Everyone here surely knows how the Romans employed such devices of cruelty but also it simply means "a post" as in a fence post. So what do you do when you want to build a city and keep out the liars, thieves, and murderers? You build a fence or a wall. However the kingdom of God does not come with ocular-visual observation, (for the kingdom of God is within you) so the fence or wall is built in idioms, allegories, parables, similitudes, and sayings which the carnal man can neither perceive nor comprehend, (and the foolishness of God is wiser then the wisdom of man and men). Thus "take up your stake" can also be like saying take up your parable, take up your burden, (of the Word) take up your doctrine and live by it; for we are building a fence, (out of stauros fence posts). If you refuse to bring your own stake then you likewise refuse to put on the festive garment: and there is a parable about that also. :crackup:

Aaron the Tall
June 7th, 2015, 01:41 AM
Why meaningless?

The Lord wanted to assure them that the nation would not be destroyed during the great tribulation or during the world wide harvest which would follow. In fact, this is not the first time that such assurance had been given to the Israelites, as witnessed by these words:


"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: If this fixed order departs From before Me, declares the LORD, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever" (Jer.31:35-36).

According to the Lord as long as the sun and moon remain in the sky the nation of Israel will remain "being a nation" before Him. So there is nothing odd about the Lord Jesus telling the Israelites that "this race shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," especially with the great tribulation in view.

Jesus already told them not everyone would be destroyed (Matt 24:22.)

He said that when he was describing what would happen.

According to your interpretation, if you splice vs 22 and 34 together, you would get something like this: "the great tribulation will be cut short so that not all the Jews die... and not all the Jews will die before this happens."

Seems a little redundant and unnecessary to me. I think your quote from Jeremiah is of a little different flavor. It essentially says the permanent nature of the sun and moon testify to the permanency of the nation of Israel.

However, according to you, the Matthew text essentially says "some things are going to happen to Israel, and Israel won't pass away before they all happen."

This seems like a pointless statement. If Jesus prophesies Israel is going to go through some stuff, and the days will be cut short so not all will perish - then obviously Israel won't pass away before it all happens - that goes without saying!

Jerry Shugart
June 7th, 2015, 09:14 AM
Jesus already told them not everyone would be destroyed (Matt 24:22.)

He said that when he was describing what would happen.

According to your interpretation, if you splice vs 22 and 34 together, you would get something like this: "the great tribulation will be cut short so that not all the Jews die... and not all the Jews will die before this happens."

Seems a little redundant and unnecessary to me. I think your quote from Jeremiah is of a little different flavor. It essentially says the permanent nature of the sun and moon testify to the permanency of the nation of Israel.

However, according to you, the Matthew text essentially says "some things are going to happen to Israel, and Israel won't pass away before they all happen."

This seems like a pointless statement. If Jesus prophesies Israel is going to go through some stuff, and the days will be cut short so not all will perish - then obviously Israel won't pass away before it all happens - that goes without saying!

That's a good point. My answer is that the Lord Jesus knew that sometimes His people were a little hard of hearing so a little repletion would do no harm.

But I cannot believe that "generation" is the correct translation and I will tell you why. The Lord's words in Matthew 24 were in answer to the following question:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

Earlier the Lord Jesus had told us one of the things which will happen at the end of the age:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

The fact of the matter is that no world wide harvest has yet to happen. Therefore, the end of the age of which the lord Jesus spoke remains in the future.

It will not be until the end of the age when the Lord Jesus will return and the end of the age remains in the future. therefore, His return also remains in the future.

Therefore, I do not believe that "generation" is the correct translation in this passage:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

jamie
June 7th, 2015, 09:40 AM
This is really very simple, the NT is about the kingdom of God which is Jesus' gospel. How many generations are we from the Father?

We must look at this scripture in a spiritual context, not a physical context.

Nimrod
June 7th, 2015, 09:56 AM
"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).


So Jesus replied. From Matt 24:3 - Matt 25:46.
It was in Matt 24:34 is where your problem is. There are a bunch of things said AFTER "this generation" in Matt. But, we know, no matter what, you have a system to get it to work, Scripture must be twisted.

daqq
June 7th, 2015, 10:07 AM
So Jesus replied. From Matt 24:3 - Matt 25:46.
It was in Matt 24:34 is where your problem is. There are a bunch of things said AFTER "this generation" in Matt. But, we know, no matter what, you have a system to get it to work, Scripture must be twisted.

The length of the Olivet Discoure you suggest simply is not true.
As stated previously it is clearly from Matthew 24:3 to Matthew 26:2.
And again the "punch line" answer to the question is the final statement.

Jerry Shugart
June 7th, 2015, 10:34 AM
So Jesus replied. From Matt 24:3 - Matt 25:46.
It was in Matt 24:34 is where your problem is. There are a bunch of things said AFTER "this generation" in Matt. But, we know, no matter what, you have a system to get it to work, Scripture must be twisted.

What Scripture did I twist?

Here is a chance for you to twist the Scriptures:

The Lord's words in Matthew 24 were in answer to the following question:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

Earlier the Lord Jesus had told us one of the things which will happen at the end of the age:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

The fact of the matter is that no world wide harvest has yet to happen. Therefore, the end of the age of which the Lord Jesus spoke remains in the future.

It will not be until the end of the age when the Lord Jesus will return and the end of the age remains in the future. Therefore, His return also remains in the future.

Therefore, I do not believe that "generation" is the correct translation in this passage:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

Nimrod
June 7th, 2015, 10:51 AM
The fact of the matter is that no world wide harvest has yet to happen.


Are you able to see Angels at work?




Therefore, the end of the age of which the Lord Jesus spoke remains in the future.

This begs the question.
2 Samuel 22:10 "He(God) parted the heavens and came down"
Did God come down? Did everyone see it? Did anyone see it?

Isaiah 19:1 "See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt."
Who saw the Lord coming to Egypt? Everyone? Anyone?

Because you are unable to answer the questions above, you have no standing on Matt 24. Notice what is says above: Heaven, Clouds, Coming.

Now look at Matt 24
"they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven"

The end of the age IS the end of the Jewish age which happened in 70 AD. You assume when it is said God is coming down, you immediately think it is the Second coming.

Nazaroo
June 7th, 2015, 11:45 AM
Wow! Reading this thread is like reading about Job and his 4 friends,
all completely clueless as to what is really happening.

(1) Shugart: (Post #1!)


"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke."

"the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know the time when the great tribulation would happen despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports that false idea. "

(2) Shugart: (Post #11)

"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

I keep waiting for you to answer this and so far you have come up empty handed."

Mr. Shugart, are you SERIOUS?

And I'm stunned that nobody else knows their Bible enough
to respond effectively against this utter nonsense.

Only Daqq even notices this,
but he also gets it wrong and is completely ineffective in
smacking Shugart hard enough to cure the foolishness:

Daqq: (Post #18)


Shugart: "Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation."

Actually the portion I have placed in red emphasis is not true either. The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur, ...But of course Yeshua speaks of his own end of the age, (each in his or her own appointed times which only the Father knows). :)



"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)

"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under His own power,..." (John 13:3)

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things,
because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

Jesus would never at the very end of His 3 - 5 year ministry have
left all the Apostles under such a belief, if it were a mistaken one,
or a misunderstanding. Jesus would have straightened them out.

Even in Acts when Jesus ascends to heaven, the Disciples ask (who? JESUS!)
about the restoration of Israel. If they had thought at that time
that Jesus didn't know, they wouldn't have asked Him.
Jesus responds "Its not for YOU to know..." (Acts 1:7)
He doesn't say "I don't know..."

Search the Scriptures, like the Bereans.

The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let you down.

Jerry Shugart
June 7th, 2015, 01:24 PM
Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

You assert that but you said nothing about the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself said that the "times and the seasons," have been put in the Father's power. (Acts 1:7)


The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur...

Then how do you explain what the Lord Jesus said here?:


" But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).


"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."

At that time He knew all things which were knowable. At the same time He did not know whether or not in the future Israel would repent and turn to God. If the nation repented then the Lord Jesus would be sent back to earth after He ascended into heaven. If they didn't His return would be delayed:


"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).


"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under His own power,..." (John 13:3).

Yes, all things were put under the Lord's hands but evidently the ability to know the day and hour of His return was not among the things those things. And again, the times and the seasons were under the power of the Father.


Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

By the context it is certain that His words there are referring to all the things which was coming concerning His arrest and His death and resurrection.


Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things, because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

Yes, but later we read that the times and seasons are in the power of the Father (Acts 1:7).


The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let you down.

Where is your proof of that?

This from the "Benson Commentary" explains that in His human nature was not omniscient:


"It is said in Luke 2:52, that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient."

You assume that He was always omniscient.

Aaron the Tall
June 7th, 2015, 03:28 PM
That's a good point. My answer is that the Lord Jesus knew that sometimes His people were a little hard of hearing so a little repletion would do no harm.

But I cannot believe that "generation" is the correct translation and I will tell you why. The Lord's words in Matthew 24 were in answer to the following question:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

Earlier the Lord Jesus had told us one of the things which will happen at the end of the age:


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

The fact of the matter is that no world wide harvest has yet to happen. Therefore, the end of the age of which the lord Jesus spoke remains in the future.

It will not be until the end of the age when the Lord Jesus will return and the end of the age remains in the future. therefore, His return also remains in the future.

Therefore, I do not believe that "generation" is the correct translation in this passage:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

I have a little different take on those passages. I'll quickly spell them out - not to try and convince you, just to give you something to consider.

Hebrews 9:26 says Jesus came at the "consummation of the ages."
I Cor 10:11 says Paul's audience was living at the end of the age.

The Matthew 13 harvest was at the end of the age. Jesus said the fields were ready for the harvest in his day (John 4:35).

Consider the harvest parable in Matthew 21. The landowner sends his servants (God's prophets) to collect the harvest, but they were killed. Finally he sent his son (Jesus), but he was killed too. According to this parable, Jesus first coming was directly tied to collecting the harvest.

Jesus message in this parable was that the kingdom of God would be taken from the rebellious Jews and given to different people. This is the same idea as the Matthew 13 harvest. It is a dual harvest. The good plants are brought in to the kingdom, the bad plants are taken out of the kingdom.

The end of the age harvest is the gathering of the elect into a reorganized Kingdom with Christ as king - and the removal of unbelieving Jews from the Kingdom.

Consider again how the bad plants in Matthew 13 are removed from the Kingdom - that means there were people who were in the Kingdom, but were taken out of it. Can you think of a future end time scenario where this would describe what will happen? Who would be removed from the Kingdom at that time?

Jerry Shugart
June 7th, 2015, 06:14 PM
I have a little different take on those passages. I'll quickly spell them out - not to try and convince you, just to give you something to consider.

Hebrews 9:26 says Jesus came at the "consummation of the ages."
I Cor 10:11 says Paul's audience was living at the end of the age.

Paul certainly thought that they were living at the end of the age because he had been told that the coming of the Lord to carch up Christians was imminent. Henry Alford has the following to say about Paul's words at 1 Thessalonians 4:17 :


"Then, beyond question, he himself expected to be alive, together with the majority of those to whom he was writing, at the Lord's coming. For we cannot for a moment accept the evasion of Theodoret and the majority of ancient commentators (viz. that the apostle does not speak of himself personally, but of those who should be living at the period), but we must take the words in their only plain grammatical meaning, that 'we which are alive and remain' are a class distinguished from 'they that sleep' by being yet in the flesh when Christ comes, in which class by prefixing 'we' he includes his readers and himself. That this was his expectation we know from other passages, especially from 2 Cor. 5" (Alford's Greek Testament, Vol.III, in loc).


The Matthew 13 harvest was at the end of the age. Jesus said the fields were ready for the harvest in his day (John 4:35).

Consider the harvest parable in Matthew 21. The landowner sends his servants (God's prophets) to collect the harvest, but they were killed. Finally he sent his son (Jesus), but he was killed too. According to this parable, Jesus first coming was directly tied to collecting the harvest.

Jesus message in this parable was that the kingdom of God would be taken from the rebellious Jews and given to different people. This is the same idea as the Matthew 13 harvest. It is a dual harvest. The good plants are brought in to the kingdom, the bad plants are taken out of the kingdom.

The end of the age harvest is the gathering of the elect into a reorganized Kingdom with Christ as king - and the removal of unbelieving Jews from the Kingdom.

The harvest of Matthew 13 is said to be of the world, not just Israel. The removal of the unrighteous is spoken of as being world-wide and that has not happened yet.

The "kingdom" in regard to the harvest is this one:


"Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all" (1Chron.29:11).

daqq
June 8th, 2015, 01:32 AM
Wow! Reading this thread is like reading about Job and his 4 friends,
all completely clueless as to what is really happening.

(1) Shugart: (Post #1!)


"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke."

"the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know the time when the great tribulation would happen despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports that false idea. "

(2) Shugart: (Post #11)

"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

I keep waiting for you to answer this and so far you have come up empty handed."

Mr. Shugart, are you SERIOUS?

And I'm stunned that nobody else knows their Bible enough
to respond effectively against this utter nonsense.

Only Daqq even notices this,
but he also gets it wrong and is completely ineffective in
smacking Shugart hard enough to cure the foolishness:

Daqq: (Post #18)


Shugart: "Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation."

Actually the portion I have placed in red emphasis is not true either. The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur, ...But of course Yeshua speaks of his own end of the age, (each in his or her own appointed times which only the Father knows). :)



"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)

"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under His own power,..." (John 13:3)

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things,
because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

Jesus would never at the very end of His 3 - 5 year ministry have
left all the Apostles under such a belief, if it were a mistaken one,
or a misunderstanding. Jesus would have straightened them out.

Even in Acts when Jesus ascends to heaven, the Disciples ask (who? JESUS!)
about the restoration of Israel. If they had thought at that time
that Jesus didn't know, they wouldn't have asked Him.
Jesus responds "Its not for YOU to know..." (Acts 1:7)
He doesn't say "I don't know..."

Search the Scriptures, like the Bereans.

The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let you down.

Seriously doubt anyone "smacking" the OP is going to change his mind here, (besides it is not my job to convict anyone but simply post what I believe to be the truth). Anyways you have not proven what I said as being anywhere near wrong because as you see the OP has already quoted from Deuteronomy 18, (even though I did not address this point yet) and everyone probably agrees that the passage quoted concerns Yeshua as referenced also by Luke recording Peter quoting from it in the Book of Acts. Thus, if anyone truly follows the Torah in his or her doctrines, and especially when it comes to defining one who is proclaimed to be the Messiah, then likewise the Torah applies to the one who is claimed by everyone here to be the Messiah. And the passage clearly states thusly:

Deuteronomy 18:15-22 KJV
15. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16. According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
22. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Note that not only does the bright blue highlighted in the above passage apply to Yeshua himself but also to the author of the Book of the Revelation of Yeshua, (Yochanan the Immerser) and all other New Covenant or Apostolic writings. If the things which they said and-or wrote neither followed nor came to pass then they spoke presumptuously and I am commanded not to fear them or their words. Therefore it is not Yeshua and Yochanan whose sayings and proclamations did not come to pass, but rather, it is the false version of their words put forth by both the "Futurists" and the "Preterists" because like one another they both merely see two differing versions of all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh of the carnal men which they are. :crackup:

Nazaroo
June 8th, 2015, 09:30 AM
Note that not only does the bright blue highlighted in the above passage apply to Yeshua himself but also to the author of the Book of the Revelation of Yeshua, (Yochanan the Immerser) and all other New Covenant or Apostolic writings. If the things which they said and-or wrote neither followed nor came to pass then they spoke presumptuously and I am commanded not to fear them or their words. Therefore it is not Yeshua and Yochanan whose sayings and proclamations did not come to pass, but rather, it is the false version of their words put forth by both the "Futurists" and the "Preterists" because like one another they both merely see two differing versions of all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh of the carnal men which they are. :crackup:

I understand your position fairly well, although it is subtler than
you are acknowledging.

I agree that very often its not the fault of the prophet but the fault of
the listener/interpreter/commentator/expositor when the word of God
appears to misalign with our historical perception.

You win that argument hands down.

I also agree that pretty much ALL basic schemes of interpretation
being offered to us through commentaries and denominations are
very faulty and unreliable, including the OP's presentation and all
the others so far presented in this thread.

The situation today for Christians and Jews is actually fairly simple however:

(1) Buyer Beware: Do your own work, and don't rely upon others' theories.

(2) Be HUMBLE: and Don't be cocky in your attempts to sort prophecy.

(3) When you are Absolutely certain of a point, be confident but patient with doubters or those committed to alternate views.

Christian Liberty
June 8th, 2015, 10:27 AM
I definitely believe everything up to Matthew 24:34 already happened (and no, I'm not going to read a bunch of stuff from hyper-dispies that are inconsistent ultra-literalists and don't actually know how to do theology about why I'm wrong.) I lean against Matthew 24:35-25:30 being past, but I've heard some good arguments for that as well.

Jerry Shugart
June 8th, 2015, 11:25 AM
Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

You assert that but you said nothing about the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself said that the "times and the seasons," have been put in the Father's power. (Acts 1:7)


The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur...

Then how do you explain what the Lord Jesus said here?:


" But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).


"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."

At that time He knew all things which were knowable. At the same time He did not know whether or not in the future Israel would repent and turn to God. If the nation repented then the Lord Jesus would be sent back to earth after He ascended into heaven. If they didn't His return would be delayed:


"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).


"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under His own power,..." (John 13:3).

Yes, all things were put under the Lord's hands but evidently the ability to know the day and hour of His return was not among the things those things. And again, the times and the seasons were under the power of the Father.


Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

By the context it is certain that His words there are referring to all the things which was coming concerning His arrest and His death and resurrection.


Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things, because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

Yes, but later we read that the times and seasons are in the power of the Father (Acts 1:7).


The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let you down.

Where is your proof of that?

This from the "Benson Commentary" explains that in His human nature was not omniscient:


"It is said in Luke 2:52, that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient."

You assume that He was always omniscient.

daqq
June 8th, 2015, 01:05 PM
I understand your position fairly well, although it is subtler than
you are acknowledging.

I agree that very often its not the fault of the prophet but the fault of
the listener/interpreter/commentator/expositor when the word of God
appears to misalign with our historical perception.

You win that argument hands down.

I also agree that pretty much ALL basic schemes of interpretation
being offered to us through commentaries and denominations are
very faulty and unreliable, including the OP's presentation and all
the others so far presented in this thread.

The situation today for Christians and Jews is actually fairly simple however:

(1) Buyer Beware: Do your own work, and don't rely upon others' theories.

(2) Be HUMBLE: and Don't be cocky in your attempts to sort prophecy.

(3) When you are Absolutely certain of a point, be confident but patient with doubters or those committed to alternate views.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :)

SaulToPaul
June 8th, 2015, 01:44 PM
I definitely believe everything up to Matthew 24:34 already happened (and no, I'm not going to read a bunch of stuff from hyper-dispies that are inconsistent ultra-literalists and don't actually know how to do theology about why I'm wrong.) I lean against Matthew 24:35-25:30 being past, but I've heard some good arguments for that as well.

What a stupid phrase...

Aaron the Tall
June 8th, 2015, 03:41 PM
Paul certainly thought that they were living at the end of the age because he had been told that the coming of the Lord to carch up Christians was imminent. Henry Alford has the following to say about Paul's words at 1 Thessalonians 4:17 :


"Then, beyond question, he himself expected to be alive, together with the majority of those to whom he was writing, at the Lord's coming. For we cannot for a moment accept the evasion of Theodoret and the majority of ancient commentators (viz. that the apostle does not speak of himself personally, but of those who should be living at the period), but we must take the words in their only plain grammatical meaning, that 'we which are alive and remain' are a class distinguished from 'they that sleep' by being yet in the flesh when Christ comes, in which class by prefixing 'we' he includes his readers and himself. That this was his expectation we know from other passages, especially from 2 Cor. 5" (Alford's Greek Testament, Vol.III, in loc).


Firstly, you are suggesting that the fulfillment of the ages that Paul refers to in I Cor 10 is the same thing that Paul talks about in I Thess 4. In my opinion, the only thing that links those verses is a theological framework, not the texts themselves. They are two different things, as I see them. I imagine Paul did expect to be raptured up to meet Christ in the air - but Paul's statement in I Cor 10 is a factual statement, not a supposition - as is the statement in Hebrews about Jesus coming at the coming at the end of the ages.

This fits nicely with the Matthew 21 parable which indicates Jesus came with respect to collecting the harvest.




The harvest of Matthew 13 is said to be of the world, not just Israel. The removal of the unrighteous is spoken of as being world-wide and that has not happened yet.



I'm sure you are aware of instances where "world" does not refer to every corner of the planet. For instance, Colossians 1:6 says the gospel was bearing fruit "all over the world". (almost sounds like a worldwide harvest of fruit). The same Greek word is used here as in Matthew 13.

Furthermore, my paradigm does not suggest the harvest takes place solely in Israel. While most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish - the greatest growth of the Kingdom in the years ahead was outside Israel.




The "kingdom" in regard to the harvest is this one:


"Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all" (1Chron.29:11).

Is this your response to my questioning who will be removed from the kingdom in the Matthew 13 harvest? Are you suggesting this "kingdom" is simply God's general authority over the earth? And not the Kingdom of salvation, which can only be entered by being born again?

If so, what exactly is this parable stating? That the bad plants will be removed from God's general rule of the planet, ie: destroyed? And then the good plants are brought into God's general rule of the planet from where????

musterion
June 8th, 2015, 04:41 PM
I definitely believe everything up to Matthew 24:34 already happened (and no, I'm not going to read a bunch of stuff from hyper-dispies that are inconsistent ultra-literalists and don't actually know how to do theology about why I'm wrong.) I lean against Matthew 24:35-25:30 being past, but I've heard some good arguments for that as well.

You're also in favor of pot.

john w
June 8th, 2015, 06:29 PM
What a stupid phrase...

Stupid is, as stupid does, Mayor...

Jerry Shugart
June 8th, 2015, 08:58 PM
Firstly, you are suggesting that the fulfillment of the ages that Paul refers to in I Cor 10 is the same thing that Paul talks about in I Thess 4.

Yes, Paul was told that the coming of the Lord to catch up the saints was "imminent" so he assumed that they were living during the time when the fulfillment of the ages was happening.


In my opinion, the only thing that links those verses is a theological framework, not the texts themselves. They are two different things, as I see them. I imagine Paul did expect to be raptured up to meet Christ in the air - but Paul's statement in I Cor 10 is a factual statement, not a supposition - as is the statement in Hebrews about Jesus coming at the coming at the end of the ages.

Since Paul thought that he would experience the rapture then it would be natural for him to refer to the time in which he was living in the following way:


"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor.10:11).


I'm sure you are aware of instances where "world" does not refer to every corner of the planet. For instance, Colossians 1:6 says the gospel was bearing fruit "all over the world". (almost sounds like a worldwide harvest of fruit). The same Greek word is used here as in Matthew 13.

Furthermore, my paradigm does not suggest the harvest takes place solely in Israel. While most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish - the greatest growth of the Kingdom in the years ahead was outside Israel.

After the great tribulation is over we see the following events which will happen:


"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

In the same discourse the Lord Jesus used the same word at another place:


"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).

Then later in the same discourse the Lord made it plain that He was referring to the whole world:


"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory...take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:27,34-35).


Is this your response to my questioning who will be removed from the kingdom in the Matthew 13 harvest? Are you suggesting this "kingdom" is simply God's general authority over the earth? And not the Kingdom of salvation, which can only be entered by being born again?


"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil" (Mt.13:41).

It is certain that these who will be weeded out of this kingdom will not be born of God so the kingdom spoken of by the Lord at John 3:5 is not the kingdom spoken of at Matthew 13:41.

Or do you want to argue that those who will cause sin and will do evil will be in the kingdom mentioned by the Lord at John 3:5?


If so, what exactly is this parable stating? That the bad plants will be removed from God's general rule of the planet, ie: destroyed? And then the good plants are brought into God's general rule of the planet from where????

The meaning of the parable is saying that at the end of the age the unbelievers from all over the world will be taken out of the world and only the believers will be left. Then the only ones who will be left are those who are born again and the will all enter the earthly kingdom where the Lord will rule from the throne of David.

That certainly has not happened yet so the events of which the Lord Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 remain in the future.

Jerry Shugart
June 9th, 2015, 05:49 PM
Where did all the preterists go?

Aaron the Tall
June 10th, 2015, 02:20 AM
Since Paul thought that he would experience the rapture then it would be natural for him to refer to the time in which he was living in the following way:


"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor.10:11).


I simply don't agree with you there - especially so with Hebrews 9:26 - which says Christ came at the end of the age. I Cor 10 doesn't have any rapture in mind - and certainly Hebrews doesn't. It specifically links the end of the age with Christ's first coming. Again I point to the harvest of Matthew 21 harvest, where Jesus' first coming was to collect for the harvest.



After the great tribulation is over we see the following events which will happen:


"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).


Some of these signs are literal, some are figurative - unless you think the stars will literally fall from the sky (Matt 24:29)


In the same discourse the Lord Jesus used the same word at another place:


"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).

Then later in the same discourse the Lord made it plain that He was referring to the whole world:


"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory...take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:27,34-35).


I can find a pile of verses where the word for "earth" in Luke is used to describe a limited region - a country - even Israel (Matt 2:20).




"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil" (Mt.13:41).

It is certain that these who will be weeded out of this kingdom will not be born of God so the kingdom spoken of by the Lord at John 3:5 is not the kingdom spoken of at Matthew 13:41.

Or do you want to argue that those who will cause sin and will do evil will be in the kingdom mentioned by the Lord at John 3:5?

Christ was in the process of reorganizing the Kingdom. As Matt 21:43 says - the Kingdom of God was taken from the rebellious Jews. There were evildoers in this Kingdom - and this wasn't God's general rule over the earth type of "kingdom".


The meaning of the parable is saying that at the end of the age the unbelievers from all over the world will be taken out of the world and only the believers will be left. Then the only ones who will be left are those who are born again and the will all enter the earthly kingdom where the Lord will rule from the throne of David.

That certainly has not happened yet so the events of which the Lord Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 remain in the future.

Your interpretation of the parable has not happened yet - no. I don't share that interpretation. For clarification, when will the end of the age be? Is it the rapture - since you suggest Paul linked the end of the age to the rapture?

Or is the end of the age 7 years after the rapture?

If your interpretation of Matthew 13 is correct, does that mean there will be a subsequent harvest at the end of the millenium when the angels have to take out of the kingdom a second crop of wicked men that spring up during that time?

Aaron the Tall
June 10th, 2015, 02:31 AM
On another note - more closely related to the OP - I'm not sure if you are suggesting this, but I've heard some say that Jesus couldn't have meant these things would take place within a generation because he also said he didn't know the day or the hour.

Well, if I want to be ultra literal, I can point out that Jesus said he didn't know the day or the hour. He didn't say he didn't know the year.

But in reality, if Jesus knew that these things were generally coming to a head in the near future - that doesn't mean he is lying if he says he doesn't know the day or the hour.

He was giving this advice to real people standing in front of him. He was warning them that it would be soon, but he wouldn't give them an exact time of the day.

This is the exact same message as in the parable of the the two servants and the ten virgins. The servants knew their master would be coming back within their lifetime (obviously) - but this didn't stop one of the servants from being ill prepared, because the servant didn't know the exact hour of his master's return. The virgins had much more precise knowledge of when the bridegroom would come - down to the exact day - yet that didn't stop some of them from being unprepared when the bridegroom came a few hours later than they expected.

It doesn't matter if Jesus said it would all happen within 30 years or 3000 years - people still wouldn't properly prepare - which is precisely the point behind Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24. He is telling them to be prepared.

Jerry Shugart
June 10th, 2015, 09:28 AM
I simply don't agree with you there - especially so with Hebrews 9:26 - which says Christ came at the end of the age.

Here Peter spoke of what it would take for the Lord Jesus to return to the earth:


"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

In fact, shortly before His Olivet discourse the Lord Jesus made it plain that the Jews would not see Him again until they accepted Him, saying:


"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).

Since it is obvious that the nation of Israel did not repent then that nation has not seen the Lord Jesus since He walked among them. Therefore, common sense dictates these words of the Lord have not yet come to pass:


"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

Likewise, this prophecy remains in the future:


"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him" (Rev.1:7).


Some of these signs are literal, some are figurative - unless you think the stars will literally fall from the sky (Matt 24:29).

Of course these verses are referring to things which will actually be seen in the sky or else why would the Lord describe men's reactions to what they see in the sky?:


"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

Nothing like that happened in the first century or anytime since. Therefore, the Lord Jesus' return to earth has not yet happened.


I can find a pile of verses where the word for "earth" in Luke is used to describe a limited region - a country - even Israel (Matt 2:20).

Yes, but in every instance the context demonstrates that a limited region is in view. But there is nothing in the context at Luke 21 which even hints that a limited region is being spoken about. And every single translation of that verse that I can find does not reveal of a limited region.

In fact, the context demonstrates just the opposite:


"Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk. 21: 25-27).

Gary DeMar, a well known preterist, gives a meaning for the word oikoumene here:


"The case can be made that 'oikoumene' is used exclusively for the geographical area generally limited to the Roman empire of the first-century and the territories immediately adjacent which were known and accessible to first-century travelers. When first-century Christians read the word 'oikoumene,' they thought of what they knew of their world" [emphasis mine] (Gary DeMar, The Gospel Preached to All the World, Part 3 of 4; The Preterist Archive).

In the same discourse the Lord Jesus used the same word at another place:


"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).

If we are to remain consistent then if oikoumene means the inhabited earth (or the Roman Empire) at Matthew 24:14 then it should mean the same thing at Luke 21:26.

Therefore, the context demonstrates that the following is the correct translation:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

Since the generation then living never saw a world wide harvest then it is certain the the translation using the word "generation" is faulty.

No world wide judgment has happened in first century or since so that event remains in the future.


Christ was in the process of reorganizing the Kingdom. As Matt 21:43 says - the Kingdom of God was taken from the rebellious Jews. There were evildoers in this Kingdom - and this wasn't God's general rule over the earth type of "kingdom".

The kingdom He spoke is not the one He referred to at John 3:5 or else we must believe that the Lord was wrong when He said that a man must be born again in order to enter.


For clarification, when will the end of the age be?

The age which follows is the kingdom age. So the end of the age will be when the Lord Jesus returns to the earth and begins to sit upon His throne:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

When on your timeline did the Lord Jesus return to earth and then sit upon His throne?

tetelestai
June 10th, 2015, 10:01 PM
Well, if I want to be ultra literal, I can point out that Jesus said he didn't know the day or the hour. He didn't say he didn't know the year.

When Jesus said He didn't know the day or hour, it was a theological reference to the Feast of Trumpets.

Unlike the other feasts, the Feast of Trumpets was not marked by a day, date, time, etc.

It was marked when two witnesses reported to the Sanhedrin that they spotted the new moon.

Since Moses, no Israelite ever knew the day or hour when the Feast of Trumpets would begin.

Christ Jesus fulfilled the 4 spring feasts in 30AD.

The 3 fall feasts were fulfilled in 70AD beginning with the Feast of Trumpets, which no one knew the day or hour it would happen until the two witnesses saw the new moon.

(Rev 11:3) And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”

The Roman siege of Jerusalem began in 66AD and ended in 70AD (1,260 days)

Aaron the Tall
June 11th, 2015, 01:58 AM
Here Peter spoke of what it would take for the Lord Jesus to return to the earth:


"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

In fact, shortly before His Olivet discourse the Lord Jesus made it plain that the Jews would not see Him again until they accepted Him, saying:


"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).

Since it is obvious that the nation of Israel did not repent then that nation has not seen the Lord Jesus since He walked among them. Therefore, common sense dictates these words of the Lord have not yet come to pass:


Again, you are equating the end of the age to Christ's second coming. Hebrews said the end of the age was connected to Christ's first coming. What verses would you show me to support your view that the end of the age = second coming?




"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

Likewise, this prophecy remains in the future:


"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him" (Rev.1:7).

How can this be a future prophecy when it says the ones who pierced him will see him? Any Roman soldiers still living today?

This is the same type of "seeing" Jesus was talking about in Matt 26:64 "nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

He was speaking to the Pharisees about something THEY would see - not that some generic future people would see. They would see Jesus "sitting" and "coming" - a collective happening. This is a clear reference to Daniel 7:13:

"And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom."

The sitting is a reference to Christ sitting at God's right hand, seated as King of the Kingdom. Jesus said they would see this "hereafter" -denoting nearness.

This is the same type of "seeing" Jesus tells Nathaniel: "You shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (John 1:51) Jesus is talking about seeing the demonstration of spiritual realities - not that Nathaniel would literally see angels going up and down.



Of course these verses are referring to things which will actually be seen in the sky or else why would the Lord describe men's reactions to what they see in the sky?:


"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

Nothing like that happened in the first century or anytime since. Therefore, the Lord Jesus' return to earth has not yet happened.

From Josephus concerning the years before 70AD: "a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it [the destruction of the temple in 70] of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding the cities (6,5,3)."


Therefore, the context demonstrates that the following is the correct translation:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

The context of the global sounding language is:
1.) the destruction of Harod's temple (vs. 6,7)
2.) the persecution of Jesus' disciples by the synagogue (vs. 12)
3.) the destruction of Jerusalem (vs. 20)
4.) Judea (vs. 21)
5.) pregnant women who had to travel by foot because SUV's weren't invented yet (vs. 23)
6.) that generation

I think the regional and time-frame limits established by these contextual clues inform what Jesus meant by the "whole earth."


The kingdom He spoke is not the one He referred to at John 3:5 or else we must believe that the Lord was wrong when He said that a man must be born again in order to enter.

The Kingdom of John 3:5 is the Kingdom that was "at hand" - the one that was established through Christ's resurrection and enthronement in heaven. The harvest of Matt 13 speaks of removing evil doers from the old covenant earthly Kingdom that was primarily centered around Israel.


The age which follows is the kingdom age. So the end of the age will be when the Lord Jesus returns to the earth and begins to sit upon His throne:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

When on your timeline did the Lord Jesus return to earth and then sit upon His throne?

So you think Jesus is going to sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem? He's just going to stay seated in some big palace? Or might "sitting on the throne" be a reference to positional authority?

Christ is already sitting on his throne. Acts 2:33-36 indicates Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God (a position of authority) when he ascended into heaven and was made Lord (King). "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet."

He must be sitting and reigning as King of the Kingdom now, because I Cor 15:23-25 says that when Christ returns He will hand the Kingdom over to His Father. It says Jesus will reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet - then when he returns he hands the Kingdom to the Father after death is defeated at the resurrection.

Aaron the Tall
June 11th, 2015, 01:59 AM
When Jesus said He didn't know the day or hour, it was a theological reference to the Feast of Trumpets.

Unlike the other feasts, the Feast of Trumpets was not marked by a day, date, time, etc.

It was marked when two witnesses reported to the Sanhedrin that they spotted the new moon.

Since Moses, no Israelite ever knew the day or hour when the Feast of Trumpets would begin.

Christ Jesus fulfilled the 4 spring feasts in 30AD.

The 3 fall feasts were fulfilled in 70AD beginning with the Feast of Trumpets, which no one knew the day or hour it would happen until the two witnesses saw the new moon.

(Rev 11:3) And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”

The Roman siege of Jerusalem began in 66AD and ended in 70AD (1,260 days)

Interesting... I hadn't heard that view before.

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 06:38 AM
In fact, shortly before His Olivet discourse the Lord Jesus made it plain that the Jews would not see Him again until they accepted Him, saying:


"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).

There is nothing in that verse about the Jews accepting Him.

If you understood the 7 feasts of the OT, you wouldn't be so confused.

"Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord" is from Psalm 118

(Psalm 118:26) Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD.

Of the 7 feasts, 3 of them required pilgrimages to Jerusalem. The Jews who lived in Jerusalem would line the streets and sing all of Psalm 118 as the Jews who came from out of town entered the city.

So, what Jesus was saying was that they would not see Him again until one of the 3 pilgrimage feasts.

Dispensationalists have butchered Matt 23:39. The verse has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews accepting Him.

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 08:40 AM
So you think Jesus is going to sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem? He's just going to stay seated in some big palace? Or might "sitting on the throne" be a reference to positional authority?

Why would anyone doubt that the Lord Jesus will sit upon a throne, especially when He said that when He returns to earth He will sit upon His throne?:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

This is the throne upon which He will sit:


"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Lk.1:32).

From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature, as witnessed by the following words:


"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly" (1 Ki. 2:12).

Solomon sat upon the throne of David on the earth. Now let us look at the Lord's promises made to David in regard to that throne and kingdom:


"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam.7:12-13).

Since the throne was "earthly" in nature then we can know that God established the earthly throne FOR EVER. God also said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).

The preterists say that God did "alter" His promise to David because the "throne of David" was changed from an earthly throne into a heavenly one.

According to them God did lie when He promised David that He would not "alter" his promises because the teaching of some Christians is based on the idea that God changed the throne from an earthly one into a heavenly one.

Earlier I said the following:

Here Peter spoke of what it would take for the Lord Jesus to return to the earth:


"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

In fact, shortly before His Olivet discourse the Lord Jesus made it plain that the Jews would not see Him again until they accepted Him, saying:


"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).

Since it is obvious that the nation of Israel did not repent then that nation has not seen the Lord Jesus since He walked among them.

Therefore, common sense dictates these words of the Lord have not yet come to pass:


"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

To this you said:


Again, you are equating the end of the age to Christ's second coming. Hebrews said the end of the age was connected to Christ's first coming. What verses would you show me to support your view that the end of the age = second coming?

The Lord's discourse at Matthew 24 was in answer to a question about what will happen at the end of the age:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

And here is a part of the Lord's answer:


"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt.24:30).

It seems like everyone but you knows that the Lord Jesus tied His return to earth to the events which will happen at the end of the age.

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 08:51 AM
From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature,

(Heb 8:5) They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Do you know what a "shadow" is?

"A shadow of what is in heaven"?

(Col 2:17) These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

The reality is found in Christ Jesus.

Yet, you think the reality is found in a man made throne on planet earth.

john w
June 11th, 2015, 09:08 AM
The reality is found in Christ Jesus.

Add that satanic stumper to "the land promise is fulfilled in Christ Jesus."


The punk can "prove" anything he wants.




Yet, you think the reality is found in a man made throne on planet earth.

Spammed on every thread-satanic. The child of the devil, with this "man made" satanic bit of sophistry, on record, again, asserts that the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, is "man made," and thus despises it, as the cross is not "reality," that the Lord Jesus Christ wore "man made" clothes, and thus despises the Lord Jesus Christ, asserts that the temple, in the wilderness, was not to be built by Moses, and the children of Israel, and that the LORD God never instructed anyone to build it, and thus is not "reality,"and asserts that all churches, in which respective members of the boc gather, since they are "man made," are not reality, and are to be ignored, and..............................

Tell us, noTettosterone Craigie, what "God made" church do you attend?

And where did you get that "man made" name, "Craigie?"


Deceiving serpent.

Christian Liberty
June 11th, 2015, 10:00 AM
You're also in favor of pot.


incorrect. Being for the legalization of something doesn't mean "favoring" that thing. Again you prove that you are stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 11:30 AM
Yet, you think the reality is found in a man made throne on planet earth.

Of course you failed to even attempt to prove anything which I said about the throne of David is in error. This is the throne upon which He will sit:


"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Lk.1:32).

From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature, as witnessed by the following words:


"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly" (1 Ki. 2:12).

Solomon sat upon the throne of David on the earth. Now let us look at the Lord's promises made to David in regard to that throne and kingdom:


"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam.7:12-13).

Since the throne was "earthly" in nature then we can know that God established the earthly throne FOR EVER. God also said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).

You say that God did "alter" His promise to David because the "throne of David" was changed from an earthly throne into a heavenly one.

According to you God did lie when He promised David that He would not "alter" his promises.

And then you do not even have the gumption to even attempt to address these particular points which I made about this.

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 11:50 AM
Dispensationalists have butchered Matt 23:39. The verse has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews accepting Him.

Matthew Henry, who was not a dispensationalists, said this:


"Lastly, Here is the final farewell that Christ took of them and their temple; Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh...Christ will not be seen again till he come in the clouds, and every eye shall see him" (Matthew Henry, Commentary at Matthew 23:39).


So, what Jesus was saying was that they would not see Him again until one of the 3 pilgrimage feasts.

There were no feasts between the time when the Lord spoke those words at Matthew 23:39 and the time of the Cross.

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 03:06 PM
There were no feasts between the time when the Lord spoke those words at Matthew 23:39 and the time of the Cross.

The next pilgrimage feast was the Feast of Weeks, which is also called Pentecost.

On Pentecost every able Jew was required to journey to Jerusalem for the Feast.

After the 40 days, Jesus told His Disciples not to leave Jerusaelm

(Acts 1:4) On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

Christ Jesus was the Passover Lamb, and rose from the grave on the Feast of Firstfruits. 50 days after the resurrection, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

On the Day of Pentecost in 30AD, every Jew (including the Pharisees) lined the streets and sang "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"

Here's what then happened on Pentecost:

(Acts 2:5,6) Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 03:09 PM
Matthew Henry, who was not a dispensationalists, said this:

As we see, Matthew Henry does not say the verse means that all the Jews will accept him.

That's something Dispensationalists have made up out of thin air in trying to make Darby's false teachings work.

john w
June 11th, 2015, 04:17 PM
As we see, Matthew Henry does not say the verse means that all the Jews will accept him.

That's something Dispensationalists have made up out of thin air in trying to make Darby's false teachings work.

=Resorting again, eventually, to his old reliable Darby spam, is his satanic "doctrine" is getting picked apart.

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 05:42 PM
As we see, Matthew Henry does not say the verse means that all the Jews will accept him.

That's something Dispensationalists have made up out of thin air in trying to make Darby's false teachings work.

We dispensationalists believe what is written here, proving that we did not make anything up:


"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).

Of course since the preterists have no place for this event in their eschatology they just refuse to believe what is written there.

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 05:50 PM
The next pilgrimage feast was the Feast of Weeks, which is also called Pentecost.

Are you not aware that the Lord Jesus was crucified before the day of Pentecost?

Between the time when the Lord Jesus said the words at Matthew 23:39 and His death on the Cross there was no pilgrimage feasts so no one saw Him at any of those feasts, as you imagine:


So, what Jesus was saying was that they would not see Him again until one of the 3 pilgrimage feasts.

You also said:


On the Day of Pentecost in 30AD, every Jew (including the Pharisees) lined the streets and sang "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"

That happened at Matthew 21:9 and the words of the Lord Jesus here came after that:


"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).

Nice try but no cigar!

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 07:00 PM
Are you not aware that the Lord Jesus was crucified before the day of Pentecost?

Yes, that's my point.


Between the time when the Lord Jesus said the words at Matthew 23:39 and His death on the Cross there was no pilgrimage feasts so no one saw Him at any of those feasts, as you imagine:

What do you think happened in Acts 2?




On the Day of Pentecost in 30AD, every Jew (including the Pharisees) lined the streets and sang "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"That happened at Matthew 21:9 and the words of the Lord Jesus here came after that:

No, what happened in Matt 21:9 was the Feast of Passover, not Pentecost. Passover is the first of the three pilgrimage feasts.

Pentecost is the second pilgrimage feast.



"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).

After Matt 23:39, the next time they said "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" was at Pentecost.


Nice try but no cigar!

Put your Dispensationalism away, and you wouldn't be so confused.

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 07:05 PM
We dispensationalists believe what is written here, proving that we did not make anything up:


"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).

Of course since the preterists have no place for this event in their eschatology they just refuse to believe what is written there.

Jer 31:31-34 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus in the first century.

The Apostle Paul was a minister of the new covenant.

In the new covenant, God the Father no longer remembers our sins.

We know Jer 31 was fulfilled, the writer of Hebrews quoted it to show it was fulfilled.

You Dispensationalists have a hard time understanding the fact that when New Testament writers (and Jesus) quoted Old Testament prophecies, it was to show that those prophecies were fulfilled, or in the process of being fulfilled.

patrick jane
June 11th, 2015, 07:11 PM
Jer 31:31-34 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus in the first century.

The Apostle Paul was a minister of the new covenant.

In the new covenant, God the Father no longer remembers our sins.

We know Jer 31 was fulfilled, the writer of Hebrews quoted it to show it was fulfilled.

You Dispensationalists have a hard time understanding the fact that when New Testament writers (and Jesus) quoted Old Testament prophecies, it was to show that those prophecies were fulfilled, or in the process of being fulfilled.




:rotfl:

tetelestai
June 11th, 2015, 07:25 PM
:rotfl:

Why do you think New Testament writers quoted Old Testament prophecies?

Nazaroo
June 11th, 2015, 08:11 PM
Wow! Reading this thread is like reading about Job and his 4 friends,
all completely clueless as to what is really happening.

(1) Shugart: (Post #1!)


"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke."

"the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know the time when the great tribulation would happen despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports that false idea. "

(2) Shugart: (Post #11)

"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke.

Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation.

I keep waiting for you to answer this and so far you have come up empty handed."

Mr. Shugart, are you SERIOUS?

And I'm stunned that nobody else knows their Bible enough
to respond effectively against this utter nonsense.

Only Daqq even notices this,
but he also gets it wrong and is completely ineffective in
smacking Shugart hard enough to cure the foolishness:

Daqq: (Post #18)


Shugart: "Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation."

Actually the portion I have placed in red emphasis is not true either. The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur, ...But of course Yeshua speaks of his own end of the age, (each in his or her own appointed times which only the Father knows). :)



"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)

"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under His own power,..." (John 13:3)

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things,
because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

Jesus would never at the very end of His 3 - 5 year ministry have
left all the Apostles under such a belief, if it were a mistaken one,
or a misunderstanding. Jesus would have straightened them out.

Even in Acts when Jesus ascends to heaven, the Disciples ask (who? JESUS!)
about the restoration of Israel. If they had thought at that time
that Jesus didn't know, they wouldn't have asked Him.
Jesus responds "Its not for YOU to know..." (Acts 1:7)
He doesn't say "I don't know..."

Search the Scriptures, like the Bereans.

The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let you down.


My post still stands.

Mr. Shugart has offered this weak response:



This from the "Benson Commentary" explains that in His human nature was not omniscient:

"It is said in Luke 2:52 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%202.52), that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient." You assume that He was always omniscient.


He doesn't have to be 'always omniscient'.

This scripture if it applies to knowledge (as opposed to wisdom)
is said of Jesus' childhood, not His ministry as Messiah.

For that we need to refer to what is said concerning THAT time:


"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)

Note please that this is also an UNCONDITIONAL flat statement,
unqualified and incredibly misleading if the Apostles have gotten it wrong
at the Last Supper and Garden of Gethsemane.

If both scriptures are true, and we have no reason to doubt their plain meaning,
then Jesus increased in wisdom as a growing child and teen,
and was omniscient as a complete and perfect Messiah.

The only scriptures which appear to be contrary (in the English translation only)
are those of Mark 13:32 and its derivatives (copied and modified) by Matthew and Luke.

We turn to Mark first, and find:

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV)

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)


Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Its really that simple, and the sentence is a coordinated pair of clauses.

Its a Conditional Sentence, that states outcomes which are dependent
upon conditions.

Its not a flat unconditional statement of fact,
but its a hypothetical, contingent Conditional Sentence,
which cannot be broken down into unconditional flat statements.

Its not conveying an unconditional truth,
but a conditional and hypothetical set of possibilities,
which may have various outcomes.

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 11:14 PM
Jer 31:31-34 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus in the first century.

When were all those of both the house of Israel and the house of Judah saved?


The Apostle Paul was a minister of the new covenant.

No, Paul was a minister of the new testament. The new testament of the Lord Jesus is the gospel, and Paul was a minister of the gospel (Acts 20:24).

Jerry Shugart
June 11th, 2015, 11:22 PM
My post still stands.

Mr. Shugart has offered this weak response:



This from the "Benson Commentary" explains that in His human nature was not omniscient:

"It is said in Luke 2:52 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%202.52), that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient." You assume that He was always omniscient.


He doesn't have to be 'always omniscient'.

Why do you want to insist that the Lord Jesus continued to be omniscient since He was made a little lower than angels?

tetelestai
June 12th, 2015, 07:15 AM
When were all those of both the house of Israel and the house of Judah saved?

Under the old covenant, the Day of Atonement consisted of 3 parts

1) the priest slew the sacrificial animal

2) the priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood to make atonement in the presence of God.

3) the priest returns and appears to the people of Israel at the door of the tent.

The Israelites waited anxiously because the return by the priest meant God accepted the atonement.


Now, jump to the first century.

1) Jesus was the sacrifice on the cross in 30AD

2) Jesus entered the true most Holy of Holies with His own blood to make atonement.

3) Jesus' returning or appearing “a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” to those eagerly waiting for Him happened in 70AD

The book of Hebrews was written after the cross, but before 70AD

Romans was also written after the cross, but before 70AD.

Therefore, both books portray Israel's New Covenant salvation as the yet future, but close.

Jerry Shugart
June 12th, 2015, 07:37 AM
Now, jump to the first century.

1) Jesus was the sacrifice on the cross in 30AD

2) Jesus entered the true most Holy of Holies with His own blood to make atonement.

Fine, but at that time not all of those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah knew the Lord and had their sins forgiven. And that has not happened since:


"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).

If you think that this prophecy has been fulfilled then you are obviously deluded.

tetelestai
June 12th, 2015, 07:55 AM
Fine, but at that time not all of those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah knew the Lord and had their sins forgiven. And that has not happened since:

That's what happened in 70AD

You keep forgetting that the House of Israel was divorced from God prior to the cross.

Jerry Shugart
June 12th, 2015, 10:45 AM
That's what happened in 70AD

You are delusional if you think that all those from the houdse of Israel and from the house of Judah knew the Lord and had their sins forgiven at 70AD.


You keep forgetting that the House of Israel was divorced from God prior to the cross.

Wrong!

If they were divorced from God then why were they given the offer of the kingdom after the Cross? Peter told the nation of Israel the following:


"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

Peter knew that when the Lord Jesus was sent back to the earth He would then sit upon His throne and begin to reign, as witnessed by the Lord Jesus' own words:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

Of course you believe none of this!

Nazaroo
June 12th, 2015, 03:33 PM
Why do you want to insist that the Lord Jesus continued to be omniscient since He was made a little lower than angels?

I would only insist that Jesus was omniscient during his Public Ministry.

Its acceptable that he 'grew in wisdom' as Luke describes.

But when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at Baptism,
and the Holy Spirit remained, in order to inform people and do miracles,
its reasonable to say that the Apostles' belief in Jesus' Omniscience
was well founded and part of Mainstream and Early Christian doctrine.

We don't need a 'non-omniscient' Jesus, and the Holy Scriptures
don't teach that Jesus was non-omniscient during His ministry.

Jerry Shugart
June 12th, 2015, 03:53 PM
I would only insist that Jesus was omniscient during his Public Ministry.

Then explain what He said here:


"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

daqq
June 12th, 2015, 04:22 PM
Its acceptable that he 'grew in wisdom' as Luke describes.

But when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at Baptism,
and the Holy Spirit remained, in order to inform people and do miracles,
its reasonable to say that the Apostles' belief in Jesus' Omniscience
was well founded and part of Mainstream and Early Christian doctrine.

:thumb: Given the Spirit without measure, John 3:34, (spring up, O well!). :)

Jerry Shugart
June 12th, 2015, 08:06 PM
:thumb: Given the Spirit without measure, John 3:34, (spring up, O well!). :)

if you believe what Nazaroo said about the Lord Jesus being omniscient while He walked the earth perhaps you can answer what I said here:

Then explain what He said here:


"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

Nazaroo
June 12th, 2015, 09:33 PM
if you believe what Nazaroo said about the Lord Jesus being omniscient while He walked the earth perhaps you can answer what I said here:

Then explain what He said here:
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?


This riddle is easy:

We've already shown what Mark says. (Post #125)


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Thus,
"No one knows the day or the hour,
not even the angels in heaven,
nor even the Son, if not the Father." (Literal translation)

Matthew is a late church production,
and this 'genius' who created the Greek version of Matthew also misread Mark.

As a result, later bumbling translators mistranslated Mark too,
after the fact.

Not surprisingly, other parts of Mark have been mistranslated too,
in order to please those who have made a life-long habit of
rejecting the Food Laws:

Mark 7:14-23 - Worse than Misinterpretations about Alcohol (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94246&highlight=Food+laws)


Matthew is the latest of the gospels, and suffers the most
wrongheaded editing flaws.



For instance, Matthew eliminates 99% of the Social Gospel
and Good News to the poor,
for the purpose of attracting rich Jews in the diaspora
to the new movement.

Why Matthew was written LAST and is secondary (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77184&highlight=Matthew)


(2) Matthew omits all the Parables and Teachings on the Poor:

Luke 12:13-21 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.13-21) - Parable of the Rich Fool (Matt. deleted)
Luke 14:12-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2014.12-14) - Invite the Poor, Injured Blind (Matt. deleted)
Luke 16:19-31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.19-31) - Parable of Rich Man & Lazarus (Matt. deleted)
Luke 21:1-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2021.1-4) - Parable of Poor Widow's Penny (Matt. deleted)

The accumulated effect is obvious.
The Poor have been entirely deleted from the Gospel,
along with the issue of poverty.


(3) Matthew omits most of the negative references to Judaism:

Luke 10:13-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.13-16) - Woe to those who reject the 70 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 10:29-36 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.29-36) - Parable of the Good Samaritan (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:5-8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.5-8) - Parable of the Persistent Neighbour (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:24-26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.24-26) - Parable of the Unclean spirit returning (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:37-54 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.37-54) - WOE to the Pharisees and Lawyers (Matt. edited, moved to Matt. 23:1-36 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%2023.1-36))
Luke 12:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.10) - The Unpardonable Sin (Matt. deleted)
Luke 12:49-53 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.49-53) - "I bring Division" (Matt. deleted)
Luke 15:11-32 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2015.11-32) - Parable of the Prodigal Son (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:1-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.1-4) - Forgiving 77 times 7 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:11-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.11-19) - 10 Lepers healed, only Foreigner returns (Matt. deleted)
Luke 18:9-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2018.9-14) - Parable of Tax Collector forgiven (Matt. deleted)
Luke 23:6-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2023.6-12) - Jesus faces Herod (Matt. deleted)

Right Divider
June 12th, 2015, 09:44 PM
What is the something else that Matthew 16:28 was conditional upon?
(Matt 16:28) “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Mat 17:1-8 KJV And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, (2) And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. (3) And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. (4) Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. (5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (6) And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. (7) And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. (8) And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
Gee, it's one chapter and six DAYS later..... so simple!

tetelestai
June 12th, 2015, 10:09 PM
[/INDENT]Gee, it's one chapter and six DAYS later..... so simple!

If it was six days later, why would Jesus tell them that SOME of them would not taste death, if EVERY one of them were still alive six days later?

Also, read the previous verse:

(Matt 16:27 KJV) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Was every man rewarded according to his works at the Transfiguration?

It's obvious to everyone except Dispensationalists that Matt 16:28 is not a reference to the Transfiguration.

Right Divider
June 12th, 2015, 10:30 PM
If it was six days later, why would Jesus tell them that SOME of them would not taste death, if EVERY one of them were still alive six days later?

Also, read the previous verse:

(Matt 16:27 KJV) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Was every man rewarded according to his works at the Transfiguration?

It's obvious to everyone except Dispensationalists that Matt 16:28 is not a reference to the Transfiguration.
Apparently, you don't understand that prophecies can be partially fulfilled. Like when Jesus STOPPED halfway through a prophecy when He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2
Isa 61:1-3 KJV The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (2) To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; (3) To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

Luk 4:18-20 KJV The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (20) And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
It's just too bad that your were not there to correct the Lord Jesus Christ of His misunderstanding.

P.S. Learn how to QUOTE!

tetelestai
June 12th, 2015, 10:57 PM
Apparently, you don't understand that prophecies can be partially fulfilled.

No they can't.

Partial fulfillment is a myth that Dispensationalists have made up.


like when Jesus STOPPED halfway through a prophecy when He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2

That wasn't a "partial fulfillment"

Jesus waited to tell them later when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:22 KJV) For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Verse 20 tells us when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:20 KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

This happened in 66AD

The "Days of Vengeance" took place from 66AD - 70AD (3.5 years)


It's just too bad that your were not there to correct the Lord Jesus Christ of His misunderstanding.

Christ Jesus didn't have a misunderstanding. It's you who has the misunderstanding.

You think that Jesus told His Disciples that some of them would not taste death for an event that would take place 6 days later. Especially considering that up to that point in time not one Disciple or follower of Jesus had been martyred.

Why would Jesus tell them that "Some" of them would not taste death when everyone of them was still alive 6 days later?

If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27

Give it up, your Dispensationalism is a mess.

patrick jane
June 12th, 2015, 11:05 PM
Tet says -
If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27


Tet says that already happened - everything did, even Revelation. we are in heaven now; no more pain, suffering or death, no more sadness or weeping - HIS preterism is a sloppy mess -

Tet preaches this happened in A.D. 70, ask him -

19861

daqq
June 12th, 2015, 11:52 PM
if you believe what Nazaroo said about the Lord Jesus being omniscient while He walked the earth perhaps you can answer what I said here:

Then explain what He said here:


"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

Yea, I was a little uneasy about that word "omniscience" but that was not really the thrust of what I was agreeing with, rather, the repletion or fullness of the Spirit which Yeshua received upon immersion: what I would rather say is everything that any one man is allowed to know, (because the Father is greater). However the point still stands that because of Deuteronomy 18:15-22 anything Yeshua "foretold" would must needs come to pass shortly thereafter unless he gave it a distant future timing because the Torah passage clearly states that if the thing which he says follows not, nor comes to pass, then we are not to fear, (respect the words of) that prophet because he has spoke presumptuously. The people in the first century did not have two thousand years to wait and see if the words spoken in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 would come to pass in our future. Therefore those things which Yeshua spoke in the Olivet Discourse did indeed come to pass beginning at Golgotha, and they continue to come to pass, each in his or her own appointed times: times appointed by the Father and known only to the Father. :)

daqq
June 13th, 2015, 12:11 AM
This riddle is easy:

We've already shown what Mark says. (Post #125)


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Thus,
"No one knows the day or the that hour,
not even the angels in heaven,
nor even the Son, if not the Father." (Literal translation)

Matthew is a late church production,
and this 'genius' who created the Greek version of Matthew also misread Mark.

As a result, later bumbling translators mistranslated Mark too,
after the fact.

Not surprisingly, other parts of Mark have been mistranslated too,
in order to please those who have made a life-long habit of
rejecting the Food Laws:

Mark 7:14-23 - Worse than Misinterpretations about Alcohol (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94246&highlight=Food+laws)


Matthew is the latest of the gospels, and suffers the most
wrongheaded editing flaws.



For instance, Matthew eliminates 99% of the Social Gospel
and Good News to the poor,
for the purpose of attracting rich Jews in the diaspora
to the new movement.

Why Matthew was written LAST and is secondary (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77184&highlight=Matthew)


(2) Matthew omits all the Parables and Teachings on the Poor:

Luke 12:13-21 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.13-21) - Parable of the Rich Fool (Matt. deleted)
Luke 14:12-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2014.12-14) - Invite the Poor, Injured Blind (Matt. deleted)
Luke 16:19-31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.19-31) - Parable of Rich Man & Lazarus (Matt. deleted)
Luke 21:1-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2021.1-4) - Parable of Poor Widow's Penny (Matt. deleted)

The accumulated effect is obvious.
The Poor have been entirely deleted from the Gospel,
along with the issue of poverty.


(3) Matthew omits most of the negative references to Judaism:

Luke 10:13-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.13-16) - Woe to those who reject the 70 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 10:29-36 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.29-36) - Parable of the Good Samaritan (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:5-8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.5-8) - Parable of the Persistent Neighbour (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:24-26 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.24-26) - Parable of the Unclean spirit returning (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:37-54 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.37-54) - WOE to the Pharisees and Lawyers (Matt. edited, moved to Matt. 23:1-36 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%2023.1-36))
Luke 12:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.10) - The Unpardonable Sin (Matt. deleted)
Luke 12:49-53 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.49-53) - "I bring Division" (Matt. deleted)
Luke 15:11-32 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2015.11-32) - Parable of the Prodigal Son (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:1-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.1-4) - Forgiving 77 times 7 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:11-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.11-19) - 10 Lepers healed, only Foreigner returns (Matt. deleted)
Luke 18:9-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2018.9-14) - Parable of Tax Collector forgiven (Matt. deleted)
Luke 23:6-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2023.6-12) - Jesus faces Herod (Matt. deleted)


Jerome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are a few who freely admit that they saw and-or received copies of Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, (Gospel of the Ebionites and the so-called original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which may or may not be also called the Gospel of the Nazoreans) which they said contained heresies and then Jerome freely admits translating his into Greek, (and no doubt the "heresies" were "corrected" at the same time for the benefit of all). :crackup:


18. But since the Gospel (written) in Hebrew characters which has come into our hands enters the threat not against the man who had hid (the talent), but against him who had lived dissolutely - for he (the master) had three servants: one who squandered his master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied the gain, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly one was accepted (with joy), another merely rebuked, and another cast into prison - I wonder whether in Matthew the threat which is uttered after the word against the man who did nothing may not refer to him, but by epanalepsis to the first who had feasted and drunk with the drunken.

(Eusebius, Theophania 22 [on Matthew 25:14-15])
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/nazoreans-ogg.html



In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded for help in the following words: "I was a mason and earned (my) livelihood with (my) hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me to my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread."

(Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2 [on Matthew 12:13])
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/nazoreans-ogg.html




This riddle is easy:

We've already shown what Mark says. (Post #125)


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Same thing happens in another interesting place: :)

Matthew 11:27 KJV
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

"No one knows the Son if not the Father; neither does anyone know the Father if not the Son, and [to] whomever the Son wills to reveal [him]", (also Luke 10:22).

Nazaroo
June 13th, 2015, 03:16 AM
Jerome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are a few who freely admit that they saw and-or received copies of Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, (Gospel of the Ebionites and the so-called original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which may or may not be also called the Gospel of the Nazoreans) which they said contained heresies and then Jerome freely admits translating his into Greek, (and no doubt the "heresies" were "corrected" at the same time for the benefit of all). :crackup:








Same thing happens in another interesting place: :)

Matthew 11:27 KJV
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

"No one knows the Son if not the Father; neither does anyone know the Father if not the Son, and [to] whomever the Son wills to reveal [him]", (also Luke 10:22).

Great points, thanks for reading and posting!

peace
Nazaroo

Jerry Shugart
June 13th, 2015, 07:32 AM
Thus,
"No one knows the day or the that hour,
not even the angels in heaven,
nor even the Son, if not the Father." (Literal translation)

Which Literal Translation? How about this literal translation?:


"Now concerning that day or hour no one is aware - neither the messengers in heaven, nor the Son - except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Concordant Literal Version).

And this one:


"But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, "Literal Translation," [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000], p.157).

Nazaroo
June 13th, 2015, 07:57 AM
Which Literal Translation? How about this literal translation?:

"Now concerning that day or hour no one is aware - neither the messengers in heaven, nor the Son - except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Concordant Literal Version).And this one:

"But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, "Literal Translation," [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000], p.157).

Both the Concordat and (I presume) Young's Literal (1880s)
are inaccurate here. Young's was done at the turn of the 2nd last
century, before the papyri were discovered and scholars knew
anything about the Greek of Jesus' day.

The Greek word for "except" is 'plen'. (πλην)

It is used in single clauses to add modifying phrases that
limit the verb action in the clause.

A compound sentence consisting of more than one clause
is an entirely different animal,
and Mark 13:32 is a multiple clause compound sentence,
which only has an appearance of a single clause because of
a very common phenomenon in both Greek and English called Elipsis.

Ellipsis is where the verb in the second clause is skipped
because it is the same verb as in the first clause.

To fully reconstruct the sentence by including the words
dropped through Ellipsis, the sentence would read as follows:

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ [γινώσκει] (verb dropped v. Ellipsis)
(Greek text, no significant variants)

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if not the Father. (with original Ellipsis)

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if the Father does not know. (Ellipsis restored)

Because English is less inflected than Greek,
and because English special tenses are formed by compounding
and combining verbs with either 'to be' or 'to do',
we also have to add "to do" in English.

For instance, English doesn't have a true verb declension
for the PERFECT PAST TENSE, so we make up the past tense
using the word 'have' and form a compound verb:

I have said,
You have said (no sing. or plural either)
He/she has said (no male or female forms either)
They have said (3rd person same as 1st person)
You have said (2nd person plural same as singular)
We have said (1st person plural same as singular).

You can see that various tenses and moods are created in English
by adding a few common verbs to the normal verb forms.

Also, in English, but not in Greek, the two conjoining particles
must be split around the compound verb,
so that "if" and "not" are separated and "not" is inserted
between the two verbs.

In Greek this is not allowed but instead the "if" and "not"
stay together, because there is no need to separate them.
The verb form itself contains all the information needed to
detect mood and tense.

Sonnet
June 13th, 2015, 11:44 AM
It has been shown several times on TOL that Christ's foretelling of these events hinges on a conditional particle in the Greek that goes largely unacknowledged in all English translations; that IF a certain condition was met, the generation standing before Him would have lived to see those events come to pass. However, that condition did not come to pass, so that generation did not see what He said they might.

Wouldn't that make Jesus' words redundant?

Jerry Shugart
June 13th, 2015, 11:48 AM
Both the Concordat and (I presume) Young's Literal (1880s) are inaccurate here. Young's was done at the turn of the 2nd last
century, before the papyri were discovered and scholars knew
anything about the Greek of Jesus' day.

You presume wrong. I did not quote Young at all. Instead, I quoted the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament of which Jay Green is the Editor and Translator. It was first published in 1980. The CLV was first published first in 1909.

From which Greek expert do you quote from here?


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if not the Father. (with original Ellipsis)

And here?:


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if the Father does not know

In both of these translations the meaning is clear--the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:


"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."

Besides that, neither translation makes a lick of sense.

By the way, what are your credentials in the Greek language?

Right Divider
June 13th, 2015, 12:04 PM
No they can't.

Partial fulfillment is a myth that Dispensationalists have made up.

You're dangerously close to making it onto the "dumb as a box of rocks" list.


That wasn't a "partial fulfillment"

Jesus waited to tell them later when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:22 KJV) For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Talk about DOUBLE-TALK and double-mindedness!

Jesus announced that the FIRST PART (i.e, minus the day of vengeance) was "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21) and then LATER (according to both scripture and YOU) He told them of the FUTURE fulfillment of the "days of vengeance".

You need to have your head examined.


Verse 20 tells us when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:20 KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

This happened in 66AD

The "Days of Vengeance" took place from 66AD - 70AD (3.5 years)

Even if you are correct, that means that there was 30 YEARS between the fulfillment of TWO PARTS of the SAME SENTENCE IN PROPHECY. But, still, according to the great Tet, the first PART was not a PARTial fulfillment. You're NUTS!


Christ Jesus didn't have a misunderstanding. It's you who has the misunderstanding.

You think that Jesus told His Disciples that some of them would not taste death for an event that would take place 6 days later. Especially considering that up to that point in time not one Disciple or follower of Jesus had been martyred.

Why would Jesus tell them that "Some" of them would not taste death when everyone of them was still alive 6 days later?

If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27

Give it up, your Dispensationalism is a mess.
What keeps God from doing this? Your high and mighty OPINION? :cigar:

john w
June 13th, 2015, 12:24 PM
If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27



Like your 35-40 year, or so, "gap," between when the law ended, according to you, at the cross(satanic-made up), was reinstituted, in early Acts, until 70 AD, when there was, according to you a "OC/NC overlap?"

Lile the 6000, or so, year "gap," between the promise of a redeemer, and its fulfillment? And on, and on,........

You deceiving Preterist punk.

Nazaroo
June 13th, 2015, 02:28 PM
You presume wrong. I did not quote Young at all. Instead, I quoted the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament of which Jay Green is the Editor and Translator. It was first published in 1980. The CLV was first published first in 1909.

From which Greek expert do you quote from here?


Thanks for naming your source here.

I don't rely upon 'lonestar' translations, even popular teachers like
Jay Green.

If you want a real Greek grammar beyond the Beginner's Greek workbooks,
and student texts,
I am recommending these two extensive and important works,
probably the best grammars ever written on Greek including Koine and NT:


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41meMzvCgVL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Biblical Greek: Illustrated By Examples By Maximilian Zerwick - English edition From The Fourth Latin Edition By Joseph Smith (Subsidia Biblica)

'The success which attended the Latin Graecitas Biblica from its first (1944) to its revised and enlarged fourth Edition (1960) suggested the advisability of an English translation. The purpose of the present treatise was not so much a purely scientific or philological one, as that of encouraging future ministers of the Word to have recourse to the original Greek text. This accounts for the multiplication of examples to illustrate the exegetical importance of the study of the Greek and also for the fact that attention has been given almost exclusively to points of syntax, morphology being relegated to a few remarks in the Conclusion (M. Zerwick S.J.).
Greek Grammar by Smythe '
Paperback – May 23, 2014

by Joseph Smith SJ (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Joseph+Smith+SJ&search-alias=books&text=Joseph+Smith+SJ&sort=relevancerank) (Adapter), Maximilian Zerwick (http://www.amazon.com/Maximilian-Zerwick/e/B00J3ASSCU/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_2) (Author)




and also:


https://books.google.ca/books/content?id=TK9MAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE71Kcb82NWB2gPpWUz7Tsepnu_MZtU5ACTdHPcN-vWj4A7mudzWyvI-w1dIzPmRhVMT2zntkuMJIsI39uj8mNK5v3iuh1A66O9qVLMBh6 yjdYPyg_3Btg2-wBRIx1FLJJ3e9zNLv
Herbert Weir Smyth (August 8, 1857 – July 16, 1937) was an American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) classical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics) scholar. His comprehensive grammar of ancient Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) has become a standard reference on the subject in English, comparable to William Watson Goodwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Watson_Goodwin)'s, whom he succeeded as Eliott Professor of Greek Literature at Harvard University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University).


Smyth's Grammar and here: (http://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/toc.htm)
is available online (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007)


These are considered the very TOP Greek grammars ever written,
and available in English.

Both have extensive sections / chapters on Conditional sentences
and the Optative moods.

They are nothing like 'toy' grammars popularly used in seminaries
and Bible colleges, such as Green's, Winer's, or Mounce's terse
textbooks for beginner's courses.

Smyth's for instance is nearly 1,000 pages.




In both of these translations the meaning is clear--the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."Besides that, neither translation makes a lick of sense.
You have now (deliberately?) left off the complete Conditional sentence,
by dropping the final clause entirely.

I would ask you to be fair to readers here.




By the way, what are your credentials in the Greek language?I have also written a Koine Greek grammar myself,
but I will not be linking directly to that,
because I wish to retain anonymity and also avoid promoting my own work.

For this purpose Smyth's (Harvard) is adequate.

I would begin with his introduction to the Optative mood in paragraph 357.

You'll need to move to Part III after that.

This link will give you a downloadable .pdf version:
http://cdn.textkit.net/hws_Greek_Grammar_AR5.pdf

Discussion of the Ellipsis of the verb (which I mentioned previously)
is found in paragraph 944 (pg 261 fwd).
But this is discussed concerning Conditional sentences in particular
in paragraphs 2345 and fwd (pg 530 fwd),
and especially also para 2349-2352 (pg 531 fwd),

The Optative Moods are discussed in more detail on pg 406 fwd,
(paragraphs 1814 - 1827)

Conditional Sentences are introduced and discussed from pgs 512-537,
(para 2290 fwd)

By far Conditional Sentences are found most frequently in John's gospel,
and these are mostly expressed using the Negative particle, and frequently
with Ellipsis. All of them use "ei" ("if") to coordinate two or more clauses.

This is discussed extensively in the following paragraphs:


The particle "ei" ("if") is introduced with its contraction/combination with "an" (optative signalers)
that is "ean" (= ei + an), in para. 2354 fwd (pg 533...)
its use with the optative verb form is found from para. 2356 fwd.

Smyth doesn't usually discuss the evolution of the Greek syntax in these paragraphs,
but that lacuna has been filled by other researchers of both Classical and Koine.

Because Koine Greek was still very much a 'lego'-type building process,
with combinations of particles being preferred, and new ideas and nuances
being coined at the very time of Christ (it was a living language),
you will see interesting things such as "ei kai" ('if also') taking on an idiomatic meaning,
something like the many advanced English expressions like "although".

Strictly speaking however, the words should be left literal, because
they acquired their idiomatic meaning through extensive usage
for the next 400 years, and not at the time of Jesus.

Extensive examples in classical literature (usually before Jesus' era)
are given in the text.

Smyth is largely a descriptive not a prognosive text,
so he is strictly talking to other grammarians and language experts,
not laymen.

But you can learn a lot from such a work, as it brings vast resources
from early writings to bear on the topics.

Reading Smyth is largely an exercise in self-discipline and
one in which you will have to make your own extensive notes,
including unanswered questions as you go through the text.

Jerry Shugart
June 13th, 2015, 04:58 PM
Thanks for naming your source here.

I don't rely upon 'lonestar' translations, even popular teachers like
Jay Green.

I asked you what are your credentials in the Greek language. From what you said you have no credentials that compares with recognized Greek experts like Jay Green.

But yet you seem to think that you know more about the Greek language than he does.


You have now (deliberately?) left off the complete Conditional sentence,
by dropping the final clause entirely.

I would ask you to be fair to readers here.

No matter what is said in the final clause the verse is saying that the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:


"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."

What you put in the final clause does not change with is said previously, that no man knows the day or the hour and neither does the Son.

Nazaroo
June 13th, 2015, 05:17 PM
I asked you what are your credentials in the Greek language. From what you said you have no credentials that compares with recognized Greek experts like Jay Green.

But yet you seem to think that you know more about the Greek language than he does.


I have withheld all my credentials to prevent identification for security purposes,
which is a legal requirement in my profession and employment environment.
I am also under many confidentiality and secrecy agreements.

I have no interest in comparing relative knowledge with other scholars,
or Bible teachers like Jay Green.
Such comparisons are futile, since no one can objectively measure
relative knowledge, which may be extensive but private.
IQ tests are the closest thing to an objective measure of both
intelligence and knowledge/experience, but while accurate in their results,
the meaning of the IQ ratings are disputed.

On the other hand, if Jay Green doesn't understand conditional sentences,
then I suppose he shouldn't teach Greek, or even English.





No matter what is said in the final clause the verse is saying that the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."What you put in the final clause does not change w[hat] is said previously,
that no man knows the day or the hour and neither does the Son.

This claim of yours amounts to a denial of the existence of
the Conditional Sentence, which is, I assure you, a real entity.

Let me list a few conditional sentences found in the Holy Scriptures:

"Lord: If he sleeps, (then) he does well." (John 11:12)
" κυριε, ει κεκοιμηται, σωθησεται. " (John 11:12 Greek text)

Here the disciple does not make a flat unconditional claim
that Lazarus is doing well.
He only suggests that "IF" circumstance A is true,
THEN result B will also be true.

It would be wrong to insist that
the disciple claimed Lazarus was doing well.
Even if he believes this to be true, he is not here claiming he knows
it to be so unconditionally, but rather he supposes that if a given
condition is met, then the statement will be true.

Whenever the word "if" (Greek "ei") appears, we have to
recognize its meaning and function, which is to introduce
and coordinate hypothetical ideas, for purposes of imparting
complex knowledge.

"In my Father's house are many homes.
But if not, (that is, "if there were not many homes there," )
(then) I would have told you." (John 14:2)

" εν τη οικια του Πατρος μου μοναι πολλαι εισιν.
ει δε μη [elipsis of counter-assertion],
ειπον αν υμιν!"

We use this conditional structure all the time in English,
so much so, that we don't even notice the hidden clause
which is unstated, by means of ellipsis.

Jerry Shugart
June 13th, 2015, 08:07 PM
I have no interest in comparing relative knowledge with other scholars, or Bible teachers like Jay Green.
Such comparisons are futile, since no one can objectively measure
relative knowledge, which may be extensive but private.
IQ tests are the closest thing to an objective measure of both
intelligence and knowledge/experience, but while accurate in their results, the meaning of the IQ ratings are disputed.

For the life of me I cannot understand what this revised verse of yours is saying:


"No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, if not the Father."

Can you give a simple explanation as to what is being said in this translation?

Thanks!

Sonnet
June 13th, 2015, 10:41 PM
Jerry, you need to make up your mind

:juggle:

In the following you claim "generation" means "race"



Next, you claim "this" refers to "you"



Next, you claim it refers to the people (ye)



Are you sure you don't want to include STP's explanation where he claims "all these things" doesn't really mean "all these things"?

Or maybe musterions explanation where he claims there's a secret Greek word hidden in the verse?

Or maybe Danoh's explanation where he claims there is a subjunctive mood in the verse?

Or maybe the pat Dispie explanation where they claim "this" really means "that"

I've seen them all Jerry. No matter how hard you guys try, the verse means what it says.

The demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation". When proper grammar is applied "this generation" can only describe the generation of Jesus' contemporaries.

So the 'great distress' of AD 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, has no parallel before or after?

Mat. 24:21
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

Sonnet
June 13th, 2015, 10:58 PM
So, are you saying that Jesus' point was that the Jews would not pass away before the things spoken of concerning the Jews would happen to them?

If so, I can't think of a more meaningless statement.

That's like telling your friend "God told me that such and such is going to happen to you." "When is it going to happen to you?" "It will happen to you before you die."

If God says it is going to happen to the guy, it is obviously going to happen before he dies.

If God says the Jews would go through a great tribulation, it would obviously occur before that "family" passes away. There would be no reason to make the statement.


I agree


For this reason and others, I side with the preterist on this verse.

Then what of Dan Emanuel's point:

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain. Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret? Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.

Sonnet
June 13th, 2015, 11:03 PM
Why meaningless?

The Lord wanted to assure them that the nation would not be destroyed during the great tribulation or during the world wide harvest which would follow. In fact, this is not the first time that such assurance had been given to the Israelites, as witnessed by these words:


"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: If this fixed order departs From before Me, declares the LORD, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever" (Jer.31:35-36).

According to the Lord as long as the sun and moon remain in the sky the nation of Israel will remain "being a nation" before Him. So there is nothing odd about the Lord Jesus telling the Israelites that "this race shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," especially with the great tribulation in view.

How does this answer Aaron the Tall's point that such an interpretations renders Jesus' words as meaningless?

Sonnet
June 13th, 2015, 11:11 PM
You and Jerry should have a contest for which one of you can butcher Matt 24:34 more than the other.

Read the whole chapter.

Jesus told of many events that had to take place before He returned.

Those were the conditions.

All the events that Jesus said had to happen (the conditions) before He returned did in fact happen before 70AD.

Thus, there were still some people still alive from the generation of Jesus' contemporaries before He returned.

Then what of Dan Emanuel's point:

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain. Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret? Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.

Nazaroo
June 14th, 2015, 12:12 AM
For the life of me I cannot understand what this revised verse of yours is saying:
"No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, if not the Father." Can you give a simple explanation as to what is being said in this translation?

Thanks!

Yes, and I can understand both why you find this expression subtle,
and why historically it was easily misinterpreted and then paraphrased
and metamorphized into something with a completely different and
false meaning.

The first step in unpacking this saying is to expand it legitimately,
by replacing any Ellipsis in the sentence.

"No one knows the day and the hour;
not even the angels in heaven know the day and the hour,
not even the Son (knows the day and the hour),
if the Father (Himself) doesn't know the day and the hour."

The first three clauses,
if they were separately expressed as independent flat statements,
would have carried the modern meaning normally attributed to them
by translators.

That is, any or all three of these clauses, had they been said by Jesus
on separate occasions, would have suggested either historical truths,
or statements about the current state of knowledge of those mentioned.

Thus, if we had found in some section of the Gospels,

"The angels don't know the day and the hour (of the Last Day, Judgement, or Return)."

... we would be justified in believing that the angels don't know this,
and if expressed as a universal truth meant to apply until the 2nd coming,
we could even strongly believe that the angels even now do not know.


And if Jesus had said, on another independent occasion,

"Even The Son (of Man) does not know the day or hour."

... perhaps on some occasion when the disciples had asked,
"When is the army of God Coming?"
We could reasonably understand that Jesus had simply said "I don't know."
in a poetic way, or perhaps a way that prevented others
(who didn't know He referred to himself with this title)
from picking up that admission.

Even then, we would be extending the meaning beyond the text,
if we were to assume that Jesus remained in the dark regarding the date,
after being resurrected and ascending to His throne in Heaven
at God's right hand.
It would still be a reasonable assumption in some people's view,
for instance if the time had not been yet decided,
or if Jesus had not bothered to ask the Father when.

Probably the most universal expression we might have liked to find,
would be an independent statement by Jesus somewhere like this:

"No one knows the Day and the Hour
when the army of the Lord is coming."

In this case, the all but universal flat statement would
naturally be assumed to include both angels and the Son of Man (Jesus).
And such an UNQUALIFIED and UNLIMITED universal
would justify a belief that Jesus taught that this particular information
(the time of the event) is an UNKNOWABLE thing.

The problem is, Jesus never did make any such flat unconditional statements.


And other things that Jesus said now have to be taken into account and used
to form our view of what Jesus meant in the real passage at hand.

I think that if we really try to understand the Conditional Sentence,
we will come away with a good idea of what Jesus is saying in Mark 13:34.

Let's try first to see what the Conditional Sentence does for us
in another passage, which everyone already understands,
and in which everyone agrees to its basic meaning:

"In my Father's house are many homes.
But if not, (that is, "if there were not many homes there," )
(then) I would have told you." (John 14:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2014.2))

" εν τη οικια του Πατρος μου μοναι πολλαι εισιν.
ει δε μη [elipsis of counter-assertion],
ειπον αν υμιν!"

First, lets note that UNLIKE Mark 13:32, this Conditional
is preceded by a flat UNconditional statement that helps us to get it.

There are in fact two statements here:

(1) "In My Father's house there are many homes." (statement 1).

This is a flat historical truth, making it absolutely clear what Jesus
wants us to understand, believe, and take away from the talk.

(2) "But if not, I would have told you!" (statement 2).

This is a perfectly understandable expression, but we don't normally
unpack it to its fullest extent, because we easily understand the shorthand.

This 'shorthand', developed through Ellipsis, which is a natural way
people have of getting quickly to the point, is not usually ambiguous.
the CONTEXT (the previous statement) provides the meaning.

Using the previous statement, we can make this second sentence
more of a 'stand-alone' and complete statement, that gives the meaning,
even without the previous first statement:

"But if NOT [many homes],
I would have told you [that there were not many homes there]."

Now the second statement is clear without needing the first one.


Suppose we apply this same fuller structure to the Conditional Statement
in Mark 13:32:

First we need a flat unconditional statement (1) which tells us the facts.

(1) "There IS someone who knows the Day and the Hour of the Return." or,
"[I]The Father knows the Day and the Hour of the Return."

Now we add the Conditional Sentence,
which tells us under what conditions the OPPOSITE case would require,
just like the example from the Gospel of John:

(2) "If the Father doesn't know,
then not even the angels would know,
and not even the Son of Man knows."

What is this second statement saying?
It does not contradict the first statement,
because it does not assert a flat unconditional truth about
a historical situation or a current condition.

Instead, it tells us that ANOTHER sign or condition would exist,
in the case where statement 1 failed.

Jesus here would be asserting that
it is impossible for Angels or even 'the Son of Man' to know something
that the Father himself does not know.

Why would Jesus say this?
It seems almost a trivial claim, but it is actually a very forceful claim:

Jesus is reminding the crowd that they are already witnessing
a Revelation by Himself (the Son of Man) from God the Father,
accompanied by Signs and miracles.

Therefore they can be confident and certain that what Jesus reveals
about the future is reliable and true, because its from the Father.

Jesus is reminding them that all His own knowledge and power
is being SOURCED by the Father.

In the real context of Jesus revealing new truths to people in darkness,
accompanied by unheard of power and merciful blessings and healings,
they can be assured that all this 'shock and awe' is from THE FATHER.

Aaron the Tall
June 14th, 2015, 01:04 AM
Of course you failed to even attempt to prove anything which I said about the throne of David is in error. This is the throne upon which He will sit:


"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Lk.1:32).

From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature, as witnessed by the following words:


"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly" (1 Ki. 2:12).

Solomon sat upon the throne of David on the earth. Now let us look at the Lord's promises made to David in regard to that throne and kingdom:


"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam.7:12-13).

Since the throne was "earthly" in nature then we can know that God established the earthly throne FOR EVER. God also said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).

You say that God did "alter" His promise to David because the "throne of David" was changed from an earthly throne into a heavenly one.

According to you God did lie when He promised David that He would not "alter" his promises.

And then you do not even have the gumption to even attempt to address these particular points which I made about this.

I would like to reply to your points - but I don't always have the time to do a thorough job.

My one question for now is: if God' promised to establish David's earthly throne forever, where is that throne now??

Aaron the Tall
June 14th, 2015, 01:11 AM
I agree



Then what of Dan Emanuel's point:

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain. Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret? Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.

I am personally not a full-preterist. Although I see the "coming" of Matthew 24 as fulfilled, I recognize a future coming (I Cor 15).

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 01:47 AM
I am personally not a full-preterist. Although I see the "coming" of Matthew 24 as fulfilled, I recognize a future coming (I Cor 15).

But, nevertheless, the 'great distress' has already occurred? So, any future tribulation will not be as great?

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 01:52 AM
Doesn't the confusion that comes from Matthew 24:34 mean that all non-believers have recourse to an excuse (I know Romans 1 says otherwise).

Even C.S. Lewis considered that Jesus made an error with these words in Matthew.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:15 AM
Then what of Dan Emanuel's point:

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain.

Many early church fathers interpreted the events of 70AD as the fulfillment of Matt 24:34


Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret?

What cover-up?

Not many people deny that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD, and that not one stone was left standing upon another in the temple.


Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.

The kingdom of Heaven is not of this world.

Right now, Christ Jesus reigns with the Saints in the kingdom. None of the Saints who are reigning with Christ Jesus right now bleed.

However, when the thousand years is over, satan will be released for a little while, but then will be devoured by fire, then thrown into the lake of fire, then the Great Judgment, then death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, and then unbelievers not in the book of life are thrown into the fire.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:17 AM
Even C.S. Lewis considered that Jesus made an error with these words in Matthew.

Jesus didn't error.

Everything in Matt 24 happened between 66AD-70AD

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 07:55 AM
Jesus didn't error.

Everything in Matt 24 happened between 66AD-70AD

The great distress of 70AD eclipses the holocaust or Stalin's slaughter of millions of his own people?

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 07:56 AM
Many early church fathers interpreted the events of 70AD as the fulfillment of Matt 24:34



What cover-up?

Not many people deny that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD, and that not one stone was left standing upon another in the temple.



The kingdom of Heaven is not of this world.

Right now, Christ Jesus reigns with the Saints in the kingdom. None of the Saints who are reigning with Christ Jesus right now bleed.

However, when the thousand years is over, satan will be released for a little while, but then will be devoured by fire, then thrown into the lake of fire, then the Great Judgment, then death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, and then unbelievers not in the book of life are thrown into the fire.

Mat. 24:
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earthc will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

That did not occur in 70AD.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:01 AM
The great distress of 70AD eclipses the holocaust or Stalin's slaughter of millions of his own people?

Is distress and/or tribulation bases solely on the number of people killed?

Josphus tells of Jewish mothers boiling their children and eating the flesh.

Which of the two following examples is a "greater distress":

1) 10 men shot and killed by a firing squad

2) 1 mother boiling her 2 year old little girl and eating the flesh

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 08:09 AM
Is distress and/or tribulation bases solely on the number of people killed?

Josphus tells of Jewish mothers boiling their children and eating the flesh.

Which of the two following examples is a "greater distress":

1) 10 men shot and killed by a firing squad

2) 1 mother boiling her 2 year old little girl and eating the flesh

What of the gassing of millions of Jews? The destruction of Jerusalem, including the temple, in 70AD was a distressing event but there's been plenty worse.

How about Noah's flood?
Hiroshima?

I do concede, though, that the plain reading of Mat. 24:34 is as you interpret it. But Jesus did not return.

It's grist for the atheist's mill.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:12 AM
Mat. 24:
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earthc will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

That did not occur in 70AD.

Yes it did.

Let's look at the following verse:

(Isaiah 19:1) A prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.

In the above verse did the Lord literally ride on a literal cloud into Egypt?

Did the Lord literally come to Egypt?

Answer: No

We know from history, that the fulfillment of Isaiah 19:1 was when the Assyrian army invaded Egypt.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:15 AM
What of the gassing of millions of Jews? The destruction of Jerusalem, including the temple, in 70AD was a distressing event but there's been plenty worse.

Your subjective opinion is that there have been plenty worse.

Why didn't you answer by question about which of the two examples was a greater distress?


It's grist for the atheist's mill.

The grist for the atheist's mill is when Christians come up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses of why Matt 24:34 doesn't mean what it says.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:18 AM
I do concede, though, that the plain reading of Mat. 24:34 is as you interpret it. But Jesus did not return.

Do you believe that the Roman army came in 66AD, laid siege on the city for 3.5 years, then completely destroyed the city not leaving one stone left standing upon the other of the temple?

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 08:22 AM
Yes it did.

Let's look at the following verse:

(Isaiah 19:1) A prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.

In the above verse did the Lord literally ride on a literal cloud into Egypt?

Did the Lord literally come to Egypt?

Answer: No

We know from history, that the fulfillment of Isaiah 19:1 was when the Assyrian army invaded Egypt.

If your assessment is correct - then we may forgive unbelievers for their lack of faith. If words and phrases are that symbolic then the true meaning of scripture is obfuscated.

However, in Isaiah 19 there is are clarification regarding verse 1. Just keep reading v.2ff.

If Mat 24:30 is not to be taken literally then scripture is eviscerated. Why should we believe much of any of it?

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 08:28 AM
Your subjective opinion is that there have been plenty worse.

I think the onus rests with you to explain why 70AD is without parallel in terms of distress.


Why didn't you answer by question about which of the two examples was a greater distress?

Ask anyone what historical event should be considered the worst.



The grist for the atheist's mill is when Christians come up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses of why Matt 24:34 doesn't mean what it says.

Indeed.

Sonnet
June 14th, 2015, 08:29 AM
Do you believe that the Roman army came in 66AD, laid siege on the city for 3.5 years, then completely destroyed the city not leaving one stone left standing upon the other of the temple?

Yes.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:31 AM
If your assessment is correct - then we may forgive unbelievers for their lack of faith. If words and phrases are that symbolic then the true meaning of scripture is obfuscated.

Huh?


However, in Isaiah 19 there is are clarification regarding verse 1. Just keep reading v.2ff.

Where is Isaiah 19 is there clarification of "he Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt." ?

Is "rides on a swift cloud" symbolic?


If Mat 24:30 is not to be taken literally then scripture is eviscerated. Why should we believe much of any of it?

Again, why is it ok to take Isaiah 19:1 symbolically, but not Matt 24:30?

"coming in the clouds" is old testament terminology that describes God's wrath and judgment on cities and nations.

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 08:38 AM
How does this answer Aaron the Tall's point that such an interpretations renders Jesus' words as meaningless?

The Jews needed constant assurance about their survival so why should it surprise anyone one that the Lord Jesus would assure them of their survival?

After all, it is impossible that this translation could be correct:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

The generation living in the first century did not see a world-wide judgment so the word "generation" is clearly not the correct translation.

On the other hand, the word "family" (the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) fits perfectly.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:38 AM
Yes.

That's good.

Then how do you not see what happened from 66AD-70AD as the fulfillment of Matt 24:34?

You mentioned the early church earlier. Let's look at what an early church father said regarding 70AD

"And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men." - Eusebius (A.D. 325), Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Ch. 5

In the above Eusebius tells us that all the holy men had left Jerusalem before the Romans came and destroyed the city.

The holy men leaving the city before the siege shows they listened to the warning of Christ Jesus:

(Matt 24:16) then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:43 AM
The generation living in the first century did not see a world-wide judgment so the word "generation" is clearly not the correct translation.


It wasn't a world-wide judgement.

If it was a world-wide judgement, then why did Jesus tell only those in Judaea to flee to the hills when they saw Jerusalem surrounded?

(Luke 21:20-21) “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

Does the above sound like a world-wide judgement?

Besides telling those in the city to flee to the mountains, Jesus told those in the country not to enter the city.

There is nothing "world-wide" in the passage, the passage is specific to Jerusalem and Judaea.

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 08:46 AM
I would like to reply to your points - but I don't always have the time to do a thorough job.

My one question for now is: if God' promised to establish David's earthly throne forever, where is that throne now??

With God all things are possible. But why would you question what the Lord promised to David? Do you think that He would promise something and then not fulfill it, especially since He said that His words would be fulfilled.

Do you question the Lord Jesus' words here where He states that when He returns to the earth that He will sit upon His throne?:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:57 AM
On the other hand, the word "family" (the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) fits perfectly.

That makes absolutely no sense Jerry.

Your illogical claim would read like the following:

"This "Jewish family" will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then the "Jewish family" will pass away."

This especially doesn't make sense to a Dispensationalist/Futurist/Premillinnialist like you Jerry, who claims the Jews will reign with Jesus for a thousand years after the period described in Matt 24:34.

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 09:07 AM
It wasn't a world-wide judgement.

If it was a world-wide judgement, then why did Jesus tell only those in Judaea to flee to the hills when they saw Jerusalem surrounded?

(Luke 21:20-21) “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

The world wide judgment will happen in the future AFTER the great tribulation will be over:


"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

The great tribulation will be over by the time the signs will be seen in the sky (Mt.24:39) so the events described at Luke 21:25-27 will happen AFTER the great tribulation.

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

The Greek word "oikoumene" is used by the Lord Jesus at another place in the same discourse:


"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).

By the context we can understand the meaning of that Greek word as referring to this:


"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

It is impossible that "generation" is the correct translation in Matthew 24 because the first century generation did not see a world wide judgment.

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 09:12 AM
That makes absolutely no sense Jerry.

Your illogical claim would read like the following:

"This "Jewish family" will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then the "Jewish family" will pass away."

It makes perfect sence because one of the meanings of the Greek word genea is "family":


"genea,, a/j, Ion. geneh,, h/j( h`, Ep. dat. geneh/fi: (gi,gnomai): I. of the persons in a family, 1. race, stock, family, Hom., etc.; Pria,mou g. Il.; evk geneh/j according to his family, Ib.; geneh/| by birth-right, Od.; geneh.n Aivtwlo,j by descent, Il.:-of horses, a breed, Ib.:-generally, geneh,n in kind, Hdt.:-also a tribe, nation, Persw/n g. Aesch. 2. a race, generation, oi[hper fu,llwn geneh. toih,de kai. avndrw/n Il.; du,o geneai. avnqrw,pwn Ib. 3. offspring, Orac. ap. Hdt.; and of a single person, Soph. II. of time or place in reference to birth: 1. a birth-place, geneh. evpi. li,mnh| Gugai,h| Il.; of an eagle's eyrie, Od. 2. age, time of life, esp. in phrases geneh/| new,tatoj( presbu,tatoj youngest, eldest, in age, or by birth, Hom. 3. time of birth, evk geneh/j Hdt.; avpo. g. Xen" (The Lidell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon).

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 09:26 AM
And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

"oikoumene" isn't used in Luke 21:35

The Greek word for "earth" in Luke 21:35 is "gh", Strongs G1093

One of the definitions for "gh" from Strongs is:

5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

(Luke 2:1 KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world ( oikoumenh) should be taxed.

As we see above, the Greek word "oikoumenh" does not always refer to the entire world.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 09:28 AM
It makes perfect sence because one of the meanings of the Greek word genea is "family":

When does the "family" pass away Jerry?

Matt 24:34 specifically implies that the "generation" will eventually pass away after "all the things" happen.

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 09:39 AM
Yes, and I can understand both why you find this expression subtle,
and why historically it was easily misinterpreted and then paraphrased
and metamorphized into something with a completely different and
false meaning.

I still do not understand your translation of the following verse:


"No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, if not the Father."

Seems to me it is conditional. And the condition is "if not the Father."

If not the Father what?

From the context it seems to be saying "if the Father does not know the day or the hour."

So it is saying that no one (including the Son) does not know the day and the hour if the Father does not.

Is that right?

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 09:40 AM
When does the "family" pass away Jerry?

in the eternal state.

When did the generation living in the first century see a world wide judgment, tet?

OCTOBER23
June 14th, 2015, 09:42 AM
GENERATION MEANS A FAMILY OF PEOPLE = THE JEWS.

Other peoples are gone but ....

The Jews continue until this day even though Hitler tried to destroy them.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,

----------------------------------------
1074 γενεά genea ghen-eh-ah’

from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; n f; TDNT-1:662,114; { See TDNT 152 }

AV-generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation),
a space of 30-33 years

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 09:55 AM
"oikoumene" isn't used in Luke 21:35

But it is at Luke 21:26.


The Greek word for "earth" in Luke 21:35 is "gh", Strongs G1093

One of the definitions for "gh" from Strongs is:

5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

Yes, but it does not have that meaning unless the context demands it. And there is nothing in the context which even hints that just a county is in view. The context speaks of oikoumene instead.


(Luke 2:1 KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world ( oikoumenh) should be taxed.

Here the word applies to the Roman empire. But there was no judgment which came upon all them that dwell upon the face of the whole Roman Empire in the first century:

For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole Roman Empire.

Are you willing to argue that a judgment came upon all them who dwelled on the face of the Roman empire in the first century?

john w
June 14th, 2015, 10:02 AM
Josphus tells.............

Vs.

"Darby..."-noTettosterone on TOL every third "post"

You follow Flavey Joe, Josephus, a Christ rejector, like yourself.

Why do you follow the teaching, "inventions," of "fallable" men, punk? You taught us that.

Fraud.

"Josphus"-Tet.


And learn how to spell, use proper grammar, and the quote tags, punk.

You also taught us that.

john w
June 14th, 2015, 10:07 AM
Yes it did.

Let's look at the following verse:

(Isaiah 19:1) A prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.

In the above verse did the Lord literally ride on a literal cloud into Egypt?

Did the Lord literally come to Egypt?

Answer: No

We know from history, that the fulfillment of Isaiah 19:1 was when the Assyrian army invaded Egypt.

You plagiarized that, punk, which is against TOL rules. Delete that post. You've been warned.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 03:30 PM
When did the generation living in the first century see a world wide judgment, tet?

It wasn't a worldwide judgment.

If it was, then why does the warning from Jesus center around Jerusalem and Judaea only?

(Luke 21:20-21) 20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

How could it be worldwide if only those in Judaea are told to flee to the mountains?

Go read a secular history book of what took place in Jerusalem and Judaea from 66AD - 70AD, and then read Luke 21:20-21

john w
June 14th, 2015, 03:33 PM
If so, then why does the warning from Jesus center around Jerusalem and Judaea only?

(Luke 21:20-21) 20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

How could it be worldwide if only those in Judaea are told to flee to the mountains?

Go read a secular history book of what took place in Jerusalem and Judaea from 66AD - 70AD, and then read Luke 21:20-21
I warned you not to plagiarize, Craigie.

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 04:16 PM
It wasn't a worldwide judgment.

If it was, then why does the warning from Jesus center around Jerusalem and Judaea only?

Then He is speaking about the great tribulation which will be centered in Jerusalem. But these words are describing what will happen after the great tribulation is over:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).

We have already been over the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene and it covers a much greater land mass than Jerusalem and Judaea.

I guess that before this is over I will have to repeat the same thing over and over because you just don't get it.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 04:41 PM
Then He is speaking about the great tribulation which will be centered in Jerusalem.

Jerry, read the entire chapter.

Luke 21 starts out with Jesus telling the Disciples that not one stone would be left standing upon another.

Then the Disciples ask when will these things take place.

From verse 8-27 Jesus tells the Disciples all the things that must take place before the temple is destroyed and not one stone left standing upon another.

We know that in 70AD the Romans destroyed the temple, and not one stone was left standing upon another of the temple.

We also know that some of the Disciples were still alive in 70AD when this happened. That's because Jesus told them that some of them would still be alive when it happened.

To claim Luke 21, Matt 24, and Mark 13 is the yet future, is intellectual dishonesty.

Jesus didn't say anything about two temples being destroyed.

Yet, that's what you are claiming.


But these words are describing what will happen after the great tribulation is over:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).

No, it's describing what happened before the temple was destroyed and not one stone was left standing upon another.



We have already been over the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene and it covers a much greater land mass than Jerusalem and Judaea.

No it doesn't.

Which is why Jesus only warned those in Jerusalem and Judaea.

You do know Judaea was a Roman Province?

Is there going to be another Roman Province called Judaea again in the future?

Think about how foolish you sound.


I guess that before this is over I will have to repeat the same thing over and over because you just don't get it.

You guys embarrass yourselves trying to make Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24 mean something they don't.

You'd be better off taking the C.S. Lewis route, and claim the verse is wrong, instead of what you're trying to do. At least C. S. Lewis didn't look as foolish as you are by trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't.

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." - C. S. Lewis re: Matt 24:34

Anto9us
June 14th, 2015, 04:47 PM
all over in 70 AD

Christians DID SEE an abomination of Desolation

DID FLEE to Pella

if a "world-wide judgement" was coming -- what good to FLEE TO THE HILLS ???

what good would THAT do?

non-Prets -- yer BEAR-CAUGHT

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 05:16 PM
Jesus didn't say anything about two temples being destroyed.

Yet, that's what you are claiming.

Since you have no answer to the fact that the Lord Jesus described a world wide judgment at the end of the age you run off to something else. Now I will address your remarks about the temple.

By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a "principle of continuity" in the history of the temple. The temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same temple. At the time of the rebuilding of the temple after it had been destroyed, Haggi says:


"Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?" (Hag.2:3).

The Lord of hosts says, "The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former"(v.9).

So a rebuilt temple can be considered a continuation of the two preceding temples according to the words of the Lord. Therefore any future temple will not have to be rebuilt with the same stones as was the temple standing when the Lord Jesus walked the earth in order to be considered the same temple.

Right Divider
June 14th, 2015, 07:02 PM
all over in 70 AD

Christians DID SEE an abomination of Desolation

DID FLEE to Pella

if a "world-wide judgement" was coming -- what good to FLEE TO THE HILLS ???

what good would THAT do?

non-Prets -- yer BEAR-CAUGHT
What fallacious logic. Just because it's world-wide does NOT mean that everyplace will be equally unsafe for those that God will protect.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:25 PM
Since you have no answer to the fact that the Lord Jesus described a world wide judgment at the end of the age you run off to something else. Now I will address your remarks about the temple.

It wasn't worldwide anymore than Caesar Augustus collecting taxes worldwide.

If it was worldwide, then Jesus wouldn't have only warned those in Judaea to flee to the mountains.


By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a "principle of continuity" in the history of the temple.

The Prophet Haggai was comparing Solomon's Temple with the Second Temple that the Jews had just rebuilt after returning from Babylon.


The temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same temple.

Says who?

If that's the case why wasn't the Second Temple the same as Solomon's Temple.

The Second Temple didn't even have the Ark of the Covenant in it.



At the time of the rebuilding of the temple after it had been destroyed, Haggi says:


"Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?" (Hag.2:3).

The Lord of hosts says, "The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former"(v.9).

So a rebuilt temple can be considered a continuation of the two preceding temples according to the words of the Lord. Therefore any future temple will not have to be rebuilt with the same stones as was the temple standing when the Lord Jesus walked the earth in order to be considered the same temple.

Nowhere in the Bible does anyone speak of building a third temple.

Don't you think Jesus, Peter, John, or Paul would have mentioned that after the Second Temple was destroyed with not one stone standing upon another that another temple would be built?

The concept of a third temple directly contradicts the New Covenant.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:27 PM
What fallacious logic. Just because it's world-wide does NOT mean that everyplace will be equally unsafe for those that God will protect.

You guys are unbelievable.

Now you want us to believe theres going to be a worldwide judgment that effects billions of people, but only a few people in Judaea (which doesn't exist anymore) are to flee to the hills, and of the thousands and thousands of cities in the world, only Jerusalem is the city that no one is supposed to go to in this alleged worldwide judgment.

Don't you guys ever get exhausted trying to defend the false teachings of Darby?

Anto9us
June 14th, 2015, 07:30 PM
a tornado is coming locally

therefore - get in a car and leave town

oh - but - by the way

a huge comet is also going to hit the earth and blow it up - and you'll die anyway

but leave town anyway so you survive the tornado and live until the subsequent comet blows up the planet

now THAT is 'fallacious logic'

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:31 PM
DID FLEE to Pella


Correct!

Despite the fact that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and didn't leave one stone standing upon another in the temple, and the fact that all the Christians fled for the mountains to Pella when they saw the Roman army surround Jerusalem in 66AD, the Dispensationalists claim it's all irrelevant, and that these events are future events that didn't happen yet.

It's mind boggling.

"The members of the Jerusalem church by means of an oracle, given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the city before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella." - Eusebius, Book III, 5:4

Right Divider
June 14th, 2015, 07:31 PM
a tornado is coming locally

therefore - get in a car and leave town

oh - but - by the way

a huge comet is also going to hit the earth and blow it up - and you'll die anyway

but leave town anyway so you survive the tornado and live until the subsequent comet blows up the planet

now THAT is 'fallacious logic'
A bunch of vain rambling, that is! :kookoo:

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:33 PM
a tornado is coming locally

therefore - get in a car and leave town

oh - but - by the way

a huge comet is also going to hit the earth and blow it up - and you'll die anyway

but leave town anyway so you survive the tornado and live until the subsequent comet blows up the planet

now THAT is 'fallacious logic'

Dispensationalists don't care about logic.

They have to throw logic out the window when they try to make the Bible fit the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 07:39 PM
The following was written by Epiphanius of Salamis in 375AD:

"The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged. For this reason they settled in Peraea and there, as I said, they lived. This is where the Nazoraean sect began." - Epiphanius, Panarion 29:7:7-8

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:03 PM
From 60AD - 69AD skirmishes erupted between the Jews and the Romans. There were wars and rumors of wars during that time period.

In 66AD the Roman General Cestius Gallus surrounded Jerusalem and began a siege. Then, for no apparent reason Gallus and his troops suddenly left and headed back to Rome.

A few months later the Roman General Vaspasian came with even more troops. However, Vaspasian returned to Rome because Nero died, and Vaspasian's son Titus took over. Titus surrounded the city and began a siege. The siege and destruction of Jerusalem lasted 3.5 years. (66AD - 70AD)

Even Josephus was surprised that Callus left, and Josephus has no explanation for it.

We know from both Josephus, Eusebius, and others that it was during these few months that all the Christians fled to the hills of Pella.

"The Christians abandoned Jerusalem, crossed the Jordan and settled in those places . Informed of this fact, Nero Caesar sent word to the commander stationed in the East, named Vespasian, to rally his troops and go to Judea with orders to kill all the inhabitants, sparing none, and to destroy the houses." - Eutychius of Alexandria

RevTestament
June 14th, 2015, 08:17 PM
Jerry, read the entire chapter.

Luke 21 starts out with Jesus telling the Disciples that not one stone would be left standing upon another.

Then the Disciples ask when will these things take place.

From verse 8-27 Jesus tells the Disciples all the things that must take place before the temple is destroyed and not one stone left standing upon another.

We know that in 70AD the Romans destroyed the temple, and not one stone was left standing upon another of the temple.

We also know that some of the Disciples were still alive in 70AD when this happened. That's because Jesus told them that some of them would still be alive when it happened.

To claim Luke 21, Matt 24, and Mark 13 is the yet future, is intellectual dishonesty.

This is where preterists are WRONG.
Lets examine those verses closer to see if they speak only of the time period leading to the destruction of the temple.

Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
[first strike against the preterist interpretation. Jesus is telling them when they hear of the war to come, it is NOT the end, while they say it is.]

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
[Second strike against preterists - Jesus is describing a long period of time with wars between nations, famines, etc. This couldn't have all happened before 70 A.D. Then the Roman kingdom had already conquered all the kingdoms. What wars were there before the Jewish revolt? None. What earthquakes and famines were before the Jewish revolt? None.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.
[Ok - preterists can claim this part did at least partially happen before 70 A.D. as the apostles and disciples were greatly persecuted by Jews and pagans.]
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.

18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[Likewise Preterists have this part down because Jesus is speaking of the Roman armies to come against Jerusalem per Daniel 9 and its destruction in the 7 years war of the last week of the prophecy along with the temple and cessation of sacrifice in the midst of the war in 70 A.D. culminating in the final end of the kingdom of Judah in the fall of Masada in 73 A.D.]

21 Then let them which are in Judća flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
[Yep, Luke actually says this better than the current Matthew unless you use the JST]
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[Strike 3 the preterists are OUT. Now Jesus is clearly not describing the period leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Gentiles, but the period afterward in which the Gentiles trod down Jerusalem until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled and He brings judgment to the Gentiles.]

25 ¶And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[still apparently speaking of the time in which the Gentiles are given the covenant and the land of Jerusalem is in their possession which was true until about 60 yrs ago]
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[still speaking of the time of the Gentiles until it is fulfilled at which time their redemption draweth nigh]

Jesus didn't say anything about two temples being destroyed.

Yet, that's what you are claiming.

No, it's describing what happened before the temple was destroyed and not one stone was left standing upon another.

Which is why Jesus only warned those in Jerusalem and Judaea.True, He did. He was warning them of the last events of Daniel 9.


You do know Judaea was a Roman Province?

Is there going to be another Roman Province called Judaea again in the future?

Think about how foolish you sound.

You guys embarrass yourselves trying to make Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24 mean something they don't.

You'd be better off taking the C.S. Lewis route, and claim the verse is wrong, instead of what you're trying to do. At least C. S. Lewis didn't look as foolish as you are by trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't.

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." - C. S. Lewis re: Matt 24:34

I'd say the preterists should be embarrassed by forcing Jesus to say something He doesn't. When the Romans conquered Jerusalem the time of the Gentiles when they trampled the holy city underfoot was only just begun. The Gentiles get their time until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, and He shall bring judgment unto the Gentiles per
Isaiah 42:1
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

During the time of the Gentiles the Jews have indeed seen nation rise against nation many times. And now they are finally back in Jerusalem. The time of their redemption draweth nigh. It is the first sign Jesus gave unto them...

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:49 PM
This is where preterists are WRONG.


Nope.

BTW, could you please tell your Dispensationalist friends that John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism shortly after Joseph Smith invented your Mormonism?


Lets examine those verses closer to see if they speak only of the time period leading to the destruction of the temple.

Sounds good.


Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
[first strike against the preterist interpretation. Jesus is telling them when they hear of the war to come, it is NOT the end, while they say it is.]

(Luke 21:9 NIV) When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

As I state earlier, there were wars and rumors of wars between the Jews and the Romans starting in 60AD

Josephus tells us of these wars and rumors of wars before Titus laid siege on Jerusalem in 66AD.

So, Jesus was telling them, when the wars and rumors of wars started, the end would not come right away.

We now know from history, that the destruction happened roughly seven years after the wars and rumors of wars began.


[Second strike against preterists - Jesus is describing a long period of time with wars between nations, famines, etc. This couldn't have all happened before 70 A.D. Then the Roman kingdom had already conquered all the kingdoms. What wars were there before the Jewish revolt? None. What earthquakes and famines were before the Jewish revolt? None.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the following about the time period after the cross (but before 70AD)

"The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time” - The Histories, 1:2



12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.
[Ok - preterists can claim this part did at least partially happen before 70 A.D. as the apostles and disciples were greatly persecuted by Jews and pagans.]

I agree


20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[Likewise Preterists have this part down because Jesus is speaking of the Roman armies to come against Jerusalem per Daniel 9 and its destruction in the 7 years war of the last week of the prophecy along with the temple and cessation of sacrifice in the midst of the war in 70 A.D. culminating in the final end of the kingdom of Judah in the fall of Masada in 73 A.D.]

I agree with everything but the 73AD part.


24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[Strike 3 the preterists are OUT. Now Jesus is clearly not describing the period leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Gentiles, but the period afterward in which the Gentiles trod down Jerusalem until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled and He brings judgment to the Gentiles.]

First off, Jesus said "All these things" would happen before the generation of His contemporaries all passed away. That includes "the times of the Gentiles".

It's the Days of Vengeance.

God used the Gentiles to bring judgment on the Jews, Jerusalem, and Judaea.

(Rev 11:2) But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

How much clearer could it be?


27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[still apparently speaking of the time in which the Gentiles are given the covenant and the land of Jerusalem is in their possession which was true until about 60 yrs ago]

Nope

Happened in 70AD



28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[still speaking of the time of the Gentiles until it is fulfilled at which time their redemption draweth nigh]
True, He did. He was warning them of the last events of Daniel 9.

Nope, as I stated earlier, all these things took place before the contemporary generation of Jesus passed away.

Verse 28 was fulfilled in 70AD


I'd say the preterists should be embarrassed by forcing Jesus to say something He doesn't.

I'm the one who believes exactly what Jesus said in Luke 21, Matt 28, and Mark 13.

It's you Mormons and Dispensationalists who don't believe what Jesus said.

tetelestai
June 14th, 2015, 08:59 PM
From Wikipedia:

"As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s"

" During the 1820s Smith reported having several angelic visitations, and by 1830 Smith said that he had been instructed that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing correct doctrine for the restored church."


Joseph Smith: 1805 - 1844

John Nelson Darby: 1800 - 1882

:think:

Jerry Shugart
June 14th, 2015, 10:12 PM
It wasn't a world-wide judgement.

If it was a world-wide judgement, then why did Jesus tell only those in Judaea to flee to the hills when they saw Jerusalem surrounded?

(Luke 21:20-21) “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

The world wide judgment will happen in the future AFTER the great tribulation will be over:


"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).

The great tribulation will be over by the time the signs will be seen in the sky (Mt.24:39) so the events described at Luke 21:25-27 will happen AFTER the great tribulation.

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

The Greek word "oikoumene" is used by the Lord Jesus at another place in the same discourse:


"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).

By the context we can understand the meaning of that Greek word as referring to this:


"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

It is impossible that "generation" is the correct translation in Matthew 24 because the first century generation did not see a world wide judgment.

RevTestament
June 14th, 2015, 10:35 PM
BTW, could you please tell your Dispensationalist friends that John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism shortly after Joseph Smith invented your Mormonism?
TTTT I haven't really studied Darby too closely as I strongly disagree with his segregation of the 70th week of Daniel 9 into the far future. The 70 weeks were determined on His people to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah. That did end approx 2000 yrs ago.
Otherwise you are somewhat correct that the LDS church is a dispensational church, and restores the gospel for the last dispensations. This is nothing new. Jesus had to restore the covenant. Noah had to restore the covenant given through Adam. Abraham after him. A new covenant was also given through David. After all there are seven eyes on the lamb of Revelation. Each covenant represents a different dispensation, but they weren't all necessarily "restorations."


Sounds good.OK, let's do it again.


(Luke 21:9 NIV) When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

As I state earlier, there were wars and rumors of wars between the Jews and the Romans starting in 60AD

Josephus tells us of these wars and rumors of wars before Titus laid siege on Jerusalem in 66AD.

So, Jesus was telling them, when the wars and rumors of wars started, the end would not come right away.

We now know from history, that the destruction happened roughly seven years after the wars and rumors of wars began.
There was no war between the Jews and Romans until the Jewish zealots revolted. Then Titus was dispatched in 66 A.D., because of the zealot revolt. The war began by Rome marching into the Levant and beginning a slash and burn campaign. Jerusalem wasn't laid siege until 67 A.D. This was the beginning of the 7 years war. Otherwise even your 42 month interpretation fails.


The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the following about the time period after the cross (but before 70AD)

"The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time” - The Histories, 1:2
Practically every time a Roman ruler died or was murdered there was a "civil war" lol. That is not nation rising against nation. That is just the way the Roman rulers settled the matter.


I agree with everything but the 73AD part.You don't believe Masada and the last of the Jewish resistance fell in 73 A.D? or that is an inconvenient fact for your interpretation?


First off, Jesus said "All these things" would happen before the generation of His contemporaries all passed away. That includes "the times of the Gentiles".

It's the Days of Vengeance.The old "this generation" argument. If He had said "your generation" you might have a point. But He was speaking prophetically as in this generation as opposed to the regeneration.


God used the Gentiles to bring judgment on the Jews, Jerusalem, and Judaea.Yes, but that did not fulfill the time of the Gentiles who were to carry them off: "they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations." You seem to "conveniently" ignore this fact about the time of the Gentiles. It doesn't end with the destruction of the city, but begins with the destruction of Jerusalem. The time of the covenant with the Jews ended with the destruction of the city. You somehow morph that into the end of the covenant with the Gentiles and the end of the time of the Gentiles, lol. It really is laughable if it didn't lead so many astray. At least they still hopefully believe in Christ.


(Rev 11:2) But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

How much clearer could it be?
It is crystal clear to those who prophetically understand.
What is your interpretation of the 70 "weeks" of Daniel 9? When did they begin? Did they begin 1.5 years before Jerusalem was destroyed? If not, then perhaps the 490 days of the prophecy were actually years - like the Lord giving the Israelites a year to wander in the desert for the 40 days?
The commandment to rebuild the city unto the Messiah was approx 483 years until the time of Jesus' ministry. Any other interpretation such as your "literalist" interpretation simply does not work.
The 42 months is actually the same period the woman of Revelation 12 was chased into the "wilderness" by Satan and was a 1260 year period in which the Gentiles were led astray and all nations were deceived according to the prophecy of Revelation.
How is that Gentiles do not understand that they are the "court" of the temple? It is just the way it is. That is the inheritance the Lord has given. It is wonderful to be included in the temple, but it is not the sanctuary nor the Holy of Holies which Jesus led the way to.


Nope, as I stated earlier, all these things took place before the contemporary generation of Jesus passed away.
So it is your contention that we are now in the regeneration when the followers shall judge the 12 tribes with him?

Verse 28 was fulfilled in 70AD
They are redeemed when the hail shall wash away the lies and false interpretations of the scriptures, and their covenant with death is disanulled. That comes with the trumpet of the first angel of Revelation. In 70 A.D. they did not say blessed is He which cometh in the name of the Lord, so they did not see Him again. Rather they continued to reject Him which is why the day of vengeance you spake of occurred. The time of the Gentiles lasts 0 years(Ok maybe 3.5 yrs) under your interpretation and is just silly. The Gentiles were given the gospel through the relatively few Jewish followers. In 70 A.D. their time was just starting - unless you believe the Gentiles weren't promised the covenant per Isaiah 61 "in their land"?


I'm the one who believes exactly what Jesus said in Luke 21, Matt 28, and Mark 13.

It's you Mormons and Dispensationalists who don't believe what Jesus said.You do not understand prophetic speech, so morph things to fit your interpretation. But like I have shown if Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 490 yrs from the time of the command to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian destruction, then to force the 42 months into the destruction of Jerusalem simply does not work since 1260 years had not passed from the time of Daniel in the 6th century B.C. The time, times, and half of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 ie the 42 months, have nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem - that is an interpretation your force to make your interpretation work.

Nazaroo
June 14th, 2015, 11:19 PM
The world wide judgment will happen in the future AFTER the great tribulation will be over:
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).The great tribulation will be over by the time the signs will be seen in the sky (Mt.24:39) so the events described at Luke 21:25-27 will happen AFTER the great tribulation.

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

The Greek word "oikoumene" is used by the Lord Jesus at another place in the same discourse:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).By the context we can understand the meaning of that Greek word as referring to this:
"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).It is impossible that "generation" is the correct translation in Matthew 24 because the first century generation did not see a world wide judgment.


I agree with everything you have said here up until the last sentence.

These sayings speak of a set of worldwide global events.
If it were local theatre of operations, then Jesus would remain a local insurgent.

But the translational error is in the word "this" (implying people living as a referent).

The word "this" in such a sense however has no corresponding counterpart
in the Greek language.

The word itself is better rendered "that', as the referent is of the
'generation' described in the previous events narrated by Jesus,
not in His contemporaries.

There is no distinction between "this" and "that" in the Greek.
And the only word suitable in most contexts is "that", not "this",
for the English translation.

Its the same problem with the statements Jesus made on the cross:

"THAT day you shall be with me in paradise."

(Not "THIS day" or 'today'. Those 'modern' idiomatic English expressions
have no place here, and don't exist in Koine Greek.)

The day Jesus refers to in the promise to the crucified robber is
the previous referent, namely "the day Jesus comes into his Kingdom".
No time is given by the robber or Jesus as to when that might be.

We know that even three days later Jesus had not yet ascended to His Father,
to take His place at the right hand of God.

Aaron the Tall
June 15th, 2015, 01:54 AM
You're dangerously close to making it onto the "dumb as a box of rocks" list.


Talk about DOUBLE-TALK and double-mindedness!

Jesus announced that the FIRST PART (i.e, minus the day of vengeance) was "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21) and then LATER (according to both scripture and YOU) He told them of the FUTURE fulfillment of the "days of vengeance".

You need to have your head examined.


Even if you are correct, that means that there was 30 YEARS between the fulfillment of TWO PARTS of the SAME SENTENCE IN PROPHECY. But, still, according to the great Tet, the first PART was not a PARTial fulfillment. You're NUTS!


What keeps God from doing this? Your high and mighty OPINION? :cigar:

There's a big difference between God fulfilling one part of a verse at one time, God fulfilling the second part of a verse at another time; and the idea of partial fulfillment.

The idea of partial fulfillment is that the entire verse is fulfilled in one sense at one time, but is fulfilled in another sense at another time.

With the case of Luke 4:21, part A is fulfilled first and part B is fulfilled second.

Partial fulfillment typically has part A fulfilled in one sense at one point, and then part A is fulfilled in a different sense later on.

See the difference?

Aaron the Tall
June 15th, 2015, 02:21 AM
But, nevertheless, the 'great distress' has already occurred? So, any future tribulation will not be as great?


Josephus has left us an eyewitness record of much of the horror of
those years, and especially of the final days in Jerusalem. It was a time
when “the day-time was spent in the shedding of blood, and the night
in fear”; when it was “common to see cities filled with dead bodies”;
when Jews panicked and began indiscriminately killing each other;
when fathers tearfully slaughtered their entire families, in order to
prevent them from receiving worse treatment from the Romans;
when, in the midst of terrible famine, mothers killed, roasted, and
ate their own children (cf. Deuteronomy 28:53); when the whole
land “was all over filled with fire and blood”; when the lakes and
seas turned red, dead bodies floating everywhere, littering the shores,
bloating in the sun, rotting and splitting apart; when the Roman
soldiers captured people attempting to escape and then crucified
them—at the rate of 500 per day.

The great tribulation wasn't just about how many people died or how they died - it was a covenantal judgment - the removing of the Kingdom from Israel. This will never happen again.

Aaron the Tall
June 15th, 2015, 02:37 AM
When does the "family" pass away Jerry?

Matt 24:34 specifically implies that the "generation" will eventually pass away after "all the things" happen.

Very logical. The verse says the "generation" won't pass away UNTIL all these things take place.

You ask Jerry when they will pass away and he says "in the eternal state."

Jesus is referring to a specific people - whether you want to say "family", "race", or "generation." The verse says these people will pass away. That implies that those specific people will perish?

In the eternal state? What does that even mean?

Are you suggesting the "idea of Jewishness" will pass away in the eternal state???

Aaron the Tall
June 15th, 2015, 03:16 AM
Why would anyone doubt that the Lord Jesus will sit upon a throne, especially when He said that when He returns to earth He will sit upon His throne?:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

This is the throne upon which He will sit:


"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Lk.1:32).

From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature, as witnessed by the following words:


"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly" (1 Ki. 2:12).

Solomon sat upon the throne of David on the earth. Now let us look at the Lord's promises made to David in regard to that throne and kingdom:


"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam.7:12-13).

Since the throne was "earthly" in nature then we can know that God established the earthly throne FOR EVER. God also said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).

The preterists say that God did "alter" His promise to David because the "throne of David" was changed from an earthly throne into a heavenly one.


Obviously Solomon sat upon David's throne. It was the same literal physical throne that was made for David to sit on.

When God says he will give to Christ the throne of David, does he mean Christ will get the literal wood and gold throne that David and Solmon sat on? I'm obviously being facetious - just to make the point that even you must agree that "David's throne" is symbolic of something, and doesn't literally mean the exact physical seat David sat in.

So, my question for you is: What is meant by David's throne? I am curious to hear your answer.

When God said he would establish Christ's throne forever, does that mean Christ would get a wood and gold seat that wouldn't ever rot? Or is the "throne" a metaphor of something else?

Before I move on to some of your other points, I'll give you a bit more to chew on.

30 "Therefore (David), being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." '
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Jesus' sitting on David's throne is linked to the resurrection. At the resurrection Jesus was exalted to the right hand and made Lord.

Daniel 7 confirms that when Christ ascended, he was given a kingdom. "His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed." (Dan 7:14)

Kind of sounds like 2 Sam.7:12-13. As far as Jesus building a house in that prophecy - that is certainly being fulfilled at this moment (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Ephesians 2 says that when Jesus ascended he was seated "far above all rule and authority... not only in this age, but also in the one to come..."

It doesn't sound like Jesus' level of rule and authority would change much from the time of his ascension to the next age.

What do you think are the benefits or privileges of sitting on David's throne that Jesus does not currently have?

tetelestai
June 15th, 2015, 04:31 AM
When God says he will give to Christ the throne of David, does he mean Christ will get the literal wood and gold throne that David and Solmon sat on?

That's what Jerry (and Dispies) claim.

It's the same thing for David's Tent.

(Acts 15:16) 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

Dispensationalists claim Christ Jesus will return to planet earth and sit on a man made throne in a new Third Temple.

However, they always exclude David's Tent in their false theory.

David's Tent stood for 40 years with the Ark of the Covenant in it at the same time Moses Tabernacle stood.

During this 40 years, the priests carried out all the priestly duties at Moses Tabernacle, while David and the people worshipped God at David's Tent.

Acts 15:16 is James quoting Amos. The reason James quoted the Amos passage was to show that Amos' prophecy was being fulfilled right there in the first century.

IOW, David's Tent and Moses Tabernacle stood almost side by side for 40 years, then the Ark of the Covenant was moved into Solomon's Temple, and Solomon sat down on the throne.

Jump to the first century. Christ Jesus's Tent (spiritual tabernacle) stood for 40 years (30AD - 70AD) at the same time the Second Temple stood. Then Christ Jesus sat down on His throne.

For the Dispensationalist's false theory to be true, after the alleged Third Temple is built, another David's Tent would have to be built alongside the Third Temple, and God would have to dwell only in the future David's Tent, while priests carried out their animal sacrifices and other priestly duties at the alleged Third Temple.

Dispensationalism is a mess.

SaulToPaul
June 15th, 2015, 06:22 AM
They have to throw logic out the window when they try to make the Bible fit the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army."

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 07:54 AM
Obviously Solomon sat upon David's throne. It was the same literal physical throne that was made for David to sit on.

When God says he will give to Christ the throne of David, does he mean Christ will get the literal wood and gold throne that David and Solmon sat on? I'm obviously being facetious - just to make the point that even you must agree that "David's throne" is symbolic of something, and doesn't literally mean the exact physical seat David sat in.

Whether or not it is symbolic the fact remains that He will be given a kingdom and He will reign on the earth when He returns to the earth:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

This describes His reign:


"...one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven...And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).

When did it ever happen that " all people, nations, and languages" served Him?

Of course that has never happens so the fulfillment of that prophecy remains in the future.


Before I move on to some of your other points, I'll give you a bit more to chew on.

Make sure you address the fact that the Lord Jesus made it plain that the events described at Luke 21 speaks of a world wide judgment--another thing which did not happen in the first century.


Jesus' sitting on David's throne is linked to the resurrection. At the resurrection Jesus was exalted to the right hand and made Lord.


"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

The Lord Jesus is not now sitting in His own throne,the "throne of David," but instead is sitting in His Father's throne! Can you really not see the difference?

Those who overcome will sit with the Lord Jesus in His throne and they will reign on the earth:


"And hast made us unto our God a kingdom of priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).


Ephesians 2 says that when Jesus ascended he was seated "far above all rule and authority... not only in this age, but also in the one to come..."

It doesn't sound like Jesus' level of rule and authority would change much from the time of his ascension to the next age.

What do you think are the benefits or privileges of sitting on David's throne that Jesus does not currently have?

The Lord Jesus is now sitting at the Father's throne and not on the throne of David. The verse to which you make reference is in regard to the universal kingdom mentioned here:


"Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all" (1Chron.29:11).

Right Divider
June 15th, 2015, 08:31 AM
There's a big difference between God fulfilling one part of a verse at one time, God fulfilling the second part of a verse at another time; and the idea of partial fulfillment.

The idea of partial fulfillment is that the entire verse is fulfilled in one sense at one time, but is fulfilled in another sense at another time.

With the case of Luke 4:21, part A is fulfilled first and part B is fulfilled second.

Partial fulfillment typically has part A fulfilled in one sense at one point, and then part A is fulfilled in a different sense later on.

See the difference?
I do understand that some people like to speak in vague generalities instead of actually addressing the point at hand.

Do you think that part A still has another fulfillment and, if so, why?

The verse that Jesus quoted contains two very different prophecies in the SAME sentence. However, when Jesus quoted this verse and announced it fulfilled, He only quoted the first PART of the sentence leaving the other PATH for a later fulfillment. Tet gets all bent out of shape about GAPS in the fulfillment of prophecy, claiming that God doesn't do that.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 09:56 AM
Don't you guys ever get exhausted trying to defend the false teachings of Darby?

Don't you ever get exhausted spamming "Darby" on every third "post," as TOL laughs at your satanic sophistry, sweetie? "Darby" is all you have, punk.

Don't you ever get exhausted trying to defend the false teachings of J. Stuart Russell, and Hank Hanegraaf, from whom you copy'npaste/plagiarize?

Tet:

Not a peep.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 09:59 AM
It's mind boggling...............
Yes, we agree with you, when your clown act posted this "mind boggling" joke:

“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.


"Everyone" that saw Him, according to Craigie, was Josephus, and Wikipedia. Wait....


Vs.

"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 10:01 AM
Dispensationalists don't care about logic.

They have to throw logic out the window when they try to make the Bible fit the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

Spam-word for word.


Preterist Perverter Craigie/Gomer's "logic:"

"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.


Shazam, Gomer Tet.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 10:07 AM
The following was written by Epiphanius of Salamis in 375AD:

"The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged. For this reason they settled in Peraea and there, as I said, they lived. This is where the Nazoraean sect began." - Epiphanius, Panarion 29:7:7-8

The punk, once again, quotes Epiphanius as one of his infallible teachers.

Spam.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 10:08 AM
From 60AD - 69AD skirmishes erupted between the Jews and the Romans. There were wars and rumors of wars during that time period.

In 66AD the Roman General Cestius Gallus surrounded Jerusalem and began a siege. Then, for no apparent reason Gallus and his troops suddenly left and headed back to Rome.

A few months later the Roman General Vaspasian came with even more troops. However, Vaspasian returned to Rome because Nero died, and Vaspasian's son Titus took over. Titus surrounded the city and began a siege. The siege and destruction of Jerusalem lasted 3.5 years. (66AD - 70AD)

Even Josephus was surprised that Callus left, and Josephus has no explanation for it.

We know from both Josephus, Eusebius, and others that it was during these few months that all the Christians fled to the hills of Pella.

"The Christians abandoned Jerusalem, crossed the Jordan and settled in those places . Informed of this fact, Nero Caesar sent word to the commander stationed in the East, named Vespasian, to rally his troops and go to Judea with orders to kill all the inhabitants, sparing none, and to destroy the houses." - Eutychius of Alexandria

The punk, once again, quotes Christ rejector Josephusas one of his infallible teachers.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 10:10 AM
From Wikipedia:...



The punk, once again, quotes Wiki as as one of his infallible teachers/source authorities.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 10:22 AM
Dispensationalists claim Christ Jesus will return to planet earth and sit on a man made throne in a new Third Temple.


The punk spams his satanic sophistry of "man made throne" on every thread, as his "Hail Mary."



Tell us, Preterist con "man"- was the cross "man made?" Was the tabernacle, in the wilderness, "man made?" The Lord God did dwell in the tabernacle-you did know that, did you not, sweetie(rhetorical q)? Was the temple, in the OT, "man made?" Was the temple, in early Acts, "man made?"

Define "God made" cross/temple/tabernacle............

He won't touch that question.

Sophistry...deceit...satanic...from Craigie the Clown. That's his "ministry," on TOL





However, they always exclude David's Tent in their false theory

Was David's Tent "man made," sweetie?





David's Tent stood for 40 years with the Ark of the Covenant in it at the same time Moses Tabernacle stood.

During this 40 years, the priests carried out all the priestly duties at Moses Tabernacle, while David and the people worshipped God at David's Tent.

Was David's Tent, the Ark of the covenant, Moses tabernacle, "man made," sweetie?








IOW, David's Tent and Moses Tabernacle stood almost side by side for 40 years, then the Ark of the Covenant was moved into Solomon's Temple, and Solomon sat down on the throne.

Jump to the first century. Christ Jesus's Tent (spiritual tabernacle) stood for 40 years (30AD - 70AD) at the same time the Second Temple stood. Then Christ Jesus sat down on His throne


Was David's Tent, the Ark of the covenant, Moses tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, Solomon's throne, "man made," sweetie?





noTetosterone:

Not a peep, from the ministry of deceit, Preterist Perverter Craigie.

Sophistry..

Anto9us
June 15th, 2015, 10:34 AM
Couple of points...

"this generation" -- i.e. "this and that"

that one scripture passage AINT THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCHING

on this issue

"there be some standing here who will not die til they see the parousia"

that jives with THIS GENERATION

really meaning "This generation I am living in"

as to the thief on the Cross with Jesus

"THis day you will be with me in PARADISE"

refers to ABRAHAM'S BOSOM

WHEREIN jESUS AND THE REPENTANT THIEF WERE THERE that day ( this day)

I mean - like - THIS DAY that we die - you (repentant thief) will be in PARADISE/Abrahams-Bosom WITH ME

(even though - yeah - I have to

"preach to the spirits in prison" and await "ascending to my Father")

"You - the thief who believed in me - will see that I WON"


ANTI-PRET ARGUMENTS ARE ATE UP AT THIS POINT

oh -- they also say -- they the TWISTERS

( that is means " I say to you TODAY -- that eventually you will be with me in paradise")

No.

Sorry.

Guess again, Grasshopper.

Anto9us
June 15th, 2015, 10:40 AM
Go GET 'EM, TET !!

Look at all of this hooie as the only thing they can throw at Preterism !!

IT's almost COMICAL

how their stretches of scripture are thrown to support Futurism !!

it is unbelievable

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 11:09 AM
IT's almost COMICAL

What is comical and not just almost comical is the fact that the preterists actually think that "generation" is the correct translation here:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

No first century generation ever saw a world wide judgment happen. Therefore, "generation" is not the correct translation for genea.

You guys crack me up!

Aaron the Tall
June 15th, 2015, 11:10 AM
I do understand that some people like to speak in vague generalities instead of actually addressing the point at hand.

Do you think that part A still has another fulfillment and, if so, why?

The verse that Jesus quoted contains two very different prophecies in the SAME sentence. However, when Jesus quoted this verse and announced it fulfilled, He only quoted the first PART of the sentence leaving the other PATH for a later fulfillment. Tet gets all bent out of shape about GAPS in the fulfillment of prophecy, claiming that God doesn't do that.

Gaps in the fulfillment of prophecy is different from partial fulfillment. You clearly mentioned an instance of a gap between when one part of a verse is fulfilled and the rest is fulfilled - but partial fulfillment is a different animal.

HisServant
June 15th, 2015, 11:12 AM
What is comical and not just almost comical is the fact that the preterists actually think that "generation" is the correct translation here:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

No first century generation ever saw a world wide judgment happen. Therefore, "generation" is not the correct translation for genea.

You guys crack me up!

It's all about what those verses really mean.... and they do not mean what you think they do.

Maybe you should actually study a little 1st century Jewish history about what the meaning of those words might actually be instead of letting your ill conceived eschatology dictate what they mean.

Most of these commentaries pretty much put your absurd logic in its place.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/24-34.htm

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 11:43 AM
It's all about what those verses really mean.... and they do not mean what you think they do.

Talk is cheap. If you are right then prove it.

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 11:45 AM
Gaps in the fulfillment of prophecy is different from partial fulfillment. You clearly mentioned an instance of a gap between when one part of a verse is fulfilled and the rest is fulfilled - but partial fulfillment is a different animal.

The reason we see partial fulfillment in some cases is because the "dispensation of the mystery" has interrupted the prophetic program of God.

Aaron the Tall
June 15th, 2015, 12:24 PM
Whether or not it is symbolic the fact remains that He will be given a kingdom and He will reign on the earth when He returns to the earth:


It MUST be symbolic. You only have two choices: either Jesus is promised to sit on the literal exact gold covered wood throne that David sat on (even though it is long destroyed), or David's throne is a metaphor for something else, even if Jesus is to sit on a literal physical throne called "David's throne".

I really would like to know your concise definition of "David's throne". Do you think it is a position of rule over Israel? Or a position of rule over the whole earth?




"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

This describes His reign:


"...one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven...And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan .7:13-14).

When did it ever happen that " all people, nations, and languages" served Him?

Of course that has never happens so the fulfillment of that prophecy remains in the future.


So, you don't think Daniel 7 is describing what happened at the ascension? The son of man was coming with the clouds - UP TO HEAVEN - for he approached the Ancient of Days in his presence. Fits perfectly with the description of Ephesians 2 where Jesus sat down at the right hand and was given all authority.

When will it ever happen that ALL peoples and nations will serve Him? There will always be some that reject His authority, until the final judgement where the wicked are judged.

Let's assume that you are correct and Christ's Kingdom is not a reality until ALL people are serving him.

1.) Jesus doesn't have a Kingdom in Matthew 25:31 when he sits on the throne, because he doesn't separate the sheep from the goats until AFTER he sits down. IE: there are rebellious people still around after he sits down.

2.) Jesus doesn't have a Kingdom when Satan leads a final rebellion at the end of millenial reign.

Jesus was given a Kingdom IN ORDER THAT all nations would serve Him. It is the goal of the Kingdom - but even you would recognize that not every single person will serve Him.

If you believe the Kingdom of God is still future, what Kingdom was "at hand" when Jesus was on earth? The Kingdom is described as leaven, as a seed, and as rock that fell from heaven and grew into a mountain. The Kingdom starts out small, but grows to fill the whole earth. Your idea of the Kingdom has no growth - there is no process of making the enemies of God into a footstool - there is no reigning UNTIL all enemies are under his feet (I COR 15:25).

Where once the Kingdom was Israel-centric, the blessings of being God's household are now open to all nations. Where the Kingdom began as a small group of Jewish believers, it has spread to every continent, to multitudes of nations!


Make sure you address the fact that the Lord Jesus made it plain that the events described at Luke 21 speaks of a world wide judgment--another thing which did not happen in the first century.

I believe I already made a list of contextual clues in Luke 21 that limit the extent of the events to a certain time and place.





"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

The Lord Jesus is not now sitting in His own throne,the "throne of David," but instead is sitting in His Father's throne! Can you really not see the difference?


David's literal throne was always SECOND BEST. God's original desire was that He himself would rule over Israel, sitting in HIS THRONE. God only gave them a King as a second best option when the people demanded it.

Do you really think a return to a literal man-made throne is a greater fulfillment than the ORIGINAL plan of God reigning on His throne?

Seems like you could read this verse as saying Jesus is sitting with the Father, who is sitting in His throne. Or if want to be ultra literal, you would have to say that both Jesus and the Father are sitting in the same throne next to each other. This could be literal reality, or it could be describing a shared authority. Either way, I wouldn't use this verse as a proof-text that Jesus isn't seated on David's throne, especially since Acts 2 links Christ sitting on David's throne to the resurrection.


Those who overcome will sit with the Lord Jesus in His throne and they will reign on the earth:


"And hast made us unto our God a kingdom of priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).


So, will the overcomers literally be sitting with Jesus in His throne?! That must be one big throne! Or can you see the same logic applies here, that "sitting on the same throne" is metaphor for sharing authority?

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 01:35 PM
So, will the overcomers literally be sitting with Jesus in His throne?! That must be one big throne! Or can you see the same logic applies here, that "sitting on the same throne" is metaphor for sharing authority?

Yes, it might mean that they will be sharing the Lord's reign and He will reign on the earth:


"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).

Would you please give me your interpretation of the meaning of the words of the Lord Jesus there?


I really would like to know your concise definition of "David's throne". Do you think it is a position of rule over Israel? Or a position of rule over the whole earth?

At the least it refers to an earthly position of rule over Israel but it will eventually be world wide.


So, you don't think Daniel 7 is describing what happened at the ascension? The son of man was coming with the clouds - UP TO HEAVEN - for he approached the Ancient of Days in his presence. Fits perfectly with the description of Ephesians 2 where Jesus sat down at the right hand and was given all authority.

No I don't. There are several instances in the Scriptures that speak of the Lord coming in the clouds when He returns to earth but I am not aware of any verses in the entire Bible which uses similiar language to describe Him GOING TO heaven.

Perhaps you are aware of some?


When will it ever happen that ALL peoples and nations will serve Him? There will always be some that reject His authority, until the final judgement where the wicked are judged.

The Lord Jesus' words at Matthew 24 were in answer to this question:


"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt. 24:3).

Earlier the Lord Jesus spoke the parable of the "tares of the field" where He described what would occur at the "end of the age":


"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age." He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

Obviously a world wide harvest did not happen in the first century. Before the kingdom will be set up on the earth it will be necessary to take out all of those who are not born again (Jn.3:3). After that happens then the kingdom will be set up and then ALL peoples and nations will serve Him.


Let's assume that you are correct and Christ's Kingdom is not a reality until ALL people are serving him.

1.) Jesus doesn't have a Kingdom in Matthew 25:31 when he sits on the throne, because he doesn't separate the sheep from the goats until AFTER he sits down. IE: there are rebellious people still around after he sits down.

That will happen at the end of the age (which precedes the kingdom age) and the following prophecy will be fulfilled then:


"The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries" (Ps.110:5-6).

With the reference to "kings" it is certain that a world wide judgment is in view. Again, that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.


2.) Jesus doesn't have a Kingdom when Satan leads a final rebellion at the end of millenial reign.

Sure He will. There will be people in the kingdom in flesh and blood bodies and at the end of the 1000 years Satan will deceive some of them and they will attack the saints. But then these rebels will be destroyed.


If you believe the Kingdom of God is still future, what Kingdom was "at hand" when Jesus was on earth?

Due to Israel's unbelief the kingdom has been delayed until the Lord's return to the earth:


"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (Lk.21:27-31).

According to your ideas the Lord did come in 70AD but what happened then had nothing to do with the kingdom being nigh at hand. According to Peter when the Lord Jesus returns to the earth the Jews will enjoy a refreshment from the presence of the Lord Jesus (Acts 3:19-20).

That did not happen in the first century or anytime since.

HisServant
June 15th, 2015, 01:36 PM
Talk is cheap. If you are right then prove it.

Just read the links.

There is no mystery anymore... the mystery was that the Gentiles were part of the promise.

The only dispensation was one given to Paul (not humanity) to go to the gentiles.

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 01:42 PM
Just read the links.

I do not respond to links. If you have proof that what I said is in error then prove it with your own words.

HisServant
June 15th, 2015, 01:46 PM
I do not respond to links. If you have proof that what I said is in error then prove it with your own words.

I didn't figure for being such a coward.... guess I was wrong.

tetelestai
June 15th, 2015, 02:40 PM
Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army."

Never said that.

Which is why you didn't use the quote tag.

Jesus didn't morph into the Roman army, or return in the "form" of a Roman army.

When Christ Jesus said He would return upon a cloud, I specifically showed how it was OT terminology used in Isaiah 19:1

(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt....

We know from the above verse that the Lord did not literally ride a cloud into Egypt. It was the Assyrian army that invaded Egypt and wrecked havoc on the Egyptians.

Same thing happened from 66AD - 70AD. The Lord didn't literally come in a cloud, it was the Roman army that invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, while killing over a million Jews (those that pierced him)

john w
June 15th, 2015, 03:06 PM
Never said that.

Which is why you didn't use the quote tag.

Jesus didn't morph into the Roman army, or return in the "form" of a Roman army.

When Christ Jesus said He would return upon a cloud, I specifically showed how it was OT terminology used in Isaiah 19:1

(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt....

We know from the above verse that the Lord did not literally ride a cloud into Egypt. It was the Assyrian army that invaded Egypt and wrecked havoc on the Egyptians.

Same thing happened from 66AD - 70AD. The Lord didn't literally come in a cloud, it was the Roman army that invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, while killing over a million Jews (those that pierced him)


"Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army." "-STP

"Never said that."-Tet.



You lied-again. That is your MO/"ministry" on TOL-habitual lying.


"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

You are so obsessed with us meanie MAD-ists, you can't keep track of all your lies, spin.

Watch him try to spin this....Watch...
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.

tetelestai
June 15th, 2015, 03:18 PM
IT's almost COMICAL


Yes it is.

But, that's life when you try to make the false teachings of John Nelson Darby fit into the Bible.

This is a good time to once again list the excuses Dispensationalists have for Matt 24:34 in their desperate attempt to make the verse say something it doesn't.

1) "this" really means "that"

2) " this generation" really means "family"

3) "this" is a demonstrative pronoun (It's a demonstrative adjective)

4) "all these things" really only means the things described in verse 2, and that none of the things Jesus said that would happen before verse 2 took place, which are listed in verses 4-33, are part of "all these things". Despite Jesus saying "all these things" would take place before His contemporaries passed away.

5) There's a hidden Greek word that can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word has a secret condition than nullifies verse 34 if the secret condition wasn't kept by the Jews.

6) There's a subjunctive mood in the verse which nullifies verse 34

tetelestai
June 15th, 2015, 03:29 PM
I do not respond to links.

Yet you have no problem always providing links to your own website:


Go to the thread I mentioned and you will find it there. Or else you can click on this link:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/pentecost/pentecost1.html



If you will click on this link you will see me explain the truth in regard to the many verses which you quoted:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/death/death2.html

Also, you have responded to links before, and even linked sites that weren't your site:


Thanks for the link.


You don't have a link where I can find the beliefs of Plain Historicism?


At post #301 on page 21 you gave me a link where we read the following"



Let us look what we find on the site to which you gave a link:



Nothing said at that link answers these facts:


Yes, and click on this link for evidence that Jack Ruby was at Parkland Hospital shortly after the assassination and could have been the one who planted the bullet on the stretcher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A


Please click on this link


I have demonstrated that the articles to which you gave a link prove that your ideas are in error.

I think you don't respond to links that prove you wrong.

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 04:11 PM
Yet you have no problem always providing links to your own website:

I did not just provide links only and then tell people to respond to those links, as did HisServant.

All you are trying to discredit me as a person because I keep proving that your petty theories have no basis in fact.


Nowhere in the Bible does anyone speak of building a third temple.

The following prophecy shows the Lord Jesus returning, and when He returns there will indeed exist a rebuilt temple:


"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple...And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years" (Mal.3:1,3,4).

There has never been a time since this prophecy was written when the Lord Jesus came to a temple and the offering of Judah and Jerusalem was pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

So the fulfillment of this verse remains in the future so therefore there will be another temple built.

Jerry Shugart
June 15th, 2015, 04:18 PM
Just read the links.

All I can see at the site is what some men say about the Scriptures. What particular thing said in that site do you want me to respond to? You can just copy and paste it and I will be happy to respond.

tetelestai
June 15th, 2015, 04:29 PM
All you are trying to discredit me as a person because I keep proving that your petty theories have no basis in fact.

Jerry, you have a picture of Sir Robert Anderson as you avatar.

There's no need for me to try and discredit you, you've already done so with Anderson's picture as your avatar.

Sir Robert Anderson is credited with naming the "He" of Daniel 9:27 as the antichrist.


The following prophecy shows the Lord Jesus returning, and when He returns there will indeed exist a rebuilt temple:

We've already covered this verse Jerry.

It doesn't show a third temple.

Once again you Dispies take OT prophecies and wrongly apply them to the future.

Nowhere in the NT does Jesus, Peter, John, Paul or any other NT writer even hint of a third temple in the future after the Second Temple is destroyed.

john w
June 15th, 2015, 09:03 PM
But, that's life when you try to make the false teachings of John Nelson Darby fit into the Bible

"Darby' spam-word for words,666th time in last 6 months.





5) There's a hidden Greek word that can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word has a secret condition than nullifies verse 34 if the secret condition wasn't kept by the Jews.

6) There's a subjunctive mood in the verse which nullifies verse 34

Fraud.

"Spelling was never one of my strong points."-you

Vs.

"hidden Greek wordthat can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word...."-Craigie


You know know no "Greek," as you cannot spell it, read it, understand it, write it, speak it, and would not know the difference between "Zorba the Greek," and "Jimmy the Greek."


You con "man." Flim flam...Snake oil....You plagiarized that "hidden Greek word that can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word... a subjunctive mood " jazz.


Plagiarism is against TOL rules, you deceiver.

_____________________________________________
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread


"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.

Danoh
June 15th, 2015, 09:13 PM
Tetelestai, I repeat...

You are still ranting your ranting of Darby.

An answer on your part worth exploring would be along the line of "we assert what we do against you as to this or that issue, on such and such passages of Scripture you are asserting... but the reason your assertion is off is due to these passages here..."

Its all about overall narrative - always - "All Scripture," 2 Tim. 3:16.

A Scriptural answer would cite what passages we supposedly base what we assert on, followed by passages showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.

Instead, all we get from you is this same old, incessant rant against this dead man named John Nelson Darby as if you have some kind of a bordering on a homo-erotic spurned lover kind of a thing against.

Answer the question from Scripture as to those two issues, already.

tetelestai
June 15th, 2015, 09:29 PM
A Scriptural answer would cite what passages we supposedly base what we assert on, followed by passages showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.[/COLOR][/B]

When I do what you claim I don't do, you ignore the posts.

Example:


Hebrews tells us that when the priesthood changes, the law changes.

(Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The priesthood did change, and the law did change.

Yet, you think in the future people are going to go back to the old priesthood and the old law.

(Ezekiel 44:15) "'But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign LORD.

You have Levitical priests (old priesthood) offering animal sacrifices (old law) in the future.

patrick jane
June 15th, 2015, 10:06 PM
That's what Jerry (and Dispies) claim.

It's the same thing for David's Tent.

(Acts 15:16) 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

Dispensationalists claim Christ Jesus will return to planet earth and sit on a man made throne in a new Third Temple.

However, they always exclude David's Tent in their false theory.

David's Tent stood for 40 years with the Ark of the Covenant in it at the same time Moses Tabernacle stood.

During this 40 years, the priests carried out all the priestly duties at Moses Tabernacle, while David and the people worshipped God at David's Tent.

Acts 15:16 is James quoting Amos. The reason James quoted the Amos passage was to show that Amos' prophecy was being fulfilled right there in the first century.

IOW, David's Tent and Moses Tabernacle stood almost side by side for 40 years, then the Ark of the Covenant was moved into Solomon's Temple, and Solomon sat down on the throne.

Jump to the first century. Christ Jesus's Tent (spiritual tabernacle) stood for 40 years (30AD - 70AD) at the same time the Second Temple stood. Then Christ Jesus sat down on His throne.

For the Dispensationalist's false theory to be true, after the alleged Third Temple is built, another David's Tent would have to be built alongside the Third Temple, and God would have to dwell only in the future David's Tent, while priests carried out their animal sacrifices and other priestly duties at the alleged Third Temple.

Dispensationalism is a mess.

19880