ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), Becky, Dee Dee or Jerry. You may discuss Battle Royale III here.
ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), Becky, Dee Dee or Jerry. You may discuss Battle Royale III here.
As I have pointed out before, Jerry necessarily MUST deal with each of the timing verses I bring up in a piecemeal fashion because the cumulative case would clobber him senseless. The problem with such an approach is that a proof he posits for one verse defeats his proof for another. His system fails as a systematic and synoptic whole. For example, in addition to the numerous unanswered proofs I put forth against translating “genea” as “race” in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34, here is yet another:
Matthew 23:32, 36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your father’s guilt.... Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
Notice the tight connection between filling up on the measure of guilt and the proclamation of judgment upon “this generation.” “Filling up” in its OT context entails a completion of something that was previously started, a final ratification of sin. For example, see Genesis 15:16 - “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (and once it was full, whop!! judgment came). The Jews since the time of Christ have NOT been filling up on the measure of their ancient fathers’ guilt. Jerry’s view requires that we count modern Jews even more guilty than the first century apostates who actually murdered Christ!! To further demonstrate the inherent internal contradiction in Jerry’s view, remember that he claims that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are NOT speaking of the same event but has presented no rebuttal to my proof that they are. The Lucan passage states:
Luke 21:22 - For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Now Jerry admits that this verse IS about AD70 and God’s vengeance against the first century Jews. Really? Well then there is his obvious answer to Matthew 23:36. It was THAT generation that filled up on the iniquity of their fathers and warranted God’s vengeance, NOT the entire Jewish race, NOT some future generation. It was THEM. And in Matthew Chapter 23 notice once again the use of “you” which is devastating to Jerry. There is no question as to whom Jesus was speaking. Is Jerry accusing all Jews of all time of being a brood of vipers who are killing, crucifying, scourging in synagogues (!), and persecuting prophets, wise men, and scribes?? What are the statistics today of Christians getting scourged in synagogues? How many Christians have Jews crucified lately? Jerry maintains that the “yous” throughout BOTH of these Chapters (and their parallels) refer to the Jewish race. That CANNOT be. In Matthew 23:34, the “yous” are ones clobbering people in the synagogues, but in Luke 21:12 and Mark 13:9 the “yous” are the ones getting clobbered. Jerry’s system once again implodes upon itself. And as a side-note, to add to my unanswered rebuttal to Jerry’s objection that the first century Jews did not murder Zecharias, I add further support with 1 Samuel 15:3 where the children of Amalek are counted as corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefather hundreds of years earlier as if they did them themselves.
On another note about “genea” I am shocked that Jerry would continue to misuse scholarly sources without shame. He claims that he “pointed out that there are respected Greek experts who state that “genea” can mean ‘men of the same stock, a family.’” Yes but what did they say that you didn’t tell us Jerry? Thayer specifically used Matthew 24:34 as an example of the primary meaning of “genea” as “generation” (NOT race) and Alford at one point chastised people for ignoring the “express TIME limitations” laid down by Christ and for putting “forced and unnatural meanings” on “genea.” Are these the experts you pointed out Jerry? What about the Greek experts who translated the NT who all agree with me, and I might add Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Carson, Haster, Abbot-Smith, Robertson, Bushel, Morganthaler, Conrad, and Cranwell? I see now that you are relying upon Strong’s in a classic case of illegitimate totality transfer. Using Strong’s to make your lexigraphical case as against Thayer, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich is akin to your prior use of the Encyclopedia Americana as your authority on Roman history.
I had also asked Jerry some specific questions about Matthew 16:27-28 in challenge to his assertion that this event is the Transfiguration. He completely ignored the challenge and went off on a incoherent tangent about the resurrection. I once again challenge him to defend his idea that these verses refer to the Transfiguration in light of the refutation in my last post. All he did last post was raise a straw man and burn it. Jerry also conveniently dodged my points proving that the Apostles must certainly did pray for the Day of the Lord, a day of terrible judgment on the apostates, to come. Instead of dealing with the cry for vengeance by the martyred saints (Revelation 6:10), Jerry brings up Amos 5:18. Did Jerry even read the surrounding context? This passage is denouncing hypocrites who are praying for God’s victory, not realizing that they are God’s enemies who will be vanquished. It is not a blanket condemnation of imprecatory prayer.
Okay on to the more substantive issue of the “coming” of Christ in the Olivet Discourse and the cosmic disturbances. Jerry thinks he is onto something when he claims that these events cannot be associated with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem because Matthew says they happen “AFTER” the tribulation of those days. Yeah, and what’s the problem here? Revelation 6:12-14 describes such “cosmic disturbances,” as also happening during the event!! Is Jerry claiming that Matthew and Revelation are contradicting each other?? Or is he claiming that the universe dissolves in the middle of the Tribulation?? How do you explain that one Jerry? The Matthean passage merely states the final conclusion, the complete and utter desolation of the Jewish economy and Old Covenant order. The sun and moon are dark, the stars are fallen - put a fork in it, it’s done. What a tempest in a teapot.
Jerry also raises a lot of hay stating that this event is something that would be “seen.” Well my answer to this is two-fold, the first fold of which is painfully obvious. Is Jerry suggesting that the destruction of Jerusalem and the extinguishment of the Old Covenant order was an invisible event? Surely not. This was something dramatically witnessed by the first century people. They saw exactly what the phrases and imagery used by Christ foretold.
But.... did the first century people “see” Christ coming on the clouds?? In line with what I just and in my last post, sure they did. As I previously demonstrated, “cloud coming” imagery is heavily used in the OT for judgment visitations of God. This judgment was fierce and highly visible. Additionally, the concept of “sight” in the Biblical text has much greater meaning than simply physical sight with physical eyes. For example see 2 Kings 6:20; Isaiah 42:7; Isaiah 42:16; John 12:40; Acts 26:18, 28:27; Romans 3:18, 11:10, 15:21; Ephesians 1:18, to name just a FEW, where it refers to understanding, perception, and knowledge. This same concept is found in the narrative of the disciples who broke bread with Jesus after His resurrection. They did not recognize Him until their “eyes were opened.” Are we to presume that they were walking around with their eyes literally shut before? Jerry completely ignored the fact that Jesus is making a clear allusion to the “Son of Man” imagery in Daniel 7:13-14. That passage is not describing a “coming” to touch DOWN on Earth but a “coming” UP to the Ancient of Days in vindication and victory to receive the Kingdom. If you want to see something very interesting, read Daniel 7:13-14 in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 15:24 both of which futurists believe to be about the Second Coming/Rapture. It is impossible. In Daniel, Christ receives the Kingdom and begins His special Messianic rule, in Corinthians, the Kingdom is consummated and presented to the Father. These are speaking of two totally different events separated by a vast span of time.
Jerry in his interpretation of Matthew 24:29-30 is totally ignoring the fact that these verses are a direct quotation/allusion to numerous OT passages, again primarily Daniel 7:13-14 and Isaiah 13:10 and thus MUST be understood in light of their OT context which ABSOLUTELY did not describe the dissolution of the universe nor the touching down of God upon the Earth. Jesus said to the then-living High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would “see” the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). Notice again, where are they to “see” Him?? SITTING at the right hand of power.... NOT coming down to earth. How can Christ be SITTING IN HEAVEN and COMING DOWN TO EARTH at the same time in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic?? Also, notice that Jerry can’t be literal here in another way. According to his view, these people would be long dead before this event happened. Are they then to “see” this event from Hades? Well if so, then Jerry can’t be so hung up on physical sight with physical eyes since their bodies (including their eyes) would have long ago turned to dust. Also, like I demonstrated before, Jerry’s “proof” in this area gores him in another. Jerry is insisting that “see” must mean literal sight of a certain event happening right then in front of them. Really? Then what does he do with Luke 21:31? Even Jerry admits that part of “all these things” that must be “seen” in Luke is the destruction of the city and Temple in AD70. Tell us then Jerry, how will some future group of Jews “see” these things happening?
The same is true with Jerry’s misplaced and selective reliance upon Revelation 1:7. That text specifically says that those who pierced Him will be among the ones who “see” Him. Again that is literally impossible as they are long dead. But John WAS NOT describing an event that would happen in the distant future. Jesus made it clear to His bondservants that these things must “shortly take place” 1:1; 22:6 and in case we humans were really thick, He repeated Himself and said that the time was near (1:3) and that He is coming quickly (3:11, 22:7, 12, 20). The opening and closing verses of Revelation emphatically emphasize the temporal proximity of the events described. Thus, what John is describing in 1:7 is limited to the time frames clearly laid out, and the context, the judgment upon the first century apostates.
In understanding the Olivet Discourse, it is vitally important to note the totally local character of this judgment. While futurists envision that the Discourse is talking about the end of the entire world, the Discourse itself limits the cataclysm to Judea (Matthew 24:16), Jerusalem (Luke 21:20, and the first century Temple (Matthew 24:2, 15; Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6). Matthew 23 records Jesus pronouncement of local judgment for the apostate Jews. He weeps over Jerusalem for she is to be destroyed, not the entire world. He declares that their House is left desolate and describes the destruction of the Temple then standing, not the dismantling of the cosmos.
I already thoroughly demonstrated the exact same catastrophic language was used in the OT to refer to past historical judgments. Jerry’s only defense to the tremendous proof that I presented regarding the rich Biblical pattern of judgment motifs was that those OT passages do not contain exhortations for watchfulness. So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This figurative language is used to descriptive real and visible events that are to be watched for. Jerry’s point is beyond inane. Is Jerry insinuating that God did not intend for anyone to watch for the fulfillment of His OT judgment prophecies just because the text does not say “watch”? But he is wrong in this very point in this first place. In Ezekiel 33:1-6 the principle of the prophet as the “watchman” is laid out clearly, and in Deut. 18:22 the people are exhorted to watch and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord.
Jerry also keeps raising the issue of the judgment mentioned in Matthew 25:31. Does Jerry not believe that Christ is currently judging between the nations (Ephesians 1:19-20; Revelation 1:5)? There is nothing in this passage indicating that this is a one-time event, in fact, a progressive judgment over time is in accord with the OT passages dealing with the reign of Christ (Psalm 2:8-12, 22:8, 96:10-13; 110:2-6). Additionally, I have already proven that the “coming” described is NOT a coming to earth but an enthronement in Heaven. The “coming of the Son of man in His Kingdom” is absolutely equated with “sitting on the throne of His glory” to exercise His dominion and judgment among the nations beginning with the apostates who crucified Him. He will do so until, “He has abolished all rule and all authority and all power” (1 Corinthians 15:24). Jerry is claiming that this has to be a literal judgment throne upon the Earth based upon Joel 3. Really? Did God literally come and tread down upon the high places of ancient Samaria and Jerusalem (Micah 1:3)? Must God, who fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24), be on a throne on Earth for us to stand before Him each and every day? Especially when we know that His throne is in Heaven (Psalm 11:4; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34; Revelation 4:2)?
Unfortunately, Jerry is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible but instead is behaving as if it dropped out of the sky in the twenty-first century. If some different culture two thousand years from today were to read “raining cats and dogs” in some of our writings, they would be making a gross error to believe that we literally meant that household pets were dropping out of the sky. It may not be an obvious idiom to them, but it would be to us, and that is exactly my point.
“…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 with great glory”(Mt.24:30).
As I said before,Dee Dee´s judgment has been warped and she continually subjects her mind to delusions.And her interpretation of this verse is no exception.According to her,the “coming” of the Lord does not mean a coming BACK to earth,but instead means a COMING UP to heaven!According to her,first the Lord returns to earth in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem.He then returns to the heavenly sphere to receive the kingdom.
And she calls His return to the heavens a COMING UP.But when someone is said to go from a place near,such as earth,to a place far,such as the heavens,the NORMAL thing to say is that someone WENT UP or He GOES UP.But Dee Dee,not satisfied with making havoc on the Holy Scriptures,turns her attention to the English language and runs amuck there also.Instead of saying that the Lord WENT UP to receive His kingdom,Dee Dee says that He COMES UP!!!
However,turning aside from her preposterious thoughts we can see that the words of the Lord Jesus Himself in the Olivet Discourse leaves no room for doubt that His COMING is in reference to HIS RETURN to earth:
“And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds,with great glory and power…But of that day and that hour knoweth no man…take heed,watch and pray;for ye know not when the time is.FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LIKE a man taking a far journey,who LEFT HIS HOUSE,and gave authority to his servants,and to every man his work,and commanded the porter to watch.Watch ye,therefore,for ye know not when the MASTER OF THE HOUSE COMETH…”(Mk.13:26,32-35).
Here we see that the Lord Jesus is LIKENED to the man who left and returned.In the same discourse the Lord Jesus also speaks of another lord who would return:
“Who,then,is a faithful and wise servant,whom his lord hath made ruler over his household…Blessed is that servant,whom his lord,when he COMETH,shall find so doing…the lord of that servant shall COME in a day when he looketh not for him,and in an hour that he is not aware”(Mt.24:45,46,50).The Lord also gives two additional instances where someone leaves and then RETURNS (Mt.25:10;14,19).But since Dee Dee can find no place of these words of the Lord in her twisted scenario,she IGNORES them and attempts to say that the Lord is not COMING BACK,but instead He is “COMING UP”.This type of interpretation degrades and throws contempt on the Holy Scriptures.
Next,earlier Dee Dee said that the “cosmic disturbances” of Matthew 24:9 refer to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem…”But I asked her how that could be since Scripture plainly states that the “cosmic disturbances” will come “immediately AFTER” the “great tribulation”,which she thinks refers to the desruction of Jerusalem in AD70.In other words,she has Jerusalem destroyed in AD70 and then immediately after this she has Jerusalem destroyed again.
When given a chance to clear up this preposterous interpretation of hers,this is what she says: “Jerry thinks he is onto something when he claims that these events cannot be associated with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem because Matthew says they happened ‘AFTER’ the tribulation of those days.” But Dee Dee,you did not say that these events were merely ASSOCIATED with the destruction of Jerusalem,you said that they refer to the ACTUAL destruction of Jerusalem.So we see even though Dee Dee said over and over that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was a non-repeatable event,she herself is teaching that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70 and then was destroyed again after AD70.
Next,I will touch upon a couple of points that I brought up but Dee Dee totally ignored.First,Matthew 16:27-28:
“For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels,and then shall reward every man according to their works.Verily I say unto you,There are some standing here,who shall not taste of death,till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”(Mt.16:27,28).
Dee Dee says that the first century Christians lived to “SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.But does her theory match the Scriptual facts?Well,NOT EXACTLY.Not even close.Speaking of the time that the Lord would”APPEAR”,John says that “we know that when He shall appear,we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).Paul taught the Christians to be looking expectantly to the heavens for the APPEARING of the Lord Jesus,and at that time they would recive their glorified,immortal bodies:
“For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).
Well,if they SAW him at His appearance,as Dee Dee says,then why didn´t they recive their glorified bodies?I asked Dee Dee this before,and she offered no answer whatsoever.These Scriptual facts are devestating to the Preterist position,but yet Dee Dee doesn´t offer even one word to defend her views.
Now let us examine some points that she did attempt to answer.In regard to the “cosmic disturbances”,Dee Dee had said that the Lord was speaking in idioms and language of an OT prophet.I pointed out that yes,there were similiarites in some of the OT language,but in no instances were there any warnings to WATCH for these signs nor was it ever said that these signs would be SEEN.In reply,Dee Dee says that “in Ezekiel 33:1-6 the principle of the prophet as the ‘watchman’ is laid out clearly”.However,an examination of these verses reveal that there is no command to WATCH for the signs described at Ezek.32:7-8.There is no Scripture that says these signs will be seen.The “watchman” is not watching for any heavenly signs,but instead he is watching for the “sword” to come upon the land.
She also says that at Deut.18:22 “the people are exhorted to WATCH and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord.”(emphasis mine).But once again an examination of the words reveal that the word “watch” is not included.Dee Dee just made it up!If you do not believe me,just go there yourself.She just made it up. So we can see that there is not even one place in the Scriptures where anyone is ever told to WATCH for the “cosmic disturbances” and no place in Scripture where the “cosmic disturbances”are said to be SEEN except in the Olivet Discourse.
Next,earlier I had pointed out that the first century Jews did not murder Zechariah,so therefore the word “’generation’ at Matthew 23:36 cannot possibly refer to the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Dee Dee then says that 1Sam.15:3 “ the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.”
However,Dee Dee again makes all this up.Those words cannot be found in these Scripture passages.Instead,the children of Amalek are destroyed “because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”(Ex.17:16).So again we see that Dee Dee will not hesitate to add words to Scripture if she thinks that itwill help her cause.
Dee Dee also attempts to undermine my contention that the word “generation” at Matthew 23:36 refers to that “generation of vipers”,or the evil race of Jews.She says,”Is Jerry accusing all Jews of all time being a brood of vipers who are killing,crucifying,scourging in synagogues and persecuting prophets,wise men and scribes?”
Well,Dee Dee thinks that the word “generation” in this instance means the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Does that mean that she thinks that ALL the first century Jews,including the believers,are a brood of vipers who are killing and persecuting the prophets?
Dee Dee also said that the Olivet Discourse was completely fulfilled in the first century,and she challenged me to find one thing that was not.Well,Dee Dee,consider these words of the Lord Jesus Christ:
“And except those days should be shortened,there should NO FLESH be saved;but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened”(Mt.24:22).
Here the word translated “no flesh” comes from the Greek word,”pas sarx”,meaning “every living creature,1Pet.1:24”, or if it is used with the negative,it means “no living creature,Mt.xxiv:22,Mk.xiii:20;spec. ‘a man’ “ (“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
So we can see that the words recorded in Matthew refer to all men living everywhere.And in every instance but one where the term is used in the New Testament,it is used to express the idea of ALL MEN everywhere (Mt.24:22;Mk.13:20;Lk.3:6;Jn.17:2;Acts2:17;Ro.3:20 ;1Cor.1:29;Gal.2:16;1Pet.1:24).The only exception is at 1Cor.15:39,where the term is used in an even wider sense,meaning all animal life as well as all human life.
We can see its use in the following verse: “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God”(Lk.3:6).This is in regard to “all people”,as we can see from the words of Simeon when He said,”For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation,which Thou hast prepared before the face OF ALL PEOPLE: a light to lighten the Gentiles,and the glory of Thy people,Israel”(Lk.2:30-32).
And the words of Isaiah leaves absolutely no doubt,when he says that “The Lord hath made bare His Holy arm in the eyes of all nations,and ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF OUR GOD”(Isa.52:10).
So we can see that unless the Lord intervenes during the time of the “great tribulation”,then NO FLESH will be saved.The future “great tribulation” will be of such magnitude that unless the Lord intervenes,it will be possible that all of mankind would be destroyed!
And who is willing to argue that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 ever reaches such a magnitude that it would have been possible that the whole human race would have been destroyed?That event never reached a magnitude anywhere close to a situation in which all men would have been destroyed.This verse alone proves that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was not the “great tribulation” that the Lord Jesus said was to come.
Okay folks, Jerry has objected to my interpretation of the “coming” of Christ in the Discourse in his usual fashion… with many “yeah buts” but no synoptic analysis. He failed to deal with the supports I used for my position but rather just posited some verses which he claims teach something different. All that does is raise an apparent “contradiction” in the Scripture. He must do more than raise apparently contradictory verses, he must harmonize the whole counsel of God, something that he has yet to do one time in this debate, but instead did what Jerry does best…. sidesteps direct questions with additional questions. He in fact answered almost nothing from my last post and has left major items pending from prior posts.
In his last post Jerry is grossly guilty of, at best, failing to understand my position, or at worst, purposefully misrepresenting my position. Neither option is acceptable in a debate. Let me demonstrate.
I never said any such thing. Jesus “comes” in judgment upon apostate Israel, just as YHWH had done numerous times in the OT which did not require Him to “leave” Heaven, though the language, if taken in the same sense that Jerry is advocating, would require that YHWH did in fact leave Heaven and ride upon the back of a cherub or a cloud – and NO ONE believes that (Genesis 11:5; 2 Samuel 22:8-12; Psalm 18:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 13:5, 31:4; Hosea 8:1; Micah 1:2-4). We as moderns tend to forget that the OT was the only Scripture that the disciples had, and they did not have the [sarcasm] benefit [/sarcasm] of the “Left Behind” series. When Jesus quoted to them directly from Isaiah 13 do you think they would have any idea in a million years that he was not using the terminology in a similar way as that passage and dozens of other OT passages using similar judgment motifs (sun and moon going dark, stars falling from the sky) and “coming” language?? Let’s get real here. Why wouldn’t they? Why isn’t the Bible the best interpreter of the Bible? Why isn’t Jerry consistent in his insistence upon “literalism”?According to her, first the Lord returns to earth in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem.He then returns to the heavenly sphere to receive the kingdom.
Why doesn’t he believe that the universe collapsed in God’s past judgments on Edom, Egypt, Samaria, Jerusalem, and Babylon?
[choke]Stop me, you’re killing me!!![/choke] Is THAT the best you can do?? This is from a person who says near doesn’t mean near, soon doesn’t mean soon , quickly doesn’t mean quickly, at hand doesn’t mean at hand, shortly doesn’t mean shortly, and this generation doesn’t mean this generation!!! In Daniel 7:9-13, the perspective is from Heaven … from that perspective it is NORMAL to say “came up.” Who is Jerry kidding? This straining at gnats is getting ridiculous.And she calls His return to the heavens a COMING UP.But when someone is said to go from a place near,such as earth,to a place far,such as the heavens,the NORMAL thing to say is that someone WENT UP or He GOES UP.But Dee Dee,not satisfied with making havoc on the Holy Scriptures,turns her attention to the English language and runs amuck there also.Instead of saying that the Lord WENT UP to receive His kingdom,Dee Dee says that He COMES UP!!!
Jerry cannot take parables and misuse them to override the clear OT setting of Jesus’ words. If Jerry wants to get that literal with parables of all things, may I remind him that the length of time measured by the parables he cited are normal lifetimes!! The master comes back to the SAME servants he left, not the distant relatives of those servants!! And since Jerry is so fond of parables, I have one for him as well. In Matthew 21 Jesus gave the parable of the Wicked Vinedressers which is an unequivocal reference to AD70. What does Jesus ask his first century audience? “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will he do to those vinedressers?” and continues, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” And notice this… “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of THEM.” Jesus was speaking of THEM and told THEM that the owner of the vineyard would COME in judgment upon THEM. Please notice the similarities between this parable and the very ones that Jerry cited in opposition to the fact that Christ CAME in judgment in AD70 upon Israel! They are speaking of the same event…. not that I actually expect Jerry to deal with that fact since he has NEVER dealt with my proofs that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-23 are speaking of the same event though his whole argument depends upon that idea that they are not.
Again I never said any such thing. What I did say was the entirety of the events of the destruction of Jerusalem are what is being described by the “cosmic disturbances” language just as has been done numerous times in the OT ( Isaiah 13:9-10, 34:4-5; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9). I pointed out that Matthew speaks of the final result, the complete extinguishment of the Jewish polity and that Revelation uses the same language (6:12) to refer to the actual enfolding of the destruction. When the Temple finally falls, and the city is razed to the ground, which in fact IS IMMEDIATELY after the Tribulation described in verses 4-28, the Old Covenant order is completely swept away (Hebrews 8:13). Jerry conveniently sidestepped my question to him about Revelation 6:12 which in his wooden hermeneutic would require the dissolution of the cosmos in the middle of the Tribulation and before the 144,000 were sealed. I think it is pretty obvious that if all the stars (or even meteors) literally fell to the earth, there would be no Earth for the 144,000 to stand upon. And which is it Jerry… do these things happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Tribulation or DURING the Tribulation. You missed answering that one.In other words,she has Jerusalem destroyed in AD70 and then immediately after this she has Jerusalem destroyed again.
Now, do you guys want to see something really bizarre ?? First Jerry has the chutzpah to claim that I am ignoring Matthew 16:27-28 when I was the one who asked the questions which were never answered!! Here is the verse:
For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then shall reward every man according to their works. Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Please take careful note of Christ’s words in blue. So here is Jerry’s “response.”
If you are not choking on your biscuit right now, you need to read that again. Jerry is incredulous that I actually have the nerve to believe what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!!! Wow!! Silly me, whip me with a wet noodle. Jerry has yet to answer my challenges to his spin on those verses in round 6 (you know, the one where I am chuckling over the fact that Jerry admits that he believes that Jerusalem will be attacked on horseback). I am still waiting. Instead he sidesteps my questions by trying to make the connection that when Christ “comes” in His Kingdom, the resurrection happens. Well Jerry how does that help you?? The passage STILL says that some standing there will not taste death until they SEE the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. You still have to deal with that, and all you have done is paint yourself into a painful corner. And as a matter of fact, since this passage is an allusion to Daniel 7:13 which speaks of the beginning of Christ’s Messianic reign, and Paul makes it clear that the resurrection marks the end of Christ’s special Messianic reign (1 Corinthians 15:24), thank you again for proving my point that it is only the preterist timeline that makes sense of all of the timing passages. You have yet to explain how to reconcile the “comings” in Daniel 7:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:24 in your view.Dee Dee says that the first century Christians lived to “SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Jerry has conceded that I am correct in my identifications of collapsing-universe imagery in historical OT judgment prophecies, yet, he nonsensically claims that the identical language in the Discourse cannot be interpreted in the same way because there are no exhortations in the OT prophecies to “watch” for their fulfillment. Huh?? This is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard. I ask again, is Jerry insinuating that God did not intend for anyone to watch for the fulfillment of His OT judgment prophecies just because the text does not say “watch”? In response to my point that the role of the prophet was indeed that of a watchman, Jerry replied:
Jerry, duh!!! The judgment prophecies using cosmic imagery ARE prophecies of “swords” coming upon the land. What exactly is your point?? You have just assumed what you need to prove… that the language of the Olivet Discourse should not be interpreted the same way as the dozens of other OT judgment passages utilizing cosmic imagery. If it is, then the disciples are told to “watch” in the exact same way as the watchman in Ezekiel. You really need to stop proving my points for me like that.However,an examination of these verses reveal that there is no command to WATCH for the signs described at Ezek.32:7-8.There is no Scripture that says these signs will be seen.The “watchman” is not watching for any heavenly signs,but instead he is watching for the “sword” to come upon the land.
In response to my comment that in Deut. 18:22 the people are exhorted to watch and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord, Jerry says:
Sigh. As you can see I did NOT use quote marks in my comment so I never said that the word “watch” was explicitly in the text. Here is what the text says:once again an examination of the words reveal that the word “watch” is not included.Dee Dee just made it up!If you do not believe me,just go there yourself.She just made it up.
”When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Now Jerry please tell me… how in God’s green Earth can anyone know whether a prophesy comes true or not unless they watch for it? Is God going to slip them a note in Gym class?
And lastly Jerry puts his foot in it with this,
Again, Jerry, are you insinuating that the judgment events prophesied in the OT were invisible?? What you are doing is again arguing a tautology. You are assuming that the cosmic disturbances are to be taken woodenly (which is impossible as shown above) and then claim that since those exact things were never literally seen, they did not happen. But that misses the whole point and betrays a gross misunderstanding of apocalyptic language. The symbolic language portrays a real and literal event. The real and literal event that is symbolized by the language is what is seen. Again, if I say it is going to rain cats and dogs, you will SEE the torrential rain which is what my words represented, but you will NEVER see pets plummeting out of the blue, because that is not the meaning that my words intended to convey. This is not rocket science here. The issue isn’t whether we take words literally but is whether or not we take them Biblically and in the sense in which they were intended. Even Jerry does not believe that we literally have to eat Christ’s literal flesh and blood. Why not??There is… no place in Scripture where the “cosmic disturbances”are said to be SEEN except in the Olivet Discourse.
With regards to the “this generation” of Matthew 23:36, Jerry points out that I said,
And he then comments:…. 1Sam.15:3 “ the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.”
This is the second time in one post that he has falsely made such an accusation, just as he had no problem changing the speaker in Psalm 56:5 to accuse me of hating God. Here is 1 Samuel 15:2-3: “ Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.’”However,Dee Dee again makes all this up.Those words cannot be found in these Scripture passages.Instead,the children of Amalek are destroyed “because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”(Ex.17:16).So again we see that Dee Dee will not hesitate to add words to Scripture if she thinks that itwill help her cause.
This words are spoken by God hundreds of years AFTER the Amalekites ambushed Israel on the way he came up from Egypt, yet God is here declaring that he is going to punish the Amalekites of David’s day for that offense. Jerry put your money where your mouth is. How am I making anything up here?? (Exodus 20:16)
Ironically all the while, Jerry does yet another Fred Astaire move around my very pointed questions about the identification of “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 with very specific first century crimes, and the identity of the “you” throughout Matthew 23 and Matthew 24 by asking:
You see, Jerry, asking that question does not remove you from the horns of your own dilemma that I have pointed out again and again. A cursory reading of the text (and a complete reading of Thayer whom you selectively quote) would clear up this confusion of yours. Jesus points out that the judgment will come upon those in that generation who commit the offenses He speaks of and thus fill up on their father’s guilt. Peter makes it clear that those who are saved, are saved FROM or OUT OF “this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40). Jerry certainly is not claiming the meaning of “race” there. Why not? Also, is Jerry insinuating that we must take Jesus’ woods so woodenly to mean that every single one of their forebears were also evil murderers?? Also, please notice that Jerry’s own argument against me, if true, disproves his own position. He is once again stark naked in a glass house. Eeek!!Dee Dee thinks that the word “generation” in this instance means the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Does that mean that she thinks that ALL the first century Jews,including the believers,are a brood of vipers who are killing and persecuting the prophets?
Now in answer to my challenge that there was nothing in the Olivet Discourse that was not fulfilled, Jerry trots out Matthew 24:22:
And except those days should be shortened,there should NO FLESH be saved;but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened.
Context, context, context, my wily futurist friend. I already pointed out, and was met with crickets on your end, the obviously LOCAL character of the judgment. If one wants to avoid the conflagration all one has to do is flee out of Judea to the mountains (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21) . That is hardly an indication of a worldwide disaster. The context is limited to Judea, and if the days were not shortened no flesh in Judea would have been saved.
Jerry then makes the following gaffe:
Really Jerry?? First of all please note that Jerry lists as two examples (Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20) the very verses in dispute. That is circular. Also, one of the verses cited by Jerry proves my very point, and that is Acts 2:17. The context is Pentecost and Peter’s sermon in which Peter is claiming that the events of Pentecost were the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (which included cosmic disturbance language by the way). Really?? So tell me Jerry, was the Spirit poured out upon ALL FLESH at Pentecost?? Did the wicked Pharisees get a measure of the Spirit?? Were the American Indians whooping it up with a big tent revival?? The reference to ALL FLESH there is clearly limited to Judea. And since you seem so found of borrowing heavily from Toussaint Jerry, I thought you might like to take a gander of what Toussaint says about your “race” interpretation:So we can see that the words (par sarx) recorded in Matthew refer to all men living everywhere.And in every instance but one where the term is used in the New Testament,it is used to express the idea of ALL MEN everywhere - Mt.24:22;Mk.13:20;Lk.3:6;Jn.17:2;Acts2:17;Ro.3:20; 1Cor.1:29;Gal.2:16;1Pet.1:24).
Oh and Jerry, please invest in a good Thesaurus. There are words you can find to describe me other than deceived, deluded, and preposterous. I just thought you might like to know.A second interpretation is held by a number of futurist which affirms the noun genea means race, usually referring it to the Jewish race. However, "race" is not the normal meaning of genea. BAG does give "clan" as a primary meaning but only lists Luke 16:8 as an illustration in the N.T. It is difficult for a dispensational premillennialist to take this view because he would then be implying that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord's return. "This race of Israel will not pass away until the second advent" is suggested by such an interpretation. But Israel must continue after the Second Advent into the millennium to fulfill the promises God made to that nation.
The Apostle John wrote that “we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).
The Apostle Paul says,“For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).
Words could not be plainer.These men expected the Lord to APPEAR and to be SEEN,and when He did appear they would receive their new,immortal bodies.
But since these words do not match Dee Dee´s twisted scenario of the end time events,she must explain the plain words away.She says that Paul´s words refer to “the end of Christ´s Messianic reign.” But why would Paul be urging the Christians to be looking towards the heavens in order to see Him coming if this could not take place until AFTER Christ´s Messianic reign?
Remember,in the preceding verse,Paul says that the Christians are LOOKING for the Lord.The word translated “look” is from the Greek word “apekdechomai”,meaning “assiduously and patiently to wait for”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon”).And just a few verses later Paul says,”The Lord is at hand”(Phil.4:5).The words ”at hand” are translated from the Greek word,”eggus”,which means “concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon”).
So by the words of Paul we can see that he was NOT referring to an event that would not happen until “the end of Christ´s Messianic reign”,as Dee Dee mistakenly says.If the event could not possibly take place until after Christ had ended His Messianic reign,why would Paul be telling the Christians to be assiduously (constantly) looking toward the heavens for His appearing?That would make absolutely no sense.
Now perhaps Dee Dee will explain why the bodies of the Christians were not changed when the Lord supposedly came in AD70.
Another example of Dee Dee´s assault on the Scriptures occurs when she says that the “signs” when the “sun is darkened and the moon shall not give its light”(Mt.24:29) refer to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order.” In other words,these “signs” represent things that will happen on earth.But the words of the Lord are plain that the signs do not represent things that will happen on earth:
“And there shall be SIGNS IN THE SUN,AND IN THE STARS;and upon the earth distess of nations,with perplexity,the sea and the waves roaring”(Lk.21:25).
So here we can see that the Lord is SPECIFICALLY saying that the “signs” will occur in the heavens,and this is contrasted with the things that will happen on earth.Dee Dee wants us to ignore the words of the Lord and instead believe her false interpretation that the Lord is saying that the signs merely represent things that will happen on earth,and that the “signs” will not actually be seen in the heavens.She does this because there were no “signs” seen in the heavens after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.So instead of believing the Lord,she distorts His words to make them match her confused interpretation of the end time events.
She adds to the confusion by saying that the Apostles,upon hearing His words concerning the “cosmic disturbances”, would think that His coming would not involve His bodily presence.However,even if that was their belief(and I am not saying that it was),they would be corrected in a short period of time when they are told in no uncertain terms that Hewould return just as He left:
“Ye men of Galilee,why stand ye gazing up to heaven?This same Jesus,Who is taken up from you into heaven,SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN”(Acts1:11).
They saw Him go into heaven in His BODILY PRESENCE.Therefore,they would expect Him to return in His body.And what else could the Lord´s words mean in the Olivet Discourse when He likens the Son of Man to “a man taking a far journey” and then returning in the same way that he left:
“And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds,with great power and glory…But of that day and that hour knoweth no man…Take heed,watch and pray;for ye know not when the time is.For the Son of Man is LIKE a man taking a far journey,who left his house,and gave authority to his servants,and to every man his work,and commanded the porter to watch.Watch ye,therefore;for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh,at evening,or at midnight,or at the cockcrow in the morning”(Mk.13:26,32-35).
Here the Lord Himself is saying that the Son of Man is LIKE a man who leaves and returns.Anyone must be a little unbalanced if they think that this verse is teaching that Christ left in bodily form but He will not return in bodily form.We must remember that these words themselves are a part of the Lord´s answer as to when He will come.
However,Dee Dee points out that in this parable that the master comes back to the same servents that he left.That is correct,but it must be remembered that the parables do not fit perfectly the thing that they represent.One thing is constant in all the parables(Mt.24:45-50;25:1-12;14-26;Mk.13:34-37) that the Lord speaks in the Olivet Discourse,and that is the fact that the one who leaves also RETURNS.In ALL four parables the one who left also RETURNSAnd so will it be with the Lord Jesus Christ—He will RETURN to earth,and His “coming” is “coming to earth” and not “coming up” to His throne in heaven.
Dee Dee also seems to think that the parable of the Wicked Vinedresser (Mt.21) somehow undermines the idea that the Lord is teaching that He will return.She thinks that this parable refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.But first of all,notice that it is not the “son” who returns in judgment,but instead the father.Therefore,this could not be in reference to AD70 because in that case,at least according to Dee Dee,it is the Son Who comes in judgment.So it is evident that this parable in no way puts into question the Lord´s teaching that He will return to earth.
Next,we can clearly see that the destruction associated with the end times that the Lord is describing will not only involve Jerusalem,but also the whole world:
“Then shall be two in the field;the one shall be taken,and the other left.Two women shall be grinding in the mill;the one shall be taken,and the other left”(Mt.24:40,41).
These word of the Lord are in response to the question of what will be the signs of “THE END OF THE AGE”(Mt.24:3).And earlier the Lord had spoken the parable of the Tares and the Wheat which occurs at THE END OF THE AGE.In this parable,“the field is THE WORLD…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 the kingdom all things that offend,and them that do iniquity”(Mt.13:38,40,41).
So according to this parable,at the “end of the age” ALL those in ALL the world who offend will be gathered out of His kingdom.So the events associated with the coming of the Son of God do not just involve Jerusalem,but instead it is WORLDWIDE!And the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 did not reach the whole world by any stretch of the imagination.
In regard to 1Sam.15:2-3,it is true that the Amalekites of David´s day were being punished for the crime committed by the Amalekites at a much earlier time,BUT that does not answer the point I raised.I said that the word “generation” at Mat.23:36 cannot refer to the first century Jews,because they did not kill Zechariah—“whom YE slew between the Temple and the altar”.
The point is not who will receive the punishment,but instead who committed the crime.These passages do not speak of the Amalekites of David´s day committing the crime that was committed earlier.Therefore,1Sam.15:2-3 proves nothing.
And Dee Dee said that the use of either “going” or “coming” depends on whether or not the perspective is from heaven or from earth.Well,the question to the Lord,”What shall be the sign of Thy coming” was spoken FROM THE EARTH.And from that perspective the word “coming” could only be in regard to coming from heaven to earth.And naturally,the Lord´s answer would be from the same perspective:
“…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 is those ON EARTH who see Him COMING,so the perspective is FROM EARTH!
He would not answer their question from the perspective from heaven,but instead from the perspective of earth.Therefore,when He speaks of coming,He is saying that He is COMING from the heavens to the earth.Dee Dee is again willing to subject her mind to the delusion that the Lord´s words are coming from “the perspective from heaven”.
To her it seems perfectly natural to say that the Lord is COMING UP!A more notable instance of inadequate interpretation cannot be imagined!
Finally,I have already pointed out that Scripture reveals that when Jerusalem is attacked,the Lord says,”In that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).Dee Dee says that this means that the Lord Jesus allowed the Roman armies to defeat Jerusalem in AD70,and this victory of Rome somehow brought Rome to its end.
Well,the verse preceding that verse reads,”In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us exactly how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.
I haven´t had a good laugh since her previous answer on how the Lord destroyed Rome!
In the past three rounds I have asked at least ten questions which cut to the heart of the issue which have gone completely unacknowledged, least of all answered. Instead Jerry piles additional questions upon additional questions as if that is sufficient. I have not seen Jerry advocate anything at all that appears to be a Systematic Theology but rather whatever hodge-podge comments he can lob at me to try and defeat my every point despite the cost to his cumulative position. His view, as thus far presented, is completely incoherent with itself, never mind with the Biblical text.
Repeatedly I have raised numerous issues with regards to Matthew 16:27-28. If Jerry would put as much effort into answering the questions as he does in evading them, he might actually come up with something halfway decent. But he has not answered one challenge I have made to his interpretation that these verses refer to the Transfiguration. Remember what Jerry “accused” me of last round:
Jerry has yet to deal with the fact that this is what the text ACTUALLY says. What Jerry does instead is try and insist that the resurrection must happen when the Son of Man comes in His Kingdom. But that still does not solve his problem that the text clearly places this “coming” in the first century, and in trying to prove me wrong, he has bitten off his own nose . Well then Jerry, did the resurrection happen at the Transfiguration?? Despite that obvious rebuttal, Jerry’s assertion is flat out wrong, and does not even make sense within his own system. Jerry places the “Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” at the END of the Great Tribulation, but even he does not believe that the resurrection happens then, but years before that point. Jerry says, “words could not be plainer,” and I agree. Jesus could not have been any plainer that the first century audience would see Him coming in His Kingdom in direct allusion to Daniel 7:13. Exactly what words are unclear Jerry? Are the words “soon, near, at hand, shortly, quickly, this generation, some standing here will not taste death” too confusing for you?Dee Dee says that the first century Christians lived to “SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Jerry says,Yes they did, but Jerry commits the fallacy of the excluded middle… he is assuming that the Scripture does not teach any “coming ” of Christ that had nothing to do with the resurrection and bodily Second Advent when in fact it does in many places. Here are two examples: in Revelation 3:20 Christ promises to “come” to the one who opens the door to their heart. This is not referring to the bodily resurrection whatsoever. Another example would be Revelation 2:5 where Jesus threatens to “come” in judgment upon a Church and remove her place if she does not repent. Was He threatening to come and resurrect her? Was He threatening to come and destroy the world if she did not repent? Obviously not. Since Jerry has raised very little worth responding to in his last post and this Debate is nearing an end, I am now going to prove my position that the Great Tribulation is past by demonstrating that the “end of the age” is past (Matthew 24:3), but this is going to require very careful attention to the subtleties of what certain texts actually say without blind loyalty to previously cherished positions. I apologize if this is a little more theologically “dry” than some of my other posts, but it is the necessary final nail in the coffin.These men expected the Lord to APPEAR and to be SEEN,and when He did appear they would receive their new,immortal bodies.
In the Olivet Discourse, one of the questions the disciples asked Christ was about the “end of the age.” Nothing in any of Christ’s previous words would have given them any idea whatsoever to ask about the end of the world. Their questions were prompted by Christ’s scathing denunciations of the first century Jewish authorities and the announcement of the desolation of the Temple. We cannot lose sight of this context of their questions. The Jews were awaiting the Messianic age. Their time was divided into two great ages, the age of Torah (or Moses) and the Age of Messiah…. The disciples recognized that the destruction of the Temple would bring to an end one age and usher in the other. Jesus in response to them makes a clear and unequivocal allusion to Daniel 7:13. Jerry and I both agree that this event in Daniel refers to the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom and Millennium as follows:
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
But what Jerry denies is what the text plainly says, and that is that the “thrones” are set up IN HEAVEN (Daniel 7:9). The Messianic Kingdom is not an earthly rule.
Now here’s where things get really sticky and will require an in-depth look at 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, 54:
But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death…. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Notice some very important things here. Death is destroyed at the “rapture/resurrection.” It is the LAST enemy. There can be no more death after that point. But if death is the LAST enemy destroyed… it will not be destroyed until all other enemies have ALREADY been destroyed. Do you understand the implications of this?? The rapture/resurrection cannot happen before some Great Tribulation involving the whole earth where the satan is wreaking havoc. Satan is destroyed FIRST. And notice what Christ is doing before this last enemy is destroyed… He is reigning!!! That means by this point He has ALREADY received the Kingdom mentioned in Daniel 7:13, and He will reign until He has put an end to all rule and all authority and power. The coming in Daniel 7:13 (alluded to by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 16:27 and its parallels) is by necessity a different event than that in 1 Corinthians 15. Daniel is describing the inauguration of the Kingdom….. Paul is describing the consummation. Jerry’s view puts the cart totally before the horse and has the Kingdom consummated before it is even inaugurated.
This concept of the heavenly reign of Christ which progressively subjugates His foes is well-attested to in the OT. Psalm 110 (the most cited and/or alluded to OT passage in the NT) places Christ’s reign in Heaven (at the right hand of the Father) who tells Him to rule in the midst of His foes!! Sound familiar?? That is exactly what 1 Corinthians 15:25 is describing!! But… I have another way to prove my point, and its those pesky timing verses again. Notice that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24 says that prior to His coming, Jesus will put an END to all rule (Strong’s 746 – “arche”) and all authority (Strong’s 1849 – “exousia”) and power (Strong’s 1411 – “dumanis”). Well notice what Paul says in Ephesians 1:20-21:
… He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
Paul is teaching us that in the age in which he lived and wrote, Christ was ABOVE all principality (Strong’s 746 – “arche”) and power (Strong’s 1849 – “exousia”) and might (Strong’s 1411 – “dunamis”). Do these words sound familiar? They should, they are the same words used in 1 Corinthians 15:24 which describes the END of those things. So in these two passages Paul tells us that Christ will be reigning OVER those things in “this age” (the age in which Paul lived and wrote) and in the “age to come” but that there will come a time when Christ will put an END to all those things at which point the resurrection will occur. If you put these two ideas together in a synoptic fashion, it is painfully apparent that Christ will not put an END to these things until the end of the “age to come” from Paul’s perspective, for the resurrection happens on the “last day” (John 6:39-54). If we are to believe that the resurrection happens in our current age, then the age in which Paul lived HAS to have already ended. And in fact it did. Christ said it would end before the then living generation passed away (Matthew 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mark 8:38; 9:1; 13:30; Luke 9:27; 21:32). Paul earlier told the Corinthians that the end of the ages have come upon THEM (1 Corinthians 10:11) and the writer of Hebrews concurs (Hebrews 9:26). Peter said it was the last days (Acts 2:17) back then. The last days of what??? The last days of the Old Covenant order and the harlotrous Jewish polity (Hebrews 8:13). As it approached ever closer it no longer was just the last days, it was the last hour (1 John 2:18). The end of the age described in the Olivet Discourse is long past. Futurism suffers from extreme cognitive dissidence (the ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time) in this point. A systematic look at ALL the relevant timing passages in a comprehensive whole leaves no other conclusion. There was a great eschatological event on the horizon for the early church that would usher in the “age to come” which would be characterized by the spiritual rule of Christ in the midst of His foes.
Jerry seems to think it incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection in light of my view. Again Biblical literacy would help. Do we stop “waiting” for the resurrection simply because we die? How long did Abraham “wait” (same Greek word) for the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:10)?
To tie up some sundry loose ends Jerry attempts yet another really shallow effort at deflecting the force of the OT witness to the apocalyptic use of “cosmic disturbance” imagery. Jerry’s point is again defeated by the OT usage of these phrases. The location of the cosmic imagery in Isaiah 13:9-10; 34:4-5; Ezekiel 32:7-8 is ALSO said/implied to be “in heaven” as well, but Jerry does not believe that the universe dissolved in these ancient judgments. Why not?? In Ezekiel 32:7-8, God even declares that the earth reverted back to the primeval chaos… but Jerry does not take that literally. Why not?? And I had already pointed out that Jerry, if he would be consistent, would have the universe collapsing way too early, for in Revelation 6, it happens even before the 144,000 are sealed, a point which Jerry has doggedly avoided.
Jerry keeps insisting that the Great Tribulation is worldwide but again, did he deal with the points I raised?? Of course not then he wouldn’t be the Jerry that we all know and have various feelings about. I repeat…. The context of the Olivet Discourse is Judea and the judgment upon the apostate Jews of the first century. If one wants to avoid the judgment, all one needs to do is leave Judea (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21) … hardly a worldwide conflagration. Jerry brings up the Kingdom parables of Matthew 13 as “proof” that the Great Tribulation is a worldwide event, but that is again completely circular. He assumes what he needs to prove and then points to his assumption as his proof. And again, he is defeated by his own system. For example, he is taking Matthew 13:41 to mean that absolutely all wicked people on the earth will be removed and cast into hell simultaneously at the end of that age, and then the righteous will populate the Millennium. Really? Well putting aside the logistical absurdities of a Millennium populated by Christians in glorified bodies and Jewish tribulation saints in non-glorified bodies (and multiple physical resurrection events not taught in Scripture), Isaiah clearly states that there will be wicked people (and death – oops!!) in the Millennium (Isaiah 66:20). Where do they come from? Do some of the righteous at the "end of the age" turn bad?? No. The Kingdom parables are teaching about the inauguration of the Kingdom, with judgment beginning with God’s OT people and the outworking of His progressive redemption and judgment.
Now briefly back onto to the Amalekites….. Remember in Jerry’s prior post he said that I completely made up the concept that “the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.” It seems now that Jerry has removed one foot from his mouth simply to insert the other…
It would be nice if Jerry actually read the passage before commenting… so here it is again.It is true that the Amalekites of David’s day were being punished for the crime committed by the Amalekites at a much earlier time,BUT that does not answer the point I raised.I said that the word “generation” at Mat.23:36 cannot refer to the first century Jews,because they did not kill Zechariah—“whom YE slew between the Temple and the altar”. The point is not who will receive the punishment,but instead who committed the crime.These passages do not speak of the Amalekites of David’s day committing the crime that was committed earlier.Therefore,1Sam.15:2-3 proves nothing.
Thus says the LORD of hosts: “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.”
The same concept of corporate solidarity in sin is present as in Matthew 23. Notice that the children of Amalek are counted as Amalek himself and thus ARE judicially reckoned as the “Amalek” who did the original crime, if not, God would be in violation of Ezekiel 18. And I am still waiting for the statistics of rampaging Jews trouncing Christians in synagogues and crucifying them. I live in a highly in a heavily Jewish demographic and need to know if I am in grave danger.
Sigh. Another smokescreen from the Jerry-mander. The REAL issue before was not over “coming” or “going,” but over the location of the “coming.” Jesus is alluding to Daniel 7:13, something Jerry never disavowed, which is not speaking of a coming “down” to earth at all.And Dee Dee said that the use of either “going” or “coming” depends on whether or not the perspective is from heaven or from earth.
Yes, and Jesus said to the then-living High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would “see” the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). Notice again, where are they to “see” Him?? SITTING at the right hand of power.... NOT coming down to earth. How can Christ be SITTING IN HEAVEN and COMING to Earth at the same time in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic?? Oops, he forgot to answer that one.It is those ON EARTH who see Him COMING,so the perspective is FROM EARTH!
Hmm, and Daniel 7:13 mentions coming down to the Earth where??To her it seems perfectly natural to say that the Lord is COMING UP!A more notable instance of inadequate interpretation cannot be imagined!
Now on to Jerry’s abuse of the parables. He said,
Those parables say nothing about returning in the same way that he left and notice that Jerry cannot be consistent in his application of who the “you” is again in this passage. He now appears to be taking the position that it is Christians who are being addressed here, but that would completely fly in the face of his insistence that the “you” of the Discourse refers to the Jewish race. If it is Christians that Christ is speaking to, even Jerry does not have Christ returning in the same way He left since when He comes for the Christians (in Jerry’s view) He does not even touch ground!!And what else could the Lord´s words mean in the Olivet Discourse when He likens the Son of Man to “a man taking a far journey” and then returning in the same way that he left
When I pointed out that the man in the parables returns within the lifetimes of the people he left, Jerry correctly points out that parables do not fit perfectly the thing that they represent,but yet he goes on to try and force them to do exactly that where it suits him. The parables say nothing about how the man left or how he would return. Even the idea that the parabolic man would personally return is importing a modern assumption into the text. Remember the centurion whose servant was healed (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)?? Although the centurion sent representatives and did not go to Jesus personally, it was said it was the centurion himself who came to Jesus. If Jerry understood this ANE concept, he would not have gotten so confused and proven yet another point for me, and that is with the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers. He said,
Notice Jerry does not bother to try and substantively disprove (or even offer an alternative interpretation) that this parable refers to AD70, which is not disputed amongst any commentator that I am aware of, rather he is satisfied to just cast insinuative dispersions. I am also amazed that Jerry is betraying such a lack of Trinitarian understanding (see also John 14:18 and Isaiah 40:10) with this comment which could be the subject of a entire post in itself, but again notice the parallels with the parable Jerry cited. In both, the main subject is said to set up a situation in which servants would be stewards over his possessions and from whom he would require an accounting. (hint – that is the main point of the parables in question) In the Wicked Vinedressers parable the “owner” is quite obviously God the Father… and yet He ALSO is said to “travel” to a far country and “return.” It is painfully apparent from this that Jerry’s over-reliance on some alleged “physicality” of the traveling and returning aspects is grossly misplaced. And Jesus has already told us in the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:10) exactly how the Father will “come” to the apostates - But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.She thinks that this parable refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.But first of all,notice that it is not the “son” who returns in judgment,but instead the father.Therefore,this could not be in reference to AD70 because in that case,at least according to Dee Dee,it is the Son Who comes in judgment.So it is evident that this parable in no way puts into question the Lord´s teaching that He will return to earth.
Jerry again brings up Zechariah which I have already dealt with in-depth as to Jerry’s misuse of “that day.” Until he deals with that issue, there is nothing more to say without repeating myself. I will give the interested reader one hint though…. Jerry is confused as to who the true “Jerusalem” is …. but thankfully Hebrews 12:22 clears that up for us. God most certainly defended the true Jerusalem (Romans 12:19).
All in all though I am proud of Jerry. He took my advice and found some new insults for me and managed to whittle down his use of “deluded” to just once. Also he managed to say I was correct on two things without turning into a pillar of salt. Now that’s progress. A girl’s gotta be thankful for the little things.
Dee Dee says that the Lord came in the first century.But I pointed out that Paul taught that when the Lord comes then at that time the believers would receive new glorified bodies just like the Lord´s body.But since that did not happen it is obvious that the Lord did not come in the first century.I also pointed out that Paul was urging the Christians to be “waiting” for the Lord to return at any moment.
All Dee Dee can say about this is to wonder why I think that it is incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection.Of course Dee Dee did not address the real question,which is why would Paul exhort the Christians to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment if He could not possibly arrive until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.
So according to Dee Dee,it seems perfectly natural that Paul would urge the believers to be looking to the heavens for the arrival of the Lord,but he knew all along that the Lord would not be appearing in the sky until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.What a joke!
It is clear that Paul was indeed teaching that the time that they would receive their glorified bodies was at hand.He says “we ourselves groan within ourselves,WAITING for the adoption,that is,the redemption of our body”(Ro.8:23).
The word “waiting” is from the Greek word “apekdechomai”,meaning “assiduously and patiently to wait for”.Greek expert Samuel Bloomfield says that this word “signifies properly to thrust forward the head and neck as in anxious expectation of hearing or seeing something”(Anderson,”Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament”,p.92).Paul was teaching the Christians to be eagerly expecting the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ,and he would teach no such thing if the Lord could not possibly appear until after the Millennium.
Dee Dee then asks,”How long did Abraham ‘wait’ (same Greek word) for the New Jerusalem (Heb.11:10)?” Well,perhaps Dee Dee should look again.That is not the same Greek word,but instead is “ekdechomai”.Just another example of her carelessness.
The facts are plain.Paul was teaching the Christians to expect the Lord to return at any time,and when He did return they would receive their glorified bodies.And there can be absolutely no doubt at all that Paul was teaching that he expected the Lord to come within a brief period of time--”But this I say,brethren,The time is short”(1Cor.7:29)--“The Lord is at hand”(Phil.4:5).Also,the author of the epistle to the Hebrews said,”For yet a little while,and He that shall come will come,and will not tarry”(Heb.10:37).To top it off,the last words of the Lord to the church is “Surely,I come quickly”(Rev.22:20).
There can also be no doubt that Paul expected that some of those living in his day would still be alive to see the Lord´s return--“WE shall not all sleep,but WE SHALL ALL be changed…then WE WHO ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN shall be caught up together with them…and so shall WE ever be with the Lord”(1Cor.15:51;1Thess.4:17).John also says “we know that when He shall appear WE shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).
But then the scoffers will say,”Where is the promise of His coming?”(2Pet.3:4).The answer to this question is not doubtful.His words were to a FAITHFUL church,and not long after the Lord´s promise the Christians were anything but faithful.When the Gentile Christians witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem at the Bar Kockhaba war (AD 132-135) they REASONED that Israel would never be restored,despite the many Scriptural passages that teach the contrary (1Sam.12:22;2Sam.7:24;Ps.94:14).Noted church historian W.H.C.Frend writes that “all hope of a restored Temple and Holy City now faded,and the Jews were thrown on the defensive.The reference of the prophecies to an early restoration of the Jewish kingdom and Messiah in the form of a deliverer from Roman rule clearly had to be abandoned”(Frend,”The Old Testament in the Age of the Greek Apologists A.D. 130-180,”Scottish Journal of Theology 26 :135).
They put their REASON over GOD´S WORD and reasoned that God had cast away ethnic Israel (if they could only see Israel NOW!).After straying from the plain word of God,they began to teach all manner of errors,even including the false teaching that “works” were necessary for salvation and that the wine and bread of the memorial to the Lord was actually the blood and body of the Lord Jesus (“Justin,Fist Apology”,#15,16,66).The Lord´s promise of His coming quickly was to a FAITHFUL church,and by this time the church was anything but faithful.
“So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”,just as the children of Israel refused to enter the promised land.The Lord had redeemed them out of Egypt and had taken them to the promised land and said He would go before them and fight for them.But Israel sent spies into the land and REASONED that they could not possibly succeed against those living there.They followed their REASON and did not believe the Lord (Deut.1:32).
“And to whom swore He that they should not enter into His rest,but to them who believed not?So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb.3:18,19).
So the facts are plain.Paul was teaching the Christians to be expecting the appearing of the Lord at any time.And we know that the Lord did not come in the first century because we know that the Christians did not receive their new,glorified bodies in the first century.
Next,Dee Dee´s entire theory is based on the mistaken belief that the Lord will rule in heaven during the Millennium.She says that “the Messianic reign is not an earthly rule”.She says that Ps.110 places Christ´s reign in heaven.Well,that is not what that Psalm says.Go there and read it yourselves.She also says that Dan.7:9-14 prove that the Lord´s throne is in heaven,and that He will rule there.But it says no such thing.Instead,we can see that “there was given Him dominion,and glory,and a kingdom,that all people,nations,and languages shall serve Him”(v.14).This is only speaking of the bestowment of authority.Nothing whatsoever is said about the Lord ruling from heaven or His throne being set in heaven.
If Dee Dee wants CLEAR EVIDENCE from the OT,there are many prophecies that place the Throne of the Lord during the 1000 year reign right on earth.Ezekiel describes the city of Jerusalem during the Millennial reign,and he then says:
“It was,round about,eighteen thousand measures;and the name of the city from that day shall be,THE LORD IS THERE”(Ez.48:35).
Jeremiah also says that “at that time they shall call Jerusalem THE THRONE OF THE LORD,and all the nations shall be gathered unto it,to the name of the Lord,to Jerusalem…”(Jer.3:17).
Also,the prophet Zechariah also describes the Lord ruling from Jerusalem,saying “and it shall be that whosoever will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King,the Lord of Hosts,even upon them shall be no rain”(Zech.14:17).
So Scripture plainly places the throne of the Lord´s Millennium reign at Jerusalem,and not in heaven as Dee Dee lamely argues.Therefore,if one but will BELIEVE the plain teaching of the Lord´s prophets then there can be no doubt that the Lord will reign from earth during His millennial reign.And this completely destroys Dee Dee´s complete theology regarding the end times.
In my previous post,I had pointed out that at “the end of the age”(Mt.24:3) the Lord would send His angels and they would gather out of THE WORLD all things that offend (Mt.13:37-42).Dee Dee just can´t believe this,even though it is stated in BLACK AND WHITE—“The field is the WORLD”!!! Instead of believing Scripture,she uses her reasoning and says that this cannot be true because we see that during the Millennium that there will be evil people.Where do they come from if all the evil people are destroyed at the end of the age.Well,there will be some who will remain in their natural bodies in the 1000 year reign of the Lord Jesus (and since Dee Dee teaches that men in their natural bodies are now living in the kingdom,how can she deny this?).And these people will have offspring and some of those will be decived by Satan near the end of His 1000 year reign (Rev.20:8,9).But Dee Dee would rather DENY the plain words of the Lord when He says that at the end of the age that all the unrighteous will be taken out of the WORLD,and she denies His words because those words expose her teaching as being FALSE!
Next,we will expose Dee Dee´s teaching concerning the meaning of the Lord´s COMING.In an earlier post Dee Dee had said that “the cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer,Arndt and Gingrich) all agree with me…”(09-03-2002 01:29 PM).Let us now see what Thayer,”the cream of Greek scholarship”,says is the meaning of “coming”in the following verses:
“And what shall be the sign of Thy COMING,and the end of the age”(Mt.24:3).
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east,and shineth even unto the west,so shall also the COMING of the Son of Man be”(Mt.24:27).
Thayer says that “coming” neans “presence:…In the N.T. esp. of the ‘advent’,i.e. the future,visible return from heaven of Jesus the Messiah,to raise the dead,hold the last judgment,and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God: Mt. xxiv.3,27,37,39…”(“Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
And perhaps Dee Dee should consider what her choice of Greek experts has to say about the following verse:
“This same Jesus,Who is taken up from you into heaven,shall so COME in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven”(Acts1:11).
Thayer says: “To come i.e. ‘to appear,make one´s appearance,come before the public’:...of the return of Jesus hereafter from heaven in majesty:Mt.x.23;ACTS 1:11…”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
Dee Dee denies that these verses speak of the Lord Jesus actually returning to earth.She says that He never leaves heaven.However,we can see that Peter was expecting Him to return as judged by His words to Israel on the day of Pentecost:
“Repent therefore and be converted,that your sins may be blotted out,so that the times of refreshing may come from the PRESENCE of the Lord,and that He may SEND JESUS…”(Acts3:19-20).
So it becomes OBVIOUS that the Apostles were expecting the Lord to COME bodily to the earth and to be in their PRESENCE.But Dee Dee has to deny the words of her own Greek expert in order to maintain her false theology.She says that Thayer represents the "cream of Greek scholarship”,but yet she denys his plain words as to the meaning of the word “coming” as it is used by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
Last of all,Dee Dee overlooked my question concerning how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.Earlier,I had asked her the meaning of the following verse:
“And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
She said that the Lord destroyed Rome by allowing her to defeat Jerusalem in AD70,and it was by this victory that Rome was destroyed.Well,the preceding verse says,”In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem”(v.8).Perhaps she will finally explain how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.
And while she is at it,perhaps she will explain why she denies her own Greek expert on the meaning of the word “coming” in the Olivet Discourse.And perhaps she will explain why she denies that the unrighteous will be taken out of the WORLD,even though the Lord expressly states that it is the WORLD!And maybe she will explain why we should believe her instead of the Scriptures that state in no uncertain terms that the Lord will rule from earth and His throne will be on earth.
She has a lot of explaining to do,but all she ever seems to do is deny the plain teaching of Scripture when it does not fit into her little theories.
I am beginning to think that Jerry’s feet must be the tastiest things on the planet with the way he keeps inserting them into his mouth. But then again, we have all seen what he has continually stepped in, so maybe not. In his last post Jerry has outrageously misrepresented my position, either from sheer ignorance of what he is arguing against or as an outright falsehood. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it would be nice if he actually understood what it is that he is attempting to rebut. So, in this episode of “As the Straw Man Burns,” Jerry said (in relation to my rebuttal that the resurrection was NOT to be associated with the “end of the age” in Matthew 24 and “the coming of Christ in His Kingdom” in Matthew 16:27-28):
Really?? That is ALL I said?? Did you eat some bad pork?? I spent two and half pages on this issue, specifically dealing with issues of chronology which you have rather doggedly dodged. The fatal chronology issues I raised remain unrefuted.All Dee Dee can say about this is to wonder why I think it is incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection. [emphasis mine]
NEVER?? That statement is inexcusable. It is correct that I do not believe that Matthew 10:23 has anything to do with Christ’s Final Advent (since Jesus’ words don’t allow for that), but Jerry knows full well that I most certainly do believe that Acts 1:11 is a future bodily return in our future. This has been explained to him countless times in past encounters I have had with him.Dee Dee denies that these verses speak of the Lord Jesus actually returning to earth. She says He never leaves heaven. – [emphasis mine]
Now Jerry is not content to sell just the Futurist Farm in his quest to prove me wrong at any cost, he also sells inerrancy down the river by saying:
Really?? Well then Paul was WRONG and taught ERROR!!! Nonsense. I demonstrated thoroughly the Apostle Paul’s chronology of the resurrection, and wait…... what is that I hear??? Oh, just more crickets. The doctrine of “imminence” is manufactured out of the same cloth as the Emperor’s New Clothes... it doesn’t exist. There WAS a great eschatological event on the horizon for the first century Christians, and as I demonstrated it was NOT the resurrection. The time texts do not say: “might be” near, “could be” shortly, “act as if it is” at hand, “always” soon - they say near, shortly, at hand, and soon, and “some standing here will not taste death...” and the equivalent phrase (as I thoroughly proved) “this generation will not pass away...” Why is Jerry so scared of what these didactic timing passages actually say??There can also be no doubt that Paul expected that some of those living in his day would still be alive to see the Lord’s return [and by that Jerry means the resurrection] - bracketed comments mine
Jerry asks (again proving that he has no idea what he is even debating against):
Sigh. There was a “coming” of Christ that was rapidly approaching the first century audience... whose posts have you been reading Jerry? It is the resurrection which I clearly showed will close the Millennium, and big surprise, Jerry did not deal with it. Jerry simply assumes that Paul would not teach believers to be “waiting” for something that was a long way off. The word that Jerry has seized upon (apekdechomai) does not by NECESSITY mean something that must be close. As I pointed out, Abraham waited for the “New Jerusalem,” which did not come until the first century (Hebrews 11:10). Did he stop waiting once he died? Jerry correctly points out that I should have qualified my statement about the word in that text, it is the same Greek ROOT word (ekdochomai versus apekdochomai). Is Jerry claiming that the preposition “apo” so totally changes the meaning such that my example is irrelevant?? I think not. No, the meaning is simply to be patiently and diligently waiting... patience implies time (Thayer transliterates it into English as “wait it out”), and the example of Abraham is once again instructive. Hebrews 6:15 tells us that Abraham, “having patiently endured obtained the promise”. What promise? The promise of his descendants multiplied as the sand of the seashore (Hebrews 11:12), which he patiently “waited” for long after he died.Why would Paul exhort the Christians to be expecting the Lord arrive at any moment if He could not possibly arrive until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.
Jerry claims that Psalm 110 does not teach that Christ’s throne is in Heaven. Poppycock. The location is at the right hand of the Father which the NT clearly teaches is a Heavenly position in which Christ will remain until His enemies are vanquished. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 clearly teaches that the LAST enemy to be vanquished is death at the resurrection/rapture at which time the Messianic reign of Christ is consummated and delivered up to the Father. This was already explained and defended in full in my previous post, and of course promptly ignored by Jerry. He also says that Daniel 7:9-14 does not teach that the Christ’s throne and reign are in/from Heaven. Hogwash. The scene is Heaven, the coming is “up”, and the “thrones” (how many does the Father need?) are in Heaven (7:9) which again is in harmony with Psalm 110 in which the Father tells the Son to be seated at His right hand and to rule in the midst of His foes. What do I hear?? Drat, it’s those crickets again.
Jerry’s OT evidences are.... well, embarrassing for him. For example, Jerry brings up Ezekiel 48:35 and the designation, “The Lord is There.” Does that require a physical presence?? If so, does Jesus physically appear where two or more are gathered together in His Name (Matthew 18:20)?? Benny Hinn seems to think it is likely. In Jeremiah 3:17 (and Zechariah 14:17), the text does not say that Christ’s throne will be in Jerusalem. Besides begging the question of the identity of Jerusalem (see Hebrews 12:22 and Galatians 4:25), the text says that Jerusalem will be “called” the “Throne of the Lord” which is then equated with the “Name of the Lord.” At the risk of being irreverent, has Jesus gotten so large that He needs to sit on a whole city as His throne?? Psalm 103:19 teaches that the Lord has established His throne in Heaven (and this throne is eternal – Hebrews 1:8) . In Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49 the Lord derides any idea that a physical space on Earth is appropriate for Him to dwell as the earth is but His footstool. Lastly Jerry is once again befuddled by Biblical imagery (i.e. God’s throne speaks of His majesty and judgment and presence), so I ask, in the very same book (Jeremiah), when God judged Elam (Jeremiah 49:38), the text says that He set His throne in Elam – Did He temporarily move it from Heaven??
Now back to the Kingdom parables. Jerry gets really excited because Jesus says that the field is “world” (Greek – cosmos). The entire context of the Book of Matthew is impending and rapidly approaching judgment upon the apostate Jews, and the kingdom parables cannot be wrested out of that context. It is speaking of the wresting of the kingdom away from the apostates and giving it to a nation bearing the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43). This specific parable speaks of the “sons of the wicked one,” whom Jesus had already specifically identified as the Jewish apostates (John 8:44) who thought they were the “sons of the kingdom.” The fact that the word “world” there does not absolutely HAVE to mean the entire globe. For example, Paul told the Romans that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world (Greek- cosmos) (Romans 1:8). I doubt that the Aborigines had any clue about the faith of the Romans. And the obvious parallel here is Jesus’ comments in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world (different Greek word - oikoumene) as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Jesus thus tells us what He means by cosmos, by using a different word for the scope of the message prior to the end of the age, a word that simply means “the inhabited earth” or more specifically in common NT usage, “the Roman Empire.” Now was this accomplished before 70AD? Absolutely.
Colossians 1:5-6 – …because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.
Colossians 1:23 – …if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Romans 16:25-26 – Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.
Now Jerry is claiming that once Jesus does the purge of all evil people, the righteous that remain will eventually spawn children that will be deceived by satan near the end of the Millennium. Harrumph. Isaiah does not speak of accursed people merely living near “the end” of the Millennium, he speaks of them simply as a matter of course being mixed with the righteous. But Jerry missed the most fatal flaw, and that is that natural people still die, but Paul teaches that death is the LAST enemy which is DESTROYED when He returns to resurrect His saints (i.e. the rapture). It is impossible for any righteous people to die AFTER that point, and for there to be any enemies of Christ remaining (such as satan).
Lastly, Jerry dubs Thayer as “my” Greek expert. No, he is simply a highly reputable Greek expert that I have consulted and do not believe is infallible, in fact, considering that Thayer was an avowed Unitarian, there are many things that I would be disagree with him on. So with regards to the two words that Jerry is bringing up (parousia and erchomai), I would simply disagree (in part) with Thayer’s assessment that these words in Matthew 24:3, 24:27 and 24:30 refer to “the future visible return of Jesus the Messiah to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God.” You see, Jerry was that so hard?? Rather than selectively quoting Thayer to try and make him appear to agree with me as you did with “genea,” I simply say he was wrong, and I have built a thorough exegetical case to prove it. There is nothing inherent in those words to support Thayer’s position – he is reading his theology into the text. I say that I would disagree in “part” because nothing about the judgment-coming of Christ was invisible, it was terrifyingly visible and horrible. Jerry would even disagree with Thayer here as Jerry believes that the last judgment does not occur until AFTER the Millennium.
And the discerning reader will notice something very interesting here…. Thayer has already unequivocally said that the time frame reference for this “coming” was in the first century, despite his belief that the “coming” must mean the “the future visible return of Jesus the Messiah to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God.” That lends a lot of weight to his statement on “genea,” that is that the Greek and contextual case is so strong that he must be honest with the text to admit that Jesus clearly said this was a first century event, even though in his own theology it did not come to pass. Thus, Thayer does not help Jerry here but merely adds more ammunition to the force of “this generation.” And the textual case for “this generation” is much, much stronger. There is NO place in the NT where “this generation” means anything OTHER than the first century audience. NONE. I have totally dismantled Jerry’s assertions with Matthew 23:36. However, the words “parousia and erchomai” are not nearly so specialized and the NT uses them interchangeably (only Matthew utilizes the term “parousia” in the Discourse). Erchomai was used of a nonphysical “coming” of Christ in John 14:23 and Revelation 3:20, and parousia is used in 2 Peter 3:12 not with regards to the “person” of Christ at all but to the impersonal term of the “Day of the Lord.” Additionally, parousia has a history in Greek literature of being used to describe “the revelation of the power of divinity” and was used of the “presence of God” by Josephus multiples times (BAG). Again, I find it very strong that despite the obvious futuristic biases of the translators of the NT (and of Thayer) that they find the cases for the very clear time words so compelling that they translate them in a way that makes it clear that the Discourse and several related passages are about first century events.
Although this debate was about the timing of the Great Tribulation (primarily focusing on the Olivet Discourse) Jerry(see here) has repeatedly refused to address fatal objections to his positions. I am not harping on some of the minor points here (like whether or not Armageddon will be fought on horseback with wooden javelins – chuckle), but the ones, that if true, absolutely prove him wrong. Here are SOME of those major questions/challenges:
In Daniel 9:25, Daniel was instructed to understand the 70 weeks prophecy, so how would Daniel have any idea without any textual clue whatsoever that the destruction of the city and temple just prophesied to be rebuilt would be skipped over and omitted, and the city and the Temple would be rebuilt again (without any mention in the text whatsoever of this event) and it is THAT future city and Temple that are referenced as being destroyed? Similarly would the disciples have had any clue that Jesus was not primarily referring to the Temple that He was pointing at and standing in front of when prophesying its destruction (even referencing the very stones), but that His prophecy primarily dealt with some future Temple built of some other stones?
What textual warrant (not doctrinal presupposition) is there for interpreting Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-18 to be speaking of different events in light of the compelling evidence I presented to the contrary?
Jerry has conceded that Luke 21:20-24 is a direct prophesy of the events of 70AD, but Luke 21:31 makes it clear that ALL the events prophesied (verses 5-30) would happen in relatively short succession as a sign of the coming of the Kingdom so….. how in the world can that be stretched out to millennia since, using Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic, it would be impossible for some future generation of Jews to “see” the destruction of the Temple and the city in 70AD?
How can Jerry get around the absolute fact that his view lays the guilt of all the murders of all the prophets and Christian martyrs at the feet of Jews of all time (which lays waste also to his attempts to make the “days of vengeance” of Luke 21:22 refer to a different event than Matthew 24:15-18…. wouldn’t God take vengeance for this accumulated guilt on today’s Jews??)??
How does Jerry explain the inanities of Jesus prophesying that certain people would not die within a week and that the Jewish race will still exist until all the things prophesied about the Jewish race come to pass? (i.e. wherever you go, there you are)
How does Jerry explain the reference to rewards and angels in his explaining away of Matthew 16:27-28 as the Transfiguration?? Why must Jerry add words to the text of Matthew 16:28 which says that there are some standing there who will not taste death until they see Son of Man coming in His Kingdom… NOT see a shadow of the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom… NOT see a foretaste of the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (as also demonstrated by the parallel with Luke 21:31-32)??
How can Jerry consistently maintain that the “you” in Matthew 23 and 24 is referring to the Jewish race when at one time it is the “you” that are beating people up in the synagogues, and just verses later it is the “you” that are the ones getting beaten up?? Why would the whole modern Jewish race be flogged in the synagogues?? He has yet to consistently explain the “you” in the Discourse and the shift in the text from “you” to “they” in several embarrassing places (Luke 21:27, Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26).
Why does Jerry feel the need to qualify all of the timing verses to mean that certain events “could” happen at any moment when the text clearly and without qualification says that they are “near,” “at hand,” “soon” etc…. (see also the incredibly damaging comparison of Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 with Daniel 8:26)??
How does Jerry force Daniel 7:9-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-56 to be speaking of the same event when in one the Kingdom is given to the Son and in the other the Son delivers the completed Kingdom to the Father after all of His enemies have been destroyed with the LAST enemy being death?? How can there be death and satanic activity in the Millennium when these things have been definitively destroyed at the rapture??
What rational reason is there (this is not the OJ Simpson jury) whatsoever why the disciples would not have interpreted Jesus’ cosmic imagery in the same way that it was used in numerous OT judgment passages, especially since Jesus was directly quoting Isaiah 13:10, an event in which the universe did not literally collapse? And if this language is to be taken in such a wooden sense, how could every star fall to the earth and the sky be rolled up like a scroll before the 144,000 are sealed (Revelation 6:12)?
How could one escape a worldwide conflagration by merely running to the mountains (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21)?
How can Jerry insist that Christ returns in the exact same way for Christians that He left when Jerry believes that He never even touches ground in the rapture?? If Jerry insists that he means when Christ returns for the Jews, then how come Revelation 19:11 says He comes down out of Heaven on a horse (there is no horse in Acts 1:11) ?? (that last part only is admittedly a new question)
So all in all, unfortunately while this was a game of Bombardment, Jerry seemed to think it was Dodge Ball. I have really enjoyed this and sincerely thank Knight very much for the opportunity to participate, and Jerry for agreeing to be my opponent. I invite anyone who has any questions or needs any further clarifications to please feel free to accost me in the Forum or email me. Grrrr!!!! It must stink to get trounced so thoroughly by a girl.
When the Lord Jesus Christ began His discourse in reference to the sign of His coming,He warned those listening to “take heed that no man decive you”.He also said that there would be some who would attempt to deceive by saying that He has already come—“Then,if any man shall say unto you,Lo,here is Christ,or there,believe it not”(Mt.24:23).
Well,Dee Dee says that we should believe that the Lord Jesus has already come and gone.And from the following we can see that Dee Dee did not take the Lord´s words to heart.We can see that for Dee Dee to argue that the Lord Jesus has already come and gone that she is repeatedly forced to put an unatural meaning on the words of the Lord.In every instance where the Lord´s literal words do not match Dee Dee´s theories,she is forced to make His language figurative,even though there is no good reason for doing so.The following is just some of the instances where Dee Dee is forced to abandon the literal meaning of the Lord´s words.
“For then shall there be great tribulation,such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time,no,nor ever shall be”(Mt.24:21)
Of course the Second World War was a much bigger calamity than the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Over twenty million people were killed during the second world war,including many millions Jews.By every measue the destruction of WWII exceeded the destruction in AD70.When Jerusalem was destroyed, there was a little more than a million killed so it is outrageous to even suggest that the events in AD70 represent the greatest tribulation of all time.
And her answer to my further proof that the “great tribulation” reached beyond Jerusalem was no answer at all.I pointed out that the Parable of the Wheat and Tares speaks of a time when the whole WORLD will be involved—“the field is the WORLD...”(Mt.13:38).We see that the righteous and the unrighteous grow together until the harvest,and then at the harvest ALL the tares are gathered together and cast out of the kingdom(Mt.13:30).
Dee Dee says that in this case the “world” means “the inhabited the world,or more specifically in common NT usage,’the Roman empire’ “.Well,let us use this meaning and see if the previously mentioned events actually came to pass in AD70.Were ALL the unrighteous people who lived in the Roman Empire gathered together and cast out of the kingdom in AD70?
Of course not! All Dee Dee can say is “the kingdom parables are teaching about the inaguration of the kingdom,with judgment beginning with God´s OT people and the outworking of His progressive redemption and judgment.”
But that is not correct.This particular parable is dealing with the whole world,or,as Dee Dee says,the Roman Empire.This parable is NOT only about the judgment of God´s OT people,but instead is about the judgment of ALL the unrighteous in the Roman Empire.
“…at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers,Gather together first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them”(Mt.13:30).
This is talking about ALL the unrighteous in the Roman Empire,and not just those of Israel.The teaching of the verse is clear.At the time the Lord Jesus will set up His kingdom ALL the unrighteous in the inhabited earth will be cast out of the kingdom.
This alone proves that the “great tribulation” did not occur in AD70,because all the unrighteous people living in the Roman Empire at that time were not judged and cast into a furnace of fire.Dee Dee had a chance to answer this but it is obvious that she could not.
In his visions concerning the antichrist,John says that he “causeth THE EARTH and THEM THAT DWELL ON IT to worship the first beast…and DECEIVETH THEM THAT DWELL ON THE EARTH…and he causeth ALL,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark…”(Rev.13:12,14,16).
If words have any meaning,it is clear that the events surrounding the antichrist will involve the earth and them that dwell on it,and not just Israel.And since that never happened,we can be sure that the “great tribulation” remains in the future.
We can also see that Daniel prophesised that at the time of the “great tribulation” that Daniel´s “people shall be delivered,every one that shall be found written in the book”(Dan.12:1).Zecharia also prophesised that the Lord Jesus Christ would “fight against those nations” and “destroy all the nations that came against Jerusalem”(Zech.14:3;12:9).
There is no way possible that this event could refer to Jersulem´s destruction in AD70 unless one wants to argue that the Lord Jesus did not win but instead suffered a loss!And that is exactly what Dee Dee suggests happened!When asked how the Lord Jesus “destroyed all the nations that came against Jerusalem” in AD70,she replied that “the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point.”How can that be?Well,Dee Dee argues that Rome´s victory in destroying Jerusalem lead to Rome´s downfall because it was “Rome´s expansion that was the beginning of its fall”.
So we can see,according to Dee Dee,that even though the Lord fought against the Roman armies,He lost.And He destroyed Rome in that way!How can anyone believe such nonsense?The Lord also promised to “defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in that day:
“In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem…And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12;8,9).
In answer to this verse,Dee Dee says that “Jerry is confused as to who the true ‘Jerusalem’ is.” Well,earlier Dee Dee said that the ‘Jerusalem’ in verse nine was in fact the Jerusalem that was destroyed in AD70.And now she expects us to believe that the ‘Jerusalem’ in the preceding verse is not the same Jerusalem. I have never in my life heard such nonsense.Dee Dee only proves that there is nothing she will not say in her attempt to defend her false theology.I would give up and go home if I ever reached a point where I would say something so obviously false.
Next,the Lord said that IMMEDIATELY AFTER the great tribulation that “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(Lk.21:25).Here we can see that the Lord is clearly teaching that there will be actual “signs” in the heavens.But since these “signs” did not occur in AD70,Dee Dee must do her best to DISTORT the words of the Lord.If His words are left as He spoke them,Dee Dee´s theory goes down the drain—andshe knows it!
In response,Dee Dee says that “the location of the cosmic imagery in Isaiah 13:9-10;34:4-5;Ezekiel 32:7-8 is ALSO said/implied to be ‘in heaven’ as well…” But go to those verses and you will see that it is never SAID that the signs are in the heavens.And Dee Dee has repeatedly argued that the “cosmic imagery” in Scripture IMPLY “judgment” and that there were no actual signs in the heavens.She wants it both ways—in one instance she says that the words IMPLY actual signs in the heavens,but in another instance the words IMPLY actual signs in the heavens.However much she attempts to wiggle out of this,the Lord´s words stand.He said that the “signs” would actually be in heaven.And since we know that no signs appeared in heaven immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70,we can rest assured that the “great tribulation” remains in the future.
Next,the following verse is the foundation on which the preterist system is built.Take that away and they are left with nothing.
“Verily,I say unto you,This generation shall not pass,till all these things be fulfilled”(Mt.24:34).
Dee Dee named Thayer and Arndt/Gingrich as the cream of Greek scholarship,so we will examine the meanings that these men place on “genea” (generation).Arndt and Gingrich say that the word means “literally,those descended from a common ancestor”(“A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature”).
So according to these men one of the meanings that can be put on “genea” is those descended from a common ancestor,a la “the children of Isreal”,Israel being none other than Jacob.The other member of the “cream of Greek scholarship” says that “genea” can mean “men of the same stock,a family”,as well as “a race of men very like each other in endowments,pursuits,character…”(“Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon”).
So according to the men who Dee Dee calls the “cream of Greek scholarship”,the word can indeed mean “race” or “the children of Israel”.And that is the exact meaning that the Lord puts on the word.Dee Dee would have us believe that even though the Lord stated implicitly that He did not know the “day or hour” that these events would occur (because the Father had put in His own power the ”times and seasons”),that He would SPECULATE that these men standing there would be alive to see all of the things He described come about. In regard to the use of the word “you” in the passage,we can see that the use of that word can be in reference to “the children of Israel” who lived either in the past or in the future.(see Mt.23:35,39—the first century Jews did not kill Zechariah because it was a past generation that did;the first century Jews did not say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” after the Lord said those words,but instead a future generation will say those words).
So we see that this important verse of the preterists can be answered witthout reverting to the ridiculous exegesis that Dee Dee puts on such verses as the Lord´s words that “I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.”In fact,my interpretation of the Lord´s words in the entire Olivet Discourse is not dependent on non-literal methods of interpretation.From first to last the Lord´s words can be interpreted literally,while at the same time Dee Dee is constantly having to make the Lord´s words mean something entirely different than what He actually said.
Next we will examine the testimony of several of the early church fathers in regard to the “great tribulation” and the coming of the antichrist.On the site PreteristArchives.com we read that “Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyons,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil…”
Surely Polycarp knew whether or not the “great tribulation” had come to pass,especially considering the fact that he studied directly under the man who wrote the Revelation.And if Polycarp knew,then we can rest assured that Irenaeus also knew.And by the words of Irenaeus it is clear that he believed that the “great tribulation” remained in the future,as well as the coming of the antichrist.This means that he did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70:
“…in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:’But when you see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2).
“Daniel too,looking forward to the end of the last kingdom,i.e.,the ten last kings,amongst whom the kingdom of those men SHALL be partitioned,and upon whom the son of perdition SHALL come…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.3).
Although the testimony of the early church fathers was not inspired,it is clear that Irenaeus was certain that the “gresat tribulation” had not yet occurred,and he was writing at a point in time that was less than one hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!
In fact,almost all of the early church fathers were of the opinion that the coming of the antichrist remained in the future.Therefore,they did not believe that the “great tribulation” happened in AD70.
Tertullian (AD 145-220): “And that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet MAY wage war on the Church of God…”(“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,Chapter 41).
Hippolytus (170-236): “Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution WHICH IS TO FALL upon the Church from the adversary,John also speaks this: ‘And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven…’ That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days [the half the week] during which the tyrant IS to reign and persecute the Church (“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 60,61).
Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a who´s who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyr il of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?
The beliefs espoused by Dee Dee did not come into existence until after the reformation.At that time there were many of the reformers who were identifying the Pope with the Antichrist.In order to counteract these charges,Rome set out to INVENT a system of interpretation that put the coming of the antichrist before the Popes of Rome came into existence.Joseph Tanner wrote that “the Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the preterist method of interpretation…and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled in Rome,and therefore could not apply to the Papacy”(Joseph Tanner,”Daniel and the Revelation”,p.16,17).
In summation,we can see that the choice is clear as to whether or not the “great tribulation” has already happened or if it remains in the future.In order to believe Dee Dee´s view,we MUST believe that she is correct and the early church fathers were in error.We must also believe Dee Dee´s twisted interpretation that the Lord fought against the nations that came against Jerusalem in AD70,but He was defeated.We must believe that all the “unrighteous” were gathered out of the Roman Empire in AD70.
On the other hand,in order to believe that the “great tribulation” remains in the future,we can very easily believe that the early church fathers who did not believe that that event occurred in AD70,nor did they believe that the antichrist came at that time.We can also believe the plain and literal words of the Lord throughout the entire Olivet Discourse.
I would like to thank those who make this debate possible,as well as Dee Dee for giving me the chance to expose just how far some are willing to go to deny the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ.Dee Dee said that “it must stink to get trounced so thoroughly by a girl.” Well,if I did indeed get trounced by Dee Dee,I have no one to blame but myself.I should have taken the advice of a close friend to never argue with an idiot,because she will bring you down to her level and beat you with experience.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)