Is the Great Tribulation Past or Future? - Battle Royale III - Dee Dee vs. Jerry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Battle Royale III - Dee Dee Warren vs. Jerry Shugart

TOPIC:
Is the Great Tribulation Past or Future??

Have both combatants read, understand and agree to the battle Royale Rules?

I need a post from each combatant stating "YES" regarding the rules.

This will be a 10 round battle and will be refereed by me and by Becky.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
After I receive a "yes" affirming that each combatant understands the rules I will flip a coin to determine who posts first, then that chosen combatant will have 48 hours to make his/her opening statement. Each combatant will then have 48 hours to make subsequent posts after the other combatant makes their post. You need NOT wait for me to officially end a round before making your next response.

This will be a 10 round battle (20 post total - 10 posts each).
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Jerry I added the following two rule additions to the official rules....

RULE ADDITION #6
All rules already in existence for TheologyOnLine also apply to the Battles. Please refer to the TOL Commandments if you have questions.

RULE ADDITION #7
Do not attempt to make your entire argument in your FIRST post! Please keep the post length to no longer than 6 short to medium sized paragraphs. These debates should be POINT vs. COUNTER POINT style... in other words make a point and then let the other combatant respond and make his point, don't restate your original argument over and over for the length of the battle. A good example of post lengths can be found in Battle Royale II both Knight AND Zakath did good job of keeping their posts to reasonable lengths.

Let me know if you have any questions about these additions.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Okay, I have read the rules (even though everyone who knows me knows that I cannot even begin an introduction in such a short post:( ) but okay, I understand and agree.

And just for funnies and a bit of trash talking.... (this is not part of the debate... here is a jab at both us preterists and futurists)



Tommy Ice on "This Generation"

Let's go ~!~!~!
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Lets get ready to ruummmmmble!

Lets get ready to ruummmmmble!

Battle Royale III - Dee Dee Warren vs. Jerry Shugart

TOPIC:
Is the Great Tribulation Past or Future??

OK... here's the coin toss.... heads is Dee Dee and tails is Jerry.....

Heads it is!

Dee Dee goes first and she is on the clock. Dee Dee has 48 hours to make her first post and then Jerry will have 48 hours to make his first post AFTER Dee Dee's first post has been posted.

Let the battle begin!

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.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
The Pepsi Challenge to Futurism

The Pepsi Challenge to Futurism

When I make the statement that the Great Tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24 is over, futurists are inevitably drawn like a magnet to Daniel 9. Now this is understandable since Jesus mentions the phrase “the abomination of desolation” which finds its place in either Daniel 9:27 or Daniel 12:11 or both. However, the futurist then inserts a handy-dandy gap in between the 69th and the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy (which is illegitimate and has blasphemous implications for other reasons) and through somewhat circular reasoning uses this to “prove” that the Great Tribulation is future.

This makes absolutely no sense and does great violence to the text. When Daniel receives this prophecy, Jerusalem and the Temple are in ruins. He is told that the city will be rebuilt (and by implication the Temple will be rebuilt also). Within the same prophecy he is told that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. Gabriel also exhorts Daniel in verse 25 to know and understand this vision. Is there any chance in a billion years that Daniel knew and understood that it was not the city and Temple that he was just told would be rebuilt that are also spoken about as being destroyed?? Would he have any idea without any textual clue whatsoever that the destruction of THAT city and Temple would be skipped over and omitted… the city and Temple would be rebuilt again (without any mention of this event in the text), and it is THAT future city and Temple that are referenced as being destroyed?? This is simply unbelievable. Only one city and Temple are in view in this prophecy.

However, further to the demise of futurism, Jesus makes it clear what Temple and city are in view beyond any shadow of a doubt in the Olivet Discourse, which futurists believe is speaking of the 70th week of Daniel (preterists don’t believe that it has anything to do with the 70th week of Daniel, but does have to do with events spoken of in Daniel 9, such as the abomination of desolation, which happen “outside” of the 70 weeks). In the Olivet Discourse the disciples ask Jesus certain questions, and these were not asked in a vacuum. The questions were prompted as follows (my commentary is in black – God’s Word is in red and italics):

First using Mark as a source: Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( they are asking about the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the Temple that existed back then!)

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, (that existed back then) Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be?….” (it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple that existed back then would be destroyed)

Next using Luke as a source: Then, as some spoke of the temple, (the Temple that existed back then) how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, “These things which you see— (the Temple that was before their very eyes right then) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? (again, part of “these things” MUST include the destruction that He just prophesied that prompted their questions to begin with)

Lastly using Matthew as a source: Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. (the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? (the Temple that existed back then) Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word “here” it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

All these of the Synoptics of the Olivet Discourse contain the very solemn declaration by Jesus, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:31)

Now we know when the city and Temple were destroyed. It was in 70AD. If that is “one” of “all these things,” then ALL of the rest of that passage, at least up to Matthew 24:33, Luke 21:31, and Mark 13:31 happened in the first century as well. It is inescapable. The destruction the then existing Temple is a completely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. If the prophecy was not primarily fulfilled in the first century, it can never be. This also ties in with the “abomination of desolation” and Daniel 9. Jesus in identifying what Temple He was referring to totally destroys any notion that the Temple being referred to in Daniel 9 is any other Temple than the one that existed when Christ gave His Discourse. There is NO way around this. THIS IS WHERE I LAY DOWN THE GAUNTLET. It is an intractable problem for futurism.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
When I started studying the prophetic time when the "man of sin" would sit "in the Temple of God,showing himself that he is God",I kept asking myself the same question--"How would it be possible for this anti-christ to deceive the world,especially considering the fact that there are many prophecies that say that an imposter would sit in the Temple of God?"

But after studying the teaching of the church at Rome and of the preterists,I have found the answer--all these events have already come to pass!At least that is what they teach.

No need to worry about the "anti-christ" because he has already come and gone.No need to worry about Satan,because he is at this time bound and has been cast into the bottomless pit.

How convenient for Satan!

But those of us who are guided by the Scriptures know that all this is not true.We know that the "great tribulation" has not yet come to pass.

Dee Dee is unable to distinguish between two different events that involve Jerusalem.However,Scripture does distinguish between an assault on Jerusalem when there will be no relief for the people,and another event when the Lord Jesus will deliver His people.

The Apostles asked the Lord in regard to the destruction of the Temple then standing,"Master,but when shall these things be?"(Lk.21:7).

In answer,the Lord described an assault on Jerusalem where there will be no relief or deliverence:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,then know that the desolation is near...and they shall fall by the edge of the sword,and shall be led away captive into all nations"(Lk.21:20,24).

And this is exactly what happened in A.D 70.

The apostles also asked the Lord,"And what shall be the sign of Thy coming,and of the end of the age?"

The Lord´s answer to this question involves another assault on Jerusalem,and this assault is tied to the prophecies contained in the book of Daniel (Mt.24:15).

Here we can see that these events concern a "king" who "shall exalt himself,and magnify himself above every god...and he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;yet he shall come to his end,and none shall help him"(Dan.11:36,45).

The verses that immediately follow reveal that at this assault on Jerusalem the people of Daniel,the children of Israel,will "be delivered":

"And at that time shall Michael stand up,the great prince that standeth for the children of thy people,and there shall be a time of trouble,SUCH AS NEVER WAS SINCE THERE WAS A NATION EVEN TO THAT SAME TIME; and at that time THY PEOPLE SHALL BE DELIVERED,every one that shall be found written in the book"(Dan.12:1).

So here we see a completely different assault on Jerusalem,and this attack is described in the same terms as the "great tribulation"--"such as never was since there was a nation even to the same time"(compare with Mt.24:21)--but in this instance the people of God will be delivered.

And since we know that the time has not yet arrived when the people of God in Jerusalem will be delivered,we also know that the event described as the "great tribulation" has not come to pass either.

Next,I will deal with Dee Dee´s words in regard to the 70 Weeks and the Lord´s words that "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled"(Mt.24:34).

And perhaps Dee Dee will tell us when the following events happened:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,and the moon shall not give its light,and the stars shall fall from heaven,and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"(Mt.24:29).
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
DING DING DING....

DING DING DING....

Thats it for round #1. Its now time for round #2 and Dee Dee is on the clock!
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Smack Down!!!

Smack Down!!!

I find it ironic that some people are so emotionally attached to the “antichrist” and Cobra helicopters and microchip implants that the thought that such things are not going to happen is just devastating. Personally, I find the idea that the G.T. is past a good thing, but hey, who am I to judge? I am, after all, in league not only with satan but also the Pope if you believe Jerry’s spin-doctoring. :shocked: Why just slam preterists when you can get a free jab in at the Catholics too??

Jerry pretends to have answered the intractable conundrum[/blue] I posited in my opening post. I am going to stick to that point like a piranha on a corndog :shocked: because IF it is true, then nothing else can be said. It is a mouth-shutter. Here it is again in simple form: Jesus beginning in Mt 24:1; Mk 13:1; Lk 21:5 prophesied many things, including the destruction of the Temple that then existed. The destruction of the Temple that then existed is, by definition, an absolutely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. Each of these passages is capped off with the very solemn declaration, “Most assuredly I say to you this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”(Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32). Since the destruction of the Temple that then existed is one of ALL these things, AND is a nonrepeatable event, that unequivocally thrusts the whole passage into the first century. I am sorry my futurist friend but there is no way around it. You can ignore the elephant in the room but that won’t stop him from squashing ya. You must deal with this point, and “yeah buts” don’t cut the mustard.

Now let me show you where Jerry becomes quite painfully disjunctive and anticontextual. He admits that Lk 21:20-24 is about 70AD. Well my friends in so doing, he has sold the farm. If that “part” was fulfilled in the first century, since Jesus says in Lk 21:32 that ALL these things will happen within “this generation,” then ALL of the rest of the Lukan passage from Lk 21:5-21:31HAS to have happened as well including the “coming” in verse 27, or Jesus was a false prophet. And, Lk 21:20-24 is NOT speaking about a different event from Mt 24:15-18. Take a look for yourself and see.

Jerry also engages in a classic case of begging the question in his claims that the Great Tribulation is a time when “Israel” is delivered so this cannot be the event in spoken of in Lk 21:20-24 which are described as the days of vengeance. No dice. :nono: Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 are about the same events… there is no around that, no way to cut out just that one portion of Luke (not even the handy dandy magic dispie gap can help here). And Matthew certainly does not forecast any deliverance for those being judged either… it is just as much a prophesy of divine vengeance as in Luke (see Mt 23:31:39). All this being said, the elect (true Israel) WERE delivered. History records that not one Christian died in the siege of Jerusalem. Jerry will object that we are not true Israel. Really?? Paul says otherwise in Romans 11:17 and Phil 3:3 to name a few. Even in the OT, “Israel” transcended ethnic boundaries to mean the community of faith of belief in YHWH.

And watch Jerry gore himself even further on his own horn – ouch!! :shocked:

And since we know that the time has not yet arrived when the people of God in Jerusalem will be delivered, we also know that the event described as the "great tribulation" has not come to pass either.

Nonsense… since we know when the unique and nonrepeatable event of the destruction of the Temple that then existed happened, then we know that ALL those things (of which the Temple was “one”) prophesied to happen within “this generation” did in fact come to pass. Jesus did not say all of these things except ONE will happen within “this generation,” He said ALL of them would. Jerry has ignored this intractable dilemma, of course because he has no choice.

Jerry also tried to distract the diligent reader’s attention from his obfuscation on my fatal challenge with:

And perhaps Dee Dee will tell us when the following events happened:"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,and the moon shall not give its light,and the stars shall fall from heaven,and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"(Mt.24:29).

Sure I will, when Jerry tells me when YHWH saddled up ole Gabriel and rode into Dodge on a cloud to save David (2 Samuel 22:11-13) and then later did Part Two by popping a wheelie on a cumulous into Egypt and started kicking over idols (Is 19:1). Oh I see. Aren’t quite so literal there are we??

Next,I will deal with Dee Dee´s words in regard to the 70 Weeks……..

You sure you want to go there? Remember the last time you asked me what my Greek qualifications were to even be discussing Daniel. :doh:
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Dee Dee´s complete argument is based on the idea that the word "generation" can ONLY mean a "the whole multitude of men living at the same time".

But according to Greek experts,it can also mean "men of the same stock,a family" ("Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon").

We can see that the Lord Himself used that same word another time earlier in the same day,and by His use of the word we can see that it cannot possibly mean "the whole multitude of men living at the same time."

He said,"Verily I say unto you,All these things shall come upon this generation"(Mt.23:36).

And the Lord makes it plain as to whom He is referring,saying,"That upon YOU may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the BLOOD OF ZECHARIAH,son of Barachiah,WHOM YE SLEW between the temple and the altar"(Mt.23:35).

That group of men whom the Lord was addressing DID NOT KILL ZECHARIAH.He died hundreds of years earlier.So when the Lord says,"Whom YE slew",He means the whole wicked race of Jews.Just two verses earlier He calls them "ye generation of vipers"!

So we can see that the Lord is saying that the blood of Zechariah will come upon this generation,this race of vipers that have killed the prophets of God since the beginning of Israel.

Next,in regard to my points that Scripture reveals that God´s people will be delivered when the Lord comes in His glory,Dee Dee writes that "History records that not one Christian died in the seige of Jerusalem." But Dee Dee fails to give any source for her statement.Perhaps she will tell us which historian said such a thing.

However,Dee Dee fails to realize that Scripture reveals not only that the Lord will deliver His people when He comes,it also also reveals that the Lord will DESTROY those who come against His people:

"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).

According to all the accounts that I have read on AD 70,there was no defeat of the Roman armies.Perhaps Dee Dee can quote some unnamed historian to say that the armies of Rome were defeated in Jerusalem in AD 70.

Next,we see that "immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,and the moon shall not give its light,and the stars shall fall from heaven."

But Dee Dee says that the words of the Lord cannot be taken in a literal sense at all.First of all,since we see that ALL of the Lord´s previous words are not "symbolic" in any sense,it seems rather strange strange that He would all of a sudden start speaking in "symbolic" way.Especially considering the fact that He was telling them what to be LOOKING for in regard to His return.

And if His words do not mean that there will be actual signs in the heavens,His words must have another meaning.Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us what His words mean.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Not So Fast There My Slippery Futurist Friend

Not So Fast There My Slippery Futurist Friend

Well, well, well, it is very interesting what Jerry has implicitly conceded, and that is that IF “this generation” is taken to mean a “generation” in the normal ordinary sense of “contemporaries,” then my position is undeniably correct. This is true even if one tries to claim that “this generation” does not necessarily mean the generation living when Jesus spoke, but the generation that would see the signs He spoke of, because the ONE UNREPEATABLE event (the destruction of the Temple and city that then existed) has already happened, thus absolutely thrusting the time frame of “this generation” into the first century. Ouch. :kiss:

Now before I completely dismantle (over the next few posts) Jerry’s assertion that “genea” in Matthew 24:34 should be more appropriately understood as “race,” let me once again point out the absolutely painful corner that Jerry has painted himself into. He has not and of course CANNOT deny that the Temple that was prophesied to be destroyed was the Temple THEN standing. BUT…. Jesus ties that destruction (and the destruction of the city which then existed) in with the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel 9:26 and 12:11 making it irrefutable that the there is NO future Temple prophesied to be rebuilt. Without this future Temple, the whole futurist house of cards comes tumbling down. There is then NO seven year treaty made by the antichrist who then desecrates the Temple and breaks the treaty halfway through. Jesus makes it crystal clear that Temple and the city that were to be destroyed were the ones that THEN existed. All Jerry has done with his textual gerrymandering is to attempt to extend out the timeframe for the fulfillment of the REST of those things into the indefinite future rather than limiting it to a single generation. Unfortunately for him, the text once again silences him. Let’s just look at a few shall we?

Jerry admits that Luke 21:20-24 is about AD70 and tries futilely to deny through starkly naked circular reasoning that Matthew 24:15-21 is speaking about the same event. However, capitalizing only on the part that Jerry has conceded is about AD70, Luke 21:31 makes it clear that ALL of these events (i.e. Luke 21:5-31 – which also includes the destruction of the first century Temple) are to take place within a relatively short time span because Jesus said that once “you see ALL these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is NEAR.” Now Luke 21:20-24 (and the destruction of the first century Temple) is ONE of all these things. We moderns CAN NEVER see that happening and know that anything is NEAR. That EVENT is nonrepeatable and long past. Jerry can’t even beg out for some kind of “double-fulfillment” because not only is it NONREPEATABLE, Luke describes it as the days of vengeance and wrath upon the Jewish people, NOT deliverance (which is why Jerry HAS to admit it is about AD70). So, the text makes it clear that ALL of these things will happen in such a short proximity to each other that it is possible to see ALL of them happening and know that a great eschatological triumph is NEAR. Ouch. :kiss: Futurism is gored on yet another time text so I guess it ain’t quite true that

Dee Dee´s complete argument is based on the idea that the word "generation" can ONLY mean a "the whole multitude of men living at the same time".

Now beginning on Jerry’s Explaining Away Option B for “this generation.” He claims warrant for interpreting “this generation” as “this race” in Matthew 23:36. I am sorry but that is sloppy exegesis and a complete dismissal of OT background for Jesus’ words. Jerry claims that since the Pharisees and scribes did not personally murder Zechariah then the phrase “this generation” means something broader than just the first century audience. Wow, I show hope Jerry put on a ‘chute before he made that leap. How do you get from implying that “you” may be broader than just “them” to transferring that meaning to “this generation”? How indeed. A careful reading of the text with the OT firmly in mind shows just how wrongheaded Jerry’s reasoning is. Matthew 23 is the record of Jesus’ calling down seven woes upon the first century scribes and Pharisees. It is undeniably talking about them (using the personal pronoun “you” dozens of times) NOT unbelieving Jews of all time. Beginning in verse 31 it gets really personal with Jesus telling them that they are witnesses against themselves that they are sons of their murderous “fathers.” Jesus then tells them to “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.” (verse 32) Note that phrase very carefully. Jesus declares THEM guilty of their father’s crimes which includes the murder of all the righteous blood upon the earth. Because he has declared them guilty (and there is no doubt there that He is speaking of THEM), Jesus then lays to their charge the actual murders. In saying that “you murdered Zechariah” Jesus is restating what he already said… that they have filled up the measure of their father’s guilt. Their father’s guilt is theirs. Their father’s crimes are theirs. Jerry in his obfuscation has laid the guilt of the ages upon unbelieving Jews of ALL TIME, instead of the unique generation that Jesus said would “fill up” those iniquities because the murder of Him would be the greatest of all crimes. It was THEM that filled up on the measure of their father’s guilt, not my unbelieving Jewish next door neighbor Murray Goldstein.

Jerry claims some heavy gun support for his spindoctoring of “this generation” by insinuating that the Greek scholar Thayer concurs. Jerry would have done better to check what Thayer actually said then just barfing up the Scofield Reference Bible. :doh: Thayer on page 112 of his lexicon defines “genea” as ”the whole multitude of men living at the same time” and cites Matthew 24:34 as an example of such!! Ouch. Arndt and Gingrich concur and also cite Matthew 24:34 in support and affirmatively disapprove of the notion of it meaning “race” in that verse. The lexicons are overwhelmingly on my side as evidenced by the fact that NO major Bible version translates that verse as “race” in the text, and believe me, that is not because they are eager to throw preterists a bone. The heavy hitters of futurism have abandoned this idea en masse (i.e. Ice, Lindsey, Smith) as bankrupt. And check for yourself, here are ALL the other places that “genea” is used in the Gospels, Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32. In each and every time it means generation in the ordinary sense of the word. You see, the Greek language has a perfectly good word for “race,” it is “genos,” which is the word Peter used in 1 Peter 2:9, but that is NOT the word that Jesus used, though He certainly could have if “race” is what He meant.

Consider the utter inanity that Jerry’s position puts in the mouth of Christ. Jerry agrees that Jesus is prophesying concerning the Jewish people. And then in a dramatic statement opening with “Most assuredly I say to you,” what does Jesus say?? Drum roll please…….. “The Jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen to the Jewish race.” Huh?? That is nonsense and is a complete tautological truism, a reductio ad absurdum.. Remember the disciples asked Jesus when would these things be. Jerry has Jesus completely ignoring their question and giving a prediction that even Benny Hinn could get right. Wait a minute, I’m feeling prophetic….. “Most assuredly I say to TOL, TOL will remain online until it goes offline.”

Now whenever it gets too hot in the NT kitchen for Jerry he likes to trot out selected portions of the OT. We can get to that, but he needs to deal with what the NT actually says as the NT is the authorative interpreter of the Old. He is simply asserting “yeah but” statements. That don’t impress me much. It seems like Jerry doesn’t want to answer my previous question of: “When YHWH saddle up ole Gabriel and ride into Dodge on a cloud to save David (Psalm 18:9-12) and then later perform Part Two by popping a wheelie on a cumulous into Egypt and started kicking over idols (Is 19:1).” Instead he asks:

And if His words do not mean that there will be actual signs in the heavens,His words must have another meaning.Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us what His words mean.

Sure I will, when Jerry tells me when the sun and moon were darkened when ancient Babylon and Egypt were judged (Isaiah 13:9-10; Ezekiel 32:7-8)and when the host of heaven was dissolved in the judgment upon ancient Edom (Isaiah 34:4-5). And while he’s at it, he can throw in Matthew 16:27-28.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Dee Dee just cannot leave behind her mistaken notion that the Lord Jesus is saying that those men to whom He was speaking would still be alive to see all the things fulfilled.However,how could that be possible considering the fact that the Lord Himself said that He did not know WHEN these things would come to pass?And if He did not know when they would come to pass,how could He possibly say that they would still be alive when they were fulfilled?Here are His words:

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

The Lord Jesus did not know the "times or the seasons" because those things "the Father has put in His own power"(Acts1:7).By His own admission He did not know when these things would happen,so He surely would never speculate and tell these men that they would see these things when in fact He could not know if that was true or not.

Next,Dee Dee did not provide her references to her statement that "History records that not one Christian died in the seige of Jerusalem."Nor did she even comment on the fact that Scripture reveals that when Jerusalem is attacked the Lord Jesus says that "I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

We all know that those who came against Jerusalem in AD 70 enjoyed a complete and total victory.No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed.We also know why Dee Dee did not respond to this point.She has no answer.

Immediately before the Lord told His Apostles of the signs of His coming,he said the following words to say to Jerusalem:

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

In other words,the Lord´s return would be marked by Israel´s repentance.But we all know that Israel did not repent in AD 70.But all this means nothing to Dee Dee.When Scriptual facts do not fit into her ideas,she just IGNORES them.

Dee Dee also failed to answer my question as to the meaning of the Lord´s words about the things which will immediately follow the great tribulation.If His words do not literally mean that there will be signs in the heavens,then His words must have another meaning.After all,all Scripture "is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness..."

So perhaps this time Dee Dee will give us her interpretation of the meaning of the Lord´s words in regard to these things.And Dee Dee seems to think that these words of the Lord were only figurative,perhaps she will consider the fact that John actually saw visions of these so-called "figurative" words.

"There was a great earthquake,and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair;and the moon became like blood;and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...and the kings of the earth,and the great men,and the rich men,and the chief captians,and the mighty men,and every slave,and every free man,hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains..."(Rev.6:12-15).

And finally,I will ask Dee Dee when ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH saw the Lord come in His glory?:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven;and then shall ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH mourn,and THEY SHALL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30).

Did that happen in AD 70,Dee Dee?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Post really fast and maybe no one will notice that you’re not saying anything!!!

Post really fast and maybe no one will notice that you’re not saying anything!!!

Perhaps Jerry needs to slow down a bit because he has utterly failed to answer the numerous proofs I have given for an irrefutably first century context. He seems to think that posting another question is an adequate answer. Not! :nono: So here again are just SOME of the fatal challenges that Jerry has either ignored or obfuscated or both:

ONE: “Genea” indisputably does mean in our text “the whole multitude of men living at the same time.”; TWO: Even “genea” did mean “race,” the specific identification of destruction of the Temple that then existed and the city that then existed unequivocally thrusts the entire prophecy into the first century because all the prophesied things MUST happen within relatively quick succession as totally necessitated by Matthew 24:33, Mark 13:29, and Luke 21:31.; THREE: Since said desctruction is a NONREPEATABLE event , there is NO prophesy of any future Temple for any future antichrist to desecrate ;FOUR: There are no years left to Daniel 9 since Jesus specifically identifies what Temple is in view in that prophecy - the first century Temple.; FIVE: Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event. ; SIX: His interpretation puts the inane statement in Christ’s mouth, “Most assuredly I say to you, the Jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen to the Jewish race,” a reductio ad absurdum.

What do I hear in response do all these issues?? Nothing but crickets.

So now Jerry raises yet another of his infamous “yeah but” questions without actually addressing the fatal blows already dealt to his system. He is now claiming that since Jesus said that He did not know the day or hour (Matthew 24:36)that He certainly could not have been making a timing statement in verse 34. Poppycock. I have already proven from OTHER timing verses in this very passage that my position is cumulatively correct. Exactly what is the problem with saying that the generation can be known but not the exact day and hour? When a woman is pregnant no one knows up front the exact day or hour of the delivery, but they certainly know it will be within a certain time span. This is why Jesus exhorted His disciples to pray that their flight be not on a Sabbath (and what relevance would THAT have to modern times) nor in the winter (again much more relevant to a first century context). It would surely happen to them but there was some sway about where in that large time frame these events would fall.

Jerry also complains that I did not provide references to my statement that no Christians died in the siege of Jerusalem. Is that the best he can do?? I have numerous sources for this information but here is just one for the record… Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3. He also complains that I did not comment on Zechariah 12:9, “I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” Wrong again,:doh: I was alluding to that issue when I said, “Now whenever it gets too hot in the NT kitchen for Jerry he likes to trot out selected portions of the OT…” Until Jerry deals with the numerous mortal wounds to position within the Discourse itself, I will only comment briefly on Zechariah 12 (but enough to be a tack in his seat nonetheless). Jerry said,

No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed.

Really?? Funny, most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist. (And take a gander at Daniel 2:44-45 which places the coming of the Messianic Kingdom squarely within the time of the ancient Roman Empire...no gap) Again, if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire’s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point. What happened to Rome?? It was converted and dismantled, just as Jesus declared in Revelation 19, they fell by the sword that proceeded out of His mouth. My second comment on Zechariah 12 focuses on verse 4 in which it is stated that this battle is fought on horseback. Really now?? Does Jerry really believe that this alleged future battle will be on horseback?? Most futurist writers seem to be fond of envisioning Cobra helicopters, but then again, they must abandon literalism to do so.

Jerry also insinuates that I have not answered his question about the “coming” of Christ in the Olivet discourse and the “heavenly” disturbances. That is simply not true. I answered by challenging Jerry to explain his “literal” hermeneutic in OT passages using similar language to which he has been absolutely SILENT. The Bible must interpret the Bible otherwise we are guilty of being hopelessly anachronistic. Jerry of course is avoiding having to be consistent in his “literalism” lest it be exposed for the nonsense it is. And here has to be the most ridiculous statement made yet:

....perhaps she will consider the fact that John actually saw visions of these so-called “figurative” words.


Jerry do you really want to fall on your own sword like that?? Are you really suggesting that since John had “visions” of things, that necessitates that the things “envisioned” must be taken “literally”? Wow, look out!!! :shocked: Because Jerry then MUST believe Jesus is a literal wooly baa-baa lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (5:6), that satan will be bound by a literal chain (20.1), and with a literal tail will reach up through the atmosphere and bring down one-third of the stars unto the earth (one star would absolutely destroy the earth)(12:4), and that a literal ten headed monster will literally raise up from the ocean and come a-slathering across the land 13:1.

Now back to the main issue at hand….. the other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23. If it is possible (as Jerry alleges and I vehemently deny) that Matthew 24:34 (and its parallels in Mark and Luke) can mean something else, and even though the context is clearly first century, what other texts illuminate this? The clincher is when we compare:

Luke 21:31-32So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

with

Matthew 16:27-28For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame “this generation” is referring to. Let me explain….. Luke states that when all these things happen, the Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS… and it would happen within “this generation.” Matthew 16:28 tells us that there were some standing there that would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. The parallels are painfully inescapable. Matthew himself gives us the definition of “this generation not passing away,” it means “some of those standing there will not taste death until….”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top