ECT Satan and Preterism

Interplanner

New member
Then why does the prophecy specificy Jerusalem?:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​

Frankly, I am shocked by your continued denial of what is written so plainly in the Scriptures. Over and over you just flat out deny that what is written in the Scriptures is true.





Does he mean THAT location, or does he mean the significance of that in their history, like so many other places? Why for ex., did the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem happen the same week as the first?

As an indicator of its signficance it simply means he will be the triumphant one. But in Rev 21, that 'city' or 'camp' was everywhere on earth that believers were. Thats the city he loves. He called the other one Babylon or Sodom.

Why is the raised tent of David actually the Gentiles coming in? But you shock me with your continued denial of what is so plainly being said by James there. Over and over you flat out deny what Acts is saying. except what you think your one verse in 1:8 means, but deny the departure from it through Acts.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
But you shock me with your continued denial of what is so plainly being said by James there. Over and over you flat out deny what Acts is saying. except what you think your one verse in 1:8 means, but deny the departure from it through Acts.

It is you who shocks me because James plainly places the coming of the Lord Jesus and the raising up of the tabernacle of David in the future. Not only that, but you refuse to believe that the following passage is speaking about the city of Jerusalem:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​

At least you are good for a laugh every now and then!
 

Interplanner

New member
It is you who shocks me because James plainly places the coming of the Lord Jesus and the raising up of the tabernacle of David in the future. Not only that, but you refuse to believe that the following passage is speaking about the city of Jerusalem:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​

At least you are good for a laugh every now and then!



James is talking about that situtation. No one in the room had any thought about X000 years in the future, what nonsense.
 

Interplanner

New member
There is no NEED, Jerry. Try to understand the magnitude of the Gospel. IT is the icon of God, the finished work, the goal, the endpoint. To come along and say there needs to be a battle with "Christ" involved for one city on earth, and (if you really read your fav passage carefully), it is a miserable battle in which half the women (OF THE GOOD GUYS) are raped--it is irrational. What could it possibly do? The NHNE will take care of all of that, but you keep saying it is a battle just for Israel by the same Christ who hung on the cross? Why? What change is God making in the 'age of grace' 2 Cor 5-6 that calls for such a mixed up thing?

Back off from the trees and see the forest. You are out of control with this stuff.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
There is no NEED, Jerry. Try to understand the magnitude of the Gospel. IT is the icon of God, the finished work, the goal, the endpoint. To come along and say there needs to be a battle with "Christ" involved for one city on earth, and (if you really read your fav passage carefully), it is a miserable battle in which half the women (OF THE GOOD GUYS) are raped--it is irrational. What could it possibly do? The NHNE will take care of all of that, but you keep saying it is a battle just for Israel by the same Christ who hung on the cross? Why? What change is God making in the 'age of grace' 2 Cor 5-6 that calls for such a mixed up thing?

Back off from the trees and see the forest. You are out of control with this stuff.

Straight out of a commentary, not the Holy Bible.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Back off from the trees and see the forest. You are out of control with this stuff.

You who cannot even see the trees or the forest because your eyes are shut tight. the following will happen during the great tribulation described by the Lord Jesus at the twenty fourth chapter of Matthew:

"The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. 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).​

But you say that the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 has already come and gone despite the fact that if it was over then there would have been signs seen in the heavens:

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

According to your bankrupt theology the Lord Jesus was wrong when He said that immediately after the tribulation there would be signs seen in the heavens.

But what the heck! You get to cling to your ridiculous ideas!
 

Interplanner

New member
There are some very simple concepts to understand here Jerry. I have written them out several times. Basically:

1, the setting is Judean and 1st century up to Mt24:29. That's why the instructions are so direct and vital. Nothing sounds X000 years in the future. Do you actually know anyone who talks that way about X000 in the future from now? NO!!! We know the devastation of Israel was in that generation from the biological clock that was 'started' by Christ in Lk 23:28. But if you do find anyone who spans 2000 years from childhood to adulthood out there, please let me know.

2, After v29, the setting is worldwide. It was originally said to be right after the preceding. that's what they thought, especially Paul who is certain that the 2nd coming is that soon, even when advising about marriage, I Cor 7.

Well guess what? It did not end. Maybe because only the Father decides. Maybe because (Mk 13) the 'master' can return any old time he wants. But 2 Peter 3 says the delay in the coming (surely not the 1st coming!) is because of God's grace, to save more people.

Therefore, the historian Lattourrette is quite right to notice that the surviving apostles discussion in about 73 AD, after Masada was over, and Christ had not returned, is probably the most needed but unavailable information in church history. If you think they supported anything other than just continuing in the mission of the Gospel, please let me know why.

re signs in the sky in the DofJ. Read Josephus. He really didn't want to mention bizarre stuff but he did, because there were too many independent confirmations.
 

Interplanner

New member
btw, Jerry, taking up this question after defeat about James in Acts 15 isn't going to help.

I have 50 solid questions for 2P2P here at TOL which I consider unresolved. It is a crock.
 

Danoh

New member
Straight out of a commentary, not the Holy Bible.

Yep - the HOLY Bible - THE collection of Books in ONE Book, or Bible.

The ONE Book that is HOLY or SEPERATE from ALL other books.

Get - in - THE - Book - IP.

Isaiah 5:8; 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Yep - the HOLY Bible - THE collection of Books in ONE Book, or Bible.

The ONE Book that is HOLY or SEPERATE from ALL other books.

Get - in - THE - Book - IP.

Isaiah 5:8; 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

It's like buying an item and instead of reading the owners manual, he googles the item and reads what others say about the item.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
re signs in the sky in the DofJ. Read Josephus. He really didn't want to mention bizarre stuff but he did, because there were too many independent confirmations.

So are you now saying that these signs actally appeared in the sky in the first century?:

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

Danoh

New member
So are you now saying that these signs actally appeared in the sky in the first century?:

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

Lol - he and Tel used to quote Josephus on that one.
 

Interplanner

New member
So are you now saying that these signs actally appeared in the sky in the first century?:

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





You keep missing the main point!

"Immediately after"!!!

I have said 1000x: before v29 is 1st century Judea; v29 starts the worldwide events of the day of judgement that have not happened. I don't think any of it is watertight and exact. There were extreme things (shakings) in the final events of 70 AD. But the final judgement has not happened, no. That would be preterism.

What is missing is the explanation why immediately was not true. It is found in statements about delay:
only the Father knows
the master lists 4 times when he may return
Peter says the delay of the 2nd coming is due to God's grace

Now everyone will pounce on IP for saying the Bible was "not true" when actually if God's grace for millions is what matters, it has a right to delay for grace. Do you see?

But at the end of the day in the 1st century, instead of a 'golden age' of Judaism, the opposite happens! that is the startling fact of Mt 24 etc for the disciples. It was a shock.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
What is missing is the explanation why immediately was not true.

So what the Lord Jesus said here was not true?:

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

Those of us who believe the Bible understand that since no signs were seen in the sky in the first century then we know that the great tribulation remains in the future.

On the other hand, you believe that the tribulation has already happened and in order to attempt to justify your belief you say that what the Lord Jesus said at Matthew 24:29 IS NOT TRUE!

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged"
(Ro.3:4).​
 

Interplanner

New member
So what the Lord Jesus said here was not true?:

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

Those of us who believe the Bible understand that since no signs were seen in the sky in the first century then we know that the great tribulation remains in the future.

On the other hand, you believe that the tribulation has already happened and in order to attempt to justify your belief you say that what the Lord Jesus said at Matthew 24:29 IS NOT TRUE!

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged"
(Ro.3:4).​





So God's grace in delaying can't over rule a "prophecy" that presets all human history? Got it.

I said that before v29 is local to Judea in the 1st century and that the rest is worldwide and now we don't know when. Obviously he said it was to be immediately after, but that did not happen. That means a discussion by the surviving apostles after about 73 when Masada was over would be the only resolution to this.

Except that we have 2 Peter 3 to answer it all.

The answer is not tangling about futurism and its denial of what is in Mt 24A.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
So God's grace in delaying can't over rule a "prophecy" that presets all human history? Got it.

I said that before v29 is local to Judea in the 1st century and that the rest is worldwide and now we don't know when. Obviously he said it was to be immediately after, but that did not happen. That means a discussion by the surviving apostles after about 73 when Masada was over would be the only resolution to this.

Except that we have 2 Peter 3 to answer it all.

The answer is not tangling about futurism and its denial of what is in Mt 24A.

Great non-answer to Jerry's post.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
So God's grace in delaying can't over rule a "prophecy" that presets all human history? Got it.

Prophecies cannot be wrong. If a prophecy fails then it is not of God. But you say that the Lord Jesus' prophecy found at Matthew 24:29 failed.

That is your approach to the Scriptures. Instead of admitting you made a mistake you blame it on the LORD. What the Apostles thought about the kingdom being restored to Israel was wrong according to your view but you are right!

You are a sad case1
 
Top