The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[genuineoriginal]

Hold on, I have no idea what you mean. I'm thrilled and scared to think that Christ is to be proclaimed as Lord. Thrilled because no one else deserves it. Scared because it will be rejected. Scared because 'the eye of sinful man / his glory does not see.' Just think of what would happen to all these people who 'are finding out that they are something else' to hear that because of the stamp of approval of the resurrection this whole world and everyone alive is who Christ says they are; not homosexuals, not (put your favorite dysfunction here), but you are Christs. It shatters the whole world.

But there is nothing miserable about it! Everything Christ already is will be given me at his coming, because my life is hidden in him, Col 3. There is nothing there about Judaism.

The people who are miserable in I Cor 15 (if you'd read more than you apparently do), are those who have no Lord reigning--because no Lord was resurrected! Don't you know even these basic, daring facts of the faith?

I see you found the verse I referenced.

1 Corinthians 15:19 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.​

If what you have in this life is the only kingdom of God you are willing to accept, then you are missing out.

On the other hand, you could ask yourself what Jesus meant when He said these things:

Luke 22:15-18 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.​

Futurism really is a problem because there is nothing daring or bold about it. You never challenge your world and "turn it upside down" Acts 17:6, referring of course to what their preaching meant. You just have this "safe" doctrine of being removed, and nothing ever happens. Or it all happens as though on a TV screen at some future point. That's very debilitating and mediocritizing.

Yes, that is one of the major problems with futurism that makes it just as bad as preterism.

The correct view, of course, is somewhere in between those two.

 

[tetelestai]

You forgot to check to see what Jesus meant by "all these things".

You should read Luke 21 and Mark 13

(Luke 21:7 KJV) And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You should read Luke 21 and Mark 13

(Luke 21:7 KJV) And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

It is good to see that you are confirming that "all these things" refers only to the destruction of the Temple.

Luke 21:5-7 5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?​

Of course, there is still the entire great tribulation (times of the Gentiles) after the destruction of the Temple that is not included in that remark.

Luke 21:24 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.​

 

[tetelestai]

Of course, there is still the entire great tribulation (times of the Gentiles) after the destruction of the Temple that is not included in that remark.

Luke 21:24 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.​

The Greek word for trodden down in the verse above is "pateo" it means to trample under foot.

The same word is found in Rev 11:2

(Rev 11:2 KJV) But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Notice after "tread under foot" (pateo) it says for 42 months, which is 3.5 years.

So, as we see the times of the Gentiles ended in 70AD. The Great Tribulation lasted from 66AD to 70AD (3.5 years)

70AD also marked the end of the old heavens and earth, and the beginning of the new heavens and new earth.

 

[tetelestai]

It is good to see that you are confirming that "all these things" refers only to the destruction of the Temple.

Even if that was true, there still isn't a 2,000 year gap as you claim

(Luke 21:31 KJV) So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Greek word for trodden down in the verse above is "pateo" it means to trample under foot.

The same word is found in Rev 11:2

(Rev 11:2 KJV) But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Notice after "tread under foot" (pateo) it says for 42 months, which is 3.5 years.

So, as we see the times of the Gentiles ended in 70AD. The Great Tribulation lasted from 66AD to 70AD (3.5 years)

No, the Jews were in control of Jerusalem between the time they sent Cestius Gallus running away in 66 CE and the time that Titus led the Roman armies against Jerusalem in 70 CE.

So, since it was the Jews in control of the outer court for those 3-1/2 years, it wasn't the time of the Gentiles.

You missed again.

70AD also marked the end of the old heavens and earth, and the beginning of the new heavens and new earth.

Which means you missed the Resurrection and will never receive eternal life?

 

[tetelestai]

No, the Jews were in control of Jerusalem between the time they sent Cestius Gallus running away in 66 CE and the time that Titus led the Roman armies against Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Not true.

Gallus surrounded the city for 9 days, but then with no explanation left. On his way back the Jews attacked the Romans and were very successful.

Nero was furious, and a few months later sent Vespasian with a much larger army. Vespasain surrounded the city, but while the siege was taking place, Nero died. Vespasain went back to Rome to become emperor, and his son Titus finished it.

From when Vespasian surrounded the city to Titus completely destroying it, was 3.5 years.

All the Christians fled to the mountains when Gallus left, but before Vespasian showed up.

So, since it was the Jews in control of the outer court for those 3-1/2 years, it wasn't the time of the Gentiles.

Not true.

Which means you missed the Resurrection and will never receive eternal life?

Nope

It means that when I physically die, I will be instantly in the presence of God in my glorified body, in the kingdom.

According to your theory, you either "soul sleep" until your alleged rapture, or your soul floats around somewhere with no physical or glorified body until the alleged rapture

 

[Danoh]

Hold on, I have no idea what you mean....

Futurism really is a problem because there is nothing daring or bold about it. You never challenge your world and "turn it upside down" Acts 17:6, referring of course to what their preaching meant. You just have this "safe" doctrine of being removed, and nothing ever happens. Or it all happens as though on a TV screen at some future point. That's very debilitating and mediocritizing.

You're a very funny guy, Inter...

That "Hold on, I have no idea what you mean...." is then proven by you by that next paragraph...

Fact is that overwhelming majority of the evangelism that is sound and being conducted the world over is by Dispensationalists.

In fact, when was the last time you led someone to the Lord?

For that matter, when was the last time for many within your school?

It is a constant throughout our [Mid-Acts based] posts. Jerry is ever harping on it; Heir is, Tambora, is, STP, you name a Mid-Acts Bible Student on here; it is ever a constant throughout our replies.

As for my witness as a Mid-Acts Dispy you well know how often I alone would reach out to other's about their salvation - while you never did once.

You guys are just blind - our very battle with you and yours on these threads is for the truth gospel of our salvation your tradition clouds over to the extent that you do while pointing fingers about how we are shirking the responsibility you have the nerve to assert we have dropped the ball on.

You well know I would often sign off with...

Romans 5: 8

Try that much sometime, my funny brother; souls are at stake.

 

[john w]

The Greek word ...

"English spelling was never one of my strong points....English grammer...."-Tettie the Clownie


You fraud. You can't even spell in English, and you are going to "teach" us on "The Greek," you poser?

Plagiarized-you just copy'npasted that from someone else, as there is no such thing as "The Greek," and you know no "The Greek," can't spell it, can't read it, can't speak it, can't write it.

Fraud.

70AD also marked the end of the old heavens and earth, and the beginning of the new heavens and new earth.

Straight word for word plagiarism from Todd Dennis, and others.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Yes!



At one time it existed on the earth and it was specific to Israel, as witnessed by the Apostle's question found at Acts 1:6.

And this whole time, it sounded like you were bashing me for suggesting that Israel was a type of Kingdom of God - as specifically mentioned in I Chronicles 28:5.

Now it is time for you to answer a couple of questions for me. You do know that the following events foretold in the OT will happen after the great tribulation is over?:

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).​

It is not clear that this Luke quote is something that will happen after the tribulation is over. Luke first mentions signs in the sky, earthquakes, and troubles in the nations in vs. 10 - which is before the main tribulation events. In vs. 35, Jesus doesn't say "and then there will be..." he says "and there will be". Meaning, he could be referring back to the signs he previously mentioned to elaborate on them.

Well known preterist author Gary DeMar said that "When first-century Christians read the word 'oikoumene,' they thought of what they knew of their world" (Gary DeMar, "The Gospel Preached to All the World, Part 3 of 4; The Preterist Archive).

Of course when the first century Christians thought of what they knew of their world they certainly believed that the Roman Empire was a part of it.

What evidence can you give that a judgment came upon the Roman Empire after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD?

So men (either past or future) see signs and are afraid of a judgement that is coming upon the whole inhabited earth. One question I would ask is why they thought there was a judgement coming on the earth because they saw signs in the sky. Especially, since as you said, most of the earth will be going about their regular lives, getting married, etc. while the tribulation is going on in Israel. I don't know why signs in the sky and roaring waves would make people think that judgment was about to come. Judgement from who?

In my case, I would have to explain how this judgment extended throughout the Roman empire at 70AD - correct? And if I can't explain how it touched every corner of the empire, then I am mistaken in my interpretation - correct?

Do you hold yourself to the same standard? If we're talking about the whole inhabited future earth experiencing judgement - how do you explain that not all of the earth experiences it? Since obviously the land of Israel will be saved from this wrath.

My explanation: God's wrath was upon the unbelieving Jewish people. They were living throughout the Roman empire - and they all felt this wrath - especially through the destruction of their temple.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

In the same exact sense that we here present to you that Paul's gospel is being preached while its time for doing so remains "at hand," Rom. 13:12.

We do so knowing full well that you and yours will reject it.

And you have, and have continued to.

Nevertheless, ours is to "make all men see what is the fellowship of the Mystery" Eph. 3:9.

That you either look into it and "therefore believe," Acts 17: 11-12; 1 Thess. 2:13; or reject it for a witness against you in your strain of Preterism, 2 Timothy 2:18.

Paul wasn't speaking of something metaphorically being at hand that in actuality he knew was 2000 years off. Paul said "it is already the hour". Whatever he thought was at hand, he literally thought it was happening soon. You can side with Jerry on this and believe that Paul thought his present age was coming to an imminent end - but it really wasn't. Or you can believe (as some commentators do) that Paul wasn't referring to the end of all things being at hand, but rather was saying that each passing day brought the Roman Christians closer to meeting Jesus face to face in heaven - and therefore they should live their life properly.

In either case, when Paul said something was at hand, he actually meant it. This supports my position that Jesus was actually speaking about the Kingdom being at hand - being about to come - not sort of at hand, but in reality not at hand.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Are you sure of that?

The Rabbis struggled with seemingly contradictory passages about the coming of the Messiah.

_____
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 98a

R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it!33 — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven34 whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ***!35 — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven;36 if not, lowly and riding upon an ***. King Shapur said to Samuel, 'Ye maintain that the Messiah will come upon an ***: I will rather send him a white horse of mine.'37 He replied, 'Have you a hundred-hued steed?'38
_____​

The Rabbis believed that the appearance of the Messiah was conditional on whether the children of Israel would be worthy when the Messiah came.
They were wrong in that, we know now that the Messiah came first on an *** and will come on the clouds of heaven afterwards.
They almost had the right idea. If they were worthy then the kingdom would have been established in their generation, but if they were unworthy (unrepentant) then the kingdom would be withheld from that generation and established in a future generation.


The death of Messiah had to happen, even if the Jews were repentant and accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
If the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah, His death would not have come at the insistance of the Jews but over their objections, the same way it came over the objections of Peter.

Jesus laid down His own life as proof to the Father that He was obedient even unto death on the cross. This was the trial that Jesus had to go through in order to receive rule over the kingdom. Jesus did not receive this rule before the cross, but Jesus will return when the Father turns over the rule to Him.

I think Mark 8:31 supports my point in this: "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I don't know why you have such an aggressive stance. If you have no time for my questions, don't bother responding. Is it worth anything to you to know the exact details of how I came to hold my view? 80% Bible study - 20% reading one single book on preterism.

I won't say I have all the answers or am comfortable with every aspect of preterism - but I do know that I started to second guess dispensationalism solely by reading the Bible, before I read any other opinion on the matter.

This is real simple...

"Are you with the program here, or are you against it; and thus, against yourselves" is what the Spirit is challenging all of them to.

Those with the program, remain the children of the kingdom, as Jacob was. Those who reject it, lose their access to it, as Esau had by his own volition.

I don't disagree.

What say you as to who these children supposedly are? Or are you just baiting?

Time you put up, or shut up, Aaron.

This whole issue is just the tail end of a much larger discourse about Matthew 13.

My original point was that the judgment on the tares is a judgment on wicked unbelieving Jews. They are gathered out of the Kingdom - not gathered out of a general Kingdom, or the kingdom of the world - but gathered out of God's specific Kingdom plan. Just as Jesus said the Kingdom would be taken from them - when these tares are removed from the Kingdom, it means their Kingdom citizenship is being revoked.

Whatever the time frame of these events, Matthew 8 seems to be referring to the same event. Here, Jesus says the sons of the Kingdom will be cast out. These sons of the Kingdom are Jews who should have inherited the Kingdom - but who rejected the King and therefore abandoned their inheritance of it - as you mentioned.

A question I have for you on the matter is this: if Jesus was referring to an event that hasn't happened yet, why would these Jews who would be cast out be called sons of the Kingdom? If, as you said, those who reject the Messiah lose their status as sons of the Kingdom - wouldn't the Jews who would be alive during this future event have long abandoned their status as sons of the Kingdom?

A larger point in my mentioning Matthew 8 was simply to point out that the Jews had the Kingdom - in some sense. While not fully actualized, they were the heirs of the coming perfect Kingdom - hence sons of the Kingdom.

In Matthew 13, the sons of the Kingdom are not the ones who are punished, but who are gathered into the barn. I agree that this includes the believing Jews who realized their inheritance. But, this also includes the non-Jews who are brought into the Kingdom (Colossians 1:13) and are included into the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 3:12).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Not true.

Gallus surrounded the city for 9 days, but then with no explanation left. On his way back the Jews attacked the Romans and were very successful.

Nero was furious, and a few months later sent Vespasian with a much larger army. Vespasain surrounded the city, but while the siege was taking place, Nero died. Vespasain went back to Rome to become emperor, and his son Titus finished it.

From when Vespasian surrounded the city to Titus completely destroying it, was 3.5 years.

I see you are confusing "outside the city" with "outer court".

They are not the same thing, the outer court of the Temple is the closest place that the Gentiles were allowed to enter, and was inside the city. The Romans did not reach the "outer court" until 70 CE, and it has been trampled under the feet of Gentiles ever since.

It means that when I physically die, I will be instantly in the presence of God in my glorified body, in the kingdom.

If that is what is going to happen, the new heaven and new earth has not come yet.

According to your theory, you either "soul sleep" until your alleged rapture, or your soul floats around somewhere with no physical or glorified body until the alleged rapture

The alleged rapture is really the Resurrection, which happens when Jesus returns.
Since you believe Jesus already returned, you missed the Resurrection.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think Mark 8:31 supports my point in this: "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Have you noticed that Jesus did not start preaching that until after He had performed the three Messianic Miracles (The Healing of a Jewish Leper, The Exorcism of a Mute Demon, The Healing of a Man Born Blind)?

 

[tetelestai]

I see you are confusing "outside the city" with "outer court".

They are not the same thing, the outer court of the Temple is the closest place that the Gentiles were allowed to enter, and was inside the city. The Romans did not reach the "outer court" until 70 CE, and it has been trampled under the feet of Gentiles ever since.

Nope, you're wrong.

(Rev 11:2) But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

If that is what is going to happen, the new heaven and new earth has not come yet.

Yes it has.

The new heaven and new earth is not literal. The new heaven and new earth is the new covenant. The old heaven and old earth is the old covenant.

The alleged rapture is really the Resurrection, which happens when Jesus returns.

Jesus made it clear that He would return before some of His contemporaries passed away.

Since you believe Jesus already returned, you missed the Resurrection.

Yes I know. That's why when I die, I will be instantly in the presence of the Lord in the kingdom with a glorified body.

When you die, where will you go?

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
My MCS is from Regent College Vancouver, with 1 of those years in NT Greek at that level. I know of no text notes in Metzger's ABS text about what you are talking about. Ie, no particles of contingency.

Looking from another angle, the parable of the attentive servants in Mk 13 puts out 4 options when the Master might return.

Any normal reading of Mt24 & //s is that the end of time was to happen 'right after' all the catastrophe in Judea. But there was an allowance that it might not be right after.

This is where we turn to 2 Pet 3 and find him handling skepticism about any coming at all (unless for some reason you think he means the Gospel event there--the 1st coming). He explains a delay in the same way, even without mentioning the events in Israel. Do you think he means the 1st coming when he quotes the skeptics?

 

[Danoh]

JerryS,
My MCS is from Regent College Vancouver, with 1 of those years in NT Greek at that level. I know of no text notes in Metzger's ABS text about what you are talking about. Ie, no particles of contingency.

Looking from another angle, the parable of the attentive servants in Mk 13 puts out 4 options when the Master might return.

Any normal reading of Mt24 & //s is that the end of time was to happen 'right after' all the catastrophe in Judea. But there was an allowance that it might not be right after.

This is where we turn to 2 Pet 3 and find him handling skepticism about any coming at all (unless for some reason you think he means the Gospel event there--the 1st coming). He explains a delay in the same way, even without mentioning the events in Israel. Do you think he means the 1st coming when he quotes the skeptics?

Both his epistles are based on "the events in Israel."

2 Peter 3 being the issue preached to Israel in Acts 3 but now being written of in light of its delay per Romans 11.

 

[tetelestai]

This is where we turn to 2 Pet 3 and find him handling skepticism about any coming at all (unless for some reason you think he means the Gospel event there--the 1st coming). He explains a delay in the same way, even without mentioning the events in Israel. Do you think he means the 1st coming when he quotes the skeptics?

Peter's epistle was written probably about 10 years before 70AD.

Peter did in fact refer to the "last days" as a future event when he wrote his epistle.

Many people use the following verse from Peter's epistle to try and prove preterism wrong.

Here is what Peter said:

(2 Peter 3:3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

However, let's look at what Jude said a few years later:

(Jude 1:18-19) They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

As we see, Jude points out that the scoffers who Peter said would appear in "the last days" lived when Jude wrote his epistle shortly before 70AD

 

[Interplanner]

Tetelestai,
I don't know why you have the view of 2 Pet 3 that you do re NHNE. I don't build anything on the Rev that is not sufficiently clear in a regular, ordinary language letter.

So that leads me mostly to 2 Pet 3. The language is full of ordinary-level language about the flood and creation (I even think he intends to point out a difference between an earlier creation and Gen 1:3+--separate subject, but still no "figures of speech."). So in speaking of the same elements being melted down, along with everything else Jesus said on that, and then The Rev, too, I don't know how a person goes figurative in 2 Pet 3.

I have an article published on 'stoicheia' in Gal and Col, and it is indeed Judaism in those contexts. There was even a neo-Judaism complete with 1st-hand contact with the very same angels that delivered the Law, they claimed. But 'stoicheia' was coined by Paul that way. He was criss-crossing accusations. The other writers of the times were using it materially--non NT sources other than Peter. In Judaism, they lamented the barren cosmology of secular writers (Hellenist, Roman, Alexandrian) and Paul lamented the 'barrenness' of Judaism when contrasted to Christ.

That works, but I don't see how a person then says everything Peter was saying in 2 Pet 3 was contra Judaism all over again--not with all the ordinary references already standing and linked to the existence, creation and flood in normal language and meaning.

You would have to have a running parallel meaning of all those things (the elements from long ago, the creation of Gen 1:3+, and the flood) as 'moments' in Judaism. Do you? Actually, it would have to be known in the Judaism that Paul grew up in.

NT eschatology always keeps a tension between what is 'already here' and what is 'not yet'. Rom 5:2; Col 3:3, 4; I Jn 3:2. Christ is the New Creation of 2 Cor 5 but what Peter was speaking of is not yet here.