Interplanner
Well-known member
The whole thing is one unified event JerryS.
ECT Matthew 24:30: Question For the Preterists
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you really think that a world wide harvest came upon the earth in the first century and all that all of those who do iniquity were cast into a furnace of fire?:
"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13:37-43).
If you can trick your mind into believing that, then you will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous!
nikolai_42
Well-known member
The word "immediately" here can convey something like the idea that "Immediately after the clouds roll away, the sun begins to shine". In other words, there is a connection between the two events that means one can eclipse the other. The moon fails to give its light on a very regular basis - but not significant enough to fulfill prophecy. Likewise, this is dealing with times of heightened crisis. It doesn't mean the passing crisis goes entirely away immediately (necessarily) - just that the crisis is eclipsed by the next event (the appearance of the sign of the Son of man in heaven...)
Not that they are reacting to apocalyptic language - but rather that apocalyptic language is being used to paint a picture (part of which is men's hearts failing). Does this mean that every man has a heart attack at this point? When nations go into chaos, men get very worried. Could it also mean that the world gets worried because of the portent of a Universal Caliphate? Sure. Either way, not requiring literalism in these descriptions does not stretch the limits of credulity. Did this happen literally at the fall of Babylon :
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Isaiah 13:10
I believe preterism does have some consistency issues...but I don't see this as one of them.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That does not change the fact that the signs in the sky cannot possibly happen until the tribulation is over.
"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.24:29-30).
As I said, the preterists take everything literally from the beginning of Matthew 24 until Matthew 24:28 and then they do not take verses 29 and 30 literally. And then they take the rest of the Olivet Discourse literally until this verse:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).
What the preterists do is to spiritualize away any verse where a literal understanding of that verse would sink the ship of preterism.
Not a consistency issue? You must believe that is it just a coincidence that the only verses which they spiritualize away are the very verses which, if taken literally, prove that preterism is nothing but a fable!
Interplanner
Well-known member
What happens when a star, even one star, gets close to the earth?
There are figures of speech in certain places in Mt24A. The vulture and the carcass, for ex.
It is not a battle between literal and spiritual (it is not proper to demean spiritual as a word that way). It is about how to distinguish between 1st century Judea and the allowed delay that was expressed 3 ways. You have not said a word about it. You think you sound informed by blasting at "spiritual" meaning, but you aren't showing that you really know the issues or how to talk about this area.
There are figures of speech in certain places in Mt24A. The vulture and the carcass, for ex.
It is not a battle between literal and spiritual (it is not proper to demean spiritual as a word that way). It is about how to distinguish between 1st century Judea and the allowed delay that was expressed 3 ways. You have not said a word about it. You think you sound informed by blasting at "spiritual" meaning, but you aren't showing that you really know the issues or how to talk about this area.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Just because the stars will not actually fall out of the sky does not mean that people will not see signs in the sky where the stars appear to fall out of the sky.
Why should anyone doubt that by the time the great tribulation is over there will be vultures gathering around the corpses of the dead?
What I demean is the practice of some to reject the literal meaning of a verse just because a literal meaning destroys their theology. If there is some reason found in the context which demands that a literal understanding is not tenable then I can understand putting a meaning on that which is not literal.
It is wrong just to go through the Scriptures and put a spiritual meaning on verses just to defend one's theology even though nothing in the context even hints that a literal understanding is not in view. That is nothing more than letting your theology define the meaning of the Scriptures.
So let us test how you interpret the meaning of this passage:
"And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness...And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:8,13,23).
This prophecy was never fulfilled in the past. And the eschatology of the preterists have no place for its fulfillment in the future.
Why should we not believe that what is written in the just quoted passage will happen literally?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where did tet go?
Where did tet go?
The problem for you is the fact that at the time when Josephus saw what he saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD had not yet happened. But this passage demonstrates that it will not be until the great tribulation is over when all thre tribes will see the coming of the Son of Man:
To see what Josephus said and when he said it go to this link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_theological.html#Book_VI,_Chapter_V,_Section_2
Then scroll down to Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 3. And notice on this preterist site that we read, "The Signs Which Preceded the Destruction."
Where did tet go?
The problem for you is the fact that at the time when Josephus saw what he saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD had not yet happened. But this passage demonstrates that it will not be until the great tribulation is over when all thre tribes will see the coming of the Son of Man:
"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: 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.24:29-30).
To see what Josephus said and when he said it go to this link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_theological.html#Book_VI,_Chapter_V,_Section_2
Then scroll down to Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 3. And notice on this preterist site that we read, "The Signs Which Preceded the Destruction."
Interplanner
Well-known member
The carcass of the Mt24 saying was Israel in the 1st century; the vulture was pejorative for the mascot of the Roman army.
The reason we don't just grab every last line in Zech is because the NT spends much more time on the definition of the new meaning of a Jew or a 'sperma' of Abraham (Rom 4 and 9) than it does on interp'ing verses like this. Besides, it might mean something different once the new meaning, like Rom 2, is understood. There is also a new circumcision, temple, passover, temple, manna, light, commandment, priests, etc.
There are things some preterists have no place for in the future...for the very thing you are in denial of being true now in Christ by his Spirit.
Once again you won't comment on the allowed delay. That's not very spiritual of you (mature).
The reason we don't just grab every last line in Zech is because the NT spends much more time on the definition of the new meaning of a Jew or a 'sperma' of Abraham (Rom 4 and 9) than it does on interp'ing verses like this. Besides, it might mean something different once the new meaning, like Rom 2, is understood. There is also a new circumcision, temple, passover, temple, manna, light, commandment, priests, etc.
There are things some preterists have no place for in the future...for the very thing you are in denial of being true now in Christ by his Spirit.
Once again you won't comment on the allowed delay. That's not very spiritual of you (mature).
Interplanner
Well-known member
Josephus was there for most of it. But that still doesn't deal with the allowed delay of Mk 13, Mt24B and 2 Pet 3. When are you going to?
What happens when even one star gets too close to the earth, literally?
What happens when even one star gets too close to the earth, literally?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sorry there was a lapse of posts, or of seeing them. I'm glad you are able to say that things appear to fall out of the sky. Transfer that to some of the others. Then you might be able to agree to what Josphesus referred to.
This is all not what the issue of the delay is about.
This is all not what the issue of the delay is about.
Interplanner
Well-known member
JerrryS,
do you have any comments on these propositions:
1, Rom 11 is prodding not prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is the true RT issue
3, Isaiah shifted David's promises
4, Acts 26 is the true shape of Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of the parable of the vineyard are all who are active in the Gospel's mission; there is no such thing as knowing the Gospel without knowing it in a missionally-active way
6, Rom 2 on the judgement of God surprised Jews at the time
7, 2 Pet 3 is the best, longest passage on the 2nd coming
8, The NT does not mix 1st century Judean events with the future worldwide judgement day
9, The apostles spent most of their exposition on Ps 2, 16 and 110, not Ps 83, Ez 38 and Zech 14
10, "Saved" in Rom 11 (Isaiah) is justification from sin
do you have any comments on these propositions:
1, Rom 11 is prodding not prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is the true RT issue
3, Isaiah shifted David's promises
4, Acts 26 is the true shape of Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of the parable of the vineyard are all who are active in the Gospel's mission; there is no such thing as knowing the Gospel without knowing it in a missionally-active way
6, Rom 2 on the judgement of God surprised Jews at the time
7, 2 Pet 3 is the best, longest passage on the 2nd coming
8, The NT does not mix 1st century Judean events with the future worldwide judgement day
9, The apostles spent most of their exposition on Ps 2, 16 and 110, not Ps 83, Ez 38 and Zech 14
10, "Saved" in Rom 11 (Isaiah) is justification from sin
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The LORD made it plain that the promises which He made to David will not be altered:
"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).
Where do you get these crazy ideas?
I cannot even understand your explanation for a supposed delay in regard to the time when the present heaven and the present earth will be dissolved.
I think that your co-called delay is explained by the fact that before that happens the earthly kingdom will be ushered in. You have no place for that in your eschatology so that must be the reason that you think that the present heaven and the present earth being destroyed has been delayed.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That one is right smack in the middle of the sermon in Acts 13. Many people don't even know there is one there, let alone what it is saying. It is the most complete treatment of what Israel was supposed to mean, to achieve, to bring forth.
And yet I know several books on "Bible prophecy" that don't even quote it. Prophecy schmophecy.
And yet I know several books on "Bible prophecy" that don't even quote it. Prophecy schmophecy.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I wonder where tet is hiding!
Books on "Bible prophecy" are based on Acts 2 Dispensationalism.
Its error is your school's same error - as Josephus and company misread contemporary events of their day into Scripture, so does the Acts Dispensationalist as to the current events of this day.
The error of the Partial-Preterist is not much different from the Acts 2 Dispensationalist's Partial-Presentist.
And you are off on Acts 13, as Paul had way much more to say about what he said there.
The question is, do we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, or do we do what you do - conclude that "Acts 13...is the most complete treatment of what Israel was supposed to mean, to achieve, to bring forth."
Come on, brother, you and yours have yet to sort out who John 10's "other sheep not of this fold" was a reference to.
All the rest; downhill for you from this simple error of yours.
Who cares.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Preterism addresses the futuristic tendency to require a literalism that risks leaving something entirely unfulfilled. That literalism becomes something the futurist touts or downplays as seems necessary. That's because language does not work that way and even more so biblical language.
Take, for example, this passage :
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Matthew 10:23
If you are going to take this literally, then you have to admit there is more than just Christ's second coming. In fact, reading the letters to the churches reveals that He promised that He would come - either upon them or just generally. These were warnings. He was speaking of those things (in some cases) that would "try them that dwell upon the earth". That (just one of them) was to Sardis in Revelation 3:10. The church at Sardis (certainly as John would have known it) no longer exists. The people to whom that letter would have been delivered are no longer with us. So how can we limit Christ to just 2 "comings"? How, also, does it make sense to have that church kept from a global tribulation if they are long dead? And what of Revelation 2:25? Thyatira was told to hold fast to what they had until Christ "come". These "comings" are clearly significant and even involve judgment (as Christ's return involves as well). But these churches did not live to see (certainly as the futurist believes) the Second Coming.
So, again...what does Christ mean when He refers to the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 10:23?
You see, where the preterist spiritualizes, the futurist literalizes. But quite often the inverse is true. Neither are consistent.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The context reveals that the message which they were to proclaim was this:
"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mt.10:7).
However, before they were able to go to all the cites of Israel all that changed when the Lord Jesus revealed that the kingdom would no longer be at hand until His return:
"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (Lk.21:27-31).
So the Twelve would naturally cease from their commission from the Lord Jesus at Matthew 10:5-7 and that happened before they had gone to all the cities of Israel. So the Lord Jesus' words at Matthew 10:23 are to be understood literal.
If His words there are not to be understood in a literal sense then they must have another meaning. What meaning do you put on those words?
musterion
Well-known member
Probably on hold, waiting to talk to Hank Hanegraf.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Jesus was already there. What does it mean "...till the Son of Man be come."? We are talking literalism vs. figures, remember. And Jesus was already there. You want to say (at least from what I read you are saying) that "Son of Man" = "Kingdom". You look at Matthew 12:28 (just two chapters later) and Jesus makes it clear that the kingdom is already there. And who was He referring to in Matthew 12:49 if the disciples had already been sent out to other cities? Matthew 13:10-11 makes it clear that the disciples were still with Him. And in Matthew 13:55, it seems as though the disciples are still with Him...not sent out on their own.
And, of course, if the disciples are sent out but Jesus goes with them, it makes little sense for Him to talk about coming to them.