The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[Anto9us]

a tornado is coming locally

therefore - get in a car and leave town

oh - but - by the way

a huge comet is also going to hit the earth and blow it up - and you'll die anyway

but leave town anyway so you survive the tornado and live until the subsequent comet blows up the planet

now THAT is 'fallacious logic'

 

[tetelestai]

DID FLEE to Pella

Correct!

Despite the fact that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and didn't leave one stone standing upon another in the temple, and the fact that all the Christians fled for the mountains to Pella when they saw the Roman army surround Jerusalem in 66AD, the Dispensationalists claim it's all irrelevant, and that these events are future events that didn't happen yet.

It's mind boggling.

"The members of the Jerusalem church by means of an oracle, given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the city before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella." - Eusebius, Book III, 5:4

 

[Right Divider]

a tornado is coming locally

therefore - get in a car and leave town

oh - but - by the way

a huge comet is also going to hit the earth and blow it up - and you'll die anyway

but leave town anyway so you survive the tornado and live until the subsequent comet blows up the planet

now THAT is 'fallacious logic'

A bunch of vain rambling, that is! :kookoo:

 

[tetelestai]

a tornado is coming locally

therefore - get in a car and leave town

oh - but - by the way

a huge comet is also going to hit the earth and blow it up - and you'll die anyway

but leave town anyway so you survive the tornado and live until the subsequent comet blows up the planet

now THAT is 'fallacious logic'

Dispensationalists don't care about logic.

They have to throw logic out the window when they try to make the Bible fit the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

 

[tetelestai]

The following was written by Epiphanius of Salamis in 375AD:

"The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged. For this reason they settled in Peraea and there, as I said, they lived. This is where the Nazoraean sect began." - Epiphanius, Panarion 29:7:7-8

 

[tetelestai]

From 60AD - 69AD skirmishes erupted between the Jews and the Romans. There were wars and rumors of wars during that time period.

In 66AD the Roman General Cestius Gallus surrounded Jerusalem and began a siege. Then, for no apparent reason Gallus and his troops suddenly left and headed back to Rome.

A few months later the Roman General Vaspasian came with even more troops. However, Vaspasian returned to Rome because Nero died, and Vaspasian's son Titus took over. Titus surrounded the city and began a siege. The siege and destruction of Jerusalem lasted 3.5 years. (66AD - 70AD)

Even Josephus was surprised that Callus left, and Josephus has no explanation for it.

We know from both Josephus, Eusebius, and others that it was during these few months that all the Christians fled to the hills of Pella.

"The Christians abandoned Jerusalem, crossed the Jordan and settled in those places . Informed of this fact, Nero Caesar sent word to the commander stationed in the East, named Vespasian, to rally his troops and go to Judea with orders to kill all the inhabitants, sparing none, and to destroy the houses." - Eutychius of Alexandria

 

[RevTestament]

Jerry, read the entire chapter.

Luke 21 starts out with Jesus telling the Disciples that not one stone would be left standing upon another.

Then the Disciples ask when will these things take place.

From verse 8-27 Jesus tells the Disciples all the things that must take place before the temple is destroyed and not one stone left standing upon another.

We know that in 70AD the Romans destroyed the temple, and not one stone was left standing upon another of the temple.

We also know that some of the Disciples were still alive in 70AD when this happened. That's because Jesus told them that some of them would still be alive when it happened.

To claim Luke 21, Matt 24, and Mark 13 is the yet future, is intellectual dishonesty.

This is where preterists are WRONG.
Lets examine those verses closer to see if they speak only of the time period leading to the destruction of the temple.

Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
[first strike against the preterist interpretation. Jesus is telling them when they hear of the war to come, it is NOT the end, while they say it is.]

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
[Second strike against preterists - Jesus is describing a long period of time with wars between nations, famines, etc. This couldn't have all happened before 70 A.D. Then the Roman kingdom had already conquered all the kingdoms. What wars were there before the Jewish revolt? None. What earthquakes and famines were before the Jewish revolt? None.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.
[Ok - preterists can claim this part did at least partially happen before 70 A.D. as the apostles and disciples were greatly persecuted by Jews and pagans.]
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.

18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[Likewise Preterists have this part down because Jesus is speaking of the Roman armies to come against Jerusalem per Daniel 9 and its destruction in the 7 years war of the last week of the prophecy along with the temple and cessation of sacrifice in the midst of the war in 70 A.D. culminating in the final end of the kingdom of Judah in the fall of Masada in 73 A.D.]

21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
[Yep, Luke actually says this better than the current Matthew unless you use the JST]
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.
[Strike 3 the preterists are OUT. Now Jesus is clearly not describing the period leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Gentiles, but the period afterward in which the Gentiles trod down Jerusalem until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled and He brings judgment to the Gentiles.]

25 ¶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;

26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[still apparently speaking of the time in which the Gentiles are given the covenant and the land of Jerusalem is in their possession which was true until about 60 yrs ago]
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[still speaking of the time of the Gentiles until it is fulfilled at which time their redemption draweth nigh]

Jesus didn't say anything about two temples being destroyed.

Yet, that's what you are claiming.

No, it's describing what happened before the temple was destroyed and not one stone was left standing upon another.

Which is why Jesus only warned those in Jerusalem and Judaea.

True, He did. He was warning them of the last events of Daniel 9.

You do know Judaea was a Roman Province?

Is there going to be another Roman Province called Judaea again in the future?

Think about how foolish you sound.

You guys embarrass yourselves trying to make Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24 mean something they don't.

You'd be better off taking the C.S. Lewis route, and claim the verse is wrong, instead of what you're trying to do. At least C. S. Lewis didn't look as foolish as you are by trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't.

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." - C. S. Lewis re: Matt 24:34

I'd say the preterists should be embarrassed by forcing Jesus to say something He doesn't. When the Romans conquered Jerusalem the time of the Gentiles when they trampled the holy city underfoot was only just begun. The Gentiles get their time until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, and He shall bring judgment unto the Gentiles per
Isaiah 42:1
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

During the time of the Gentiles the Jews have indeed seen nation rise against nation many times. And now they are finally back in Jerusalem. The time of their redemption draweth nigh. It is the first sign Jesus gave unto them...

 

[tetelestai]

This is where preterists are WRONG.

Nope.

BTW, could you please tell your Dispensationalist friends that John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism shortly after Joseph Smith invented your Mormonism?

Lets examine those verses closer to see if they speak only of the time period leading to the destruction of the temple.

Sounds good.

Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
[first strike against the preterist interpretation. Jesus is telling them when they hear of the war to come, it is NOT the end, while they say it is.]

(Luke 21:9 NIV) When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

As I state earlier, there were wars and rumors of wars between the Jews and the Romans starting in 60AD

Josephus tells us of these wars and rumors of wars before Titus laid siege on Jerusalem in 66AD.

So, Jesus was telling them, when the wars and rumors of wars started, the end would not come right away.

We now know from history, that the destruction happened roughly seven years after the wars and rumors of wars began.

[Second strike against preterists - Jesus is describing a long period of time with wars between nations, famines, etc. This couldn't have all happened before 70 A.D. Then the Roman kingdom had already conquered all the kingdoms. What wars were there before the Jewish revolt? None. What earthquakes and famines were before the Jewish revolt? None.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the following about the time period after the cross (but before 70AD)

"The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time” - The Histories, 1:2

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.
[Ok - preterists can claim this part did at least partially happen before 70 A.D. as the apostles and disciples were greatly persecuted by Jews and pagans.]

I agree

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[Likewise Preterists have this part down because Jesus is speaking of the Roman armies to come against Jerusalem per Daniel 9 and its destruction in the 7 years war of the last week of the prophecy along with the temple and cessation of sacrifice in the midst of the war in 70 A.D. culminating in the final end of the kingdom of Judah in the fall of Masada in 73 A.D.]

I agree with everything but the 73AD part.

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.
[Strike 3 the preterists are OUT. Now Jesus is clearly not describing the period leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Gentiles, but the period afterward in which the Gentiles trod down Jerusalem until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled and He brings judgment to the Gentiles.]

First off, Jesus said "All these things" would happen before the generation of His contemporaries all passed away. That includes "the times of the Gentiles".

It's the Days of Vengeance.

God used the Gentiles to bring judgment on the Jews, Jerusalem, and Judaea.

(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.

How much clearer could it be?

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[still apparently speaking of the time in which the Gentiles are given the covenant and the land of Jerusalem is in their possession which was true until about 60 yrs ago]

Nope

Happened in 70AD

28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[still speaking of the time of the Gentiles until it is fulfilled at which time their redemption draweth nigh]
True, He did. He was warning them of the last events of Daniel 9.

Nope, as I stated earlier, all these things took place before the contemporary generation of Jesus passed away.

Verse 28 was fulfilled in 70AD

I'd say the preterists should be embarrassed by forcing Jesus to say something He doesn't.

I'm the one who believes exactly what Jesus said in Luke 21, Matt 28, and Mark 13.

It's you Mormons and Dispensationalists who don't believe what Jesus said.

 

[tetelestai]

From Wikipedia:

"As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s"

" During the 1820s Smith reported having several angelic visitations, and by 1830 Smith said that he had been instructed that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing correct doctrine for the restored church."


Joseph Smith: 1805 - 1844

John Nelson Darby: 1800 - 1882

:think:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It wasn't a world-wide judgement.

If it was a world-wide judgement, then why did Jesus tell only those in Judaea to flee to the hills when they saw Jerusalem surrounded?

(Luke 21:20-21) “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

The world wide judgment will happen in the future AFTER the great tribulation will be 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): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).​

The great tribulation will be over by the time the signs will be seen in the sky (Mt.24:39) so the events described at Luke 21:25-27 will happen AFTER the great tribulation.

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

The Greek word "oikoumene" is used by the Lord Jesus at another place in the same discourse:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).​

By the context we can understand the meaning of that Greek word as referring to this:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).​

It is impossible that "generation" is the correct translation in Matthew 24 because the first century generation did not see a world wide judgment.

 

[RevTestament]

BTW, could you please tell your Dispensationalist friends that John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism shortly after Joseph Smith invented your Mormonism?

TTTT I haven't really studied Darby too closely as I strongly disagree with his segregation of the 70th week of Daniel 9 into the far future. The 70 weeks were determined on His people to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah. That did end approx 2000 yrs ago.
Otherwise you are somewhat correct that the LDS church is a dispensational church, and restores the gospel for the last dispensations. This is nothing new. Jesus had to restore the covenant. Noah had to restore the covenant given through Adam. Abraham after him. A new covenant was also given through David. After all there are seven eyes on the lamb of Revelation. Each covenant represents a different dispensation, but they weren't all necessarily "restorations."

Sounds good.

OK, let's do it again.

(Luke 21:9 NIV) When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

As I state earlier, there were wars and rumors of wars between the Jews and the Romans starting in 60AD

Josephus tells us of these wars and rumors of wars before Titus laid siege on Jerusalem in 66AD.

So, Jesus was telling them, when the wars and rumors of wars started, the end would not come right away.

We now know from history, that the destruction happened roughly seven years after the wars and rumors of wars began.

There was no war between the Jews and Romans until the Jewish zealots revolted. Then Titus was dispatched in 66 A.D., because of the zealot revolt. The war began by Rome marching into the Levant and beginning a slash and burn campaign. Jerusalem wasn't laid siege until 67 A.D. This was the beginning of the 7 years war. Otherwise even your 42 month interpretation fails.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote the following about the time period after the cross (but before 70AD)

"The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time” - The Histories, 1:2

Practically every time a Roman ruler died or was murdered there was a "civil war" lol. That is not nation rising against nation. That is just the way the Roman rulers settled the matter.

I agree with everything but the 73AD part.

You don't believe Masada and the last of the Jewish resistance fell in 73 A.D? or that is an inconvenient fact for your interpretation?

First off, Jesus said "All these things" would happen before the generation of His contemporaries all passed away. That includes "the times of the Gentiles".

It's the Days of Vengeance.

The old "this generation" argument. If He had said "your generation" you might have a point. But He was speaking prophetically as in this generation as opposed to the regeneration.

God used the Gentiles to bring judgment on the Jews, Jerusalem, and Judaea.

Yes, but that did not fulfill the time of the Gentiles who were to carry them off: "they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations." You seem to "conveniently" ignore this fact about the time of the Gentiles. It doesn't end with the destruction of the city, but begins with the destruction of Jerusalem. The time of the covenant with the Jews ended with the destruction of the city. You somehow morph that into the end of the covenant with the Gentiles and the end of the time of the Gentiles, lol. It really is laughable if it didn't lead so many astray. At least they still hopefully believe in Christ.

(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.

How much clearer could it be?

It is crystal clear to those who prophetically understand.
What is your interpretation of the 70 "weeks" of Daniel 9? When did they begin? Did they begin 1.5 years before Jerusalem was destroyed? If not, then perhaps the 490 days of the prophecy were actually years - like the Lord giving the Israelites a year to wander in the desert for the 40 days?
The commandment to rebuild the city unto the Messiah was approx 483 years until the time of Jesus' ministry. Any other interpretation such as your "literalist" interpretation simply does not work.
The 42 months is actually the same period the woman of Revelation 12 was chased into the "wilderness" by Satan and was a 1260 year period in which the Gentiles were led astray and all nations were deceived according to the prophecy of Revelation.
How is that Gentiles do not understand that they are the "court" of the temple? It is just the way it is. That is the inheritance the Lord has given. It is wonderful to be included in the temple, but it is not the sanctuary nor the Holy of Holies which Jesus led the way to.

Nope, as I stated earlier, all these things took place before the contemporary generation of Jesus passed away.

So it is your contention that we are now in the regeneration when the followers shall judge the 12 tribes with him?

Verse 28 was fulfilled in 70AD

They are redeemed when the hail shall wash away the lies and false interpretations of the scriptures, and their covenant with death is disanulled. That comes with the trumpet of the first angel of Revelation. In 70 A.D. they did not say blessed is He which cometh in the name of the Lord, so they did not see Him again. Rather they continued to reject Him which is why the day of vengeance you spake of occurred. The time of the Gentiles lasts 0 years(Ok maybe 3.5 yrs) under your interpretation and is just silly. The Gentiles were given the gospel through the relatively few Jewish followers. In 70 A.D. their time was just starting - unless you believe the Gentiles weren't promised the covenant per Isaiah 61 "in their land"?

I'm the one who believes exactly what Jesus said in Luke 21, Matt 28, and Mark 13.

It's you Mormons and Dispensationalists who don't believe what Jesus said.

You do not understand prophetic speech, so morph things to fit your interpretation. But like I have shown if Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 490 yrs from the time of the command to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian destruction, then to force the 42 months into the destruction of Jerusalem simply does not work since 1260 years had not passed from the time of Daniel in the 6th century B.C. The time, times, and half of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 ie the 42 months, have nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem - that is an interpretation your force to make your interpretation work.

 

[Nazaroo]

The world wide judgment will happen in the future AFTER the great tribulation will be 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): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).​

The great tribulation will be over by the time the signs will be seen in the sky (Mt.24:39) so the events described at Luke 21:25-27 will happen AFTER the great tribulation.

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

The Greek word "oikoumene" is used by the Lord Jesus at another place in the same discourse:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).​

By the context we can understand the meaning of that Greek word as referring to this:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).​

It is impossible that "generation" is the correct translation in Matthew 24 because the first century generation did not see a world wide judgment.

I agree with everything you have said here up until the last sentence.

These sayings speak of a set of worldwide global events.
If it were local theatre of operations, then Jesus would remain a local insurgent.

But the translational error is in the word "this" (implying people living as a referent).

The word "this" in such a sense however has no corresponding counterpart
in the Greek language.

The word itself is better rendered "that', as the referent is of the
'generation' described in the previous events narrated by Jesus,
not in His contemporaries.

There is no distinction between "this" and "that" in the Greek.
And the only word suitable in most contexts is "that", not "this",
for the English translation.

Its the same problem with the statements Jesus made on the cross:

"THAT day you shall be with me in paradise."

(Not "THIS day" or 'today'. Those 'modern' idiomatic English expressions
have no place here, and don't exist in Koine Greek.)

The day Jesus refers to in the promise to the crucified robber is
the previous referent, namely "the day Jesus comes into his Kingdom".
No time is given by the robber or Jesus as to when that might be.

We know that even three days later Jesus had not yet ascended to His Father,
to take His place at the right hand of God.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

You're dangerously close to making it onto the "dumb as a box of rocks" list.


Talk about DOUBLE-TALK and double-mindedness!

Jesus announced that the FIRST PART (i.e, minus the day of vengeance) was "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21) and then LATER (according to both scripture and YOU) He told them of the FUTURE fulfillment of the "days of vengeance".

You need to have your head examined.


Even if you are correct, that means that there was 30 YEARS between the fulfillment of TWO PARTS of the SAME SENTENCE IN PROPHECY. But, still, according to the great Tet, the first PART was not a PARTial fulfillment. You're NUTS!


What keeps God from doing this? Your high and mighty OPINION? :cigar:

There's a big difference between God fulfilling one part of a verse at one time, God fulfilling the second part of a verse at another time; and the idea of partial fulfillment.

The idea of partial fulfillment is that the entire verse is fulfilled in one sense at one time, but is fulfilled in another sense at another time.

With the case of Luke 4:21, part A is fulfilled first and part B is fulfilled second.

Partial fulfillment typically has part A fulfilled in one sense at one point, and then part A is fulfilled in a different sense later on.

See the difference?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

But, nevertheless, the 'great distress' has already occurred? So, any future tribulation will not be as great?

Josephus has left us an eyewitness record of much of the horror of
those years, and especially of the final days in Jerusalem. It was a time
when “the day-time was spent in the shedding of blood, and the night
in fear”; when it was “common to see cities filled with dead bodies”;
when Jews panicked and began indiscriminately killing each other;
when fathers tearfully slaughtered their entire families, in order to
prevent them from receiving worse treatment from the Romans;
when, in the midst of terrible famine, mothers killed, roasted, and
ate their own children (cf. Deuteronomy 28:53); when the whole
land “was all over filled with fire and blood”; when the lakes and
seas turned red, dead bodies floating everywhere, littering the shores,
bloating in the sun, rotting and splitting apart; when the Roman
soldiers captured people attempting to escape and then crucified
them—at the rate of 500 per day.

The great tribulation wasn't just about how many people died or how they died - it was a covenantal judgment - the removing of the Kingdom from Israel. This will never happen again.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

When does the "family" pass away Jerry?

Matt 24:34 specifically implies that the "generation" will eventually pass away after "all the things" happen.

Very logical. The verse says the "generation" won't pass away UNTIL all these things take place.

You ask Jerry when they will pass away and he says "in the eternal state."

Jesus is referring to a specific people - whether you want to say "family", "race", or "generation." The verse says these people will pass away. That implies that those specific people will perish?

In the eternal state? What does that even mean?

Are you suggesting the "idea of Jewishness" will pass away in the eternal state???

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Why would anyone doubt that the Lord Jesus will sit upon a throne, especially when He said that when He returns to earth He will sit upon His throne?:

"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).​

This is the throne upon which He will sit:

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Lk.1:32).​

From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature, as witnessed by the following words:

"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly" (1 Ki. 2:12).​

Solomon sat upon the throne of David on the earth. Now let us look at the Lord's promises made to David in regard to that throne and kingdom:

"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam.7:12-13).​

Since the throne was "earthly" in nature then we can know that God established the earthly throne FOR EVER. God also said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:

"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).​

The preterists say that God did "alter" His promise to David because the "throne of David" was changed from an earthly throne into a heavenly one.

Obviously Solomon sat upon David's throne. It was the same literal physical throne that was made for David to sit on.

When God says he will give to Christ the throne of David, does he mean Christ will get the literal wood and gold throne that David and Solmon sat on? I'm obviously being facetious - just to make the point that even you must agree that "David's throne" is symbolic of something, and doesn't literally mean the exact physical seat David sat in.

So, my question for you is: What is meant by David's throne? I am curious to hear your answer.

When God said he would establish Christ's throne forever, does that mean Christ would get a wood and gold seat that wouldn't ever rot? Or is the "throne" a metaphor of something else?

Before I move on to some of your other points, I'll give you a bit more to chew on.

30 "Therefore (David), being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." '
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Jesus' sitting on David's throne is linked to the resurrection. At the resurrection Jesus was exalted to the right hand and made Lord.

Daniel 7 confirms that when Christ ascended, he was given a kingdom. "His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed." (Dan 7:14)

Kind of sounds like 2 Sam.7:12-13. As far as Jesus building a house in that prophecy - that is certainly being fulfilled at this moment (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Ephesians 2 says that when Jesus ascended he was seated "far above all rule and authority... not only in this age, but also in the one to come..."

It doesn't sound like Jesus' level of rule and authority would change much from the time of his ascension to the next age.

What do you think are the benefits or privileges of sitting on David's throne that Jesus does not currently have?

 

[tetelestai]

When God says he will give to Christ the throne of David, does he mean Christ will get the literal wood and gold throne that David and Solmon sat on?

That's what Jerry (and Dispies) claim.

It's the same thing for David's Tent.

(Acts 15:16) 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

Dispensationalists claim Christ Jesus will return to planet earth and sit on a man made throne in a new Third Temple.

However, they always exclude David's Tent in their false theory.

David's Tent stood for 40 years with the Ark of the Covenant in it at the same time Moses Tabernacle stood.

During this 40 years, the priests carried out all the priestly duties at Moses Tabernacle, while David and the people worshipped God at David's Tent.

Acts 15:16 is James quoting Amos. The reason James quoted the Amos passage was to show that Amos' prophecy was being fulfilled right there in the first century.

IOW, David's Tent and Moses Tabernacle stood almost side by side for 40 years, then the Ark of the Covenant was moved into Solomon's Temple, and Solomon sat down on the throne.

Jump to the first century. Christ Jesus's Tent (spiritual tabernacle) stood for 40 years (30AD - 70AD) at the same time the Second Temple stood. Then Christ Jesus sat down on His throne.

For the Dispensationalist's false theory to be true, after the alleged Third Temple is built, another David's Tent would have to be built alongside the Third Temple, and God would have to dwell only in the future David's Tent, while priests carried out their animal sacrifices and other priestly duties at the alleged Third Temple.

Dispensationalism is a mess.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They have to throw logic out the window when they try to make the Bible fit the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Obviously Solomon sat upon David's throne. It was the same literal physical throne that was made for David to sit on.

When God says he will give to Christ the throne of David, does he mean Christ will get the literal wood and gold throne that David and Solmon sat on? I'm obviously being facetious - just to make the point that even you must agree that "David's throne" is symbolic of something, and doesn't literally mean the exact physical seat David sat in.

Whether or not it is symbolic the fact remains that He will be given a kingdom and He will reign on the earth when He returns to the earth:

"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).​

This describes His reign:

"...one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven...And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).​

When did it ever happen that " all people, nations, and languages" served Him?

Of course that has never happens so the fulfillment of that prophecy remains in the future.

Before I move on to some of your other points, I'll give you a bit more to chew on.

Make sure you address the fact that the Lord Jesus made it plain that the events described at Luke 21 speaks of a world wide judgment--another thing which did not happen in the first century.

Jesus' sitting on David's throne is linked to the resurrection. At the resurrection Jesus was exalted to the right hand and made Lord.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).​

The Lord Jesus is not now sitting in His own throne,the "throne of David," but instead is sitting in His Father's throne! Can you really not see the difference?

Those who overcome will sit with the Lord Jesus in His throne and they will reign on the earth:

"And hast made us unto our God a kingdom of priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).​

Ephesians 2 says that when Jesus ascended he was seated "far above all rule and authority... not only in this age, but also in the one to come..."

It doesn't sound like Jesus' level of rule and authority would change much from the time of his ascension to the next age.

What do you think are the benefits or privileges of sitting on David's throne that Jesus does not currently have?

The Lord Jesus is now sitting at the Father's throne and not on the throne of David. The verse to which you make reference is in regard to the universal kingdom mentioned here:

"Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all" (1Chron.29:11).​

 

[Right Divider]

There's a big difference between God fulfilling one part of a verse at one time, God fulfilling the second part of a verse at another time; and the idea of partial fulfillment.

The idea of partial fulfillment is that the entire verse is fulfilled in one sense at one time, but is fulfilled in another sense at another time.

With the case of Luke 4:21, part A is fulfilled first and part B is fulfilled second.

Partial fulfillment typically has part A fulfilled in one sense at one point, and then part A is fulfilled in a different sense later on.

See the difference?

I do understand that some people like to speak in vague generalities instead of actually addressing the point at hand.

Do you think that part A still has another fulfillment and, if so, why?

The verse that Jesus quoted contains two very different prophecies in the SAME sentence. However, when Jesus quoted this verse and announced it fulfilled, He only quoted the first PART of the sentence leaving the other PATH for a later fulfillment. Tet gets all bent out of shape about GAPS in the fulfillment of prophecy, claiming that God doesn't do that.