The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[john w]

Never said that.

Which is why you didn't use the quote tag.

Jesus didn't morph into the Roman army, or return in the "form" of a Roman army.

When Christ Jesus said He would return upon a cloud, I specifically showed how it was OT terminology used in Isaiah 19:1

(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt....

We know from the above verse that the Lord did not literally ride a cloud into Egypt. It was the Assyrian army that invaded Egypt and wrecked havoc on the Egyptians.

Same thing happened from 66AD - 70AD. The Lord didn't literally come in a cloud, it was the Roman army that invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, while killing over a million Jews (those that pierced him)

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

"Never said that."-Tet.



You lied-again. That is your MO/"ministry" on TOL-habitual lying.


"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

You are so obsessed with us meanie MAD-ists, you can't keep track of all your lies, spin.

Watch him try to spin this....Watch...
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.

 

[tetelestai]

IT's almost COMICAL

Yes it is.

But, that's life when you try to make the false teachings of John Nelson Darby fit into the Bible.

This is a good time to once again list the excuses Dispensationalists have for Matt 24:34 in their desperate attempt to make the verse say something it doesn't.

1) "this" really means "that"

2) " this generation" really means "family"

3) "this" is a demonstrative pronoun (It's a demonstrative adjective)

4) "all these things" really only means the things described in verse 2, and that none of the things Jesus said that would happen before verse 2 took place, which are listed in verses 4-33, are part of "all these things". Despite Jesus saying "all these things" would take place before His contemporaries passed away.

5) There's a hidden Greek word that can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word has a secret condition than nullifies verse 34 if the secret condition wasn't kept by the Jews.

6) There's a subjunctive mood in the verse which nullifies verse 34

 

[tetelestai]

I do not respond to links.

Yet you have no problem always providing links to your own website:

Go to the thread I mentioned and you will find it there. Or else you can click on this link:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/pentecost/pentecost1.html

If you will click on this link you will see me explain the truth in regard to the many verses which you quoted:

http://www.twonewcovenants.com/death/death2.html

Also, you have responded to links before, and even linked sites that weren't your site:

Thanks for the link.

You don't have a link where I can find the beliefs of Plain Historicism?

At post #301 on page 21 you gave me a link where we read the following"

Let us look what we find on the site to which you gave a link:

Nothing said at that link answers these facts:

Yes, and click on this link for evidence that Jack Ruby was at Parkland Hospital shortly after the assassination and could have been the one who planted the bullet on the stretcher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Please click on this link

I have demonstrated that the articles to which you gave a link prove that your ideas are in error.

I think you don't respond to links that prove you wrong.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yet you have no problem always providing links to your own website:

I did not just provide links only and then tell people to respond to those links, as did HisServant.

All you are trying to discredit me as a person because I keep proving that your petty theories have no basis in fact.

Nowhere in the Bible does anyone speak of building a third temple.

The following prophecy shows the Lord Jesus returning, and when He returns there will indeed exist a rebuilt temple:

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple...And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years" (Mal.3:1,3,4).​

There has never been a time since this prophecy was written when the Lord Jesus came to a temple and the offering of Judah and Jerusalem was pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

So the fulfillment of this verse remains in the future so therefore there will be another temple built.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just read the links.

All I can see at the site is what some men say about the Scriptures. What particular thing said in that site do you want me to respond to? You can just copy and paste it and I will be happy to respond.

 

[tetelestai]

All you are trying to discredit me as a person because I keep proving that your petty theories have no basis in fact.

Jerry, you have a picture of Sir Robert Anderson as you avatar.

There's no need for me to try and discredit you, you've already done so with Anderson's picture as your avatar.

Sir Robert Anderson is credited with naming the "He" of Daniel 9:27 as the antichrist.

The following prophecy shows the Lord Jesus returning, and when He returns there will indeed exist a rebuilt temple:

We've already covered this verse Jerry.

It doesn't show a third temple.

Once again you Dispies take OT prophecies and wrongly apply them to the future.

Nowhere in the NT does Jesus, Peter, John, Paul or any other NT writer even hint of a third temple in the future after the Second Temple is destroyed.

 

[john w]

But, that's life when you try to make the false teachings of John Nelson Darby fit into the Bible

"Darby' spam-word for words,666th time in last 6 months.

5) There's a hidden Greek word that can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word has a secret condition than nullifies verse 34 if the secret condition wasn't kept by the Jews.

6) There's a subjunctive mood in the verse which nullifies verse 34

Fraud.

"Spelling was never one of my strong points."-you

Vs.

"hidden Greek wordthat can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word...."-Craigie


You know know no "Greek," as you cannot spell it, read it, understand it, write it, speak it, and would not know the difference between "Zorba the Greek," and "Jimmy the Greek."


You con "man." Flim flam...Snake oil....You plagiarized that "hidden Greek word that can't be translated into English, and this hidden Greek word... a subjunctive mood " jazz.


Plagiarism is against TOL rules, you deceiver.

_____________________________________________
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread


"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.

 

[Danoh]

Tetelestai, I repeat...

You are still ranting your ranting of Darby.

An answer on your part worth exploring would be along the line of "we assert what we do against you as to this or that issue, on such and such passages of Scripture you are asserting... but the reason your assertion is off is due to these passages here..."

Its all about overall narrative - always - "All Scripture," 2 Tim. 3:16.

A Scriptural answer would cite what passages we supposedly base what we assert on, followed by passages showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.

Instead, all we get from you is this same old, incessant rant against this dead man named John Nelson Darby as if you have some kind of a bordering on a homo-erotic spurned lover kind of a thing against.

Answer the question from Scripture as to those two issues, already.

 

[tetelestai]

A Scriptural answer would cite what passages we supposedly base what we assert on, followed by passages showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.[/COLOR][/B]

When I do what you claim I don't do, you ignore the posts.

Example:

Hebrews tells us that when the priesthood changes, the law changes.

(Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The priesthood did change, and the law did change.

Yet, you think in the future people are going to go back to the old priesthood and the old law.

(Ezekiel 44:15) "'But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign LORD.

You have Levitical priests (old priesthood) offering animal sacrifices (old law) in the future.

 

[patrick jane]

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.

View attachment 19880

 

[Danoh]

When I do what you claim I don't do, you ignore the posts.

Let me try this request again - A Scriptural answer would cite what passages [plural] we supposedly base [basic frame of reference] what we assert what we assert, from, followed by passages [plural] showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.

Passages showing the basic frame of reference we assert...

And passages showing what we assert from said basic frame of reference...

And passages proving your issue with and against both...

That I even have to spell this out to you shows you haven't a clue what you are doing - this is the most basic of Basic Debate 101 and shows you did not understand Dispensationalism those 25 years you supposedly "believed" in it.

What you believed was actually your misunderstanding.

Just as what you could not reconcile was due to your misunderstanding.

Just as your too soon reaching for books supposedly based on Scripture for some help with your confusion, only to resulted in your having ended up mugged by their writers in the dark alley of misdirection that is their endless, Scholastic Mysticism - of what little hope for light you might have had...

Again, a Scriptural answer would cite what passages [plural] we supposedly base [basic frame of reference] what we assert what assert, from, followed by passages [plural] showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.

Passages showing the basic frame of reference we assert...

And passages showing what we assert from said basic frame of reference...

And passages proving your issue with and against both...

 

[Sonnet]

Yes, we agree with you, when your clown act posted this "mind boggling" joke:

“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.


"Everyone" that saw Him, according to Craigie, was Josephus, and Wikipedia. Wait....


Vs.

"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.

Seriously - some say that Christ returned under the guise of the Roman army in 70AD?

 

[Sonnet]

Spam-word for word.


Preterist Perverter Craigie/Gomer's "logic:"

"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.


Shazam, Gomer Tet.

Why so much ad hominem john w?

 

[Sonnet]

The reason we see partial fulfillment in some cases is because the "dispensation of the mystery" has interrupted the prophetic program of God.

Could you explain that please - "dispensation of the mystery"?

 

[patrick jane]

Why so much ad hominem john w?

i though that when i first got here - a head's up, pay attention and read some previous posts in threads to get an idea of the debate/discussion

saint john w the great and humble is a giant of TOL - he protects the sheep; give it time and you'll see - i taught him his good qualities - :cigar:

 

[patrick jane]

Seriously - some say that Christ returned under the guise of the Roman army in 70AD?

yes - Tetelestai says it - Preterism - it's a journey in time -

 

[Sonnet]

Never said that.

Which is why you didn't use the quote tag.

Jesus didn't morph into the Roman army, or return in the "form" of a Roman army.

When Christ Jesus said He would return upon a cloud, I specifically showed how it was OT terminology used in Isaiah 19:1

(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt....

We know from the above verse that the Lord did not literally ride a cloud into Egypt. It was the Assyrian army that invaded Egypt and wrecked havoc on the Egyptians.

Same thing happened from 66AD - 70AD. The Lord didn't literally come in a cloud, it was the Roman army that invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, while killing over a million Jews (those that pierced him)

A worthy point - but isn't there a big difference between Isaiah 19, where there is no explicit statement that the Lord is seen and Matthew 24 (which does)?

Matthew 24:22-30
“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. “Immediately after the distress of those days “ ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Matthew even warns against seeing false Christs - that they will and actually perform great signs and wonders.

 

[Nazaroo]

A worthy point - but isn't there a big difference between Isaiah 19, where there is no explicit statement that the Lord is seen and Matthew 24 (which does)?

Matthew 24:22-30
“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. “Immediately after the distress of those days “ ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Matthew even warns against seeing false Christs - that they will and actually perform great signs and wonders.

Yes, my question too:

Are we STILL to treat all these prophecies as metaphors,

When we've actually historically experienced things like
the Inquisition (Whore of Babylon) and
Adolf Hitler (Anti-Christ)?

If these things don't fulfill prophecies what does?

 

[Danoh]

What these gainsayers fail to consider is how often throughout Israel's history, the LORD would allow a foreign power to ride roughshod over Israel for its disobedience.

And that, in contrast to those times when He by His Own Hand would wipe people out through one angel wiping out an entire military force over night, through one of His prophets stopping the sun, and so on.

And it is clear in Matthew through Acts that the former of those two is what the LORD relates doing - His abandoning them in His wrath to their own path once more.

That, at the same time that He also relates in Acts 1:11 "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Where we see instances of each, the Preterist one size fits it all once more, from his one size fits all as "past already."

 

[Sonnet]

Yes, my question too:

Are we STILL to treat all these prophecies as metaphors,

When we've actually historically experienced things like
the Inquisition (Whore of Babylon) and
Adolf Hitler (Anti-Christ)?

If these things don't fulfill prophecies what does?

Indeed. Zechariah 14 is a good one.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.