Sonnet
New member
And it's interesting that Acts 1:11 occurs on the mount of Olives and so ties in with Zech 14.
The Preterists and Matthew 24:34
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
And it's interesting that Acts 1:11 occurs on the mount of Olives and so ties in with Zech 14.
As expected, you have no explanation for David's Tent.
So, you're claiming that if a prophet gives a literal prophecy, every single other prophecy from that prophet has to also be literal? Likewise for a metaphorical prophecy?
(Isaiah 11:1-2)
1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
As we see above, verse 1 is metaphorical, as Christ Jesus was not literally a shoot from a literal stump from Jesse's literal roots (Jesse didn't literally have roots, and wasn't literally a stump), and Christ Jesus wasn't literally a branch that bore literal fruit.
But then in verse 2, everything is literal.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What is the "covenant" spoken of in that verse?
You didn't answer this:
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.
vs.
"Seriously - some say that Christ returned under the guise of the Roman army in 70AD?"-you
Got it. Thanks for checkin' in.
You have no explanation, as expected, to my question:
Was David's tent "man made," sweetie?
As I predicted he would say-"You really think that (fill in the blank) is literal?"
Sophistry. Deceit, as he asserts just the opposite: everything is figurative, an allegory, a hyperbole, and can thus "prove" anything he wants.
No, punk, the "default" presupposition/assumption, is literal, not "figurative, an allegory, a hyperbole," as you spam. That is how rational, reasonable people approach interpreting the book, vs. your mysticism. Your approach necessitates that the resurrection is merely "figurative, allegorical, a hyperbole," and perverts the gospel of Christ, and you get "steam rolled" by non believers, that believe that there is no such thing as the physical(by definition) rising of the dead.
Last edited:
In the above, a literal [the coming Lord] is communicated via a metaphor.
Said literal is then conveyed directly, or literally, in the verses that follow.
Its metaphor aspect is even possible because said metaphor itself is comprised of imagery of the literal - imagery of literal stumps, roots, branches, fruit...
Then, the literal said metaphor is actually conveying through its imagery of a literal stump, root, branch, fruit is expanded on in the verses that follow.
Why the use of metaphor to begin with?
Because a picture being worth a thousand words, it is a useful as a means of conveying an understanding through said "picture" that is "easy to be understood."
Your problem is that, were you to be discussing some problem at work with a co-worker; should they respond with "you know how it is; you can't fight city hall," you'd fail to see said figure of speech for what it is, let alone that it was meant to convey, through the imagery of one, hopefully shared sense of a literal reality, another literal reality.
Your problem is that, where some might see the half-full as the half-full part of the whole; the other being the half-empty, all you and yours can see is either the half empty, or the half full.
Ours is Dispensational in that Dispensationalism is Distinctions - is both the half full and the half empty.
Yours is the one size fits all that ever blinds you from being able to see the one or the other half.
Not surprisingly, you will respond to this post from this very malady of yours.
His might not be so much deceit alone.
It appears his is also self-deceit concluded truth.
Which he then rationalizes when it becomes obvious to him he might be better off hearing another out.
His stance taken; his pride at stake; he cannot but rationalize his error.
His is actually an autobiography of his same practice back when he was "a Dispensationalist for 25 years."
He never really settled certain issues; never knowing how to approach solving for them.
So, off he ran to the exact means of why he had been unable to solve for his issues with Dispensationalism - more books - this time, the equally faulty reasoning that's been the opposing view.
The fool traded in one faulty system for another.
For that is what a high portion of writings on Dispensationalism are as well - a system of reasoning through a thing before the refining process needed was allowed to go a bit further along, nevertheless allowed too soon, to be turned into the mode of reasoning into a thing.
Fact is, that even within Acts 9 Dispensationalism, very few have reached its refined process of studying a thing out, not bogged down by the "Dispensational" hermeneutic.
I myself am not there. I see it before me now, at the same time that I find, still further, refining aspects that my own understanding often gets in the way of.
That Tel, could ever hope to see even this much, well, that is a mile of a step between a pier and a ship. As the fool is ever found having missed and sinking fast each time out.
Sonnet
New member
Eh?
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
Yes, obviously not literal...but Zech 14's specificity is clearly not a metaphor. Why mention the splitting of the mount of Olives? Why mention Him standing on such mount when Acts 1 says He will return there?
Sonnet
New member
Acts 1 and Zechariah 14 correspond - so why make it symbolic?
"Why so much ad hominem john w?"-you
vs.
"Seriously - some say that Christ returned under the guise of the Roman army in 70AD?"-you
Got it. Thanks for checkin' in.
Because of his AD 70/Roman army was the second coming jazz, sport. Pay attention.
(Zech 14:8) On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter.
Dispensationalists claim the above is literal.
First off, it would be literally impossible for a river to flow east from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and west to the Mediterranean Sea because of the elevations.
Secondly, Christ Jesus said the following:
(John 7:38) Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."
What is "living water"?
We are told in the next verse:
(John 7:39) By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.....
So, the "living water" in Zech 14 that flows out of Jerusalem is not literally two rivers, it is the Holy Spirit, and the prophecy has been fulfilled.
The New Covenant.
The New Covenant is the Covenant Christ Jesus made.
You're nuts if you think some antichrist is going to make a covenant with Jews in the future.
However, since you have a Sir Robert Anderson avatar, that's probably what you believe.
The first part you bolded says "then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven". This part doesn't say anything about actually seeing Jesus, it says there will a sign OF the Son of Man.
If it was actually Jesus Himself that they were to see in heaven, then there would be no need for a sign.
The second part says they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory.
This is the same OT symbolism found in Isaiah 19. In Isaiah 19 God rode a swift cloud into Egypt.
As for the "sign" of the Son of Man in heaven, Josephus wrote of a star in the shape of a sword, or a comet that didn't move, that hung over Jerusalem for one year in 66AD.
All Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled.
You do know that Jews are Anti-Christ?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Isaiah 65?