Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, there is nothing found in Peter's words which speak of an "immediate" return of the Lord Jesus.
The Preterists and Matthew 24:34
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
No, there is nothing found in Peter's words which speak of an "immediate" return of the Lord Jesus.
You aint talkin' to a jerk, ya know, Mayor! I prefer Ang's:
1. Call
2. the
3. man!
And I "corrected" your post, as your "the originals" on your keypad, were "revised," deleting:
"4. Head on over to Thelma Lou's..."
The "best computer manuscripts of your screen" also had "That's the plan..."
See Mark 16.....
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Well, you see saint john, they found the original manuscripts from 1962 for this episode in Desilu studios...and they did not include "head on over to Thelma Lou's".
Aaron the Tall
Member
limited time now - but I'll get back to you later
It appears the sense is that verse 26’s end of the world, is a reference; not to the end of all ages, rather; to the end of prior ones; of their culmination in the one the writer of Hebrews is living in and writing about only.
Hebrews chapter 9:
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
He also goes on to relate that there is an age after the one in which he is writing; an age in which the Lord, Who appeared “once” to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, “unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
In fact, he began with all that in mind.
Hebrews 1:
1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
There it is again – this time an actual reference to "sundry times," as well as to a “time past” implied in chapter 9, verse 26.
He then goes on to refer to his own time – “hath in these last days.”’
Then, in Hebrews 2, we read he following:
1. Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
2. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
5. For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
It appears the writer of Hebrews expects an age to come at some point after the one he is describing in which Christ appeared “once.”
Clearly there is more to the writer of Hebrew’s own sense of these ages – Hebrews 13:14’s “For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come” is another one of these passages indicating that he was referring to both, the culmination of prior ages, but also, of ages to come after his own.
The Apostle Paul's own sense of these ages to come, comes to mind - 1 Thessalonians 4's:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Ephesians 2's:
7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Aaron the Tall
Member
I have a non-rhetorical question that I really don't know the answer to.
Since Jesus was saying the Kingdom of God was at hand and telling people to repent - do you think it was possible for the Jews to receive the Kingdom at that time during Jesus' ministry?
If the whole nation would have repented, what would the result have been?
Would Jesus have started to rule and reign from Jerusalem right then and there?
Would that have meant Jesus wouldn't have been crucified if they repented and believed?
and now some rhetorical questions:
Wasn't it necessary for the Jews to reject Jesus in order for him to be crucified?
If it wasn't in God's plan for the Jews to accept Jesus during his lifetime, was it a lie for Jesus to preach that the Kingdom of God was at hand?
Well, Mayor, Desi Arnaz was the creative force behind "I dig Lucy," and TAG, and that included writing the subject episode re. "that's the plan..." And he was a womanizer, like King James, so you can't trust what he wrote, you see, well,uh, urr,.....Wait....What was the topic, again? Oh, yes,.... "We, the...."
And, in "the English," the "original ms" had "Imafixinta head on over to Juanita's....Sweet, Nete...."
I'm running out of material here again, Mayor...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, saint john, Desi had originally planned to make the show about a hispanic Sheriff and deputy.
Andrejo Griffio and Bernardo Fifiguez.
You beat everything, you know that? Oh, boy, you're just full of fun today, aren't ya, Mayor? Next, you'll be telling us that "cousin" in the "original ms," referring to Andy as Barney's cousin, in the first few episodes, in "The Cottonpatch English," actually meant "friend," which explains why Barney was asking Ang, after getting smashed at Jubel Foster's, "Are you my friend, Andy?"
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You are correct saint john.
Just like Rome says that "brother" in the "original greek" could mean a cousin..."cousin" in Southern Plantation English can mean "buddy" or "partner in crime".
Its clear that had the lost sheep of the house of Israel repented, they would have had to offer Him as a sacrifice in obedience rather than in the disobedience they had Him crucified under.
Further, they would have then had to reach out to those other sheep not of their fold; the balance of the Twelve Tribes, in Judaea and Samaria, as well as those scattered throughout their then ends of the world.
They would then have had to endure His wrath to come per their Covenant with the LORD, after which, He would have returned to restore again the kingdom to Israel that they might then be His witnesses and Royal Priesthood singing praises unto His name among the Gentiles.
Be honest; did you expect this to be laid out this solved for?
I ask that, only that you consider where you look at things from. For as you yourself implied, you had no answer to this.
Though, feel free to seek what holes in it you might find. I like the challenge of such things for what they force me to have to consider some things through to their logical end, as that will often, either give me greater clarity on other things, or cause me to consider them in light of questions like the ones you posed here.
Thanks, for that; by the way.
There is also the question of what about the Mystery the Apostle was actually talking about, lol
And that explains why the inclusion of the line, which was a "later edition,"That's one subject you just can't talk enough about: sin," by TAGS scribes/writers, reflecting their Roman Catholicism background/influence. I heard that was one of the reasons Barn never had Thel over at the boarding house.
I think we just about exhausted this subject, Mayor, as both of us are now spamming a few "Hail Mary's," and sound "as dry as dust." You reckon?
Poor Horatio...................
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course they were aware of the following prophecy which states that all of the house of Israel and all of the house of Judah would have their sins forgiven and be saved:
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah... And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31,34).
The kingdom had not yet been set up on the earth so no one was in that kingdom when the Lord Jesus walked the earth.
"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit" (Mt.21:43).
The Lord was addressing the chief priests and Pharisees and when the kingdom will be set up on the earth then the Twelve will reign over the nation of Israel:
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt.19:28).
Again, the Lord Jesus words in the Olivet Discourse were in answer to the disciples question about what will happen at "the end of the age" (Mt.24:3). And He said that at that time there will be a world wide harvest:
"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).
Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age." He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world" (kosmos).
Of course there has never been a world wide harvest where all the unrighteous were taken out of the world. But you say:
That does not explain why the Lord Jesus would speak of a harvest where the field in the world (kosmos).
Well known preterist Gary Demar wrote this:
"The first rule of Bible interpretation is understanding a text in terms of its original setting and audience, always asking the question, "How would those who first picked up copies of the gospels and epistles have understood what they were reading?" (DeMar, Limited Geography and Bibical Interpretation).
How would those who first picked up copies of the gospels and epistles have understood what they were reading?
The Greek word translated "world" is kosmos and it means "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race...Mt. xiii. 38" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Gary DeMar knows that the word kosmos refers to the whole inhabited earth, as witnessed by his own words:
"Earlier in his letter to the Colossians, Paul describes how the gospel was 'constantly bearing fruit and increasing in all the world [kosmos]' (1:6). The faith of the Romans was 'being proclaimed throughout the whole world [kosmos]' (Rom. 1: 8), 'to all nations' (16:26)" [emphasis mine] (DeMar, Last Days Madness, 87-88).
According to him the word kosmos has a "more global meaning" and refers to a "universal fulfillment not bound by geography or time":
"It's significant that Matthew uses oikoumene only in 24:14, while he uses kosmos, a word that can have a more global meaning, nine times. In fact, we read later in Matthew's gospel: 'Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world [kosmos], what this woman has done shall also be spoken of in memory of her' (26:13). The Greek construction in the two verses is identical except that in 26:13 kosmos is used for 'world.' Matthew chooses oikoumene over kosmos because he wants to emphasize its local geographical fulfillment within the time frame of 'this generation' in contrast to a universal fulfillment not bound by geography or time as is the obvious case in 26:13" (DeMar, Limited Geography and Bibical Interpretation).
Gary DeMar's understanding of the meaning of the word kosmos is the same meaning that those living in the first century would have put on that word. So they would understand that when the Lord Jesus spoke of the "field" to be harvested being the "world" (kosmos) they would have also understood that at the "end of the age" that a harvest would come upon the whole inhabited earth.
Since that idea completely destroys the preterist position you just deny that the Lord Jesus was speaking of a world wide judgment and that the "field is the world."
genuineoriginal
New member
No, the kingdom could not have come during the time of Jesus' ministry.
The ministry began at the beginning of the seventieth "week" of the prophecy of seventy weeks in Daniel 9. Jesus was crucified in the middle of that "week", and that seven year period would have needed to have been completed before the kingdom would have been established on earth.
They would have fulfilled the requirements of the seventy "weeks" prophecy, and the kingdom would have been restored shortly (within the time of that current generation) after the end of the seventy "weeks", which was probably in the year 36 CE.
Jesus would still have left after He was crucified and then would have returned after being given the kingdom.
By 70 CE, the kingdom would have been established in Jerusalem instead of Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans.
According to the prophesies, Jerusalem would still have been invaded by an army, but Jesus would have returned to save the people from the Gentiles.
No, Jesus would still have been crucified in order to fulfill the prophecies.
The crucifixion provided the blood that confirmed the New Covenant that was promised in Jeremiah 31.
No, Jesus would have been crucified anyway.
God planned what would happen if the Jews accepted Jesus, but God also had a contingency plan for what would happen if the Jews rejected Jesus.
"God also had a contingency plan for what would happen if the Jews rejected Jesus"?
That I am aware of; Scripture doesn't even imply such a contingency plan.
Rather, towards His desire, He had legitimately offered through the Son that if "ye will accept it, this was Elias which was for to come," but in His foreknowledge, He had known that "the Son of man will be rejected, spit upon" and all the rest.
The issue being what God was proving through the Law of Moses - that Israel had so failed to believe Moses, that the height of their disbelief had been, first, their rejection of the Father, in their disobedience of Moses, thus, their rejection and killing of their Prophets, then; their rejection and killing of the Son, again, in their disobedience of Moses, lastly, their blasphemy, in their resistance of the Spirit, followed by beginnings their killing of their own once more; again in their disobedience of Moses.
God, proving through the Law, what He had long since proven of the Gentiles without the Law - that "all have sin and come short of the glory of God" only possible in His Wondrous Son!
Nope. No contingency. None needed but the Son!
Slain from before the foundation of the world!
Done and DONE!
genuineoriginal
New member
"God also had a contingency plan for what would happen if the Jews rejected Jesus"?
That I am aware of; Scripture doesn't even imply such a contingency plan.
Rather, towards His desire, He had legitimately offered through the Son that if "ye will accept it, this was Elias which was for to come," but in His foreknowledge, He had known that "the Son of man will be rejected, spit upon" and all the rest.
The issue being what God was proving through the Law of Moses - that Israel had so failed to believe Moses, that the height of their disbelief had been, first, their rejection of the Father, in their disobedience of Moses, thus, their rejection and killing of their Prophets, then; their rejection and killing of the Son, again, in their disobedience of Moses, lastly, their blasphemy, in their resistance of the Spirit, followed by beginnings their killing of their own once more; again in their disobedience of Moses.
God, proving through the Law, what He had long since proven of the Gentiles without the Law - that "all have sin and come short of the glory of God" only possible in His Wondrous Son!
Nope. No contingency. None needed but the Son!
Slain from before the foundation of the world!
Done and DONE!
Have you turned from Dispensationlism to Calvinism?
musterion
Well-known member
Haven't really thought about it. I'd tend to say yes, even though God knew they would refuse Christ. That, however, does not negate the fact that the Kingdom, and the King, were at hand.
Much different.
I suppose He would.
If they repented and believed, would they have demanded Rome crucify Him?
I think those were rhetorical but we'll let it slide for now.
Yes, given the O.T. prophecies that detail crucifixion, not seeing corruption, etc.
No. It was at hand.
For a time the Chicago Mob had a contract out on Arnez's life; they'd been that offended by his production company's TV show "The Untouchables'" gross exaggeration of Elliot Ness, his supposed Untouchables, and its portrayal of The Chicago Outfit, as bumbling, raging idiots.
It was called off just as the hit squad assigned to the murder reported having clocked Desi's comings and goings to where they could easily take him out.
Peter's audience were not Jews.
The Jews were NEVER told they were "not a people"
Try reading Hosea 1
No, but Jude confirms what Peter warned of did take place in the first century.
Peter said scoffers would come in the last days:
(2 Peter 3:3) Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
Years later, Jude said the following:
(Jude 1:17-19) But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 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 above, Peter spoke of the scoffers in the future tense. Then years later, Jude quoted Peter, to show his audience that Peter's prophecy had come true. Jude speaks in the present tense "these are the people who divide you"
So, Peter said scoffers would come in the last days. Jude quoted Peter to show that the scoffers had come.
This proves that at the time Jude was written (the first century, prior to 70AD), it was the LAST DAYS.