The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[steko]

They all have one thing in common.

They all use Darby's made up "rapture".

Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away[harpazo] Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Act 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

caught away- harpazo

Whether one uses the words 'caught away', 'snatched up', 'rapture', or any other descriptive term, the meaning is the same and the event is Scriptural.

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up[harpazo] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

It wasn't Darby which placed the word 'harpazo' in the text, it was the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul.

Why would one who claims to be a believer discourage other believers from comforting one another with the words which the Lord promises?
It seems rather underhanded to me.
Must be a Prety thing.

 

[tetelestai]

All the preterists do is to try to change the meaning of the Greek words kosmos and oikoumene to mean Israel.

Jerry, we have been through this before.

Luke 21:21 proves you wrong.

(Luke 21:21) Then let them which are in Judaea 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.

As we see above, Jesus only warns those in Judaea. He also tells them not to go to Judaea.

 

[tetelestai]

Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away[harpazo] Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Act 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

caught away- harpazo

Whether one uses the words 'caught away', 'snatched up', 'rapture', or any other descriptive term, the meaning is the same and the event is Scriptural.

Nope.

Scripture doesn't have Jesus secretly snatching away believers and leaving unbelievers left behind.

Only Darby followers claim such nonsense.

Why would one who claims to be a believer discourage other believers from comforting one another with the words which the Lord promises?

I comfort believers. I tell them that when they die they are instantly in the presence of the Lord.

You guys on the other hand, have to come up with soul sleep and all kinds of other wild stories.

It seems rather underhanded to me.
Must be a Prety thing.

Do you realize how foolish you look every time you give two meanings to the phrase "The Coming of the Lord"?

Sometimes you claim "The Coming of the Lord" means the rapture, and other times you claim "The Coming of the Lord" means when He comes after your rapture.

In fact, the phrase "Coming of the Lord" is found three times in Thessalonians, and you guys claim two times it refers to the rapture, but the other time it refers to when Jesus allegedly returns after your alleged rapture.

Don't you realize how stupid that sounds?

 

[steko]

Tet, please don't accuse me of believing in 'soul-sleep'.
I've told you before. I do not.

 

[tetelestai]

If the rapture could not occur until certain things happened first then no one would be eagerly waithing for His return until those things happened.

The reason you're so confused is because there is no such thing as the "rapture".

Which is why you have to make "The Coming of the Lord" mean two different events.

 

[tetelestai]

Tet, please don't accuse me of believing in 'soul-sleep'.
I've told you before. I do not.

Then where do believers go who die today?

Where do these believers go until your alleged rapture takes place?

 

[steko]

Then where do believers go who die today?

Where do these believers go until your alleged rapture takes place?

It seems that you have a memory problem. We've been over this before.
You're like the atheist who brings up objections and when effectively answered continues to bring up the same objections again and again, like it never happened before.

Believers go to be in the presence of the Lord at the point of physical death.
Now....stick this in your memory files.
Steko does not believe in the false Adventist/JW doctrine of 'soul-sleep'.

 

[Danoh]

It seems that you have a memory problem. We've been over this before.
You're like the atheist who brings up objections and when effectively answered continues to bring up the same objections again and again, like it never happened before.

Believers go to be in the presence of the Lord at the point of physical death.
Now....stick this in your memory files.
Steko does not believe in the false Adventist/JW doctrine of 'soul-sleep'.

Tel's incessant slander and goading, cannot but bring out the worst in people.

No passage will sway him; his agenda clearly some motive other than exploring these issues honestly even if we might differ on some things.

You should just ignore him.

Aaron; who shares many of his same views, is a much better example of someone at least civil; and far more examining of his own views.

Leave the hypocrite to JW.

 

[tetelestai]

It seems that you have a memory problem. We've been over this before.

You're like the atheist who brings up objections and when effectively answered continues to bring up the same objections again and again, like it never happened before.



Believers go to be in the presence of the Lord at the point of physical death.

Now....stick this in your memory files.

Steko does not believe in the false Adventist/JW doctrine of 'soul-sleep'.

How do believers go to be in the presence of the Lord when you don't have them being resurrected until your rapture?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The reason you're so confused is because there is no such thing as the "rapture".

You must enjoy demonstrating your ignorance because you do it all the time. The word "rapture" came from the Latin Vulgate and it answers to the words "caught up":

"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" (1 Thess.4:17; KJV).​

"deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cvm illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cvm Domino erimus" (1 Thess.4:17; Vulgate).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Tet, please don't accuse me of believing in 'soul-sleep'.
I've told you before. I do not.

As I am sure you noticed, the only way that tet can win an argument on this thread is by misrepresenting the beliefs of others.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Luke 21:21 proves you wrong.

(Luke 21:21) Then let them which are in Judaea 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.

As we see above, Jesus only warns those in Judaea. He also tells them not to go to Judaea.

The discussion was in regard to what will happen after the great tribulation is over:

Here we see that signs will be seen in the sky AFTER the great 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).​

And the following passage describes men reacting to those signs in the sky and being in fear of things which will be coming on a much larger area than Israel, and which will take place after the great tribulation is 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)" (Lk.21:25-26).​

There was never a large harvest that happened on a large mass of land after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.

Well know preterist author Gary DeMar had this to say about the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene:

"The case can be made that 'oikoumene' is used exclusively for the geographical area generally limited to the Roman empire of the first-century and the territories immediately adjacent which were known and accessible to first-century travelers. When first-century Christians read the word 'oikoumene,' they thought of what they knew of their world" [emphasis mine] (Gary DeMar, "The Gospel Preached to All the World, Part 3 of 4; The Preterist Archive).​

We can also see that there will be a world wide judgment at the end of the age because He compares that with the world wide flood:

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Mt.24:37-39).​

That judgment was not limited to just a part of the world but instead to the whole earth. And that is why the Lord Jesus compares His coming to the Noah's flood.

And that is exactly why the Lord Jesus said the following:

"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:34-35).​

All the preterists do is to try to change the meaning of the Greek words kosmos and oikoumene to mean Israel.

The trouble with this is the fact that no Greek experts agrees with their definition (and not even their own, Gary DeMar). The other problem is the fact that both of these Greek words apply to events which will happen after the great tribulation is over. History speaks of no such events that happened after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

You answered NOTHING about this.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nowhere in the NT does it say Jesus comes back to planet earth.

What about the OT? Who is being spoken of here:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (Job.19:25-26).​

 

[steko]

How do believers go to be in the presence of the Lord when you don't have them being resurrected until your rapture?

Paul and Peter agree that this body is a house, a tent, a tabernacle in which I(my soul/spirit) dwells and to depart from this body is to be present with the LORD. I will abide there in cognizant spirit until the future resurrection of my physical body.
Philosophically, I am a 'body/soul dualist' and I believe that Scripture supports this position.

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
2Co 5:3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
2Co 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
2Co 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


Php 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
Php 1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Php 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

2Pe 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
2Pe 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

 

[steko]

Tel's incessant slander and goading, cannot but bring out the worst in people.

No passage will sway him; his agenda clearly some motive other than exploring these issues honestly even if we might differ on some things.

You should just ignore him.

Aaron; who shares many of his same views, is a much better example of someone at least civil; and far more examining of his own views.

Leave the hypocrite to JW.

I do ignore him most of the time. We have a history.
Sometimes, I enter the discussion, for the lack of any other topic that interests me. I'm really not torn up about it, though it may appear so, at times.

 

[Interplanner]

For Shugart,
There is a simple observation about the NT that can clear up a lot about relating 1st century Judean events with worldwide events: the worldwide events were indeed expected right after the great revolt in Judea, but with the allowance that there could be a delay.

If everyone would read the Mt 24 material with that in mind, even though there similarities in remarks about how to be prepared for both, it will really help. There is no mixing. 99% of eschatological debate is due to thinking that there is mixing. There is no mixing. There was nothing worldwide in the Judean event, and there is nothing about modern israel as such in the distant future as referred to by the NT.

this has lead me to realize that:
1, 2 pet 3 was written to explain such a delay. Otherwise 'coming' there must default to the 1st coming. I don't think that's what he meant.
2, NT eschatology basically has this dynamic: it is either about the 1st century in Judea OR about the whole world at some future point, as we now know. The judgement of the whole world could have taken place right after, but did not.

re the question of the whole earth and the Gospel getting to the whole earth, Paul said twice that it had.

 

[steko]

As I am sure you noticed, the only way that tet can win an argument on this thread is by misrepresenting the beliefs of others.

Yes, I have noticed that he does that.
Usually, he broad-brushes Dispensationalists, not recognizing or acknowledging distinctions among us.

 

[rocketman]

I do ignore him most of the time. We have a history.
Sometimes, I enter the discussion, for the lack of any other topic that interests me. I'm really not torn up about it, though it may appear so, at times.

It does get rather ho-hum to engage in the musings of the extreme minority view of scripture, and a false view to boot.

 

[john w]

They all have one thing in common.

They all use Darby's made up "rapture".

The punk is getting bloodied, so he resorts to his "Darby" spam.




" That's not my argument.I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."-Tet.


“I never said it was wrong for how old it is.”-Tet.

Vs.

"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.


The Preterist Preverter, clown, never will comment on this lie of his, one of many.


Right, Craigie?


And he refuses to take me on, not responding to my posts, afraid of me, excepting to say his spam, prefaced with, "Er, no, Johnny," because he knows that I have "the goods on him," exposing him for the habitual liar, and clown that he is.

 

[john w]

Tel's incessant slander and goading, cannot but bring out the worst in people.

No passage will sway him; his agenda clearly some motive other than exploring these issues honestly even if we might differ on some things.

You should just ignore him.

Aaron; who shares many of his same views, is a much better example of someone at least civil; and far more examining of his own views.

Leave the hypocrite to JW.

He's a demonic, lying punk, caught in contradiction/lies, a hypocrite/actress, accusing dispensational proponents of doctrines with which we never have supported, and wining, in deceit, how those mean old dispies "Don't answer.................", wining, "Don't you believe the bible/'Jesus', Paul............?", when he knows that he has been answered, hundreds of times, and, in sophistry, accuses others of following "Darby..................(fill in the blank)," "the inventions of men," when the lying punk knows very well, that everyone follows someone elses' teachings, as commanded by the scriptures, and denying that he follows others' teachings, which is a satanic lie.