The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[Jerry Shugart]

Let's look at what John said in the Revelation:

(Rev 20:5-6) (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection....

Here Paul is just speaking of the two prophesised resurrections. Here we can see similar language:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second" (Heb.8:7).​

here the words "first covenant" are describing the covenant of the Law and in fact it was not the first covenant. Instead, it was the first of the two covenants which were the subject of the discussion.

And the "first resurrection" spoken of at Revelation was only the first resurrection of the two being discussed at Revelation 20:5-6.

Daniel's 70 weeks were specific to the Jews, no one else. That is not Dispensationalism.

When was the 70th week of Daniel fulfilled?:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Dan.9:24).​

When did an end of sins come to Daniel's city, Jerusalem?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Darby's type of dividing was 2P2P which does not exist in the Bible.

First people of God and First Program

First we see that in the OT the children of Israel were "above all people that are upon the face of the earth:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut.7:6).​

According to the OT prophecies the Gentiles will hasten to Israel because they will see that the LORD has endowed her with splendor:

"Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor" (Isa.55:3).​

According to the OT prophecies the houses of Israel and Judah will be a blessing and Gentiles will come to the knowledge of the LORD through the agency of the Jews:

"And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:13,23).​

Second People of God and Second Program

Today there are no special people of God except those in the New Man, the Body of Christ, where there is neither Greek nor Jew:

"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Col.3:10-11).​

We can also see that it is through Israel's fall that salvation has come to the Gentiles:

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Ro.11:11-12).​

Today it is those in the Body of Christ who have been given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation":

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor.5:18-21).​

This proves conclusively that during history there has been two people of God as well as two programs.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

(Zech 1:3) Therefore tell the people: This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Return to me,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the Lord Almighty.

Sounds conditional to me.

There is nothing here that even hints that it might or might not happen:

"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. Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem" (Zech.14:2-4).​

If this verse was conditional, then we would read:

"Then the Lord might go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet might stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem."​

That is not what is said so you must try to pervert the meaning of what is said in those verses because your faulty eschatology has no place for the fulfillment of this verse!

 

[musterion]

To all,
stick to reactions to propositions, not to people.

The apostle Paul named names. So do we. Don't like it, don't participate in the thread.

 

[Danoh]

And I am pointing out that you said even in this post "was specific to christian Jews",,(so you agree that they are not meant for the Jews who denied Jesus) which is "DARBY 101",,,"RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD AND APPLY THEM TO WHO THEY ARE SPOKEN",,,

Then you go even further you say that Genuineoriginal claimed the tribulation to the Jews who were killed before ww2 fulfilled this prophecy (so again you separate out the things spoken to the Jews that apply only to them) This is the only thing I agree with you on that is the Jews in ww2 did not go to their grave "for Jesus names sake"(Matthew 24:9 KJV) they went to the grave believing that Jesus was NOT the true Messiah,so hence they went to their grave "for the false Messiah's names sake",,,

So in everything you say you divide the words spoken to One(Jews) and say they only apply to them,and then you take the things spoken to the other(B.O.C.) and say they only apply the them.

Now you may have a great dislike for Darby,,,but is it by accident that you say the same things about dividing the the things spoken into the groups they are given and applying them to reason? That is you are in fact doing the very thing Darby suggested if you do,it's Darby 101. At first you see there were no chapters,verses ect. in the scriptures. As time went on to make it easier to discuss certain scriptures they were added.

Some didn't like adding the verses and chapters at first but today we ask for the verse and chapter and see it as a great help. Again in disp. we divide the things spoken into the groups to which they are spoken but we are scorned for it. You do it also by accident not catching yourself as you do it as if you are an neophyte, "Tet,the Neophyte of dispys",,,,

That is because he is one of those individuals in all these discussions all over the net unwilling to admit that even he has to note distinctions between things even as he himself finds himself forced to note some of them.

The guy is just plain, outright dishonest.

He is not alone in that, though. His willful denial of these distinctions even as he is forced to go by some of them himself, is evident throughout the Scriptures all the way back to when the Adversary, also in his pride and knowing own agenda, blinded himself to the need for distinctions between things; as revealed by his "I will be like the Most High."

This is exactly why John W gives the guy the hard time he does. Because the guy brings it on himself in his consistent dishonesty.

Lol, your turn John W.

 

[Danoh]

To all,
stick to reactions to propositions, not to people.

Darby's type of dividing was 2P2P which does not exist in the Bible. he thought there was unfinished business to be completed with Israel, which there is not. His movement was part of trying to reconcile hostilities between Protestants and Catholics over whether the Pope was AC. Commendable, but not if it shifts what the NT said, which did not say the Pope was AC.

Uh, Darby is, er, um, "people."

 

[whitestone]

Er, no.

The Christian Jews who lived in Judaea were part of the BOC.

If there were any Christians living in Judaea at the time who were not formerly Jews, the warnings by Jesus applied to them also. Likewise Christians (whether former Jews or not) were told not to go to Judaea.

Daniel's 70 weeks were specific to the Jews, no one else. That is not Dispensationalism.

And here you've done it again,,,,

(group 1) take the things said that apply to those who are christian and put them in their group,,,

(group 2) take all the things that are "specific to the Jews" and put them in their group

,,,,Tet,not that I'm not enjoying this but Jerry I believe is making progress "I can see the results",,,so I'll not distract you from giving him your full attention,,,,

 

[whitestone]

That is because he is one of those individuals in all these discussions all over the net unwilling to admit that even he has to note distinctions between things even as he himself finds himself forced to note some of them.

The guy is just plain, outright dishonest.

He is not alone in that, though. His willful denial of these distinctions even as he is forced to go by some of them himself, is evident throughout the Scriptures all the way back to when the Adversary, also in his pride and knowing own agenda, blinded himself to the need for distinctions between things; as revealed by his "I will be like the Most High."

This is exactly why John W gives the guy the hard time he does. Because the guy brings it on himself in his consistent dishonesty.

Lol, your turn John W.

It is heartbreaking to see some of the things people say and do. Once Nickm said "from the heart the thing one believes comes up and out of their mouth,in this case our keyboards"(he worded it something like that,lol),,,but it's so true!

The thing that brings me to tears is when they say "Jesus saved me",,and then they argue that there are things they need to do to be saved. They don't realize that if they actually believed he saved them,,,saying "Jesus save me!!" denies it,,,,

 

[Danoh]

It is heartbreaking to see some of the things people say and do. Once Nickm said "from the heart the thing one believes comes up and out of their mouth,in this case our keyboards"(he worded it something like that,lol),,,but it's so true!

The thing that brings me to tears is when they say "Jesus saved me",,and then they argue that there are things they need to do to be saved. They don't realize that if they actually believed he saved them,,,saying "Jesus save me!!" denies it,,,,

Yeah; I used to be on this one forum where I was once banned for posting for a few days by a moderator who's tag line was "Jesus forgive me!"

I'd told some guy he was siding with the Adversary in his every slander against all Dispys - such wording, a political no, no on that sight, so they banned my butt for a couple of days, lol

I took it with a grain of salt until... I'm looking at the guy's tag line who let me know he had banned me and thinking "this guy banned me; who doesn't even have that much settled; this guy is a moderator?"

Needless to say, I eventually moved on...might as well let some fool; lost and on his way to hell, Roman Catholic Priest determining what words are "not allowed in the [so called] sanctuary..."

 

[Interplanner]

Musterion,
so the board of the NIV is incorrect with "will certainly not pass away"?

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
you can't read. the comment was about Darby's type of dividing. Go back and read. it was not about him or how he shaved or treated his wife.

 

[Interplanner]

Musterion,
whatever Paul said was about their behavior and to protect his people whom he would see. We do not see behavior, except rudeness here, and we won't see the other person's followers. There is only a display of immaturity if you can't think of a reason to refute the person and attack them.

 

[Interplanner]

What happened to Musterion's post about the IF particle in mt 24:34? It had a thumbnail of some interlinear pages. There are no variations of 'ei' in that verses original, and no text notes in Metgzer's ABS text.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,
you can't read. the comment was about Darby's type of dividing. Go back and read. it was not about him or how he shaved or treated his wife.

You are clueless about "Darby's type of dividing,"

According to you and yours, it is about him and his supposed agenda going in.

Your posts here, will prove over time that such is the case, just as they have proven that such is the case elsewhere on the net.

Fact is your mind was blinded by your idol, Stout's inventions and their like, some forty plus years ago.

You will bring nothing to this table but your same old, tired, warped, sound bytes.

I suggest you ignore my posts. For you're only going to continue your same old nonsense; I am only going to continue to call you on it; and we are going to get nowhere.

You forget, I never saw you lay out anything but one of your fool, one size fits all sound-bytes.

If you wish to avoid that; lets have some Scripture laid out - not your tired old forty years + in the Greek; of Josephus; Jewish wars, and your idol; Stout's readings into Scripture - all in one nice and neat sound byte in your delusion you have said something - parrots do not fair well on this forum.

 

[musterion]

What happened to Musterion's post about the IF particle in mt 24:34? It had a thumbnail of some interlinear pages.

Still on page 1 of this thread, as well as where I reposted them.

There are no variations of 'ei' in that verses original, and no text notes in Metgzer's ABS text.

What are you talking about? The particle is an, the mood is subjunctive.

 

[john w]

Darby, and Darby followers, have to use OT prophecies to make their claim.

Most of the OT passages Darby used to make his claim were already fulfilled when the Jews were taken captive to Babylon, or when the Jews returned from Babylon.

You see that all the time here on TOL. Darby followers constantly post OT prophecies that were already fulfilled, and claim they are the yet future.

It's very seldom you will see a Darby follower quote prophecies from the NT to defend their claim that God is going to pick up his unfinished business with fleshly Israel.

As I predicted-that's all this mutt has.

 

[tetelestai]

And here you've done it again,,,,

(group 1) take the things said that apply to those who are christian and put them in their group,,,

(group 2) take all the things that are "specific to the Jews" and put them in their group

,,,,Tet,not that I'm not enjoying this but Jerry I believe is making progress "I can see the results",,,so I'll not distract you from giving him your full attention,,,,

You're wrong again.

There are things that apply to people under the Old Covenant and things that apply to people under the New Covenant.

Darby was unable to understand this, so Darby created a demarcation line between Israel and the church.

In order for Darby's demarcation line to exist, Darby had to invent the rapture and his secret parenthetical dispensation.

 

[tetelestai]

What happened to Musterion's post about the IF particle in mt 24:34? It had a thumbnail of some interlinear pages. There are no variations of 'ei' in that verses original, and no text notes in Metgzer's ABS text.

It's been refuted.

Mark 13:30 says basically the same exact thing as Matt 24:34, but does not have the Greek particle "an" in it.

So, musterion's stupid subjunctive mood theory has no basis.

 

[tetelestai]

Still on page 1 of this thread, as well as where I reposted them.

What are you talking about? The particle is an, the mood is subjunctive.

(Mark 13:30 KJV) Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Why are you even still talking about your "an" theory when it has been totally refuted by Mark 13:30?

All this shows is how dishonest you really are.

Unless you can show a subjunctive mood in Mark 13:30, your theory is worthless.

 

[tetelestai]

And the "first resurrection" spoken of at Revelation was only the first resurrection of the two being discussed at Revelation 20:5-6.

Jerry, your posts are embarrassing.

There are two resurrections. One for believers and one for unbelievers.

Luke tells us of the resurrection of the righteous:

(Luke 14:14) and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

John tells us of the two resurrections:

(John 5:29) and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Rev 20: 4-5 makes it clear that the unbelievers were resurrected before the thousand years, and the unbelievers are resurrected when the thousand years is over.

Yet, you claim there are three resurrections.

Which one of your three resurrections is Luke referring to in Luke 14:14?