The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[Aaron the Tall]

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.



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?

When do you think the 70th week is fulfilled? When Jesus returns? Will there be any sins after that point?

 

[john w]

Darby invented the rapture.
Nowhere in Christendom will you find any teaching of a rapture before Darby invented it.

Darby also invented the "Secret Parenthetical Dispensation". Darby's "rapture" has to take place for all the "Secret Parenthetical Dispensation" believers to be removed so God can pick back up with the Jews like it's 30AD all over again.

Made up. You've been shown that others asserted the doctrine before Darby. But your third wife, and your father, the devil, keeps telling you to deny, and spam, the above.


Tet, once again, asserts that God the Father, was not God the Father, until it was revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, the earth was flat at one time, and that the LORD God's sacred name, was not His name, until revealed to Moses=when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in act, objective truth.

Satanic.

The habitual liar of TOL's own words:


"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."--habitual liar Wimpy 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.

Disgusting demon.

 

[musterion]

Re: Tet's false claim re: Mark

I've just checked all three harmonized at Biblehub:

1. The text of Mark does not have an but it does include the subjunctive at the same points as Matthew, showing conditionality.

2. The text of Luke, like Matthew, has both an and the subjunctive, also showing conditionality.

I don't know why Mark does not include an while the others did, but all three have the subjunctive. All three writers agree the events Christ foretold were conditional, an or not.

Please see attached.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Did you catch what he did there? Did anyone?

He used Mark to deny Matthew. He doesn't even bother to seek a balance between them. Doesn't interest him in the slightest. He simply punts Matthew because what Mark wrote (so Tet claims, I've not looked into it) supports what he already believes. So Matthew is out.

Bottom line is, he denied Scripture. No truly saved person denies Scripture.

Those of you inclined to agree with Tet on preterism, that's your call. But do not ignore this aspect of Tetelestai's character.

This is exactly why I have him on ignore - he's done this before - but I couldn't help but read your quote of his last ditch, hail Mary attempt (as JohnW would say). It tells you all you need to know about Tetelestai's true view of Scripture...he doesn't really believe it. That means he cannot really, truly, fully trust God (though he'll NEVER admit to any of that). But again...you see for yourself that he lacks the discernment to even care about it. To call him a cult of one would be to give him the credit of sincerity. He is not sincere; he's a leftist who seeks to mislead anyone he can.

Maybe you could address some of the points I made about the problems that ensue from saying the Jews repentance was the conditional aspect of these things taking place.

There is a condition specifically laid out in the Matthew verse - there is no reason to suppose a secret condition.

 

[whitestone]

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.

hey if nothing else your being extremely careful how you word things so I don't call you "tet,the neophyte Darbie",,that is you are the one with the fetish. As for me(I notice you left me out of your list) I'll help here is A.H. book 5.29.1 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html second sentence from the bottom "CHURCH SHALL BE SUDDENLY CAUGHT UP FROM THIS",ect. if you use this link you can click on all the quotes you don't understand about the rapture http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103529.htm ,,,now not that I disapprove of Darby grasping dispensation-ism,,,,but my roots run,way,way deeper than Darby,,,,,

 

[musterion]

On the Mark/Luke graphics I just posted, I circled the wrong notation. "ASM" should be circled as it is arrowed in the Matthew graphic.

Pardon my sloppiness but I'm tired and am going to bed.

 

[musterion]

Maybe you could address some of the points I made about the problems that ensue from saying the Jews repentance was the conditional aspect of these things taking place.

There is a condition specifically laid out in the Matthew verse - there is no reason to suppose a secret condition.

You have nothing to say about what Tetelestai just did?

 

[tetelestai]

You have nothing to say about what Tetelestai just did?

I have shown that Matt 24:32, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 all say the same thing.

It was you who claimed there was a secret condition in Matt 24:34.

I pointed out that your alleged secrete condition (Greek participle "an") is not found in Mark 13:30, and thus proves your theory wrong.

So what did you do? You alleged that I denied scripture, you alleged that I used Mark to deny Matthew, and that I am not saved because I allegedly deny scripture.

You appear to be very angry because your excuse for why Matt 24:34 doesn't really mean what it says, has been refuted.

 

[tetelestai]

As for me(I notice you left me out of your list)

I'm always open to amending my list for reasons Darby followers claim Matt 24:34 doesn't really mean what it says.

Lay it on me.

 

[tetelestai]

(1 Cor 10:11) These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

For some reason, all the Darby followers ignore this.

 

[whitestone]

I'm always open to amending my list for reasons Darby followers claim Matt 24:34 doesn't really mean what it says.

Lay it on me.

click on the links and say,,,,,"Darby isn't the one who invented the rapture theory like I keep saying because men as far back as Irenaeus in 170ad spoke of the same" crawl first,then walk,then run,,,,,

 

[musterion]

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

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

Thank you for acknowledging my "theory" is not worthless.

I am thankful that Tetelestai pressured me (by way of Danoh's quote) into studying this further than I already had. I see now that Mark's passage also indicates that the not-passing-away of "this generation" could not be the condition, as Aaron insists, because Mark's use of the subjunctive indicates that that, too, was conditional. Meaning the "not-passing-away" and "all-these-things-taking place" were BOTH conditioned upon some other factor not mentioned in ANY of these passages. This throws a whole new light on the subject.

 

[tetelestai]

click on the links and say,,,,,"Darby isn't the one who invented the rapture theory like I keep saying because men as far back as Irenaeus in 170ad spoke of the same" crawl first,then walk,then run,,,,,

I've spent hundreds of hours researching Darby's rapture.

No matter how hard Darby followers try, and no matter how hard Darby followers want it to be, there is not one trace of a rapture found in human history before Darby invented it in the mid 1800's.

 

[tetelestai]

...

LOL

You should really do some research on your theory.

Jerry Shugart was just as foolish when he tried to claim "this" was a demonstrative pronoun. I had to show him "this" was a demonstrative adjective. He now claims "generation" really means "family".

I suggest you study purpose clause, third class condition, temporal clause, and relative clause before making your ridiculous claims.

All you are doing is making yourself, and your fellow Darby followers look more foolish than you and they already are.

You probably would look less foolish joining STP's "all these things" only mean one verse, Jerry's "generation" means "family", or the popular "this" really means "that".

BTW, how's that "permignore" working out for you?

 

[whitestone]

I've spent hundreds of hours researching Darby's rapture.

No matter how hard Darby followers try, and no matter how hard Darby followers want it to be, there is not one trace of a rapture found in human history before Darby invented it in the mid 1800's.

lol, in the link I gave you if you notice how many times Irenaeus uses the phrase "caught up",you'll figure out what it means,,,what do you think it means "the Christians saw Jesus coming and got so excited they got all tangled up in the clouds trying to get to him"?

 

[tetelestai]

This throws a whole new light on the subject.

:rotfl:

What it does is show how desperate you really are.

 

[musterion]

JohnW,

Except for finding his Mark 13:30 challenge, I still have Tet on Ignore, where he will remain. I do see that he's posting actively. Is he flailing wildly again?

 

[tetelestai]

lol, in the link I gave you if you notice how many times Irenaeus uses the phrase "caught up"

Um....he uses the phrase ONCE in Book V, chp 29, which is the link you provided, and it has nothing to do with Darby's rapture.

Irenaeus said the following:

"..but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord's advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight." - Against Heresies," Book IV, Chapter 34

Do you believe what Irenaeus said above?

Dispensationalism denies the New Covenant was put in place.

What say you?

 

[tetelestai]

I do see that he's posting actively. Is he flailing wildly again?

Nope.

I'm just pointing out the countless errors of Dispensationalism.

Since you're a Darby follower, you probably don't like me.

 

[musterion]

"Now we come to the subjunctive mood which indicates some contingency. Greek grammarians had various names for the subjunctive mood, but one name was...'the mood expressive of doubt.' " -- A.T. Robertson

Since all three Gospel writers said these events were contingent on something else happening first, the real question to ask is not "Did these events happen?" The question is, "What were these events contingent upon?" If we start making that the focus of our discussion, offering possibilities to examine one by one, this thread will produce much more light and way less heat.

But since that's not likely to happen on this thread, let me know if you're willing to pursue it and we can start another one dedicated to that question.