The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
What's actually hilarious is all the failed doomsday predictions.

Here's what the Lord said about the rapture theory and those who teach it.


Ezekiel 13:20 KJV


20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly , and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go , even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly .

You missed it-pay attention to his "argument:"



"There's not a trace of a rapture or a secret parenthetical dispensation before Darby."-Tet

That was one of the satanic premises of Preterist Preverter Craigie's "argument" against the dispensational method of interpreting the book, that I, and others, have refuted, for years.

No, what's hilarious, is that all the misdirection by you, sport, and you contending that you are worthy to be in the ring, given you don't know the basics of arguing.


Now-have a seat.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Yep this is shore funny.

As I recall Israel was in Egypt through all the plagues.

Israel was a type of the church to come.


2 Peter 2:1 KJV


1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I'll slow it down for you, Mitch-follow the bouncing ball:


"There's not a trace of a rapture or a secret parenthetical dispensation before Darby."-Tet.'s premise


Sit.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I don’t really study these things from the Greek, or though the writings of others much; as I prefer Scripture’s narrative. Together with those questions forcing myself to seek its answer’s within its narrative, has taught me to ask.

In this, I will not study a passage by itself, let alone; via a word sense, mood, phrase, or what have you. I prefer its’ own, overall narrative.

Time in this approach has given me a sufficient memory of where many related themes might be found within Scripture’s overall narrative; the asking of certain kinds of questions of which enables me to re-member, or put them back together, once more.

I understand and sympathize but I have to ask: is there any English translation you have ever read that tries to clearly relate in English the uncertainty/conditionality/doubt/"if-then" of the three "this generation" passages of Matthew, Mark and Luke? If you have I'd like to know which it is because I have been unable to find even one that does so. Only interlinears show it, and only a handful of commentators found it even worth mentioning, apparently. A few say it's very important to correctly understanding these passages. Most, if they note it at all, dismiss it as meaning nothing worth commenting on (apparently). I do not believe God intended it to mean nothing; but we wouldn't know of it from English Bibles...unless you're aware of one that spells out the subjunctive?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
As we see, the Darby followers are getting more and more desperate.

The phrase "this generation" found in the book of Luke is used many other times by Christ Jesus, and EVERY TIME it is used, it is used to describe the contemporaries of Jesus.

(Luke 11:30 KJV) For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

(Luke 11:32 KJV) The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

(Luke 11:50 KJV) That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

(Luke 11:51 KJV) From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

(Luke 17:25 KJV) But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

(Luke 21:32 KJV) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Darby followers claim that Luke used the phrase "this generation" to describe the contemporaries of Jesus throughout his gospel, but then when Luke wrote verse 21:32, he meant something completely different when he used the phrase "this generation".

Dispensationalism is a mess.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
only a handful of commentators found it even worth mentioning, apparently.

That's because it's not true.

The only people trying to make Matt 24:34 mean something it doesn't are people who have an agenda.

Darby followers have an agenda.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The only people trying to make Matt 24:34 mean something it doesn't are people who have an agenda.

Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual discernment can understand that no world wide harvest happened in the first century so the word "generation" in this passage is not correct:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 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.21:32-35).​

Your ideas are easily proven to be false. You have not been able to answer my points in the opening post in this thread.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual discernment can understand that no world wide harvest happened in the first century so the word "generation" in this passage is not correct:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 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.21:32-35).​

Your ideas are easily proven to be false. You have not been able to answer my points in the opening post in this thread.

Jerry, how many times do I have to post Luke 21:21?

Luke 21:21 proves you wrong because only those in Judaea, near Judaea, and those who were going to travel to Judaea are warned.

If it's worldwide like you suggest, why are only those in Judaea warned?

You keep ignoring my answer because you know it proves you wrong.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
If it's worldwide like you suggest, why are only those in Judaea warned?

You keep ignoring my answer because you know it proves you wrong.

Did you not see these words which speak of escaping the world wide harvest?:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21:35-36).​

You remain confused. The warnings spoken about in regard to the great tribulation are spoken only to those living in Israel. But when the great tribulation is over then the signs are seen in the sky (Mt.24:19).

Therefore, this passage is speaking about what will happen at the end of the great tribulation:

"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).

Well known preterist author Gary DeMar defines the meaning of oikoumene here:

"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).​

So when the first-century Christians read Luke 21:25-26 they understood that upon seeing the signs in the sky then nations were in fear of the things which were coming on what they knew of their world.

And again, here is the warning which is given in regard to that harvest:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21:35-36).​

Are you not able to understand that this passage speaks of a warning?

Now that I have answered that then tell me when you think that the prophecy of Luke 21:25-26 was fulfilled?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Now that I have answered that then tell me when you think that the prophecy of Luke 21:25-26 was fulfilled?

All of Luke was fulfilled between 66AD - 70AD.

Read the beginning:

(Luke 21:6-7) “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?


Everything Jesus said would happen from verse 8 to verse 36 was what would happen leading up to the destruction of the temple.

We know the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Everything Jesus said would happen, did happen before the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

You want us to believe that the temple was destroyed in 70AD, but the things Jesus said would happen before the temple was destroyed, didn't happen yet.

Your Dispensationalism is a mess.
 

Danoh

New member
I understand and sympathize but I have to ask: is there any English translation you have ever read that tries to clearly relate in English the uncertainty/conditionality/doubt/"if-then" of the three "this generation" passages of Matthew, Mark and Luke? If you have I'd like to know which it is because I have been unable to find even one that does so. Only interlinears show it, and only a handful of commentators found it even worth mentioning, apparently. A few say it's very important to correctly understanding these passages. Most, if they note it at all, dismiss it as meaning nothing worth commenting on (apparently). I do not believe God intended it to mean nothing; but we wouldn't know of it from English Bibles...unless you're aware of one that spells out the subjunctive?

In another post, I related that I hold to a Mid-Acts Dispensational Hermeneutic, only after the fact of my studies of any subject within Scripture. Meaning, my studies of one subject or another - through recurrent patterns - has thus far continued to result in the fact of Mid-Acts.

I do not hold to an idealist [symbolic], nor to a preterist, nor to a historicist, nor to a futurist view going in. I simply study a thing out according to basic rules of grammar and recurrent patterns and let the chips fall where they may..

I find that this allows me to learn from any school's particular view, and for that matter; from any person; even someone I might hold n very low regard as to their ability to think outside the proverbial box.

For me, the issue is what I might learn, not what I might feel a need to hold onto.

This is going to necessarily lead to some differences in my understanding on some things with others - including those who hold to Mid-Acts.

You'll never find me asserting "that's not for us," for example. Because, for all that actually communicates to another individual in the absence of what all is behind that declaration, I might as well have related "the bottle is half empty" to someone just as dead set on viewing it as half-full.

We human beings each tend to take our respective perception of things as "the truth."

I'm fine with that, because I am about learning about things and how they work; not about needing to be right, as that is one heck of a way to end up at a one size fits all blind spot.

I've noticed you and I differ on some understandings, for example.

That we differ on the sense of the Matthew 24 passage, is not surprising, then, as our respective approach obviously differs in some area.

Personally, I continue to find differences with others fascinating, even where said difference is with the occasional one size fits all fool that someone like a Teltelestai continues to represent.

That's some accomplishment on the part of an individual such as he; that the brief moment they are reflected on, the sense is that of the brief annoyance that is that of a gnat.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Y'all have fun. I'm done wasting my time with preterists. If these two are typical, none of them have true reverence for God's Word, and I have no time for that.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
All of Luke was fulfilled between 66AD - 70AD.

No, the times of the Gentiles has not been fulfilled yet:

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Lk.21:24).​

Even though the Jews are back in Israel and possess the city of Jerusalem, the part of that city which defines Judaism is Jewish worship in the Temple, and it is still not within their reach because most of the Temple area is under the sovereignty and protection of Islam. That includes the Mosque of Omar and the Mosque of ElAgsa. So Jerusalem continues to be trodden down by the Gentiles, specifically the Gentiles who are followers of Islam.

Now that I have answered you once again, tell me when you think that the prophecy of Luke 21:25-26 was fulfilled:

"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).​

Well known preterist author Gary DeMar defines the meaning of oikoumene here:

"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).​

So when the first-century Christians read Luke 21:25-26 they understood that it was saying that upon seeing the signs in the sky the nations will be in fear of the things which were coming on what they knew of their world.

I have answered two straight points which you made now it is time for you to answer this.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I've noticed you and I differ on some understandings, for example.

That we differ on the sense of the Matthew 24 passage, is not surprising, then, as our respective approach obviously differs in some area.

I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with you offering alternative explanations to what an and the subjunctives mean for the correct understanding of those three Gospel passages (Tet's idea is stupid and the link you posted earlier is insufficient). If you come up with something, I'm all ears. :)

PS What's "idealist" mean, exactly?
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Well....as we see, not one Darby follower can explain Matt 24:34

The Darby followers can't even agree amongst themselves with their excuses. So far in this thread we have five excuses by Darby followers.

It's such a simple verse, that is so simple to understand.

However, because the verse is a death knell to Dispensationalism, the Darby followers have to twist it into a pretzel in an attempt to validate their excuses.

The fact that we have FIVE different excuses from Darby followers as to why the verse doesn't really mean what it says, is proof that Darby followers have no interest in truth.

Did you EVER consider that the generation being spoken of is,
a future generation when the things happening that are said will
happen, are happening? Why anyone would believe that Christ
already returned in 70 AD in the form of the Roman army, as I've
heard that you believe, is as ignorant as that piece of bubble gum
I scraped off the bottom of my shoe the other day!
 

Danoh

New member
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with you offering alternative explanations to what an and the subjunctives mean for the correct understanding of those three Gospel passages (Tet's idea is stupid and the link you posted earlier is insufficient). If you come up with something, I'm all ears. :)

PS What's "idealist" mean, exactly?

Idealist: the more technical term for allegorical. What some refer to as "spiritual."

In the use of most, I see it as anything but "spiritual."

As the late, great J.C. O'Hair noted of such, if I am quoting him correctly - "People who tell spiritual lies, don't have spiritual eyes."
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
No, the times of the Gentiles has not been fulfilled yet:

Yes it has.

Are you sure you're not confusing "the times of the Gentiles" with "the fullness of the Gentiles?

Even though the Jews are back in Israel and possess the city of Jerusalem, the part of that city which defines Judaism is Jewish worship in the Temple, and it is still not within their reach because most of the Temple area is under the sovereignty and protection of Islam. That includes the Mosque of Omar and the Mosque of ElAgsa.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "the times of the Gentiles"

The "times of the Gentiles" was fulfilled in 70AD

(Rev 11:2) But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

The above verse was fulfilled from 66AD - 70AD (42 months).

So Jerusalem continues to be trodden down by the Gentiles, specifically the Gentiles who are followers of Islam.

Again, whatever is happening in the Middle East today has absolutely nothing to do with Bible prophecy.

It's why all your Dispensational buddies now look so foolish when they went on and on with their 1948 generation.

Now that I have answered you once again, tell me when you think that the prophecy of Luke 21:25-26 was fulfilled:

It happened in 70AD

Well known preterist author Gary DeMar defines the meaning of oikoumene here:

"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).​

So when the first-century Christians read Luke 21:25-26 they understood that it was saying that upon seeing the signs in the sky the nations will be in fear of the things which were coming on what they knew of their world.

DeMar's quote proves you wrong.

I have answered two straight points which you made now it is time for you to answer this.

You haven't answered anything.

I asked you to explain verse 7 in Luke 21, and you just keep copying and pasting your same posts over and over again.
 
Last edited:

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Did you EVER consider that the generation being spoken of is,
a future generation when the things happening that are said will
happen, are happening?

The demonstrative adjective "this" that modifies the noun "generation" proves that can't be the case.

Moreover, the fact that the temple was destroyed in 70AD also proves you wrong.
 

Danoh

New member
Well....as we see, not one Darby follower can explain Matt 24:34

The Darby followers can't even agree amongst themselves with their excuses. So far in this thread we have five excuses by Darby followers.

It's such a simple verse, that is so simple to understand.

However, because the verse is a death knell to Dispensationalism, the Darby followers have to twist it into a pretzel in an attempt to validate their excuses.

The fact that we have FIVE different excuses from Darby followers as to why the verse doesn't really mean what it says, is proof that Darby followers have no interest in truth.

Hypocrite - among other things not all Partial Preterists agree on - not all of them agree with your delusion that the Lord returned in 70AD.

And I differ with Mid-Acts Dispys on some things, you hypocrite.

On the one hand you assert we are all one size fits all; on the other, you take issue when we voice each our own, independent, respective understanding of some things.

You Blind Gnat Hypocrite. I'm through with you.
 
Top