The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[tetelestai]

Are you not aware that the Lord Jesus was crucified before the day of Pentecost?

Yes, that's my point.

Between the time when the Lord Jesus said the words at Matthew 23:39 and His death on the Cross there was no pilgrimage feasts so no one saw Him at any of those feasts, as you imagine:

What do you think happened in Acts 2?

On the Day of Pentecost in 30AD, every Jew (including the Pharisees) lined the streets and sang "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"

That happened at Matthew 21:9 and the words of the Lord Jesus here came after that:

No, what happened in Matt 21:9 was the Feast of Passover, not Pentecost. Passover is the first of the three pilgrimage feasts.

Pentecost is the second pilgrimage feast.

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt.23:39).​

After Matt 23:39, the next time they said "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" was at Pentecost.

Nice try but no cigar!

Put your Dispensationalism away, and you wouldn't be so confused.

 

[tetelestai]

We dispensationalists believe what is written here, proving that we did not make anything up:

"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: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 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).​

Of course since the preterists have no place for this event in their eschatology they just refuse to believe what is written there.

Jer 31:31-34 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus in the first century.

The Apostle Paul was a minister of the new covenant.

In the new covenant, God the Father no longer remembers our sins.

We know Jer 31 was fulfilled, the writer of Hebrews quoted it to show it was fulfilled.

You Dispensationalists have a hard time understanding the fact that when New Testament writers (and Jesus) quoted Old Testament prophecies, it was to show that those prophecies were fulfilled, or in the process of being fulfilled.

 

[patrick jane]

Jer 31:31-34 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus in the first century.

The Apostle Paul was a minister of the new covenant.

In the new covenant, God the Father no longer remembers our sins.

We know Jer 31 was fulfilled, the writer of Hebrews quoted it to show it was fulfilled.

You Dispensationalists have a hard time understanding the fact that when New Testament writers (and Jesus) quoted Old Testament prophecies, it was to show that those prophecies were fulfilled, or in the process of being fulfilled.

:rotfl:

 

[tetelestai]

:rotfl:

Why do you think New Testament writers quoted Old Testament prophecies?

 

[Nazaroo]

Wow! Reading this thread is like reading about Job and his 4 friends,
all completely clueless as to what is really happening.

(1) Shugart: (Post #1!)

"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke." "the assumption that the Lord Jesus would know the time when the great tribulation would happen despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which supports that false idea. "

(2) Shugart: (Post #11)

"The Lord Jesus had no special knowledge in regard to when the things would happen so He certainly would not be pointing out any specific generation of men who would see the signs of which He spoke. Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation. I keep waiting for you to answer this and so far you have come up empty handed."

Mr. Shugart, are you SERIOUS?

And I'm stunned that nobody else knows their Bible enough
to respond effectively against this utter nonsense.

Only Daqq even notices this,
but he also gets it wrong and is completely ineffective in
smacking Shugart hard enough to cure the foolishness:

Daqq: (Post #18)

Shugart: "Therefore there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that the Lord Jesus would know that His prophecies would be fulfilled during the time of any specific generation." Actually the portion I have placed in red emphasis is not true either. The Master knew exactly to the day when the consummation of the age would occur, ...But of course Yeshua speaks of his own end of the age, (each in his or her own appointed times which only the Father knows).

"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)

"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under His own power,..." (John 13:3)

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things,
because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

Jesus would never at the very end of His 3 - 5 year ministry have
left all the Apostles under such a belief, if it were a mistaken one,
or a misunderstanding. Jesus would have straightened them out.

Even in Acts when Jesus ascends to heaven, the Disciples ask (who? JESUS!)
about the restoration of Israel. If they had thought at that time
that Jesus didn't know, they wouldn't have asked Him.
Jesus responds "Its not for YOU to know..." (Acts 1:7)
He doesn't say "I don't know..."

Search the Scriptures, like the Bereans.

The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let you down.

My post still stands.

Mr. Shugart has offered this weak response:

This from the "Benson Commentary" explains that in His human nature was not omniscient: "It is said in Luke 2:52, that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient."​ You assume that He was always omniscient.

He doesn't have to be 'always omniscient'.

This scripture if it applies to knowledge (as opposed to wisdom)
is said of Jesus' childhood, not His ministry as Messiah.

For that we need to refer to what is said concerning THAT time:


"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)

Note please that this is also an UNCONDITIONAL flat statement,
unqualified and incredibly misleading if the Apostles have gotten it wrong
at the Last Supper and Garden of Gethsemane.

If both scriptures are true, and we have no reason to doubt their plain meaning,
then Jesus increased in wisdom as a growing child and teen,
and was omniscient as a complete and perfect Messiah.

The only scriptures which appear to be contrary (in the English translation only)
are those of Mark 13:32 and its derivatives (copied and modified) by Matthew and Luke.

We turn to Mark first, and find:

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV)

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)


Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Its really that simple, and the sentence is a coordinated pair of clauses.

Its a Conditional Sentence, that states outcomes which are dependent
upon conditions.

Its not a flat unconditional statement of fact,
but its a hypothetical, contingent Conditional Sentence,
which cannot be broken down into unconditional flat statements.

Its not conveying an unconditional truth,
but a conditional and hypothetical set of possibilities,
which may have various outcomes.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jer 31:31-34 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus in the first century.

When were all those of both the house of Israel and the house of Judah saved?

The Apostle Paul was a minister of the new covenant.

No, Paul was a minister of the new testament. The new testament of the Lord Jesus is the gospel, and Paul was a minister of the gospel (Acts 20:24).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My post still stands.

Mr. Shugart has offered this weak response:

This from the "Benson Commentary" explains that in His human nature was not omniscient: "It is said in Luke 2:52, that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient."​ You assume that He was always omniscient.

He doesn't have to be 'always omniscient'.

Why do you want to insist that the Lord Jesus continued to be omniscient since He was made a little lower than angels?

 

[tetelestai]

When were all those of both the house of Israel and the house of Judah saved?

Under the old covenant, the Day of Atonement consisted of 3 parts

1) the priest slew the sacrificial animal

2) the priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood to make atonement in the presence of God.

3) the priest returns and appears to the people of Israel at the door of the tent.

The Israelites waited anxiously because the return by the priest meant God accepted the atonement.


Now, jump to the first century.

1) Jesus was the sacrifice on the cross in 30AD

2) Jesus entered the true most Holy of Holies with His own blood to make atonement.

3) Jesus' returning or appearing “a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” to those eagerly waiting for Him happened in 70AD

The book of Hebrews was written after the cross, but before 70AD

Romans was also written after the cross, but before 70AD.

Therefore, both books portray Israel's New Covenant salvation as the yet future, but close.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now, jump to the first century.

1) Jesus was the sacrifice on the cross in 30AD

2) Jesus entered the true most Holy of Holies with His own blood to make atonement.

Fine, but at that time not all of those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah knew the Lord and had their sins forgiven. And that has not happened since:

"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: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 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).​

If you think that this prophecy has been fulfilled then you are obviously deluded.

 

[tetelestai]

Fine, but at that time not all of those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah knew the Lord and had their sins forgiven. And that has not happened since:

That's what happened in 70AD

You keep forgetting that the House of Israel was divorced from God prior to the cross.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's what happened in 70AD

You are delusional if you think that all those from the houdse of Israel and from the house of Judah knew the Lord and had their sins forgiven at 70AD.

You keep forgetting that the House of Israel was divorced from God prior to the cross.

Wrong!

If they were divorced from God then why were they given the offer of the kingdom after the Cross? Peter told the nation of Israel the following:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).​

Peter knew that when the Lord Jesus was sent back to the earth He would then sit upon His throne and begin to reign, as witnessed by the Lord Jesus' own words:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).​

Of course you believe none of this!

 

[Nazaroo]

Why do you want to insist that the Lord Jesus continued to be omniscient since He was made a little lower than angels?

I would only insist that Jesus was omniscient during his Public Ministry.

Its acceptable that he 'grew in wisdom' as Luke describes.

But when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at Baptism,
and the Holy Spirit remained, in order to inform people and do miracles,
its reasonable to say that the Apostles' belief in Jesus' Omniscience
was well founded and part of Mainstream and Early Christian doctrine.

We don't need a 'non-omniscient' Jesus, and the Holy Scriptures
don't teach that Jesus was non-omniscient during His ministry.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I would only insist that Jesus was omniscient during his Public Ministry.

Then explain what He said here:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).​

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

 

[daqq]

Its acceptable that he 'grew in wisdom' as Luke describes.

But when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at Baptism,
and the Holy Spirit remained, in order to inform people and do miracles,
its reasonable to say that the Apostles' belief in Jesus' Omniscience
was well founded and part of Mainstream and Early Christian doctrine.

:thumb: Given the Spirit without measure, John 3:34, (spring up, O well!).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

:thumb: Given the Spirit without measure, John 3:34, (spring up, O well!).

if you believe what Nazaroo said about the Lord Jesus being omniscient while He walked the earth perhaps you can answer what I said here:

Then explain what He said here:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).​

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

 

[Nazaroo]

if you believe what Nazaroo said about the Lord Jesus being omniscient while He walked the earth perhaps you can answer what I said here:

Then explain what He said here:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).​

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

This riddle is easy:

We've already shown what Mark says. (Post #125)


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Thus,
"No one knows the day or the hour,
not even the angels in heaven,
nor even the Son, if not the Father." (Literal translation)

Matthew is a late church production,
and this 'genius' who created the Greek version of Matthew also misread Mark.

As a result, later bumbling translators mistranslated Mark too,
after the fact.

Not surprisingly, other parts of Mark have been mistranslated too,
in order to please those who have made a life-long habit of
rejecting the Food Laws:

Mark 7:14-23 - Worse than Misinterpretations about Alcohol


Matthew is the latest of the gospels, and suffers the most
wrongheaded editing flaws.



For instance, Matthew eliminates 99% of the Social Gospel
and Good News to the poor,
for the purpose of attracting rich Jews in the diaspora
to the new movement.

Why Matthew was written LAST and is secondary


(2) Matthew omits all the Parables and Teachings on the Poor:

Luke 12:13-21 - Parable of the Rich Fool (Matt. deleted)
Luke 14:12-14 - Invite the Poor, Injured Blind (Matt. deleted)
Luke 16:19-31 - Parable of Rich Man & Lazarus (Matt. deleted)
Luke 21:1-4 - Parable of Poor Widow's Penny (Matt. deleted)

The accumulated effect is obvious.
The Poor have been entirely deleted from the Gospel,
along with the issue of poverty.


(3) Matthew omits most of the negative references to Judaism:

Luke 10:13-16 - Woe to those who reject the 70 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 10:29-36 - Parable of the Good Samaritan (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:5-8 - Parable of the Persistent Neighbour (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:24-26 - Parable of the Unclean spirit returning (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:37-54 - WOE to the Pharisees and Lawyers (Matt. edited, moved to Matt. 23:1-36)
Luke 12:10 - The Unpardonable Sin (Matt. deleted)
Luke 12:49-53 - "I bring Division" (Matt. deleted)
Luke 15:11-32 - Parable of the Prodigal Son (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:1-4 - Forgiving 77 times 7 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:11-19 - 10 Lepers healed, only Foreigner returns (Matt. deleted)
Luke 18:9-14 - Parable of Tax Collector forgiven (Matt. deleted)
Luke 23:6-12 - Jesus faces Herod (Matt. deleted)

 

[Right Divider]

What is the something else that Matthew 16:28 was conditional upon?

(Matt 16:28) “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”​

Mat 17:1-8 KJV And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, (2) And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. (3) And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. (4) Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. (5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (6) And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. (7) And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. (8) And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
​

Gee, it's one chapter and six DAYS later..... so simple!

 

[tetelestai]

[/INDENT]Gee, it's one chapter and six DAYS later..... so simple!

If it was six days later, why would Jesus tell them that SOME of them would not taste death, if EVERY one of them were still alive six days later?

Also, read the previous verse:

(Matt 16:27 KJV) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Was every man rewarded according to his works at the Transfiguration?

It's obvious to everyone except Dispensationalists that Matt 16:28 is not a reference to the Transfiguration.

 

[Right Divider]

If it was six days later, why would Jesus tell them that SOME of them would not taste death, if EVERY one of them were still alive six days later?

Also, read the previous verse:

(Matt 16:27 KJV) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Was every man rewarded according to his works at the Transfiguration?

It's obvious to everyone except Dispensationalists that Matt 16:28 is not a reference to the Transfiguration.

Apparently, you don't understand that prophecies can be partially fulfilled. Like when Jesus STOPPED halfway through a prophecy when He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2

Isa 61:1-3 KJV The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (2) To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; (3) To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

Luk 4:18-20 KJV The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (20) And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
​

It's just too bad that your were not there to correct the Lord Jesus Christ of His misunderstanding.

P.S. Learn how to QUOTE!

 

[tetelestai]

Apparently, you don't understand that prophecies can be partially fulfilled.

No they can't.

Partial fulfillment is a myth that Dispensationalists have made up.

like when Jesus STOPPED halfway through a prophecy when He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2

That wasn't a "partial fulfillment"

Jesus waited to tell them later when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:22 KJV) For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Verse 20 tells us when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:20 KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

This happened in 66AD

The "Days of Vengeance" took place from 66AD - 70AD (3.5 years)

It's just too bad that your were not there to correct the Lord Jesus Christ of His misunderstanding.

Christ Jesus didn't have a misunderstanding. It's you who has the misunderstanding.

You think that Jesus told His Disciples that some of them would not taste death for an event that would take place 6 days later. Especially considering that up to that point in time not one Disciple or follower of Jesus had been martyred.

Why would Jesus tell them that "Some" of them would not taste death when everyone of them was still alive 6 days later?

If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27

Give it up, your Dispensationalism is a mess.