The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[tetelestai]

Okay. No one saw the dead in Christ rise from the graves like Mt. 27:52? Why not?

You don't know that.

For all we know thousands of people saw it.

But 1 Thess. 4:17 says those who are ALIVE (not DEAD) are caught up with the raised ones.

Yes.

Notice it says "those who are alive AND REMAIN"

If what Darby claimed is true, then it should just say "those who are alive" will be caught up.

Did all the ALIVE ones at that time, 70 AD, get swooshed up with the dead saints into heaven?

No, if they did, then there wouldn't have been any believers in Christ Jesus left on planet earth.

 

[steko]

You've been taught by someone who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by Darby.

Oh yeah? :IA:

Well, you were taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone....................

 

[surrender]

You don't know that.

I don’t. That’s why I ended that statement with a question mark.

So as I wrote, “No one saw the dead in Christ rise from the graves like Mt. 27:52? Why not?” Why don’t we have historical records of such a remarkable event? You are willing to just cross your fingers on this one?

I need more on that one. But that’s just me. I have a deep intuition that God would not inspire Paul to write something so monumental without leaving even the slightest trace of its occurrence. We have Josephus, for example, to tell us of the events of the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, but nothing on something even greater…thousands of souls being raised from their graves? Nah, I can’t buy that one.

Hey, I have no dog in this fight. I can be blatantly honest because I have nothing to lose since I have no alliances either way. I’m really just trying to get to the bottom of all of this. Your writing/explanations have had me so far, so to speak, but this doesn’t fly at all.

No, if they did, then there wouldn't have been any believers in Christ Jesus left on planet earth.

Paul said ALL those who are alive and remain. Why didn’t Paul’s words come true? ALL those were not caught up?

edit to add: I'm wrong. Paul didn't say "all." He just said, "We who are alive and remain..." Let me rethink this one and reread it...a few times over!! :-/

 

[Aaron the Tall]

That's an interesting story. Is there any scriptural support?

Support for what part? That Christ would receive a Kingdom? (Daniel 7:14)
That we can only partake of Kingdom blessings because of our relationship to Christ? We only receive the promises because we are in Christ. (Galatians 3:13-18)

The King is in exile. That's the issue.

Ooh, interesting choice of words. Exile: being forcibly kept from returning home. Where do you get that idea from? The parable makes no such insinuation.

Once Christ pulls the weeds (tares), then the Kingdom will really grow.

What do you mean by that? When the weeds are removed and the world is left with only saved folks being ruled by a rod of iron by Jesus, what type of growth will occur? How will it start small like a rock and then grow to fill the whole earth?

Sounds more like a straw-man or fringe teaching to me.


Who teaches this?

Seriously? Dispensation Premillenianism. They are the only ones I know of who don't think the Kingdom of God has already been established. They believe it will happen at Christ's second coming, where the evil are immediately dispensed and only righteousness remains. Again, not much of a growth process there.

You seem to think that the world is getting better all of the time. I'd say that it's the exact opposite.

Question: are there more people in the Kingdom today then in the first century?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Yes, but most did not because the nation as a whole, from the leadership on down, did not. That's what was required.

Where do you see this requirement that the whole nation must repent in order for Christ to return? Do you literally mean 100% of the Jews living on earth must accept Christ?

Paul's hope was that "some" of his fellow Jews would be saved. (Romans 11:14)

How will this happen? Will God bend their wills to ensure it?

And what do you mean by "Jews" - do you mean only the 100% pure blooded Jews? Or does that include those who have 75% Jewish blood?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I thought you said (it might have been someone else) that Rev. 20 is not yet finished.

1) Is there a "second coming" to expect in the future?

2) If his return in 70 AD (the coming of the Son of man) was the second coming, what do you make of 1 Thess. 4:16-17?

3) And what do you make of 1 Cor. 15:51-52?

4) What is next? What do things look like after this life?

my answers:

1) Yes, there is a second coming
2.) Just to be clear, not every mention of Jesus' coming refers to the same event. Even dispensationalists believe that. I believe that Jesus came in judgement in 70AD. I also believe I Thess 4:16-17 is yet future. I believe there will be a physical resurrection one day.
3.) I believe I Cor 15 describes when Christ ceases to be King of the Kingdom (in a sense) - when he himself subjects Himself under the Father's authority. This only happens after all enemies are defeated. Not sure, how a full preterist interprets this.
4.) Christ returns - there is a resurrection and a judgment. We live forever in new bodies in the fullness of God's presence.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


Do you remember anything that happened before 70AD?

Isa 65:18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Isa 65:19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

So.....nobody's cryin' in Jerusalem since 70AD? Right!

Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

When do you think the new heavens and earth will occur? Before the millenium? After the millenium? Do you think the new heavens and earth describe the final state after the great white throne judgement when death is finally destroyed? Is so, why do the Isaiah passages speak of people dying in the new heavens and earth. Why are people having babies in the new heavens and earth.

These aren't easy questions. I don't have all the answers - I just know that Isaiah speaks of people dying in the new heavens and earth - but Revelation speaks of not being any death in the new heavens and earth. One of these descriptions must be metaphorical - because they can't both be literally true in the same way.

 

[musterion]

Where do you see this requirement that the whole nation must repent in order for Christ to return? Do you literally mean 100% of the Jews living on earth must accept Christ?

Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do!” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

The whole nation covenanted to be God's priests, to be sent out to the whole world. But by the time of Christ, the disobedient nation first had to repent and be re-washed (Exo 19:10-11; Matt 3:5-6; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Many did but many more did not. As a nation, Israel never did repent so they did not become the covenanted, holy priest-nation and are not that holy priest-nation now. To this day, they remain deaf and blind in unbelief. That means the Kingdom has not come yet, meaning Christ has not returned to reign yet, meaning preterism is a lie.

 

[tetelestai]

As a nation, Israel never did repent so they did not become the covenanted, holy priest-nation and are not that holy priest-nation now.

You're wrong again.

(1 Peter 2:9) But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

In the above, Peter is addressing his audience in the present tense.

Peter is addressing a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

 

[tetelestai]

Oh yeah? :IA:

Yes.

Everything you were taught about Dispensationalism came from Darby.

Well, you were taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone....................

See......that's the thing, you can't trace it all to one man like Dispensationalism can be traced to Darby.

 

[musterion]

You're wrong again.

(1 Peter 2:9) But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

In the above, Peter is addressing his audience in the present tense.

Peter is addressing a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

That was the tiny believing remnant, not Israel as a whole as agreed to at Sinai. And even then that remnant never made it outside of Israel, as far as God's Word records. Paul did, and that's only because he was sent as the ambassador of God's unprophesied dispensation of grace.

 

[musterion]

Good luck with that!

Seriously, if they're hard core...I don't know...it just seems a waste of time to really invest in all that because they are not in it to learn! Sigh...man...I want to learn!! But I continually get pushed aside with these stupid debates where no one really wants to learn but just wants to seek out the most stubborn of all and go back and forth with him and him alone because feathers get bigger and more colorful the longer they go...or so they think.

:doh:

So all your questions to us have been dishonest because your mind was already made up about us. Good to know.

 

[tetelestai]

And even then that remnant never made it outside of Israel,

Wrong again.

(1 Peter 1:1) ...To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,

Peter called the men scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadicia, and Asia, a chosen people, a royal preisthood, and a holy nation.

 

[musterion]

Wrong again.

(1 Peter 1:1) ...To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,

Peter called the men scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadicia, and Asia, a chosen people, a royal preisthood, and a holy nation.

Pay attention, leftist, I know it's difficult for you because Obama isn't here to tell you what to think.

Peter himself never ventured outside of Israel in furtherance of the "great commission." Nor did James, John or any of the circumcision apostles. They confined their ministry to "the circumcision," which included writing to believing Kingdom Jews scattered abroad at the death of Stephen (the dispersed, 1 Pet 1:1; Acts 8:1; 11:19) as well as those who'd gone further afield. The important point is: as far as God tells us, the circumcision apostles never set foot outside of Israel, and with Israel set aside in unbelief, no holy priests went forth unto the Gentiles. Only Paul did, and he never refers to himself as a priest.

Come back when you're able to handle God's Word with reverence.

 

[musterion]

Peter called the men scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadicia, and Asia, a chosen people, a royal preisthood, and a holy nation.

In 1 Peter 2:5 he says they were BEING built up into a holy priesthood to offer SPIRITUAL sacrifices to God. This was not the literal nation of holy priests Israel was intended from the beginning to be for the whole world.

 

[tetelestai]

Peter himself never ventured outside of Israel in furtherance of the "great commission." Nor did James, John or any of the circumcision apostles.

You're trying to build an argument on silence.

Just because there is nowhere in the NT that says Peter ventured outside of Judaea, it doesn't mean that Peter didn't.

John wrote the Revelation from Patmos.

Patmos is outside of Judaea.

They confined their ministry to "the circumcision," which included writing to believing Kingdom Jews scattered abroad at the death of Stephen (the dispersed, 1 Pet 1:1; Acts 8:1; 11:19) as well as those who'd gone further afield.

Peter preached the gospel to the circumcised, and Paul preached to gospel to the uncircumcised. Both Peter and Paul at times preached to both, but Peter concentrated on the circumcised, while Paul the uncircumcised.

Same gospel, two completely different groups of people.

The important point is: as far as God tells us, the circumcision apostles never set foot outside of Israel,

Again, you're building your case on silence.

Jesus told Peter the following:

(Acts 1:8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

We know that Peter preached in Samaria

(Acts 8:25) After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.

So, Acts 8:25 proves that Peter and John preached outside of Judaea.

and with Israel set aside in unbelief,

This is a myth that you Dispies keep repeating over and over again. Nowhere in the NT does it say Israel was set aside.

Darby invented this myth, and you guys perpetuate the myth.

no holy priests went forth unto the Gentiles. Only Paul did, and he never refers to himself as a priest.

Probably because the Gentiles had no idea what the Levitical priesthood was.

Paul tells the Gentiles they are part of the Royal Priesthood:

(Eph 2:19-22) Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

It's the same one spiritual house that Peter tells his audience they are lively stones in.

Come back when you're able to handle God's Word with reverence.

If you ever realize Darby's teachings are false, you just might understand the Bible.

 

[steko]

Wrong again.

(1 Peter 1:1) ...To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,

Peter called the men scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadicia, and Asia, a chosen people, a royal preisthood, and a holy nation.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,


the strangers- parapidemos- foreigners/aliens which have left their indigenous land and have settled as sojourners in a foreign land.

scattered- diaspora- Israelites dwelling in foreign countries

Peter is writing to believing Israelites who are dwelling outside the land of Israel.

 

[tetelestai]

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,


the strangers- parapidemos- foreigners/aliens which have left their indigenous land and have settled as sojourners in a foreign land.

scattered- diaspora- Israelites dwelling in foreign countries

Peter is writing to believing Israelites who are dwelling outside the land of Israel.

Peter says the following to his audience:

(1 Peter 2:10) Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Jews who had left Judaea had always had mercy from God (Hosea 1).

So, who was Peter addressing, when Peter told them "once you had not received mercy"?

It's impossible that Peter was addressing Jews who had left Judaea.

 

[surrender]

my answers:

1) Yes, there is a second coming
2.) Just to be clear, not every mention of Jesus' coming refers to the same event. Even dispensationalists believe that. I believe that Jesus came in judgement in 70AD. I also believe I Thess 4:16-17 is yet future. I believe there will be a physical resurrection one day.
3.) I believe I Cor 15 describes when Christ ceases to be King of the Kingdom (in a sense) - when he himself subjects Himself under the Father's authority. This only happens after all enemies are defeated. Not sure, how a full preterist interprets this.
4.) Christ returns - there is a resurrection and a judgment. We live forever in new bodies in the fullness of God's presence.

Thanks!

Do you think the Mt. 13 harvest took place already? That the "end of the age" in verse 40 was in 70AD?

 

[surrender]

So all your questions to us have been dishonest because your mind was already made up about us. Good to know.

That's not what I said at all. I said some are here to learn and some aren't...
which isn't a bad thing...I was just being impatient.