The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Do yourself a favor, read the rest here.

I read it, it's garbage.

It's just another Darby follower trying to defend Dispensationalism, who can't explain Matt 24:34.

Why don't you believe what the Apostle Paul said?

(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.

Not only do you not believe Jesus in Matt 24:34, you don't believe Paul in 1 Cor 10:11

Appears to me you only believe John Nelson Darby
 

musterion

Well-known member
The subjunctive mood calls attention to the contingent (i.e., dependent) nature of what is being affirmed. It speaks of the connection which obtains between what is affirmed and that upon which the affirmation depends for its fulfillment.

In the nature of things, if that upon which a declaration expressed in the subjunctive mood depends, is unrevisably certain, the declaration itself is unrevisable and is certain to occur. But if that upon which a declaration expressed in the subjunctive mood depends, is not unrevisably certain, the declaration itself is revisable and is not certain to occur.
Translation of needlessly dense verbiage:

The subjunctive mood indicates a conditional factor or factors has to be met in order for whatever is being foretold to occur.


  • If the conditional factor (whatever it is) can be shown to be absolutely certain - that it WILL take place - then what is foretold is also absolutely certain. It must and will occur because the determining factor is certain to occur.


  • If the conditional factor is not certain, then what is foretold is also not certain and might not occur. If it happens, it will be only after the conditional factor has been met.

[I would add that if the conditional factor can be shown to have never taken place, or as not having taken place yet, then what was foretold cannot have occurred yet either. Thus preterism falls apart.]
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Translation of needlessly dense verbiage:


The subjunctive mood indicates a conditional factor or factors has to be met in order for whatever is being foretold to occur.


If the conditional factor (whatever it is) can be shown to be absolutely certain - that it WILL take place - then what is foretold is also absolutely certain. It must and will occur because the determining factor is certain to occur.


If the conditional factor is not certain, then what is foretold is not certain and might not occur.


[I would add that if the conditional factor can be shown as having never taken place, or as not taken place yet, then what was foretold cannot have occurred yet either. Thus preterism falls apart.]

More garbage from Darby followers who can't explain Matt 24:34

The fact that the temple was destroyed in 70AD with not one stone standing upon another completely destroys your stupid subjunctive mood theory.

Maybe we should start a thread called "The Top 10 Dumbest excuses Darby Followers Come Up With For Matt 24:34"
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jesus doesn't bring anybody back to planet earth with Him because Jesus isn't coming back to planet earth.

If the Lord Jesus isn't coming back to the world then explain what he Himself says here:

"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).​

Where is your proof that the Lord Jesus isn't coming back to the earth?
 

musterion

Well-known member
If the Lord Jesus isn't coming back to the world then explain what he Himself says here:
"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).​
Or Colossians 3:4.

But I forget...strip everything else away and Tet is a leftist troll. I don't think he's a genuine preterist. That's why I'm never taking him off Ignore again.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If the Lord Jesus isn't coming back to the world then explain what he Himself says here:

"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).​

Where is your proof that the Lord Jesus isn't coming back to the earth?

(Luke 17:20) Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,

According to you, everyone's going to see Jesus sitting down on a man made throne in the Middle East.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That's why I'm never taking him off Ignore again.

This is about the sixth time you have said this.

Once you even put me on "permignore"

How many times are you going to keep telling everyone that you have put me on permanent ignore, all while responding to my posts?

You remind me a lot of Hilary Clinton.
 

Danoh

New member
I can just as easily make the claim that you are reading a condition into that verse.

Tell me, do you see a condition in the following verses?:
"Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes." (Mt 24:45,46)

The message is this: the master is returning and you will be blessed if you are doing what he desires when he returns.

That's the same implication in Mark 1:15. The Kingdom is at hand - it is coming - so you better be ready for it by repenting and believing.

The repenting and believing are not given as a condition of the Kingdom coming any more than obeying the master was a condition of the master returning.

There are no conditions because Jesus said the time was fulfilled. The time was set in stone.

I really find it difficult to see your view on this that you assert.

The condition is not only implied there, but in light of the overall narrative the Lord is announcing what He is announcing things from.

Given what appears your not having considered this issue in light of said overall narrative as a consideration; it makes sense to me, why the passage does not make sense to you, but also, how it is you may have ended up a "Partial Preterist" as yours is its same reasoning into a thing, that it make sense through such an approach, all the while unable to see the error of such an approach, to begin with.

The sense of the passages are often to be arrived at through the sense of the overall narrative they are relating things from; which is what I have tried to see that passage from, as I have also wanted to know the actually intended sense - which I often approach; from its overall narrative, rather than what appears to me; your reading into one or two passages alone despite its resulting failure - "doesn't make sense that He said this, when that."

Again; overall narrative is key. This, in contrast to your seeming practice of importing a principle applicable in some other passage into the passage you wish to understand, that it not violate what you have come to hold to.

We should always be willing to throw what we hold to out the window; only returning to hold to it should sound principles find it still standing at the end of our application of said principles.

These are principle I have come to on my own, through time in the Word, dealing with its issues there, absent of the notions of men, as dealing with my own is enough to have to attempt to avoid importing into a text.

Malachi 4:

1. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings;
and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

I don't see you as being consistent in this.

You relate the understanding that He returned in judgment via the Roman Military, and then you turn around and assert, I see no condition in his "repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."

And its a shame, what this turns out to be the case as to too many; for we ought to be working together to solve for these issues, not biting and devouring one another as to who is the moron.

Admittedly, an open forum - no holds barred - does not appear to be the place for such things. One would hope it would be, but it is obviously not the case.

Christianity being what it too often is - too many with insincere agendas they then project onto others, just as the thief will conclude all are out to steal from him.

The Lord remains un-alone in having had to deal with such projections, projected at Him as the One supposedly guilty of the vilest of what was actually by the vile of individuals as to their own hearts' true intent.
 

musterion

Well-known member
You relate the understanding that He returned in judgment via the Roman Military, and then you turn around and assert, I see no condition in his "repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."
Yep. Preterists effectively place an unbelieving Jewish historian on the level of a writer of Scripture while simultaneously ignoring (or lazily dismissing as meaningless, in Tet's case) the Greek. If that isn't disturbingly cult-like, I do not know what is.
 
Preterists are blind Bible illiterates, who assign their own values to the things they don't understand. Also quite stupid, to claim many end times prophecies of literal unparalleled disasters have already occurred.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
(Luke 17:20) Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,

According to you, everyone's going to see Jesus sitting down on a man made throne in the Middle East.

It is the "coming" of the kingdom which is not something which can be observed. Are you saying that this will not be able to be observed?:

"That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Lk.22:30).​

When did that happen?

And are you under the impression that no one will observe this?:

"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.8:11).​

More garbage from Darby followers who can't explain Matt 24:34

I have answered that on my initial post on this thread. It was you who had no answer to what I said.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Preterists are blind Bible illiterates, who assign their own values to the things they don't understand. Also quite stupid, to claim many end times prophecies of literal unparalleled disasters have already occurred.

There is that. Christ said "neither before nor after." Kinda puts the onus on the prets to prove AD 70 is the hands-down worst atrocity ever committed in history (much less directly by the hand of God through Rome).
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Nowhere in the NT does Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, or any other NT writer even hint of a future earthly kingdom.

You have to take OT passages out of context in order to defend your false claim.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob[Israel] for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


2Sa 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.


1Ch 29:26 Thus David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel.


Mat 25:31 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:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:




You are the one that takes OT prophecy out of context.
You are the one who changes the Scriptural definition of terms in order to make it fit your paradigm.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame

According to you, everyone's going to see Jesus sitting down on a man made throne in the Middle East.

I told you to cease from your satanic spam, sophistry, "man made throne," punk.

Was the cross "man made," punk? Was the tabernacle in the wilderness? Was Solomon's temple? Was the temple in early Acts? Is your church "man made," punk?

You deceiving fraud, whose "ministry" is deceit, fraud, fleecing the sheep/babes, with your satanic "arguments."


Shut up, with your satanic "man made throne" sophistry spam, as it's been addressed before, many times, you lying punk. It means NADA, as if God would even give man that responsibility, you punk. And no scripture asserts this "man made" satanic cliche.

Again, for the babes,the sheep, to protect them from satanic droids, such as Craigie, clearing the fog on "dwelleth not in temples made with hands;", which stupid Craigie deceivingly morphs into "man made temple," and says, "See!!!"

The LORD God did live/dwell, in the Tabernacle, deceiver-was it "man made? Rhetorical q.

Was the cross "man made?"

The context:



Acts 17 KJV ff.

Of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what preceded, and what follows(Miles Coverdale paraphrase).

The audience in Athens?
In the synagogue at Athens, Paul "reasoned" that this Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, proving it from the scriptures. However, in the market place, he used other arguments to persuade the Grecian "opponents" (some other appear later @ Mars Hill).

"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection." Acts 17:18 KJV

Paul's task on Mars Hill was to preach Jesus Christ, but his listeners did not even know there was a one true God.

"For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. ]Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts 17:23 KJV

Biblically, "ignorant" does not mean "stupid"-it merely means "lack of knowledge." In this context, they were ignorant of the true knowledge of God.


There were approximately3,000 public altars in Athens. And hence:

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" Acts 17:24 KJV(see Acts 7:48 KJV)


"Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;" Acts 17:25 KJV

Paganism is characterized by a physical activity, or something done with men's hands.

That was Paul's point, and the context in which "dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" was given.

The Epicureans, "philosophers", highly "cultivated", artistic people, materialists.....but they did not know God(neither did the Stoicks).Paul was introducing them to the one true God, the One who created them and everything else. Thus, just as the Lord Jesus Christ spoke quite differently to the young woman with a bucket of water in John 4, than He did to "Professor Nic" just one chapter earlier in John 3, Paul needed, and understood, that he had to "come down the ladder", "begin with the basics", in the ladder of truth-baby steps, if you will. He thus set forth, verses 23-31, God's unity, His glory as creator( per Gen. 1:1 KJV, Hebrews 11:6 KJV...), and thus His inherent right to judge His creatures, His manifestation/revelation of who He was in Christ, " he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained", the resurrection of His Christ, "in that he hath raised him from the dead", and the delegation of future judgment to that same man, the Lord Jesus Christ. In effect, He did preach "Jesus", and the resurrection of the dead(verse 18) to them, as being God, who they knew not. He may have developed his theme, as initially outlined in Chapter 13, including preaching mankind's doom due to sin, and the solution to this dilemma, the Jesus of whom they had heard(verse 18), but first they had to know "the basics":The day of Repentance("change your mind"-verses 27-30)), the day of Judgment(God Exists-verses 27-30), the day of ignorance(verse 30). And then leaves, after they divided themselves into 3 groups:

-mockers, scoffers v. 32
-"put it off 'til later" types=procrastinators-"We will hear thee again of this matter" v. 32
-believers-verse 34

The principle confirmed:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 KJV

First step-persuade the person that God exists-baby step, "plant the seed.". If he/she rejects that, you are "rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Titanic." It would be akin to trying to persuade someone that the grass is green, when they do not believe grass exists.For the first time in their lives the Athenians were introduced to a God who is a living person; One with Whom man could communicate, One Who was accessible. And they needed to "change their mind" about this issue.

This won't stop deceiver Craigie. Watch his father, the devil, talk through him....watch...
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
You're not very bright.

Vs.

"According to John W, you insult the other person by calling them names, and tell them they are a liar. Or, according to Nick M and Elyon, you call them names, tell them they are not saved, and that they are going to hell. Or, according to Lighthouse, you just call them idiots and morons…. Therefore, when I encounter a fellow believer who has a different understanding of scripture than I do, I do not rebuke them by calling them names, telling them they are not saved, insulting them, or calling them a liar like you do….You on the other hand, when encountering a believer who believes differently than you, are convinced that you know the 100% objective truth of the Bible, so you call the fellow believer names, and call them a liar…. just look at the name calling by Nick M, Butterfly, Lighthouse, and John W; this is what being a MADist is all about. When they are shown scripture they don’t like, they turn into little kids…. You are doing exactly as Johnny, and most of the other MADists do, and that is when you can’t do it with scripture, you attack the person.… If what I post is not true, than a well educated believer such as yourself should easily be able to show me where I am wrong instead of running away, or attacking me…. I have questioned some of Andy's posts, as has Godrulz. We can do it without calling him names, and without just copying and pasting the same thing over and over and over again… Therefore, I stand by my original statement that calling someone a name who does not agree with how you understand the Bible makes no sense since there is the possibility you could be wrong. MADists don't want to hear this, since they live to correct people, and call them names.. and when that doesn’t work, you resort to name calling…. Don't make me laughYou and Johnny and Nick M are the biggest name callers on TOL.”-Tet



No, sweet Craigie never "attacks" or "insults" others, or call others names, does he

You habitual liar, hypocrite of TOL-even you know it.

_____________________________________
"Therefore, when I encounter a fellow believer who has a different understanding of scripture than I do, I do not rebuke them by calling them names, telling them they are not saved, insulting them, or calling them a liar like you do…."-actress Craigie
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
(Luke 17:20) Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,

According to you, everyone's going to see Jesus sitting down on a man made throne in the Middle East.

The LORD GOD Himself established that throne and the location of that throne......forever!

And you call it 'man made'.

1Ch 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
The LORD GOD Himself established that throne and the location of that throne......forever!

And you call it 'man made'.

1Ch 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Yes, ko of Ste, his "man made" spam is a deceptive, satanic ploy of his, that he posts, eventually, on almost every thread. It's from the pits of hell, and he knows it.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
As opposed to you, who only tries to fit the false teachings of John Nelson Darby into the Bible.

He is getting picked apart, so, as usual, the follower of J. Stuart Russell, and Hankie Hanegraaf, spams "Darby."

Clown-that's his only "bullet."

Weighty, Craigie. TOL is so impressed. Is that why you were kicked out of your "man made" church?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
I read it, it's garbage.

It's just another Darby follower trying to defend Dispensationalism, who can't explain Matt 24:34.

Why don't you believe what the Apostle Paul said?

(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.

Not only do you not believe Jesus in Matt 24:34, you don't believe Paul in 1 Cor 10:11

Appears to me you only believe John Nelson Darby

Word for word spam.

"Why don't you believe what the Apostle Paul said?
... you don't believe Paul in 1 Cor 10:11"


That's his "debate ender."

Next up: Why don't you believe the bible/"Jesus?"


And TOL laughs at Craigie.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
According to you, everyone's going to see Jesus sitting down on a man made throne in the Middle East.

Luke 2 KJV

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Tet:According to you, "Jesus" was laid in a man made manger in Bethlehem in the Middle East.


Was the "the inn" referenced above, "man made?"



Luke 2 KJV

46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.


Tet:According to you, "Jesus" was sitting down, teaching, in a man made temple, in Jerusalem in the Middle East.



Matthew 2 KJV

11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.


Tet: According to you, "Jesus" lived in a man made house in Nazareth in the Middle East


Tell us Craigie, did the Lord Jesus Christ, whom you, in disdain, and in disrespect, refer to as merely "Jesus," wear "man made" clothes? Was Noah's ark "man made?"




Stuff your satanic, deceptive "man made" ploy, from hell..............
 
Top