The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If he didn't set a date, then I don't consider him to be a false prophet.

So if someone writes a book about all kinds of events in the Middle East, then says the return of Jesus is VERY NEAR because of the events taking place in the Middle East, you don't consider that person a false prophet after 41 years go by and nothing happened that he said would happen?

Wow, you guys really defend other Dispensationalists no matter what.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Which says what?

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

new:

"kainós; fem. kainē̄́, neut. kainón, adj. New. Qualitatively new, as contrasted with néos (G3501), temporally new." -Spiros Zodhiates
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
So if someone writes a book about all kinds of events in the Middle East, then says the return of Jesus is VERY NEAR because of the events taking place in the Middle East, you don't consider that person a false prophet after 41 years go by and nothing happened that he said would happen?

Wow, you guys really defend other Dispensationalists no matter what.

I wouldn't defend Hagee or Impe, so you're wrong about 'you guys'.

*edit: and I wouldn't defend Walvoord or any teacher on every point.
 
Last edited:

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I wouldn't defend Hagee or Impe, so you're wrong about 'you guys'.

*edit: and I wouldn't defend Walvoord of any teacher on every point.

You just said Walvoord wasn't a false prophet.

How is he not a false prophet for saying the return of Jesus was VERY NEAR 41 year ago?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

new:

"kainós; fem. kainē̄́, neut. kainón, adj. New. Qualitatively new, as contrasted with néos (G3501), temporally new." -Spiros Zodhiates

In English steko.

Dispensationalism teaches that this earth gets destroyed by fire, and then a brand new earth is created (with no sea on it)

Is that what you believe?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
(Zech 1:3) Therefore tell the people: This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Return to me,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the Lord Almighty.

Sounds conditional to me.

There is nothing here that even hints that it might or might not happen:

"I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem" (Zech.14:2-4).​

If this verse was conditional, then we would read:

"Then the Lord might go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet might stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem."

That is not what is said so you must try to pervert the meaning of what is said in those verses because your goofy eschatology has no place for the fulfillment of this verse!
 
Last edited:

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
You just said Walvoord wasn't a false prophet.

How is he not a false prophet for saying the return of Jesus was VERY NEAR 41 year ago?

I believed it was very near 35 years ago.
I still believe that is is very near.....even nearer than 35 years ago.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The Lord Jesus Himself said what would occur at the end of the age:

C'mon Jerry, you're a big Apostle Paul follower.

Let's look at 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.

"has come" Jerry. That's present tense.

Do you believe what the Apostle Paul said to the Corinthians?

Paul told the Corinthians: "on whom the culmination of the ages has come"
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
In English steko.

Dispensationalism teaches that this earth gets destroyed by fire, and then a brand new earth is created (with no sea on it)

Is that what you believe?

Because of the Greek word 'kainos/renewed', I have to believe that this present earth will be scoured by fire much like it was scoured by water. I can think of no reason why the ball of the earth would have to be annihilated and another brand new(neos) one formed. He didn't use the word 'neos'. By the way, Peter uses the word 'kainos/renewed', also.

I don't know what 'sea' John was referring to.
I know from scripture that there will be geological changes, much like there was during and after the flood.
He may have been referring to the Mediterranean, which I can realistically conceive of being eliminated. I just have to say, "I don't know because there's just not enough information given."
It certainly doesn't have to mean 'oceans'.
I'll just have to wait and see on that one.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
(Heb 1:2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.


(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.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Yet, you think the works in 2 Peter 3:10 will be burned with literal fire.

Whether it is literal fire or not does not really matter since Peter states that the universe will be dissolved:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness" (2 Pet.3:10).​

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the universe will not be dissolved, since the author of the book of Hebrews says practically the same thing:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest" (Heb.1:10-11).​

The Apostle John also saw a vision of the following:

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev.21:1).​

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "were passed away" is "to perish" (Vine's Expository of New Testament Words).

Of course these things have not yet happened but you are some how able to trick your mind into believing the goofy idea that the universe has been dissolved and has perished.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
(Heb 1:2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.


(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.

Henry Alford had the following to say about Paul's words at 1 Thessalonians 4:17 :

"Then, beyond question, he himself expected to be alive, together with the majority of those to whom he was writing, at the Lord's coming. For we cannot for a moment accept the evasion of Theodoret and the majority of ancient commentators (viz. that the apostle does not speak of himself personally, but of those who should be living at the period), but we must take the words in their only plain grammatical meaning, that 'we which are alive and remain' are a class distinguished from 'they that sleep' by being yet in the flesh when Christ comes, in which class by prefixing 'we' he includes his readers and himself. That this was his expectation we know from other passages, especially from 2 Cor. 5." (Alford's Greek Testament, Vol.III, in loc).​

Paul certainly thought that he was living in the last days because he thought that he would remain alive at the rapture. Of course the Christians believed that they were living in the "last days". They knew that after they would be caught up in the air that the remaining prophetic events would begin to take place. First there would be the "great tribulation" and then the general resurrection:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn.6:44).​

"Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (Jn.11:24).​

Since you believe that this resurrection has already taken place then tell us when it happened.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Nothing in Matt 25:31 that says Jesus comes to planet earth.

Nothing in Matt 25:31 that says the throne of His glory is on planet earth.

Of course you deny that the throne of David is an earthly throne even though it was originally an earthly throne and the LORD said that He would not alter the promises under the Davidic Covenant you say that He lied and did alter them. you also said:

I said nowhere in the NT does Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, or any other NT writer even hint of a future earthly kingdom.

The Twelve were with the resurrected Christ for forty days while He tutored the Apostles about the kingdom. And they believed that the kingdom would be restored to Israel.

If they were wrong then the Lord would have corrected them. But He did no such thing and only told them that they were not to know when it woud happen.

Of course you have not spent a second with the Lord while He personally taught you about the kingdom but despite that fact you think that you know more about the kingdom than they did.

Not only are you goofy but you are also prideful.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Nowhere in the NT does it say Jesus comes back to planet earth.

What about the OT? Who is being spoken of here:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (Job.19:25-26).​
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
(Zech 1:3) Therefore tell the people: This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Return to me,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the Lord Almighty.

Sounds conditional to me.

There is nothing here that even hints that it might or might not happen:

"I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem" (Zech.14:2-4).​

If this verse was conditional, then we would read:

"Then the Lord might go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet might stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem."

That is not what is said so you must try to pervert the meaning of what is said in those verses because your goofy eschatology has no place for the fulfillment of this verse!
 
Last edited:

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
I agree, Jerry.

Christ's revelations to the Apostle Paul were progressive and though the Lord revealed to him things that were formerly unknown, it doesn't mean that the Lord revealed to Paul all things. I think, from his letters, that Paul fully expected the return of the Lord in his day and hadn't a clue that the times of the Gentiles would last as long as they have.

GOD is reaching out into the nations to call a people for His name. Acts 15
Then, after this, He will return and build again the tabernacle of David.
 
Top