Featured Let Jesus be Jesus and Preterism Rings and Reigns all through the Bible

Who did Jesus say would see the abomination & when? He said that those to whom He was speaking would witness the abomination when Jerusalem is compassed with armies. There it is. Now, how do you fit thousands of years & distant generations into these verses? Jesus has to be grammatically challenged for futurist doctrine to be correct.

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) -Mat 24:15
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: -Mark 13:14

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. -Luke 21:20-21

 

Logos, ever heard of the holocaust?

Logos wrote: "3. Matthew 24: 21-22 If you were more familiar with your bible history of the Roman Jewish war and what the zealots were doing to people trapped in Jerusalem during that period you would realize that whatever your definition of great tribulation such as never been before or will be--it would rise to meet that definition. You should read up on your history of that period if you have the stomach for it when it talks about mothers eating their infants, disembowelment, impalings, genital mutilation, crucifying so many people around Jerusalem that trees had to be imported to make the crosses, etc. It would top anything I’ve ever read about any period or time in history."

If you can believe Josephus, about a million Jews died in the A.D. 70 siege. Try pitting that against 6 million in the holocaust and tell me again who doesn't know their history. The sad thing is that both of those will pale when the great tribulation comes. You don't know your bible. The scripture says if those days were not shortened, no human being would be saved. The siege of A.D. 70 never threatened all humans. Matthew 24:22 (ESV)
22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

But make no mistake, the great tribulation will shake all humanity.

 

Thanks, Logos. Likewise, your posts are helpful to me as well.

As you probably know, there real isn't tremendous difference between this Bible and other recent renditions in terms of fidelity to the text. But there have been certain areas where eschatological bias has been imposed on otherwise fairly worthy translations.

One is the inconsistency in the rendering of significant terms like "mello", "katargeo" and several others. These terms are very often nuanced away from their straightforward sense in order to make room for futurist loopholes in those passages that would otherwise make our case quite plainly.

Another inconsistency is not in the words themselves, but in the spaces between them! Paragraphs breaks are wedged in where the futurism of the editors demand it. A case in point is the severing of Matthew 16:27-28 from the very next verses, 17:1-2

Now it is true that the break at this point, wrong though it is, has a long history - all the way back to (I think) Exiguus in the 6th century. But the point remains that modern editors are quite willing to keep the separation here, though in other places they break freely with traditional chapter breaks by making paragraph breaks elsewhere. At any rate, editors do the same thing with Luke 9, where there is no chapter break.

It has certainly snowballed in the last two centuries, but we already have signs of a botched eschatology in the second century IMO.

I am not sure if you are aware that they do have a web page, though it has not been updated for few weeks. I started to share it here, but decided against it. I can send you the link privately.

Yes, they asked me to do those chapters. I was happy to do it, though it came at a time when I also had a heavy teaching schedule. But the intro is just a few pages, nothing really major. The hardest part - at least at first - was working out a few of the details of the cross-chronology between those two books.

I was going to answer your PM too, but it will have to wait until later. My wife has been looking at the back of my head too long, so she needs to have a few pecks at the keyboard too.

 

One possibility is that they understand that (contextually understood).... "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" is a sin which is presently impossible to commit. That is one option.

 

It is a worthy question to ask "How do they think this?" It is good to admit, "I don't understand that." But it is arrogant to think "My understanding is what makes truth claims actually 'true'. My not understanding is what makes truth claims 'false'."

I find little utility in conversing with these kind of people. In the end they are not persuasive and actually become amusing... or pitiful. At first I was more than amused, thinking you were very humorous... but maybe I was wrong.

 

Was there supposed to be a thoughtful response to the numerous soon time statements there. If so, then I'm not seeing it.

 

I'm not arguing either way, which is why you weren't 'seeing it'. The more I read Logos1's comments the more they remind me of the KJVo's that use such over-the-top comments such that other people that hold a contrary view must obviously sacrifice their children to Molech. (Yes, this is an over-the-top comment, btw, but the point I'm making should be able to be seen.)

 

I can actually answer for him here:

No...there wasn't, and H.T. did not imply or intend to suggest that there was.

There wasn't...that is why you don't "see" it as you have observed....

Some people (H.T. included) are not such poor debaters as to always feel forced to engage the opposition on the ground of their own choosing...He was merely stating what he stated, which did not address this...Congratulations!!! You understood English as clearly presented. No Dispy will claim that it is not, in fact, the case that an (even cursory) perusal of the New Testament doesn't often convey something of a "soon-ness" or "emminent-ness" to Christ's return. We already know that.....We don't debate it. *sigh* No Dispy is going to argue with you that black is white....sorry....:thumbsup::thumbsup::wavey:

Note to the Preterists....let Tom represent your view...he is intelligent, informed, and knows both his point of view and that of actual Dispy's quite well....He is not of the opinion that Dispy's are unaware of the particular factoid that the New Testament does not often admittedly convey the notion of "soon-ness" to Christ's return...He also would not pretend that all Dispy's were unaware of the facts that:
1.) The Scriptures do indeed prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.
2.) The Historicity of afore-mentioned occurence....yes, it happened... we know this.

Those are not, and probably never were... the crux of our arguments.

I look forward to reading his posts and responses, and learning from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4wl0VFgpjY&feature=fvwrel

 

"So we have established that the inerrant, divinely inspired word of God says he will return soon, but then you turn right around and disagree that Christ did return soon and that 2,000 years later claim it is still in the future. You have demonstrated how dispensationalism argues with itself, is inherently flawed, and you have fundamentally disputed the inspired Word of God on a point that you already acknowledged. Can somebody explain to me again how that isn’t blasphemy."

Now where is the scripture that says Christ did return? You like to throw around that word blasphemy. Would you care to define just what you mean by blasphemy?

Luke tells us this: Acts 1:11 (ESV)
11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

Now Jesus departed from the Mount of Olives and to the Mount of Olives this same Jesus will return. It's right there plain as day. And the book of Zechariah tells us what will happen when Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives:
Zechariah 14:1-4 (ESV)
1 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst.
2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.
4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward.

Sorry, friend, but this has not happened yet.

 

I am saying that 6 million Jews slaughtered is worse than A.D. 70. Any logical human being would see that.

 

Wrong again Logos1

you said, "Which takes us back to scripture….pride goeth before a fall…isn’t that in the bible"

You can not get anything right, can you?

Proverbs 16:18 (ESV)
18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

Please consider that in Acts 1:11 we are dealing with an adverbial phrase, not an adjective. "In the same way" =/= "in the same form". In your quoting of the Acts 1 you left out the actual crucial point of commonality between Christ's ascension and His return - and that is that He was hidden from their sight. He was in the cloud before the angel had made this announcement.

The promise does not concern Christ's nature (including His visibility), but the manner of His coming; how He will come.

Here is the larger context:

"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:9-11

I don't know how many times I have read this very single verse - I mean the 11th verse only - quoted in isolation. I rarely see the preceding two verses included, which mentions the cloud making Christ invisible. Yet in almost every judgment of God passage - and in almost all "Second Coming" passage in the NT - there is also mention of clouds.

Thus, any appeal to these passages must also deal with these clouds, not ignore them as being beside the point.

It is also "plain as day" that many to whom Christ was speaking would actually see His return. He had promised this.

Once again, you would have done well to consider the greater context.

First of all the phrase "in that day" occurs 19 times in these last chapters of Zechariah. Some of them are, admittedly by all - futurists included - referring to the time of Christ's Incarnation. But the futurists are forced to essentially make two days out this one "in that day". Two widely separated (about 2000 years!) "days". This is contrary to the straightforward language of the Bible.

Now getting to your 14th chapter: There are actually two dividings asunder. First we have the one you mentioned. Then we have the one you didn't get to, in verse 8-9:

"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." - Zech. 14:8-9. This is the same event that is revealed to us in Rev. 11:15.

Now, when did "living waters" "go out from Jerusalem"?

Before we go further we need to ascertain this. Do we have anything similar to this, like in the Gospels? We certainly do.

To answer this question well and thoroughly is necessary to understand the rest of this chapter with all of its apocalyptic and symbolic imagery.

The gist of the prophetical scripture is not about Antichrist, but about Christ.

"[T]he testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." - Rev. 19:10

 

Logos.....The term "soon" is a relative term, not a concrete one. You obviously think that 2,000 years renders something as no longer being "soon"...Others simply may not. Maybe you consider a man who is 6'2" as "tall", but it would not be false or "wrong" for someone else to not really consider a man "tall" unless he topped 6'4"... See what I mean?

What you keep describing others (such as myself) as being is heretical not blasphemous...you are mis-using that word. You think we are heretics...not "blasphemers"...you need to get your pointless insults correct.

 

Jesus did not say he is coming soon, he said he is coming "quickly", that is, in the twinkling of an eye.

Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Jesus was not saying he is coming soon here, he is saying he will come suddenly.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This is what Jesus meant, that he will come suddenly, in a moment. There will be no time for an unbeliever to repent. This is shown in many of his parables, such as the five wise, and five foolish virgins, Jesus will come suddenly and catch many unawares.

The problem is that many of the MVs have translated the word "quickly" to read "soon".

NIV- Rev 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

ESV- Rev 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.

Just more evidence that the KJB and the MVs do not say the same thing and give a completely different understanding. Preterists use these verses to constantly argue Jesus promised to come "soon". Jesus did no such thing, Jesus said he would come "quickly" which means in a moment, very suddenly.