Featured Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

Again, weeding out the insults and extraneous material, I have just a few minutes to answer this post.

Since we are talking about the New Testament (New Covenant) I think you are grossly wrong in saying that Acts 2:17 is still in the Old Covenant. And you are missing out on 2 Peter 3:3 and James 5:3 and 2 Tim. 3:1 and Heb. 1:2, all of which talk about the "last days." By your logic the last days were still going for many, many years after Jesus died on the cross and rose again. I think that is very poor theology, not well thought out.

You apparently don't know the meaning of the word "quickly" in English (never mind Greek which you seem to fear). I've tried to dialogue with you on this, but all I get back are insults.

"Quickly" in this case doesn't mean "soon" as you are interpreting it, but the way something is done, because it is an adverb. (Remember those from bonehead English? They talk about the motion of the verb.) So when He comes ("quickly" doesn't say when that will be) it will be quick, a sudden event with no time to prepare.

Right, 60 to 70 is just a few days. :laugh: This is a preterist problem just as much as it is a futurist problem, but the difference is that I'm willing to admit it but you are not.

Sure, the coming of the Lord is "near" from His viewpoint, since 1000 years is as a day in His sight. This verse is teaching the imminent coming of Christ, but "imminent" and "soon" are not synonyms.

I have no problem with this passage referring to 70 AD. The thing is, as I pointed out in another post, v. 6 where not one stone was left on another, was literally fulfilled by the army of General Titus. So prophecy is for literal fulfillment. And we're right back to Rev. 1:7, "every eye shall see Him" and that did not happen in 70 AD. So you want to interpret some passages literally and others symbolically. That gives the power to you, the interpreter. You can then make prophecy mean whatever you want it to.

 

When you refute my remarks on 1 Corinthians 15 in post #92 and my OP in the thread Full Preterism: True or False then perhaps you will be entitled to make snotty remarks. Until then :wavey::laugh:.

 

Seriously?
You don't take admonition or warning very seriously do you?
Let me describe to you how the infraction system works.
One insulting remark, inappropriate comment, demeaning statement, etc., is worth an infraction of 3 points. A person is either banned or at least suspended at 21 points. The above points only last 3 days and then expire. But if you make them all in one night then you face the consequences. If I had enforced the rules last night you made enough insulting comments about different people that you wouldn't be posting today, and for a long time coming. You don't take rebuke well.

Then there is this post. What I pointed out to you last night is your lack of Scriptural support. You demanded of OR Scripture, but you hypocritically did not defend your position with any Scripture whatsoever. In fact, if I remember correctly you used some logical fallacies such as sweeping generalizations, universal negatives, saying that there are "no Scriptures supporting this position." Really? And you have studied absolutely every single one in every possible context to make sure of that statement?

You never even tried to answer my post, and yet it was the same post you expected OR to answer. It was insulting. But you still demanded an answer of him anyway. I answered it. But now you refuse to answer me. Is it because I have provided Scripture and you can't defend your own position?
Do away with the insults and respond in a civil manner.

If the insults and demeaning language don't disappear I will start handing out infractions. Fair enough?

 

according to matthew 24 all that is recorded therein

 

doesnt matter if it was a whole book or just 1 statement-- shut it up and shut them not up--thier is a time expanse their you are not looking at or refuse to address--daniel to john was a shorter time span that that of john to our day--dont you think God would have also told John to shut them up also being a even longer time span that daniels's ??

so its very evident according to the language of the new testament that those things were for their day and time--

 

Sorry, I can't work with this. It's too vague. Some of the chapter is about 70 AD and some is not.

 

No, there was no reason for God to tell John to shut up his complete prophecy. It was given to a different age than Daniel's age, and God deals differently with Mankind in different ages. Furthermore, apparently there was content taught Daniel that God did not want Man to know at that time. Who are we to question God? And we have the entire rest of Daniel, which was not "shut up". So where is the problem?

I've taught completely through both Daniel and Revelation in Japanese (and Rev. in English). There is much complementary material in the two books. And there are some things God does not want us to know.

 

Hasn't God already said that the secret and hidden things are reserved for Him alone, that we have all that we need to know, NOT what He knows!

 

There is much scripture that refutes Preterism, most notably the book of Zechariah.

Zec 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

God did not fight for Jerusalem against all the nations that came upon it in 70 A.D. Jesus did not come down and set foot on the Mount of Olives, and the mountain did not divide in two, providing a valley for the Jews to escape.

Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Jesus didn't become king over all the earth in 70 A.D.

The land wasn't turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon in 70 A.D.

Jerusalem has not been safely inhabited since 70 A.D.

Those men who came against Jerusalem in 70 A.D. were not destroyed in the manner shown here, their flesh did not consume away while they stood on their feet, their eyes did not consume away in their sockets, and their tongues did not consume away in their mouths. This actually sounds very similar to the effects of an atomic explosion, tremendous heat.

Nobody believes Preterism, because none of this happened. You will never get more than a few folks to believe this stuff, because it is not believable

 

Same type of reply the jews--i bet--gave to Jesus when he came on the scene telling them the truth and they held on to their tradition instead of looking at the scriptures and what Jesus was telling them

Men dont recieve truth because men are blind--This i know

 

What are you saying? Do you believe Mt. Olives divided in two in 70 A.D.? Is there a record of a great valley where the Jews of Jerusalem escaped? Did the Romans vaporize while they were standing on their feet in 70 A.D.?

When Jesus returns, it will be to defend Jerusalem, not destroy it.

 

jesus comes back to fight FOR isreal, to defend the faithful jewish remnant alive at that time, for when he returns, all jews living still will get saved and isreal will be reborn in a day!

 

And this is what you call debate. When you can't answer then just.....

You should be posting this to yourself. I have supported my arguments with Scripture. Where are yours? I haven't seen anything yet.

This is not what I consider debate. But it is worthy of an infraction.

The height of arrogance. I have pm's complaining about you.
You seem to have "I" trouble.

That is quite fair. The door is always open. You can even ask for a refund when you leave. If the rest of your posts are as civil as this one, I don't expect that you will be staying long.

 

I have prayer meeting tonight. I don't have time to delete your insults, figure out which is extraneous material, and answer you. Sayonara.

 

As usual, I'm deleting the extraneous material and the insults.

This is empty rhetoric, not a rebuttal to my assertion that preterism also has a time problem. Rebuttal is necessary for this to be a debate. There are various ways you could approach that: (1) refer to a dictionary definition of "soon" or "quickly" which would allow you to call 10 years "soon." (2) Show contemporary usage (a book, article, Internet, etc.) in which "soon" means up to 10 years.

Again, for this to be a debate, you have to prove this. Give me a dictionary definition (English or Greek) or contemporary usage in which "quickly" means what you say it means. Otherwise, give me grammar--I said it is an adverb. Do you disagree?

Um, no. I never said that and I don't believe it. I do believe that Jesus flew into the air. That is what "ascension" means, and you said you believed in the physical, bodily ascension of Christ, so you must believe just as I do, that Christ flew. For this to be a real debate, you would now have to give the post # and quote where I said what you accuse me of.

The Biblical term "last days" refers to the current age, what is called the Age of Grace or Church Age (I prefer this term) in dispensational theology. For you to be actually debating you would have to prove your asseration that "last days" is a reference to the last days of the Old Covenant, something you simply state with no proof.

I disagree. Prove this assertion and convince me you know how to debate.

Now that is a really strange interpretation. Can you give facts to support your interpretation? Can you actually exegete the passage so someone will be convinced?

 

Exactly! :thumbs: