Featured The NT does not teach Christ to return soon.

???

So you're saying there's a contradiction in scripture? Matthew and Mark says six days and Luke says eight? Does it mean so much to you to 'win' that you consistently 'strain gnats and nitpick' to 'pit scripture against scripture'? Because that's exactly what you do.

 

But still it would be incredibly lame for Christ to say some of the people standing here will be alive in 8 days. I cannot see how anyone would think that a credible explanation of this verse.

 

If we are not in the New Heaven and New Earth then we are still under the Law. Every jot and tittle.

 

Prove your a master and explain the questions I asked in post 41.
MB

 

No. I explained the meaning to you and you ignored it.

We know of no one who saw the Lord come in AD 70 (because He didn't. Peter, James and John saw the Lord coming in His glory at the Transfiguration; the others tasted of death without seeing it. Simple.

I already explained thi to you. How many times do I need to?

The coming of the Son of Man will be a physical and visible event (Acts of the Apostles 1:11).

This generation didn't pass away before the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Son of Man didn't come then. No one saw Him. When will He come? 'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only' (Mark 13:32). How will He come? Not invisibly. 'Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send His angels and gather together His elect from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven' (Mark 13:26-27). Something tells me this hasn't happened yet!

The kingdom of God was inaugurated by our Lord at His first coming (Mark 1:15) and was attested by His miracles (Luke 11:20). The coming of the Son of Man was previewed at the Transfiguration and will come in its fullness when He comes again visibly at the end of time.

The kingdom of God was already present when our Lord spoke. Luke 17:21.

I note that you have studiously avoided saying anything about 2 Peter 1:16-18 which speaks of the Lord Jesus' power and coming. But the text that blows Preterism out of the water is Acts of the Apostles 1:11 as I have shown on this board several times.

 

Why?

 

Trivial at best.

1 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: Mt 17

2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them; Mk 9

28 And it came to pass about eight days after these sayings, that he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up into the mountain to pray. Lu 9

 

What questions?

Post 41:

It's just more of your ignorant ramblings.

 

Your 'explanation' is totally inadequate and I didn't ignore it, I reject it. It's apples and oranges.

Peter is referring to Christ's incarnation, His 'first coming' here:

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased:
18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2 Pe 1

...in the very same vein as:

16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Mt 3

Christ is referring to His second coming here:

28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16

 

I appreciate that you cited verses. Not everyone here does that. I took the time to look all the verses up. Unfortunately they have nothing to do with your assertion that the New Heaven and New Earth are still future.

I have a verse that proves that we are now in the New Heavens and New Earth.

:"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. " Matt. 5:18

According to the sure Word of God there are three truths here:

1. When the Heaven and Earth pass (the Old Heaven and Earth). it will all pass away.
2. Up until that time all of the Law is still in force, every jot and tittle.
3. This tremendous change from the Old to the New is when "all is fulfilled".

If you think that the New Heaven and New Earth are still future then you are still under the Law - circumcision, bloody sacrifices, cities of refuge, no wearing garments of blended fabrics, etc.

There is no in-between period. Our Lord makes this clear.

 

See post 73.

 

There were thousands of Christians in Judea & surrounding provinces. Nero wasn't too concerned with events outside of Rome & its immediate surroundings.

A thief in the night comes SUDDENLY, not always invisibly. And again, with the number of Christians then around, some would've HAD to have disappeared in front of witnesses, including those in prisons.

Jesus was speaking of the great trib, which, of course, is yet to come, during the reign of the beast/antichrist.

Sorry, Sir; you just pulled another "Casey At The Bat".

 

This is the same ole earth that there was in 65 AD & 71 AD. There's no New Jerusalem that came down from heaven yet, & Jesus is not now ruling the whole world with a rod of iron.

 

Since the Lord Jesus Himself abrogated the dietary laws during His time on earth (Mark 7:18-19) that horse won't run. Our Lord was thinking of the Decalogue in Matthew 5:18 as is proved by the following verse where He calls them 'commandments.'

 

No, He was referring to more than the Decalogue. Just look at the rest of the context.

And your Mark reference misses the point. His comments there, like in the Sermon on the Mount, show the deeper intent of the commandments. But there was no abrogation given then. One need only to read certain Acts passages to see that dietary laws were still very much kept. Simon Peter needed a vision lesson to finally understand. So, no, the abrogation did not happen during His earthly mission and, yes, the Laws and Commandments were all together.