Preterism and "This Generation"

The thing is, preterists on this list have PROVEN their definition of "this generation" with other references and Biblical exegesis. Ed simply says "it's the Church age, the end, thank you very much please". No exegesis, no exposition, no Thayers, nothing...just "it's the Church age, presently at 2000 years".

Warren

 

Definitions of words used in the preceeding post
that would make the post true:

"exegesis" - a Bible word study done by a preterist
"exposition" - a peterist setting forth facts and opinions
"proven" - speculation by a preterist

 

Yes it would, if like I stated the mountain represented a Kingdom.

Isaiah 2:2 (HCSB):
In the last days
the mountain of the Lord's house will be established

Since the Bible already tells us the 'last days' were in the 1st century then the mountain clearly means the Kingdom of God that the apostles said was at hand. Makes perfect sense unless you try to literalize it.

Jesus Himself told us when these events would happen:

Luke 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. 29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us .

Jesus said it would happen to those living at that time.

You have already admitted that those OT references were not to be taken literally. But now you wan't to literalize them why? You keep digging yourself into a larger whole.

 

Ed,

Did the "church age" reject Jesus? Jesus said in Lk.17:25 that the Son of MAn would be "rejected of this generation".

Warren

 

Grasshopper: "Since the Bible already tells us the 'last days' were in the 1st century ... "

I missed that. Care to show me again where the
Bible says the last days are totally contained in the
first 1st century?
I beleive the last days to go from Pentacost 33AD to
the pretribulation rapture/resurrection, date currently
unkown but in our future.

When is the 1st century you speak of?
Hint: 1 Jan 0001AD through 31 Jan 0100AD.

Warren: "Did the "church age" reject Jesus?"

No. It was the generation of Jews that lived from
the Babylonian captivity to the foot of the cross
that rejected Jesus. The church age generation
shared the Jesus Nexus with that generation.
The Jewish generation was coming to an end; the church
age generation had started.

The next nexus between ages will be the seven year
tribulation time between the church age and the
physical millinnial kingdom of Christ, a physcial kingdom
run on a physical world by a physical Jesus, Jesus
will rule on a physical throne of David in a physical
Jerusalem.

 

Habakkuk 3:6 (HCSB):

He stands and shakes the earth;
He looks and startles the nations.
The age-old mountains break apart;
the ancient hills sink down.
His pathways are ancient.

This compares the greater ancientness of God
over the "age-old mountains" and the
"ancient hills"

Why is it necessary here to mention nations if
"montains" means "nations"?

Nahum 1:5 (HCSB):
The mountains quake before Him,
and the hills melt;
the earth trembles at His presence-
the world and all who live in it.

This passage shown even the mountains and
hills, yea, the whole earth, is subject to
God's judgement. This would, of course, include
the nations, so maybe here the equation
"mountains" = "nations" might be true.

Micah 1:1-6 (HCSB):
The word of the Lord that came to Micah the Moreshite -what he saw regarding Samaria and Jerusalem in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Listen, all you peoples;
pay attention, earth and everyone in it!
The Lord God will be a witness against you,
the Lord, from His holy temple.
3 Look, the Lord is leaving His place
and coming down to trample
the heights of the earth.
4 The mountains will melt beneath Him,
and the valleys will split apart,
like wax near a fire,
like water cascading down a mountainside.
5 All this will happen because of Jacob's rebellion
and the sins of the house of Israel.
What is the rebellion of Jacob?
Isn't it Samaria?
And what is the high place of Judah?
Isn't it Jerusalem?
6 Therefore, I will make Samaria
a heap of ruins in the countryside,
a planting area for a vineyard.
I will roll her stones into the valley
and expose her foundations.

Even today, the literal Samaria is
a heap of ruins, as predicted.
God is stronger than the mountains.
Maybe here "mountains" means "nations",
but it isn't a clear delineation.

 

I seemed to have missed where the Bible shows us that the last days would extend for centuries. Care to show me where the last days are to extend for 1000s of years.

You can find reference to the last days as far back as Genesis. They refer to the last days of Israel.

Genesis 49
1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Once again this is describing historical events using figurative language. The same language you force literal in the NT.

You are making my point. This type of language is figurative. The mountains didn't literally melt nor did the valleys literally split apart. The NT prophets used this exact type of language. How would the 1st century Hebrews interpret this type of language, literally or would they obviously understand it to be figurative in nature?

 

Grasshopper: "How would the 1st century Hebrews interpret
this type of language, literally or would they
obviously understand it to be figurative in nature?"

While i'm sure this is a good intellectual exercise,
i'm not a 1st century Hebrew and i don't minister
to 1st century Hebrews. I'm a citizen of the
21st Century (2001-2100)

Ed:--------------------------------------------------
I missed that. Care to show me again where the
Bible says the last days are totally contained in the
first 1st century?
I beleive the last days to go from Pentacost 33AD to
the pretribulation rapture/resurrection, date currently
unkown but in our future.
-----------------------------------------------------

Grasshopper: "I seemed to have missed where the Bible shows
us that the last days would extend for centuries.
Care to show me where the last days are to extend
for 1000s of years.

No problem:

Luke 21:24 (HCSB):

They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led
captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will
be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Please show me a time after 70Ad when the gentiles have
not possessed the top of the Temple mount in Jerusalem.
That is the time that Jesus might have come back.
If not, the Age of the Gentiles goes on 2004-70AD = 1934
(one thousand, nine hundred, and thirty-four years
so far). Sorry, the bible doesn't say 1000s of years,
you have to do the 3rd grade arithemetic for yourself.

Ed:----------------------------------------
Habakkuk 3:6 (HCSB):

He stands and shakes the earth;
He looks and startles the nations.
The age-old mountains break apart;
the ancient hills sink down.
His pathways are ancient.

This compares the greater ancientness of God
over the "age-old mountains" and the
"ancient hills"

Why is it necessary here to mention nations if
"montains" means "nations"?
--------------------------------------------------

Grasshopper: "Once again this is describing historical
events using figurative language. The same language
you force literal in the NT."

What Historical events?

 

Ed,

The "times of the Gentiles" is not the church age either. Rather, it referred to that 3 1/2 year Jewish-Roman War, when Roman troops trampled Jerusalem underfoot. This is proven by comparing Rev.11:2, which literally says the same thing as Lk.21:24, with the addition of just how long the times of the Gentiles lasted, that being "forty two months". Put those two verses side by side and you can connect the dots to show that they are plain parallels. Both say Jerusalem/the holy city would be "trampled underfoot" by the "Gentiles" - and this last forty two months, not 1900 plus years, as the dispies teach.

Dispies say that 1967 ended the times of the Gentiles. What a joke. Jerusalem still has 450,000 "Gentiles" living there and the Moslem Dome of the Rock stands where the Temple stood! Jewish leaders cannot even ascend the Temple Mount today without touching off an intifada by the Gentiles who live there! 1967 did NOT mark the end of the times of the Gentiles!!!!

Warren

 

Warren: " ... that 3 1/2 year Jewish-Roman War, ... "

Took me 14 pages to drag that out of you.
It still isn't close to true.

The Roman suppression of the Jewish uprising in
70AD did not take 3½-years. The ministry of Jesus
was not 3½ - years long. The 70th week of
Daniel is still waiting. It will be much closer
to two 3½-year periods than that of the
alleged 3½-year ministry of Jesus followed by
a 3½-year siege of Judea 70-33=37 years later.
(yes, i know some some make the year of the
death and resurrection of Jesus to be 30AD
so there can be a 40-year break /one generation/
in the 70th week.)

Warren: "Dispies say that 1967 ended the times of the Gentiles."

I've heard that. It is so stupid it doesn't bear repeating.
The Times of the Gentiles goes on. It is the same as the
Church Age (age in which membership in the Church can
be originated by gentiles) .

Warren: "1967 did NOT mark the end of the times of the Gentiles!!!!"

Amen, Brother -- Preach it!
The times of the gentiles will end at
the pretriublation rapture of the
church age born-again elect saints - and
event that takes place after this post
is posted.

I withold comment on why what i say is ignored by some,
but people like to argue the points made by folks not
debating here. Come on, what did you think about
my "island" verses?

 

Thats right Ed. Now you see your problem. You try to interpret the Bible through your 21st century eyes instead of those 1st century Jews to whom these letters were written.

This conclusion is based on your own private interpretation of what you think Luke refers to.Luke 21 clearly refers to the events of AD70. Read some of our Baptist forefather's commentaries on this, not LaHaye.

Thats right Ed. You are catching on. It doesn't say 1000s nor does it say 1934 years. However if we go on for another 66 years then we will be into the 1000s won't we? You will have to back track once again won't you?

Here is what Matthew Henry says on this verse:

Then the everlasting mountains were scattered, and the perpetual hills did bow;

the mighty princes and potentates of Canaan, that seemed as high, as strong, and as firmly fixed, as the mountains and hills, were broken to pieces; they and their kingdoms were totally subdued.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=hab&chapter=003

The great Baptist theologian John Gill said this;

and the everlasting mountains were scattered ;
or, "were broken" F9: the perpetual hills did bow ;

the mountains and hills that were from the beginning of the creation, that were settled upon their bases, and never moved, now trembled, shook, and bowed, as Sinai and others did, at the presence of the God of Israel; see (Judges 5:5) (Psalms 68:8,16) or rather, figuratively, these may design the kingdoms and states, kings and princes, greater and lesser, belonging to the land of Canaan, which were shaken, moved, and taken by the Israelites, and brought into subjection to them; and in like manner kings and kingdoms, comparable to mountains and hills, through the preaching of the Gospel, and the power of Christ attending it, were brought to yield unto him, at the downfall of Paganism in the Roman empire: this is signified by every mountain and island being moved out of their places, and kings and great men calling to the rocks and mountains to fall on them, and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb , (Revelation 6:14-17) :

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=hab&chapter=003&verse=006

So Ed I ask you where do you put these things in our future?

 

Ed,

It seems that every time term is the church age to you. That is hilarious! From "this generation" to "the times of the Gentiles" and something else too, as I recall, it's the church age baby! Not!

You said that the Jewish-Roman War was not 3 1/2 years. Huh??? Ed, it was from 66-70 A.D. In fact, please research the compassing of Jerusalem by Cestus in 66 to the day the Temple was burned in 70 - it's 3 1/2 years. Even the numbers at the end of Daniel 12 are dead on with that time. You are off on history too.

You said that Jesus did not minister for 3 1/2 years. Huh?? Most all theologians agree that he did. Jesus even told a parable about the fig tree - Israel - not having produced fruit "these three years". Then, "why cumbereth it to the ground?" The reply was "Lord, let it alone this year also (the remainder of that year - another 6 months)." Ed, everyone knows that Jesus ministered publically for 3 1/2 years. He was baptized and anointed in the middle of the seventieth week. Notice that Daniel 9:26 says "And AFTER 69 weeks shall Messiah be cut off.." Not at the very end of the 69th week, as dispies teach, but some "after" 69 weeks would Messiah be cut off, or crucified. How far after? In the middle of the seventieth week.

Ed, your dispensationalistic, Schofieldite view of Daniel 9:27 is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We must interpret scripture with scripture, and I know you would agree with that. There isn't one parallel anywhere in the Old or New Testaments that supports the interpretation of a "seven year peace treaty"! NOTHING! On the other hand, there is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH scripture in the New Testament that says CHRIST "confirmed the covenant", not a satanic antichrist. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament priophecies. Now notice how the following 2 verses clearly and plainly tell that Christ concirmed the Abrahamic covenant spoken of in Dan.9:27:


"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to CONFIRM THE PROMISES made unto the fathers." (Rom.15:8)

"And this I say, that THE COVENANT, that was CONFIRMED before of God IN CHRIST..." (Gal.3:17)


COULD IT BE ANY PLAINER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

We could also look at other scriptures throughout Hebrews and Galations that demonstrate the same truth. How about Heb.9:16-18, which says:


"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (to confirm the covenant).
For a testament (covenant) is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength (Christ confirmed, or STRENGTHENED the Abrahamic covenant by his death) at all while the testator liveth.
Whereupon neither the first covenant (the Old covenant) was DEDICATED (Gr. means CONFIRMED) without blood (the point he is making is that the New Covenant too was confirmed with the blood of Christ, as the rest of the chapter elaborates for us.)."


This is basic stuff, Ed. Unfortunately, dispensational theology is so firmly ingrained in you and many others that you have been blinded to these foundational, fundamental, gospel truths. It was CHRIST WHO CONFIRMED THE COVENANT IN FULFILLMENT OF DANIEL 9:27!!!!!

Warren

[ November 20, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Grasshopper: "This conclusion is based on your own private
interpretation of what you think Luke refers to.Luke 21
clearly refers to the events of AD70. Read some of our
Baptist forefather's commentaries on this, not LaHaye."

Your statement is self-contradictory, do i private
interpert or read too much LaHaye?

Grasshopper: "Thats right Ed. Now you see your problem. You try to interpret the Bible through your 21st century eyes instead of those 1st century Jews to whom these letters were written."

Then let us agree to disagree. I'm closer to the events happening
than the 1st century folk are.
BTW, if all this stuff went down in 70AD as predicted, then
the Revelation of John written in 96AD is a history.

Grasshopper: "Thats right Ed. You are catching on. It doesn't say 1000s nor does it say 1934 years."

However, by contranst, you have no clue. "From now on" means
thousands of years NOW that we have had the history.
According to 2 Peter 3:8 though, this is but a couple of God's
days. The 2,000+ years long "this generation" continues on
until God puts an end to it, as shown in the scripture.

Unless you happend to have a date when all the mountains and
islands moved out of their place.

Grasshopper: "Here is what Matthew Henry says on this verse:"

I quote the Bible, you quote Matthew Henry -- let the debate
watchers figure out which makes more sence.

Grasshopper: "So Ed I ask you where do you put these things in our future? "

DOuble fulfillment

COme on, the minor prophets were written after the events
that John Gill said fulfilled them. Oh well, preterists say that
the prophecies of the the Revelation received by John in
96 AD came done in the 3½-years of 0070AD -- come one Prets,
prophecy and history are two different elements.

 

Warren: "It seems that every time term is
the church age to you. That is hilarious!"

Warren quoting scripture:
"And this I say, that THE COVENANT, that was
CONFIRMED before of God IN CHRIST..." (Gal.3:17)

So it seems you see all covenants as the same.
You should be more careful, the covenents
made by the antichrist and the Christ should be
distinguished.

Daniel 9:27 (HCSB)
27 He will make a firm covenant
with many for one week,
but in the middle of the week
he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering.
And the abomination of desolation
will be on a wing of the temple
until the decreed destruction
is poured out on the desolator."

BTW, i note when a preterist mentions a scripture
it is called 'exposition' and 'rightly dividing the
word of God'; when a futurist gives great details about
that a scripture means it is NOT these things???
Bad definition folks

The first "He" has a capital because it is the
first word in the sentence. The second "he" has
a small "h" because it refers to a non-deity
entitiy up-page. The nearest non-deity person mentioned
is in Daniel 9:26 refereing to the prince who shall come,
the one whose people destroy the city.

Sorry, Daniel 9:26 is about not the Christ but the
Antichrist who is to come, even in our time -- Christ
has come already, Antichrist is due any time now.

BTW, i adjure you in the name of the Christ to
list each time a scripture is cited the version of
the Bible you got it from. You are there and know, i have
to divine it. In the Name of "Jesus" i ask you not to
steal more time away from me for make-work projects of trying
to figure out what Bible you are using.

Gal 3:17 (HCSB):
3:17
And I say this: the law, which came 430 years later,
does not revoke a covenant that was previously
ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.

This obviously speaks of the covenant with Israel
and the law delivered to Moses. I have no idea
what your passage means, I can't find it in the Bible
from which you quoted it.

Warren: "COULD IT BE ANY PLAINER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Yes. You could tell me which Bible to look into
so i can read it for myself. Or do you insist on being
my priest and reading the Bible to me?

 

Excellent question. Which is it?

So the prophetic meanings change with time? Yes, according to you I guess they do.

Where is your proof? There is more internal and external evidence for an early date than late. Ed requires more study on this.

You seem to have no idea what Peter was saying. Not even dispys agree with your strange interpretation on what generation means.

God is incapable of clearly communicating time with His creation in your view. Or perhaps He enjoys confusion.

You know I have already dealt with this. Why do you continue to throw it out? You even admitted it was not literal in OT passages. Blind, Blind, Blind

No, you didn't quote scripture when interpreting those verses. Nice trick though.
Yes, lets let the readers figure out who makes sense, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon.... or Ed.

Oh, so now they did happen in the past. So you have now moved to Eric's position, or you are so twisted like a pretzel that this "double fulfillment" card was all you had left.

But you just said they were to be double fulfillments. In order to be double, they first had to happen. You have now taken two positions.
Did they happen or did they not? Careful how you answer. You might want to review you previous responses before answering.

Really? Did Jesus historically fulfill any OT prophecies?

Must admit, I've never heard that before.

 

Ed,

"And AFTER 69 weeks shall Messiah be cutoff.." (Dan.9:26)

Sometime AFTER the 69th week Messiah was cutoff. Dispies teach that he was cutoff at the very end of the 69th week, supposedly leaving the final wek to be fulfilled. So they are flat out wrong, according to the text, not me.

How far after? Since, according to verse 25, it was 69 weeks to Messiah the Prince, or the BAPTISM of Christ (Messiah means anointed one, and Jesus was anointed at his baptism), then OBVIOUSLY Messiah was cutoff in the middle of the 70th week. This coincides PERFECTLY with the duration of Christ's public ministry, which was 3 1/2 years.

Rom.15:8 and Gal.3:17 KJV clearly teach that Christ confirmed the covenent in fulfillment of Daniel 9:27. Sorry, Ed, no satanic antichrist confirming (confirming???...hahahahahaha) a seven year peace treaty, which is an absurd idea.

And nothing whatsoever in the text itself suggests a "church age parenthesis" between the 69th and 70th weeks. Nothing! The same for the N.T. Nothing. The gap doctrine is pure dispensationalism, which C.I. Schofield sold people, especially Baptists. Sorry, Ed, not postponement of the kingdom. All was fulfilled right on schedule in the first century, just like Jesus laid out in the Olivet Discourse, which culminates everything with the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Warren

 

Grasshopper: "There is more internal and external evidence
for an early date than late."

care to share it with us?

Ed -------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you happend to have a date when all the mountains and
islands moved out of their place.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Grasshopper: You know I have already dealt with this.
Why do you continue to throw it out"

I have continously shown you the Bible does not always
mean "nations" by "mountains".
You have not said what "islands" stand for in any verse
containing the word. It is hard to debate with jelly.
Come on, take a stand. What does "island" mean in prophetic
literature?

As quoted by Grasshopper:
-------------------------------------------------
Grasshopper: "So Ed I ask you where do you put these things in our future? "

DOuble fulfillment
----------------------------------
You misquoted me.
You misunderstood me.
You misrepresened me.
I aught to boycott you.
BUt you are so easy to beat hands down in a debate.
Your double standards are showing.

Grasshopper: "So you have now moved to Eric's position,
or you are so twisted like a pretzel that this
"double fulfillment" card was all you had left//

Lighten up, you are NOT the Thanksgiving turkey.
Go look at the smiley face. It was a humor.
Oops, i got ugly with the humor impaired, my bad

 

Warren: "All was fulfilled right on schedule in the first century,
just like Jesus laid out in the Olivet Discourse,
which culminates everything with the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D."

This is the claim of Preterism.
I've never seen this claim proved anywhere.
I've not seen this claim even shown in the 15 pages
of this. I've made counterclaims with scripure,
the claims un-mentioned. Come on, i have a long post
about "islands" -- what does "islands" mean in
prophetic Bible passages? It probably is a one-word
answer but nobody can give it to me?

Here is futurism:
2 Peter 3:13-14 (HCSB):
13 But based on His promise, we wait for new heavens
and a new earth, where righteousness will dwell.
14 Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for
these things, make every effort to be found in peace
without spot or blemish before Him

Here is Preterism:

/entry pending/

 

Ed,

Your counterclaims are inconsistent claims. You admit that the sun, moon and stars prophecy is metaphoric, but in the very next verse you insist on a wooden literal interpretation of the mountains and islands moving out of place. That's called incosistency.

Ed, you must take the time statements seriously and keep them in context of when they were written. 2000 years is way beyond the parameters of "shortly come to pass", "the time is near", and "I come quickly".

You have been PROVEN WRONG on "this generation"
Lk.17:25 - Jesus was rejected of the first century generation ("this generation").
Lk.21:32 - All would be fulfilled before the same generation had passed.

It's pretty simple, Ed. Just go withn the OBVIOUS meaning and you will do well. Instead, you scramble for these desperate explanations, like saying everything means the church age. Hahahahahah.....

You have also been proven wrong on Daniel 9:27. Anyone can see that it was CHRIST who "confirmed the covenant" in accordance with Romans 15:8 and Gal.3:17 and many other N.T. verses that give us the fulfillment.

Verse 26 - "The prince that shall come" refers to the ONLY prince in the prophecy, the previously mentioned "Messiah the Prince" of verse 25. The "people" the Prince that shall come were the Jews themselves primarily. Josephus documented that as the Jews knew they were going down in defeat they set fire to the Temple and Jerusalem. The Roman armies could also be viewed as the people of the Prince that shall come - Messiah - since they were his agents of destruction. Read the marriage parable of Matt.22:2-7. Verse 7 says that the king was angry over the killing of his servants, the prophets, and he "sent for HIS armies (the Romans armies), and destroyed those murderers, and BURNED UP THEIR CITY (Jerusalem in 70 A.D.)".

So you're just plain wrong across the board, Ed. Admit it. The scriptures themselves testify against your explanations, definitions, and futuristic viewpoint.

Warren

 

Say that Preterism was correct (for discussion purposes)
say that everybody bought into preterism,
then what would be different in the world than it is now?