Preterism and Matthew 23:39

[thomas15]

Grasshopper, I don't mean to insult you or anyone else. But, to answer your questions would mean that I would have to start at the beginning of basic communication methods of the English language. This is something I'm not willing to do since A. you clearly have the skills but elect not to use them, and B. you have not made a serious attempt to answer my questions so this exercise really serves no purpose.

I have no need to engage in a battle of wills, especally when the other person in the discussion makes no real attempt to address the topic at hand.

As an observation, one of the methods covenant A-Mills use to convince people that dispensationalism is in their minds false is that there is this sensational aspect of the (dispensationalists) end times viewpoint and they, the amills try to frame the discussion as being between logical, sensable, highly educated and realistic people (a-mills) vs. kooks who get their theology from religious novels and think Jesus is going to rapture the church and end the world sometime next year (dispensationalists). Preterism comes to the dispies rescue in that they try to make up historical facts that are no where recorded in any history book and attempt to make the clear language of the Bible mean something totally different from the normal useage and plain meaning of those words. So we have that to be thankful for.

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper, I don't mean to insult you or anyone else. But, to answer your questions would mean that I would have to start at the beginning of basic communication methods of the English language. This is something I'm not willing to do since A. you clearly have the skills but elect not to use them, and B. you have not made a serious attempt to answer my questions so this exercise really serves no purpose.

I have no need to engage in a battle of wills, especally when the other person in the discussion makes no real attempt to address the topic at hand.

As an observation, one of the methods covenant A-Mills use to convince people that dispensationalism is in their minds false is that there is this sensational aspect of the (dispensationalists) end times viewpoint and they, the amills try to frame the discussion as being between logical, sensable, highly educated and realistic people (a-mills) vs. kooks who get their theology from religious novels and think Jesus is going to rapture the church and end the world sometime next year (dispensationalists). Preterism comes to the dispies rescue in that they try to make up historical facts that are no where recorded in any history book and attempt to make the clear language of the Bible mean something totally different from the normal useage and plain meaning of those words. So we have that to be thankful for.

Once again, another Dispie who runs for they hills when trying to interpret the time statements in their "normal useage and plain meaning". Come back when you can actually answer the question.

 

[thomas15]

Once again, another Dispie who runs for they hills when trying to interpret the time statements in their "normal useage and plain meaning". Come back when you can actually answer the question.

Not looking to get caught up in a childish game with you but it would be noted by anyone without a dog in this fight that my questions from the OP have gone unanswered. Why? because there is no logical or Biblical answer coming from the preterist camp. And of course, as stated before, why should I start chasing my tail simply to amuse you, for what purpose I ask?

On the other hand, in the final analysis, how academic could a discussion possibly get with an individual who thinks Rome sacking Jerusalem 2000 years ago meets the God ordained judgements against Babylon?

 

[Grasshopper]

Not looking to get caught up in a childish game with you but it would be noted by anyone without a dog in this fight that my questions from the OP have gone unanswered. Why? because there is no logical or Biblical answer coming from the preterist camp.

Everyone please notice comment number two of this thread. It provides a link to an in-depth article on this very verse. So to say there is no Biblical answer from the preterist camp is a false statement. And to say it, knowing I have provided a link to such article, makes it a lie.

On the other hand, in the final analysis, how academic could a discussion possibly get with an individual who thinks Rome sacking Jerusalem 2000 years ago meets the God ordained judgements against Babylon?

Very academic if you were able. However for those openminded people who don't buy into the Tim LaHaye nonsense here is book by Kenneth Gentry now free online that makes the case:

*http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbr.pdf

Or perhaps the best on the subject can be purchased from Amazon:*

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0938855263/?tag=baptis04-20

Or one can wait till Babylon is rebuilt and then point to that as the Babylon of Revelation. That would be the literal thing to do.

 

[thomas15]

....Or one can wait till Babylon is rebuilt and then point to that as the Babylon of Revelation. That would be the literal thing to do.

You basic logic is this:

The Bible plainly teaches in Revelation 17 and 18 that in the end times Babylon will be judged by God and destroyed in 1 hour, never to be built again. Your view is that since Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70, Jerusalem is actually this same Babylon spoken of by John. Therefore, Jesus must have returned in the 1st century and those poor misguided dispies, in order to be in your opinion consistant and literal must have ancient Babylon rebuilt before their (the dispies) end times scenerio can take place.

So, if the preterists scenerio correct, which I have serious doubts it is, could you at least explain to this poor misguided fool why the early (AN) church fathers and or Josephus didn't tell us that the Savior Jesus returned in the 1st century? Can you tell us why Covenant theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards had no clue that Jesus retuned in AD 70?

Does this understanding of yours, that is Jerusalem actually being Babylon not make it reasonable to assume that Daniel, speaking about the time of the end, actually wrote the book that bears his name from Jerusalem, since in preterist Bible code Jerusalem is actually Babylon and not a city in the land of shinar as he clearly states in Daniel ch 1? Why did Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon come to Jerusalem to besieged it when Babylon is actually Jerusalem, would he not have already been at that location?

 

[JesusFan]

You basic logic is this:

The Bible plainly teaches in Revelation 17 and 18 that in the end times Babylon will be judged by God and destroyed in 1 hour, never to be built again. Your view is that since Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70, Jerusalem is actually this same Babylon spoken of by John. Therefore, Jesus must have returned in the 1st century and those poor misguided dispies, in order to be in your opinion consistant and literal must have ancient Babylon rebuilt before their (the dispies) end times scenerio can take place.

So, if the preterists scenerio correct, which I have serious doubts it is, could you at least explain to this poor misguided fool why the early (AN) church fathers and or Josephus didn't tell us that the Savior Jesus returned in the 1st century? Can you tell us why Covenant theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards had no clue that Jesus retuned in AD 70?

Does this understanding of yours, that is Jerusalem actually being Babylon not make it reasonable to assume that Daniel, speaking about the time of the end, actually wrote the book that bears his name from Jerusalem, since in preterist Bible code Jerusalem is actually Babylon and not a city in the land of shinar as he clearly states in Daniel ch 1? Why did Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon come to Jerusalem to besieged it when Babylon is actually Jerusalem, would he not have already been at that location?

Wouldn't there have been SOME reference to Jesus coming back again back then?
wasn't Babylon also a 'code name" for Rome back than also?

Finally, most pretierists hold to it being spiritual, not physical resurrection for believers in Christ..

was Jesus raised physically or spiritually?

 

[Grasshopper]

[

QUOTE=thomas15;1676962]You basic logic is this:

The Bible plainly teaches in Revelation 17 and 18 that in the end times Babylon will be judged by God and destroyed in 1 hour, never to be built again. Your view is that since Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70, Jerusalem is actually this same Babylon spoken of by John. Therefore, Jesus must have returned in the 1st century and those poor misguided dispies, in order to be in your opinion consistant and literal must have ancient Babylon rebuilt before their (the dispies) end times scenerio can take place.

These "end times" you speak of, are they different from what Peter spoke of?

1Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So, if the preterists scenerio correct, which I have serious doubts it is, could you at least explain to this poor misguided fool why the early (AN) church fathers and or Josephus didn't tell us that the Savior Jesus returned in the 1st century? Can you tell us why Covenant theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards had no clue that Jesus retuned in AD 70?

'Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom's coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it." (Jonathan Edwards; Miscellany #1199)
*
:laugh: You asked for it.

Does this understanding of yours, that is Jerusalem actually being Babylon not make it reasonable to assume that Daniel, speaking about the time of the end, actually wrote the book that bears his name from Jerusalem, since in preterist Bible code Jerusalem is actually Babylon and not a city in the land of shinar as he clearly states in Daniel ch 1? Why did Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon come to Jerusalem to besieged it when Babylon is actually Jerusalem, would he not have already been at that location?

So you're saying Revelation is speaking of ancient Babylon. You are a consistent literalist. I however understand the nature of prophetic writings and the nature of the book of Revelation and therefore am able to use my mind.

Now, care to answer what Rev. 1:3 and Rev.22:7,10 mean. Or are you going to kick the can on down the road?

 

[Grasshopper]

Wouldn't there have been SOME reference to Jesus coming back again back then?

You can't seem to understand that many held to an Ad 70 coming and also a future coming.

wasn't Babylon also a 'code name" for Rome back than also?

So it can be Rome but cannot be Jerusalem.

Finally, most pretierists hold to it being spiritual, not physical resurrection for believers in Christ..

Perhaps you should spend less time posting numerous posts everyday and actually do some studying. If you did you would learn that 95% Of preterist hold to a physical resurrection. You would also learn there are many different beliefs within preterism just like futurism.

was Jesus raised physically or spiritually?

Can you name one preterist of any kind that doesn't believe He was physically raised?

 

[thomas15]

Now, care to answer what Rev. 1:3 and Rev.22:7,10 mean. Or are you going to kick the can on down the road?

You throw out a lot of words but refuse to answer specific questions. Why you insist on avoiding specific answers to the OP questions is a mystery to me. But to answer your specific question above, the answer is found in a literal reading of II Timothy 2:15, Matthew 5:18 and Titus 2:11-13

 

[JesusFan]

You can't seem to understand that many held to an Ad 70 coming and also a future coming.

except that there are NO verses in the Bible that would indicate that any of the Apostles actually saw multiple "second comings" just 1 second coming, different aspects to it, but all at End of days, and would result in the saints of God, living and dead, getting physically resurrected to glorified bodies...




So it can be Rome but cannot be Jerusalem.

can be either ones, just DO have eveidence that Rome was known by early Church to be "code" for Babylon



Perhaps you should spend less time posting numerous posts everyday and actually do some studying. If you did you would learn that 95% Of preterist hold to a physical resurrection. You would also learn there are many different beliefs within preterism just like futurism.

But do the pretierists hold that all Christians will likewise at second coming of Christ receive physical glorified bodies?
seems that what I have read on the matter, some hold that we get a "spiritual resuurected" immediatly after death, but no physical resurrection at time of Second Coming, no "glorification"



Can you name one preterist of any kind that doesn't believe He was physically raised?

Do the points addressed above that I referred to apply to both full/partial pretierists, or just to the full/hyper ones?

 

[thomas15]

'Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom's coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it." (Jonathan Edwards; Miscellany #1199)
*
:laugh: You asked for it.

Again, to avoid answering the question, you try to change the direction of the conversation.

But...

Do you think, in your wildest imagination that Jonathan Edwards was a preterist? Is that what you really think?

Have you ever read anything by Jonathan Edwards besides http://www.preteristarchive.com ?

 

[Grasshopper]

Do you think, in your wildest imagination that Jonathan Edwards was a preterist? Is that what you really think?

Did I say he was? But is the belief that Christ had many comings including including AD70 preteristic?

Have you ever read anything by Jonathan Edwards besides http://www.preteristarchive.com ?

Evidently you haven't read him as much as you think, or you would have understood that he, along with many others understood the events of AD70 as a coming. Don't get mad at me because you haven't done your homework.

 

[Grasshopper]

Do the points addressed above that I referred to apply to both full/partial pretierists, or just to the full/hyper ones?

A general view:

Partial prets would hold that Matthew 24 was partially or fully fulfilled in AD70. Much of Revelation is fulfilled but not all. There is a coming judgment and physical resurrection along with a physical return of Christ.


Full prets would hold that all of Matthew 24 and Revelation have been fulfilled. There is no physical bodily resurrection or future physical coming of Christ.

One or both camps may be shocking to you as they were me at one point. However it would be helpful to study their views to understand how they got to their positions then they may not seem like monsters to you.

 

[thomas15]

Evidently you haven't read him as much as you think, or you would have understood that he, along with many others understood the events of AD70 as a coming.

You have removed any doubt that I might have had that you are a serious conversationalist.