Thessalonian Comfort or Future Coming? 2 Thess. 1

[HankD]

HankD,

Please forgive me for thinking you might be in agreement with Logos!
I see from your following quote that you are not one of his group!!
I jumped too quickly over his mis-use of "figures of speech"!!!

That's OK.

We all make mistakes... :thumbs:


HankD

 

[kyredneck]

....They are living in the Mosaic generation...

Just curious, are you meaning 'Mosaic Age' here, or are you assigning a different meaning to the word 'generation' as some futurists/dispensationalists do?

Example:

But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this 'generation'. Lu 17:25

Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this 'generation'. Mt 23:36

Do the two above uses of the word 'generation' have the same meaning of the use of the word 'generation' below? Or are you implying a different meaning to it?:

So all the 'generations' from Abraham unto David are fourteen 'generations'; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen 'generations'; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen 'generations'. Mt 1:17

 

[kyredneck]

.....It also answers their question concerning the kingdom:

9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.​

......

In light of the passages given below (and there's many others), just how is it that Christ is not now, today, king over all the earth?:

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Mt 28:18

who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. 1 Pet 3:22

Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Acts 2:36

 

[Grasshopper]

The problem futurists have with preterism is the illusion of simplicity because there are a multitude of other Scripture which have to be explained "away" or spiritualized/allegorized into a kind of apocalyptic imagery.

Hank, good to speak with my brother again. My goal when debating these things is not to convince or "convert" my opponents to my view, for I know they are usually quite sold on thier interpretation otherwise they would not engage in debate over things they are not well schooled in. I debate for those who might be reading these who have not come to a conclusion and are looking for answers. You however I would love to convert.

The only real simplicity is assigning the sack of Jerusalem by Titus to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to deal with the "soon" coming passages.

The destruction of Jerusalem is described in the same manner as OT examples of similar events. One does not have to be a Full Preterist to see the events of AD70 as a coming of Christ.

John Gill

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Mat_26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people,

A myriad of other scriptures must be dealt with, not just Acts 1:11 but a raft of prophetic Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments:

Exactly! Which means one can't just use Acts 1 to build the doctrine of the Second Coming.

e.g.

Luke 22

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

In AD70 all the apostles had not yet left the scene so this can't apply to that event.​

Daniel 2 tells us when the Kingdom was to come. So was Daniel wrong?

In any case, Jesus promises some very earthly things here and other places concerning His kingdom: eating and drinking, etc.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Then as someone has mentioned, there are other problems with preterism:The end of this material world,

How is this a "problem". A Full Preterist could hold either view.

the eternal state,

Again, what is the "problem"?

the bodily resurrection of the saints

Again, not a problem when you understand what Full Preterism teaches concerning the resurrection from the dead. One question no futurist has ever answered is why when Paul is speaking of resurrection does he quote from OT passages that have nothing to do with physical resurrection but of spiritual.

Secondly, why do futurist like winman and Mel use Eze. 37 as a prroftext for physical resurrection? That is a question that other futurist should be asking. Not even most futurist scholars believe Eze. 37 is dealing with physical resurrection. Paul quotes from Eze 37 in his writings. Don't you think that would be a good place to start when trying to get the meaning of that passage??

If one wants to talk of the Doctrine of the Resurrection it is best to use OT passages that deal with it not ones that have nothing to do with it. Daniel 12, Hos. 13 and Is. 25 is where one needs to go.

and others of which seem to have no consistent solutions from even knowledgeable preterists.

If you find the preterist on this board unsatisfactory I encourage you to read those who have written on this.

http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...rt&page=shop.browse&category_id=18&Itemid=213

http://thereignofchrist.com/shop/

http://www.prophecyrefi.org/unravel.html

Secondly if you think the futurist have been consistent and can answer all the questions then you have not been paying attention. I would love to discuss Rev. 22 with you and see who stays the most consistent.:thumbs:

So one "problem" : the "sooness" of His coming and that apparent expectation from some of the writings of the apostles

Let's talk about this. Do you see this as a problem? Even non-preterist scholars readily admit there was a 1st century expectation that permeates the NT. Why does it permeate the NT? Is it not because the inspired NT writers taught it that way?

Yes, it is a problem, but not for preterists but for futurists. It is the futurists who must explain why inspired writers were wrong in their expectations.

is solved but a raft of unanswered (or unanswerable) questions flood the scene.

Most are solved quite easily when you get away from insistence on a wooden literal interpretation for Hebrew idioms and apocolyptic events.​

 

[HankD]

In light of the passages given below (and there's many others), just how is it that Christ is not now, today, king over all the earth?:

Just watch this evening's news.

2 Peter 3:13

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.​

Has the king over all the earth allowed the passage of Roe v. Wade and the slaughter of 52 million innocent lives?​

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?​

HankD​

 

[HankD]

Hank, good to speak with my brother again. My goal when debating these things is not to convince or "convert" my opponents to my view, for I know they are usually quite sold on thier interpretation otherwise they would not engage in debate over things they are not well schooled in. I debate for those who might be reading these who have not come to a conclusion and are looking for answers. You however I would love to convert.



The destruction of Jerusalem is described in the same manner as OT examples of similar events. One does not have to be a Full Preterist to see the events of AD70 as a coming of Christ.

John Gill

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Mat_26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people,



Exactly! Which means one can't just use Acts 1 to build the doctrine of the Second Coming.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Whoever wrote this (Gill?) seems to be a partial preterist.

Daniel 2 tells us when the Kingdom was to come. So was Daniel wrong?

to which passages in Daniel are you refering?




Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

True, but that doesn't mean that there won't be eating and drinking in the Kingdom, Jesus Himself promised His apostles that they would eat and drink with Him from a table in His Kingdom. These mundane things are secondary (or even tertiary, or whatever) to the kingdom of God and His righteousness itself.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.​

Problem areas... I have found conflicting answers or no answers concerning these things.

e.g. If all has been fulfilled what passage can you point to which tells of the end of this material world?

Do you see that if all has been fulfilled, you would not be able to find the passage concerning the end of the material universe because all matter (including the paper pages of the Bible) would be gone.

Again, not a problem when you understand what Full Preterism teaches concerning the resurrection from the dead. One question no futurist has ever answered is why when Paul is speaking of resurrection does he quote from OT passages that have nothing to do with physical resurrection but of spiritual.

Jesus ate and drank with the apostles and disciples after His resurrection and we are told by John the apostle that we will be like Him.​

Later they asked Him when He would return the kingdom to Israel.​

Other Scriptures tell us it will be after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.​

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

Secondly, why do futurist like winman and Mel use Eze. 37 as a prooftext for physical resurrection?

I don't know you need to ask them that question.​

If one wants to talk of the Doctrine of the Resurrection it is best to use OT passages that deal with it not ones that have nothing to do with it. Daniel 12, Hos. 13 and Is. 25 is where one needs to go.

I agree, we need to look at the whole counsel of God​

If you find the preterist on this board unsatisfactory I encourage you to read those who have written on this.

I don't think that will be necessary.​

Secondly if you think the futurist have been consistent and can answer all the questions then you have not been paying attention. I would love to discuss Rev. 22 with you and see who stays the most consistent

Consistency is not the measure of correctness, the word of God is the only accurate measure. After all Mormons are consistent in their answers.​

Let's talk about this. Do you see this as a problem? Even non-preterist scholars readily admit there was a 1st century expectation that permeates the NT. Why does it permeate the NT? Is it not because the inspired NT writers taught it that way?

So? Christ spoke of a delay in His coming. In addition He said no man knows the day or the hour, so even under inspiration the writers of the NT were not able to make that discernment, therefore a "soon" coming is in God's eternal (actually timeless) mind, not man's. What is "soon" to our eternal God?​

 

[Grasshopper]

'm not sure what you are saying here. Whoever wrote this (Gill?) seems to be a partial preterist.

I am saying even those who are not full preterist see AD70 as a coming of Christ. It is not a desprate interpretation at the hands of full preterists to salvage their doctrine.

to which passages in Daniel are you refering?

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

These kings come from the fourth kingdom:

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

The fourth kingdom was he Roman Empire. Even pre-mill pre-trib John MacArthur understands the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire. It was the reason Jesus was able to proclaim:

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What time was fulfilled?

So I ask again, was Daniel wrong?

True, but that doesn't mean that there won't be eating and drinking in the Kingdom, Jesus Himself promised His apostles that they would eat and drink with Him from a table in His Kingdom. These mundane things are secondary (or even tertiary, or whatever) to the kingdom of God and His righteousness itself.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.​

If righteousness is found only in the New Heavens and new Earth as you seem to believe in your earlier response:

Just watch this evening's news.

2 Peter 3:13

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.​

How can we seek a kingdom where righteousness dwells that only comes after the second coming to which we have no control over. Unless you believe there are two different righteousness.'

Problem areas... I have found conflicting answers or no answers concerning these things.

I have the same problem with futurists. When righteousness comes is an example of one such problem.

e.g. If all has been fulfilled what passage can you point to which tells of the end of this material world?

I'm not sure there is one. I find many that seem to say just the opposite.

Do you see that if all has been fulfilled, you would not be able to find the passage concerning the end of the material universe because all matter (including the paper pages of the Bible) would be gone.

Do you understand that if there is an end to the material universe you must deal with passages that seem to say the opposite?

Jesus ate and drank with the apostles and disciples after His resurrection and we are told by John the apostle that we will be like Him.

Will we have our scars? Will we be part of the Godhead? To "be like Him" can mean many things.

Later they asked Him when He would return the kingdom to Israel.

He already told them the kingdom was at hand. (mk 1:13)​

Other Scriptures tell us it will be after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Yes, and I pointed out in an earlier discussion how long the "time of the Gentiles" was:​

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.​

It was then you admitted there must be two "times of the Gentiles". I didn't press it then, but perhaps now you could explain when this is and the timeline from one to the next and the events in between.​

I don't know you need to ask them that question.

You see, inconsitencies are not the lone property of full preterists.

Consistency is not the measure of correctness, the word of God is the only accurate measure. After all Mormons are consistent in their answers.

Then I am baffled by your earlier comment:​

"and others of which seem to have no consistent solutions from even knowledgeable preterists."​

So? Christ spoke of a delay in His coming.

Chapter and verse?​

In addition He said no man knows the day or the hour, so even under inspiration the writers of the NT were not able to make that discernment, therefore a "soon" coming is in God's eternal (actually timeless) mind, not man's.

This seems to be a dodge of the question concerning the 1st century expectations. Did the NT writers have a sense of imminency and does it show up in their writings?​

What is "soon" to our eternal God?

Psa 90:1 <A Prayer of Moses the man of God.> Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psa 90:3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.​

Then you believe when God decided to communicate with His creation regarding time, it was really unknowable to man. Words like "at hand" and "near" are meaningless and useless in regards to man knowing when any event would occur.​

You would then have to say that when it comes to knowing when an event was to occur God could say "it is near" or "it is not near" and it would have the same meaning. Because, "is in God's eternal (actually timeless) mind, not man's".​

 

[Logos1]

Just curious, are you meaning 'Mosaic Age' here, or are you assigning a different meaning to the word 'generation' as some futurists/dispensationalists do?

Hi kyredneck,

I’m sure different people tweak it different ways and I could have said they were living under the law. I was using it here in that context that Jesus was born under the law. The Mosaic law hence they were considered a Mosaic generation. All the generations from Moses to 70 AD could be considered Mosaic generations since their society was based around the temple and related Mosaic prescribed activities. The generation of Jesus and the Apostles would of course be the last Mosaic generation since the Old Covenant passed away at 70 AD and the New Covenant came into its own then.

Looking at your question is the term generation the same—I’ll have to research that and do another post. The term “This Generation” is used numerous times in the NT and futurists don’t change the meaning of them to mean something other than the current generation. They selectively cherry pick “this generation” not to mean the current generation when it is in a verse that obviously points to 70 AD.

I certainly agree with your statement that Jesus is now King of all the Earth.

And on an additional note if more bible study was done by reading the bible through the lens of the Old Covenant Jewish perspective it would clear up much of the misunderstanding people experience today. We make the mistake of reading the bible like any other English literature and fail to realize we should put ourselves in the mindset of the Jewish authors. When they expect the age to come to an end it is their Jewish age that is ending—the reign of the Mosaic law not the Christian age.

 

[kyredneck]

.....“This Generation” is used numerous times in the NT and futurists don’t change the meaning of them to mean something other than the current generation. They selectively cherry pick “this generation” not to mean the current generation when it is in a verse that obviously points to 70 AD......

I beg to differ with you on this. I've heard/read from more than one dispensationalist that attempts to twist the word 'generation' to mean 'the race of the Jews'; i.e. 'This generation [race of the Jews] shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished.'

While doing this research of yours on 'this generation', please make certain to include in it the 'Song of Moses'; Dt 31:16 through Dt 32. Then take note: This Song of Moses is being sang in the 15th chapter of Revelation.

[edit, add on]:
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach thou it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. Dt 31

 

[Logos1]

Hi kyredneck,

I’m not sure where we differ on the meaning here. Maybe I just wrote it in a confusing way. I’ve read the same thing plenty of times where premils try to say it means the race of the Jews instead of the contemporary generation. And, indeed it is a poor attempt of twisting the meaning.

Yes the “Song of Moses” does make an appearance again in Jerusalem during the siege in 70 AD. I take it you have read the account Josephus wrote about.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Thanks ever so much Mel.

 

[HankD]

I am saying even those who are not full preterist see AD70 as a coming of Christ. It is not a desprate interpretation at the hands of full preterists to salvage their doctrine.

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

The fourth kingdom was he Roman Empire. Even pre-mill pre-trib John MacArthur understands the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire. It was the reason Jesus was able to proclaim:

I don't really care. I respect john MacArthur but I don't always agree with him. No where in the Book of Daniel are the Romand specifically named as are the Medes Persians and Grecians. What we do know is that there will be a ten nation confederation at the end of time.

Mar 1:15

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What time was fulfilled? The earthly reign of human government.

So I ask again, was Daniel wrong?

No.

If righteousness is found only in the New Heavens and new Earth as you seem to believe in your earlier response:

How can we seek a kingdom where righteousness dwells that only comes after the second coming to which we have no control over. Unless you believe there are two different righteousness.

There is a righteousness that can be found today The source is the eartlhly manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth the Church.

When Christ returns His righteousness shall fill the earth.

Isaiah 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.​

Isaiah 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.​

I have the same problem with futurists. When righteousness comes is an example of one such problem.

Matthew 13

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

Do you understand that if there is an end to the material universe you must deal with passages that seem to say the opposite?

2 Peter 3

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.​

Will we have our scars? Will we be part of the Godhead? To "be like Him" can mean many things.

1)I don't know, 2) Jesus prayed that we may be one as He and His father are one, that does not imply we will be part of the Godhead.

He already told them the kingdom was at hand. (mk 1:13)

It was at hand but it was taken from the generation which rejected and eventually crucified Him.​

Matthew 21

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.​

Yes, and I pointed out in an earlier discussion how long the "time of the Gentiles" was:

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.​

It was then you admitted there must be two "times of the Gentiles". I didn't press it then, but perhaps now you could explain when this is and the timeline from one to the next and the events in between.​

this passage refers to the Tribulation and simply tells us that the times of the Gentiles extends into the Tribulation for 42 months.

You see, inconsitencies are not the lone property of full preterists.

I agree,​

Then I am baffled by your earlier comment:

Why are you "baffled" I am a fallible human being as we all are.

Chapter and verse?

Luke 12​

42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

This seems to be a dodge of the question concerning the 1st century expectations. Did the NT writers have a sense of imminency and does it show up in their writings?

Yes they did and yes it does.

Psa 90:1 <A Prayer of Moses the man of God.> Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psa 90:3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
Then you believe when God decided to communicate with His creation regarding time, it was really unknowable to man. Words like "at hand" and "near" are meaningless and useless in regards to man knowing when any event would occur.
You would then have to say that when it comes to knowing when an event was to occur God could say "it is near" or "it is not near" and it would have the same meaning. Because, "is in God's eternal (actually timeless) mind, not man's".

Context is the answer.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.​

And that Scripture is being fulfilled by this very conversation.


HankD

 

[Logos1]

Don't make time stand still for Christ

“Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

Often times bible scholars force time to stand still for this statement. They take the limited knowledge that Jesus has when he is on earth in human form and extend it into His glorified role in heaven. After He returns to heaven He clearly knows more about the timing of His second coming as evidenced by the temporal nature of His statements to John that He was coming quickly. He knows that it is a very little while till His return at the very least.

Present company excluded I’m sure Hank, many futurists cling to the Matthew statement in a desperate, futile attempt to justify changing Christ statement about coming quickly to change it into something that is meaningless and postpone His return thousands of years in the future.

God clearly spoke through His prophets in temporal statements that humans can understand. The Old Testament prophets knew the redemption of man was a long way off and the New Testament prophets knew it was at hand.

If we can’t trust his temporal statements then how could we think he would speak to us on a level we could understand on any other subject? Nothing would have any real meaning to us.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

I’m just doing my humble best Mel, but I always appreciate your confidence and support!

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Logos,

Every now and then you come through with a "brilliancy" that reflects the fact that even a Preterist must recognize truth that applies to the entire generation
of God's former Chosen People when He chooses them a "second time":

And on an additional note if more bible study was done by reading the bible through the lens of the Old Covenant Jewish perspective it would clear up much of the misunderstanding people experience today. We make the mistake of reading the bible like any other English literature and fail to realize we should put ourselves in the mindset of the Jewish authors. When they expect the age to come to an end it is their Jewish age that is ending—the reign of the Mosaic law not the Christian age.

But here you and kyredneck fail to "agree" on this very vital aspect of God's
inspired word. That failure exposes the basic error of your "follow up" to your
glimpses of inspired truth that Jews, in singing the Song of Moses, will recognize, after 2000 years since they rejected Yeshua as their Messiah,
they finally will all "know the Lord" (as well as all mankind will know the Lord when His Kingdom has come to earth literally and "all mankind knows the Lord, from the least to the greatest...THEN they will come to Jerusalem to worship God alone"...but only after the Last Martyr has been killed and they come out from under the Altar! Rev.15:1-5; Rev.6:9-11; Rev.7:9-11.

The time has not yet arrived in which "all mankind knows the Lord". Why?
Because the Jews have not yet sung the Song of Moses. The Jews will
not sing that Song until the armies gather to Armageddon; NOR until the
last Martyr "has been killed who must be killed"; NOR until one third of mankind has been killed at the appointed "year, month, day and hour"!!

At the End of the Age, at this End-of-Time-Slaughter by the armies of the Kings from the East (instead of the West), 1260 days after the destruction of Western Rome (the 4th extended Kingdom of Daniel 2) in one hour. It will then be the "appointed time for the total destruction of the cities of the nations that has supported Mystery Babylon for 2000 Years...when "time shall be no longer because the mystery of God was finished" [Here the future tense and aorist (past tense in the indicative mood)] forces the End of Time to occur within 3 or 4 days of the killing of "some who taste death after they have seen the Two Prophets manifesting God's Kingdom Power during the final Endtime stage of the Generation whom God has not forgotten!!!

That, sir, is what I meant by "Job and Israel" being my Jury. But those on both sides of the spiritual and literal aspects of the Kingdom of God must
wait until the Last Martyr has been killed on the Lastday, until the Church has been completed, until Elijah has finished his part in the "restoration of all things" and Jesus will "no longer remain in heaven" but comes to finish the "times of restoration"...ON the Day known only to the Father. Matt.17:11.
Here "restore"; apokatastaysei; #600, future active indicative, refers to the restoration of Israel to their former state (God will choose them a second time; Isa.11:11) AND Acts 3:21 (genitive; apokatastasews; #605); not only Israel's restoration to their former estate, but even to the more perfect physical and material estate of that of Paradise before Adam fell!

The Preterist view offers no evidence that any of these things contributed to a total climax of this world's kingdoms. Martyrs are still tasting death. The End of the Age cannot occur as long as men are still being saved under the
New Covenant in Christ's Blood!!

But Logos, the New Covenant for the reunited Houses of Ephraim and Judah
remains unfulfilled until the Last Member of the Body of Christ has been saved; until the Old Covenant (still observed by the Jews) will have vanished...for it is "growing old and its disappearance is 'near'"... just as the End of Time has been "near" for 2000 years!!! Heb.8:13.
Mel

 

[kyredneck]

Hi kyredneck,

I’m not sure where we differ on the meaning here. Maybe I just wrote it in a confusing way....

It's no problem. You said:

....futurists don’t change the meaning of them to mean something other than the current generation.

....And I said:

I beg to differ with you on this. I've heard/read from more than one dispensationalists that attempts to twist the word 'generation' to mean 'the race of the Jews'.....

Yes the “Song of Moses” does make an appearance again in Jerusalem during the siege in 70 AD. I take it you have read the account Josephus wrote about.......

Several passages from the Song of Moses (Dt 32) are quoted by Christ and the apostles, and, I believe it's significant that it is being sang in heaven in Re 15:3.

Oh yea, I've read Josephus's entire works.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Logos,

If we can’t trust His temporal statements then how could we think
he would speak to us on a level we could understand on any other subject? Nothing would have any real meaning to us.

Another clear evidence of mistreating the accommodation that Jesus made
for making 2000 years mean no more than the "two days" of Hosea signify!
Your quote explains why the importance of His extension of time for what
was "near" has displaced the former understanding that you once enjoyed!!
In Luke's account Jesus predicted the "days of vengeance...of God's wrath
would continue after AD 70 and their house would remain desolate until the
times of the Gentiles were finished"...even though another Temple is built!!!
Mel

 

[HankD]

If we can’t trust his temporal statements then how could we think he would speak to us on a level we could understand on any other subject? Nothing would have any real meaning to us.

We have already been over this subject many many times, even in the temporal statements we are told that the subjectivity of the passage of time is primarily from God's view and not ours.

What seems a "delay" to us (which He admits in at least one passage) is not so for God. In fact He asks us not to be ignorant of this fact.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.​

Here is another subject:

Acts 1

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 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.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.​

This Scripture very specifically says that Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth, not Titus of Rome) will come down from heaven in the same manner as He left.

I might ask you a similar question about trusting what the Scripture plainly teaches but I won't since that question followed by the inevitable ad hominems from both sides has been bantied over and over again.

Every system of eschatology has its difficulties, this verse (Acts 1:11) represents one of the great difficulties with full preterism.

One which I believe has no sufficient explanation.

I believe that the futuristic outlook with the aspect of a "delay" in His coming is the proper view, you believe otherwise and assign allegory and imagery where I would not (granted that allegory and imagery is a valid method of communication even of the inspired Scripture).

It's not a question of spirituality (IMO) but a matter of choice, because even the most spiritual mortal on planet earth cannot know the date of His visible return (which Scripture declares) until it actually happens when "every eye shall see Him".


HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Just watch this evening's news.

2 Peter 3:13

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.​

Has the king over all the earth allowed the passage of Roe v. Wade and the slaughter of 52 million innocent lives?​

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?​

HankD​

No sarcasm of facetiousness meant; I suppose you're also looking for the day when 'the wolf and the lamb shall literally feed together, and the lion shall literally eat straw like the ox'. I don't/can't literalize such passages and to me the new heaven and new earth represent the new covenant as shown in Heb 12. As far as this world of sin and woe goes, all I know to say is Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and especially that He is in no way responsible for that sin and woe.

 

[HankD]

No sarcasm of facetiousness meant; I suppose you're also looking for the day when 'the wolf and the lamb shall literally feed together, and the lion shall literally eat straw like the ox'. I don't/can't literalize such passages and to me the new heaven and new earth represent the new covenant as shown in Heb 12. As far as this world of sin and woe goes, all I know to say is Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and especially that He is in no way responsible for that sin and woe.

And in that we are in agreement.

HankD

 

[Winman]

No sarcasm of facetiousness meant; I suppose you're also looking for the day when 'the wolf and the lamb shall literally feed together, and the lion shall literally eat straw like the ox'. I don't/can't literalize such passages and to me the new heaven and new earth represent the new covenant as shown in Heb 12. As far as this world of sin and woe goes, all I know to say is Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and especially that He is in no way responsible for that sin and woe.

I believe this to be literal. I actually believe the wolf and lamb will feed together and the lion shall eat straw. It will be like the original garden of Eden.

The problem Preterism cannot answer is that God has promised in the last days to save Israel, not destroy it.

Micah 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

The Lord is not coming to destroy Israel but to restore it and exalt it above all nations. And there will be an end of war, something that has obviously not happened.

This is just one passage of many that shows Jesus will return to save Israel, not destroy it. Preterism has no answer for this.

 

[asterisktom]

This is just one passage of many that shows Jesus will return to save Israel, not destroy it. Preterism has no answer for this.

Preterism does have an answer to this. It has even been written to you. But it just doesn't register, I guess.

Short answer is: "Israel" does not always mean physical Israel. As we progress through the Bible, from Old to New Covenant, the physical is more and more replaced by spiritual applications.