| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible Believer" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2007 02:34:01 PM |
| Object: |
They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
Hi,
I have read many of the critiques of Preterism. I do not
believe what I believe, because I ignore any other position.
Nor did I begin my belief in Christ, with this position.
But I have always seen fatal flaws in the doctrines of
the futurists.
One of the critiques of Preterism, which I'll admit seems
like a real problem for the Preterist view, is the passage
found in Matthew 23:39.
I will offer a study on this verse here. I know it may seem
a bit long, but I believe that it is well worth it!
I will also note the view of Toussaint, since he is a popular
name amongst those who support the idea of the national
restoration of Israel.
If you wish to pass on studying this, that is of course, your
choice. I will say though, that you shouldn't skip over every
study that I post on my views and then claim to be refuting
my views in your messages, when you haven't even read
them and studied them, to see what it is I am saying and
whether or not it holds Scriptural water. (:
Approach something with a predetermined belief and
everything else will always be wrong to you. It was only
when I stopped doing this, that I was able to see what
the Bible says, instead of trying to filter the Bible through
my predisposed doctrine and that is why I believe what
I believe now and that is why the Bible became so alive
and so clear to me, as to what the Apostles were really
waiting for!
And are we that much of a microwave society, that even
having to spend 15 or 20 minutes on a Biblical study,
is too much to ask? Is even God's word not fast enough
for us anymore? (:
Anyway, let's us begin by noting that if we are going
to discuss this subject, it is important to read it in its
context, which I will quote here.
Matthew 23:29-39
20) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you build the tombs of the prophets, and adorn
the tombs of the righteous.
30) And you say, If we had been in the days of our
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them
in the blood of the prophets.
31) So you witness to yourselves that you are the sons
of those who murdered the prophets.
32) And you fill up the measure of your fathers.
33) Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How shall you
escape the judgment of Hell?
34) Because of this, behold, I send to you prophets
and wise ones and scribes. And some of them you
will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog
in your synagogues and will persecute from city
to city;
35) so that should come on you all the righteous blood
poured out on the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah
whom you murdered between the Holy Place and
the altar.
36) Truly I say to you, All these things will come on
this generation.
37) Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets
and stoning those sent to her. How often I desired to
gather your children in the way a bird gathers her
chicks under her wings! And you did not desire it.
38) Behold, "your house is left to you desolate."
Mat 23:39 For I say to you, In no way shall you see Me
from now on, until you say, "Blessed is He who comes
in the name of the Lord."
Many have a picture of v39 meaning some future point of
the national restoration of Israel. I would suggest that this
is a view which ignores the text and not one which is within
the context of the text.
There isn't really any argument amongst the various
eschatological views, that in Matthew 23:29-38, the
Lord Jesus Christ was predicting the fall of Jerusalem
in His generation. It is even interesting to note that
the premillennialists who normally redefine the term
"this generation" in Matthew 24:34 freely acknowledge
that "this generation" in 23:36 means Jesus' generation
and not the "Jewish race", or some future generation.
But when it comes to v39, many are confused as to exactly
how that could play into that context.
According to Plummer, there are three major interpretations
of the point of time indicated by Jesus' words:
1) The cries of the multitude on Palm Sunday
(Luke 19:38; Mat. 21:9).
2) The Second Advent (involving the conversion of the Jews).
3) The conversion of the Jews throughout all time.
Due to space, I will not go into trying to argue all three
of these points.
Rather, I will present a construction that I believe will show
the Preterist position to be the best and one that does not
force us to try to rip v39 out of the conversation that Jesus
had.
We have to first note some of the history involved, as it will
be of extreme importance in understanding this verse.
First of all, we must understand that Matthew 23:39 is a quote
of Psalm 118:26, which is part of the "Song of Ascent", or a
"Song of Degrees". What few realize though, is the historical
significance of that fact.
The Psalm was sung to pilgrims, by the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, as the travelers approached the city of Jerusalem
to observe one of the three sacred feast days of the Jewish
Calendar.
It was what was called, "an antiphonal hymn", for joyful
occasions, when there was to be a procession to the Temple,
a welcoming of the procession by those inside, and the
solemn offering of a sacrifice upon the altar there. It has
connections with the great pilgrim feasts of Judaism, but
especially the "Feast of Tabernacles". Psalm 118, especially
v26, was a song that was especially associated with the
three great feast days of Israel. So let's take a quick look
at them and see how they tie in.
This part will be a little bit boring, but as I said, it is
absolutely necessary for understanding this.
The Jews had three major "pilgrimage" feasts. There was
three times a year when every Jewish male that was of age
was required by Mosaic mandate to travel to Jerusalem
and worship the Lord (Exodus 23:17). Those feasts are
sometimes called by different names, but they are generally
known as Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Passover
is also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Technically,
the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on the day after Passover,
but was so linked with it that the terms were many times used
interchangeably. Pentecost is the Feast of First fruits, and
the Feast of Tabernacles is also called the Feast of Booths
and the Feast of In-Gathering (Exodus, 23:14; Leviticus 23).
The Feast of Passover began the Jewish Calendar and lasted
for seven days (Exodus 12; Leviticus 23:4-8). The Feast of
Pentecost, or First fruits, was almost two months later
(fifty days) (Leviticus 23:15).
The seventh month of the Jewish Calendar was especially
important, since on the first day of that month, it was
the Feast of Trumpets. On the 10th day was the Day
of Atonement, the most Holy Day in the year. On the
15th day was the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles.
This Feast actually lasted for 7 days (Lev 23:33).
The Jewish Calendar, as shown, had a significant number
of days dedicated to worship High Days. In all, counting
the 49 day interim between Passover and Pentecost since
normally that was almost considered as part of the Festival
complex, the time involved in the Feasts involved two full
months.
So what is the point to going over all of this?
Remember, it was Psalms 118 that was sung to the pilgrims
as they approached the city of Jerusalem to observe these
feasts. Thus on three different occasions, once at the
beginning of the year, once almost two months later,
and again in the seventh month Psalm 118:26 would
be heard throughout the streets of Jerusalem: “Blessed
is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”.
Now let's make the connection with Matthew 23:39.
As I already noted, there is little controversy among
commentators that Jesus, in Matthew 23:29-38, predicted
the judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But these same
commentators believe that v39 somehow strikes a
dissonant cord to that message of doom, offering instead
a "silver lining" to the dark cloud of pronounced judgment.
They say that in this verse, “The Lord Jesus said Israel
would not see Him again until that nation affirmed
(in repentance), that He was the Messiah". I do not
believe that.
Verse 39 was a statement of Jesus predicting the time of
his coming in judgment against Israel. It is very clear that
the point of Jesus' statement in verse 39 is when he would
come: "you will not see me again until you say". Many
agree with this assessment, and link this verse to a yet
future conversion of the Jews at the end of the age,
citing Romans 11:26.
But this position ignores several facts.
First, Paul, in Romans 9:28, places the predicted salvation
of Israel within an imminent time frame, actually linking it
to his personal ministry in 11:25, and 15:16. This cannot
be ignored.
Second, it also ignores the fact that Israel's salvation would
come at the time of Israel's judgment. See Isaiah 2-4; 64-66;
Zechariah 12-14, etc..
In other words, Israel would be saved BY judgment,
NOT FROM judgment. Israel would be saved by
eschatological transformation, not national restoration.
Some suggest that Zechariah 12-14 must speak of the time
of Israel’s repentance and conversion. They stress the
fountain opened for taking away Israel’s sins, insisting that
this must refer to her repentance and conversion. However,
chapter 13 describes the judgment that would fall on her
and it was a judgment that would destroy “two thirds of
the people" (13:8). Further, chapter 14 very clearly states
the destruction of Jerusalem in the Day of the Lord.
Third, it ignores the fact that the New Testament writers
indisputably taught that THEY were living in the last days,
in the end of the age (1 Cor 10:10-11; Heb 1:1; 9:26,
1 Peter 1:5-7, 18-20). It is a doubtful hermeneutic that
denies this and extends the last days for a period of two
thousand years... SO FAR!
But again, the point of Jesus' prediction is the timing of
His parousia. The purpose of his return in this context
is judgment. When would he come in judgment? At
the time when they would be singing the Song of Degrees
(Psalm 118:26)! Jesus was saying he would return in
the judgment he had just pronounced during one of
the three Feast Days of Israel! But is this what really
happened?
Anyone familiar at all with Josephus knows this to be true.
In the Works of Josephus, Book 6, chapter 9, par 3, he says...
"Now the number of those that were carried captive during
this whole war was collected to be ninety seven thousand;
as was the number of those that perished during the whole
siege eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom
were indeed of the same nation (with the citizens of
Jerusalem), but not belonging to the city itself; for they
were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened
bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army."
Thus, Josephus confirms that the siege of Jerusalem began
at the time of one of the three major feast days, one of the
distinctive times when Psalm 118:26 would be sung!
Someone might object that such a prediction by Jesus limiting
His coming to one of the feast days would be the same as
predicting "the day and the hour" of His coming. But that's
not the case at all. In Matthew 24 Jesus predicted his coming
in that generation (vs. 29-34). He even gave some signs,
(v. 14-15), so that, "when you see all these things then
know that it is near even at the doors" (v33). They could
know by these signs that his coming was near; "but of that
day and hour knoweth no man" (v. 36). Knowing something
is near, that it is even to be in your generation, does not
tell you the day, nor the hour of its occurrence!
Considering the span of time involved in the feast days of
the Jews it would hardly be possible for anyone to calculate
the day or the hour of Jesus' coming. After all, literally
months were spanned in these feasts, both at the first of
the year and in the seventh month.
If I were to tell you that I was going to come to your house
next year for sure and that it would be at one of the national
holidays, could you predict the specific day and hour I would
arrive? Certainly not. Just so, when Jesus pronounced
judgment against Israel in Matthew 23:29-38 and then in
a somewhat puzzling manner, stated that this would occur
on one of the occasions when they would be singing the
Hallel Hymn of Psalm 118, He was not specifying the day
and hour of His coming.
This view of Matthew 23:39 is consistent with the context.
It prevents us from interjecting into the context some idea
that has not been previously mentioned or hinted at.
I.e. the national conversion of the Jewish nation. But, not
only is this view consistent with the context, it becomes very
significant for helping us understand the disciples' question
in Matthew 24.
So let's look at their question a bit and see how this
helps us to understand this passage.
We must bear in mind first, that Jesus' discourse in Mat 24,
was not a long time off from what He said in Mat 23, in
the Temple. No! Jesus said what He said to the scribes
and Pharisees in the Temple and then *immediately*
walked up the mount with His disciples and they asked Him
some questions, based on what they *just* heard and He
answered them.
Jesus' disciples heard his prediction of coming judgment.
As they were leaving the Temple they began to show him
the incredible stones of the Temple. Many commentators
believe they were pointing out its beauty to him and this
is certainly not unreasonable. But is it not just as
reasonable and in context, to believe that they, after
just overhearing him predict judgment on this structure,
were pointing out its size and invulnerability as well?
But whether beauty or its structure was their focus,
the point is the same and must not be ignored.
The disciples were pointing to the Temple in immediate
response to Jesus' prediction to come in judgment against it!
Now since, as we have already seen, it is widely agreed that
Matthew 23 is a prediction of Jesus' coming in judgment on
Israel in that generation, where is the justification for
changing from that and insist that in 24:3 the disciples
were asking about some "end of time" coming of Jesus?
<Note: The KJV translates the word incorrectly in Mat 24:3.
The Greek word there is "aion" and means "age", as in
"an age" and not the planet. Check other translations
and you'll see that most translate it correctly as "the end
of the age".>
And if one accepts what I have presented regarding v39,
then this argument becomes even stronger. In other words,
if the disciples understood Jesus in 23:39 to be speaking of
his coming in judgment against Jerusalem, then the most
natural and unforced interpretation of their question in 24:2
is that they were asking for more information about what
Jesus had just predicted. Matthew 24:2 simply cannot
contextually be viewed as "New News" to the disciples.
Jesus has already pronounced coming judgment in chap 23.
Chapter 24:3 should therefore be viewed as an inquiry for
more information. They wanted more information on when
it would happen ("When shall these things be?") and the
signs precursory to the event ("What shall be the sign of
Your coming?").
Yet in spite of this it is common to read in the commentaries:
"Naturally, the disciples considered these three events,
(the fall of Jerusalem, the end of the world and the final
coming of Jesus), but in this they were mistaken.".
Huh? They were "mistaken" for thinking of the Second Coming?
Besides the fact that this statement assumes without proof
the end of material creation at the end of time, it falsely
charges the disciples with misunderstanding a subject
that inspiration specifically says they understood!
We well understand that the disciples did not, far too often,
comprehend Jesus' teaching. But, the only way we know
they misunderstood is because the inspired record tells us
they did. Just where in Matthew 23-24 are we informed
of the disciples' misunderstanding of the subject at hand?
There is no indication at all. The fact is we are told that
they DID understand.
In Matthew 13, Jesus told three parables about the end of
the age and the kingdom. In verse 51, Jesus specifically
asked them "Have you understood all these things?".
Their response was "Yes, Lord.".
Now, did they lie? Or were they too embarrassed to admit
confusion? If so, where is the indication of that being the
case, given the fact that Scripture always tells us when they
were confused?
What is so significant about this? Simple. It is because one
of the parables has a direct impact on our understanding of
Matthew 24.
The parable of the Tares in Matthew 13 tells of the coming
of the Son of Man with the angels to gather the elect and
cast out the Tares at the end of the age (v 37). Jesus says
at that time would be when "the righteous will shine forth
as the sun in the kingdom" (v 43). This is a direct quote
from Daniel 12:3.
Daniel 12 deals with the Great Tribulation (v 1), the "time
of the end" (v 4) and the Abomination of Desolation (vs 9-11).
Jesus directly alludes to Daniel 12 in Matthew 24:15 and 21
and the disciple's question about the end of the age is
grounded in Daniel 12 as well.
Now watch this! :)
In Daniel 12 the prophet overheard one angel ask another
when all these things would be fulfilled and was told that
"when the power of the holy people has been completely
shattered all these things will be fulfilled" (v 7).
Let that sink in for a moment and understand that it does not
mean, "Christians". Today's Christians are so vain, that they
think that everything they read in the Bible is about them! (:
It means the Jews! Again, referencing the coming judgment
(which has already come from out perspective in time),
let that verse sink in for a moment, before continuing...
The disciples were well aware of Daniel 12 and its prediction
of judgment on Israel. Jesus quoted Daniel 12 and applied it
to his coming at the end of the age (Matthew 13). He quoted
Daniel 12 no less than twice in his prediction of Jerusalem's
fall in Matthew 24!
Jesus asked them if they understood and what did they say?
They said, "Yes!".
Therefore, unless the disciples lied to Jesus, then they
understood from Daniel and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 13
that His coming would be at the end of the age judgment
on Israel!
Did they lose their understanding in Matthew 24?
Had they become confused since Jesus spoke His words
of Matthew 13?
I don't think so!
When we look at it in this light, the questions of the
disciples in Matthew 24 are perfectly consistent with
the context of...
1) Matthew 23.
2) The earlier teaching of Matthew 13.
3) The prophetic background of Daniel 12.
The disciples had heard Jesus predict Jerusalem's judgment.
They were familiar with the prophecies of its fall at the end
of the age, and were now inquiring for more information
about when it would happen and the signs to signify its
approach. Any other interpretation of the questions accuses
the disciples of lying, terribly bad memory, or confusion at
the very least.
Toussaint, a Dispensationalist, says in his commentary
that the disciples correctly linked Jesus’ prediction of
Jerusalem’s demise with the end of the age and his
parousia. He says;“To them (the disciples), the destruction
of Jerusalem, the coming of the Messiah and the end of
the age comprised one complex of events.”. Toussaint
even says that when Jesus spoke of the destruction of
Jerusalem, “they (the disciples), would logically call to
remembrance Zechariah 14, for those elements are all
brought together in that Old Testament prophecy.”.
I agree! :) And I would state that the disciples were correct
to associate the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age.
Now, since Toussaint concurs that Jerusalem fell in that
first century generation, and since it was logical for the
disciples to associate that event with the end of the age,
it follows that the end of the age did come with the fall
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.. There is no justification to
suggest, as does Toussaint, that Jesus’ generation would
see only the beginning of the fulfillment. To suggest that
the fall of Jerusalem was only the beginning of the end,
that is, the time when the signs of the end would begin
to occur, stretches the period of fulfillment beyond where
Jesus unmistakably placed it. Speaking of the coming
destruction on Jerusalem, Jesus said; “These be the days
of vengeance in which all things that are written must be
fulfilled (Luke 21:22). The fall of Jerusalem was the time
of fulfillment, not the time of beginning.
There is therefore, only one coming in the context of
Mat 23-24. Even Toussaint agrees that the disciples were
not confused to associate the fall of Jerusalem with the
end of the age, although of course, he extends the end
of the age, so far by 2,000 years. Naturally such a gap
between the sign, Jerusalem’s fall and what it signified,
the end of the age, is totally lost in such a huge gap!
After hearing Jesus' awesome words in 23:29, the disciples
naturally wanted to know more and thus the questions of
Matthew 24:3. Unless of course, one can demonstrate that...
1) The coming of 23:39 is not the judgment coming of
the previous verses.
And..
2) That the coming of v 39 is therefore, a reference to
national Jewish conversion.
It seems therefore, unavoidable that v 39 is indeed a
reference to the A.D. 70 coming of Jesus in judgment
against Israel.
This also provides the context for identifying the coming
in 24:3. This means that if the coming of 24:3 is the
coming of 23:39 and if the coming of 23:39 is A.D. 70,
then there is no basis at all for postulating an "end of time"
coming in Matthew 24.
A final thought here.
Many Dispensationalists insist that in Luke 21:28, when Jesus
promised “when you see these things come to pass, lift up
your heads, for your redemption draws nigh”, that this is
a reference to the national conversion and salvation of
Israel.
This is a clear cut failure to honor the language and context.
Jesus was speaking to his personal disciples, and promising
them that they will suffer persecution at the hands of the
Jews (“they will deliver you to synagogues” v12), just as
he had told the Jews in chap 23 that they would persecute
his disciples. Jesus was not speaking of the Jewish nation
under attack. He was speaking of his disciples, those who
became the church, the True Israel! This distinction,
established by simply honoring the pronouns, is, in actuality,
devastating to the literal, 1,000 year millennial view!
And also, as a result of this persecution, Israel would bear
the brunt of God’s wrath, for He would bring the Abomination
of Desolation and final judgment on Israel.
It is tragic that dispensationalists seem not to realize that
the Abomination of Desolation can ONLY be seen as a judgment
on Israel for violating the everlasting covenant, and in fact,
for persecuting the church!
It is interesting to note that Toussaint does state;
“Dispensationalists and Preterists agree that the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was God’s
judgment on Israel.”.
In fact, Jesus said clearly that when Jerusalem was destroyed,
that it meant that all things written were fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For THESE are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Furthermore, in 70 AD, the Roman armies burned the Temple
and afterward, tore it apart, stone by stone, to retrieve the
melted gold that ran in between the stones, thus fulfilling
Jesus' prophecy in Mat 24:2. Now some may point to the
Western Wall, as a way of escaping with their vanity intact,
claiming that it didn't happen and that it's still all about
them. But the reality is, the Western Wall was merely
part of the foundation platform that the Temple buildings
were built on top of and to say that because it's still there,
that it means that Jesus' words have not been fulfilled,
would be like telling a victim of Hurricane Andrew that
their house was not destroyed, because the basement
is still there. :)
Jesus' return was a spiritual event, with some physical
aspects to it. People expect to see Him riding on a cloud,
claiming that He said this would happen. But that ignores
the symbolic language that God used throughout the
Scriptures and that Jesus would have used also, especially
since He was a first century Jew, speaking to first century
Jews. Look at this FULFILLED prophecy about the time
that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt:
"The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides
on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; The idols
of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of
Egypt will melt in its midst." - Isaiah 19:1
Now did anyone literally and physically see God riding
on a cloud at that time? The answer would be no,
so does that mean that God lied? Or that we need
to stop reading everything as physically literal and
stop letting our vanity and ego be our guide?
Let's look at what did happen in 70 AD though...
Tacitus, a first century Roman historian said, "There were
many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted
by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were
seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. A fire fell
upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple
were suddenly opened. At the same time there was a loud
voice saying that the gods were removing, which was
accompanied with a sound as of a multitude going out.
All which things were supposed, by some to portend
great calamities."
Tacitus also said...
"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict,
of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from
the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy
place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard
to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same
instant came the rushing tumult of their departure"
(Histories, v. 13).
Eusebius (A.D. 325), quoting from the Latin Josephus,
in the fourth century:
"For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed
troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air,
wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities"
(Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8).
The following is also part of what is recorded about 70 AD...
Heavenly phenomena:
- A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.
- Lightning flashing.
Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)
- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying,
"Let us remove hence."
Josephus further says that "no other city ever suffered
such miseries; nor was there ever a generation more
fruitful in wickedness from the beginning of the world. ...
In reality it was God who condemned the whole nation and
turned every course that was taken for their preservation
to their destruction. . . . The multitudes of those who
perished exceeded all the destructions that man or God
ever brought upon the world."
Famine did its slow but dreadful work so that women were
known to eat their own children, just as Moses said they
would do, fifteen hundred years before. The prophecy of
Christ that not one stone of the Temple should be left upon
another, was literally fulfilled. The Jews were carried
into captivity among all nations, and their condition from
that time till now has been an impressive proof of the
truth of prophecy. (Hopkins' Evidences, pp. 322-324.)
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE TRUTH!!!
Jehovah never allowed, nor caused Israel to be attacked
and pillaged, unless she had violated the covenant!!!
See Psalms 41:11.
To suggest that the Abomination would be a horrible
act of desecration placed on the “innocent” nation, by
a traitorous Man of Sin, COMPLETELY IGNORES the
covenantal nature of any and all attacks and desecrations
against Israel’s land, city and Temple!
To put it simply, if Israel was attacked and her city
and Temple conquered or desecrated, it was PROOF
POSITIVE that it was in violation of the covenant!
Another point that must be brought to bear here, is the fact
that even the "literal 1,000 year" millennialists claim that
the Mosaic Covenant has been forever fulfilled and removed
in Christ. Yet, they then appeal to Deuteronomy 30 and
other Old Testament passages, as proof texts, to support
a future restoration. This is a logical contradiction!
You cannot say that the Old Covenant has been forever removed,
and then appeal to the Old Covenant to support the idea of
a future restoration of Israel! If the old system has been
removed in the judgment, which is what 70 AD was all about
and is all that Jesus mentioned, then it cannot be that the
texts are supporting a NATIONAL RESTORATION, but rather,
are actually symbolic of a spiritual fulfillment in Christ
(see Heb 12:22)! Especially considering that as pointed
out earlier, their salvation comes at the time of their
destruction, hello? :)
Since the Abomination of Desolation must be seen as a judgment
from God on Israel, according to the Mosaic Covenant, it is
prima fascia evident that the Abomination of Desolation had
to occur while the Mosaic Covenant was still standing. And
it no longer does and as any Rabbi can tell you, Biblical
Judaism ended in 70 AD!
The point is, that in the context of the redemption promised
in Luke, it has to refer, *NOT* to the nation of Israel and a
national repentance and conversion.
Jesus was speaking to his followers about what would befall
them at the hands of Old Covenant Israel and then, what
would befall Old Covenant Israel for her persecution of
His disciples. Jesus was not speaking to or about Old
Covenant Israel when he said, “when you see all of these
things come to pass, your redemption draws nigh.”.
He was speaking to those who followed him in faith.
So we have seen that identifying the context and background
of the Song of Ascent in Matthew 23:39 is helpful in properly
interpreting the entire Olivet Discourse.
The interpretation provided here, avoids the pitfalls of
introducing unprecedented subject matter into the actual
context and it is consistent with the context of judgment
in Matthew 23.
Just as in chapter 24, Jesus foretold the fact of his coming
and the general time of its occurrence. He had already
given the scene of His coming in judgment and a statement
as to the time for its happening.
Jesus would come in judgment against Jerusalem. He would
come on one of the Holy Days of the year, when they would
be singing, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".
And this is exactly what happened!
Thus, in spite of the Dispensationalist's objections,
Matthew 23:39 presents no difficulty for the Preterist
view. Rather, it confirms the true Preterist view!
And finally, let us bear in mind that Jesus never preached
a physical, Earthly kingdom and to read Revelation that way,
is to take the most symbolic book in the Bible and try to
make it the most physically literal! (:
We must bear in mind, that just because we see the rod "earth"
in the Bible, that does not mean that it is automatically
speaking of the whole planet. Most often, the Greek word
behind it is "ge", which means "land", not "the planet".
As for the Kingdom that Jesus preached, what did He say?
Luke 17:20-21
20) Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when
the kingdom of God would come, He answered them
and said; The kingdom of God does NOT come with
observation;
21) Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’
For indeed, the kingdom of God is WITHIN you.
Note that Jesus said the following:
The word "observation" is translated from a Greek word.
Parateresis - Inspection, that is, ocular evidence
Ocular = Of or relating to the eye; the sense of sight.
So let's compare what Jesus said, to what the Futurist
doctrine claims.
Jesus: The Kingdom of God does *NOT* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Futurism: The Kingdom of God *WILL* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Jesus: They will *NOT* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Futurism: They *WILL* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Hmmmm.... That doesn't seem to me to be an accurate
assessment of what the Bible says, on the part of the
Futurists. And yet, they keep claiming that what they're
saying, "is in the Bible". Does that seem right to you?
Let us note that Jesus NEVER, EVER taught a physical
Kingdom of God on Earth, that people could see with
the eye and point at and say, "Look! There it is!".
NEVER AND NOT ONCE!
So when any Futurist, preaching this "national Israel
is God's people" doctrine claims that what they read
elsewhere in the Scriptures proves their claim, they
are really saying that Jesus was wrong and they are
pitting the Bible against itself! (:
Now Jesus' statement was VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR!
It was not some "super fantastic, sci-fi, complex" statement.
Yet the Futurists want us to believe that we are to interpret
what Jesus said, as meaning the exact opposite of what He
actually did say, because they wish to interpret the
fantastic, sci-fi sounding, "new heaven and earth" statements,
as physically literal statements. Yet proper interpretation
requires us to interpret the fantastic statements by the
simple and the obscure statements by the clear statements
and not the other way around.
I hope this has helped some to see what they have not
yet seen!
We must remember *NOT* to approach the Bible as if
it were written by 21st century Gentiles, just the day
before we opened it for the first time and just for us.
Rather, we must read the Bible understanding the people
of that time and how they thought, wrote and spoke!
Only then, can we begin to understand what is being said!
May God bless your study of this!
--
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
30 Jan 2007 01:38:49 AM |
|
|
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ecqpr29rlga1eb5ib13bmedelftvohlad6@4ax.com...
<snip length discourse, most of which I'm ok with>
In fact, Jesus said clearly that when Jerusalem was destroyed,
that it meant that all things written were fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For THESE are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Furthermore, in 70 AD, the Roman armies burned the Temple
and afterward, tore it apart, stone by stone, to retrieve the
melted gold that ran in between the stones, thus fulfilling
Jesus' prophecy in Mat 24:2. Now some may point to the
Western Wall, as a way of escaping with their vanity intact,
claiming that it didn't happen and that it's still all about
them. But the reality is, the Western Wall was merely
part of the foundation platform that the Temple buildings
were built on top of and to say that because it's still there,
that it means that Jesus' words have not been fulfilled,
would be like telling a victim of Hurricane Andrew that
their house was not destroyed, because the basement
is still there. :)
Jesus' return was a spiritual event, with some physical
aspects to it. People expect to see Him riding on a cloud,
claiming that He said this would happen. But that ignores
the symbolic language that God used throughout the
Scriptures and that Jesus would have used also, especially
since He was a first century Jew, speaking to first century
Jews. Look at this FULFILLED prophecy about the time
that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt:
"The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides
on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; The idols
of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of
Egypt will melt in its midst." - Isaiah 19:1
Now did anyone literally and physically see God riding
on a cloud at that time? The answer would be no,
so does that mean that God lied? Or that we need
to stop reading everything as physically literal and
stop letting our vanity and ego be our guide?
Let's look at what did happen in 70 AD though...
Tacitus, a first century Roman historian said, "There were
many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted
by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were
seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. A fire fell
upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple
were suddenly opened. At the same time there was a loud
voice saying that the gods were removing, which was
accompanied with a sound as of a multitude going out.
All which things were supposed, by some to portend
great calamities."
Tacitus also said...
"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict,
of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from
the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy
place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard
to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same
instant came the rushing tumult of their departure"
(Histories, v. 13).
Eusebius (A.D. 325), quoting from the Latin Josephus,
in the fourth century:
"For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed
troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air,
wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities"
(Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8).
The following is also part of what is recorded about 70 AD...
Heavenly phenomena:
- A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.
- Lightning flashing.
Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)
- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying,
"Let us remove hence."
Josephus further says that "no other city ever suffered
such miseries; nor was there ever a generation more
fruitful in wickedness from the beginning of the world. ...
In reality it was God who condemned the whole nation and
turned every course that was taken for their preservation
to their destruction. . . . The multitudes of those who
perished exceeded all the destructions that man or God
ever brought upon the world."
Dave, this is where I see the biggest weakness with the preterist
view. All the witnesses to these major Scriptural events are non-
Christians.
Tacitus was a Roman and not a believer.
Josephus was a Jew but not a believer.
Eusebius was a believer but was not alive at the time.
He was relying on Josephus.
Not only are they non-Christian but this supposedly happened
when the New Testemant authors were alive and active.
Why didn't James, Peter, John or Luke or Paul mention any of this?
These guys were alive at the time and busy establishing a fledgling
Church and writing the New Testament, and they didn't mention
a word of it. Not even one Christian witness to possibly the biggest
Christian events in history of the Church, that smells fishy.
Anyhoo, I like the way the preterist do their homework.
<snip the rest. Most of which I have no problem with>
Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
30 Jan 2007 03:38:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:38:49 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> claimed:
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ecqpr29rlga1eb5ib13bmedelftvohlad6@4ax.com...
<snip length discourse, most of which I'm ok with>
In fact, Jesus said clearly that when Jerusalem was destroyed,
that it meant that all things written were fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For THESE are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Furthermore, in 70 AD, the Roman armies burned the Temple
and afterward, tore it apart, stone by stone, to retrieve the
melted gold that ran in between the stones, thus fulfilling
Jesus' prophecy in Mat 24:2. Now some may point to the
Western Wall, as a way of escaping with their vanity intact,
claiming that it didn't happen and that it's still all about
them. But the reality is, the Western Wall was merely
part of the foundation platform that the Temple buildings
were built on top of and to say that because it's still there,
that it means that Jesus' words have not been fulfilled,
would be like telling a victim of Hurricane Andrew that
their house was not destroyed, because the basement
is still there. :)
Jesus' return was a spiritual event, with some physical
aspects to it. People expect to see Him riding on a cloud,
claiming that He said this would happen. But that ignores
the symbolic language that God used throughout the
Scriptures and that Jesus would have used also, especially
since He was a first century Jew, speaking to first century
Jews. Look at this FULFILLED prophecy about the time
that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt:
"The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides
on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; The idols
of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of
Egypt will melt in its midst." - Isaiah 19:1
Now did anyone literally and physically see God riding
on a cloud at that time? The answer would be no,
so does that mean that God lied? Or that we need
to stop reading everything as physically literal and
stop letting our vanity and ego be our guide?
Let's look at what did happen in 70 AD though...
Tacitus, a first century Roman historian said, "There were
many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted
by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were
seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. A fire fell
upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple
were suddenly opened. At the same time there was a loud
voice saying that the gods were removing, which was
accompanied with a sound as of a multitude going out.
All which things were supposed, by some to portend
great calamities."
Tacitus also said...
"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict,
of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from
the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy
place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard
to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same
instant came the rushing tumult of their departure"
(Histories, v. 13).
Eusebius (A.D. 325), quoting from the Latin Josephus,
in the fourth century:
"For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed
troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air,
wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities"
(Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8).
The following is also part of what is recorded about 70 AD...
Heavenly phenomena:
- A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.
- Lightning flashing.
Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)
- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying,
"Let us remove hence."
Josephus further says that "no other city ever suffered
such miseries; nor was there ever a generation more
fruitful in wickedness from the beginning of the world. ...
In reality it was God who condemned the whole nation and
turned every course that was taken for their preservation
to their destruction. . . . The multitudes of those who
perished exceeded all the destructions that man or God
ever brought upon the world."
Dave, this is where I see the biggest weakness with the preterist
view. All the witnesses to these major Scriptural events are non-
Christians.
Tacitus was a Roman and not a believer.
Josephus was a Jew but not a believer.
Eusebius was a believer but was not alive at the time.
He was relying on Josephus.
Actually, that is the strength of the testimonies,
as any attorney will tell you. If it were Christians
testifying, then one might say that they were biased.
Since it is non-Christians testifying, this makes it
a solid testimony, since they had no reason to support
the Christian view, especially since they did not like
the Christian idea of one God and persecuted it.
Not only are they non-Christian but this supposedly happened
when the New Testemant authors were alive and active.
That is not true. Not as far as the writings were
concerned.All of the Bible wa completed prior to
the 70 AD event. Furthermore, all but one of the
Apostles were dead by the time of that event.
Why didn't James, Peter, John or Luke or Paul mention any of this?
Why would they mention an event that happened
after they died and long after they wrote their letters?
We surely do not have every letter they wrote, but
what is also sure, is that God preserved the Gospel
message for us. For history outside of that message,
we rely on history.
Now here is what is true about ancient historical texts,
especially from non-religious sources. There is a science
called "textual criticism" and within that science, it is
assumed that what is written is true, until it is proved
to be false, if it can be proved to be false.
Furthermore, before something can be logically questioned,
you must show motive. I.e., WHY WOULD THEY LIE ABOUT
THIS? Therefore, you have a burden to prove that these
people, who did not believe in Christ as Lord and had no
reason whatsoever to support it, wrote down these events.
You must realize, that these people did not even realize
(Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) that they were supporting Christ
in their writings. They were simply recording weird events
that took place.
What happened in 70 AD (the Temple being burned and
torn down, stone by stone, etc.) is a matter of history.
It is a fact. Even a non-Messianic Jew will admit to that.
Why do you think it is that any Rabbi can tell you that
Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD?
These men that I quoted, showed what else went on.
And bear in mind, while you claim that they were not
Christians, that is irrelevant. Who was it who opposed
Christianity the most? The Jews, of course! And yet,
parts of the list I provided, was recorded by JEWISH
PRIESTS! Think about that! :)
If you are one of those who thinks that the NT was
written around 100 AD, then you have other issues
to deal with, especially since they would not have
lived that long. Only one did. John. And he was
so infirmed, that he had to be carried into a church
and could only speak a few words.
The view that John wrote Revelation in 95 AD is
completely wrong. But even if we grant that,
John need not have a text out there about the
70 AD event, for us to know that it happened.
These guys were alive at the time and busy establishing a fledgling
Church and writing the New Testament, and they didn't mention
a word of it. Not even one Christian witness to possibly the biggest
Christian events in history of the Church, that smells fishy.
No, they were not alive at the time. James, for example,
dies in the 40's. Paul and Peter died in the 60's. Others
were not even in the area and had spread out even as far
as the Orient. And they died martyrs' deaths as well.
Anyhoo, I like the way the preterist do their homework.
Thanks. :)
And from you russell, continued comments and questions
are welcomed. :)
--
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
02 Feb 2007 12:02:57 AM |
|
|
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9vdvr2halmijuugnf9esqu35jjfcknom9r@4ax.com...
Dave, this is where I see the biggest weakness with the preterist
view. All the witnesses to these major Scriptural events are non-
Christians.
Tacitus was a Roman and not a believer.
Josephus was a Jew but not a believer.
Eusebius was a believer but was not alive at the time.
He was relying on Josephus.
Actually, that is the strength of the testimonies,
as any attorney will tell you. If it were Christians
testifying, then one might say that they were biased.
Since it is non-Christians testifying, this makes it
a solid testimony, since they had no reason to support
the Christian view, especially since they did not like
the Christian idea of one God and persecuted it.
I would take the opposite point of view here.
Not only are they non-Christian but this supposedly happened
when the New Testemant authors were alive and active.
That is not true. Not as far as the writings were
concerned.All of the Bible wa completed prior to
the 70 AD event. Furthermore, all but one of the
Apostles were dead by the time of that event.
But there were thousands of Christians alive and in the vicinity.
The fact that there is no reliable Christian witness is a glaring
problem with preterism in my opinion.
Why didn't James, Peter, John or Luke or Paul mention any of this?
Why would they mention an event that happened
after they died and long after they wrote their letters?
We surely do not have every letter they wrote, but
what is also sure, is that God preserved the Gospel
message for us. For history outside of that message,
we rely on history.
Can you provide any evidence from the Church fathers
to support the fulfillment of these events?
Now here is what is true about ancient historical texts,
especially from non-religious sources. There is a science
called "textual criticism" and within that science, it is
assumed that what is written is true, until it is proved
to be false, if it can be proved to be false.
Furthermore, before something can be logically questioned,
you must show motive. I.e., WHY WOULD THEY LIE ABOUT
THIS?
Tacitus was a politician from Nero's era!
Your question becomes: WHY WOULD A [politician] LIE?
This needs no response.
As to Josephus, I don't consider his writtings valid enough
for the significance of these events. Some say his writtings
were even edited by Christians.
Therefore, you have a burden to prove that these
people, who did not believe in Christ as Lord and had no
reason whatsoever to support it, wrote down these events.
2 witness.
One a politian, anything/everything he says is doubtful.
The other is a Jew who could be reliable but not enough
in my opinion, bearing in mind the importance of these events.
You must realize, that these people did not even realize
(Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) that they were supporting Christ
in their writings. They were simply recording weird events
that took place.
What happened in 70 AD (the Temple being burned and
torn down, stone by stone, etc.) is a matter of history.
It is a fact. Even a non-Messianic Jew will admit to that.
Why do you think it is that any Rabbi can tell you that
Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD?
These men that I quoted, showed what else went on.
And bear in mind, while you claim that they were not
Christians, that is irrelevant. Who was it who opposed
Christianity the most? The Jews, of course! And yet,
parts of the list I provided, was recorded by JEWISH
PRIESTS! Think about that! :)
Who was the Jewish priest?
The Church at Jerusalem was the model in the New Testament.
Not even one of the members was able to record these events.
This, in my mind makes it very questionable.
If you are one of those who thinks that the NT was
written around 100 AD, then you have other issues
to deal with, especially since they would not have
lived that long. Only one did. John. And he was
so infirmed, that he had to be carried into a church
and could only speak a few words.
The view that John wrote Revelation in 95 AD is
completely wrong. But even if we grant that,
John need not have a text out there about the
70 AD event, for us to know that it happened.
These guys were alive at the time and busy establishing a fledgling
Church and writing the New Testament, and they didn't mention
a word of it. Not even one Christian witness to possibly the biggest
Christian events in history of the Church, that smells fishy.
No, they were not alive at the time. James, for example,
dies in the 40's. Paul and Peter died in the 60's. Others
were not even in the area and had spread out even as far
as the Orient. And they died martyrs' deaths as well.
Anyhoo, I like the way the preterist do their homework.
Thanks. :)
And from you russell, continued comments and questions
are welcomed. :)
The events described in Revelation have a striking similarity
to the events that happened in Egypt with Moses and Pharaoh.
I assume that the 'end-time' events will be more dramatic and
more wide spread than what happened in Egypt. I could be wrong.
Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
02 Feb 2007 08:19:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:02:57 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> claimed:
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9vdvr2halmijuugnf9esqu35jjfcknom9r@4ax.com...
Dave, this is where I see the biggest weakness with the preterist
view. All the witnesses to these major Scriptural events are non-
Christians.
Tacitus was a Roman and not a believer.
Josephus was a Jew but not a believer.
Eusebius was a believer but was not alive at the time.
He was relying on Josephus.
Actually, that is the strength of the testimonies,
as any attorney will tell you. If it were Christians
testifying, then one might say that they were biased.
Since it is non-Christians testifying, this makes it
a solid testimony, since they had no reason to support
the Christian view, especially since they did not like
the Christian idea of one God and persecuted it.
I would take the opposite point of view here.
You could take the opposite point of view, but that
would be your bias and would not come from a
scientific point of view and would, with all due
respect, contradict common sense.
If you were in a court of law, what would be greater
testimony? Your friends who don't want to see you
go to jail and say that they saw you somewhere else
at the time of the crime? Or someone who is known
not to like you saying that you were somewhere else
at the time of the crime?
We both know the answer to that question. :)
Not only are they non-Christian but this supposedly happened
when the New Testemant authors were alive and active.
That is not true. Not as far as the writings were
concerned.All of the Bible wa completed prior to
the 70 AD event. Furthermore, all but one of the
Apostles were dead by the time of that event.
But there were thousands of Christians alive and in the vicinity.
The fact that there is no reliable Christian witness is a glaring
problem with preterism in my opinion.
And it is one that you imagine up. The truth is,
there were lots of Christians around at the time
and guess what? We don't have them writing
much at all about it, but we know what happened
in 70 AD. Those who were there wrote about it.
You forget, the Christians listened to Jesus'
warning and fled the vicinity. They went to Pella.
This is also historically recorded.
You also forget that the canon was closed after
Revelation and yet, you are expecting more and
more books to be added to the Bible. If THAT
were happening, THEN you have something to
say. But the fact that the canon was closed by
70 AD, supports Preterism, since if the Lord
has not returned yet, then tell me, why aren't
there writings still being added to the canon?
So Jesus comes in the first century and His words
are fulfilled in 70 AD and He said they would be
within the same generation and the canon is closed
within that same generation and yet, according to
you, that means that not everything happened yet
and we should think that it's about us, even though
the Lord has been silent regarding Scripture for
almost 2,000 years? Does that make any sense???
Why didn't James, Peter, John or Luke or
Paul mention any of this?
Why would they mention an event that happened
after they died and long after they wrote their letters?
We surely do not have every letter they wrote, but
what is also sure, is that God preserved the Gospel
message for us. For history outside of that message,
we rely on history.
Can you provide any evidence from the Church fathers
to support the fulfillment of these events?
Yes, from some, but what does it matter? Why do you
intentionally ignore recorded history?
Even if I provide some, you will just say, "Why didn't
they all say that?".
No matter what, it is not going to be enough for you,
because you do not want to believe it and so, you are
going to be stubborn about it. I understand, as this
seemed strange to me as well, but it is the only belief
that stands up to Scriptural and historical scrutiny.
Now here is what is true about ancient historical texts,
especially from non-religious sources. There is a science
called "textual criticism" and within that science, it is
assumed that what is written is true, until it is proved
to be false, if it can be proved to be false.
Furthermore, before something can be logically questioned,
you must show motive. I.e., WHY WOULD THEY LIE ABOUT
THIS?
Tacitus was a politician from Nero's era!
Your question becomes: WHY WOULD A [politician] LIE?
This needs no response.
As to Josephus, I don't consider his writtings valid enough
for the significance of these events. Some say his writtings
were even edited by Christians.
With all due respect, you're just being ridiculous now!
For Tacitus to lie, he must have a motive. What motive
would he have to make the Christian/Jewish God look
powerful, when the Romans did not want people
worshipping Him?
As for Josephus, you are simply dismissing him out of hand,
because you do not *want* to accept what he said. But
the fact is, between Josephus and Tacitus, you have two
people in agreement about the events.
There are also more. I did not quote every source.
Now if you wish to ignore every piece of history that
we have about that event, then that is up to you.
But do not pretend to be reasonable in your approach,
when you would never dismiss history out of hand
for any other subject, as you do for this one and that
shows a clear bias. (: This is something that you don't
*want* to believe and you try to pretend that you can
wrap your rejection of history in reason, even though
you are going directly against the manner in which
textual criticism works. (:
Therefore, you have a burden to prove that these
people, who did not believe in Christ as Lord and had no
reason whatsoever to support it, wrote down these events.
2 witness.
One a politian, anything/everything he says is doubtful.
The other is a Jew who could be reliable but not enough
in my opinion, bearing in mind the importance of these events.
See above. Furthermore, you have stated guilt for these
two men, without offering any proof whatsoever. Thank
God our justice system doesn't work the way you do!
Also, important to whom? You think that because these
events would be important to you, that they're automatically
important to them, back then, even though they weren't
believers. How vain and ridiculous! C'mon, dude! :)
You must realize, that these people did not even realize
(Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) that they were supporting Christ
in their writings. They were simply recording weird events
that took place.
What happened in 70 AD (the Temple being burned and
torn down, stone by stone, etc.) is a matter of history.
It is a fact. Even a non-Messianic Jew will admit to that.
Why do you think it is that any Rabbi can tell you that
Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD?
These men that I quoted, showed what else went on.
And bear in mind, while you claim that they were not
Christians, that is irrelevant. Who was it who opposed
Christianity the most? The Jews, of course! And yet,
parts of the list I provided, was recorded by JEWISH
PRIESTS! Think about that! :)
Who was the Jewish priest?
The Church at Jerusalem was the model in the New Testament.
Not even one of the members was able to record these events.
This, in my mind makes it very questionable.
So history says they helped record these events.
You say they didn't. And so of course, you win
and that's that, right?
If you are one of those who thinks that the NT was
written around 100 AD, then you have other issues
to deal with, especially since they would not have
lived that long. Only one did. John. And he was
so infirmed, that he had to be carried into a church
and could only speak a few words.
The view that John wrote Revelation in 95 AD is
completely wrong. But even if we grant that,
John need not have a text out there about the
70 AD event, for us to know that it happened.
These guys were alive at the time and busy establishing a fledgling
Church and writing the New Testament, and they didn't mention
a word of it. Not even one Christian witness to possibly the biggest
Christian events in history of the Church, that smells fishy.
No, they were not alive at the time. James, for example,
dies in the 40's. Paul and Peter died in the 60's. Others
were not even in the area and had spread out even as far
as the Orient. And they died martyrs' deaths as well.
Anyhoo, I like the way the preterist do their homework.
Thanks. :)
And from you russell, continued comments and questions
are welcomed. :)
The events described in Revelation have a striking similarity
to the events that happened in Egypt with Moses and Pharaoh.
I assume that the 'end-time' events will be more dramatic and
more wide spread than what happened in Egypt. I could be wrong.
I see. You "assume", because it suits you better.
Yea, that's nice logic. (:
--
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
02 Feb 2007 11:08:50 PM |
|
|
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:86h6s2lc0elis3gmtcc1pjbps6fnrulr89@4ax.com...
<snip>
You could take the opposite point of view, but that
would be your bias and would not come from a
scientific point of view and would, with all due
respect, contradict common sense.
Yes I have my bias, don't we all?
If you were in a court of law, what would be greater
testimony? Your friends who don't want to see you
go to jail and say that they saw you somewhere else
at the time of the crime? Or someone who is known
not to like you saying that you were somewhere else
at the time of the crime?
We both know the answer to that question. :)
Valid point however, the Church fathers were under the
impression that Jesus hadn't come back and were still waiting
for the return of Jesus. This causes me to doubt when you
tell me that Jesus returned and all prophecy is fulfilled.
Furthermore here is a quote from the Apolstles Creed:
"From thence he [Jesus Christ] shall come to judge the quick
and the dead."
Here is a quote from the Nicean Creed:
"And he [Jesus Christ] shall come again, with glory, to judge the
quick and the dead;"
And from the Athanasian Creed:
"He will come again to judge the living and the dead."
I found many quotes from the Church fathers that show they
were expecting the return of Jesus and the ressurection. They
had no knowledge of a 70AD fulfillment.
Yes I am very doubtful when it comes to preterism.
But there were thousands of Christians alive and in the vicinity.
The fact that there is no reliable Christian witness is a glaring
problem with preterism in my opinion.
And it is one that you imagine up. The truth is,
there were lots of Christians around at the time
and guess what? We don't have them writing
much at all about it, but we know what happened
in 70 AD. Those who were there wrote about it.
You forget, the Christians listened to Jesus'
warning and fled the vicinity. They went to Pella.
This is also historically recorded.
You also forget that the canon was closed after
Revelation and yet, you are expecting more and
more books to be added to the Bible. If THAT
were happening, THEN you have something to
say. But the fact that the canon was closed by
70 AD, supports Preterism, since if the Lord
has not returned yet, then tell me, why aren't
there writings still being added to the canon?
But even this is doubtful. Many scholars argue that
the canon wasn't finished in 70AD. I wouldn't have
a clue as to when it was or wasn't finished.
What is clear is that the early Church fathers were
unaware of the return of Jesus that you claim.
So Jesus comes in the first century and His words
are fulfilled in 70 AD and He said they would be
within the same generation and the canon is closed
within that same generation and yet, according to
you, that means that not everything happened yet
and we should think that it's about us, even though
the Lord has been silent regarding Scripture for
almost 2,000 years? Does that make any sense???
A very good case can be built from Scripture to prove
that the earth is flat. Do you believe the earth is flat?
Rev. 7:1 After his I saw four angels standing at the four
corners of the earth
Does the earth have corners?
Why didn't James, Peter, John or Luke or
Paul mention any of this?
Why would they mention an event that happened
after they died and long after they wrote their letters?
We surely do not have every letter they wrote, but
what is also sure, is that God preserved the Gospel
message for us. For history outside of that message,
we rely on history.
Can you provide any evidence from the Church fathers
to support the fulfillment of these events?
Yes, from some, but what does it matter? Why do you
intentionally ignore recorded history?
Dave, if I cut n paste quotes from the Church fathers showing
that they didn't believe that Jesus came back in 70AD would
you accept it?
Of course not.
We both see what we want to see.
Even if I provide some, you will just say, "Why didn't
they all say that?".
Here is a challenge: Can you show that even one Church
father believed that Jesus came back in 70AD?
No matter what, it is not going to be enough for you,
because you do not want to believe it and so, you are
going to be stubborn about it. I understand, as this
seemed strange to me as well, but it is the only belief
that stands up to Scriptural and historical scrutiny.
**All** the early Church creeds show that they expected
Jesus to return. How does this stand up to "historical scrutiny"?
Tacitus was a politician from Nero's era!
Your question becomes: WHY WOULD A [politician] LIE?
This needs no response.
As to Josephus, I don't consider his writtings valid enough
for the significance of these events. Some say his writtings
were even edited by Christians.
With all due respect, you're just being ridiculous now!
For Tacitus to lie, he must have a motive. What motive
would he have to make the Christian/Jewish God look
powerful, when the Romans did not want people
worshipping Him?
It is a part of any political office to tell lies. Perhaps he told
the truth. Did he describe the return of Jesus? No?
As for Josephus, you are simply dismissing him out of hand,
because you do not *want* to accept what he said. But
the fact is, between Josephus and Tacitus, you have two
people in agreement about the events.
And the *entire* early Church still waiting for the return of Jesus.
Who should I believe, a politican and a Jew, or the entire early
Church?
There are also more. I did not quote every source.
Neither have I.
Now if you wish to ignore every piece of history that
we have about that event, then that is up to you.
Now if you wish to ignore every piece of *Church* history that
we have about this comming event, then that is up to you.
But do not pretend to be reasonable in your approach,
when you would never dismiss history out of hand
for any other subject, as you do for this one and that
shows a clear bias.
Yes, I am biased.
When studying controversial subjects like divorce and
remarriage, I discovered that the early church fathers were
a vital source of information as to what was believed at the
time. From a causual look at the fathers on this subject I notice
that they all seemed to be waiting for the return of Jesus.
How does preterism explain that?
<big snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
04 Feb 2007 09:15:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:08:50 +1100,
in article <45c41756$0$5743$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Russell McDade" <donteventhinkaboutit@all> wrote:
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:86h6s2lc0elis3gmtcc1pjbps6fnrulr89@4ax.com...
<snip>
You could take the opposite point of view, but that
would be your bias and would not come from a
scientific point of view and would, with all due
respect, contradict common sense.
Yes I have my bias, don't we all?
If you were in a court of law, what would be greater
testimony? Your friends who don't want to see you
go to jail and say that they saw you somewhere else
at the time of the crime? Or someone who is known
not to like you saying that you were somewhere else
at the time of the crime?
We both know the answer to that question. :)
Valid point however, the Church fathers were under the
impression that Jesus hadn't come back and were still waiting
for the return of Jesus. This causes me to doubt when you
tell me that Jesus returned and all prophecy is fulfilled.
Here's a big reason I find preterism unconvincing, and
absolutely untenable:
Revelation 21-22 describes a condition where there is no more
sin, sorrow, sadness, death, etc., and offers this as a great
promise, hope, and reward. Now, even if you want to claim
that's spiritual, there is still spiritual death, sin,
sadness, abominations, etc., all around us. Christians
themselves still sin, have sorrow, sadness, etc. We still
have and struggle with our old sin natures on a daily basis
(Romans 7-8). The prophecies in Romans 8 and Revelation
21-22, therefore, cannot be all about us here and now. If
they are, then language is meaningless, and we cannot have any
certainty that any promises God made amount to anything at
all.
The preterist system wants a very few words and phrases (e.g.
"this generation", "soon", "at hand", etc., to exclusively
have very strict and narrow literal interpretations, but then,
almost every single other prophetic word, phrase, idea, etc.,
has to be so spiritualized as to basically be meaningless, in
order to support the one idea that Christ already returned.
This is an obvious flaw in their system of interpretation.
My understanding is they give too much credit to
"intellectual" skepticism and criticism, such as the scoffers
of 2 Peter 3, who balk at the apparent delay in God's promise
of judgment. Thus, fearing "intellectual" people, who scoff
at God's promises, they want to come up with some kind of
answer that eliminates the need for patience.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
04 Feb 2007 12:14:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:15:05 -0600, Randy
<pulpitfire@gmail.com> claimed:
Here's a big reason I find preterism unconvincing, and
absolutely untenable:
Revelation 21-22 describes a condition where there is no more
sin, sorrow, sadness, death, etc., and offers this as a great
promise, hope, and reward.
And since you are focused on the physical,
to you, that reward must be physical, or the
Bible is of no use to you. This is clear, as
you just stated that it is the physical that
you are looking for.
Now, even if you want to claim
that's spiritual, there is still spiritual death, sin,
sadness, abominations, etc., all around us.
See what I mean? According to you, even if it is
spiritual, that means that we shouldn't see these
things physically, which means that it would still
be physical and therefore, not about the spiritual.
So you deny your own supposition and contradict
yourself. (:
Christians themselves still sin, have sorrow, sadness, etc.
You read it out of context. The sorrow and sadness,
had to do with the events described, which are about
what they went through and no more death means
no more death for believers, as it has always meant.
Jesus said that He came to give us eternal life.
If you claim to possess that, then you confess
that there is "no more death". And we both
know that He was speaking about spiritual life.
Now all you have to do, is show us where Jesus
said that He came to give eternal physical life.
Of course, even if your could, you would just
be claiming that He contradicted Himself, since
He spoke of spiritual life and said, "In My Father's
house are many mansions...". Now can you
show us where He said, "temporary room at
a Heavenly hotel"?
And all you have to do, is show us where Jesus
said that He came to establish a physical kingdom
on Earth. Of course, even if you could, you would
just be claiming that He contradicted what He said
in Luke 17:20-21.
We still
have and struggle with our old sin natures on a daily basis
(Romans 7-8). The prophecies in Romans 8 and Revelation
21-22, therefore, cannot be all about us here and now. If
they are, then language is meaningless, and we cannot have any
certainty that any promises God made amount to anything at
all.
The language is meaningless to someone who demands
that it be all about the physical. And that is what you
are focused on. I wonder what Jesus would think about
that? Especially since He said, "In the world you will
have trouble.". And I never saw Him add to that...
"But later you won't".
Of course, He also said, "But be of good cheer, I have
overcome the world". Now according to you, that was
a lie and Jesus was a liar, because according to you,
you claim that this means that everything is peachy keen
and that there would be no more trouble and no more
sorrow. So apparently, Jesus didn't really overcome
the world. He lied.
Yes, that's quite a nice belief system you have there! (:
--
Hope is for those who do not live in grace.
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
03 Feb 2007 09:17:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:08:50 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> claimed:
If you were in a court of law, what would be greater
testimony? Your friends who don't want to see you
go to jail and say that they saw you somewhere else
at the time of the crime? Or someone who is known
not to like you saying that you were somewhere else
at the time of the crime?
We both know the answer to that question. :)
Valid point however, the Church fathers were under the
impression that Jesus hadn't come back and were still waiting
for the return of Jesus. This causes me to doubt when you
tell me that Jesus returned and all prophecy is fulfilled.
You assume that all felt that way. They didn't.
And they are often quoted out of context.
Furthermore here is a quote from the Apolstles Creed:
The Apostles' Creed was not written by the Apostles.
So what good is it? You are trying to dismiss the
events of history, in favor of something written
later.
I found many quotes from the Church fathers that show they
were expecting the return of Jesus and the ressurection. They
had no knowledge of a 70AD fulfillment.
Yes I am very doubtful when it comes to preterism.
1) They are often misquoted.
2) I have provided quotes of the so called, "church fathers"
that support my view. So why act as if they all agreed?
3) It wouldn't matter if later Christians all said what you
claim. They cannot change history and the fact that
some of them looked for a physical fulfillment, only
shows that they, like many of the Jews of Jesus' day,
missed the message and ignored the events. The
bottom line is, that Jesus said there would be no
physical kingdom and yet, you wait for one. (:
But there were thousands of Christians alive and in the vicinity.
The fact that there is no reliable Christian witness is a glaring
problem with preterism in my opinion.
And it is one that you imagine up. The truth is,
there were lots of Christians around at the time
and guess what? We don't have them writing
much at all about it, but we know what happened
in 70 AD. Those who were there wrote about it.
You forget, the Christians listened to Jesus'
warning and fled the vicinity. They went to Pella.
This is also historically recorded.
You also forget that the canon was closed after
Revelation and yet, you are expecting more and
more books to be added to the Bible. If THAT
were happening, THEN you have something to
say. But the fact that the canon was closed by
70 AD, supports Preterism, since if the Lord
has not returned yet, then tell me, why aren't
there writings still being added to the canon?
But even this is doubtful. Many scholars argue that
the canon wasn't finished in 70AD. I wouldn't have
a clue as to when it was or wasn't finished.
What is clear is that the early Church fathers were
unaware of the return of Jesus that you claim.
In other words, you wish to give credit to later writings,
that were written after the Apostles died, even though
the Apostles nowhere recorded that anyone should
carry on with their office after them and even though
the Bible says that the church is built on the foundation
of the 12 Apostles (not many generations of them)?
These are Gnostic texts, that do not even agree with
the writings of Scripture. If you wish to believe that
Jesus was never actually on the cross, go ahead. :)
There are 2nd and 3rd century texts that say that.
So Jesus comes in the first century and His words
are fulfilled in 70 AD and He said they would be
within the same generation and the canon is closed
within that same generation and yet, according to
you, that means that not everything happened yet
and we should think that it's about us, even though
the Lord has been silent regarding Scripture for
almost 2,000 years? Does that make any sense???
A very good case can be built from Scripture to prove
that the earth is flat. Do you believe the earth is flat?
Rev. 7:1 After his I saw four angels standing at the four
corners of the earth
Does the earth have corners?
The land does. And once again I will say to you that
you are forgetting that just because you see the word
"earth", it does not automatically mean "the planet".
The Greek word there is "ge" and it means, "soil",
or by extension, "a region". Now go look at a map
and check out Colorado. :)
You might also want to note what is called, "the four
corners of the world", which is where UT, CO, AZ
and NM meet. :)
Oh and don't forget that we can make that case for
the planet being flat by using modern quotes, since
the Bible doesn't say it's "flat".
Take a look at this trip advisor... http://tinyurl.com/83d2c
The Bible was talking about "the four corners of the land".
Why didn't James, Peter, John or Luke or
Paul mention any of this?
Why would they mention an event that happened
after they died and long after they wrote their letters?
We surely do not have every letter they wrote, but
what is also sure, is that God preserved the Gospel
message for us. For history outside of that message,
we rely on history.
Can you provide any evidence from the Church fathers
to support the fulfillment of these events?
Yes, from some, but what does it matter? Why do you
intentionally ignore recorded history?
Dave, if I cut n paste quotes from the Church fathers showing
that they didn't believe that Jesus came back in 70AD would
you accept it? Of course not. We both see what we want to see.
You are placing religious opinion, which is not unanimous,
over historical fact. That is a problem for *you* Russell,
*not me*.
Now I do not say that history overrules the Bible. I say
that when history agrees with the Bible, which it does here,
that it is sheer bias toward a preconceived notion, that
continues to deny what happened. (:
Even if I provide some, you will just say, "Why didn't
they all say that?".
Here is a challenge: Can you show that even one Church
father believed that Jesus came back in 70AD?
Actually, I have quoted a number of them. I have also
quoted more fully those who Futurists have quoted as
being Futurists, when in reality, the next sentence they
wrote showed that they believed the opposite. Futurists
tend to have a "pick and choose" quoting system. (:
Also, if I quote someone again, will you now believe
the historical accounts? Or is this a one way street?
Read the new thread, "A New Doctrine?".
No matter what, it is not going to be enough for you,
because you do not want to believe it and so, you are
going to be stubborn about it. I understand, as this
seemed strange to me as well, but it is the only belief
that stands up to Scriptural and historical scrutiny.
**All** the early Church creeds show that they expected
Jesus to return. How does this stand up to "historical scrutiny"?
You've made a claim, which you must prove. Furthermore,
since when does a later writing trump the Scriptures and
history?
Let us note here that you have admitted that you are biased
and that your bias in trumping, in your mind, even common
sense. And let us note that you are aware that you have lost
the argument on the Scriptural and historical front and that
now, you are appealing to writings from centuries later, as
if they will somehow trump Scripture and history and even
common sense. (:
Tacitus was a politician from Nero's era!
Your question becomes: WHY WOULD A [politician] LIE?
This needs no response.
As to Josephus, I don't consider his writtings valid enough
for the significance of these events. Some say his writtings
were even edited by Christians.
With all due respect, you're just being ridiculous now!
For Tacitus to lie, he must have a motive. What motive
would he have to make the Christian/Jewish God look
powerful, when the Romans did not want people
worshipping Him?
It is a part of any political office to tell lies. Perhaps he told
the truth. Did he describe the return of Jesus? No?
You're not being rational now. You wish to say that
everything he ever said is automatically a lie, because
he was a politician, even if it goes against what he
would want to see happen. That's simply ridiculous!
What is the point in talking to you, when you refuse
to show any sense of reason and simply won't care
what the evidence says, admitting that your own bias
has overruled your common sense?!?
As for Josephus, you are simply dismissing him out of hand,
because you do not *want* to accept what he said. But
the fact is, between Josephus and Tacitus, you have two
people in agreement about the events.
And the *entire* early Church still waiting for the return of Jesus.
Who should I believe, a politican and a Jew, or the entire early
Church?
Once again, you are dismissing him out of hand, even though
what he wrote is verified in other sources, not just Tacitus.
--
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
03 Feb 2007 04:55:47 PM |
|
|
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3169s21r2mlbj00upqqjjgtfsha50sf0b4@4ax.com...
<snip>
Furthermore here is a quote from the Apolstles Creed:
The Apostles' Creed was not written by the Apostles.
So what good is it?
Apparenly its use was wide-spread.
Are you saying that the 'Apostles Creed' has an error in it?
You are trying to dismiss the
events of history, in favor of something written
later.
History shows that the Apostles creed and the Nicene creeds
were mainstay in both western and eastern churches respectively.
They both plainly state that:
"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."
Later creeds included the same phase but with more detail.
Nobody knows who put together the Apostles creed but it no
doubt grew from things like Peter's confession:
Mat 16:16 ...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
I found many quotes from the Church fathers that show they
were expecting the return of Jesus and the ressurection. They
had no knowledge of a 70AD fulfillment.
Yes I am very doubtful when it comes to preterism.
1) They are often misquoted.
2) I have provided quotes of the so called, "church fathers"
that support my view. So why act as if they all agreed?
You only quoted Euisibus who quoted Tactius on the destruction
of Jerusalem. Can you please show me one Church father who
believed that Jesus came back in 70AD?
But even this is doubtful. Many scholars argue that
the canon wasn't finished in 70AD. I wouldn't have
a clue as to when it was or wasn't finished.
What is clear is that the early Church fathers were
unaware of the return of Jesus that you claim.
In other words, you wish to give credit to later writings,
that were written after the Apostles died, even though
the Apostles nowhere recorded that anyone should
carry on with their office after them and even though
the Bible says that the church is built on the foundation
of the 12 Apostles (not many generations of them)?
I simply made the [obvious] point that the Apostles didn't
mention Jesus' return and neither did any of those disciples
that the Apostles made. Their is continuity of Christian witness
from Jesus well into the third & fourth centuries. I am not aware
of a single Christian witness to the return of Jesus Christ.
The only quote I have seen from you is from a unbelieving politician
and a Jewish historian, neither of which described the return of
Jesus.
Dave, if I cut n paste quotes from the Church fathers showing
that they didn't believe that Jesus came back in 70AD would
you accept it? Of course not. We both see what we want to see.
You are placing religious opinion, which is not unanimous,
over historical fact. That is a problem for *you* Russell,
*not me*.
I am saying that what you accept as 'historical fact', is not supported
by other historical facts. We both see what we want to see.
Now I do not say that history overrules the Bible. I say
that when history agrees with the Bible, which it does here,
that it is sheer bias toward a preconceived notion, that
continues to deny what happened. (:
Even if I provide some, you will just say, "Why didn't
they all say that?".
Here is a challenge: Can you show that even one Church
father believed that Jesus came back in 70AD?
Actually, I have quoted a number of them.
Not in this thread. A quote from Eusibus quoting Tactius
is not a number of Church fathers.
I have also
quoted more fully those who Futurists have quoted as
being Futurists, when in reality, the next sentence they
wrote showed that they believed the opposite. Futurists
tend to have a "pick and choose" quoting system. (:
And that's not limited to 'futurists'.
We all pick and choose everything, your in denial if
think that you don't.
Also, if I quote someone again, will you now believe
the historical accounts? Or is this a one way street?
Read the new thread, "A New Doctrine?".
I will read it but, I am now running my own business and
I have other commitments that take my time away from
usenet. I will not doubt 'pick and choose' the preterists
work and keep the bits I like and discard the bits I don't.
**All** the early Church creeds show that they expected
Jesus to return. How does this stand up to "historical scrutiny"?
You've made a claim, which you must prove.
<cut n paste from above>
History shows that the Apostles creed and the Nicene creeds
were mainstay in both western and eastern churches respectively.
They both plainly state that:
"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."
Later creeds included the same phase but with more detail.
Nobody knows who put together the Apostles creed but it no
doubt grew from things like Peter's confession:
Mat 16:16 ...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
Furthermore,
since when does a later writing trump the Scriptures and
history?
It doesn't.
What it does show is a unbroken belief system from the Apostles
to the early fathers.
Let us note here that you have admitted that you are biased
and that your bias in trumping, in your mind, even common
sense. And let us note that you are aware that you have lost
the argument on the Scriptural and historical front and that
now, you are appealing to writings from centuries later, as
if they will somehow trump Scripture and history and even
common sense. (:
Let's not turn this into a pissing competition.
You are convinced of your glorious victory. Congratulations.
I am not convinced of what you say, I will continue to read
this subject but my early enquiries have only confirmed my
belief that Jesus hasn't come back yet.
It is a part of any political office to tell lies. Perhaps he told
the truth. Did he describe the return of Jesus? No?
You're not being rational now. You wish to say that
everything he ever said is automatically a lie, because
he was a politician, even if it goes against what he
would want to see happen. That's simply ridiculous!
Perhaps he told the truth.
But did he describe the return of Jesus?
What is the point in talking to you, when you refuse
to show any sense of reason and simply won't care
what the evidence says, admitting that your own bias
has overruled your common sense?!?
Then ignore my posts.
Russell ==> very biased
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: They Shall Shine Forth Like The Sun - Daniel 12 |
03 Feb 2007 11:49:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:55:47 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> claimed:
"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3169s21r2mlbj00upqqjjgtfsha50sf0b4@4ax.com...
<snip>
Furthermore here is a quote from the Apolstles Creed:
The Apostles' Creed was not written by the Apostles.
So what good is it?
Apparenly its use was wide-spread.
Are you saying that the 'Apostles Creed' has an error in it?
The burden is not on me, Russell. But you keep
throwing things out there, acting as if you have
already proved your case.
And document that says that the Lord has yet to return,
is in error. But you brought the document up and so,
the burden of proof is on you to prove it correct.
The bottom line is that it was not written by the Apostles,
so calling it the "Apostles' Creed" is an error in the
first place.
You are trying to dismiss the events of history,
in favor of something written later.
History shows that the Apostles creed and the Nicene creeds
were mainstay in both western and eastern churches respectively.
No, it shows that documents written much later said something.
I have provided evidence in another thread that I referred you
to, that shows something different. Once again, you pretend
that something you say is universal and that whatever I say,
just didn't exist.
They both plainly state that:
"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."
Later creeds included the same phase but with more detail.
Nobody knows who put together the Apostles creed but it no
doubt grew from things like Peter's confession:
Mat 16:16 ...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
Peter's confession said nothing about the Lord not having
come yet, centuries later. In fact, Peter and the rest
preached a very soon return. Your system of belief is
the one who says that they were in error and yet, now
you wish to hold up a document that wasn't even
written by them, claiming that it reflects what they
believed and say that they were right. Huh???
That's a contradiction and it cannot reflect their belief
that centuries later, the Lord would not have returned
yet, since they believed in a return within that generation.
The idea of His return at any moment was preached by
them throughout the NT. Therefore, you assertion is
wholly incorrect and is based on a false premise.
I found many quotes from the Church fathers that show they
were expecting the return of Jesus and the ressurection. They
had no knowledge of a 70AD fulfillment.
Yes I am very doubtful when it comes to preterism.
1) They are often misquoted.
2) I have provided quotes of the so called, "church fathers"
that support my view. So why act as if they all agreed?
You only quoted Euisibus who quoted Tactius on the destruction
of Jerusalem. Can you please show me one Church father who
believed that Jesus came back in 70AD?
I have quoted "church fathers" many times, in other threads.
Furthermore...
1) Why do you ask for quotes now, when you know
it won't make a difference and you will reject them
anyway, claiming that they were but a few, when
you do not have any high number yourself?
2) You have already rejected two pieces of evidence
I gave you out of hand, claiming that one of them
was a liar at all | | | | | | | | |
