Jesus Told Many They Would Live to See His Coming.

[Daniel Martinovich]

That is a interesting a a good rebuttal to my original comment, however I see now why people may have questioned if this was preterist or not. Personally I am weak in eschatology, I guess I'd call myself a mid-tribulational rapturist if anything.

So I cannot debate you effectively enough to increase my understanding or your own. Suffice it enough to say that I do take those scriptures in the original post as literal, and I have no problem with believing people could be alive for 2,000 years.

The genealogy from Adam to Noah in the Old Testament says people lived for hundreds of years so I have no problem believing people could live for 2,000 years especially if Christ told them directly they would live until He returned.

Nevertheless, I like the thread it is an interesting topic.

Thanks for reading through it. It's the word the word the word in great volume that the Holy Spirit can use to open our eye's to what the word is teaching. Do you see what I meant though about the doctrine of a "second" coming? That if you had not accepted a teaching that said anytime the Bible speaks of the coming of the Lord it was talking about a one time event at the end of the world called the "second" coming. You would never have thought those scriptures I listed at first could mean that some of those people from back then were alive today.

On the other hand if you had accepted or been taught the proper scriptural view of the coming of the Lord. That the doctrine of the coming of the Lord is about the times and seasons that the Lord literally comes to earth to oversee judgment and fulfill promise. And that there are multiple times in scripture when the Lord comes. Then we might be arguing about which time and season, or which end time event certain prophecies apply to. Some people would be very suprised based on the hundred chapters of prophecy about an age of promise, earthly promise that is. That we may not be argueing that much about what prophecies might be talikng about the end of the world.

 

[Truth7t7]

You believe the abomination of desolation Matthew 24:15 and the great tribulation Matthew 24:21 were fulfilled in the 1st century.

You deny a future return of Jesus Christ In Glory Matthew 24:29-31, Colossians 3:4

You deny a future bodily resurrection of the believer. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54

You deny a future eternal kingdom. Revelation 21:1-5, Revelation 22:1-5

You deny the "Tree Of Life" is seen in Revelation 22

Your Teachings are that of "Full Preterism" this "False Teaching" is "Banned" in the Eschatology forum, please read the rules

"Stop The Heresy"!

Thanks for reading through it. It's the word the word the word in great volume that the Holy Spirit can use to open our eye's to what the word is teaching. Do you see what I meant though about the doctrine of a "second" coming? That if you had not accepted a teaching that said anytime the Bible speaks of the coming of the Lord it was talking about a one time event at the end of the world called the "second" coming. You would never have thought those scriptures I listed at first could mean that some of those people from back then were alive today.

On the other hand if you had accepted or been taught the proper scriptural view of the coming of the Lord. That the doctrine of the coming of the Lord is about the times and seasons that the Lord literally comes to earth to oversee judgment and fulfill promise. And that there are multiple times in scripture when the Lord comes. Then we might be arguing about which time and season, or which end time event certain prophecies apply to. Some people would be very suprised based on the hundred chapters of prophecy about an age of promise, earthly promise that is. That we may not be argueing that much about what prophecies might be talikng about the end of the world.

 

[Doulosiesou]

Thanks for reading through it. It's the word the word the word in great volume that the Holy Spirit can use to open our eye's to what the word is teaching. Do you see what I meant though about the doctrine of a "second" coming? That if you had not accepted a teaching that said anytime the Bible speaks of the coming of the Lord it was talking about a one time event at the end of the world called the "second" coming. You would never have thought those scriptures I listed at first could mean that some of those people from back then were alive today.

On the other hand if you hand accepted or been taught the proper scriptural view of the coming of the Lord. That it is doctrine of the coming of the Lord is about the times and seasons that the Lord literally comes to earth to oversee judgment and fulfill promise. And that there al multiple times in scripture when the Lord comes. Then we might be arguing about which time and season, or which end time event certain prophecies apply to. some people would be very suprised based on the hundred chapters of prophecy about an age of promise, earthly promise that is. That we may not be argueing that much about what prophecies might be talikng about the end of the world.

That's a whole other can of worms there. I went to seminary for 3 years but didn't finish because I didn't agree entirely with the sytematic theology.

In fact I don't think we're to even have a priesthood because Christ says,

Matthew 23:8

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

So, to me reading all the commentaries of this person or that person isn't as profitable as focusing on the Word, that is why I read it literally. If Christ says someone lives until He returns, then they live until He returns.

I do believe in a literal return of Christ on Clouds of Power as I originally stated because it fits into the overall revelation of scripture. It leads to the antichrist. If the preterist view was correct then we would have witnessed the events described in Revelation, that is billions dying, kingdoms falling, the antichrist rising and the appearance of the rider on the pale horse.

These things are not metaphorical to me, they are literal, they are real and they are to come. So, again I cannot debate you because I never took the time to read all the different eschatological theories because I take the Book literally not metaphorically.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

That's a whole other can of worms there. I went to seminary for 3 years but didn't finish because I didn't agree entirely with the sytematic theology.

In fact I don't think we're to even have a priesthood because Christ says,

Matthew 23:8

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

So, to me reading all the commentaries of this person or that person isn't as profitable as focusing on the Word, that is why I read it literally. If Christ says someone lives until He returns, then they live until He returns.

I do believe in a literal return of Christ on Clouds of Power as I originally stated because it fits into the overall revelation of scripture. It leads to the antichrist. If the preterist view was correct then we would have witnessed the events described in Revelation, that is billions dying, kingdoms falling, the antichrist rising and the appearance of the rider on the pale horse.

These things are not metaphorical to me, they are literal, they are real and they are to come. So, again I cannot debate you because I never took the time to read all the different eschatological theories because I take the Book literally not metaphorically.

I never studied different eschatological views either. I learned this solely from scripture with some quite supernatural help from the Holy Spirit that I was not seeking, did not want, and did not ask for. That being said in the later part of my life I have learned of the differing eschatological views inadvertently.

In light of that. FYI: Preterism as a doctrine teaches that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything in the book of Revelation and every prophecy ever uttered. Now on the other side of that coin is futurism or dispensationalism that teaches as a doctrine that no prophecy forward of Jesus and the Apostles had come to pass......well, beside what they claim the headlines mean and the founding of modern Israel. Both of these are as ridiculous as each other and of a sectarian spirit. Further than this. There is no such thing as doctrine of partial preterism because there is no general consensus on what has come to pass and what has not. It would be exactly the same as this hitherto unthought of phrase. Partial futurism. Again it would not be labeled a specific doctrine for the same reason partial presterism is not. There would be no general consensus on what prophecies forward of Jesus and the apostles have come to pass what what has not.

Now since I am absolutely adamant that there are two great bodies of end time prophecy forward of Jesus. Plus some other lessor bodies. Plus a giant body of prophecy far greater than all the bodies of end time prophecy combined about an age of "earthly " promise. An age where all the earthly promises made to hundreds of generations of saints that remained unfulfilled in their lifetimes; would begin to come to pass in nations that met certain conditions. How on Gods green earth an that be construed as preterism? Add to this that as far as Biblical principle is concerned. There will be days of the Lord toward nations for the foreseeable future. That is why I put the Battle Hymn of the Republic on my post to you. The American Civil war is a perfect example of the principle of the coming of the Lord in judgment of the wicked and in favor of his people. To do what God's government ordained in a proper time and season, or providentially, which was to end legal slavery. Most Christians and non Christians at the time were heeding his providential voice. Some Christians and a radical minority of the wicked were not and formed a dominate political party to stop the movement of Gods government in the earth. Hence the Lord came and the song reflects the Christians of those day's understanding of the doctrine of the coming of the Lord.
I said all that to say. That person who is stalking me and calling me a preterist is way out of line. So I have hid his comments to me and will not be talking to him anymore. I hope that option hides my comments from him to. He does not deserve the benefit of Gods work in me. He is filled with a sectarian spirit. Don't get caught up in it with him.

 

[Truth7t7]

You believe the abomination of desolation Matthew 24:15 and the great tribulation Matthew 24:21 were fulfilled in the 1st century.

You deny a future return of Jesus Christ In Glory Matthew 24:29-31, Colossians 3:4

You deny a future bodily resurrection of the believer. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54

You deny a future eternal kingdom. Revelation 21:1-5, Revelation 22:1-5

You deny the "Tree Of Life" is seen in Revelation 22

Your Teachings are that of "Full Preterism" this "False Teaching" is "Banned" in the Eschatology forum, please read the rules

"Stop The Heresy"!

I never studied different eschatological views either. I learned this solely from scripture with some quite supernatural help from the Holy Spirit that I was not seeking, did not want, and did not ask for. That being said in the later part of my life I have learned of the differing eschatological views inadvertently.

In light of that. FYI: Preterism as a doctrine teaches that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything in the book of Revelation and every prophecy ever uttered. Now on the other side of that coin is futurism or dispensationalism that teaches as a doctrine that no prophecy forward of Jesus and the Apostles had come to pass......well, beside what they claim the headlines mean and the founding of modern Israel. Both of these are as ridiculous as eavh other and of sectarian spirit. Further than this. There is no such thing as doctrine of partial preterism because there is no general consensus on what has come to pass and what has not. It would be exactly the same as this hitherto unthought-of of phrase. Partial futurism. Again it would not be labeled a specific doctrine for the same reason partial presterism is not. There would be no general consensus on what prophecies forward of Jesus and the apostles have come to pass what what has not.

Now since I am absolutely adamant that there are two great bodies of end time prophecy forward of Jesus. Plus some other lessor bodies. Plus a giant body of prophecy far greater than all the bodies of end time prophecy combined about an age of "earthly " promise. An age where all the earthly promises made to hundreds of generations of saints that remained unfulfilled in their lifetimes; would begin to come to pass in nations that met certain conditions. How on Gods green earth an that be construed as preterism? Add to this that as far as Biblical principle is concerned. There will be days of the Lord toward nations for the foreseeable future. That is why I put the Battle Hymn of the Republic on my post to you. The American Civil war is a perfect example of the principle of the coming of the Lord in judgment of the wicked and in favor of his people. To do what God's government ordained in a proper time and season, or providentially, which was to end legal slavery. Most Christians and non Christians at the time were heeding his providential voice. Some Christians and a radical minority of the wicked were not and formed a dominate political party to stop the movement of Gods government in the earth. Hence the Lord came and the song reflects the Christians of those day's understanding of the doctrine of the coming of the Lord.
I said all that to say. That person who is stalking me and calling me a preterist is way out of line. So I have hid his comments to me and will not be talking to him anymore. I hope that option hides my comments from him to. He does not deserve the benefit of Gods work in me. He is filled with a sectarian spirit. Don't get caught up in it with him.

 

[The Times]

Matthew16: 27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28: Truly I say to you, There are some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

You need to break down what is said in short phrases of information and not to try and make it connected as one continuous phrase.

For example.....

"The Son of man shall come into the glory of his Father with his angels"

The word come is actually enter in and this is a fulfillment of old testament prophesy....

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (Daniel 7:13)

The clouds of heaven, is actually stating with his angels.

So the phrase is to be understood as follows.....

Jesus will enter into the presence of the Father (Ancient of Days) with his angels.

When did this happen?

At his Ascension.

Before his ascension, when he told Mary Magdalene "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

That claim that Jesus made of informing those who have not yet physically died, is directly tied to the phrase....

There are some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom

The Son of man entered his Kingdom at his ascension, when he ascended to the Father to be given an everlasting Kingdom as prophesied in Daniel......

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:14)

It is clear that many who had not yet physically died lived to behold his ascension to the Father.

Sorry Full Preterists it is not 70 AD, nor is it the second coming context.

He would say this to the High Priest, who was also another candidate who lived to behold Christ's ascension to the Father.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” (Mark 14:62-63)

Jesus informs the High Priest, that he will live to be another candidate, when Jesus ascends to the Father and enters his Kingdom with the angels (clouds) of heaven. It is clear cut that it is his ascension that Jesus is referring to and not his second coming.

Even if some priests had passed away, the declaration made by Jesus is a forgone conclusion, meaning he is telling them in their face, that it will happen whether they like it or not and that is why you get the tantrum like response by the priests, as follows.....

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matthew 26:65-67)

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

That is the baggage that your religious dogma carries not mine. If the Bible taught there was a one time end of the world scenario called the second coming and a one, (or two) time future event called the resurrection of dead bodies from the ground and anything that refers to an end time event is referring to that dogma. Then you would be correct. That however is why you will never understand Bible prophecy and be consigned to falsely prognosticating the future the rest of your days. You as a saint of God have been robbed of a scriptural vision for the future and you don't even know it. So you'll reap what you sow as per the judgment of God. Problem is some of the more considerate among us don't want to reap what you are sowing in the earth. So we fight it with the Word. I doubt that you have any interest in doing so since I'm pretty sure you did'nt take any time to read any of the article I posted to see if I can actually offer any proof for my claims. But here is another article of mine on resurrection.
Resurrection

You clearly want to believe what you want to believe, no matter how non-Scriptural it is. That is your choice. You love to push people around by accusing them of having "religious dogma" as if we have been brainwashed by some religious source. That doesn't explain someone woken up outside the visible church who won't conform to the false teachings of any. My source is the Bible as led by the Holy Spirit; because God chose to wake me up. You don't have to believe that, if you don't want to. I will bet if you were there when Jesus was there, you would have to told Jesus that what He shared was just His religious dogma, too (John 7:16-18). But, when the "dogma" comes from God and when we are warned about deception and delusions, maybe we would rather stick to the dogma from the real Source of Life than be pulled into the delusions and deceptions of an snared and deceived individual.

 

[Truth7t7]

You clearly want to believe what you want to believe, no matter how non-Scriptural it is. That is your choice. You love to push people around by accusing them of having "religious dogma" as if we have been brainwashed by some religious source. That doesn't explain someone woken up outside the visible church who won't conform to the false teachings of any. My source is the Bible as led by the Holy Spirit; because God chose to wake me up. You don't have to believe that, if you don't want to. I will bet if you were there when Jesus was there, you would have to told Jesus that what He shared was just His religious dogma, too (John 7:16-18). But, when the "dogma" comes from God and when we are warned about deception and delusions, maybe we would rather stick to the dogma from the real Source of Life than be pulled into the delusions and deceptions of an snared and deceived individual.

I agree 100% delusions and deception!

 

[98cwitr]

mod hat on

Thread has been moved from Eschatology to Controversial Christian Theology.

mod hat off

 

[Truth7t7]

mod hat on

Thread has been moved from Eschatology to Controversial Christian Theology.

mod hat off

Thanks!

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

mod hat on

Thread has been moved from Eschatology to Controversial Christian Theology.

mod hat off

So teaching that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 was (mostly) fulfilled in 70ad is controversial theology? So the dominate view of these three chapters from all of protestant and Catholic history prior to the 20th century is now controversial? Spurgeon, Finney, The Presbyterians , the Congregationalist, The Calvinists, the Puritans, the Baptists ect ect all accepted and taught "controversial" theology? Not to speak of 16 centuries of Catholicism? But shallow 20th century Christianity that says nothing in Bible prophecy past the point of Jesus has ever been fulfilled outside the establishment of modern Israel is not controversial? Come on.

Now if there is something outside of this that I said that your moving this thread to the controversial section. Then I would say you have to move every thread on every forum to that section if you notice the crazy things people say and claim as "theology." Or am I getting singled out because I got a few people who believe the Left Behind Series is God breathed panties in a twist?

 

[JIMINZ]

Because you got a few people who believe the "Left Behind Series is God breathed" panties in a twist?

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Because you got a few people who believe the "Left Behind Series is God breathed" panties in a twist?

Because I got a few people’s panties in a twist who believe the Left Behind series is God breathed. A little better?

 

[98cwitr]

So teaching that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 was (mostly) fulfilled in 70ad is controversial theology?

From the OP

Every single sentence of Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 came to pass in the first century.

(Full) preterism is controversial theology, yes. See Statement of Purpose in this forum (stickied at the top) if you need more info. Otherwise, feel free to PM me.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

From the OP




(Full) preterism is controversial theology, yes. See Statement of Purpose in this forum (stickied at the top) if you need more info. Otherwise, feel free to PM me.

Sorry for answering you here if I am not supposed to. I do not know what pm me means.

Where are you getting the idea that the belief that Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is fulfilled is full preterism? That would make any one, ah millennialist , Post millennialist and some others full preterist. To put it another way. Anyone that is not a (full) futurist is now a full preterist according to your definition. That would include partial preterists because most of them say it’s these three chapters that are fulfilled.
Full preterism teaches that the entire book of Revelation is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.
I teach that less than a chapter in Revelation is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.
If you thought I was pulling something when I said to you those 3 chapters were (mostly) fulfilled in 70 ad but previously said they were completely fulfilled. What I was referring to is the verse in Matt. And Mark about the great gathering of souls that occur after the city is destroyed. I just wanted to leave room for the fact that I think that is a reference to the great harvest of souls that occurred in the Roman Empire in the centuries following. As I had also stated pretty clearly in a previous comment.
I’m not accusing you of some great sin here but just an FYI. You are not only falsely accusing me of a great heresy, (preterism.) But I assume your also listening to a couple of liars and that is where your opinion is coming from.
Let me know what a pm is so that I don’t keep posting this kind of thing publically.

 

[JIMINZ]

Your rebuttal in reference to Mark 14:61,62 you said.

It did not mean that Jesus Christ was returning to bring His kingdom in the time of the life of that generation.

.
Are you able to prove that statement, or is it just your belief, Interpretation?