Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Wright responds to that in this video:

That's the same video you had posted earlier. Tom Wright in that video does not comment on Zechariah 14, the Mt of Olives split in half - whether he believes or not that will literally take place.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's the same video you had posted earlier. Tom Wright in that video does not comment on Zechariah 14, the Mt of Olives split in half - whether he believes or not that will literally take place.
I realize that's the same video I shared earlier.

He comments on the accusation that he doesn't belive Jesus is "coming back".

.....and since you posted this, I believed it was worthy of being shared again:

Douggg said:
Tom Wright does not understand that Jesus is coming back

Adding in specific passages for him to address is based on personal expectations and a paradigm that doesn't allow Scripture itself (or even N.T. Wright) to "tell the story". When a person takes isolated passages out and create a sort of fictional "side story" a whole other plot is formed (and the biblical plot is then lost in that process).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Adding in specific passages for him to address is based on personal expectations and a paradigm that doesn't allow Scripture itself (or even N.T. Wright) to "tell the story". When a person takes isolated passages out and create a sort of fictional "side story" a whole other plot is formed (and the biblical plot is then lost in that process).
Zechariah 14 is not the basis for a "fictional" side story. And the specifics of the Mt. of Olives spit in half is visible for all to see that it has not - but some day will. When Jesus left this world in Acts 1, it was from the Mt. of Olives. How does Tom Wright address that specific issue? In writing or in a video.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Zechariah 14 is not the basis for a "fictional" side story.
It becomes that when separated out from its full context of "the rest of the story" - and dismissing the cultural apocalyptic style it's a part of.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It becomes that when separated out from its full context of "the rest of the story" - and dismissing the cultural apocalyptic style it's a part of.
Tom Wright doesn't even address it - because it shows his eschatology as wrong.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Tom Wright doesn't even address it - because it shows his eschatology as wrong.
That's quite a presumption.
Why should he address Zechariah 14? The accusation was about him not believing Jesus is "coming back". He answered that.

It seems that controlling his response to say something else is getting in the way of hearing/understanding what he said.

Simplify things. Set Zechariah 14 aside in your mind....and only focus on what he DOES say....don't be concerned about what he DOESN'T say.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Why should he address Zechariah 14? The accusation was about him not believing Jesus is "coming back". He answered that.

It seems that controlling his response to say something else is getting in the way of hearing/understanding what he said.

Simplify things. Set Zechariah 14 aside in your mind....and only focus on what he DOES say....don't be concerned about what he DOESN'T say.
I wasn't limiting to those two videos - but any comment by Tom Wright in writing or video about Zechariah 14.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Might I propose this paper to assist in assessment of Daniel, admittedly from a futurist POV?
https://tms.edu/m/tmsj4b.pdf
The author, Kenneth L. Barker, is a graduate from Dallas Theological Seminary and the paper contains many of the interpretation errors that have come from that institution (of his generation) that have become instilled among futurists over the past 70 years or so. I am a futurist as well, and spend so much energy in correcting what the Dallas Theological Seminary been "off" on in some of their interpretations.

btw, the pdf in that link has part of the margin cufoff - beginning in page 27. I don't think people will read through it because of that, and the many footnote references at the bottom of each page.

The site which you have linked to is the Master's Seminary, which John MacArthrur was one of the founders - which means it is teaching John McArthur's eschatology.About The Master's Seminary | A Legacy of Faithfulness
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0