CHECK THIS OUT: 666 IS REAL & PASTORS ARE PROMOTING IT!!! (Part 1)

[razzelflabben]

Addressed above



You use a lot of words. But you never seem to directly address any of the scripture I cite.
You never seem to offer an alternative interpretation to mine.

I suppose we could start with Matt 21:33-45?

What truth do you believe Jesus is teaching in the parable?

And specifically what do you believe Jesus meant by "When the owner of the Vineyard Comes He will destroy those wicked men and lease His vineyard to another nation?"

What does that mean to you?
Does that spiritual truth have a temporal counterpart to it?

I'm trying to stay on topic as per forum rules

 

[razzelflabben]

Addressed above



You use a lot of words. But you never seem to directly address any of the scripture I cite.
You never seem to offer an alternative interpretation to mine.

I suppose we could start with Matt 21:33-45?

What truth do you believe Jesus is teaching in the parable?

And specifically what do you believe Jesus meant by "When the owner of the Vineyard Comes He will destroy those wicked men and lease His vineyard to another nation?"

What does that mean to you?
Does that spiritual truth have a temporal counterpart to it?

short answer so as not to get off topic, it is talking about the first coming of Christ...the discussion is about the second coming which makes it off topic to continue down this road...

 

[parousia70]

How Convenient for you.

Certainly the topic of the thread is the mark, my initial claim that it is past, and your request that I provide evidence as to why I believe it threw the door wide open as it catapulted us down this rabbit trail, but it all dovetails quite nicely.

If I can demonstrate that New testament eschatology as a whole finds its primary application in first century events, which I can, then the Mark must also find its primary application then.

But you can take your ball and leave the sandbox if you want.

 

[parousia70]

short answer so as not to get off topic, it is talking about the first coming of Christ...

"When the owner of the Vineyard comes" is not a reference to the Birth of Christ.

 

[razzelflabben]

How Convenient for you.

Certainly the topic of the thread is the mark, my initial claim that it is past, and your request that I provide evidence as to why I believe it threw the door wide open as it catapulted us down this rabbit trail, but it all dovetails quite nicely.

If I can demonstrate that New testament eschatology as a whole finds its primary application in first century events, which I can, then the Mark must also find its primary application then.

But you can take your ball and leave the sandbox if you want.

I am a firm believer that God doesn't make things so hard to understand that we have to jump through all the hoops you are trying to jump through to understand what He has to teach us...thus since you have not yet evidenced your claim and just ask more and more questions instead of addressing the points I make I assume you can't evidence your claim as per God's satisfaction and move on...no worries, if you could evidence your claim you would have done so already.

 

[razzelflabben]

"When the owner of the Vineyard comes" is not a reference to the Birth of Christ.

feel free to evidence otherwise...

 

[parousia70]

feel free to evidence otherwise...

Vs 40 Follows vs 39 in event succession.
The Coming of the Lord in Vs 40 happens AFTER the Son is Killed in vs 39
I thought you were some sort of Grammatical expert?

 

[parousia70]

I am a firm believer that God doesn't make things so hard to understand that we have to jump through all the hoops

Agreed... countless generations of speculation about which technological advancement will be the "mark" is not what God meant for us to be doing with this teaching.

Plus there is such a thing as audience relevance.

you are trying to jump through to understand what He has to teach us..

Nah... I'm a face value kinda guy.
The question i always ask FIRST is "what did it mean to the original audience"?
What did it mean to the very people who FIRST received the scriptures?

Only AFTER we determine what any given passage of scripture meant to the original audience and how it necessarily applied to them in their day, can we discover any sort of pastoral meaning for us in our day.

The Bible was written FOR us, it was not written TO us however.

if you could evidence your claim you would have done so already.

Again, I can (and have) demonstrate(d) that ALL NT Eschatology finds it's primary fulfillment in First century events.

Since you don't even accept the premise, it's no surprise you dismiss the evidence without honest examination, reproof and correction.

 

[razzelflabben]

Vs 40 Follows vs 39 in event succession.
The Coming of the Lord in Vs 40 happens AFTER the Son is Killed in vs 39
I thought you were some sort of Grammatical expert?

39...39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40... “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

Notice verse 40 is saying what will happen because they took him and case him out and killed him...iow's Christ came and died as we all know is the first coming of Christ...verse 40 does NOT as you presume say that the coming of the Lord happened after the son was killed but because...you know "therefore" as in it happened and because it happened X...come on, this is child's play and the twisting and turning you are trying to do to justify your position is something to marvel at to be sure.

 

[razzelflabben]

Agreed... countless generations of speculation about which technological advancement will be the "mark" is not what God meant for us to be doing with this teaching.

Plus there is such a thing as audience relevance.



Nah... I'm a face value kinda guy.
The question i always ask FIRST is "what did it mean to the original audience"?
What did it mean to the very people who FIRST received the scriptures?

Only AFTER we determine what any given passage of scripture meant to the original audience and how it necessarily applied to them in their day, can we discover any sort of pastoral meaning for us in our day.

The Bible was written FOR us, it was not written TO us however.

who was the original audience of Rev.? According to some, the events already happened by the time the author wrote about them, or something like that, it's hard to follow with so much twisting and turning going on.

Again, I can (and have) demonstrate(d) that ALL NT Eschatology finds it's primary fulfillment in First century events.

Since you don't even accept the premise, it's no surprise you dismiss the evidence without honest examination, reproof and correction.

I understand that premise but you have failed to show where the events of Rev. and the second coming of Christ have already taken place...its really that simple. Unless or until you do, there is nothing more for us to talk about.

 

[parousia70]

Notice verse 40 is saying what will happen because they took him and case him out and killed him...

Which is what exactly? What do you say verse 40 is saying WOULD HAPPEN to them because they took him, cast Him out and Killed Him?

I'll help you out. Vs 40 is saying those wicked men, the Chief Priests and pharisees of 1st century Israel, would be destroyed by the Chief cornerstone that they rejected at the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard".

Now we move to the Historical record.
In Ad 66-70 those wicked men were indeed destroyed miserably, as Christ promised they would be, before their generation passed away, ergo, Historical record of the fulfillment of vs 40.
This is not Rocket Surgery.

iow's Christ came and died as we all know is the first coming of Christ...

Correct… so How can the “coming” depicted in vs 40, which you seem to agree with me was a coming that “would happen” AFTER Christ Died, still be the first coming in your view?

verse 40 does NOT as you presume say that the coming of the Lord happened after the son was killed but because...you know "therefore" as in it happened and because it happened X...come on, this is child's play and the twisting and turning you are trying to do to justify your position is something to marvel at to be sure.

Project much?

from my perspective, The only twisting and turning going on here is coming from you.

Any chance you would be willing to be direct instead of being so cryptic?

IS the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy those wicked men" in vs 40 the FIRST coming or not? That is a child’s play question and only requires a yes or no answer. It does not require spinning and twisting and wishy washy half answers…

Can you actually answer it directly?

 

[parousia70]

who was the original audience of Rev.?

I assume that was rhetorical? or do you really not know?
The 7 first century Churches of Asia Minor, of course:

9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

Surely you know that the Book was DIRECTLY ADDRESSED TO and FIRST DELIVERED TO Actual air breathing, blood pumping Human beings alive in the first century, do you not?

How do you believe it applied to them in their day?
Or do you believe it had no meaning or application to the very people the book is addressed to?

According to some, the events already happened by the time the author wrote about them, or something like that,

I would say "according to the author", the events were already underway, though not yet FULLY completed, at the time of His writing:

19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

Also notice here:
9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

A few things here that John is testifying to:
1) The Tribulation of Jesus Christ is underway and John is a partner with his first century audience in it.
2) John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, indicating Johns claim that that The Day of the Lord had indeed come upon Him and his first century contemporaries.
3) John was witness to at least one of the Trumpets of Revelation.

I understand that premise but you have failed to show where the events of Rev. and the second coming of Christ have already taken place...its really that simple. Unless or until you do, there is nothing more for us to talk about.

If you had a standard of proof for me that was even remotely consistent with proving your own claims, you'd have a valid argument. Until you get your own house in order, you likely won't be able to discern these things.
Milk before Meat.

 

[razzelflabben]

Which is what exactly? What do you say verse 40 is saying WOULD HAPPEN to them because they took him, cast Him out and Killed Him?

you were asking me about the order...I showed you that vs. 40 is what will come after 39 not the other way around or something that already happened....how long are you going to play these games with me without evidencing what you claimed you could.

I'll help you out. Vs 40 is saying those wicked men, the Chief Priests and pharisees of 1st century Israel, would be destroyed by the Chief cornerstone that they rejected at the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard".

it's talking about more than that, but again off topic.

Lets look at this from two different ways and show that it does not answer the question you were asked to answer. First your side...how does the destruction of the Chief Priests and pharisees of Israel show that the second coming of Christ has already happened? Here is a hint...I DOESN'T

Second, what is a parable...I am NOT trying to insult your intelligence here, seriously I am not...a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth,religious principle, or moral lesson....you see, the lesson of the parable is what? It is not to say that the second coming has already happened or it would be a historical account...so. tell us what the point of the parable here is? Notice that verse 43 tells us the meaning is about the kingdom of heaven not the second coming of Christ at all.

Now we move to the Historical record.
In Ad 66-70 those wicked men were indeed destroyed miserably, as Christ promised they would be, before their generation passed away, ergo, Historical record of the fulfillment of vs 40.
This is not Rocket Surgery.

see above..unless you want to try to evidence that the Kingdom of God is only made up of the Chief priest and pharisees of 1st century Israel, you wouldn't even have a case to present if you claim is the kingdom is only made up of those people we have a vast amount of things we need to teach you before you can make the claim you are trying to make.

Correct… so How can the “coming” depicted in vs 40, which you seem to agree with me was a coming that “would happen” AFTER Christ Died, still be the first coming in your view?

it isnt' the "second coming" talked about in Rev. at all...in addition notice it says nothing about Christ coming again...which was the claim you were suppose to be evidencing and is a specific event.

IS the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy those wicked men" in vs 40 the FIRST coming or not? That is a child’s play question and only requires a yes or no answer. It does not require spinning and twisting and wishy washy half answers…

cryptic...really, the son coming is the first coming of Christ...talk about child's play....

Can you actually answer it directly?

I have done nothing else.

 

[razzelflabben]

I assume that was rhetorical? or do you really not know?

technically Paul...but I digress...with the twists and turns you do without ever answering the question you never know.

The 7 first century Churches of Asia Minor, of course:

9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

Surely you know that the Book was DIRECTLY ADDRESSED TO and FIRST DELIVERED TO Actual air breathing, blood pumping Human beings alive in the first century, do you not?

How do you believe it applied to them in their day?
Or do you believe it had no meaning or application to the very people the book is addressed to?



I would say "according to the author", the events were already underway, though not yet FULLY completed, at the time of His writing:

19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

Also notice here:
9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

A few things here that John is testifying to:
1) The Tribulation of Jesus Christ is underway and John is a partner with his first century audience in it.
2) John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, indicating Johns claim that that The Day of the Lord had indeed come upon Him and his first century contemporaries.
3) John was witness to at least one of the Trumpets of Revelation.



If you had a standard of proof for me that was even remotely consistent with proving your own claims, you'd have a valid argument. Until you get your own house in order, you likely won't be able to discern these things.
Milk before Meat.

see, the rest of this is just not necessary, relevant, or answering the question asked of you. Honestly I am tired of trying to decipher the code that you are presenting that is suppose to be answering a question you apparently don't intend to answer.

 

[Straightshot]

Preterism denies the literal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy and arbitrarily converts to metaphor

 

[razzelflabben]

Preterism denies the literal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy and arbitrarily converts to metaphor

that does not answer why a certain poster is trying to use the parable of the vine dresser to evidence that the second coming of Christ has already happened...I mean I get what you are saying about preterism but not how that parable can be twisted to evidence the second coming of Christ.

 

[Straightshot]

It does answer pricesly

The Preterist must fiddle with literal prophecy in order to make his theology work

Every future fulfillment of prophecy still pending must be relegated into metaphorical mush .... if not, the preteristic rendering goes down in flames

These are the scoffers of the last days and they will argue at every turn searching for biblical support to promote their preterism

The methodology incorporates the picking and choosing of scripture between literal and allegory

There is no other way for them to protect their preconceived religious standing by twisting at every turn

Literalism destroys this game hands down and most all of professing Christianity teaches the song of the preterist today

 

[parousia70]

First your side...how does the destruction of the Chief Priests and pharisees of Israel show that the second coming of Christ has already happened?

The destruction of the Chief Priests and Pharisees is testified by Christ to come via one event and one event only:
"The Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard"
I understand you reject this, but the scripture is quite clear.

Jesus IS the Lord of the Vineyard and also the Chief Cornerstone. Surely you don't also reject this scriptural fact?

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

They knew He was speaking of them... interesting that you do not.

Jesus, the stone, indeed fell upon them and ground them to powder.

 

[parousia70]

unless you want to try to evidence that the Kingdom of God is only made up of the Chief priest and pharisees of 1st century Israel

Jesus seemed to think they were in possession of it:
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Who do you say is the Nation that Jesus was going to Give it to?

 

[parousia70]

technically Paul...but I digress...

Techinically Paul?
Feel free to evidence this.

with the twists and turns you do without ever answering the question you never know. see, the rest of this is just not necessary, relevant, or answering the question asked of you. Honestly I am tired of trying to decipher the code that you are presenting that is suppose to be answering a question you apparently don't intend to answer.

If you can't address the scripture I cited, and take my conclusions I laid out concisely and plainly, then use the very scriptures I cited to show how my conclusions are wrong, offering your alternative interpretation up for examination, you know, like any typical, scholarly, reasoned debaters do, then maybe this forum isn't your bag...