preterism

[Der Alte]

Show me where historically I can find extra biblical evidence that All flesh saw God Kindle this fire and draw his sword in the 6th century BC, and your argument would have merit.

[On Yahweh's coming to Israel for Babylonian Exile - 6th Century BC]
As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I be king over you: and I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries in which you are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will I enter into judgment with you face to face...Hear the word of Yahweh: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. All flesh shall see that I, Yahweh, have kindled it...Thus says Yahweh: Behold, I am against you, and will draw forth my sword out of its sheath, and will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Seeing then that I will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north: and all flesh shall know that I, Yahweh, have drawn forth my sword out of its sheath (Ez 20:33-35,47-48; 21:3-5)


Until you can do such, your argument is moot. You need the above depection of "all flesh" be symbolic, while Christ's depection be literal, but interprative consistancy demands otherwise.

Perhaps you should try another argument.

Preterists cannot seem to understand the rule of interpretation, “If the literal sense, makes good sense, it is nonsense to look for any other sense.” This is another set of “spoof” texts from “Preterists-Я-Us.” Cut and pasted without any consideration for the context. If a verse says something about "all flesh", for example, then it is a "spoof" text for their doctrine.

There is no need to resort to the Preterists favorite deception, “If it doesn’t fit Preterism, then it is spiritual, metaphorical, etc., etc., etc.” The literal argument works just fine here, if one reads the context and a reference to the ancient Jewish writings wouldn’t hurt either. John Gill and Alfred Edersheim are good sources for this.

Eze 20:46 Son of man, set thy face against Thaeman, and look toward Darom, and prophesy against the chief forest of Nageb,
47 and thou shalt say to the forest of Nageb, Hear the word of the Lord; thus saith the Lord, even the Lord; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour in thee every green tree, and every dry tree: the flame that is kindled shall not be quenched, and every face shall be scorched with it from the south to the north.
Eze 20:48 And all flesh [of Thaeman, Darom, and Nageb, c.f. vs. 46] shall know that I the Lord have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.

Eze 21:3 and thou shalt say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I am against thee, and I will draw forth my sword out of its sheath, and I will destroy out of thee the transgressor and unrighteous.
4 Because I will destroy out of thee the unrighteous and the transgressor, therefore so shall my sword come forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north [of the land of Israel, c.f. vs. 3]:
Eze 21:5 and all flesh [of Israel, c.f. vs. 4] shall know that I the Lord have drawn forth my sword out of its sheath: it shall not return any more.​

Note, Ez 20:48 and 21:5 are self limiting within their context. However, this can have an application to future generations, who will know what happened and why, in the same way we know. Believers all over the world, Christians and Jews, i.e. all flesh, know what happened to those nations, through the scriptures.

Are there any limiting clauses in the N.T. "all flesh" passages?. Nope, didn't think so.

 

[Suede]

Toms777





++++That is silly. If the externmination of the world was to have occured in 70 Ad it would be recorded somewhere. You made the claim - show us the historical record. The lack of a record is proof enough that it did not happen.+++



In that your claim is based on assumptions, lack of record isn’t ‘proof’ enough on your part. This type of thinking is the trademark of Atheists, they whine that you can’t prove a negative, but they are making an assumption that there’s a negative to began with! You claim the entire world will be at threat and since this didn’t happen in 70 AD you claim that Preterism is wrong. This is presumptious, and it’s been Biblically demonstrated that this is incorrect. You want to say that Matthew lists signs of different events, one the end of Jerusalem and another the end of the world. However Luke’s account eliminates this mode of thinking, in that Luke lists the signs in different orders! Whereas futurists and even partial preterist want to say certain signs are marked for the end of the world, Luke has those signs as the so called end of Jerusalem! The whole ‘splitting’ of signs doesn’t hold up when two accounts are given.

Preterism says that the destruction of Jerusalem was the historical mark of the “end”. You may disagree, but it is what it is. If you want to counter that with either history or the Bible, do so. So far….nothing. Futurism has (surprise) once again failed to make it’s case. This is why I stopped being a Futurist.



SUEDE

 

[stauron]

Do you have children? If so, no doubt you have experienced, as I have, times where children ask questions which are mis-directed because they do not know enough to ask the right question. So in response, you answer them, but perhaps not the way that they were expecting.

Consider that when reading this passage. We know tghat they asked for "sign" and we know that Jesus gave several different signs and divided them up into those that respresent the approach to the end (but the end if not yet) and those that show that the end time has arrived.

So who would you assumje knew best? Jesus or the Apostles?

So some how, magically in the context of Matt 24 you doesn't mean you, but in other places it does? You and Der Alter are both talking in circles here. This sounds like you know better then either Jesus or the Apostles.

Are there any limiting clauses in the N.T. "all flesh" passages?. Nope, didn't think so.

How did you get to decide that some of the time the audience is really the audience and the rest of the time we are the audience?

I guess you (Toms777 and Der Alter in case some think I am talking to the magical future generations) will have to go over this really slowly for dim witted old me.

When Christ looks at one group and says you (Matt 10) he really means the people he is talking to.

Then, in Matt 24, with no textual clues other than a futurist dream, you means me reading in the 21st century or whenever else. And then it only means that some of the time, because Jesus couldn't explain it any clearer and switched subjects and questions and audiences without letting the people hearing Him or the supposed magical future audience know.

 

[Suede]

Der Alter,





+++Do please tell us how it, "cuts the legs right out of Futurist thinking"+++



Simple. Christ said to the disciples that they wouldn’t be able to go through every single city in Israel until he came back.



+++You are not reading Matt 10:23. You look at the words, without seeing them, then substitute your own presuppositions. Mt 10:5 does not say "go first to the lost sheep of Israel then to the gentiles." Here is where your entire preterist house of cards crumbles. You evidently simply cannot understand the words, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Again I ask what part of not is unclear+++



Matthew 10:5 isn’t an absolute. It does not say that the Disciples could NEVER EVER go to the Gentiles, just at that time they were not to go. We do know that later both they and Jesus DID go to the Gentiles. At first they were to preach to the Jews, but this doesn’t mean they could never preach to the Gentiles. You, yourself, acknowledge the mission to the Gentiles later, so I fail to see a point that even you refute. Look below,



+++True, it was later, but that is irrelevant to Matt 10:23. When Jesus was instructing the disciples in Mt 10, He did not say anything about later.+++



He didn’t have to. At that point in time, the disciples were to go only to the Jews. At a later point in time they were to go to the Gentiles.



+++I documented that the original disciples went into Samaria and gentiles areas, before the Parousia.+++



Exactly! Obviously they were not absolutely forbidden to go to the Gentiles.



+++The FACT is you have not satisfactorily addressed Matt 10:5. You keep changing it to say “the Jews first, and gentiles later.”+++



I keep changing it to the Jews first and the gentiles later? Hmmm, let me quote you, “True, it was later”. I guess we both agree that it was to the gentiles later.

+++Matt 10:23 does not refer to the Parousia, but to Jesus rejoining the disciples at some point during that particular missionary journey. In chapter 12, Jesus and the disciples are together again. And it doesn't require any of your scripture twisting, reinterpreting the clear statement of Jesus in Matt 10:5.+++



Though this is one of the Futurists views, it is incorrect and here’s why. First note that Jesus is using the title Son of Man. He’s getting this from Daniel 7. Daniel is not describing a regathering of friends. Also, look at Luke 17:30 when Jesus talks about the day the Son of Man is revealed. Jesus wouldn’t have used such apocalyptic language if he was intent on saying I’ll be back with you all.



+++ And how do we determine when it is and is not literal?+++



A lot of study.



+++You are still not paying attention. "If the literal sense, makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." If you ever see me metaphorizing, spiritualizing, etc., a passage which makes good literal sense, to make it fit, don't hesitate to let me know. An example of where you reinterpret the text to make it fit is Mt 10:5, it says, "do not go," not "later+++



I don’t spiritualize or metaphorize Matthew 10:5. You aren’t listening. I agree with you at that certain time the disciples were not to go to the Gentiles. You are thinking that you and I disagree on that point, we do not.



+++Where does the scriptures say "the end of the current Age and the start of the next Age.?" Oh, I know its that poetic language again.+++



Actually it’s not poetic, it’s a very real concept that’s all throughout the Bible. You can find it in painful detail in Daniel. Since the 1st century was the head of it all, here’s a few verses that directly state the end of the Age was at the 1st century.



” Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor. 10:11)



“far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one about to come.” (Eph. 1:21)



“Now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin.” (Heb. 9:26)



+++Oh, I see when you say what you call "Futurism [implying all], has failed time and time a gain", you are speaking about little splinter groups which have made various predictions and prophecies. I'm sorry those do not represent the bulk of Evangelical Christianity.+++



Well, first I don’t “imply” that all Futurism has failed, it’s record shows that it has so I state it with absolute authority. There’s no subtle implication on my part at all. Yes, Futurism’s little children are the cults, and they are the ones that are happy to give dates. BUT, they are not alone. Look at the sales of the “Left Behind” series. This is by Evangelical Christians, and it is being bought by Evangelical Christians. I know Christian Radio in my area is constantly advertising the books and interviewing the authors. They, and perhaps even you feel that the end is near. But, to restate my point, events in History have spurred many Evangelical Christians to claim it is the end. The World Wars, the Stock Market Crash, the Cold War, the formation of NATO, the UN, the EU, both the Gulf Wars, China’s army modernizing. All these events have been pointed out as “the end” by Evangelicals, and all have failed and the point is, all will fail. This would be like me proclaiming that “in the future” Britian will invade America and a man named George Washington will leader the American Armies against Britian.Why does this not work? Because, this event has already happened! No one would wait around for it. Your “End” is just like your dad’s end, and that was like his dad’s end, and that too was like his dad’s end simply because it was like his dad’s end….

It’s a vicious cycle.



+++I have answered Matt 10:23 directly, Jesus sent His disciples out to preach and teach and He told them He would rejoin them before they had gone into all the cities of Israel. And lest I forget, He also told them not to go to any Samaritan or gentiles city, at that time.+++



Key phrase, “at that time”.



+++If you ever see me violating any rules of interpretation, be sure and let me know.+++



Well, that obviously doesn’t work. I’ve tried, but you won’t listen.



+++Over 100 passages, that flat out demand 1st century fulfillment? I hardly think so.+++



Do I hear a challenge? Are you sure you’re up to it? Over 100 verses to refute, that’s quite a big task.



+++The problem as I see it is, the Preterists have bought into the latest fad religion and like all the others have their kit bag full of “spoof, proof texts.” I have indeed read a lot of Preterist stuff, Gentry for example.+++



I can appreciate your honesty here. However I am highly unconvinced of your statement that you have read a lot of Preterist stuff. One, Preterism is all throughout Church history, it is not a latest fad. Dispensationalism, being only about 150 years old is the “latest fad” as far as theology goes. Two, Gentry is a Partial Preterist which in essence means he’s not a Preterist at all but a Futurist. Gentry does not represent me or any other Preterist. He’s a Reconstructionist and a PostMillennialist; his problems run deep. Thirdly, you make several errors that Futurists make when approaching Preterism, many are because you simply don’t fully understand Preterism. Like you present Matthew 10:5 as a counter to my belief. No, I AGREE with you on Matthew 10:5 so your point isn’t there. Another misconception is that Preterists spiritualize or metaphroize the Bible. We don’t anymore then futurists do, remember the Great Dragon? And study will show that Preterists take a LOT of verses at face value, where Futurists must duck them. When Jesus told the people at his trial that he would return in THEIR lifetime, it is only the Preterist camp that takes this literally. So we are no more abusers or users then any other school of eschatological thought.



+++Jerusalem is what? And how do we know it?+++



I thought that would catch you off guard. Didn’t you know that Jerusalem is the Harlot in Revelation 17? Well remind me and we can study that one if you like, it might actually be a fresh topic. I won’t post anything about it here to keep this post at a “reasonable” length.



+++Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. You haven’t dealt with Matt 10:5, yet. Read the literal words and without changing the words or adding anything to them+++



I did, you and I agree on that one. Yeah!



+++And OBTW you did not respond to my point that, neither Matt 10:18, nor any other verse in Matt 10, states or implies that the disciples would go into Samaria or gentile areas.+++



Remember, the Bible explains the Bible? We know that elsewhere in the Bible the disciples and Jesus himself go to the Gentiles, so the fact that in Matthew 10 it doesn’t flat out involve the Gentiles is moot. We know they go to them. Remember, “True, it was later”. That’s a quote. And once again, you and I agree; it was later! Take care,



SUEDE

 

[parousia70]

You are too late....I have refuted it as part of common simple english.

You have done no such thing, besides, you need to refute it from SCRIPTURE, not the NY times best seller list.

Show me the scripture, or admit your error.

 

[parousia70]

It was refuted before you posted it.

It was not

It does not address the question because I see nothing whcih says that all flesh was on earth was threatened with extermination.

The prior biblical use of "All flesh" removes your interpratation from consideration. The Bible itself proves you wrong.

Admit your error, and bring your view in line with scripture.

 

[parousia70]

That is silly. If the externmination of the world was to have occured in 70 Ad it would be recorded somewhere. You made the claim - show us the historical record. The lack of a record is proof enough that it did not happen.

Here's a phrase I "cut and paste" from "Futurists-R-Us" that applies quite nicely here:

"Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense"

 

[parousia70]

Are there any limiting clauses in the N.T. "all flesh" passages?. Nope, didn't think so.

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams


Peter claimed the above was fulfilled in his day, by the spirit being poured out on a limited number of Jews, even though it says "all flesh".

You know something Peter didn't?


PS, I sure would like you to address your apparant "private revelation" of the fulfillment of Matt 10:23 I asked you about in my post #122 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1499353&postcount=122

You cited Matthew Henry as sholarly support for your view, but in His remarks He indicates his understanding that the destruction of Jerusalem was a "Coming of Christ in Judgement" , and, while he makes no mention of Chapter 12 being the fulfillment of 10:23 (as your private interpratation states), he does cite AD70 as a possible fulfillment of it.

Do you agree with Him on this as well, or do you only agree with him on the points that support your view?

 

[Toms777]

In that your claim is based on assumptions, lack of record isn’t ‘proof’ enough on your part. This type of thinking is the trademark of Atheists, they whine that you can’t prove a negative, but they are making an assumption that there’s a negative to began with! You claim the entire world will be at threat and since this didn’t happen in 70 AD you claim that Preterism is wrong.

Can you prove to me that there is not a large spaceship in outer space coming to colonize earth? If no, then that must be proof that it exists, right?

That alone should show the logical fallacy in that approach.

I find it mind-boggling that anyone should think that the earth could be brought to virtual extinction without a single record anywhere of such an event. I can show that the holocaust occurred, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured, and can show historically that even an smaller event such as the Falklands island war occurred, but you want me to believe that the near extinction of all maniind occurred in 70AD without a single word in the historical record anywhere.

And no, I did not make the claim that the whole wordl was at threat - the Bible says that will be an indication of the great tribulation which you claim occurred in 70AD.

If you claim that an event occurred, the onus is on you to show that it did occur.

 

[Toms777]

You have done no such thing, besides, you need to refute it from SCRIPTURE, not the NY times best seller list.

Show me the scripture, or admit your error.

I don't have time to play games with you and to keep going over the same old thing over and over.

Follow your own advice here, and show me historical evidence of where we faced the near extinction of all humanity.

 

[Toms777]

Here's a phrase I "cut and paste" from "Futurists-R-Us" that applies quite nicely here:

"Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense"

So you think that if, let's say, a nuclear holocaust occurred along the sclae of the the old movie "On the Beach" and there were survivors, this would have no record in history anywhere. The population would instantly rebound that same year and everyone would forget that it happened.

Excuse me if I have a difficult time buying that proposition.

 

[stauron]

I find it mind-boggling that anyone should think that the earth could be brought to virtual extinction without a single record anywhere of such an event. I can show that the holocaust occurred, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured, and can show historically that even an smaller event such as the Falklands island war occurred, but you want me to believe that the near extinction of all maniind occurred in 70AD without a single word in the historical record anywhere.

And no, I did not make the claim that the whole wordl was at threat - the Bible says that will be an indication of the great tribulation which you claim occurred in 70AD.

If you claim that an event occurred, the onus is on you to show that it did occur.

Toms777 here is where the real fulcrum of the argument is. We don't claim that THE WHOLE EARTH was brought to the brink. You do.

We claim that the language and the context point to God divorcing His faithless people. A calamity that can never be repeated. A whole generation that claimed to do things in God's name and He said depart from me I never knew you. That is suffering that even the Holocaust couldn't repeat.

 

[michael servetus]

Good discussion

 

[Der Alte]

Previously:
Are there any limiting clauses in the N.T. "all flesh" passages?. Nope, didn't think so.

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams

Peter claimed the above was fulfilled in his day, by the spirit being poured out on a limited number of Jews, even though it says "all flesh".

You know something Peter didn't?

Has the outpouring of the Holy Spirit ceased? Is Jesus no longer the same yesterday, today and forever ?

PS, I sure would like you to address your apparant "private revelation" of the fulfillment of Matt 10:23 I asked you about in my post #122 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1499353&postcount=122

You cited Matthew Henry as sholarly support for your view, but in His remarks He indicates his understanding that the destruction of Jerusalem was a "Coming of Christ in Judgement" , and, while he makes no mention of Chapter 12 being the fulfillment of 10:23 (as your private interpratation states), he does cite AD70 as a possible fulfillment of it.

Do you agree with Him on this as well, or do you only agree with him on the points that support your view?

"Possible fulfillment? Well that certainly is definitive, not! The absence of evidence. . . .

I notice you did not mention Robertson. Why not, because he supports my so-called private interpretation?

 

[Der Alte]

Are there any commentaries that share this view of yours, that Jesus' "return" to them in Chapter 12 fulfilles the "son of man comes" of 10:23?

None of your quotes share this view.

Oh, how quickly we forget. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!” It may well be that none of the Bible scholars, who wrote the well known commentaries had to deal with Preterism.

The only commentary you provided that comes close to addressing what the "Son of Man coming" in 10:23 is referring to is Matthew Henry, who unlike you, only asserts concretely what it DOSEN'T refer to, but offers no concrete example of what it does refer to, claiming it "could be the Resurrection, ascention, pentacost or even Jeruslaems 70AD destruction.

Why are you so selective in your agreement with Him?

What makes you think he is so right about it NOT meaning the 2nd coming, while you disagree on what He thinkst it DOES referr to?

Iif He is so wrong about what it does mean, what makes you so suure he is right about what it dosen't mean?

I am not selective in citing Henry. He does not state a definitive view on the fulfillment of Mt 10:23, so there is nothing to agree with.

So far, this appears to be some sort of unique revelation that you alone are in possession of.

I think the important point here is that none of the three commentaries, I cited, support the preterist view that Matt 10:23 refers to the parousia. Now if any of them came down on a specific interpretation, I might or might not agree with them.

The point is, that Matt 10:23 occurs in a continuous narrative where Jesus was instructing His disciples for a specific missionary journey, vss. 5-42. At the start of that journey Jesus tell them to not go to gentiles or Samaritans, a bit later, vs. 23, without any indication that this instruction refers to some future time, He tells the disciples that before they have gone to all the cities of Israel the Son of Man will come. I am not alone in recognizing that vs. 23, does not refer to the Parousia.

Note, how preterists violate their own ad hoc rule. All the preterist “spoof,” texts, e.g. Matt 24, mean exclusively the immediate audience, and not some future time. In Matt 10:5ff., it is abundantly clear, the instructions are to the disciples going on a specific preaching mission, to the cities of Israel. But, without any indication of a change of time, emphasis, or circumstances, vs. 23, *poof*, suddenly, for preterists, the mission specific instructions, do not refer to the instant mission, but refer to the Parousia some 35-40 years in the future.

Matthew 10:23 does not refer to the Parousia, but to the specific journey. Therefore does not prove a first century Parousia.

Gill - Matt 10:23
ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel,
or "finished" them; that is, their tour through them, and their ministry, or the preaching of the Gospel in them,

till the son of man be come;
which is not to be understood of his second coming to judgment, but either of his resurrection from the dead, when he was declared to be the Son of God, and when his glorification began; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost, when his kingdom began more visibly to take place, and he was made, or manifested to be the Lord and Christ; or of his coming to take vengeance on his enemies, that would not have him to rule over them, and the persecutors of his ministers, at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew Henry

Here is one word peculiar to their present mission, v. 23. Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. They were to preach that the kingdom of the Son of man, the Messiah, was at hand; they were to pray, Thy kingdom come: now they should not have gone over all the cities of Israel, thus praying and thus preaching, before that kingdom should come, in the exaltation of Christ, and the pouring out of the Spirit. It was a comfort, [1.] That what they said should be made good: they said the Son of man is coming, and behold, he comes. Christ will confirm the word of his messengers, Isa. 44:26. [2.] That it should be made good quickly. Note, It is matter of comfort to Christ’s labourers, that their working time will be short, and soon over; the hireling has his day; the work and warfare will in a little time be accomplished.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Till the Son of man be come (ewV elqh o uioV tou anqrwpou). Moffatt puts it "before the Son of man arrives" as if Jesus referred to this special tour of Galilee. Jesus could overtake them. Possibly so, but it is by no means clear. Some refer it to the Transfiguration, others to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, others to the Second Coming. Some hold that Matthew has put the saying in the wrong context. Others bluntly say that Jesus was mistaken, a very serious charge to make in his instructions to these preachers. The use of ewV with aorist subjunctive for a future event is a good Greek idiom.​

 

[Suede]

Toms777





+++Can you prove to me that there is not a large spaceship in outer space coming to colonize earth? If no, then that must be proof that it exists, right?
That alone should show the logical fallacy in that approach.+++



Actually it doesn’t, it’s called non falsifiability, which means I cannot prove it to be wrong. However we can deduce with Reason that it is unlikely. Is this an absolute? No, it isn’t and therefore we can’t set it in stone as Truth. The problem is in regards to 70 AD is that there are things which can be attested to, both in History and in Scripture. Therefore, it is not non falsifiable which means you do have to account for those things.

+++I find it mind-boggling that anyone should think that the earth could be brought to virtual extinction without a single record anywhere of such an event.+++



The problem lies in your presumptions. This is typical with Atheists as well. They believe that God doesn’t exist, and go from there, basing their belief off of a assumption. You do the same. You believe that the End of the Ages means the end of the world, and therefore are approaching Eschatology in that manner. You aren’t allowing the Bible to explain itself, your allowing your preconcived to do the leading and molding the Bible to fit into them.



+++you want me to believe that the near extinction of all mankind occurred in 70AD without a single word in the historical record anywhere.+++



No, I don’t want you to believe that at all.

+++And no, I did not make the claim that the whole world was at threat - the Bible says that will be an indication of the great tribulation which you claim occurred in 70AD.+++



Actually that’s not an indication.

+++If you claim that an event occurred, the onus is on you to show that it did occur.+++



And you’ve already been shown it historically. The problem is, your mind is made up, and won’t be satisfied until God bends to you.



SUEDE



“For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he {already} sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.” (Rom 8:23-25)

 

[parousia70]

Previously:
Are there any limiting clauses in the N.T. "all flesh" passages?. Nope, didn't think so.



Has the outpouring of the Holy Spirit ceased? Is Jesus no longer the same yesterday, today and forever ?

Does the holy spirit pour out on "all flesh" even today?

"Possible fulfillment? Well that certainly is definitive, not! The absence of evidence. . . .

He is quite definitive that ad 70 was "A coming" of Christ. Observe:

till the son of man be come; which is not to be understood of his second coming to judgment, but either of his resurrection from the dead, when he was declared to be the Son of God, and when his glorification began; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost, when his kingdom began more visibly to take place, and he was made, or manifested to be the Lord and Christ; or of HIS COMING to take vengeance on his enemies, that would not have him to rule over them, and the persecutors of his ministers, at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Henry clearly calls AD70 "HIS COMING TO TAKE VENGEANCE ON HIS ENEMIES....AT THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM"

He is simply unsure whether or not it fulfilled Matt 10:23, but He is quite definitive that it was indeed a COMING OF CHRIST.

Now, do you agree with Henry that AD70 was a coming of Christ to take vengeance on his enemies as He so plainly states above, or not?

I notice you did not mention Robertson. Why not, because he supports my so-called private interpretation?

He does? He supports your private interpretation that Matt 12 is the fulfillment of Matt 10:23?

I must have missed it in the quote you gave. I'll paste it and maybe you can point out where ole' A.T. claims Matt 12 FULFILLS Matt 10:23:

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T.-Mat 10:5 -
These twelve Jesus sent forth (toutous tous dōdeka apesteilen ho Iēsous). The word “sent forth” (apesteilen) is the same root as “apostles.” The same word reappears in Mat_10:16.

Way of the Gentiles (hodon ethnōn). Objective genitive, way leading to the Gentiles. This prohibition against going among the Gentiles and the Samaritans was for this special tour. They were to give the Jews the first opportunity and not to prejudice the cause at this stage. Later Jesus will order them to go and disciple all the Gentiles (Mat_28:19).

Nothing at all about Matt 10:23 or Matt 12 that I can see.
You sure you meant Robertson?

 

[parousia70]

I am not selective in citing Henry. He does not state a definitive view on the fulfillment of Mt 10:23, so there is nothing to agree with.

Gill - Matt 10:23
ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel,
or "finished" them; that is, their tour through them, and their ministry, or the preaching of the Gospel in them,

till the son of man be come;
which is not to be understood of his second coming to judgment, but either of his resurrection from the dead, when he was declared to be the Son of God, and when his glorification began; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost, when his kingdom began more visibly to take place, and he was made, or manifested to be the Lord and Christ; or OF HIS COMING to take vengeance on his enemies, that would not have him to rule over them, and the persecutors of his ministers, at the destruction of Jerusalem.


​

Well, you attribute the above quote to Henry in your post # 115 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1497904&postcount=115

Now I see it's Gill.
No matter, your selective agreement still remains.
Whoever penned the commentary believes that AD70 was a coming of Christ in vengeance on his enemies.

Now , for the third time, do you agree with the author that AD70 was a coming of Christ in vengeance upon his enemies or not?

 

[parousia70]

Matthew 10:23 does not refer to the Parousia, but to the specific journey.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Till the Son of man be come (ewV elqh o uioV tou anqrwpou). Moffatt puts it "before the Son of man arrives" as if Jesus referred to this special tour of Galilee. Jesus could overtake them. Possibly so, but it is by no means clear. Some refer it to the Transfiguration, others to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, others to the Second Coming. Some hold that Matthew has put the saying in the wrong context. Others bluntly say that Jesus was mistaken, a very serious charge to make in his instructions to these preachers. The use of ewV with aorist subjunctive for a future event is a good Greek idiom.

​

As if???

Possibly??

By no means clear???

Well that certainly is definitive, not!

 

[Toms777]

Toms777 here is where the real fulcrum of the argument is. We don't claim that THE WHOLE EARTH was brought to the brink. You do.

The Bible does. And I believe what it says.

We claim that the language and the context point to God divorcing His faithless people. A calamity that can never be repeated. A whole generation that claimed to do things in God's name and He said depart from me I never knew you. That is suffering that even the Holocaust couldn't repeat.

Again, you have to prove that from the conetxt. So far all the arguments that I have seen have been towards trying to prove that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. What is not clear is whay Jesus was so specific about what we were to look for if indeed that is not what would happen.

So, I take it that you agree with me that historically there is no evidence that all mankind was bropught to the edge of extinction.