Questions about preterism

[GW]

FREE:
Paul followed the rule of 'seven' , a number that indicates completion, regarding God.

GW:
"...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Quite simply, the Canon states that Paul, in writing to seven churches, was following John's rule. There is no way around it. This supports the early-date of Revelation, and this statement was made around 170AD.




FREE:
And I would be taken in by your interpretation of the Muratorian Canon, but it also includes this:... hmmm....seems even this commentator sees the Second coming as future in 170 AD.

GW:
No one is debating that ECFs futurized the second coming (beyond what scripture allows, of course). What is being debated is whether or not the early date of Revelation has support from those of Irenaeus' contemporaries -- which it does. The Muratorian Canon holds that Revelation was written before Paul's death.






FREE:
No, Smyrna was not reached for Christ in Paul's time - not according to Polycarp. And Laodicea took many years to rebuild.
Add to that, Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians between 60 - 62AD, mentioning Laodicea several times. He does not describe a lukewarm church or one that had been lukewarm, but as an active group! That's because they became lukewarm later.

GW:
Smyrna was reached for Christ in Paul's time, according to Paul:

"the gospel, which ye have heard...was preached to every creature which is under heaven (Col 1:23)

​

Next, Laodicea was rebuilt rapidly using the city's own wealth of resources. There is no reason to believe that the earthquake took away the city's wealth, or the wealth of those Laodicean christians to whom John wrote. And for sure, Laodicea is not a "modern Church age" as dispensationalists believe. Laodicea is a first-century church of Asia Minor to whom Christ returned at the time St. John wrote to them. The Bridegroom knocked and his voice called out for them:

--COMPARE THIS--

Revelation 3:20 (Christ to the first-century Laodiceans)
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

--TO THIS--

Luke 12:36-37
"Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.


​

There we see that Jesus Himself applies Luke 12:36-37 to first-century Ladodicea! We must believe Jesus could not err. The Bridegroom returned to first-century churches. The second coming is history, documented in the very pages of Holy Scripture.





FREE:
Also, Paul wrote to the Ephesians, and what we learn from his letter to the Ephesians does not correspond to the message to the Ephesians in Revelation. Paul does not refer to them as having lost their first love!

GW:
That doesn't prove anything. The endtimes apostasy came at the end of the 60s, according to Jude. Also, Paul documents that the Asia christians fell away in the late 60s!

2 Timothy 1:15
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me



​

FREE:
Also, regarding Gentry, he quotes people in the 1800's who actually favored a postNero date for the writing. They don't really back him up at all!


GW:
There are two traditions on when Revelation was written. So...? We already establshed this. The point is that the late date is without any historical evidence. There was no persecution launched against Christianity by Domitian, and the Jewish-led persecution was still raging when John wrote (Rev 2:9; 3:9). And the Temple was still standing (Rev 11:2) and the city of Jerusalem was under attack (Rev 11:8, 13). This demands the early date.




FREE:
So what preterists have to do then is to insinuate that writers of the past misunderstood Iranaeus, and that they did not have any other sources for information.

GW:
That single statement by Irenaeus is the only source of information for the late date. As late-dater Daniel Denham writes:

"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

​

FREE:
Dio Cassius (150-235) was a Roman historian who referenced the liberation of those that Dominitan banished after his death in September, 96 AD.

GW:
Domitian launched no attack against the Church, so far as history is concerned. As the futurist Ladd admits:

"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)


​

I agree with Ladd here. It's a fatal problem. So, again, the only viable view is the early date.




FREE:
Descending to ad hominen attack should be beneath you.

GW:
Claiming today's Jews will go extinct at the second coming (based on Matt 24:34) is serious stuff. It is no ad hominem to come against all forms of anti-semitism. I hope you will seriously consider retracting your interpretation of Matthew 24:34 and admit that a racial interpretation of the passage is very, very wrong.



FREE:
And no, all Jews are not 'absorbed" as you put it. I could introduce you to a few.

GW:
No you couldn't introduce me to a few, or any. The tribal records were all destroyed at AD 70. There are no twelve tribes anymore. The form of biblical Judaism given by Moses went extinct. Modern semitic peoples follow a rabbinical Judaism created after AD 70, and have no biblical proof of lineage back to Abraham or even to the first century. AD70 changed everything, so far as biblical Judaism is concerned.





FREE:
And, it is the futurist view that agrees with Romans 11:25-29.

GW:
The gentiles became co-heirs of Israel's inheritance back in the first century. That was achieved via the mission of Paul. We are not still waiting for the gentiles to receive their fulness.



FREE:
I would say it was the preterists who had a rascist view towards Jews

GW:
You may say it, but there is no merit in it.



FREE:
- that they are wicked ones who God will send all His wrath on, as opposed to the futurists who believe it is those who reject Christ who receive God's wrath.

GW:
God sent the fulness of his wrath upon SOME disobedient first-century Jews as Paul states at 1 Thess 2:14-16 (see also Matt 23:31-38). But God showed mercy to the remnant who followed Christ and the Jewish Church out of bondage to the Old Covenant.



FREE:
More ad hominen. sad, GW.

GW:
Look...you said the Zealots weren't Messianic claimants, and you were wrong. You should simply admit when you are wrong.

First-century Israel was a cauldron of Messianic claimants (Acts 5:36-37; Acts 8:9-10; Acts 12:21-22). Please also read Richard Horsley's Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, which is entirely about the multiplied Messianic movements in first-century Palestine.




FREE:
And you seem to rely greatly on the writings of modern day writers to support your views. Certainly more than the Bible!

GW:
Not true. The Holy Bible is THE #1 book on the question of WHEN JESUS RETURNED, and it fuly supports the preterist view.




FREE:
What I don't see is evidence that events described in Revelation occurred in 70 AD. You haven't showed it either!

GW:
The Olivet Discourse was concerning the Fall of Jerusalem in their generation--as the bible itself shows. The best scholarship down the centuries also maintains this. Therefore, Revelation, which is the Olivet Discourse in a vision, was fulfilled also in their time, as the book itself says:

Revelation 1:1,3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass...the time is at hand.


​

FREE:
And earlier you referenced John of Gischala as a false messiah. But he never declared himself to be a God.

GW:
The Zealots overthrew the Laws of Moses, the priesthood and the Temple, and set up their own regime at the Temple to rule the Nation from AD 66-70. There has been no higher abomination or desolation. And DESOLATION is exactly what they got at AD 70 (Luke 21:20-23/Rev 17:16-17).




FREE:
Josephus doesn't say so - and they did not get along at all!

GW:
I thought you didn't accept non-biblical sources. I guess you do, after all. Which is it?

And, Josephus blames the entire fall of Israel on the Zealot revolution at the Temple. He chronicles them as the most wicked men who had ever rose up in Israel. They are the ones Paul is referencing in 2 Thess 2:4-7 with regard to the then-standing Jerusalem Temple.





FREE:
You are sidestepping, IMHO. IF all of the Olivet discourse was in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem, then it would have been more than Rome against Israel.

GW:
Why? Rome was the 4th empire which Daniel said would exist at the time the Kingdom of God would be set up, and Titus and Vespasian brought armies from all over the provinces of the Roman Empire to sack Israel and Jerusalem. What more historic proof do you need to see that the Olivet was a prophecy concerning AD 67-70? The "nations and kingdoms" were those of Israel and its surrounding countries and empire.


To restate: futurism is the unbiblical tradition of men. Preterism is biblical doctrine taught by Christ and the apostles.

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
Misinterpretation and quoting out-of-context.

GW:
We'll see who is quoting out of context.

OLD SHEP:
Here is your "proof text."
Matt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.This supposedly proves that Jesus told His disciples He would come again, after His crucifixion, before they had carried the gospel to all the cities of Israel. So that must prove that Jesus would return in the first century, right? Wrong!

In this passage Jesus is sending His disciples out on one of many missionary journeys. ......This missionary journey ended with the Jesus and the disciples again together, in chapter 12

GW:
LOL. One would have to entirely divorce 10:23 from 10:16-22 to reach such a nonsensical conclusion. Sorry, you are seriously twisting scripture here. Matthew 10:23 cannot be divorced from Matthew 10:16-22! The passage had its fulfillment AFTER the resurrection and ascension of Christ, not before.

Only someone desperate to protect a futurist tradition to the detriment of Holy Scripture could arrive at the conclusion that Matt 10:16-23 was fulfilled before the crucifixion. C'mon.

[size=+1]I am not desperate to protect anything, I quoted scripture. Well let's see are there any scriptures quoted here? No! Is there any kind of documentation or evidence here? No! In Matt 10:5-6, did Jesus tell His disciples to NOT go in the way of the gentiles or cities of Samaria? No talking in circles, a simple yes or no will suffice. Does the scripture record that the disciples did in fact go to Samaritan and gentile cities before 70 AD? Again a simple yes or no? According to your Preterist doctrine, did the disciples deliberately, more than once as recorded in scripture, do what Jesus specifically commanded them not to do?[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

GW:
"...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Quite simply, the Canon states that Paul, in writing to seven churches, was following John's rule. There is no way around it. This supports the early-date of Revelation, and this statement was made around 170AD.

[size=+1]And you will quote that one little sentence fragment, like a mantra, until you are blue in the face and blatantly ignore the other evidence in the Muratorian canon which contradicts your presuppositions.[/size]

GW:
The Muratorian Canon holds that Revelation was written before Paul's death.

[size=+1]Nonsense. One sentence fragment when viewed in isolation seems to indicate that, but even the Gospel According to Gentry states otherwise.[/size]

To restate: futurism is the unbiblical tradition of men. Preterism is biblical doctrine taught by Christ and the apostles.

[size=+1]To restate Preterism is an unbiblical doctrine dreamed up by 19th century theologians. You are so fond of compare this to that. Here are three sentences quoted from scripture. The meaning of these three scriptures does not require comparing this to that. The clear meaning of these three sentences can be arrived at by simply reading the words that are written. Are Preterists capable of reading and understanding these three sentences, as written, or does it require paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevant scripture citation?

You made wild eyed accusations of scripture twisting. If you can, read these without twisting the words completely out of their meaning.[/size]

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

3:3 If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come[/b] on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.​

[size=+1]To assist you in interpreting these three verses here are three verses where Jesus used the same phrase, translated "or else" in two of the verses above.[/size]

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Luke 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

Luke 13:9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Robertson
If therefore thou shalt not watch (ean oun mh grhgorhshv). Condition of third class with ean mh and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of grhgorew, "if then thou do not wake up."

Greek Conditional Sentences

Conditional sentences are "If ..., then ..." statements. They make a statement that if something happens, then something else will happen.

The 'if' clause is referred to as the 'protasis' by grammarians. It comes from the Greek words 'pro' (meaning before) and 'stasis' (meaning 'stand'). So the 'protasis' means 'what stands before' or 'comes first' as far as these two clauses are concerned. The 'then' clause is termed the 'apodosis' ; it is what 'comes after' the protasis.
Logical Relationship between Protasis and Apodasis
There are a number of different relationships that can exist between the protasis and apodosis. It is important that you try to distinguish between these relationships for sake of more clearly understanding the text. Please also note that there can be some overlap between these three relationships.


They could represent a Cause-Effect relationship, where the action in the protasis will cause the effect in the apodosis. For example Romans 8:13b, "...but if by the spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live."


They could show a Evidence-Inference type relationship, where the apodosis is inferred to be true based upon the evidence presented in the protasis. This will often be semantically the converse of the ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship. For example 1 Cor. 15:44, "If there is a soulish body, there is also a spiritual one."


Or, the relationship could be one showing Equivalence between the protasis and apodosis, which is actually a subset of the Evidence-Inference relationship. For example Gal. 2:18, "...if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor."
Classification of Greek Conditional Sentences
Greek has more ability than English in describing the kind of relationship between the protasis, and the apodosis. It is possible for the writer/speaker to indicate whether the protasis is true or not. Actually they can indicate if they are presenting the protasis as 'assumed true (or false) for the sake of argument'. In order to indicate this kind of relationship between the protasis and apodosis, Classical Greek traditional had four kinds of conditional sentences, based upon what tense and mood the verb occurs in and upon some helping words. These are much the same in Koine (Biblical) Greek, with slight variations.

Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future Condition', the third class condition should actually be split into two different categories, the 'Future More Probable Condition' (indicating either a probable future action or a hypothetical situation) and the 'Present General Condition' (indicating a generic situation or universal truth at the present time). It is formed in the protasis using the word ean (ei plus an = 'if') and a verb in the subjunctive mood. The main verb of the protasis can be in any tense, but if the condition is a 'Present General', the verb must be in the present tense.​

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
I am not desperate to protect anything, I quoted scripture. Well let's see are there any scriptures quoted here? No! Is there any kind of documentation or evidence here? No! In Matt 10:5-6, did Jesus tell His disciples to NOT go in the way of the gentiles or cities of Samaria? No talking in circles, a simple yes or no will suffice. Does the scripture record that the disciples did in fact go to Samaritan and gentile cities before 70 AD? Again a simple yes or no? According to your Preterist doctrine, did the disciples deliberately, more than once as recorded in scripture, do what Jesus specifically commanded them not to do?


GW:
Matt 10:16-23 looks ahead to the PERSECUTION OF THE APOSTLES by the Jews and the Gentiles:

Matt 10:17
"they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues" (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

Matt 10:18
"ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles." (Did not happen until after the resurrection, and the GENTILES are in view)

Matt 10:19
"when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak." (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

Matthew 10:21
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death." (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

Matthew 10:22
"And ye shall be hated of all [nations] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Did not happen until after the resurrection)


​

Nice try Old Shep. But, none of those things happened until after the resurrection. Everyone can plainly see that Matthew 10:16-23 and Matthew 24:9-13 and Matthew 23:33-37 all speak of the same event -- the persecution of the apostles before Jerusalem Fell at AD 70! In fact, the slaying of Christ and the apostles is the very reason God brought Heaven's wrath upon first-century Israel in that Day of the Lord desolation.

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
And you will quote that one little sentence fragment, like a mantra, until you are blue in the face and blatantly ignore the other evidence in the Muratorian canon which contradicts your presuppositions.

GW:

"...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

This is plainly stated. It completely refutes your view. It requires that Paul knew of John's writing to only seven churches before Paul had died. Sorry, but there is no way around it.




OLD SHEP:
You are so fond of compare this to that.

GW:
Because scripture is the best interpreter of scripture.




OLD SHEP:
You made wild eyed accusations of scripture twisting. If you can, read these without twisting the words completely out of their meaning....

"or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

"or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

"If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."



GW:
The conditionality is placed upon whether they would be punished or blessed by his coming unto them. No one is arguing that conditionality is involved on that matter. You wasted a lot of ink on proving something we all agree on. But to say that Christ's coming itself was a first-century CONDITIONAL coming is nowhere in the text. He promised punishments to some of those first-century people, and rewards to others -- all via his coming to them back in the first century.


And again, I have to remind you of the confused situation you are setting up for yourself. Namely, since indeed you admit that Christ is seen in Rev 2-3 offering a conditional first-century return to first-century Churches, then that means that the "long church age," "1948," "computer chip marks of beast," the "200 million man Chinese army," the "EU," and all other popular notions espoused by modern endtimes theologians are all myths unknown to Jesus Christ and nowhere found in scripture. If any of those things were in scripture, Jesus could not be offering His return to first-century people as we indeed see Him doing in Revelation. Do you recognize what that does to your futurism? It makes your beloved futurist notions fully impossible, for the glorified Jesus shows that he knew absolutely nothing about them.

 

[OldShepherd]

"...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

This is plainly stated. It completely refutes your view. It requires that Paul knew of John's writing to only seven churches before Paul had died. Sorry, but there is no way around it.

[size=+1]This sentence fragment refutes NOTHING! Your supposition of what this supposedly refutes is itself refuted by the writer of the canon. After this sentence, the canon twice shows John’s Apocalypse (Jap) chronologically AFTER Paul’s letters to the seven churches. And, once again, this after showing the chronological order of each of Paul’s epistles. You have carefully ignored this fact.

Your only interest in dating Jap early is to prove that it refers to the events of 70 AD. And that presupposition is unquestionably refuted by the conclusion of the canon that the Parousia was yet future from 170 AD, when the canon was written. And you can’t claim that the other references are wrong without destroying your own proof.

The bulk of the evidence in the Muratorian canon refutes your presuppositions, 3 to 1.[/size]

Because scripture is the best interpreter of scripture.

[size=+1]Only if it is relevant and only if context is shown. And interpreting scripture by scripture does NOT permit an interpretation which contradicts the very words of the scripture, as you are doing with Rev. 2-3.[/size]

You made wild eyed accusations of scripture twisting. If you can, read these without twisting the words completely out of their meaning....

"or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.[/I]"

"or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”

"If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."

The conditionality is placed upon whether they would be punished or blessed by his coming unto them. No one is arguing that conditionality is involved on that matter. You wasted a lot of ink on proving something we all agree on. But to say that Christ's coming itself was a first-century CONDITIONAL coming is nowhere in the text.

[size=+1]Twisting, twisting, twisting. I posted Greek language resources but you ignored them. The three sentences are conditions of the third class. You can quote Matt 24 until all the devils go ice skating and that will not change the fact that “or else” modifies “come quickly,” it does not skip over those words to, “will remove thy candlestick” or “will fight against them.” Which is indisputably proved by the other verses, quoted, where Jesus used the same word.

I assume that John knew how to correctly communicate his thoughts, this revelation, and used words accordingly. If John had meant to quote Jesus as saying “I will come quickly and will remove your candlestick/fight against them.,” That is what he would have written, but that is NOT what he wrote, and no amount of smoke and mirrors and throwing irrelevant scriptures around can change John’s words and the meaning of them. All three verses are “conditions of the third class.” And it is too bad that the very words of scripture contradict you. You may continue to insist that only punishment or reward was conditional but it is grammatically incorrect.

There is a conditional statement in Greek which assumes the condition to be true, the first condition, but that is not the word that John used.[/size]

He promised punishments to some of those first-century people, and rewards to others -- all via his coming to them back in the first century.

[size=+1]Where, in Jap are the unconditional promises of rewards to some? Where, in Jap, is the unconditional statement that Jesus would return in the first century?[/size]

And again, I have to remind you of the confused situation you are setting up for yourself. Namely, since indeed you admit that Christ is seen in Rev 2-3 offering a conditional first-century return to first-century Churches, then that means that the "long church age," "1948," "computer chip marks of beast," the "200 million man Chinese army," the "EU," and all other popular notions espoused by modern endtimes theologians are all myths unknown to Jesus Christ and nowhere found in scripture. If any of those things were in scripture, Jesus could not be offering His return to first-century people as we indeed see Him doing in Revelation. Do you recognize what that does to your futurism? It makes your beloved futurist notions fully impossible, for the glorified Jesus shows that he knew absolutely nothing about them.

[size=+1]Where do you get all this stuff? You are the one confused. This is nothing but meaningless words that only impress other Preterists because it might look like you are actually saying something. Nothing I have said proves or disproves any of this stuff. The conditional statements are in Jap, not elsewhere.

I have asked this question before. What does "that day" mean in the OT and when were these scriptures fulfilled?[/size]

Isaiah 19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:​

 

[OldShepherd]

[size=+1]In Matt 10:5-6, did Jesus tell His disciples to NOT go in the way of the gentiles or cities of Samaria? No talking in circles, a simple yes or no will suffice? Does the scripture record that the disciples did in fact go to Samaritan and gentile cities before 70 AD? Again a simple yes or no. According to your Preterist doctrine, did the disciples deliberately, more than once as recorded in scripture, do what Jesus specifically commanded them not to do?[/size]

Matt 10:16-23 looks ahead to the PERSECUTION OF THE APOSTLES by the Jews and the Gentiles:

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions[/size]

Matt 10:17
"they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues" (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions.[/size]

Matt 10:18
"ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles."(Did not happen until after the resurrection, and the GENTILES are in view)

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions.[/size]

Matt 10:19
"when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak." (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions.[/size]

Matthew 10:21
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death." (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions.[/size]

Matthew 10:22
"And ye shall be hated of all [nations] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Did not happen until after the resurrection)

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions.[/size]

Nice try Old Shep. But, none of those things happened until after the resurrection. Everyone can plainly see that Matthew 10:16-23 and Matthew 24:9-13 and Matthew 23:33-37 all speak of the same event -- the persecution of the apostles before Jerusalem Fell at AD 70! In fact, the slaying of Christ and the apostles is the very reason God brought Heaven's wrath upon first-century Israel in that Day of the Lord desolation.

[size=+1]Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions. Smoke and mirrors, misdirection, just like a stage magician diverting attention elsewhere to get it off of the main point. The questions are listed at the top of this post in my quote. Either address them or don't but all this extraneous stuff is a waste of time and only impresses your Preterist buds.

Did Jesus knowingly give His disciples a command that they would repeatedly disobey? Jesus knew what would happen to the disciples, did Jesus know the disciples would disobey Him? There is a way to reconcile these verses but Preterists will never find it. And FYI the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[/size]

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
This sentence fragment refutes NOTHING!

GW:
It refutes the late date tradition.

"...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."





OLD SHEP:
After this sentence, the canon twice shows John’s Apocalypse chronologically AFTER Paul’s letters to the seven churches.

GW:
Does not say it was "chronologically after." That's your invention. In fact, as to chronology, it says: "...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."




OLD SHEP:
Your only interest in dating Jap early is to prove that it refers to the events of 70 AD.

GW:
The Muratorian Canon is part of the early-date tradition concerning when the book of Revelation was written. That's all there is to it.

And, I agree that the ECFs were only partial preterists. I am a CONSISTENT preterist, while they were INCONSISTENT preterists.





OLD SHEP:
You can quote Matt 24 until all the devils go ice skating and that will not change the fact that “or else” modifies “come quickly,” it does not skip over those words to, “will remove thy candlestick” or “will fight against them.”

GW:
Your attempt to separate Christ's coming to them from what he was coming to accomplish is not worthy of a reply. To each church Jesus was coming, but he was to hand out certain rewards and punishments which were conditioned upon their works. That's what Rev 2-3 clearly states, and I'll leave it to unbiased minds to read chapters 2-3 for themselves and see it is so. Both punishments and rewards offered to each church, and these were to be granted via Christ's coming to them. There is no way around it.



OLD SHEP:
You may continue to insist that only punishment or reward was conditional but it is grammatically incorrect.

GW:
To every one of the Asia Minor churches Christ promised certain punishments and rewards. There is no way around it.



OLD SHEP:
Where, in Jap are the unconditional promises of rewards to some?

GW:
To every one of the Asia Minor churches Christ promised certain punishments and rewards -- and whichever they would receive was conditioned upon their works.





OLD SHEP:
Where do you get all this stuff? You are the one confused. This is nothing but meaningless words that only impress other Preterists because it might look like you are actually saying something. Nothing I have said proves or disproves any of this stuff.

GW:
Not only does it impress preterists, but anyone with basic reasoning skills. You admit Christ offered a "CONDITIONAL" first-century coming to the Asia Minor churches. If the "long church age," "1948," the "EU" and such were anywhere in scripture, Jesus would not be offering his return to first-century churches. Plain and simple. You've painted yourself in to a corner.

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions

GW:
You absurdly presuppose that Matt 10:16-23 doesn't look beyond the scope of a few months or so after Christ first called the 12 apostles. There is no reason to accept your presupposition, and every reason to reject your presupposition:

(1) Nothing mentioned in Matt 10:16-23 happened to the apostles before the resurrection, which makes Christ a false prophet if we accept your interpretation. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(2) Matt 10:16-23 is clearly the parallel to Matt 24:9-13 and 23:33-36, showing that the time of fulfillment was after the resurrection and not before. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(3) Matt 10:18-19 mentions the apostles being delivered up before Gentile rulers to testify against them, which did not happen before the resurrection. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(4) Matt 10:21 pertains to the Jewish civil war of AD 68-70, and nothing before the resurrection. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(5) Matthew 10:22 is the same as Matt 24:13, which is beyond the resurrection. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.


Quite simply, Matthew 10:23 is about how Christ's coming ("the coming of the son of man") would take place when the events of 10:16-22 took place for the apostles and before the apostles' mission to Israel had been finished. This demands a first-century return of Christ.

 

[parousia70]

I have asked this question before. What does "that day" mean in the OT and when were these scriptures fulfilled?

simple.

It must happen around the same time this scripture gets fulfilled:

"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be."

Since we know today that Living waters are fulfilled in Christ, available in their fullness to all who thirst right now, "That Day" must be behind us.

 

[GW]

Old Shep,

A survey of the prophets shows that the phrase "that day" is not merely one single day of all of history. It refers to whichever day of Jehovah's judgment is in view, which must be determined from the greater context.

There have been many "that day" judgments in Israel's history, all taking place at appointed times when God carried out his various judgments in history. This parallels the fact that there have been MANY Day-of-Jehovah events in history.

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
Does not address the scripture I quoted and does not answer my questions

GW:
You absurdly presuppose that Matt 10:16-23 doesn't look beyond the scope of a few months or so after Christ first called the 12 apostles. There is no reason to accept your presupposition, and every reason to reject your presupposition:

(1) Nothing mentioned in Matt 10:16-23 happened to the apostles before the resurrection, which makes Christ a false prophet if we accept your interpretation. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(2) Matt 10:16-23 is clearly the parallel to Matt 24:9-13 and 23:33-36, showing that the time of fulfillment was after the resurrection and not before. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(3) Matt 10:18-19 mentions the apostles being delivered up before Gentile rulers to testify against them, which did not happen before the resurrection. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(4) Matt 10:21 pertains to the Jewish civil war of AD 68-70, and nothing before the resurrection. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.

(5) Matthew 10:22 is the same as Matt 24:13, which is beyond the resurrection. Therefore, we must reject your presupposition.


Quite simply, Matthew 10:23 is about how Christ's coming ("the coming of the son of man") would take place when the events of 10:16-22 took place for the apostles and before the apostles' mission to Israel had been finished. This demands a first-century return of Christ.

[size=+1]Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. Since your 19th centuiry Preterist doctrine is so all fired correct, why is it you cannot answer my question? I have asked it several times and you have talked circles all over the place and never addressed it one time.

In Matt 10:5-6, did Jesus tell His disciples to NOT go in the way of the gentiles or cities of Samaria? No talking in circles, a simple yes or no will suffice. Does the scripture record that the disciples did in fact go to Samaritan and gentile cities BEFORE 70 AD? Again a simple yes or no? According to your Preterist doctrine, did the disciples deliberately, more than once, as recorded in scripture, do what Jesus specifically commanded them not to do? Since Jesus knew they would be persecuted, did Jesus also know they would disobey Him, and told them not to go in the way of the gentiles or any Samaritan city, anyway?

Now since according to you, you have the only correct interepretation of scripture, it should be relatively easy to answer this. Maybe you can find an answer in the Gospel According to Saint Gentry?[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

GW:
Not only does it impress preterists, but anyone with basic reasoning skills. You admit Christ offered a "CONDITIONAL" first-century coming to the Asia Minor churches. If the "long church age," "1948," the "EU" and such were anywhere in scripture, Jesus would not be offering his return to first-century churches. Plain and simple. You've painted yourself in to a corner.

[size=+1]Plain and simple you are the one lacking in basic reasoning skills. Denying the clear language of the passages I quoted, along with Greek language resources. Deliberately twisting them to make them support your presuppositions.

Do you understand the difference between an "offer" to return and a "warning?" I have proven irrefutably that the three verses placed the condition on the coming. The warning was repent or else.

If you are a parent and your children are misbehaving and you tell them, "Stop or else I will punish you." If they stop misbehaving do you punish them anyway?[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

Old Shep,

A survey of the prophets shows that the phrase "that day" is not merely one single day of all of history. It refers to whichever day of Jehovah's judgment is in view, which must be determined from the greater context.

There have been many "that day" judgments in Israel's history, all taking place at appointed times when God carried out his various judgments in history. This parallels the fact that there have been MANY Day-of-Jehovah events in history.

[size=+1]Good, then using your inerrant Preterist interpretation please tell me which "that day" or " day-of-Jehovah," Isaiah 19 refers to? When was there a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and vice versa, and when were Israel, Assyria, and Egypt signators of a three party treaty?[/size]

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
why is it you cannot answer my question?

GW:
Jesus indeed tells the disciples not to go in the way of the gentiles in Matt 10:5-6. But Matt 10:16-23 looks ahead to the later ministry of the apostles, as I have shown. You presuppose it does not, but it plainly does, as the parallel scriptures of Matt 24:9-13 and 23:33-36 demonstrate. Also, the 10:16-23 passage specifically mentions the apostles being delivered up before the courts of gentile rulers as a testimony against them. Also, there is nothing before the resurrection that remotely fulfills Matt 10:16-23 -- thus your view makes a false prophet out of Jesus. Can any scripture-loving, Christ-honoring person really hold such a position that makes a false prophet out of Jesus? It's unthinkable.

 

[GW]

OLD SHEP:
Do you understand the difference between an "offer" to return and a "warning?"

GW:
Is this what your argument has been reduced to? Fine distinctions over whether Christ was "offering" a first-century return versus merely "warning" a first-century return? C'mon.

You think this distinction solves your dilemma? I assure you it does not. How could Jesus legitimately "offer" or even "warn" of a first-century return if he knew that the necessary prerequisites of the "church age," "1948," "computerized 666," the EU, the 200-million army, etc. etc. had not yet been fulfilled??? Knowing such, He could not legitimately "offer" or "warn." Therefore, your view turns Jesus into the issuer of idle threats. We cannot accept such a Jesus. The Lord of glory does not issue idle threats. That might be your Jesus, but it is not the Jesus of scripture.

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
Do you understand the difference between an "offer" to return and a "warning?"

GW:
Is this what your argument has been reduced to? Fine distinctions over whether Christ was "offering" a first-century return versus merely "warning" a first-century return? C'mon.

[size=+1]Myopic are we? My position is not reduced to anything, simply because you choose to only examine this one point. I believe there are several points raised here that have not been satisfactorily addressed.[/size]

You think this distinction solves your dilemma? I assure you it does not. How could Jesus legitimately "offer" or even "warn" of a first-century return if he knew [yada, yada, yada, etc. etc. and a partridge in a pear tree] * * *Knowing such, He could not legitimately "offer" or "warn." Therefore, your view turns Jesus into the issuer of idle threats. We cannot accept such a Jesus. The Lord of glory does not issue idle threats. That might be your Jesus, but it is not the Jesus of scripture.

[size=+1]I'm afraid you are totally mistaken. You are correct the Lord of Glory does NOT issue idle threats. Now all you have to do is prove that Jesus followed through on the warnings (threats) issued to 5 of the 7 churches or that they corrected their shortcomings. Where is it written that Jesus cannot visit judgement upon any place or any number of places He chooses, any time He chooses, just as God did in the OT?

My view turns Jesus into God and God's thoughts are higher than yours and my thoughts, and His ways are higher than our ways. You keep saying I have a problem and I have a dilemma. Funny I have answered all of your so-called problems and dilemmas.[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

OLD SHEP:
why is it you cannot answer my question?

GW:
Jesus indeed tells the disciples not to go in the way of the gentiles in Matt 10:5-6. But Matt 10:16-23 looks ahead to the later ministry of the apostles, as I have shown. You presuppose it does not, but it plainly does, as the parallel scriptures of Matt 24:9-13 and 23:33-36 demonstrate. Also, the 10:16-23 passage specifically mentions the apostles being delivered up before the courts of gentile rulers as a testimony against them. Also, there is nothing before the resurrection that remotely fulfills Matt 10:16-23 -- thus your view makes a false prophet out of Jesus. Can any scripture-loving, Christ-honoring person really hold such a position that makes a false prophet out of Jesus? It's unthinkable.

[size=+1]Right handy about throwing around accusations aren't you? Where have I made a false prophet out of anyone?

Actually the passage says nothing about being brought up before gentile rulers. Read the scriptures, "brought before governors and kings. . . for a testimony against the gentiles."

Now let me understand this, you are saying that the continuous narrative which begins in Matt 10:5 and continues through the end of the chapter, vs. 43, at some point is speaking about two different times and places, some near in time and some further in the future, although there is nothing in the text which indicates a change in subject? Where exactly does Jesus tell His disciples he is giving them instructions for two or more different journeys, one more immediate missionary journey, and one or more missionary journeys some time in the future?[/size]

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.​

"Also, there is nothing before the resurrection that remotely fulfills Matt 10:16-23"**[size=+1]The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Where is it recorded in scripture that none of these things happened to the disciples during the Matthew 10-12 missionary journey?

Jesus said it would happen in the same discourse where he told the disciples not to go into any city of the Samaritans or the way of the gentiles. Since Jesus cannot lie, it must have happened, scripture records that the disciples went into Samaria and to gentiles before the Parousia.

What is that you say? You want me to prove something from scripture? You want me to prove that Matt 10:16-23 happened before the resurrection? Since you have not and cannot prove any of the events of Rev 2-3 happened, then it is not incumbent on me to prove that Matt 10:16-23 happened. Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Unless you want to admit to a double standard and special pleading?[/size]

 

[GW]

Hi Old Shep.

Both cases have been presented, and readers can do the homework and come to their own decisions. I see no usefulness in repeating the same information.

GW

 

[Phoenix]

I'm not sure if this link has been given somewhere in the 28 pages here, but i'll post it anyway.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1497_696002

Chapters 1 through about 9 should be read. Amazing read.