Is the Great Tribulation Past or Future? - Battle Royale III - Dee Dee vs. Jerry
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
In that day...
In that day...
It has been a long time since I have seen any thing so pitiful as Dee Dee´s interpretation of the following Scripture: “And it shall come to pass in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
I remarked that “No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed.”In response,Dee Dee says: “Really?? Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Emrire has long since ceased to exist.”
But Dee Dee,can´t you read? The Lord says that He will destroy the nations IN THAT DAY!!!
She says that “the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point.”Well,the Lord doesn´t say that IN THAT DAY that the nations would begin their decline.He says that HE will defeat them in that day.
The reason that Dee Dee is so desperate that she would offer such wild exegesis is simple: If the verse is taken literally,then Dee Dee then must admit the the ideas of the Preterists are in error.But I say,why shouldn´t we take these verses literally? When the Lord ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives,those witnessing the event were told that He “shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven”(Acts1:11).And in the prophetic Scriptures we see Him standing on the Mount of Olives while He fights against the nations that come against Jerusalem:
“Then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle.And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”(Zech.14:3,4).
But since Dee Dee has no place for this in her eschatology she is forced to say that all this means is the beginning of the decline of Rome.How pitiful!
Now I will answer all six of Dee Dee´s points,and you will see that a closeexamination reveals just how bankrupt her ideas are.
Number One: “ ‘Genea’ indisputably does mean in our text ‘the whole multitude of men living at the same time.” However,she provides no evidence.More later on this.
Number Two: “Even if ‘genea’ did mean race; the specific identification of the Temple that then existed and the city that then existed unequivocally thrusts the entire prophecy into the first century because all the prophesised things MUST happen within a relatively quick succession as totally necessitated by Matt.24:33,Mark 13:29,and Luke 21:31.”
First of all,Dee Dee speaks of “the city that then existed”.But the city of Jerusalem that existed is the same city that existed after 70AD.And the same can be said for the Temple.By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a principle of CONTINUITY in the history of the Temple.The Temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same Temple.At the time of the rebuilding of the Temple after it had been razed,Haggi says:
“Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?”(Hag.2:3).
The Lord of hosts says,”The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former”(v.9).
So the rebuilt Temple can also be referred to as “this house” and be in the stream of the two preceding Temples according to the words of the Lord of hosts.Therefore,we see that there is only one city,Jerusalem,and there is only one Temple.
Next,Dee Dee says that “all the prophesised things must happen within relative quick succession as totally necessitated by Matt.24:33,Mark 13:28,and Luke 21:31.” But an examination of those verses indicates no such thing:
“So likewise ye,when ye shall see all these things,know that it is near,even at the doors”(Mt.24:33).
Here the Lord is addressing the “ye” to the whole race of Jews,as He did in the following verse: “For I say unto you,Ye shall not see Me henceforth,till ye shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”(Mt.23:39). Here,the people to whom He was speaking never said, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”.But we do know that in the future there will be people in Jerusalem that do say those
words.Therefore,it becomes obvious that when the Lord used the word “ye” He was referring to the Jewish race.
Next,these same verses state that “when ye shall see ALL THESE THINGS,know that it is near…”
One of the things that they must “see” is the signs that will appear in the heavens,such as the sun being darkened,the moon not giving its light,and the stars falling from heaven.And from the context of the Lord´s words,it is plain that these things will be SEEN—“When ye shall SEE all these things”—“Take heed,WATCH and pray”…”And I say unto you I say unto all,WATCH”…”So ye also,when ye SEE these things come to pass…WATCH ye,therefore,and pray…”
However,Dee Dee says that there is no need to WATCH for ALL THESE THINGS,but instead we should only WATCH for some of the things.In Dee Dee´s theology there is no place for any actual signs in the heavens.So she just “spiritualizes” them away.But why should we believe Dee Dee instead of the Lord,Who is warning one and all to be WATCHFUL for all these things?
Number Three: “Since said destruction is a NONREPEATABLE EVENT,there is no prophecy of any future Temple for any future anti-christ to desecrate.”
The Holy Writings contain many “types”.The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 is a “type” of the “great tribulation” to come.Epiphanes defiled the Temple then standing,and he is a “type” of the coming anti-christ who shall also desecrate the Temple.So an understanding of the “principle of the continuity in the history of the Temple” combined with a knowledge of the “types” proves that this argument of Dee Dee´s has no merit whatsoever.
Number Four:”There are no years left to Daniel since Jesus specifically identifies what Temple is in view in that prophecy—that first century Temple.”
But again,if one understands the “principle of continuity” of the Temple there is no doubt that this argument of Dee Dee is worthless.Besides,we know that the events described as happening at the end of the 70 Weeks have not yet come to pass.Who in their right mind would believe that “everlasting righteousness”(Dan.9:24) has been brought unto Jerusalem?
Number Five: “Matt.24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event.” Again,Dee Dee gives no evidence to support her claim.But those of us who understand the “principle of continuity” in regard to the Temple and who understand the “types” know that the passages in Luke are a “type” of the great tribulation described in the passages of Matthew.We see that the days of tribulation will be “shortened”(Mt.24:22),and that happens,as previously mentioned,when the Lord seeks “to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).And all Dee Dee can say is that this must represent the beginning of the decline of Rome.Again,Dee Dee has no place in her theology for this event so she must “spiritualize” this verse away.
Number Six: “His interpretation puts the innane statement in Christ´s mouth.’Most assuredly I say to you,the Jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen to the Jewish race,’ a reductio ad absurdum.”
Well,if anyone is an expert on the ABSURD,it is Dee Dee.But the Lord says that the Jewish race shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.And considering the many horrors that the nation of Israel must suffer through,it is not surprising at all that the Lord would assure them that their beloved chosen nation of Israel would continue and would inherit all the blessings that had been promised.Why would this seem strange?Did not Paul assure them in like manner that “God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew”?So there is nothing absurd in the idea that the Lord would assure these men that ethnic Israel would survive the many trials and tribulations that will take place.
Number Six: This is about the meaning of the word “generation” at Matthew 24:34. As I pointed out earlier,the Lord Himself says that not even He knows “the day” when that will happen (Mt.24:36).He states that the “times and seasons” has “the Father put in His own power”(Acts1:7).So are we to assume that the Lord Himself,Who doesn´t know the day or the “times and seasons”,is going to SPECULATE and say that the day will happen during the lifetimes of His Apostles?That is what Dee Dee does.She builds her doctrines on nothing but SPECULATION!She asks,”Exactly what is the problem with saying that the generation can be known but not the exact day and hour?”
Well,John was forced to correct some other speculation concering other words of the Lord Jesus at John 21:21-23.On this occasion,the Lord Jesus said to Peter concerning John,”If I will that he tarry till I come,what is that to thee?” These words started some SPECULATING that the Lord had said that John should not die.They has INFERRED that the Lord´s words must mean that.But John corrected this faulty inference.This false rumor shows the possibility of misunderstanding God´s words.Christians must seek to understand God´s Word accurately.And that is not possible if we attempt to build doctrine on wild speculation and inference.
And that is exactly what is wrong with Dee Dee´s approach to Scripture.The Lord states in no uncertain words that He does not know the day when these things will come to pass.But Dee Dee makes a wild assertion that He may not know the exact time,He surely has an idea as to the approximate time.And with that she attempts to build her doctrine.Another pitiful excuse for SOUND DOCTRINE.
Now that I have demonstrated conclusively that none of Dee Dee´s SIX points have any merit whatsoever,perhaps she will answer my previous question.When did the following take place?:
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
And when did the following occur?:
“”When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another”(Mt.25:31,32).
Since I answered all of Dee Dee´s points,perhaps she will now return the favor.
In that day...
It has been a long time since I have seen any thing so pitiful as Dee Dee´s interpretation of the following Scripture: “And it shall come to pass in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
I remarked that “No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed.”In response,Dee Dee says: “Really?? Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Emrire has long since ceased to exist.”
But Dee Dee,can´t you read? The Lord says that He will destroy the nations IN THAT DAY!!!
She says that “the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point.”Well,the Lord doesn´t say that IN THAT DAY that the nations would begin their decline.He says that HE will defeat them in that day.
The reason that Dee Dee is so desperate that she would offer such wild exegesis is simple: If the verse is taken literally,then Dee Dee then must admit the the ideas of the Preterists are in error.But I say,why shouldn´t we take these verses literally? When the Lord ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives,those witnessing the event were told that He “shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven”(Acts1:11).And in the prophetic Scriptures we see Him standing on the Mount of Olives while He fights against the nations that come against Jerusalem:
“Then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle.And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”(Zech.14:3,4).
But since Dee Dee has no place for this in her eschatology she is forced to say that all this means is the beginning of the decline of Rome.How pitiful!
Now I will answer all six of Dee Dee´s points,and you will see that a closeexamination reveals just how bankrupt her ideas are.
Number One: “ ‘Genea’ indisputably does mean in our text ‘the whole multitude of men living at the same time.” However,she provides no evidence.More later on this.
Number Two: “Even if ‘genea’ did mean race; the specific identification of the Temple that then existed and the city that then existed unequivocally thrusts the entire prophecy into the first century because all the prophesised things MUST happen within a relatively quick succession as totally necessitated by Matt.24:33,Mark 13:29,and Luke 21:31.”
First of all,Dee Dee speaks of “the city that then existed”.But the city of Jerusalem that existed is the same city that existed after 70AD.And the same can be said for the Temple.By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a principle of CONTINUITY in the history of the Temple.The Temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same Temple.At the time of the rebuilding of the Temple after it had been razed,Haggi says:
“Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?”(Hag.2:3).
The Lord of hosts says,”The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former”(v.9).
So the rebuilt Temple can also be referred to as “this house” and be in the stream of the two preceding Temples according to the words of the Lord of hosts.Therefore,we see that there is only one city,Jerusalem,and there is only one Temple.
Next,Dee Dee says that “all the prophesised things must happen within relative quick succession as totally necessitated by Matt.24:33,Mark 13:28,and Luke 21:31.” But an examination of those verses indicates no such thing:
“So likewise ye,when ye shall see all these things,know that it is near,even at the doors”(Mt.24:33).
Here the Lord is addressing the “ye” to the whole race of Jews,as He did in the following verse: “For I say unto you,Ye shall not see Me henceforth,till ye shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”(Mt.23:39). Here,the people to whom He was speaking never said, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”.But we do know that in the future there will be people in Jerusalem that do say those
words.Therefore,it becomes obvious that when the Lord used the word “ye” He was referring to the Jewish race.
Next,these same verses state that “when ye shall see ALL THESE THINGS,know that it is near…”
One of the things that they must “see” is the signs that will appear in the heavens,such as the sun being darkened,the moon not giving its light,and the stars falling from heaven.And from the context of the Lord´s words,it is plain that these things will be SEEN—“When ye shall SEE all these things”—“Take heed,WATCH and pray”…”And I say unto you I say unto all,WATCH”…”So ye also,when ye SEE these things come to pass…WATCH ye,therefore,and pray…”
However,Dee Dee says that there is no need to WATCH for ALL THESE THINGS,but instead we should only WATCH for some of the things.In Dee Dee´s theology there is no place for any actual signs in the heavens.So she just “spiritualizes” them away.But why should we believe Dee Dee instead of the Lord,Who is warning one and all to be WATCHFUL for all these things?
Number Three: “Since said destruction is a NONREPEATABLE EVENT,there is no prophecy of any future Temple for any future anti-christ to desecrate.”
The Holy Writings contain many “types”.The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 is a “type” of the “great tribulation” to come.Epiphanes defiled the Temple then standing,and he is a “type” of the coming anti-christ who shall also desecrate the Temple.So an understanding of the “principle of the continuity in the history of the Temple” combined with a knowledge of the “types” proves that this argument of Dee Dee´s has no merit whatsoever.
Number Four:”There are no years left to Daniel since Jesus specifically identifies what Temple is in view in that prophecy—that first century Temple.”
But again,if one understands the “principle of continuity” of the Temple there is no doubt that this argument of Dee Dee is worthless.Besides,we know that the events described as happening at the end of the 70 Weeks have not yet come to pass.Who in their right mind would believe that “everlasting righteousness”(Dan.9:24) has been brought unto Jerusalem?
Number Five: “Matt.24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event.” Again,Dee Dee gives no evidence to support her claim.But those of us who understand the “principle of continuity” in regard to the Temple and who understand the “types” know that the passages in Luke are a “type” of the great tribulation described in the passages of Matthew.We see that the days of tribulation will be “shortened”(Mt.24:22),and that happens,as previously mentioned,when the Lord seeks “to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).And all Dee Dee can say is that this must represent the beginning of the decline of Rome.Again,Dee Dee has no place in her theology for this event so she must “spiritualize” this verse away.
Number Six: “His interpretation puts the innane statement in Christ´s mouth.’Most assuredly I say to you,the Jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen to the Jewish race,’ a reductio ad absurdum.”
Well,if anyone is an expert on the ABSURD,it is Dee Dee.But the Lord says that the Jewish race shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.And considering the many horrors that the nation of Israel must suffer through,it is not surprising at all that the Lord would assure them that their beloved chosen nation of Israel would continue and would inherit all the blessings that had been promised.Why would this seem strange?Did not Paul assure them in like manner that “God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew”?So there is nothing absurd in the idea that the Lord would assure these men that ethnic Israel would survive the many trials and tribulations that will take place.
Number Six: This is about the meaning of the word “generation” at Matthew 24:34. As I pointed out earlier,the Lord Himself says that not even He knows “the day” when that will happen (Mt.24:36).He states that the “times and seasons” has “the Father put in His own power”(Acts1:7).So are we to assume that the Lord Himself,Who doesn´t know the day or the “times and seasons”,is going to SPECULATE and say that the day will happen during the lifetimes of His Apostles?That is what Dee Dee does.She builds her doctrines on nothing but SPECULATION!She asks,”Exactly what is the problem with saying that the generation can be known but not the exact day and hour?”
Well,John was forced to correct some other speculation concering other words of the Lord Jesus at John 21:21-23.On this occasion,the Lord Jesus said to Peter concerning John,”If I will that he tarry till I come,what is that to thee?” These words started some SPECULATING that the Lord had said that John should not die.They has INFERRED that the Lord´s words must mean that.But John corrected this faulty inference.This false rumor shows the possibility of misunderstanding God´s words.Christians must seek to understand God´s Word accurately.And that is not possible if we attempt to build doctrine on wild speculation and inference.
And that is exactly what is wrong with Dee Dee´s approach to Scripture.The Lord states in no uncertain words that He does not know the day when these things will come to pass.But Dee Dee makes a wild assertion that He may not know the exact time,He surely has an idea as to the approximate time.And with that she attempts to build her doctrine.Another pitiful excuse for SOUND DOCTRINE.
Now that I have demonstrated conclusively that none of Dee Dee´s SIX points have any merit whatsoever,perhaps she will answer my previous question.When did the following take place?:
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
And when did the following occur?:
“”When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another”(Mt.25:31,32).
Since I answered all of Dee Dee´s points,perhaps she will now return the favor.
DING DING DING
DING DING DING
That's the end of round four. Dee Dee is back on the clock.
DING DING DING
That's the end of round four. Dee Dee is back on the clock.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Who are “you”? Who, who, who, who…… Won’t ya tell me who are “you”?
Who are “you”? Who, who, who, who…… Won’t ya tell me who are “you”?
First I will comment on Jerry’s misguided reliance on Zech. 12 and the important point that I made that he conveniently left out. He gets really excited over my statement that the decline of the Roman Empire can be dated to the destruction of Jerusalem and exclaims:
But Jerry can’t you read?? The battle described is fought on horseback. What part of that phrase is confusing?? The “horse” or the “back”?? Jerry seems to be insinuating that the phrase “in that day” indicates an immediate event (even within one literal day), not an event that can be understood over a period of time. Horsefeathers. The Bible shows great fluidity with the phrase “that day”. In fact the text in question (Zech. 12:9) merely says “in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations…” Other texts within Zechariah itself prove his wooden literalism to be nonsense. Zech. 2:11; 3:10;13:3-4; 14:8-9; 14:20-21 are passages which Jerry would take to be occurring over an entire “Millennium,” and yet this “thousand years” (in Jerry’s view) is called “that day.” Here are just some other Scripture references using “that day” which refer to a period of time Ex 13:8; Jdg 18:1; 1 Sam 18:18; Is 2:11, 4:2, 11:10, 17:7; Hos 2:16. He is once again gored on his own horn. That has got to hurt. :doh: And to really gut Zech. 12-14 from being of any usefulness to Jerry, Zech. 13:7-9 places this destruction of Jerusalem squarely within the first century when the Shepherd is struck. I am sure that Jerry will just try and shoehorn in a handy-dandy gap, but if he tries that I have another weapon in my arsenal
Jerry says,
Yes, Jerry why shouldn’t we believe that it is an ancient battle fought on horseback?? Ouch!! Oh, you’re not quite so literal as you thought? Now to Jerry’s attempts at damage control….
Really?? Who’s posts have you been reading?? If you mean I gave no evidence for it when just recapping the points you have dodged, you are right…. Because the evidence was already given, that is why I said you were dodging them. I defeated each and every Explaining Away option that you gave for “genea” up to that point to which you responded by just asking another question as if that made it all better. The cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer; Ardnt and Gingrich) as well as each of the major translations all agree with me. Do we believe them? Or do we believe Jerry? And all of Jerry’s gerrymandering (pun intended) absolutely depends on “genea” not meaning what these Greek scholars categorically state that it does mean in the text in question. If Jerry is wrong, and the overwhelming scholarship agrees that he is, his goose is cooked. Goose anyone? [and as a sidenote, fellow futurists also overwhelming disagree with him on this point]
Onto the Temple, Jerry is claiming, based upon some verses in Haggai, that a rebuilt Temple could be considered the same Temple as the one that preceded it (BTW using Toussaint’s material almost word for word). Well, there are some translational issues involved (the NKJV and NIV rendering of 2:9would actually defeat his attempted point), for argument’s sake, let’s just say they support Jerry’s point. Well then Jerry, is each incarnation of the Temple literally the same Temple?? No, but you are claiming that the Bible allows a nonliteral identification of them. Well aren’t you aware that the Bible also gives numerous examples of nonliteral identification of heavenly signs and phenomena such as Is. 34:4-5 speaking of a past judgment on Edom???
All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree.
Haggai is just a smokescreen. Jerry’s view requires that Christ’s ONE solemn declaration of the destruction of the Temple have two referents, one in 70AD and one yet future. The one in 70AD would unbelievablyNOT be the primary referent but just a prefiguring of the one in the future. Does the text literally say that or even hint at that? Absolutely not. Here are Christ’s words and my commentary:
Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( notice that they are asking about the actual stones and buildings that existed back then) And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the stones that made up the Temple that existed back then!)
Next…..Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, “These things which you see— (the stones and decorations that the disciples had just pointed out) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” (the stones which the disciples had just pointed out)
Lastly…… Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word “here” it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Now it is the height of textual torture :shocked: to claim that the Temple that existed BACK THEN was not the primary focus of this prophecy and of the disciple’s questions. The text is absolutely silent about any future Temple whatsoever… it is manufactured out of whole cloth by futurist presuppositions. Jerry’s claims logically lead to the position that Jesus pretty much ignored their obvious questions or tricked them into thinking He was speaking of the Temple that existed then with a sleight of hand switch-a-roo without any hint whatsoever. (kind of like the trick the angel Gabriel pulled on Daniel, despite the fact that Daniel was supposed to “know and understand” the vision) And notice very carefully, though Jerry claims reliance on an alleged “continuity of the Temple” (which is something that Toussaint pretty much made up), does he have the temerity to claim “continuity” of the very stones and adornments of the first century Temple? Notice that a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words requires that any future Temple be built of the exact same materials. And there would be no “continuity” in the first place. God’s Temple is no longer a building made of stone… it is the Church (Ephesians 2:19-22), that is where the “continuity” lies.
In claiming to deal with my point that ALL of the events are clearly said to happen within a relatively short period of time (and definitely within the lifetimes of one generation of people) as totally necessitated by Matthew 24:33, Mark 13:29, and Luke 21:31, Jerry does the greatest act of obfuscation that he has done yet. Here is one of those verses for reference:
You also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!
Jerry goes on to argue that the “you” in this verse must refer to the Jewish race and claims that it is the same “you” in Matthew 23:39, “For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ ” In so saying Jerry has fallen off the theological cliff. The “you” in 23:39 in Jerry’s view is STILL a specific group of people living at a specific time!! It is not the whole Jewish race spanning over the millennia. Jerry is not expecting every Jew dead and alive to repent before Christ can come. So he has defeated his own argument. :doh: If the “you” in 23:39 is the same “you” in 24:33 then “all these things” are seen by that same one specific group of people living at a specific time. Thank you Jerry for proving my point. It cannot be referring to events that just “begin” in the first century with the AD70 event, and then culminate at the end of time. A future group of Jews cannot see (especially in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic) the destruction of the Temple and city in AD70, thus, Jerry has made fulfillment impossible in the future since he admits that at least a portion of the Discourse IS primarily referring to AD70. As I said before, with that admission he has sold the farm. When the things prophesied happen, “it” is near – at the doors!. If some of “all these things” happened in the first century, then they all must have.
Taking another angle and considering that Jerry is claiming that the “you” in the Olivet Discourse is referring to Jews of all time, why does Mark say, "But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues." Why would the whole Jewish race be beaten in the synagogues?? They wouldn’t. This is clearly speaking of the first century persecution of the Christians by the Jews. First century Christians are the “you” in this passage, and would be the same “you” in Luke 21:31. Jerry is entangled in his own web of theological puzzle-piecing once again.:doh: Follow the trail of “you’s” in the passage and see what nonsense results from his assertion. Also notice that the text shifts from “you” to “they” in several places thoroughly embarrassing to Jerry’s position (Luke 21:27; Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26).:doh:
As far as presenting NO evidence that Matt.24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event, the text speaks for itself more eloquently than I. The Matthew passage is in red and the Luke passage is in blue:
Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.
Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.
Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.
For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.
Remember that Matthew and Luke are recounting the same Discourse… not different Discourses given at different times. In order for Jerry’s view to be correct, within this ONE Discourse, Jesus said certain exact phrases two times (i.e. he spoke two times of flights out of Judah and woes to pregnant women etc.) referring to two different events without any clue that He was doing this and no textual record that He did this. The Gospel writers do not say that He did this and an honest reading of the text shows that both Matthew and Luke are recording the same one and only reference to this event in the Discourse. This makes Jerry’s view impossible. This is all of course in addition to the first century time indicators already presented… including Matthew 16:27-28 which Jerry did not address.
Who are “you”? Who, who, who, who…… Won’t ya tell me who are “you”?
First I will comment on Jerry’s misguided reliance on Zech. 12 and the important point that I made that he conveniently left out. He gets really excited over my statement that the decline of the Roman Empire can be dated to the destruction of Jerusalem and exclaims:
But Jerry can’t you read?? The battle described is fought on horseback. What part of that phrase is confusing?? The “horse” or the “back”?? Jerry seems to be insinuating that the phrase “in that day” indicates an immediate event (even within one literal day), not an event that can be understood over a period of time. Horsefeathers. The Bible shows great fluidity with the phrase “that day”. In fact the text in question (Zech. 12:9) merely says “in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations…” Other texts within Zechariah itself prove his wooden literalism to be nonsense. Zech. 2:11; 3:10;13:3-4; 14:8-9; 14:20-21 are passages which Jerry would take to be occurring over an entire “Millennium,” and yet this “thousand years” (in Jerry’s view) is called “that day.” Here are just some other Scripture references using “that day” which refer to a period of time Ex 13:8; Jdg 18:1; 1 Sam 18:18; Is 2:11, 4:2, 11:10, 17:7; Hos 2:16. He is once again gored on his own horn. That has got to hurt. :doh: And to really gut Zech. 12-14 from being of any usefulness to Jerry, Zech. 13:7-9 places this destruction of Jerusalem squarely within the first century when the Shepherd is struck. I am sure that Jerry will just try and shoehorn in a handy-dandy gap, but if he tries that I have another weapon in my arsenal
Jerry says,
Yes, Jerry why shouldn’t we believe that it is an ancient battle fought on horseback?? Ouch!! Oh, you’re not quite so literal as you thought? Now to Jerry’s attempts at damage control….
Really?? Who’s posts have you been reading?? If you mean I gave no evidence for it when just recapping the points you have dodged, you are right…. Because the evidence was already given, that is why I said you were dodging them. I defeated each and every Explaining Away option that you gave for “genea” up to that point to which you responded by just asking another question as if that made it all better. The cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer; Ardnt and Gingrich) as well as each of the major translations all agree with me. Do we believe them? Or do we believe Jerry? And all of Jerry’s gerrymandering (pun intended) absolutely depends on “genea” not meaning what these Greek scholars categorically state that it does mean in the text in question. If Jerry is wrong, and the overwhelming scholarship agrees that he is, his goose is cooked. Goose anyone? [and as a sidenote, fellow futurists also overwhelming disagree with him on this point]
Onto the Temple, Jerry is claiming, based upon some verses in Haggai, that a rebuilt Temple could be considered the same Temple as the one that preceded it (BTW using Toussaint’s material almost word for word). Well, there are some translational issues involved (the NKJV and NIV rendering of 2:9would actually defeat his attempted point), for argument’s sake, let’s just say they support Jerry’s point. Well then Jerry, is each incarnation of the Temple literally the same Temple?? No, but you are claiming that the Bible allows a nonliteral identification of them. Well aren’t you aware that the Bible also gives numerous examples of nonliteral identification of heavenly signs and phenomena such as Is. 34:4-5 speaking of a past judgment on Edom???
All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree.
Haggai is just a smokescreen. Jerry’s view requires that Christ’s ONE solemn declaration of the destruction of the Temple have two referents, one in 70AD and one yet future. The one in 70AD would unbelievablyNOT be the primary referent but just a prefiguring of the one in the future. Does the text literally say that or even hint at that? Absolutely not. Here are Christ’s words and my commentary:
Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( notice that they are asking about the actual stones and buildings that existed back then) And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the stones that made up the Temple that existed back then!)
Next…..Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, “These things which you see— (the stones and decorations that the disciples had just pointed out) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” (the stones which the disciples had just pointed out)
Lastly…… Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word “here” it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Now it is the height of textual torture :shocked: to claim that the Temple that existed BACK THEN was not the primary focus of this prophecy and of the disciple’s questions. The text is absolutely silent about any future Temple whatsoever… it is manufactured out of whole cloth by futurist presuppositions. Jerry’s claims logically lead to the position that Jesus pretty much ignored their obvious questions or tricked them into thinking He was speaking of the Temple that existed then with a sleight of hand switch-a-roo without any hint whatsoever. (kind of like the trick the angel Gabriel pulled on Daniel, despite the fact that Daniel was supposed to “know and understand” the vision) And notice very carefully, though Jerry claims reliance on an alleged “continuity of the Temple” (which is something that Toussaint pretty much made up), does he have the temerity to claim “continuity” of the very stones and adornments of the first century Temple? Notice that a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words requires that any future Temple be built of the exact same materials. And there would be no “continuity” in the first place. God’s Temple is no longer a building made of stone… it is the Church (Ephesians 2:19-22), that is where the “continuity” lies.
In claiming to deal with my point that ALL of the events are clearly said to happen within a relatively short period of time (and definitely within the lifetimes of one generation of people) as totally necessitated by Matthew 24:33, Mark 13:29, and Luke 21:31, Jerry does the greatest act of obfuscation that he has done yet. Here is one of those verses for reference:
You also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!
Jerry goes on to argue that the “you” in this verse must refer to the Jewish race and claims that it is the same “you” in Matthew 23:39, “For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ ” In so saying Jerry has fallen off the theological cliff. The “you” in 23:39 in Jerry’s view is STILL a specific group of people living at a specific time!! It is not the whole Jewish race spanning over the millennia. Jerry is not expecting every Jew dead and alive to repent before Christ can come. So he has defeated his own argument. :doh: If the “you” in 23:39 is the same “you” in 24:33 then “all these things” are seen by that same one specific group of people living at a specific time. Thank you Jerry for proving my point. It cannot be referring to events that just “begin” in the first century with the AD70 event, and then culminate at the end of time. A future group of Jews cannot see (especially in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic) the destruction of the Temple and city in AD70, thus, Jerry has made fulfillment impossible in the future since he admits that at least a portion of the Discourse IS primarily referring to AD70. As I said before, with that admission he has sold the farm. When the things prophesied happen, “it” is near – at the doors!. If some of “all these things” happened in the first century, then they all must have.
Taking another angle and considering that Jerry is claiming that the “you” in the Olivet Discourse is referring to Jews of all time, why does Mark say, "But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues." Why would the whole Jewish race be beaten in the synagogues?? They wouldn’t. This is clearly speaking of the first century persecution of the Christians by the Jews. First century Christians are the “you” in this passage, and would be the same “you” in Luke 21:31. Jerry is entangled in his own web of theological puzzle-piecing once again.:doh: Follow the trail of “you’s” in the passage and see what nonsense results from his assertion. Also notice that the text shifts from “you” to “they” in several places thoroughly embarrassing to Jerry’s position (Luke 21:27; Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26).:doh:
As far as presenting NO evidence that Matt.24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event, the text speaks for itself more eloquently than I. The Matthew passage is in red and the Luke passage is in blue:
Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.
Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.
Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.
For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.
Remember that Matthew and Luke are recounting the same Discourse… not different Discourses given at different times. In order for Jerry’s view to be correct, within this ONE Discourse, Jesus said certain exact phrases two times (i.e. he spoke two times of flights out of Judah and woes to pregnant women etc.) referring to two different events without any clue that He was doing this and no textual record that He did this. The Gospel writers do not say that He did this and an honest reading of the text shows that both Matthew and Luke are recording the same one and only reference to this event in the Discourse. This makes Jerry’s view impossible. This is all of course in addition to the first century time indicators already presented… including Matthew 16:27-28 which Jerry did not address.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You can run,but you cannot hide
You can run,but you cannot hide
No one who read my last response would argue that I did not respond to all of Dee Dee´s SIX POINTS. I answered each and every point in detail.I then asked her to return the favor and answer my two questions.But she did not!She did not answer either one of them.Instead,she goes back to her same old points that I have already refuted,and all the while not adding anything new.She just rehashes the same old thing,all the while EVADING the qustions I posed.
And I can very well understand why she would EVADE the questions.First,I asked her when the following verse occurred: “…and then shall all the tribes of the earth…shall see the coming of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
We all know that that never happened.But the Lord said that event would be “seen”.And my next question also concerns this very same event,when the Lord comes “in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”.When did this event happen,Dee Dee?:
“When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and he shall separate them one from another…”(Mt.25:31,32).
When did that happen,Dee Dee?Can´t you read,or did you just evade these questions on purpose?This is the third post where I have asked you about when Matthew 24:30 happened,and I have yet to get an answer.
I will address a couple of her points,beginning with her words that because we see the battle being fought in Jerusalem on horseback then this could not possibly be referring to a battle that can be fought in the future.Dee Dee,are you aware that the modern army of the USA has units made up of soldiers who fight on horseback?Do you not believe that it would be possible that circumstances might bring to pass a situation where it might be an advantage to fight on horseback.So we see that since Scripture does not match her ideas as to how a battle might be fought in the future she is ready to dismiss anything that might be “literal” in these verses.
Next,she says that the passages in Zecharia must have happened in the first century “when the Shepherd is struck”.But if we continue to read from the verses that speak of the Sheperd,we read the following: “And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives” while He “fights against those nations” that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.14:3,4). Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us when that occurred in the first century.She asks why we shouldn´t believe that this refers to an ancient battle?Well,Dee Dee,tell us when this happened in ancient times and then I might consider your idea that this refers to an ancient battle.
Earlier Dee Dee said that the word “generation”(genea) at Matthew 23:36 could not refer to the wicked race of Jews that the Lord Himself called “ye generation of vipers”.But the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves quote extensively agrees with me.One can go to the web site of “PreteristArchive.com” and see the many times they quote the Greek expert,Henry Alford (c.1810-1871),who was the Dean of Canterbury.Now listen to what he says concerning the use of “genea”:
“It may be well to show that ‘genea’ has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people.See Jeremiah 8:3,70. Compare Matthew 23:36 with verse 35…’This generation’ did not slay Zacharias—so that the whole people are addressed.See also chapter 12:45,in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense”(Anderson,”Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament”,p.47).
So even the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves cite repeatedly agrees with me concerning the use of “generation” at Matthew 23:36.And we can see that this must also be the case later in this same discouse of the Lord: “For I say unto YOU,YE shall not see Me henceforth,till YE shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”(Mt.23:39).
And since the people standing there that day never said those words,we must believe that the Lord´s words are addressed to “the whole people”,as Alford says.The Lord is addressing the “race of Jews”,especially those in the future who will indeed say,’Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”.
And since even the Greek expert of the Preterists says that the word “genea” can indeed be used in the sense of a “race of men”,then we can see that it can be used in that sense at Matthew 24:34.And since it is used in that sense in that verse,the word “ye” in the previous verse can also be used as referring to the race of Jews.And with that all of Dee Dee´s arguments go up in a cloud of smoke—exposed for what they really are--nothing but hot air!
Even though Dee Dee continues to EVADE the questions I posed,I will answer another of her verses that she pulls out to attempt to prove her weird ideas.She says that the following verse applies to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70:
“There are some standing here,who shall not taste death,till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”(Mt.16:28).
Are we suppose to believe that the coming of the Lord Jesus in His kingdom is the same thing as the “great tribulation”?The events of this tribulation are so bad that we see the words,”Blessed are the dead”(Rev.14:13).Are we suppose to believe that the Apostles were praying for this time of horror when they uttered the words,”Thy kingdom come”? How ridiculous!!! This only proves that Dee Dee will say ANYTHING in order to derfend the indefensible.
If we but examine the words of Peter,there can be no doubt that the Lord´s words at Matthew 16:28 were fulfilled at the Transfiguration (Mt.17:1-8):
“…we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,but we were witnesses of His majesty.For He received from God,the Father,honor and glory,when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory,This is My beloved Son,in Whom I am well pleased.And this voice which came from heaven we heard,when we were with Him in the holy mount”(2Pet.1:16-18).
Therefore,we can be sure that these Apostles saw the Lord in His kingdom at the Transfiguration.Anyone who believes that the “kingdom” refers to the destruction of the “great tribulation” must have a screw loose somewhere.
So,as anyone can plainly see,I have answered Dee Dee´s points in a straightfoward way.I have not been forced into having to “spiritualize” every single Scripture that seems to demonstrate that my beliefs are wrong,as Dee Dee does.I have used the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves use to make my point.I have used the words of Haggai to prove the idea of the “principle of the continuity of the Temple”.I have used the Lord´s own words where He Himself says that He does not know the “day” when all the things He described will come to pass.
And what do we hear from Dee Dee.Only her feeble attempts to throw out the Scriptures that prove that she is wrong because they do not match her ideas as to how the great battle in Jerusalem will be fought.And she cannot even make her “spiritualizing” to match with the events of history.I quoted the following verse:
“And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
Dee Dee said that this refers to the fact that “the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist.”She further states that “the Roman´s never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point.”
Well,not only does Dee Dee attempt to re-write the events in Holy Scripture,she also attempts to do the same with the history of the Roman Empire.And that is because Rome continued to prosper after AD70.We see that the ruler Nerva “enlarged the Roman Empire to its greatest extent” between the years 98 to 117 AD (“Encyclopedia Americana”).
And when Dee Dee is not attempting to change the plain meaning of Scripture or is not attempting to change the facts of history,she is EVADING the questions that I ask.These questions are very relevant to the subject of this discussion,but Dee Dee continues to EVADE them.
I will ask her one more time.Dee Dee,when did these events occur?:
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
“When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another…”(Mt.25:31).
As that great American,Cassius Clay,said,”You can run,but you cannot hide.”
You can run,but you cannot hide
No one who read my last response would argue that I did not respond to all of Dee Dee´s SIX POINTS. I answered each and every point in detail.I then asked her to return the favor and answer my two questions.But she did not!She did not answer either one of them.Instead,she goes back to her same old points that I have already refuted,and all the while not adding anything new.She just rehashes the same old thing,all the while EVADING the qustions I posed.
And I can very well understand why she would EVADE the questions.First,I asked her when the following verse occurred: “…and then shall all the tribes of the earth…shall see the coming of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
We all know that that never happened.But the Lord said that event would be “seen”.And my next question also concerns this very same event,when the Lord comes “in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”.When did this event happen,Dee Dee?:
“When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and he shall separate them one from another…”(Mt.25:31,32).
When did that happen,Dee Dee?Can´t you read,or did you just evade these questions on purpose?This is the third post where I have asked you about when Matthew 24:30 happened,and I have yet to get an answer.
I will address a couple of her points,beginning with her words that because we see the battle being fought in Jerusalem on horseback then this could not possibly be referring to a battle that can be fought in the future.Dee Dee,are you aware that the modern army of the USA has units made up of soldiers who fight on horseback?Do you not believe that it would be possible that circumstances might bring to pass a situation where it might be an advantage to fight on horseback.So we see that since Scripture does not match her ideas as to how a battle might be fought in the future she is ready to dismiss anything that might be “literal” in these verses.
Next,she says that the passages in Zecharia must have happened in the first century “when the Shepherd is struck”.But if we continue to read from the verses that speak of the Sheperd,we read the following: “And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives” while He “fights against those nations” that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.14:3,4). Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us when that occurred in the first century.She asks why we shouldn´t believe that this refers to an ancient battle?Well,Dee Dee,tell us when this happened in ancient times and then I might consider your idea that this refers to an ancient battle.
Earlier Dee Dee said that the word “generation”(genea) at Matthew 23:36 could not refer to the wicked race of Jews that the Lord Himself called “ye generation of vipers”.But the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves quote extensively agrees with me.One can go to the web site of “PreteristArchive.com” and see the many times they quote the Greek expert,Henry Alford (c.1810-1871),who was the Dean of Canterbury.Now listen to what he says concerning the use of “genea”:
“It may be well to show that ‘genea’ has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people.See Jeremiah 8:3,70. Compare Matthew 23:36 with verse 35…’This generation’ did not slay Zacharias—so that the whole people are addressed.See also chapter 12:45,in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense”(Anderson,”Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament”,p.47).
So even the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves cite repeatedly agrees with me concerning the use of “generation” at Matthew 23:36.And we can see that this must also be the case later in this same discouse of the Lord: “For I say unto YOU,YE shall not see Me henceforth,till YE shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”(Mt.23:39).
And since the people standing there that day never said those words,we must believe that the Lord´s words are addressed to “the whole people”,as Alford says.The Lord is addressing the “race of Jews”,especially those in the future who will indeed say,’Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”.
And since even the Greek expert of the Preterists says that the word “genea” can indeed be used in the sense of a “race of men”,then we can see that it can be used in that sense at Matthew 24:34.And since it is used in that sense in that verse,the word “ye” in the previous verse can also be used as referring to the race of Jews.And with that all of Dee Dee´s arguments go up in a cloud of smoke—exposed for what they really are--nothing but hot air!
Even though Dee Dee continues to EVADE the questions I posed,I will answer another of her verses that she pulls out to attempt to prove her weird ideas.She says that the following verse applies to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70:
“There are some standing here,who shall not taste death,till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”(Mt.16:28).
Are we suppose to believe that the coming of the Lord Jesus in His kingdom is the same thing as the “great tribulation”?The events of this tribulation are so bad that we see the words,”Blessed are the dead”(Rev.14:13).Are we suppose to believe that the Apostles were praying for this time of horror when they uttered the words,”Thy kingdom come”? How ridiculous!!! This only proves that Dee Dee will say ANYTHING in order to derfend the indefensible.
If we but examine the words of Peter,there can be no doubt that the Lord´s words at Matthew 16:28 were fulfilled at the Transfiguration (Mt.17:1-8):
“…we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,but we were witnesses of His majesty.For He received from God,the Father,honor and glory,when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory,This is My beloved Son,in Whom I am well pleased.And this voice which came from heaven we heard,when we were with Him in the holy mount”(2Pet.1:16-18).
Therefore,we can be sure that these Apostles saw the Lord in His kingdom at the Transfiguration.Anyone who believes that the “kingdom” refers to the destruction of the “great tribulation” must have a screw loose somewhere.
So,as anyone can plainly see,I have answered Dee Dee´s points in a straightfoward way.I have not been forced into having to “spiritualize” every single Scripture that seems to demonstrate that my beliefs are wrong,as Dee Dee does.I have used the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves use to make my point.I have used the words of Haggai to prove the idea of the “principle of the continuity of the Temple”.I have used the Lord´s own words where He Himself says that He does not know the “day” when all the things He described will come to pass.
And what do we hear from Dee Dee.Only her feeble attempts to throw out the Scriptures that prove that she is wrong because they do not match her ideas as to how the great battle in Jerusalem will be fought.And she cannot even make her “spiritualizing” to match with the events of history.I quoted the following verse:
“And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
Dee Dee said that this refers to the fact that “the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist.”She further states that “the Roman´s never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point.”
Well,not only does Dee Dee attempt to re-write the events in Holy Scripture,she also attempts to do the same with the history of the Roman Empire.And that is because Rome continued to prosper after AD70.We see that the ruler Nerva “enlarged the Roman Empire to its greatest extent” between the years 98 to 117 AD (“Encyclopedia Americana”).
And when Dee Dee is not attempting to change the plain meaning of Scripture or is not attempting to change the facts of history,she is EVADING the questions that I ask.These questions are very relevant to the subject of this discussion,but Dee Dee continues to EVADE them.
I will ask her one more time.Dee Dee,when did these events occur?:
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
“When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another…”(Mt.25:31).
As that great American,Cassius Clay,said,”You can run,but you cannot hide.”
DING DING DING
DING DING DING
That's the end of round 5.
Dee Dee, your back on the clock.
DING DING DING
That's the end of round 5.
Dee Dee, your back on the clock.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Here comes the Cavalry!!! Yikes! What DO they put in the water in Mexico??
Here comes the Cavalry!!! Yikes! What DO they put in the water in Mexico??
Wow,:shocked: Jerry actually believes that a future battle against Jerusalem will be fought on horseback! Why aren’t the Palestinians building up a considerable cavalry if this the optimum way to attack the Jews?? This would be hysterical if Jerry weren’t actually serious. Will Jerry be consistent and also believe, according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, that “Russia” will also fight Israel on horseback with swords and shields (38:4), bows and arrows (39:3), and wooden javelins and spears (39:10)? Notice also that Israelites will not need to go out to the forests to gather wood (39:10). Really? How many Israelites do you think are doing that today?? And notice the targets of the enemy attack: silver, gold, and cattle (39:13). Does Jerry really think that anyone is interested in Israel’s livestock?? Where are the Cobra helicopters Jerry?
Jerry again mishandles scholarly sources :nono:. Desperate to find someone that agrees with him (even most futurists don’t), he quotes Henry Alford concerning “genea” -
The errors here are numerous. Jeremiah 8:3 still means the multitude of people living at a given time, not a whole race!! See for yourself. Jeremiah 8:70 does not even exist. Matthew 23:36 does not claim that “this generation” slew Zacharias, it identifies upon whom the judgment will come. If Jerry wants to support the idea that Matthew 12:45 and Matthew 23:36 are referring to the whole Jewish race, then he has just condemned ALL Jews of ALL time as hideously wicked, demonized, and guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth. Jerry has also claimed that Alford is cited heavily on a particular website and that “preterists do quote him extensively as a Greek expert to support their claims.” That is simply untrue. That particular site lists excerpts from ONE of Alford’s works in its “database” section that contains excerpts from the works of DOZENS of scholars. It is mentioned nowhere else on the site, Jerry is once again not exactly truthful. Anyways, Alford is hardly an expert that Jerry will want to rely upon to support his position. Towards the end of his life, Alford waffled on his previous prophetic views and actually said this about genea:
Ouch! :doh: Jerry is once again guilty of, at a minimum, not thoroughly researching his sources and proving my point for me. There was also an incredible earlier snafu by Jerry. When I commented that making “genea” mean “the Jewish race” in Matthew 24:34 put inanities in Christ’s mouth, Jerry said,
Slowly now… Jerry is claiming that the entire Olivet Discourse is about events that will happen to the Jews. What then would be the point of Christ assuring the Jews that they will still be around as a race when these things happen to the Jews as a race?? Remember Christ opened this statement with the very solemn declaration, “Most assuredly I say to you…..” This would be equivalent to me saying, “I tell you the truth, wherever you go, there you are.” It is ridiculously stating the obvious. Also, Jerry does not believe the Jewish race will EVER pass away, making Christ’s statement even more inane. Jerry has a tremendous burden of proof here that he has not even come close to meeting. Remember that everything else he said falls to ashes if I am correct that “this generation” inMatthew 24:34 means the “whole multitude of men living at a particular time.” Here is the evidence in my favor:
The cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer; Arndt and Gingrich) all agree with me and use Matthew 24:34 as an example of the normal meaning of “generation”;
All of the major Bible translations render this verse as “generation” or an equivalent concept (thus more Greek scholarship agrees with me);
Every other place in the Gospels where the phrase “this generation” is used it unequivocally means “contemporaries”; and,
The context of Matthew is one of building and impending judgment upon the first century Jews, not Jews of all time.Jerry lays the unique guilt of the first century apostates upon Jews of all time.
In light of all of this evidence, Jerry has the temerity to say,
And please notice the deafening silence from Jerry on my exposition on the use of the word “you” in the Discourse. Please answer Jerry, why will Jews be delivered up to synagogues and beaten?…. Why does the text switch from “you” to “they”??? And also, are you going to have the chutzpah to continue to defend the idea that there is a completely textually INVISIBLE Temple in the Discourse that is the primary referent to the prophecy and that Matthew and Luke are referring to different events?? There is not one thing in the Discourse that did not happen in the first century. Why must the whole first century world be reincarnated in your view? The prophecy was completely fulfilled right on time. I challenge you to find one thing that was not.
With regards to Matthew 16:27-28 Jerry utterly ignores the contextual case that I made with comparing those verses to Luke 21:31 and tastes his own foot once again with:
Sigh. Jerry himself believes that Luke 21:25-28 is describing the coming of Christ after the Great Tribulation and what does Luke say… this “coming” heralds the coming of the Kingdom. Jerry did not at deal with the very close connection between “this generation will not pass away” and “some of those standing here will not taste death.” He can only piecemeal these timing verses because the cumulative case would clobber him senseless. Here are the verses again because they require close attention:
Matthew 16:27-28 – For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Jerry once again insists on putting inanities and Jean Dixon-ish predictions in Christ’s mouth. As before, Christ introduces this statement with His very solemn intro, “Most assuredly I say to you….” The Transfiguration was only days away, anyone could predict that a group of people would still be alive in a few days. Also futurists disconnect verse 28 from 27, but that cannot be as they are very tightly connected in the passage. In verse 28, Jesus is giving a solemn declaration of the timing of the event in verse 27. It is unavoidable. If we are still waiting for “the Son of Man to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,” then some who were with Jesus must still be alive!! So then we must look for an event that was far enough in the future where most of Jesus’ hearers would be dead, but not so far in the future where they all would be dead. Is there such an event? Yes! The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Where were the angels and the reward in the Transfiguration Jerry? You cannot ignore those phrases (and the close similarity with Matthew 25:31).
Jerry you need to get more Biblically literate. The martyred saints, which would include Saint Paul, were (and are even in your view) absolutely praying for this time when they would be vindicated (Revelation 6:9). You keep getting tangled in your own feet. You believe that the “Kingdom” cannot come until after some alleged future Great Tribulation, so you also are praying for that event to come. And ironically, dispies are paying to transport countless Jews to Jerusalem to be slaughtered. Why aren’t you warning them to stay away?
[sarcasm]Hmm, the Encyclopedia Americana is Jerry’s scholarly source to refute my statement on the decline of the Roman Empire? [/sarcasm] He claims that since Rome expanded in size it could not have been declining. Jerry’s simplistic rendering of complex vagaries of history would also be laughable if he were not serious. Noted historian Edward Gibbon documented that it was Rome’s expansion that was the beginning of its fall as follows, “But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”
With regards to the “coming of Christ” and by implication the cosmic disturbances (Matthew 24:29-30), although I HAVE answered this question at least THREE times by asking Jerry to defend his wooden hermeneutic, he has ignored that challenge. The answer is easy as pie if you know the OT. It happened in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order. Jesus is making a clear allusion to Daniel 7:13-14. Please read those verses in Daniel carefully and notice the direction of the coming. It is not DOWN to Earth but UP to the Ancient of Days on a cloud to receive His Kingdom (hint – Christ rules from Heaven). If we let the Bible interpret the Bible, it is crystal clear what is going on. Jesus is speaking in the idioms and language of an OT prophet, in fact, if you look at the NASV, you will see that these Matthean verses are indicated as a direct quote of Isaiah 13:9-10 giving us the OT framework in which it must be understood. Here is the Isaiah passage:
“Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.
This passage, in its original context, is speaking of a past historical judgment upon ancient Babylon. Jesus is giving apostate Judaism a back-handed slap by comparing them to Babylon and stating that they will suffer the same fate. Throughout the whole OT (the only Scripture the disciples had with which to interpret Jesus’ words), “collapsing universe,” “decreation,” and “lights out’ imagery is used to describe God’s temporal judgments. For similar language describing past judgment events see: Isaiah 34:4-5; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9 for just a FEW examples. For SOME similar passages describing God “coming” in judgment or battle see: Genesis 11:5; 2 Samuel 22:8-12; Psalm 18:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 31:4; Hosea 8:1; Micah 1:2-4. Notice also the repetition of “clouds” and judgment: 2 Samuel 22:12; Jeremiah 4:13; Ezekiel 30:3; Nahum 1:3; Zephaniah 1:14-15; These passages bear remarkable similarities to the Olivet Discourse. No one believes in these past historical judgments recorded by the OT that the stars of heaven and their constellations and the sun and the moon did not give their light. These heavenly bodies are often used in Scripture as symbolic of power and governments. Jerry relies upon a very thin reed in Haggai to support some alleged continuity of the Temple, why can’t he let the Bible interpret the Bible in this passage with the wealth of passages that teach this?? When our ideas conflict with the Bible actually says, it is our ideas that must get “Left Behind,” not the Bible.
Here comes the Cavalry!!! Yikes! What DO they put in the water in Mexico??
Wow,:shocked: Jerry actually believes that a future battle against Jerusalem will be fought on horseback! Why aren’t the Palestinians building up a considerable cavalry if this the optimum way to attack the Jews?? This would be hysterical if Jerry weren’t actually serious. Will Jerry be consistent and also believe, according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, that “Russia” will also fight Israel on horseback with swords and shields (38:4), bows and arrows (39:3), and wooden javelins and spears (39:10)? Notice also that Israelites will not need to go out to the forests to gather wood (39:10). Really? How many Israelites do you think are doing that today?? And notice the targets of the enemy attack: silver, gold, and cattle (39:13). Does Jerry really think that anyone is interested in Israel’s livestock?? Where are the Cobra helicopters Jerry?
Jerry again mishandles scholarly sources :nono:. Desperate to find someone that agrees with him (even most futurists don’t), he quotes Henry Alford concerning “genea” -
The errors here are numerous. Jeremiah 8:3 still means the multitude of people living at a given time, not a whole race!! See for yourself. Jeremiah 8:70 does not even exist. Matthew 23:36 does not claim that “this generation” slew Zacharias, it identifies upon whom the judgment will come. If Jerry wants to support the idea that Matthew 12:45 and Matthew 23:36 are referring to the whole Jewish race, then he has just condemned ALL Jews of ALL time as hideously wicked, demonized, and guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth. Jerry has also claimed that Alford is cited heavily on a particular website and that “preterists do quote him extensively as a Greek expert to support their claims.” That is simply untrue. That particular site lists excerpts from ONE of Alford’s works in its “database” section that contains excerpts from the works of DOZENS of scholars. It is mentioned nowhere else on the site, Jerry is once again not exactly truthful. Anyways, Alford is hardly an expert that Jerry will want to rely upon to support his position. Towards the end of his life, Alford waffled on his previous prophetic views and actually said this about genea:
Ouch! :doh: Jerry is once again guilty of, at a minimum, not thoroughly researching his sources and proving my point for me. There was also an incredible earlier snafu by Jerry. When I commented that making “genea” mean “the Jewish race” in Matthew 24:34 put inanities in Christ’s mouth, Jerry said,
Slowly now… Jerry is claiming that the entire Olivet Discourse is about events that will happen to the Jews. What then would be the point of Christ assuring the Jews that they will still be around as a race when these things happen to the Jews as a race?? Remember Christ opened this statement with the very solemn declaration, “Most assuredly I say to you…..” This would be equivalent to me saying, “I tell you the truth, wherever you go, there you are.” It is ridiculously stating the obvious. Also, Jerry does not believe the Jewish race will EVER pass away, making Christ’s statement even more inane. Jerry has a tremendous burden of proof here that he has not even come close to meeting. Remember that everything else he said falls to ashes if I am correct that “this generation” inMatthew 24:34 means the “whole multitude of men living at a particular time.” Here is the evidence in my favor:
The cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer; Arndt and Gingrich) all agree with me and use Matthew 24:34 as an example of the normal meaning of “generation”;
All of the major Bible translations render this verse as “generation” or an equivalent concept (thus more Greek scholarship agrees with me);
Every other place in the Gospels where the phrase “this generation” is used it unequivocally means “contemporaries”; and,
The context of Matthew is one of building and impending judgment upon the first century Jews, not Jews of all time.Jerry lays the unique guilt of the first century apostates upon Jews of all time.
In light of all of this evidence, Jerry has the temerity to say,
And please notice the deafening silence from Jerry on my exposition on the use of the word “you” in the Discourse. Please answer Jerry, why will Jews be delivered up to synagogues and beaten?…. Why does the text switch from “you” to “they”??? And also, are you going to have the chutzpah to continue to defend the idea that there is a completely textually INVISIBLE Temple in the Discourse that is the primary referent to the prophecy and that Matthew and Luke are referring to different events?? There is not one thing in the Discourse that did not happen in the first century. Why must the whole first century world be reincarnated in your view? The prophecy was completely fulfilled right on time. I challenge you to find one thing that was not.
With regards to Matthew 16:27-28 Jerry utterly ignores the contextual case that I made with comparing those verses to Luke 21:31 and tastes his own foot once again with:
Sigh. Jerry himself believes that Luke 21:25-28 is describing the coming of Christ after the Great Tribulation and what does Luke say… this “coming” heralds the coming of the Kingdom. Jerry did not at deal with the very close connection between “this generation will not pass away” and “some of those standing here will not taste death.” He can only piecemeal these timing verses because the cumulative case would clobber him senseless. Here are the verses again because they require close attention:
Matthew 16:27-28 – For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Jerry once again insists on putting inanities and Jean Dixon-ish predictions in Christ’s mouth. As before, Christ introduces this statement with His very solemn intro, “Most assuredly I say to you….” The Transfiguration was only days away, anyone could predict that a group of people would still be alive in a few days. Also futurists disconnect verse 28 from 27, but that cannot be as they are very tightly connected in the passage. In verse 28, Jesus is giving a solemn declaration of the timing of the event in verse 27. It is unavoidable. If we are still waiting for “the Son of Man to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,” then some who were with Jesus must still be alive!! So then we must look for an event that was far enough in the future where most of Jesus’ hearers would be dead, but not so far in the future where they all would be dead. Is there such an event? Yes! The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Where were the angels and the reward in the Transfiguration Jerry? You cannot ignore those phrases (and the close similarity with Matthew 25:31).
Jerry you need to get more Biblically literate. The martyred saints, which would include Saint Paul, were (and are even in your view) absolutely praying for this time when they would be vindicated (Revelation 6:9). You keep getting tangled in your own feet. You believe that the “Kingdom” cannot come until after some alleged future Great Tribulation, so you also are praying for that event to come. And ironically, dispies are paying to transport countless Jews to Jerusalem to be slaughtered. Why aren’t you warning them to stay away?
[sarcasm]Hmm, the Encyclopedia Americana is Jerry’s scholarly source to refute my statement on the decline of the Roman Empire? [/sarcasm] He claims that since Rome expanded in size it could not have been declining. Jerry’s simplistic rendering of complex vagaries of history would also be laughable if he were not serious. Noted historian Edward Gibbon documented that it was Rome’s expansion that was the beginning of its fall as follows, “But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”
With regards to the “coming of Christ” and by implication the cosmic disturbances (Matthew 24:29-30), although I HAVE answered this question at least THREE times by asking Jerry to defend his wooden hermeneutic, he has ignored that challenge. The answer is easy as pie if you know the OT. It happened in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order. Jesus is making a clear allusion to Daniel 7:13-14. Please read those verses in Daniel carefully and notice the direction of the coming. It is not DOWN to Earth but UP to the Ancient of Days on a cloud to receive His Kingdom (hint – Christ rules from Heaven). If we let the Bible interpret the Bible, it is crystal clear what is going on. Jesus is speaking in the idioms and language of an OT prophet, in fact, if you look at the NASV, you will see that these Matthean verses are indicated as a direct quote of Isaiah 13:9-10 giving us the OT framework in which it must be understood. Here is the Isaiah passage:
“Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.
This passage, in its original context, is speaking of a past historical judgment upon ancient Babylon. Jesus is giving apostate Judaism a back-handed slap by comparing them to Babylon and stating that they will suffer the same fate. Throughout the whole OT (the only Scripture the disciples had with which to interpret Jesus’ words), “collapsing universe,” “decreation,” and “lights out’ imagery is used to describe God’s temporal judgments. For similar language describing past judgment events see: Isaiah 34:4-5; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9 for just a FEW examples. For SOME similar passages describing God “coming” in judgment or battle see: Genesis 11:5; 2 Samuel 22:8-12; Psalm 18:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 31:4; Hosea 8:1; Micah 1:2-4. Notice also the repetition of “clouds” and judgment: 2 Samuel 22:12; Jeremiah 4:13; Ezekiel 30:3; Nahum 1:3; Zephaniah 1:14-15; These passages bear remarkable similarities to the Olivet Discourse. No one believes in these past historical judgments recorded by the OT that the stars of heaven and their constellations and the sun and the moon did not give their light. These heavenly bodies are often used in Scripture as symbolic of power and governments. Jerry relies upon a very thin reed in Haggai to support some alleged continuity of the Temple, why can’t he let the Bible interpret the Bible in this passage with the wealth of passages that teach this?? When our ideas conflict with the Bible actually says, it is our ideas that must get “Left Behind,” not the Bible.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
"Every day they distort My words..."
"Every day they distort My words..."
Dee Dee states that the “cosmic disturbances” and the event when “all the tribes of the earth shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” refers to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order”.
However,it is perfectly clear that her statement is utterly unjustified.Proving again her ineptitude,she overlooks the words that state that the “cosmic signs” and the coming of the Lord happen AFTER the “great tribulation—“Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened…”
So it is obvious to anyone who would use their brain that these “cosmic disturbances” could not be in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem,because according to Scripture that must take place BEFORE the “cosmic disturbances”.Dee Dee,what were you thinking?More blunders of this magnitude and the preterists themselves will disown you.
These verses are so important to the whole scheme of the Olivet Discourse,and this is the best that Dee Dee could do!How could this happen?How could she overlook the words,”Immediately after the tribulation”?
And WHEN,we might ask,did all the tribes of the earth SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory?By the words of John we know that this is not just figurative language,because John states in no uncertain terms that “He cometh in the clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM…and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him”(Rev.1:7). If this stupendous event happened in 70AD,surely there would be some mention of it in the history books.But I know of no such account of this astounding event in any account of history.
And what about the event that follows His coming when every eye shall see Him?-- “When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another,as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats”(Mt.25:31,32).
Did this take place in heaven,or upon earth?Joel supplies the answer: “I will gather all nations,and bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat…Let the nations be weakened,and come up to the Valley of Jeshoshaphat;for there I will sit to judge all the nations round about…So shall ye know that I am the Lord,your God,dwelling in Zion,My holy mountain;then shall Jerusalem be holy,and there shall no strangers pass through her evermore"(Joel 3:2,12,17).
When did this happen,Dee Dee?When did every eye see the Lord come in His glory and judge all the nations?Frankly,I have NEVER heard anything so flagrantly baseless and false as your assertion that all these things have already come to pass.
Also,in regard to the “cosmic disturbances”,Dee Dee says that “Jesus is speaking in idioms and language of an OT prophet.”She then lists several verses,and says that they bear a remarkable similiarity to the Olivet Discouse.Yes,they are similiar,but Dee Dee failed to mention the ways that they are different.First of all,none of the verses she provided were an answer to a question concerning SIGNS that would precede the coming of the Lord.And none of the verses contained the EXPRESSED COMMAND TO LOOK FOR ANY SIGN!
The Lord says,”When ye shall SEE ALL THESE THINGS”(Mt.24:33)…”Take heed,WATCH and pray”(Mk.13:33)…”WATCH,therefore…”(Mk.13:35)…”And what I say unto you I say unto all,WATCH”(Mk.13:37)…”WATCH ye,therefore”(Lk.21:36).
None of the verses she provided have any warnings to WATCH and none of the verses state that the things will be SEEN!But in the Olivet Discourse we hear the Lord Jesus say,over and over,that they will SEE all these things come to pass and warns them to WATCH.But Dee Dee says that we should believe that there is nothing to look for in regard to the “cosmic disturbances” because the Lord´s words cannot be taken in a literal manner at all.It reminds me of the serpents method in deceiving Eve.I can hear him whispering in the ear of Dee Dee,”Surely He did not mean that you would actually SEE this,and His warning to WATCH means nothing.It is just figurative language.”And just like Eve,Dee Dee has also been deceived.
Next,in regard to Matthew 16:27-28—that some of theApostles would see the Lord coming in His kingdom--Dee Dee seems to think the event when the Lord will come in His glory and reward each according to his work has already happened.If that is true,then it would seem that the rapture has already come and gone.Paul told the believers to be looking for the appearing of the Lord because when He did appear they would receive their glorified body—“…we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).John also said that “when He shall appear,we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).But there is no evidence from those who knew John after AD70 that there was ever a rapture.Gosh,Dee Dee,if John was walking around in a glorified body don´t you think that someone would have mentioned it?And if John and all the believers had put on their immortal bodies when the Lord did appear,why aren´t they still alive today?How can anyone dream up such farcical ideas and expect anyone to believe them?
All these statements of Dee Dee are nothing more than a sheer perversion of Scripture,unconsciously made,no doubt,to suit the exigencies of a false system of interpretation.
Also,if the Apostles lived to see the Lord come in His kingdom,how would she explain His words to His apostles that “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father´s kingdom” and that in the kingdom they would “sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”(Lk.22:30)?Perhaps she can tell us when they drank wine with the Lord and when they judged the tribes of Israel.
Dee Dee also seems to think that the Apostles would even be praying for “the great and terrible day of the Lord” to come because they knew that the kingdom would follow.But this is what Amos says of those who might consider praying for that day: “Woe unto you who desire the day of the Lord!To what end is it for you?The day of the Lord is darkness,and not light”(Amos4:18).
Dee Dee has been deceived to such an extent that she will believe anything,no matter how ludicrous.At this point,I will make a comparasion between the way that I interpret Scripture and the way that Dee Dee does.I will compare her ideas concerning the words of Zechariah that the Lord will “destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9) with my interpreatation of the meaning of “generation” at Matthew 24:34.
First,I pointed out that there are respected Greek experts who state that “genea”,the word translated “generation”, can mean “men of the same stock,a family”(Strong´s).I have also demonstrated that that is the meaning that the Lord put on that word at Matthew 23:36—‘This generation’ did not slay Zechariah.I have also shown that the Lord Himself did not know the “day” when these events would come to pass because the Father has put “the times and the seasons” in His own power.Therefore,it is pure fiction to maintain that the Lord would tell these men that they would see all these things come to pass.Besides,the Lord said that “this generation shall not pass” until ALL THESE THINGS ARE SEEN! And we know that there was never a time when EVERY EYE saw the Lord coming in the clouds in His glory,and there was no time when anyone saw the “cosmic disturbances” that are described by both the Lord and by His beloved disciple (Jn.6:12-17).So there is nothing in my interpretation of the word “generation” and its use at Matthew 24:34 that is not supported by Scripture.
Now let us explore Dee Dee´s interpretation of the meaning of the following words: “And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9). According to Dee Dee´s twisted interpretation,the way that the Lord destroyed Rome was by allowing the Roman army to utterly destroy Jerusalem!She said that Rome never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can be placed at the desruction of Jerusalem.She quotes Gibbon,who attributes the decline of Rome to her conquests.So Dee Dee is saying that the Lord allowed Rome to conquer Jerusalem,and this conquest led to Rome´s fall.Therefore,when we see the Lord Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives fighting against Rome(Zech.14:3,4),He is fighting a loosing battle.Can you imagine that!
If there was ever an example of nightmare exegesis,THIS IS IT! Even though Zechariah says that “in that day the Lord shall DEFEND the inhabitants of Jerusalem”(v.8),Dee Dee says that this event has already come to pass and the Lord did not defend Jerusalem.Instead,He allowed Jerusalem to be conquered and that is the way that the Lord Jesus destroyed Rome.
So we can see that my method of interpretation is based solidly on the Holy Scripture,while Dee Dee is forced to revert to FAIRY TALES of the most perverted type.This just proves that in no other area of life except that of ‘religion’ will men and women of intelligence willingly subject their minds to delusions of the worst kind.And make no mistake about it,these interpretations of Dee Dee are in fact “delusions” and bear no resemblance to the realities revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Dee Dee has been deceived to a point that she will believe ANYTHING.There seems to be no limit to her credulity.She has been induced to stultify her reason and common sense,and the result is a perversion of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ as contained in the Olivet Discourse.
“Every day they distort My words;all their thoughts are against Me for evil”(Ps.56:5).
"Every day they distort My words..."
Dee Dee states that the “cosmic disturbances” and the event when “all the tribes of the earth shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” refers to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order”.
However,it is perfectly clear that her statement is utterly unjustified.Proving again her ineptitude,she overlooks the words that state that the “cosmic signs” and the coming of the Lord happen AFTER the “great tribulation—“Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened…”
So it is obvious to anyone who would use their brain that these “cosmic disturbances” could not be in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem,because according to Scripture that must take place BEFORE the “cosmic disturbances”.Dee Dee,what were you thinking?More blunders of this magnitude and the preterists themselves will disown you.
These verses are so important to the whole scheme of the Olivet Discourse,and this is the best that Dee Dee could do!How could this happen?How could she overlook the words,”Immediately after the tribulation”?
And WHEN,we might ask,did all the tribes of the earth SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory?By the words of John we know that this is not just figurative language,because John states in no uncertain terms that “He cometh in the clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM…and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him”(Rev.1:7). If this stupendous event happened in 70AD,surely there would be some mention of it in the history books.But I know of no such account of this astounding event in any account of history.
And what about the event that follows His coming when every eye shall see Him?-- “When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another,as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats”(Mt.25:31,32).
Did this take place in heaven,or upon earth?Joel supplies the answer: “I will gather all nations,and bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat…Let the nations be weakened,and come up to the Valley of Jeshoshaphat;for there I will sit to judge all the nations round about…So shall ye know that I am the Lord,your God,dwelling in Zion,My holy mountain;then shall Jerusalem be holy,and there shall no strangers pass through her evermore"(Joel 3:2,12,17).
When did this happen,Dee Dee?When did every eye see the Lord come in His glory and judge all the nations?Frankly,I have NEVER heard anything so flagrantly baseless and false as your assertion that all these things have already come to pass.
Also,in regard to the “cosmic disturbances”,Dee Dee says that “Jesus is speaking in idioms and language of an OT prophet.”She then lists several verses,and says that they bear a remarkable similiarity to the Olivet Discouse.Yes,they are similiar,but Dee Dee failed to mention the ways that they are different.First of all,none of the verses she provided were an answer to a question concerning SIGNS that would precede the coming of the Lord.And none of the verses contained the EXPRESSED COMMAND TO LOOK FOR ANY SIGN!
The Lord says,”When ye shall SEE ALL THESE THINGS”(Mt.24:33)…”Take heed,WATCH and pray”(Mk.13:33)…”WATCH,therefore…”(Mk.13:35)…”And what I say unto you I say unto all,WATCH”(Mk.13:37)…”WATCH ye,therefore”(Lk.21:36).
None of the verses she provided have any warnings to WATCH and none of the verses state that the things will be SEEN!But in the Olivet Discourse we hear the Lord Jesus say,over and over,that they will SEE all these things come to pass and warns them to WATCH.But Dee Dee says that we should believe that there is nothing to look for in regard to the “cosmic disturbances” because the Lord´s words cannot be taken in a literal manner at all.It reminds me of the serpents method in deceiving Eve.I can hear him whispering in the ear of Dee Dee,”Surely He did not mean that you would actually SEE this,and His warning to WATCH means nothing.It is just figurative language.”And just like Eve,Dee Dee has also been deceived.
Next,in regard to Matthew 16:27-28—that some of theApostles would see the Lord coming in His kingdom--Dee Dee seems to think the event when the Lord will come in His glory and reward each according to his work has already happened.If that is true,then it would seem that the rapture has already come and gone.Paul told the believers to be looking for the appearing of the Lord because when He did appear they would receive their glorified body—“…we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).John also said that “when He shall appear,we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).But there is no evidence from those who knew John after AD70 that there was ever a rapture.Gosh,Dee Dee,if John was walking around in a glorified body don´t you think that someone would have mentioned it?And if John and all the believers had put on their immortal bodies when the Lord did appear,why aren´t they still alive today?How can anyone dream up such farcical ideas and expect anyone to believe them?
All these statements of Dee Dee are nothing more than a sheer perversion of Scripture,unconsciously made,no doubt,to suit the exigencies of a false system of interpretation.
Also,if the Apostles lived to see the Lord come in His kingdom,how would she explain His words to His apostles that “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father´s kingdom” and that in the kingdom they would “sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”(Lk.22:30)?Perhaps she can tell us when they drank wine with the Lord and when they judged the tribes of Israel.
Dee Dee also seems to think that the Apostles would even be praying for “the great and terrible day of the Lord” to come because they knew that the kingdom would follow.But this is what Amos says of those who might consider praying for that day: “Woe unto you who desire the day of the Lord!To what end is it for you?The day of the Lord is darkness,and not light”(Amos4:18).
Dee Dee has been deceived to such an extent that she will believe anything,no matter how ludicrous.At this point,I will make a comparasion between the way that I interpret Scripture and the way that Dee Dee does.I will compare her ideas concerning the words of Zechariah that the Lord will “destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9) with my interpreatation of the meaning of “generation” at Matthew 24:34.
First,I pointed out that there are respected Greek experts who state that “genea”,the word translated “generation”, can mean “men of the same stock,a family”(Strong´s).I have also demonstrated that that is the meaning that the Lord put on that word at Matthew 23:36—‘This generation’ did not slay Zechariah.I have also shown that the Lord Himself did not know the “day” when these events would come to pass because the Father has put “the times and the seasons” in His own power.Therefore,it is pure fiction to maintain that the Lord would tell these men that they would see all these things come to pass.Besides,the Lord said that “this generation shall not pass” until ALL THESE THINGS ARE SEEN! And we know that there was never a time when EVERY EYE saw the Lord coming in the clouds in His glory,and there was no time when anyone saw the “cosmic disturbances” that are described by both the Lord and by His beloved disciple (Jn.6:12-17).So there is nothing in my interpretation of the word “generation” and its use at Matthew 24:34 that is not supported by Scripture.
Now let us explore Dee Dee´s interpretation of the meaning of the following words: “And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9). According to Dee Dee´s twisted interpretation,the way that the Lord destroyed Rome was by allowing the Roman army to utterly destroy Jerusalem!She said that Rome never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can be placed at the desruction of Jerusalem.She quotes Gibbon,who attributes the decline of Rome to her conquests.So Dee Dee is saying that the Lord allowed Rome to conquer Jerusalem,and this conquest led to Rome´s fall.Therefore,when we see the Lord Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives fighting against Rome(Zech.14:3,4),He is fighting a loosing battle.Can you imagine that!
If there was ever an example of nightmare exegesis,THIS IS IT! Even though Zechariah says that “in that day the Lord shall DEFEND the inhabitants of Jerusalem”(v.8),Dee Dee says that this event has already come to pass and the Lord did not defend Jerusalem.Instead,He allowed Jerusalem to be conquered and that is the way that the Lord Jesus destroyed Rome.
So we can see that my method of interpretation is based solidly on the Holy Scripture,while Dee Dee is forced to revert to FAIRY TALES of the most perverted type.This just proves that in no other area of life except that of ‘religion’ will men and women of intelligence willingly subject their minds to delusions of the worst kind.And make no mistake about it,these interpretations of Dee Dee are in fact “delusions” and bear no resemblance to the realities revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Dee Dee has been deceived to a point that she will believe ANYTHING.There seems to be no limit to her credulity.She has been induced to stultify her reason and common sense,and the result is a perversion of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ as contained in the Olivet Discourse.
“Every day they distort My words;all their thoughts are against Me for evil”(Ps.56:5).
DING DING DING
DING DING DING
That's the end of round 6.
Dee Dee is back on the clock.
DING DING DING
That's the end of round 6.
Dee Dee is back on the clock.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Today’s Weather Forecast: More blustery hot air coming off the coast of Mexico
Today’s Weather Forecast: More blustery hot air coming off the coast of Mexico
As I have pointed out before, Jerry necessarily MUST deal with each of the timing verses I bring up in a piecemeal fashion because the cumulative case would clobber him senseless. The problem with such an approach is that a proof he posits for one verse defeats his proof for another. His system fails as a systematic and synoptic whole. For example, in addition to the numerous unanswered proofs I put forth against translating “genea” as “race” in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34, here is yet another:
Matthew 23:32, 36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your father’s guilt.... Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
Notice the tight connection between filling up on the measure of guilt and the proclamation of judgment upon “this generation.” “Filling up” in its OT context entails a completion of something that was previously started, a final ratification of sin. For example, see Genesis 15:16 - “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (and once it was full, whop!! judgment came). The Jews since the time of Christ have NOT been filling up on the measure of their ancient fathers’ guilt. Jerry’s view requires that we count modern Jews even more guilty than the first century apostates who actually murdered Christ!! To further demonstrate the inherent internal contradiction in Jerry’s view, remember that he claims that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are NOT speaking of the same event but has presented no rebuttal to my proof that they are. The Lucan passage states:
Luke 21:22 - For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Now Jerry admits that this verse IS about AD70 and God’s vengeance against the first century Jews. Really? Well then there is his obvious answer to Matthew 23:36. It was THAT generation that filled up on the iniquity of their fathers and warranted God’s vengeance, NOT the entire Jewish race, NOT some future generation. It was THEM. And in Matthew Chapter 23 notice once again the use of “you” which is devastating to Jerry. There is no question as to whom Jesus was speaking. Is Jerry accusing all Jews of all time of being a brood of vipers who are killing, crucifying, scourging in synagogues (!), and persecuting prophets, wise men, and scribes?? What are the statistics today of Christians getting scourged in synagogues? How many Christians have Jews crucified lately? Jerry maintains that the “yous” throughout BOTH of these Chapters (and their parallels) refer to the Jewish race. That CANNOT be. In Matthew 23:34, the “yous” are ones clobbering people in the synagogues, but in Luke 21:12 and Mark 13:9 the “yous” are the ones getting clobbered. Jerry’s system once again implodes upon itself. And as a side-note, to add to my unanswered rebuttal to Jerry’s objection that the first century Jews did not murder Zecharias, I add further support with 1 Samuel 15:3 where the children of Amalek are counted as corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefather hundreds of years earlier as if they did them themselves.
On another note about “genea” I am shocked :shocked: that Jerry would continue to misuse scholarly sources without shame. He claims that he “pointed out that there are respected Greek experts who state that “genea” can mean ‘men of the same stock, a family.’” Yes but what did they say that you didn’t tell us Jerry? Thayer specifically used Matthew 24:34 as an example of the primary meaning of “genea” as “generation” (NOT race) and Alford at one point chastised people for ignoring the “express TIME limitations” laid down by Christ and for putting “forced and unnatural meanings” on “genea.” Are these the experts you pointed out Jerry? What about the Greek experts who translated the NT who all agree with me, and I might add Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Carson, Haster, Abbot-Smith, Robertson, Bushel, Morganthaler, Conrad, and Cranwell? I see now that you are relying upon Strong’s in a classic case of illegitimate totality transfer. Using Strong’s to make your lexigraphical case as against Thayer, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich is akin to your prior use of the Encyclopedia Americana as your authority on Roman history. :nono:
I had also asked Jerry some specific questions about Matthew 16:27-28 in challenge to his assertion that this event is the Transfiguration. He completely ignored the challenge and went off on a incoherent tangent about the resurrection. I once again challenge him to defend his idea that these verses refer to the Transfiguration in light of the refutation in my last post. All he did last post was raise a straw man and burn it. Jerry also conveniently dodged my points proving that the Apostles must certainly did pray for the Day of the Lord, a day of terrible judgment on the apostates, to come. Instead of dealing with the cry for vengeance by the martyred saints (Revelation 6:10), Jerry brings up Amos 5:18. Did Jerry even read the surrounding context? This passage is denouncing hypocrites who are praying for God’s victory, not realizing that they are God’s enemies who will be vanquished. It is not a blanket condemnation of imprecatory prayer.
Okay on to the more substantive issue of the “coming” of Christ in the Olivet Discourse and the cosmic disturbances. Jerry thinks he is onto something when he claims that these events cannot be associated with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem because Matthew says they happen “AFTER” the tribulation of those days. Yeah, and what’s the problem here? Revelation 6:12-14 describes such “cosmic disturbances,” as also happening during the event!! Is Jerry claiming that Matthew and Revelation are contradicting each other?? Or is he claiming that the universe dissolves in the middle of the Tribulation?? How do you explain that one Jerry? The Matthean passage merely states the final conclusion, the complete and utter desolation of the Jewish economy and Old Covenant order. The sun and moon are dark, the stars are fallen - put a fork in it, it’s done. What a tempest in a teapot.
Jerry also raises a lot of hay stating that this event is something that would be “seen.” Well my answer to this is two-fold, the first fold of which is painfully obvious. Is Jerry suggesting that the destruction of Jerusalem and the extinguishment of the Old Covenant order was an invisible event? Surely not. This was something dramatically witnessed by the first century people. They saw exactly what the phrases and imagery used by Christ foretold.
But.... did the first century people “see” Christ coming on the clouds?? In line with what I just and in my last post, sure they did. As I previously demonstrated, “cloud coming” imagery is heavily used in the OT for judgment visitations of God. This judgment was fierce and highly visible. Additionally, the concept of “sight” in the Biblical text has much greater meaning than simply physical sight with physical eyes. For example see 2 Kings 6:20; Isaiah 42:7; Isaiah 42:16; John 12:40; Acts 26:18, 28:27; Romans 3:18, 11:10, 15:21; Ephesians 1:18, to name just a FEW, where it refers to understanding, perception, and knowledge. This same concept is found in the narrative of the disciples who broke bread with Jesus after His resurrection. They did not recognize Him until their “eyes were opened.” Are we to presume that they were walking around with their eyes literally shut before? Jerry completely ignored the fact that Jesus is making a clear allusion to the “Son of Man” imagery in Daniel 7:13-14. That passage is not describing a “coming” to touch DOWN :down: on Earth but a “coming” UP :up: to the Ancient of Days in vindication and victory to receive the Kingdom. If you want to see something very interesting, read Daniel 7:13-14 in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 15:24 both of which futurists believe to be about the Second Coming/Rapture. It is impossible. In Daniel, Christ receives the Kingdom and begins His special Messianic rule, in Corinthians, the Kingdom is consummated and presented to the Father. These are speaking of two totally different events separated by a vast span of time.
Jerry in his interpretation of Matthew 24:29-30 is totally ignoring the fact that these verses are a direct quotation/allusion to numerous OT passages, again primarily Daniel 7:13-14 and Isaiah 13:10 and thus MUST be understood in light of their OT context which ABSOLUTELY did not describe the dissolution of the universe nor the touching down of God upon the Earth. Jesus said to the then-living High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would “see” the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). Notice again, where are they to “see” Him?? SITTING at the right hand of power.... NOT coming down to earth. How can Christ be SITTING IN HEAVEN and COMING DOWN TO EARTH at the same time in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic?? Also, notice that Jerry can’t be literal here in another way. According to his view, these people would be long dead before this event happened. Are they then to “see” this event from Hades? Well if so, then Jerry can’t be so hung up on physical sight with physical eyes since their bodies (including their eyes) would have long ago turned to dust. Also, like I demonstrated before, Jerry’s “proof” in this area gores him in another. Jerry is insisting that “see” must mean literal sight of a certain event happening right then in front of them. Really? Then what does he do with Luke 21:31? Even Jerry admits that part of “all these things” that must be “seen” in Luke is the destruction of the city and Temple in AD70. Tell us then Jerry, how will some future group of Jews “see” these things happening?
The same is true with Jerry’s misplaced and selective reliance upon Revelation 1:7. That text specifically says that those who pierced Him will be among the ones who “see” Him. Again that is literally impossible as they are long dead. But John WAS NOT describing an event that would happen in the distant future. Jesus made it clear to His bondservants that these things must “shortly take place” 1:1; 22:6 and in case we humans were really thick, He repeated Himself and said that the time was near (1:3) and that He is coming quickly (3:11, 22:7, 12, 20). The opening and closing verses of Revelation emphatically emphasize the temporal proximity of the events described. Thus, what John is describing in 1:7 is limited to the time frames clearly laid out, and the context, the judgment upon the first century apostates.
In understanding the Olivet Discourse, it is vitally important to note the totally local character of this judgment. While futurists envision that the Discourse is talking about the end of the entire world, the Discourse itself limits the cataclysm to Judea (Matthew 24:16), Jerusalem (Luke 21:20, and the first century Temple (Matthew 24:2, 15; Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6). Matthew 23 records Jesus pronouncement of local judgment for the apostate Jews. He weeps over Jerusalem for she is to be destroyed, not the entire world. He declares that their House is left desolate and describes the destruction of the Temple then standing, not the dismantling of the cosmos.
I already thoroughly demonstrated the exact same catastrophic language was used in the OT to refer to past historical judgments. Jerry’s only defense to the tremendous proof that I presented regarding the rich Biblical pattern of judgment motifs was that those OT passages do not contain exhortations for watchfulness. So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This figurative language is used to descriptive real and visible events that are to be watched for. Jerry’s point is beyond inane. Is Jerry insinuating that God did not intend for anyone to watch for the fulfillment of His OT judgment prophecies just because the text does not say “watch”? But he is wrong in this very point in this first place. In Ezekiel 33:1-6 the principle of the prophet as the “watchman” is laid out clearly, and in Deut. 18:22 the people are exhorted to watch and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord.
Jerry also keeps raising the issue of the judgment mentioned in Matthew 25:31. Does Jerry not believe that Christ is currently judging between the nations (Ephesians 1:19-20; Revelation 1:5)? There is nothing in this passage indicating that this is a one-time event, in fact, a progressive judgment over time is in accord with the OT passages dealing with the reign of Christ (Psalm 2:8-12, 22:8, 96:10-13; 110:2-6). Additionally, I have already proven that the “coming” described is NOT a coming to earth but an enthronement in Heaven. The “coming of the Son of man in His Kingdom” is absolutely equated with “sitting on the throne of His glory” to exercise His dominion and judgment among the nations beginning with the apostates who crucified Him. He will do so until, “He has abolished all rule and all authority and all power” (1 Corinthians 15:24). Jerry is claiming that this has to be a literal judgment throne upon the Earth based upon Joel 3. Really? Did God literally come and tread down upon the high places of ancient Samaria and Jerusalem (Micah 1:3)? Must God, who fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24), be on a throne on Earth for us to stand before Him each and every day? Especially when we know that His throne is in Heaven (Psalm 11:4; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34; Revelation 4:2)?
Unfortunately, Jerry is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible but instead is behaving as if it dropped out of the sky in the twenty-first century. If some different culture two thousand years from today were to read “raining cats and dogs” in some of our writings, they would be making a gross error to believe that we literally meant that household pets were dropping out of the sky. It may not be an obvious idiom to them, but it would be to us, and that is exactly my point.
Today’s Weather Forecast: More blustery hot air coming off the coast of Mexico
As I have pointed out before, Jerry necessarily MUST deal with each of the timing verses I bring up in a piecemeal fashion because the cumulative case would clobber him senseless. The problem with such an approach is that a proof he posits for one verse defeats his proof for another. His system fails as a systematic and synoptic whole. For example, in addition to the numerous unanswered proofs I put forth against translating “genea” as “race” in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34, here is yet another:
Matthew 23:32, 36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your father’s guilt.... Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
Notice the tight connection between filling up on the measure of guilt and the proclamation of judgment upon “this generation.” “Filling up” in its OT context entails a completion of something that was previously started, a final ratification of sin. For example, see Genesis 15:16 - “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (and once it was full, whop!! judgment came). The Jews since the time of Christ have NOT been filling up on the measure of their ancient fathers’ guilt. Jerry’s view requires that we count modern Jews even more guilty than the first century apostates who actually murdered Christ!! To further demonstrate the inherent internal contradiction in Jerry’s view, remember that he claims that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are NOT speaking of the same event but has presented no rebuttal to my proof that they are. The Lucan passage states:
Luke 21:22 - For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Now Jerry admits that this verse IS about AD70 and God’s vengeance against the first century Jews. Really? Well then there is his obvious answer to Matthew 23:36. It was THAT generation that filled up on the iniquity of their fathers and warranted God’s vengeance, NOT the entire Jewish race, NOT some future generation. It was THEM. And in Matthew Chapter 23 notice once again the use of “you” which is devastating to Jerry. There is no question as to whom Jesus was speaking. Is Jerry accusing all Jews of all time of being a brood of vipers who are killing, crucifying, scourging in synagogues (!), and persecuting prophets, wise men, and scribes?? What are the statistics today of Christians getting scourged in synagogues? How many Christians have Jews crucified lately? Jerry maintains that the “yous” throughout BOTH of these Chapters (and their parallels) refer to the Jewish race. That CANNOT be. In Matthew 23:34, the “yous” are ones clobbering people in the synagogues, but in Luke 21:12 and Mark 13:9 the “yous” are the ones getting clobbered. Jerry’s system once again implodes upon itself. And as a side-note, to add to my unanswered rebuttal to Jerry’s objection that the first century Jews did not murder Zecharias, I add further support with 1 Samuel 15:3 where the children of Amalek are counted as corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefather hundreds of years earlier as if they did them themselves.
On another note about “genea” I am shocked :shocked: that Jerry would continue to misuse scholarly sources without shame. He claims that he “pointed out that there are respected Greek experts who state that “genea” can mean ‘men of the same stock, a family.’” Yes but what did they say that you didn’t tell us Jerry? Thayer specifically used Matthew 24:34 as an example of the primary meaning of “genea” as “generation” (NOT race) and Alford at one point chastised people for ignoring the “express TIME limitations” laid down by Christ and for putting “forced and unnatural meanings” on “genea.” Are these the experts you pointed out Jerry? What about the Greek experts who translated the NT who all agree with me, and I might add Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Carson, Haster, Abbot-Smith, Robertson, Bushel, Morganthaler, Conrad, and Cranwell? I see now that you are relying upon Strong’s in a classic case of illegitimate totality transfer. Using Strong’s to make your lexigraphical case as against Thayer, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich is akin to your prior use of the Encyclopedia Americana as your authority on Roman history. :nono:
I had also asked Jerry some specific questions about Matthew 16:27-28 in challenge to his assertion that this event is the Transfiguration. He completely ignored the challenge and went off on a incoherent tangent about the resurrection. I once again challenge him to defend his idea that these verses refer to the Transfiguration in light of the refutation in my last post. All he did last post was raise a straw man and burn it. Jerry also conveniently dodged my points proving that the Apostles must certainly did pray for the Day of the Lord, a day of terrible judgment on the apostates, to come. Instead of dealing with the cry for vengeance by the martyred saints (Revelation 6:10), Jerry brings up Amos 5:18. Did Jerry even read the surrounding context? This passage is denouncing hypocrites who are praying for God’s victory, not realizing that they are God’s enemies who will be vanquished. It is not a blanket condemnation of imprecatory prayer.
Okay on to the more substantive issue of the “coming” of Christ in the Olivet Discourse and the cosmic disturbances. Jerry thinks he is onto something when he claims that these events cannot be associated with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem because Matthew says they happen “AFTER” the tribulation of those days. Yeah, and what’s the problem here? Revelation 6:12-14 describes such “cosmic disturbances,” as also happening during the event!! Is Jerry claiming that Matthew and Revelation are contradicting each other?? Or is he claiming that the universe dissolves in the middle of the Tribulation?? How do you explain that one Jerry? The Matthean passage merely states the final conclusion, the complete and utter desolation of the Jewish economy and Old Covenant order. The sun and moon are dark, the stars are fallen - put a fork in it, it’s done. What a tempest in a teapot.
Jerry also raises a lot of hay stating that this event is something that would be “seen.” Well my answer to this is two-fold, the first fold of which is painfully obvious. Is Jerry suggesting that the destruction of Jerusalem and the extinguishment of the Old Covenant order was an invisible event? Surely not. This was something dramatically witnessed by the first century people. They saw exactly what the phrases and imagery used by Christ foretold.
But.... did the first century people “see” Christ coming on the clouds?? In line with what I just and in my last post, sure they did. As I previously demonstrated, “cloud coming” imagery is heavily used in the OT for judgment visitations of God. This judgment was fierce and highly visible. Additionally, the concept of “sight” in the Biblical text has much greater meaning than simply physical sight with physical eyes. For example see 2 Kings 6:20; Isaiah 42:7; Isaiah 42:16; John 12:40; Acts 26:18, 28:27; Romans 3:18, 11:10, 15:21; Ephesians 1:18, to name just a FEW, where it refers to understanding, perception, and knowledge. This same concept is found in the narrative of the disciples who broke bread with Jesus after His resurrection. They did not recognize Him until their “eyes were opened.” Are we to presume that they were walking around with their eyes literally shut before? Jerry completely ignored the fact that Jesus is making a clear allusion to the “Son of Man” imagery in Daniel 7:13-14. That passage is not describing a “coming” to touch DOWN :down: on Earth but a “coming” UP :up: to the Ancient of Days in vindication and victory to receive the Kingdom. If you want to see something very interesting, read Daniel 7:13-14 in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 15:24 both of which futurists believe to be about the Second Coming/Rapture. It is impossible. In Daniel, Christ receives the Kingdom and begins His special Messianic rule, in Corinthians, the Kingdom is consummated and presented to the Father. These are speaking of two totally different events separated by a vast span of time.
Jerry in his interpretation of Matthew 24:29-30 is totally ignoring the fact that these verses are a direct quotation/allusion to numerous OT passages, again primarily Daniel 7:13-14 and Isaiah 13:10 and thus MUST be understood in light of their OT context which ABSOLUTELY did not describe the dissolution of the universe nor the touching down of God upon the Earth. Jesus said to the then-living High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would “see” the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). Notice again, where are they to “see” Him?? SITTING at the right hand of power.... NOT coming down to earth. How can Christ be SITTING IN HEAVEN and COMING DOWN TO EARTH at the same time in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic?? Also, notice that Jerry can’t be literal here in another way. According to his view, these people would be long dead before this event happened. Are they then to “see” this event from Hades? Well if so, then Jerry can’t be so hung up on physical sight with physical eyes since their bodies (including their eyes) would have long ago turned to dust. Also, like I demonstrated before, Jerry’s “proof” in this area gores him in another. Jerry is insisting that “see” must mean literal sight of a certain event happening right then in front of them. Really? Then what does he do with Luke 21:31? Even Jerry admits that part of “all these things” that must be “seen” in Luke is the destruction of the city and Temple in AD70. Tell us then Jerry, how will some future group of Jews “see” these things happening?
The same is true with Jerry’s misplaced and selective reliance upon Revelation 1:7. That text specifically says that those who pierced Him will be among the ones who “see” Him. Again that is literally impossible as they are long dead. But John WAS NOT describing an event that would happen in the distant future. Jesus made it clear to His bondservants that these things must “shortly take place” 1:1; 22:6 and in case we humans were really thick, He repeated Himself and said that the time was near (1:3) and that He is coming quickly (3:11, 22:7, 12, 20). The opening and closing verses of Revelation emphatically emphasize the temporal proximity of the events described. Thus, what John is describing in 1:7 is limited to the time frames clearly laid out, and the context, the judgment upon the first century apostates.
In understanding the Olivet Discourse, it is vitally important to note the totally local character of this judgment. While futurists envision that the Discourse is talking about the end of the entire world, the Discourse itself limits the cataclysm to Judea (Matthew 24:16), Jerusalem (Luke 21:20, and the first century Temple (Matthew 24:2, 15; Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6). Matthew 23 records Jesus pronouncement of local judgment for the apostate Jews. He weeps over Jerusalem for she is to be destroyed, not the entire world. He declares that their House is left desolate and describes the destruction of the Temple then standing, not the dismantling of the cosmos.
I already thoroughly demonstrated the exact same catastrophic language was used in the OT to refer to past historical judgments. Jerry’s only defense to the tremendous proof that I presented regarding the rich Biblical pattern of judgment motifs was that those OT passages do not contain exhortations for watchfulness. So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This figurative language is used to descriptive real and visible events that are to be watched for. Jerry’s point is beyond inane. Is Jerry insinuating that God did not intend for anyone to watch for the fulfillment of His OT judgment prophecies just because the text does not say “watch”? But he is wrong in this very point in this first place. In Ezekiel 33:1-6 the principle of the prophet as the “watchman” is laid out clearly, and in Deut. 18:22 the people are exhorted to watch and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord.
Jerry also keeps raising the issue of the judgment mentioned in Matthew 25:31. Does Jerry not believe that Christ is currently judging between the nations (Ephesians 1:19-20; Revelation 1:5)? There is nothing in this passage indicating that this is a one-time event, in fact, a progressive judgment over time is in accord with the OT passages dealing with the reign of Christ (Psalm 2:8-12, 22:8, 96:10-13; 110:2-6). Additionally, I have already proven that the “coming” described is NOT a coming to earth but an enthronement in Heaven. The “coming of the Son of man in His Kingdom” is absolutely equated with “sitting on the throne of His glory” to exercise His dominion and judgment among the nations beginning with the apostates who crucified Him. He will do so until, “He has abolished all rule and all authority and all power” (1 Corinthians 15:24). Jerry is claiming that this has to be a literal judgment throne upon the Earth based upon Joel 3. Really? Did God literally come and tread down upon the high places of ancient Samaria and Jerusalem (Micah 1:3)? Must God, who fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24), be on a throne on Earth for us to stand before Him each and every day? Especially when we know that His throne is in Heaven (Psalm 11:4; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34; Revelation 4:2)?
Unfortunately, Jerry is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible but instead is behaving as if it dropped out of the sky in the twenty-first century. If some different culture two thousand years from today were to read “raining cats and dogs” in some of our writings, they would be making a gross error to believe that we literally meant that household pets were dropping out of the sky. It may not be an obvious idiom to them, but it would be to us, and that is exactly my point.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What will be the sign of Thy coming up????
What will be the sign of Thy coming up????
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man COMING in the clouds of heaven with power and with great glory”(Mt.24:30).
As I said before,Dee Dee´s judgment has been warped and she continually subjects her mind to delusions.And her interpretation of this verse is no exception.According to her,the “coming” of the Lord does not mean a coming BACK to earth,but instead means a COMING UP to heaven!According to her,first the Lord returns to earth in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem.He then returns to the heavenly sphere to receive the kingdom.
And she calls His return to the heavens a COMING UP.But when someone is said to go from a place near,such as earth,to a place far,such as the heavens,the NORMAL thing to say is that someone WENT UP or He GOES UP.But Dee Dee,not satisfied with making havoc on the Holy Scriptures,turns her attention to the English language and runs amuck there also.Instead of saying that the Lord WENT UP to receive His kingdom,Dee Dee says that He COMES UP!!!
However,turning aside from her preposterious thoughts we can see that the words of the Lord Jesus Himself in the Olivet Discourse leaves no room for doubt that His COMING is in reference to HIS RETURN to earth:
“And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds,with great glory and power…But of that day and that hour knoweth no man…take heed,watch and pray;for ye know not when the time is.FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LIKE a man taking a far journey,who LEFT HIS HOUSE,and gave authority to his servants,and to every man his work,and commanded the porter to watch.Watch ye,therefore,for ye know not when the MASTER OF THE HOUSE COMETH…”(Mk.13:26,32-35).
Here we see that the Lord Jesus is LIKENED to the man who left and returned.In the same discourse the Lord Jesus also speaks of another lord who would return:
“Who,then,is a faithful and wise servant,whom his lord hath made ruler over his household…Blessed is that servant,whom his lord,when he COMETH,shall find so doing…the lord of that servant shall COME in a day when he looketh not for him,and in an hour that he is not aware”(Mt.24:45,46,50).The Lord also gives two additional instances where someone leaves and then RETURNS (Mt.25:10;14,19).But since Dee Dee can find no place of these words of the Lord in her twisted scenario,she IGNORES them and attempts to say that the Lord is not COMING BACK,but instead He is “COMING UP”.This type of interpretation degrades and throws contempt on the Holy Scriptures.
Next,earlier Dee Dee said that the “cosmic disturbances” of Matthew 24:9 refer to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem…”But I asked her how that could be since Scripture plainly states that the “cosmic disturbances” will come “immediately AFTER” the “great tribulation”,which she thinks refers to the desruction of Jerusalem in AD70.In other words,she has Jerusalem destroyed in AD70 and then immediately after this she has Jerusalem destroyed again.
When given a chance to clear up this preposterous interpretation of hers,this is what she says: “Jerry thinks he is onto something when he claims that these events cannot be associated with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem because Matthew says they happened ‘AFTER’ the tribulation of those days.” But Dee Dee,you did not say that these events were merely ASSOCIATED with the destruction of Jerusalem,you said that they refer to the ACTUAL destruction of Jerusalem.So we see even though Dee Dee said over and over that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was a non-repeatable event,she herself is teaching that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70 and then was destroyed again after AD70.
Next,I will touch upon a couple of points that I brought up but Dee Dee totally ignored.First,Matthew 16:27-28:
“For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels,and then shall reward every man according to their works.Verily I say unto you,There are some standing here,who shall not taste of death,till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”(Mt.16:27,28).
Dee Dee says that the first century Christians lived to “SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.But does her theory match the Scriptual facts?Well,NOT EXACTLY.Not even close.Speaking of the time that the Lord would”APPEAR”,John says that “we know that when He shall appear,we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).Paul taught the Christians to be looking expectantly to the heavens for the APPEARING of the Lord Jesus,and at that time they would recive their glorified,immortal bodies:
“For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).
Well,if they SAW him at His appearance,as Dee Dee says,then why didn´t they recive their glorified bodies?I asked Dee Dee this before,and she offered no answer whatsoever.These Scriptual facts are devestating to the Preterist position,but yet Dee Dee doesn´t offer even one word to defend her views.
Now let us examine some points that she did attempt to answer.In regard to the “cosmic disturbances”,Dee Dee had said that the Lord was speaking in idioms and language of an OT prophet.I pointed out that yes,there were similiarites in some of the OT language,but in no instances were there any warnings to WATCH for these signs nor was it ever said that these signs would be SEEN.In reply,Dee Dee says that “in Ezekiel 33:1-6 the principle of the prophet as the ‘watchman’ is laid out clearly”.However,an examination of these verses reveal that there is no command to WATCH for the signs described at Ezek.32:7-8.There is no Scripture that says these signs will be seen.The “watchman” is not watching for any heavenly signs,but instead he is watching for the “sword” to come upon the land.
She also says that at Deut.18:22 “the people are exhorted to WATCH and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord.”(emphasis mine).But once again an examination of the words reveal that the word “watch” is not included.Dee Dee just made it up!If you do not believe me,just go there yourself.She just made it up. So we can see that there is not even one place in the Scriptures where anyone is ever told to WATCH for the “cosmic disturbances” and no place in Scripture where the “cosmic disturbances”are said to be SEEN except in the Olivet Discourse.
Next,earlier I had pointed out that the first century Jews did not murder Zechariah,so therefore the word “’generation’ at Matthew 23:36 cannot possibly refer to the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Dee Dee then says that 1Sam.15:3 “ the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.”
However,Dee Dee again makes all this up.Those words cannot be found in these Scripture passages.Instead,the children of Amalek are destroyed “because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”(Ex.17:16).So again we see that Dee Dee will not hesitate to add words to Scripture if she thinks that itwill help her cause.
Dee Dee also attempts to undermine my contention that the word “generation” at Matthew 23:36 refers to that “generation of vipers”,or the evil race of Jews.She says,”Is Jerry accusing all Jews of all time being a brood of vipers who are killing,crucifying,scourging in synagogues and persecuting prophets,wise men and scribes?”
Well,Dee Dee thinks that the word “generation” in this instance means the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Does that mean that she thinks that ALL the first century Jews,including the believers,are a brood of vipers who are killing and persecuting the prophets?
Dee Dee also said that the Olivet Discourse was completely fulfilled in the first century,and she challenged me to find one thing that was not.Well,Dee Dee,consider these words of the Lord Jesus Christ:
“And except those days should be shortened,there should NO FLESH be saved;but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened”(Mt.24:22).
Here the word translated “no flesh” comes from the Greek word,”pas sarx”,meaning “every living creature,1Pet.1:24”, or if it is used with the negative,it means “no living creature,Mt.xxiv:22,Mk.xiii:20;spec. ‘a man’ “ (“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
So we can see that the words recorded in Matthew refer to all men living everywhere.And in every instance but one where the term is used in the New Testament,it is used to express the idea of ALL MEN everywhere (Mt.24:22;Mk.13:20;Lk.3:6;Jn.17:2;Acts2:17;Ro.3:20;1Cor.1:29;Gal.2:16;1Pet.1:24).The only exception is at 1Cor.15:39,where the term is used in an even wider sense,meaning all animal life as well as all human life.
We can see its use in the following verse: “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God”(Lk.3:6).This is in regard to “all people”,as we can see from the words of Simeon when He said,”For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation,which Thou hast prepared before the face OF ALL PEOPLE: a light to lighten the Gentiles,and the glory of Thy people,Israel”(Lk.2:30-32).
And the words of Isaiah leaves absolutely no doubt,when he says that “The Lord hath made bare His Holy arm in the eyes of all nations,and ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF OUR GOD”(Isa.52:10).
So we can see that unless the Lord intervenes during the time of the “great tribulation”,then NO FLESH will be saved.The future “great tribulation” will be of such magnitude that unless the Lord intervenes,it will be possible that all of mankind would be destroyed!
And who is willing to argue that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 ever reaches such a magnitude that it would have been possible that the whole human race would have been destroyed?That event never reached a magnitude anywhere close to a situation in which all men would have been destroyed.This verse alone proves that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was not the “great tribulation” that the Lord Jesus said was to come.
What will be the sign of Thy coming up????
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man COMING in the clouds of heaven with power and with great glory”(Mt.24:30).
As I said before,Dee Dee´s judgment has been warped and she continually subjects her mind to delusions.And her interpretation of this verse is no exception.According to her,the “coming” of the Lord does not mean a coming BACK to earth,but instead means a COMING UP to heaven!According to her,first the Lord returns to earth in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem.He then returns to the heavenly sphere to receive the kingdom.
And she calls His return to the heavens a COMING UP.But when someone is said to go from a place near,such as earth,to a place far,such as the heavens,the NORMAL thing to say is that someone WENT UP or He GOES UP.But Dee Dee,not satisfied with making havoc on the Holy Scriptures,turns her attention to the English language and runs amuck there also.Instead of saying that the Lord WENT UP to receive His kingdom,Dee Dee says that He COMES UP!!!
However,turning aside from her preposterious thoughts we can see that the words of the Lord Jesus Himself in the Olivet Discourse leaves no room for doubt that His COMING is in reference to HIS RETURN to earth:
“And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds,with great glory and power…But of that day and that hour knoweth no man…take heed,watch and pray;for ye know not when the time is.FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LIKE a man taking a far journey,who LEFT HIS HOUSE,and gave authority to his servants,and to every man his work,and commanded the porter to watch.Watch ye,therefore,for ye know not when the MASTER OF THE HOUSE COMETH…”(Mk.13:26,32-35).
Here we see that the Lord Jesus is LIKENED to the man who left and returned.In the same discourse the Lord Jesus also speaks of another lord who would return:
“Who,then,is a faithful and wise servant,whom his lord hath made ruler over his household…Blessed is that servant,whom his lord,when he COMETH,shall find so doing…the lord of that servant shall COME in a day when he looketh not for him,and in an hour that he is not aware”(Mt.24:45,46,50).The Lord also gives two additional instances where someone leaves and then RETURNS (Mt.25:10;14,19).But since Dee Dee can find no place of these words of the Lord in her twisted scenario,she IGNORES them and attempts to say that the Lord is not COMING BACK,but instead He is “COMING UP”.This type of interpretation degrades and throws contempt on the Holy Scriptures.
Next,earlier Dee Dee said that the “cosmic disturbances” of Matthew 24:9 refer to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem…”But I asked her how that could be since Scripture plainly states that the “cosmic disturbances” will come “immediately AFTER” the “great tribulation”,which she thinks refers to the desruction of Jerusalem in AD70.In other words,she has Jerusalem destroyed in AD70 and then immediately after this she has Jerusalem destroyed again.
When given a chance to clear up this preposterous interpretation of hers,this is what she says: “Jerry thinks he is onto something when he claims that these events cannot be associated with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem because Matthew says they happened ‘AFTER’ the tribulation of those days.” But Dee Dee,you did not say that these events were merely ASSOCIATED with the destruction of Jerusalem,you said that they refer to the ACTUAL destruction of Jerusalem.So we see even though Dee Dee said over and over that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was a non-repeatable event,she herself is teaching that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70 and then was destroyed again after AD70.
Next,I will touch upon a couple of points that I brought up but Dee Dee totally ignored.First,Matthew 16:27-28:
“For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels,and then shall reward every man according to their works.Verily I say unto you,There are some standing here,who shall not taste of death,till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”(Mt.16:27,28).
Dee Dee says that the first century Christians lived to “SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.But does her theory match the Scriptual facts?Well,NOT EXACTLY.Not even close.Speaking of the time that the Lord would”APPEAR”,John says that “we know that when He shall appear,we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).Paul taught the Christians to be looking expectantly to the heavens for the APPEARING of the Lord Jesus,and at that time they would recive their glorified,immortal bodies:
“For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).
Well,if they SAW him at His appearance,as Dee Dee says,then why didn´t they recive their glorified bodies?I asked Dee Dee this before,and she offered no answer whatsoever.These Scriptual facts are devestating to the Preterist position,but yet Dee Dee doesn´t offer even one word to defend her views.
Now let us examine some points that she did attempt to answer.In regard to the “cosmic disturbances”,Dee Dee had said that the Lord was speaking in idioms and language of an OT prophet.I pointed out that yes,there were similiarites in some of the OT language,but in no instances were there any warnings to WATCH for these signs nor was it ever said that these signs would be SEEN.In reply,Dee Dee says that “in Ezekiel 33:1-6 the principle of the prophet as the ‘watchman’ is laid out clearly”.However,an examination of these verses reveal that there is no command to WATCH for the signs described at Ezek.32:7-8.There is no Scripture that says these signs will be seen.The “watchman” is not watching for any heavenly signs,but instead he is watching for the “sword” to come upon the land.
She also says that at Deut.18:22 “the people are exhorted to WATCH and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord.”(emphasis mine).But once again an examination of the words reveal that the word “watch” is not included.Dee Dee just made it up!If you do not believe me,just go there yourself.She just made it up. So we can see that there is not even one place in the Scriptures where anyone is ever told to WATCH for the “cosmic disturbances” and no place in Scripture where the “cosmic disturbances”are said to be SEEN except in the Olivet Discourse.
Next,earlier I had pointed out that the first century Jews did not murder Zechariah,so therefore the word “’generation’ at Matthew 23:36 cannot possibly refer to the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Dee Dee then says that 1Sam.15:3 “ the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.”
However,Dee Dee again makes all this up.Those words cannot be found in these Scripture passages.Instead,the children of Amalek are destroyed “because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”(Ex.17:16).So again we see that Dee Dee will not hesitate to add words to Scripture if she thinks that itwill help her cause.
Dee Dee also attempts to undermine my contention that the word “generation” at Matthew 23:36 refers to that “generation of vipers”,or the evil race of Jews.She says,”Is Jerry accusing all Jews of all time being a brood of vipers who are killing,crucifying,scourging in synagogues and persecuting prophets,wise men and scribes?”
Well,Dee Dee thinks that the word “generation” in this instance means the whole multitude of men living at the same time.Does that mean that she thinks that ALL the first century Jews,including the believers,are a brood of vipers who are killing and persecuting the prophets?
Dee Dee also said that the Olivet Discourse was completely fulfilled in the first century,and she challenged me to find one thing that was not.Well,Dee Dee,consider these words of the Lord Jesus Christ:
“And except those days should be shortened,there should NO FLESH be saved;but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened”(Mt.24:22).
Here the word translated “no flesh” comes from the Greek word,”pas sarx”,meaning “every living creature,1Pet.1:24”, or if it is used with the negative,it means “no living creature,Mt.xxiv:22,Mk.xiii:20;spec. ‘a man’ “ (“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
So we can see that the words recorded in Matthew refer to all men living everywhere.And in every instance but one where the term is used in the New Testament,it is used to express the idea of ALL MEN everywhere (Mt.24:22;Mk.13:20;Lk.3:6;Jn.17:2;Acts2:17;Ro.3:20;1Cor.1:29;Gal.2:16;1Pet.1:24).The only exception is at 1Cor.15:39,where the term is used in an even wider sense,meaning all animal life as well as all human life.
We can see its use in the following verse: “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God”(Lk.3:6).This is in regard to “all people”,as we can see from the words of Simeon when He said,”For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation,which Thou hast prepared before the face OF ALL PEOPLE: a light to lighten the Gentiles,and the glory of Thy people,Israel”(Lk.2:30-32).
And the words of Isaiah leaves absolutely no doubt,when he says that “The Lord hath made bare His Holy arm in the eyes of all nations,and ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF OUR GOD”(Isa.52:10).
So we can see that unless the Lord intervenes during the time of the “great tribulation”,then NO FLESH will be saved.The future “great tribulation” will be of such magnitude that unless the Lord intervenes,it will be possible that all of mankind would be destroyed!
And who is willing to argue that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 ever reaches such a magnitude that it would have been possible that the whole human race would have been destroyed?That event never reached a magnitude anywhere close to a situation in which all men would have been destroyed.This verse alone proves that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was not the “great tribulation” that the Lord Jesus said was to come.
DING DING DING
DING DING DING
That's the end of round #7
Dee Dee your back on the clock.
DING DING DING
That's the end of round #7
Dee Dee your back on the clock.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dismantling the Acme Balogna Launcher
Dismantling the Acme Balogna Launcher
Okay folks, Jerry has objected to my interpretation of the “coming” of Christ in the Discourse in his usual fashion… with many “yeah buts” but no synoptic analysis. He failed to deal with the supports I used for my position but rather just posited some verses which he claims teach something different. All that does is raise an apparent “contradiction” in the Scripture. He must do more than raise apparently contradictory verses, he must harmonize the whole counsel of God, something that he has yet to do one time in this debate, but instead did what Jerry does best…. sidesteps direct questions with additional questions. He in fact answered almost nothing from my last post and has left major items pending from prior posts.
In his last post Jerry is grossly guilty of, at best, failing to understand my position, or at worst, purposefully misrepresenting my position. Neither option is acceptable in a debate. Let me demonstrate.
I never said any such thing. Jesus “comes” in judgment upon apostate Israel, just as YHWH had done numerous times in the OT which did not require Him to “leave” Heaven, though the language, if taken in the same sense that Jerry is advocating, would require that YHWH did in fact leave Heaven and ride upon the back of a cherub or a cloud – and NO ONE believes that (Genesis 11:5; 2 Samuel 22:8-12; Psalm 18:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 13:5, 31:4; Hosea 8:1; Micah 1:2-4). We as moderns tend to forget that the OT was the only Scripture that the disciples had, and they did not have the [sarcasm] benefit [/sarcasm] of the “Left Behind” series. When Jesus quoted to them directly from Isaiah 13 do you think they would have any idea in a million years that he was not using the terminology in a similar way as that passage and dozens of other OT passages using similar judgment motifs (sun and moon going dark, stars falling from the sky) and “coming” language?? Let’s get real here. Why wouldn’t they? Why isn’t the Bible the best interpreter of the Bible? Why isn’t Jerry consistent in his insistence upon “literalism”?
Why doesn’t he believe that the universe collapsed in God’s past judgments on Edom, Egypt, Samaria, Jerusalem, and Babylon?
[choke]Stop me, you’re killing me!!![/choke] Is THAT the best you can do?? This is from a person who says near doesn’t mean near, soon doesn’t mean soon , quickly doesn’t mean quickly, at hand doesn’t mean at hand, shortly doesn’t mean shortly, and this generation doesn’t mean this generation!!! In Daniel 7:9-13, the perspective is from Heaven … from that perspective it is NORMAL to say “came up.” Who is Jerry kidding? This straining at gnats is getting ridiculous.
Jerry cannot take parables and misuse them to override the clear OT setting of Jesus’ words. If Jerry wants to get that literal with parables of all things, may I remind him that the length of time measured by the parables he cited are normal lifetimes!! The master comes back to the SAME servants he left, not the distant relatives of those servants!! And since Jerry is so fond of parables, I have one for him as well. In Matthew 21 Jesus gave the parable of the Wicked Vinedressers which is an unequivocal reference to AD70. What does Jesus ask his first century audience? “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will he do to those vinedressers?” and continues, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” And notice this… “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of THEM.” Jesus was speaking of THEM and told THEM that the owner of the vineyard would COME in judgment upon THEM. Please notice the similarities between this parable and the very ones that Jerry cited in opposition to the fact that Christ CAME in judgment in AD70 upon Israel! They are speaking of the same event…. not that I actually expect Jerry to deal with that fact since he has NEVER dealt with my proofs that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-23 are speaking of the same event though his whole argument depends upon that idea that they are not.
Again I never said any such thing. What I did say was the entirety of the events of the destruction of Jerusalem are what is being described by the “cosmic disturbances” language just as has been done numerous times in the OT ( Isaiah 13:9-10, 34:4-5; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9). I pointed out that Matthew speaks of the final result, the complete extinguishment of the Jewish polity and that Revelation uses the same language (6:12) to refer to the actual enfolding of the destruction. When the Temple finally falls, and the city is razed to the ground, which in fact IS IMMEDIATELY after the Tribulation described in verses 4-28, the Old Covenant order is completely swept away (Hebrews 8:13). Jerry conveniently sidestepped my question to him about Revelation 6:12 which in his wooden hermeneutic would require the dissolution of the cosmos in the middle of the Tribulation and before the 144,000 were sealed. I think it is pretty obvious that if all the stars (or even meteors) literally fell to the earth, there would be no Earth for the 144,000 to stand upon. And which is it Jerry… do these things happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Tribulation or DURING the Tribulation. You missed answering that one.
Now, do you guys want to see something really bizarre :shocked:?? First Jerry has the chutzpah to claim that I am ignoring Matthew 16:27-28 when I was the one who asked the questions which were never answered!! Here is the verse:
For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then shall reward every man according to their works. Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Please take careful note of Christ’s words in blue. So here is Jerry’s “response.”
If you are not choking on your biscuit right now, you need to read that again. Jerry is incredulous that I actually have the nerve to believe what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!!! Wow!! Silly me, whip me with a wet noodle. Jerry has yet to answer my challenges to his spin on those verses in round 6 (you know, the one where I am chuckling over the fact that Jerry admits that he believes that Jerusalem will be attacked on horseback). I am still waiting. Instead he sidesteps my questions by trying to make the connection that when Christ “comes” in His Kingdom, the resurrection happens. Well Jerry how does that help you?? The passage STILL says that some standing there will not taste death until they SEE the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. You still have to deal with that, and all you have done is paint yourself into a painful corner. And as a matter of fact, since this passage is an allusion to Daniel 7:13 which speaks of the beginning of Christ’s Messianic reign, and Paul makes it clear that the resurrection marks the end of Christ’s special Messianic reign (1 Corinthians 15:24), thank you again for proving my point that it is only the preterist timeline that makes sense of all of the timing passages. You have yet to explain how to reconcile the “comings” in Daniel 7:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:24 in your view.
Jerry has conceded that I am correct in my identifications of collapsing-universe imagery in historical OT judgment prophecies, yet, he nonsensically claims that the identical language in the Discourse cannot be interpreted in the same way because there are no exhortations in the OT prophecies to “watch” for their fulfillment. Huh?? This is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard. I ask again, is Jerry insinuating that God did not intend for anyone to watch for the fulfillment of His OT judgment prophecies just because the text does not say “watch”? In response to my point that the role of the prophet was indeed that of a watchman, Jerry replied:
Jerry, duh!!! The judgment prophecies using cosmic imagery ARE prophecies of “swords” coming upon the land. What exactly is your point?? You have just assumed what you need to prove… that the language of the Olivet Discourse should not be interpreted the same way as the dozens of other OT judgment passages utilizing cosmic imagery. If it is, then the disciples are told to “watch” in the exact same way as the watchman in Ezekiel. You really need to stop proving my points for me like that.
In response to my comment that in Deut. 18:22 the people are exhorted to watch and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord, Jerry says:
Sigh. As you can see I did NOT use quote marks in my comment so I never said that the word “watch” was explicitly in the text. Here is what the text says:
”When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Now Jerry please tell me… how in God’s green Earth can anyone know whether a prophesy comes true or not unless they watch for it? Is God going to slip them a note in Gym class?
And lastly Jerry puts his foot in it with this,
Again, Jerry, are you insinuating that the judgment events prophesied in the OT were invisible?? What you are doing is again arguing a tautology. You are assuming that the cosmic disturbances are to be taken woodenly (which is impossible as shown above) and then claim that since those exact things were never literally seen, they did not happen. But that misses the whole point and betrays a gross misunderstanding of apocalyptic language. The symbolic language portrays a real and literal event. The real and literal event that is symbolized by the language is what is seen. Again, if I say it is going to rain cats and dogs, you will SEE the torrential rain which is what my words represented, but you will NEVER see pets plummeting out of the blue, because that is not the meaning that my words intended to convey. This is not rocket science here. The issue isn’t whether we take words literally but is whether or not we take them Biblically and in the sense in which they were intended. Even Jerry does not believe that we literally have to eat Christ’s literal flesh and blood. Why not??
With regards to the “this generation” of Matthew 23:36, Jerry points out that I said,
And he then comments:
This is the second time in one post that he has falsely made such an accusation, just as he had no problem changing the speaker in Psalm 56:5 to accuse me of hating God. Here is 1 Samuel 15:2-3: “ Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.’”
This words are spoken by God hundreds of years AFTER the Amalekites ambushed Israel on the way he came up from Egypt, yet God is here declaring that he is going to punish the Amalekites of David’s day for that offense. Jerry put your money where your mouth is. How am I making anything up here?? (Exodus 20:16)
Ironically all the while, Jerry does yet another Fred Astaire move around my very pointed questions about the identification of “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 with very specific first century crimes, and the identity of the “you” throughout Matthew 23 and Matthew 24 by asking:
You see, Jerry, asking that question does not remove you from the horns of your own dilemma that I have pointed out again and again. A cursory reading of the text (and a complete reading of Thayer whom you selectively quote) would clear up this confusion of yours. Jesus points out that the judgment will come upon those in that generation who commit the offenses He speaks of and thus fill up on their father’s guilt. Peter makes it clear that those who are saved, are saved FROM or OUT OF “this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40). Jerry certainly is not claiming the meaning of “race” there. Why not? Also, is Jerry insinuating that we must take Jesus’ woods so woodenly to mean that every single one of their forebears were also evil murderers?? Also, please notice that Jerry’s own argument against me, if true, disproves his own position. He is once again stark naked in a glass house. Eeek!! :shocked:
Now in answer to my challenge that there was nothing in the Olivet Discourse that was not fulfilled, Jerry trots out Matthew 24:22:
And except those days should be shortened,there should NO FLESH be saved;but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened.
Context, context, context, my wily futurist friend. I already pointed out, and was met with crickets on your end, the obviously LOCAL character of the judgment. If one wants to avoid the conflagration all one has to do is flee out of Judea to the mountains (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21) . That is hardly an indication of a worldwide disaster. The context is limited to Judea, and if the days were not shortened no flesh in Judea would have been saved.
Jerry then makes the following gaffe:
Really Jerry?? First of all please note that Jerry lists as two examples (Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20) the very verses in dispute. That is circular. Also, one of the verses cited by Jerry proves my very point, and that is Acts 2:17. The context is Pentecost and Peter’s sermon in which Peter is claiming that the events of Pentecost were the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (which included cosmic disturbance language by the way). Really?? So tell me Jerry, was the Spirit poured out upon ALL FLESH at Pentecost?? Did the wicked Pharisees get a measure of the Spirit?? Were the American Indians whooping it up with a big tent revival?? The reference to ALL FLESH there is clearly limited to Judea. And since you seem so found of borrowing heavily from Toussaint Jerry, I thought you might like to take a gander of what Toussaint says about your “race” interpretation:
Oh and Jerry, please invest in a good Thesaurus. There are words you can find to describe me other than deceived, deluded, and preposterous. I just thought you might like to know.
Dismantling the Acme Balogna Launcher
Okay folks, Jerry has objected to my interpretation of the “coming” of Christ in the Discourse in his usual fashion… with many “yeah buts” but no synoptic analysis. He failed to deal with the supports I used for my position but rather just posited some verses which he claims teach something different. All that does is raise an apparent “contradiction” in the Scripture. He must do more than raise apparently contradictory verses, he must harmonize the whole counsel of God, something that he has yet to do one time in this debate, but instead did what Jerry does best…. sidesteps direct questions with additional questions. He in fact answered almost nothing from my last post and has left major items pending from prior posts.
In his last post Jerry is grossly guilty of, at best, failing to understand my position, or at worst, purposefully misrepresenting my position. Neither option is acceptable in a debate. Let me demonstrate.
I never said any such thing. Jesus “comes” in judgment upon apostate Israel, just as YHWH had done numerous times in the OT which did not require Him to “leave” Heaven, though the language, if taken in the same sense that Jerry is advocating, would require that YHWH did in fact leave Heaven and ride upon the back of a cherub or a cloud – and NO ONE believes that (Genesis 11:5; 2 Samuel 22:8-12; Psalm 18:9; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 13:5, 31:4; Hosea 8:1; Micah 1:2-4). We as moderns tend to forget that the OT was the only Scripture that the disciples had, and they did not have the [sarcasm] benefit [/sarcasm] of the “Left Behind” series. When Jesus quoted to them directly from Isaiah 13 do you think they would have any idea in a million years that he was not using the terminology in a similar way as that passage and dozens of other OT passages using similar judgment motifs (sun and moon going dark, stars falling from the sky) and “coming” language?? Let’s get real here. Why wouldn’t they? Why isn’t the Bible the best interpreter of the Bible? Why isn’t Jerry consistent in his insistence upon “literalism”?
Why doesn’t he believe that the universe collapsed in God’s past judgments on Edom, Egypt, Samaria, Jerusalem, and Babylon?
[choke]Stop me, you’re killing me!!![/choke] Is THAT the best you can do?? This is from a person who says near doesn’t mean near, soon doesn’t mean soon , quickly doesn’t mean quickly, at hand doesn’t mean at hand, shortly doesn’t mean shortly, and this generation doesn’t mean this generation!!! In Daniel 7:9-13, the perspective is from Heaven … from that perspective it is NORMAL to say “came up.” Who is Jerry kidding? This straining at gnats is getting ridiculous.
Jerry cannot take parables and misuse them to override the clear OT setting of Jesus’ words. If Jerry wants to get that literal with parables of all things, may I remind him that the length of time measured by the parables he cited are normal lifetimes!! The master comes back to the SAME servants he left, not the distant relatives of those servants!! And since Jerry is so fond of parables, I have one for him as well. In Matthew 21 Jesus gave the parable of the Wicked Vinedressers which is an unequivocal reference to AD70. What does Jesus ask his first century audience? “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will he do to those vinedressers?” and continues, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” And notice this… “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of THEM.” Jesus was speaking of THEM and told THEM that the owner of the vineyard would COME in judgment upon THEM. Please notice the similarities between this parable and the very ones that Jerry cited in opposition to the fact that Christ CAME in judgment in AD70 upon Israel! They are speaking of the same event…. not that I actually expect Jerry to deal with that fact since he has NEVER dealt with my proofs that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-23 are speaking of the same event though his whole argument depends upon that idea that they are not.
Again I never said any such thing. What I did say was the entirety of the events of the destruction of Jerusalem are what is being described by the “cosmic disturbances” language just as has been done numerous times in the OT ( Isaiah 13:9-10, 34:4-5; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9). I pointed out that Matthew speaks of the final result, the complete extinguishment of the Jewish polity and that Revelation uses the same language (6:12) to refer to the actual enfolding of the destruction. When the Temple finally falls, and the city is razed to the ground, which in fact IS IMMEDIATELY after the Tribulation described in verses 4-28, the Old Covenant order is completely swept away (Hebrews 8:13). Jerry conveniently sidestepped my question to him about Revelation 6:12 which in his wooden hermeneutic would require the dissolution of the cosmos in the middle of the Tribulation and before the 144,000 were sealed. I think it is pretty obvious that if all the stars (or even meteors) literally fell to the earth, there would be no Earth for the 144,000 to stand upon. And which is it Jerry… do these things happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Tribulation or DURING the Tribulation. You missed answering that one.
Now, do you guys want to see something really bizarre :shocked:?? First Jerry has the chutzpah to claim that I am ignoring Matthew 16:27-28 when I was the one who asked the questions which were never answered!! Here is the verse:
For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then shall reward every man according to their works. Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they SEE the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Please take careful note of Christ’s words in blue. So here is Jerry’s “response.”
If you are not choking on your biscuit right now, you need to read that again. Jerry is incredulous that I actually have the nerve to believe what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!!! Wow!! Silly me, whip me with a wet noodle. Jerry has yet to answer my challenges to his spin on those verses in round 6 (you know, the one where I am chuckling over the fact that Jerry admits that he believes that Jerusalem will be attacked on horseback). I am still waiting. Instead he sidesteps my questions by trying to make the connection that when Christ “comes” in His Kingdom, the resurrection happens. Well Jerry how does that help you?? The passage STILL says that some standing there will not taste death until they SEE the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. You still have to deal with that, and all you have done is paint yourself into a painful corner. And as a matter of fact, since this passage is an allusion to Daniel 7:13 which speaks of the beginning of Christ’s Messianic reign, and Paul makes it clear that the resurrection marks the end of Christ’s special Messianic reign (1 Corinthians 15:24), thank you again for proving my point that it is only the preterist timeline that makes sense of all of the timing passages. You have yet to explain how to reconcile the “comings” in Daniel 7:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:24 in your view.
Jerry has conceded that I am correct in my identifications of collapsing-universe imagery in historical OT judgment prophecies, yet, he nonsensically claims that the identical language in the Discourse cannot be interpreted in the same way because there are no exhortations in the OT prophecies to “watch” for their fulfillment. Huh?? This is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard. I ask again, is Jerry insinuating that God did not intend for anyone to watch for the fulfillment of His OT judgment prophecies just because the text does not say “watch”? In response to my point that the role of the prophet was indeed that of a watchman, Jerry replied:
Jerry, duh!!! The judgment prophecies using cosmic imagery ARE prophecies of “swords” coming upon the land. What exactly is your point?? You have just assumed what you need to prove… that the language of the Olivet Discourse should not be interpreted the same way as the dozens of other OT judgment passages utilizing cosmic imagery. If it is, then the disciples are told to “watch” in the exact same way as the watchman in Ezekiel. You really need to stop proving my points for me like that.
In response to my comment that in Deut. 18:22 the people are exhorted to watch and see if the words of a prophet actually come to pass to know that he has truly spoken the words of the Lord, Jerry says:
Sigh. As you can see I did NOT use quote marks in my comment so I never said that the word “watch” was explicitly in the text. Here is what the text says:
”When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Now Jerry please tell me… how in God’s green Earth can anyone know whether a prophesy comes true or not unless they watch for it? Is God going to slip them a note in Gym class?
And lastly Jerry puts his foot in it with this,
Again, Jerry, are you insinuating that the judgment events prophesied in the OT were invisible?? What you are doing is again arguing a tautology. You are assuming that the cosmic disturbances are to be taken woodenly (which is impossible as shown above) and then claim that since those exact things were never literally seen, they did not happen. But that misses the whole point and betrays a gross misunderstanding of apocalyptic language. The symbolic language portrays a real and literal event. The real and literal event that is symbolized by the language is what is seen. Again, if I say it is going to rain cats and dogs, you will SEE the torrential rain which is what my words represented, but you will NEVER see pets plummeting out of the blue, because that is not the meaning that my words intended to convey. This is not rocket science here. The issue isn’t whether we take words literally but is whether or not we take them Biblically and in the sense in which they were intended. Even Jerry does not believe that we literally have to eat Christ’s literal flesh and blood. Why not??
With regards to the “this generation” of Matthew 23:36, Jerry points out that I said,
And he then comments:
This is the second time in one post that he has falsely made such an accusation, just as he had no problem changing the speaker in Psalm 56:5 to accuse me of hating God. Here is 1 Samuel 15:2-3: “ Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.’”
This words are spoken by God hundreds of years AFTER the Amalekites ambushed Israel on the way he came up from Egypt, yet God is here declaring that he is going to punish the Amalekites of David’s day for that offense. Jerry put your money where your mouth is. How am I making anything up here?? (Exodus 20:16)
Ironically all the while, Jerry does yet another Fred Astaire move around my very pointed questions about the identification of “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 with very specific first century crimes, and the identity of the “you” throughout Matthew 23 and Matthew 24 by asking:
You see, Jerry, asking that question does not remove you from the horns of your own dilemma that I have pointed out again and again. A cursory reading of the text (and a complete reading of Thayer whom you selectively quote) would clear up this confusion of yours. Jesus points out that the judgment will come upon those in that generation who commit the offenses He speaks of and thus fill up on their father’s guilt. Peter makes it clear that those who are saved, are saved FROM or OUT OF “this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40). Jerry certainly is not claiming the meaning of “race” there. Why not? Also, is Jerry insinuating that we must take Jesus’ woods so woodenly to mean that every single one of their forebears were also evil murderers?? Also, please notice that Jerry’s own argument against me, if true, disproves his own position. He is once again stark naked in a glass house. Eeek!! :shocked:
Now in answer to my challenge that there was nothing in the Olivet Discourse that was not fulfilled, Jerry trots out Matthew 24:22:
And except those days should be shortened,there should NO FLESH be saved;but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened.
Context, context, context, my wily futurist friend. I already pointed out, and was met with crickets on your end, the obviously LOCAL character of the judgment. If one wants to avoid the conflagration all one has to do is flee out of Judea to the mountains (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21) . That is hardly an indication of a worldwide disaster. The context is limited to Judea, and if the days were not shortened no flesh in Judea would have been saved.
Jerry then makes the following gaffe:
Really Jerry?? First of all please note that Jerry lists as two examples (Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20) the very verses in dispute. That is circular. Also, one of the verses cited by Jerry proves my very point, and that is Acts 2:17. The context is Pentecost and Peter’s sermon in which Peter is claiming that the events of Pentecost were the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (which included cosmic disturbance language by the way). Really?? So tell me Jerry, was the Spirit poured out upon ALL FLESH at Pentecost?? Did the wicked Pharisees get a measure of the Spirit?? Were the American Indians whooping it up with a big tent revival?? The reference to ALL FLESH there is clearly limited to Judea. And since you seem so found of borrowing heavily from Toussaint Jerry, I thought you might like to take a gander of what Toussaint says about your “race” interpretation:
Oh and Jerry, please invest in a good Thesaurus. There are words you can find to describe me other than deceived, deluded, and preposterous. I just thought you might like to know.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Apostle John wrote that “we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).
The Apostle Paul says,“For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).
Words could not be plainer.These men expected the Lord to APPEAR and to be SEEN,and when He did appear they would receive their new,immortal bodies.
But since these words do not match Dee Dee´s twisted scenario of the end time events,she must explain the plain words away.She says that Paul´s words refer to “the end of Christ´s Messianic reign.” But why would Paul be urging the Christians to be looking towards the heavens in order to see Him coming if this could not take place until AFTER Christ´s Messianic reign?
Remember,in the preceding verse,Paul says that the Christians are LOOKING for the Lord.The word translated “look” is from the Greek word “apekdechomai”,meaning “assiduously and patiently to wait for”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon”).And just a few verses later Paul says,”The Lord is at hand”(Phil.4:5).The words ”at hand” are translated from the Greek word,”eggus”,which means “concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon”).
So by the words of Paul we can see that he was NOT referring to an event that would not happen until “the end of Christ´s Messianic reign”,as Dee Dee mistakenly says.If the event could not possibly take place until after Christ had ended His Messianic reign,why would Paul be telling the Christians to be assiduously (constantly) looking toward the heavens for His appearing?That would make absolutely no sense.
Now perhaps Dee Dee will explain why the bodies of the Christians were not changed when the Lord supposedly came in AD70.
Another example of Dee Dee´s assault on the Scriptures occurs when she says that the “signs” when the “sun is darkened and the moon shall not give its light”(Mt.24:29) refer to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order.” In other words,these “signs” represent things that will happen on earth.But the words of the Lord are plain that the signs do not represent things that will happen on earth:
“And there shall be SIGNS IN THE SUN,AND IN THE STARS;and upon the earth distess of nations,with perplexity,the sea and the waves roaring”(Lk.21:25).
So here we can see that the Lord is SPECIFICALLY saying that the “signs” will occur in the heavens,and this is contrasted with the things that will happen on earth.Dee Dee wants us to ignore the words of the Lord and instead believe her false interpretation that the Lord is saying that the signs merely represent things that will happen on earth,and that the “signs” will not actually be seen in the heavens.She does this because there were no “signs” seen in the heavens after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.So instead of believing the Lord,she distorts His words to make them match her confused interpretation of the end time events.
She adds to the confusion by saying that the Apostles,upon hearing His words concerning the “cosmic disturbances”, would think that His coming would not involve His bodily presence.However,even if that was their belief(and I am not saying that it was),they would be corrected in a short period of time when they are told in no uncertain terms that Hewould return just as He left:
“Ye men of Galilee,why stand ye gazing up to heaven?This same Jesus,Who is taken up from you into heaven,SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN”(Acts1:11).
They saw Him go into heaven in His BODILY PRESENCE.Therefore,they would expect Him to return in His body.And what else could the Lord´s words mean in the Olivet Discourse when He likens the Son of Man to “a man taking a far journey” and then returning in the same way that he left:
“And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds,with great power and glory…But of that day and that hour knoweth no man…Take heed,watch and pray;for ye know not when the time is.For the Son of Man is LIKE a man taking a far journey,who left his house,and gave authority to his servants,and to every man his work,and commanded the porter to watch.Watch ye,therefore;for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh,at evening,or at midnight,or at the cockcrow in the morning”(Mk.13:26,32-35).
Here the Lord Himself is saying that the Son of Man is LIKE a man who leaves and returns.Anyone must be a little unbalanced if they think that this verse is teaching that Christ left in bodily form but He will not return in bodily form.We must remember that these words themselves are a part of the Lord´s answer as to when He will come.
However,Dee Dee points out that in this parable that the master comes back to the same servents that he left.That is correct,but it must be remembered that the parables do not fit perfectly the thing that they represent.One thing is constant in all the parables(Mt.24:45-50;25:1-12;14-26;Mk.13:34-37) that the Lord speaks in the Olivet Discourse,and that is the fact that the one who leaves also RETURNS.In ALL four parables the one who left also RETURNSAnd so will it be with the Lord Jesus Christ—He will RETURN to earth,and His “coming” is “coming to earth” and not “coming up” to His throne in heaven.
Dee Dee also seems to think that the parable of the Wicked Vinedresser (Mt.21) somehow undermines the idea that the Lord is teaching that He will return.She thinks that this parable refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.But first of all,notice that it is not the “son” who returns in judgment,but instead the father.Therefore,this could not be in reference to AD70 because in that case,at least according to Dee Dee,it is the Son Who comes in judgment.So it is evident that this parable in no way puts into question the Lord´s teaching that He will return to earth.
Next,we can clearly see that the destruction associated with the end times that the Lord is describing will not only involve Jerusalem,but also the whole world:
“Then shall be two in the field;the one shall be taken,and the other left.Two women shall be grinding in the mill;the one shall be taken,and the other left”(Mt.24:40,41).
These word of the Lord are in response to the question of what will be the signs of “THE END OF THE AGE”(Mt.24:3).And earlier the Lord had spoken the parable of the Tares and the Wheat which occurs at THE END OF THE AGE.In this parable,“the field is THE WORLD…the tares are gathered and burned in the fire,so shall it be in the END OF THIS AGE.The Son of Man shall send forth His angels,and they shall gather out of the kingdom all things that offend,and them that do iniquity”(Mt.13:38,40,41).
So according to this parable,at the “end of the age” ALL those in ALL the world who offend will be gathered out of His kingdom.So the events associated with the coming of the Son of God do not just involve Jerusalem,but instead it is WORLDWIDE!And the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 did not reach the whole world by any stretch of the imagination.
In regard to 1Sam.15:2-3,it is true that the Amalekites of David´s day were being punished for the crime committed by the Amalekites at a much earlier time,BUT that does not answer the point I raised.I said that the word “generation” at Mat.23:36 cannot refer to the first century Jews,because they did not kill Zechariah—“whom YE slew between the Temple and the altar”.
The point is not who will receive the punishment,but instead who committed the crime.These passages do not speak of the Amalekites of David´s day committing the crime that was committed earlier.Therefore,1Sam.15:2-3 proves nothing.
And Dee Dee said that the use of either “going” or “coming” depends on whether or not the perspective is from heaven or from earth.Well,the question to the Lord,”What shall be the sign of Thy coming” was spoken FROM THE EARTH.And from that perspective the word “coming” could only be in regard to coming from heaven to earth.And naturally,the Lord´s answer would be from the same perspective:
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man COMING in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
It is those ON EARTH who see Him COMING,so the perspective is FROM EARTH!
He would not answer their question from the perspective from heaven,but instead from the perspective of earth.Therefore,when He speaks of coming,He is saying that He is COMING from the heavens to the earth.Dee Dee is again willing to subject her mind to the delusion that the Lord´s words are coming from “the perspective from heaven”.
To her it seems perfectly natural to say that the Lord is COMING UP!A more notable instance of inadequate interpretation cannot be imagined!
Finally,I have already pointed out that Scripture reveals that when Jerusalem is attacked,the Lord says,”In that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).Dee Dee says that this means that the Lord Jesus allowed the Roman armies to defeat Jerusalem in AD70,and this victory of Rome somehow brought Rome to its end.
Well,the verse preceding that verse reads,”In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us exactly how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.
I haven´t had a good laugh since her previous answer on how the Lord destroyed Rome!
The Apostle Paul says,“For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body”(Phil.3:20,21).
Words could not be plainer.These men expected the Lord to APPEAR and to be SEEN,and when He did appear they would receive their new,immortal bodies.
But since these words do not match Dee Dee´s twisted scenario of the end time events,she must explain the plain words away.She says that Paul´s words refer to “the end of Christ´s Messianic reign.” But why would Paul be urging the Christians to be looking towards the heavens in order to see Him coming if this could not take place until AFTER Christ´s Messianic reign?
Remember,in the preceding verse,Paul says that the Christians are LOOKING for the Lord.The word translated “look” is from the Greek word “apekdechomai”,meaning “assiduously and patiently to wait for”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon”).And just a few verses later Paul says,”The Lord is at hand”(Phil.4:5).The words ”at hand” are translated from the Greek word,”eggus”,which means “concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon”).
So by the words of Paul we can see that he was NOT referring to an event that would not happen until “the end of Christ´s Messianic reign”,as Dee Dee mistakenly says.If the event could not possibly take place until after Christ had ended His Messianic reign,why would Paul be telling the Christians to be assiduously (constantly) looking toward the heavens for His appearing?That would make absolutely no sense.
Now perhaps Dee Dee will explain why the bodies of the Christians were not changed when the Lord supposedly came in AD70.
Another example of Dee Dee´s assault on the Scriptures occurs when she says that the “signs” when the “sun is darkened and the moon shall not give its light”(Mt.24:29) refer to “the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order.” In other words,these “signs” represent things that will happen on earth.But the words of the Lord are plain that the signs do not represent things that will happen on earth:
“And there shall be SIGNS IN THE SUN,AND IN THE STARS;and upon the earth distess of nations,with perplexity,the sea and the waves roaring”(Lk.21:25).
So here we can see that the Lord is SPECIFICALLY saying that the “signs” will occur in the heavens,and this is contrasted with the things that will happen on earth.Dee Dee wants us to ignore the words of the Lord and instead believe her false interpretation that the Lord is saying that the signs merely represent things that will happen on earth,and that the “signs” will not actually be seen in the heavens.She does this because there were no “signs” seen in the heavens after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.So instead of believing the Lord,she distorts His words to make them match her confused interpretation of the end time events.
She adds to the confusion by saying that the Apostles,upon hearing His words concerning the “cosmic disturbances”, would think that His coming would not involve His bodily presence.However,even if that was their belief(and I am not saying that it was),they would be corrected in a short period of time when they are told in no uncertain terms that Hewould return just as He left:
“Ye men of Galilee,why stand ye gazing up to heaven?This same Jesus,Who is taken up from you into heaven,SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN”(Acts1:11).
They saw Him go into heaven in His BODILY PRESENCE.Therefore,they would expect Him to return in His body.And what else could the Lord´s words mean in the Olivet Discourse when He likens the Son of Man to “a man taking a far journey” and then returning in the same way that he left:
“And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds,with great power and glory…But of that day and that hour knoweth no man…Take heed,watch and pray;for ye know not when the time is.For the Son of Man is LIKE a man taking a far journey,who left his house,and gave authority to his servants,and to every man his work,and commanded the porter to watch.Watch ye,therefore;for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh,at evening,or at midnight,or at the cockcrow in the morning”(Mk.13:26,32-35).
Here the Lord Himself is saying that the Son of Man is LIKE a man who leaves and returns.Anyone must be a little unbalanced if they think that this verse is teaching that Christ left in bodily form but He will not return in bodily form.We must remember that these words themselves are a part of the Lord´s answer as to when He will come.
However,Dee Dee points out that in this parable that the master comes back to the same servents that he left.That is correct,but it must be remembered that the parables do not fit perfectly the thing that they represent.One thing is constant in all the parables(Mt.24:45-50;25:1-12;14-26;Mk.13:34-37) that the Lord speaks in the Olivet Discourse,and that is the fact that the one who leaves also RETURNS.In ALL four parables the one who left also RETURNSAnd so will it be with the Lord Jesus Christ—He will RETURN to earth,and His “coming” is “coming to earth” and not “coming up” to His throne in heaven.
Dee Dee also seems to think that the parable of the Wicked Vinedresser (Mt.21) somehow undermines the idea that the Lord is teaching that He will return.She thinks that this parable refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.But first of all,notice that it is not the “son” who returns in judgment,but instead the father.Therefore,this could not be in reference to AD70 because in that case,at least according to Dee Dee,it is the Son Who comes in judgment.So it is evident that this parable in no way puts into question the Lord´s teaching that He will return to earth.
Next,we can clearly see that the destruction associated with the end times that the Lord is describing will not only involve Jerusalem,but also the whole world:
“Then shall be two in the field;the one shall be taken,and the other left.Two women shall be grinding in the mill;the one shall be taken,and the other left”(Mt.24:40,41).
These word of the Lord are in response to the question of what will be the signs of “THE END OF THE AGE”(Mt.24:3).And earlier the Lord had spoken the parable of the Tares and the Wheat which occurs at THE END OF THE AGE.In this parable,“the field is THE WORLD…the tares are gathered and burned in the fire,so shall it be in the END OF THIS AGE.The Son of Man shall send forth His angels,and they shall gather out of the kingdom all things that offend,and them that do iniquity”(Mt.13:38,40,41).
So according to this parable,at the “end of the age” ALL those in ALL the world who offend will be gathered out of His kingdom.So the events associated with the coming of the Son of God do not just involve Jerusalem,but instead it is WORLDWIDE!And the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 did not reach the whole world by any stretch of the imagination.
In regard to 1Sam.15:2-3,it is true that the Amalekites of David´s day were being punished for the crime committed by the Amalekites at a much earlier time,BUT that does not answer the point I raised.I said that the word “generation” at Mat.23:36 cannot refer to the first century Jews,because they did not kill Zechariah—“whom YE slew between the Temple and the altar”.
The point is not who will receive the punishment,but instead who committed the crime.These passages do not speak of the Amalekites of David´s day committing the crime that was committed earlier.Therefore,1Sam.15:2-3 proves nothing.
And Dee Dee said that the use of either “going” or “coming” depends on whether or not the perspective is from heaven or from earth.Well,the question to the Lord,”What shall be the sign of Thy coming” was spoken FROM THE EARTH.And from that perspective the word “coming” could only be in regard to coming from heaven to earth.And naturally,the Lord´s answer would be from the same perspective:
“…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man COMING in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Mt.24:30).
It is those ON EARTH who see Him COMING,so the perspective is FROM EARTH!
He would not answer their question from the perspective from heaven,but instead from the perspective of earth.Therefore,when He speaks of coming,He is saying that He is COMING from the heavens to the earth.Dee Dee is again willing to subject her mind to the delusion that the Lord´s words are coming from “the perspective from heaven”.
To her it seems perfectly natural to say that the Lord is COMING UP!A more notable instance of inadequate interpretation cannot be imagined!
Finally,I have already pointed out that Scripture reveals that when Jerusalem is attacked,the Lord says,”In that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).Dee Dee says that this means that the Lord Jesus allowed the Roman armies to defeat Jerusalem in AD70,and this victory of Rome somehow brought Rome to its end.
Well,the verse preceding that verse reads,”In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us exactly how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.
I haven´t had a good laugh since her previous answer on how the Lord destroyed Rome!
DING DING DING
DING DING DING
That's the end of round 8.
Dee Dee is back on the clock!
DING DING DING
That's the end of round 8.
Dee Dee is back on the clock!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
The Crown Prince of Dodge strikes again!! Oh the humanity!!!
The Crown Prince of Dodge strikes again!! Oh the humanity!!!
In the past three rounds I have asked at least ten questions which cut to the heart of the issue which have gone completely unacknowledged, least of all answered. Instead Jerry piles additional questions upon additional questions as if that is sufficient. I have not seen Jerry advocate anything at all that appears to be a Systematic Theology but rather whatever hodge-podge comments he can lob at me to try and defeat my every point despite the cost to his cumulative position. His view, as thus far presented, is completely incoherent with itself, never mind with the Biblical text.
Repeatedly I have raised numerous issues with regards to Matthew 16:27-28. If Jerry would put as much effort into answering the questions as he does in evading them, he might actually come up with something halfway decent. But he has not answered one challenge I have made to his interpretation that these verses refer to the Transfiguration. Remember what Jerry “accused” me of last round:
Jerry says,
Yes they did, but Jerry commits the fallacy of the excluded middle… he is assuming that the Scripture does not teach any “coming ” of Christ that had nothing to do with the resurrection and bodily Second Advent when in fact it does in many places. Here are two examples: in Revelation 3:20 Christ promises to “come” to the one who opens the door to their heart. This is not referring to the bodily resurrection whatsoever. Another example would be Revelation 2:5 where Jesus threatens to “come” in judgment upon a Church and remove her place if she does not repent. Was He threatening to come and resurrect her? Was He threatening to come and destroy the world if she did not repent? Obviously not. Since Jerry has raised very little worth responding to in his last post and this Debate is nearing an end, I am now going to prove my position that the Great Tribulation is past by demonstrating that the “end of the age” is past (Matthew 24:3), but this is going to require very careful attention to the subtleties of what certain texts actually say without blind loyalty to previously cherished positions. I apologize if this is a little more theologically “dry” than some of my other posts, but it is the necessary final nail in the coffin.
In the Olivet Discourse, one of the questions the disciples asked Christ was about the “end of the age.” Nothing in any of Christ’s previous words would have given them any idea whatsoever to ask about the end of the world. Their questions were prompted by Christ’s scathing denunciations of the first century Jewish authorities and the announcement of the desolation of the Temple. We cannot lose sight of this context of their questions. The Jews were awaiting the Messianic age. Their time was divided into two great ages, the age of Torah (or Moses) and the Age of Messiah…. The disciples recognized that the destruction of the Temple would bring to an end one age and usher in the other. Jesus in response to them makes a clear and unequivocal allusion to Daniel 7:13. Jerry and I both agree that this event in Daniel refers to the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom and Millennium as follows:
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
But what Jerry denies is what the text plainly says, and that is that the “thrones” are set up IN HEAVEN (Daniel 7:9). The Messianic Kingdom is not an earthly rule.
Now here’s where things get really sticky and will require an in-depth look at 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, 54:
But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death…. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Notice some very important things here. Death is destroyed at the “rapture/resurrection.” It is the LAST enemy. There can be no more death after that point. But if death is the LAST enemy destroyed… it will not be destroyed until all other enemies have ALREADY been destroyed. Do you understand the implications of this?? The rapture/resurrection cannot happen before some Great Tribulation involving the whole earth where the satan is wreaking havoc. Satan is destroyed FIRST. And notice what Christ is doing before this last enemy is destroyed… He is reigning!!! That means by this point He has ALREADY received the Kingdom mentioned in Daniel 7:13, and He will reign until He has put an end to all rule and all authority and power. The coming in Daniel 7:13 (alluded to by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 16:27 and its parallels) is by necessity a different event than that in 1 Corinthians 15. Daniel is describing the inauguration of the Kingdom….. Paul is describing the consummation. Jerry’s view puts the cart totally before the horse and has the Kingdom consummated before it is even inaugurated.
This concept of the heavenly reign of Christ which progressively subjugates His foes is well-attested to in the OT. Psalm 110 (the most cited and/or alluded to OT passage in the NT) places Christ’s reign in Heaven (at the right hand of the Father) who tells Him to rule in the midst of His foes!! Sound familiar?? That is exactly what 1 Corinthians 15:25 is describing!! But… I have another way to prove my point, and its those pesky timing verses again. :doh: Notice that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24 says that prior to His coming, Jesus will put an END to all rule (Strong’s 746 – “arche”) and all authority (Strong’s 1849 – “exousia”) and power (Strong’s 1411 – “dumanis”). Well notice what Paul says in Ephesians 1:20-21:
… He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
Paul is teaching us that in the age in which he lived and wrote, Christ was ABOVE all principality (Strong’s 746 – “arche”) and power (Strong’s 1849 – “exousia”) and might (Strong’s 1411 – “dunamis”). Do these words sound familiar? They should, they are the same words used in 1 Corinthians 15:24 which describes the END of those things. So in these two passages Paul tells us that Christ will be reigning OVER those things in “this age” (the age in which Paul lived and wrote) and in the “age to come” but that there will come a time when Christ will put an END to all those things at which point the resurrection will occur. If you put these two ideas together in a synoptic fashion, it is painfully apparent that Christ will not put an END to these things until the end of the “age to come” from Paul’s perspective, for the resurrection happens on the “last day” (John 6:39-54). If we are to believe that the resurrection happens in our current age, then the age in which Paul lived HAS to have already ended. And in fact it did. Christ said it would end before the then living generation passed away (Matthew 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mark 8:38; 9:1; 13:30; Luke 9:27; 21:32). Paul earlier told the Corinthians that the end of the ages have come upon THEM (1 Corinthians 10:11) and the writer of Hebrews concurs (Hebrews 9:26). Peter said it was the last days (Acts 2:17) back then. The last days of what??? The last days of the Old Covenant order and the harlotrous Jewish polity (Hebrews 8:13). As it approached ever closer it no longer was just the last days, it was the last hour (1 John 2:18). The end of the age described in the Olivet Discourse is long past. Futurism suffers from extreme cognitive dissidence (the ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time) in this point. A systematic look at ALL the relevant timing passages in a comprehensive whole leaves no other conclusion. There was a great eschatological event on the horizon for the early church that would usher in the “age to come” which would be characterized by the spiritual rule of Christ in the midst of His foes.
Jerry seems to think it incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection in light of my view. Again Biblical literacy would help. Do we stop “waiting” for the resurrection simply because we die? How long did Abraham “wait” (same Greek word) for the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:10)?
To tie up some sundry loose ends Jerry attempts yet another really shallow effort at deflecting the force of the OT witness to the apocalyptic use of “cosmic disturbance” imagery. Jerry’s point is again defeated by the OT usage of these phrases. The location of the cosmic imagery in Isaiah 13:9-10; 34:4-5; Ezekiel 32:7-8 is ALSO said/implied to be “in heaven” as well, but Jerry does not believe that the universe dissolved in these ancient judgments. Why not?? In Ezekiel 32:7-8, God even declares that the earth reverted back to the primeval chaos… but Jerry does not take that literally. Why not?? And I had already pointed out that Jerry, if he would be consistent, would have the universe collapsing way too early, for in Revelation 6, it happens even before the 144,000 are sealed, a point which Jerry has doggedly avoided.
Jerry keeps insisting that the Great Tribulation is worldwide but again, did he deal with the points I raised?? Of course not then he wouldn’t be the Jerry that we all know and have various feelings about. I repeat…. The context of the Olivet Discourse is Judea and the judgment upon the apostate Jews of the first century. If one wants to avoid the judgment, all one needs to do is leave Judea (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21) … hardly a worldwide conflagration. Jerry brings up the Kingdom parables of Matthew 13 as “proof” that the Great Tribulation is a worldwide event, but that is again completely circular. He assumes what he needs to prove and then points to his assumption as his proof. And again, he is defeated by his own system. For example, he is taking Matthew 13:41 to mean that absolutely all wicked people on the earth will be removed and cast into hell simultaneously at the end of that age, and then the righteous will populate the Millennium. Really? Well putting aside the logistical absurdities of a Millennium populated by Christians in glorified bodies and Jewish tribulation saints in non-glorified bodies (and multiple physical resurrection events not taught in Scripture), Isaiah clearly states that there will be wicked people (and death – oops!!) in the Millennium (Isaiah 66:20). Where do they come from? Do some of the righteous at the "end of the age" turn bad?? No. The Kingdom parables are teaching about the inauguration of the Kingdom, with judgment beginning with God’s OT people and the outworking of His progressive redemption and judgment.
Now briefly back onto to the Amalekites….. Remember in Jerry’s prior post he said that I completely made up the concept that “the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.” It seems now that Jerry has removed one foot from his mouth simply to insert the other… :nono:
It would be nice if Jerry actually read the passage before commenting… so here it is again.
Thus says the LORD of hosts: “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.”
The same concept of corporate solidarity in sin is present as in Matthew 23. Notice that the children of Amalek are counted as Amalek himself and thus ARE judicially reckoned as the “Amalek” who did the original crime, if not, God would be in violation of Ezekiel 18. And I am still waiting for the statistics of rampaging Jews trouncing Christians in synagogues and crucifying them. I live in a highly in a heavily Jewish demographic and need to know if I am in grave danger. :shocked:
Sigh. Another smokescreen from the Jerry-mander. The REAL issue before was not over “coming” or “going,” but over the location of the “coming.” Jesus is alluding to Daniel 7:13, something Jerry never disavowed, which is not speaking of a coming “down” to earth at all.
Yes, and Jesus said to the then-living High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would “see” the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). Notice again, where are they to “see” Him?? SITTING at the right hand of power.... NOT coming down to earth. How can Christ be SITTING IN HEAVEN and COMING to Earth at the same time in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic?? Oops, he forgot to answer that one.
Hmm, and Daniel 7:13 mentions coming down to the Earth where??
Now on to Jerry’s abuse of the parables. He said,
When I pointed out that the man in the parables returns within the lifetimes of the people he left, Jerry correctly points out that parables do not fit perfectly the thing that they represent,but yet he goes on to try and force them to do exactly that where it suits him. The parables say nothing about how the man left or how he would return. Even the idea that the parabolic man would personally return is importing a modern assumption into the text. Remember the centurion whose servant was healed (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)?? Although the centurion sent representatives and did not go to Jesus personally, it was said it was the centurion himself who came to Jesus. If Jerry understood this ANE concept, he would not have gotten so confused and proven yet another point for me, and that is with the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers. He said,
Notice Jerry does not bother to try and substantively disprove (or even offer an alternative interpretation) that this parable refers to AD70, which is not disputed amongst any commentator that I am aware of, rather he is satisfied to just cast insinuative dispersions. I am also amazed that Jerry is betraying such a lack of Trinitarian understanding (see also John 14:18 and Isaiah 40:10) with this comment which could be the subject of a entire post in itself, but again notice the parallels with the parable Jerry cited. In both, the main subject is said to set up a situation in which servants would be stewards over his possessions and from whom he would require an accounting. (hint – that is the main point of the parables in question) In the Wicked Vinedressers parable the “owner” is quite obviously God the Father… and yet He ALSO is said to “travel” to a far country and “return.” It is painfully apparent from this that Jerry’s over-reliance on some alleged “physicality” of the traveling and returning aspects is grossly misplaced. And Jesus has already told us in the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:10) exactly how the Father will “come” to the apostates - But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Jerry again brings up Zechariah which I have already dealt with in-depth as to Jerry’s misuse of “that day.” Until he deals with that issue, there is nothing more to say without repeating myself. I will give the interested reader one hint though…. Jerry is confused as to who the true “Jerusalem” is …. but thankfully Hebrews 12:22 clears that up for us. God most certainly defended the true Jerusalem (Romans 12:19).
All in all though I am proud of Jerry. He took my advice and found some new insults for me and managed to whittle down his use of “deluded” to just once. Also he managed to say I was correct on two things without turning into a pillar of salt. Now that’s progress. A girl’s gotta be thankful for the little things.
The Crown Prince of Dodge strikes again!! Oh the humanity!!!
In the past three rounds I have asked at least ten questions which cut to the heart of the issue which have gone completely unacknowledged, least of all answered. Instead Jerry piles additional questions upon additional questions as if that is sufficient. I have not seen Jerry advocate anything at all that appears to be a Systematic Theology but rather whatever hodge-podge comments he can lob at me to try and defeat my every point despite the cost to his cumulative position. His view, as thus far presented, is completely incoherent with itself, never mind with the Biblical text.
Repeatedly I have raised numerous issues with regards to Matthew 16:27-28. If Jerry would put as much effort into answering the questions as he does in evading them, he might actually come up with something halfway decent. But he has not answered one challenge I have made to his interpretation that these verses refer to the Transfiguration. Remember what Jerry “accused” me of last round:
Jerry has yet to deal with the fact that this is what the text ACTUALLY says. What Jerry does instead is try and insist that the resurrection must happen when the Son of Man comes in His Kingdom. But that still does not solve his problem that the text clearly places this “coming” in the first century, and in trying to prove me wrong, he has bitten off his own nose :doh:. Well then Jerry, did the resurrection happen at the Transfiguration?? Despite that obvious rebuttal, Jerry’s assertion is flat out wrong, and does not even make sense within his own system. Jerry places the “Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” at the END of the Great Tribulation, but even he does not believe that the resurrection happens then, but years before that point. Jerry says, “words could not be plainer,” and I agree. Jesus could not have been any plainer that the first century audience would see Him coming in His Kingdom in direct allusion to Daniel 7:13. Exactly what words are unclear Jerry? Are the words “soon, near, at hand, shortly, quickly, this generation, some standing here will not taste death” too confusing for you?
Jerry says,
Yes they did, but Jerry commits the fallacy of the excluded middle… he is assuming that the Scripture does not teach any “coming ” of Christ that had nothing to do with the resurrection and bodily Second Advent when in fact it does in many places. Here are two examples: in Revelation 3:20 Christ promises to “come” to the one who opens the door to their heart. This is not referring to the bodily resurrection whatsoever. Another example would be Revelation 2:5 where Jesus threatens to “come” in judgment upon a Church and remove her place if she does not repent. Was He threatening to come and resurrect her? Was He threatening to come and destroy the world if she did not repent? Obviously not. Since Jerry has raised very little worth responding to in his last post and this Debate is nearing an end, I am now going to prove my position that the Great Tribulation is past by demonstrating that the “end of the age” is past (Matthew 24:3), but this is going to require very careful attention to the subtleties of what certain texts actually say without blind loyalty to previously cherished positions. I apologize if this is a little more theologically “dry” than some of my other posts, but it is the necessary final nail in the coffin.
In the Olivet Discourse, one of the questions the disciples asked Christ was about the “end of the age.” Nothing in any of Christ’s previous words would have given them any idea whatsoever to ask about the end of the world. Their questions were prompted by Christ’s scathing denunciations of the first century Jewish authorities and the announcement of the desolation of the Temple. We cannot lose sight of this context of their questions. The Jews were awaiting the Messianic age. Their time was divided into two great ages, the age of Torah (or Moses) and the Age of Messiah…. The disciples recognized that the destruction of the Temple would bring to an end one age and usher in the other. Jesus in response to them makes a clear and unequivocal allusion to Daniel 7:13. Jerry and I both agree that this event in Daniel refers to the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom and Millennium as follows:
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
But what Jerry denies is what the text plainly says, and that is that the “thrones” are set up IN HEAVEN (Daniel 7:9). The Messianic Kingdom is not an earthly rule.
Now here’s where things get really sticky and will require an in-depth look at 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, 54:
But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death…. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Notice some very important things here. Death is destroyed at the “rapture/resurrection.” It is the LAST enemy. There can be no more death after that point. But if death is the LAST enemy destroyed… it will not be destroyed until all other enemies have ALREADY been destroyed. Do you understand the implications of this?? The rapture/resurrection cannot happen before some Great Tribulation involving the whole earth where the satan is wreaking havoc. Satan is destroyed FIRST. And notice what Christ is doing before this last enemy is destroyed… He is reigning!!! That means by this point He has ALREADY received the Kingdom mentioned in Daniel 7:13, and He will reign until He has put an end to all rule and all authority and power. The coming in Daniel 7:13 (alluded to by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 16:27 and its parallels) is by necessity a different event than that in 1 Corinthians 15. Daniel is describing the inauguration of the Kingdom….. Paul is describing the consummation. Jerry’s view puts the cart totally before the horse and has the Kingdom consummated before it is even inaugurated.
This concept of the heavenly reign of Christ which progressively subjugates His foes is well-attested to in the OT. Psalm 110 (the most cited and/or alluded to OT passage in the NT) places Christ’s reign in Heaven (at the right hand of the Father) who tells Him to rule in the midst of His foes!! Sound familiar?? That is exactly what 1 Corinthians 15:25 is describing!! But… I have another way to prove my point, and its those pesky timing verses again. :doh: Notice that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24 says that prior to His coming, Jesus will put an END to all rule (Strong’s 746 – “arche”) and all authority (Strong’s 1849 – “exousia”) and power (Strong’s 1411 – “dumanis”). Well notice what Paul says in Ephesians 1:20-21:
… He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
Paul is teaching us that in the age in which he lived and wrote, Christ was ABOVE all principality (Strong’s 746 – “arche”) and power (Strong’s 1849 – “exousia”) and might (Strong’s 1411 – “dunamis”). Do these words sound familiar? They should, they are the same words used in 1 Corinthians 15:24 which describes the END of those things. So in these two passages Paul tells us that Christ will be reigning OVER those things in “this age” (the age in which Paul lived and wrote) and in the “age to come” but that there will come a time when Christ will put an END to all those things at which point the resurrection will occur. If you put these two ideas together in a synoptic fashion, it is painfully apparent that Christ will not put an END to these things until the end of the “age to come” from Paul’s perspective, for the resurrection happens on the “last day” (John 6:39-54). If we are to believe that the resurrection happens in our current age, then the age in which Paul lived HAS to have already ended. And in fact it did. Christ said it would end before the then living generation passed away (Matthew 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mark 8:38; 9:1; 13:30; Luke 9:27; 21:32). Paul earlier told the Corinthians that the end of the ages have come upon THEM (1 Corinthians 10:11) and the writer of Hebrews concurs (Hebrews 9:26). Peter said it was the last days (Acts 2:17) back then. The last days of what??? The last days of the Old Covenant order and the harlotrous Jewish polity (Hebrews 8:13). As it approached ever closer it no longer was just the last days, it was the last hour (1 John 2:18). The end of the age described in the Olivet Discourse is long past. Futurism suffers from extreme cognitive dissidence (the ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time) in this point. A systematic look at ALL the relevant timing passages in a comprehensive whole leaves no other conclusion. There was a great eschatological event on the horizon for the early church that would usher in the “age to come” which would be characterized by the spiritual rule of Christ in the midst of His foes.
Jerry seems to think it incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection in light of my view. Again Biblical literacy would help. Do we stop “waiting” for the resurrection simply because we die? How long did Abraham “wait” (same Greek word) for the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:10)?
To tie up some sundry loose ends Jerry attempts yet another really shallow effort at deflecting the force of the OT witness to the apocalyptic use of “cosmic disturbance” imagery. Jerry’s point is again defeated by the OT usage of these phrases. The location of the cosmic imagery in Isaiah 13:9-10; 34:4-5; Ezekiel 32:7-8 is ALSO said/implied to be “in heaven” as well, but Jerry does not believe that the universe dissolved in these ancient judgments. Why not?? In Ezekiel 32:7-8, God even declares that the earth reverted back to the primeval chaos… but Jerry does not take that literally. Why not?? And I had already pointed out that Jerry, if he would be consistent, would have the universe collapsing way too early, for in Revelation 6, it happens even before the 144,000 are sealed, a point which Jerry has doggedly avoided.
Jerry keeps insisting that the Great Tribulation is worldwide but again, did he deal with the points I raised?? Of course not then he wouldn’t be the Jerry that we all know and have various feelings about. I repeat…. The context of the Olivet Discourse is Judea and the judgment upon the apostate Jews of the first century. If one wants to avoid the judgment, all one needs to do is leave Judea (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21) … hardly a worldwide conflagration. Jerry brings up the Kingdom parables of Matthew 13 as “proof” that the Great Tribulation is a worldwide event, but that is again completely circular. He assumes what he needs to prove and then points to his assumption as his proof. And again, he is defeated by his own system. For example, he is taking Matthew 13:41 to mean that absolutely all wicked people on the earth will be removed and cast into hell simultaneously at the end of that age, and then the righteous will populate the Millennium. Really? Well putting aside the logistical absurdities of a Millennium populated by Christians in glorified bodies and Jewish tribulation saints in non-glorified bodies (and multiple physical resurrection events not taught in Scripture), Isaiah clearly states that there will be wicked people (and death – oops!!) in the Millennium (Isaiah 66:20). Where do they come from? Do some of the righteous at the "end of the age" turn bad?? No. The Kingdom parables are teaching about the inauguration of the Kingdom, with judgment beginning with God’s OT people and the outworking of His progressive redemption and judgment.
Now briefly back onto to the Amalekites….. Remember in Jerry’s prior post he said that I completely made up the concept that “the children of Amalek are counted corporately responsible and guilty of the crimes of their forefathers hundred of years earlier as if they did them themselves.” It seems now that Jerry has removed one foot from his mouth simply to insert the other… :nono:
It would be nice if Jerry actually read the passage before commenting… so here it is again.
Thus says the LORD of hosts: “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.”
The same concept of corporate solidarity in sin is present as in Matthew 23. Notice that the children of Amalek are counted as Amalek himself and thus ARE judicially reckoned as the “Amalek” who did the original crime, if not, God would be in violation of Ezekiel 18. And I am still waiting for the statistics of rampaging Jews trouncing Christians in synagogues and crucifying them. I live in a highly in a heavily Jewish demographic and need to know if I am in grave danger. :shocked:
Sigh. Another smokescreen from the Jerry-mander. The REAL issue before was not over “coming” or “going,” but over the location of the “coming.” Jesus is alluding to Daniel 7:13, something Jerry never disavowed, which is not speaking of a coming “down” to earth at all.
Yes, and Jesus said to the then-living High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would “see” the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64). Notice again, where are they to “see” Him?? SITTING at the right hand of power.... NOT coming down to earth. How can Christ be SITTING IN HEAVEN and COMING to Earth at the same time in Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic?? Oops, he forgot to answer that one.
Hmm, and Daniel 7:13 mentions coming down to the Earth where??
Now on to Jerry’s abuse of the parables. He said,
Those parables say nothing about returning in the same way that he left and notice that Jerry cannot be consistent in his application of who the “you” is again in this passage. He now appears to be taking the position that it is Christians who are being addressed here, but that would completely fly in the face of his insistence that the “you” of the Discourse refers to the Jewish race. If it is Christians that Christ is speaking to, even Jerry does not have Christ returning in the same way He left since when He comes for the Christians (in Jerry’s view) He does not even touch ground!!
When I pointed out that the man in the parables returns within the lifetimes of the people he left, Jerry correctly points out that parables do not fit perfectly the thing that they represent,but yet he goes on to try and force them to do exactly that where it suits him. The parables say nothing about how the man left or how he would return. Even the idea that the parabolic man would personally return is importing a modern assumption into the text. Remember the centurion whose servant was healed (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)?? Although the centurion sent representatives and did not go to Jesus personally, it was said it was the centurion himself who came to Jesus. If Jerry understood this ANE concept, he would not have gotten so confused and proven yet another point for me, and that is with the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers. He said,
Notice Jerry does not bother to try and substantively disprove (or even offer an alternative interpretation) that this parable refers to AD70, which is not disputed amongst any commentator that I am aware of, rather he is satisfied to just cast insinuative dispersions. I am also amazed that Jerry is betraying such a lack of Trinitarian understanding (see also John 14:18 and Isaiah 40:10) with this comment which could be the subject of a entire post in itself, but again notice the parallels with the parable Jerry cited. In both, the main subject is said to set up a situation in which servants would be stewards over his possessions and from whom he would require an accounting. (hint – that is the main point of the parables in question) In the Wicked Vinedressers parable the “owner” is quite obviously God the Father… and yet He ALSO is said to “travel” to a far country and “return.” It is painfully apparent from this that Jerry’s over-reliance on some alleged “physicality” of the traveling and returning aspects is grossly misplaced. And Jesus has already told us in the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:10) exactly how the Father will “come” to the apostates - But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Jerry again brings up Zechariah which I have already dealt with in-depth as to Jerry’s misuse of “that day.” Until he deals with that issue, there is nothing more to say without repeating myself. I will give the interested reader one hint though…. Jerry is confused as to who the true “Jerusalem” is …. but thankfully Hebrews 12:22 clears that up for us. God most certainly defended the true Jerusalem (Romans 12:19).
All in all though I am proud of Jerry. He took my advice and found some new insults for me and managed to whittle down his use of “deluded” to just once. Also he managed to say I was correct on two things without turning into a pillar of salt. Now that’s progress. A girl’s gotta be thankful for the little things.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The cream of Greek scholarship says...
The cream of Greek scholarship says...
Dee Dee says that the Lord came in the first century.But I pointed out that Paul taught that when the Lord comes then at that time the believers would receive new glorified bodies just like the Lord´s body.But since that did not happen it is obvious that the Lord did not come in the first century.I also pointed out that Paul was urging the Christians to be “waiting” for the Lord to return at any moment.
All Dee Dee can say about this is to wonder why I think that it is incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection.Of course Dee Dee did not address the real question,which is why would Paul exhort the Christians to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment if He could not possibly arrive until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.
So according to Dee Dee,it seems perfectly natural that Paul would urge the believers to be looking to the heavens for the arrival of the Lord,but he knew all along that the Lord would not be appearing in the sky until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.What a joke!
It is clear that Paul was indeed teaching that the time that they would receive their glorified bodies was at hand.He says “we ourselves groan within ourselves,WAITING for the adoption,that is,the redemption of our body”(Ro.8:23).
The word “waiting” is from the Greek word “apekdechomai”,meaning “assiduously and patiently to wait for”.Greek expert Samuel Bloomfield says that this word “signifies properly to thrust forward the head and neck as in anxious expectation of hearing or seeing something”(Anderson,”Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament”,p.92).Paul was teaching the Christians to be eagerly expecting the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ,and he would teach no such thing if the Lord could not possibly appear until after the Millennium.
Dee Dee then asks,”How long did Abraham ‘wait’ (same Greek word) for the New Jerusalem (Heb.11:10)?” Well,perhaps Dee Dee should look again.That is not the same Greek word,but instead is “ekdechomai”.Just another example of her carelessness.
The facts are plain.Paul was teaching the Christians to expect the Lord to return at any time,and when He did return they would receive their glorified bodies.And there can be absolutely no doubt at all that Paul was teaching that he expected the Lord to come within a brief period of time--”But this I say,brethren,The time is short”(1Cor.7:29)--“The Lord is at hand”(Phil.4:5).Also,the author of the epistle to the Hebrews said,”For yet a little while,and He that shall come will come,and will not tarry”(Heb.10:37).To top it off,the last words of the Lord to the church is “Surely,I come quickly”(Rev.22:20).
There can also be no doubt that Paul expected that some of those living in his day would still be alive to see the Lord´s return--“WE shall not all sleep,but WE SHALL ALL be changed…then WE WHO ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN shall be caught up together with them…and so shall WE ever be with the Lord”(1Cor.15:51;1Thess.4:17).John also says “we know that when He shall appear WE shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).
But then the scoffers will say,”Where is the promise of His coming?”(2Pet.3:4).The answer to this question is not doubtful.His words were to a FAITHFUL church,and not long after the Lord´s promise the Christians were anything but faithful.When the Gentile Christians witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem at the Bar Kockhaba war (AD 132-135) they REASONED that Israel would never be restored,despite the many Scriptural passages that teach the contrary (1Sam.12:22;2Sam.7:24;Ps.94:14).Noted church historian W.H.C.Frend writes that “all hope of a restored Temple and Holy City now faded,and the Jews were thrown on the defensive.The reference of the prophecies to an early restoration of the Jewish kingdom and Messiah in the form of a deliverer from Roman rule clearly had to be abandoned”(Frend,”The Old Testament in the Age of the Greek Apologists A.D. 130-180,”Scottish Journal of Theology 26 [1973]:135).
They put their REASON over GOD´S WORD and reasoned that God had cast away ethnic Israel (if they could only see Israel NOW!).After straying from the plain word of God,they began to teach all manner of errors,even including the false teaching that “works” were necessary for salvation and that the wine and bread of the memorial to the Lord was actually the blood and body of the Lord Jesus (“Justin,Fist Apology”,#15,16,66).The Lord´s promise of His coming quickly was to a FAITHFUL church,and by this time the church was anything but faithful.
“So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”,just as the children of Israel refused to enter the promised land.The Lord had redeemed them out of Egypt and had taken them to the promised land and said He would go before them and fight for them.But Israel sent spies into the land and REASONED that they could not possibly succeed against those living there.They followed their REASON and did not believe the Lord (Deut.1:32).
“And to whom swore He that they should not enter into His rest,but to them who believed not?So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb.3:18,19).
So the facts are plain.Paul was teaching the Christians to be expecting the appearing of the Lord at any time.And we know that the Lord did not come in the first century because we know that the Christians did not receive their new,glorified bodies in the first century.
Next,Dee Dee´s entire theory is based on the mistaken belief that the Lord will rule in heaven during the Millennium.She says that “the Messianic reign is not an earthly rule”.She says that Ps.110 places Christ´s reign in heaven.Well,that is not what that Psalm says.Go there and read it yourselves.She also says that Dan.7:9-14 prove that the Lord´s throne is in heaven,and that He will rule there.But it says no such thing.Instead,we can see that “there was given Him dominion,and glory,and a kingdom,that all people,nations,and languages shall serve Him”(v.14).This is only speaking of the bestowment of authority.Nothing whatsoever is said about the Lord ruling from heaven or His throne being set in heaven.
If Dee Dee wants CLEAR EVIDENCE from the OT,there are many prophecies that place the Throne of the Lord during the 1000 year reign right on earth.Ezekiel describes the city of Jerusalem during the Millennial reign,and he then says:
“It was,round about,eighteen thousand measures;and the name of the city from that day shall be,THE LORD IS THERE”(Ez.48:35).
Jeremiah also says that “at that time they shall call Jerusalem THE THRONE OF THE LORD,and all the nations shall be gathered unto it,to the name of the Lord,to Jerusalem…”(Jer.3:17).
Also,the prophet Zechariah also describes the Lord ruling from Jerusalem,saying “and it shall be that whosoever will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King,the Lord of Hosts,even upon them shall be no rain”(Zech.14:17).
So Scripture plainly places the throne of the Lord´s Millennium reign at Jerusalem,and not in heaven as Dee Dee lamely argues.Therefore,if one but will BELIEVE the plain teaching of the Lord´s prophets then there can be no doubt that the Lord will reign from earth during His millennial reign.And this completely destroys Dee Dee´s complete theology regarding the end times.
In my previous post,I had pointed out that at “the end of the age”(Mt.24:3) the Lord would send His angels and they would gather out of THE WORLD all things that offend (Mt.13:37-42).Dee Dee just can´t believe this,even though it is stated in BLACK AND WHITE—“The field is the WORLD”!!! Instead of believing Scripture,she uses her reasoning and says that this cannot be true because we see that during the Millennium that there will be evil people.Where do they come from if all the evil people are destroyed at the end of the age.Well,there will be some who will remain in their natural bodies in the 1000 year reign of the Lord Jesus (and since Dee Dee teaches that men in their natural bodies are now living in the kingdom,how can she deny this?).And these people will have offspring and some of those will be decived by Satan near the end of His 1000 year reign (Rev.20:8,9).But Dee Dee would rather DENY the plain words of the Lord when He says that at the end of the age that all the unrighteous will be taken out of the WORLD,and she denies His words because those words expose her teaching as being FALSE!
Next,we will expose Dee Dee´s teaching concerning the meaning of the Lord´s COMING.In an earlier post Dee Dee had said that “the cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer,Arndt and Gingrich) all agree with me…”(09-03-2002 01:29 PM).Let us now see what Thayer,”the cream of Greek scholarship”,says is the meaning of “coming”in the following verses:
“And what shall be the sign of Thy COMING,and the end of the age”(Mt.24:3).
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east,and shineth even unto the west,so shall also the COMING of the Son of Man be”(Mt.24:27).
Thayer says that “coming” neans “presence:…In the N.T. esp. of the ‘advent’,i.e. the future,visible return from heaven of Jesus the Messiah,to raise the dead,hold the last judgment,and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God: Mt. xxiv.3,27,37,39…”(“Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
VISIBLE RETURN!!
And perhaps Dee Dee should consider what her choice of Greek experts has to say about the following verse:
“This same Jesus,Who is taken up from you into heaven,shall so COME in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven”(Acts1:11).
Thayer says: “To come i.e. ‘to appear,make one´s appearance,come before the public’:...of the return of Jesus hereafter from heaven in majesty:Mt.x.23;ACTS 1:11…”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
Dee Dee denies that these verses speak of the Lord Jesus actually returning to earth.She says that He never leaves heaven.However,we can see that Peter was expecting Him to return as judged by His words to Israel on the day of Pentecost:
“Repent therefore and be converted,that your sins may be blotted out,so that the times of refreshing may come from the PRESENCE of the Lord,and that He may SEND JESUS…”(Acts3:19-20).
So it becomes OBVIOUS that the Apostles were expecting the Lord to COME bodily to the earth and to be in their PRESENCE.But Dee Dee has to deny the words of her own Greek expert in order to maintain her false theology.She says that Thayer represents the "cream of Greek scholarship”,but yet she denys his plain words as to the meaning of the word “coming” as it is used by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
Last of all,Dee Dee overlooked my question concerning how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.Earlier,I had asked her the meaning of the following verse:
“And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
She said that the Lord destroyed Rome by allowing her to defeat Jerusalem in AD70,and it was by this victory that Rome was destroyed.Well,the preceding verse says,”In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem”(v.8).Perhaps she will finally explain how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.
And while she is at it,perhaps she will explain why she denies her own Greek expert on the meaning of the word “coming” in the Olivet Discourse.And perhaps she will explain why she denies that the unrighteous will be taken out of the WORLD,even though the Lord expressly states that it is the WORLD!And maybe she will explain why we should believe her instead of the Scriptures that state in no uncertain terms that the Lord will rule from earth and His throne will be on earth.
She has a lot of explaining to do,but all she ever seems to do is deny the plain teaching of Scripture when it does not fit into her little theories.
The cream of Greek scholarship says...
Dee Dee says that the Lord came in the first century.But I pointed out that Paul taught that when the Lord comes then at that time the believers would receive new glorified bodies just like the Lord´s body.But since that did not happen it is obvious that the Lord did not come in the first century.I also pointed out that Paul was urging the Christians to be “waiting” for the Lord to return at any moment.
All Dee Dee can say about this is to wonder why I think that it is incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection.Of course Dee Dee did not address the real question,which is why would Paul exhort the Christians to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment if He could not possibly arrive until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.
So according to Dee Dee,it seems perfectly natural that Paul would urge the believers to be looking to the heavens for the arrival of the Lord,but he knew all along that the Lord would not be appearing in the sky until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.What a joke!
It is clear that Paul was indeed teaching that the time that they would receive their glorified bodies was at hand.He says “we ourselves groan within ourselves,WAITING for the adoption,that is,the redemption of our body”(Ro.8:23).
The word “waiting” is from the Greek word “apekdechomai”,meaning “assiduously and patiently to wait for”.Greek expert Samuel Bloomfield says that this word “signifies properly to thrust forward the head and neck as in anxious expectation of hearing or seeing something”(Anderson,”Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament”,p.92).Paul was teaching the Christians to be eagerly expecting the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ,and he would teach no such thing if the Lord could not possibly appear until after the Millennium.
Dee Dee then asks,”How long did Abraham ‘wait’ (same Greek word) for the New Jerusalem (Heb.11:10)?” Well,perhaps Dee Dee should look again.That is not the same Greek word,but instead is “ekdechomai”.Just another example of her carelessness.
The facts are plain.Paul was teaching the Christians to expect the Lord to return at any time,and when He did return they would receive their glorified bodies.And there can be absolutely no doubt at all that Paul was teaching that he expected the Lord to come within a brief period of time--”But this I say,brethren,The time is short”(1Cor.7:29)--“The Lord is at hand”(Phil.4:5).Also,the author of the epistle to the Hebrews said,”For yet a little while,and He that shall come will come,and will not tarry”(Heb.10:37).To top it off,the last words of the Lord to the church is “Surely,I come quickly”(Rev.22:20).
There can also be no doubt that Paul expected that some of those living in his day would still be alive to see the Lord´s return--“WE shall not all sleep,but WE SHALL ALL be changed…then WE WHO ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN shall be caught up together with them…and so shall WE ever be with the Lord”(1Cor.15:51;1Thess.4:17).John also says “we know that when He shall appear WE shall be like Him”(1Jn.3:2).
But then the scoffers will say,”Where is the promise of His coming?”(2Pet.3:4).The answer to this question is not doubtful.His words were to a FAITHFUL church,and not long after the Lord´s promise the Christians were anything but faithful.When the Gentile Christians witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem at the Bar Kockhaba war (AD 132-135) they REASONED that Israel would never be restored,despite the many Scriptural passages that teach the contrary (1Sam.12:22;2Sam.7:24;Ps.94:14).Noted church historian W.H.C.Frend writes that “all hope of a restored Temple and Holy City now faded,and the Jews were thrown on the defensive.The reference of the prophecies to an early restoration of the Jewish kingdom and Messiah in the form of a deliverer from Roman rule clearly had to be abandoned”(Frend,”The Old Testament in the Age of the Greek Apologists A.D. 130-180,”Scottish Journal of Theology 26 [1973]:135).
They put their REASON over GOD´S WORD and reasoned that God had cast away ethnic Israel (if they could only see Israel NOW!).After straying from the plain word of God,they began to teach all manner of errors,even including the false teaching that “works” were necessary for salvation and that the wine and bread of the memorial to the Lord was actually the blood and body of the Lord Jesus (“Justin,Fist Apology”,#15,16,66).The Lord´s promise of His coming quickly was to a FAITHFUL church,and by this time the church was anything but faithful.
“So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”,just as the children of Israel refused to enter the promised land.The Lord had redeemed them out of Egypt and had taken them to the promised land and said He would go before them and fight for them.But Israel sent spies into the land and REASONED that they could not possibly succeed against those living there.They followed their REASON and did not believe the Lord (Deut.1:32).
“And to whom swore He that they should not enter into His rest,but to them who believed not?So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb.3:18,19).
So the facts are plain.Paul was teaching the Christians to be expecting the appearing of the Lord at any time.And we know that the Lord did not come in the first century because we know that the Christians did not receive their new,glorified bodies in the first century.
Next,Dee Dee´s entire theory is based on the mistaken belief that the Lord will rule in heaven during the Millennium.She says that “the Messianic reign is not an earthly rule”.She says that Ps.110 places Christ´s reign in heaven.Well,that is not what that Psalm says.Go there and read it yourselves.She also says that Dan.7:9-14 prove that the Lord´s throne is in heaven,and that He will rule there.But it says no such thing.Instead,we can see that “there was given Him dominion,and glory,and a kingdom,that all people,nations,and languages shall serve Him”(v.14).This is only speaking of the bestowment of authority.Nothing whatsoever is said about the Lord ruling from heaven or His throne being set in heaven.
If Dee Dee wants CLEAR EVIDENCE from the OT,there are many prophecies that place the Throne of the Lord during the 1000 year reign right on earth.Ezekiel describes the city of Jerusalem during the Millennial reign,and he then says:
“It was,round about,eighteen thousand measures;and the name of the city from that day shall be,THE LORD IS THERE”(Ez.48:35).
Jeremiah also says that “at that time they shall call Jerusalem THE THRONE OF THE LORD,and all the nations shall be gathered unto it,to the name of the Lord,to Jerusalem…”(Jer.3:17).
Also,the prophet Zechariah also describes the Lord ruling from Jerusalem,saying “and it shall be that whosoever will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King,the Lord of Hosts,even upon them shall be no rain”(Zech.14:17).
So Scripture plainly places the throne of the Lord´s Millennium reign at Jerusalem,and not in heaven as Dee Dee lamely argues.Therefore,if one but will BELIEVE the plain teaching of the Lord´s prophets then there can be no doubt that the Lord will reign from earth during His millennial reign.And this completely destroys Dee Dee´s complete theology regarding the end times.
In my previous post,I had pointed out that at “the end of the age”(Mt.24:3) the Lord would send His angels and they would gather out of THE WORLD all things that offend (Mt.13:37-42).Dee Dee just can´t believe this,even though it is stated in BLACK AND WHITE—“The field is the WORLD”!!! Instead of believing Scripture,she uses her reasoning and says that this cannot be true because we see that during the Millennium that there will be evil people.Where do they come from if all the evil people are destroyed at the end of the age.Well,there will be some who will remain in their natural bodies in the 1000 year reign of the Lord Jesus (and since Dee Dee teaches that men in their natural bodies are now living in the kingdom,how can she deny this?).And these people will have offspring and some of those will be decived by Satan near the end of His 1000 year reign (Rev.20:8,9).But Dee Dee would rather DENY the plain words of the Lord when He says that at the end of the age that all the unrighteous will be taken out of the WORLD,and she denies His words because those words expose her teaching as being FALSE!
Next,we will expose Dee Dee´s teaching concerning the meaning of the Lord´s COMING.In an earlier post Dee Dee had said that “the cream of Greek scholarship (Thayer,Arndt and Gingrich) all agree with me…”(09-03-2002 01:29 PM).Let us now see what Thayer,”the cream of Greek scholarship”,says is the meaning of “coming”in the following verses:
“And what shall be the sign of Thy COMING,and the end of the age”(Mt.24:3).
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east,and shineth even unto the west,so shall also the COMING of the Son of Man be”(Mt.24:27).
Thayer says that “coming” neans “presence:…In the N.T. esp. of the ‘advent’,i.e. the future,visible return from heaven of Jesus the Messiah,to raise the dead,hold the last judgment,and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God: Mt. xxiv.3,27,37,39…”(“Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
VISIBLE RETURN!!
And perhaps Dee Dee should consider what her choice of Greek experts has to say about the following verse:
“This same Jesus,Who is taken up from you into heaven,shall so COME in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven”(Acts1:11).
Thayer says: “To come i.e. ‘to appear,make one´s appearance,come before the public’:...of the return of Jesus hereafter from heaven in majesty:Mt.x.23;ACTS 1:11…”(“Thayer´s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament”).
Dee Dee denies that these verses speak of the Lord Jesus actually returning to earth.She says that He never leaves heaven.However,we can see that Peter was expecting Him to return as judged by His words to Israel on the day of Pentecost:
“Repent therefore and be converted,that your sins may be blotted out,so that the times of refreshing may come from the PRESENCE of the Lord,and that He may SEND JESUS…”(Acts3:19-20).
So it becomes OBVIOUS that the Apostles were expecting the Lord to COME bodily to the earth and to be in their PRESENCE.But Dee Dee has to deny the words of her own Greek expert in order to maintain her false theology.She says that Thayer represents the "cream of Greek scholarship”,but yet she denys his plain words as to the meaning of the word “coming” as it is used by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
Last of all,Dee Dee overlooked my question concerning how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.Earlier,I had asked her the meaning of the following verse:
“And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12:9).
She said that the Lord destroyed Rome by allowing her to defeat Jerusalem in AD70,and it was by this victory that Rome was destroyed.Well,the preceding verse says,”In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem”(v.8).Perhaps she will finally explain how the Lord defended the inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD70.
And while she is at it,perhaps she will explain why she denies her own Greek expert on the meaning of the word “coming” in the Olivet Discourse.And perhaps she will explain why she denies that the unrighteous will be taken out of the WORLD,even though the Lord expressly states that it is the WORLD!And maybe she will explain why we should believe her instead of the Scriptures that state in no uncertain terms that the Lord will rule from earth and His throne will be on earth.
She has a lot of explaining to do,but all she ever seems to do is deny the plain teaching of Scripture when it does not fit into her little theories.
- Status