Author Topic: Willing to debate a preterist  (Read 1952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Willing to debate a preterist
« on: Wed Dec 19, 2012 - 05:04:54 »
I trust that I am in the right place.  I was ask to post a question and those who are Preterit in their beliefs will answer.    I am willing to debate any subject with anyone on Matthew 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21 and Revelation.  For a start let us consider this question: "What or who is the abomination of desolation?"of Matthew 24

I ask that we use only the KJV of 1611 as our only source of scriptures and proof.  No extra biblical source will be accepted with me, for I believe just as the Lord said: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.  Our Lord never step outside of the scriptures of truth to prove any doctrine, but always directed men to search the scriptures~ John 5:39 and that I am willing to do.

If that topic does not sound good, then about Mystery Babylon, the great? Or, you chose one.

I will conduct myself in a gracious manner, and will not attack the person, but will only goes after false doctrine.  Personal attacks have no place in the life of the godly, who are seeking truth.  Beside, one could hurt the spirit of a true child of God in error, and all of us should labor to avoid that.  Specially, since I do not like a millstone to be put around my neck, and to be cast into the sea.
« Last Edit: Wed Dec 19, 2012 - 05:07:13 by Red Baker »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Willing to debate a preterist
« on: Wed Dec 19, 2012 - 05:04:54 »

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Manna: 359
  • Gender: Male
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #1 on: Thu Dec 27, 2012 - 17:05:16 »
I'll take a debate if no full preterist wants it.  But I'm only a partial preterist, and not necessarily the best representative of 'preterism' as a movement, since I believe some things the typical preterist does not.  There are some prophecies that I think are still in the future.

I'm agreeable to using only the KJV of the Bible (don't really care what version), but any argument for preterism will naturally use historical sources as well.  The essence of any argument for preterism is comparing what Scripture says to the record of what happened.  That's inescapable. 

You certainly don't need to consider histories as authoritative like Scriptures, but they deserve consideration of the kind any history would get - they are dissected as to what is facts, what is opinions, what is spin or out-and-out untruth.  I'm sure you dislike Josephus, and that's fine, since I dislike him too. ::wink::

Have we an agreement?

notreligus

  • Guest
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #2 on: Mon Jan 07, 2013 - 11:04:08 »
There's nothing to debate.  We're still waiting for Christ to return to set up a kingdom here on the Earth, one that is not going to be temporary.

Lehigh

  • Guest
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jan 07, 2013 - 18:46:50 »
There's nothing to debate.  We're still waiting for Christ to return to set up a kingdom here on the Earth, one that is not going to be temporary.

Sounds like the same reason the Jews didn't accept Jesus as their Messiah.  They expected a real king on David's throne (who was a man of war) that would overthrow the Romans.

Apparently there is a lot to debate. Jesus said the kingdom of God was"at hand" 2,000 years ago., so it is spiritual and not physical.

True, this life is temporal. But I know I have eternal life now, and when I die, I will not come into judgment, but will go directly to my eternal home in heaven!

That's what the Scriptures teach.   


Offline Stormcrow

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #4 on: Fri Jan 17, 2014 - 03:02:16 »
Quote
What or who is the abomination of desolation?"of Matthew 24

Luke interprets Matthew:

"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)...Matthew 24:15 (NASB)
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Luke 21:20 (NASB)

Quote
What Cestius Did Against the Jews; And How, Upon His Besieging Jerusalem, He Retreated from the City Without Any Just Occasion In the World. As Also What Severe Calamities He Under Went from the Jews In His Retreat.

The Works of Flavius Josephus.

Cestius surrounded the city of Jerusalem in 66AD, at the beginning of the Jewish revolt that led to war with Rome.  Those who wanted no part in a war with Rome opened one of the city gates to him, but - completely inexplicably - he refused their request to enter the city and turned his army around, abandoning the siege.  Josephus tells the rest of the story:

It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

The Works of Flavius Josephus.

The Jews pursued Cestius's 12th legion and destroyed most of it.  At this point, many in the city believed the war with Rome to be over, and stayed inside it.  But every Christian and some Jews inside fled, heeding the words of Christ.

Quote
After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city as from a ship when it was going to sink...

The Works of Flavius Josephus.
Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you.  For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.  While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 (NASB)

Jerusalem was destroyed three-and-a-half years later.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 17, 2014 - 03:29:38 by Stormcrow »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #4 on: Fri Jan 17, 2014 - 03:02:16 »



Offline clark thompson

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 3
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #5 on: Fri Jan 17, 2014 - 07:06:05 »
I don't agree with the preterists view.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #6 on: Fri Jan 17, 2014 - 07:15:16 »
Quote


I don't agree with the preterists view.


Then, thank the God of heaven for giving you light to save you from a system that offers no hope to those entrapped in it. 


Offline Stormcrow

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #7 on: Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:38:22 »
Quote
Then, thank the God of heaven for giving you light to save you from a system that offers no hope to those entrapped in it.

I thank God He saved me from the false hope of Dispy/Futurism.  Those who believe in it have built their houses on sand.  Good luck with that.

Offline raggthyme13

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Manna: 10
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #8 on: Mon Jan 20, 2014 - 00:40:37 »
Quote


I don't agree with the preterists view.


Then, thank the God of heaven for giving you light to save you from a system that offers no hope to those entrapped in it.

My hope is heaven, regardless of my eschatological view.

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #9 on: Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 08:17:28 »
Greetings everyone. I have been following these "discussions" and have observed something very characteristic of such exchanges.  While this has been labeled as a call for debate, it is really nothing more than argumentation.  This has been commonly the case when I have dealt with futurists.  True debate involves educated and reasoned presentation of one's position. I have found that most futurists do not really know their own position well enough to biblically defend it.  They argue with teachings they have been taught but which they cannot adequately defend. They refuse to be "confused by the facts." 

Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, preterism is arrived at through diligent and intelligent investigation of the plain teachings of Scripture.  It is attained through a willingness to lay aside one's preconceived ideas and to, if necessary, abandon one's paradigm in the light of truth.  Many who remain in futurism do so because they are comfortable there and they love their system and what if offers them more than they love the truth of the Bible!  I am sorry to have to say it, but that is exactly the attitude that kept me in the errors of dispensationalism for over twenty years!

Here is the difference between arguing and debating:  http://vspages.com/argument-vs-debate-the-difference-between-1152/

If we would like to actually engage in debate using intelligent and proven Bible study methods, I would love to participate. I have no interest in just another back and forth dialogue with those who refuse to accept the plain teachings of Scripture but choose to resort to the teachings of men who have taught them along the way. That is fruitless and always leads to name calling and argumentation with the result that no one learns anything. The originator of this thread, I regret to say, seems not to be searching for truth or to be sincerely open to what others might say, but is interested only in slamming his opposition and retaining his beliefs at all costs--even at the expense of twisting Scripture and redefining terms to suit his cause. 

Are we truth seekers?  Then "come now and let us reason together."  Anything else is a foolish waste of time.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #10 on: Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 09:12:26 »
Quote
The originator of this thread, I regret to say, seems not to be searching for truth or to be sincerely open to what others might say, but is interested only in slamming his opposition and retaining his beliefs at all costs--even at the expense of twisting Scripture and redefining terms to suit his cause. 

You saw all that in what little I said? How could you honestly say:

Quote
retaining his beliefs at all costs--even at the expense of twisting Scripture and redefining terms to suit his cause.

When not scriptures or not even one point has been discussed, as of yet?

Quote
is interested only in slamming his opposition

Do you read carefully my words?  I said plainly:

Quote
Personal attacks have no place in the life of the godly, who are seeking truth.  Beside, one could hurt the spirit of a true child of God in error, and all of us should labor to avoid that.  Specially, since I do not like a millstone to be put around my neck, and to be cast into the sea.

I do indeed reject  the Preterist view, as a serious corruption of the word of God.  I would debate if one will only used the scriptures and no "extra-biblical" source to support their doctrine.  I have no desire to step outside of the scriptures to teach bible doctrine, and I will not.

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #11 on: Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 09:58:48 »
The "what" of the abomination of desolation cannot be found unless we first determine the "when" of it. Clearly, it was in that first-century generation just as Jesus declared it would be (Mat. 24, Mark 16, Luke 21).

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #12 on: Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 15:20:04 »
The "what" of the abomination of desolation cannot be found unless we first determine the "when" of it. Clearly, it was in that first-century generation just as Jesus declared it would be (Mat. 24, Mark 16, Luke 21).

The abomination of desolation is defined more by what it is, than when it shall be when fully manifested. Jesus said when ye shall see the abomination of desolation standeth where it ought not to stand. (Mark 13:14)  So, one must understand what it is, before he can be correct on the timely of it.  The timely means nothing if you are looking for the wrong object.  But, if one has both the object and the timely correct, than he will be prepared for it when it appears in its full manifestation. 

Quote
Clearly, it was in that first-century generation just as Jesus declared it would be (Mat. 24, Mark 16, Luke 21).

Wrong~you are assuming that this generation by its sound bites, means the then present generation of people then living.  But the word of God will not support your assumption.  Question: In what sense did Jesus, John the Baptist, David and Solomon, to name just a few, used the word generation in their teachings?  Did they used the word generation to denote a certain amount of time that people lived at the same period of time; or, a type of people that lived during those times?  Psalm 12; Proverbs 30:11-14; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 23:33!  To give just a few scriptures.  The common use of the word generation, is not God use of the word, for the most part.  God's word is its own dictionary, and it will indeed defined its own use of words. 
« Last Edit: Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 15:39:47 by Red Baker »

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #13 on: Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 16:51:51 »
Red, the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet was to be seen by THOSE disciples standing right there with Jesus.  WE are NOT the YE!  Luke further defines it as the time when armies would surround Jerusalem. That was clearly fulfilled in AD 70 when the Roman armies encircled the that first-century city.  There is nothing in this passage or in the NT that teaches your wrong concept of a “full manifestation.” This is a futurist method of eisegesis developed to uphold a paradigm and not proper exegesis of the text.

As for “this generation,” you and all futurists refuse to accept the clear teaching behind this expression because it does not fit your preconceived ideas. Jesus used that expression 20 times in the NT.  Peter used it once to describe HIS generation in Acts 2:40. Any student of the Bible, upon studying these contexts, if not blinded by his preconceptions, can readily see that “this generation” clearly indicates those contemporaneous to Jesus.

Check them out:

Matthew 11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12 (2x); 8:38; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 17:25; 21:32; Acts 2:40.
Jesus meant HIS generation. Peter meant HIS generation. It is nothing less than hermeneutical gymnastics and textual contortionism to make this expression mean anything else. Please be honest with the words of the text.  Is your paradigm really of more value than truth?

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #14 on: Wed Mar 05, 2014 - 05:53:50 »
Red, the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet was to be seen by THOSE disciples standing right there with Jesus.  WE are NOT the YE!  Luke further defines it as the time when armies would surround Jerusalem. That was clearly fulfilled in AD 70 when the Roman armies encircled the that first-century city. 

Greetings~

Again, you are assuming this, but this is not what the scriptures are teaching.  Much like a man traveling in the desert, who thinks he see water because he so desperately desires to see water! I know that men like you need to convince yourself and others that the Abomination of desolation in the Oilvet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D.~but there is so much within those scriptures themselves, and throughout the NT that will not support first century fulfillment. You men must divide Matthew 24 from Matthew 25, but it is one discourse covering the same period of time, one cannot deny that truth. 

Quote
WE are NOT the YE!

The Lord Jesus spoke to his disciples, of which we are. We accept this methodology in other parts of the scriptures, why not here? John 14-16 That's a very weak argument, one that will not stand up against the scriptures.  All this does is to slow down young believers in coming to the truth, as they must sort out all of the tricks used by the devil to turn men from the truth.

Quote
Luke further defines it as the time when armies would surround Jerusalem.

What would men do without having sound bites to use to teach their false doctrines and to give it somewhat some credibility? 

Again, you cannot teach truth base upon sound bites and wishful thinking.  You are again assuming Jerusalem means the literal city in the middle east.  You are assuming that the armies are the Romans.  Scriptures will interpret for us who is Jerusalem and who the armies are.

Revelation 20:9 

"And they went up on the breath of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Revelation 20:9 is the commentary of Luke 21:20! Interpreted not by Red Baker, but by the Holy Ghost Himself! The beloved city are saints, the spiritual Jerusalem, which is from above; Mount Zion, the true city of the Great King.  That's the kind of interpretation that God's people can received.  One that is not supported by sound bites and assumptions, but by the Living God.   

To be continue....
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 05, 2014 - 06:02:41 by Red Baker »

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #15 on: Wed Mar 05, 2014 - 07:42:50 »
Sound bites? Assumptions?  Really?

I am employing common, established, usual, and recognized methods of biblical interpretation, Red.

Jesus was clearly speaking to those disciples right there with Him. When He said "YE," He meant THEM.  Simply because you (and I mean you because I am directly speaking to you--just as Jesus was speaking to THOSE disciples) don't like what that entails, is no reason to throw out sound principles of exegesis.

I am making no assumptions--I am reading the text in its usual, normal, common sense.  Furthermore, I do NOT divide Matthew 24 and 25. They ARE the same time frame--the first century AD [pre-AD 70)!

Red, do you hear yourself?  Jesus said "Jerusalem" during the time when THAT Jerusalem was still standing and alive and well. What in the name of all that is reasonable makes you think that His disciples or we are to understand that He meant some other city?  That is ridiculous. Assumptions?  Brother, you are the spokesperson for assumptions and yet you falsely accuse others of making them.

Yes, we are Jesus' disciples too, BUT, it was not WE whom Jesus was addressing in the Olivet Discourse. You are completely ignoring audience relevance and historical setting.

The plain, normal, usual, common, and hermeneutical way to view the Olivet Discourse is that Jesus is speaking to those very disciples and telling them about things that were going to directly impact them in their lifetime--in the THIS generation. Again, you are reading your paradigm into the text and making it fit your preconceived ideas. It is you who is employing "wishful thinking" and not I.  I will not debate long with someone who will not look honestly at the words of Scripture.

"When YOU [my disciples standing right here with Me] see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet . . . ."

WE are NOT the YE, Red!

It is the timing that you choose to ignore that causes you to stumble and to attack those who recognize it.  All of the things Jesus told His disciples were to happen in THEIR lifetime. That is the clear meaning of "THIS generation."

Furthermore, everything within the Revelation is constrained to the time frame John was given. He was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place because the time for their fulfillment was THEN near (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10).  Revelation 20 falls within that clearly presented time frame.

So, let's really look at Revelation 20, shall we. The term "beloved city," first of all, was used of historical Jerusalem BUT it is being applied here to the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church! Revelation is a book of much symbolism; one expects to find figurative language and symbolic relevance there. We must read the Scriptures with an understanding of the different genres used to convey truth (e.g. history, poetry, narrative, prophetic).  When Jesus is speaking to His disciples right there with Him, He is employing simple narrative. When He says JERUSALEM and that historic JERUSALEM is still standing right around them, we understand that He was speaking of THAT very Jerusalem.  Sound bite; wishful thinking?  No! Proper exegesis, Red.  NOT eisegesis but exegesis.

The Abomination of Desolation involved the surrounding of first-century Jerusalem by the Roman armies. The text is clear!

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #16 on: Sat Mar 08, 2014 - 12:07:18 »
Clark Thompson, why are you here on a debate thread but are unwilling to debate. No one who debates takes his turn and simply says "I disagree."  That is not debating.  Why do you disagree with preterism--specifically with Scriptural support?

Offline Stormcrow

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #17 on: Mon Mar 10, 2014 - 01:12:03 »
Quote
The Lord Jesus spoke to his disciples, of which we are.

Where is your name in the gospels as one of those that Jesus addressed on the Mount of Olives?   ::frown::

Which of the disciples were you that was standing right in front of Christ when He said this:

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:28 (NIV2011)

If you were not one of those disciples living at the time Jesus spoke these words, then these words were not meant for you!   ::frown::

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #18 on: Mon Mar 10, 2014 - 05:36:49 »
Quote
The Lord Jesus spoke to his disciples, of which we are.

Where is your name in the gospels as one of those that Jesus addressed on the Mount of Olives?   If you were not one of those disciples living at the time Jesus spoke these words, then these words were not meant for you!

Question: Matthew 24,25 and Mark 13 are the very same time frame discourse, which all know that to be so~ correct? It is correct.  Listen to Jesus' words as he is finishing speaking to his disciples:

Mark 13:33-37

"Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is as 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 even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:  lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto YOU I SAY UNTO ALL."

"ALL" that will ever read those words from the lips of the Son of God. All of the church of Jesus Christ, from the apostles (even those not present when he spoke those words to Peter, Andrew, and James and John) to the very last saint that will ever read those words before our Lord returns bodily, just as he left this world!  

How plain is that scripture?  For men like you, it is not plain enough, for you will still try to corrupt the Lord Jesus' words.   You folks play with words, to teach lies.  How else is God to warn others beside the then disciples he was speaking to?  He is not limited, we all know that, yet he has chosen to speak to every saint that would ever read those words spoken to the four disciples, as though he was speaking directly to them. This is the method that God has chosen to speak to us.  We all could just walk outside of our house and pick a leaf off of a tree a have a message from God, if he so willed to do that, but we know that he has not.  It is through the word of God, writing and speaking directly to the people then living, to speak to us!

Example~ In Genesis 50:24-26 we read these words:

"And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of the this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.  And Joesph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and YE SHALL CARRY UP MY BONES FROM HENCE.  So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt."

Joseph was speaking to those brethren right before his presence, yet, it was NOT them that carried him out of Egypt, because, he was put in a coffin in Egypt! and there stay until he was brought forth BY MOSES, who was not there when Joseph spoke those words to Israel! This was accordingly done; when Israel went out of Egypt, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, and they were buried in Shechem; see ( Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32 ) .

There are other examples of speech, where when speaking to a people of a family or group, you are speaking to all of them of doing and following the same thing.  This is the method God has chosen to speak to us. He no longer speak to us at sundry times and in divers manners, but through the voices of the prophets and apostles from his word. Acts 13:27

In Closing one more example:

Malachi 4:5

"Behold, I will send YOU Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:"

Did God send John the Baptist to Malachi's generation, or the Jews living four hundred years later?  In other words, the YOU was not THEM four hundred years later, yet God used the word you when speaking of THEM that was to come four hundred years later!  Interesting.  But, how else is God to convey his message to us, other than this method that he has chosen.  God is not limited, he can take one thing and used it in one thousand different ways, all serving his glorious eternal purposes in Jesus Christ.
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 10, 2014 - 08:58:54 by Red Baker »

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #19 on: Mon Mar 10, 2014 - 09:18:10 »
Here's my basic problem with many futurists--so often, they lack the very fundamental skills acquired in Bible Study Techniques 101. This is certainly evident in Red's feeble and misguided attempt to downplay the direct address of many NT passages and the relevance to THAT generation of things written and taught there.  Let's take Red's passages one at a time and show exactly what they mean beyond his surface perusal overshadowed by his predispositions to futurism.

WHO is corrupting the words of Jesus, Red?  YOU are.  Yet you accuse others.  Let's do something foreign to most futurists--let's look at the context of Mark 13:33-37.  Jesus is clearly speaking to specific, flesh-and-blood people right there with Him when He says "you."  He has just told THEM that all the things He has just warned THEM of would happen in THEIR generation.  So when He says that what He says to THEM He says to ALL, the ALL falls within the confines of THIS GENERATION only.  Bible Study Techniques 101!  Neither THEY nor Jesus knew the DAY or the HOUR or the exact TIME, BUT THEY knew the generation, Red--THAT GENERATION.   YOU are the one twisting Jesus' plain words and you are without excuse.

Now, let's look at Genesis 50 to see how you have totally misapplied basic hermeneutical principles to advance your preconceived ideas.  This involves the taking of an oath. Throughout the generations from Joseph to Moses that oath which Joseph's brothers took was passed along.  Joseph knew that the thing would be fulfilled but he did not know when. The oath was to be passed along until such time as it was fulfilled. Moses continued that oath.  He even repeated the words spoken by Joseph.  This oath was given to the nation of Israel. There are no specifics here and there is no exact time frame given.  And Joseph is NOT Jesus!

The same is true of Malachi.  Malachi was not speaking to any specific individuals. He was speaking to the nation as a whole.  Notice the preface:  "The burden of the word of the Lord TO ISRAELl by Malachi."  There are no individuals standing there listening to Malachi speak directly to them to tell them something specific that was to happen to them specifically at that time.  This was a prophecy given to the NATION OF ISRAEL which was to be fulfilled in John the Baptist!

When Jesus is speaking to THOSE VERY INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLES STANDING RIGHT THERE WITH HIM, he is NOT addressing the nation of Israel.  He is addressing those individual disciples. The context is plain to anyone not blinded by his preconceived ideas.  Furthermore, in spite of your dishonest dealings with the text, Jesus made it very clear that He was predicting things that were to happen to THEM in THAT generation.  You will never find truth, Red, as long as you insist on using eisegesis rather than exegesis.  THEY did NOT know the day nor the hour BUT THEY knew the generation. Stop manipulating Jesus' words. The consequences are that you will never come to truth and you will be guilty of misleading others.  It is a serious thing to seek to be a teacher--the consequence of teaching error are grave.

Red, I want YOU to go out to the neighboring city, untie a colt you find there, and take to Jesus! Wasn't that spoken to us?  Jesus was speaking directly to some of His disciples but, according to your lame Bible study techniques, He must want us also to get Him a colt upon which to ride into Jerusalem. How about when He told His disciples to gather up the remaining bread and fish after feeding the thousands?  Aren't we supposed to do that too?  After all, He was clearly speaking to those very disciples but surely He must have also meant us, right?

You will say, "that's ridiculous because clearly He meant those disciples because it was a specific time and a specific event."  You are right.  The SAME is true of the Olivet Discourse.  WE are NOT the YE, Red. Those specific events were to happen to those disciples in THEIR generation.


Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #20 on: Mon Mar 10, 2014 - 10:29:42 »
WHO is corrupting the words of Jesus, Red?  YOU are.  Yet you accuse others.  Let's do something foreign to most futurists--let's look at the context of Mark 13:33-37.  Jesus is clearly speaking to specific, flesh-and-blood people right there with Him when He says "you."  He has just told THEM that all the things He has just warned THEM of would happen in THEIR generation.  So when He says that what He says to THEM He says to ALL, the ALL falls within the confines of THIS GENERATION only.  Bible Study Techniques 101!  Neither THEY nor Jesus knew the DAY or the HOUR or the exact TIME, BUT THEY knew the generation, Red--THAT GENERATION.   YOU are the one twisting Jesus' plain words and you are without excuse

We shall allow others to judge concerning which one of us are corrupting the scriptures.  That's generally why we have debates, for the benefit of others listening.  What we do is to debate the phrase~"THIS generation", because the Preterist and Historic's position (half-baked Preterist) stands or falls on the true interpretation of THIS generation.  Until this is settled, much will be fruitless.

I have a lunch appointment, we will be back later to deal with this all important point. 

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #21 on: Mon Mar 10, 2014 - 10:51:01 »
Futurism stands or falls on "this generation."

Offline SeekingWisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 1
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #22 on: Sat Mar 15, 2014 - 18:58:31 »
First, I am new to this forum and hope to engage in intellectual, scripture-based discussion.  I don't expect everyone to believe or even care about my views, but nonetheless hope that I can share them.

Red: In Matthew 16:28, the 'ye' is qualified.  He defines 'ye' as "some who are standing here" and even further says they will not taste death first.  This makes the passage inherently different from the ones you cited. 

Now, on the original question.  Daniel 9:27 provides some color on the abomination that causes desolation.  In it, we find the 'where'.  The abomination will be setup on a wing of the temple.  But, that temple was destroyed in 70AD.  Why should we look further than the events of 70AD for the abomination?    In a similar manner, when we are presented with Luke 20:21-22 (paraphrase: when Jerusalem is surrounded, desolation near, fulfillment of all that has been written) why look further than the next time that happened (70AD)?

- A brother in Christ 

Offline LetGodBeTrue

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #23 on: Mon Mar 17, 2014 - 10:43:15 »
SeekingWisdom, they must look further because to accept THAT Temple in THAT time frame destroys their paradigm and their preconceived ideas.  Do not expect fair debate here. Futurists love to accuse preterists of twisting the Scriptures, totally and with shameless bias overlooking the FACT that their whole system is based on the manipulation of SIMPLE words in the Scriptures.

The biggest hurdle in these debates is the clear setting forth of terminology. Both sides use the same terms but with different meanings. How can we possible understand one another or come to agreement?  It is like two people lying on their backs in a meadow and looking up at the cumulus cloud formations overhead. Rarely will they see the same thing in the same clouds!  It is almost as if one side is on AM and the other is on FM. They cannot communicate with one another unless they get on the same frequency--an unquenchable desire for truth no matter what the harm to one's preconceived ideas!  "it's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

Prepare for frustration, SeekingWisdom!
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 17, 2014 - 10:46:12 by LetGodBeTrue »

Offline SeekingWisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Manna: 1
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #24 on: Mon Mar 17, 2014 - 13:25:58 »
I don't mind the frustration. I see it nearly every day whether its in people not wanting to engage in discussion because they have no desire for other views or they are willing to discuss but are generally closed minded.

I'm hopeful for good discussion in this thread because its a willing debate. What I generally find is that good discussion leads to deeper biblical study and pushes us all further despite intermittent frustrations.

Back on topic ... the futurist is examining all current events to see if they fit with biblical prophecy. Why isn't the same approach taken with historical? 

Offline Stormcrow

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #25 on: Mon Mar 17, 2014 - 15:09:10 »
Quote
the futurist is examining all current events to see if they fit with biblical prophecy. Why isn't the same approach taken with historical?

The cynic in me says it's because there's an egotistical, almost pathologically narcissistic need for people to think that the Bible is all about them, and so interpret it as if it were written yesterday.

The former dispy/futurist in me says it's because their faith depends on seeing Jesus busting through the clouds to see evil punished and good triumph.

In that sense, many are like Jonah who, though he was sent to Nineveh to save it, instead complained that God had spared it.  There's something deeply, if morbidly, satisfying about seeing evil people "getting theirs." 

Of course, those so desiring to see such slaughter often forget that were it not for the grace of God, they would share in the fate of the wicked.

The larger problem for me is not that these people have egregiously misplaced their hope and faith, it's that their dogma has led them to destroy the authority of apostolic teaching, (by changing the meaning of simple, everyday words and language), and have caused the church to be mocked through the rise of "doomsday cults" and false predictions of the end.  Futurism is a detriment to the cause of Christ.  Dispensationalism - Futurism's twin sister - preaches a whole other gospel altogether, believing that the Jews will, one day, be saved apart from Christ's sacrifice!

But at the heart of it all lies ignorance.  Dogmas like Dispensationalism and Futurism thrive on ignorance. 

Offline Stormcrow

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Manna: 6
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #26 on: Mon Mar 17, 2014 - 16:05:14 »
Quote
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology, nationalism or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2]

It should be noted that dogma relates most directly to personal interpretations of Scripture rather than being a direct equivalent to Scripture itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma


How can the church continue to believe that Christ is coming soon - which is a belief based on an interpretation of scripture - when the scripture itself says otherwise?

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.  “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:27-28 (NIV2011)

There can be no mistaking the clear intent of Christ's words to those standing directly and immediately in His earthly presence, yet there are those who either must ignore this passage or change the clear meaning of His words to support their mere belief: a dogma which they have raised above the very words of Christ Himself!

There is no excuse for those who knowingly and willingly look past these words to support their dogma.  ::frown::

And might I add when you have moderators on this very website calling Paul "mistaken" in light of their own view, it simply illustrates how far the church has moved from the Word of God and elevated its own dogma above it. 

We are on the verge of another Reformation, friends, one that - like the Reformation that came before - will return the church to an unadulterated faith and belief in the Word of God, and not in dogmas concocted by men to control the faith, hope, and fears of others!
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 17, 2014 - 16:09:10 by Stormcrow »

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #27 on: Mon May 18, 2020 - 18:44:41 »
First, I am new to this forum and hope to engage in intellectual, scripture-based discussion.  I don't expect everyone to believe or even care about my views, but nonetheless hope that I can share them.

Red: In Matthew 16:28, the 'ye' is qualified.  He defines 'ye' as "some who are standing here" and even further says they will not taste death first.  This makes the passage inherently different from the ones you cited. 

Now, on the original question.  Daniel 9:27 provides some color on the abomination that causes desolation.  In it, we find the 'where'.  The abomination will be setup on a wing of the temple.  But, that temple was destroyed in 70AD.  Why should we look further than the events of 70AD for the abomination?    In a similar manner, when we are presented with Luke 20:21-22 (paraphrase: when Jerusalem is surrounded, desolation near, fulfillment of all that has been written) why look further than the next time that happened (70AD)?

- A brother in Christ

Because they can't preach on anything else of value. 

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #28 on: Tue May 19, 2020 - 17:33:43 »
  Actually, it's because prets can't prove any of their  points.

Online Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7249
  • Manna: 657
  • Definitely 10. But we did win. Never forget
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #29 on: Wed May 20, 2020 - 08:23:48 »
Because they can't preach on anything else of value.

Since you have decided to revive a 6 year old conversation, which I suspect is because you are searching for support for your views, as there is little on GC theese days....

Two questions.n And any elaboration from me will be after you say you do not know or wunderstand.

#1. Are you clearly aware that when the original scriptures were written in Koine greek they did not have punctuation points, paragraphs or even chapters? The book divisions occur from the fact that the bible is a collection of many different books~ the divisions into paragraphs, chapters, and verses are all artificial and were done centuries after the texts were written. The English word bible is derived from a Greek word, biblia, meaning “books,” reflecting the fact that is a collection.

#2. In your preterism beliefs what is the importance of Mathew 16:28. (By any translation you choose)


Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Willing to debate a preterist
« Reply #30 on: Sat May 30, 2020 - 14:10:10 »
Since you have decided to revive a 6 year old conversation, which I suspect is because you are searching for support for your views, as there is little on GC theese days....

Two questions.n And any elaboration from me will be after you say you do not know or wunderstand.

#1. Are you clearly aware that when the original scriptures were written in Koine greek they did not have punctuation points, paragraphs or even chapters? The book divisions occur from the fact that the bible is a collection of many different books~ the divisions into paragraphs, chapters, and verses are all artificial and were done centuries after the texts were written. The English word bible is derived from a Greek word, biblia, meaning “books,” reflecting the fact that is a collection.

#2. In your preterism beliefs what is the importance of Mathew 16:28. (By any translation you choose)

To #1- I think most of us are informed.

To #2- Really?  Jesus speaking to those right in front of Him saying that some wouldn't die before His return is pretty self-explanatory if one doesn't twist Scripture to corrupt what He said about that generation.
We see the fulfillment in Revelation.  That wicked generation of Jews were held liable for all the blood shed on earth, etc.  Jesus said it.

And for the believers, some would still be alive in that generation to enter the kingdom of God.
While the others cast out!

BTW, what's your interpretation ?

 

     
anything