Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Matthew 24 The choice of Jesus' last sermon.
« Reply #9 on: Today at 03:40:12 AM »
Quote from: Geezer on Yesterday at 04:45:06 PM
Whatever does this mean? Give an example
I was agreeing with you that Jesus did always spoke in metaphors, similes, hyperbole, and parables. Now, if he did, and he did, then there had to be a scriptural way that his words could be understood, and I stand by what I said:
yet, his words could be interpreted within the context in which he was speaking, by using the scriptures overall, and following the biblical mandate that is given to us, in order for us to understand what we are hearing, and reading.
Your desire examples will come in due time, but I refuse to allow you to cause me to jump ahead of myself, you must wait.
Above you concurred that Jesus publically spoke in metaphors, similes, hyperbole, and parables.and now you are saying that he didn't?
No, I am not saying that. All camps use metaphors, similes, proverbs/parables when they THINK that it better serves them, all true, and faithful bible teachers labor as much as is in them, to allow the scriptures themselves show us, when such language is being used, and when it is not. So, bottom line, the scriptures will defend the interpreter of his understanding with scriptures supporting each other. I said:
And those words must be interpreted within the context of the discourse and other related scriptures.
and you said:
More fluff - Give an example.
Really? then give me time to prove my position, and then speak, if you can.
I'm not a Preterit (Preterist) but I do understand that the Bible is a prophetic book and we are going to have to study history in order to discover what has come to pass and what has not.
Well, then you have to be a Historicist, which is nothing more than a half-baked Preterit. You are either or~I have been around too long not to know whom I am speaking with.
Josephus was a very brilliant historian, he was a Priest in the temple, he was a General in the war against the Romans, he was a member of the Sanhedrin and he was an actual EYEWITNESS of the Roman/Jewish war that Jesus predicted. . Who in Israel would have better credentials than this? To call him an infidel is pure slander. His works was published in his lifetime and was read by those who were involved in the war. Any inaccuracies would have been refuted publically. Have you considered the possibility that an infidel could report accurately the truth? The New Testament (except for the writings of John) was completed before the deaths of Peter and Paul. Their martyrdom was estimated to be around 67AD. The war began in Jerusalem in 66AD. That is the end of history as recorded in the Bible. From that point on we have to rely on the historical records. Josephus gives such a detailed account that it is possible to find most all of the prophesies of Daniel, Jesus and Paul fulfilled in his writings.
He DID NOT believe in Jesus Christ, would you desire to prove me wrong? You will lose that battle. No Christian needs to read anything of this infidel~and the less, the better.
From that point on we have to rely on the historical records.
We DO NOT need to know history to understand spiritual truth, PERIOD!
Josephus gives such a detailed account that it is possible to find most all of the prophesies of Daniel, Jesus and Paul fulfilled in his writings.
That's the results of one believing extra-biblical teaching as a SOURCE of truth! Keeping believing that lie, and you will die deceived on eschatology.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:44:04 AM by RB »
Well, your view is right out of the texts of Darby, Schofield, DTS etc. And you say we should not use "Extra Biblical" materials - they are all extra Biblical sources. Your whole belief system is "Extra Biblical." Do you quote the writings of others? Do you use a concordance or any other reference materials? They too are extra Biblical too. Shouldn't we always depend on the Holy Spirit to teach us all things - according to your statements. I've written on boards like this for well over 20 years and one thing always rings true. futurists always have to destroy any historical interpretations. If they don't they can't export most prophesy to the future.
I have failed over the years to pin down Futurists on what in Matthew 24 has been fulfilled and what is not. They just won't respond at all. If you want to continue with this conversation then I suggest that you post a couple paragraphs from the book of Matthew (starting at the beginning) and we will go through it word for word and sentence by sentence. Indicate if it is past or present.