Atonement Posted July 9, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 67 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Hey, That guy is trying to slip preterism between the cracks. "This generation" means "The Jewish people" not "all the people living at this time." See Jeremiah 2: 31 Christ said He won't return from heaven until the Jewish nation repents and accepts HIm as Messiah (Matt. 23: 39). Also, Peter confirms this statement in Acts 3: 19-21. The Jews never accepted Christ as the Messiah during the Jewish War of A.D. 67-70. Also, the Bible opnly teaches two advents of Christ. We are to look for Him a "second time" when He leaves the Holy Place (Heb. 9: 28). Peace and Health, Brian Interesting. I wonder though, why Christ spoke about the fig tree blossoming before He said this generation would not pass. What is the fig tree? Cleary it's Israel correct, which is the apple of God's eye? Zec 2:8. So what is interesting in your rebuttal is that if Israel blossoms as mentioned by Christ in Luke 21. Then my questions is how could Israel blossom in 70 AD? When in fact she was destroyed? Let me take this a little step further, when in the last 2000 years did Israel blossom? Was that not until May 14th 1948? Which is also Bible prophecy being fulfilled concering the valley of dry bones coming back to life? Eze 37.. the Bible also speaks about the rebuilding of a third temple correct? What will the Jews be doing in this third temple? Animal sacrifices correct? Dan 9:27; Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11. So it appears that when Christ returns the Jews would be making daily sacrifices. Which is also a reason why their is a Great Tribulation against Israel for not accepting her Messiah in the first place.. At least this is how I understand prophecy. I don't care about the pre-trib, mid- trib or post-trib per se. The fact is you could die today and you need to be ready today. But in general Christ is coming back to fulfill all prophecy. Hey, Unfortunately, I don't know much about that view. I interpret the "fig tree budding" as meaning "all these signs taking place." Christ was talking about the tribulations that would fall upon the Jewish people. There is supposedly a gathering back to the city by Antichrist, who will rebuild their temple. Then after he's gained power, he'll sit in the temple boasting himself that he is God. When the Jewish nation repents during the tribulation, Christ will return from heaven, & destroy the enemies. Then the Millennium! Peace and Health, Brian P.S.-- I think Ezekiel 37 means "The first resurrection." That is the "hope of Israel" that Paul is talking about. Well that is okay, we don't know everything about prophecy correct? But I do know about the statements you have rebuttal the OP on, so then I added my rebuttal to see how you would answer them in line with Scripture. You stated that you "don't know much about that view". With the answer you gave me, I will let lie. But I believe that your first rebuttal should probably be disregarded from the topic because it's just speculation from your position correct? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I just want this clarified. Edited July 9, 2008 by Atonement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillennialSaint Posted July 9, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 25 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2008 My friend, you may be taking my remarks too seriously! I didn't "rebut" anything. I simply made a casual observation that the Aussie professor may have been trying to slip Preterism between the cracks of orthodox Christianity. Then I gave my views on the nature of fulfillment. Not sure whether this was taken as an argument. I assure you, my intentions are purely Platonic. Peace & Health, Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atonement Posted July 10, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 67 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 10, 2008 My friend, you may be taking my remarks too seriously! I didn't "rebut" anything. I simply made a casual observation that the Aussie professor may have been trying to slip Preterism between the cracks of orthodox Christianity. Then I gave my views on the nature of fulfillment. Not sure whether this was taken as an argument. I assure you, my intentions are purely Platonic. Peace & Health, Brian Okay so let's say that he is squeezing Preterism between the cracks.. So what? It's his thread correct? He is the OP right? So if the man created a thread and wants to discuss Preterism, the man has every right too. What does your first responce have to do with anything that he wrote about? He's talking about the five comings of Jesus, but you respond by stating what you believe (your theory, your position) correct? I provided another theory to add, and you did not know what that view was. I'm not trying to take anything serious on here, but I'm asking you to defend your first responce to him. Again, SO WHAT if he is using Preterism.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillennialSaint Posted July 10, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 25 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted July 10, 2008 My friend, you may be taking my remarks too seriously! I didn't "rebut" anything. I simply made a casual observation that the Aussie professor may have been trying to slip Preterism between the cracks of orthodox Christianity. Then I gave my views on the nature of fulfillment. Not sure whether this was taken as an argument. I assure you, my intentions are purely Platonic. Peace & Health, Brian Okay so let's say that he is squeezing Preterism between the cracks.. So what? It's his thread correct? He is the OP right? So if the man created a thread and wants to discuss Preterism, the man has every right too. What does your first responce have to do with anything that he wrote about? He's talking about the five comings of Jesus, but you respond by stating what you believe (your theory, your position) correct? I provided another theory to add, and you did not know what that view was. I'm not trying to take anything serious on here, but I'm asking you to defend your first responce to him. Again, SO WHAT if he is using Preterism.. Hatcha! cha! cha! Actually, the feller has every right to be a preterism. I was merely disagreeing. But I didn't mean to get in a schoolyard tussle. My mammy always told me to be nice! But serious. I think Matt. 24 is talking about Christ's future second advent. Not something that happened 2,000 years ago. "This generation" means "The Jews." Or so I believe! Peace & Health, Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atonement Posted July 10, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 67 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) My friend, you may be taking my remarks too seriously! I didn't "rebut" anything. I simply made a casual observation that the Aussie professor may have been trying to slip Preterism between the cracks of orthodox Christianity. Then I gave my views on the nature of fulfillment. Not sure whether this was taken as an argument. I assure you, my intentions are purely Platonic. Peace & Health, Brian Okay so let's say that he is squeezing Preterism between the cracks.. So what? It's his thread correct? He is the OP right? So if the man created a thread and wants to discuss Preterism, the man has every right too. What does your first responce have to do with anything that he wrote about? He's talking about the five comings of Jesus, but you respond by stating what you believe (your theory, your position) correct? I provided another theory to add, and you did not know what that view was. I'm not trying to take anything serious on here, but I'm asking you to defend your first responce to him. Again, SO WHAT if he is using Preterism.. Hatcha! cha! cha! Actually, the feller has every right to be a preterism. I was merely disagreeing. But I didn't mean to get in a schoolyard tussle. My mammy always told me to be nice! But serious. I think Matt. 24 is talking about Christ's future second advent. Not something that happened 2,000 years ago. "This generation" means "The Jews." Or so I believe! Peace & Health, Brian And the valid question remains.. Prove "This generation" means the Jews? Or at least back it with other Scripture. By just stating you believe this theory with out sharing your view when asked why you believe it, is not obeying the Word of God which you are quoting.. 1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: You used, Jer 2:31 O generation, see ye the word of the LORD. Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? a land of darkness? wherefore say my people, We are lords; we will come no more unto thee? Which is talking about the generation that was in the wilderness for 40yrs. This does not say the generation is the Jews.. So that position is already flawed with just one Scripture quoted which does not mean that anyway.. Edited July 10, 2008 by Atonement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillennialSaint Posted July 10, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 25 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted July 10, 2008 Well, I think I could prove it from the three synoptic Gospels. "This generation" when used by Christ, always refers to the Jewish nation. The Greek word 'genea' is only used a few times in the Acts and epistles, but when it is used it also carries a Jewish reference. See Acts 2: 40, Philippians 2: 15 (where Paul's audience would have understood "crooked nation" as "The Judaizers.") Also compare Matth. 24: 34-35 with Jeremiah 31: 35-36, 33: 25-26. The nation Israel is co-extensive with the Genetic ordinances. Uncle, that's just gotta be proof enough! Peace and Health, Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atonement Posted July 11, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 67 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2008 Well, I think I could prove it from the three synoptic Gospels. "This generation" when used by Christ, always refers to the Jewish nation. The Greek word 'genea' is only used a few times in the Acts and epistles, but when it is used it also carries a Jewish reference. See Acts 2: 40, Philippians 2: 15 (where Paul's audience would have understood "crooked nation" as "The Judaizers.") Also compare Matth. 24: 34-35 with Jeremiah 31: 35-36, 33: 25-26. The nation Israel is co-extensive with the Genetic ordinances. Uncle, that's just gotta be proof enough! Peace and Health, Brian Okay a few things. 1) You quoted Philippians 2:15, Jer. 31; 33 and yet these have nothing to do with the Jews as being labled as "generation". Why not also quote: Psa 12:7, Psa 24:6, Psa 71:18, Psa 95:10, Deu 1:35, Gen 7:1. Because none of it would make much sense to. 2) The nation Israel is co-extensive with the Genetic ordinances. Huh? Genetic ordinances 3) 'genea' in Greek has the following meanings a. fathered, birth, nativity b. the several ranks of natural descent, a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation c. the whole multitude of men living at the same time d. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years 4) So again it's a position you have that you believe this, and that's fine. But it has little to do with the OP. Not even at a observation stance. Would it make sense about the five comings of Christ as this thread suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillennialSaint Posted July 12, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 25 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2008 Sure, "generation" is used in different senses throughout Scripture. in the synoptic Gospels it means the Jews. Whenever Christ used the term "this generation" it always has a Jewish reference. Christ is addressing the Jewish nation. Also, I provided those SCriptures for you to reference them. Please read the SCriptures again, and you'll figure out what I mean by Genetic ordinances. Here's a hint: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." In Matt. 24, v. 34 & 35 go together! Also, my view was not invented by me. It's been held by many fine & able scholars of Scripture. I think Joseph Mede held this view, also E.W. Bullinger and J.C. Ryle. So, whether you agree or disagree, I'm in pretty good company! I find this view much more acceptible than the view that CHrist's "parousia" (Matt. 24: 3) ("coming in the clouds of heaven") was fulfilled 2,000 years ago. I haven't seen Him yet. Have you??? Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillennialSaint Posted July 12, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 25 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2008 P.S.-- Also, let's not forget that Hebrews 9: 28 talks of Christ's "parousia" as "the second time." That means whenever He leaves the holy place He make His second appearance. This is when the Jews convert and Christ returns to the Mount of Olives to destroy the enemies. See Rev. 1: 7, Zech. 14. He comes in the clouds of heaven. Acts 1: 11. Same way he ascended. Those that remain are "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4: 17). Compare with Matt. 24: 30-31. All of this is talking of His second advent. This is when the rapture occurs and the enemies of God are desytroyed. That is the phrase "this generation" does not mean "the people who are alive at this time." Christ was only addressing His discourse to Peter, James, John, and Andrew. All of them were Jews! And this was before they received the Great Commission to extend their message to the Gentiles. So, how do you think they understood Christ's message? Peace & Health, Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godfearer Posted August 1, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 177 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/13/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted August 1, 2008 you read you a magizine huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts