"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu

[Guest]

There is no good way to say this Crusader; your understanding of Scripture falls way short and your enlightenment is distitute. Even after all that has been said and with all proof provided through Scripture, you insist on retaining the Darby mentality. His view (your view) is less than 200 years old and yet you somehow believe that he was more inspired then the Apostles who preached that they were witness of the last days.

I have grown tired of you. If there is any success in your inaccurate theology, it is that you have wearied me by your lack of accepting truthful teaching.

[Guest]

I mean so really all this fuss about peterisrts and Romans 11 is really a mute point because the majority of Christianity beleives in the testimony of the early church fathers who place John writing Revelation around 96 A.D....

The early church fathers are'nt infallable and from what i understand really did'nt have a great understanding of Revelation which may be reflected in the fact that the RCC virtually has no real position on it. However the scenerio you gave IMO is not the worst i've heard except for the RCC being the New Jerusalem. The priest who wrote that interpretation i think was trying to please his bosses.
You see the judgements repeated three times although not identical so normally logic would dictate they happen at 3 separate times and the last judgement or 7th plague sounds like Christ's return.
If you look at those plagues in Rev 16 and believe they are literal it seems to me to be inconceivable that mankind can last through 3 1/2 years of that and have anyone survive.

[Guest]

Allyn ya want to know what weary is...weary is asking someone to explain Matthew 24:21 in light of all the world wars,Hiroshima, Nagasaki,and Auschwitz and the holocast and hearing that Jesus wasnt really being serious he was only exaggerating,using hyperbole. So grow weary of me brother just grow weary...

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. '

For Allyn if you have the patience and understanding to labor and endure such teaching as this surely one such as I can do harm to your boundless amounts of intellectual energy and scholastic apptitude.


Crusader

[Guest]

Well the early church fathers believed it was written later around 95 or 96 A.D. and the preterist view really is quite new...

"During the time of the Reformation, men like Luther and Calvin began to uncover the truth of the Scriptures by the Spirit's leading. The man of sin, it was discovered, was the Pope, as he sat in the seat and office of Pontiff. In an attempt to dispel the aggressive attack against the office of the Pope in this regard, a Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-16 13) wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. In this book he taught:

• Revelation chapters 1-11 describe the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

• Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.

• Revelation 20 describes the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Caesar Nero (54-68 AD.), and judgment.

• Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church. "

I mean so really all this fuss about peterisrts and Romans 11 is really a mute point because the majority of Christianity beleives in the testimony of the early church fathers who place John writing Revelation around 96 A.D....


Crusader

So do you believe your own quote, that the man of sin is the Pope?

Do you believe that Jesus lived to age 50?

Ok then. Just believe eveything they said now, like anyone outside the Catholic Church is condemned.

Oh and remember that the whole church from Augustine (~400AD) up to and including the reformers Luthur and Calvin were Amillenialist.

You see, you just need to submit to the church fathers.

Dispensationalism was invented by JN Darby in the 1830s. We all know this. By digging up history you put yourself in the awkward position of explaining why your view doesn't go back any farther than the 1830s.

[Guest]

Allyn ya want to know what weary is...weary is asking someone to explain Matthew 24:21 in light of all the world wars,Hiroshima, Nagasaki,and Auschwitz and the holocast and hearing that Jesus wasnt really being serious he was only exaggerating,using hyperbole. So grow weary of me brother just grow weary...

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. '

For Allyn if you have the patience and understanding to labor and endure such teaching as this surely one such as I can do harm to your boundless amounts of intellectual energy and scholastic apptitude.


Crusader

Since you won't burden yourself to listen to Steve's tapes that cover this in detail, here is DeeDee Warren's commentary on Matthew 24.

Here's a link to Matt 24:21: http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warre ... l#matt2421

Here is an excerpt:

The objection is often made that Jesus said that the Tribulation of "those days" was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history (or even before a glorious Millennium of peace in which there are no Tribulations ~ a time of unprecedented peace and rule) for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say "nor shall ever be." This is obviously event in the stream of normal history [Pa M24 100] .

So what is in fact going on? Jesus was speaking in the prophetic "language" of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and proverbial dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that "language." [Bra M24F 83-84] Jesus' language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9:

Ezekiel 5:9: Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

Ezekiel is warning about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. [Ho CA]. The context of this passage is the Jews and Jerusalem. But even the futurists believe that the future Great Tribulation will be worse than that. So the "literalist" is in a pickle. Was God wrong in this passage or in Matthew 24:21? So how is this "apparent contradiction" reconciled?? (see also[Ho Hyp]) As Pastor Schwertly well said, "If futurist interpreters want to insist on taking Jesus' words literally (meaning that a future tribulation is coming that will be by far the worst thing to happen in human history) then they must argue that Ezekiel, Exodus, and Daniel were not meant to be taken literally while Jesus' words were. Such a view, however, is arbitrary and inconsistent"

More OT examples are given if you follow the link. It shows the problem with those who claim to take the scriptures literally, but don't.

You have already failed in your Matthew 24 interpretaion because it says:

Mat 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."


They asked when this would be, and Jesus gave the discourse ending with "this generation shall not pass until all this things are fulfilled"

Literally, it could have only been fulfilled when the temple was destroyed, because that is how the conversation began, when Jesus said that is what would happen.

[Guest]

Mat 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."


They asked when this would be, and Jesus gave the discourse ending with "this generation shall not pass until all this things are fulfilled"

Sean, didn't you omit an important part of the disciples question?

Matt 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

I wonder why you left out the second part of their question? Perhaps it was not intentional. Perhaps you did it subconsciously. For it doesn't fit with a preterist interpretation of Matthew 24.

70 A.D. did not mark the end of any age. It didn't mark the end of the first covenant involving Hebrew law. For that age ended with John the Baptizer:

Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed...

70 A.D. didn't mark the end of the church age (if it indeed qualifies as an "age"), since clearly the church is still with us.

We may notice (if we are willing to consider it) that much or most of the rest of Matthew 24 consists of Jesus' answer concerning the question about His coming --- obviously His second coming.

Jesus' very first words remind them that many others will come, claiming to be the Messiah.

Matt 24:4,5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. "For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will mislead many."

Even as late as the 19th and 20th century, a good number of people claimed to be Christ returned or a reincarnation of Christ. The prophet of the Bahai faith was proclaimed as a reincarnation of Christ. I once read a book entitled "The Second Coming of Christ". It was all about the birth and life of Bahualla.

False predictions of the coming of Christ were frequent. The Adventists' prediction that He would come in 1844. The JWs' prediction of 1914. Herbert Armstong's prediction of 1975, etc., etc.

When Jesus didn't return at the predicted time, both the Adventists and the JWs
stated that He actually did come according to their prediction, but that He came in secret.

After describing many events leading to His coming, Jesus again warned against the false messiahs that would arise ---- and the "secret" comings.

Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Messiahs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Lo, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the desert,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lighting comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

The last sentence is the final crowning sentence! Jesus stated that just as the sun (the lighting) rises in the east and shines to the west, so will His coming be. It will be not be hidden. Jesus' coming will be obvious to everyone! As it is written: "Every eye shall see Him."

[Guest]

Well Sean your at it again I see...yanking one scripture out of context to try to explain the deliema your in regardintg Matthew 24:21...in your zeal and excitement you conviently forgot to mention the very next verse, verse 10....which comes right after verse 9, I am surprised you didnt see it...and truley nothing like that ever will happen again as one of Gods judgements....and has no relation to Matthew 24:21 which you still at are a loss to explain...other than to say Jesus was just using exageration....which in light of the context and seriousnress of the question is just way to weak...but Im sure Allyn will just think its wonderful though.

Ezekiel 5 9-10

"And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.

10. Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers: and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.

"Now God subjoins, that their punishment should be so severe that no similar example could be found in the world -- I will do what I have not done, nor intended to do, that is, I will avenge your contempt of my law in a striking and unexpected manner; for God sometimes so chastises men as not to exceed the ordinary method. But because punishments seem vile and contemptible when they are so common, God is compelled to surpass the ordinary measure, and to punish the wicked signally and portentously, as he says by Moses. (Deuteronomy 28:46.) When therefore he now says, that he would do what he had not done before, and what he would not do again, he signifies a horrible vengeance, which has no similar example. It means nothing else than what, we have quoted from Moses, that the vengeance would be signal and portentous. Interpreters take this metaphorically, but this view cannot be admitted, because in their opinion no history has recorded its fulfillment; hence they fly to allegory and metaphor. But first of all, we know what Josephus says, that mothers were so ravenous that they slew their children and fed upon them, although here a previous siege is referred to, in which God signifies that he would cause fathers to devour their children: I confess it; but even if we receive what they wish, it was not done then; hence Jeremiah is mistaken when he says, that miserable women cooked their children for food. (Lamentations 4:10.) Surely this is a sufficient witness; for to say that we never find that this actually happened is to reject the testimony of Jeremiah. Besides, God had threatened that very thing by Moses; nor can the passage be eluded, because there is weight in the words --"

Crusader

[_Steve]

Hi Paidion,

Sean is capable of answering for himself, and may answer differently from me, but I thought I would clarify some of the points you asked about.

Matthew 24 is clearly a composite of two separate sermons, just as the other extended discourses are cojmpilations of Jesus' sayings from various occasions. This is evident by comparing the different gospel accounts.In general, the first 35 verses of Matthew 24 contains the Olivet Discourse, which is also found in Luke 21, given in answer to the disciples' question about the destruction of the temple.

Mark 13 and Luke 21 both give the Olivet Discourse as well, but they do not include the last phrase of the questiion as it appears in Matthew 24:3.

“Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?” (Mark 13:4)

So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?” (Luke 21:7)

Notice, according to two of the gospels, on the occasion of the prediction of the destruction of the temple, the disciples asked two things (not three). They asked when that event would occur, and if there was some sign that they could expect to signal that it was about to happen. They asked nothing about the second coming of Christ or the end of the world.

The remainder of Matthew 24 (after verse 35) seems to be another discourse tacked on, which is elsewhere recorded in Luke 17:20ff. This discourse was given in response to the Jews demanding that Jesus tell them when the kingdom would come. Anyone can prove this to himself simply by comparing the passages.

Many preterists believe that the discourse in Luke 17 is also about AD 70 (as the one in Luke 21 clearly is). I am one of those who believes that Luke 17 is about the future coming of Christ. Thus Matthew placed in one passage (as if in a single discourse) two separate discourses—one on AD 70 and another about the end of the world at the second coming of Christ.

This raises a possibility that Matthew, in his decision to combine two discourses about two different events, may have modified the presentation of the disciples' inquiry to include both subjects.

An alternative suggestion, probably favored by most preterists, would be that the final phrase of the disciples' question ("of your coming and of the end of the age") is simply the faithful representation of the disciples' use of a Hebraism concerning the destruction of the temple. If the temple were to be destroyed, they might justly reason, then that would bring an end to the ager of the Mosaic sacrioficial system. That they would speak of such a judgment as a "coming" of the Lord (as has been pointed out many times previously) would simply reflect their use of a common Jewish manner of speaking about great judgments from God.

In other words, Luke and Mark, in recording the same statement, clarify its meaning by paraphrase, for the benefit of their non-Jewish readers, whereas Matthew, writing to Jews, lets it stand as it is, knowing that they would have a familiarity with the idiom. If this theory is correct, then we would see all three records agreeing completely in the matter of what the disciples asked:

All three have the question beginning: "When shall these things be?"

The second question is given in their own words by Matthew, but paraphrased by Mark and Luke. Hence:

Matt.: "...and what shall be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Mark: "...and what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?”

Luke: "....and what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

One could easily (and justly) see the wording of the latter two writers as telling their readers that "your coming and the end of the age" is just another way of referencing "these things" (i.e. the destruction of the temple).

I don't know which of these alternatives best explains the difference in the question of the disciples as Matthew records it, vis-a-vis the way Mark and Luke present it, but in any case, the reading of Mark and Luke gives us a clear picture that the disciples, on the occasion of the discourse found in Mark 13 and Luke 21, were asking only about AD 70, and insofar as Matthew 24 parallels that discourse, the same can be said of it.

[_Steve]

I am sorely tempted to answer Crusader's last post (and also very tempted to delete it). I have decided not to reply to it, however, since the post itself demonstrates what many of his previous posts do—namely that he either does not read, or does not understand, answers to his posts.

He does not even seem to realize that the anonymous commentator that he cites is talking about 586 BC—not some future tribulation—so that the commentator is not making Crusader's point, but Sean's: namely, that there were two separate destructions of Jerusalem, in different centuries, which were both predicted (via common Hebrew idiom, used by Ezekiel and Jesus, respectively) to be the very worst calamities in history. Since two separate events can not both be "unparalleled" in history in the same manner (since, in such a case, they would at least parallel each other), the idiom is clearly hyperbolic in one or both instances.

(By the way, when citing a commentator it is common practice and courteous to reference the source of the comments. This both gives credit to the author for his work [as opposed to plagiarizing] and also gives the reader a sense of whose ideas he/she may be reading.)

[Guest]

Steve in using this arguement Sean said this

Ezekiel 5:9: Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

" Ezekiel is warning about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. [Ho CA]. The context of this passage is the Jews and Jerusalem. But even the futurists believe that the future Great Tribulation will be worse than that. So the "literalist" is in a pickle. Was God wrong in this passage or in Matthew 24:21? So how is this "apparent contradiction" reconciled?? (see also[Ho Hyp]) As Pastor Schwertly well said, "If futurist interpreters want to insist on taking Jesus' words literally (meaning that a future tribulation is coming that will be by far the worst thing to happen in human history) then they must argue that Ezekiel, Exodus, and Daniel were not meant to be taken literally while Jesus' words were. Such a view, however, is arbitrary and inconsistent"

There is no contradiction here between this and Matthew 24:21....Sean conviently left out verse 10...and its no wonder this dramatic type of judgement will never come again...

""Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. 9 Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. 10 Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds. 11 Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your vile images and detestable practices, I myself will withdraw my favor; I will not look on you with pity or spare you. 12 A third of your people will die of the plague or perish by famine inside you; a third will fall by the sword outside your walls; and a third I will scatter to the winds and pursue with drawn sword.

It has absolutley no bearing on Matthew 24:21 where Jesus said that an unparalled time of tribulation will come upon the earth or ever will come upon the earth...they are two different circumstances....Where in Revelation does it say the judgements are eating ones children...???? And Steve for you to say that Matthew 24:21 is Jesus using exaggeration in the form of hyperbole is a clever but weak explanation. I dont think Sean needs your help ..he just needs some basic instruction in logic and keeping Scripture in context....over all he's been a good sport through this whole discussion...like most of you have...other than a few threats to delete me because you dont like my stuff....or some name calling and insinuations that the average person is to ignorant to read the Bible on there own....I think everythings here has been profitable....


Crusader