The Book of Matthew

[Mellontes]

Hey Paidion...What do you do with this post???

by Mellontes on Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:07 am

He called you out Bro. He demonstrated by use of an ECF, that they understood it to all have been fulfilled. And by probably the most prodigious of all of the ECF's.

The ball is in your court buddy! I look forward to a response.

Pmike

PMike,

Let's take it easy on the brethren. I am not calling anyone out although it would be nice to see some honest communication with the thoughts we represent. Most often they are always ignored and substituted with another question or new topic altogether. If a church father seems to provide proof towards any doctrine, it still does NOT constitute proof. Everything must be proven from Scripture alone. We must deal only with inspiration - not fallible men... All of the church fathers have said some pretty zany things and we don't believe them on those things, right? I guess I only posted that comment from Eusebius because I get tired of SO MANY people saying that the church fathers never thought like us. I guess you can couple with this thought that these same people say that preterism (full) is a relatively new position starting with Max King. Strange to say, I have never read a single book by this individual...

But I shall show forth my fallible nature by saying that I too look forward to a response, although what can be said? Shall we pit another church father against Eusebius, and then another church father or creed in response to the response. Let's get focused on what the Bible says folks! Jesus has the words of eternal life, not creeds, not church fathers and not even preterists...

There has never been a special council on the nature of the "time of the end." You can consider the happenings over the last decade (or more) such a council. We are basically demanding that an alternative view to the Scriptures in regard to eschatology been attended to and refuted (if possible) from only the Scriptures. I have heard every personality ploy, guilt by association, creeds, commantaries, books, authors, Internet blogs, articles by man, etc. etc. etc. to offer criticism but not from Scripture... The audience relevance and metaphorical language of the Jews can not be ignored if any reasonable hermeneutic is to remain consistent...

Thanks Pmike.

Blessings, Mellontes

[RV]

Hi Paidion,

I am curious as to what you think about Mellontes' quote from Eusebius.

I'm really hoping this thread doesn't end like all the others.

I was also hoping that someone (if the Full-Preterist have it wrong), could simply eliminate any future need to even have this argument. It shouldn't be this difficult. Also using the argument that because a small percentage of Christians actually believe it, therefore I don't need to address it, makes zero sense.

It cracks me up All of a sudden, nobody want to talk about Eschatology (at least when it comes to the Full-Preterist). I might be mistaken and willing to admit it if I'm wrong, but on the old forum, Eschatology was the biggest subject.

Again, it'd be great if someone, once and for all, could just put a stop to it. That way, whenever a Full-Preterist comes on here and tries to debate his/her view, someone can simply point them to the appropriate thread.

Seriously, even if .05% (that may be a real number, I don't know) of Christians are Full-Preterist, what is the problem? There are other topics that very few Christians actually believe, but there are those on here that are readily willing to deal with it, and when asked about it they simply respond: Here is the link to this thread and how to deal with it.

[RV]

Oh and lets not forget that a very small percentage of Christians once upon a time actually believed dispensationalism.

[Paidion]

Mike, I fail to see how a quote from a writer who lived in the 3rd and 4th century in any way proves that not all known Christian writers in the second century were futurists. (or even in post 70A.D. first century writers, including the apostle John's Revelation)

[Mellontes]

I just can't resist the temptation. I tried. But I failed miserably...

[psychohmike]

Mike, I fail to see how a quote from a writer who lived in the 3rd and 4th century in any way proves that not all known Christian writers in the second century were futurists. (or even in post 70A.D. first century writers, including the apostle John's Revelation)

Paidion...If you want to continue to believe that Revelation was written post 70A.D. you are more than welcome. However you are doing so against a preponderance of evidence.

John A.T. Robinson's, "Redating the New Testament," clearly demonstrates that all of the books of the New Testament were written before Jerusalem fell. The evidence for a lated date is insignificant at best. Especially considering it's greater context.

If you want to disagree...Don't disagree with me. Disagree with the above book. The evidence is not only compelling but clearly demonstrates just how strong and wrong the traditions of man can be.

But like I said you are free to believe whatever you like.

Pmike

[paulespino]

(Matthew 3:7) 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
The word "come" in this verse is the Greek word "mello", which means "about to be". By using the Greek word "mello" John is pointing to a wrath that was chronologically prophesied as near to the Jews, not a wrath that was 2000+ years away and meant for the entire planet. It could be read "who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come".

In my own understanding if we will place this passage in it's context we will have a different interpretation of this passage. John also mentioned Jesus separating the believers to none believers through judgement and this is indicated from Matthew verse 10- 12. Although 70 AD was a form of judgement from God, Matthew 3:7-12 is not reffering to 70 AD if interpreted within it's context but rather it is referring to the final judgement which is still in the future.
Read and analyze the type of description of the judgement to come from verse 10-12 and we will see that it is referring to the future and not 70 AD because Jesus did not separate the believers from none believers in 70 AD as a matter of fact many believers have died in 70 AD .
This passage is telling us that Jesus will separate the believers from none believers and he will burn the none believers and keeping all the believers safe. This did not happen in 70 AD because many believers have also died and were also burn when Rome was burnt.

Matthew 3:7-12
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

[Allyn]

(Matthew 3:7) 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
The word "come" in this verse is the Greek word "mello", which means "about to be". By using the Greek word "mello" John is pointing to a wrath that was chronologically prophesied as near to the Jews, not a wrath that was 2000+ years away and meant for the entire planet. It could be read "who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come".

In my own understanding if we will place this passage in it's context we will have a different interpretation of this passage. John also mentioned Jesus separating the believers to none believers through judgement and this is indicated from Matthew verse 10- 12. Although 70 AD was a form of judgement from God, Matthew 3:7-12 is not reffering to 70 AD if interpreted within it's context but rather it is referring to the final judgement which is still in the future.
Read and analyze the type of description of the judgement to come from verse 10-12 and we will see that it is referring to the future and not 70 AD because Jesus did not separate the believers from none believers in 70 AD as a matter of fact many believers have died in 70 AD .
This passage is telling us that Jesus will separate the believers from none believers and he will burn the none believers and keeping all the believers safe. This did not happen in 70 AD because many believers have also died and were also burn when Rome was burnt.

Matthew 3:7-12
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Hi Paul,

We are not saying that there were no believers, eventually, after 70AD but we are saying that Jesus said that what was to take place was going to happen within that generation.

[paulespino]

Thanks,

Allyn.

[Allyn]

Thanks,

Allyn.

No problem, Paul - BTW, brother, it is so good to see you. I hope all is well with you and your family.