The Olivet Discourse Fulfilled

[Sean 2]

Honestly, It doesn't bother me in the least that you can't find historical evidence for preterism.

I'm happy for you.

Thanks

By the way, what are you defining as preterism?

Both Partial and Hyper Praeterism (see here).

So lump us all together. That clarifies things.

Actaully, it shows that false doctrine could have easily taken over the ECF's. You may stongly disagree, but you can't prove it. That's the point. There are sill Jews that reject Christ, why can't they look back and figure out Jesus is the Messiah?

I am not disputing that false doctrine could easily have taken over the ECFs. I certainly believe a lot of false doctrine did.

But the idea that the true understanding of prophecy was lost within 20 years of it taking place, leaving absolutely no record of anyone holding to it, and that this understanding remained lost for the next 1,500 years, is truly incredible in the fullest sense of the word.

Do you honestly imagine that God is so thoroughly incapable of expressing Himself?

Wow, another non sequitur.

[Fortigurn]

Honestly, It doesn't bother me in the least that you can't find historical evidence for preterism.

I'm happy for you.

By the way, what are you defining as preterism?

Both Partial and Hyper Praeterism (see here).

Actaully, it shows that false doctrine could have easily taken over the ECF's. You may stongly disagree, but you can't prove it. That's the point. There are sill Jews that reject Christ, why can't they look back and figure out Jesus is the Messiah?

I am not disputing that false doctrine could easily have taken over the ECFs. I certainly believe a lot of false doctrine did.

But the idea that the true understanding of prophecy was lost within 20 years of it taking place, leaving absolutely no record of anyone holding to it, and that this understanding remained lost for the next 1,500 years, is truly incredible in the fullest sense of the word.

Do you honestly imagine that God is so thoroughly incapable of expressing Himself?

[Fortigurn]

So lump us all together. That clarifies things.

I am not lumping you all together. I am simply pointing out that the same situation applies to both of you.

Wow, another non sequitur.

Where's the non sequitur?

[Christian2]

I have a question based on this verse:

Matthew 24:4-5: And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

I understand the explanation given so far that there were people who either claimed to be the Christ or made messanic claims. My question about this verse is this:

Does it make sense to you that a person would come in Jesus' Name (under his authority) claiming themselves to be the Christ?

Could Jesus be saying that people would come in his name (under his authority) saying I am the Christ (professing Jesus to be the Christ) but deceiving many with false teachings?

It is the coming "in My name" that is tripping me up. If not the above, then what do you think Jesus meant by saying "come in My name"?

Thanks.

[IRQ Conflict]

Just as it says. Many will claim to be the Messiah. That is how I understand it.

Google the RCC Papacy. "In Place of God" link

It never ceases to amaze me how many people follow after the pope instead of the one true God.

Some would rather bow and kiss the popes ring than pick up thier cross and follow Jesus. Jesus said his burden is light.

Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Satan would have us beleive otherwise though.

Here is an interesting article.

Pope's visit draws 800,000 pilgrims

And what could ever save us apart from love?"

Um, how bout Jesus?

Benedict basked in the adulation of the crowd who roared their welcome as he arrived in popemobile.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

[Jac3510]

Christian . . .

That's a good question. I think I'm going to have to stick with the normal understanding, although I definitely had to run through the passage a few times!

First off, the "I" in "I am the Christ" is emphatic. So, whether this is either saying that these people are strongly emphasizing the Messiahship of Jesus, or that these people are strongly emphasizing the notion that it is they who are the Christ. Which, then, fits the context?

I think if you go down to verse twenty-three and following, you see Jesus warning those who had fled Jerusalem not to believe anyone who says He has returned. So the timeline seems to me as follows:

1. The abomination of desolation is set up in the Temple. This corresponds with the Antichrist's claiming himself to be God and the 3 1/2 year mark into his pact with Israel.

2. Israel flees and are placed under God's protection for the remaining 3 1/2 years, as per Rev. 12. During this 3 1/2 years many will believe due to the witness of the 144,000.

3. Towards the end of this period, some will come and begin to claim that they are Jesus returned. This report will reach these Jews, and some will say to them, "Jesus is in the desert" or "Jesus is in the inner rooms." Since these people are waiting for Him, they may be enticed to believe.

The only snag with this would be "in my Name," as you questioned. I wouldn't take that to mean under His authority. It simply means they are claiming His authority. I can, for instance, go to Iran in the name of Bush and ask to speak to their president, but I wouldn't get far. Only a real ambassador can do that. So, these people are coming in His name, actually claiming to BE him. But, the Jews in hiding are not to believe, because when Jesus does return, it will be in the sky, and obvious to all.

Seems to me to be the best way to read this . . .

[IRQ Conflict]

3. Towards the end of this period, some will come and begin to claim that they are Jesus returned. This report will reach these Jews, and some will say to them, "Jesus is in the desert" or "Jesus is in the inner rooms." Since these people are waiting for Him, they may be enticed to believe.

Jac, whats your basis for the time you set for these things to happen? I think "My name" can be "God" in general. I may be way off base with this as it is just my observation with cults and such. But you seem to target a time this will happen as well as using the name Jesus. Just curious, I thought this was one of the signs to watch for. You know 'when these things bigin to happen'....

But then again, I guess there have been whack-jobs claiming to be God all through history eh?

[Jac3510]

IRQ,

My basis is a literal interpretation of prophetic Scripture. It is universally agreed upon by scholars, both amillennial (including postmillennial) and premillennial that a literal hermeneutic leads to a premillennial theology (see Walvoord and Pentecost, premills, and Allis, a postmill).

I choose to take the text literally, for variety of reasons. Given this particular hermeneutical approach, the Olivet discourse is found to be a reference to the Jews. The Church is NOT found in this passage at all. History tells us that Christ has not yet returned (notice the the word "immediately" following these events Christ will return). Therefore, I place these events in the latter half of the Tribulation, better, the Time of Jacob's trouble.

Hope that helps.

[puritan lad]

IRQ,

My basis is a literal interpretation of prophetic Scripture. It is universally agreed upon by scholars, both amillennial (including postmillennial) and premillennial that a literal hermeneutic leads to a premillennial theology (see Walvoord and Pentecost, premills, and Allis, a postmill).

I choose to take the text literally, for variety of reasons. Given this particular hermeneutical approach, the Olivet discourse is found to be a reference to the Jews. The Church is NOT found in this passage at all. History tells us that Christ has not yet returned (notice the the word "immediately" following these events Christ will return). Therefore, I place these events in the latter half of the Tribulation, better, the Time of Jacob's trouble.

Hope that helps.

Maybe you can help here Jac, using the literal approach.

1. The abomination of desolation is set up in the Temple. This corresponds with the Antichrist's claiming himself to be God and the 3 1/2 year mark into his pact with Israel.

Where is the scripture that teaches this?

2. Israel flees and are placed under God's protection for the remaining 3 1/2 years, as per Rev. 12. During this 3 1/2 years many will believe due to the witness of the 144,000.

And this???

3. Towards the end of this period, some will come and begin to claim that they are Jesus returned. This report will reach these Jews, and some will say to them, "Jesus is in the desert" or "Jesus is in the inner rooms." Since these people are waiting for Him, they may be enticed to believe.

And this? I want all of the details.

Thanks,

PL

[Jac3510]

What good will it do, PL? You never reply to Scripture anyway, except to offer "counter Scriptures", ignoring the argument. When I do exegete the Scripture you provided, you never go back to the argument I proposed.

I'll let you do your own research. In the next few weeks I have to turn in the paper I decided to write in our previous discussion, now tenatively titled, "The Hermeneutical Question Regarding Eschatological Scripture." I'll post it here for you, as promised. To help get yourself started, look up "the Time of Jacob's trouble" in the OT. See what that means, and then compare it to the Dan. 9 prophecy. When you've got that under your belt, go to the Olivet Discourse, esp. as recorded in Matt., and compare notes. Read it literally, and especially note any verses specifically relating to the Church. In fact, just for a fun exercise that actually goes a long way in sealing the connections mentioned, do a line by line analysis of the extended prophecy is Dan 10-11, about 90% of which has been historically fulfilled. J. Vernon McGee has a great, and very, very simple analysis of this. You can pick that commentary up for about five bucks at your local Christian book store.

Also, if you really want to learn this stuff rather than just start an argument (which I'm not convinced is the case), pick up Pentecost's book Things to Come. It's very easy to find. He has an extended discussion on the Law of Double Reference, which includes 1) further references to such great works as Ferrar's Interpretation, as well as 2) explanation of the misunderstandings common in the allegorists argument against the idea in general. In other words, he points out the straw man.

God bless

[puritan lad]

Also, if you really want to learn this stuff rather than just start an argument (which I'm not convinced is the case), pick up Pentecost's book Things to Come

Actually, I've read Pentecost's book, and it is very lacking in many areas. However, I'm not interested in Pentecost's works, but wish for you to show me where the Bible describes these events. As for your comment of me really wanting to "learn this stuff", I'm very familiar with Premillennial Dispensationalism (probably more so than you are, but that is irrelevant). Also, if you continue to post bad theology, then expect me to continue to "start an argument " (ie. challenge your beliefs).

Unfortunately, I lost track of our "Russia invades Israel" thread, but am very anxious to revive it here, as well as the so-called "pre-trib" rapture, future tribulation period, etc. So let me start here with what you posted so far.

To help get yourself started, look up "the Time of Jacob's trouble" in the OT.

Already familiar with it. Jeremiah 30 is the only verse that speaks of it. If you insist that this is a future event, what will you do with verse 9.

Jeremiah 30:9
"But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them."

Who will they serve, Jac? Christ? If that is true (and I agree that it is), then why does God have to "raise Him up" in the future? Is there another Messiah coming? Is Christ going to die again? Does Christ have to perform another redemptive act, or is His work finished?

Finally, after answering this, show me on what basis you proclaim this as a future event, especially when the NT declares that this prophecy was fulfilled at Christ's first advent, not His second (For onw of several examples, see Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:17-18)

See what that means, and then compare it to the Dan. 9 prophecy

Daniel's 70 week prophecy has already been fulfilled (unless Daniel was a false prophet.)

When you've got that under your belt, go to the Olivet Discourse, esp. as recorded in Matt., and compare notes. Read it literally, and especially note any verses specifically relating to the Church.

I've already done a line by line exposition of this Discourse in this thread, complete with historical context. Where would you disagree with this, and on what basis do you make this a future event (which would make Jesus a false prophet - Matthew 24:34)?

In fact, just for a fun exercise that actually goes a long way in sealing the connections mentioned, do a line by line analysis of the extended prophecy is Dan 10-11, about 90% of which has been historically fulfilled.

I would hold that 100% of Dan 10-11 has been historically fulfilled, but will provide details at a later time. Let's deal with the basic nuts and bolts of your theology first. We'll get into how too many of the pieces of Hal Lindsey's "prophetic puzzle" are missing (not found in the Bible). We'll look at the historical context (Dispensationalism is less than 200 years old and has more in common with the occult - astrology and pyramidology, then with the Bible). In any case, it should be fun seeing you try to defend the pre-trib rapture and, particularly, the Russian Invasion of Israel).

God Bless,

PL

[Jac3510]

It is somewhere between comedic and sad that you are so sure of yourself with regards to your understanding of dispensationalism. May I ask where you attended seminary? I would be interested to see how you would do in a small one as I attend, much less something as prestigious as Dallas Theological.

In case that looks like an attack, I'll just say that it is based on your gross misrepresentation of the argument as a whole. If you are as familiar with the position you claim, then you are purposefully putting forward a straw man. If you aren't, which I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume, then you simply don't know what you are talking about. A little knowledge can be dangerous, PL.

As for further discussion, we'll not have it now. Enjoy not having your exegesis answered. To be bluntly honest, I don't feel I have the need to answer another argument from you ever again. I don't care if you posted a Scripture where Jesus Himself says, "Israel has been rejected for rejecting Me. I will now fulfill my prophecies to them through the universal Church!" I would have no need to answer. There is still a massive amount of my own work you've not replied to. If you really expect me to spend time and energy walking you through very basic exposition . . . the kind you can get from the majority of modern commentaries . . . when you have clearly demonstrated that you yourself have no intention of interacting with that exposition, you are off your rocker, my misguided friend. It will be immediately obvious to anyone and everyone reading our conversation that it is you, not me, who first and foremost put up a stonewall tactic. And this will be the substance of all of our future conversations, save one. I don't care what the topic is. If you feel the need to attack ANY of my positions on a Scriptural basis, you'll get this defense. The reason is simple: anyone reading the discussion will understand that you are a stonewaller, with no interest in defending a position. You begin with your conclusions, and you have absolutely zero interest in dialogue. Until that problem is removed, you won't get any answers from me. I'll simply do as I have done here. I'll refer you to the proper sources for your own study, and wait for answers to previous arguments.

Again, let me emphasize the reason for this. I spent a very good deal of time in our previous conversations in good faith that you would give the arguments and expositions provided due consideration. You did not. In fact, you ignored the bulk of my arguments. Why should I believe you will do any differently here? I don't. As we are exhorted to avoid godless chatter, you won't get any "defense" from me.

All this is true save one last conversation, which is the one in which I promised a full explanation of the literal verses allegorical method of interpretation of Scripture. I will provide the paper in the next few weeks and defend it as necessary, but this only because I said I would.

So, continue to enjoy your stay on these boards as you have been doing. We've nothing left to say to one another in the meantime, so long as you refuse to engage in honest dialogue.

God bless

[puritan lad]

You got it all over me Jac. You know everything because you go to Seminary, and no one here knows as much as you do. Pretty strong statement on your part since you know nothing about my education, and I won't give you the privilege of knowing about mine. It is really not relevant, and I have no need to support my arguments by tooting my own horn. I'll leave that to you.

something as prestigious as Dallas Theological.

I understand what happened to you now...

Enjoy not having your exegesis answered.

Good enough, but as I said before, if you continue to post bad theology, then expect to be challenged by me. If that offends you, then don't post it to begin with.

FYI: I started this thread with a very deep exegesis, and you have yet to respond to any of it. Looking forward to your paper, and yes, you can expect that I will respond.

[Jac3510]

Way to try to turn it around, PL. I don't think that asking questions about your education qualifies as making assumptions. You, of course, don't have to tell me your educational background. I asked because I absolutely cannot understand where you got these ideas about dispensationalism. I have a few really good friends who are as reformed as you can get, and they don't throw up these straw man attacks that you do at every turn. They can't because they go to a decidedly dispensational school, and if they do, they'll fail!

As for my own education and "tooting my horn", that's funny, because I've not said anything other than that I am in school. Obviously, no one is obligated to tell anyone here anything about themselves, but so that you know, I am currently attending Luther Rice College and Seminary in Lithonia, GA, working on my Bachelor of Arts in Religion. Once I hit 90 hours, I'll begin working on the Master of Arts in Ministry with an emphasis in Christian Studies, probably late next year. From there, I plan on going to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wakeforest, NC for the M. Div, then from there I'm still up in the air. I've talked to some advisors, and it looks like I'll probably get a Masters in Biblical Studies, emphasis on language, from DTS, then go on to a state sponsored divinity school (Arizona, Vanderbuilt) for a Th.M., then on to Yale, Harvard, or possibly Cambridge or Princeton for a Ph.D. The liberal aspect of those last two degrees will make me much more marketable, especially when I go to Trinity for my last Ph.D.

So, I'll be in for a long time yet, and I've got a ton to learn. I'd say, given how far I have to go, I have very little to brag about!

As for how I understand dispensationalism as well as I do, the majority of my profs are DTS grads. Both of my theology profs are. I understand Covenant Theology as well as I do because I worked in a Korean Presbyterian church for three years under the leadership of two hyper-Calvinists. That led me to some pretty bad conclusions about what they believed (I thought it was the norm!), and I was so incredulous that I talked with others in the church, and associated churches, about the belief system. Since I was in a teaching capacity, I had to be very careful to be sure that I wasn't teaching A) my beliefs that were contrary to what the church taught, or B) things the church believed that were directly contrary to my own.

That was a hard line to walk, but it forced to me to get a really solid grasp on Covenant Theology in general. Do I understand it as well as someone who has a degree from Westminster? Of course not, but then agian, I don't even understand it as well as someone who has come out of DTS! Nor do I understand it as well as David Lee (one of the two I worked under). But, I have a working knowledge that is strong enough to prevent me from creating a straw man of the position. It's actually funny, because the guy I was working directly with, Eddie, is attending Gordon Conwell, and I've had conversations with him in which I'll say something that Reformed Theology teaches, to which I find out that he's just now studying that in his classes . . .

So, education is not an issue, PL. Nice try, though.

As for challenging me on bad theology, you can do it all you want. I don't really care, but we won't have any discussion on your challenges. They'll be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes?) so to speak. For the sake of those reading, I'll provide references, as I did earlier in this thread, but you and I won't be having any more discussions relating to theology and/or Scripture, except for the paper I'll submit later, and that will be the last one. Again, I'm not wasting my time with someone who isn't going to deal fairly with arguments. Lowly pointed out the same thing, so it isn't just me, PL.

And finally, as for your argument about me not dealing with this post . . . that's funny. You do realize that I haven't debated with you in this thread over the Olivet Discourse, right? The extent of my involvement has been to answer a question raised by Christian2 and a clarification from IRQ. Didn't see your name in that . . .

Am I the keeper of doctrine around here, PL? Of course not. It should be obvious that I am not required to answer every position expounded with which I take exception. I've no interest in this thread, PL, so far as your arguements go, because I don't want to debate it. The fact that you see the church in all of this is expected, and as such, we have absolutely no place to even begin a rational dialogue, which you wouldn't engage in anyway. So, in answer to your "charge", there is no reason for me to answer your exgesis. Now, if we were in a discussion on an issue and you provided an exegesis in support of your position, THEN I would be obligated to answer . . . hey, wait, I have done that. So, I'm still waiting on you . . .

God bless

[puritan lad]

Congrats on your education Jac. Maybe you should put in a year at Westminster, just so you can have a better understanding of Covenant Theology before you make your blanket assertions. As for me, I am currently enrolled in Whitefield Theological Seminary (Correspondence Courses under an approved mentor). As a husband and a father with a mortgage, I cannot just pack up and go to seminary. I already have a Physics and Engineering degree from a secular university. I am certainly no anti-intellectual, but also hold that seminary degrees do not add sway to the arguments. If that were the case, then everyone with a seminary degree would be in agreement. Furthermore, the self-taught CHarles Spurgeon was a theological genius, and I find the exegesis of one John Waalvord to be fatally flawed (Remember the Soviet Union as Gog and Magog? Whatever happened to them?)

Now to the issue at hand.

Now, if we were in a discussion on an issue and you provided an exegesis in support of your position, THEN I would be obligated to answer . . . hey, wait, I have done that. So, I'm still waiting on you . . . ;)

Uh Jac, Please read the first 6 posts on this thread. I have made a nearly conclusive case that the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled. You have yet to address any of my arguments. Your argument is that you have a "more literal" method of interpretation (which we have yet to see) and that you attend seminary. Listen to yourself Jac?

It is somewhere between comedic and sad that you are so sure of yourself with regards to your understanding of dispensationalism. May I ask where you attended seminary? I would be interested to see how you would do in a small one as I attend, much less something as prestigious as Dallas Theological.

We shouldn't question you because of your superior knowledge. We underlings should bow down before the almighty Jac. Afterall, we couldn't even survive in a small seminary (even though many of us have). Jac, on the other hand, attends seminary. He studies works from the “prestigious” DTS, (where a bunch of dispensationalist get together and pat each other on the back, giving each other degrees once they are convinced that you have learned their system.) Maybe you would like to lock horns with Kenneth Gentry, J. Gresham Machen or John H. Gerstner, who attended a real “prestigious” seminary, called Princeton (when it was a real seminary; and later Westminster). Of course, Princeton has nothing on Dallas Theological, but I think that these men are pretty smart.

However, I'm not going to veer off on this "educational" road anymore. I feel pretty qualified to defend my statements (and if you honestly feel otherwise, then you, and a seminary student, should be able to shred my "strawman" arguments). No, you are not obligated to answer anything. You may ignore anything here that you wish. I gave some very basic challenges to your above posts (Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:49 pm), where you told me to study some scriptures (which I have already sone many times.) You recommend that I read a book (which I already have). You then refer to my objections as "strawman" arguments, which makes me wonder. Are you even able to answer the arguments? They are just basic scriptural arguments, nothing complicated. This is a copout Jac. You blow off the questions, acting like they are somehow beneath you. I seriously doubt your ability answer these "strawman" arguments. Now are you going to defend your views, or just continue to float above us commonfolk in your ethereal highness?