The Olivet Discourse Fulfilled

[Jac3510]

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.

That's actually something I'm seriously considering . . . my big concern is balance on my resume. Thus, the Ph.D's from both a conservative and liberal school. I know a Masters from DTS will help, so it may actually be a good idea to get onef rom Westminster as well. Unless I do the Princeton thing.

Ah, the good news is that I have several years to decide exactly where I need to go

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?)

I'd agree that degrees aren't everything, and there certainly have been many a brilliant self-taught individuals. The majority of my theology is self-taught. The school I'm at is pretty easy, although the discussions I have with profs before and after classes are great. But, I think we'd all agree a degree, or a series of them, makes a person generally more qualified to speak on a subject. Not always, of course, but as a rule, this is the case. It's the same way in the secular world.

As for Gog and Magog, I think I already said that I found Walvoord wrong about that. I'm not a Hal Lindsey dispensationalist, PL. Most people I know aren't. See, this is a good example of the kind of thing I have a problem with you about. I've already answered this argument, andyet you ignore my replies in this area. Why should I bother trying to dialogue with you, PL, if you aren't going to give my words due consideration?

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?

And I've already said that I don't wish to engage in this debate. Of course I find your exegesis flawed. As a matter of fact, this past Saturday I was required to turn in a chart that references every single eschatological passage in the book of Matthew. Needless to say, both the Olivet Discourse and the Sermon on the Mount got extensive treatment!

Now, if this were a debate I wanted to engage in, then I would be obligated to answer ALL of your exegesis with due consideration. Given the sheer volume of your words, that would be a lot of consideration! For my part, I would have to offer not only a counter exposition, but I would have to thoroughly take into account everything you said.

So why don't I? Because I don't want to. I don't want to engage in this debate. Do you know why that is? The reason is rooted strictly in the hermeneutical approach, and not the exegesis itself. If we can't even agree on HOW to interpret Scripture, why should we debate on what it means? That's the point of the paper I'll be posting in the next few weeks. Even Allis agrees with me here, saying: "The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset." (Prophecy and the Church, p. 17). So, what good is it for me to have this discussion with you, PL? And show me where I have EVER asserted that just because I got to seminary we should all listen to me. I made it very clear why I asked you about your education, and I'll be looking into your school. It should help me understand better where you are coming from.

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.

Oh please, PL. Sarcasm is the last resort of fools. Again, I've not asserted my schooling above anyone else's. Just the opposite, in fact. But, AS ALWAYS, you don't take into account another person's position. You are, AGAIN, doing the same thing you ALWAYS do. Discard someone's position and attribute to them what you want to attribute to them, and then attack them for it.

Funny, as much as I disagree with Westminster's theological stance, I haven't ridiculed that school. As much as I disagree with Princeton, I'm considering going there . . .

However, I'm not going to veer off on this "educational" road anymore.

Probably a good idea.

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).

Sure you are qualified to defend your statements, although I wouldn't put two cents on your understanding of dispensationalism. But, so far as puritanism, reformed theology, etc., you seem pretty well on the money. Your eschatology is a bit off, so far as terminology goes, but that isn't all that surprising, either.

As far as "shredding" your strawmen, for the most part, I'm content to point them out. There's a big difference in you and me, PL. I know I'm not going to change your mind. I have no intention on trying. Let me ask you an honest question . . . why do you think I have these discussions with 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?

It's a good thing, for your sake, I don't get into tit-for-tat debate. Any other personal attacks you'd like to throw my way? Any other false positions you would like to attribute to me? Any attitudes you'd like to tell me that I have? Would you like me to tell you a bit about my family life? It might open up a world of new material for you.

I've shown two strawmen in this thread. The Calvinism thread was a joke, as I repeatedly pointed them out. In that thread, I dealt with every Scripture you threw at me, and then some. You didn't feel the need to return the favor. I'm not sure why that is, but I suppose that's up to you.

edit: Actually, let's clarify something. You do have a pretty good strawman method. It's more subtle . . . I wonder now if you even know that you are doing it.

Technically, a strawman is a false argument you prop up to knock down. You don't often (although you have) done this in a very out and out manner. Usually, we get what we see in this thread. You totally ignore an argument, and then continue to apply a false position to a person, and then attack that false position as if it were what the other person held to. Now, I don't know if you just don't read my posts (which I really do wonder about), or if because of the length of some of them you forget, or if you skim them looking for something to argue against or what. Regardless, its a common thing for you, and something you may want to take note of.

[puritan lad]

Why should I bother trying to dialogue with you, PL, if you aren't going to give my words due consideration?

Jac, I quoted you directly and then responded. What more consideration would you like?

Even Allis agrees with me here, saying: "The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset." (Prophecy and the Church, p. 17).

That, my friend, is NOT the issue. You certainly don't take Matthew 24:34 literally (or Matthew 10:23, or Matthew 16:28). The issue is, what is figurative and what is literal? Is there any biblical pattern to figurative language? What is the pattern? (No one takes the 23rd Psalm "literally". It would sound pretty absurd if we did.)

But, AS ALWAYS, you don't take into account another person's position. You are, AGAIN, doing the same thing you ALWAYS do. Discard someone's position and attribute to them what you want to attribute to them, and then attack them for it.

I've taken your position into account, and challenged it solely on the basis of your own statements. Then you, in reply, offer to teach me some things about dispensationalism. Of course, I just don't know enough about it, since I don't go to a Dispensational Seminary, even though I've probably studied the same material that you are using. You didn't figure that the reason I don't go to a Dispensational Seminary is because I'm all too familiar with it, and find it to be unbiblical.

I've shown two strawmen in this thread. The Calvinism thread was a joke, as I repeatedly pointed them out. In that thread, I dealt with every Scripture you threw at me, and then some. You didn't feel the need to return the favor. I'm not sure why that is, but I suppose that's up to you.

I most certainly dealt with your argument, and I did so from the root. Your entire argument hinged on the idea that man goes to hell because of unbelief, not because of sin. The alleged "proof-text" you provided was Revelation 20:11-15, which says absolutely nothing about "unbelief", but says very clearly that they were "judged according to their works". I pointed this out and never received a response. You never showed any evidence that those in hell had their sins atoned for, not did you ever answer my simple objection., And you never did deal with Romans 9:10-23. At least your cohorts made an attempt, however feeble.

Technically, a strawman is a false argument you prop up to knock down. You don't often (although you have) done this in a very out and out manner. Usually, we get what we see in this thread. You totally ignore an argument, and then continue to apply a false position to a person, and then attack that false position as if it were what the other person held to. Now, I don't know if you just don't read my posts (which I really do wonder about), or if because of the length of some of them you forget, or if you skim them looking for something to argue against or what. Regardless, its a common thing for you, and something you may want to take note of.

A false argument to knock down? Me? How so? I simply quoted you directly and gave a simple, bibical response? Let's try again..

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 one 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...

No strawmen here Jac. I just directly quoted you and then gave a simple biblical response. Now if you wish not to debate this, that is your right. But please don't accuse me of creating a "a false argument" to "prop up" and "knock down". I haven't created any "false" arguments. I simple quoted you.

On second thought...

[Jac3510]

OK, I'm convinced. You simply don't read my arguments. That has to be it . . . whether it's because they get lost in the shuffle or my method of delivery is off or you just don't care, there is no way you are reading what I have to say.

Jac, I quoted you directly and then responded. What more consideration would you like?

In this thread, sure . . . I was referring to our other discussions. I told you, I AM NOT HAVING THIS DEBATE WITH YOU. Why? Because it would be a waste of my time. You won't give any serious arguments due consideration, as you have frequently proven yourself, both in this thread and in previous discussions. And, beyond that, we do not even agree on HOW to interpret Scripture, and therefore, we cannot begin to discuss this particular passage.

That, my friend, is NOT the issue. You certainly don't take Matthew 24:34 literally (or Matthew 10:23, or Matthew 16:28). The issue is, what is figurative and what is literal? Is there any biblical pattern to figurative language? What is the pattern? (No one takes the 23rd Psalm "literally". It would sound pretty absurd if we did.)

Feel free to disagree with Allis. He's one of you.

See, that quote is exactly why I question your understanding of literalism, dispensationalism, premillennialism, and the rest. I mean . . . PL, are you SERIOUSLY asking those questions? Do you REALLY think that's what "literal" means? I hope you lied when you said you read Things to Come, and all you really did was give it once over, or maybe looked at select passages. Because if you read it in detail, and you STILL don't know the answers to those questions, you are hopeless. PL, that is FIRST SEMESTER hermeneutics! For the love of God, pick up a copy of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Fee and Stewart. Sheesh . . . your misunderstanding, be it intentional or not, boggles my mind.

I've taken your position into account, and challenged it solely on the basis of your own statements. Then you, in reply, offer to teach me some things about dispensationalism. Of course, I just don't know enough about it, since I don't go to a Dispensational Seminary, even though I've probably studied the same material that you are using. You didn't figure that the reason I don't go to a Dispensational Seminary is because I'm all too familiar with it, and find it to be unbiblical.

More sarcasm . . .

I most certainly dealt with your argument, and I did so from the root. Your entire argument hinged on the idea that man goes to hell because of unbelief, not because of sin. The alleged "proof-text" you provided was Revelation 20:11-15, which says absolutely nothing about "unbelief", but says very clearly that they were "judged according to their works". I pointed this out and never received a response. You never showed any evidence that those in hell had their sins atoned for, not did you ever answer my simple objection., And you never did deal with Romans 9:10-23. At least your cohorts made an attempt, however feeble.

This just gets better and better . . .

First off, my "entire argument" was NOT based on unbelief sending a person to hell. That was one of three initial and independant arguments, but I suppose you would have had to have read the post to have seen that. (Although the way you "read" Things to Come, maybe I shouldn't be surprised?) Regardless, I DID reply to your argument as related to Rev. 20:11-15 . . . page 5, my first reply, paragraphs 3 and 4. Secondly, I showed page after page and Scripture after Scripture, which YOU never handled, as to the doctrine of unlimited atonement. For example, in commenting on the basic premise, you offered five passages on page 3, your third reply. I replied to these and showed how they actually SUPPORTED my position on the very next reply. As usualy, you didn't respond. So, while you commented on the doctrine in general, you almost never on my arguments directly. You made a blanket statement on page 4, your 5th reply. A few posts down, I handled this, and a couple of related specifics you brought up, as well as dealt with the fact that you never considered my original exegeses!

In all of this, you never dealt with my understanding of election. In fact, you went so far as to attribute to me a position I argued AGAINST! You never dealt with my understanding of Total Depravity (see the my quotation of Justin Kirksey on page ONE) . . . over and over, PL, you refused to handle arguments. In fact, on page five, where you "dealt with" my passages concerning universal atonement, you used Hebrews 9:12 as a proof text, which, as I pointed out in my reply on the same page, I HAD ALREADY HANDLED! (see p. 4, my fourth reply).

Now, I said in the thread that I wasn't going to handle Rom. 9 until you handled my arguments, and as demonstrated, you never did. Besides, you were busy having that discussion with Sean :p

A false argument to knock down? Me? How so? I simply quoted you directly and gave a simple, bibical response? Let's try again..

Hopefully this should help you see how you do that . . .

Notice, for the record, the remarks to which I replied "more sarcasm." Look, if you would, at why I said what I did . . . you continually ascribe to me positions I don't hold.

Now, AGAIN, I'm not going into detail with you on passages in this thread. I'm just not going to do it. Offer all the Scripture you want. I gave you references. If you are that interested, go see what dispensational scholars say on those. I'm not going to do your research for you. If you already know what they say, then deal with it yourself.

No strawmen here Jac. I just directly quoted you and then gave a simple biblical response. Now if you wish not to debate this, that is your right. But please don't accuse me of creating a "a false argument" to "prop up" and "knock down". I haven't created any "false" arguments. I simple quoted you.

So, apparently, context isn't something you get along with too well, is it? Why don't you do an "exposition" of my strawman charge, and tell me what the context is. And then, while you are at it, tell me what that has anything to do with this the Olivet Discourse debate?

God bless

[Jac3510]

Actually . . . I'm out. You can have whatever last word you want. This is getting too personal, and it isn't God-honoring to go in that direction. Here's the deal, PL:

You don't handle my arguments, I won't handle yours. The good news is that we'll both be in heaven.

God bless

[puritan lad]

OK. You win. I just don't understand your methods, and don't understand the "exegesis" of dispensational scholars, so you refuse to debate this. And even though this is a thread about the Olivet Discourse, it really has nothing to do with it. I get it Jac. Now for the facts.

1.) I believe that you really don't want to debate this because you know (as most dispensationalists do) that your view cannot be supported by scripture. Where does the scripture mention a pre-trib rapture? a third Jewish temple? a Russian Invasion of Israel? (Yes, I'm familar with Waalvord's responses, but they are a joke. Please defend them here, and we'll have some fun.)

2.) Your "dispensations" cannot be support by the Bible (in any exegesis). I am familiar wih their arguments Jac. But since many here are not, maybe you want to share them with us. (Of course, there are degrees to "dispensationalism", so you'll have to clarify where you stand. Do you reject only the Old Testament, or the gospels as well? What about the books authored by anyone outside of Paul?) Here are some serious questions that you should ask your teachers:

Has God fulfilled his promise to Abraham or not? Just what is "Israel" in scripture? Is it a fleshly nation, or a chosen people in covenant with God? Were Ruth, Rahab, and Urriah considered "Jews"? How about Esau, Ishmael, King Saul, and the Pharisees? Were they children of Abraham? The Pharisees claimed that they were. Jesus disagreed. Who was right? Does God have "another plan" for Israel's salvation apart from the gospel? What about Christ's work? Is it finished or not? Is ALL Scripture profitable for Doctrine? Are we to live by "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"? Does God alter His Word? Does His righteous statutes endure forever? What did Paul think of the Old Testament?

Does Jesus have a kingdom now? Did the Old Testament Prophets foresee the church age? What is a "generation"? Does the Second Advent happen twice, 7 years apart? Will 144,000 people be saved after the Holy Spirit leaves planet earth? How? Will there be a return to "weak and beggarly elements" such as animal sacrifice, temple exaltation, etc.? Are there 2,000 year gaps in between OT prophecies such as Daniel
9:24-27, Isaiah 66:6-8, and Zechariah 12:1-14? If so, why don't the prophets say so? Will the Great Commission succeed or fail? The NT writers expected Christ's "coming" to be soon. Were they wrong?

We can dispense with the idea that I just don't understand dispensationalism. I understand it very well. Your Dispensational "scholars" have given the wrong answers to the above questions time and time again, yet you want me to study them to discover your correct "literal" interpretation. I already have Jac. They are wrong.

Now I have given ample proof at the beginning of this thread of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse. That is what this thread is about. If you disagree, but don't want to debate it, then say so and leave it at that. If you want to introduce your "interpretative method" and show why it is superior to mine, please do so. Otherwise, please stick with the issue at hand, the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.

[puritan lad]

Good Enough Jac.

God Bless.

PL

[Christian2]

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 . . .

Thanks Jac,

I looked through all my Study Bibles to see if one of them addressed my question and found nothing. It seems that not many people have looked at the passage the way I did. The only thing I could find on the Internet was what the John Gills Exposition of the Bible says about these verses.:

Mat 24:4 - And Jesus answered and said unto them,.... Not to indulge their curiosity, but to instruct them in things useful to be known, and which might be cautions to them and others, against deceivers; confirm them in the faith of himself, when they should see his predictions accomplished; and be directions to them, of what might shortly be expected.

Take heed that no man deceive you: by pretending to come from God with a new revelation, setting himself up for the Messiah, after my departure; suggesting himself to be the person designed by God to be the deliverer of Israel, and to be sent by him, to set up a temporal kingdom, in great worldly splendour and glory; promising great names, and high places of honour and trust in it; things which Christ knew his disciples were fond of, and were in danger of being ensnared by; and therefore gives them this suitable and seasonable advice, and caution.

Mat 24:5 - For many shall come in my name,.... by his orders, or with delegated powers and authority from him; but should assume the name of the Messiah, which was peculiarly his, to themselves; and take upon them his office, and challenge the honour and dignity which belonged unto him:

saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. This is the first sign, preceding the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem; as there was a general expectation among the Jews of a Messiah; that is, of one that should arise and deliver them from the Roman yoke, which was the common idea tacked to that word; in this period of time, many set up themselves to be deliverers and redeemers of the people of Israel: who had each of them their followers in great numbers, whom they imposed upon, and brought to destruction. Of this sort was Theudas, not he that Gamaliel speaks of, Act_5:36 for he was before this time; but one that was in the time of Claudius Caesar, when Cuspius Fadus was governor of Judea; who persuaded a great number to follow him to the river Jordan, which he promised to divide, by a word of command, and give them a passage over; and thereby, as the historian observes, (πολλού ηπάτησην), "he deceived many"; which is the very thing that is here predicted: but he and his company were routed Fadus, and his head cut off. There was another called the Egyptian, mentioned in Act_21:38 who made an uproar, and led four thousand cut-throats into the wilderness; and this same man persuaded thirty thousand men to follow him to Mount Olivet, promising a free passage into the city; but he being vanquished by Felix, then governor of Judea; fled, and many of his followers were killed and taken (d): and besides, there were many more magicians and impostors, that pretended to signs and wonders, and promised the people deliverance from their evils, by whom they were imposed upon to their ruin. There were others also besides these, that set up for deliverers, who called themselves by the name of the Messiah. Among these, we may reckon Simon Magus, who gave out that he was some great one; yea, expressly, that he was the word of God, and the Son of God (e), which were known names of the Messiah; and Dositheus the Samaritan, asserted himself to be Christ (f); and also Menander affirmed, that no man could be saved, unless he was baptized in his name (g); these are instances before the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirm the prophecy here delivered.

(c) Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 2. (d) Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 6. (e) Jerom in loc. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 20. (f) Origen contr. Cels. l. 1. p. 44. (g) Tertull. de prescript. Haeret. c. 46.

Thank you again for your input.

[Christian2]

puritan lad,

Hello.

I read this thread sometime ago. You may have answered the following questions before; if so, just point me to it.

1. Are you a full preterist or a partial preterist?

I read Dee Dee Warren's article, "It's not the end of the world." Ms. Warren is a partial preterist. In other words she believes that the prophecies in Matthew, Chapter 24, were fulfilled by 70AD, but she also believes in the bodily Second Coming of Jesus.

2. If you are a full preterist and don't believe in the bodily Second Coming of Jesus, would you please tell me why you don't believe in the Second Coming citing verses in the New Testament to support your position?

Or, if you are a partial preterist and believe in the Second Coming what verses in the New Testament do you believe support your argument?

Thank you.

[puritan lad]

Christian2,

I am a partial preterist. (In fact, I hold that hyper-preterism is a heresy). The scriptures that support the Second Advent are Acts 1:9-11 and 2 Peter 3:10. There is some disagreement among partial preterists as far as the Olivet Discourse. Kenneth Gentry, for example, believes that verses 35 onward in Matthew 24 are still future. Gary DeMar disagrees.

I hold that 1 Thess. 4:13-17 speak of the Second Advent (not a pre-trib rapture).

[Christian2]

Christian2,

I am a partial preterist. (In fact, I hold that hyper-preterism is a heresy). The scriptures that support the Second Advent are Acts 1:9-11 and 2 Peter 3:10. There is some disagreement among partial preterists as far as the Olivet Discourse. Kenneth Gentry, for example, believes that verses 35 onward in Matthew 24 are still future. Gary DeMar disagrees.

I hold that 1 Thess. 4:13-17 speak of the Second Advent (not a pre-trib rapture).

I am new at this puritan. Thank you for your response.

I am having a private discussion with a friend of mine--a Christian theologist--not ordained because of some circumstances. He is a full preterist and does not believe in the Second Coming. We are going through Matthew 24 very slowly and are up to verse 21.

I find your Scriptures references very weak. How about hearing from Jesus' own lips that He will come again? This is what I expected to see from you.

Kenneth Gentry, for example, believes that verses 35 onward in Matthew 24 are still future.

This is the point where I get hung up. I am not familiar with Kenneth Gentry but I, so far, find myself interpreting verses 35 onward as possibly in the future. If true, then in these verses Jesus Himself indicates that He will come again.

I need to find an argument of the Second Coming from a partial preterist. Dee Dee Warren is planning to write one.

Thanks again.

[puritan lad]

Christian2,

I'll work on the argument against full-preterism. I'm kind of swamped right now, but hope to have something early next week.

Ask your friend if he takes communion. If so, why?

1 Corinthians 11:26
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

God Bless,

PL.

[Christian2]

Christian2,

I'll work on the argument against full-preterism. I'm kind of swamped right now, but hope to have something early next week.

Ask your friend if he takes communion. If so, why?

1 Corinthians 11:26
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

God Bless,

PL.

My friend is Oneness, unothodox Oneness at that. He does not believe that Jesus died on the cross, therefore, he does not believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. He does not like St. Paul and thinks that Paul preached against the teachings of Jesus. I'm trying to convince him that he is mistaken.

But he believes that Jesus is God. In my eyes, my friend is a Christian--an unothodox Christian, but a Christian none the less. Don't worry. I'm working on this one and I am very gentle.

Shalom

[puritan lad]

My friend is Oneness, unothodox Oneness at that. He does not believe that Jesus died on the cross, therefore, he does not believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. He does not like St. Paul and thinks that Paul preached against the teachings of Jesus. I'm trying to convince him that he is mistaken.

But he believes that Jesus is God. In my eyes, my friend is a Christian--an unothodox Christian, but a Christian none the less. Don't worry. I'm working on this one and I am very gentle.

Shalom

Sorry to have to disagree here, but your friend is not a Christian. How does he determine what the teachings of Jesus are, since he rejects the gospel writers assertion that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead? If he rejects Paul, then he rejects Luke who recorded Jesus' own words concerning Paul in Acts 9:15, "for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel."

Jesus did not write any books directly, therefore, what does your friend consider the teachings of Jesus to be, since he rejects both Paul and the gospels?

Yes, be gentile, but firm. Your friend is not a Christian.

[Jac3510]

I'm actually going to have to agree with PL here (haha, cool, eh? ). Notice Rom. 10:9-10

• That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (NIV)

I don't want to get into a massive exegesis of this passage for several reasons, but look especially at the belief aspects of the verse. Paul ties believing that Christ was resurrected with justification.

I'm as Free Grace as Free Grace gets . . . faith alone in Christ alone is necessary for salvation. BUT, you have to believe in the right Jesus. He Himself said, "I am the Resurrection." I know how your friend will take that, but the point is that if you reject the idea that Jesus has risen from the dead, you are still in your sins, as you have rejected the "right" Jesus.

[puritan lad]

I'm actually going to have to agree with PL here (haha, cool, eh? ).

Uh oh. What did I do wrong?

Just kidding. Thanks Jac.