Special place in hell (for preterists)

[Darfius]

So you finally quote an actual source instead of assuming modern generation is the same as ancient....

And, it disagrees with what Darfius posted (unless I misread his meaning). He quoted Scripture where Moses says it's 70 or 80 years. Jesus didn't say it would start "before the next generation begins" he said ..."this generation will not pass away". I take that to mean that it would happen before everyone hearing him passes away. So, again, fits with preterism.

Yes, that was the meaning of what I posted and I agree with what you say here, even that it "fits with preterism". But as I posted elsewhere, Scripture says first tribulation would come "to the Jew" and "then to the Gentile", which means double fulfillment. In support of that:

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 25

But when the seventy years are fulfilledthe cupJerusalem and the towns of Judah the Jew first]all the kingdoms on the face of the earth. And after all of them, the king of Sheshak [Babylon] will drink it too. See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword on all who live on the earth, declares the Lord AlmightyThe tumult will resound to the ends of the earth,
for the Lord will bring charges against the nations;
he will bring judgment on all mankind

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Revelation 16

19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

© Copyright Original Source

[Littlejoe]

Jews and generations..



And they obviously don't have any sort of eschatological bias. If you have a better source, put up or shut up.

So you finally quote an actual source instead of assuming modern generation is the same as ancient....

And, it disagrees with what Darfius posted (unless I misread his meaning). He quoted Scripture where Moses says it's 70 or 80 years. Jesus didn't say it would start "before the next generation begins" he said ..."this generation will not pass away". I take that to mean that it would happen before everyone hearing him passes away. So, again, fits with preterism.

[seanD]

See, this is a perfect example of why it's generally not worth my time to explain things to you. Rather than studying ancient culture and scholarly works, you make up a number based on modern American culture, blithely assume that it holds for an entirely different time and culture, and then handwave away arguments to the contrary.

Jews and generations..

The number of years that elapse before the children of one set of human beings arrive at a marriageable age. This number has been defined to be equal to the average male age at marriage, plus one year before child-bearing begins, plus half the average number of years during which fecundity lasts. As a rule, Jews marry much earlier than the rest of the male population among which they dwell, probably owing to the rabbinic requirement that a man should marry before attaining the age of twenty (Ḳid. 29b). On the other hand, their fecundity is greater; therefore the time of fertility of the female is longer; but exact figures concerning this detail are not available. From such data as are obtainable it appears that Jews marry at the age of twenty-two, as compared with twenty-nine for the rest of the population (Mayo-Smith, "Science of Statistics," i. 103); while fertility lasts, on an average, for fourteen years after marriage, as compared with twelve among non-Jews (ib. 113). This would give the length of a generation among Jews as thirty years, as compared with thirty-six in the remaining population.

And they obviously don't have any sort of eschatological bias. If you have a better source, put up or shut up.

[Darfius]

The thing to remember is that the OT should be interpreted spiritually. People like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus agreed with this.

While Justin Martyr and Irenaeus can provide interesting information about the beliefs and practices of the early church, their beliefs and practices are in no way authoritative independent of Scriptural support. "Tradition" is the way the Jews and Catholics perverted the truth into Babylonian knockoffs.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

I guess if the scriptures were to be understood literally the Jews would have understood who Jesus was. Seeing they couldn't see and hearing they couldn't hear.

"Literally", the Scriptures present both a suffering Messiah and a conquering one. The Jews hoped for and therefore expected the wrong version of the Messiah. Even still, those most educated in Scripture (the Pharisees and Sanhedrin) knew Jesus was the Messiah. They just rejected Him. "It is better for one man to die for the people than that the whole nation perish." Caiaphas was basically saying, "since Jesus will not be the conquering Messiah we desire, we will help Him be the suffering Messiah He appears to want to be."

Here is a premillennial question for you.

Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

Most pre-mills believe this is the millennial temple. Heaven and earth flee away after the millennium (Rev 20:11). The New heaven and earth are found in Rev 21. How can Ezekiel's temple be forever if the old earth passes away?

God says His "dwelling" will be there (on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem), but He does not specify that a specific building will last forever. Actually, according to Scripture, the rebuilt temple will be defiled by the Antichrist, so I'm not sure where the idea came that it would "last forever."

[seanD]

See, this is a perfect example of why it's generally not worth my time to explain things to you. Rather than studying ancient culture and scholarly works, you make up a number based on modern American culture, blithely assume that it holds for an entirely different time and culture, and then handwave away arguments to the contrary.

So you're saying I should accept the argument that the ancient Jews considered a generation 40 years because a bunch of futurists, who believed the countdown to the tribulation was the formation of Israel, made a false prediction about the tribulation happening in the 80s because they also believed that a generation was 40 years?

[One Bad Pig]

I've already told. We consider a generation about 30 years, so I have no reason to believe the ancients considered it any longer than that when they lived shorter lives and had children earlier than we do. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any better argument than that, short of actually researching the subject through ancient records themselves or scholarly works; preferably scholars without any eschatological agendas.

See, this is a perfect example of why it's generally not worth my time to explain things to you. Rather than studying ancient culture and scholarly works, you make up a number based on modern American culture, blithely assume that it holds for an entirely different time and culture, and then handwave away arguments to the contrary.

[One Bad Pig]

So I did understand you correctly, so what was the flak about? I don't agree they're separate subjects. That's ridiculous considering they're in the same context of Paul's discussion.

What a devastating rebuttal.

[eschaton]

You're getting into preterist gibberish/private interpretation territory. You know you have to know how to read before you can push your high and mighty "spiritual" interpretation, right? How much of the letter is too much before it starts to kill? The "law" and "letter" Jesus and Paul were talking about was the "oral law", not the words of God. And who is the arbiter of which "spiritual" interpretation is correct and how much of the words of God should be ignored? Revelation places a curse on anyone "taking away" from Scripture and Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass away.

Also, as is my right, duty and pleasure, I shall back you into a corner (in a friendly, loving, instructive way) with Scripture:

Scripture Verse: Malachi 4

Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.prophet Elijah

© Copyright Original Source

Reminding the people of the law of Moses is clearly part of the job description of the Elijah which preceded the Lord's first coming and the Elijah who will precede His second. That is to say, the opposite of the private interpretation you are pushing. Turns out God did not write Scripture for us to think we know better than what it says, but for us to heed it bearing in mind that of course He means more than merely what is written. But He never means less.

The thing to remember is that the OT should be interpreted spiritually. People like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus agreed with this.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

I guess if the scriptures were to be understood literally the Jews would have understood who Jesus was. Seeing they couldn't see and hearing they couldn't hear.

Here is a premillennial question for you.

Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

Most pre-mills believe this is the millennial temple. Heaven and earth flee away after the millennium (Rev 20:11). The New heaven and earth are found in Rev 21. How can Ezekiel's temple be forever if the old earth passes away?

[Darfius]

Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 32

45 When Moses finished reciting all these wordswords I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. 47 . By them you will live

© Copyright Original Source

[Darfius]

Scripture Verse: Psalm 90

A prayer of Moses the man of God.
1
Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generationsOur days may come to seventy years,
or eighty, if our strength endures;
yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
11
If only we knew the power of your anger!
Your wrath is as great as the fear that is your due.
12
Teach us to number our days,
that we may gain a heart of wisdom

© Copyright Original Source

[seanD]

Ok, got it. Futurists who got any Biblical prophecy wrong are wrong about everything they write...Ok, NP. Tell me Sean, since you've ducked this question multiple times...how long is a generation in Jesus time? All you've done so far is just tell me I'm wrong. Where's your proof I'm wrong except your begging the question defense?

I've already told. We consider a generation about 30 years, so I have no reason to believe the ancients considered it any longer than that when they lived shorter lives and had children earlier than we do. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any better argument than that, short of actually researching the subject through ancient records themselves or scholarly works; preferably scholars without any eschatological agendas.

And about the 40 year prediction you referenced, I could have told you they wrong even before they were proven wrong. Firstly, 40 years is not even what we consider a generation as I said. They were obviously doing the same exact thing you're doing, stretching it to try and get it to fit their interpretation. They believed that the formation of Israel in the 40s had some significance to the fig tree reference in the OD, or that's supposedly where the "countdown" started.

I would have rejected this right from the outset. First of all, when someone... anyone... sets a specific year or date, RUN FOR THE HILLS. At least that's my motto, and I don't care who it is. The fact they picked a specific year -- bzzzz! Wrong. Secondly, they obviously ignored Luke's version where it puts no significance on the fig tree itself ("and all the trees"). So the fact Luke's version is not consistent with the others, means it had nothing to do with the formation of Israel. Jesus was just using it as an illustration of forecasting the situation. He was saying you will know when he's "at the door" when you see the signs, much like knowing when a certain season is near. My interpretation of that is he meant you will know the generation, not any specific year.

[Littlejoe]

I honestly can't believe... and I'm being serious here... you used that for your argument of why a generation should be 40 years in ancient culture and expected me to "concede" that.

Your problem is you think in black and white. You think every futurist believes the same thing. Why would you believe that when it's obvious there are varying views on this subject between futurists? The Hal Lindseys are not the be-all, end-all of futurist views.

Obviously they were wrong, because they claimed it would happen in the 80s and it didn't, so that automatically disqualifies their whole interpretation, including what they claimed constituted a generation, as if that was even a plausible argument to begin with. The question is, why are you adopting that erroneous interpretation of a generation and expecting me to accept it?

Ok, got it. Futurists who got any Biblical prophecy wrong are wrong about everything they write...Ok, NP. Tell me Sean, since you've ducked this question multiple times...how long is a generation in Jesus time? All you've done so far is just tell me I'm wrong. Where's your proof I'm wrong except your begging the question defense?

[seanD]

Whatever bro. I'm using a futurist view and you're a futurist but you think they are wrong and you're laughing at my view...can't make this stuff up...

I honestly can't believe... and I'm being serious here... you used that for your argument of why a generation should be 40 years in ancient culture and expected me to "concede" that.

Your problem is you think in black and white. You think every futurist believes the same thing. Why would you believe that when it's obvious there are varying views on this subject between futurists? The Hal Lindseys are not the be-all, end-all of futurist views.

Obviously they were wrong, because they claimed it would happen in the 80s and it didn't, so that automatically disqualifies their whole interpretation, including what they claimed constituted a generation, as if that was even a plausible argument to begin with. The question is, why are you adopting that erroneous interpretation of a generation and expecting me to accept it?

[Littlejoe]

Bro, you're using a futurist interpretation (which is most likely wrong) of what they believe constitutes a generation for a preterist interpretation of a generation? Wow

Whatever bro. I'm using a futurist view and you're a futurist but you think they are wrong and you're laughing at my view...can't make this stuff up...

[Darfius]

I think Paul is clear about how the scriptures should be understood.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

He also makes it clear that it is about how the scriptures are understood.

2 Cor 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

John the Baptist was asked if he was Elias and he denied it.

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

But Jesus said:

Mat 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

Jesus called for spiritual understanding. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elias.

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

To depend on the letter brings death.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

You're getting into preterist gibberish/private interpretation territory. You know you have to know how to read before you can push your high and mighty "spiritual" interpretation, right? How much of the letter is too much before it starts to kill? The "law" and "letter" Jesus and Paul were talking about was the "oral law", not the words of God. And who is the arbiter of which "spiritual" interpretation is correct and how much of the words of God should be ignored? Revelation places a curse on anyone "taking away" from Scripture and Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass away.

Also, as is my right, duty and pleasure, I shall back you into a corner (in a friendly, loving, instructive way) with Scripture:

Scripture Verse: Malachi 4

Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.prophet Elijah

© Copyright Original Source

Reminding the people of the law of Moses is clearly part of the job description of the Elijah which preceded the Lord's first coming and the Elijah who will precede His second. That is to say, the opposite of the private interpretation you are pushing. Turns out God did not write Scripture for us to think we know better than what it says, but for us to heed it bearing in mind that of course He means more than merely what is written. But He never means less.