1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"This generation"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Warren, Oct 18, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nobody infered you a liar. Look at the context (duh) and you will see that "Warren" profile is openly non-baptist and this was pointed out by Craigbythesea, not me. I'm trying to moderate.

    And Baptists can be preterists. I guess . . [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Here is what you said:

    Those men I listed believe those prophecies did come to pass. Therefore according to you those men are "willingly ignorant"

    Is. 13:10 past or future?
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I listed them. Jesus came back physically, every eye could see, literally, in like manner is probably the biggest. Although sun refusing to shine, etc does rate up there.

    None of the Baptist sources you listed believe that Jesus came back in 70CE, do they?

    And we've talked about Is 13. It has some historic/some future fulfillment like 99.9% of Isaiah's prophecies. This is not hard, since Jesus Himself used Is 9, Is 40 and Is 61 as partially fulfilled prophecies just to be sure we'd figure it out.
     
  4. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    They all do. They all believe it was a coming.
    You say you guess a Baptist can be a preterist, I say most before 1900 were in some form preterist.

    John L. Bray
    Evangelist/Author | Southern Baptist Preterist
    On The Second Coming
    "I have come to the conclusion that the event which we have termed 'The Second Coming of Christ' actually took place in the first century during that generation of people who lived in the time of Christ, according to the prophecy and predictions of both Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. All teaching, therefore, concerning the resurrection and judgment connected with the Second Coming of Christ must be studied and understood in the light of this context." November 1998 , Page 2

    I am reading his book "Matthew 24 Fulfilled". In it he speaks of his time working with none other than John R Rice.

    John A. Broadus
    1827-1895
    Postmillennialist | Professor of New Testament
    Interpretation and Homiletics Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-1895
    An American Commentary on the New Testament

    On Matthew "Christ shall be revealed with a sudden vengeance; for when God shall cast off the city and people, grown ripe for destruction, like a carcase thrown out, the Roman soldiers, like eagles, shall straight fly to it with their eagles (ensigns) to tear and devour it."

    "The meaning of the saying as here applied seems to be, that things will come to pass when the occasion for them exists. When Jerusalem is ready for destruction, the Roman armies will gather and destroy it." ibid, p. 489

    On Matthew 24:30: Nature of Christ's Return
    "Six months earlier in 16:27 f. he had declared that would come again in the glory of his Father, as the sovereign Judge of mankind; and that some of them then present would live to see him 'coming in his kingdom.' We there found it necessary to understand that the particular coming to which this last phrase especially refers took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state. The prediction then briefly made by our Lord is now as a result of Matthew 24:30 more fully unfolded vol 1, Matthew, p. 479.
    "It is practically impossible to suppose that v. 30f. relates simply to the destruction of Jerusalem. As the latter part of the discourse 25:31-36 clearly refers to the second coming of our Lord, it seems unavoidable to suppose a similar reference here; see also the corresponding passage, 13:41. But v. 34 will presently declare that "all" the foregoing matter will occur during the existing generation. Then we cannot believe ,with Meyer and others, that the Saviour mistakenly expected his parousia to be within that generation, it follows that v. 29-31 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem." (vol. 1, p. 491)
    On Matthew 24:34
    "The emphasis is on 'all.' All the things predicted in v. 4-31 would occur before or in immediate connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. p. 492

    On "Transition Text Theory" of Matthew 24
    "Every attempt to assign a definite point between the two topics has proved a failure." (p. 480)

    Dr. John Gill ChurchHistory/
    1697- 1771
    BAPTIST, HIGHLY PRETERISTIC

    An Exposition of the New Testament, 3 vols. Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, [1809] 1989)

    Charles Haddon Spurgeon 1834-92) was England's best-known preacher for most of the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1854, just four years after his conversion, Spurgeon, then only 20, became pastor of London's famed New Park Street Church formerly pastored by the famous Baptist theologian John Gill.

    Embrace your Baptist roots Dr. Bob.

    John Bray was a partial preterist then came to the full-preterist view. The others I beleive still hold to a yet future coming of Christ. They are A-Mill or probably Post-Mill. My problem with the partial-pret view is I see no yet future coming described in scripture. If you believed the entire Olivet Discourse is fulfilled and most of Revelation is as well, which view would you hold?

    Perhaps you can be more specific but those verses in Isaiah were future prophecies meant to be fulfilled in the NT. However Is. 13 is describing a historical event.

    Prophecy against old Babylon:
    Isaiah 13
    1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

    God then tells us who He will use to carry out this destruction:

    17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

    Then using apocalyptic/figurative language He describes what will happen:

    9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
    10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

    13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

    Is this section separate from the bookends of verse 1 and 17? Is it your view that this literally happened or not at all and is in our future?

    This is the same type of language used in NT prophecies as well. How would those Jews in the 1st century view this language? As figurative or literal? I think it is clear they would see John and Jesus patterning thier judgement language after that of the OT prophets. Why is this difficult to accept? Those theologians of the past understood this. the fall of Jerusalem was spoken of in the same manner as Babylon was 500 years earlier.
     
  5. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apocalyptic language is pseudointellectual double-talk for fairy tales. You believe the bible is full of fairy tales. There will be a literal second coming, and He will not be hiding in the clouds. He was seen the first time, He will be seen the second time. There will be no mistaking who is coming out of the clouds on a white horse.
    1Cor 15
    4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
    5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
    6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
    7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
    8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

    In the mouths of two or three witnesses...

    Matthew 24:30
    And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

    Mark 13:26
    And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

    Luke 21:27
    And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

    There will be a literal resurrection of the dead when He comes. The graves will literally give up the dead that are in them, and the literal dead will be literal alive again.
    (forgive the lengthy scripture, but it ALL pertains to the subject at hand)
    1Cor 15
    12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
    13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
    14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
    16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
    17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
    18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
    19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
    20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
    21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
    22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
    23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
    24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
    26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
    27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
    28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
    29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
    30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
    31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
    32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
    33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
    34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
    35 But some man (preterist?) will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
    36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
    37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
    38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
    39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
    40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
    41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
    42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
    43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
    44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
    45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
    46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
    47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
    48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
    49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
    50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
    51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
    52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed
    .
    53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
    54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
    55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

    Sorry again! Snip me if you must, but I love the word of God, and someone needs to read it!

    This preterist nonsense is getting old. I don't know how a baptist comes to hold such views, but its not by believing the word of God. You should check under your bed for Jesuits, grasshopper, I think they may be whispering in your ear while you sleep. I pray that God will open your eyes brother, but I fear you are spiritually asleep and nothing I can say is going to make you see the truth.
     
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Dr. John A. Broadus, D.D., L.L.D, made a sharp distinction between the "coming in his kingdom" and “the final coming of our Lord.”

    Broadus writes (in his commentary on Matthew) of the "coming in his kingdom":

    We there [Matt. 16:27 f.] found it necessary to understand that the particular coming to which this last phrase ["coming in his kingdom"] especially refers took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state.

    Broadus writes (in his commentary on Matthew) of the “final coming of our Lord”:

    This discourse [the Olivet Discourse] certainly foretells in the outset the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., v. 15-21, v. 34); and in the conclusion certainly foretells the final coming of our Lord, with the general judgment of mankind and the resulting permanent state of the good and the bad (25:31-46), in a way substantially equivalent to the predictive descriptions afterwards given by the apostles. To refer that closing passage to the destruction of Jerusalem is absurd and impossible.

    Notice those last three words, “absurd and impossible.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey, those are the words I get yelled at for using!! [​IMG]
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Grasshopper has taken this quote by John A. Broadus (see my post above) out of its true context and is using it to argue against a point of view which Broadus went to great lengths to defend. Broadus did NOT write or believe that “the final coming of our Lord” is inseparable from the fall of Jerusalem. What he was saying in the quote provide by Grasshopper is that in the Olivet Discourse there is no dividing point where one can say that before this point Jesus is speaking of the fall of Jerusalem and after this point Jesus is speaking of “the final coming of our Lord,” but rather that the former is gradually phased out by the latter. Here is the quote in context, speaking of the Olivet Discourse:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Excellent quotes from one of the best intellectual Southern Baptists of all time. I wish there were more as thorough and well-grounded as he today.

    Anyway, tt's easy to look at something like "this generation" and say it had to mean the generation to whom it was spoken. But look seriously at a similar problem, already brought up by Warren himself, such as pronouns and context and time factors in the NT.

    Did Jesus only mean he would be with his eleven disciples ("you") until the end of the age (Mt. 28:20)?

    And, as Moses Stuart pointed out many moons ago, did the author of Hebrews need himself to “lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works” (cf. “let us” in 6:1-3)? Did he need encouragement not to forsake assembling together (cf. “let us” in 10:24-25)? Did Paul need exhortation not to be a child, tossed everywhere by every wind of doctrine (cf. “we” in Eph 4:14)? Did Paul expect to meet Jesus in the air and thus never die (cf. “we who are alive” in 1 Thess 4:15-17)?

    Sometimes "you" does not mean only "you who are listening to my voice", just as "we" does not necessarily include the one speaking it. Rhetorical devices must be considered when interpreting Holy Scripture.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  10. geno

    geno New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Warren,

    I went over your points against dispensationalism and am posting a few things to answer your arguements against it. I didn't have time to respond to them all just now. As to issues like the "1948 generation' or someone mentioned Hal Lindsey, all belief systems have there extremists and wackos that go to far or make rash statements. There can be no defense for them.

    If I understand your statement right you seem to differentiate between saints of the O.T. and the N.T. Dispensationalist also see that difference. We know that once God changed the program there were still people under the old program (dispensation) still alive and being ministered too. Were they lost or automaticly placed in the church? No! Apollis didn't even know there was a Holy Ghost but he was a believer in God and preached what he knew. Was he lost until he heard the word of God more perfectly. What about true believers, Jews and proselytes in other countries who never heard the gospel but had been belivers under the Law, were they now lost if they died before they had a chance to here the gospel? There were two distinct groups during the first few years of the church age.

    Again, if I understand you correctly, you believe the 69th week ended with or just prior to Christ's crucifixion. The 70th week would then include the abomination of desolation and the destruction of the temple. If this is correct then you also have "an artificial, mythological gap" between the 69th and 70th week. That time would be almost 40 years between Christs death and the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not as long as dispensationalists but still a gap. So why is it , you condemn us for what you do?

    I read the verses you gave but they have nothing to do with the prophecy of Dan.9:27 "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week...".That prophecy is for someone to confirm a covenant at the beginning of the 70th week, the verses you gave me are past tense when Paul wrote them which was well before 70A.D. Your going to have to find some other conformation.

    In Mt.24:7 Jesus use such terms as nations, kingdoms, famines and etc. in "divers places". This is not just primarily Judaea. Granted he did spend more time speaking about Judaea. But His audience would have been more interested in that area and much of prophecy revolves around God's chosen people and Jerusalem. John also wrote about "the tribulation" as he recieved revelation form our Lord and he gave us more of the world wide effects of that time. Rev.6:15; 13:3,7,8,14; 16:8,12,14,20,21.

    In Christ
    Geno
     
  11. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can somebody explain for me why Jesus said that some of the apostles would not pass away before all the signs of the Second Coming were fulfilled?

    If Jesus was not predicting an imminent return, and in fact was clearly teaching a return in the far off future, why did Paul believe the second coming was very imminent and teach people how to live based on that understanding?
     
  12. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    [non-baptist posting in Baptist-only area]

    [ October 22, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  13. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    [non-baptist posting in Baptist-only area]

    [ October 22, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  14. Warren

    Warren New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    [post moved to Other Religion forum for non-baptists. Here is a link to that discussion: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2845.html?

    Warning: Continue with another post here and your defiance of the BB policy will result in suspension of ALL posting privileges]

    [ October 22, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Absolutely! A classic example is the use of the pronoun "I" in Romans 7:14-15 where it is very clear that the apostle could not be speaking of his own experience, especially at the present time.


    [​IMG]
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    To deny that the bible uses apocalyptic language is absurd. Read any intro-bible study put out by the SBC and it will speak of the different types of writings contained in the Bible. According to you, most everyone in Christianity today,no matter what eschatological view they hold, believes in fairy tales because they all accept that apocalyptic language is used in scripture.

    Others dispys have said He returns in the "same manner." He did not leave on the back of a horse so why will He return on one? Acts 1 says nothing about a horse. I'll let you futurist fight that out.

    So what death is Paul referring to and using for his context of resurrection? He uses the death of Adam. The death of Adam was spiritual. When Adam ate of the fruit he died that day. Spiritualy not physically. So Christ restores what was lost in Adam, spiritual life.

    John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (sounds like resurrection)
    25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live .

    You had dead people coming to life at the time of Jesus. Spiritually speaking of course.

    Heb 2:14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death- -that is, the devil--


    Go back to Is 25:8, what Paul is quoting here, and see when this was to occur. It was to occur when salvation was to come.
    Now why did you suddenly stop at verse 55? Why dont we include the next to verses:
    56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law .
    57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Well, now I see why you stopped..It seems to indicate that these verses were fulfilled at the changing of Covenants. The law was the strength of sin and sin was the sting of death. So unless you believe we are still under the law, verse 55 no longer applies.

    Yes, I know the feeling.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now how much clearer could you be? Jesus was taken up and they SAW Him go, literally. He will return and will be SEEN returning, literally.

    Nothing about horses. Not what was being taught. What was being taught is the literal bodily ascension visible to them. And a literal bodily (who cares about a horse or not, how ludicrous) return visible to man.

    BTW, NOT to "them" (the group that saw Him go) who are definitely mentioned twice here. How easy it would have to say "You" will see him return (since He was coming so soon). [​IMG]
     
  18. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Craig
    Dr. Bob denies the coming of His Kingdom:

    "He established His Kingdom already? Right. Not doing much of a job as King, ruling with a rod of iron, is He?"

    You see? This is my point on this entire thread. The dispys to day won't even allow for a partial fulfillment of the OD. The Dispy view of today was not taught by many of our Baptist fore-fathers or many other theologians of pre-1900. They acknowledged that the Olivet Discourse, which has become the subject of this thread, was mostly if not completely fulfilled.

    There is not one dispy who has posted on this thread or this board that I am aware of who would agree with that statement made by Broadus. I of course would. Do you?

    That has been my point all along. The Olivet Discourse deals with the destruction of Jerusalem. As I also said most of those theologians with the exception of John Bray also hold to a yet future coming. Some find it in latter verses of the Olivet Discourse as Broadus does others do not, but use other verses for their "proof". That is why I called them "partial-preterist".
    Notice Broadus skips verses 22-33, then picks it back up at verse 34. That is my problem with the partial-preterist position. The seem to pick and choose. However, this is where I believe the intellectual debate is, preterism vs. partial-preterism.

    Yes, and he also said this:

    It should be frankly conceded that grave difficulties attend the interpretation of this discourse in any of the methods that have been suggested.

    That would also include his.

    Bluefalcon
    Well, that intellectual Southern Baptist did just that.

    Fan of Moses Stuart? Good he also agrees with the partial-preterist positions:

    (On Hebrews 9:26)
    "But now, at the close of the [Jewish] dispensation, He has once for all made His appearance."

    (On Hebrews 10:37)
    "The Messiah will speedily come, and, by destroying the Jewish power, put an end to the suffering which your persecutors inflict upon you." (Commentary on Hebrews, in loc.)

    (On Revelation 13:5-7)
    "The persecution of Nero began about the middle or latter part of Nov. A.D. 64, at Rome. It ended with the death of Nero, which was on the ninth of June, A.D. 68, for on that day Galba entered Rome and was proclaimed emperor. Here again is 3 + years or 1260 days with sufficient exactness; for the precise time of forty-two months expires about the middle or end of May, and Nero died in the first part of June. . . (2:469)

    "After all the investigation which I have been able to make, I feel compelled to believe that the writer refers to a literal and definite period, although not so exact that a single day, or even a few days, of variation from it would interfere with the object he has in view. It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. " (2:218)

    Are we changing the goalposts in the middle of the game? Are some now stating they believe the Olivet Discourse was at least partially fulfilled? Or do you just use the words of partial preterist do make the case against full-preterism?
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Your "beef" is not with me Dr. Bob but your fellow Dispy James Newman, he brought up the horse:

    [​IMG] Is it still ludicrous?
     
  20. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if Bob was saying the horse was ludicrous, or your denying the literal return because you also don't believe in horses. Either way, the bible says horse, horse it is. If God said it, it is true.
     
Loading...