Ep 36 - Again & Again

[Dee Dee Warren]

I had promised to tie up some loose ends from my appearance on the Unbelievable radio program which can be found in this podcast feed as Episode 29 (http://www.preteristpodcast.com/index.php/2010/01/04/ep-29-unbelievable/), so here is the second installment.

http://www.preteristpodcast.com/index.php/2010/11/23/ep-36-again-again-tying-up-some-unbelievable-loose-ends-part-two/

[TyRockwell]

I had promised to tie up some loose ends from my appearance on the Unbelievable radio program which can be found in this podcast feed as Episode 29 (http://www.preteristpodcast.com/index.php/2010/01/04/ep-29-unbelievable/), so here is the second installment.

http://www.preteristpodcast.com/index.php/2010/11/23/ep-36-again-again-tying-up-some-unbelievable-loose-ends-part-two/
I see that you assert that you are "Ty-ing up a few loose ends," and I am honored. But I am not into bondage. To the point, the idea that the disciples had never heard Jesus speak about his "going" or his "coming" because Mark's and Luke's accounts do not include "coming" in their questioning, is a huge leap, and intends to constrain their knowledge to only the immediate context, as if they had never heard Jesus speak about it at other times. The very fact that Matthew did include "your coming" is evidence that they had indeed heard him mention it before in another context. Here is one: Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
Luke 18:8 (KJV)

It is as John said, 'If everything Jesus had done or said had been written down, the world could not contain the books that would be written.'

[Dee Dee Warren]

I see that you assert that you are "Ty-ing up a few loose ends," and I am honored. But I am not into bondage. To the point, the idea that the disciples had never heard Jesus speak about his "going" or his "coming" because Mark's and Luke's accounts do not include "coming" in their questioning, is a huge leap, and intends to constrain their knowledge to only the immediate context, as if they had never heard Jesus speak about it at other times. The very fact that Matthew did include "your coming" is evidence that they had indeed heard him mention it before in another context. Here is one: Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
Luke 18:8 (KJV)

I am sorry but you didn't even get the point. I don't have the time to explain any better than I did. It is astounding how completely you missed the point. Perhaps bondage might help your comprehension level.


It is as John said, 'If everything Jesus had done or said had been written down, the world could not contain the books that would be written.'

So, you are actually arguing that they might have been taught about the geography of Delaware? Really?

[TyRockwell]

I am sorry but you didn't even get the point. I don't have the time to explain any better than I did. It is astounding how completely you missed the point. Perhaps bondage might help your comprehension level.



So, you are actually arguing that they might have been taught about the geography of Delaware? Really?
I'm saying Mark and Luke don't make Matthew wrong! The Word of God is a unit. It isn't unusual for one gospel to have a detail that the others don't have. You can't toss out Matthew's version of the questions, you have to understand that the Word does not disagree or contradict itself.

Mark and Luke saw a "yellow bus," and Matthew saw a "yellow and black bus." All three are right, and you have to accept that Jesus spoke to his disciples of his "coming" on a prior occasion (such as Luke 18:8, "son of man cometh"), or the disciples would not have asked him about it in Matthew 24:3.

Delaware geography be darned!

[Dee Dee Warren]

You still don't get it. I am not going to defend against something I didn't argue, and I am not going to spoon feed it to you.

But I stil want you to answer the Delaware question. It is a logical outworking of your eisegesis.

[TyRockwell]

Delaware has no bearing upon Jesus' words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Are you going to toss out John's Gospel because it doesn't say the same things as the Synoptic Gospels?

[Dee Dee Warren]

How do you know Delaware has nothing to do with it? After all, you argued that Jesus could have said anything since there were words not recorded.

And your second sentence is a strawman since that isn't my argument. Please stop being obtuse or skiddaddle to another thread.

[TyRockwell]

How do you know Delaware has nothing to do with it? After all, you argued that Jesus could have said anything since there were words not recorded.
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Matthew 23:38
"When the son of man comes, will he fing faith in the land?" Luke 18:8

Jesus talked about his coming. See ya.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jesus talked about his coming. See ya.

Read my lips, O Thou of Slight Comprehension. I NEVER SAID HE DIDN'T. Are you smoking crack or something?

[TyRockwell]

Read my lips, O Thou of Slight Comprehension. I NEVER SAID HE DIDN'T. Are you smoking crack or something?
And I'm not saying what Jesus might have said about Delaware, or even suggesting that O'Donnell is not a witch.

I don't know what he said about you either, okay? So let's just leave Delawarian red herrings out of the beef stew! I've only been talking about what Jesus DID say. But my context is the NT. I'm not so narrow of mind to reduce it to Mark's and Luke's versions of the Olivet Discourse.

If you still want me to refocus on something other than whether the disciples really asked Jesus one or two questions, you must need help to understand, it was two questions. Mark and Luke didn't record the two questions as such. Matthew was THERE. Mark and Luke are not known to have been there at the OD. Maybe they were in Delaware?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't have time to spoon feed you. This thread was not an invitation to debate, but an announcement.

[Chris D]

Wow, Dee. Sorry you have to deal with this kind of nonsense. As I explain here (http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4804), it is very clear that the disciples had no idea Jesus was going anywhere, and thus the "coming" they ask about could not have had anything to do with the Second Advent.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ty is our resident eschatology fruitcake. Gharfish is the drama queen. Let's hope he's freaking out elsewhere or it could get messy.

[TyRockwell]

Wow, Dee. Sorry you have to deal with this kind of nonsense. As I explain here (http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4804), it is very clear that the disciples had no idea Jesus was going anywhere, and thus the "coming" they ask about could not have had anything to do with the Second Advent.

You will not see me again, until you say, " 'Blessed is he who COMES in the name of the Lord.'"

"When will these things be? What will be the sign of your COMING?"

The disciples associated his second coming with the priests and Pharisees saying, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

"Not one stone will be left standing here that will not be thrown down."

"And [What will be the sign] of the end of the age?"

"Take heed that no man deceive you..."

The disciples associated the destruction of the temple with the end of the age. Two issues, for which there were separate questions.

As far as the disciples were concerned, he could have been "coming" from Galilee. It matters not. It was going to be another "coming."

So, a "first going" is not an issue.

[TyRockwell]

Ty is our resident eschatology fruitcake.

No more fruity than you. I'm harder for you to beat than most.

See the reply to Chris D, above.

[Chris D]

Ty, you're still completely missing the point. It makes me wonder if you're actually reading anything on the screen from Dee and me. We all agree they expected a "coming" of some sort. Simply quoting passages where He or the disciples mention His "coming" does not mean they were referring to His Second Advent. The fact is, they had no idea He was going to die and go anywhere, so they could not have expected a Second Advent.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Precisely Chris.

Ty, what part of "this is NOT an invitation to debate" was unclear to you? This is an announcement thread, not an ongoing debate thread. Simply because I choose to do a podcast does not give you the right to insist I have to put aside valuable time to debate you. It is a fruitless exercise that many people have been down. You don't listen to what your opponents actually say, and when the going gets rough, you claim special spiritual insight and rant about the unsealing of prophecies.

Not interested. This area is my playground, and I am taking the ball, and showing you the gate.

[TyRockwell]

Precisely Chris.

Ty, what part of "this is NOT an invitation to debate" was unclear to you? This is an announcement thread, not an ongoing debate thread. Simply because I choose to do a podcast does not give you the right to insist I have to put aside valuable time to debate you. It is a fruitless exercise that many people have been down. You don't listen to what your opponents actually say, and when the going gets rough, you claim special spiritual insight and rant about the unsealing of prophecies.

I see your game. You first mentioned "announcement thread" in post number 11, before which, you said: "But I still want you to answer the Delaware question. It is a logical outworking of your eisegesis."

So take your fruity Delaware football. AND ponder which coming Jesus meant in Matt. 23:38. The disciples meant THAT one.

You stop making comments about me, and I won't respond. DEAL? Do something else with your 'loose ends.' I saw the innuendo.

G' day

[TyRockwell]

Ty, you're still completely missing the point. It makes me wonder if you're actually reading anything on the screen from Dee and me. We all agree they expected a "coming" of some sort. Simply quoting passages where He or the disciples mention His "coming" does not mean they were referring to His Second Advent. The fact is, they had no idea He was going to die and go anywhere, so they could not have expected a Second Advent.

You don't know that from the words that were recorded. Jesus did talk about being killed and rising on the third day, in Matt. 16:21.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Matt 16:21 (KJV)

[Dee Dee Warren]

I see your game. You first mentioned "announcement thread" in post number 11, before which, you said: "But I still want you to answer the Delaware question. It is a logical outworking of your eisegesis."

Because I don't mind limited interaction.




You stop making comments about me, and I won't respond. DEAL?

Nope. I will do what I wish in my own area. Tough.


Do something else with your 'loose ends.' I saw the innuendo.

OMG!!! LMBO!!! You actually thought the thread title was about YOU? Get over yourself. It is a series I am doing that is about Pastor Boyle. Can you fit through doors with that head?

[TyRockwell]

Then again and again, you allow for "limited interaction" as long as you can declare yourself the winner. So, your head is as bloated as anyone's.

Tough.

Now I'll go away, if you'll not "egg on" the issue.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ty, please don't post in this area again. Not this thread, this area. And you do not dictate what I say. Feel free to start a psychotherapy thread and whinge to your heart's content.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So, you are actually arguing that they might have been taught about the geography of Delaware? Really?

Well one could argue that Jesus knew the disciples had enough suffering ahead of them and did not want to make it worse by mentioning Delaware.