Dee Dee and "THE Judge Jesus"

[Mickey]

Dee Dee writes:
Matthew 25:31 and following describe Jesus sitting on His throne and judging the nations, separating the sheep from the goats. This event certainly cannot said to have happened in the first century. Many nations did not even yet exist at that time.If we are to believe Dee Dee the "coming" of the Lord Jesus in great glory at Matthew 24:30 is an entirely different "coming" of the Lord Jesus in glory at Matthew 25:31:

"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"(Mt.24:30).

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

Two different "comings"?

At Matthew 25:31 we can see that the Lord Jesus says that when the Son of man shall come in His glory THEN shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.I thought that the preterists say that He began His kingdom rule in AD 70.

If that is true,it is evident that Matthew 25:31 must be in reference to the events of AD 70 and not to things in the future.

In Christ,

Mickey

[dizzle]

Greetings Mickey, dealt with in my commentary - I am confident in the work as it stands. Furthermore, my site requests that if you ever quote me a link must be given.

The entire commentary can be found at www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html

[Mickey]

Greetings Mickey, dealt with in my commentary - I am confident in the work as it stands. Furthermore, my site requests that if you ever quote me a link must be given.

The entire commentary can be found at www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html)Dee Dee,

Let us examine your "reasoning" for sayting that His "coming in glory" at Matthew 25:31 is not the same "coming in glory" at Matthew 24:30:
Matthew 25:31 and following describe Jesus sitting on His throne and judging the nations, separating the sheep from the goats. This event certainly cannot said to have happened in the first century. Many nations did not even yet exist at that time.According to your "reasoning" Matthew 25:31 could not have happened in the first century because" many nations did not even yet exist at that time"!!!

Let us take the following verse that the preterists say has already occured and apply your "logic" to it:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come"(Mt.24:14).

I could you your own "logic" to prove that Matthew 24:14 has not yet occured.I could say:

This event certainly cannot said to have happened in the first century. Many nations did not even yet exist at that time.

In Christ,

Mickey

[Jack777]

Wow, looks like you did a lot of work on that Dee Dee.

How do you go about the Little Apocalypse in your thinking? Isaiah 24-27

Also, I was challenged a couple of years ago concerning Isaiah 18 and it propelled me into a detailed study.

Just food for thought.:smile:

[dizzle]

Oh Jack the little acopolypse is pretty important. Do a search for Isaiah in my commentary and you will see where I make use of Isaiah 24 (IIRC). Thanks for the compliment - that was the biggest project of my life. It took me over a year to write, and I am refining some of the coding a bit. It will be a continual work in progress.

[dizzle]

And MIckey try reading my commentary again. You totally didn't even grasp what I was saying. You did point out one inconsistent argument though, and I thank you for it. I will refine my thinking on that point and revise it accordingly - I can see that I left a lot "understood" and should have explicated that one part. However, I do NOT think the coming is a different coming. Go back and read it again. I think the coming in Matthew 24:30 is the same one.... however what you have failed to grasp is that RIGHT NOW Christ is "coming" - when you understand THAT you will get what postmillennial preterists are actually saying. I do say this in my commentary. Though it is a lot, ifyou are going to criticize an author, do her the courtesy of reading the "whole book."

[Jack777]

That is at the least exhausting, if not exhaustive. I may take a year to read it. :wink:

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Mickey >> According to your "reasoning" Matthew 25:31 could not have happened in the first century because" many nations did not even yet exist at that time"!!!

Dee Dee >> And Mickey try reading my commentary again. You totally didn't even grasp what I was saying.
No sir. I believe we have you pegged to a capital “T” on exactly the interpretation you are forwarding. Right off the bat you begin by establishing a false premise by giving the wrong context to Christ’s words concerning ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34). You said,
Dee Dee’s Article (my highlights) >> “... that is in fact the pivotal verse, or at least the initial pivotal verse that drives this discussion from a Preterist point of view in modern discourse. In the Paltalk discussion that I had which was the catalyst for this commentary, I was attempting to focus on the significance of "this generation" as a timing verse, and the Frustrating Futuristtm said that it was improper to just look at that verse, but that one must look at the context. I couldn't agree more, and that is where we will start this commentary.

So let's get started with some contextual background. We all know that the chapter divisions in our text are not inspired and in fact the division they place in the text can be quite artificial. So while this commentary is focused upon an exegesis of Matthew 24, we actually do need to back up a little bit and go through some verses in Matthew 23.”
This is a classic example of presenting arguments to justify borrowing context from another part of Scripture to prop up a preconceived interpretation. Scripture is divided up in separate passages where the definition and meanings of the terms contained within that teaching ‘can’ remain constant. Dee Dee’s problem is that Christ is railing at the Pharisees and Scribes throughout Matthew 23, and accusing them as ‘this generation’ that would see the judgment. If we should find Christ using this phrase in proximity to once again railing at these Pharisees and Scribes in Matthew 24, then Dee Dee has a case for borrowing the context. However, if that were the case, then there would be no reason for her to do so! Therefore, what Dee Dee has done at the onset of her commentary is to give you many reasons for the larceny she is about to perpetrate, by stealing the meaning of “houtos genea” (this generation) from Matthew 23 and transferring that to Matthew 24. Any supposition build upon a false premise is doomed to fall flat upon its face in defeat, when the person comes along and calls her on committing this crime of errant scholarship. Christ is speaking to ‘this generation’ who actually sees ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ listed throughout Matthew 24:3-31. Those are the people who would see Him ‘at the door.’ Matthew 24:3. Other character flaws are revealed in the opening of this work that show the inclination to prop up an invented Preterist interpretation.
Dee Dee’s Article (my highlight) >> “Although Christ's words are recorded in three parallel passages (Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24), our foundational text will be the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Matthew 24 with reference to the Marcan and Lukan accounts, as well as other passages as needed. The primary goal is to remain as tightly focused as possible on this particular prophecy to see what sense can be made of it to aid us, if any, in interpreting more difficult passages such as those found in Revelation.”
Again this is the classic setup for forwarding a theology that is based upon the interpretation of a few key phrases in selected verses of a single passage of Scripture. Luke’s accounting of the same discourse better reveals the ‘global’ catastrophic events “coming upon the world” (Luke 21:26). She only wants to interject things from other verses ‘as needed.’ In other words, to prop up the interpretation she is perpetuating in this dissertation. The stage being set mirrors that of the shell game artist, or perhaps the magician and his little table with black cloth draped over the top. This is a ‘hand is quicker than the eye’ theology we are examining on this thread; were the true context is being replaced with something else to give the whole passage a new meaning. The idea is to present arguments which allow for you to buy the perverted ‘this generation’ meaning, so that you will also be willing to buy her ‘localized’ fulfillment for the events of the whole chapter. After all, if you recognize that Christ is describing events that affect the whole world, then her 70 AD fulfillment interpretation will never be believed. Any commentary is suspect that begins by setting up the reader to a predetermined conclusion. Why are you starting me off in Matthew 24:34 by heading back to Matthew 23 to set up what Christ is saying to start this chapter? Instead, let’s allow Christ to tell us the meaning of ‘these things’ during His teaching throughout the passage. Then we can draw our conclusions from what He just said, instead of this shell game menagerie smoke and mirror exercise.

An honest commentary of Matthew 24 begins in the first verse and establishes the context by what Scripture is teaching without regard to ANYTHING ELSE. If Christ makes a reference to another part of Scripture (like Daniel 12:11 in Matt. 24:15), then we are to recognize that the meaning of those terms is governed by the context Christ Himself is establishing. We are to read Matthew 24 with the truth in mind that Christ is answering the question raised by His own elect in verse 3. They want to know when “these things” will happen, and the “sign” of “Your coming” AND the “end of the age.” This is the key verse in the chapter for establishing the ‘true context’ of the rest of the teaching. Our phrase “this generation” is defined by the terms we find right here in verse 3, as ‘these things’ also appear in verse 34. Christ being ‘at the door’ (vs. 33) represents “Your coming” of verse 3 (as in verse 30). The generation to see all these things in sequential order shall be the one to see Him at the door at the ‘end of the age.’ The Pharisees and Scribes of the previous chapter have absolutely nothing at all to do with Christ’s teaching here in chapter 24.
Dee Dee continues to Mickey >> You did point out one inconsistent argument though, and I thank you for it. I will refine my thinking on that point and revise it accordingly - I can see that I left a lot "understood" and should have explicated that one part. However, I do NOT think the coming is a different coming. Go back and read it again. I think the coming in Matthew 24:30 is the same one.... however what you have failed to grasp is that RIGHT NOW Christ is "coming"
No sir. Not only are we violating context laws in your commentary, we are giving an inordinate number of ‘comings’ to the Lord Jesus. The disciples distinctly asked about “Your coming” (singular) and the “end of the age” (also singular). How many endings does your commentary possess; several or just one? This ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) shall have only one ending (Rev. 20:11-15) and Christ is describing the signs leading up to that in Matthew 24:3-31. The concept that Christ came in 70 AD is the one Mickey is addressing. You are fidgeting here and perhaps recognizing that the bottom of your boat is riddled with holes. Mickey has also raised a good point that there are many nations existing today before the ‘end of the age’ that never existed in 70 AD. According to the judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31-33), then you are giving many a free pass, because that judgment already happened back in 70 AD. Since Peter establishes that the judgment of the day of the Lord (2Pet. 3:10-12) is accompanied by destruction of everything by fire, then your gun appears to be out of bullets.
Dee Dee >> When you understand THAT you will get what postmillennial Preterists are actually saying. I do say this in my commentary. Though it is a lot, ifyou are going to criticize an author, do her the courtesy of reading the "whole book."
No sir. Error is wrong if stated in the opening sentence and the first paragraph. The trained eye can see something out of square from a mile away, and can easily point that out to others who can see it also. The fact is that it takes far more effort to build the dream home than to begin tearing one down. Conclusions based upon a false premise and hypothesis are doomed to failure. If we can prove your foundation is faulty, then who would want to buy the house?

That being said, I still continue to be impressed by the fact that so much work and dedication went into your commentary. Hopefully we are helping you to make the needed adjustments so that we are someday just as impressed with the doctrinal positions you are describing.

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

I will take the one compliment you gave and thank you for it. As for the rest..... I (and this is not meant as an insult) don't care what you or Mickey think, honestly - and the other things I am doing with my time are more useful to me than senseless debates. I am secure in my position - I am grateful though for the one thing Mickey pointed out. I would rather have an orthodox person point it out (Mickey) rather than a heretic.

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee >> I will take the one compliment you gave and thank you for it. As for the rest..... I (and this is not meant as an insult) don't care what you or Mickey think, honestly
What we think has little bearing on the evidence being presented in this case. Contextual larceny is a serious crime in the world of Theology and debate over God’s Word. This is why I ran to defend myself when you began starting threads with my name in the opening sentence while attacking me personally and my testimony. The Word (John 1:1-3) of God is Christ Jesus our risen Lord, and one should take his own word very seriously. Scripture is also the ‘word of God’ (Eph. 6:17) and the testimony concerning our Lord Jesus Christ and God’s Purpose For The Ages. The Gospel is also the ‘word concerning Christ’ (Rom. 10:17), as we go about preaching the ‘word’ of the cross. 1Cor. 1:18.
Dee >> . . . and the other things I am doing with my time are more useful to me than senseless debates.
Perhaps that is true . . . However, some of us are really looking forward to the opportunity to discuss these things in the forum of debate. In the end we are all on the same side, and getting to the bottom of the matter regarding the truth of God’s Living Word. There is such a thing as ‘sound doctrine’ (1Tim. 4:6, Titus 1:9) and unsound doctrine (1Tim. 6:3) which man has invented through various methods. We should agree that teachings based upon false interpretations should not be allowed to stand, so that the body of Christ continues to be ‘sound in the faith’ (Titus 1:13). I hope you will pray on these things and recognize that we simply do not want to see others blinded by these things. If we are shown to be wrong using Scripture, then of course your interpretations should be allowed to stand. To that end our debate of these things is in no way ‘senseless.’
Dee >> I am secure in my position - I am grateful though for the one thing Mickey pointed out.
How can you be secure in your position with all of these points standing against you? The ostrich feels perfectly secure with his head in the sand also. By the fact that you have made ready the excuse of having no time to deliberate over the points in these discussions, you are acknowledging the need to discuss them, but offering nothing to substantiate your original claims in the same breath. That fact would seem to indicate that your position is not as secure as you would like everyone to believe . . .
Dee >> I would rather have an orthodox person point it out (Mickey) rather than a heretic.
Heh. The heresy card . . . If our standing arguments against your positions remain standing, then others might be placing that tag upon you. I would rather refer to those holding strange harmful beliefs as deluded, than to call them heretics. That kind of went out with witch burning many years ago . . .

In Christ,

Terral