Playing The Preterist Shell Game

[Terral]

Greetings to All:

This thread is dedicated refuting points relating to Preterism made by Theonomy in the a piece that is difficult to follow. Why we dropped using the names (Monty, Gerald) I have no clue. The original work can be found here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995&page=2&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995&page=2&pp=16) (Post #32). I am trying to insert names to make the conversation understandable. While I would much prefer the man present his case in a series of well planned paragraphs, this is the form he insists will prove his points. I have edited out the (“I’m glad you could make it” stuff) overdone parts of the conversation, and did my best to retain the doctrinal content.
Gerald: I had a great talk with my pastor last night. He pointed me to some great information about the great tribulation and that verse about it happening in “this generation.”

Monty >> Great! So where were we? That’s right, we just looked at Matthew 24:34-35, and we saw that Jesus said “this generation” would not pass away until the great tribulation has taken place.

Right off the bat the transliteration of these verses is misrepresenting what Scripture is actually saying. The commonality to Theonomy’s work to Dee Dee’s Commentary is they both focus directly on this same verse and the same key Greek phrase “houtos genea” (this generation). Both want to alter the true meaning of this one phrase in order to force the rest of the passage into something other than Christ intended. Let’s examine the target verses together with verse 36. As a rule the Preterists leave verse 36 on the sidelines, before carting you off to chapter 23.


“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”

Christ has been defining the meaning of ‘these things’ since He started answering the question of the Disciples all the way back in verse 3.

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.”

Christ disqualified Himself from knowing if He was speaking of ‘this generation’ of a hundred years or 10,000 years in the future. What He did know was that the generation to see ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ would also see ‘Your coming’ at the ‘end of the age.’ This is why Christ went through the long laundry list of ‘these things’ that shall happen in a specific order. Then the generation to see all those things would know that He is ‘at the door.’ (Matt. 24:33). Once you realize that Christ Himself is defining who ‘this generation’ is then the whole passage reads accurately. We are not to force ‘this generation’ to be living 2000 years ago, or 1000 years in our future. The ‘time’ element is the part CHRIST DID NOT KNOW. Matt. 24:36. The fickle aspect of Preterism and those holding to this Theology is they all seek to define the very terms in the passage that Christ could not define Himself, because He had no clue about ‘when’ any of this would happen. Let’s proceed as Theonomy tries to play his shell game and trick us into injecting a ‘time’ into Christ’s mind, so that He appears to be addressing that generation living in that day 2000 years ago . . .

Gerald >> Right, and I bet you think it means that the generation Jesus was talking to would not die before it happened.

Monty >> That’s right, I do think that. That’s what it looks like. In fact, when you saw it for the first time yesterday, that’s how it looked to you too, right?

Gerald >> Well yes. I admit that when I first saw it I thought it looked that way. But there are some verses that need to be really dug into before you get to the right meaning. It’s not always there on the surface. (Monty OK, Snip) The meaning is that it doesn’t refer to this generation as in this generation. Instead, it refers to the generation that Jesus has been talking about already, the generation that will be in the great tribulation.

In other words, forget about what Christ is teaching to His chosen elect here in Matthew 24, and let’s go highjack context from someplace else. This is the common shell game tactic played by Preterists all over the web. I am surprised to know that any of them actually read Matthew 24 for the purpose of gathering accurate context for the terms. Right here is where the dishonest part of their scholarship begins to grow wings and fly.
Monty >> And why do you think it means that?

Gerald >> Well, my pastor showed me a Greek Lexicon, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and he showed me that there are many ways of using the word “this.” The Greek word is houtos. It’s main meaning is “this one, visibly present here.”

Monty >> Right, so that would mean “this generation,” in the ordinary way we use the word – this generation here.Gerald >> Yeah, that’s right. But there’s a second way of using it as well that doesn’t have this meaning. It can mean “a subject immediately preceding.” So Jesus is talking about the future tribulation, and then he says “this generation” will see it – the generation that will see the tribulation! So it doesn’t refer to those alive in Jesus’ time after all.

This sounds like two fellows who have most likely not read the Bible cover to cover more than once, and have never spent any time studying the original languages of the Text. To be honest, I am gathering the understanding more and more that Preterism preys upon those less informed on the knowledge and wisdom of the Text (to say it nicely); but this is still an opinion under development . . . Theonomy’s work is taking a detour from Dee Dee’s in the sense that he is concentrating on the ‘tribulation’ more than any of the other ‘signs’ of ‘these things.’ He is also going down Lexicon Avenue instead of borrowing context from Matthew 23. We should note that Christ’s definition of ‘this generation’ is the one to see ‘all these things’ (Matt. 24:34) take place. Those who live through the tribulation would also see Him ‘at the door.’ (vs. 33). Why concentrate on the tribulation, when the prize coming after is seeing Christ face to face? Why is Christ’s coming put on the back burner to talk about the tribulation instead? My suspicion is that Theonomy is leading us to conclude that the destruction of Jerusalem = the tribulation. That way a known historical fact can substitute (the shell game again) for the tribulation, and he has an interpretation that might be believed by somebody.
Monty (me thinks) >> OK, so it means “the generation alive at the time of the tribulation will be alive at the time of the tribulation?” (snip “What”) Well, you just said the term “this generation” means “the generation alive at the time of the tribulation.” Oh, OK I see what you mean. It does sound a bit strange.

Gerald >> It sure does. It’s like saying “The tribulation will occur in the lifetime of those who are alive at the time.” (silly, snip) Yes, and more than that, it’s just a poor reading of Thayer’s Lexicon. As it happens, I have a copy here. (coming; snip) No, they never do. Now, you pastor was referring to page 466 of the Zondervan edition. But Unlike you pastor, I’m going to quote a little more from the second usage of houtos. “It refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named: Luke 1:32, 2:37, Jn 1:2, 6:71, 2 Tim 3:6, etc.” OK, so when the subject (in the sense of subject vs. object) has just been named previously, houtos can be used to refer to it.


This is perhaps the sloppiest attempt at playing the Preterist shell game I have encountered to date. Most Preterists do not break down the phrase in this way, because ‘houtos’ (#3778) is nothing spectacular at all. The word means “this” when used with another noun, and can refer to most anything Scripture is describing. This generation is still a generation, or this chicken or this woman, child or whatever. This generation to see all these signs is still the generation to be living to see Him at the door (Matt. 24:33). You do not go to the Dictionary to try and hunt down a mysterious meaning for ‘this’ and change the context of everything in the passage, unless you have a devious motive. Gerald seems to be the deviant, so this first guy speaking must be poor Monty:

Monty >> OK, well this is getting kinda technical now.

Gerald >> Well, this will make it clear. Let’s look at just a couple of the examples Thayer gives and you’ll see what he means. I’ll use the King James version just for now because of its word for word literalness. First let’s look at John 6:71

Scripture Verse: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

What? Holy Molies . . . This is a fitting verse for you to be using, Theonomy. “He” is a transliteration of “This one” in John 6:17. “houtos anthropos” means ‘this man,’ as in “this man is a Roman.” Acts 22:26. In the absence of the noun subject, the pronoun ‘houtos’ is translated ‘he’ thirty one times in the New Testament. Would you dream of saying “he man is a Roman” in Acts 22:26? No. In the same way, “houtos genea” means “this generation,” as ‘this’ is connected to the noun. You are playing with the Greek and do not have the knowledge of the language to be building such arguments. You are making ‘this’ technical for no reason except to deceive somebody . . . (Judas, Anna, she snip). Same meaningless argument different case.
Gerald >> Let’s look at Matthew 24:33-34 Scripture Verse: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Now, who is the generation just named?

Monty >. Well…. I guess there isn’t really a generation specifically named. It's just called a generation.

Gerald >> That’s right, there isn’t. And if there isn’t a subject “just named,” then we’re left with Thayer’s first definition. “This generation” means “This generation now visibly present.” In fact, although the generation is not named in the above passage in Matthew 24, who are the last people specifically referred to before Jesus says “this generation?”

Poor Monty is forced to look all over in order to know the true identity of ‘this generation,’ except right here in Matthew 24 where Christ gives the answer. This is far too simple for folks to be stumbling around in the dark and can not find their own backsides with both hands. The generation to see all those signs Christ just described in Matthew 24:3-29 is the SAME GENERATION who will witness “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Christ has switched gears from the Judgment of the Pharisees and Scribes of Matthew 23 to teaching about those who ‘endure to the end will be saved.’ Matthew 24:13.

The Greek in verse 13 above is a bit irregular and is only six Greek words starting with O . . . “De hupomeno eis telos houtos sozo.” It literally means “But remains unto the end houtos (this one) saved. Right here is your stand alone use of the pronoun ‘houtos’ (GR: outos). The Preterist error in trying to connect the ‘judged’ to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) is almost comical when you understand the language and the true context of the words in the passages. This is why the Preterist interpretation caught me off guard when first coming to this website, as this is not even a good counterfeit theology. The generation to actually see Christ at the door is the one who endures the most devastating series of local (to Judea) and global cataclysmic events to ever come upon this planet ( since Gen. 1:2). Daniel describes the “abomination of desolation” [ Matt. 24:15 ] being set up in Daniel 12:11+12, then the book ends in the very next verse! He is describing the ones who see the end as being blessed and not the Pharisees and Scribes who are among the ones to be judged.


“From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation [ Matt. 24:15 ] is set up, there will be 1,290 days. How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again [ John 6:39-44 ] for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”
Daniel is taking about the Judgment (Matt. 25:31-33) where the faithful are raised ‘on the last day’ (John 6:39-44) to inherit the kingdom prepared for them (Matt. 25:34). Rev. 21:1+. Both Christ (this generation; Matt. 24) and Daniel (he who keeps waiting and attains) are talking about those who are faithful and see all the signs of these things to endure [ Matt. 24:13 ] to the very end. To try and import the false definition of ‘this generation’ to be the evil faithless generation of 70 AD renders meaningless the truth contained in the related passages. I can begin to understand why the Preterists here are having trouble connecting the ‘end of the age’ events of Matthew 24 to the ‘day of the Lord.’ They are starting off in Matt. 24:34 with a misguided and wrong meaning of ‘this generation’ and dislocating all of these events from everything else in Scripture. After all, the prophecies throughout the Bible about the ‘day of the Lord’ are not fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem. That local event came about because Israel rejected the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) and crucified the King. Just about forty years later (Hebrew number of Judgment), the Jews were scattered to the nations.

Gerald >> OK, OK, I see it already. He referred to His audience. In fact I’ll save your breath, and say that yes, I can see that He said they would be the ones who would “see all these things.”
No sir. Christ said the generation to see the signs of all these things would live to see “Your coming” at the “End of the Age.” I am not surprised that Gerald never quoted Matthew 24:36 that shows Christ did not know the day or hour of any of these events. Twenty five hundred words is long for an OP, but his is what you wanted . . .

In Christ,


Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Terrel did it. I’ve been asking him to prove me wrong for days, and he finally did it. But not in the way I wanted him to prove me wrong.



I thought Terral’s arubments couldn’t possibly get any worse.



He proved me wrong.



In this thread he is responding to Theonomy’s fictional recouting of an exchange debating the meaning of “this generation” :





Gerald: I had a great talk with my pastor last night. He pointed me to some great information about the great tribulation and that verse about it happening in “this generation.”

Monty >> Great! So where were we? That’s right, we just looked at Matthew 24:34-35, and we saw that Jesus said “this generation” would not pass away until the great tribulation has taken place.



Notice that Gerald is agreeing with Terral’s interpretation of “houtos genea”. Yet look at his response:



Right off the bat the transliteration of these verses is misrepresenting what Scripture is actually saying. The commonality to Theonomy’s work to Dee Dee’s Commentary is they both focus directly on this same verse and the same key Greek phrase “houtos genea” (this generation). Both want to alter the true meaning of this one phrase in order to force the rest of the passage into something other than Christ intended. Let’s examine the target verses together with verse 36. As a rule the Preterists leave verse 36 on the sidelines, before carting you off to chapter 23.

<snip more assertion that Terral is right>. Let’s proceed as Theonomy tries to play his shell game and trick us into injecting a ‘time’ into Christ’s mind, so that He appears to be addressing that generation living in that day 2000 years ago . . .



Notice that at this point in the exchange, Gerald is still defending Terral’s definition of “houtos genea”.



Gerald >> Right, and I bet you think it means that the generation Jesus was talking to would not die before it happened.

Monty >> That’s right, I do think that. That’s what it looks like. In fact, when you saw it for the first time yesterday, that’s how it looked to you too, right?

Gerald >> Well yes. I admit that when I first saw it I thought it looked that way. But there are some verses that need to be really dug into before you get to the right meaning. It’s not always there on the surface. (Monty OK, Snip) The meaning is that it doesn’t refer to this generation as in this generation. Instead, it refers to the generation that Jesus has been talking about already, the generation that will be in the great tribulation. .



Here, Theonomy’s fictitious Gerald making a much better defense of Terral’s interpretation of “houtos genea” (see emphasis added) than Terral ever did, but Terral seems to ignore that and continue to bluster:

In other words, forget about what Christ is teaching to His chosen elect here in Matthew 24, and let’s go highjack context from someplace else. This is the common shell game tactic played by Preterists all over the web. I am surprised to know that any of them actually read Matthew 24 for the purpose of gathering accurate context for the terms. Right here is where the dishonest part of their scholarship begins to grow wings and fly.

Monty >> And why do you think it means that?

Gerald >> Well, my pastor showed me a Greek Lexicon, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and he showed me that there are many ways of using the word “this.” The Greek word is houtos. It’s main meaning is “this one, visibly present here.”

Monty >> Right, so that would mean “this generation,” in the ordinary way we use the word – this generation here.Gerald >> Yeah, that’s right. But there’s a second way of using it as well that doesn’t have this meaning. It can mean “a subject immediately preceding.” So Jesus is talking about the future tribulation, and then he says “this generation” will see it – the generation that will see the tribulation! So it doesn’t refer to those alive in Jesus’ time after all.



The thrust of the above section of the passage is Gerald making a defense of Terral’s (again much better than any Terral has given, not good, but better than Terral0interpretation of “this generation”. Monty is offering nothing substantive to refute Gerald (who agrees with Terral). Yet here is how Terral responds:

This sounds like two fellows who have most likely not read the Bible cover to cover more than once, and have never spent any time studying the original languages of the Text



Notice he says these two guys. He is accusing both of these of “not reading the bible more than once and not spending time in the original language. Yet Gerald is advocating Terral’s own position.



If this is any indication of Terral’s reading skills, it explains why his interpretation of scripture is so off.



To be honest, I am gathering the understanding more and more that Preterism preys upon those less informed on the knowledge and wisdom of the Text (to say it nicely);



To be honest, I am gathering the understanding more and more that Terral reads a post once, without understanding and spouts off about what he “thinks it says” (to say it nicely). He preys on those less informed hoping that they will see through his blathering. The problem is that there are not many people “less informed” than Terral (to say it nicely)



Theonomy’s work is taking a detour from Dee Dee’s in the sense that he is concentrating on the ‘tribulation’ more than any of the other ‘signs’ of ‘these things.’



Theonomy’s work is all about the meaning of ‘this generation” which was the topic of the thread. He was using the language used by your average futurist dispensationslist. And you may not agree with them on all things, you certainly agree on the meaning of “houtos generea”. But instead of addressing Theonomy’s point about “houtos generea” you once again try to shift the topic to the meaning of the tribulation.



Hint: To dispy futurist “these things” and the “great tribulation” are the same things.



He is also going down Lexicon Avenue instead of borrowing context from Matthew 23.



No he combined “Lexicon Avenue” and content. What he did was show the most likely definition of “houtos generea” using the Lexicon. This is a great starting point. And unless the context suggest otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to use the Lexicon as Theonomy did. And I have provided points (Post #34 in your thread “Refutting” Dee’s Comentary for one) which "prove" that the conext of Matthew 24 demand a first century interpretation. Points which you have not addressed.



So not only is there strong Lexical support for the preterist interpretation of “houtos genea” which you ignored, there is also strong contextual support for our interpretation, which you also ignored.



We should note that Christ’s definition of ‘this generation’ is the one to see ‘all these things’ (Matt. 24:34) take place.



Wrong. Christ definition of the “ones to see all these things” is this generation. This being the current generation when He spoke those words.



Let’s look an the actual verse:



Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.



Now lets substitutes Terral’s definition and see if this is really what Christ was saying:



Truly, I say to you, the generation who will see all these things will not pass away until all these things take place.



Terral seems to think that Jesus had the habit of speaking in redundancies.



Of course Theonomy already pointed that out in his “Gerald/Monty” exhange, but for some reason Terral never addresses this problem to his position.



In fact Terral has never addressed any problems to his position. He only asserts and evades.



Those who live through the tribulation would also see Him ‘at the door.’ (vs. 33). Why concentrate on the tribulation, when the prize coming after is seeing Christ face to face? Why is Christ’s coming put on the back burner to talk about the tribulation instead? My suspicion is that Theonomy is leading us to conclude that the destruction of Jerusalem = the tribulation. That way a known historical fact can substitute (the shell game again) for the tribulation, and he has an interpretation that might be believed by somebody.



More of Terral focusing on “the tribulation” than the actual points made by Theonomy.



Finally in the next part, Terral finally addresses Theonomy’s statement regarding “this generation” but as usual he addresses it by going off topic.



Monty (me thinks) >> OK, so it means “the generation alive at the time of the tribulation will be alive at the time of the tribulation?” (snip “What”) Well, you just said the term “this generation” means “the generation alive at the time of the tribulation.” Oh, OK I see what you mean. It does sound a bit strange.

Gerald >> It sure does. It’s like saying “The tribulation will occur in the lifetime of those who are alive at the time.” (silly, snip) Yes, and more than that, it’s just a poor reading of Thayer’s Lexicon. As it happens, I have a copy here. (coming; snip) No, they never do. Now, you pastor was referring to page 466 of the Zondervan edition. But Unlike you pastor, I’m going to quote a little more from the second usage of houtos. “It refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named: Luke 1:32, 2:37, Jn 1:2, 6:71, 2 Tim 3:6, etc.” OK, so when the subject (in the sense of subject vs. object) has just been named previously, houtos can be used to refer to it.

This is perhaps the sloppiest attempt at playing the Preterist shell game I have encountered to date. Most Preterists do not break down the phrase in this way, because ‘houtos’ (#3778) is nothing spectacular at all.



Wrong. Preterst use the two words combined. “houtos generea”. We examine both words and the occurances when both are used together. You admitted that you never even herd of preterism before coming to TWeb, and now you are the self proclaimed expert.



The word means “this” when used with another noun, and can refer to most anything Scripture is describing. This generation is still a generation, or this chicken or this woman, child or whatever. This generation to see all these signs is still the generation to be living to see Him at the door (Matt. 24:33). You do not go to the Dictionary to try and hunt down a mysterious meaning for ‘this’ and change the context of everything in the passage, unless you have a devious motive. Gerald seems to be the deviant, so this first guy speaking must be poor Monty:



Gee. Theonomy (in the guise of Monty) used a lexicon to give us the possible meaning of a Greek word. Terral apparently pulled his out of thin air (or he violated TWeb decorum by not citing his source).



Third party reader. What you trust more, a well respected and established Lexicon, or Terral?



Monty >> OK, well this is getting kinda technical now.

Gerald >> Well, this will make it clear. Let’s look at just a couple of the examples Thayer gives and you’ll see what he means. I’ll use the King James version just for now because of its word for word literalness. First let’s look at John 6:71

Scripture Verse: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

What? Holy Molies . . . This is a fitting verse for you to be using, Theonomy. “He” is a transliteration of “This one” in John 6:17. “houtos anthropos” means ‘this man,’ as in “this man is a Roman.” Acts 22:26. In the absence of the noun subject, the pronoun ‘houtos’ is translated ‘he’ thirty one times in the New Testament. Would you dream of saying “he man is a Roman” in Acts 22:26? No. In the same way, “houtos genea” means “this generation,” as ‘this’ is connected to the noun. You are playing with the Greek and do not have the knowledge of the language to be building such arguments. You are making ‘this’ technical for no reason except to deceive somebody . . . (Judas, Anna, she snip). Same meaningless argument different case.



Once again Terral misses the point intirely. (Or intentionally avoids it). The point Theonomy (via Monty) made was that houtos can either be referring back to something previoiusly mentioned if there is something to refer back to (hint: there is no generation previously mentioned in Mt. 24:34) or it could be used to discribe the current and/or present thing.



He blusters about how “houtos” is translated as he 31 times in the NT.



What does that prove? How in the world does that support (or contradict) his interpretation? Answer: It dosen’t. My guess he would look bad if he did not respond in some way, but poor Terral, in his case the phrase “silence is golden” is a perfect fit.



Terral also questions Theonomy’s knowledge of Greek. I would like to know Terral’s creditials in Greek. And I will go first. I have one year of college level Greek. And I think Theonomy is right on track. (This hardly qualifies me for much of anything, but since I am asking Terrel for his credentials it is only fair that I offer him mine. Which meager as they are, I suspect are more than Terrals.)



Gerald >> Let’s look at Matthew 24:33-34 Scripture Verse: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Now, who is the generation just named?

Monty >. Well…. I guess there isn’t really a generation specifically named. It's just called a generation.

Gerald >> That’s right, there isn’t. And if there isn’t a subject “just named,” then we’re left with Thayer’s first definition. “This generation” means “This generation now visibly present.” In fact, although the generation is not named in the above passage in Matthew 24, who are the last people specifically referred to before Jesus says “this generation?”

Poor Monty is forced to look all over in order to know the true identity of ‘this generation,’ except right here in Matthew 24 where Christ gives the answer.



Poor Terral. He is shown that using the context of the text and a reputable lexicon, “this generation” means the generation then living, yet he is so in love with his own pet theories that he ignores the simple truths of scripture.



This is far too simple for folks to be stumbling around in the dark and can not find their own backsides with both hands.



I agree. Which makes wonder why you are still stumbling when the plain truth of scripture has been shown to you.



The generation to see all those signs Christ just described in Matthew 24:3-29 is the SAME GENERATION who will witness “Your coming” at the “end of the age.”



Right. Preterist believe this too. So what? How does this refute anything?





Christ has switched gears from the Judgment of the Pharisees and Scribes of Matthew 23 to teaching about those who ‘endure to the end will be saved.’ Matthew 24:13.

The Greek in verse 13 above is a bit irregular and is only six Greek words starting with O . . . “De hupomeno eis telos houtos sozo.” It literally means “But remains unto the end houtos (this one) saved. Right here is your stand alone use of the pronoun ‘houtos’ (GR: outos). The Preterist error in trying to connect the ‘judged’ to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) is almost comical when you understand the language and the true context of the words in the passages.



No what is comical is you erecting a strawman of epic proportions. Preterist do not try to connect judged in Mt. 23 with this generation in Mt. 24. Where in the world did Terral get that idea?



<snip>more blustering and Terral repeating the same tired assertions<snip>

Gerald >> OK, OK, I see it already. He referred to His audience. In fact I’ll save your breath, and say that yes, I can see that He said they would be the ones who would “see all these things.”

No sir. Christ said the generation to see the signs of all these things would live to see “Your coming” at the “End of the Age.” I am not surprised that Gerald never quoted Matthew 24:36 that shows Christ did not know the day or hour of any of these events. Twenty five hundred words is long for an OP, but his is what you wanted . . .



:sigh: Yet again Terral is stating the obvious. Preterist believe that the generation then living did see all those things.



Your problem is that you assume that “the end of the age” and the accompanying signs have not yet occurred and force “this generation” to mean something other than the context allows. Preterist let the context speak for itself.







In Christ,

:sig:

[Terral]

Faramir:

Most of your post is the reasserting of your original premise, which is already refuted above to my satisfaction. My opening sentence in the OP stated that your work was difficult to follow. You did not even bother to let us in on who was speaking throughout the conversation. The few points you made could have been summed up on two or three paragraphs, and we could have avoided these long posts filled with nothing but empty chatter. (empty chatter, snip).

Faramir >> Wrong. Christ definition of the “ones to see all these things” is this generation. This being the current generation when He spoke those words.
No sir. Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of these things would happen, because all of these things happen during the ‘day of the Lord.’ Acts 2:17-21. Christ (Matt. 24:43), Paul (1Thes. 5:1+2) and Peter (2Pet. 3:10) all tell you that the ‘day of the Lord’ comes like a ‘thief in the night.’ That means NOBODY knows the day or hour when these things will happen, except THE FATHER ALONE. Matt. 24:36. Christ could not know if He was speaking of the generation living in that day. That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make. If you understood the entire Bible teaching on the Day of the Lord, then you would not be offering up such a ridiculous interpretation. You are inventing context to prop up a man-made interpretation of Scripture that is DEAD WRONG. I understand that you do not see the myriad of problems of trying to forward such an interpretation, but that is the ignorance factor associated with purchasing the Preterist explanation of Scripture!

You are trying to turn this doctrinal debate into being about Gerald, Monty, Faramir, Terral and everything except what we are here to discuss. The answer to this question over the identity of ‘this generation’ is far too simple for all of this wrangling over words. Your original conversation between these two knuckleheads was purposely written to confuse everybody involved. Then you have the gall to implant your ignorance upon everyone else for not understanding the mess you created. Go ahead and try playing your shell game using a few paragraphs, and I will be happy to show the foolishness of your invented man-made interpretation.

In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

"That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make."

No it's not. It may be wrong, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE.

[Amazing Rando]

"That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make."

No it's not. It may be wrong, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE.

:lol: Terral is a master of overstatement, isn't he?

[Terral]

Spiritmech:
Terral Original >> No sir. Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of these things would happen, because all of these things happen during the ‘day of the Lord.’ Acts 2:17-21. Christ (Matt. 24:43), Paul (1Thes. 5:1+2) and Peter (2Pet. 3:10) all tell you that the ‘day of the Lord’ comes like a ‘thief in the night.’ That means NOBODY knows the day or hour when these things will happen, except THE FATHER ALONE. Matt. 24:36. Christ could not know if He was speaking of the generation living in that day. That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make.

Spiritmech >> No it's not. It may be wrong, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE.
Nobody on earth can know the day or the hour of when the day of the Lord is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2), because that day comes like ‘a thief in the night.’ 1Thes. 5:2. All three of those witnesses from Scripture told you the SAME EXACT THING.

Matt 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”

Matt 24:43 “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.”

1 Thess 5:2 “For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.”

2 Pet 3:10 “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.”
The Preterists here cannot tell you that Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ of that day 2000 years go, or if He was speaking of a generation living 10,000 years in the future. All of the Scriptural evidence says that NOBODY KNOWS when ANY of THESE THINGS will happen. Yes, these people can conclude anything they wish, but that does not make it truth. The Preterists are Pretending to know things that Christ Himself told you He did NOT KNOW. They are trying everything to trick you into believing that Christ is addressing the people living in that day, so they can sell you the ‘fulfilled in 70 AD’ interpretation, which is D.E.A.D W.R.O.N.G. Paul says that we are gathered to the Lord, when the day of the Lord is ‘AT HAND.’ 2Thes. 2:2. Take off the dark sunglasses and take another good look around . . . If we are gathered when the Day of the Lord STARTS, then our church is not on the planet when all of those ‘day of the Lord’ events take place. Christ is describing the END OF THE AGE in Matthew 24, which is a thousand years (2Pet. 3:8, Rev. 20:5) AFTER the day of the Lord BEGINS.

So when is the Day of the Lord going to start? In forty years? Maybe a thousand years from now? NOBODY KNOWS! That is the momentous event (1Thes. 4:17) that our mystery church (Eph. 5:32) has been anticipating for the past 2000 years. We could be here another thousand years, before the day of the Lord even begins. Do not allow these Preterists to convince you that all of these things happened 2000 years ago in 70 AD. John wrote the Book of Revelation between 90 and 100 AD, and wrote about things to be fulfilled in the future.

In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

Paul thought something big was going to happen very soon. According to your interpretation, nothing happened. Is Paul lying? Did he jump the gun? If he didn't know, Paul should have said "I don't know." But he didn't.

SM

[Terral]

Rando:
Rando >> Terral is a master of overstatement, isn't he?
The Preterists here think they know more than Christ Himself by trying to convince everybody He was addressing the generation living 2000 years ago. All of the Scriptural evidence says that nobody knows the ‘day or hour’ (Matt. 24:36) that these things will occur. Who is overstating things? Heh . . . you guys. I am simply pointing out the facts in this case.

Every time you guys point the finger at me, there are three pointing back at you . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Amazing Rando]

When you say garbage like "That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make," then you are the one overstating things.

[Terral]

SM:
SM >> Paul thought something big was going to happen very soon. According to your interpretation, nothing happened. Is Paul lying? Did he jump the gun? If he didn't know, Paul should have said "I don't know." But he didn't.
You need to quote some Scripture or at least provide some references, when voicing your opinions on this thread. Paul says that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night. 1Thes. 5:1+2. He cannot say that day is coming soon, if he has no clue about when the day of the Lord begins. We have OT verses that teach the ‘day of the Lord’ is coming quickly also.

“Near is the great day of the LORD, Near and coming very quickly; Listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, A day of trouble and distress, A day of destruction and desolation, A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness.”
Zephaniah was written about 700 years before Peter wrote about the same things:

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away [ Rev. 20:11 ] with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.”
You need to decide for yourself if the Spirit of God is saying that the ‘day’ is coming “very quickly*” or if these things are coming quickly upon the nations when the “Judgment” of the ‘day of the Lord’ actually beings. Even the casual reader of the Text should realize that “Near and coming quickly” does not mean that the ‘day of the Lord’ was coming today or tomorrow. God wrote these things down in Scripture so that the generations to be born would read His book of prophecy and anticipate the coming of the ‘end of the age.’ Since the ‘end’ and ‘final’ events of the Day of the Lord are Judgment and the burning up of this present earth, then one can merely look around and see that we are still here. Christ is describing events upon the earth that take place just prior to His coming at the end of the age in Matthew 24. That is the true context, and none of that was fulfilled in 70 AD, unless you also believe that this is the new heaven and new earth we are living in today. Please do not tell me you guys believe that . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

Umm. Zephaniah was prophesying before the destruction of the 1st temple. Destruction *did* come quickly.

SM

[Terral]

Rando:
Rando >> When you say garbage like "That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make," then you are the one overstating things.
Are you here to make some kind of contribution to the Preterists side of this debate, or to throw stones at your debating opponent; as usual? We have several points made in the OP for you to attack using Scripture. Please be my guest. The third party readers can judge who is overstating things. The fact remains that you have no Scriptural authority or reason for Pretending to know the day or hour when all of these things shall be fulfilled. You are claiming to know what is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know, except the ‘Father Alone.’ Matt. 24:36. That is the truth of the ‘this generation’ disaster the Preterists have created with the invention of their man-made interpretation that these things happened 2000 years ago. Scripture is not saying what you guys are Pretending to know. Please present your case again for Christ knowing the day and hour of these Matthew 24 events, so that He knew for certain that He was addressing the generation living in that day. Go for it . . . Bring it on . . . Please be my guest.

I believe some retractions are in order gentlemen. None of you have a clue about when all of those signs of ‘these things’ would be fulfilled anymore than Christ. Matt. 24:36. The Preterist Interpretation that Christ was speaking to the generation living in that day is total fabrication from people who have grossly taken things way out of context. That is the bed you have made, and now you must sleep in it. I welcome all so-called Preterists on this board to join in and prove their case using Scripture. There are not enough of you to pull off this shell game nonsense. Overstating indeed . . .

BTW, somebody sent me some pearls; whatever that means. But I believe a thank you is in order. So thank you very much,

In Christ,

Terral

[Terral]

SM:
SM >> Umm. Zephaniah was prophesying before the destruction of the 1st temple. Destruction *did* come quickly.

No sir. What is the business of “Day of the Lord” and Judgment of the whole world and heaven and earth passing away = destruction of any Temple? You must come up with better arguments than this. It is almost impossible for me to believe that you have actually read the Book of Zephaniah for yourself. Chapter one is written in the context of what appears at the very top (as usual).

“The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, son of Gedaliah, son of Amariah, son of Hezekiah, in the days of Josiah son of Amon, king of Judah: “I will completely remove all things from the face of the earth,” declares the LORD. “I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky And the fish of the sea, and the ruins along with the wicked; and I will cut off man from the face of the earth,” declares the LORD. . . . Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His guests.”

Just how many ‘days of the Lord’ do the Preterists believe are described in Scripture? As shown above, Peter is describing the same Judgment of the ‘day of the Lord’ in 2Pet. 3:10-12. Tearing down a Temple is NOT anything to compare to the Great and Glorious Day of the Lord. Joel 2:28-28, Acts 2:17-21. They are ALL describing the Lord God doing exactly what He says here, “I will completely remove all things from the face of the earth.” One stone will not be left upon the other in the ENTIRE WORLD. The fact that you should try to compare Zephaniah’s prophecies of the Day of the Lord to Babylonians tearing down the first Temple explains a bunch about the way Preterists see things. The terms ‘temple’ and ‘Babylon’ are not even found in the entire book. Much of the Preterist fantasy is built upon mental imagery of things that are simply not found anywhere in the Bible. As it is written,

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”

In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

This is not a crazy interpretation of mine. The dating is right, and the only way to have any historical force for a NT "day of the Lord" is for the first temple to be destroyed in a day of the Lord.


From New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14146a.htm):

(b) ii, 4-15. Not only over Jerusalem, but over the whole world (urbi et orbi), over the peoples in all the four regions of the heavens, will the hand of the Lord be stretched--westwards over the Philistines (4-7), eastwards over the Moabites and Ammonites (8-11), southwards over the Ethiopians (12), and northwards over the Assyrians and Ninivites (13-15).

[Terral]

SM:
SM >> This is not a crazy interpretation of mine. The dating is right, and the only way to have any historical force for a NT "day of the Lord" is for the first temple to be destroyed in a day of the Lord.
That is your opinion, SM, which gives you the appearance of being quite foolish. You ignored the context I showed you from Zephaniah 1:1-7, and everything I wrote to you above. Why not just quote me and show the errors in my statements? Restating your assertion does not mean anything. Lexicons define terms, but do not interpret Scripture or determine accurate context. The Preterists are trying to prove that the day of the Lord comes along every time the Temple is leveled. The Spirit of God is the One describing the events of the day of the Lord in Zephaniah 1, Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:17-21, 2Pet. 3:7-12, etc. Just what do you believe your quote from the New Advent proves? Nothing . . .

My points in Post #13 are still standing if you care to try and refute them using Scripture.

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

Most of your post is the reasserting of your original premise, which is already refuted above to my satisfaction. My opening sentence in the OP stated that your work was difficult to follow. You did not even bother to let us in on who was speaking throughout the conversation. The few points you made could have been summed up on two or three paragraphs, and we could have avoided these long posts filled with nothing but empty chatter. (empty chatter, snip). You are correct Terral. You can recognize it in others, why can't you see it in yourself. I was just responding to your post in kind.

You see Terral, there is more than one way to win a debate in the eyes of the third party readers. If I can show the illogic of your position, I win by default.


No sir. Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of these things would happen, because all of these things happen during the ‘day of the Lord.’ Acts 2:17-21. Christ (Matt. 24:43), Paul (1Thes. 5:1+2) and Peter (2Pet. 3:10) all tell you that the ‘day of the Lord’ comes like a ‘thief in the night.’ That means NOBODY knows the day or hour when these things will happen, except THE FATHER ALONE. Matt. 24:36. Christ could not know if He was speaking of the generation living in that day. That conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make. If you understood the entire Bible teaching on the Day of the Lord, then you would not be offering up such a ridiculous interpretation. You are inventing context to prop up a man-made interpretation of Scripture that is DEAD WRONG. I understand that you do not see the myriad of problems of trying to forward such an interpretation, but that is the ignorance factor associated with purchasing the Preterist explanation of Scripture! I have refuted this elswhere. You have not responded.

Can you answer this one question:

1. Why does Jesus not knowing the day or hour, preclude Him from knowing the generation?

Now you answered it once before, I hope you answer the same way this time, because, "He did not know the day or the hour" is not really an asnwer to that question, and everyone (but Terral and probably Mickey) can see this.

<snip> more blustering <snip>
And notice how Terral focused on my blustering (which was there a plenty) but totally avoided actually addressing any thing substantive I said.

In Christ,

:sig:

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> You are correct Terral. You can recognize it in others, why can't you see it in yourself. I was just responding to your post in kind. You see Terral, there is more than one way to win a debate in the eyes of the third party readers. If I can show the illogic of your position, I win by default.
No sir. Your Gerald / Monty escapade was perhaps convincing to you. Anyone moved to adopt the Preterist Theology through that nonsense is far beyond my meager abilities to lend any assistance. I suppose this means you refuse to simply present your case in a series of paragraphs. Maybe the prospect of laying it out on the line is too frightening for you to imagine. I understand if you continue to refuse my requests. However, to claim victory before you even present a clear case makes no sense to me.
Faramir >> 1. Why does Jesus not knowing the day or hour, preclude Him from knowing the generation?
For Christ to know if He was addressing the current generation living in that day He had to know when those things would occur. You are trying to give Him credit for having knowledge He simply did not possess. Christ is describing ‘end of the age’ events that occur during the latter part (Judgment) of the “day of the Lord.” You should know that by comparing the evidence from Joel 2:30, Acts 2:20 and Matthew 24:29.

"I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, Blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood Before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.

“And I will grant wonders in the sky above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, and before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come. And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved*.”
Are these things ringing any bells for you? What does Christ describe in Matthew 24 just before His coming?

“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn**, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.”
The part of Acts 2:21 in blue above* is a reference to those who believe the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) going to all the nations and then ‘the end will come.’ But, Faramir believes Christ is only talking about the destruction of the Temple here in Matthew 24 . . . right? We are supposed to Pretend that ‘all the tribes of the earth**’ are unaffected by these things, because the rest of the world was not affected by Jerusalem being leveled by the Romans in 70 AD. The Preterist’s ‘local event’ interpretation of Matthew 24 is not according to the three synoptic accounts that depict cataclysmic events that affect the whole world***. Christ says that these events would affect the whole world in the beginning of Revelation:

“Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world***, to test those who dwell on the earth.”
Faramir >> Now you answered it once before, I hope you answer the same way this time, because, "He did not know the day or the hour" is not really an asnwer to that question, and everyone (but Terral and probably Mickey) can see this.
Anyone who can be deluded into believing that the day of the Lord prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD is capable of believing just about anything. I can refute every syllable of your testimony and you will still feel victorious after proving nothing, and before you ever present even a few paragraphs explaining your interpretations. In your mind this Gerald / Monty Mumbo Jumbo proved something. I believe you are the only person in the auditorium clapping . . .
Faramir >> And notice how Terral focused on my blustering (which was there a plenty) but totally avoided actually addressing any thing substantive I said.
That is because you have yet to simply come out and present your case. Gerald and Monty did your talking, and I believe they were passing something back and forth during their conversation.

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Terral once again out did himself

Terral said:



Most of your post is the reasserting of your original premise, which is already refuted above to my satisfaction. My opening sentence in the OP stated that your work was difficult to follow. You did not even bother to let us in on who was speaking throughout the conversation. The few points you made could have been summed up on two or three paragraphs, and we could have avoided these long posts filled with nothing but empty chatter. (empty chatter, snip).



To which I replied

You are correct Terral. You can recognize it in others, why can't you see it in yourself. I was just responding to your post in kind. You see Terral, there is more than one way to win a debate in the eyes of the third party readers. If I can show the illogic of your position, I win by default.



Notice that I am agree with him that I was engaging in “empty chatter”



Yet he responds:



Faramir:




No sir. Your Gerald / Monty escapade was perhaps convincing to you. Anyone moved to adopt the Preterist Theology through that nonsense is far beyond my meager abilities to lend any assistance.



Hello. Terral. I admitted I was not trying to prove the preterist position. I was just trying to prove that you do not read your opponents post you just react to them.



This just reinforces that point. Thanks.



I suppose this means you refuse to simply present your case in a series of paragraphs. Maybe the prospect of laying it out on the line is too frightening for you to imagine. I understand if you continue to refuse my requests. However, to claim victory before you even present a clear case makes no sense to me.



I have present my case time and time again. In fact here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=860935#post860935) i (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=860935#post860935)s my latest post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=860935#post860935) doing just that.






You have failed to address a single rebuttal to your position with anything other than evasive “yeah but” questions, assertions, and other evasive maneuvers.
The topic of this thread is “The Preterist Shell Game” I was not tying to prove the preterist position, but to defend against your allegation that we are playing a shell game. That I proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I respect my fellow posters enough to stay on topic, even if I disagree with the thread starter. Something you know nothing about.



. Why does Jesus not knowing the day or hour, preclude Him from knowing the generation? For Christ to know if He was addressing the current generation living in that day He had to know when those things would occur. You are trying to give Him credit for having knowledge He simply did not possess. Christ is describing ‘end of the age’ events that occur during the latter part (Judgment) of the “day of the Lord.”

And he accuses of playing a shell game. This is the second time he responded to this same question, and the second time he failed to actually answer it.



The question is why does not knowing the day and the hour, preclude Jesus from knowing the generation. All Terral does is assert that Jesus did not know.



Terral. I already know you believe he did not know. What I want to know is why you believe this. I am growing more and more convinced that Terral believes what he was told and has no idea as to why he believes. That is OK, a lot of Christians are like that. But until you know why you believe what you believe it is best to stay away from debate forums. Otherwise you just embarrass those of your position who really have a clue.



You should know that by comparing the evidence from Joel 2:30, Acts 2:20 and Matthew 24:29.



Next Terral tries to change the subject by asking a “yeah but question” In essence he is saying “It must be a future generation, otherwise my interpretation of Joel 2:30 is wrong.” Guess what. I think your interpretation of Joel 2:30 is wrong. But that is not the topic.



You see third party readers, Terral want to avoid actually addressing the rebuttals to his position by asking an infinite series of question about other passages. The long and never ending road begins with me refuting Terral’s interpretation of “this generation” Instead of actually addressing that refutation Terral says, “Yeah, but if you are right my interpretation of Joel 2:30 is wrong. I can refute his interpretation of Joel 2:30. But will Terrral go back to Mt 23:34. No!!! He will just ask another “yeah, but” question. Like “yeh, but if your interpretation of Joel 2:30 is wrong, then my interpretation of Rev. 32:10 is wrong, etc.



Terral’s entire theology is a delicate house of cards. It is an interpretation made up by man and forced upon scripture. Men decided that the ‘tribulation’ was still future and interpreted nearly every eschatological verse with that in mind.



So when Terral says, “yeah, but this verse is still future” it is because his interpretation is forced on that verse as well. When Terral is shown that the actual context of the “topic” verse does not support his position, he retreats to another verse with an equally fallacious interpretation. The preterist refute that, then he retreats to another verse, and so on and so on and so on.



That is a shell game that I will not play.



You don’t see preterist saying, “well if this generation means future generation, then how can you explain my interpretation of [fill in the blank]. Why is that. Because we our interpretation is based on a solid understanding of the text itself, not some man made interpretation that forces itself upon the scripture.



If Terral’s position is so biblically grounded. Why can’t he support it from the context. Why does he always have to retreat to another fallacious interpretation of another passage? Because that is the only way he can be secure in his belief. Terral begins to get doubts about his futurism in one verse, he just runs to another, when he get doubts about that, he runs to another. Eventually he will run far enough that he forgets his doubts about the first verse and starts again.



And if Terral wants to embrace that false security, that is fine with me. But I will not sit back and let him try to dupe third party readers with this shameful shell game.


:sig:

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> Hello. Terral. I admitted I was not trying to prove the preterist position. I was just trying to prove that you do not read your opponents post you just react to them.
Your Post #18 is about Terral, Terral, Terral and is in no danger of convincing anyone of the Preterist Interpretation of anything. I was confused over whether Gerald or Monty was speaking in his article, and then was confused again when addressing Theonomy and Faramir. Theonomy asked that I start this thread to discuss the merits of his article as evidence and support for his Preterist interpretation. I am happy to address anything you might have to add to that discussion.

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

I am happy to address anything you might have to add to that discussion.


Well Terral, I don't think that anything needs to be added. Between Theonomy's excelent defence of the preterist position. And your total inablity to actually address a single point. I think preterism is well represented.

And since you obviously did not cathch it the first two times I said it, I am not trying to defend preterism in this thread. Theonomoy has done an excelent job of doing that thus far. And you have done nothing to refute it.

My sole purpose is to make it clear to third party readers, just how poor your 'arguments' are.

Thanks for making my job so easy.

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> Well Terral, I don't think that anything needs to be added. Between Theonomy's excelent defence of the preterist position. And your total inablity to actually address a single point. I think preterism is well represented.
You keep thinking that, Faramir. Since you came to this thread, the topic is the last thing on your mind. Instead you talk about Terral’s reading skills and other nonsense, so that I do not take anything you say very seriously. Anyone moved by your arrogant mouth to believe in Preterism is your worthy disciple.
Faramir >> And since you obviously did not cathch it the first two times I said it, I am not trying to defend preterism in this thread. Theonomoy has done an excelent job of doing that thus far. And you have done nothing to refute it.
Heh. Really? And what post # ?? would that be? He has yet to write one post on this thread. Who is so busy running their yapper about Terral, Terral, Terral, that he has no clue about what is going on?
Faramir >> My sole purpose is to make it clear to third party readers, just how poor your 'arguments' are. Thanks for making my job so easy.
Heh. You are most welcome. Thank you for being on the other side of the debate.

In Christ,

Terral