Where is the Preterist 2nd Advent?

[TyRockwell]

Preterists are so determined to make all things in Matthew 24 point to a "coming" around 70 AD, they even take the Second Advent verses, 29-31.

It seems they don't find Jesus answering the disciples questions in Matthew 24:3

What will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?

It should be evident, verses 29-31 fit the bill.

What are their Second Coming references in Matthew 24?

[TyRockwell]

Please see my last post in the "Preterism is Dangerous" thread.

It is an excerpt of a view of genomai from

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek

[seanD]

According to John Reece in another thread, he recognized that Mat 24 is describing the parousia (because you can't get around the fact that the word is used in the context of Matthew's OD), but argued that Mat 24:30-31 is the judgment on Israel, because the word for "coming" changes to erchomai. So his logic is that Jesus is talking about his second advent (parousia) throughout the OD, until he reaches Mat 24:30-31, which references the judgment, and then continues to describe the parousia in the subsequent verses.

I kid you not. I would find it and link to the post if there weren't so many stupid threads here to sift through.

[TyRockwell]

According to John Reece in another thread, he recognized that Mat 24 is describing the parousia (because you can't get around the fact that the word is used in the context of the Matthew's OD), but argued that Mat 24:30-31 is the judgment on Israel, because the word for "coming" changes to erchomai. So his logic is that Jesus is talking about his second advent (parousia) throughout the OD, until he reaches Mat 24:30-31, which changes to the judgment, and then continues to describe the parousia in the subsequent verses.

I kid you not. I would find it and link to the post if there weren't so many stupid threads here to sift through.

And then they act like you are supposed to know all the things they believe.

They've got it down-side up.

Verses 21-28 speak of the tribulation that started in the time of the apostles, and lasts until the 2nd Advent.

Thanks, seanD,

It is amazing the lengths people will go through to protect preterist theory.

They've fallen into great deception. I wonder if they will admit it when I've proved them wrong.

[zwan]

According to John Reece in another thread, he recognized that Mat 24 is describing the parousia (because you can't get around the fact that the word is used in the context of Matthew's OD)

I think some of the preterists deny even that: that Matthew 24:3 is talking of the 2nd Advent.

[zwan]

What are their Second Coming references in Matthew 24?

Some may deny it speaks of it at all. Some will have it switch at verse 36 if I remember correctly. (e.g. R.T. France)

[Obsidian]

It seems they don't find Jesus answering the disciples questions in Matthew 24:3

At the time the question was asked, Jesus hadn't even ascended yet, and we get the idea that the disciples weren't even real clear on the fact that Jesus was going to die. So I don't see any reason why "answer[ing] their question" should necessarily require an explanation about when Jesus is going to descend from heaven.

[John Reece]

According to John Reece in another thread, he recognized that Mat 24 is describing the parousia (because you can't get around the fact that the word is used in the context of Matthew's OD), but argued that Mat 24:30-31 is the judgment on Israel, because the word for "coming" changes to erchomai. So his logic is that Jesus is talking about his second advent (parousia) throughout the OD, until he reaches Mat 24:30-31, which references the judgment, and then continues to describe the parousia in the subsequent verses.

You quite misrepresented what I have posted.

You have made an erroneous statement that should be disregarded by all readers of this thread.

But of course it's too late to undue the fact that others have already cited and added to your misconstruction.

[seanD]

You quite misrepresented what I have posted.

You have made an erroneous statement that should be disregarded by all readers of this thread.

But of course it's too late to undue the fact that others have already cited and added to your misconstruction.

The readers can decide for themselves what you argued here.

[seanD]

I think some of the preterists deny even that: that Matthew 24:3 is talking of the 2nd Advent.

I don't know how they can do this when parousia is in the context of the whole of Mat 24. John Reece at least was honest enough to recognize this problem, even though his solution was an absurd one.

[John Reece]

I don't know how they can do this when parousia is in the context of the whole of Mat 24. John Reece at least was honest enough to recognize this problem, even though his solution was an absurd one.

It's a bit trying to see you continuing to me.

I do not 'recognize' the four occurrences parousia in Matthew 24 as being a 'problem' that requires a solution, let alone one that is 'absurd'.

[Hitch]

If not for intellectual dishonesty futurism would have no roots at all.

[Hitch]

Can anyone tell my why Jesus was suppoedly conserned with telling these first century believers , many of whom would make the martyr's sacrifice, details of an event thousands of years future?

[seanD]

If not for intellectual dishonesty futurism would have no roots at all.

Are you accusing me of lying, Hitch? I normally ignore your inane posts, but if you're accusing me of dishonesty, then I would ask you to provide proof or retract that accusation.

It's a bit trying to see you continuing to me.

I do not 'recognize' the four occurrences parousia in Matthew 24 as being a 'problem' that requires a solution, let alone one that is 'absurd'.

If some preterists don't recognize Mat 24 as being the second advent (going by what zwan claimed), this would be a problem, then your interpretation that it does discuss the second advent would be contrary, yet correct.

[Hitch]

Are you accusing me of lying, Hitch? I normally ignore your inane posts, but if you're accusing me of dishonesty, then I would ask you to provide proof or retract that accusation.

Which part of that one line post is beyond your understanding?