Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Matthew 24:20 in a futurist paradigm

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,627
    Amen (Given)
    279
    Amen (Received)
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Darfius View Post
    The "Jewish" people were only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and some of Levi, so you are already incorrect. But Jesus said verbatim that He did not come to set the law aside and that not one jot or tittle would pass away. So shall I believe the Lord Jesus or "mikewhitney?"
    Maybe try Jesus and Paul so you can understand the situation. My statement applied to anythings such as the law of Moses or laws of any of the 12 tribes and related groups. You are pushing issues of semantics in an attempt to make an unsupported distinction. This isn't part of KingGambit's discussion. But you should be able to continue the discussion in Theology from last week.

    The link is http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nclean-Animals
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-13-2019 at 12:56 PM.

  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    690
    Amen (Given)
    62
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Maybe try Jesus and Paul so you can understand the situation. My statement applied to anythings such as the law of Moses or laws of any of the 12 tribes and related groups. You are pushing issues of semantics in an attempt to make an unsupported distinction. This isn't part of KingGambit's discussion. But you should be able to continue the discussion in Theology from last week.

    The link is http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nclean-Animals
    The issue of whether or not the Sabbath still applies is obviously germane to the OP's initial question. I also obviously understand Jesus and Paul better than you, since they both kept the written law. And you referring to the law as "Jewish" belies your claim to understanding the subject at all, since the people whom God initially made the covenant with were not "Jewish", but rather "Israelite" and those people and that covenant still exist today. Gentiles have been grafted into that covenant, but disobedience to God's commands is not part of said covenant.

  3. #13
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,398
    Amen (Given)
    1705
    Amen (Received)
    4562
    Quote Originally Posted by Darfius View Post
    The issue of whether or not the Sabbath still applies is obviously germane to the OP's initial question. I also obviously understand Jesus and Paul better than you, since they both kept the written law. And you referring to the law as "Jewish" belies your claim to understanding the subject at all, since the people whom God initially made the covenant with were not "Jewish", but rather "Israelite" and those people and that covenant still exist today. Gentiles have been grafted into that covenant, but disobedience to God's commands is not part of said covenant.
    What is your exegesis of Colossians 2:16 as it pertains to Paul's view of the Sabbath?
    "Technology has, in an enhanced way, given mockers a platform to set society on fire with polarizing speech. Internet culture privileges those whose insults are click bait." - Timothy Keller

  4. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,627
    Amen (Given)
    279
    Amen (Received)
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Darfius View Post
    The issue of whether or not the Sabbath still applies is obviously germane to the OP's initial question. I also obviously understand Jesus and Paul better than you, since they both kept the written law. And you referring to the law as "Jewish" belies your claim to understanding the subject at all, since the people whom God initially made the covenant with were not "Jewish", but rather "Israelite" and those people and that covenant still exist today. Gentiles have been grafted into that covenant, but disobedience to God's commands is not part of said covenant.
    I would have used a term different from Jewish law if there was any need for more specificity here. Your pressing this issue indicates non-intellectual bias instead of logic.

    The exact terminology or applicability of sabbath to various groups is not critical to the discussion beyond mentioning the various groups to whom this might be thought to apply. This point was already answered.

    If you want to address theories of modern legalism, that link I gave earlier has a start of that discussion. You have a lot of doctrines that would fit into the minority position within that thread.

  5. #15
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,398
    Amen (Given)
    1705
    Amen (Received)
    4562
    Thanks for all the responses so far. It seems the majority of futurists see a double fulfillment there. Do you see more double fulfillments within the Olivet Discourse, at least prior to verse 30 (which I don't think anybody could reasonably place in the first century)?
    "Technology has, in an enhanced way, given mockers a platform to set society on fire with polarizing speech. Internet culture privileges those whose insults are click bait." - Timothy Keller

  6. #16
    tWebber Faber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Sagittarius Arm
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,040
    Amen (Given)
    225
    Amen (Received)
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Thanks for all the responses so far. It seems the majority of futurists see a double fulfillment there. Do you see more double fulfillments within the Olivet Discourse, at least prior to verse 30 (which I don't think anybody could reasonably place in the first century)?
    If v. 1-26 had already been fulfilled in AD 67-70, why look for a double fulfillment?

  7. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,942
    Amen (Given)
    211
    Amen (Received)
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Thanks for all the responses so far. It seems the majority of futurists see a double fulfillment there. Do you see more double fulfillments within the Olivet Discourse, at least prior to verse 30 (which I don't think anybody could reasonably place in the first century)?
    To be honest with you, I don't really see how a preterist can interpret anything from Matthew 24 as pertaining to the pre-70 era. Even wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes, famines... etc., have no special meaning in that era. IMO it fits much better into a 21st century scope where such technology exists that makes sense as actual signs of something special. There's always been these signs in every generation even before the first century, yet NO generation has had the means to observe these signs like we do, which makes our generation unique in the perspective of such naturally occurring signs.

    With that said, I think Luke's (21) version fits the first century a little better up to vs. 24, or at least gave them some guidance in what do in that situation. He gives a better and more clearer version of what happened during the 70 AD war (though even with Luke, there are some inaccuracies in comparison to the war which I won't get into).

    I would be willing to argue double fulfillment only as a byproduct of helping first century Christians to avoid that situation.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  8. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    690
    Amen (Given)
    62
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    What is your exegesis of Colossians 2:16 as it pertains to Paul's view of the Sabbath?
    It is a refutation of the legalism of the Pharisees. Following the law does not make you righteous, but that does not absolve one of following the law.

    Scripture Verse: Luke 11

    42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Christ came to fulfill and uphold the Law, not set it aside, except insomuch as He gives us something better by giving us a Spirit that can follow the Law perfectly as He did. And He also gave us the freedom to know that if we accidentally fail to follow some part of the Law, we are not condemned, but rather grace is allotted while we repent and correct our course.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •