 |
|
|
"I was one of the loudest voices on the newsgroups speaking about a "Rapture on Feast of Trumpets" this year. I'm sorry. I was wrong."
-- Jason Hommel
|
|
| |
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: The Coming of the Son of Man at Mat. 24:27 vs Futuristic Third Coming of Christ (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Wednesday, September 28 @ 00:57:12 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Yeah,
As a biblically-oriented forum/radio outlet, how silly to call it "The Narrow Mind" ? Better "The Narrow Way", maybe?
Anyway, it's pretty late as I listen and post, but I may finish the program.
Gary DeMar and the host are upfront about being "partial" Preterists. Demar states that he is still attempting to work out his views. And it's nice how Demar is not so threatened by us full-Preterists. He makes some good points that relate to a full-Preterist position. But I suspect that DeMar is still far more tilted to the Dispensational side, as he admitted to believing in a future Judgment, Second Coming, and Church Resurrection.
DeMar kept pretty strictly focused on Matthew 24:1-34 as being clearly fulfilled at Jerusalem's terrible destruction in 70AD, which is not a great feat, especially from the text and history.
It was interesting to listen as an early Dispensational caller told him that verse 27 (where Jesus describes his own coming as the "Coming of the Son of Man") obviously refers to the so-called Second Coming (which Dispensationalists say has not occured yet). Of course, we full-Preterists would agree that verse 27 does indeed refer to Jesus' so-called "Second Coming" (which has been fulfilled for nearly 2000 years).
But DeMar stated that the word "coming" at verse 27 doesn't refer the so-called Second "Coming", which he, along with Dispensationalists, believe is still off into the future, but rather refers to a "Coming of the Son of Man" that resulted in all that Mat. 24 implies, but cannot be considered the so-called "The Second Coming".
So, DeMar contradicts his own simple premise of Mat. 24:1-34 being fulfilled by manufacturing his own "preliminary" second Coming of Christ at 70 AD. And to be truly consistent with his "partial" position, it would be more accurate for him to say that he believes that a so-called "Third Coming of Christ" is something still left unfulfilled.
It's a confusing position, and it's no wonder that DeMar wrangles with Dispensationalists and Preterists, alike.
Just to recap, if I heard the program correctly: DeMar does not believe that, as Jesus called it, "The Coming of the Son of Man" at Matthew 24:27 refers to the so-called "Second Coming."
I applaud DeMar for wanting to get away from Dispensationalism, beginning in 1970, and writing books on the subject. But, if ever there were an eschatological Purgatory, it's the "partial" Preterist position.
Wow, now there's a caller (George) actually asking these same things (Third... Forth Coming of Christ). And the program has two minutes left.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Wednesday, September 28 @ 06:45:17 PDT
- by chrisliv on Wednesday, September 28 @ 09:20:28 PDT
- by vinster on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:11:26 PDT
- by Virgil on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:39:22 PDT
Re: Gary DeMar Discusses Preterism on The Narrow Mind Broadcast (Score: 1)
 by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 05:21:22 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I, too, advocate many comings of Christ -- both pre- and post-A.D. 70. They run like a thread throughout both the OT and NT. I have also written that the terminology of "second coming" is non-biblical and an invention of man. Likewise, the concept of limiting the comings of Jesus Christ to two, three, four, or any number -- past, present, or future and Hebrews 9:28 notwithstanding -- is unbiblical. He is not hindered or limited by our unbiblical theologies/eschatologies.
For more on this, see my book "Beyond the End Times" pages 201-206. Also, view/listen to my presentatation at TruthVoice 2005 titled "Is Preterism Sufficient? Did Christ Really Come in Finality in A.D. 70."
To date, no full preterist has been able to scripturally refute this. They have only been able to make paradigm assertions that "it ain't so." But that's not good enough.
Where am I wrong on this?
For Christ & Kingdom,
John Noe |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Sam on Wednesday, September 28 @ 05:32:18 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 06:28:37 PDT
- by Virgil on Wednesday, September 28 @ 07:28:48 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 09:03:56 PDT
- by Kyle on Wednesday, September 28 @ 07:21:14 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 09:10:05 PDT
- by Kyle on Wednesday, September 28 @ 11:06:30 PDT
- by Sam on Wednesday, September 28 @ 11:10:34 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 11:32:43 PDT
- by Erick on Wednesday, September 28 @ 13:26:06 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 14:14:39 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Wednesday, September 28 @ 14:52:33 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 15:13:03 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Thursday, September 29 @ 05:24:05 PDT
- by Reformer on Thursday, September 29 @ 06:01:59 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, September 28 @ 14:58:58 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 15:24:03 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, September 28 @ 23:12:22 PDT
- by MichaelB on Wednesday, September 28 @ 11:15:26 PDT
- by vento on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:09:38 PDT
- by MichaelB on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:34:02 PDT
- by mazuur on Wednesday, October 05 @ 10:43:01 PDT
Re: Gary DeMar Discusses Preterism on The Narrow Mind Broadcast (Score: 1)
by Duncan on Wednesday, September 28 @ 09:10:06 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I would sure like to see an article because I just don't get it. Consider Rev. 21:1-3
Rev. 21:1-3
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had paassed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God."
If this has been fulfilled (which I believe it has) then God is with us (He is in the spiritual realm but still dwelling with us). He would have to leave for there to be another coming of God! The coming of the New Jerusalem is the full coming of the kingdom of God at the AD 70 coming of God (Dan. 7:21-22; cf. Mark 8:38-9:1). What Revelation shows as the coming of the Word of God (Rev. 19:11-21). If these things have been fulfilled and God is now with us, how can there be another coming?
On a different note. I started to download this interview; I really wanted to hear it. I gave up after half an hour becuase I had 7 1/2 hours to go to complete the download. Moral of the story, dial-up sucks. Is there anything I can do (besides paying more money for DSL or something like it).
Duncan |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 09:15:57 PDT
- by Duncan on Wednesday, September 28 @ 09:43:59 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 10:14:00 PDT
- by Duncan on Wednesday, September 28 @ 10:48:57 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 11:26:16 PDT
- by Duncan on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:16:51 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:30:22 PDT
- by Duncan on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:51:58 PDT
- by MichaelB on Wednesday, September 28 @ 12:53:29 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 13:16:32 PDT
- by MichaelB on Wednesday, September 28 @ 14:07:28 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Wednesday, September 28 @ 14:59:29 PDT
- by Andre on Wednesday, September 28 @ 23:42:15 PDT
- by JL on Wednesday, September 28 @ 10:30:37 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 11:38:38 PDT
- by Ed on Wednesday, September 28 @ 10:21:34 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Wednesday, September 28 @ 15:05:54 PDT
- by Reformer on Wednesday, September 28 @ 15:30:33 PDT
- by daveedwards on Wednesday, September 28 @ 18:54:23 PDT
- by Duncan on Wednesday, September 28 @ 19:21:09 PDT
- by daveedwards on Wednesday, September 28 @ 19:24:17 PDT
- by Virgil on Wednesday, September 28 @ 19:48:04 PDT
- by Duncan on Friday, September 30 @ 09:06:10 PDT
- by mazuur on Wednesday, October 05 @ 14:05:15 PDT
Matthew 27 Thoughts (Score: 1)
by MichaelB on Wednesday, September 28 @ 18:26:13 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Matthew 27
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
1. Doesnt it look like these guys raised out of their graves, hung around for three days, then went into the city?
2. What if it should have read after "their" resurrection instead of "his". Is that a plausible error?
Matthew 27
53 and coming out of the graves after THEIR resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
I read this somewhere before. It just seems weird that they raise at the moment the curtain is rent. Then they don't come out till three days later. Then we flash back, three days back again, to the centurion and women watching the crucifiction.
3. Another plausible error is that after His resurrection "He" appeared to many instead of "they".
Matthew 27
53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, HE went into the holy city and appeared to many.
This seems possible because of other scriptures like...
Acts 1
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.
1 Corinthians 15
6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
But that still leaves the strange order of the accounts of the events in Matthew 27.
4. If they were raised / glorified when the curtain was rent, were they glorified before Jesus? Then who was the firstfruit from the dead.
5. I still don't see any glorification here in the scripture of these saints. It looks like a regular bodily resurrection to me. Like Lazarus.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Andre on Wednesday, September 28 @ 23:50:04 PDT
Re: Gary DeMar Discusses Preterism on The Narrow Mind Broadcast (Score: 1)
by Slippery on Thursday, September 29 @ 13:33:32 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I find in no way that Dee Dee Warren was heinous. She made a point, and Gary Demar could have answered it quickly, he chickened out hiding behind the smoke screen, as to "what the topic is", eventhough there are many times where a topic on a radio show gets diverted to other relevant aspects before getting back on course.
No river runs straight. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by chrisliv on Thursday, September 29 @ 14:38:55 PDT
- by demario on Thursday, September 29 @ 18:45:48 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, September 29 @ 19:39:01 PDT
- by Duck on Friday, October 07 @ 08:10:18 PDT
Come On, Folks! (Score: 1)
by zweiteskommen on Monday, October 03 @ 12:54:39 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | The website linked to the "heinous Dee Dee Warren" makes the following comment: "We are not here to make friends but to expose a fraudulent "christian" and hopefully motivate her to turn her life around."
Let's be honest here. Does anyone believe for a minute that this site has as one of its goals the restoration of a wayward Christian (or the salvation of a fraud)? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. This is about "outting" an enemy and getting some revenge. I've seen some of her work and I believe it is totally unbecoming a Christian. But the same goes for anyone returning fire in kind. She should be called on the carpet and challenged, but not at the expense of one's own integrity.
Read the site. Is this "speaking the truth in love"? I don't think so and I don't think any of you do either. The truth hurts enough without stirring hostility and vengeance into the pot.
Z |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
