Responses to Jesus The False Prophet
[ Homepage ] [ Up ]      Set Free Table of Contents          What's New

 

Now hold on there partners, I'll be right back just a few billion years after the sun goes supernova!

Table of Contents

Jennifer Kincaid 9-28-02

Rob Hill 11-22-02

John Tudor  2-19-03

JB Bennett 3-5-03

Randy Wood 4-10-03

Randy Wood 4-20-03

Randy Wood 5-6-03

Michael Doden 5-14-03

Michael Fenemore 5-20-03

          Michael Fenemore 5-31-03

Jeff Durbin 6-11-03

Jeff Durbin 6-12-03

Dennis Campbell 6-22-03

Brandi 9-16-03

Brandi 9-21-03

Tom_Aldridge__4-5-04

Jenn__4-6-04

 omegalast2000@yahoo.com____3-19-04

John_Spencer_8-6-04__Preterism

Carlos__9-14-04

kooldude007@countrystars.com__9-26-04

Nathan_Parker_10-14-04

Nathan_Parker_10-15-04

Lauren_10-18-04

Pastor_Randall__1-6-05

Pastor_Randall__1-9-05

Gordo__1-9-05

Nick_Edwards_the_Christian_Liar__1-31-2005

Phil__2-8-05

Jim_Coram__CONCORDANT_PUBLISHING_CONCERN__~1999

Russell_Schloemer _4-2-05

Mike_7-30-05

Mark_Proeger_7-31-05

Mark_Proeger_8-8-05

Mark_Proeger_8-8-05

Mark_Proeger_8-13-05

Morella_9-12-05

J_Trevor_Berger__10-19-05

mfgaynor21@hotmail.com 11-1-05

highwind7@msn.com  11-6-05

Alec__11-8-05

Alecs_Mom-_Julie__11-2-05

Alec_11-14-05

Kev_11-14-05

Brent_11-18-05

Nathaniel_Responds_to_Brent_11-26-05

Brent_11-28-05

Multi-Review_by_a_Discussion_Board__Dec_2005

GT__12-22-05

Ross_Caved__8-5-07

Calvin_Gregory__8/9/07

Devra_Ryker__10-23-07

Dion_Sanchez__10/26/07

 

 

 

 

 

Jennifer Kincaid 9-28-02

 

 

Subj: (no subject) 
Date: 9/28/02 4:53:18 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From:  
To: JCnot4me


Hello my name is Jennifer Kincaid. I was reading your website and I was bewildered.
I personnally do not have anything against you or what you believe because I am fully aware that not everyboby is christian and not everybody believes in the same things. So I respect your point of view. I am not here to curse you or to do anything of that nature I would just like to show you a different perspective. And you being the intelligent person that I believe you are I am sure you wouldn't mind debating this matter in a respectful way. Besides we both know that we are not going to change each others mind about the subject so where is the harm ? Good then , If you have agreed  my e-mail will be provided at the end, as well at the top of your screen when you receive this. Different bibles have different words , synonyms if you would. Therefore some bibles that have been " Americanized" so to speak, have lost some of the stronger words closer to the Hebrew translation. 

Mark Smith here}    Her ignorance of the facts is already showing, for if she knew what she was talking about, then she would know that the New Testament was written not in Hebrew, but in Greek. Why have I, an Atheist, been cursed with having to be the one to always teach the Christians what the Christians should have already learned on their own!!!

 

In the King James Version, which I will use, it says in Matthew24:34"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Now I would like to take you to 2 Peter 3:8 to explain this verse. It states " But do not let this one fact escape your notice ,beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day." What Im saying is many generations may pass within a thousand years to us  but to Jesus time is something totally different. 

Mark Smith here}    I believe my essay "Mt 24-34 What The Scholars Say  " more than answers any questions that an honest Christian may have on this verse. I quote the verse from 50 different translations, and quote dozens of Greek lexicons, commentaries, Bible dictionaries etc. I don't need to re-plow this field due to her laziness in reading what I've already written. As for her perversion of the verse in 2nd Peter, Preterists such as Gary DeMar have more than blown that lame argument out of the water along time ago. I suggest she read his book "Last Days Madness" and learn her lesson.

In case she's too lazy, here are some of my thoughts on this verse:

Hermeneutics 101

Jesus was direct, Peter circumspect.

One exception doesn't negate a rule.

Don't let a single tree obscure the forest.

Jesus spoke plain true, Peter allegorical goo.

Jesus set the stage, Peter re-wrote the last page.

One obscure passage doesn't override a hundred clear.

Jesus wrote a one-time play, Peter ran it a thousand days.

One verse of dubious origins doesn't negate dozens from known origins.

Who are you going to believe? Jesus who made the prediction, or Peter's apocalyptic fiction?

Modern Christians ignore the LOG in 2nd Peter, to fawn over a splinter in Matthew 24:34

 

Those who wish to appeal to this one questionable verse, which may show Jesus due back within 100 billion years, must first confront the dozens of explicit passages, which show otherwise.

Christians can claim poetic license all they want. The fact remains that one day does NOT equal one thousand years, any more than one dollar equals one thousand dollars. Biblegod or not, anyone who borrows a dollar from you today, with the promise to pay it back tomorrow, had better pay it back tomorrow. If instead of your dollar, they hand you some cockamamie excuse about paying you back in a thousand years, they have broken their promise.

An HONEST man (or god) does NOT on his own re-write a contract or promise AFTER it is signed. If he does so, that is known as FRAUD.  Jesus promised (and verses 4 and 9 from 2nd Peter confirm that it was indeed a promise) to return  when? Before the generation living in 33 AD died off. For him to deliver anything less, whatever the convoluted excuse, is nothing but fraud and broken promises.

If this verse had been written by the Apostle Peter,  inspired by a holy spirit from Biblegod, this verse alone is enough to prove your Biblegod an untrustworthy liar. And as a liar, he could very well promise anything, including an "eternity in heaven" yet deliver only a thousand day stay, using similar "logic" as in this verse.

From 1889 onward, the Jehovah Witnesses *predicted that Jesus would return to Earth and set up his kingdom in 1914. When 1914 came and went, it was obvious to all a mistake had been made. Rather than admit an error, they came up with the lame excuse that Jesus had indeed returned to Earth in 1914- but nobody saw him because he was invisible!!! This dishonest backpedaling worked well enough, as the movement survives unto this day.

In similar fashion, when Jesus failed to return within the time limit he himself allotted, the early Christians came up with an excuse to "explain" the prophetic failure of their god to their pagan neighbors. What they dreamed up was almost as good as an invisible Jesus: they rewrote their dictionary. They claimed that a day no longer means a day. A day now means a thousand years. And this explains why Jesus didn't show up!!! Of course, like the JW's, nobody comes up with these lame excuses until after the fact, which is why it is called backpedaling.

*The Time Is At Hand, pp. 98, 99 (1889 edition.) p. 101 of the 1908 edition.

In the same way, if you talk to a person in some language he doesn't understand, how will he know what you mean? You might as well be talking to an empty room… God is not the author of confusion…(1 Cor 14:9&33)

An intelligent being would know that to communicate with Earthlings, one must speak the language of Earth, including using human systems of time measurement.

For example, if a year is defined as the amount of time it takes a planet to revolve around its sun, a year on Earth is not the same length of time as a year on Pluto. Two beings, born at exactly the same time: one on Pluto, the other on Earth. By the time the Plutonian has reached his first birthday (i.e. Pluto has circled once around the sun), the Earthling would have gone thru 248 birthdays, as Pluto takes 248 Earth years to circle the Sun.

If, therefore, a Plutonian were to take out a four-year car loan on Earth, it is obvious a common system of time measurement must first be agreed upon.  If not, the Earth bank might be waiting 992 Earth years for the re-payment of what they thought was a simple four year loan!!! The potential for confusion is evident.

According to the Bible, Biblegod is not the author of confusion. Therefore Biblegod, when speaking to humans, should be intelligent enough to use human terms of time measurement, and not "heavenly" ones. Therefore, when Biblegod says one year, he would mean one EARTH year, not a thousand. Otherwise, Biblegod would be authoring mass confusion. Biblegod (given half a brain) would be sure to use a language and time system that we understand. As Paul says,

"In the same way, if you talk to a person in some language he doesn't understand, how will he know what you mean? You might as well be talking to an empty room"

For example, no one could ever know what Biblegod meant by "Jesus will rise from the dead after three days" if, willy-nilly, Biblegod could mean something other than Earth days. If the "1 Day = 1,000 Years" new-math formula is NOT a bogus verse penned in by some ancient dishonest scribe, then it is entirely possible that Jesus has yet another thousand years to go before he's due to be resurrected, and therefore, all of you Christians are still in your "sins."

A Russian who knows how to communicate does not speak Russian to a person who only knows Spanish. Likewise, an "all-knowing" deity should be granted the benefit of the doubt, that when he said "within one generation" he meant one, and not a thousand.

"…the main problem of primitive dogmatics was the delay of the parousia… The author of 2nd Peter… undertakes to restore the confidence of Christendom once for all with the sophism of the thousand years which are in the sight of God as one day, ignoring the fact that in the promise the reckoning was by man's  years, not by God's. 'Nevertheless it served the turn of the Apostles so well with those simple early Christians, that after the first believers had been bemused with it, and the period originally fixed had elapsed, the Christians of later generations, including Fathers of the Church, could continue even after to feed themselves with empty hopes.'  The saying of Christ about the generation which should not die out before His return clearly fixes the event at no very distant date."

(The Quest of the Historical Jesus,  [Albert Schweitzer],  p. 22,23 )

**********************

"In light of the time texts, how should 2nd Peter 3:8 be applied? First, there is nothing in this passage or in any other passage that tells us that any time text should be filtered through 2nd Peter 3:8.  Second, if time texts are fluid in relation to 2 Peter 3:8, then we could never know what God means relative to time.  …Are dispensationalists willing to admit that the thousand years of Revelation 20 can be reduced to a single day?  …Is Jesus still in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, since three days really means three thousand years?"

(Last Days Madness,  [Gary DeMar]  p. 294)

 

**********************

 

"When the New Testament writers said  'soon'  they meant  'soon'  in relation to their own time.  If  'with the Lord one day is as a thousand years'  then civilizations may continue through two million years, as well as two thousand."  (The Interpreter's Bible,    Vol. 7, p. 153)

Therefore he looks at the entire race of man dead , living, and those yet to be born as one generation of men because to him thousands and thousands of years is only a couple of days _______________________________________________________________________Now in Matthew 26:64 it reads " you have said it yourself, nevertheless I tell you , here after  you shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven . The key word is hereafter . He was speaking here after his crucifixtion, because we must remeber Jesus knew he was gonna be crucified before he was crucified and after he was crucified he did rise to his father and he is now sitting at the right hand and he will come back for us on the clouds of heaven for it states in Romans 15:8-9 "For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the gentiles to glorify God for his mercy;as it is written , Therefore I will give praise to thee among thr gentiles , and I will sing to thy name. "

Mark Smith here}    Huh??? Is this an example of an aborted argument? She started off dealing with Matthew 26:64, then she got lost. Too much Jesus on the brain???

 


______________________________________________________________________
In Revelation 1:7 it says "Behold , he is coming with the clouds , and every eye will see him , even those who pierced him him , and all the tribes of the earth  will mourn over him . The ones who pierced him are still alive  because they are the persecuters , persecuting the BODY of Christ which is the church  for it reads in Ephesians 1: 22-23 " And he put all things in subjection under his feet , and gave Him as head over allthings to the church, which is His body , The fulness of Him who fills all in all ".

Mark Smith here}    What you have here is an example of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism being dusted off and used, WHEN Christians find in in their interests. The Gnostics used to drive the orthodox Christians nuts with their continual "spiritualization" of any doctrine or verse that proved their position wrong. Her "creative theology" here won't hold water. The verse in Rev. 1: 7 says what it says, and all the fanciful "spiritualization" of it in the world won't change its meaning. Jesus is still a false prophet.

 

 So in conclusion the ones who pierced him are stil living . And in  Corinthians the word we speaks of his believers , Christians. And once again in Thess. he speaks of we as Christians who will be alive to see such events . And when people die in Christ that is believing in Christ they do not die anyway. They only leave their earthly body and ascend to the Father were they are alive and well. So any way you look at it they are still alive and they will see the returning of the Lord because they will be with him.
I would just like that this has been very fun and I commend you on being a good sport . I hope to hear from you very soon with a response. My e-mail is LVNFBC@ aol .com
                                                                               May God Truly and Richly
                                                                               Bless You !
                                                                               Sincerely,
                                                                               Jennifer Kincaid

 

 


Rob Hill  11-22-02

Subj: Re: Your article ‘JESUS & His Expired Prophecies’.  
Date: 11/22/02 9:19:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
   
To: Jcnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)




Dear Sir,

Regarding your article titled ‘JESUS & His Expired Prophecies’, I would like to respond to your accusations if you will give me the same courtesy as I gave you in reading what you had to say.

You stated He: prophesied that all of the following would occur within the lifetime of people living around 33 AD. The time limit he laid down has long since expired!? The stars would fall to earth? The Great Tribulation & Rapture? Judgment Day for all mankind? The Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Listen to what the liar himself said around 33 AD to his fellow Jews gathered around him: "Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." Matt 24:34. 

Lets get something straight here – you obviously read the Bible but have no understanding of what you read! In my NIV Bible that verse reads: - I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Do you have any idea what the reference ‘this generation’ pertains too?


Mark here} Yes sir, I am VERY much aware of what the word "genea" means. Please go to my web essay on this word: Mt 24:34 What The Scholars Say 



NIV Bible Dictionary: - In the NT "generation" translates four Greek words: (1) Genea signifying the lines of descent from an ancestor (e.g., Matt 1:17), all the people living in a given period (e.g., 11:16); or a class of people characterized by a certain quality (e.g., 12:39), or a period of time (Acts 13:36; Col 1:26). (2) Genesis (Matt 1:1, in a heading to vv 2-17), meaning "genealogy." (3) Gennema, in the phrase "brood of vipers" (3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7; KJV "generation," ASV "offspring"). 

Christ made many references to ‘This Generation’ and in virtually all He was referring to the seed of satan – the rulers of the heavenly realm. They have been here from the beginning and will be here to see the events you listed and the return of Christ. They will no longer be here after their judgement. Christ recognised their presence within some of the people He was addressing.

Mark here} This is mumbo-jumbo theological horseshit. You don't have one iota of evidence to back up your hot-air wacky claim here. Why don't you learn how to do REAL Bible reseach, and stop smoking those spiritual twillas, ok? I know EXACTLY what "genea" means, and that ain't it.




One thing I must give you is that you are very GUTSY with your blasphemous attack on Christ but I would not want to be in your shoes at judgement time!



Mark here} Typical Christian threats. You Christaholics thing that when you can't win a debate you can brow-beat people with threats into saying we believe your crap. Are you sad that you guys can no longer TORTURE people into saying they believe your crap, like you guys used to do to THOUSANDS of people in the past?


Your reference to Caiaphas was due to your same problem mentioned above, Caiaphas was evil and had satan’s seed within him and that seed will be alive to see the return of Christ! The same holds true of the soldiers at the cross. However, one of them who realised that Jesus was the Son of God after witnessing what happened at His death, did become a devout Christian.


Mark here} Jesus Christ!!! You are just FULL of wacky religious cockamanie ideas. What are you, some wigged out fire-baptized Pentecostal whose brain has evaporated? Once again, you ASSERT but offer not one iota of evidence to back it up. People like you are why I always kick Christian ass in my debates. That kind of flakey thinking might pass in church, but NOT in the real world.



You quoted 1Cor 15:21 "Behold! I tell you a mystery; WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP [i.e. die], BUT WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED... in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet... the dead will be raised..." Although Paul thought in his early years that the Kingdom was imminent, he later realised that it would be many generations into the future and most of his teachings reflected this by being addressed to those in the endtime. Many billions of people will die in the coming events but if you are alive and one of the chosen you will be changed to spirit form in the twinkling of an eye and others will be raised from death. 1 Thes 4:15-17 is another example of this. There is nothing to substantiate your claim that Paul was actually meaning those to whom he was addressing!



Mark here} Uhhh, nothing but the goddamn text and context itself- AND I can quote a shitload of CHRISTIAN theologians to back me up on this. Maybe you should do a web search of "Preterism" and let these Christians educated you a bit.


Another reason that people have trouble in obtaining the correct meaning of some verses is that they don’t realise that Christ and the apostles were making prophetic statements mixed with statements concerning their day. Most Christians assume that the book of revelations contains the only prophecy in the New Testament and they are in error. Psalms is a book that is virtually all prophecy yet few see it this way. For instance David wrote in the personal tense, yet very little pertained to him, most was about his future seed, Christ, endtime events and even about the ‘first’ and ‘second’ creation – but then you would not be able to see that as you obviously do not have the gift of The Spirit of Prophecy!


Mark here} Thank god I don't, if it would make my brain as mushy as yours apparently is. I don't need any spirits or demons to help me think. I can read the text just like any other text, and draw conclusions based on normal linguistics. Sorry you've got to drug your brain up with HOLY GHOST juice just to be able to understand simple sentances.

And as for you chopping up prophecies into part for back then, part for the far away future, who set you up as judge and jury to slice and dice these anyway you want? This is just a tactic to try to save your savior from his false prophecies. Again, any good web site on Preterism will blow this dumb idea out of the water.



As we are now into the seventh day and are being judged for our actions and statements I cannot see a very bright future for you unless you step into the light.


Mark here} Yet again ANOTHER assertion without any evidence, something you xtians never grow tired of. 

What the hell, if YOU are allowed to assert without evidence, SO CAN I. Therefore, I assert the following: you are a weird lonely man with too few friends who thinks the world is out to get him. You visit porno sites and prostitutes, and weep about it the next day. You wear pink women's thong underware and jack off to old pictures of Tammy Faye Bakker.

There, how does it feel to be on the receiving end for a change of assertions without evidence???



I do thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to your statements and remain,

A slave to the Lord and His Christ – Rob Hill.


Mark here} By the way, your email is such a good example of how NOT to reason, I am going to put it up on my web site for all to see and laugh at. Be sure to tell all your friends to go see your letter.



Yours in Life,
Mark
Set Free
Set Free!
JCnot4me@aol.com
WWW.JCnot4me.com

***********************

John Tudor  2-19-03

 

 

Subj: regarding what youve said about Jesus  
Date: 2/19/03 10:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:  
To: Jcnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Hi there

I read your article about Jesus Christ being a liar and a False prophit
First I would like to remind you of how Jesus came to earth and what he did
and how he left it in front of thousands of witnesses.

  Jesus came to earth through God and the Holy Spirit inside a Virgin lady
whom the angels appeared to her and told her not to worry she is pregnant by
the holy spirit and carrying the Son Of God.And the whole nation discovered
that and witnessed it.Moreover this what was said by the Prophet Moses who
told his people that the Messiah is coming to save them and this what
happened (He also told them that their unfaith, material love,and their
racisim will make them damned and hated by all nations and this is what
exactly is happening till today... the Jews are hated).Now going back to
Jesus,St.John was expecting Jesus and the people witnessed how Jesus Christ
was Baptised by St.John and how the bird flew over his Holy Head.
Also Jesus in His lifetime showed the people 100s of miracles he raised the
dead he cured the sick,he made food for the starved,He walked on water,He
loved us so much that he crucified himself to us in demand from His Father
to forgive us,he rised from death and moved the grave's heavy stone and came
out again to his diciples and many people saw him (The Second Coming) and
gave them a mission which is to send his message to the rest of the world
(there Jesus gave us a mission like his  he saved us and we are ought to
spread his message to save our fellow humans in the rest of the world.
  Jesus came again and again to the world but showed himself only to the
people who deserve to see him who were like his deciples faithfull and
loving.The ones who sacrificed their lives for him.The folks who had true
clean holy faith not for the guys like you and the other billions living in
earth.We saw Father Tardiff in the nineteen ninetees how he healed the
BELIEVERS in front of us and on tv.

   About the end of the world, I think that our calculations are WRONG and 
the world will come to an end through human beings' Bad
faith,Coruption,Capitalization (material lust),Polution caused by sin and
material lust,sick societies and many other causes.....
and there the Judgment day will come and the good people who held their
faith in God,his Son,and his comandments through all these years shall be
saved.

                           Hope that JESUS Love and Peace be on Earth

                                         John Tudor

Mark here}   This one's just too ignorant to bother responding to, but it does show the depth of most of the people who email me concerning theology. Pretty sad, eh???

 

JB Bennett 3-5-03

Subj: What The Scholars Say 
Date: 3/5/03 10:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
   
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
CC: robhill@optusnet.com.au, anis003@hotmail.com, funky.monk@talk21.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



I have read your article entitled, “What The Scholars Say.”  You pose a very
good argument here. You use many references that would leave little or no
doubt as to what “this generation” would mean.  I wouldn’t agree that all of
the 52 versions of biblical text as a whole are completely reputable, but
nevertheless, you strongly made your point.  Your use of the original Greek
word “genea” cuts to the chase as this language cannot be disputed as it is
very literal.  You have obviously spent many hours looking up all of this
data to justify your argument, which is commendable.

In my search for a rebuttal to your arguments, I read the entire passage and
found that the entire text speaks of what is to come.  The conversation
between Jesus and his disciples starts as,

“Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately,
saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of
Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3)

Mark here}   Hey JB, thanks for bringing up the research involved in putting together something as comprehensive as "Matthew 24:34  What The Scholars Say".  I believe for that one essay, I cited 115 sources. The research for that essay involved trips to the library at BIOLA (La Mirada, California), Fullerton Theological Seminary (Pasadena, California), Chapman College (Orange, California), and Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, Illinois). Many people read over such articles in a few minutes and oft times don't realize there may be months or years of thought and research invested behind what they are reading.


From here Jesus tells the disciples of what is to come.  I don’t see any
reference to the generation of the disciples.  You can argue “this
generation” all you want, but the fact remains, if Jesus is talking about a
“specific group of people,” He is justified in this wording, but no
application as to which generation is given.  What is clear is that the
“generation” that witnesses these things is the focus group of the text. 
This entire passage speaks of things yet to come, then you say that, based
on two words, the entire passage refers to the present and immediate future.
  Your argument is not persuasive when compiled with the entire text.

Mark here}   And such is why a study involving the entire context is needed, which I just happened to have had, but until your email prompted me to get around to it, had not gone thru the process of putting it up on the web. Well, that process has been completed, and a review of the whole chapter is now on line. Please check it out at:

Matthew 24 Verse by Verse

I think that alot of your points raised in your email will be answered by the above article. 

 


“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the
beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Matthew
24:21)

One could write “this generation” to apply to past, present, or future. 
Although you have proven that “generation” specifically applies to a given
time frame, you have not clearly proven that this particular passage clearly
refers to the present.  One would have to read the entire passage to
conclude the context of this word.  Clearly Jesus is talking of some time
that is not of the present.  Warnings, generally speaking, don’t come after
the fact and many times not even amidst the present conflict.

Mark here}   The time of which Jesus spoke was, for him and those who heard him, the next several decades. A generation is, by definition, about 30 to 40 years. If Jesus made his statements around 33 CE, the 24th chapter of  Matthew would be predicting issues up to about 73 CE.

You mention warnings don't come after the fact. Neither do they come millions of years BEFORE the fact. The fact that Jesus gave these warnings exclusively, and face-to-face to, his twelve Apostles, should be a strong sign that the warnings were meant for them while they still lived. It would have been a waste of their time and emotional energy to have warned the Apostles of things that were yet thousands of years removed in the future.



I would have to agree with you on your definition of “this generation,” but
you are clearly out of context here.  You refer to this several times
throughout your articles and essays.  Perhaps your argument would be
stronger if you could prove that the text specifically calls out the
generation of the disciples.  Make a decisive argument not filled with
speculation and assumptions.

Mark here}   Thank goodness I posted my  Matthew 24 Verse by Verse for it DOES dig into the context, and shows exactly what you are asking for here. The entire chapter of Matthew 24 is filled with the pronoun "You" which, if YOU follow it back to the beginning of the chapter, clearly shows that Jesus was speaking both TO his Apostles and FOR his Apostles. He clearly is NOT speaking in broad generalities to all mankind for all time and eternity. The "address on the envelope" is addressed to the Apostles.


At first glance your argument is persuasive, but the entire text reads
otherwise.  I recommend you use all of the text to gain perspective on a
segment of a verse otherwise people who are inclined to challenge your
statements will dismiss you as incompetent.  You can publish all kinds of
references, scholars, and definitions to “woo” your audience, but if after
very little investigation they are proven invalid (not discredited) in
support of your argument, all of your work is for not.

Mark here}   Again, I agree with you. And you, after reading my Matthew 24 Verse by Verse  must agree that I've done a fair job with the context and haven't violated any major laws of reasoning or evidence.

The reason I did an analysis of the whole chapter to begin with was that I went to hear a lecture by Dr. Wayne House (who used to be with Dallas Theological Seminary) on Matthew 24. In the lecture he stated that the context showed that part of the chapter deals with issues for "back then" while other parts dealt with the future. When I asked him to please show me these transitions in the chapter itself, he admitted that he couldn't FOR THEY WERE NOT THERE. They were (and I'm paraphrasing now) more or less theoretical constructs designed to "save the savior" from being a false prophet!!! This "creative theology" surprised me, and motivated me to my own study.  

The Preterists have done a fine job on this same issue, showing that the entire chapter stands or falls together- showing that the "Futurists" (as they call everyone else) have no rhyme or reason to chop up the chapter into bits and pieces.


“The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous
judgments endures forever.” (Psalm 119:160).

Look at it this way, if I told you the answer was “2” and asked you to find
the equation, what would you say?  The most logical answer, or equation in
this example, would be “1+1,” but is this correct?  Not necessarily because
you do not have enough information.  There are an infinite amount of
equations that could equal “2” and it is highly unlikely that you could
actually discover the equation without asking me to reveal more information.
  You could guess, I suppose, and have confidence that your answer is
correct and logically speaking could provide a strong argument, however, if
it isn’t the equation I asked you to find, your wrong.

Relative to this situation, you demonstrate that you don’t investigate
broadly, but only assume based on definitions and incomplete text.  You
don’t ask questions in prayer (this is a whole different issue), humble
yourself, or look at the “big picture.”   You present many assumptions,
based on tidbits of information and make a considerable amount of personal
statements with no material to back it up.  You slipped in the statement,

Mark here}   If you actual knew me, I might take what you said seriously. But since you've never met me or hung out with me, you are (excuse my French) totally speaking out of your ass here. 

You ASSUME that I don't "investigate broadly". That is, sir, a most FALSE assumption, as anyone who has seen the massive amount of material I have gathered on this topic can attest to. Ten years of intensive research certainly qualifies as "investigating broadly" and if you had known me, instead of merely speculating, you'd have known better.

You ASSUME I didn't ask questions about this topic in prayer. Do you think I just woke up one morning and decided for the hell of it to throw away the previous TWENTY YEARS of my life as a Christian? Do you REALLY think such a decision is reached lightly or without hours of gut wrenching prayer? And how, pray tell, can YOU tell if I prayed about it or not? PLEASE give me YOUR source of information for this accusation- please document HOW you happen to know what I do or don't do in the privacy of my own mind??? You, sir, are in the habit of making broad accusations and assuming that just because you SAY something that somehow ESTABLISHES something. You are wrong in this habit. Please, stop trying to tell people what they do or don't do within their own minds- YOU DON'T KNOW.


“No future generation of Jews is meant here.”

Who said this and where?  No specific reference?  I’d have to assume you
said it. 

Mark here}   That was said by Gary DeMar in his book Last Days Madness, published by American Vision Inc., Atlanta, GA 1994, and is found on page 114.

Thank you for bringing up that some of the quotes were not documented as they should have been. (That is one reason feedback such as yours can be helpful to us Atheists!) I had originally written the essay for Farrell Till's magazine "The Skeptical Review" and he was worried about my fitting in everything, so I had to cut down the size as much as possible. A few years later, when I put it up on the web, I overlooked that some of the documentation could have been fuller.

The documentation problem has now been solved in full, and you will find complete "book, chapter and verse" for all the quotes quoted, AND, if you don't... let me know!

 

If you say some scholar or any man/woman for that matter, then I’d
say there is room for error.  If you show me this in scripture without
interpretation and in harmony with the complete text your argument would
carry much more weight.  As a matter of fact, the entire section of “Eight
Christian Scholars & Authors: genea & Matthew 24:34” contains no references.
  Let me rephrase this…I’d have to read (not reference) 8 different sources
to find the actual context of the quotes (if they are actual quotes and not
paraphrased).  The bottom line here is that no one should hold much stock in
the teachings of men

Mark here}   (See above). But you remind me of a pet peeve of mind- people who quote from a 1,000 page book and don't bother to cite the page number- as if (as you suggested) I'm supposed to wade thru the whole thing looking for the quote. I did my "crime" by accident, but I've run into theologians who do it on purpose. They claim that they don't want to "weigh down" their article with unneeded baggage, but I think it's rather they are just lazy scholars taking an easy shortcut.


“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
"He catches the wise in their own craftiness and again, "The Lord knows the
thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." Therefore let no one boast in
men. For all things are yours…” (1 Corinthians 3:19)

“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it
seemed good in thy sight.”  (Luke 10:21)

I’d revisit your study in this scripture.  In the end, you may be completely
justified, but as you presented it, your argument is flawed.



 

Randy Wood 4-10-03

 

Subj: Matt 24 Commentary 
Date: 4/10/03 4:07:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
   
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Mark,
 
I found your Matthew 24 Commentary to be very well researched in most areas.
One major weakness in the conclusion is your assertion that Jesus claimed "The end of the world."  He did no such thing.  Jesus proclaimed the end of the age.  I think if you are serious in the pursuit of truth you should extend the same level of research to the phrase "end of the world" in verse 3 as you have to your studies of the word "generation" in verse 34.  You will find that the English word "world" is actually better translated "age" and points to a reference of time. What age was Jesus referring to?  When did it begin and when would it end?  How would it differ from the age to come?  I leave those questions to you for your own personal study.

 

Mark here}   Yes, I know all about the Greek words for world and ages (cosmos and eon) and am also aware of the different interpretations thereof. The reason I chose to label it "The End of The World" is because that is what it would be for mankind, IF what Jesus said is going to happen WOULD really happen. According to Jesus, stars would be crashing down upon the Earth. According to astronomers, one star, even the smallest star known in the universe, would be enough to destroy our entire planet. Imagine if millions or billions all rained down upon us- Earth would not survive. And in Peter's epistles, later in the New Testament, he talks of even the very elements that make up the universe as melting away in the fervent heat. End of the world? I don't think I went out on a limb here. Taking Jesus at his word, we'd all be screwed.

 

 
I'm sure it will come to no surprise to you that I find your claim that Jesus is a false prophet a misguided one.  You yourself validate in your commentary that a number of the things that Jesus predicted in His Olivet Discourse  have come to pass. Things that Jesus predicted some 25-35 years prior to the events taking place happened just as He said they would.  The destruction of Jerusalem occurred as predicted.  The gospel of the kingdom was preached in all of the world as you have noted. The Apostles were  delivered up to tribulation and killed as you have also written.  Josephus validates the truth that there were false christ's, famines and wars (Antiquities 20:5:1-4, 20:8:5-10, Wars 2:10:1, 2:13:4-7, 6:5:2).  History itself has shown that the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and stood in the holy place fulfilling the desolation prophecy.
 
All of these things are evidence that Jesus is a true Prophet and who He claimed to be.  If not how else could He have been so correct in these things if He was not the Messiah? What are the odds?
 

Mark here}   Actually, seeing how the gospels were all penned AFTER the fact, the odds are quite good. Modern scholarship admits this, and even the internal evidence points to this- haven't you ever noticed how the gospels treat "The Jews" as "The Jews", i.e. as some race and culture distinct and apart from the author's??? Well, this would not be if the JEW Matthew and the JEW Mark and the JEW Luke and the JEW John had written their books AS Jews and in the midst of JEWS.

And even if they were penned BEFORE the fact, how many false prophecies does it take to make someone a false prophet? Just as O.J. Simpson never murdered anyone before 1990, it only took one or two murders for him to be labeled a murderer. Likewise with being a false prophet- all it takes is one screwup.

 

 

 

Mark I also believe that you make the interpretive error so common to many futurists in not identifying correctly the type of genre used in scripture.  You simply cannot interpret everything with a literalism as if it were all a narrative. You have done well in understanding the audience relevance to the time statements in the Olivet Discourse.  I  invite you to do the same with the language of terms such as "lightning from the east to the west, sun will be darkened, stars fall from the sky, heavens being shaken, coming on the clouds, great trumpets, four winds and heaven & earth."  What did these terms mean to the Apostles and those familiar with the apocalyptic imagery?  Again I leave these things for your study if you are truly interested in the truth. Hopefully you will come to the realization that Jesus was right in ALL of His predictions including the gathering of His elect (O.C. Israel), the judgment, and the Parousia.
 
You are obviously familiar with preterist material from your writings.  At this point I don't think anyone has it all figured out but I think you might find a kindred spirit in either John Bray or Don Preston.  Each of them research profusely as you have and I believe that you will find much to chew on in their writings.  It is my hope that by doing so you may truly become SET FREE from your unbelief. You have some things in your research where you have become self deceived and dishonest.  I think it is time for another look.
 
Remember the witness: He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.(1 Jn 5:12)
 
Hopefully much Grace to you,
Randy Wood
 
If you feel the need to post this on your web site I ask you to please post the comments in their entirety if they are at all posted. -Randy

 

Randy Wood 4-20-03

 

 

Subj: interpretation 
Date: 4/20/03 4:52:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
   
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Mark here}   Yes, I know all about the Greek words for world and ages (cosmos and eon) and am also aware of the different interpretations thereof. The reason I chose to label it "The End of The World" is because that is what it would be for mankind, IF what Jesus said is going to happen WOULD really happen. According to Jesus, stars would be crashing down upon the Earth. According to astronomers, one star, even the smallest star known in the universe, would be enough to destroy our entire planet. Imagine if millions or billions all rained down upon us- Earth would not survive. And in Peter's epistles, later in the New Testament, he talks of even the very elements that make up the universe as melting away in the fervent heat. End of the world? I don't think I went out on a limb here. Taking Jesus at his word, we'd all be screwed.

Mark,

The point is that you have gone out on a limb and have attributed an interpretation to Jesus words that He did not convey.  The reason why I chose to write you in the first place is that you understood at least partially the principle of historical interpretation.  Most Christians don't even grasp that concept. 

Mark Here... Round Two}  This is an example of Christians not wanting to take the Bible or Jesus at his word. Not liking what Jesus plainly said, his words are "figuratized" into something that is more tasteful, more pleasing to the ears, something that tickles rather than offends or causes problems. This is something that ALL Christians do to some extent- it's how their religion survives. Like carving a new idol from a block of wood, they interpret away chip chip chip the stuff they don't like, keeping the parts they do, and eventually they have carved a new god that fits the image of god they already have in their heads. Then viola! THIS is how god REALLY looks- see! He's not as ugly or crazy as he APPEARS to be in the New Testament.

 

You ignored my argument about understanding the genre of Scripture and your hermenuetic is seriously flawed at this point. Unfortunately this has lead you down the road to unbelief and you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. You are interpreting with a 20th century mindset rather that a first century one and you assign physical meanings to concepts and phrases that would have never occurred to a first century Jew.

Mark Here... Round Two}  This art of figurization has plagued Christianity from the get-go. It's almost like a menu at a smorgasbord restaurant- each group orders from the Bible what they want, figurizing away the parts they DON'T want. Many early Christians took Jesus' hint to cut ones penis off literally. Today? Just a few- Marshall Applewhite & company (the comet chasing cult) for example. Many early Christians took Paul's advice of "it's not good to touch a woman" literally, and lived sexless lives with their wives. Today? That part of the Bible is interpreted away. The list  (hate your parents / give away all your wealth / women keep your mouths shut in church etc) could go on forever, as every few years the list of "what's literal, what's figurative" changes. Sort of like a "Religion of The Month" club.

 

You wrote in your commentary on Matthew 24 and claimed Jesus predicted the end of the world.  The only defense within Matt 24 that you offer is your thinking the phrase "stars will fall from the sky" refers to a physical event.

I think Milton Terry handles your interpretive error of Matt 24:29 better than I ever could so I will defer to him.  http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/terry-milton_apocalyptics.html

You also assert that Peter's use of the word elements refers to the elements of the universe.  Another example of interpreting with a 20th century mindset.  All of the uses of the word translated "elements" in Scripture  refer to the elements of the Old Covenant.  For a good study on this click here: http://preteristarchive.com/Preterism/hochner-donald_p_04.html

 

PRETERIST ALERT

Mark Here... Round Two}  PRETERIST ALERT
I knew from Randy's first email to me that he was a Preterist. A Preterist is someone who specializes in figurizing away anything they don't like in the Bible, and in making unfounded assumptions. Given that each Preterist is pretty much on his own, there being no set rules or logic to deciding what part of the Bible stays and what part goes out the window, or what unfounded assuption stays or goes, you end up with all sorts of wild interpretations, each group of Preterists declaring the next to be heretical, ad infinitum. It is an entire system of "smoke and mirrors" that tries to drown gullible Christians in so much theological horse shit that many just give up and accept Preterism. For my brief review of one of the best sellers on Preterism, see my article:   Preterism

AT this point in my life, my main rebuttal to Preterism has to be this: I spent about three YEARS trying to get a debate with these clowns, and not ONE of their ministers wants to dare stand up in a public forum and debate Preterism with me- an ex Christian who has taken their basic idea (Jesus promised to return within the lifetime of that ancient generation) to its logical conclusion: Jesus was therefore a false prophet.  I have sent out challenge after challenge to their ministers. I even posted several debate challenges within their own damn Preterist chat rooms. Nothing. Among others that have decided NOT to debate me are Ed Stevens (Of the International Preterist Association and author of "What Happened in AD 70?") in August of 2000, and Harley James (Preterist radio show co-host- see below.)

Harley James, a co-host of the Preterist radio show "Beyond The End Times", is the closest that I came to a debate with a Preterist. I first met Harley in the early 90's, and had several hour-long discussions about the Second Coming with him and a Jerry Gill, though Harley James wasn't calling himself Harley James back then- his name was Vinnie.  Several years ago we had a pre-debate meeting at a coffee house in Newport Beach, California, "in the presence of several witnesses", in which meeting Harley and I shook hands to seal the debate agreement. Anyone who's ever done business with Christians knows that they don't have the personal honor or integrity to be trusted, and sure enough, the debate never happened. Harley, from that point on, refused to answer or return phone calls and emails, and after chasing him for several months more, I gave up.

I did manage to get thru on his radio show  later and after discussing another topic, blurted out something like "whatever happened to our agreement to debate..."  before he cut me off via his mute button in mid-sentence. 

Here is a copy of an email I sent out after all of this, to both Harley and others:

 

Scared To Debate?

H.L. James (aka Harley James / aka Vinnie), the current side-kick of the ever-dwindling radio show “Beyond The End Times” (KBRT, Saturday’s @ 4:00 PM), seems scared to face off in a public debate. His reluctance to defend doctrines that are indefensible might make sense, but I fail to understand his going back on his agreement to debate.

 

Around 7:00 PM Saturday, July 8, 2000, at the Deidrich Coffee shop in Newport Beach H. L. James agreed to debate the following proposition with me in a public debate:

 

Resolved:

The New Testament teaches a visible, bodily 2nd coming of Jesus

 

Not only did he agree to debate with me, he shook hands on it with me in the presence of several witnesses. Those witnesses are:

Cary Cook   (CaryCook@aol.com)

Robert Hitchcock  (Roberto365@hotmail.com)

Beverley Ashley

Ever since then, he has refused to return phone call after phone call from both myself, and Robert Hitchcock. He has refused to answer email after email. And, the one time I managed to get put on the air of their radio show (July 29, 2000), Harley disconnected the phone call in the middle of me asking him why he was hiding from debating me!!!!!

Being scared to defend such a wacky position as Preterism in a public debate is understandable. But lacking simple Christian honesty to keep one’s word given in public- understanding that is truly

Beyond The End Times…

 

 

Yes, I tried for several years to debate this issue with a Preterist minister- they just don't want to come out and play. They'll issue *challenge after challenge to debate, but it turns out they'll ONLY debate Christian ministers who hold to the futurist view; they won't touch an ex-Christian like me who can blow them out of the water.

*Don K. Preston issues some challenges to debate:  http://www.beyondtheendtimes.com/articles/response/rsp_03.htm 
     and  http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/preston-don_p_14.html

Kelly Birks challenges Dr. Morey:  http://www.beyondtheendtimes.com/articles/extra/kbirks.htm


Gary DeMar issues a challenge:  http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume75/1999jun01.html#AcceptanceChallangeDebate 

 

The point is Mark, that Jesus never predicted the end of the world as a physical event.  He was talking about a covenental shift and the transition from one age to the other.  My questions from before are still valid. What age was Jesus referring to?  When did it begin and when would it end?  How would it differ from the age to come? 

Mark here}   Actually, seeing how the gospels were all penned AFTER the fact, the odds are quite good. Modern scholarship admits this, and even the internal evidence points to this- haven't you ever noticed how the gospels treat "The Jews" as "The Jews", i.e. as some race and culture distinct and apart from the author's??? Well, this would not be if the JEW Matthew and the JEW Mark and the JEW Luke and the JEW John had written their books AS Jews and in the midst of JEWS.

I too can find "Modern Scholars" and some not so modern ones who admit that the gospels and even all of the New Testament was written before A.D. 70 (and consequently before the events predicted by the Lord).  Some of these men are even quoted by you in your "Generation" paper. The bulk of the reliable commentators and internal evidence have Luke written before Acts (Lk 1:2, Acts 1:1) and at least two accounts written before Luke (Luke 1:1-3).  Most commentators and scholars agree that the abrupt ending of Acts without mentioning the trial of Paul, and any hint of the persecution of Nero would give it a date of around 62-63 A.D. I'm sure you can find a bunch of agenda driven pagan's who challenge these things but the majority of those who are reputable find all of the synoptics written  before A.D. 70

Mark Here... Round Two}  Sorry to burst your bubble, but the VAST MAJORITY of Christian scholars date ALL the gospels to THIS SIDE of 70 AD. I notice you threw in "reliable commentators"; that's code for "those that already agree with what I believe in", isn't it? As for "agenda driven pagan's", is that what you call men who hold PhD's from CHRISTIAN universities and who call themselves CHRISTIAN??? And where, sir, is YOUR PhD from again???

 

Which leads me to the fact that not one New Testament writer mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event.  Kind of odd for JEWS don't you think?  The temple is mentioned over sixty times in the gospels and yet not one reference that Oh by the way... this covenant is no longer valid because as you know the temple is no longer with us and the sacrifices have ceased.

Mark Here... Round Two} Oh REALLY??? So, not mentioning that major event, it is "fishy" to you, eh? Well then, the FACT that Paul NEVER MENTIONS A DAMN DETAIL about the life of Jesus, is THAT also fishy to you?

And even if they were penned BEFORE the fact, how many false prophecies does it take to make someone a false prophet? Just as O.J. Simpson never murdered anyone before 1990, it only took one or two murders for him to be labeled a murderer. Likewise with being a false prophet- all it takes is one screwup.

  You are of course correct.  IF Jesus was wrong on one of His prophecies then He is a false prophet.  But we have already established that He was most correct with the tribulation until death, the preaching of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, the wars, false messiahs, famines, and even the abomination of desolation. 

Mark Here... Round Two} Just remember, it only takes ONE false prophecy to be labeled a false prophet.

 

So now I encourage you at this point Mark, Rethink your physical understanding of the second coming with Mr. Terry's principles of grammatical-historical interpretation. I think that you will find that the  preterist position on Matthew 24 leads to the truth of the fulfillment of all Jesus predicted within His generation. You seriously need to revisit some of the preterist writings available because you have obviously missed some of the key truths of the position. Hopefully you will be open minded enough in your studies and not fall short of the kingdom of God. For there is salvation in no one else but Jesus. There is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Mark Here... Round Two} Randy, I have studied (not just "read") over a dozen books by Preterists on Preterism. I'm not impressed. I think it is a bullshit position, a lifeboat theology for mainline Christians who can't handle the FACT that Jesus was instead a false prophet. I have tried to debate the proponents of this theory, but they all have chickened out. What more can I say???

 

Again I please ask that if you post this you do so in it's entirety.

Hopefully much grace will be given to you,

Randy Wood

 

 

 

Randy Wood 5-6-03

Subj: round three 
Date: 5/6/03 11:55:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Mark,
 
I've noticed something about those who are against the Preterist interpretation.  They avoid exegeting a text at all costs. They use all manner of debaters tactics such as guilt by association, name calling, questioning one's education, adherence to creeds, prepositional eisegesis, and in extreme cases calling their mother's virtue into question.
 

Mark Here... Round Three}     Now that you have more or less admitted to the crime of being a Preterist, rather than repeat what I've already written on the topic, why don't you go to my page on Preterism and see why it's such a dumb idea?  If you do so, I promise to leave your mother out of the discussion :)

   Preterism

 

 

I've noticed that you have employed some of these tactics. I'll do you the courtesy of ignoring them because they take away from what the Scriptures really say and what is most important. 
 
You have stated two things that are simply wrong that you have failed to explain by exegesis.  The first is that you stated that Jesus said that the stars will fall to the earth.  Where exactly in Matthew 24 does it say this?  Please quote the verse.  You go to great lengths to give an argument from astronomers about what would happen if a star crashed to the earth.  Tell me where does it say that the stars would fall to the earth?  This is a classic example of your prepositional eisegesis. ( Maybe a holdover from your church going days when you learned all of that bad futurist eschatology?)

Mark Here... Round Three}     Matthew 24:29 states that the "stars will fall from heaven". If they are falling FROM somewhere, then they must be falling TO somewhere as well. Seeing how JC was on the Earth when he said this, speaking to other Earthlings, it isn't a stretch to ASSUME he meant they'd be falling on EARTH, as opposed to Mars, or Jupiter, or Pluto.

Along this same line, the Apostle John wrote in Rev. 9:1

And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key of the shaft of the bottomless pit.

Yes, I am quite aware that these ancient people (the Jews also) believed that the stars in the sky were actually gods. Their misunderstanding of modern astronomy doesn't negate from what Jesus promised, and what John elaborated on: Stars falling from the sky onto the Earth.

 

 
The second statement that you have made is that Jesus claimed the end of the world.  Each time that I have shown you that this is not the case you have had to come up with something different and now resort to saying that I am "figurizing" scripture.  Well there is a saying among preterists and that is that you cannot "chickenize" a chicken.  I pointed you to an excellent article by Milton Terry on understanding the language employed in Matt 24: 29-31.  I wonder if you actually took the time to read it.  Had you done so you would realize that the interpretive method employed by Terry and Preterists is that of grammatical historical interpretation. Within the definition of that interpretive method is that Scripture interprets Scripture.
 

Mark Here... Round Three}     No, I didn't read the essay by Terry. I have read over a dozen books by Preterists (including Milton Terry), and that is quite enough. I don't need to read any more to know it's a load of shit.

I pointed out to you the last time about the word "eon" and such, no point in repeating myself. Jesus promised the end of the world, and if you can't see that from the text, one BILLION other Christians can.

 

 

So Mark please tell me if this sampling of Old Testament language looks familiar?

ISA 13:10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light.The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

ISA 19:1 An oracle concerning Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.

ISA 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see, it descends in judgment on Edom, the people I have totally destroyed.

EZE 32:7 When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign LORD.

JOEL 2:10 Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine.

This language is the exact same language employed by Jesus in Matt 24:29-31.  Did God ride on a swift cloud physically into Egypt?  Was the sun physically darkened and did the stars physically cease to give their light (or fall ) and did the sky roll up like a scroll etc. in the past judgments upon the nations of Edom, Jerusalem, or Babylon? 

Mark Here... Round Three}     No, none of those claims have any basis in fact. Those claims are what's commonly referred to as "Bullshit" on the street. We (at least us Atheists) know these claims were a bunch of hot air meant to impress primitive people who didn't know any better. These primitive people however, unlike you, and BECAUSE they didn't know any better, DID believe that such things were possible. For examples and documentation of such, see my web page on Preterism:  Preterism

Just because you, with your modern scientific education and such, know what clouds are made of, doesn't mean these ancient people did. You have made the mistake of putting YOURSELF in the place of these ancients, much like the movie makers who mistakenly have ancient men with  1990's attitudes and knowledge.

 

Which kind of language is it? Physical narrative or figurative apocalyptic?  Do we remain consistent in our interpretation or do we pick and choose?  Surely if this stuff physically happened science will have some record of it..... or at least some indication of when the stars started shining or jumped back in place again.

Mark Here... Round Three}     Gee... I guess then that if Jesus really returned in 70 AD we would ALSO have some "record of it" wouldn't we??? No, none of these things took place, INCLUDING the promised Second Coming of Jesus, which is why I call him a... False Prophet.

 

Also contained with your faulty premise about Jesus predicting the end of the world is your pointing out about the elements.  Kind of hard to "Physicalize" 2 Peter 3:10-12  after you find out the meaning of the term elements literally means something different than our English understanding.  

 

You stated in your commentary that Jesus proclaimed the end of the world.

* It has been shown that the term end of the world in Matt 24:3 is actually better translated the end of the age and denotes time and not the destruction of the physical earth.

* It has also been shown that the stars never fall physically to the earth thus rendering your astronomer argument useless.

* The elements that you referred to are not the physical elements as you presupposed. ( Unless you would like to refute Mr. Hockners word study and exegete 2 Peter 3 and show Scripturally why he is wrong).

*******************

Mark Here... Round Three}     Yes, it would be my pleasure. 2nd Peter 3:12 promises that the very building blocks of the earth- the elements- would be melted with intense heat. The word translated "element" is "Stoicheion", which according to the Lexicon Browser, means:

 

 

Elements-Stoicheion

Any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
• the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
• the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
• the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
• the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline

The letter of the alphabet, primary body, element, "shadow," the more important denotation of the term stoicheion was "a member of a row." The earliest attested use of the term stoicheion is in Plato, Theaet. 201e, where it is obvious that Plato still feels the original connotation of "letter of the alphabet." Aristotle uses the term to refer to the basic ingredient of a composite (Meta. 1014a), or perhaps primary unit indivisible into kinds different from itself. That means that the term is basically a "formal" term that takes on its specific meaning from the "thing" of which it is primary component. Thus in the early literature stoicheia specifically means such things as letters or phonemes that make up syllables, notes on a musical scale, the components of physical bodies, the elementary principles or rules of politics, etc. It was frequently used by philosophers in the phrase, ta stoicheia tou kosmou, to refer to those primary components from which the world was made, namely, earth, water, air, and fire; but that was only one of its many specific meanings. By the time of the atomists, stoicheion compares the basic bodies of the physical world to the letters of the alphabet which have no significance of their own, but by manipulating their order (taxis) and position (thesis) one can construct them into aggregates with different meanings (Aristotle, Meta. 985b; De gen. Et corr. I, 315b). Thus stoicheion is a "formal" word which means "primary inherent component," and which takes on its specific meaning from the universe of discourse from which it is taken. In that regard it is similar to the English word "element." [Courtesy: Ian Dengler, [Basics] Stoicheion, a predecessor term to ideometry and the philosophy of taxon, 25 May 2001]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/telos/lexicon/look.html?stoicheion.html 

Mark Here... Round Three} (continuing..) The last yellowed in line states that the word takes its meaning from its context. In 2nd Peter 3:12, what is under discussion is the destruction of not just the Earth, but the entire universe. That is clear from the verse AND the context, and no amount of Preterist bullshit can change that. Jesus and his minions promised that all these disasters would take place WITHIN THE FIRST CENTURY and they didn't, making Jesus a FALSE PROPHET. Note the extent of the disaster from the text itself below:

 

2nd Peter 3: 7-13  (RSV)

7      But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8      But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9      The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

10     But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.

11     Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,

12     waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!

13     But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

 

*******************

 

 

 

 

 

* The language used by Jesus in Matt 24: 29-31 is the same imagery used in many O.T. judgment passages that contain apocalyptic language.

Mark Here... Round Three}     Yes, and since you've opened the Pandora's box of figuratizing any damn thing you want in the Bible, Mr. Preterist, I shall do the same.

  • Jesus didn't die- that was only a "figurative" death, meant to deceive the faint of faith.
  • No one is saved. The verses on salvation taken as literal were actually meant to be taken figuratively.
  • Jesus never existed. All of the gospels are metaphors, a giant parable. How ignorant of you, you common Christian, for having not known this! I am so much more superior to you for having all this "secret" knowledge.

 

You "physicalize" Scripture and yet you accuse me of using smoke and mirrors? So where exactly does it say in Matt 24 that Jesus predicted the end of the world?  Give me the exact verse with the proper Scriptural rebuttal to why we shouldn't treat the language in 24:29-31 the same as the apocalyptic language of the Old Testament prophets.

The bottom line is Mark that Jesus is NOT a false prophet.  All that He predicted came to pass as He said it would including His Parousia.  The most unfortunate thing is that you have fallen short of the kingdom because you fail to recognize that the words spoken by Jesus and written by the inspired authors were not written in a vacuum.  They contain meaning well understood by the original audience. I feel sorry for you because in your anger and venom you have blinded yourself to the truth. Perhaps one day you will be able to overcome the anger from your past church experience, humble yourself, and fall upon the rock of Jesus Christ. 

Mark Here... Round Three}     Oh yeah, I know the Preterist routine. All the promises of Jesus WERE fulfilled- invisibly! No one saw them! Jesus returned, commenced Judgment Day, did the universal resurrection of the dead, destroyed the world and the universe- all that, and NO ONE NOTICED BECAUSE IT WAS ALL INVISIBLE!!!!    Excuse me while I BARF. It really makes me SICK the level of deception Christians will sink to, to hold onto their gods. Why don't you just buck up and be a man about it- your little lord Jesus FUCKED UP- he LIED to you. Get over it and stop with the absurd excuses.

 

Good bye and good luck,

Randy

If you wish to actually answer any of the questions or arguments a personal reply to me is in order.  I do not care if you put stuff on your site but if you have a response then have the courtesy to send it to me.

 

 

 

Michael Doden 5-14-03

 

Subj: Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God 
Date: 5/14/03 7:15:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:  
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Hi Mark,

It's the fly that didn't buzz too much at Denny's, but had you answer some
pesky questions for a "survey." Randy has kept me up to date on your
correspondence with him and on our future meeting. As you know, we [Randy
and I] agreed that it would be pointless to discuss whether Jesus was a
false prophet if there were no Being for him to represent. Upon hearing
that you are actually still an atheist (contrary to what you said as we
walked out of Denny's when you referred to yourself more along the lines
of an agnostic who was against Christianity), it looks like our meeting is
not going to work out. So I wanted to address your question about Matthew
24:34 (cf. Mark 13:30).

Mark here}     Yes, it's pointless to discuss the FACT that you are worshipping a documented (WELL documented) false prophet, since you've already got your mind made up to keep ON worshipping him come hell or high water.

As for your implication that I LIED about being an Atheist, once again as before, you need to start taking notes seeing how your memory is so poor. What I TOLD you was that I don't specialize in the Atheist controversy: Does God Exist??? I view myself as an anti-Christian. I TOLD you I don't see any really good strong evidence for your Biblegod. By no means am I an agnostic- I have no doubts. Your side has no strong evidence to induce any doubts in my current lack of belief in Biblegod.

 


I admit, I wasn't prepared too well for this question the first time
around, so thanks for pointing this out to me. In fact, I realized many of
my teachers could not answer the question adequately either! 

 

Mark here}     Indeed, they can't! And they won't! They can't and won't, because I happen to be correct on this issue. In my more than 10 years of INTENSE research on this topic, I have YET to see any Christian generate even a half-assed defense of all the false prophecies (dozens and dozens) in the New Testament.

 

But after
doing a bit of homework on the subject, I have arrived at several
possibilities (bear with me)...


1) Though not likely, it is possible lexically for "this generation" to
refer to humanity (like I said the first time it came up). Now I don't
hold to this position myself, because it doesn't have much support among
Greek scholars, but it is a possibility.

Mark here}     I'll show you quickly why THAT explanation doesn't fly. IF generation = humanity, THEN what Jesus really said in Mt 24:34 was something like: There will still be some people alive when all these things I've predicted take place. Well, yeah, but so? The second coming is predicted to take place with people viewing it "live" so yes, of course there will be people "yet alive" when he returns, and thus this time indicator of Jesus tells us nothing (if that's what he meant).

 


2) "This generation" may be translated "this race" and refer to the Jewish
people. They have been through alot in the history of humanity (not to be
confused with lobster history), and yet they just keep coming back... It's
hard not to at least think that someone is watching out for them. This is
a lexically possible interpretation... though once again, not my view.

Mark here}     Why the RACE argument falls apart is similar to my reasoning above: it doesn't tell us anything. Since Biblegod in the OT promised that there would ALWAYS be Jews around, for Jesus to say he's returning while there are still Jews around tells us NOTHING. Jesus might as well have said he'll return while his God was still alive. It could be tomorrow, it could be 50 billion years from now. Once again, this time indicator of Jesus becomes useless. 


3) "This generation" might refer to the final generation, the one
witnessing all this stuff, which of course undermines any interpretation
that much of the content deals with the fall of Jerusalem. This view fails
to offer a good interpretation because it seems obvious that Jesus is
predicting the fall of Jerusalem, and persecutions under Rome... but once
again, it's possible.

Mark here}     You are right. This interpretation ignores the "fall of Jerusalem" portion of the prophecy, without any good reason to, other than "saving the savior" from a false prophecy.


4) Jesus, in his humanity, got it wrong here. oops! This is, I believe,
what C.S. Lewis would have said at the time he wrote ? the citation you
showed me at Denny's. Thank God we don't look to men like him as Holy
Scripture or inerrant. He was a man, a wise and profound thinker, but a
fallible man nonetheless, and wrong on this point. Your are right Mark, if
Jesus was wrong, the best understanding would be that of the Old Testament:

Mark here}     Thank you for not worshipping Lewis. The fact that Lewis IS "worshipped" by so many Fundies makes this quote by Lewis that much more effective.


5) He was a false prophet. But based on everything else we know about
Jesus, this is the least likely and should be the last resort... so let's
explore one more option...

Mark here}     But once you come to realize that he WAS a false prophet, you'll start to re-examine all the other aspects and claims about Jesus, only to find out that maybe he wasn't what he was cracked up to be. And besides, EVEN IF everything else was true (walking on water, miracles, and even coming back from the dead) he would STILL be a FALSE PROPHET, and how can you worship a false prophet??? O.J. Simpson was a nice guy but he was a murderer too- being a nice guy doesn't give us license to overlook his murders.


6) Are you ready for this? his genea aute refers to the contemporaries of
Jesus, those alive with him, his generation. Just as you suggested, I
agree, and so do most lexicons and Greek scholars. 

 

Mark here}     Thank you for admitting that- you are being loyal to the evidence. There is hope for you! Maybe BIOLA won't erase that loyalty you currently have.

 

However

Mark here}     Damn! I KNEW there was a "b