Enter your query, example: how not cry when slicing onion or how to enter an Free Italian Sex Webcams?
Fall wedding full Videos
The Parable of the Wedding Feast and the Fall of Full Preterism
According to Jesus, the marriage feast does not occur at the fall of Jerusalem. After others (the Gentiles) are invited and the wedding hall is filled with guests, ...
User Comments
super1fluity
commented
on 12 Oct 2014
Does the delay between original day of the wedding feast ( because of the
need to destroy the original guest's city) and the (rain checked) new
wedding feast date, necessitate the passing of thousands or tens of
thousands of years (the way things are going)??? It seems to me that such
a delay of an important time sensitive event ( such as a wedding between a
bride and groom) would be much shorter and would require a sense of
urgency, because the prerequisite arrangements (slaughtered foods,
services, wedding hall, status of the wedding partners etc) can't have a
(very) long term waiting period???
Also it seems to me that, that "day of the Lord" message spoken of in
Zephaniah was definitely more "near" than far off (at least to Zephaniah's
pertinent audience...those that needed to hear of that particular
immanent/impending Babylonian gloom and doom around their specific corner)
I'm not too sure (at this point), that this video slam dunks preterism,
hook, line and sinker.
Thanks thought for the video and food for thought !, May we all (continue
to) grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord...
promisesrkept
commented
on 20 Dec 2015
+Sopater the Berean I believe you're overlooking something with the prophet Joel that is critical to the context. If I were a preterist in that day I would consider the entire prophecy beginning with, "For behold, in those days and at that time, When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem" When he later said "the day of the Lord is near..." I would know it referred to a time in the future.We know from Peter's words that the OT prophets did not know the time or the manner of their prophecies but they knew it was not for their day (1 Pet. 1:10-12).Also, notice the New Testament writers never posit the end of their age in terms of, "in those days and at that time." Instead we find Peter saying, "...this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:" (Acts 2:16) "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." (1 Pet. 4:7)
Präterismus
commented
on 22 Apr 2015
+Sopater the Berean I think the question is whether the invitation of and the preaching to the nations began AFTER 70 AD (destruction of Jerusalem).The accounts of the Apostles are in full contradiction to such a notion. How would you reconcile your interpretation with the witness of the Apostles?Warm greetings,Alexandre
Sopater the Berean
commented
on 16 Oct 2014
+super1fluity What's the invitation? It's the gospel. The invitation goes out until the wedding hall is full. The banquet starts when all the guests arrive. As far as Zechariah, I think if you look at all the prophets, they speak of an ultimate day. The nearest one is an intrusion and evidence that it's coming. Look at Joel for example. He doesn't speak of multiple days of the Lord, but one on which the nations will be judged and his Spirit would be poured out before it. Full preterists say this was 70 AD, but Joel said it was near. This is prophetic perspective. But if you were interpreting Joel in the generation he would have written, as a full preterist, you would have said that it was entirely fulfilled on the next day of judgment, because he said it was near, and you would have been wrong.
Robby Young
commented
on 10 Oct 2014
Hi Sopater,
Not so fast! Matthew 22:6 & 7 is a "flash-forward" to the end result. Verse
8 picks up the chronology again from verse 5. How do we know this? Because
Luke gives us a Gentile breakdown, chronologically, of this feast:
Luke 14:16-24
16. Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
(parallels Matthew 22:2)
17. And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden,
Come; for all things are now ready.
(parallels Matthew 22:3)
18 - 20. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said
unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it:
I pray thee have me excused, etc...
(Parallels Matthew 22:5)
21 - 23. So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the
master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into
the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the
maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done
as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the
servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in,
that my house may be filled.
(Parallels Matthew 22:8 -10)
24. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall
taste of my supper.
(Parallels Matthew 22:6-7, & 11-13 "flash-forward!"
Luke's account was written over 20 years after Matthew. The Gospel of Luke
is a more chronological account of the witness of Yeshua. Luke was Paul's
traveling companion and scribe, therefore, he laid out the historical
account without a lot of jumping around, as compared to Matthew. Also,
Luke's account was addressed to a Gentile, Theophilus, and was carefully
less symbolized in Jewish metaphors.
Any notable scholar will tell you Luke 14 is Matthew 22's account of the
parable. Luke's account is historically accurate just as Matthew's
judgement account confirms. There are no contradictions or confusion WHEN
THE ENTIRE CONTEXT is given across all the Gospels.
Luke places ALL judgement AFTER ALL invitations went out (vs. 24). Matthew
22:6-7 is simply a flash-forward within the parable concerning THEIR
judgement. Luke is absolutely definitive concerning this.
---------
Now concerning your Zephaniah comments. Yes, this was a "Day of The LORD"
concerning the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians! The time was near,
and it did happen. The Old Testament scriptures is the type, pointing to
the ANTI-TYPE Yeshua. There were many Days of The LORD in the OT. Every
last one of them took place when YAHWEH said it was near! Nevertheless,
they all pointed to the ultimate Day of THE LORD when the Old Covenant
System would be completely destroyed and replaced by Yeshua's Kingdom.
I see no reason to remove fulfilled prophecy from the 1st Century on the
basis of your argument. As always, I wish you the very best in your studies
to come to truth, trying to reconcile language that was meant for ONLY that
1st Century generation as the Old Covenant came to an end. Again, those who
choose to believe in an additional coming, for whatever reason, I find no
fault in it. But to deny what was clearly stated as a 1st Century parousia,
is a whole other matter. For this approach tears apart inspiration and
trustworthiness of The Apostles and Yeshua Himself!
God Bless!
Präterismus
commented
on 22 Apr 2015
+Sopater the Berean A strict adherence to the ordering of the events in Matthew leads to grave problems. Is it true that the invitation of the nations began AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem? Began the preaching of the gospel AFTER the destruction of the city?The Apostles tell us a different story. The invitation and preaching of the gospel clearly began before the destruction of Jerusalem! It seems that your interpretation of Matthew can't account for that one.I think that +Robby Young is quite correct in his comparison with Luke 14:16-24.Warm greetings,Alexandre
Robby Young
commented
on 12 Oct 2014
I agree. We will continue to disagree in our speculations. However, speculation IS NOT a division in fellowship and those who seek to make it such do err. Post 70AD, YAHWEH left us with NO MORE inspired individuals to set the record straight on what was emphatically meant in the NT scriptures concerning ALL THINGS. Therefore, we speculate and do the best we can on what transpired long ago.I clearly no my speculative line from fact, and try not to blur them and cause division. This is why I continue to wish blessings upon your ministry and others who subscribe to your brand of speculation.God Bless Bro!
Sopater the Berean
commented
on 12 Oct 2014
+Robby Young Yes, this sounds like the standard response. We see things in a very different way. You won't convince me, precisely because of out of context proof-texting that is prevalent in the full preterist paradigm as you demonstrated in your last reply (my kingdom is not of this world.). I'm pretty sure that I won't convince you, either. So, for me it has now become a moot point to argue against some of your claims in the last response. You either see it or you don't. I'm sure you feel the same way...
Robby Young
commented
on 11 Oct 2014
+Sopater the Berean How can "The Servants" in vs.4, who were KILLED in vs.6, magically reappear again to life to fulfill vs.8? They can't and they didn't!Matthew's account DOESN'T trump Luke's account either! It's a "flash-forward" Brother. Read Luke's account again. It's straight forward and IS NOT nonsensical when the whole context is given - THAT'S WHAT WE CALL EXEGESIS!Are you going to ignore Luke's account to fit your paradigm? I believe I have reconciled both accounts to gain understanding.Again, a Preterist believes what Yeshua, The Apostles and every 1st Century Believer did concerning the end of the age. We DO NOT call into question their testimony, rather, uphold it through accepting the end of the age to happen in their lifetime. Show us where their teachings say otherwise.Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you have a very strange and alien concept of the end of the age. You will never find one shred of evidence from the mouth of Yeshua and The Apostles preaching and teaching that the end of the age DOES NOT directly begin and end with their generation. You keep wanting to quote OT passages outside of how the NT prophets explained them. Sorry, we don't get to trump THEIR understanding and correct interpretations.Yeshua's kingdom IS NOT of this world. No matter how bad you want it to be, IT'S NOT! 2000 years as proof isn't good enough for some. 1 million years wouldn't be good enough to make some people change their minds and understanding. Therefore, continue to wait, I guess.Whatever the future holds, I'm sure it will be very interesting. But as a Believer, I'm going to stick with what Yeshua said was going to transpire in that 1st Century generation, i.e. Judgment, Resurrection, and His Parousia.Lastly, I don't know what label or box you are trying to associate me with under the "Full Preterist" model, but it's very simple; I believe what Yeshua and The Apostles told their audience what would transpire in their lifetime. that's it, plain and simple. If that means Judgment, Resurrection, or Yeshua's Parousia, then so be it. I don't have THE RIGHT to say, "NO" they were wrong because I don't understand how it could be. But thanks be to YAHWEH the testimony is sound and need no scrutiny from me.God Bless!
Sopater the Berean
commented
on 10 Oct 2014
He destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. THEN (that's a time statement of something that happens after the previous event) he said to his servants, go invite both good and bad... they gathered all kinds and when the hall was filled with guests, the king came in. The invitation is going out still. The wedding hall is not full yet. You don't drag the net to shore until it's full. The gospel is still preached, still gathering fish, still gathering people to the feast. Any suggestion of a flash forward is really just a very weak EISEGETICAL attempt to preserve an existing belief system. It doesn't take into context the focus of each gospel writer. Luke does not overthrow the chronology of Matthew's account.
Sopater the Berean
commented
on 10 Oct 2014
+Robby Young There is clearly in Matthew an invitation AFTER the destruction of the city. Matthew's focus is a little different than Luke's, because he is stressing the importance that not everyone who receives the invitation will take part of the feast. There is no way around the entire context of the end of the age and judgment that it happens on the nations, not just the city of Jerusalem, and the hall had to be filled with guests first. It's not a flash forward to the end judgment in the middle of the parable. The context of the entire book of Matthew shows this, because the gospel message and end of the age are linked, and as long as the message of the gospel continues to go out, there is still a judgment that remains. The prophets speak of the intrusions in history of the day of the Lord as evidence of the final one. That's why they only refer to it as one day. The full preterists do not understand the prophetic perspective and language, nor the tension of the ages. Full preterists would have interpreted Isaiah 56:1 to refer only to the return of exile from Babylon, but it speaks of the Messiah coming, and it speaks to our generation as well. I know you are a "champion" for full preterism, Robby, but it 1.) doesn't fit the Biblical story of redemption, 2.) kicks against all of history in that (a.) the greatest event of all history was left unwritten about which is contrary to previous acts of God, (b.) not understood or conceived of by relatively anyone until the last century, and 3.) requires numerous inferences that contrast didactic statements of Scripture, resulting in the butchering of the context due in large part to a total non-understanding of the day of the Lord in history and the prophetic language and use of nearness. In the end, it makes God out to be a liar, because the full redemption of the creation does not happen. It says there is a separation of spiritual and material which has always been regarded as heresy even by the apostles. The idea of God as Creator and Redeemer are interwoven. He created a material world and called it good, and He has promised to redeem that world, not leave it to rot in sin and decay as it presently is. We have seen God acts of redemption and judgment progressively and have not reached that final stage. Your beliefs are certainly your prerogative, but the full preterists' arguments are truly some of the weakest ones I've ever seen in the realm of theology, being based on faulty presuppositions and very grave and erroneous inferences that turn the text on it's head.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on fsaved.com.
Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Already have an account? Sign in to comment