Did Jesus decieve people about his second-coming?

[Ark~Magic]

Quoted from a website:

Even C.S. Lewis, the respected Christian apologist and author, wrote in a 1960 essay, "'Say what you like,' we shall be told, 'the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.' It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p-385.

Do you hear what these critics and even C.S. Lewis are saying? They are saying Jesus was literally wrong when he made numerous time-restrictive predictions and statements regarding his coming, his return. This was, and still is, the crack that lets them in the door to begin their systematic criticism and dismantling of Scripture with its inevitable bankrupting of the faith.

SOURCE: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
(I'm not sure if this site is Partial Preterist or Full Preterist)

[Mystical]

Jesus spoke in parables. I don't pretend to understand what he meant by "this generation." Truth is, no one knows.

[bob2010]

SOURCE: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
(I'm not sure if this site is Partial Preterist or Full Preterist)

its a full preterist site, hit the back button at the bottom of the page.

[ryo dokomi]

when he says 'this generation' he is talking about the generation that see's all of those signs of the tribulation.

[Mystical]

A generation which hasn't yet come? So generation has a meaning beyond what we understand.

[kateliz]

Right on Dustin! Yay!

The generation that's talked about in that verse is the one that witnessed the re-establishment of Israel as a nation, which happened technically in 1947, and legally, (I believe,) in 1948. It's that generation that is spoken of, and that generation is the one that will not pass away until they see those things.

Where's that verse again?

[IRQ Conflict]

I wholeheartedly concur!

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Edit: Here is an interesting read.

[Ark~Magic]

A generation which hasn't yet come? So generation has a meaning beyond what we understand.

No. Alot of the establishment of Israel as a nation and the other things have already been fulfulled in the past, so this is not an issue.
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html
Good article. And Good site.

(And I should've known better than to be looking at a FULL Preterist site.)

[Fortigurn]

A generation which hasn't yet come? So generation has a meaning beyond what we understand.

No. Alot of the establishment of Israel as a nation and the other things have already been fulfulled in the past, so this is not an issue.
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html
Good article. And Good site.

Bad article:

• He attempts to intepret the 10 horns as sequentialr (the text indicates that they are contemporaneous)
• He offers no justification for selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the series (he arbitrarily counts the triumverate as an imperial rule, acknowledging that Suetonius, from whom he borrows the rest of his list, doesn't even mention the triumverate in his list of imperial rulers)
• His attempt to make Vespasian fit the description of the little horn is extremely tenuous (he acknowledges that Vespasian did not, in fact, overthrow any of the other emperors in order to gain power)
• Vespasian did not 'persecute the saints' for time, times and half a time ('Holding' acknowledges that the saints here are the Christians), and the suggestion 'Holding' offers to get around this is palpably weak

The 10 horns represent the division of the Roman empire, just as the division of the iron legs into iron and clay represent the division of the Roman empire:

* They all appear on the beast together (I realise that the 7 heads in Revelation do also, but the 7 heads are specifically referred to as sequential, whereas the horns are not)

* The little horn arises among the other 10, and supplants three of them, indicating that they all exist together

* Wherever Daniel refers to horns appearing on a beast, the horns are always contemporaneous unless specified otherwise (other horns are always described as arriving after the former horns)

* A horn on a beast represents a power - a number of horns on a beast represents a divided power, so this is Rome divided, Rome after 476 AD

The little horn must then arise proximate to the fall of the Roman empire, and the time, times and half a time must be understood in this context.

[Ark~Magic]

Why not write him an e-mail?

[Fortigurn]

Why not write him an e-mail?

I'm not actually interested in discussing this with 'Holding' personally, partly because I don't see him changing his mind any time soon, partly because I don't think he would be interested, and partly because I find his manner of debating extremely unChristlike.

I did see an excellent debate on 'TheologyWeb' between Dee Dee Warren, a Futurist, and a Historicist. It ground to a halt with the Historicist the only one standing (see here).

Both Warren and the Futurist left a long list of questions unanswered. Warren in particular acknowledged that there was a lack of historical evidence for certain critical claims of her eschatology.

[Ark~Magic]

So you base the evidence of Historicism on one wimpy debate between 2 lameass doctrinists?

[Fortigurn]

So you base the evidence of Historicism on one wimpy debate between 2 lameass doctrinists?

No. I base the evidence for Historicism on my own 8 years of personal research. But that debate does not show Praeterism in a good light, that's for sure.

I'm surprised to hear you refer to Warren as a 'lameass doctrinist'.

[Ark~Magic]

I wasn't including her, and for [love]'s sake, let's just drop the damn debate because the [love] piece of [poop] is going off topic.

[Fortigurn]

I wasn't including her, and for [love]'s sake, let's just drop the damn debate because the [love] piece of [poop] is going off topic.

Would you care to discuss Praeterism yourself? Perhaps you can pick up where the last lad left off.