Almighty God's Two Jewish Witnesses Are At Hand!

The Ignorant Fishermen ^ | March 11, 2010 | DJP

[Uncle Chip]

However, partical preterists who (rightly) insist that the events mentioned are still future.

Do these partical preterists believe that Matthew 24 is past history??? and that Jesus came in 70 AD???

[Matchett-PI]

"However, partical preterists who (rightly) insist that the events mentioned are still future. So if you want to argue the preterists point of view make sure you understand between the two viewpoints."

You aren't a careful reader. From my link AGAIN:

"Research has confirmed to me that the preterist standpoint of eschatology -- the idea that much of [not all of] the prophecy of the Bible was fulfilled in 70 AD -- is the correct one, although I am still looking into finer details. (I am distinguishing this view from a view Seraiah calls pantelism -- and others, "full preterism" -- the idea that all Bible prophecy is now fulfilled, including prophecies of the resurrection; this in particular I do not agree with, for example.)"

And from my post #22 above, the concluding remarks:

Conclusion

Premillennial Dispensationalism is a deceptive teaching. Those who promote these views and fill the minds of God’s people with this nonsense are perpetrating a hoax.

Jesus is coming again. This is our glorious hope. Jesus told us to be about the business of preaching and teaching His Gospel and not speculate about His second coming. Those who believe in Jesus and trust His blood and righteousness for their salvation are prepared for His coming. “Even so, come Lord Jesus!”

[Matchett-PI]

See post 42 and stop misrepresenting the partial preterist viewpoint of eschalology.

[Uncle Chip]

See post 42 and stop misrepresenting the partial preterist viewpoint of eschalology.

Then answer the questions:

Is Matthew 24 past history???

Did Jesus come in 70 AD as is claimed by Preterists???

[Agamemnon]

Just the opposite. You have me confused with someone else. If you dispute that, you will need to provide the exact quotes along with the dates and links.

Is you screen name "Matchett-PI" or is it not?

You reproduced the body of the embedded link authored by some guy named Don Matzat in a post under your screen name.

You used no quotation marks, which would imply that you are quoting someone other that yourself, and the natrrative is in the first person, and posted under your screen name.

If you are not the Don Matzat aka "Matchett-PI" who authored your post, looks like you'll have to make that clearer -- or just own up to what you wrote.

FReegards!

[Matchett-PI]

Like going in circles, do you? I don’t ride in the boats of one-armed boat-rowers. Sorry.

[Matchett-PI]

My name is not “Don Matzat” and I would NEVER be a “puveyor of prophetical pap”.

On the contrary—I EXPOSE “prophetical pap” for what it is.

Sheesh!!

[Uncle Chip]

I thought so —

[labette]

Enoch does have an interesting parallel with Elijah. Genesis does not mention Enoch's physical death, {similar to Elijah's "departure"}
"..Enoch lived 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away."
Note that everyone else in this chapter simply "died".

[AZMike2010]

"Do these partical preterists believe that Matthew 24 is past history??? and that Jesus came in 70 AD??? "

Personally not sure why they believe what they do. Basically their viewpoint discredits the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation was written either around 70AD or after so why even write it all about future events if they already happened or were happening? Plus the imagery in Revelation was far beyond what John could comprehend at the time and was obviously witnessing things well into the future.

[LurkLongley]

I am not trying to denigrate your faith (although I find the arguments to be deathly boring) but since I am a Catholic, I have 2000 years worth of scholars who are far more able than I to pull together the threads of prophecy, and, if they are applicable to my faith, I am sure they will let me know.

In the meantime, I prefer to simply perform works of charity, mercy, penitence, and align myself more closely with the will of my God.

[LurkLongley]

I’m sorry, I really skimmed through your reply, thorough as I am sure it was.

Makes me glad I’m a Catholic.

[Wuli]

“if they are applicable to my faith, I am sure they will let me know.”

Like Martin Luther and everyone who has since joined the “reformation”, I do not sit waiting for “superiors” to translate the scriptures for me.

In the meantime, while I too “perform works of charity, mercy, penitence” I understand that those acts in and of themselves cannot “align myself more closely with the will of my God”; and therefore I do not smugly depend on them to do so.

[Agamemnon]

My name is not “Don Matzat” and I would NEVER be a “puveyor of prophetical pap”.

Perhaps. Perhaps, not. In any event quotation marks are helpful if you are actually quoting someone, not yourself -- especially when one chooses to post a narrative written in the first person.

It's pretty obvious to me why one would prefer to distance themselves from a dismal narrative admission like that.

Your personal page contains some sloppy scholarship as well -- I refer to your letter written to Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the mis-attribution in which you chose to engage with the link labeled: "Astrophysicist writes Dr.James Kennedy. (Response below his letter)."

So, "Matchett-PI" in this example again you post your link written in the first person (are you now NOT supposed to be some presumed "Astrophysicist" named, "Chris some-one-or other"?) or in spite of all the first person narrative on this page shall we now just assume you are somebody else?

As I was saying, you labeled your link to say, "...(Response below his letter)," yet Kennedy didn't respond to you at all, now did he? Or, if in fact he did write you back, you simplistically failed to post his reply.

I don't care what academic achievement you might ever claim you had. That's just sloppy scholarship any way you slice it.

On the contrary—I EXPOSE “prophetical pap” for what it is.

You haven't exposed anything or anyone else here, but yourself and some sloppy scholarship to go along with it.

One is not surprised to see continuing sloppiness in your posting habits on this thread, as well.

Kind of sad, actually -- I'd have expected better scholarship from someone, who, to his credit, appears to know something about Calvinism and appears to have at least some passing appreciation for how its principles informed the signers of our nation's founding documents.

[Matchett-PI]

“Your personal page contains some sloppy scholarship as well...” ~ Agamemnon

Well, we can’t have that, can we? bttt :)

Click my screen name and scroll to the bottom of the page to read the disclaimer I just now added.

Disclaimer: FReeper “Agamemnon” has complained about the “sloppy” way I have presented these postings on my profile page. **Because many of the people I quote speak in the first person, he is unsure if I am either Alan Bellows, Prof. Robert Harris, Phillip R. Johnson, Gregory Koukl, James Freeman, John G. Reisinger, J.P.Holding, Christopher M. Sharp, or an unnamed employee of James Kennedy. (I think I’ve named them all). In order to address his, and any others’) concerns, I want to make it clear that I am not any of those people named above. Since Jim Robinson knows me personally, he can attest to it. :) Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/index

**Name references:

Written in the first person: “I have revised that phrasing to “absurdly improbable.”
Unskilled and Unaware of It by Alan Bellows
http://www.damninteresting.com/unskilled-and-unaware-of-it

<>

Written in the first person: “Here is a collection of materials I used when teaching a college-level course on Critical Thinking.”
What is Critical Thinking - or How do I acquire “true” knowledge?
Critical Thinking Materials by Prof. Robert Harris
http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/

<>

Written in the first person: “I’m troubled when terms like ..”
the law of contradiction by Phillip R. Johnson.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm

<>

Written in the first person: “The reason I say I’m not sure why is because ..”
America’s Unchristian Beginnings? ©1995 by Gregory Koukl
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097

Written in the first person: “I think the answer depends entirely on ..”
“...Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen, for example, were in no- wise intellectual architects of the Constitution. Rather, they were firebrands of the Revolution. Was that important? Sure, they made an important contribution, but they weren’t Founding Fathers. Period. ...” America’s Unchristian Beginnings? ©1995 by Gregory Koukl http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097

Written in the first person: “My question is, how do you..”
Star Light & the Age of the Universe - by Gregory Koukl
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639

<>

Written in the first person: “One of my favorites includes this quotation from 1774..”
The reason why “We The People” are in charge
Thomas Jefferson, religious freak” by James Freeman - USA Today July 10, 2000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1454702/posts?page=66#66

<>

Written in the first person: “Now I am aware that many have lost their taste for historic confirmation of the message they declare, but this is only because they do not like the company they are forced to keep as they walk back into time”
Boiled down to their essence, there are only two religions in the whole world.. Everyone, including atheists, belong to one or the other.
by John G. Reisinger http://www.the-highway.com/2religions.html

<>

Written in the first person: “I will omit, however, such things as Chapter I where ..”
A Bigger Paine in the Posterior Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason” Dissected
By -JPH (J.P.Holding Tektonics.org) http://www.tektonics.org/lp/painet02.html

Written in the first person: “These myths I believe cause harm to the church..”
Leading Christian Myths By -JPH (J.P.Holding Tektonics.org)
http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html

Written in the first person: “I have long since come to a conclusion ..”
Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt
By -JPH (J.P.Holding Tektonics.org) http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html

Written in the first person: “whom I debated on the issue of Jesus’ existence at..”
Atheist Frank Zindler’s “The Real Bible: Who’s Got It?” Critiqued February 20, 2005
By -JPH (J.P.Holding Tektonics.org) http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zindler02.html

Written in the first person: “Like you I am a Christian, and like you I...”
Astrophysicist writes Dr.James Kennedy. (Response below his letter)
By Christopher M. Sharp http://csharp.com/kennedy.html
Response by An Employee Written in the first person: “It is my opinion that you are correct..”

<>

PS: I’m curious. Out of all those people named in my disclaimer above who speak in the first person, what is really bothering you about person who wrote the letter to Kennedy and his employee’s reply? :)

[LurkLongley]

Again, you misunderstand me if you think that I am “smug”. What I am is simply trying to walk the path of faith as you are, my intent was simply to say that I think that spending as much time as some Protestants do discussing end-time prophecies is as much a chimera as middle age Church scholars disputing on the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin. Neither one is wrong or evil but strike me as needless discord between those whose aim should always be the same.

As a Catholic Christian I find that there is always a resource that I can turn to which will show me a path through which I might come to an understanding for myself. I don’t need to be Christopher Columbus or Vasco Degamo every time I pick up Holy Scripture. Of course these actions, in and of themselves do not assure anything, I simply cite them as activities that I can perform rather than argue needlessly with fellow Christians. I could just as easily have said watching Nascar, fishing with my kids, etc., all of which, when performed with the attitude of an offering to the Blessed Heart of our Lord serve the same purpose.

[Wuli]

“As a Catholic Christian I find that there is always a resource that I can turn to which will show me a path through which I might come to an understanding for myself.”

So do I, it’s called the Holy Bible.

“I don’t need to be Christopher Columbus or Vasco Degamo every time I pick up Holy Scripture.”

As I Christian, I know I am not “Christopher Columbus or Vasco Degamo every time I pick up Holy Scripture”, for on every page the hand of God has gone before me, and the Holy Spirit is always available to help guide us in prayerful reflection and inspiration.

[Agamemnon]

PS: I’m curious. Out of all those people named in my disclaimer above who speak in the first person, what is really bothering you about person who wrote the letter to Kennedy and his employee’s reply? :)

Your "disclaimer" as you call it, and as it now seems to pertain to serial misappropriations of first person quotations on your personal page, is certainly more than a day late, now isn't it.

By your own admission you manifest still more evidence of sloppy scholarship. Your original posting to this thread is just the tip of an iceberg's worth of sloppy scholarship, it seems.

What I can say is that I knew D. James Kennedy. I spoke with him in person and at length about topics related to the compromises some who call themselves Christians make with respect to the "evolutionary" world-view and the schism it has caused within the Christian church. He was a friend of my family for some 35 years until his death. Suffice it to say, when I wrote him, he replied by letter to me, not through some faithless mouthpiece by eMail.

You've chosen to reproduce an "eMail" of suspect origin and questionable pedigree from what could at best be termed an institutional "mole" -- or someone made to appear to be as one -- as though it was some sort of representative reply from Dr. Kennedy or his ministry. And you did this as if to say this was actually a meaningful "...(Response below his letter)."

Your intent is clearly to diminish Dr. Kennedy and his ministry by inference.

When I choose in the future to point Freepers to a prime example of some of the sloppiest scholarship on this board, I'll be sure to have them take note of any posting you make and send them to your personal page for more examples of the same.

Consider yourself exposed, "mole."

[Matchett-PI]

"...He was a friend of my family for some 35 years until his death. ... Your intent is clearly to diminish Dr. Kennedy and his ministry by inference."

Ah. I figured it was "personal" (since out of all the other "first person" commentaries I have posted on my profile page, your reaction was highly emotional to only one in particular).

In re-reading the letter, I see that the Christian astrophycisist, Dr.Christopher M. Sharp, praised Dr. Kennedy's theological scholarship and his Christian ministry. He suggested that, in his personal, and professional opinion, however, that Dr. Kennedy was engaging in sloppy scholarship when it came to science.

Have you considered the possibility that you may merely be lashing out against Dr. Sharp by projecting his "sloppy (science) scholarship" conclusion onto me? :) If you have a problem with his opinion, why don't you just deal with him directly, man to man?

"When I choose in the future to point Freepers to a prime example of some of the sloppiest scholarship on this board, I'll be sure to have them take note of any posting you make and send them to your personal page for more examples of the same."

Thank you. Since I prefer to be known by those who choose to make themselves my enemies, I'm honored.

"Consider yourself exposed, "mole.""

Still "projecting", I see. Tsk, tsk. Has anyone ever suggested that you may benefit from getting some training in anger management?

[LurkLongley]

I think we should agree to disagree. This is one point I don’t think we’ll get past.