Shortly Come to Pass and the Error of Preterism

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Diggin...

Here are the ONLY...repeat, ONLY three scriptures in the entire N.T. that uses the two words, EN and TACHOS together in this same order. There is a reason for that.

That is another glaring error.

There are MORE THAN THREE.

Luk 18:8 KJV+ I tell3004 you5213 that3754 he will avenge4160, 1557 them846 speedily.1722, 5034 Nevertheless4133 when the3588 Son5207 of man444 cometh,2064 shall(687) he find2147 faith4102 on1909 the3588 earth?1093

Act 12:7 KJV+ And,2532 behold,2400 the angel32 of the Lord2962 came upon2186 him, and2532 a light5457 shined2989 in1722 the3588 prison:3612 and1161 he smote3960 Peter4074 on the3588 side,4125 and raised him up,1453, 846 saying,3004 Arise up450 quickly.1722, 5034 And2532 his846 chains254 fell off1601 from1537 his hands.5495

Act 22:18 KJV+ And2532 saw1492 him846 saying3004 unto me,3427 Make haste,4692 and2532 get1831 thee quickly1722, 5034 out of1537 Jerusalem:2419 for1360 they will not3756 receive3858 thy4675 testimony3141 concerning4012 me.1700

Act 25:4 KJV+ But3767 (3303) Festus5347 answered,611 that Paul3972 should be kept5083 at1722 Caesarea,2542 and1161 that he himself1438 would3195 depart1607 shortly1722, 5034 thither.

Rom 16:20 KJV+ And1161 the3588 God2316 of peace1515 shall bruise4937 Satan4567 under5259 your2257 feet4228 shortly.1722, 5034 The3588 grace5485 of our2257 Lord2962 Jesus2424 Christ5547 be with3326 you.5216 Amen.281


Rev 1:1 KJV+ The Revelation602 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which3739 God2316 gave1325 unto him,846 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 come to pass;1096 and2532 he sent649 and signified4591 it by1223 his848 angel32 unto his848 servant1401 John:2491

Rev 22:6 KJV+ And2532 he said2036 unto me,3427 These3778 sayings3056 are faithful4103 and2532 true:228 and2532 the Lord2962 God2316 of the3588 holy40 prophets4396 sent649 his848 angel32 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 the things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 be done.1096

There are SEVEN!

None of them indicate that there is a rapidity of time for the event subseqent to the mention of the event to John. In each and every case, the emphasis is upon the STATE of affairs as indicated by the PREPOSITION.

You STILL do not know what a PREPOSITION IS.

Also, vengeance given SPEEDILY does not have to occur shortly after the thought is mentioned, but can simply mean that WHENEVER IT DOES OCCUR, soon or not, it will occur RAPIDLY. This shows that the surrounding terms restrict the idea of whether or not the event would occur soon in relation to the time of it being mentioned or not. But in the case of Rev 1:1, it is a SOON-AFTER-JOHN-HEARD-IT event to occur, because verse 3 distinctly said THE TIME IS AT HAND. It is a matter of TIME, because verse 3 qualifies those events quite explicitly!

Rev 1:1-3 KJV The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which mustshortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. (3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


The thought of verse 1 is REPEATED to John in verse 3, PROVING it is a time issue.

"State of affairs".... wow.

The preposition simply means STATE. And the term TACHOS limits that to be a STATE ASSOCIATED WITH TIME.

Anyone can see Bro Strange's error.

If the preposition was not PRESENT with "tachos," we would naturally believe that it is speaking ONLY of the rapid succesion of TIME. But, the preposition is a qualifier that indicates that when the times comes to pass, there will be a rapid change of STATE.

No. It is a change of NOTHING. CHANGE has nothing to do with the entire phrase. "IN HASTE" is not understood as a change of state. IT IS THE ONLY STATE in which the said subject would occur.

The preposition EN simply points to WHEN the surrounding idea, which happens to EVENTS, would occur in relation to THE TIME of John's reception of this revelation. SPEED and HASTE are tied to the entire thought being related through the preposition EN. HASTE has to do with the events that will be written about, and the association HASTE has with the events is that the events will occur "IN" haste. The STATE in which the events will occur is HASTE.

It is like someone saying that someone is making a decision. How is that decision being made? In what STATE is the person's MIND when they make that decision, or is it a matter of state of time? A preposition "IN" will tie our answer to the decision. And whatever term IN prefixes, will deteremine if it is a matter of time, mind or something totally different! If the thought of "earnest" decision making is the STATE, then the decision is made "IN EARNEST". The term EARNEST is applied to the situation to explain that the issue is a STATE of SINCERITY, and not time. But when HASTE is involved as the state, then TIME is the issue.

Similarly, when TACHOS is used with "EN", IT IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE OF TIME!

A rapid succession of time from the mention of the word is seen in Paul's request to Timothy that Timothy would come to him "shortly." There is no prequalifiying preposition to indicate a STATE of affairs but rather simply the quickness of time ALONE.

That makes no sense, either. TIME ALONE is ALSO understood by using the preposition EN in conjunction with any reference to time, like TACHOS.

But, the God of Peace will elevate his people into a state by which spiritually the head of Satan will be bruised shortly. This "shortly" is qualified by the preposition "en," indicating a STATE to exist among the saints to which God will elevate them into.

I have never before seen such pretense in using grammatical terms so far out of proper use. It's like a janitor throwing around rocket science terms to explain to people about the failure of the APOLLO 12 mission, when the terms being used are not understood at all by the janitor.

Paul's reference to a certain STATE in which Satan's head being bruised is understood to be a state of TIME. It will occur SHORTLY, in the sense of time, from the time Paul wrote what he did to the Romans. Saying that SHORTLY is qualified by the term EN to mean a STATE OF POSITION is totally nonsense. It wreaks havoc of the entire concept of what "IN HASTE" means and why prepositions are used in a sentence.

The STATE Paul wished to relate to the Romans concerning the bruising of Satan's head is clearly shown to be one of TIME. That EVENT would OCCUR in a state of CLOSE TIME PROXIMITY. Satan's head will be bruised in what sort of state? SHORTLY! The event was intended to be understood as occurring at a certain TIME.

What do you suppose will happen when Jesus takes away the candlestick from the midst of a church? What do you suppose will happen to a church or an individual when Jesus no longer stands at the door, knocking? There will be a RAPID succession of STATE of affairs.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THE RESTRICTED THOUGHT OF THE TIME ELEMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSENESS by the term EN TACHOS.

State of affairs are ONLY implications that surround the specific issue of WHAT STATE the removal of a candlestick, for example, would occur. And it is a STATE OF TIME in which that removal will take place. Speaking of a STATE OF AFFAIRS that RESULT from the removal of the candlestick is totally missing the entire point of HOW HE REMOVES!

Jesus calls upon the churches to REPENT. To REPENT or not dictates the rapid succession of STATE in regards to the spiritual condition or STATE of the churches.

Again you miss the finer detail of the reference to TIME. Rev 2:5 mentions Christ's COMING is said to occur manner, which is totally apart from whether or not he is asking them to repent when it comes to determining the purpose of the term TACHOS being used. TACHOS only refers to how He will come. It has nothing to do with repentance, other than the obvious thought that repentance would avoid that coming. When we restrict our thoughts as to the coming, TACHOS indicates the point is a matter of TIME.

The entire book of Revelation in no way deals with those things that of PAST (preterist) history. It deals with spiritual matters, through to the end.

This is all said to simply admit error.

The word EN is indispensible to the understanding of "tachos," unless we are adamant in twisting, and perverting the word so much as to make it fit a 70AD doctrine. I am not so inclined to inflict so much terrible VIOLENCE upon the Word.

This is getting more funny.

It is akin to saying "IN" is inextricably necessary to understand what "IN HASTE" means, when in reality HASTE is the more important thought that is simply TIED TO THE grammatical subject at hand by the preposition.

Let Bro. Blume call it mean spirited if he wishes, since that is his mantra against everyone that dares to disagree with him, but the truth remains the truth regardless if it is perceived as mean spirited.

Truth is never mean spirited. But the WAY truth is presented can be mean spirited. And although I do not agree at all that what you say is truth, I do insist your mean spiritedness has been evident as others have witnessed who are not the subject of your slurring.

God bless, even if you do get mean spirited at times!

[Rhymis]

To the Prets the "shortly-come-to-pass" has become "it-happened-long-ago."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Rhymis

To the Prets the "shortly-come-to-pass" has become "it-happened-long-ago."

Now, how on earth does your implication of an alleged folly in my words make any sense in light of John and seven churches that existed at that time being the ones written to? John was the one to whom the words were written.

John was told "SHORTLY COME TO PASS" would be when the events would occur. Now, if I wrote you a letter you ten years ago saying that I would shortly come to visit you, and someone found the letter ten years later, today, would they be correct in saying ""shortly-come-to-pass" has become "it-happened-long-ago.""?

Of course!!!

Folks, read the Revelation with the thought in mind of TO WHOM it was first written.

Bro. Blume you sure do a lot of writing. You write and you write and you write some more, almost endlessly.

You are totally obsessed with your error. Evidently, you spend most of your waking hours proping up your false doctrine of 70AD with every clever twist and turn that you can employ. If no one else can see through it, I can.

It is obvious that you HATE the preposition "en" seeing that it exposes your error. The preposition FIXES the STATE of time to those things which FOLLOW after as depicted in the message of Jesus to the churches of all ages from Pentecost until NOW.... as a STATE, a spiritual STATE fixed in TIME depending on how the message is received by the churches.

Anyway, You have all the time in the world to type and type somre more, licking your candystick night and day. I don't have all the time as you have. So have at it. I just feel sorry for the poor souls that buy your bill of goods. They are the losers in all of this.

But what is amusing, I know that you are intelligent enough to see the point that I made very well, but you pretend that you do not, in favor of 70AD...

Anyway, I just don't have the time to devote to this discussion as is needed, since it has always been futile with you anyway. Maybe I'll get a chance to write a little more this weekend.

Meanwhile, carry everyone away that is willing, with a great flood (words) of water. I wonder how many will resist it? Rev. 12:15.

[Praxeas]

I hope you all can continue this dialog in a civil and respectful manner :-)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Bro. Blume you sure do a lot of writing. You write and you write and you write some more, almost endlessly.

You are totally obsessed with your error. Evidently, you spend most of your waking hours proping up your false doctrine of 70AD with every clever twist and turn that you can employ. If no one else can see through it, I can.

Wading through this above rhetoric, we see another falsity about my beliefs. A falsity that claims I study AD70 more than anything else. I had all my sermons preached since 96 on my websoite at one time. I took them off two about years ago. If you would have given me the courtesy of actually doing what I asked you back then in reading my sermons listed on my website, you would have known this is error, since I preach more about the cross outside anything to do with prophecy than anything else I preach.

But when people ask me specifically about prophecy, and I answer, you make it sound like prophecy is all I am interested in.

It is obvious that you HATE the preposition "en" seeing that it exposes your error.

How on earth can EN expose any error? I like how you are not dealing poiint by point with my issues, as I have done to you, but glossing over them and avoiding the issues I have shown in how the preposition EN is used in sentences. That is like saying the preposition "IN" upsets my entire concept when it can do almost NOTHING for or against it, since it is only a preposition. That which the preposition prefixes is the all-important issue. But you simply refuse to listen to anything I say. I wish an english student would therefore come and witness with my words. Maybe you'd listen then.

The preposition FIXES the STATE of time to those things which FOLLOW after as depicted in the message of Jesus to the churches of all ages from Pentecost until NOW.... as a STATE, a spiritual STATE fixed in TIME depending on how the message is received by the churches.

En does not do anything in regards to a spiritual state. It only fixes the state of the events to be a state of TIME -- period. It has nothing to do with any spiritual state of which you speak. Again, you need to learn what prepositions are.

Anyway, You have all the time in the world to type and type somre more, licking your candystick night and day. I don't have all the time as you have. So have at it. I just feel sorry for the poor souls that buy your bill of goods. They are the losers in all of this.

Royal cop-out. All over again. Well, the two loudest critics of preterism have now officially both copped out. Wading through rhetoric to get to anything substantial only allowed me to see the ridiculous conclusions proposed concerning how a preposition, analagous to the english term "IN" or "WITH", is somehow distorted to be the final overwhelming conclusion that SHORTLY has nothing to do with "time".

But what is amusing, I know that you are intelligent enough to see the point that I made very well, but you pretend that you do not, in favor of 70AD...

I am pretending nothing. First you say I am trying to look sincere in saying the cross is the main focus of all my studies and even prophecy. Now you say this. Your conclusion is simply absurd and nonsensical in light of what a preposition does in a sentence. Do not misrepresent me as if I know what you are are trying to say as though it makes any sense. It really doesn't, Bro Strange.

Anyway, I just don't have the time to devote to this discussion as is needed, since it has always been futile with you anyway. Maybe I'll get a chance to write a little more this weekend.

And the same old same old is finally repeated again.... "because it is futile". Unless we bow down to your belief,...

Meanwhile, carry everyone away that is willing, with a great flood (words) of water. I wonder how many will resist it? Rev. 12:15.

Cop-out. A simple english class in junior high school can rectify such an error.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a sincere question ?
Jesus said unto to him,If I will that he remain till I come ,what is that to you ? You follow me. John 21:22 NKJV
Ok we understand that Peter is questioning Jesus about what John the beloved end is to be ?
Was Jesus telling Peter what is to you if I want John to be a 2,ooo and something year old man till I come ? Of course we know John the beloved died.