Mark Janzen

Jesus Follower, husband, father, pastor at @acts 29 @acts29canada church @gracesask.

Part of the family business, Janzen Steel Buildings Ltd.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@dave1zero @LifeLongNazaren @MikeWingerii @McKlustr Yeah, I watched the vid, and Michael Brown is never once even mentioned. I love @MikeWingerii, but he has wrong info here.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@MikeWingerii @McKlustr I did not see anywhere in the video where he even mentions Michael Brown? He only mentions Ron Cantor in relation to his TV channel being shut down. So I don't see how Cantor could have been sladered in the video in regard to this Michael Brown lie specifically.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@hicasamadim (2x2)2=8. (5x5)2=50. (6x6)2=72. It is 72.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson So, is Matthew 16:27-28 one coming? or two?

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson @DaMadMattster I think you know it's more nuanced than that. The statement was an accusation of heresy against Gary, so Gary responded with a question of his own to help his accuser see the holes in his own theology.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson @DaMadMattster

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

Again, what you posted was not the full context. Gary first asked Lance Roberts if he did not believe that Jesus returned as he said he would. Lance, instead of answering Gary, said that Jesus "will" return as he said he would, not addressing the fact that Jesus said he would come before the end of that generation. Gary corrects him and says Jesus "did" return as he said he would. You clipped the post to make it seem as though Gary was denying a future return, instead of answering in kind just as Lance Roberts did.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

I know you only see one "coming", however partial preterists see it differently than you. So my point still stands, that using this comment is not proof of full preterism, as many partial preterists would use the same comment, even if they meant something different by it. What we partial preterists see when we see you post something like this, is an accusation against us as well. It cannot be the proof of full preterism if both partial and full preterists use it.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

I totally get that, but to use this comment as proof, lumps all (or most) partial preterists into the full preterist camp, because we would say the same thing, but we would mean something different than a full preterist. We mean Jesus came in judgment upon Jerusalem when we comment something like Gary's comment, the full preterist means that it was Jesus second coming when they comment the same comment.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

I am aware, but many preterists would not use his comment in that sense, they would use it in a "coming in judgment" sense, upon apostate Israel, with a future coming in mind. So to use that particular Facebook comment as proof of full preterism does bother me some. If I had commented the exact same thing that Gary commented, I would be accused of full preterism by you, however I am not full preterist, my belief is that Jesus came in judgment just as he said, and yet he will come again as 1 Thess 4 says he will. So Garys comment in and of itself is not proof of full preterism. This is what bothered me some.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson @DaMadMattster How do you square that with Peter's statement that "these are those days"?

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson @DaMadMattster So there is 2 comings then? Verse 27 is one coming and verse 28 another?

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

I did find it in bad faith to take a comment from facebook to accuse Gary of "full preterism" when that is not what is meant when preterists say that Jesus "came" just as he said he would. We are generally not talking about the second coming, but a coming in Judgement upon Jerusalem. There is a distinction, which you either did not konw, or deliberatly misinterpreted and used as a "gotcha".

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson @DaMadMattster Sorry if I came off huffy, not my intention, but apologies none the less.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

We don't need plural "day of the Lord" texts. You must interpret scripture with scripture. The "day of the Lord" is a day of Judgement, it is not synonymous with his second coming.

At Pentecost, when the Jews assumed that the people were drunk at the pouring out of the Spirit, Peter rebukes them (Acts 2). He then explains what is happening to them, "the people are not drunk, but this is what is spoken of by the prophet Joel! The prophecy is playing out in front of our eyes!" And what prophecy was that? Well, Joel had propheced of the Spirit coming, and a judgement, both quoted by Peter. He quotes "the day of the Lord is great and awesome" (2:20), Peter is telling his audience that this prophecy from Joel is what they were experienceing and will experience! They were in "those days" (Acts 2:18) when the Spirit would be poured out, and great judgement would come. They were in the generation that recieved the Spirit, and they would experince that great day of the Lord! (Acts 2:15-16). This is not something in our future, but something in their time.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

There is no singular "antichrist" in scripture. The word "antichrist" is only found in John's letters, John's audience expected an antichirst, he corrects them and says there are many antichirsts, he defines them as anyone who denies the Father and the Son, the existed then, and that is how THEY were to know that THEY were in the end of the age.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

@Joel7Richardson @DaMadMattster You say we misinterpret "a few". Explain Matt 16:27 and 28. How can you possibly think thats in our future?

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

*sigh. Yeas, he is literally coming again once. But you completely miss the point. When Jesus himself speaks of coming, it is not a literal coming to earth, it is a coming in the same sense as the prophets used that phrase. Read your Bible dude. Did the Lord "come" to Egypt in Isaiah 19:1? Well, not literally, but he "came" in judgment upont them using the armies of the nearby nations. Which is exactly what happened to Jerusalem in 70Ad.

[Mark Janzen @JayEsBe]

Most of the passages speak of his coming in judgment in 70ad. This is determined by audience relevance and time indicators such as "this generation will not pass" or "some will not taste death" or "soon" or "the time is near". A passage that would speak of his "second coming" (as commonly defined) would be 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 at which point is the resurrection of the dead. Revelation 20 describes the church from its inception to its eternal state dwelling with Jesus. Revelation 21 does the same thing.

According to your view, Jesus also comes multiple times. He comes to rapture the church, then he comes again to rule for a thousand years, then the final judgment. This just cannot be supported by scripture unless you completely ignore certain passages. The resurrection occurs at his coming to earth at the end of time, at which point the resurrected people will be judged according to the books of thier deeds, or the book of life (depending on whether they are believers or unbelivers) and then the eternal state. It is all one event.

Isaiah 19:1 clearly shows how "coming" language is used by the prophets, it is judgment language. Did the Lord literally come to earth in Isaiah 19? No, but he "came" in judgment. That is the same language Jesus himself uses throughout the new testament.