Which of these eschatology houses will get washed away suddenly?

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,537
4,827
58
Oregon
✟828,260.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How was Christ's resurrection, that first resurrection, typical of David being made king over Israel?

I'm glad you asked.
The "Thousand years" shows that Christ fulfilled the hopes of the Davidic Monarchy that Christ would fill David's office as King (Luke 1:68-69; Acts 2:30-36; 1 Timothy 1:17; Mark 11:10; ) and restore the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16-17) so that all the gentile nations could join in to the true worship of Jehovah. The 1000 years shows a completed Monarchy instead of the fact that the Monarchy had fallen into ruin in the 500s BC via the Babylonian captivity.

David and Christ being the only 2 Kings in the line that matter, David the type, Christ the antitype, or fulfillment.

Christ fulfilled what all other kings in the line failed to do, thus bringing completion to, and fulfilling the purpose for, the Davidic monarchy, which was the "1000 year reign".

Jesus Christ was, plainly, the first resurrection. This fact forms the basis of St. John's depiction of the tribulation martyr saints becoming full partakers of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20--everything Christ received by his death and resurrection is granted to them. Revelation 20:4-6, therefore, depicts the reality of Pauline theology concerning the identity Christ's followers had "in Him." Paul had taught that the saints were to become partakers of Christ's own reign and victory over death. Paul, with his detailed theology of our baptism into the very death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3-14), taught that the saints had co-resurrection and co-enthronement in the realized resurrection and enthronement of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 20:4-6 is a narrative depiction of the saints' realization of the glorious promise Paul held out for them in his teachings--the saints are depicted as having attained the goal for which they all strove. As Paul taught, their resurrection and reign was "in Christ," and their sufferings and martyrdoms were honored by God with the reward of partaking in Christ's own resurrection, enthronement, and reign. They realized the promise of Paul's teaching that the saints were truly to take part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Truly, on these the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

Again, the idea of a thousand years reign with Israel's Monarchy was an Old Testament hope -- one that was wished for but failed. The hopes of this glorious reign were laid out when Solomon took the throne after David. It was said that Israel would walk in the covenant blessings, and so much so that the Gentiles would come into the covenant (such as the Queen of Sheba's homage to Solomon). However, the "tabernacle of David" began to quickly crumble, and fell into total ruin by the time of the Babylonian exile. This all summarizes an OT type. Now, fast-forward to all the NT typology about Jesus being the TRUE "son of David" who was born as THE MESSIANIC HEIR to David's throne for raising up the Monarchy. This is what Revelation 20 is doing. It is using the Davidic Monarchy typology and applying it to Christ and the martyr-kings who reign in the Christic Monarchy, and it does so in exactly the same typological sense as other types we are more familiar with (Jesus is the "sacrifical lamb," etc). In Revelation 20 we see Jesus and his tribulation-martyr-kings reign; they defeat satan; they bring in the gentiles; and they judge the world. These are all the things hoped for in the OT times, but fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the New Covenant Church. The Church has all dominion with Christ over heaven and earth, satan was defeated, the gentles are now in the covenant, and Christ and the Church are the judges of the whole world.

Amazing LITERAL History.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not according to most futurists.

According to most futurists, terms like "soon, shortly, at hand, nigh at hand, about to take place, in a very little while, without delay, etc..." are either meaningless, or mean the exact opposite of what they say, which essentially renders them meaningless, undecipherable terms that are useless to men.


Let's take the following for example.

Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.


This tells us when it is near, even at the doors. And that being when one has seen that all of these things have been coming to pass. That does not require someone having to be alive when some of these things come to pass. For example, 70 AD. Today one can see that that has already come to pass. One doesn't need to be living only during that time in order to see this. You can clearly see that it has come to pass. I can clearly see that it has. Neither of us were even alive when it initially came to pass, yet we still see that it came to pass. That's pretty much how I think all of these things should be viewed. One of the later events recorded in Matthew 24 is verse 21 and great tribulation. Once we see that has come to pass, we then are getting pretty much at the doors, in relation to Matthew 24:33. Because after that it is then meaning Matthew 24:29 which is also meaning what is recorded per the following in Luke 21.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

And what follows those events in Luke 21? The coming in verse 27. And what follows those events recorded in Matthew 24:29, pertaining to the powers of heaven being shaken? The coming in verse 30. In Luke 21 the coming in verse 27 isn't even remotely anywhere near during the time Luke 21:20 is meaning. The coming in that chapter is meaning after the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled, for one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟203,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for asking.

I concur with:
C.H. Spurgeon On New Heavens and Earth (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354)


As noted previously, The hebrew phrase "heavens and earth" is very often symbolic in scripture and has various uses in both the N.T. and O.T. For example, Jesus said we would know "heavens and earth" had passed when the Law of Moses had been removed (Matthew 5:17-19), which was at AD 70. That's why Mark 13:1-31 about the destruction of the Temple also ties in the removal of "heaven and earth" (Mk 13:31) where only Christ's teaching remains after the Temple is gone. The writer of Hebrews confirms this use of "heavens and earth" by saying that the switch over of the Old Covenant system to the New Covenant System was through and by the shaking of "heavens and earth" (Hebrews 12:18-28).

I understand the passing of Heavens and Earth as it was used by the OT prophets, Jesus and the writer of Hebrews in the Context of God's Judgment Comings. We can see that Jesus (& therefore Peter) didn't mean the physical planet -- rather, it meant the passing away of the Old Covenant World and the planting of the New Covenant Kingdom, which all can agree is a present fulfilled reality that we aren’t still waiting for.

Charles Spurgeon did not hold to Full-Preterism. I have told you this before. Neither did he hold your views on the NHNE.

"Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people."
—Isaiah 65:17-19.

Spurgeon said on Isaiah 65: "THIS PASSAGE, like the rest of Isaiah's closing chapters, will have completest fulfillment in the latter days when Christ shall come, when the whole company of his elect ones shall have been gathered out from the world, when the whole creation shall have been renewed, when new heavens and a new earth shall be the product of the Savior's power, when, for ever and for ever, perfected saints of God shall behold his face, and joy and rejoice in him.”

Revelation 21:1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

He continues: "Astronomers tell us that, within living memory, several starry worlds have burnt out, and vanished out of sight. The apostle Peter has told us that this world also will be destroyed by fire, but it will afterwards be renewed, and a new sky and a new earth will appear after the first firmament and the first earth shall have become extinct. God means that this planet should continue to exist after it has had a new creation, and renewed its youth. The regeneration of his people, their new birth, is a foretaste of what is yet to happen to this whole world of ours. We have the first-fruits of the Spirit, and we groan within ourselves while we wait for the fullness of that new creation. “The first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea,” because the sea is the emblem of separation, and destruction, and unrest. The sea hath her dead which shall be given up. The sea now cannot rest nor be quiet, but all shall be calm and tranquil in the new heaven and the new earth."

Revelation 21:2: "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

He adds: "John saw, in vision, the glorified Church of God coming to dwell on the new earth, descending for a while from heaven to be the very glory of the newly-created world."

Revelation 21:3-4. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Finally: "When there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, and the Church shall be in her new and glorified condition, then there will be no need for all those purifying forces which have been so active here below. There shall be no death, nor sorrow nor crying, nor pain, nor trial of any kind; all shall be happiness for all shall be holiness. And then, as God dwelt of old among his people in the wilderness, and as Jesus Christ, the Word, was made flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, so in that new world shall God reveal himself to his people by a special indwelling and a peculiar nearness."
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟203,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does God approve of countless "at hand" "near" and "soon" statements from the N.T. that always speak of reliable shortness of human time?

And not only does the bible say the events were at hand, it says they would ALL take place in their generation (Matt 24:33-34) and by the time of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22). Christ was to return before the apostles had all died (John 21:21-22; Matthew 16:27-28). The Thessalonians and Philipians would even be preserved in their human bodies unto that time (1 Thess 5:23; Phil 1:6,10).

Preterists seem to overlook what the Lord taught in Matthew 25:14: For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.”

We find parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 19. In Mark’s account we learn: “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch” (Mark 13:34).

In Luke 19:12-13 we read: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.”

As we piece these 3 accounts together we grasp the fulness of the whole parable. Here Christ is speaking of the intra-Advent period. He is talking about the kingdom authority that was delegated to God’s people during the intra-Advent period. These servants were given “authority” and ordered to “Occupy till I come.”

He continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."

Here is a figurative picture of the final judgment that occurs at the all-consummating return of Jesus. This comes after a long protracted period where their service would be accounted.

Jesus taught us that the gap between His first and second comings would be so long it would result in the scoffing of the ungodly. Diligence and patience would be required from the redeemed.

When you examine the record of each parallel you will see that the common it in the glorious climatic second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is when the general resurrection is. That is when the general judgment is. These are all related to the final event.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Why in places in the New Testament does it present the coming of the Lord as “at hand,” “near” or coming “quickly” or “shortly” while in other places it is presented as “after a long time”? In fact, the duration of the intra-Advent period is so long that the religious cynics mock the reality and realization of the second coming. Jesus details their contempt in Matthew 24:48: My lord delayeth his coming.” Peter similarly records their derision: “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Clearly, the wait was long in human terms! Clearly, it did not occur in a short time in human terms! The supposed delay causes the “fellowservants” in the parable of Christ to carelessly” eat and drink with the drunken.”

Jesus continues in Mark 13:35–37: “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”

Jesus said in the other parallel passage in Luke 19:15: “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.”

We didn’t see the reward of the righteous and the reward of the wicked. This is a picture of Judgment Day. Jesus says of the hypocrite in Luke 19:23, 26-27: “Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? … For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

We are constantly exhorted through the teaching of Christ and the New Testament writers to “watch” and be “ready” for Jesus’ climatic return when He will raise and judge mankind. It is only then where mankind will be apportioned their just and final reward.

Amils believe that Revelation 20 describes the intra-Advent period. This indeed is a long indefinite period in between the first coming and second coming of Jesus. They believe that thousand years is a long extended figurative period that will be followed by a season of final persecution before the end.

This all negates the Preterist paradigm that is fixated with the coming of Titus in AD70.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟306,036.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The present-tense use of the verb does not imply a date (no matter which century it was to occur in). It's very typical of prophetic language to use present-tense verbs for future events.

I think this maybe your strongest argument. The “prophetic perfect” idiom was a literary style commonly used in prophetic language. In other words, the prophet expresses future events as so certain to occur, they are written as of past fulfilled or presently being fulfilled. But we have to be careful with this application because then how would we ever know the authors intention in relation to time?

however, the apostles believed they had been living in the last day (acts 2:16-17), that the end of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11), that it was the last hour (1 john 2:18), that Christ would in a little while come without delay (Hebrews 10:37), that the end of all things had drawn near (1 Peter 4:7), and the coming of Christ had drawn near (James 5:8-9).


There is not one New Testament verse using the same word, where the word does not clearly mean "it's around the corner",

Agreed


Unlike Pretersists, I do not believe the following happened in A.D 70:

the belief that Matthew 24:1-34 is completely fulfilled is not exclusive to preterism. John Gill, a historic premillennialist believed it was completely fulfilled by 70ad.

In my opinion, we can only decide it means "around the corner" by making that assumption, and once we assume it means "around the corner", we have to assume how soon.

It’s understanding is not taken in a vacuum. As stated above the apostles declared they were living in the last days, in the last hour, at the end of the ages, at the end of all things, and that the Lords coming has drawn near and that it would occur in a little while without delay. Considering these Elements, it makes sense that Christ coming in judgement upon Israel, upon “this generation” was “around the corner”.

The words "at hand" are a far better argument to use than the words you have chosen.

James in chapter 5:8-9, states Jesus coming “has drawn near” in the perfect tense. What you make of that?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟203,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scripture is abundantly clear that the Mosaic Law was still in effect long after the crusifixion and resurrection:

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The writer of Hebrews is clear. The Old covenant, the Law of Moses, was at the time the book was penned several decades AFTER the cross, was in a state of "Growing old" and "Becoming obsolete", but had not yet vanished as you assert.

1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Paul is also clear that in the 50's AD, there were still Jews who were "under the Law", which poses a real problem for folks who would say no one was under the law at that time.

The Temple being destroyed was physical confirmation of the spiritual reality of Jews being excommunicated out of Covenant with God, but it's destruction was punishment metered out by the provisions of the Mosaic Law, (Deuteronomy 18) therefore the Mosaic Law was required to be in effect and functioning, otherwise God is shown to be unjust because He would be metering out a covenantal punishment upon people who are not bound by the terms of the covenant.

Thankfully, God is Just, and the Jews of 66-70AD were under the Law and thus subject to it's consiquences for not following it. The Law ended with the temple's destruction, not at the cross.

The Law of Moses was still a living code being practiced in the Nation and entangling the Church (Gal 4:1-5:5) long after the Veil was torn (and repaired).

The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5).

The Law Covenant was not yet vanished as of the 60s AD (according to Hebrews 8:13) and all followers of Jesus who were not walking according to the Spirit were cursed UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES according to Paul. Those Christ-rejectors were about to be judged by the Law of Moses at AD 70 (Romans 2:12; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Acts 13:40; Acts 17:31; 2 Tim 4:1; Matthew 23:33-38; Luke 21:20-22; 1 Peter 4:17). Millions of those jews who refused to seek the righteousness which is by faith were violently destroyed at AD 66-70, Under the terms of the LAW.

The Old Covenant Laws ALL had to be obeyed note for note by God's people. The curses and blessings of the Law are entirely dependent on the obedience of its subjects to the code. The judgments of the Law are what happened to Israel when the Babylonians destroyed them (read Lamentations). The judgments of the Law are what happened when the Romans destroyed them. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are the judgments of the Law, and could only be metered out to people who are UNDER THE LAW at the time.

Finally, If you Believe the Law is over, you must also believe this is now fulfilled, and Sin has no power today:
1 Cor 15:54-56
"then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up -- to victory; Where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O HADES is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW

Indeed, All those who have a healthy appreciation for the cost of the New Covenant bought by Christ in His blood ought agree.

Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old (gerasko) is ready to vanish away.”

After Christ’s death and the ripping of the curtain in two, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was rendered wholly redundant. Its usefulness was over. It was obsolete. It remaining standing up until AD70 did not mean it had any further earthly purpose, or that the old covenant remained in effect. It was just like a human corpse awaiting burial. It had no vitality, no relevance and no purpose. Once Christ died, the old covenant died. Degeneration immediately set in, just like the decay that kicks in when a human gives up the ghost.

Paul shows us that the old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away after the cross. Of course, anything that is decaying is already dead. From then on it is just rotting and in urgent need of a decent burial.

A corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It has no function. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70. A corpse can still be visible but it is lifeless and has no ability to function. That is what happened to the old covenant between AD30-70.

Even though a corpse may look asleep, it is lifeless. All you have is rotting flesh. Decomposition has set in immediately. It is gradually decaying, and will ultimately vanish away. But that entity has no further earthly use. Its time is up.

Preterists can do their best to beautify this deceased corpse, they can try their best to raise its lifeless carcass from the dead, and they can attribute life to it all they want, but it is all in vain, it is still a dead corpse.

2 Corinthians 3:11: “For if that which is done away (katargeo or rendered entirely idle, useless) was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

As Clement said in his Recognitions (Chapter 64): “For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed.”

There cannot be 2 covenants ongoing at the one time. That is absurd! One terminated the other. There cannot be 2 competing priesthoods. One replaced the other.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the continuation of the old covenant priests. It is quite inconceivable that this defunct priesthood would be needed after the commencement of God's true eternal priesthood. Hebrews 7:19 tells us: “the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises (Hebrews 8:6).

Remember, Hebrews was written in-between the cross and AD70!

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. For you to argue for two competing priesthood underlines the dangers of your teaching.

Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

The priesthood has been changed; and having been changed there was a change triggered in the law (“there is made of necessity a change also of the law”). Whilst the written law is still active, the whole old covenant ceremonial system was superseded by a new better covenant.

The Greek word for “changed” here is metatithemi which actually means transferred or exchanged. This shows that old temporal imperfect priesthood has been exchanged for the new perfect eternal priesthood in Christ. The deficient shadow and type has been replaced by Israel’s eternal high priest the Messiah and will never again be changed, undone or rivaled by a parallel priesthood. It is an eternal transfer of influence. Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath. Those that purport to steal this sacred title enter into the dangerous arena of heresy.

The problem with the Old Testament priestly administration was: it was inadequate. It involved men who by nature were prone to sin and who therefore fell short of what God required of them. Time after time, the high priest failed in God’s requirements through sin or compromise and consequently God judged the whole nation. Corruption eventually took a hold of the office and brought it into complete disrepute. This opened the door to idol worship and apostasy. What is more, with the blight of sin in man came death. This meant the office was continually passed from one to another.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Zao is life
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟203,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Excellent scripture.
Let’s look at the Context of 2 Peter as it relates to Heaven and Earth.
The context is the Flood.
Peter says that the pre flood world consisted of heaven and earth, and that they were destroyed by water and perished.

We know that the LITERAL substance of neither heaven or earth was destroyed, but it was the evil men that were destroyed, God brought "the flood upon the world of the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:5). Peter makes a distinction between the heaven and earth of Noah's day which were destroyed, and the heaven and earth that existed then which were to be destroyed by fire. The literal visible fabric of heaven and earth were the same after the flood as they were before the flood. Demonstrably, The destruction of heaven and earth refers to the civil and religious state, and the men of them.

What was it that really perished in the flood? Look at verse 6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." It was the world that perished, right? Now what does the word "world" mean? It is the orderly arrangement of society, it wasn't the dirt. Now how do you go from an ungodly society that was destroyed to the destruction of the entire universe? The literal earth was not destroyed. What was to be destroyed in Peters passage is the ungodly nation of Israel. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the physical creation will be destroyed.

Notice what God said after the flood of Noah's day in Genesis 8:21.
Genesis 8:21, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Now, folks will say that the Lord destroyed the earth by water one time and He'll destroy it by fire the next time. Is God's promise here to just change his method of destroying everything? Is there comfort in being destroyed by fire instead of water? Or is he promising not to destroy the earth again?

God said the literal heaven (Psalm 148:4-6) and the literal earth (Psalm 104:5) will never pass away. Psalms 78:69, "...the earth which he hath established for ever." In Genesis 8:21, God said he would never again destroy every living thing. God can be trusted, He keeps his word.

The earth abideth for ever" (Ecclesiastes 1:4). And remember Isaiah 9:7, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." If the earth is to be destroyed, then that would be the end of the increase of Christ's government.


Yahweh is depicted as having destroyed the universe when he judged Israel through Babylon (Jeremiah 4:22-30) and did so again when he judged Egypt by Babylon (Ezekiel 32:2-8).
How does the literalist explain away those passages?

The Literalist is in essence calling God a LIAR when he claims God will destroy this present earth in our future and replace it whith a materially different "new" one, because we see above that God promised to NEVER destroy the Literal Earth, and He also promised to "NEVER AGAIN CURSE THE GROUND, and NEVER AGAIN Smite every living thing.

Notice that Christ PROMISES His thiefs coming would befall actuall living, breathing first century peoples:

Revelation 3:3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

What were those at Sardis to think if this in fact did not come to pass for them? That Christ issues empty threats?

This earth will not be eliminated. It will be regenerated at the coming of Jesus. Multiple Scripture supports this. Corruption will not continue forever. Creation will be finally regenerated and freed from the curse at the time man is. This is clearly seen in Romans 8.

Amils believes Christ is coming back to a perfect glorified regenerated earth to reign forever with the suitably attired glorified saints. It will not be sin-cursed, goat-infested, or death-blighted as you argue.

God’s purpose is that the entire creation will be regenerated. That is, the whole universe will be freed from the curse of corruption and degeneration. In intent is to bring a whole new order when He returns that will be marked by righteousness and eternality. A new regenerated creation will welcome a freshly perfected redeemed people. We are therefore looking at universal regeneration.

2 Peter 3:7 also confirms, “the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

The destruction of our current earth coincides with the fiery judgment of the wicked at the Lord’s return. The purpose of this current earth being destroyed by fire at the same time as the wicked is to purge this earth of every vestige of the bondage of corruption and purify it of all sin and unrighteousness. It will indeed be a perfect glorified state. The new earth is a place that is completely liberated from all unrighteousness.

After outlining the awful judgment that will fall upon fallen creation, Peter reassures the believer, Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:13).

Corruption will not continue forever. Creation will be finally regenerated and freed from the curse at the time man is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zao is life
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟203,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does God approve of countless "at hand" "near" and "soon" statements from the N.T. that always speak of reliable shortness of human time?

And not only does the bible say the events were at hand, it says they would ALL take place in their generation (Matt 24:33-34) and by the time of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22). Christ was to return before the apostles had all died (John 21:21-22; Matthew 16:27-28). The Thessalonians and Philipians would even be preserved in their human bodies unto that time (1 Thess 5:23; Phil 1:6,10).

Preterists make much of phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near.” They use these to support their belief that Jesus has already come, the last day has already occurred and that we are now living in the new heavens and new earth.

The mistake they make is that they always interpret these from man’s standpoint and thus get confused as to their meaning. Of course, from man’s outlook these terms would normally suggest that something is just around the corner. But such terms are totally relative. We should always remember, the Bible speaks in God’s time. God’s near, quickly or shortly are completely different from man’s perspective. God’s soon is not always our soon. Our knowledge of biblical truth, our awareness of the context in question, a study of the meaning and usage of the original Greek words, and our ascertaining whether something is being explained from man’s finite viewpoint or God’s eternal perspective, aid us in understanding the time and event in view.

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,323
568
56
Mount Morris
✟126,764.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Now, folks will say that the Lord destroyed the earth by water one time and He'll destroy it by fire the next time. Is God's promise here to just change his method of destroying everything? Is there comfort in being destroyed by fire instead of water? Or is he promising not to destroy the earth again?

God said the literal heaven (Psalm 148:4-6) and the literal earth (Psalm 104:5) will never pass away. Psalms 78:69, "...the earth which he hath established for ever." In Genesis 8:21, God said he would never again destroy every living thing. God can be trusted, He keeps his word.

The earth abideth for ever" (Ecclesiastes 1:4). And remember Isaiah 9:7, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." If the earth is to be destroyed, then that would be the end of the increase of Christ's government.


Yahweh is depicted as having destroyed the universe when he judged Israel through Babylon (Jeremiah 4:22-30) and did so again when he judged Egypt by Babylon (Ezekiel 32:2-8).
How does the literalist explain away those passages?

The Literalist is in essence calling God a LIAR when he claims God will destroy this present earth in our future and replace it whith a materially different "new" one, because we see above that God promised to NEVER destroy the Literal Earth, and He also promised to "NEVER AGAIN CURSE THE GROUND, and NEVER AGAIN Smite every living thing.
Not so fast. The concept of heaven and earth will not pass away. How literal can one be in their symbolism? Every time there is a judgment, a new heaven and earth is declared. That is the symbolism. The universe has nothing to do with it, as this modern universe is just modern symbolic thought. Only heaven and earth exist, since Genesis 1:1. That will never change, and there will always be a heaven and earth. Even if reality changes, still a heavens and earth will remain.

It is interesting that the word of God is what reality is. God declares His Word will never pass away. Yet Words can change and new realities can be the result. What ceases, the ability to have words, or the ability to trust those words?
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Excellent scripture.
Let’s look at the Context of 2 Peter as it relates to Heaven and Earth.
The context is the Flood.
Peter says that the pre flood world consisted of heaven and earth, and that they were destroyed by water and perished.

We know that the LITERAL substance of neither heaven or earth was destroyed, but it was the evil men that were destroyed, God brought "the flood upon the world of the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:5). Peter makes a distinction between the heaven and earth of Noah's day which were destroyed, and the heaven and earth that existed then which were to be destroyed by fire. The literal visible fabric of heaven and earth were the same after the flood as they were before the flood. Demonstrably, The destruction of heaven and earth refers to the civil and religious state, and the men of them.

What was it that really perished in the flood? Look at verse 6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." It was the world that perished, right? Now what does the word "world" mean? It is the orderly arrangement of society, it wasn't the dirt. Now how do you go from an ungodly society that was destroyed to the destruction of the entire universe? The literal earth was not destroyed. What was to be destroyed in Peters passage is the ungodly nation of Israel. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the physical creation will be destroyed.

Notice what God said after the flood of Noah's day in Genesis 8:21.
Genesis 8:21, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Now, folks will say that the Lord destroyed the earth by water one time and He'll destroy it by fire the next time. Is God's promise here to just change his method of destroying everything? Is there comfort in being destroyed by fire instead of water? Or is he promising not to destroy the earth again?

God said the literal heaven (Psalm 148:4-6) and the literal earth (Psalm 104:5) will never pass away. Psalms 78:69, "...the earth which he hath established for ever." In Genesis 8:21, God said he would never again destroy every living thing. God can be trusted, He keeps his word.

The earth abideth for ever" (Ecclesiastes 1:4). And remember Isaiah 9:7, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." If the earth is to be destroyed, then that would be the end of the increase of Christ's government.



The Literalist is in essence calling God a LIAR when he claims God will destroy this present earth in our future and replace it whith a materially different "new" one, because we see above that God promised to NEVER destroy the Literal Earth, and He also promised to "NEVER AGAIN CURSE THE GROUND, and NEVER AGAIN Smite every living thing.


I absolutely agree with pretty much everything you said via this portion. And the interesting thing about it, the literalists you are referring to here are meaning Amils in a lot of cases.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,992
918
Africa
Visit site
✟188,200.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I absolutely agree with pretty much everything you said via this portion. And the interesting thing about it, the literalists you are referring to here are meaning Amils in a lot of cases.
Whether the burning up that Peter is talking about is literal or not, both you and I and the Amillennialists on this board are on the same page and in the same church. It takes place at the close of this Age and is followed by the NHNE. That's not what the person you are agreeing with in your post above is saying, regardless of how long his post is telling us things that don't change anything with regard to when the destruction Peter speaks about is to come. I see the Preterists are good at making long, long posts that are actually red herrings.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,537
4,827
58
Oregon
✟828,260.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let's take the following for example.

Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.This tells us when it is near, even at the doors. And that being when one has seen that all of these things have been coming to pass.

Great Example.
I would assert James was well aware of this Statement of Jesus, wouldn't you?

And, in being aware that Jesus said it would only be "near and at the doors" AFTER all the signs were seen, James went ahead and wrote this a few decades later:

James 5:8-9
8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. 9 Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

James KNEW Christ's coming could only be "near and at the door" AFTER all the sings had been seen.

So, we have three choices.
Either, 1) James saw all the signs, or 2) James was mistaken, or 3) James was Lying.

Which of these three options are you most comfortable with?

Most futurists are forced to assert a 4th option of course, namely that "Near and at the doors" doesn't mean what it says, and instead means exactly the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not what the person you are agreeing with in your post above is saying, regardless of his long his post is telling us things that don't change anything with regard to when the destruction Peter speaks about is to come. I see the Preterists are good at making long, long posts that are actually red herrings.


I realize the timing of when he thinks that takes place is not the timing of when you or I or other Amils think that takes place. I was not agreeing with him about the timing of this, I was agreeing with him about the literalness of this, that it's not meaning in the literal sense regardless when it is meaning. This earth is not literally going to go up in flames once Christ returns. During Noah's flood no one was spared except for those and the animals aboard the ark. If this planet literally goes up in flames when Christ returns, there goes the animal kingdom, it will no longer exist. Infants, children up to a certain age, etc, will all be burned to death because if God didn't spare them during Noah's flood, why would He spare them during this judgment when the entire earth is allegedly literally engulfed in fire? And on top of that, if being drowned to death wasn't bad enough, being burned to death would be even better?
 
Upvote 0

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,992
918
Africa
Visit site
✟188,200.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I realize the timing of when he thinks that takes place is not the timing of when you or I or other Amils think that takes place. I was not agreeing with him about the timing of this, I was agreeing with him about the literalness of this, that it's not meaning in the literal sense regardless when it is meaning. This earth is not literally going to go up in flames once Christ returns. During Noah's flood no one was spared except for those and the animals aboard the ark. If this planet literally goes up in flames when Christ returns, there goes the animal kingdom, it will no longer exist. Infants, children up to a certain age, etc, will all be burned to death because if God didn't spare them during Noah's flood, why would He spare them during this judgment when the entire earth is allegedly literally engulfed in fire? And on top of that, if being drowned to death wasn't bad enough, being burned to death would be even better?
I'd rather leave this up to Jesus. This is why:-

1. The imagery in those verses in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is not used anywhere else in scripture where metaphor or a combination of metaphor and hyperbole is used.

2. I question in my mind IF maybe "the heavens passing away with a rushing noise" (2 Peter 3:10) is referring to the same thing mentioned in Revelation 6:14 (where "the heaven departed like a scroll when it is rolled together"),

which when spoken of in Revelation 6:14 I believe is possibly a metaphor for the Spirit of God withdrawing from the earth the way He did the day the flood came in the days of Noah ("My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years") Genesis 6:3, which words God spoke 120 years before the flood came upon the earth.

But what I said above is (to me) a long shot (that Peter's statement could be saying what Revelation 6:14 is talking about), because Peter's wording is quite unlike the type of metaphor used anywhere else in scripture (which by now I always easily recognize as metaphor when it is metaphor).

3. Peter's statement sounds literal to me, i.e it comes across as literal, rather than symbolic or metaphoric.

So therefore I'd rather leave this up to Jesus, because IMO until the time comes, neither Premils nor Amils will know for sure whether Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:10-12 are meant literally, or symbolically for the burning up of the works of sinful man and his kingdom of darkness.

It comes across as literal to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,537
4,827
58
Oregon
✟828,260.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The mistake they make is that they always interpret these from man’s standpoint and thus get confused as to their meaning. Of course, from man’s outlook these terms would normally suggest that something is just around the corner. But such terms are totally relative. We should always remember, the Bible speaks in God’s time. God’s near, quickly or shortly are completely different from man’s perspective. God’s soon is not always our soon.

So when Jesus, who is God, said:
"33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, [even] at the doors.

He meant "nigh and at the doors" as God Views time, not as Man does?

So essentially, if we take your claim to be true, Jesus, in this verse is saying, "even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, [even] at the doors the way God views time, so ye also, when you see all thise things it could still thousands of years away still for ye".

Really?

This notion that God can say to men "Tomorrow I will do X" then wait 1000 years "to Do X" (Because To God 1000 years is Tomorrow) and still be true to His word, is perposterous.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Excellent scripture.
Let’s look at the Context of 2 Peter as it relates to Heaven and Earth.
The context is the Flood.
Peter says that the pre flood world consisted of heaven and earth, and that they were destroyed by water and perished.

We know that the LITERAL substance of neither heaven or earth was destroyed, but it was the evil men that were destroyed, God brought "the flood upon the world of the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:5). Peter makes a distinction between the heaven and earth of Noah's day which were destroyed, and the heaven and earth that existed then which were to be destroyed by fire. The literal visible fabric of heaven and earth were the same after the flood as they were before the flood. Demonstrably, The destruction of heaven and earth refers to the civil and religious state, and the men of them.

What was it that really perished in the flood? Look at verse 6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." It was the world that perished, right? Now what does the word "world" mean? It is the orderly arrangement of society, it wasn't the dirt. Now how do you go from an ungodly society that was destroyed to the destruction of the entire universe? The literal earth was not destroyed. What was to be destroyed in Peters passage is the ungodly nation of Israel. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the physical creation will be destroyed.

Notice what God said after the flood of Noah's day in Genesis 8:21.
Genesis 8:21, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Now, folks will say that the Lord destroyed the earth by water one time and He'll destroy it by fire the next time. Is God's promise here to just change his method of destroying everything? Is there comfort in being destroyed by fire instead of water? Or is he promising not to destroy the earth again?
Why are you quoting Genesis 8:21 but neglecting to quote the verse which shows the context of Genesis 8:21? That was awfully convenient of you to not quote this verse as well:

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

This verse shows that the context of Genesis 8:21 is that God would never destroy the earth again with a flood and not that He would never destroy the earth again at all.

Also, it is very clear that 2 Peter 3 should be taken literally. After describing the global destruction caused by the flood waters in 2 Peter 3:5-6 Peter then said in verse 7: "the heavens and the earth, which are now, BY THE SAME WORD are kept in store, reserved unto fire". So, he was comparing the scope (global) and type (physical) of destruction of the flood directly to future destruction that will be caused by fire. It couldn't be more clear. That the destruction of the heavens and earth is described figuratively at times in the Old Testament is irrelevant, so don't waste your time quoting any of those passages to me. Context is what matters and you're completely missing the context of 2 Peter 3 and Genesis 8:21.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'd rather leave this up to Jesus. This is why:-

1. The imagery in those verses in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is not used anywhere else in scripture where metaphor or a combination of metaphor and hyperbole is used.

2. I question in my mind IF maybe "the heavens passing away with a rushing noise" (2 Peter 3:10) is referring to the same thing mentioned in Revelation 6:14 (where "the heaven departed like a scroll when it is rolled together"),

which when spoken of in Revelation 6:14 I believe is possibly a metaphor for the Spirit of God withdrawing from the earth the way He did the day the flood came in the days of Noah ("My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years") Genesis 6:3, which words God spoke 120 years before the flood came upon the earth.

But what I said above is (to me) a long shot (that Peter's statement could be saying what Revelation 6:14 is talking about), because Peter's wording is quite unlike the type of metaphor used anywhere else in scripture (which by now I always easily recognize as metaphor when it is metaphor).

3. Peter's statement sounds literal to me, i.e it comes across as literal, rather than symbolic or metaphoric.

So therefore I'd rather leave this up to Jesus, because IMO until the time comes, neither Premils nor Amils will know for sure whether Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:10-12 are meant literally, or symbolically for the burning up of the works of sinful man and his kingdom of darkness.

It comes across as literal to me.
I agree. Think about about it this way. If 2 Peter 3:7 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 are not speaking of literal fire then why in verse 7 did Peter compare the future fiery destruction to the flood in Noah's day? That would mean he was inexplicably comparing figurative fire to literal water. I don't believe that makes any sense.

I believe he was clearly comparing things of the same type (physical water and fire) as well as comparing the scope of the destruction of the flood directly to the scope of the future fiery destruction that will occur on the day of the Lord.

One other thing to think about as it relates to this. How else will all the wicked and wicked things on the earth be removed if they're not burned up? Surely, all of the wicked and all wicked things will be removed from the earth, right? God certainly isn't going to allow wickedness to exist on the earth forever. Seems like burning it all up would be a sensical way for Him to remove wickedness from the earth forever. How else?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟203,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So when Jesus, who is God, said:
"33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, [even] at the doors.

He meant "nigh and at the doors" as God Views time, not as Man does?

So essentially, if we take your claim to be true, Jesus, in this verse is saying, "even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, [even] at the doors the way God views time, so ye also, when you see all thise things it could still thousands of years away still for ye".

Really?

This notion that God can say to men "Tomorrow I will do X" then wait 1000 years "to Do X" (Because To God 1000 years is Tomorrow) and still be true to His word, is perposterous.

I see no difficulty with that. Most Amils believe Jesus is divine.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Zao is life
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,992
918
Africa
Visit site
✟188,200.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So when Jesus, who is God, said:
"33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, [even] at the doors.

He meant "nigh and at the doors" as God Views time, not as Man does?

So essentially, if we take your claim to be true, Jesus, in this verse is saying, "even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, [even] at the doors the way God views time, so ye also, when you see all thise things it could still thousands of years away still for ye".

Really?

This notion that God can say to men "Tomorrow I will do X" then wait 1000 years "to Do X" (Because To God 1000 years is Tomorrow) and still be true to His word, is perposterous.
copy @sovereigngrace

You flatly ignore the fact that in Matthew 24 the whole passage is joined together from verse Matthew 24:9 onward by the words (translated from the Greek words correctly) "and", "but", "wherefore/therefore", "because", "for" etc,

which makes it absolutely impossible for the reader who is being intellectually honest with himself to view Matthew 24:9 and the verses following, as talking about the same tribulation of the Jews that Luke is talking about clearly and unambiguously in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke uses the words distress and wrath, making it 100% clear that the distress of the people he is talking about is coming upon them as a result of God's wrath coming upon them. Luke does not even use the word tribulation in those verses.

But Matthew opens his record of the Lord's Olivet Discourse by talking about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9, and joining the entire passage together using the words I mentioned above, so that the context of Matthew 24:32-39 is the tribulation to be experienced by the disciples of Jesus at the time of the coming of the Son of Man.

Just as the reader of Luke 21:20-24, knowing the history, has to be totally intellectually dishonest with himself in order to assume that Luke is talking about any other group other than the Jews who would be around in Judea and Jerusalem in A.D 70, so the reader of Matthew 24:9-39 has to be totally intellectually dishonest with himself in order to assume that Matthew's record of the Olivet Discourse is talking about any other group other than the disciples of Jesus that were to face the tribulation being mentioned in Matthew's record of the Olivet Discourse.
 
Upvote 0