Which of these eschatology houses will get washed away suddenly?

[claninja]

Your arguments are self-defeating. Would any non-Extreme Preterist who had no theological agenda to push consider 40 years from a human perspective “a little while” and “without delay”? Of course not. That is a long time in human terms. Imagine telling a young man of 21 years that he will get his wife in “a little while” and “without delay.” Then at 61 she finally arrives. Imagine a boss telling an employee that they will be getting a big rise in “a little while” and “without delay” and it not arriving for another 40 years. That would be absurd in human terms! 40 years is a very long time from a human perspective. For Extreme Preterists to deny this is denying reality!

I completely agree 40 years is a long time. I never claimed that 40 years = a little while and “without delay” and “has drawn near”

Hebrews 10:37 was not written in 30ad. Consensus puts it around 64-69ad. So yes, the destruction of Jerusalem was literally “in a little while” and “without delay” from the time that this passage was written.

Your argument made me chuckle. You claim mine is self defeating, then go on to defeat your own argument with earthly examples . I absolutely agree it would be ridiculous for a boss to promise a raise “in a little while” and then not arrive for 40 years! But apparently for you it’s not ridiculous for the author of Hebrews to claim “in a little while” Christ will come, and then claim 2,000 years is reasonable. It’s super ironic.

You did not even address my main point in regard to Hebrews 10:36–37. Christians require patience in waiting for the Lord’s return. That is because it would take time!

40 years is a long time to be patient, as even you agreed.

First of all: you didn't even address my argument. Denial means nothing. As for your illustration: I do not have a clue what you're talking about.

because your argument doesn’t apply to me, a PARTIAL preterist. I believe the imminent time statements refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, not the yet still to come future coming of Christ.

Every time your position is exposed and refuted you have to run to some commentator and hide behind (or misrepresent and misapply) their comments. This is a common trait with Extreme Preterists. Parousia70 does this often.

it’s simply to demonstrate that the belief of the fulfillment of Matthew 24:1-34 is not exclusive to preterism as you falsely propagate.

The reality is: the end was drawing nigh for James as it is for us. Not a difficult concept to grasp if you have no false theological paradigm to justify.

had drawn near. It’s perfect tense, not present tense.

This is all a big distraction away from what we were talking about and a smokescreen to conceal the facts. I refer you back to my last post which rebuts your reasoning.

what? How is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem a smoke screen? Does not the olivet discourse nor the passages leading up to it talk about the destruction?

you seem unable to respond, and instead duck the issue with a generic response and no explanation.

I do not know what you're trying to say here. It is as clear as mud.

did God literally descend from heaven on clouds when David’s enemies were defeated? If so what eyewitness accounts do we have of this?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I completely agree 40 years is a long time. I never claimed that 40 years = a little while and “without delay” and “has drawn near”

Hebrews 10:37 was not written in 30ad. Consensus puts it around 64-69ad. So yes, the destruction of Jerusalem was literally “in a little while” and “without delay” from the time that this passage was written.

Your argument made me chuckle. You claim mine is self defeating, then go on to defeat your own argument with earthly examples . I absolutely agree it would be ridiculous for a boss to promise a raise “in a little while” and then not arrive for 40 years! But apparently for you it’s not ridiculous for the author of Hebrews to claim “in a little while” Christ will come, and then claim 2,000 years is reasonable. It’s super ironic.




40 years is a long time to be patient, as even you agreed.




because your argument doesn’t apply to me, a PARTIAL preterist. I believe the imminent time statements refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, not the yet still to come future coming of Christ.




it’s simply to demonstrate that the belief of the fulfillment of Matthew 24:1-34 is not exclusive to preterism as you falsely propagate.




had drawn near. It’s perfect tense, not present tense.




what? How is taking about the destruction of Jerusalem a smoke screen? Does not the olivet discourse nor the passages leading up to it talk about the destruction?

you seem unable to respond, and instead duck the issue with a generic response and no explanation.



did God literally descend from heaven on clouds when David’s enemies were defeated? If so what eyewitness accounts do we have of this?

I am comparing the earthly perspective to the heavenly perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

We just need to look at what the Lord taught in Matthew 25:14, 19-30: “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.”

Here Christ is speaking of the intra-Advent period.

And continues, “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."

Finally, "Then he which had received the one talent came … His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Here again, both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents!!! When? At Christ’s coming.

We should remember, the faithful in the Old Testament had to wait much longer time than us (living in this intra-Advent period), to see the realization of the promised Messiah. It took thousands of years to prepare the world for God’s Son. In Luke 2:25-38, Simeon (who “was just and devout”) and Anna (a prophetess) were patiently and faithfully “waiting for the consolation of Israel.” The same is the case with Christ’s glorious climactic return.

Preterists avoid this passage as it totally negates their paradigm. They have no answer to it!

 

[claninja]

I am comparing the earthly perspective to the heavenly perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

And the one talking here is the author of Hebrews, who lived in human time.

The original passage quoted by the author of Hebrews is found in Habakkuk. Here we see the original passage is about a vision of the end times. Habakkuk tells his audience to wait for him that does tarry. And that when he does come, he will not tarry. This demonstrates that God can, in fact, relate to us when things are far away in human understanding, contrary to your argument.

Habakkuk 2:3 (LXX) For the vision [is] yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry.

Now, its very important to notice that the author of Hebrews changes “though he should tarry” to “a little while”. This demonstrates that 600-700 year old prophecy was no longer tarrying, but would occur instead in a “little while” with regards to the 1st century audience. For Christ did come in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, literally very soon after this passage was written:

Hebrews 10:37 For, “In just a little while,
He who is coming will come and will not delay.

again, this position on Hebrews 10:37 is not exclusive to preterists:

Gills exposition
“For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come,.... That the person spoken of is the Lord Jesus Christ, is evident from the prophecy in Habakkuk 2:3 here referred to, and from the character of him that is to come, Matthew 11:3 and from parallel places, James 5:7and this is to be understood, not of his coming in the flesh, for he was come in the flesh already; though Habakkuk indeed refers to his first coming, yet not to that only, but including his second coming also; but of his coming in his kingdom and power to destroy Jerusalem, and take vengeance on the Jews, for their rejection of him”

Barnes notes on the Bible
“For yet a little while - There seems to be an allusion here to what the Saviour himself said, "A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again, a little while and ye shall see me;" John 16:16. Or more probably it may be to Habakkuk 2:3. "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not he: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." The idea which the apostle means to convey evidently is, that the time of their deliverance from their trials was not far remote.

And he that shall come will come - The reference here is, doubtless, to the Messiah. But what "coming" of his is referred to here, is more uncertain. Most probably the idea is, that the Messiah who was coming to destroy Jerusalem, and to overthrow the Jewish power Matthew 24, would soon do this. In this way he would put a period to their persecutions and trials, as the power of the Jewish people to afflict them would be at an end. “

Cambridge
“In Matthew 24:34our Lord has said, “This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled;” and by the time that this Epistle was written few still survived of the generation which had seen our Lord. Hence, Christians felt sure that Christ’s coming was very near, though it is probable that they did not realise that it would consist in the close of the Old Dispensation, and not as yet in the End of the World.”

Preterists avoid this passage as it totally negates their paradigm. They have no answer to it!

you seem to be talking about the final judgment. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about Christ coming in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, and arguing that the literal time statements of “soon” and “at hand” refer to that event, not a future world wide judgement. Please brush up on the differences between full and partial preterism in order to prevent straw man arguments.

 

[sovereigngrace]

And the one talking here is the author of Hebrews, who lived in human time.

The original passage quoted by the author of Hebrews is found in Habakkuk. Here we see the original passage is about a vision of the end times. Habakkuk tells his audience to wait for him that does tarry. And that when he does come, he will not tarry. This demonstrates that God can, in fact, relate to us when things are far away in human understanding, contrary to your argument.

Habakkuk 2:3 (LXX) For the vision [is] yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry.

Now, its very important to notice that the author of Hebrews changes “though he should tarry” to “a little while”. This demonstrates that 600-700 year old prophecy was no longer tarrying, but would occur instead in a “little while” with regards to the 1st century audience. For Christ did come in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, literally very soon after this passage was written:

Hebrews 10:37 For, “In just a little while,
He who is coming will come and will not delay.

again, this position on Hebrews 10:37 is not exclusive to preterists:

Gills exposition
“For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come,.... That the person spoken of is the Lord Jesus Christ, is evident from the prophecy in Habakkuk 2:3 here referred to, and from the character of him that is to come, Matthew 11:3 and from parallel places, James 5:7and this is to be understood, not of his coming in the flesh, for he was come in the flesh already; though Habakkuk indeed refers to his first coming, yet not to that only, but including his second coming also; but of his coming in his kingdom and power to destroy Jerusalem, and take vengeance on the Jews, for their rejection of him”

Barnes notes on the Bible
“For yet a little while - There seems to be an allusion here to what the Saviour himself said, "A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again, a little while and ye shall see me;" John 16:16. Or more probably it may be to Habakkuk 2:3. "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not he: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." The idea which the apostle means to convey evidently is, that the time of their deliverance from their trials was not far remote.

And he that shall come will come - The reference here is, doubtless, to the Messiah. But what "coming" of his is referred to here, is more uncertain. Most probably the idea is, that the Messiah who was coming to destroy Jerusalem, and to overthrow the Jewish power Matthew 24, would soon do this. In this way he would put a period to their persecutions and trials, as the power of the Jewish people to afflict them would be at an end. “

Cambridge
“In Matthew 24:34our Lord has said, “This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled;” and by the time that this Epistle was written few still survived of the generation which had seen our Lord. Hence, Christians felt sure that Christ’s coming was very near, though it is probable that they did not realise that it would consist in the close of the Old Dispensation, and not as yet in the End of the World.”




you seem to be talking about the final judgment. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about Christ coming in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, and arguing that the literal time statements of “soon” and “at hand” refer to that event, not a future world wide judgement. Please brush up on the differences between full and partial preterism in order to prevent straw man arguments.

I never read all your commentators, so I do not know why you rely upon them instead of supporting Scripture. I find this a common Preterist trait. It is as if you have no Scripture to support your claims.

Hebrews 10:36–37 was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is speaking of the impending return of Jesus!

You have been cherry-picking Scriptures for long enough. Now it is time to stop avoiding the following:

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.

 

[parousia70]

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.

Yet no one who holds this view can explain the benefit of holding it for the Christians of History.

How did the Christian form the 1500's, for example, benefit from "watching" and "Being ready" for that event that His Christain neighbor who Didn't "watch and be ready" for it, didn't benefit from?

They Both Died as repentant Human beings, Saved by the Blood of the Lamb, so how did one who died holding what ended up being a false expectation, benefit over the other who held no such false belief?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yet no one who holds this view can explain the benefit of holding it for the Christians of History.

How did the Christian form the 1500's, for example, benefit from "watching" and "Being ready" for that event that His Christain neighbor who Didn't "watch and be ready" for it, didn't benefit from?

They Both Died as repentant Human beings, Saved by the Blood of the Lamb, so how did one who died holding what ended up being a false expectation, benefit over the other who held no such false belief?

Address the biblical evidence and stop the avoidance.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yet no one who holds this view can explain the benefit of holding it for the Christians of History.

How did the Christian form the 1500's, for example, benefit from "watching" and "Being ready" for that event that His Christain neighbor who Didn't "watch and be ready" for it, didn't benefit from?

They Both Died as repentant Human beings, Saved by the Blood of the Lamb, so how did one who died holding what ended up being a false expectation, benefit over the other who held no such false belief?

The benefits for all Christians to watch and be ready for His second coming is that it results in being more godly than we would be without watching and being ready. And it helps keep us from being deceived and falling away. If someone dies before He comes that doesn't mean they didn't benefit from watching and being ready because it resulted in their behavior being more godly than it would have been otherwise. It makes no sense to think that someone can't benefit from watching and being ready unless He actually comes in that person's lifetime.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

If you read this passage it should be clear that the whole point of watching and being ready is to encourage Christians to be spiritually aware of what is going on so that we don't fall and face the wrath of God and so that we put "on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation". How exactly would this not be beneficial to a Christian just because Christ didn't come in his or her lifetime? Of course it would be beneficial because it results in being more aware of one's spiritual condition and it affects their behavior in a positive way if they are careful to watch and be sober spiritually.

Peter taught the same thing regarding this.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

For any Christian at any time, watching and being ready for His return is beneficial. It results in "holy conversation and godliness". It results in being "found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" and results in eternal "salvation". It also helps people to beware of being "led away with the error of the wicked" that can cause you to "fall from your own steadfastness". Another benefit is that it can help you to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". This is true regardless of whether He comes in your lifetime or not.

Your idea that He had to come in the lifetimes of Paul and Peter's readers or else they were lying is ridiculous. The idea is that He could potentially come in the lifetime of any Christian, so we all should always be watching and ready for His return.

 

[claninja]

I never read all your commentators, so I do not know why you rely upon them instead of supporting Scripture. I find this a common Preterist trait. It is as if you have no Scripture to support your claims.

The commentators are not there to “prove” my position right. They are simply there to demonstrate your false propagation that only preterists believe Matthew 24:1-34 fulfilled, and your complete misunderstanding of partial preterism vs full preterism.

Hebrews 10:36–37 was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is speaking of the impending return of Jesus!

absolutely agree that Hebrews 10:36-37 is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe the author of Hebrews was inspired, by the Holy Spirit, to change “though he will tarry, wait for him” to “in a little while”. If the author of Hebrews believed it to be thousands of years or a literal long time, he could have simply left the quotation as originally written. BUT, he didn’t. He changed from tarrying to in a little while, this clearly demonstrating people can tell literal time.

even as you said earlier. If a boss told his employee that “in a little while” he would receive a raise, but the employee didn’t receive a raise until 40 years later, that would be ridiculous.

in Hebrews, it is the author telling his audience that Christ would come “ in a little while”.

You have been cherry-picking Scriptures for long enough. Now it is time to stop avoiding the following:

Ah, so when I use a few verses that support my position, “it’s cherry picking”. But when you do it’s not…… so I guess cherry picking is only ok when you do it….

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.”

again, this argument makes ZERO sense. If Jesus and the apostles taught that it would be thousands of years or a literal long time before his coming, why would scoffers scoff “where is his coming?”?

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

Even you agreed “40 years is a long time”

The belief that the enemies who Jesus slayed in the parable of the Mina’s refers to The coming of Christ in judgement upon apostate Israel 40 years later in 66-70ad, is not exclusive to preterism.

luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Jamieson
Bring hither, &c.—(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.

Barnes
But those mine enemies - By the punishment of those who would not that he should reign over them is denoted the ruin that was to come upon the Jewish nation for rejecting the Messiah, and also upon all sinners for not receiving him as their king.

Gills exposition
bring hither, and slay them before me; which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies;

Now let’s turn our attention back to the “at hand” statements.

immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem, the son of man comes on the clouds and sends his angles to gather the elect. Again, the belief that this is fulfilled is not exclusive to preterism, see gills exposition.

Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

such is consistent with the COMING of the vineyard owner to destroy the wicked tenants and give the kingdom to those producing its fruit:

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.

such is consistent with the king destroying the original wedding guests and their city and the sending servants to GATHER others from all over into the wedding feast. And let me add, i am not saying the wedding hall is full. I believe that is still future.

Matthew 22:7-10 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

So, had the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, to destroy Jerusalem and begin to gather the elect into the wedding feast, drawn near to James when he wrote his epistle (62-69ad) ? YES

so, was the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, to destroy Jerusalem and begin gathering the elect into the wedding feast, in a little while and without delay when Hebrews was written (64-69ad)? YES

 

[parousia70]

For any Christian at any time, watching and being ready for His return is beneficial. It results in "holy conversation and godliness". It results in being "found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" and results in eternal "salvation". It also helps people to beware of being "led away with the error of the wicked" that can cause you to "fall from your own steadfastness". Another benefit is that it can help you to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". This is true regardless of whether He comes in your lifetime or not.

I know I'm not guaranteed my next breath. Such is FAR more motivating, encouraging and beneficial for me to engage my life in "holy conversation and godliness". It results in me being "found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" and results in eternal "salvation". It also helps me to beware of being "led away with the error of the wicked" that can cause me to "fall from my own steadfastness". Another benefit of knowing I'm not guaranteed my next breath is that it can help me to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ".

Knowing FOR A FACT that I'm not guaranteed my next breath is FAR more motivating in these areas for me than adhearing to an expectation of an event NOT guaranteed to befall me in my lifetime, just as it did NOT befall millennia of Christians before me who held such a false expectation but today are no longer breathing. Conversely, "NOT breathing again" IS guaranteed to befall me in my lifetime, as it IS guaranteed for ALL of us. We ALL have a sure and certain appointment with "Not breathing again" (Hebrews 9:27)

Knowing I'm not guaranteed my next breath leaves me no wiggle room to misbehave, the way expecting a future terminus somewhere down the road does... I'll always have a chance tomorrow to repent of the sins I commit today if I eschew the understanding of the potential of my INSTANT mortality in favor of a "sometime down the road, with warning signs I'll be able to recognize and thus prepare for" expectation.

Again, if there truly WAS a tangible benefit for ALL Christains of ALL time to be WATCHING for His coming, then one should be able to demonstrate how that watching benefited the watching Christian from the 1500's in a way that did NOT benefit His Christian neighbor who didn't watch, yet lived his life righteously knowing he was not guaranteed his next breath.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I know I'm not guaranteed my next breath. Such is FAR more motivating, encouraging and beneficial for me to engage my life in "holy conversation and godliness". It results in me being "found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" and results in eternal "salvation". It also helps me to beware of being "led away with the error of the wicked" that can cause me to "fall from my own steadfastness". Another benefit of knowing I'm not guaranteed my next breath is that it can help me to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ".

Knowing FOR A FACT that I'm not guaranteed my next breath is FAR more motivating in these areas for me than adhearing to an expectation of an event NOT guaranteed to befall me in my lifetime, just as it did NOT befall millennia of Christians before me who held such a false expectation but today are no longer breathing. Conversely, "NOT breathing again" IS guaranteed to befall me in my lifetime, as it IS guaranteed for ALL of us. We ALL have a sure and certain appointment with "Not breathing again" (Hebrews 9:27)

Knowing I'm not guaranteed my next breath leaves me no wiggle room to misbehave, the way expecting a future terminus somewhere down the road does... I'll always have a chance tomorrow to repent of the sins I commit today if I eschew the understanding of the potential of my INSTANT mortality in favor of a "sometime down the road, with warning signs I'll be able to recognize and thus prepare for" expectation.

Yes, knowing that our lifetimes are limited should provide the same motivations that Paul and Peter talked about in relation to watching and being ready for His return. No kidding. So?

Again, if there truly WAS a tangible benefit for ALL Christains of ALL time to be WATCHING for His coming, then one should be able to demonstrate how that watching benefited the watching Christian form the 1500's in a way that did NOT benefit His Christian neighbor who didn't watch, yet lived his life righteously knowing he was not guaranteed his next breath.

I don't need to demonstrate anything just because you demand it. If a Christian in the 1500s was watching and getting themselves ready for Christ's return and it resulted in them living more godly lives than they would have otherwise, then how did that not benefit them? Obviously, it would have.

Just because one can find the same motivation by thinking about the fact that they could die any time doesn't negate the fact that anticipating His return when He will come to judge all people also provides motivation to live a godly life.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The commentators are not there to “prove” my position right. They are simply there to demonstrate your false propagation that only preterists believe Matthew 24:1-34 fulfilled, and your complete misunderstanding of partial preterism vs full preterism.




absolutely agree that Hebrews 10:36-37 is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe the author of Hebrews was inspired, by the Holy Spirit, to change “though he will tarry, wait for him” to “in a little while”. If the author of Hebrews believed it to be thousands of years or a literal long time, he could have simply left the quotation as originally written. BUT, he didn’t. He changed from tarrying to in a little while, this clearly demonstrating people can tell literal time.

even as you said earlier. If a boss told his employee that “in a little while” he would receive a raise, but the employee didn’t receive a raise until 40 years later, that would be ridiculous.

in Hebrews, it is the author telling his audience that Christ would come “ in a little while”.




Ah, so when I use a few verses that support my position, “it’s cherry picking”. But when you do it’s not…… so I guess cherry picking is only ok when you do it….




again, this argument makes ZERO sense. If Jesus and the apostles taught that it would be thousands of years or a literal long time before his coming, why would scoffers scoff “where is his coming?”?




Even you agreed “40 years is a long time”

The belief that the enemies who Jesus slayed in the parable of the Mina’s refers to The coming of Christ in judgement upon apostate Israel 40 years later in 66-70ad, is not exclusive to preterism.

luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Jamieson
Bring hither, &c.—(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.

Barnes
But those mine enemies - By the punishment of those who would not that he should reign over them is denoted the ruin that was to come upon the Jewish nation for rejecting the Messiah, and also upon all sinners for not receiving him as their king.

Gills exposition
bring hither, and slay them before me; which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies;

Now let’s turn our attention back to the “at hand” statements.

immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem, the son of man comes on the clouds and sends his angles to gather the elect. Again, the belief that this is fulfilled is not exclusive to preterism, see gills exposition.

Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

such is consistent with the COMING of the vineyard owner to destroy the wicked tenants and give the kingdom to those producing its fruit:

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.

such is consistent with the king destroying the original wedding guests and their city and the sending servants to GATHER others from all over into the wedding feast. And let me add, i am not saying the wedding hall is full. I believe that is still future.

Matthew 22:7-10 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

So, had the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, to destroy Jerusalem and begin to gather the elect into the wedding feast, drawn near to James when he wrote his epistle (62-69ad) ? YES

so, was the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel in 66-70ad, to destroy Jerusalem and begin gathering the elect into the wedding feast, in a little while and without delay when Hebrews was written (64-69ad)? YES

I understand why you are so desperate to change from this subject so quickly. That is because we are getting to the heart of the duplicity and contradiction of Extreme Preterism. You and Parousia70 do this all the time when your position is exposed.

I was actually exposing, how, because of your obsession with the coming of Titus and AD70, you repeatedly and indiscriminately apply various Bible statements mentioning “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" that were often made decades before AD70 (including teaching by Jesus around AD30) and without exception relate these to the coming of Titus and AD70.

You have previously rendered the Greek word eggizō as meaning "imminent and soon to come to pass." Of course, imminent means "likely to occur at any moment."

For example, when, Jesus spoke around AD30 about the final aspect of the redemptive process, the redemption of our bodies (glorification), which happens at the one final future coming, you try and apply that to the coming of Titus and AD70.

Jesus said Luke 21:25-28, 36: “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; 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 then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō - present active indicative] … Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall (or mello or hereafter) come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

So, is Jesus saying that man's redemption (or glorification) is "imminent and soon to come to pass" through the coming of Titus and the arrival of AD70? This is ridiculous in human terms, and you know it!

Once again, your arguments are totally self-defeating. Would any non-Extreme Preterist who had no theological agenda to push consider 40 years from a human perspective “a little while” and “without delay”? Of course not. That is a long time in human terms. Imagine telling a young man of 21 years that he will get his wife in “a little while” and “without delay.” Then at 61 she finally arrives. Imagine a boss telling an employee that they will be getting a big rise in “a little while” and “without delay” and it not arriving for another 40 years. That would be absurd in human terms! 40 years is a very long time from a human perspective. For Extreme Preterists to deny this is denying reality!

I then presented teaching by Jesus in Matthew 25:14, 19-30: “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.”

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."

He continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

You now admit (above) that "40 years is a long time.”

So, you basically have Jesus contradicting Himself by talking out of both sides of His mouth at the one time. In one breath you have Jesus telling us that His return in AD70 is "likely to occur at any moment" and in the next breath it is going to occur in "a long time.”

So here, the sandy premise you have been building your theology upon crumbles. Whatever way you look at Hahnism, it falls apart. It crumbles through multiple contradictions.

When Orthodox Christians credibly argue that “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" describes the future coming of Jesus from God's heavenly eternal perspective and statements like "a long time" from a human perspective you rubbish it. Why? Because you have to!

Of course, the elephant in the room for you and Parousia70 is Revelation 20. You cannot do anything with the 1000 years. That is because it totally and utterly exposes your doctrine. So, what do you do? You render it a fallacy and an apparition. The first resurrection that ushers it in actually becomes an irrelevancy. But Satan's little season can be easily used because it is called a "LITTLE season." Anything that involves "little" fits your faulty scheme. Anything that is said to be “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" is also acceptable and usable. But anything that involves "a long time," "a thousand years" or thousands of years is rubbished. This type of bias and unobjective hermeneutics blows Hahnism apart.

Your mentor, Jesuit teacher Scott Hahn, admits that RCC scholar Kracini from Turin is the only scholar he has found that agrees with himself on the thousand years. If we add you and Parousia70, that doubles it to 4 of you.

[edit]

You guys have one boring monotonous string to your guitar: "how can we apply each Scripture and event to the coming of Titus and AD70?" Does this not get old after a while? Are you not convicted about this? Do you see the slight it does to the real events that stand out in Scripture - the First Advent and the Second Advent? This is a pitiful doctrine and should be strongly resisted by all lovers of Christ, lovers of truth and lovers of the inherency of Scripture. As for your hermeneutics, anything goes; whatever it takes to point us to the coming of Titus and AD70. There is no objective dissecting of the sacred text. There is no logic or consistency to the arguments.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Of course, the elephant in the room for you and Parousia70 is Revelation 20. You cannot do anything with the 1000 years. That is because it totally and utterly exposes your doctrine. So, what do you do? You render it a fallacy and an apparition. The first resurrection that ushers it in actually becomes an irrelevancy. But Satan's little season can be easily used because it is called a "LITTLE season." Anything that involves "little" fits your faulty scheme. Anything that is said to be “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" is also acceptable and usable. But anything that involves "a long time," "a thousand years" or thousands of years is rubbished. This type of bias and unobjective hermeneutics blows Hahnism apart.

Your mentor, Jesuit teacher Scott Hahn, admits that RCC scholar Kracini from Turin is the only scholar he has found that agrees with himself on the thousand years. If you had you and Parousia70, that makes 4 of you.

I agree with everything you said, but especially with what you said here. Their interpretation of Revelation 20, in particular, makes no sense at all. The thousand years, to them, is not an actual time period during which Christ reigns with the souls of the dead in Christ and that Satan is bound. This is despite Revelation 20 clearly depicting the thousand years as having a beginning, marked by the beginning of Christ's reign and by Satan being bound, and an ending, marked by the loosing of Satan.

But, somehow, to them, Satan's little season, which is said to follow the thousand years, does represent an actual period of time even though the thousand years does not. That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

They have no choice but to interpret Revelation 20 in such a nonsensical manner because they interpret Revelation 1:3 to be saying that everything written in the book was going to happen soon. Obviously, it makes no sense to interpret things that occur over the course of a thousand years (even a figurative thousand years can't reasonably be taken to refer to a short amount of time) to all happen soon after the book was written. So, what do they do to try to reconcile that? They basically act as if the thousand years doesn't actually happen. Which renders the reign of Christ and the binding of Satan to be meaningless.

 

[parousia70]

The benefits for all Christians to watch and be ready for His second coming is that it results in being more godly than we would be without watching and being ready. And it helps keep us from being deceived and falling away.

Exactly like knowing you’re not guaranteed your next breath, and always “being ready” for that would do, And I would argue, do so far more effectively.

If someone dies before He comes that doesn't mean they didn't benefit from watching and being ready because it resulted in their behavior being more godly than it would have been otherwise.

How do you know this to be true?
How can it be proven?
I see you speculating about this, but asserting it as broad stroke fact, the way you are, is quite a stretch.

How exactly would it result in their behavior being more godly than the Christian who didn't watch for that event, but instead lived their lives always ready to die at any moment?

The notion that the millennia worth of Christians that came before us needed to hold a false expectation or they wouldn’t “live rightly” is absurd, And it’s born solely out of a bias against literal imminence.

It makes no sense to think that someone can't benefit from watching and being ready unless He actually comes in that person's lifetime.

That's not really my question. My question was how does it benefit the Christian over and above not watching but simply being ready to die at any moment?

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

Note that this scripture doesn't say what you assert.

We see in vs 6 that Paul Contrasts being awake vs being asleep, and in this context, he is meaning the difference between watching and not watching. Awake = watching, Asleep = not watching.

Then we see in vs 10 Paul asserts that whether or not the Christian is awake (watching) or asleep (not watching), has no eternal consiquence, for "whether we wake or sleep, we shall live together with Him."

So, according to Paul, the watching Christian has no salvific benefit over the one who is not watching.

Tell me, why do you personally require watching for this event in order to be motivated to live rightly?

Does not the fact that you could die in the next minute motivate you in this way at all?

Seems to me it should.

Again, for me, knowing I'm not guaranteed my next breath is far more motivating for me to live rightly than watching for a "sometime down the road event" that has many preceeding signs and time to prepare for, does.

I would always have the ability to repent from today's sins, tomorrow, under that type of watching, whereas I do not have that ability with the sure and certain knowledge I could die in the next second.

 

[parousia70]

Yes, knowing that our lifetimes are limited should provide the same motivations that Paul and Peter talked about in relation to watching and being ready for His return. No kidding. So?

So, your claim appears to be that the SOLE reason that God wanted Millennia worth of Christians to watch and prepare, every day of their lives, for an event that was foreordained to never take place in their lifetimes, was to provide them motivation that you agree they already had anyway.

Seems flimsy.

If a Christian in the 1500s was watching and getting themselves ready for Christ's return and it resulted in them living more godly lives than they would have otherwise, then how did that not benefit them? Obviously, it would have.

But at what cost? If that same Christian became so disheartened and disappointed when their expectation failed to materialize that they fell away from the faith, did that expectation end up being good thing?

Dying in dissappointment of a failed promise that you lived your whole life, in good faith, fully expecting, would be faith destroying.

Just look up "The great disappointment of 1844" and you'll see a devestating, real world example, of just how faith destroying and completely demoralizing living your life with a false expectation of a failed promise can be.

Just because one can find the same motivation by thinking about the fact that they could die any time doesn't negate the fact that anticipating His return when He will come to judge all people also provides motivation to live a godly life.

It's Redundant and unnecessary, and antithetical to the character and nature of God to insist He purposefully led millennia worth of Christians into believing and expecting a falsehood, just so they could have "motivation" that they already had plenty of anyway, and which ended up leading an untold number of Christians to fall away from the faith when that expectation failed to materialize for them.

 

[parousia70]

You have previously rendered the Greek word eggizō as meaning "imminent and soon to come to pass." Of course, imminent means "likely to occur at any moment."

Sorry SG, but an event foreordained NOT to take place for thousands of years can NOT be said to be "likely to occur at any moment" regardless of how you want to stretch and twist it to fit your bias against literal imminence.

For example, when, Jesus spoke around AD30 about the final aspect of the redemptive process, the redemption of our bodies (glorification), which happens at the one final future coming, you try and apply that to the coming of Titus and AD70.
So, is Jesus saying that man's redemption (or glorification) is "imminent and soon to come to pass" through the coming of Titus and the arrival of AD70? This is ridiculous in human terms, and you know it!

He certainly was not saying it was "imminent and soon to come to pass" at the time He spoke the words, which appears to be your contention.

Once again, your arguments are totally self-defeating. Would any non-Extreme Preterist who had no theological agenda to push consider 40 years from a human perspective “a little while” and “without delay”? Of course not.

Who is saying it does?
Citation please.

I then presented teaching by Jesus in Matthew 25:14, 19-30: “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.”

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."

He continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Note that the fact that in the above parable the Lord returns to the very same servants He left, within their own lifetimes, in thier own generation, and not to their descendants thousands of years later. This does your claim that the above is instead a depiction of an exact opposite reality, no favors.

So, you basically have Jesus contradicting Himself by talking out of both sides of His mouth at the one time. In one breath you have Jesus telling us that His return in AD70 is "likely to occur at any moment" and in the next breath it is going to occur in "a long time.”

How so? Where is the contradiction?

When Orthodox Christians credibly argue that “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" describes the future coming of Jesus from God's heavenly eternal perspective...

Yet in Matthew 24:33, Jesus, who is God, is clearly using near in the Human perspective, is he not?

Of course, the elephant in the room for you and Parousia70 is Revelation 20. You cannot do anything with the 1000 years.

Demonstrably Untrue.
Our readers can simply search "thousand years", user: parousia70 to prove this accusation wrong.

Your mentor, Jesuit teacher Scott Hahn, admits that RCC scholar Kracini from Turin is the only scholar he has found that agrees with himself on the thousand years. If we add you and Parousia70, that doubles it to 4 of you.

There were once only 12 apostles.... good thing they didn't have you around back then to say "what, only 12 people beileve this? it must be wrong!"

The overwhelming majority of Human Beings on earth still don't believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and I highly doubt you'd argue that fact means Christianity is wrong...

You can do better.

 

[claninja]

I was actually exposing, how, because of your obsession with the coming of Titus and AD70, you repeatedly and indiscriminately apply various Bible statements mentioning “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" that were often made decades before AD70 (including teaching by Jesus around AD30) and without exception relate these to the coming of Titus and AD70.

my argument has been that the time statements of “in a little while” and “ has drawn near” as found in 1 peter 4:7, James 5:8-9, and Hebrews 10:37, were written only a few years prior to or during 66-70ad.

however, you seem to claim these time statements of Christ coming “soon” or “in a little while” or being “at hand” we’re written “decades” prior to 70ad.

what evidence do you have that these passages were written “decades” prior to 66-70ad?

You have previously rendered the Greek word eggizō as meaning "imminent and soon to come to pass." Of course, imminent means "likely to occur at any moment."

I didn’t render it that, Helps word studies does. Notice what it means when used in the perfect tense:

eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened

Once again, your arguments are totally self-defeating. Would any non-Extreme Preterist who had no theological agenda to push consider 40 years from a human perspective “a little while” and “without delay”? Of course not. That is a long time in human terms. Imagine telling a young man of 21 years that he will get his wife in “a little while” and “without delay.” Then at 61 she finally arrives. Imagine a boss telling an employee that they will be getting a big rise in “a little while” and “without delay” and it not arriving for another 40 years. That would be absurd in human terms! 40 years is a very long time from a human perspective. For Extreme Preterists to deny this is denying reality!

There is so much irony here.

your argument here against preterism is:

1.) a strawman. As a partial preterist, I believe the “at hand” and a “little while” time statements were written only a few years before or during 66-70ad. Not 40 years lol.

2.) self defeating for your own position. I absolutely agree if a boss told his employee that he would be given a raise “in a little while”, but didn’t for 40 more years, that would be ridiculous. And yet, the human author of Hebrews changes the original passage in Habakkuk from “will tarry” to “in a little while”, and then you claim 2,000 years later is not ridiculous. Oh, this is so ironic lol !

So, is Jesus saying that man's redemption (or glorification) is "imminent and soon to come to pass" through the coming of Titus and the arrival of AD70?

he said when these “things” begin to pass. Would that also include the persecution, false prophets, earthquakes, wars, etc.. and not just the destruction of Jerusalem?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Sorry SG, but an event foreordained NOT to take place for thousands of years can NOT be said to be "likely to occur at any moment" regardless of how you want to stretch and twist it to fit your bias against literal imminence.



He certainly was not saying it was "imminent and soon to come to pass" at the time He spoke the words, which appears to be your contention.

I do not foist false definitions upon biblical words in order to support my beliefs. That is you and Extreme Preterism. And, do not, in turn, test my views by your false assumptions. That is frankly ridiculous.

Who is saying it does?
Citation please.



Note that the fact that in the above parable the Lord returns to the very same servants He left, within their own lifetimes, in thier own generation, and not to their descendants thousands of years later. This does your claim that the above is a parable of an exactly opposite reality, no favors.



How so? Where is the contradiction?



Yet in the Matthew 24:33 example you gave, Jesus, who is God, is clearly using near in the Human perspective, is he not?



Demonstrably Untrue.
Our readers can simply search "thousand years", user: parousia70 to prove this accusation wrong.



There were once only 12 apostles.... good thing they didn't have you around back then to say "what, only 12 people beileve this? it must be wrong!"

You can do better.

The duplicity of your position is exposed by your insistence that phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly,” “near" and “a little while” must mean "imminent" by sheer meaning and must relate to the period between AD30 and AD70 from a human perspective. Yet, in the same breath, and in the exact same way, “a long time” is applied (without any difficulty) to the exact same period between AD30 and AD70 and is said to describe the exact same period from a human perspective. Which is it? This demolishes your whole thesis. It falls apart. You render words meaningless.

If this is your response, then you have absolutely nothing to present of evidential worth. There is nothing to rebut apart from the fact that I disagree with your personal opinions. Your brief evasive extra-biblical denials speak volumes. I refer you back to my last post that refutes your claims.

 

[sovereigngrace]

my argument has been that the time statements of “in a little while” and “ has drawn near” as found in 1 peter 4:7, James 5:8-9, and Hebrews 10:37, were written only a few years prior to or during 66-70ad.

however, you seem to claim these time statements of Christ coming “soon” or “in a little while” or being “at hand” we’re written “decades” prior to 70ad.

what evidence do you have that these passages were written “decades” prior to 66-70ad?




I didn’t render it that, Helps word studies does. Notice what it means when used in the perfect tense:

eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened




There is so much irony here.

your argument here against preterism is:

1.) a strawman. As a partial preterist, I believe the “at hand” and a “little while” time statements were written only a few years before or during 66-70ad. Not 40 years lol.

2.) self defeating for your own position. I absolutely agree if a boss told his employee that he would be given a raise “in a little while”, but didn’t for 40 more years, that would be ridiculous. And yet, the human author of Hebrews changes the original passage in Habakkuk from “will tarry” to “in a little while”, and then you claim 2,000 years later is not ridiculous. Oh, this is so ironic lol !



he said when these “things” begin to pass. Wouldn’t that also include the persecution, false prophets, earthquakes, wars, etc.. and not just the destruction of Jerusalem?

You are avoiding the obvious! Read this below.

Jesus said Luke 21:25-28, 36: “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; 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 then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō - present active indicative] … Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall (or mello or hereafter) come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

When and what is this referring to?

 

[DavidPT]

Note that the fact that in the above parable the Lord returns to the very same servants He left, within their own lifetimes, in thier own generation, and not to their descendants thousands of years later. This does your claim that the above is instead a depiction of an exact opposite reality, no favors.

Verse 31 clearly tells us when that it is meaning and in the translation I'm using, it even uses 'When' at the beginning of that verse.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Has this verse already been fulfilled? If yes, when and exactly how?

 

[parousia70]

The duplicity of your position is exposed by your insistence that phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly,” “near" and “a little while” must mean "imminent" by sheer meaning and must relate to the period between AD30 and AD70 from a human perspective.

Classic Straw Man.
You've yet to show where I have ever asserted, or insisted, this.

Yet, in the same breath, and in the exact same way, “a long time” is applied (without any difficulty) to the exact same period between AD30 and AD70 and is said to describe the exact same period from a human perspective. Which is it? This demolishes your whole thesis. It falls apart. You render words meaningless.

Again, Straw Man.
Show where I have ever asserted AD 30 was "a little while" before AD 70.
Until you do, it is your thesis that has fallen apart.

As has been pointed out to you, but you refuese to acknowledge or address, all the at hand, little while, shortly, quickly passages were written either a few short years before AD66 or between AD66-70.

For example, the Following was written in AD 64, not AD 30 as you appear to assert:
Hebrews 10:37
“For yet a little while,
And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.

Where is your evidence this was written in AD30?