This or That

[claninja]

The Bible is not trying to lead you to the light concerning end-times events. There is a reason for all that confusing language.

The Bible is trying to hide bad news.

If you knew the truth you wouldn't believe it anyway, so what little you could have gotten has been withheld.

This is all in Matthew 13:10-17.

In the parable of the figure tree, the truth is being hidden. IMO, it seems to say end-time events will complete within about 100 years after they start. If Israel is the start then wrap-up is probably before 2050. The entire planet is going to unravel within about 27 years. I think even sooner, like 20 years.

That's bad news. And you don't believe me.

How is this relevant to the Greek words “this” or “that” ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I understand this is your own personal interpretation which requires the definitions of words to be changed and spiritualized into oblivion.

That being said, everything you provided is irrelevant. Christ said “I am the bread of life” that’s obviously a spiritual statement. Unfortunately, you have provided ZERO passages where Christ said “I am the hieron”, or where the apostles said “we are the hieron of God”……if you could, that really help your personal opinion.

“Hieron” is never used to describe the church. This would be a new, made up, spiritual teaching, not taught by the apostles nor Christ.

the temple complex “hieron”, was destroyed within Jesus’ generation (genea) - that’s objective, fact.

Your problem is with Christ. It was Christ who spiritualized. Like I said...

"So then, despite your wrought up with strong's number instead of actually listening to Christ spiritually, it's not in me to reveal to anyone the spiritual nature of God's words, our Lord Himself will either reveal it or He won't reveal it, as is His sovereign will to do to whomever He chooses. Selah."​

 

[claninja]

Your problem is with Christ. It was Christ who spiritualized. Like I said...

"So then, despite your wrought up with strong's number instead of actually listening to Christ spiritually, it's not in me to reveal to anyone the spiritual nature of God's words, our Lord Himself will either reveal it or He won't reveal it, as is His sovereign will to do to whomever He chooses. Selah."​

No, the issue is your personal interpretation of Christ’s words, which is not supported by any clear scripture where Christ calls himself or the church the “hieron”, and ignores the objective reality that the temple complex (hieron) was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

Come back if you have any objective evidence where Christ called himself or the church a “hieron” or proof that the temple complex (hieron) was not actually destroyed by the Roman armies in 70ad.

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, the issue is your personal interpretation of Christ’s words, which is not supported by any clear scripture where Christ calls himself or the church the “hieron”, and ignores the objective reality that the temple complex (hieron) was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

Come back if you have any objective evidence where Christ called himself or the church a “hieron” or proof that the temple complex (hieron) was not actually destroyed by the Roman armies in 70ad.

 

[daq]

Since genea is a Greek word, I always check the Old Testament Greek Septuagint to verify.

Genea is not found in the proverbs 30:11-14, so that passage would be irrelevant to the OP.

Genea refers to a group of people living around the same time.

Exodus 20:5 OG LXX
5 ου προσκυνησεις αυτοις ουδε μη λατρευσης αυτοις εγω γαρ ειμι κυριος ο θεος σου θεος ζηλωτης αποδιδους αμαρτιας πατερων επι τεκνα εως τριτης και τεταρτης γενεας τοις μισουσιν με

Exodus 20:5 LXX Brenton English Translation
5 Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, recompensing the sins of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation to them that hate me,

It is the same in Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, (only in some manuscripts), and Deuteronomy 5:9. So the statement, which includes γενεα in the OG LXX, is actually written four times; the number of the generations in the span of the natural man.

Moreover this cannot be a so-called generational curse, as some have taught in the past, for that would contradict the Torah. The fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of the children and the children shall not be put to death for the sins of the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

If Exodus 20:5 and the companion passages do not speak of a generational curse, which they do not, then what is it? The only answer that does not contradict the scripture is the one already given from the scripture and the Testimony of the Meshiah which was quoted. There is no other answer which complies with all scripture. Moreover the Testimony of the Meshiah is the Spirit of the Prophecy of the Apocalypse, at the very least, (if not all Prophecy, it can be read either way), a fact which many people seem to ignore, (Rev 19:10).

 

[Zao is life]

The context was set by Jesus - not one stone set upon another - temple destruction.

Was the temple destroyed within Jesus’ generation? Yes.

That's not the context of the Olivet Discourse. It's the context of the temple courtyard Discourse, where His audience was the scribes and Pharisees. The last thing that Jesus said about it was in Matthew 24:2, just outside the temple, when He repeated it to His disciples - the chapter division was only inserted in 1227 A.D. Matthew 24:1-2 should be included in the last two verses of Matthew 23, because it's still talking about the destruction of the temple, i.e still part of the temple courtyard discourse.

Then Jesus walked down the temple mount, across the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives. His new audience was His disciples, and the new location was the Mount of Olives, and though the disciples asked Him when the destruction of the temple would occur, there is 0.00% evidence in all the New Testament that he answered that question - because though it would have been an immensely important piece of information, the disciples make no mention of when the temple would be destroyed in any of their letters, and there is no mention of when the temple was going to be destroyed in Acts.

Jesus answered the second question that was asked Him on the Mount of Olives: The sign of his coming and of the end of the Age.

That's the context. You lie to yourself and expect all others to believe you when you say that the context is the same as the context of the temple courtyard discourse, which was the destruction of the temple.​

 

[claninja]

That's not the context of the Olivet Discourse. It's the context of the temple courtyard Discourse, where His audience was the scribes and Pharisees. The last thing that Jesus said about it was in Matthew 24:2, just outside the temple, when He repeated it to His disciples, asn the chapter division was only inserted in 1227. Matthew 24:1-2 should be included in the last two verses of Matthew 23. It's still talking about the destruction of the temple.

Then Jesus walked down the temple mount, across the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives. His new audience was His disciples, and the new location was the temple Mount, and though the disciples asked Him when the destruction of the temple would occur, there is 0.00 evidence in all the New Testament that he answered that question - because though it would have been an immensely important piece of information, the disciples make no mention of when the temple would be destroyed in any of their letters, and there is no mention of when the temple was going to be destroyed in Acts.

Jesus answered the second question that was asked Him on the temple Mount: The sign of his coming and of the end of the Age.

That's the context. You lie to yourself and expect all others to believe you when you say that the context is the same as the context as the temple courtyard discourse, which was the destruction of the temple.​

the context is still “not one stone set upon another” - due to the disciples’ question of “when will these things happen?” this question clearly points back to Jesus’ statement of not one stone upon another.

As to the “2nd question”, using parallel accounts, we can see that asking “what will be the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” is the same as asking “what is the SIGN when these things will take place”.

Matthew 24:3 3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Mark 13:4 Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?

Luke 21:7 Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

And he did answer the question of when the temple would fall- “this generation will not pass away”. The temple did in fact fall within Christ’s generation. That’s an objective fact.

The epistle to the Hebrews, written literally near to the destruction of the temple, mentions BOTH the “near” vanishing of the old covenant (temple practices which were still occurring - Hebrews 9:1-10) and the coming of Christ being in a little while without delay. So it cannot be said that the NT is absent of evidence that apostles didn’t know that the temple and Jewish polity was coming to end within their lifetime.

Hebrews 8:13 speaking of a new covenant,c He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging is NEAR vanishing.

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

 

[DavidPT]

And he did answer the question of when the temple would fall- “this generation will not pass away”. The temple did in fact fall within Christ’s generation. That’s an objective fact.

Undeniably, it's an objective fact that the temple fell within the same era of time they were living in at the time. No one is disputing that. If it's also an objective fact, in regards to this generation not passing until these things are fulfilled, why is it that numerous interpreters don't agree with it? Why is it that some interpreters, for example, agree with Preterists pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21?

Then some of these same interpreters are disagreeing with Preterists pertaining to this generation in the Discourse? You would think this alone is a red flag that Preterists are misinterpreting much of the Discourse altogether, otherwise, these interpreters that agree with Preterists concerning Matthew 24:15-21 should alo be agreeing with Preterists pertaining to this generation. IOW, if Preterists can be wrong pertaining to this generation meant, why can't Preterists be wrong pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21?

The context pertaining to this generation in the Discourse is not the first century and 70 AD, the context is the end of this age and the 2nd coming. What does Christ's generation have to do with anything, in regards to that? Christ wasn't even still here, nor were many of the apostles, when the temple and city were destroyed. And if Christ is saying to His disciples, when ye shall see, apparently meaning them according to Preterists---how can they see any of these things if they are already dead before these events even take place?

For example.

Mark 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him private

We at least know these 4 were there.

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

If the ye is meaning the ones Jesus was addressing in verse 3, and that even if verse 14 is pertaining to the events involving 70 AD, though I disagree it is, but let's assume it is, regardless, Jesus lied to a cpl of them then. Apparently, Peter, James, and Andrew were not still alive when what happened to Jerusalem and the temple happened. How then can Preterists, or anyone else for that matter, insist the 'ye' in verse 14 is meaning Jesus' audience at the time? How can dead ppl see anything taking place on the planet, let alone fleeing when they see these things?

If nothing else, this at least proves that all of the pronouns Jesus is using throughout the Discourse, that not all of them are necessarily involving the ones He is addressing at the time. Since all of the pronouns throughout the Discourse don't have to involve the ones Jesus was addressing at the time, the same can be true in regards to this generation meant. And once again, that is stated within the end of this age, 2nd coming context, not first century, 70 AD context. Unlike Preterists, Jesus is able to move on in the Discourse, He is not stuck in limbo in the first century and 70 AD throughout the entire Discourse. He was a prophet. Prophets actually have the ability, believe it or not, to prophesy about near and far events at the same time.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


If Jesus was applying this to the first century and 70 AD, He would have said that per the following context, not context involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

Like such.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Now it is crystal clear what Jesus was applying that to. Except that's not the context Jesus applied that to since that verse does not fit there like that. And the following verse proves it.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---we are still in these times, something that has to be fulfilled before this generation can pass, the fact Jesus stated verse 24 before He stated verse 32. And not the other way around instead.

 

[Zao is life]

the context is still “not one stone set upon another” - due to the disciples’ question of “when will these things happen?”

The context of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is still "the sign of your coming and the end of the Age", which has nothing to do with "not one stone left upon another"(the question Jesus did not answer). What you say above is patently false because Jesus never answered their question regarding when the temple would be destroyed. If He had, there would have been mention of it in Acts and in the epistles - at least once.

 

[Zao is life]

The epistle to the Hebrews, written literally near to the destruction of the temple, mentions BOTH the “near” vanishing of the old covenant (temple practices which were still occurring - Hebrews 9:1-10) and the coming of Christ being in a little while without delay. So it cannot be said that the NT is absent of evidence that apostles didn’t know that the temple and Jewish polity was coming to end within their lifetime.

Hebrews 8:13 speaking of a new covenant,c He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging is NEAR vanishing.

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

The above is a very good example of deciding that an eschatological premise "is completely true" and then deciding that anything scripture says must be interpreted in such a way as to force it to comply, even though it's patently obvious that your assertion is false.

The disciples did not know when the temple was going to be destroyed, or else the year would have been given in the epistle to the Hebrews, and probably in all the epistles, because it would have been an immensely important piece of information to pass on. You're asserting that Hebrews 8:13 and 10:37 means that they knew what century and year the temple was going to be destroyed, which is false. They did not know. You're also asserting that they had the second coming of Christ which He spoke to them about repeatedly in the gospels and in the Olivet Discourse, linked to the destruction of the temple - which is pure Preterism.

 

[Zao is life]

And he did answer the question of when the temple would fall- “this generation will not pass away”. The temple did in fact fall within Christ’s generation. That’s an objective fact.

Definitely not objective, and definitely not fact that Jesus did not tell them when the temple was going to be destroyed, considering the objective fact that Jesus did give them the sign of His coming | end of the Age immediately before He said "This generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled", yet He did not tell them when the destruction of the temple would occur - the real objective fact is that there is 0% evidence in the gospels, book of Acts and epistles of the apostles that they had any idea even of what century the temple would be destroyed.

You know this is true, yet despite this objective fact, you continue to make the same false assumptions and assertions such as:

1. Your false assertion that the author of the Hebrews is talking in Hebrews 8:13 and 10:37 about

a. The coming destruction of the temple (which had not yet occurred), as though he knew, when he wrote Hebrews, how close it was to the fulfillment of the Lord's prophecy, and you assert this even though neither he nor any of the apostles had any idea when the temple was going to be destroyed (they did not even not what century the temple was going to be destroyed); and
b. The second coming of Christ (Hebrews 10:37), as though it would be linked to the destruction of the temple (pure Preterism) and the author of the letter to the Hebrews knew when He who was coming would come.

2. Your false assertion that this is evidence for your false assertion that the context of Jesus saying "this generation shall not pass" in Matthew 24:34 is likewise talking about the generation that would see the destruction of the temple.

3. Your false assertion that what Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse was the destruction of the temple (which He only spoke about earlier on the same day while still in the temple courtyard, and just outside the temple (before He walked down the temple Mount, crossed the Kidron Valley and walked to the top of the Mount of Olives).

4. Your false assumption that Jesus answered the disciples question regarding when the temple would be destroyed, though there is 0% evidence in the gospels, book of Acts or any of the apostes' epistles that He had told them when this would occur - because had the disciples known even what century the temple was going to be destroyed, they would most certainly have passed such an immensely important piece of information on. Despite this, there is 0% evidence that they knew either when the temple was going to be destroyed, or when the return of Christ would come.

The context of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is what Jesus had been saying in all the surrounding passage about the tribulation of His disciples, which He called "great tribulation", making it abundantly clear that immediately after the tribulation of the disciples He was talking about, He would return. "This generation", according to the context of all the surrounding verses, is the return of Christ and the end of the Age.

Your posts make it clear, though, that In order to maintain the false assumption and false assertion you make regarding "this generation", you completely ignore the subject of the Olivet Discourse, which is the great tribulation of the disciples immediately preceding Jesus' return, and instead pretend to yourself that the previous subject which Jesus had spoken about in the temple courtyard discourse and repeated to His disciples just outside the temple (the destruction of the temple), is the context of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34.

As Christians we can convince ourselves of all sorts of things that are simply not true (we all have done so at some point during our Christian growth), but we cannot expect that all other saints will not see the fallacy in what we are asserting, when it's patently false.

 

[claninja]

Undeniably, it's an objective fact that the temple fell within the same era of time they were living in at the time. No one is disputing that. If it's also an objective fact, in regards to this generation not passing until these things are fulfilled, why is it that numerous interpreters don't agree with it? Why is it that some interpreters, for example, agree with Preterists pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21?

Then some of these same interpreters are disagreeing with Preterists pertaining to this generation in the Discourse? You would think this alone is a red flag that Preterists are misinterpreting much of the Discourse altogether, otherwise, these interpreters that agree with Preterists concerning Matthew 24:15-21 should alo be agreeing with Preterists pertaining to this generation. IOW, if Preterists can be wrong pertaining to this generation meant, why can't Preterists be wrong pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21?

The context pertaining to this generation in the Discourse is not the first century and 70 AD, the context is the end of this age and the 2nd coming. What does Christ's generation have to do with anything, in regards to that? Christ wasn't even still here, nor were many of the apostles, when the temple and city were destroyed. And if Christ is saying to His disciples, when ye shall see, apparently meaning them according to Preterists---how can they see any of these things if they are already dead before these events even take place?

For example.

Mark 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him private

We at least know these 4 were there.

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

If the ye is meaning the ones Jesus was addressing in verse 3, and that even if verse 14 is pertaining to the events involving 70 AD, though I disagree it is, but let's assume it is, regardless, Jesus lied to a cpl of them then. Apparently, Peter, James, and Andrew were not still alive when what happened to Jerusalem and the temple happened. How then can Preterists, or anyone else for that matter, insist the 'ye' in verse 14 is meaning Jesus' audience at the time? How can dead ppl see anything taking place on the planet, let alone fleeing when they see these things?

If nothing else, this at least proves that all of the pronouns Jesus is using throughout the Discourse, that not all of them are necessarily involving the ones He is addressing at the time. Since all of the pronouns throughout the Discourse don't have to involve the ones Jesus was addressing at the time, the same can be true in regards to this generation meant. And once again, that is stated within the end of this age, 2nd coming context, not first century, 70 AD context. Unlike Preterists, Jesus is able to move on in the Discourse, He is not stuck in limbo in the first century and 70 AD throughout the entire Discourse. He was a prophet. Prophets actually have the ability, believe it or not, to prophesy about near and far events at the same time.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


If Jesus was applying this to the first century and 70 AD, He would have said that per the following context, not context involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

Like such.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Now it is crystal clear what Jesus was applying that to. Except that's not the context Jesus applied that to since that verse does not fit there like that. And the following verse proves it.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---we are still in these times, something that has to be fulfilled before this generation can pass, the fact Jesus stated verse 24 before He stated verse 32. And not the other way around instead.

the overwhelming majority of Christianity throughout history has held to a preterist or historicist view of the OD. In other words, the majority of Christianity has recognized that Jesus’ words in the OD, in regards to the temple destruction, came true within the apostle’s generation. The red flag comes from those who claim, the OD has nothing to do with the temple destruction. That would be an unsupported, fringe belief.

Anyways, Using mark as a parallel passage, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” is the same as “the SIGN when these things will happen”.

Why in the world, would the apostles knowingly ask 2 completely separate, unrelated questions to Jesus’ statement of “no one stone upon another”? The parallel passages let us know that the disciples associated the temple destruction with the presence of Christ and end of the age. That’s the context

mark 13:4 Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the SIGN that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the SIGN of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

I’m regards to the pronouns in the OD- you’ll have to clarify, Does your question presuppose that Jesus knew the exact day that Peter, James, and Andrew, and John were going to die?

In regards to genea, it’s interesting that you would have no problem with genea’s actual definition and use if it followed vs 23. But as soon as it follows vs 27-28, then you have to throw it’s actual definition and consistent usage out the window because it disagrees with your presupposition that the OD is about the 2nd advent.

The context by definition is “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.”

The setting is Jesus answering 2 questions posed by the disciples about his statement - “not one stone upon another”.

Edit: the disciples asked “when will these things happen?” In regards to not one stone upon another. Is it your position that Jesus completely ignored that question?

 

[claninja]

Definitely not objective, and definitely not fact, considering the objective fact that Jesus did give them the sign of His coming and of the end of the Age immediately before He said "This generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled", yet He did not tell them when the destruction of the temple would occur - the real objective fact is that there is 0% evidence in the gospels, book of Acts and epistles of the apostles that they had any idea even of what century the temple would be destroyed.

You know this is true, yet despite this objective fact, you continue to make the same false assumptions and assertions such as:

1. Your false assertion that the author of the Hebrews is talking in Hebrews 8:13 and 10:37 about

a. The coming destruction of the temple (which had not yet occurred), as though he knew, when he wrote Hebrews, how close it was to the fulfillment of the Lord's prophecy, and you assert this even though neither he nor any of the apostles had any idea when the temple was going to be destroyed (they did not even not what century the temple was going to be destroyed); and
b. The second coming of Christ (Hebrews 10:37), as though it would be linked to the destruction of the temple (pure Preterism) and the author of the letter to the Hebrews knew when He who was coming would come.

2. Your false assertion that this is evidence for your false assertion that the context of Jesus saying "this generation shall not pass" in Matthew 24:34 is likewise talking about the generation that would see the destruction of the temple.

3. Your false assertion that what Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse was the destruction of the temple (which He only spoke about earlier on the same day while still in the temple courtyard, and just outside the temple (before He walked down the temple Mount, crossed the Kidron Valley and walked to the top of the Mount of Olives).

4. Your false assumption that Jesus answered the disciples question regarding when the temple would be destroyed, though there is 0% evidence in the gospels, book of Acts or any of the apostes' epistles that He had told them when this would occur - because had the disciples known even what century the temple was going to be destroyed, they would most certainly have passed such an immensely important piece of information on. Despite this, there is 0% evidence that they knew either when the temple was going to be destroyed, or when the return of Christ would come.

So you don’t believe the Jewish temple complex was destroyed in the first century?

 

[claninja]

The context of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is still "the sign of your coming and the end of the Age", which has nothing to do with "not one stone left upon another"(the question Jesus did not answer). What you say above is patently false because Jesus never answered their question regarding when the temple would be destroyed. If He had, there would have been mention of it in Acts and in the epistles - at least once.

And using marks parallel passage
we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” is the same as “the SIGN when these things will happen”. The parallel passages let’s us know that the disciples associated the temple destruction with the presence of Christ and end of the age. That’s the context

Why in the world, would the apostles knowingly ask 2 completely separate, unrelated questions to Jesus’ statement of “no one stone upon another”? That makes zero sense.


mark 13:4 Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the SIGN that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the SIGN of Your coming and of the end of the age?

 

[claninja]

The above is a very good example of deciding that an eschatological premise "is completely true" and then deciding that anything scripture says must be interpreted in such a way as to force it to comply, even though it's patently obvious that your assertion is false.

The disciples did not know when the temple was going to be destroyed, or else the year would have been given in the epistle to the Hebrews, and probably in all the epistles, because it would have been an immensely important piece of information to pass on. You're asserting that Hebrews 8:13 and 10:37 means that they knew what century and year the temple was going to be destroyed, which is false. They did not know. You're also asserting that they had the second coming of Christ which He spoke to them about repeatedly in the gospels and in the Olivet Discourse, linked to the destruction of the temple - which is pure Preterism.

Since Hebrews 8:13 mentions the old covenant was “near” vanishing, maybe you could fill us in on what this means if it doesn’t mean the temple practices were at a near end……


Additionally, the objective fact that the temple was completely destroyed within Jesus’ generation is just a complete coincidence in regards to disciples asking when the temple will be destroyed (when will these things happen?) and Jesus answering “this generation will not pass away until all these things happen”? Lol ok……..

 

[Zao is life]

So you don’t believe the Jewish temple complex was destroyed in the first century?

You know perfectly well that the fact that the temple was destroyed in the first century does not mean either that Jesus had told the apostles when the temple was going to be destroyed or that they knew when the temple was going to be destroyed when they wrote their epistles and gospels (which is what your false assertions expressly imply).

Nor does it mean that Jesus linked "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 to the destruction of the temple in the first century, because (this is what you refuse to address, though I've already posted it, and so have many others) what Jesus was talking about in all the surrounding verses was His second coming, the end of the Age, and the tribulation of the disciples leading to His second coming - which He categorized as a very great tribulation that would be shortened for the elect's sake.

 

[Zao is life]

And using marks parallel passage
we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” is the same as “the SIGN when these things will happen”. The parallel passages let’s us know that the disciples associated the temple destruction with the presence of Christ and end of the age. That’s the context

Why in the world, would the apostles knowingly ask 2 completely separate, unrelated questions to Jesus’ statement of “no one stone upon another”? That makes zero sense.


mark 13:4 Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the SIGN that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the SIGN of Your coming and of the end of the age?

Your assertion means nothing until you provide evidence in the New Testament that Jesus answered the disciples' question as to when the temple would be destroyed. The fact is, they did not even know what century it would occur.

@claninja compare it to the abundance of evidence that the apostles knew what the sign would be of Christ's return - such as Paul giving the sign in 2 Thessalonians 2 of the same lawlessness, apostasy and abomination in the tabernacle of God that is mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.

 

[claninja]

You know perfectly well that the fact that the temple was destroyed in the first century does not mean either that Jesus had told the apostles when the temple was going to be destroyed or that they knew when the temple was going to be destroyed when they wrote their epistles and gospels (which is what your false assertions expressly imply).

Nor does it mean that Jesus linked "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 to the destruction of the temple in the first century, because (this is what you refuse to address, though I've already posted it, and so have many others) what Jesus was talking about in all the surrounding verses was His second coming, the end of the Age, and the tribulation of the disciples leading to His second coming - which He categorized as a very great tribulation that would be shortened for the elect's sake.

Lol ok….yea…..the disciples asked “when these things will occur?” In regards to Jesus’ statement of “not stone upon another” and Jesus just ignored that…….oh wait, no he didn’t, he said “this generation will not pass away until these things occur”…….and guess what? the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

 

[claninja]

Your assertion means nothing until you provide evidence in the New Testament that Jesus answered the disciples' question as to when the temple would be destroyed. The fact is, they did not even know what century it would occur.

@claninja compare it to the abundance of evidence that the apostles knew what the sign would be of Christ's return - such as Paul giving the sign in 2 Thessalonians 2 of the same lawlessness, apostasy and abomination in the tabernacle of God that is mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.

Your false assertion is that Jesus ignored the first question and only answered the second question. Funny thing is, the 2nd question isn’t about “when”, but the first question is. But you Claim Jesus provided an answer to “when” for the 2nd question even the disciples didn’t ask “when” in the 2nd question, and then completely ignored the “when” to the first question? Lol…..ok……

So did Jesus answer the question of “when” the temple would have not one stone upon another? Yup, sure did- “this generation will not pass away until these things occur”. And guess what? the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation! That’s a crazy, but objective fact.

 

[Zao is life]

Why in the world, would the apostles knowingly ask 2 completely separate, unrelated questions to Jesus’ statement of “no one stone upon another”? That makes zero sense.

Most of us would also have asked both about when the destruction of the temple was going to happen and what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age.

Not all of us assume like you do that the disciples believed that Jesus' return | end of the Age would occur at the same time as the destruction of the temple. That's a Preterist mindset, which causes people to assume that the disciples believed that the two would occur at the same time. Preterists are fond of mind-reading the apostles as to the reason they wanted to know both what the sign would be of Jesus' return | end of the Age and when the temple was going to be destroyed.

It's your question above that makes zero sense, because it would defy logic that after Jesus had told the disciples that the temple would be destroyed, they would not want to know when this was going to happen. Logically they now had two questions, whereas until the news that the temple was going to be destroyed, they only had one: what would be the sign of His return | end of the Age.