Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[Timtofly]

Let’s say that a generation is 80 years. The destruction still took place within the timeframe.

What destruction is mentioned in Matthew 24:15-34?

 

[Hammster]

What destruction is mentioned in Matthew 24:15-34?

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
— Matthew 24:30

 

[DavidPT]

Let’s say that a generation is 80 years. The destruction still took place within the timeframe.

No matter what Preterists argue in regards to this generation in the Discourse, the following argument trumps any of those arguments every single time without exception, thus debunks the Preterist interpretation of this generation in the Discourse.

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.

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

In the Discourse, did Jesus say what He did in verse 24 first? Or did He say what He did in verse 32 first? Obviously, undeniably, and even Preterists wouldn't dare dispute this, He said what He said in verse 24 first, therefore, what He said in verse 32, He said later.

This is one thing He said in verse 24 first---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Obviously, unless one has some of the sorriest hermeneutics on the planet, no interpreter employing sound hermeneutics is then going to insist, the fact Jesus said what He said in verse 24 first, that in verse 32, in regards to this--till all be fulfilled---that this does not include this--until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Obviously, we are still in the times of the Gentiles unless Preterists can convincingly prove otherwise. Not prove to other Preterists, but convincingly prove to those of us who are not Preterists.

You have made a point in the past that sound hermeneutics are important. Let's now see if it's a case of do what I do, or if it's a case of do what I say not what I do.

What is that you do?

Fully agree that until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that this is included in verse 32 till all be fulfilled, thus sound hermeneutics?

Or flat out disagree that until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that this is included in verse 32 till all be fulfilled, thus unsound hermeneutics?

 

[Hammster]

No matter what Preterists argue in regards to this generation in the Discourse, the following argument trumps any of those arguments every single time without exception, thus debunks the Preterist interpretation of this generation in the Discourse.

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.

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

In the Discourse, did Jesus say what He did in verse 24 first? Or did He say what He did in verse 32 first? Obviously, undeniably, and even Preterists wouldn't dare dispute this, He said what He said in verse 24 first, therefore, what He said in verse 32, He said later.

This is one thing He said in verse 24 first---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Obviously, unless one has some of the sorriest hermeneutics on the planet, no interpreter employing sound hermeneutics is then going to insist, the fact Jesus said what He said in verse 24 first, that in verse 32, in regards to this--till all be fulfilled---that this does not include this--until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Obviously, we are still in the times of the Gentiles unless Preterists can convincingly prove otherwise. Not prove to other Preterists, but convincingly prove to those of us who are not Preterists.

You have made a point in the past that sound hermeneutics are important. Let's now see if it's a case of do what I do, or if it's a case of do what I say not what I do.

What is that you do?

Fully agree that until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that this is included in verse 32 till all be fulfilled, thus sound hermeneutics?

Or flat out disagree that until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that this is included in verse 32 till all be fulfilled, thus unsound hermeneutics?

Sorry, but you have to assume your conclusion to get here. You have to make “this generation” mean something different than the other 12 times it’s used in the gospel.

 

[TribulationSigns]

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
— Matthew 24:30

That is the destruction in 70AD? {Facepalm}

 

[Hammster]

That is the destruction in 70AD? {Facepalm}

Yes. They understood OT judgement language. Unfortunately, not many today understand it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Obviously, we are still in the times of the Gentiles unless Preterists can convincingly prove otherwise. Not prove to other Preterists, but convincingly prove to those of us who are not Preterists.

No, we are not presently in the "times of the Gentiles". Under the New Covenant, God no longer looks at the populations of the world as divided into Gentile and Jewish nations. God doesn't segregate the peoples of the world into those categories anymore, and hasn't for a very, very long time.

Besides, you are not considering how long a period of time for "treading down Jerusalem" would last in that Luke 21:24 verse. Revelation 11:2 tells you just how long Jerusalem would be "trodden underfoot", and it was 42 months total. Not centuries, not millennia, but 42 MONTHS of time for the nations to tread the holy city underfoot. Coincidentally, it took those 42 months for the competing Zealot factions inside Jerusalem to do just that - tread the holy city underfoot - from the time they seized power in Jerusalem in AD 66 until the final Roman siege in AD 70. Those Zealot factions had originated from their home turf in "Galilee of the Gentiles" in the northern part of Israel - which also was where the chief prince "Gog" was predicted to come from.

There is significance in the term "TIMES (plural) of the Gentiles" - not just "time (singular) of the Gentiles". This phrase is an echo of the "time, times, and half a time" (3-1/2 years, or 42 months) which is the length of time the angel said it would take to shatter the power of the holy people in Daniel 12:7. It's the very same "times" when Jerusalem was being trodden underfoot by the Gentiles between AD 66 - AD 70.

 

[Timtofly]

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
— Matthew 24:30

That does not answer the question.

We know from 2 Peter 3, this same appearance is when all of the works of earth are burned up. But this verse does not say what destruction happens. Did all the works on earth burn up in 70AD?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes. They understood OT judgement language. Unfortunately, not many today understand it.

Nope. You got the wrong Israel. The signs in the sun, moon, and stars, have to do with the judgment of the New Testament Congregation prior to Second Coming... especially when Christ gathers his Elects from four corners of the earth, Matthew 24:31, immediately after the Great Tribulation, Matthew 24:29. This did not take place in 70AD.

 

[DavidPT]

No, we are not presently in the "times of the Gentiles". Under the New Covenant, God no longer looks at the populations of the world as divided into Gentile and Jewish nations. God doesn't segregate the peoples of the world into those categories anymore, and hasn't for a very, very long time.

Besides, you are not considering how long a period of time for "treading down Jerusalem" would last in that Luke 21:24 verse. Revelation 11:2 tells you just how long Jerusalem would be "trodden underfoot", and it was 42 months total. Not centuries, not millennia, but 42 MONTHS of time for the nations to tread the holy city underfoot. Coincidentally, it took those 42 months for the competing Zealot factions inside Jerusalem to do just that - tread the holy city underfoot - from the time they seized power in Jerusalem in AD 66 until the final Roman siege in AD 70. Those Zealot factions had originated from their home turf in "Galilee of the Gentiles" in the northern part of Israel - which also was where the chief prince "Gog" was predicted to come from.

There is significance in the term "TIMES (plural) of the Gentiles" - not just "time (singular) of the Gentiles". This phrase is an echo of the "time, times, and half a time" (3-1/2 years, or 42 months) which is the length of time the angel said it would take to shatter the power of the holy people in Daniel 12:7. It's the very same "times" when Jerusalem was being trodden underfoot by the Gentiles between AD 66 - AD 70.

The mistake you are making, you are applying this 42 months in question to the wrong era of time. This 42 months fits in the end of this age not in the first century involving 70 AD.

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.


Then there's this as well. and shall be led away captive into all nations. Obviously, if there is an exile there also has to be a return. That's been the case every other time an exile happened. That's the pattern.

IOW---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled---which also includes that there has to be a return following an exile, before this generation can pass away.

Something else to factor in. Obviously, and shall be led away captive into all nations, did not end with the events involving 70 AD, it began with them and that captivity has continued for several thousand years. Therefore, since everything recorded in verse 24 also has to be fulfilled before this generation can pass away, how is it remotely reasonable that the 2000 years involving being captive into all nations, that if this generation already passed away 2000 years ago, but that it can't pass away unless all is fulfilled first, how it then passed away, regardless?

Either Jesus is a true prophet or He is a false prophet, a liar. He clearly said that this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Which then obviously means this past 2000 years involving being led away captive into all nations, this has to fulfilled as well. Once again, how can a 2000 year era of time be fulfilled at the end of 70 AD when 2000 years can't fit a time period involving the end of 70 AD? 2000 years fit an era of time involving, duh, 2000 years.

This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled---which includes---and shall be led away captive into all nations--and the era of time that ends up involving--where thus far it has involved going on 2000 years--and includes---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. If it does not also include these things, according to some interpretations, the fact some interpretations have this generation having passed away 2000 years ago, these same interpretations have then turned a true prophet into a false prophet, thus a liar, the fact Jesus plainly said all things have to be fulfilled, not some things but not other things, all things. Meaning everything He said prior to having said that.

And since--shall be led away captive into all nations--obviously goes beyond 70 AD--the time period this is involving also has to be fulfilled before this generation can pass away. It's that simple unless one's interpretation is more important to them than the truth is. That they put their interpretation above the words of Christ, thus make Christ a liar and a false prophet in the process, the fact the 2000 years involving being led captive into all nations was not fulfilled when this generation allegedly passed away 2000 years ago, and that Christ, clearly, undeniably said, that until all things are fulfilled first, in the meantime this generation shall not pass away. A lot of us believe what He said, so why don't Preterists believe what He said as well? If they did, they wouldn't be insisting unbelievable nonsense is actually truth instead, that this generation already passed away before all things are even fulfilled first.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And since--shall be led away captive into all nations--obviously goes beyond 70 AD--the time period this is involving also has to be fulfilled before this generation can pass away.

The mistake you are making, you are applying this 42 months in question to the wrong era of time. This 42 months fits in the end of this age not in the first century involving 70 AD.

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.

You are presuming that being led away captive to all nations in AD 70 resulted in the Jews returning from being exiled. They didn't. Those captured in the city of Jerusalem died in captivity, or in Roman arenas, or under slavery. That literal 42 months has come and gone back in AD 66-70. That was at the end of that age. We today are now in the time of one of "the ages that are coming", which Paul wrote about.

God did not intend the Jewish tribal distinctions to last. Josephus records that the archived genealogical records of the tribes were burned up by the Zealots themselves within the city before the end of AD 70. God had promised in Malachi 4 that the "Great and dreadful day of the Lord" would "burn like an oven", and the proud and the wicked would be left with "NEITHER ROOT NOR BRANCH". The "root" meant any recorded ancestral records of the Jewish tribes. The "branch" would be any records of physical descendants of any tribes of Israel. God does not deal anymore with the nations of the world in terms of "Gentile" and "Jew". As Paul once said, they are all alike concluded in unbelief and in need of a Savior, and there is no category of difference between them today in God's eyes. Mankind might be predisposed to segregate the nations into various races, but God does not do that anymore under the New Covenant. That literally has become a "racist" theology at this point in time.

We know from 2 Peter 3, this same appearance is when all of the works of earth are burned up. But this verse does not say what destruction happens. Did all the works on earth burn up in 70AD?

Yes, they did. Look at the kind of burned up "works" which 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 speaks about. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

This in addition to the works of men's hands being burned up, such as the physical temple system of which the Jews had made an idol, when compared to Christ's spiritual temple not made of hands.

 

[DavidPT]

You are presuming that being led away captive to all nations in AD 70 resulted in the Jews returning from being exiled. They didn't. Those captured in the city of Jerusalem died in captivity, or in Roman arenas, or under slavery. That literal 42 months has come and gone back in AD 66-70. That was at the end of that age. We today are now in the time of one of "the ages that are coming", which Paul wrote about.

God did not intend the Jewish tribal distinctions to last. Josephus records that the archived genealogical records of the tribes were burned up by the Zealots themselves within the city before the end of AD 70. God had promised in Malachi 4 that the "Great and dreadful day of the Lord" would "burn like an oven", and the proud and the wicked would be left with "NEITHER ROOT NOR BRANCH". The "root" meant any recorded ancestral records of the Jewish tribes. The "branch" would be any records of physical descendants of any tribes of Israel. God does not deal anymore with the nations of the world in terms of "Gentile" and "Jew". As Paul once said, they are all alike concluded in unbelief and in need of a Savior, and there is no category of difference between them today in God's eyes. Mankind might be predisposed to segregate the nations into various races, but God does not do that anymore under the New Covenant. That literally has become a "racist" theology at this point in time.

That aside for now since we apparently don't take being led into captivity in the same sense, I submit the following that I finished typing up a few minutes ago.

Discussing/debating the following with a Preterist is obviously futile, so I don't know why some of us even bother, the fact we don't even see some of these things ending where they do, to be involving the same era of time when they end. At the end of the following Preterists see that ending with 70 AD, I and others don't.

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.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

In verse 24 when we are at the end of this era of time---the times of the Gentiles--we are then at the beginning of this era of time, meaning first verses 25-26.

If we compare with Matthew 24, we should note, that if at the end of the times of the Gentiles per Luke 21:24, that it leads to what is recorded in verses 25-26, this then tells us that in Matthew 24, what is preceding what is recorded in Luke 21:25-26, that this is involving the times of the Gentiles. Like such, in order to try and make what I'm trying to say a bit clearer.

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

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Obviously, the events immediately after the tribulation of those days, these are involving the same events that Luke 21:25-26 are involving. And since Luke 21 records that the times of the Gentiles precede the events involving verses 25-26, this obviously means that the tribulation of those days, per Matthew 24:29, that this is involving this same 'times of the Gentiles', and that the times of the Gentiles have then ended at this point, meaning at the end of the tribulation of those days, obviously meaning Matthew 24:15-26.

Maybe you even agree with this, but even so, the era of time you have these things involving and ending during, is not the era of time I have these things involving and ending during. Assuming one of us is even correct, well both of us can't be correct, though.

Obviously, it can't be you that is correct since this would mean the times of the Gentiles in question, the fact, that as of verse 25-26 in Luke 21, the times of the Gentiles will have obviously been finished at this point, your interpretation implies that the times of the Gentiles has already been fulfilled 2000 years ago since that is the era of time you are applying these events to.

It is then a question of, does the coming and gathering recorded in Matthew 24:30-31 support your interpretation of everything I submitted above, or does it support my interpretation? My interpretation is that the above are involving events pertaining to the final days of age, not the first century and 70 AD instead. Would a coming of Christ and a gathering of the saved, since the elect are obviously meaning the saved in Matthew 24:31, in the end of this age support that? Would a coming of Christ and a gathering of the saved, in the first century and 70 AD support your interpretation of the above?

Or let me put it this way instead, since it's plainly obvious that you believe that that would support your interpret ion of the above. Even though you disagree with my interpretation, do you at least think the coming of Christ in the end of this age and a gathering of the saved, that it could support what I submitted above, that there is at least logic to it even though you disagree with that interpretation?, IOW, is that interpretation at least possible?

If you asked me the same question in regards to your view, my answer would be no, that a coming in 70 AD would not support that since no such coming took place to begin with, in any sense. The coming and gathering recorded in Matthew 24:30-31 is meaning after the tribulation of those days, it is meaning after what is recorded in Luke 21:25-26. No coming of Christ, in any sense, occurs before or even during the tribulation of those days, meaning great tribulation in this case(Matthew 24:21), the coming occurs after the tribulation of those days.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you asked me the same question in regards to your view, my answer would be no, that a coming in 70 AD would not support that since no such coming took place to begin with, in any sense. The coming and gathering recorded in Matthew 24:30-31 is meaning after the tribulation of those days, it is meaning after what is recorded in Luke 21:25-26. No coming of Christ, in any sense, occurs before or even during the tribulation of those days, meaning great tribulation in this case(Matthew 24:21), the coming occurs after the tribulation of those days

Daniel 12:11-13 gives us the exact countdown to a resurrection event in which Daniel would share (at Christ's coming). That resurrection would be at the end of a 1,335th day countdown: a period of days initiated by two very particular events taking place during the same season of time. Those two things were (#1), a time when a daily sacrifice would be taken away, at the same season of the year when (#2), the abomination of desolation was set up ("Jerusalem surrounded by armies" according to Luke 21:20).

Both of these two events happened in the summer season of AD 66. The daily sacrifice in the temple performed on behalf of the welfare of the Roman empire and the emperor were taken away by Eleazar, the governor of the temple. This affront to Rome as well as the Zealots' attack on the Roman Fortress of Antonia and on the Romans at Masada led to the Roman general Cestius Gallus coming into Jerusalem in October AD 66. According to the numbers given in Daniel 12:11-13, 1,290 days after Cestius Gallus had been about to take the temple in Jerusalem (but retreated for no reason), Roman armies under Titus had come again to Jerusalem just after Passover week had begun in AD 70. Then it was the 45th day after Titus came to besiege the city in AD 70 that the day of Pentecost arrived in Jerusalem on that 1,335th day.

The end of that 1,335th day was the resurrection event Daniel 12:11-13 had foretold. No one knew the day or the hour exactly because the Jewish feast days were determined by the first appearance of the new moon in the night sky - the sign in heaven which the believers were to be looking for. Christ's return was to be "immediately after the tribulation of those days". Christ told the disciples that there would continue to be history marching forward in time after that point, with various periods of tribulation for the saints - but none of which would ever duplicate the exact kind of tribulation which that first-century generation suffered in its "last state".

We are currently awaiting the next, final resurrection event in our future. Until then, God promised that His kingdom would continue to grow incrementally, like the mustard seed, the leaven, and the stone kingdom which would keep growing and filling the earth with its influence. God always keeps His promises.

 

[DavidPT]

Daniel 12:11-13 gives us the exact countdown to a resurrection event in which Daniel would share (at Christ's coming). That resurrection would be at the end of a 1,335th day countdown: a period of days initiated by two very particular events taking place during the same season of time. Those two things were (#1), a time when a daily sacrifice would be taken away, at the same season of the year when (#2), the abomination of desolation was set up ("Jerusalem surrounded by armies" according to Luke 21:20).

Both of these two events happened in the summer season of AD 66. The daily sacrifice in the temple performed on behalf of the welfare of the Roman empire and the emperor were taken away by Eleazar, the governor of the temple. This affront to Rome as well as the Zealots' attack on the Roman Fortress of Antonia and on the Romans at Masada led to the Roman general Cestius Gallus coming into Jerusalem in October AD 66. According to the numbers given in Daniel 12:11-13, 1,290 days after Cestius Gallus had been about to take the temple in Jerusalem (but retreated for no reason), Roman armies under Titus had come again to Jerusalem just after Passover week had begun in AD 70. Then it was the 45th day after Titus came to besiege the city in AD 70 that the day of Pentecost arrived in Jerusalem on that 1,335th day.

The end of that 1,335th day was the resurrection event Daniel 12:11-13 had foretold. No one knew the day or the hour exactly because the Jewish feast days were determined by the first appearance of the new moon in the night sky - the sign in heaven which the believers were to be looking for. Christ's return was to be "immediately after the tribulation of those days". Christ told the disciples that there would continue to be history marching forward in time after that point, with various periods of tribulation for the saints - but none of which would ever duplicate the exact kind of tribulation which that first-century generation suffered in its "last state".

We are currently awaiting the next, final resurrection event in our future. Until then, God promised that His kingdom would continue to grow incrementally, like the mustard seed, the leaven, and the stone kingdom which would keep growing and filling the earth with its influence. God always keeps His promises.

What you propose over all might work if it wasn't for that resurrection event at the end of these things that never happened at the time. You are inventing a resurrection event the Bible knows nothing of, based on how you are applying these other things. Since you realize a resurrection event has to be at the end of these things, but instead of this telling you, after all, you are rather intelligent, no doubt----that your interpretation is nonsensical, you flat out ignore that it's nonsensical because you are convinced you are understanding all of these other events in Daniel 12 correctly, therefore, in your mind, you are convinced you are placing them in the correct era of time, based on what happened in the first century that you take to be meaning what Daniel 12 records. Except if you actually were correct about all these things, you wouldn't need to invent a resurrection event that the Bible nor history knows nothing of. You wouldn't have to force that event to agree with your interpretation, it would naturally agree with it. It would be something both the Bible and history would undeniably prove and support.

The way you are reasoning some of these things is all messed up here. Instead of first allowing Daniel 12:2 to aid you in determining the correct era of time involving these other events in Daniel 12, you instead first go about determining what the era of time involving these other events are, based on what happened in the first century leading up to 70 AD, and that you are convinced what is recorded in Daniel 12 are involving those same events, then end up having to force verse 2 to fit something it couldn't possibly fit.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What you propose over all might work if it wasn't for that resurrection event at the end of these things that never happened at the time. You are inventing a resurrection event the Bible knows nothing of, based on how you are applying these other things.

I am not "inventing" another future resurrection event for us in addition to one in the first century, which scripture describes in detail. Do you need me to list all those scripture passages that show a third resurrection event takes place in our future? I can't do it here, but it could go in the "Controversial" forum.

And contrary to the way you think my paradigm figures out these things, it is NOT my private interpretation that drives my hermeneutics. It is the time-relevant terms in scripture itself that should be directing how we interpret these things. These time-relevant terms are not disposable for us. We can't tell ourselves, "Well, I don't see how that could have happened in that first-century time frame, so they must NOT have happened." That truly would be the cart driving the horse. We have to remain faithful to the time-relevant language scripture employs. The word "NOW" written in that first century meant that whatever was being spoken of was THEN happening or going to happen in that first-century time frame. And there are a multitude of ways scripture uses to portray just when events would transpire. I am trying to remain faithful to all of that language - wherever that leads.

 

[Hammster]

That does not answer the question.

We know from 2 Peter 3, this same appearance is when all of the works of earth are burned up. But this verse does not say what destruction happens. Did all the works on earth burn up in 70AD?

Where does 2 Peter say that?

 

[Hammster]

Nope. You got the wrong Israel. The signs in the sun, moon, and stars, have to do with the judgment of the New Testament Congregation prior to Second Coming... especially when Christ gathers his Elects from four corners of the earth, Matthew 24:31, immediately after the Great Tribulation, Matthew 24:29. This did not take place in 70AD.

That would be true except it isn’t. It has to do with the judgement of the leaders of Israel. It’s just an extension of Matthew 23.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Nope. You got the wrong Israel. The signs in the sun, moon, and stars, have to do with the judgment of the New Testament Congregation prior to Second Coming... especially when Christ gathers his Elects from four corners of the earth, Matthew 24:31, immediately after the Great Tribulation, Matthew 24:29. This did not take place in 70AD.

Were you there in Jerusalem at that time as an eye-witness so that you can declare with certainty that this did not happen?

 

[DavidPT]

I am not "inventing" another future resurrection event for us in addition to one in the first century, which scripture describes in detail. Do you need me to list all those scripture passages that show a third resurrection event takes place in our future? I can't do it here, but it could go in the "Controversial" forum.

And contrary to the way you think my paradigm figures out these things, it is NOT my private interpretation that drives my hermeneutics. It is the time-relevant terms in scripture itself that should be directing how we interpret these things. These time-relevant terms are not disposable for us. We can't tell ourselves, "Well, I don't see how that could have happened in that first-century time frame, so they must NOT have happened." That truly would be the cart driving the horse. We have to remain faithful to the time-relevant language scripture employs. The word "NOW" written in that first century meant that whatever was being spoken of was THEN happening or going to happen in that first-century time frame. And there are a multitude of ways scripture uses to portray just when events would transpire. I am trying to remain faithful to all of that language - wherever that leads.

Your hermeneutics in this case must not be working too well for you then, because it leads to a nonsensical conclusion involving Daniel 12:2, since that is not involving any resurrection event in the first century, it is involving a resurrection event that is yet to take place in our future, and that it is meaning at the end of the unequaled time of trouble in verse 1, where according to both Daniel 12 and Matthew 24, it is during a time involving an AOD.

Why don't some of you try to think spiritually rather than literal in this case? Obviously, if Daniel 12 is involving the end of days like I take it to be involving, the literal can't be meant since a literal temple in literal Jerusalem in the 21st century where these things get fulfilled in, makes zero sense. Preterists are similar to Dispensation Pretribbers in some regards, since both views tend to take literal something that is not meant to be taken literal. Granted, if these events we are discussing are involving the first century, it is then perfectly reasonable to take these events in the literal sense. I don't dispute that. But if these events are involving the end of days in this age, it is no longer reasonable to take these events in a literal sense, that it is involving a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, so on and so on.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But if these events are involving the end of days in this age, it is no longer reasonable to take these events in a literal sense, that it is involving a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, so on and so on.

Oh, I agree that there will be no rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. God has made that abundantly clear to us by the manner in which He obliterated the city and the temple and laid everything in the city level with the ground in the AD 70 era. But I disagree that these events in Daniel 12 are to take place in the end of days in this PRESENT age. By the time all of those events in Daniel would take place, the angel said the power of the holy people would be shattered. (Daniel 12:7)

Ethnic Israel was once called the "holy people" in Isaiah 63:18. "Your holy people have possessed it but a little while; our adversaries have trodden down your sanctuary." It was THESE "holy people' who were the ones who had their power shattered by the time the AD 66-70 era had concluded. This is not referring to believers as the "holy people" having their power shattered in our future at the end of those 1,335 days.