Daniel's 70th week

[sovereigngrace]

Where does it say the desolation of Jerusalem comes at the second coming?

I was genuinely trying to ascertain what you were saying. It was clear as mud! But you refused to clarify.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I was genuinely trying to ascertain what you were saying. It was clear as mud! But you refused to clarify.

Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world and I've spent several posts saying that it is a distinct prophecy that has nothing to do with the Last Day. Your question totally ignored the context of the past several posts on that subject and showed me that your back and forth on this is not sincere at all. You're not trying to ascertain what I've said, I think you're just trying to win an argument. If you had some specific issue with clarity, you could have pointed out what was unclear. Instead you reframed my position to suit your rebuttal in the form of a loaded question which you should have from my past posts known was already answered.

In short, I don't believe you're sincere because of your responses. That could change. I'm open to continuing discussion.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world and I've spent several posts saying that it is a distinct prophecy that has nothing to do with the Last Day. Your question totally ignored the context of the past several posts on that subject and showed me that your back and forth on this is not sincere at all. You're not trying to ascertain what I've said, I think you're just trying to win an argument. If you had some specific issue with clarity, you could have pointed out what was unclear. Instead you reframed my position to suit your rebuttal in the form of a loaded question which you should have from my past posts known was already answered.

In short, I don't believe you're sincere because of your responses. That could change. I'm open to continuing discussion.

I get your position on Matthew 24. That is not what I'm talking about. what I cannot work out is your take on Luke 20:27-36. Do you relate that to AD70 or the age to come?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world and I've spent several posts saying that it is a distinct prophecy that has nothing to do with the Last Day. Your question totally ignored the context of the past several posts on that subject and showed me that your back and forth on this is not sincere at all. You're not trying to ascertain what I've said, I think you're just trying to win an argument. If you had some specific issue with clarity, you could have pointed out what was unclear. Instead you reframed my position to suit your rebuttal in the form of a loaded question which you should have from my past posts known was already answered.

In short, I don't believe you're sincere because of your responses. That could change. I'm open to continuing discussion.

Luke 20:33 records the Sadducees question: “in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.”

Jesus replied: “The children of this world (or aion or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (or aion or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:34-36).

In Luke 20:34-36 we see the persistent New Testament contrast between “this age” which is depicted as sinful, carnal and temporal, and “the age to come” which is perfect, glorified and eternal. The problem for Preterists is that they identify our current age (since AD70) as “the age to come” or “that age.” But Jesus assures us that one must be qualified to inherit “the age to come.” Those who experience it must “be accounted worthy to obtain that age.” How then can that relate to our current age that is saturated in billions of mortal rebels? In what possible way should the wicked all around us “be accounted worthy to obtain that age” (our current age)?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I get your position on Matthew 24. That is not what I'm talking about. what I cannot work out is your take on Luke 20:27-36. Do you relate that to AD70 or the age to come?

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage"

What I would want you the reader to notice here is that Jesus is obviously talking about the Last Day - the day that people are resurrected and it is responsive to their question.

And what was the question?

3 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Unless one thinks that Jesus doesn't answer direct questions, then he has to be talking in the context here of what they asked. It was a trick question - so they thought.

But he knew more than they did. Now why on earth would you think I would conflate this to mean something about AD 70? What possible reference to AD 70 is in this passage?

Now Luke 21 on the other hand....

But I will say this. The fact that he uses that term 'age to come' doesn't mean that this phrase means the same thing every time it's encountered. It cannot be applied universally. When you see a word or phrase in the bible it doesn't mean the same thing every time it appears. You cannot build a doctrine around a phrase and then assert it means the same thing every time. That's terrible exegesis.

Let me give you an example

Acts 2
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

In the same passage this same term means different things. In the first, it's talking about the Lord's supper and in the second instance it's talking about regular meals.

You will get yourself into all kinds of error by taking one phrase and then asserting that it means the same thing every time its encountered. Don't do that. It's not appropriate. Grammarians call this 'illegitimate totality transfer.' It's the practice of people who have a real problem making distinctions. Context defines meaning, not the individual words. We get dictionary definitions of words from their use in writings, we do not first define a word and then apply that meaning everywhere it is used. And there is more than one definition for every word in our language because they're used differently depending on context.

 

[sovereigngrace]

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage"

What I would want you the reader to notice here is that Jesus is obviously talking about the Last Day - the day that people are resurrected and it is responsive to their question.

And what was the question?

3 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Unless one thinks that Jesus doesn't answer direct questions, then he has to be talking in the context here of what they asked. It was a trick question - so they thought.

But he knew more than they did. Now why on earth would you think I would conflate this to mean something about AD 70? What possible reference to AD 70 is in this passage?

Now Luke 21 on the other hand....

But I will say this. The fact that he uses that term 'age to come' doesn't mean that this phrase means the same thing every time it's encountered. It cannot be applied universally. When you see a word or phrase in the bible it doesn't mean the same thing every time it appears. You cannot build a doctrine around a phrase and then assert it means the same thing every time. That's terrible exegesis.

Let me give you an example

Acts 2
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

In the same passage this same term means different things. In the first, it's talking about the Lord's supper and in the second instance it's talking about regular meals.

You will get yourself into all kinds of error by taking one phrase and then asserting that it means the same thing every time its encountered. Don't do that. It's not appropriate. Grammarians call this 'illegitimate totality transfer.' It's the practice of people who have a real problem making distinctions. Context defines meaning, not the individual words. We get dictionary definitions of words from their use in writings, we do not first define a word and then apply that meaning everywhere it is used. And there is more than one definition for every word in our language because they're used differently depending on context.

Luke 20:27-36 clearly demonstrates that the dividing moment between this age and the age to come is the time of the Lord’s return and the physical resurrection, not AD70. It is nowhere shown to be the change from the old covenant to the new covenant, as some you claim.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world and I've spent several posts saying that it is a distinct prophecy that has nothing to do with the Last Day. Your question totally ignored the context of the past several posts on that subject and showed me that your back and forth on this is not sincere at all. You're not trying to ascertain what I've said, I think you're just trying to win an argument. If you had some specific issue with clarity, you could have pointed out what was unclear. Instead you reframed my position to suit your rebuttal in the form of a loaded question which you should have from my past posts known was already answered.

In short, I don't believe you're sincere because of your responses. That could change. I'm open to continuing discussion.

No, you just didn't grasp what I was asking.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Because Luke 20:27-36 clearly demonstrates that the dividing moment between this age and the age to come is the time of the Lord’s return and the physical resurrection, not AD70. It is nowhere shown to be the change from the old covenant to the new covenant, as some you claim.

What is this in answer to? It appears non responsive.

 

[sovereigngrace]

What is this in answer to? It appears non responsive.

You must be reading it too quick. LOL.

 

[sovereigngrace]

What is this in answer to? It appears non responsive.

When was/is the day of redemption, and what happens then?

 

[Al Touthentop]

You must be reading it too quick. LOL.

No, I do read fast, but it is not in answer to anything I asked. So what was it in reference to? 'Because' what?

 

[sovereigngrace]

No, I do read fast, but it is not in answer to anything I asked. So what was it in reference to? 'Because' what?

I removed because. Please reread.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I removed because. Please reread.

You didn't read my post obviously. Your response is proof that you are insincere. You are arguing against Luke 20 being about AD 70 and I explicitly stated that not only do I agree about that, I can't see any reason why you would think I would think it has anything to do with AD 70.

You did not read what I wrote. At all. You hit the response button having no idea that I don't think Luke 20 has anything to do with AD 70.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You didn't read my post obviously. Your response is proof that you are insincere. You are arguing against Luke 20 being about AD 70 and I explicitly stated that not only do I agree about that, I can't see any reason why you would think I would think it has anything to do with AD 70.

You did not read what I wrote. At all. You hit the response button having no idea that I don't think Luke 20 has anything to do with AD 70.

Not so! You had argued that we were now living in "the age to come" (which, is frankly, absurd). When I showed you different Scripture showing that that state was talking about the eternal state, a period after the second coming and glorification you still defended your position, despite the various clear and explicit Scriptures forbidding that. Luke 20 was one of some different Scriptures I presented that prove such.

Now:

When was/is the day of redemption, and what happens then?

 

[Al Touthentop]

No, you just didn't grasp what I was asking.

It wasn't a hard question to understand. What was hard to understand was your asking it given how many words I've spent conversing with you on this subject and the misrepresentation of those words pregnant in the question. You're implying that I'm dense.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It wasn't a hard question to understand. What was hard to understand was your asking it given how many words I've spent conversing with you on this subject and the misrepresentation of those words pregnant in the question. You're implying that I'm dense.

I have never thought that or insinuated that. I'm not sure how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I would not be wasting my time engaging with you if I thought that.

Now:

When was/is the day of redemption, and what happens then?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Not so! You had argued that we were now living in "the age to come" (which, is frankly, absurd). When I showed you different Scripture showing that that state was talking about the eternal state,

What do think I believe about Luke 20?

 

[sovereigngrace]

What do think I believe about Luke 20?

What you told me.

 

[sovereigngrace]

What do think I believe about Luke 20?

I was not using your response to Luke 20 as the grounds for my conclusions. It is your repeated statements to me. Do you still hold to the view that we are currently in the age to come?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I have never thought that or insinuated that. I'm not sure how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

I just explained to you how I could come to that conclusion. You asked a question that proved you were not paying any attention to what I have written. Then when I objected, you claimed I just didn't "grasp" what you were asking. If I didn't grasp what you were asking, I must be pretty dense. I mean...if it was a difficult question I could accept that maybe I was not understanding something. But it wasn't a complex question. It was a question that showed you were not paying attention at all.

Here again you hit the reply button with no consideration of the words but only to defend yourself.