Expect, or not to Expect? That is the question.

[Timtofly]

Jesus comes back and saves flesh too.
and that's the part that you miss.
There are people alive and will not die, they'll just be changed from mortal to immortal.
1 Corinthians 15 explains this.
when Paul says "we will not all sleep" that is Paul's euphemism for a Christian who dies. Because to Paul, they are not actually dead, just waiting for resurrection, so asleep if you will.

The 144k are never said to die. But that is it. All humanity is appointed to die.

 

[RandyPNW]

He's just kinda someone I consider to be a hack and so I've kinda considered him synonymous with telling a story out of order. I mean a story putting in a flashback or something like that while mostly being in a single narrative direction okay fine but he in particular was just all over the place. That aspect stuck with me even though I don't watch his movies regularly.

It's okay. I get the picture.

I just think if they give a steady Chronology with no logical break in Chronology that you should stick with the Chronology rather than throw something out of order just to place people in the audience that were not mentioned to be in the audience at the Olivet Discourse so you can claim it was directed "to the Jews" like the pretribs do.

I certainly don't subscribe to the Pretribs. And yes, they "pick and choose" what they prefer to read "into" the text. As for sticking with the chronology, as I showed you, there really isn't any attempt to maintain a *strict* chronology. Ch. 17 begins with a journey to Jerusalem.

But then there seems to be a break....

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.

This is not any effort at a strict chronology! Just the word "once [upon a time]" should tell you this is some kind of reflection, which in the author's mind could be at any time, since it was all past tense from his point of view. It suggests a possible insertion of material extraneous to the strict timeline.

And so, when comparing with the other versions of the Olivet Discourse, it seems apparent to me that Luke separated X of the O.D. from Y of the O.D. And he applied X as part of the answer to the Pharisee, to give the reader a more complete understanding of Jesus' position on the Kingdom of God.

To the Pharisee Jesus said that he wouldn't understand it because the physical temple mattered less. To the Disciple Jesus said that the Kingdom of God would come after the destruction of the temple. Same answer but gave the reader the full answer that the Pharisee was asking, even though Y came later.

It has always been striking to me, that John was one of the people present for this discussion and John did not include it in his Gospel account. Rather John covered the same ground in Revelation 6 instead.

John 2.19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

I understand, but disagree that Luke lifted the material and placed it earlier in Chronology.

It's just an opinion I have--no proof whatsoever. But I did provide the reason for my argument, wrong or right. The Olivet Discourse includes X and Y material. Matt 24 and Mark 13 included some of both. So we know the O.D. included X and Y.

But Luke removed X and included it in the earlier account (ch. 17). Why? It seems to me to be because X was part of the answer Jesus was giving to the Pharisee, and not just what he taught the Disciples on the Mt. of Olives. They are covering similar material. Whether Jesus repeated X twice, or Luke just provided X earlier in his account I don't know, nor does it really matter.

#1. which I worry about with pretribbers who do not read their bible, and expect an imminent return of Christ before the Abomination of Desolation, they don't understand that the Antichrist will claim to be Christ (6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.). So they can be deceived. #2. Luke 17 points out "Remember Lot's wife.". Lot's wife, was being saved from Sodom, she was on her escape... but she looked back.

I share your concern about a false imminent expectation. But as I said, I believe the AoD was not the Antichrist, but rather, the Roman Army that desolated Jerusalem in the apostles' generation.

So, I believe that it can actually be possible to miss the rapture...

To me, it has never been about "missing the Rapture." Jesus never said anybody could "miss the Rapture" by somehow failing to anticipate when it would happen. The real concern is, Missing Salvation. And that can happen when people decide not to live in righteousness. They will not be prepared for judgment when it comes, whether in the present age, or at Christ's Coming.

a lot of commentaries are written by preterists and historicists.
It doesn't make them right and none of them address Isaiah 26:19 itself.

So you don't listen to scholars because they don't agree with your particular school?

Once He got through the signs leading to His second coming and described it, He stayed on the topic of His second coming itself and stressed the imminent character of it (after the AoD) and being ready for it, hence the parables He went into in Matthew 25.

Well yes, the topic of the 2nd Coming was always in the back of his mind, though his main focus had been on the destruction of the temple in his generation. He was comparing the two, showing his Disciples how to properly prepare for his 2nd Coming. To prepare for his Kingdom is by living in righteousness--not by trying to guess when it is time to prepare for an imminent Coming!

I realize that you emphasize Luke 21's description to validate your position on it. But ALL of them have to be true. Not just the one that can be explained by the Roman Armies in AD70

Luke's version is the same as Matthew and Mark's versions--I've compared them minutely. They differ in our minds only if we assume the AoD is not the punishment inflicted on the Jews in 70 AD. We are confused only when as futurists we want, like Hal Lindsey, for everything to be about the last generation of the age.

The Abomination of Desolation directly has to do with the Antichrist, more specifically with the image of the beast. In Daniel itself they refer to it as "set up".

Yes, the Roman Army "stood" around the city of Jerusalem. They were "set up" there. Nothing, nothing, nothing indicates the AoD was the Antichrist, except a couple of Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Church. The vast majority of the Church Fathers, however, viewed Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse as all about 70 AD, the Roman Army, and the fall of Jewish religion.

3 things, it's in the middle of the 70th week, so you'd be claiming the 70th week is already done, which.. doesn't align with Daniel 9:24. We still have sin/transgression, and we still have unfulfilled prophecies. Daniel 9:24 says the 70th week is it, it seals up prophecy, it involves daily sacrifices, and it lasts until the consummation (end of the age brought about by the second coming)
Daniel 11:31

Again, takes away the sacrifice, and it is placing something within the holy of holies. That is, most likely, an object, like the image of the beast.
Daniel 12:11

It's not an army, or the destruction of the temple, rather, it is placing something in the temple that is an affront to God. Likely this.

Revelation 13

Maybe we can take up Dan 9 in a separate thread. This is getting too long for one read. And I don't want to lose others. All of your points have answers.

 

[Jamdoc]

It's okay. I get the picture.



I certainly don't subscribe to the Pretribs. And yes, they "pick and choose" what they prefer to read "into" the text. As for sticking with the chronology, as I showed you, there really isn't any attempt to maintain a *strict* chronology. Ch. 17 begins with a journey to Jerusalem.

But then there seems to be a break....

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.

This is not any effort at a strict chronology! Just the word "once [upon a time]" should tell you this is some kind of reflection, which in the author's mind could be at any time, since it was all past tense from his point of view. It suggests a possible insertion of material extraneous to the strict timeline.

And so, when comparing with the other versions of the Olivet Discourse, it seems apparent to me that Luke separated X of the O.D. from Y of the O.D. And he applied X as part of the answer to the Pharisee, to give the reader a more complete understanding of Jesus' position on the Kingdom of God.

To the Pharisee Jesus said that he wouldn't understand it because the physical temple mattered less. To the Disciple Jesus said that the Kingdom of God would come after the destruction of the temple. Same answer but gave the reader the full answer that the Pharisee was asking, even though Y came later.

King James doesn't suggest a break at all.
That same verse is:

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

I'd never base an interpretation off a cherrypicked translation. I'd always go with what makes sense according to multiple common translations, which is that He told this to the Pharisees on the way to Jerusalem, and the Olivet Discourse was to Peter, James, John, and Andrew privately. No Pharisees involved in the Olivet Discourse.

John 2.19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

Not a part of the Olivet Discourse so I don't get your point in quoting that.

I share your concern about a false imminent expectation. But as I said, I believe the AoD was not the Antichrist, but rather, the Roman Army that desolated Jerusalem in the apostles' generation.

and I believe you are wrong and possibly dangerously so. I fear for preterists and historicists because they do not watch. Because they feel it is already fulfilled. They, like Amillennials, have internalized all this stuff so they do not pay attention to the fact that the world is shaping into the world that is shown in bible prophecy shortly before the return of Jesus.

To me, it has never been about "missing the Rapture." Jesus never said anybody could "miss the Rapture" by somehow failing to anticipate when it would happen. The real concern is, Missing Salvation. And that can happen when people decide not to live in righteousness. They will not be prepared for judgment when it comes, whether in the present age, or at Christ's Coming.

Remember Lot's wife, is pretty striking to me. 3 words but it says a lot. Lot's wife was being pulled out of Sodom too, symbolizing salvation, like Lot and his daughters, but she looked back on a sinful life, and perished during the escape.

So you don't listen to scholars because they don't agree with your particular school?

I see no reason to listen to scholars above anyone else because they too are men, and are often wrong.

Well yes, the topic of the 2nd Coming was always in the back of his mind, though his main focus had been on the destruction of the temple in his generation. He was comparing the two, showing his Disciples how to properly prepare for his 2nd Coming. To prepare for his Kingdom is by living in righteousness--not by trying to guess when it is time to prepare for an imminent Coming!

Jesus' instructions included watching and praying (and then fleeing when the AoD happens). If you were just supposed to live holy and not even worry about it? Jesus wouldn't have given them signs, and Jesus would have just told them not to worry about it, and just live holy.

That is after all what this topic is about. The seemingly contradictory statements that Jesus gives, that we should watch, but that He will come at a time nobody expects. People seem to stress 1 or the other but never properly understand both.[/quote]

Luke's version is the same as Matthew and Mark's versions--I've compared them minutely. They differ in our minds only if we assume the AoD is not the punishment inflicted on the Jews in 70 AD. We are confused only when as futurists we want, like Hal Lindsey, for everything to be about the last generation of the age.

Not really, Luke's was more something that might happen at any time, including AD70. Matthew and Mark was more about 1 specific event. The fact that you believe that specific event was in AD70, is a Historicist and Preterist error. It ignores that all these things were to happen within 1 generation, ignores that Daniel's 70'th week ends prophecy and transgression (although full preterists do try to claim this has happened too but I think they're totally out to lunch believing this is the New Heavens and New Earth)
That is the language that Daniel 9, and Jesus use in the Olivet Discourse, so I will hold to it rather than listen to puffed up "scholars" in error.

Yes, the Roman Army "stood" around the city of Jerusalem. They were "set up" there. Nothing, nothing, nothing indicates the AoD was the Antichrist, except a couple of Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Church. The vast majority of the Church Fathers, however, viewed Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse as all about 70 AD, the Roman Army, and the fall of Jewish religion.

That is stretching enough to make Gumby strain.

Maybe we can take up Dan 9 in a separate thread. This is getting too long for one read. And I don't want to lose others. All of your points have answers.

Nah I think it's relevant, because both Daniel 9 and Jesus agree in the short time period of these events, rather than trying to spread them out over 1900 years.

 

[parousia70]

We don't know when this world will end .... but thank God it will

Rather, Scripture teaches that the earth and material cosmos will exist forever (Ecc 1:4; Ps 78:69; 89:36-37; 104:5; 148:4-6; Eph 3:21) and that human generations are unending and perpetual (Ps 145:13; Dan 4:3,34; Dan 7:14,18,27; Lk 1:33) and through it all, the Church will never fall (Matt 16:28) and indeed continues through all ages, world without end, amen (Eph 3:21)

If you need a Sharpie to redact all these passages form your Bible so your above assertion can remain intact, let me know.

.... get's more and more diabolical every day.

Actually, by every measure the world is getting better and better, more Godly, more obedient, every single day.

And as I always do when someone says the opposite, I ask them to point to a year in our past where conditions overall were BETTER than they are today. Was it 1983? 1970? 1955? 1901? 1834? 1762? 1624? 1190? 70AD?

Show me EVEN ONE YEAR in our past where the world was a better place, and the human condition was in better straits.

If the world IS indeed worse today than ever before, it should be easy to point to ANY year in our past when the world was BETTER... but NOBODY can do it.

Fact is, Violent crime is down, wars are fewer and farther between, human rights are increasing, medical advances are astronomic just in the last 5 years alone, not to mention the last 100...

The World, by every metric, continues to get better and better.
Compared to the state of the planet 2000 years ago, there is no question that both the moral sense and the covenantal reality of nations have been radically changed for the better by Christ and the Church.

Christ, his teachings, and his people are here solving the world's problems in myriad ways.

Examples could be multiplied in every field. The whole rise of Western Civilization - science and technology, medicine, the arts, constitutionalism, the jury system, free enterprise, literacy, increasing productivity, a rising standard of living, the high status of women - is attributable to one major fact: the World has been transformed by Christianity. True, the transformation is not yet complete. There are many battles ahead. But the point is that, even in what is still largely an early Christian civilization, God has showered us with blessings and will continue to do so.

There are More Obedient Christians on the planet today than at any time in History and tomorrow there will be more than today. Such is the unbroken History and Future of Christ's Church.
Of the Increase of His Government and of His peace THERE WILL BE NO END (Isaiah 9:7)

The Church will Not Fail in her divine mission to transform the whole world. Nothing can stop us. (Matthew 16:18)

50 Ways The World is Getting Better

Why The World Is Getting Better And Why Hardly Anyone Knows It

BBC News - Viewpoint: Five ways the world is doing better than you think

World scorecard: A new report shows how the world is a better place.

Is the world getting better or worse? - opinion - 14 October 2013 - New Scientist

Joe Schlesinger: You do know, right, the world is getting better - World - CBC News

 

[keras]

Show me EVEN ONE YEAR in our past where the world was a better place, and the human condition was in better straits.

The ONE over-riding factor which determines whether the world is a better place now, is in our acknowledgement of our Creator.
The proportion of people who do acknowledge the Creator God, has declined sharply over the past century or so.

There are many people, books and organizations that actively promote atheism, but the bulk of humankind are simply indifferent and don't even bother to care, let alone to actually worship their Maker.
Many are fooled by the Anti-Christs who have come, like Mahomed, Buddha and other idols. 1 John 2:18, 2 Peter 2:1-22

This is how it was in the days of Noah. People ate, drank, got married and just lived their lives; carelessly.
Jesus said the world would again be in the same state as the antediluvian peoples and that God will again destroy their civilization.

If people reject and deny the forthcoming sudden and shocking Day of the Lord's fiery wrath, then they are simply in the dark and haven't taken note of the 100 + Bible prophesies about that Day, which will commence all the well described events leading up to the Return of Jesus for His Millennium reign and finally to Eternity.

 

[RandyPNW]

King James doesn't suggest a break at all.
I'd never base an interpretation off a cherrypicked translation.

Looks like you just did. You think the KJV prohibits there being a "break?" Scholars would know whether beginning a new verse with "and" indicates a break or not. It may be open to interpretation, which is what I think is implied. The story suddenly changes from the 10 lepers cleansed of leprosy to this question by the Pharisees.

I'd always go with what makes sense according to multiple common translations, which is that He told this to the Pharisees on the way to Jerusalem, and the Olivet Discourse was to Peter, James, John, and Andrew privately. No Pharisees involved in the Olivet Discourse.

It's not so much in synchronizing many translations, although that can narrow down our options. Sometimes the order and use of the words leaves open several possibilities.

I don't know for fact if there were no Pharisees on the Mt. of Olives with the Disciples. Do you? Likelihood is not certainty. However, I do think it likely that Jesus was huddled on the Mount with just his Disciples. Again--not fact, but guesswork.

It doesn't change the notion that the Pharisee's question happened earlier, and Jesus' answer started there and continue later on the Mount. The fact that Luke provided the whole answer earlier, when it didn't completely happen there, could be explained as an author's discretion--he wanted the readers to be clear on the context of Jesus' answer to the Pharisee.

He wanted the readers to know immediately about the Kingdom of God in the context of what he did say to the Pharisee about the Kingdom of God. What he said to the Pharisee was this:

“The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

At that point there *could be* a break, because it the passage goes on to say:

Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.

The particular notations in the words concerning a possible change are best understood by scholars. And different translations would try to stay close to neutral on all this.

The NIV seems to leave it clearly open to a possible change from "journeying to Jerusalem" and "the Olivet Discourse." The fact that both are given together in Luke 17 is because Luke sees this portion of the Olivet Discourse as important to understand Jesus' answer to the Pharisee in Luke 17.

He is inserting part of the future Olivet Discourse into the earlier account *on behalf of the reader!* That is my possible scenario, and makes sense if we are to truly see the information in Luke 17 as part of the Olivet Discourse as well. Again, this is not vital and has little to do with whether we have enough food on our table tonight.

I fear for preterists and historicists because they do not watch. Because they feel it is already fulfilled. They, like Amillennials, have internalized all this stuff so they do not pay attention to the fact that the world is shaping into the world that is shown in bible prophecy shortly before the return of Jesus.

Being "watchful" has to do with guarding yourself against lies, and about being careful to live righteous lives with respect to how we will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ. It has nothing to do with being nerve-wracked about Jesus showing up "at any moment." I don't believe Jesus wants us to live in fear.

I see no reason to listen to scholars above anyone else because they too are men, and are often wrong.

This is where you and so many others on these forums lose me. I'd rather speak with educated people.

 

[Jamdoc]

Looks like you just did. You think the KJV prohibits there being a "break?" Scholars would know whether beginning a new verse with "and" indicates a break or not. It may be open to interpretation, which is what I think is implied. The story suddenly changes from the 10 lepers cleansed of leprosy to this question by the Pharisees.

That wasn't cherrypicking, that was picking the interpretation that agrees with both, rather than sides with one.
It's like with my strong conviction at the way pretribulationists abuse 2 Thessalonians 2:3, cherrypicking from the Geneva bible to make it seem like a physical departure so they can claim pretribulation rapture is overtly in scripture.
They disregard all the translations that translate apostasia as falling away, apostasy, rebellion, revolt, etc.
am I cherrypicking the King James that says falling away, or the ESV that says rebellion?
No. I'm not disregarding the Geneva at all. I'm accepting all 3 versions and interpreting based on what all 3 say in agreement, that first will be apostasy, then the Antichrist will be revealed, and THEN Jesus Christ will return after those things, and that it CANNOT happen prior.

It's not so much in synchronizing many translations, although that can narrow down our options. Sometimes the order and use of the words leaves open several possibilities.

I don't know for fact if there were no Pharisees on the Mt. of Olives with the Disciples. Do you? Likelihood is not certainty. However, I do think it likely that Jesus was huddled on the Mount with just his Disciples. Again--not fact, but guesswork.

I do, because Mark 13 specifies that it was private to those 4 specific disciples.

It doesn't change the notion that the Pharisee's question happened earlier, and Jesus' answer started there and continue later on the Mount. The fact that Luke provided the whole answer earlier, when it didn't completely happen there, could be explained as an author's discretion--he wanted the readers to be clear on the context of Jesus' answer to the Pharisee.

He wanted the readers to know immediately about the Kingdom of God in the context of what he did say to the Pharisee about the Kingdom of God. What he said to the Pharisee was this:

“The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

At that point there *could be* a break, because it the passage goes on to say:

Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.

The particular notations in the words concerning a possible change are best understood by scholars. And different translations would try to stay close to neutral on all this.

The NIV seems to leave it clearly open to a possible change from "journeying to Jerusalem" and "the Olivet Discourse." The fact that both are given together in Luke 17 is because Luke sees this portion of the Olivet Discourse as important to understand Jesus' answer to the Pharisee in Luke 17.

He is inserting part of the future Olivet Discourse into the earlier account *on behalf of the reader!* That is my possible scenario, and makes sense if we are to truly see the information in Luke 17 as part of the Olivet Discourse as well. Again, this is not vital and has little to do with whether we have enough food on our table tonight.

I disagree because Mark 13 is specific that it was a private audience. Because of that it does not leave room that He was teaching Pharisees.

Being "watchful" has to do with guarding yourself against lies, and about being careful to live righteous lives with respect to how we will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ. It has nothing to do with being nerve-wracked about Jesus showing up "at any moment." I don't believe Jesus wants us to live in fear.

I stress, again, that it is only "any moment" after the abomination of desolation, but of course since you have a historicist view of the AoD, which I think is very incorrect, it makes it seem like a pretribulationist view to you.
But Jesus has instructions that regard actually watching for events too, your error is in believing those events already happened 1900 years ago.

This is where you and so many others on these forums lose me. I'd rather speak with educated people.

Having a background in science, I can assure you that man will always screw up scholarship, the scientific method afterall involves disproving things. It shows just how wrong we are, even when educated.

The fact that with all the scholarly education we have people have many different positions using the same base book as the foundation of their beliefs, tells me enough that just because someone is purported to be a "great theologian" they're still ultimately men, who are flawed, and are likely to be wrong.

 

[parousia70]

The ONE over-riding factor which determines whether the world is a better place now, is in our acknowledgement of our Creator.

I can agree.

The proportion of people who do acknowledge the Creator God, has declined sharply over the past century or so.

Yet the actual number has inrcreased exponentially, over that same time.

Proportion is irrelevant. Revelation 22:10-11

 

[Jamdoc]

I can agree.



Yet the actual number has inrcreased exponentially, over that same time.

Proportion is irrelevant. Revelation 22:10-11

Problem with that claim is that even among professed Christians many have heretical views such as not believing in the divinity of Christ, or that Buddha, Mohammad, etc are equal ways to reach heaven. To them Jesus is A way A truth and A life, but so are those others.
But Jesus said He is THE way, THE truth, and THE life.

so hearing about there being x number of Christians in the world is meaningless when many are false converts or they fall away.

 

[parousia70]

Problem with that claim is that even among professed Christians many have heretical views such as not believing in the divinity of Christ, or that Buddha, Mohammad, etc are equal ways to reach heaven. To them Jesus is A way A truth and A life, but so are those others.
But Jesus said He is THE way, THE truth, and THE life.

so hearing about there being x number of Christians in the world is meaningless when many are false converts or they fall away.

Problem with that claim is I'm not talking about false converts or those falling away... I'm talking about TRUE Followers of Jesus.

There are more today than there have ever been in the history of the world, and there will be more tomorrow than there are today, as Was Prophesied.

 

[keras]

Problem with that claim is I'm not talking about false converts or those falling away... I'm talking about TRUE Followers of Jesus.

There are more today than there have ever been in the history of the world, and there will be more tomorrow than there are today, as Was Prophesied.

I used the word 'proportional', in my post. It isn't irrelevant at all, because the number of unbelievers has also increased too. Far MORE than true Christians.
Our Creator God is not going to let this situation get much worse.
We are told to pray for the Lord to bring on His terrible Day of fiery wrath, 2 Peter 3:12. Do you?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Actually, by every measure the world is getting better and better, more Godly, more obedient, every single day.

You just can't be serious. There has been a major increase in sexual sin as time goes by. How can you not know this? Look at how homosexuality and sexual deviance is being more and more accepted in society around the world. Drug use and suicide rates are on the rise. Belief in the occult is on the rise. Secular humanism is on the rise. People are increasingly unfriendly and rude to others in public places. But, things are getting better? Seriously, what world are you living in? How is it possible that I'm communicating with someone from another planet?

Problem with that claim is I'm not talking about false converts or those falling away... I'm talking about TRUE Followers of Jesus.

There are more today than there have ever been in the history of the world, and there will be more tomorrow than there are today, as Was Prophesied.

There are also more unbelievers today than there ever has been in the history of the world and the ratio of unbelievers to believers is increasing as time goes on, so you don't have much of a point there.

Yet the actual number has inrcreased exponentially, over that same time.

Proportion is irrelevant. Revelation 22:10-11

How can you say that proportion is irrelevant? That makes no sense. And I don't see how Revelation 22:10-11 supports that point. I'm pretty sure God cares if the ratio of unbelievers to believers is increasing. The reason that He will finally put an end to all this is when it gets to be too bad to allow it to continue (2 Peter 3:3-13, 2 Thess 2:9-12).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I used the word 'proportional', in my post. It isn't irrelevant at all, because the number of unbelievers has also increased too. Far MORE than true Christians.
Our Creator God is not going to let this situation get much worse.
We are told to pray for the Lord to bring on His terrible Day of fiery wrath, 2 Peter 3:12. Do you?

Here's something we can agree on. To act as if the Lord is fine with things getting worse proportionally is insane. No, He is not fine with it. His wrath is going to come down because of it.

 

[Jamdoc]

You just can't be serious. There has been a major increase in sexual sin as time goes by. How can you not know this? Look at how homosexuality and sexual deviance is being more and more accepted in society around the world. Drug use and suicide rates are on the rise. Belief in the occult is on the rise. Secular humanism is on the rise. People are increasingly unfriendly and rude to others in public places. But, things are getting better? Seriously, what world are you living in? How is it possible that I'm communicating with someone from another planet?

Preterists internalize EVERYTHING
they are beyond Amillennialists even when it comes to allegorizing.
When you dispute their reality with yours they actually self reinforce their view that they're in the New Earth and basically living in heaven and you're not.

Remember what I said about those who believe "heaven is a state of mind"?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Preterists internalize EVERYTHING
they are beyond Amillennialists even when it comes to allegorizing.
When you dispute their reality with yours they actually self reinforce their view that they're in the New Earth and basically living in heaven and you're not.

Remember what I said about those who believe "heaven is a state of mind"?

Yes, I do. Please just make sure you make it clear that you're not talking about all Amils when you say things like that since it's obviously not fair to the rest of us to lump all Amils in together when it comes to believing things like that. I see too many general statements made towards Amils on here that don't actually apply to all Amils and it's annoying. I'm sure we probably have made general statements about Premils at times that don't apply to all Premils as well. Both sides need to try to avoid that kind of thing.

 

[RandyPNW]

That wasn't cherrypicking, that was picking the interpretation that agrees with both, rather than sides with one.

No, you decided what interpretation alone is possible by choosing a neutral translation. That is cherry-picking a neutral translation, and rejecting any other translation that is more specific about what may have been meant.

I do, because Mark 13 specifies that it was private to those 4 specific disciples.

The Disciples asked a private question, which did not involve the Pharisees. But what makes you think Pharisees weren't there? Why would Jesus' Disciples have to approach him privately if there were no other people around?

I disagree because Mark 13 is specific that it was a private audience. Because of that it does not leave room that He was teaching Pharisees.

For all I know, Jesus could've indulged questions from both Pharisees and his Disciples at the same location. Maybe not, but I can't tell from just this text alone.

I stress, again, that it is only "any moment" after the abomination of desolation, but of course since you have a historicist view of the AoD, which I think is very incorrect, it makes it seem like a pretribulationist view to you.

Do me a favor and stop categorizing every position I've taken as being from a particular school? It's okay in some places, but it makes answering the points more difficult because I have to explain first why I'm not of that school and then explain what my belief actually is.

Are you an errant "historicist" interpreter simply because you believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago in fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

Were all of the Church Fathers who believed the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD historicist error-making teachers, as well?

But Jesus has instructions that regard actually watching for events too, your error is in believing those events already happened 1900 years ago.

Jesus specifically said to his Disciples to "watch out" for false prophets and false teachers. To set our eyes above, on Jesus, is not expecting him at any moment. Rather, it is keeping our eyes on the prize, and devaluing things on earth that are of less importance.

Having a background in science, I can assure you that man will always screw up scholarship, the scientific method afterall involves disproving things. It shows just how wrong we are, even when educated.

Educated people follow a line of reasoning and do not reject reasonable evidence. Science today is very corrupt, when you consider how politicized it all is, from Face Masks to Green concerns. It shows the flaws in human nature, and how it can destroy a perfectly good education. Ask the parents who attend school boards and are told they are terrorists just because they want Critical Race Theory removed from their children's curricula.

The fact that with all the scholarly education we have people have many different positions using the same base book as the foundation of their beliefs, tells me enough that just because someone is purported to be a "great theologian" they're still ultimately men, who are flawed, and are likely to be wrong.

Not only is that unwise, but it shows contempt for others who, like ourselves, have prayed, studied, and produced good materials, regardless of the fact they, like us, made errors. A reasonable Christian would respect those who've gone before, who've diligently sought God, who've done their "homework," and then we can choose what we think is most reasonable based on *all* of the available evidence.

 

[Jamdoc]

No, you decided what interpretation alone is possible by choosing a neutral translation. That is cherry-picking a neutral translation, and rejecting any other translation that is more specific about what may have been meant.

that's.. literally the opposite of what cherry picking is.
cherry picking is picking 1 specific translation and going with what it says and discarding other "non cherry" options that disagree with what the one you like says.
What I'm doing is affirming that all commonly accepted translations are God's word, so any interpretation or doctrine I take from scripture should fit all of those translations. If a doctrine I hold only can be demonstrated using 1 translation, and the others dispute it, then my doctrine is wrong.

In this case it's more subtle, your translation could have been taken to mean that this was not continuous with the rest of the account, but other translations do not suggest that it could be taken from out of continuity, and another Gospel account explicitly states that the Olivet Discourse was private, precluding that Pharisees were part of the audience of the Olivet Discourse, which is what you were holding to. You have to reconcile scripture when we're talking about multiple references to the same thing. If there are omissions, then you can maybe still consider them the same thing, but if there is a CONTRADICTION, then they cannot be the same thing.

Like the discussion on whether Zechariah 14 and Matthew 24:29-31 are the same thing. They cannot be because one has the sun and moon going dark, and the other has it being light at evening time.
If they are the same thing, then there is a contradiction in God's word, and we definitely do not want to go down that road.

and in 2 Thessalonian 2:3's case, this cherry picking has resulted in an OPPOSITE interpretation to what that verse says in most translations.

Whatever doctrine or position you hold it should be able to be defended in all scripture mentioning it, and across every accepted translation of the bible (we can reject some translations like "the message" or other such nonsense that God will weed out of use shortly unless Jesus returns first)

The Disciples asked a private question, which did not involve the Pharisees. But what makes you think Pharisees weren't there? Why would Jesus' Disciples have to approach him privately if there were no other people around?

Pharisees may have been in the area, but this was taking Jesus aside and asking Him these questions in private, just for them alone (and to us who read the accounts). Pharisees were not part of the audience, nor were they being addressed in that particular discourse, however Jesus most likely reused some helpful statements that He'd used with the Pharisees prior on the way to Jerusalem. That's the way I see it.
I honestly don't know why you argue this point so hard.. To declare that the Olivet Discourse was to unbelieving Jews and not Christians?
Why is it such a thing to have the Olivet Discourse NOT be to Christians?

For all I know, Jesus could've indulged questions from both Pharisees and his Disciples at the same location. Maybe not, but I can't tell from just this text alone.

I can, and it is an important thing to me that Jesus was speaking to Christians, not "Unbelieving Jews" as His audience.
If it's to Christians then we should pay paramount attention to it.
If it's to unbelieving Jews then it doesn't mean much to us does it? Or we cherrypick verses like the pretribulationists.

Do me a favor and stop categorizing every position I've taken as being from a particular school? It's okay in some places, but it makes answering the points more difficult because I have to explain first why I'm not of that school and then explain what my belief actually is.

Are you an errant "historicist" interpreter simply because you believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago in fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

No because the bible is clear and explicit on this.

Were all of the Church Fathers who believed the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD historicist error-making teachers, as well?

Yes, in fact they were. It may have been a "type" fulfillment as Antiochus Epiphanes IV was (and some "great theologians" hold that view as well, despite Jesus using it as a still future event to the disciples, showing them to be in error), but it was not the true fulfillment.
Just as the famine in Egypt was a type fulfillment, and the plagues of Egypt were a type fulfillment of the Indignation, as was the Flood of Noah and destruction of Sodom.

They all point to the end times fulfillment of those things, just as Passover pointed to the fulfillment in Jesus.

 

[RandyPNW]

that's.. literally the opposite of what cherry picking is.

Cherry picking is picking cherries. The "cherry" you picked was the most neutral translation you can find, or your favorite version, and then pretending that decides what *cannot* be the translation.

 

[Jamdoc]

Cherry picking is picking cherries. The "cherry" you picked was the most neutral translation you can find, or your favorite version, and then pretending that decides what *cannot* be the translation.

No, I took the INTERPRETATION that fit all versions.

 

[RandyPNW]

No, I took the INTERPRETATION that fit all versions.

Yes, you *chose* it. You picked the cherry that you wanted, the one that you thought best, the one that was most neutral. That's a safe approach, but not necessarily the most precise. Safe is less than precise.

Let me give you an example. I've had this discussion before on another forum. In Dan 2.40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron...

The word "finally" in the NIV translation isn't really there. But the use of conjunctions in a particular set may legitimately conclude that the last conjunction can mean "finally." It's a scholar's decision to translate it this way, considering how the language is normally used, and not just using a word by word translation. Tendencies in some languages cannot be constructed word by word.

Most translations read: 40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron...
Or, 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron..

The literal, safe rendering would be to translate it as "then," or "and." But the NIV scholars concluded that the context and the formation of these series of conjunctions legitimized the final conjunction being translated as "finally," since that was the apparent insinuation.

All this to show that "safe" translations are sometimes less specific so as to try to not be too specific, and possibly wrong or misleading. But the more specific translation, if indeed it is the real meaning, would be less safe, but provide better understanding and perhaps avoid error.

In this case, our argument was over whether the text meant to say that the 4th Kingdom was the last in world history, or just "the next" Kingdom in world history. But the fact that only 4 were given indicates that the last "and" should be translated as "finally." The 4th Kingdom should be the last in history.

In this case, "and" is being properly translated as "finally," and gives a less "safe" meaning, but a more accurate meaning as conjunctions were used in sets like this, or in a particular context. We are translating the practices of one language into another language with a different set of rules.

The following passage is similar, and also uses a conjunction.
Luke 17.20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...

The NIV consists of scholars who have studied this arrangement and have decided that conjunction is not determinative with respect to a sequence of events. Rather, the account suggests a change in context such that a conjunction appropriately allows for such and can be translated:

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come...

Word for word translations can mislead, and certainly are not determinative in this sense. The context is. A single word can be used with different implications based on the context.