Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[oikonomia]

Yes, perfect. "These expressions point to a future time from which He then spoke". But when will these events occur? In the time of the END, i.e. in the END of THIS CURRENT WORLD.
JESUS answered two questions of His disciples, about two distincts EVENTS:

1 - What will be the SIGNS of the END of the WORLD? and
2 - What will be the SIGNS of His COMING?

Everything that JESUS spoke in Matthew 24 is exclusively linked with the END OF THE WORLD, and with the EVENTS of His COMING, nothing of that events JESUS listed, and I quoted in my post before, happened before this current time of the END of the world in which we are living, and still studying His preaching, and talking about them.

In other words, the STANDARD for comparing the times of the END of this WORLD and the respectives EVENTS linked to them as signs of JESUS's coming, it is what JESUS said, of course, in response unto His disciples.

I have to think about this. Something here seems obvious. But I'll think on it.
So what IS your native language, if I might ask?

What I posted before was not argumentative, but a description of the prophecies of JESUS linked to the END of this WORLD, and the EVENTS of His coming, in response to the questions of His disciples.
In fact, there are two distinct scenary, but interconnected - END OF THE WORLD and COMING OF JESUS. This is how I see the environment on Earth would say in the next last 10 or 7 years (regressive count) of the current Devil's world (7 is within 10).

I have to think about exactly what you mean here as well.
I may be dull this afternoon.

By the way, except misinterpretation of mine, it seems here you contradict yourself in what you said above, when you say the events are future, what is true and fit with the prophecies of our Lord.

Now I am looking for your alledged self contradiction I made.
Some events have not come yet. That is not self contradictory is it?

The most important now is to go meeting JESUS - Matthew 25:1 to 13 -, He is approaching each day past, He is nearer, and the END of this world and His coming is at door.

I am with you there. I mean very, very important it is. What parted lovers do not yearn to meet again?
But where is this "self-contradiction" I made?

The STANDARD of comparison is the speech of JESUS: i.e. END OF THIS WORLD, times of the end; times of the Apocalypse, nothing but nothing that He said happened before this current apocalyptic time, evidently. And Paul Apostle said: 1Corinthians 15:24-27 -

24 The END cometh, when JESUS shall have delivered up the Kingdom to GOD(Daniel 2:44-45), even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him.

First Corinthians 15:24-27 speaks to the end of the millennial period.
That end is the end of the 1,000 year reign following His second coming to establish His kingdom on the earth.

What you just commented above refer to the time of Apocalypse, that is the current time of the END of this world. Remember what JESUS said:
Except those(these) days should be shortened(for JESUS 2.000 yers ago, those, for us, these), there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Behold, I have told you before. Matt.24:22 & 25

Sorry. I am not following you. This will require some re-reading of many sentences.

Tthat is why Jesus prayed to the Father, saying: John 17:11 & 21-
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be One, as we are.
21 That they all may be One; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be One in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Amen.

I am sorry but the crux of your points here I am not getting too well.
But we love the Lord's appearing.

 

[Berean Tim]

Rome in the person of Cestius Gallus was indeed in contact with the gates of the temple in Jerusalem in October AD 66. His troops were in the process of undermining the temple wall and were prepared to burn the temple gate when Gallus, for no valid reason whatever, decided to withdraw his army and leave the city (Wars 2:19.535-540). Josephus wrote that Gallus and his Roman troops could have taken the city at that point if he had pressed his advantage. Gallus essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and his retreating troops suffered a humiliating defeat by the Zealot armies who pursued them to Beth-horon.

It was at that time when the Roman soldiers were about to burn the temple gate that many in Jerusalem ran from the city, anticipating that it was about to be taken by the Romans (Wars 2.19.6). This was merely a fulfillment of Christ's warning for them to flee the city when they saw (the AOD) "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" standing in the Holy place (which was the whole temple complex, including its perimeter). Gallus's illogical retreat from Jerusalem at that point gave them this brief opportunity to do just that.

But before this all happened, the single individual called The Antichrist had already made his appearance in Jerusalem's temple in early AD 66, presenting himself as the "king of the Jews" by dressing himself in King Herod's royal garments stolen from Masada. For this Zealot leader Menahem to "exalt himself" by presenting himself in the role of the "king of the Jews" - this was a title strictly reserved for the prophesied Messiah - Christ Jesus. Menahem at that point in early AD 66 was attempting to present himself as being Daniel's "Messiah the Prince" as the "king of the Jews", according to Josephus's description of Menahem's actions in the temple in Wars 2.17.8-9.

A big flaw in Pretertism is to only use Luke, just because the word "desolation" is used in Luke doesn't mean the AoD. You must add areas outside of the Temple to make your point. None of which is spoken in Daniel which Jesus was quoting. Also, you must include Paul's description in 2nd Thess 2.

 

[3 Resurrections]

A big flaw in Pretertism is to only use Luke, just because the word "desolation" is used in Luke doesn't mean the AoD.

How many times must scripture mention something for it to be considered true? Once should be enough (as in the single mention of the literal thousand year period in Revelation 20), though scripture many times doubles up on repeating something for added verification.

In the case of the AOD, Daniel mentioned the AOD as occurring twice (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11). In the Dan. 11:31 verse, this AOD is described as "ARMS shall stand on his part, and THEY (the armies) shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and THEY (the armies) shall place the abomination that maketh desolate". This was a standing ARMY that provided the polluting effect on the temple, which it did in Antiochus E's assault on Jerusalem.

Once again in fulfillment of Daniel 12:11, ARMIES would come to surround Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 era (both Zealot armies and the Roman army), just as Luke 21:20 correctly interpreted Daniel's and Christ's words for us. These ARMIES again provided the polluting effect on the city by trampling the city and the sanctuary underfoot for 42 literal months from AD 66-70.

You must add areas outside of the Temple to make your point.

Sure. Can do. Look at the temple description in Ezekiel 43:12 with God's own proclamation about that temple complex. This description provided God's pattern for Zerubbabel's rebuilt temple in the post-exilic era, with its high priesthood exclusively limited to only the Zadok family descendants.

"This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain THE WHOLE LIMIT THEROF ROUND ABOUT SHALL BE MOST HOLY. Behold, this is the law of the house."

When Cestius Gallus's troops had gotten into Jerusalem and were undermining the temple wall, and got everything ready to set a torch to the temple gate, they were IN the "most holy" region of the temple, according to God's "law of the house" given back in Ezekiel 43:12.

Also, you must include Paul's description in 2nd Thess 2.

I did. Menahem the Zealot leader with his army was the first to get into the temple, dressed as the king of the Jews in King Herod's stolen regalia which Menahem had taken from Masada, Herod's stronghold. Josephus wrote that Menahem after returning from Masada with his armed followers to Jerusalem "in the state of a king" had his followers murder the former high priest Ananias who had been keeping the Zealot factions in check in Jerusalem until then. This success against his restraining enemies turned Menahem into "an insupportable tyrant". Menahem then went up to worship in the temple, "in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments". Menahem's "brightness of his coming" into sudden power (2 Thess. 2:8-9) was snuffed out almost immediately by Ananias' avenging son Eleazar, who murdered Menahem in turn and killed his followers.

The death of this single Antichrist individual as well as Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in AD 66 were the signs alerting the believers to immediately flee from Judea and Jerusalem and head for the mountains, which almost 1-1/4 million of those in Judea did in October of AD 66.

 

[Berean Tim]

How many times must scripture mention something for it to be considered true? Once should be enough (as in the single mention of the literal thousand year period in Revelation 20), though scripture many times doubles up on repeating something for added verification.

In the case of the AOD, Daniel mentioned the AOD as occurring twice (Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11). In the Dan. 11:31 verse, this AOD is described as "ARMS shall stand on his part, and THEY (the armies) shall pollute the sanctuary of strength,, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and THEY (the armies) shall place the abomination that maketh desolate". This was a standing ARMY that provided the polluting effect on the temple, which it did in Antiochus E's assault on Jerusalem.

Once again in fulfillment of Daniel 12:11, ARMIES would come to surround Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 era (both Zealot armies and the Roman army), just as Luke 21:20 correctly interpreted Daniel's and Christ's words for us. These ARMIES again provided the polluting effect on the city by trampling the city and the sanctuary underfoot for 42 literal months from AD 66-70.

Sure. Can do. Look at the temple description in Ezekiel 43:12 with God's own proclamation about that temple complex. This description provided God's pattern for Zerubbabel's rebuilt temple in the post-exilic era, with its high priesthood exclusively limited to only the Zadok family descendants.

"This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain THE WHOLE LIMIT THEROF ROUND ABOUT SHALL BE MOST HOLY. Behold, this is the law of the house."

When Cestius Gallus's troops had gotten into Jerusalem and were undermining the temple wall, and got everything ready to set a torch to the temple gate, they were IN the "most holy" region of the temple, according to God's "law of the house" given back in Ezekiel 43:12.

I did. Menahem the Zealot leader with his army was the first to get into the temple, dressed as the king of the Jews in King Herod's stolen regalia which Menahem had taken from Masada, Herod's stronghold. Josephus wrote that Menahem after returning from Masada with his armed followers to Jerusalem "in the state of a king" had his followers murder the former high priest Ananias who had been keeping the Zealot factions in check in Jerusalem until then. This success against his restraining enemies turned Menahem into "an insupportable tyrant". Menahem then went up to worship in the temple, "in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments". Menahem's "brightness of his coming" into sudden power (2 Thess. 2:8-9) was snuffed out almost immediately by Ananias' avenging son Eleazar, who murdered Menahem in turn and killed his followers.

The death of this single Antichrist individual as well as Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in AD 66 were the signs alerting the believers to immediately flee from Judea and Jerusalem and head for the mountains, which almost 1-1/4 million of those in Judea did in October of AD 66.

Menahem's "brightness of his coming" into sudden power ???

2 Thess 2:8 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

It's Jesus coming, not Menahem's

That's the main point did Jesus come back then ?
Matt 24:29“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.30Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other

 

[3 Resurrections]

Menahem's "brightness of his coming" into sudden power ???

2 Thess 2:8 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

It's Jesus coming, not Menahem's

No, that is not even slightly possible that 2 Thess. 2:8 is speaking of Jesus's coming. It is discussing the manner of the Man of Lawlessness's own coming, which was with lying wonders, deceit, and unrighteousness. Read the whole sentence which runs from 2 Thess. 2:8 up to 2 Thess. 2:10.

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him whose coming" (the Man of Lawlessness's coming) "is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

This "coming" of the Man of Lawlessness in verse 9 is describing further the manner of his (the Man of Lawlessness's) "coming" in verse 8. It is impossible for this pronoun "his" to be describing Christ's manner of coming, since we know Christ is never characterized as operating with "lying wonders" and "deceivableness of unrighteousness".

Since we are told that the Man of Lawlessness would "exalt himself", posturing as being God in the temple itself, the "brightness" of that blasphemous, audacious display would be the very cause of his own undoing. And that was the case with the Zealot leader, Menahem, in early AD 66. His term of exalting himself in the temple as "King of the Jews" was brief indeed before he was murdered by Eleazar. This was in vengeance for Menahem having murdered Eleazar's father, the former high priest Ananias (the "restrainer" whom Menahem had "taken out of the way"). Eleazar was not about to let the pretentious Menahem get away with murdering his father Ananias in trying to become the fulfillment of Daniel's "Messiah the Prince" as the "King of the Jews".

 

[Berean Tim]

No, that is not even slightly possible that 2 Thess. 2:8 is speaking of Jesus's coming. It is discussing the manner of the Man of Lawlessness's own coming, which was with lying wonders, deceit, and unrighteousness. Read the whole sentence which runs from 2 Thess. 2:8 up to 2 Thess. 2:10.

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him whose coming" (the Man of Lawlessness's coming) "is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

This "coming" of the Man of Lawlessness in verse 9 is describing further the manner of his (the Man of Lawlessness's) "coming" in verse 8. It is impossible for this pronoun "his" to be describing Christ's manner of coming, since we know Christ is never characterized as operating with "lying wonders" and "deceivableness of unrighteousness".

Since we are told that the Man of Lawlessness would "exalt himself", posturing as being God in the temple itself, the "brightness" of that blasphemous, audacious display would be the very cause of his own undoing. And that was the case with the Zealot leader, Menahem, in early AD 66. His term of exalting himself in the temple as "King of the Jews" was brief indeed before he was murdered by Eleazar. This was in vengeance for Menahem having murdered Eleazar's father, the former high priest Ananias (the "restrainer" whom Menahem had "taken out of the way"). Eleazar was not about to let the pretentious Menahem get away with murdering his father Ananias in trying to become the fulfillment of Daniel's "Messiah the Prince" as the "King of the Jews".

Why do you say Eleazar ? The text clearly says Jesus will kill !! After this time of tribulation did Jesus come back ?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Why do you say Eleazar ? The text clearly says Jesus will kill !!

God repeatedly uses human agencies to accomplish His decrees.

As in Jeremiah 51:20, "Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms..."

As in Isaiah 45:1, "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him..."

After this time of tribulation did Jesus come back ?

The answer, as you have already written, is in Matthew 24:29-30. Many more false Christs (similar to Menahem, the single Antichrist in 2 Thess. 2) and false prophets would arise after the believers' flight from Jerusalem in October of AD 66. A period of "great tribulation" would follow that hasty flight from Jerusalem and Judea: a certain type of tribulation period unprecedented and never to be duplicated again in the history of the world following that time (Matt. 24:21). "IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days" Christ was going to bodily return, as Matthew 24:29-30 testified.

The history of mankind would continue to unfold after that, with continuing periods of persecution for the saints, but never again with the same kind of "great tribulation" that had occurred back in the first century.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Jesus left the Temple after he answered. Then went to the Mount of Olives where he taught on the end of the age and the signs which signal the end. The main one was the AoD which didn't happen in 70AD

Many Bible students (including Preterists and Premillennialists) dive into Matthew 24 without recognizing the intro to Christ's comments in Matthew 23. There He talks about 2 events - AD70 and His climactic return at the end of time.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:37–39: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Jesus, first of all, speaks about the destruction of the temple in AD70, as a result of Israel's unbelief. He then talks about a future climactic day in the future when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Here were two key events that would happen in the then future. The disciples were obviously inquisitive as to when these would happen. They then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response to our Lord’s words. Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “Tell us, when shall these things be?”
2. “and what shall be the sign of thy coming [Gr. parousia], and of the end [Gr. sunteleías, meaning completion, or consummation] of the world [Gr. aiōn or age]?”

This proves that the disciples were enquiring about the realization of these two aforementioned days. They wanted to know about their fulfillment. Sadly, Preterists and Premillennialists each ignore the other's events relating to the past and the future. Both are therefore missing the context and meaning. The context proves that Israel will be forced to cry "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" at Christ's future "parousia," at "the end of the age.”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming. Jesus addresses the greatest event first. He talks about the trying events that will precede His glorious return, and then reassures:

Jesus’ response to His disciples in Matthew 24:6 and 13-14 is notable: “ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end [Gr. télos] is not yet ... But he that shall endure unto the end [Gr. télos], the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end [Gr. télos] come.”

Jesus then changes track and refers to the events that surround the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

“The end of the age” is normally described as “the end.” Those that endure to the end are promised a glorious reward. The true child of God will persevere to the end because that is his nature. The false professor will not.

This is talking about the perseverance of the saints until the coming of Christ at the end. The Greek word interpreted “endure” is hupomenō actually meaning to tarry, remain, suffer, undergo, or bear (as in trials).

This definitely does not relate to the saints in Jerusalem in AD70 who safely escaped before the city was taken.

Did enduring until the coming of Titus in AD70 secure salvation (Matthew 24:13)? Of course not!

Had every tribe, kindred and nation heard the Gospel by the coming of Titus in AD70(Matthew 24:14)? Of course not!

Did the coming of Titus in AD70 usher in the end (Matthew 24:13)? Of course not!

The Gospel had only spread to the known world. Many people groups have only heard the Gospel in this past 100 years. Some have still to hear it!

The fact that the end has not yet come, is proof that we are still in the Gospel era. The great commission is still active. Evangelism is still alive, active and spreading.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Ahem.

 

[David Kent]

To prove it false yet again.

And, there's a gent who claims the KJV supports preterism. Wanna prove him wrong as well.

My daughter teaches English to foreign students. Do you WANT TO join?

 

[David Kent]

Welcome to the conversation !

Now, with all due respect, how do you get around that big ole bear of a fact that the prophesied eschatological events haven't yet occurred, & the earth goes right on as it did in 65 AD & 71 AD?

Hi OLD BEAR.

The great tribulation in the gospels was on the Jews in AD66-70 when the Christians saw the abomination of desolation which Luke makes clear was when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, the they knew that's desolation was near and they had to flee. They saw and they fled. Josephus said that when the Roman general, Cestius, just as the high priests were a out to open the gates to let him in, he withdrew his troops "without a reason in the world" . Josephus added that many prominent people took that as an opportunity to flee "as rats desert a ship that sinks."

The great tribulation in Revelation, if you take care to read it carefully is on Christian believers.

Joseph Mede who died in 1633, said :

"The Jews knew when the Messiah would come and he came when they expected, but they didn't recognise him as they were expecting a Messiah of their own imagination."

"Christian believers knew when the Antichrist was to come but didn't recognise him when he came as they were expecting an enemy of their own imagination."

Most Christians today still don't recognise him.

 

[claninja]

Many Bible students (including Preterists and Premillennialists) dive into Matthew 24 without recognizing the intro to Christ's comments in Matthew 23. There He talks about 2 events - AD70 and His climactic return at the end of time.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:37–39: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Jesus, first of all, speaks about the destruction of the temple in AD70, as a result of Israel's unbelief. He then talks about a future climactic day in the future when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Here were two key events that would happen in the then future. The disciples were obviously inquisitive as to when these would happen. They then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response to our Lord’s words. Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “Tell us, when shall these things be?”
2. “and what shall be the sign of thy coming [Gr. parousia], and of the end [Gr. sunteleías, meaning completion, or consummation] of the world (age)?”

This proves that the disciples were enquiring about the realization of these two aforementioned days. They wanted to know about their fulfillment. Sadly, Preterists and Premillennialists each ignore the other's events relating to the past and the future. Both are therefore missing the context and meaning. The context proves that Israel will be forced to cry "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" at Christ's future "parousia," at "the end of the age.”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming. Jesus addresses the greatest event first. He talks about the trying events that will precede His glorious return, and then reassures:

Jesus’ response to His disciples in Matthew 24:6 and 13-14 is notable: “ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end [Gr. télos] is not yet ... But he that shall endure unto the end [Gr. télos], the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end [Gr. télos] come.”

Jesus then changes track and refers to the events that surround the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

“The end of the age” is normally described as “the end.” Those that endure to the end are promised a glorious reward. The true child of God will persevere to the end because that is his nature. The false professor will not.

This is talking about the perseverance of the saints until the coming of Christ at the end. The Greek word interpreted “endure” is hupomenō actually meaning to tarry, remain, suffer, undergo, or bear (as in trials).

This definitely does not relate to the saints in Jerusalem in AD70 who safely escaped before the city was taken.

Did enduring until the coming of Titus in AD70 secure salvation (Matthew 24:13)? Of course not!

Had every tribe, kindred and nation heard the Gospel by the coming of Titus in AD70(Matthew 24:14)? Of course not!

Did the coming of Titus in AD70 usher in the end (Matthew 24:13)? Of course not!

The Gospel had only spread to the known world. Many people groups have only heard the Gospel in this past 100 years. Some have still to hear it!

The fact that the end has not yet come, is proof that we are still in the Gospel era. The great commission is still active. Evangelism is still alive, active and spreading.

-as to the disciples questions about the destruction of the temple, Since we have parallel accounts, it should be important to take Mark and Luke into consideration. When we do, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”.

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

Luke 21:27 when will these things happen? And what will be the SIGN that they are about to take place?”

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

Therefore, the OD should be kept within its context of the temple destruction. Additionally we should look to see if there are any external gospel evidences, where any of the author’s writings associate any kind of time frame of the end of the temple practices with the coming of Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews was written (63-70ad) literally near to the destruction of Jerusalem, and claims the old obsolete covenant was “near” to vanishing and that Christ would come “in a little while and without delay”. Since the author considers both events (end of temple practices and coming of Christ) to be “near” and “in a little while”, this is further evidence that: “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is aging and growing old is near (eggys) vanishing.

Hebrews 10:37 For ,“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;

- in regard to the end of the age- Paul said the ends of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11)

-in regard to Matthew 24:11 and “many” falling away. John declared, using the same Greek word “many”, that “many antichrists had come and gone out from the church, and that was a sign it was the “last hour” (1 John 2:18-19).

-in regards to those who persevere to “the end will be saved” as found in Matthew 24:13 - It’s interesting that you included Matthew 24:22 in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew 24:22 says if the days had not been cut short - no flesh would have been “saved”. The Greek word “saved” in vs 23 is the same as vs 13.

-in regards to Matthew 24:14 and the gospel going to the “oikoumene” or known world and then the “end” would come. Paul confirms his belief that the gospel did go to the whole oikoumene or known world (Romans 10:17-18) and that every creature under heaven has heard (Colossians 1:23)

It is absolutely a fact that end of the literal globe did not come in 66-70ad. It is an absolute fact that the end of the temple practices and worship ceremonies did end in 66-70ad.

 

[seekingHiswisdom]

The main one was the AoD which didn't happen in 70AD

Then please tell me what did happen in 70AD, and why?

 

[sovereigngrace]

-as to the disciples questions about the destruction of the temple, Since we have parallel accounts, it should be important to take Mark and Luke into consideration. When we do, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”.

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

Luke 21:27 when will these things happen? And what will be the SIGN that they are about to take place?”

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

Therefore, the OD should be kept within its context of the temple destruction. Additionally we should look to see if there are any external gospel evidences, where any of the author’s writings associate any kind of time frame of the end of the temple practices with the coming of Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews was written (63-70ad) literally near to the destruction of Jerusalem, and claims the old obsolete covenant was “near” to vanishing and that Christ would come “in a little while and without delay”. Since the author considers both events (end of temple practices and coming of Christ) to be “near” and “in a little while”, this is further evidence that: “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is aging and growing old is near (eggys) vanishing.

Hebrews 10:37 For ,“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;

- in regard to the end of the age- Paul said the ends of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11)

-in regard to Matthew 24:11 and “many” falling away. John declared, using the same Greek word “many”, that “many antichrists had come and gone out from the church, and that was a sign it was the “last hour” (1 John 2:18-19).

-in regards to those who persevere to “the end will be saved” as found in Matthew 24:13 - It’s interesting that you included Matthew 24:22 in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew 24:22 says if the days had not been cut short - no flesh would have been “saved”. The Greek word “saved” in vs 23 is the same as vs 13.

-in regards to Matthew 24:14 and the gospel going to the “oikoumene” or known world and then the “end” would come. Paul confirms his belief that the gospel did go to the whole oikoumene or known world (Romans 10:17-18) and that every creature under heaven has heard (Colossians 1:23)

It is absolutely a fact that end of the literal globe did not come in 66-70ad. It is an absolute fact that the end of the temple practices and worship ceremonies did end in 66-70ad.

You chop and change with translations in order to find something that supports your beliefs. You have to. It does not add up. The original does not say "they are about to be fulfilled" or "they are about to take place.” These are erroneous interpretations. The sign of the end is Christ's literal physical visible climactic return. This demolishes Preterism.

 

[claninja]

You chop and change with translations in order to find something that supports your beliefs. You have to. It does not add up. The original does not say "they are about to be fulfilled" or "they are about to take place.” These are erroneous interpretations. The sign of the end is Christ's literal physical visible climactic return. This demolishes Preterism.

Generic arguments with no substance dont mean anything. I could say the exact same generic about: chopping up scripture and changing definitions without examples, but no I’m really learns anything from that……

my Bible hub defaults to the Berean Standard Version . That’s fine if you disagree with at version. But my argument was NOT that those passages say “about to be fulfilled”. I literally typed:

“Since we have parallel accounts, it should be important to take Mark and Luke into consideration. When we do, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”. “

You seem to be nitpicking an unrelated issue In order to deflect. So here is the KJV:

Mark 13:4 4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the SIGN when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Luke 21:7 they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what SIGN will there be when these things shall come to pass

Matthew 24:3 , Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the SIGN of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Since we have parallel accounts, it should be important to take Mark and Luke into consideration. When we do, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”.

And we can test this by looking at the epistle to the Hebrews, where the author claims that the old obsolete covenant was “near” to vanishing and that the coming of Christ was “in a little while without delay”. This then demonstrates that Author believed both the end of temple practices and coming of Christ was near.

You also addressed nothing else….so…..

 

[sovereigngrace]

Generic arguments with no substance dont mean anything. I could say the exact same generic about: chopping up scripture and changing definitions without examples, but no I’m really learns anything from that……

my Bible hub defaults to the Berean Standard Version . That’s fine if you disagree with at version. But my argument was NOT that those passages say “about to be fulfilled”. I literally typed:

“Since we have parallel accounts, it should be important to take Mark and Luke into consideration. When we do, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”. “

You seem to be nitpicking an unrelated issue In order to deflect. So here is the KJV:

Mark 13:4 4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the SIGN when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Luke 21:7 they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what SIGN will there be when these things shall come to pass

Matthew 24:3 , Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the SIGN of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Since we have parallel accounts, it should be important to take Mark and Luke into consideration. When we do, we can see that “the SIGN of your coming and end of the age” = “the SIGN when these things will be full filled”.

And we can test this by looking at the epistle to the Hebrews, where the author claims that the old obsolete covenant was “near” to vanishing and that the coming of Christ was “in a little while without delay”. This then demonstrates that Author believed both the end of temple practices and coming of Christ was near.

You also addressed nothing else….so…..

Mar 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled [Gr. sunteleō, meaning to end, finish or complete]?

Luk 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming [Gr. parousia], and of the end [Gr. sunteleia, meaning entire completion, or consummation] of the world [Gr. aiōn age]?”

The unindoctrinated Bible student should have no difficulty in understanding the meaning and weightiness of the phrases/events “the beginning” and “the end.” That is because they actually mean what they say. These expressions are often used on their own throughout Scripture because the Holy Spirit evidently expects the believer to take God literally at His Word and accept these plain and obvious statements at face value.

Whether one is reading a book, watching a movie, or observing a ball-game, the concept of “the beginning” and “the end” of something is too obvious to even debate or explain. Hello! It is as clear as clear can be. We are talking about basic 101 comprehension.

To fully understand “the end” it is important to be fully informed about “the beginning.” We need to start off by realizing that one is the complete antithesis of the other.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The unindoctrinated Bible student should have no difficulty in understanding the meaning and weightiness of the phrases/events “the beginning” and “the end.” That is because they actually mean what they say. These expressions are often used on their own throughout Scripture because the Holy Spirit evidently expects the believer to take God literally at His Word and accept these plain and obvious statements at face value.

True. That is why I have no difficulty believing the Apostle Peter when he wrote about his own time that "...the end of all things is at hand..." (1 Peter 4:7. As you have said...this plain and obvious statement seems fairly straight-forward to me.

 

[sovereigngrace]

True. That is why I have no difficulty believing the Apostle Peter when he wrote about his own time that "...the end of all things is at hand..." (1 Peter 4:7. As you have said...this plain and obvious statement seems fairly straight-forward to me.

Scripture depicts the coming of Christ as the event when the old corrupt temporal arrangement is removal and the new perfect eternal arrangement is introduction.

1 Peter 4:7 predicts “the end of all things is at hand.” This is a pretty substantive, unambiguous and climactic statement. Few would argue that this was talking about the second coming. But few stop to consider the enormity and finality of tHis coming.

Romans 8:19-23 tells us that the creature and creation is longing for the coming of Christ when creation will finally “be delivered from the bondage of corruption.” It is “waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.” The glorifying of man occurs at the same time as the glorifying of creation. This is the return of Christ.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The glorifying of man occurs at the same time as the glorifying of creation.

The planet under our feet doesn't need to be glorified. I believe the wording based on the Greek in Romans 8:22 is that "every creature" is groaning in pain together (speaking of humanity), not the "whole creation", (as in the planetary globe we are living upon). God lifted that curse upon the ground after Noah emerged from the ark, and promised never to curse it again (Gen. 8:21). Noah's very name was given to him by his father in prophetic anticipation that Noah would become a "comfort" to mankind concerning the curse upon the ground (Gen. 5:29).

"Every creature" (every believing human) would be "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God". The planet under our feet is not a child of God expecting deliverance from corruption into incorruptibility. That glorious liberty of the children of God is for human creatures to experience - not the dirt. Dirt and rocks are not inherently sinful, nor are they in need of redemption by the Spirit, nor is the planet patiently expecting an "adoption" in our future.

Peter's statement that "the end of all things is at hand" is without doubt speaking about when "the end" would come, which the first century was expecting imminently for themselves. This was written after Nero had begun that "fiery trial" (1 Peter 4:12) of the Christians following the AD 64 fire at Rome, and before Peter's AD 67 martyrdom.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The planet under our feet doesn't need to be glorified. I believe the wording based on the Greek in Romans 8:22 is that "every creature" is groaning in pain together (speaking of humanity), not the "whole creation", (as in the planetary globe we are living upon). God lifted that curse upon the ground after Noah emerged from the ark, and promised never to curse it again (Gen. 8:21). Noah's very name was given to him by his father in prophetic anticipation that Noah would become a "comfort" to mankind concerning the curse upon the ground (Gen. 5:29).

"Every creature" (every believing human) would be "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God". The planet under our feet is not a child of God expecting deliverance from corruption into incorruptibility. That glorious liberty of the children of God is for human creatures to experience - not the dirt. Dirt and rocks are not inherently sinful, nor are they in need of redemption by the Spirit, nor is the planet patiently expecting an "adoption" in our future.

Peter's statement that "the end of all things is at hand" is without doubt speaking about when "the end" would come, which the first century was expecting imminently for themselves. This was written after Nero had begun that "fiery trial" (1 Peter 4:12) of the Christians following the AD 64 fire at Rome, and before Peter's AD 67 martyrdom.

Totally disagree. You are living in denial. Are the animal life, trees and planets decaying and dying since the Fall? Of course! Is this present earth decaying and dying since the Fall? Of course! Are we human beings decaying and dying since the Fall? Of course! The fact is: sin, death, disease, Satan, the wicked, wickedness and decay corrupt this current age, this solar system, and mankind, resulting in death all around us. That will only change when the curse is lifted. That occurs at the one final future literal physical visible return of Christ when He comes and glorifies both man and all creation.

• The reality is: man is still dying, crying, in pain, in sorrow, experiencing the curse. That has not been lifted.
• The reality is: the whole of creation human, animal and the physical realm are groaning and travailing because of the bondage of corruption.

God speaks to Noah just after he gets out of the ark where all flesh had just been destroyed by a flood. God speaks to him about this, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done" (Genesis 8:21).

How was this "done"? Was this by water, fire or war?

By water - by a flood.

That is how God did it. He says that He will never again destroy everything living by a flood. This is the only message one can take out of this. If He had simply said "neither will I again smite any more every thing living" then you would have an argument. Even then, we would have to remove other explicit passages in Genesis and elsewhere that add further detail to such a un-definite statement. We would also have to disregard the many passages that show all the wicked being destroyed and judged at Christ's return. Thankfully we don't need to go searching elsewhere for clarity and more meat on the bones, it is all in the passage before us. The Lord carefully qualifies His statement saying: "as I have done."

Genesis 9:11-13 adds further support to this position, saying, "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth."

Genesis 9:11-13 parallels Genesis 8:21. It repeats the same truth. These tell us that there will be no repeat of the deluge that enveloped the globe. When Jesus comes He is going to destroy all the wicked with fire. Never again will it be water.