Question about matt 24:34

[Paul-martin]

I don't understaand this bible passage, i mean all thouse who lived then are dead now

34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

...

 

[FreezBee]

I don't understaand this bible passage, i mean all thouse who lived then are dead now

34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

Ooh, nobody else understands it either, so don't worry

There is quite some disagreement about who "this generation" refers to, but you might want to take a peek at Christian Courier.

- FreezBee

 

[WAB]

I don't understaand this bible passage, i mean all thouse who lived then are dead now

34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

...

The best way to understand this statement by our Lord is to research the word "generation". It comes from the Greek genea' and derives from gen'os which means "kin".

Genea' further is defined as : "age, generation, nation... an age (the period or the persons):"

So... Christ was making the statement that the nation of Israel would not pass away as a national entity until all of prophecy is fulfilled. At that time, there will be no separation of peoples by ethnic differences, as all who are with Him will be ONE IN HIM.

Hope this helps... Shalom... WAB

edited to add: Wuest translates this: "I am saying to you, This nation shall by no means pass away until all these things take place."

 

[Paul-martin]

I seeintresting, thx for the given statment WAB.

 

[dcyates]

I don't understaand this bible passage, i mean all thouse who lived then are dead now

34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

...

Freezbee is correct in stating that, ultimately, no one really knows for certain how the phrase ‘oti... ‘e genea (hoti... he genea) should be translated, and thus understood. It could mean 'this generation', or equally valid is the rendering 'this people', which would then indicate Jesus was possibly referring to the Jewish people, so that the Jews will remain as a people until the very end, which would likely have been quite a going concern at the time, considering the continuing agitation being carried on by the Jewish zealots against their Roman overseers and the increasingly imminent Roman reprisals. However, while this latter option is certainly plausible, I personally don't find it the most probable.
Another alternative sometimes entertained is the suggestion that Jesus is referring to the generation of people that will exist during the end-time events he is describing. In my opinion, this interpretation is even less likely, given that this would effectively mean Jesus was declaring, 'The generation on earth at this time will still be on earth at the end of this time.'
The fact is, every other instance that Jesus utters the words "this generation" throughout the Gospels is obviously meant to refer to his contemporaries. Why would it all of a sudden indicate some other, far-flung future generation here? Also, the phrase bore a certain history within the Hebrew mindset, and not very flattering characterists. During the exodus and its wilderness wanderings, 'this generation' became known for its notoriety in not sufficiently trusting in God's faithfulness and in his saving provisions. Jesus here spoke of the destruction of the temple and, by implication, the coming war between the Jews and the Roman Empire. His disciples asked him, "when will these things happen?" (Mt 24.3). According to form, and thus speaking in very apocalyptic terms, Jesus' answer is essentially within "this generation." Since, again pointing back to ancient Israel's wilderness wanderings, a generation to the Hebrews consisted of 40 years, if the traditional date for Jesus' crucifixion is at all accurate and happened around A.D. 30, we know that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, and so Jesus' prophecy here is entirely correct.

 

[WAB]

Freezbee is correct in stating that, ultimately, no one really knows for certain how the phrase ‘oti... ‘e genea (hoti... he genea) should be translated, and thus understood. It could mean 'this generation', or equally valid is the rendering 'this people', which would then indicate Jesus was possibly referring to the Jewish people, so that the Jews will remain as a people until the very end, which would likely have been quite a going concern at the time, considering the continuing agitation being carried on by the Jewish zealots against their Roman overseers and the increasingly imminent Roman reprisals. However, while this latter option is certainly plausible, I personally don't find it the most probable.
Another alternative sometimes entertained is the suggestion that Jesus is referring to the generation of people that will exist during the end-time events he is describing. In my opinion, this interpretation is even less likely, given that this would effectively mean Jesus was declaring, 'The generation on earth at this time will still be on earth at the end of this time.'
The fact is, every other instance that Jesus utters the words "this generation" throughout the Gospels is obviously meant to refer to his contemporaries. Why would it all of a sudden indicate some other, far-flung future generation here? Also, the phrase bore a certain history within the Hebrew mindset, and not very flattering characterists. During the exodus and its wilderness wanderings, 'this generation' became known for its notoriety in not sufficiently trusting in God's faithfulness and in his saving provisions. Jesus here spoke of the destruction of the temple and, by implication, the coming war between the Jews and the Roman Empire. His disciples asked him, "when will these things happen?" (Mt 24.3). According to form, and thus speaking in very apocalyptic terms, Jesus' answer is essentially within "this generation." Since, again pointing back to ancient Israel's wilderness wanderings, a generation to the Hebrews consisted of 40 years, if the traditional date for Jesus' crucifixion is at all accurate and happened around A.D. 30, we know that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, and so Jesus' prophecy here is entirely correct.

Here are the "things" that Jesus predicted would occur prior to the passing of "this generation"...

1. The destruction of the temple... done...70 A.D.
2. Many false christs appearing... not all that many prior to the passing of the 40 years.
3. Wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes... under way.
4. Martyrdom of believers... yes.
5. Betrayal ... yes.
6. False prophets and deceit... yes.
7. Gospel preached in all nations... now in progress.
8. The abomination of desolation standing in the most holy place... still to come.
9. Signs and wonders done by false prophets... in progress... think Benny Hinn.
10. The coming of Christ per verse 27... hardly a secretive event, and not yet.
11. The sun darkened and no light from the moon... (vs.29)... guess what?
12. The visible coming of the Son of man with the gathered saints/elect... (vs. 30,31)... hello?

As posted earlier, only if one understands the word "generation" to mean "nation" as Wuest translates it, does the whole context of what our Lord proclaimed make sense.

Shalom.... WAB

 

[dcyates]

Here are the "things" that Jesus predicted would occur prior to the passing of "this generation"...

1. The destruction of the temple... done...70 A.D.
2. Many false christs appearing... not all that many prior to the passing of the 40 years.
3. Wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes... under way.
4. Martyrdom of believers... yes.
5. Betrayal ... yes.
6. False prophets and deceit... yes.
7. Gospel preached in all nations... now in progress.
8. The abomination of desolation standing in the most holy place... still to come.
9. Signs and wonders done by false prophets... in progress... think Benny Hinn.
10. The coming of Christ per verse 27... hardly a secretive event, and not yet.
11. The sun darkened and no light from the moon... (vs.29)... guess what?
12. The visible coming of the Son of man with the gathered saints/elect... (vs. 30,31)... hello?

As posted earlier, only if one understands the word "generation" to mean "nation" as Wuest translates it, does the whole context of what our Lord proclaimed make sense.

Shalom.... WAB

Admittedly, I haven't read all of the preceding posts in this thread, and I evidently overlooked yours. Nonetheless, having read it just now I still stand by my conclusion. All due respect, WAB, but I think you're taking this way too literally. Jesus is speaking of a coming violent conflict. His disciples were asking what to look for. Jesus could have said something along the lines of, 'Things are going to be really bad for a lot of people around here', but that really lacks the oomph he was going for. So, he engaged in what we would perceive as hyperbolic metaphor. This was common practice at the time when referring to imminent violent clashes, especially when it came to threats from a much bigger imperial power against the far smaller, 'underdog' Jews (imperial powers such as, the Seleucids, or in this case, the Romans), which we now call 'apocalyptic' language. We do the same thing today. We speak of 'earth-shattering' events, even though the earth isn't literally shattered. Or we say things like, "Last night's boxing match was such a brawl it was like World War 3 in there," even though numerous nations around the globe were obviously not involved in any sort of armed conflict. Or, "The stock market crashed on 'Black Thursday', October 24, rallied briefly, then crashed again on 'Black Tuesday', October 29, 1929." Should we understand from this that there was some sort of explosion at the New York Stock Exchange on Oct. 24 and another on the 29th? Did something literally crash into it? Did the sun not shine on either that particular Thursday and then fail to rise again the following Tuesday? Or "It was raining cats and dogs out there," even though, obviously, felines and canines were not literally falling from the sky. We use expressions like these so often and in various contexts we don't even have to think about them to know what is being meant, and we know that little of the expressions is intended to be taken literally.
So also with these words of Jesus. He utilises language that had come to be associated with describing times of great trouble, language appropriately derived from the OT writings (just as many of our common idioms find their origin in Scripture), quoting extensively from Daniel, Joel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah throughout this monologue.
That the language Jesus' employs here was commonly used to describe troubling times is further evidenced by its vagueness; it could be used to designate virtually any period throughout history. Looking again at the list you provided:

1. The destruction of the temple... done...70 A.D.
2. Many false christs appearing... not all that many prior to the passing of the 40 years.

There were plenty of false messianic claimants throughout the 1st-century, with unfortunately many of them coming from Galilee. They would frequently gather a small following, enter Jerusalem in mock triumph, foment rebellion against their Gentile Roman rulers, get arrested, tortured and crucified, end of story. Only wih Jesus, as we all know, Jesus' crucifixion wasn't the end of the story. Far from it.

3. Wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes... under way.
4. Martyrdom of believers... yes.
5. Betrayal ... yes.
6. False prophets and deceit... yes.

All these things have been manifested throughout Church history.

7. Gospel preached in all nations... now in progress.

Was also in progress prior to the Jerusalem temple's destruction.

8. The abomination of desolation standing in the most holy place... still to come.

Happened in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.

9. Signs and wonders done by false prophets... in progress... think Benny Hinn.

Also have happened throughout Church history.

10. The coming of Christ per verse 27... hardly a secretive event, and not yet.
11. The sun darkened and no light from the moon... (vs.29)... guess what?
12. The visible coming of the Son of man with the gathered saints/elect... (vs. 30,31)... hello?

Along with all this Jesus uses language typically used to point toward God's impending judgment. This was what happened in AD 70.

 

[holdon]

Along with all this Jesus uses language typically used to point toward God's impending judgment. This was what happened in AD 70.

So, Jesus is "vague", using figurative language, etc.. yet you can be sure that He was talking about AD 70.

Wow. It beats me, how you can be so sure after all that vagueness....

 

[dcyates]

So, Jesus is "vague", using figurative language, etc.. yet you can be sure that He was talking about AD 70.

Wow. It beats me, how you can be so sure after all that vagueness....

Pardon me, WAB, but has there or has there not been: false christs, wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, the martyrdom of believers, betrayal, false prophets, deceit, the gospel preached all around the globe, signs and wonders performed by false prophets throughout Church history? Since these are events that are not unique to any one time period and so are not specific to any particular point in history, they are vague.

The rest of the events you listed, such as the destruction of the temple, 'the abomination of desolation standing in the most holy place', and that all of this is indicative of the judgment of God all points toward AD 70. I think I made this pretty clear in my previous post.

 

[holdon]

Pardon me, WAB, but has there or has there not been: false christs, wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, the martyrdom of believers, betrayal, false prophets, deceit, the gospel preached all around the globe, signs and wonders performed by false prophets throughout Church history? Since these are events that are not unique to any one time period and so are not specific to any particular point in history, they are vague.

The rest of the events you listed, such as the destruction of the temple, 'the abomination of desolation standing in the most holy place', and that all of this is indicative of the judgment of God all points toward AD 70. I think I made this pretty clear in my previous post.

But there was no "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" in AD 70.
Nor was there an unequalled tribulation as there never was and never will be.
Nor did the Son of Man appear.
Nor did the tribes see the Son of Man.
Etc..

That's what's so unclear about your post.

 

[WAB]

But there was no "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" in AD 70.
Nor was there an unequalled tribulation as there never was and never will be.
Nor did the Son of Man appear.
Nor did the tribes see the Son of Man.
Etc..

That's what's so unclear about your post.

Hi holdon... Am not doing this to interfere with your post in the slightest... Am very thankful for your input.

Just want to state that what is becoming abundantly clear is that "dy" is a totally committed preterist. To see all that entails, one should research the word "preterist" at a good search engine.

Shalom...WAB

 

[dcyates]

Hi holdon... Am not doing this to interfere with your post in the slightest... Am very thankful for your input.

Just want to state that what is becoming abundantly clear is that "dy" is a totally committed preterist. To see all that entails, one should research the word "preterist" at a good search engine.

Shalom...WAB

And thank YOU for your input, WAB. But since we're speaking of being more clear, to clarify what you've stated: NO, I am not a "totally committed preterist." My eschatology doesn't fit any of those labels.

 

[dcyates]

But there was no "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" in AD 70.
Nor was there an unequalled tribulation as there never was and never will be.
Nor did the Son of Man appear.
Nor did the tribes see the Son of Man.
Etc..

That's what's so unclear about your post.

Ahh, I think I understand now the cause of our disagreement. You see Jesus' statement in Matt 24.30 ("Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven ['en ourano'], all the tribes of the Land will mourn [Zechariah 12.10-14], and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with tremendous power and glory [Daniel 7.13-14]") as a description of something that is seen from an earthly perspective. It is not. Read those verses in Daniel 7 that Jesus is citing: "I kept looking in the night visions. And behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming. And he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed" (vv. 13-14). Here the Son of Man's "coming" is not 'downward' toward the earth but rather he is "coming" 'upward' toward heaven to be presented before God. The Son of Man 'comes' from the point of view of the heavenly world, that is, he comes from earth to heaven, not the other way around. In other words, his 'coming' in this sense is not his 'return' to earth after a sojourn in heaven, it is his ascension, his vindication, the thing which demonstrates that his suffering has not been in vain. And so, he lists three signs that go to prove he has been vindicated by God: 1. His resurrection and ascension (Effectively reversing the judgment of death and burial he had received from the worldly, human authorities.); 2. The destruction of the temple (Speaking as a prophet, Jesus predicted that it would fall, not as an arbitrary exercise of his prophetic powers, but because it had come to symbolize all that was wrong with the Israel of his day. As well, he had predicted the terrible suffering that would precede it. That's why, in v. 25, he underlines the fact that he has told them about it beforehand. Jesus must be recognized as a true prophet--the Messiah was to be 'a prophet like unto Moses'--and so, when the temple is finally destroyed as he had predicted, that will be a sign that he was speaking the truth. The result will be that his exaltation over the world, and over the temple, will be written in bold letters onto the pages of history; or, as they would put it, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven" [v. 30]); and 3. The news of Jesus' victory will rapidly spread throughout the world. When we hear the word 'gospel' today, we automatically define it in our minds as meaning, "the message of salvation," and there's nothing wrong with that, but this definition should not supercede what the word indicated in the ancient world, where it designated either the military victory of a Roman emperor or the birth of a new emperor. Thus, in this context, the 'gospel' messae that is being spread is the victory of Jesus, that he is God's Messiah, and that he is the true Lord of the world, not Caesar. Or, as they would put it, "He will send out his messengers with a great shofar (Isa 27.13); and they will gather together his chosen people from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Deut 30.4)." If we are to properly understand the biblical writers, we have to learn to read their language in their way.
All this is spoken to Jesus disciples so they'll know when these cataclysmic events will happen: "Now let the fig tree teach you its lesson: when its branches begin to sprout and leaves appear, you know that summer is approaching" (v. 32). In other words, watch for these events and you'll know that the great event, the destruction of the temple and Jesus' complete vindication, "is near, right at the door" (v. 33). And to underscore this sense of imminence, Jesus follows this with the proclamation that all this will happen within a generation: "I'm telling you the truth, this generation won't be gone before all these things happen" (v. 34; which of course brings us back to the verse that started this discussion in the first place).
That is an extra important reason why everything that's been said in this passage must be taken to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the events that surround it. Only when we appreciate how significant that moment was for everything Jesus had said and done will we better understand what Jesus himself stood for.

 

[WAB]

And thank YOU for your input, WAB. But since we're speaking of being more clear, to clarify what you've stated: NO, I am not a "totally committed preterist." My eschatology doesn't fit any of those labels.

The reason is clear as to why you now declare yourself "...not a totally committed preterist." If you admitted to adhering to that position you would be kicked off the forum.

But... you have stated more than once that all the things mentioned in Matt. 24:34 had already occurred by the time 70 A.D. arrived.

For anyone who is even casually familiar with one of the most basic principles of Bible study, i.e. reading in context, here is Matt. 24:15-21...

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand);Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains; Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day; For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, during their lifetimes carried out a period of tribulation against both Jews and Christians, in numbers and atrocities that have been estimated to be in excess of those of 70 A.D. by at least 20 times.

So how could Christ's declaration re the great trib. being worse than anything that happened previous to, or subsequent to 70 A.D. "...no, nor ever shall be." ... how could His declaration be true if it all happened prior to 70 A.D.?

Also, our Lord said that "...except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved..." (vs.22)

Notice that there is no qualifier there indicating He was referring to Jerusalem or the Holy Land alone, but indicates all of humanity. There was no possibility of the eradication of all flesh in the 70 A.D. era; but there is now! Think nuclear.

One more point... one would have to scratch what is written in the book of the Revelation from Chapter One through Chap. 20 verse 6 as having been fulfilled in 70 A.D. to swallow your undeniably preterist position.

edited to remove smilie ??? and then to correct spelling.... and then to suggest reading Rev. 22:18,19 !!

 

[holdon]

Ahh, I think I understand now the cause of our disagreement. You see Jesus' statement in Matt 24.30 ("Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven ['en ourano'], all the tribes of the Land will mourn [Zechariah 12.10, 14], and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with tremendous power and glory [Daniel 7.13-14]") as a description of something that is seen from an earthly perspective. It is not.

Yes it is. Read Mt 24: 26 which speaks of don't go into the desert. And that His coming is like lightning from east to west. Also, in the following verses of carcases and eagles, of sun and moon darkened, etc.. Then it says: the tribes in the land will lament and it is they that shall see the Son of Man coming.

(

vs.Read those verses in Daniel 7 that Jesus is citing: "I kept looking in the night visions. And behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming. And he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed" (vv. 13-14). Here the Son of Man's "coming" is not 'downward' toward the earth but rather he is "coming" 'upward' toward heaven to be presented before God.

Yes it speaks about Jesus, where He is receiving the kingdom. See Luke 19:12. Which by the way says that after that He would return, so that your theory is refuted by this verse. See also Acts 2:36 where we have proof that this vindication already took place. (before the destruction of Jerusalem)

The Son of Man 'comes' from the point of view of the heavenly world, that is, he comes from earth to heaven, not the other way around. In other words, his 'coming' in this sense is not his 'return' to earth after a sojourn in heaven, it is his ascension, his vindication, the thing which demonstrates that his suffering has not been in vain. And so, he lists three signs that go to prove he has been vindicated by God: 1. His resurrection and ascension (Effectively reversing the judgment of death and burial he had received from the worldly, human authorities.); 2. The destruction of the temple (Speaking as a prophet, Jesus predicted that it would fall, not as an arbitrary exercise of his prophetic powers, but because it had come to symbolize all that was wrong with the Israel of his day. As well, he had predicted the terrible suffering that would precede it. That's why, in v. 25, he underlines the fact that he has told them about it beforehand. Jesus must be recognized as a true prophet--the Messiah was to be 'a prophet like unto Moses'--and so, when the temple is finally destroyed as he had predicted, that will be a sign that he was speaking the truth. The result will be that his exaltation over the world, and over the temple, will be written in bold letters onto the pages of history; or, as they would put it, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven" [v. 30]); and 3. The news of Jesus' victory will rapidly spread throughout the world. When we hear the word 'gospel' today, we automatically define it in our minds as meaning, "the message of salvation," and there's nothing wrong with that, but this definition should not supercede what the word indicated in the ancient world, where it designated either the military victory of a Roman emperor or the birth of a new emperor. Thus, in this context, the 'gospel' messae that is being spread is the victory of Jesus, that he is God's Messiah, and that he is the true Lord of the world, not Caesar. Or, as they would put it, "He will send out his messengers

with a great shofar (Isa 27.13); and they will gather together his chosen people from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Deut 30.4)." If we are to properly understand the biblical writers, we have to learn to read their language in their way.
All this is spoken to Jesus disciples so they'll know when these cataclysmic events will happen: "Now let the fig tree teach you its lesson: when its branches begin to sprout and leaves appear, you know that summer is approaching" (v. 32). In other words, watch for these events and you'll know that the great event, the destruction of the temple and Jesus' complete vindication, "is near, right at the door" (v. 33). And to underscore this sense of imminence, Jesus follows this with the proclamation that all this will happen within a generation: "I'm telling you the truth, this generation won't be gone before all these things happen" (v. 34; which of course brings us back to the verse that started this discussion in the first place).
That is an extra important reason why everything that's been said in this passage must be taken to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the events that surround it. Only when we appreciate how significant that moment was for everything Jesus had said and done will we better understand what Jesus himself stood for.

The generation is still here. Generation stands for the moral character of the Jews. This is constantly alluded to in Matt. See Deut. 32:20 and also Psalm 12:7 where it is clear that a generation can be much longer than 30 or 40 years.....

 

[dcyates]

The reason is clear as to why you now declare yourself "...not a totally committed preterist." If you admitted to adhering to that position you would be kicked off the forum.

What's clear is that you'd rather label someone than actually engage with their ideas.

But... you have stated more than once that all the things mentioned in Matt. 24:34 had already occurred by the time 70 A.D. arrived.

Right. All those things happened during that period of the generation, just as Jesus proclaimed. Is Matt 24.34 seriously the litmus test for eschatological orthodoxy? (Is there even such a thing as 'eschatological orthodoxy'?)

For anyone who is even casually familiar with one of the most basic principles of Bible study, i.e. reading in context, here is Matt. 24:15-21...
"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand);Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains; Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day; For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

And how does simply reproducing these verses either disprove my point or prove yours? And why these verses? Why not go back all the way to v. 1 to get the proper context?
"As Jesus left the Temple and was going away, his disciples came and called his attention to the buildings. But he answered them, 'You see all these? Yes! I tell you they will be totally destroyed--not a single stone will be left standing!'
"When he was sittin on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. 'Tell us', they said, 'when these things will happen? And what will be the sign that you are coming, and that the 'olam hazeh (this age) is ending?'" (Matt 24.1-3)
Therefore, the context is Jesus' prediction of the Temple's destruction, his disciples asking him when it will happen, and what to look for as a sign of its happening.
Hmm. Now had the Temple in Jerusalem been destroyed around this time? My goodness, it had! When was it destroyed? Oh yeah, in AD 70. Gee, wasn't that within a generation of Jesus' prophecy concerning its destruction? Why yes, it was! Didn't Jesus say something about all this happening before "this generation" had passed away? Again, why yes he did! According to Matt 24.34, he said: "I'm telling you the truth: this generation won't be gone before all these things happen."
That said, who's ignoring the context here?

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, during their lifetimes carried out a period of tribulation against both Jews and Christians, in numbers and atrocities that have been estimated to be in excess of those of 70 A.D. by at least 20 times.
So how could Christ's declaration re the great trib. being worse than anything that happened previous to, or subsequent to 70 A.D. "...no, nor ever shall be." ... how could His declaration be true if it all happened prior to 70 A.D.?

Again, as I've said already, we shouldn't take this too literally. When ancient Jews spoke of times of tribulation, they frequently utilised apocalyptic--that is, very symbolic, almost coded--language. Jesus' words here are thus not only formulaic but also hyperbolic and are meant to communicate the fact that these will be very bad times for the Jewish people. Such hyperbolic language was quite typical. For instance, in Exodus 10.14, we're told: "And the locusts came up over all the land of Egypt and settled in all the territory of Egypt; they were very numerous. There had never been so many locusts, nor would there ever be so many again." And in Exodus 11.6: "Moreover, there shall be a great cry in all the land of Egypt, such as there has not been before and such as shall never be again."
As well, almost the exact same expression is used in Joshua 10.14: "Neither before nor since has there ever been such a day when the Lord acted on words spoken by a man." This is of course a comment on that truly remarkable day where God is said to have caused the sun and the moon to stand still at Joshua's command. But is this really the only time that God ostensibly acted according to words spoken by a man? Of course not. For example, prior to the events of Joshua, in Exodus 8.13 we find: "And the Lord did according to the word of Moses." In Numbers 14.20, there is: "So, the Lord said, 'I have pardoned them according to your word." And in 2 Kings 6.18: "And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed to the Lord and said, 'Strike this people with blindness, I pray'. So (God) struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha."
So, unless you want to say that the Bible contradicts itself, obviously we're not meant to take the words of Joshua 10.14 with exact literalness.

Also, our Lord said that "...except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved..." (vs.22)
Notice that there is no qualifier there indicating He was referring to Jerusalem or the Holy Land alone, but indicates all of humanity. There was no possibility of the eradication of all flesh in the 70 A.D. era; but there is now! Think nuclear.

You're selectively quoting again. There is a qualifier. In typical Hebrew poetical style--which apocalyptic language frequently took the form of--we have here one line followed by a parallel line that, in this case, acts to qualify and further explain the first line. "And if those days had not been shortened, nobody at all would have been rescued." With the parallel line: "But for the sake of God's chosen ones those days will be shortened."

One more point... one would have to scratch what is written in the book of the Revelation from Chapter One through Chap. 20 verse 6 as having been fulfilled in 70 A.D. to swallow your undeniably preterist position.

Okay. So everything written in Revelation 1.1-20.6 was fulfilled by AD 70. If you say so. I quite honestly don't know yet. I haven't exegeted the book of Revelation to my satisfaction before making any decisions like that.

edited to remove smilie ??? and then to correct spelling.... and then to suggest reading Rev. 22:18,19 !!

Great. So which words do you think I've added or taken away from the book of Revelation? (I have to confess, up to this point, I didn't think we had dealt enough with any of the contents of Revelation for either of us to have added or taken words from it at all!)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't understaand this bible passage, i mean all thouse who lived then are dead now

34: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

...

Was also in progress prior to the Jerusalem temple's destruction.

Happened in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.

Also have happened throughout Church history.

Along with all this Jesus uses language typically used to point toward God's impending judgment. This was what happened in AD 70

Yes, it "appears" to be that generation of "this people" according Luke.

The temple was still standing when this was made but I am trying to find the Abomination spoken of in Daniel 11 and Matt. Any thoughts?

Luke 21:23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land andwrath upon this people.

Revelation 11:1:And given to me a reed like unto [a] staff saying: Be Ye Arousing!!!!! and Measure Ye!!!!! the Sanctuary/Temple of the God, and the Altar and the Ones worshipping in it 2 And the Court [#833], the one within[#2081] the Sanctuary/Temple [#3485] be Casting Out!!!!! [#1544] Out-side [#1854] and ye should not be measuring it/her, because she was given to the nations/gentiles, and the city, the holy, they shall be treading [#3961] for 40 and 2 months.
Reve 6:16 and said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 "For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

 

[dcyates]

Yes it is. Read Mt 24: 26 which speaks of don't go into the desert. And that His coming is like lightning from east to west. Also, in the following verses of carcases and eagles, of sun and moon darkened, etc.. Then it says: the tribes in the land will lament and it is they that shall see the Son of Man coming.

Why would you think any of this in any way negates the heavenly perspective of Jesus' proclamation in Matt 24.30? Do you honestly not think perspective can change from one paragraph to the next? This is akin to taking a statement like, "I was driving to work but not looking forward to it since my boss has been driving me up the wall lately," and insisting that the word 'driving' be interpreted the exact same way in both instances, since they're the exact same word and are used in such close proximity to each other.
Again, this is apocalyptic language not meant to be taken literally. Jesus coming is "like lightning that flashes out of the east and fills the sky to the western horizon." How can his coming be like lightning that fills the sky? It's pretty tough not to notice that kind of lightning. Today we would more likely use an expression like, "It will be as plain as the nose on your face." Jesus is saying that when he comes in judgment, it's not going to be some low-key, innocuous event of little impact or importance. It's going to be noticed.
The reference to dead bodies and eagles quite likely has to do with the eagle-emblazoned standards of the Roman army and that army's terrible efficiency at killing people.
Similarly, the statements that the sun will be darkened and the moon not give its light should be taken about as literally as the statement that the stars will fall from the sky.
Additionally, although many translators have opted to render hai phylai tes ges as "the tribes of the earth" (the version you've cited, "the tribes in the land" is not an accurate translation), I still stand by my translation of "all the tribes of the Land will mourn," due to this most likely being a reference to Zechariah 12.10-14, where we're told the people of Jerusalem, and even the land itself, will "mourn" over the death of God's "only son," "whom they have pierced" (v. 10). And it is "they" who saw the Son of Man's coming; both his coming as God's Messiah and his coming in judgment over their rejection of him.

Yes it speaks about Jesus, where He is receiving the kingdom. See Luke 19:12.

Which by the way says that after that He would return, so that your theory is refuted by this verse.

I honestly don't see your argument here to enable me to even address it. Perhaps you could expand a bit further why you think this verse refutes my interpretation of Matthew 24.

See also Acts 2:36 where we have proof that this vindication already took place. (before the destruction of Jerusalem)

Where did I say Jesus wasn't already "Lord and Christ"? It doesn't say anything about his vindication here.

The generation is still here. Generation stands for the moral character of the Jews. This is constantly alluded to in Matt.

Huh? The word 'generation' stands for the "moral character" of the Jews?!? I'm sorry, holdon, but I'd wager you couldn't find a single outside source of either a primary or secondary nature that would support this interpretation.

See Deut. 32:20 and also Psalm 12:7 where it is clear that a generation can be much longer than 30 or 40 years.....

Again, huh? Where do you get this? And even so, just because a word may be used one way in 'this' particular place, doesn't necessarily mean it will be used the same way in another place--as my example above with the word 'driving' hopefully illustrates.

 

[dcyates]

Yes, it "appears" to be that generation of "this people" according Luke.

The temple was still standing when this was made but I am trying to find the Abomination spoken of in Daniel 11 and Matt. Any thoughts?

Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was both abominable and certainly caused desolation.

 

[holdon]

Why would you think any of this in any way negates the heavenly perspective of Jesus' proclamation in Matt 24.30? Do you honestly not think perspective can change from one paragraph to the next? This is akin to taking a statement like, "I was driving to work but not looking forward to it since my boss has been driving me up the wall lately," and insisting that the word 'driving' be interpreted the exact same way in both instances, since they're the exact same word and are used in such close proximity to each other.
Again, this is apocalyptic language not meant to be taken literally. Jesus coming is "like lightning that flashes out of the east and fills the sky to the western horizon." How can his coming be like lightning that fills the sky? It's pretty tough not to notice that kind of lightning. Today we would more likely use an expression like, "It will be as plain as the nose on your face." Jesus is saying that when he comes in judgment, it's not going to be some low-key, innocuous event of little impact or importance. It's going to be noticed.
The reference to dead bodies and eagles quite likely has to do with the eagle-emblazoned standards of the Roman army and that army's terrible efficiency at killing people.
Similarly, the statements that the sun will be darkened and the moon not give its light should be taken about as literally as the statement that the stars will fall from the sky.
Additionally, although many translators have opted to render hai phylai tes ges as "the tribes of the earth" (the version you've cited, "the tribes in the land" is not an accurate translation)

I did not quote that as a version. My version reads: "tribes of the Land". But I was trying to make the point that they are on earth, an earthly perspective, contra your theory, when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.

I still stand by my translation of "all the tribes of the Land will mourn," due to this most likely being a reference to Zechariah 12.10-14, where we're told the people of Jerusalem, and even the land itself, will "mourn" over the death of God's "only son," "whom they have pierced" (v. 10). And it is "they" who saw the Son of Man's coming; both his coming as God's Messiah and his coming in judgment over their rejection of him.

I honestly don't see your argument here to enable me to even address it. Perhaps you could expand a bit further why you think this verse refutes my interpretation of Matthew 24.

Because your point was the supposedly "heavenly perspective" of Jesus not coming down, but coming up to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7. And I cited Luke 19:12 where Jesus alludes to that event when He receives the kingdom, and speaks at the same time of His return. By which it is established that one is NOT the other.

Where did I say Jesus wasn't already "Lord and Christ"? It doesn't say anything about his vindication here.

Of course it does. The prove of His vindication (up there) was that the Holy Spirit had come down here. That's Peter's argument in Acts 2. This is contra your opinion of an ulterior vindication in Mt 24.

Huh? The word 'generation' stands for the "moral character" of the Jews?!? I'm sorry, holdon, but I'd wager you couldn't find a single outside source of either a primary or secondary nature that would support this interpretation.

Just read all the "generation" verses in Matthew. Read Deut 32:5,20. Read Ps 12:7. Read Philippians 2:15.

Again, huh? Where do you get this? And even so, just because a word may be used one way in 'this' particular place, doesn't necessarily mean it will be used the same way in another place--as my example above with the word 'driving' hopefully illustrates.

All the verses in Matthew (except Mt 1:1, but there it doesn't mean 40 years either) allude to the moral character of "this generation".