Question for Amillennialists

[claninja]

Talk about rewriting Scripture. Your unhealthy fixation with the coming of Titus and obsession with AD70 exposes your theology. You butcher the meaning of the text and their relationship to Christ and His real coming.

What is more, you miss the point. Your false Preterist insistence on Jesus predicting an imminent coming in 40 years is exposed, after you denying it.

Well it appears you have to keep pushing this laughable strawman argument. No where did I state 40 + year was imminent. But apparently you need to keep lying about it……

 

[sovereigngrace]

Well it appears you have to keep pushing this laughable strawman argument. No where did I state 40 + year was imminent. But apparently you need to keep lying about it……

Not so. Quite the opposite. This is alternative reality. It is a smokescreen to conceal the multiple contradictions in Full Preterism.

So:

Do you interpret eggizō as imminent? Yes!
Do you relate Luke 21:25-28, 36 to Titus attacking Jerusalem? Yes!
Do you believe this is the second coming of Christ? Yes!
Was Luke 21:25-28, 36 predicted 40 years+ before AD70? Yes!

Hello!!!

 

[claninja]

Was Luke 21:25-28, 36 predicted 40 years+ before AD70? Yes!

you are going to have to spell this out for me, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

How does the idea that WHEN armies begin to surround and desolate Jerusalem, THEN the apostles will know their relief from Jewish persecution draws near = 40+ years is imminent?

Are you able to actually address the post, or are you going to continue with flaming rhetoric?

 

[DavidPT]

So the Jews were sold into literally every single nation on the entire planet in the first century? I don’t think so, Dave, I think it’s important to understand the hyperbolic language of first century literature, and how Rome was viewed as the “whole world”.

I'm not claiming everything happened in the first century in regards to all nations. I'm saying it began in the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem, and over time, meaning spanning centuries, the gospel gradually expands globally, thus a hatred of Christians on a global scale eventually. Therefore, though you apparently take 'all nations' in Matthew 24:9 as hyperbolic language, I don't since I see Jesus meaning in that verse that the gospel eventually spreads worldwide, which wasn't the case in the first century. The first century got the ball rolling, so to speak.

When Jesus says 'all nations' in Matthew 24:9, He is meaning it the same way John is meaning it in Revelation 7:9 when he mentions all nations.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;


No one, including partial Preterists, should insist a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, that this was fulfilled in the first century. Maybe a full Preterist might insist that, except you are not a full Preterist as far as I can tell. Revelation 7:9 is obviously the result of the gospel having spread globally post the first century. And that it involves all nations. Should we take 'all nations' as hyperbolic language here as well?

Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake---this is obviously the result of the gospel having spread globally eventually. Jesus is no more using hyperbolic language here than John is in Revelation 7:9 pertaining to this---a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations.

 

[sovereigngrace]

you are going to have to spell this out for me, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

How does the idea that WHEN armies begin to surround and desolate Jerusalem, THEN the apostles will know their relief from Jewish persecution draws near = 40+ years is imminent?

Are you able to actually address the post, or are you going to continue with flaming rhetoric?

You know full well what I am saying. It told negates your theology.

You are avoiding the questions.

 

[claninja]

You know full well what I am saying. It told negates your theology.

You are avoiding the questions.

i honestly have no idea, that’s why I asked a clarifying question. Your argument makes zero sense and so it’s difficult to respond, when you won’t clarify.

How does the idea that WHEN armies begin to surround and desolate Jerusalem, THEN the apostles will know their relief from Jewish persecution draws near = 40+ years is imminent?

 

[claninja]

I'm not claiming everything happened in the first century in regards to all nations. I'm saying it began in the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem, and over time, meaning spanning centuries, the gospel gradually expands globally, thus a hatred of Christians on a global scale eventually. Therefore, though you apparently take 'all nations' in Matthew 24:9 as hyperbolic language, I don't since I see Jesus meaning in that verse that the gospel eventually spreads worldwide, which wasn't the case in the first century. The first century got the ball rolling, so to speak.

When Jesus says 'all nations' in Matthew 24:9, He is meaning it the same way John is meaning it in Revelation 7:9 when he mentions all nations.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;


No one, including partial Preterists, should insist a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, that this was fulfilled in the first century. Maybe a full Preterist might insist that, except you are not a full Preterist as far as I can tell. Revelation 7:9 is obviously the result of the gospel having spread globally post the first century. And that it involves all nations. Should we take 'all nations' as hyperbolic language here as well?

Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake---this is obviously the result of the gospel having spread globally eventually. Jesus is no more using hyperbolic language here than John is in Revelation 7:9 pertaining to this---a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations.

Well historically, we know the Jews weren’t sold into literal every single nation on the entire planet post 70ad. So we know that is hyperbolic language referring only to the known world, or Roman Empire.

Paul stated the gospel went to the whole world. Obviously, not literally the entire planet, but the known Roman world.

Romans 10:17-18
h17Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed they did “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”i

Colossians 1:23 not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creaturee under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Reading through the book of acts is a great place to start. for In everyplace, Christianity was being spoken against

Acts 28:22But we desire to hear from you what your views are, for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.

 

[grafted branch]

When Jesus says 'all nations' in Matthew 24:9, He is meaning it the same way John is meaning it in Revelation 7:9 when he mentions all nations.

It seems odd that you’re comparing Matthew 24:9 and Revelation 7:9, I’m not sure they’re even referring to the same time period. Many views place Matthew 24:9 (great tribulation) taking place prior to Revelation 7:9 (those who came out of the great tribulation).

Matthew 24:12-13 says the love of many shall wax cold, but he that endures to the end shall be saved. Certainly those in Revelation 7:9 endured to the end so that would mean at some point all nations hate the great multitude, that no man can number, of all nations. This doesn’t really make sense does it?

 

[DavidPT]

It seems odd that you’re comparing Matthew 24:9 and Revelation 7:9, I’m not sure they’re even referring to the same time period.

What they have in common is this---all nations. And that I'm using Revelation 7:9 as an example of how to define 'all nations' correctly in certain contexts. Jesus said that Christians would be hated of all nations for His name's sake. IOW, Jesus is also looking beyond the first century when He said that since all nations make zero sense in the first century. Meaning the same way all nations' is meaning in Revelation 7:9, as in globally. Time periods are irrelevant in regards to the point I'm trying to make over all. And that I'm not connecting Matthew 24:9 to Revelation 7:9 in the manner that you are apparently taking me to be doing. I'm using it as an example, so to speak, since it proves 'all nations' can literally involve the entire planet.

For example. The USA, that's a nation. In the first century the USA was not even relevant yet. Obviously, even in the USA there are some that hate Christians, thus fits with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:9, ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. How can that only be applicable to the first century when a nation, such as the USA, was not even relevant yet, and that there are clearly some in this same nation, the USA, that hate Christians?

 

[grafted branch]

What they have in common is this---all nations. And that I'm using Revelation 7:9 as an example of how to define 'all nations' correctly in certain contexts.

The word nation in both Matthew 24:9 and Revelation 7:9 is 1484 ethnos, which just basically means people who are non-Jews or the heathen world.

I would say based on the context, the 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7:4-8, that Revelation 7:9 is showing that salvation is not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.

The USA, that's a nation. In the first century the USA was not even relevant yet. Obviously, even in the USA there are some that hate Christians, thus fits with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:9, ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. How can that only be applicable to the first century when a nation, such as the USA, was not even relevant yet, and that there are clearly some in this same nation, the USA, that hate Christians?

Right, since the USA didn’t exist in the first century, the Christians in the first century weren’t hated by the USA so they weren’t hated by all nations throughout time. And Christians today aren’t hated by nations that existed in the past, prior to Jesus’ birth, who had never heard of Jesus and these nations no longer exist today. Which means the word nations can only be referring to those that are relevant at that specific point in time.

 

[sovereigngrace]

i honestly have no idea, that’s why I asked a clarifying question. Your argument makes zero sense and so it’s difficult to respond, when you won’t clarify.

How does the idea that WHEN armies begin to surround and desolate Jerusalem, THEN the apostles will know their relief from Jewish persecution draws near = 40+ years is imminent?

Preterists have to ignore/reject many clear Scriptures that teach a prolonged period of time in-between the two comings of Christ. That is because what they have been taught contradicts the clear and repeated teaching of the NT. I want to look at some of the strong biblical evidence that forbids Preterism. This is just one of many issues that negate this doctrine.

They overlook what the Lord taught in Matthew 25:14: “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.”

We find parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 19. In Mark’s account we learn: “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch” (Mark 13:34).

In Luke 19:12-13 we read: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.”

As we piece these 3 accounts together, we grasp the fulness of the whole parable. Here Christ is speaking of the intra-Advent period. He is talking about the kingdom authority that was delegated to God’s people during the intra-Advent period. These servants were given “authority” and ordered to “Occupy till I come.” This assignment is still ongoing. The kingdom is still growing, and will do until the end (His coming), when it will be handed over to His Father. We are still ruling and reigning "in Christ." The gates of hell cannot prevail aginst the Church of Jesus Christ on this earth in this intra-Advent period. We are still invading the devil's kingdom with the glorious Gospel of Christ. Men and women, boys and girls, are still getting saved. We are still in the day of salvation. That ends when Jesus returns.

Jesus continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."

Here is a picture of the final judgment that occurs at the all-consummating return of Jesus. This comes after a long protracted period where their service would be accounted. This has not happened yet. This is still future!

The reference in this parable to the “nobleman” who “went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return” clearly relates to the Lord Jesus Christ and His ascension into heaven. This assumption is supported by the words of Christ at the end of this parable (in verse 27) when He personalizes the story of the ‘certain nobleman’ by saying, “those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

Jesus taught us that the gap between His first and second comings would be so long it would result in the scoffing of the ungodly. Diligence and patience would be required from the redeemed.

When you examine the record of each parallel you will see that they all conclude with the glorious climatic second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is when the general resurrection is. That is when the general judgment is. These are all related to the final event.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Why in places in the New Testament does it present the coming of the Lord as “at hand,” “near” or coming “quickly” or “shortly” while in other places it is presented as “after a long time”? In fact, the duration of the intra-Advent period is so long that the religious cynics mock the reality and realization of the second coming. Jesus details their contempt in Matthew 24:48: “My lord delayeth his coming.”

These fools arrive at this foolish conclusion because of the protracted wait between the Lord's 2 Advents. We are still in that long period in-between. Preterists foolishly mock the blessed hope held by sincere Christians in regards to the Lord's literal physical visible return for His people.

Jesus continues in Mark 13:35–37: “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”

Jesus said in the other parallel passage in Luke 19:15: “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.”

We haven’t seen the reward of the righteous and the reward of the wicked yet. This is a picture of Judgment Day. Jesus says of the hypocrite in Luke 19:23, 26-27: “Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? … For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

Christ is currently king. He is still reigning over His people. He is still reigning over His enemies. All power and authority has been given unto Him in heaven and on earth. That did not terminate in AD70. He has not yet returned in majesty and power to rescue His elect, destroy the wicked and remove all the bondage of corruption.

What is more, we are constantly exhorted through the teaching of Christ and the New Testament writers to “watch” and be “ready” for Jesus’ climatic return when He will raise and judge mankind. It is only then where mankind will be apportioned their just and final reward. If He had already returned then what have we to prepare for and watch?

 

[grafted branch]

Jesus continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

For us mere earthlings who are promised approximately 70 years on this earth, 40 years is a long time. It is not “a brief period of time.” It is therefore far off in earthly terms.

I don’t want to get involved in this debate but would you say that this parable can be referring to a 70 AD coming?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I don’t want to get involved in this debate but would you say that this parable can be referring to a 70 AD coming?

Not at all. You should read my post. I was comparing man's time to God's time.

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

 

[DavidPT]

Right, since the USA didn’t exist in the first century, the Christians in the first century weren’t hated by the USA so they weren’t hated by all nations throughout time. And Christians today aren’t hated by nations that existed in the past, prior to Jesus’ birth, who had never heard of Jesus and these nations no longer exist today. Which means the word nations can only be referring to those that are relevant at that specific point in time.

The reasoning you are using here ignores the fact, that in Matthew 24:9, Jesus indicated that Christians will be hated of all nations for His name's sake. 'All nations' being the keywords. Can all nations ever literally mean all nations, as in worldwide? Of course, thus one reason I brought up Revelation 7:9 since that is a verse no one is likely going to dispute that it proves all nations can literally be involving the entire planet.

Take, for example, the following. As pertaining to the USA, I have read in the past that there are cities that have ordinances against feeding homeless ppl inside of the city limits. To do so can lead to a fine and even jail time. Even this is an example of being hated for His name's sake, since Jesus obviously wants one to help feed the poor if they have the means to, otherwise, what was He going on about in Matthew 25 per the following?

Matthew 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink

 

[grafted branch]

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

Ok, what about the words “long time” in Matthew 25:19? The word “long” 4183 just means much or many and the word “time” 5550 just means time in general.

How are you determining that this specific verse is referring to Gods time and not man’s time? This verse doesn’t use words like quickly, short, or near.

 

[grafted branch]

Can all nations ever literally mean all nations, as in worldwide? Of course, thus one reason I brought up Revelation 7:9 since that is a verse no one is likely going to dispute that it proves all nations can literally be involving the entire planet.

But the people in Revelation 7:9 don’t include those that haven’t gone through great tribulation correct? Therefore it doesn’t include nations that no longer exist or nations that don’t go through great tribulation.

 

[DavidPT]

i honestly have no idea, that’s why I asked a clarifying question. Your argument makes zero sense and so it’s difficult to respond, when you won’t clarify.

How does the idea that WHEN armies begin to surround and desolate Jerusalem, THEN the apostles will know their relief from Jewish persecution draws near = 40+ years is imminent?

There's a chance I might be somewhat on the same page with you here since I tend to think I understand your argument, though I do disagree with your position that, for example, Luke 21:28 is pertaining to 70 AD. Assuming I'm explaining the following well enough where any of it is making sense to you. I know what I'm wanting to say. I'm not certain if I am saying it well enough where it at least makes sense to someone what I'm trying to say.

Let's start with that verse then, since that is a verse that has been brought up and that the dispute is involving.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Obviously, it doesn't matter when Jesus spoke those words, in relation to when one's redemption draweth nigh, whether that be 40 years after He spoke those words, or whether that be 2000 years after He spoke this words, being when one's redemption draweth nigh. The verse itself tells us what draweth nigh is dependent on. It is dependent on this--- And when these things begin to come to pass.

Obviously, when Jesus intially spoke those words, the following was not true yet---And when these things begin to come to pass. Therefore, anyone that argues against, such as SG is doing, that if one insists draweth nigh is meaning 40 years later, and at the same time, insists draweth nigh means imminent, that this person is then contradicting what they insist draweth nigh is meaning, that it is meaning imminent, since 40 years later is hardly imminent.

This ignores the fact that it doesn't matter when Jesus spoke these words, in regards to imminent. It only becomes imminent when the following is true first--And when these things begin to come to pass. Whether that be 40 years later or 2000 years later. Which, BTW, further proves that it is not reasonable that Preterists can insist draweth nigh can only be involving events some 40 years later when it can equally be involving events some 2000 years later, the fact draweth nigh is not dependent on when Jesus initially spoke those words. He could have spoken those words 2000 years earlier, for example, it still wouldn't change anything in regards to that verse. It is still meaning imminent when those things begin to come to pass, whether that be 2040 years later or 4000 years later, per this example. And not, imminent when He initially speaks these words.

 

[claninja]

Preterists have to ignore/reject many clear Scriptures that teach a prolonged period of time in-between the two comings of Christ. That is because what they have been taught contradicts the clear and repeated teaching of the NT. I want to look at some of the strong biblical evidence that forbids Preterism. This is just one of many issues that negate this doctrine.

They overlook what the Lord taught in Matthew 25:14: “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.”

We find parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 19. In Mark’s account we learn: “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch” (Mark 13:34).

In Luke 19:12-13 we read: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.”

As we piece these 3 accounts together, we grasp the fulness of the whole parable. Here Christ is speaking of the intra-Advent period. He is talking about the kingdom authority that was delegated to God’s people during the intra-Advent period. These servants were given “authority” and ordered to “Occupy till I come.” This assignment is still ongoing. The kingdom is still growing, and will do until the end (His coming), when it will be handed over to His Father. We are still ruling and reigning "in Christ." The gates of hell cannot prevail aginst the Church of Jesus Christ on this earth in this intra-Advent period. We are still invading the devil's kingdom with the glorious Gospel of Christ. Men and women, boys and girls, are still getting saved. We are still in the day of salvation. That ends when Jesus returns.

Jesus continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."

Here is a picture of the final judgment that occurs at the all-consummating return of Jesus. This comes after a long protracted period where their service would be accounted. This has not happened yet. This is still future!

The reference in this parable to the “nobleman” who “went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return” clearly relates to the Lord Jesus Christ and His ascension into heaven. This assumption is supported by the words of Christ at the end of this parable (in verse 27) when He personalizes the story of the ‘certain nobleman’ by saying, “those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

Jesus taught us that the gap between His first and second comings would be so long it would result in the scoffing of the ungodly. Diligence and patience would be required from the redeemed.

When you examine the record of each parallel you will see that they all conclude with the glorious climatic second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is when the general resurrection is. That is when the general judgment is. These are all related to the final event.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Why in places in the New Testament does it present the coming of the Lord as “at hand,” “near” or coming “quickly” or “shortly” while in other places it is presented as “after a long time”? In fact, the duration of the intra-Advent period is so long that the religious cynics mock the reality and realization of the second coming. Jesus details their contempt in Matthew 24:48: “My lord delayeth his coming.”

These fools arrive at this foolish conclusion because of the protracted wait between the Lord's 2 Advents. We are still in that long period in-between. Preterists foolishly mock the blessed hope held by sincere Christians in regards to the Lord's literal physical visible return for His people.

Jesus continues in Mark 13:35–37: “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”

Jesus said in the other parallel passage in Luke 19:15: “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.”

We haven’t seen the reward of the righteous and the reward of the wicked yet. This is a picture of Judgment Day. Jesus says of the hypocrite in Luke 19:23, 26-27: “Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? … For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

Christ is currently king. He is still reigning over His people. He is still reigning over His enemies. All power and authority has been given unto Him in heaven and on earth. That did not terminate in AD70. He has not yet returned in majesty and power to rescue His elect, destroy the wicked and remove all the bondage of corruption.

What is more, we are constantly exhorted through the teaching of Christ and the New Testament writers to “watch” and be “ready” for Jesus’ climatic return when He will raise and judge mankind. It is only then where mankind will be apportioned their just and final reward. If He had already returned then what have we to prepare for and watch?

That’s a long post that does nothing to clarify my question about your argument that makes zero sense.

Your strawman was that I somehow believe 40 years = imminent from Luke 21:25-28,36, which makes zero logical sense. So can you please clarify:

How does the idea that WHEN armies begin to surround and desolate Jerusalem, THEN the apostles will know their relief from Jewish persecution draws near = 40+ years is imminent?

I still don’t understand this

 

[claninja]

There's a chance I might be somewhat on the same page with you here since I tend to think I understand your argument, though I do disagree with your position that, for example, Luke 21:28 is pertaining to 70 AD. Assuming I'm explaining the following well enough where any of it is making sense to you. I know what I'm wanting to say. I'm not certain if I am saying it well enough where it at least makes sense to someone what I'm trying to say.

Let's start with that verse then, since that is a verse that has been brought up and that the dispute is involving.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Obviously, it doesn't matter when Jesus spoke those words, in relation to when one's redemption draweth nigh, whether that be 40 years after He spoke those words, or whether that be 2000 years after He spoke this words, being when one's redemption draweth nigh. The verse itself tells us what draweth nigh is dependent on. It is dependent on this--- And when these things begin to come to pass.

Obviously, when Jesus intially spoke those words, the following was not true yet---And when these things begin to come to pass. Therefore, anyone that argues against, such as SG is doing, that if one insists draweth nigh is meaning 40 years later, and at the same time, insists draweth nigh means imminent, that this person is then contradicting what they insist draweth nigh is meaning, that it is meaning imminent, since 40 years later is hardly imminent.

This ignores the fact that it doesn't matter when Jesus spoke these words, in regards to imminent. It only becomes imminent when the following is true first--And when these things begin to come to pass. Whether that be 40 years later or 2000 years later. Which,

Exactly.

“your redemption is drawing near/is imminent” DEPENDS on the clause “when these things begin to occur”.

The redemption is only imminent when these things begin to occur, NOT imminent to when Jesus spoke the words 2,000 years ago.

It seems like SG is trying to make the argument (a strawman) that I believe the “nearness” or “imminence” is to the day Jesus spoke the words, thus turning 40+ years into imminent, which makes zero sense. Unfortunately, he won’t address nor clarify my question on this illogical argument.

 

[claninja]

Preterists can insist draweth nigh can only be involving events some 40 years later when it can equally be involving events some 2000 years later, the fact draweth nigh is not dependent on when Jesus initially spoke those words. He could have spoken those words 2000 years earlier, for example, it still wouldn't change anything in regards to that verse. It is still meaning imminent when those things begin to come to pass, whether that be 2040 years later or 4000 years later, per this example. And not, imminent when He initially speaks these words.

Preterists would in no way use this passage to state the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent to when Jesus spoke those words. This has nothing to preterism. It’s just some weird strawman that SG attempted to invent in order to deflect from providing any scholarly evidence to back up his claim that eggizo doesn’t mean imminent when in the perfect tense.