The latter Days: The type of the latter days

[claninja]

1 Corinthians 10:11 Paul mentions the fact that the end of the ages has already come - and he knew it came when Jesus died and rose again.

I'm not talking to you about this anymore - not because I have no answer - because my answer is the Bile's answer - but because you have no answer, and though the truth about the end of the age is staring at you, you refuse to accept it.

I still have no idea what you mean. I agree the end of the ages came with Christ.

Ok, maybe this will clear it up……was Paul living during the end of the ages or after the end of the ages had ended?

 

[Zao is life]

Hebrews 9
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands - the representation of the true sanctuary - but into heaven itself, and he appears now in God's presence for us.
25 And he did not enter to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the sanctuary year after year with blood that is not his own,
26 for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice.
27 And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment,
28 so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.

The end of the ages is linked in the above verses to Jesus' death only. It doesn't say Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice for our sins AND the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem 40 years later. 70 A.D is not hinted at in the above statements and is clearly not meant. It's another eisegeses to say that the end of the age refers to both.

Still not following your logic. Your argument seems that the end of the ages = only the death of Christ. But that doesn’t make sense, as Paul said the end of the ages came upon them some 20 years later in 1 Corinthians 10:11.

I believe the end of the ages is the time period starting with Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection. I believe this time period known as the “end of the ages” includes events such as Christ’s death, the pouring out of the spirit, Paul’s days when 1 Corinthians 10:11 was written, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc….

1 Corinthians 10:11 Paul mentions the fact that the end of the ages has already come - and he knew it came when Jesus died and rose again.

I'm not talking to you about this anymore - not because I have no answer - because my answer is the Bile's answer - but because you have no answer, and though the truth about the end of the age is staring at you, you refuse to accept it.

I still have no idea what you mean. I agree the end of the ages came with Christ.

Still not following your logic. Your argument seems that the end of the ages = only the death of Christ. But that doesn’t make sense, as Paul said the end of the ages came upon them some 20 years later in 1 Corinthians 10:11.

I believe the end of the ages is the time period starting with Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection. I believe this time period known as the “end of the ages” includes events such as Christ’s death, the pouring out of the spirit, Paul’s days when 1 Corinthians 10:11 was written, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc….

Hebrews 9
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands - the representation of the true sanctuary - but into heaven itself, and he appears now in God's presence for us.
25 And he did not enter to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the sanctuary year after year with blood that is not his own,
26 for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice.
27 And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment,
28 so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.

The end of the ages is linked in the above verses to Jesus' death only. It doesn't say Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice for our sins AND the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem 40 years later. 70 A.D is not hinted at in the above statements and is clearly not meant. It's another eisegeses to say that the end of the age refers to both.

Still not following your logic. Your argument seems that the end of the ages = only the death of Christ. But that doesn’t make sense, as Paul said the end of the ages came upon them some 20 years later in 1 Corinthians 10:11.

I believe the end of the ages is the time period starting with Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection. I believe this time period known as the “end of the ages” includes events such as Christ’s death, the pouring out of the spirit, Paul’s days when 1 Corinthians 10:11 was written, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc….

Have a nice weekend.

 

[Zao is life]

The Old Testament is about the coming Messiah. The New Testament explains how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. All the stuff in Daniel and Revelation obviously is related to Christ. Nothing that happened during the Maccabee era is.

The Old Testament is also about Ephraim's (the Northern Kingdom's) destruction at the hand of the Assyrian king, and Judah's salvation from the hand of an alliance of Ephraim and the Assyrian king against them. It's also about Judah's destruction at the hand of the king of Babylon and exile in Babylon, and their release and return. The Old Testament is also about wisdom literature, and prophecy about the coming Messiah.

The Old Testament contains history, wisdom, poetry, prophets, lamentations during the period of Jewish exile in Babylon - and the entire Bible is ultimately about Jesus.

What happened during the Maccabee area was prophesied by Daniel long before it happened. There were no prophets for a roughly 400 year period before Jesus came, but what happened during the Maccabee era was prophesied before then, by Daniel - unless you REALLY don't want to believe it (not sure why?).

- and Daniel prophesied about what Antiochus IV was going to do, and it came to pass during the time of the Maccabee era. And Antiochus is a type of the man of sin who is still to come - unless you REALLY don't want to believe that the man of sin is still to come (not sure why?)

The Herods don't fit as the type of the man of sin that is still to come.

None of these guys had any contact with Jesus Christ, any of the apostles or prophets of the Old or New Testaments. They didn't live in a time when Scripture was fulfilled.

What a strange argument. There are so many biblical characters and nations in the Old Testament that had no contact with Jesus or any Old Testament prophets, or apostles of Jesus.

The books of the Macabees disagree with you about Antiochus IV not living in a time when scripture was fulfilled. So does Josephus. Your logic is that because the book of Daniel doesn't mention Antiochus IV by name, Antiochus IV - a historical character - did not fulfill any part of what Daniel had prophesied, and therefore cannot possibly have become a type of the man of sin who is to come before the return of Christ.

Yet what Antiochus IV did and what the man of sin will do is related to Christ - but not to His first coming. To His return. But you REALLY don't want to believe that the man of sin has not yet come. The things you now say in your posts betray the fact you are determined to 'prove' (though you cannot) that the man of sin has already come (in the 1st century).

Pointing to Antiochus IV as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel is an example of "look over here, not over there" because Rabbinic Judaism does not want people to recognize Jesus Christ is the Messiah prophesied in the book of Daniel.

That's absolute, 100% nonsense. Rabbinic Judaism rejects the fact that Antiochus IV is a type of the man of sin who is still to come just as much as you do (because they don't believe in Christ). So your belief in this regard is the same as that of the Rabbis of Rabbinic Judaism's.

Antiochus is not related to Alexander the Great or any of his generals. He didn't "come from" one of them. He's not the 4th in line of 4 king divided empire. There's not 7 of them in a succession.

That makes no difference. Antiochus IV became the king of the Seleucid Empire, which was one of the original four kingdoms divided between Alexander's four generals at the time of his death. This is historical fact. Antiochus is a historical person. His actions make him a type of the man of sin who is to come - the Antichrist.

The Old Testament is about the coming Messiah. The New Testament explains how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament.

And the prophecy regarding the Antichrist who is to come is related to the 2nd coming of Christ, and Antiochus IV, who Daniel prophesied about (along with the Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires), is a type of that Antichrist.

Galatians 3:17 describes 430 years between the end of the OT and the crucifixion / resurrection.

Congratulations on finding a pattern but if you do a little research you will discover that the Old Testament we have is that of the Moseretic Text of the Rabbis, which is a corrupted version of the original text, where the non-corrupted version is in the Septuagint - and the Septuagint is in major disagreement with your Rabbinic English version of the Old Testament regarding the length of the period spent in Egypt - as well as regarding the ages of a good few of the biblical patriarchs when they died.

Nothing happened between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT that God had any concern about in relation to the fulfillment of prophecy. And clearly the Maccabean era is between those two testaments. Scripture interprets Scripture. History does not interpret Scripture.

That's because you REALLY don't want to believe that the Maccabeen era was a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, and Antiochus IV's actions are a type of the man of sin who is to come (not sure why you really do not want to believe it, though it's biblical and therefore true).

The idea that Antiochus IV is the fulfillment of the prophecy of the book of Daniel? I'm not even sure where that came from in relation to Christian history? I'm guessing post Reformation. Because directly out of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was stated to be "Babylon Mother of Harlots".

The rejection of the biblical truth regarding the fact that the Maccabeen era was prophesied by Daniel long before it happened and that Antiochus IV is a type of the man of sin who is to come is symptomatic of the fact that we are living in the last days where Christians will no longer endure sound doctrine but will heap up teachers to themselves who will teach them things that their itching ears want to hear - leading up to the apostasy when the man of sin appears.

One of these false doctrines is the teaching that the man of sin has already appeared - in the 1st century - and is therefore not going to appear. I see a devil working in the churches already.

"When you see the abomination... " was stated in the present tense as "when you guys finally recognize this..." And the next instruction is to flee Jerusalem and the surrounding areas because the city's destruction is near.

Daniel prophesied about two abominations - one where the temple would be defiled but not destroyed, but cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward, and one where the abominations (plural) would accompany the destruction of both city and sanctuary.

Jesus prophesied about both also - in one and the same passage. One is the fulfillment of the destruction of the temple, and the other is the antitype of the second abomination spoken of by Daniel.

One is related to the destruction of city and sanctuary, and one is related to the tribulation of His disciples once the gospel has been preached in all nations and they have become hated of all nations for His name's sake. That's where He talks about the abomination in the holy place (let the reader understand).

For the one - the destruction of city and sanctuary - He tells the disciples to flee Judea, and for the other, much later in His Revelation He tells His disciples to come out of Babylon the Great.

Clearly, you have a lot of things confused because you REALLY want nothing Daniel prophesied to have been fulfilled before Jesus came.

And gathering from the rest of what you said about 2 Thessalonians 2, you REALLY refuse to believe that Jesus has not yet returned and that the man of sin has not yet appeared.

Not meaning to offend you by this but I won't come back to this same debate with you again. It requires far too much correction of multiple errors you make in one long post, and it's clear that you will still not accept biblical truth regarding the still to come appearance of the man of sin and still to come return of Christ - a grave error. So the basis of your fallacy regarding this is already non-conducive to being able to debate.

I will only debate about whether or not Antiochus IV is a type of the man of sin who is still to come with those who believe and accept the biblical truth that the man of sin is still to appear and the return of Christ is still to come.

If you had been up-front and honest from the start about the fact that you reject the biblical truth regarding the fact the man of sin has not yet appeared and Christ has not yet come, you would not have wasted my time and the time of a lot of people who have read this thread. I really wish that Preterists and Partial Preterists would be more up-front, straight-forward and honest from the start about the basis for their rejection of any biblical discussions.

Have a good weekend.

 

[The Righterzpen]

If you had been up-front and honest from the start about the fact that you reject the biblical truth regarding the fact the man of sin has not yet appeared and Christ has not yet come, you would not have wasted my time and the time of a lot of people who have read this thread. I really wish that Preterists and Partial Preterists would be more up-front, straight-forward and honest from the start about the basis for their rejection of any biblical discussions.

Well, I thought I could have a productive conversation with you. Apparently I was wrong. My apologies for "wasting your time".

 

[Zao is life]

Well, I thought I could have a productive conversation with you. Apparently I was wrong. My apologies for "wasting your time".

If your basis is that the man of sin has already come then say so at the beginning. That's your foundation for everything you say and the way you choose to interpret the scriptures and reject scripture, history and everything else that interferes with your foundation, so be upfront and say what your foundation is in the beginning.

I thought Preterists had a safe space - your own board where you're supposed to discuss your views in accordance with your Preterist interpretation of scripture. Why invade this board preaching your own Preterist doctrines also, without being up-front about your Preterist foundation? (And if you say that the man of sin has already appeared, then that isn't "Partial-Preterist" either. It's part of Preterist doctine).

 

[claninja]

Well, I thought I could have a productive conversation with you. Apparently I was wrong. My apologies for "wasting your time".

Apparently in a debate and discussion forum, there is no room for debate and discussion when it disagrees with the OPs opinions.

Have a nice weekend.

Ok, so it seems you won’t or don’t know how to clarify your position on the what you mean about the term “end of the ages” being only in regards to Christ’ death. So I’m just going to assume that you believe the “end of the ages” began and ended with Christ’s death, which doesn’t make a lick of sense as the spirit was poured out after the cross “in the last days” (acts 2:16-17), and Paul stated the “the end of the ages” had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Benson Commentary
“To warn us Christians; upon whom the ends of the world — Or, of the ages; των αιωνων, are come — That is, at the end of the Mosaic dispensation, whose duration was measured by ages or jubilees.”

John Gill
“upon whom the ends of the world are come; "or in whom the ends of ages are met"; for the apostle does not mean this material visible world, the universe and all things in it, which has continued, since the writing of this, about two thousand years: but the Jewish ages, or times of the Mosaic economy, which begun when these instances of sin and punishment were, and which now in the times of the apostles were at an end;”

Adam Clarke
“Upon whom the ends of the world are come - Τα τελη των αιωνων· The end of the times included within the whole duration of the Mosaic economy.”

 

[The Righterzpen]

If your basis is that the man of sin has already come then say so at the beginning. That's your foundation for everything you say and the way you choose to interpret the scriptures and reject scripture, history and everything else that interferes with your foundation, so be upfront and say what your foundation is in the beginning.

I thought Preterists had a safe space - your own board where you're supposed to discuss your views in accordance with your Preterist interpretation of scripture. Why invade this board preaching your own Preterist doctrines also, without being up-front about your Preterist foundation? (And if you say that the man of sin has not yet appeared, then that isn't "Partial-Preterist" either. It's part of Preterist doctine).

Well, I was not aware that you'd be so offended by another perspective; as well as what Scripture itself actually declares.

I guess the Holy Spirit really had no reason to have the apostles put all that information in the NT about the Herods.

And I guess Jesus was lying when he told the apostles that the "abomination that causes desolation" was currently present when they were standing there in front of the temple talking about it's destruction.

And I guess Jesus Christ really isn't the central subject of Scripture; and the prophecy in the OT really has nothing to do with him.

Why'd God even write the New Testament anyways?

And PS this particular board is in "General Theology" category; not in a forum that's doctrine specific. (It does say "partial Preterists welcome". So yes, if you put a post here; you do open yourself up to being exposed to other people who may disagree with you.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Apparently in a debate and discussion forum, there is no room for debate and discussion when it disagrees with the OPs opinions.

Apparently, that appears to be the case here.

Ok, so it seems you won’t or don’t know how to clarify your position on the what you mean about the term “end of the ages” being only in regards to Christ’ death. So I’m just going to assume that you believe the “end of the ages” began and ended with Christ’s death, which doesn’t make a lick of sense as the spirit was poured out after the cross “in the last days” (acts 2:16-17), and Paul stated the “the end of the ages” had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11).

And here's where you should't assume anything either. There is a distinction between "end of the age" and "end of he ages". One obviously is plural and the other isn't.

2 Peter 2:5 says the time before the flood was "the old world"; making a distinction between pre-flood and post-flood earth. Which of what we can now see from archeological excavations was quite a different and even alien world compared to post flood. Although the focus of the statement about the "old world" wasn't addressing the change in the physical planet; it was addressing God's dealings with fallen angels.

Peter declares at Pentecost that the events they were witnessing, marked the beginning of "the last days". (Acts 2:17) (Plural) And seeing how obviously Christ hasn't returned; we are still in "the last days". And again, 1 Corinthians 10:11; "the end of the ages". Multiple "ages" all of which had their own distinct sets of circumstances have happened in the course of time.

Now this didn't mean there wasn't a distinction God was going to make between the end of the Old Testament eon (or age) and the "end of the ages". The timespan that Scripture was penned, assembled and presented to humanity was a unique "eon" of it's own. Moses lived about 1500 BC; so the penning and compilation of what would become the canon of Scripture took between 15 and 16 hundred years.

Now yes, there is evidence of the penning of oral lore who's final iterations would make their way into the Scripture canon. (The libraries of ancient Sumer have written records of the flood story and Job.) And probably somewhere in the dust of the middle east are pre-Moses iterations of the Adam and Eve creation story too.

So taking into account the reason Scripture was written. God put the redemption plan in written form. The end of the compilation of the OT was 430 years before the crucifixion. (Galatians 3:17) That fact that that detail is in the NT gives us the parameters of the canon. Thus we know anything from the Maccabean era is not canon. So, what's written in Maccabees about Antiochus IV is not canon. Thus we need to be looking someplace else for what the fulfillment of what Daniel is talking about.

And here's another application to consider. The NT was completed within the lifespans of the people who witnessed the events. So the NT also has a parameter for it's completion. And I've never heard anyone claim that "prophecy yet to be fulfilled" will have a "final addition" of the canon of Scripture to be written at the end of time. So prophecy regarding the coming of Christ in the OT has to have fulfillment in the NT. Because the very end (Christ's return) commences that "time is no longer". (Revelation 10:6) That is the "end of the ages"; and what follows is the recreated cosmos.

Now there is a lot of information in the New Testament of what the very end comes to look like. But I wouldn't call that "prophecy" per se; because "prophecy" as it applied to the OT was specific to the appearing of the Messiah and the completion of the atonement.

Now what can we know about the state of the world at the very end that would give us clues that we are close. There's a lot of information in the NT about apostasy, false doctrine and false gospels. Is there some schema that a "beast system" described in Scripture constructs in an attempt to "deceive the nations"? Absolutely there is! It's a false narrative that people that "worship the first beast" believe is the "fulfillment of prophecy" and they try to squeeze it into a Biblical context that's more a function of "self fulfilling prophecy" than it is Biblical prophecy. We know this because Biblical prophecy related to Christ.

Now will some political messiah type figure emerge that people label "the beast", "the man of sin", "the son of perdition"? That's entirely possible; but it's all a deception. (A "lying sign and wonder" / "strong delusion".) Because Satan is loosed at the end of the millennium to deceive the nations once again.

Will there be a world war III? That's entirely possible too. Look at all the BS that's gone on since 2020 regarding attempts at population control and trying to "save the earth". Project Varitas just dropped another bombshell about Pfizer, GOF creating illnesses so they can sell more shots. (It's currently trending on Twitter.)

And you bet! There's a special place in the Lake of Fire for these people!

So are we getting close to the end? (I believe we are; but I also believe the "signs of the times" people are looking to "gage things by" are not the actual signs we should be looking at.)

 

[claninja]

Apparently, that appears to be the case here.

And here's where you should't assume anything either. There is a distinction between "end of the age" and "end of he ages". One obviously is plural and the other isn't.

2 Peter 2:5 says the time before the flood was "the old world"; making a distinction between pre-flood and post-flood earth. Which of what we can now see from archeological excavations was quite a different and even alien world compared to post flood. Although the focus of the statement about the "old world" wasn't addressing the change in the physical planet; it was addressing God's dealings with fallen angels.

Peter declares at Pentecost that the events they were witnessing, marked the beginning of "the last days". (Acts 2:17) (Plural) And seeing how obviously Christ hasn't returned; we are still in "the last days". And again, 1 Corinthians 10:11; "the end of the ages". Multiple "ages" all of which had their own distinct sets of circumstances have happened in the course of time.

Now this didn't mean there wasn't a distinction God was going to make between the end of the Old Testament eon (or age) and the "end of the ages". The timespan that Scripture was penned, assembled and presented to humanity was a unique "eon" of it's own. Moses lived about 1500 BC; so the penning and compilation of what would become the canon of Scripture took between 15 and 16 hundred years.

Now yes, there is evidence of the penning of oral lore who's final iterations would make their way into the Scripture canon. (The libraries of ancient Sumer have written records of the flood story and Job.) And probably somewhere in the dust of the middle east are pre-Moses iterations of the Adam and Eve creation story too.

So taking into account the reason Scripture was written. God put the redemption plan in written form. The end of the compilation of the OT was 430 years before the crucifixion. (Galatians 3:17) That fact that that detail is in the NT gives us the parameters of the canon. Thus we know anything from the Maccabean era is not canon. So, what's written in Maccabees about Antiochus IV is not canon. Thus we need to be looking someplace else for what the fulfillment of what Daniel is talking about.

And here's another application to consider. The NT was completed within the lifespans of the people who witnessed the events. So the NT also has a parameter for it's completion. And I've never heard anyone claim that "prophecy yet to be fulfilled" will have a "final addition" of the canon of Scripture to be written at the end of time. So prophecy regarding the coming of Christ in the OT has to have fulfillment in the NT. Because the very end (Christ's return) commences that "time is no longer". (Revelation 10:6) That is the "end of the ages"; and what follows is the recreated cosmos.

Now there is a lot of information in the New Testament of what the very end comes to look like. But I wouldn't call that "prophecy" per se; because "prophecy" as it applied to the OT was specific to the appearing of the Messiah and the completion of the atonement.

Now what can we know about the state of the world at the very end that would give us clues that we are close. There's a lot of information in the NT about apostasy, false doctrine and false gospels. Is there some schema that a "beast system" described in Scripture constructs in an attempt to "deceive the nations"? Absolutely there is! It's a false narrative that people that "worship the first beast" believe is the "fulfillment of prophecy" and they try to squeeze it into a Biblical context that's more a function of "self fulfilling prophecy" than it is Biblical prophecy. We know this because Biblical prophecy related to Christ.

Now will some political messiah type figure emerge that people label "the beast", "the man of sin", "the son of perdition"? That's entirely possible; but it's all a deception. (A "lying sign and wonder" / "strong delusion".) Because Satan is loosed at the end of the millennium to deceive the nations once again.

Will there be a world war III? That's entirely possible too. Look at all the BS that's gone on since 2020 regarding attempts at population control and trying to "save the earth". Project Varitas just dropped another bombshell about Pfizer, GOF creating illnesses so they can sell more shots. (It's currently trending on Twitter.)

And you bet! There's a special place in the Lake of Fire for these people!

So are we getting close to the end? (I believe we are; but I also believe the "signs of the times" people are looking to "gage things by" are not the actual signs we should be looking at.)

I don’t necessarily agree that there is a distinction between “end of the age” and “ends of the ages”. I know some make a distinction between the ends of the ages and the end of the age, but due to Christ’s “this generation shall not pass till all these things take place”, I don’t think making a distinction is a great argument. It seems more just like splitting hairs.

The following commentaries in no way prove my point. Just there for fyi, that different eschatologies don’t make any distinction between the plural and singular “end of the age”

Adam Clarke Matthew 24:3
End of the world - Του αιωνος; or, of the age, viz. the Jewish economy,

Benson on Matthew 24:3
These seem to be only different expressions to denote the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, the disciples supposing, that when the destruction of Jerusalem should take place, then would be the coming of Christ and the end of the world, or, the conclusion of the age, as συντελεια του αιωνος should rather be translated here, and often signifies. See especially Hebrews 9:26; and 1 Corinthians 10:11

John Gill on Matthew 24:3
“and therefore they ask also, of the sign of the end of the world, or present state of things in the Jewish economy”

But I think we can agree the ends of the ages did arrive with Christ (Hebrews 9:26) and the pouring out of the spirit (acts 2:16-17).

 

[The Righterzpen]

The following commentaries in no way prove my point. Just there for fyi, that different eschatologies don’t make any distinction between the plural and singular “end of the age”

Well maybe the commentators should make that distinction; because if the Scripture makes that distinction; it makes it for a reason. So thus "age" (singular) as opposed to "ages" (plural) could clear up a lot of confusion in relation to eschatology.

But I think we can agree the ends of the ages did arrive with Christ (Hebrews 9:26) and the pouring out of the spirit (acts 2:16-17).

Yes, I would agree here; from Pentecost on we are in the last age. "the end of the ages"

 

[parousia70]

Well maybe the commentators should make that distinction; because if the Scripture makes that distinction; it makes it for a reason. So thus "age" (singular) as opposed to "ages" (plural) could clear up a lot of confusion in relation to eschatology.

Yes, I would agree here; from Pentecost on we are in the last age. "the end of the ages"

Why Pentecost?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I don’t necessarily agree that there is a distinction between “end of the age” and “ends of the ages”. I know some make a distinction between the ends of the ages and the end of the age, but due to Christ’s “this generation shall not pass till all these things take place”, I don’t think making a distinction is a great argument. It seems more just like splitting hairs.

Now as to Matthew 24 and "this generation shall not pass"; there's a lot of debate as to what that means.

But if you look very carefully at the questions they asked; Jesus does make a distinction between the "end of the age" and the "heavens and earth shall pass away". It starts with "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not... " He says this right after he says this generation will not pass... in regards to what he'd said before saying: "heaven and earth shall pass away..."

Now as to the intent of the questions the apostles asked? Did they ask about the end of the world or the end of the age; or in their minds (likely) there was no difference. The Greek (translated "end of the world" is actually the word "age".

Jesus answered both questions, though he did not use the phrase "end of the world". He was very specific when he said "Heaven and earth shall pass away...."

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why Pentecost?

Because Peter says the "last days" started at Pentecost.

 

[Zao is life]

Well, I was not aware that you'd be so offended by another perspective; as well as what Scripture itself actually declares.

I guess the Holy Spirit really had no reason to have the apostles put all that information in the NT about the Herods.

And I guess Jesus was lying when he told the apostles that the "abomination that causes desolation" was currently present when they were standing there in front of the temple talking about it's destruction.

And I guess Jesus Christ really isn't the central subject of Scripture; and the prophecy in the OT really has nothing to do with him.

Why'd God even write the New Testament anyways?

And PS this particular board is in "General Theology" category; not in a forum that's doctrine specific. (It does say "partial Preterists welcome". So yes, if you put a post here; you do open yourself up to being exposed to other people who may disagree with you.

It would have been better if you were up-front about the fact that you follow Prererist theology regarding the appearance of the man of sin. (Partial Preterists welcome, even when they push Preterist doctrine. I guess).

Anyway I've learned something by my exchange with you: Your posts confirm my suspicion that because Preterism remains the Mother of Partial Preterism, there's not much difference. Your mother church is your mother church. Like mother, like daughter.

 

[parousia70]

Because Peter says the "last days" started at Pentecost.

That’s a pretty generous stretching of the term “Peter says“…
Especially when he says no such thing.

Peter certainly says that Pentecost was the fulfillment of last days prophecy, but nowhere in that text does he say the last days “began” at Pentecost. You apparently have added that into the text.

In fact, We know they did not begin then, because The author of Hebrews testifies they were already underway during Christ’s earthly ministry.

Hebrews 1:1-2

 

[claninja]

Well maybe the commentators should make that distinction; because if the Scripture makes that distinction; it makes it for a reason. So thus "age" (singular) as opposed to "ages" (plural) could clear up a lot of confusion in relation to eschatology.

Yes, I would agree here; from Pentecost on we are in the last age. "the end of the ages"

like I said, it’s splitting hairs, imho, to make a distinction between singular “end of age” vs plural “ends of ages”. TBH, the plural seems more encompassing.

As far as the “ends of the ages” starting point, I would slightly disagree that they began at Pentecost, and would argue they began prior to Pentecost, with the coming of Christ.

Hebrews 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

 

[claninja]

Now as to Matthew 24 and "this generation shall not pass"; there's a lot of debate as to what that means.

But if you look very carefully at the questions they asked; Jesus does make a distinction between the "end of the age" and the "heavens and earth shall pass away". It starts with "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not... " He says this right after he says this generation will not pass... in regards to what he'd said before saying: "heaven and earth shall pass away..."

Now as to the intent of the questions the apostles asked? Did they ask about the end of the world or the end of the age; or in their minds (likely) there was no difference. The Greek (translated "end of the world" is actually the word "age".

Jesus answered both questions, though he did not use the phrase "end of the world". He was very specific when he said "Heaven and earth shall pass away...."

It’s weird that there’s almost no significant debates when “this generation” is used in any other passage. But For some reason matthew 24:34 is the hotly debated one…..


As far as “heaven and earth”, it’s important to recognize that these terms, and their “passing away” can, and have, been used in regards to the fall of kingdoms in OT scripture. Thus, since Jesus states “this generation shall not pass away till all these things take place”, imho, it seems more likely he was using similar language, as the literal earth did not pass away, but instead, the apostate nation of Israel was brought to utter ruin.

Benson commentary
“For, as Bishop Lowth observes, the Hebrew writers, “to express happiness, prosperity, the instauration and advancement of states, kingdoms, and potentates, make use of images taken from the most striking parts of nature; from the heavenly bodies, from the sun, moon, and stars, which they describe as shining with increased splendour, and never setting; the moon becomes like the meridian sun, and the sun’s light is augmented seven-fold: see Isaiah 30:26. New heavens and a new earth are created, and a brighter age commences. On the contrary, the overthrow and destruction of kingdoms are represented by opposite images; the stars are obscured, the moon withdraws her light, and the sun shines no more; the earth quakes, and the heavens tremble; and all things seem tending to their original chaos.”

Barnes commentary
“The revolutions and destructions of kingdoms and nations are often represented in the Scriptures under this image. So respecting the destruction of Idumea Isaiah 34:4 :
And all the hosts of heaven shall be dissolved,
And the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll;
And all their host shall fall down,
As the leaf falleth from off the vine,
And as a falling fig from the fig-tree.
So in Ezekiel 32:7-8, in a prophecy respecting the destruction of Pharaoh, king of Egypt:
And when I shall put time out,
I will cover the heavens, and make the stoa thereof dark,
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
And the moon shall not give her light.
And the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee.
And set darkness upon thy land.”

 

[The Righterzpen]

That’s a pretty generous stretching of the term “Peter says“…
Especially when he says no such thing.

Peter certainly says that Pentecost was the fulfillment of last days prophecy, but nowhere in that text does he say the last days “began” at Pentecost. You apparently have added that into the text.

In fact, We know they did not begin then, because The author of Hebrews testifies they were already underway during Christ’s earthly ministry.

Hebrews 1:1-2

Well aren't you snotty.

Acts 2:16-17 Pentecost began that day. So in regards to Joel's prophecy; yes, it started with Pentecost.

Verb tense "I will pour out" denotes origin point in which event commences.

Matter of fact, your alleging that Hebrews states this began during the ministry of Christ is actually not supported by the context of Hebrews 1:2

Jesus being "appointed heir of all things" couldn't have happened before the resurrection seeing how Ephesians 1:20 states he was granted all power and authority upon rising from the dead. Jesus himself said he must go back to heaven before he sent the Spirit John 16:7. And the Holy Spirit was to teach them all things John 16:12-13

This jives with Isaiah 2:2 and Mica 4:1 talking about the nations flowing to the mountain of the Lord's house. This commenced with Pentecost.

So yes, God speaking to them through His Son (that they understood) commenced with Pentecost.

 

[The Righterzpen]

like I said, it’s splitting hairs, imho, to make a distinction between singular “end of age” vs plural “ends of ages”. TBH, the plural seems more encompassing.

As far as the “ends of the ages” starting point, I would slightly disagree that they began at Pentecost, and would argue they began prior to Pentecost, with the coming of Christ.

Hebrews 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Acts 2:16-17 Pentecost began that day. So in regards to Joel's prophecy; yes, it started with Pentecost.

Verb tense "I will pour out" denotes origin point in which event commences.

Matter of fact, your alleging that Hebrews states this began during the ministry of Christ is actually not supported by the context of Hebrews 1:2

Jesus being "appointed heir of all things" couldn't have happened before the resurrection seeing how Ephesians 1:20 states he was granted all power and authority upon rising from the dead. Jesus himself said he must go back to heaven before he sent the Spirit John 16:7. And the Holy Spirit was to teach them all things John 16:12-13

This jives with Isaiah 2:2 and Mica 4:1 talking about the nations flowing to the mountain of the Lord's house. This commenced with Pentecost.

So yes, God speaking to them through His Son (that they understood) commenced with Pentecost.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It would have been better if you were up-front about the fact that you follow Prererist theology regarding the appearance of the man of sin. (Partial Preterists welcome, even when they push Preterist doctrine. I guess).

Anyway I've learned something by my exchange with you: Your posts confirm my suspicion that because Preterism remains the Mother of Partial Preterism, there's not much difference. Your mother church is your mother church. Like mother, like daughter.

I'm not Roman Catholic. Never was.