The REAL Harmony of Christ's Olivet Discourse

[Davy]

Yes.. It was the end of an age NOT the end of the world. People Tim Lahaye and Hal Lindsey have really screwed up Christian beliefs.

The meaning Christs disciples asked Jesus was about the end of this present... world leading up to His second coming. That is what your doctrine of men is trying to change.

Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye have nothing to do with it. They are not the ones trying to change the meaning of Matthew 24:3, it is Preterists that are trying to do that. I am not a Preterist, nor Historicist, nor a Futurist. I believe in a post-tribulation 2nd coming of Christ Jesus, just as is written in God's Word.

 

[Davy]

You stated quite plainly that you were not interested in the machinations of men but instead solely the holy writ of God. What you just posted is not what the word of God actually states. It is not even what the KJV actually states. That statement above is an addition to both the word of God AND the KJV.

Aion means what it means and when you try to defend something that aion does not mean then you are not only not relying on the word of God as written, plainly read, but you are contradicting your own values.

You are bearing false witness, simply because the Greek word aion has been translated in the KJV Bible to mean either this present world, or the world to come. It simply depends on the CONTEXT where it is used. That's why it is man's "machinations" that try to change aion in Matthew 24:3 to mean just the time of Christ's Apostles which excludes the verse context, because the actual context of that verse is clearly about the time of Christ's 2nd coming at the literal end of this present world.

Matt 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
KJV

It is really ignorant to try and separate that "sign of thy coming" context away from that "end of the world" context. To say it means any other time than Jesus' future 2nd coming back to this earth is to lie against that Scripture.

What is even more ignorant is to deny the Signs that Jesus then showed them after they asked Him that question, which of course cover events leading up to Christ's future 2nd coming, and which He showed are for the final generation that will see His return.

 

[Josheb]

You are bearing false witness...

The ad hominem is noted and treated according to its fallacious nature.

 

[Josheb]

...simply because the Greek word aion has been translated in the KJV Bible to mean either this present world, or the world to come.

That is not what the verse actually states. The verse does not state "this present world." Nor does it state, "the world to come." In fact, the gospels do not contain Jesus ever stating the phrase "this present world." in fact, the gospels do not ever show Jesus to ever use the phrase "the world to come." We must look to 1 Tim. 6:17 and Heb. 2:5 to find those phrases, not Matthew 24 or Mark 10.

You have not stuck to the holy writ.

You are adding things to the verse the verse itself does not state.

You are violating your own standard.

If you don't like me pointing this out then do not do it.

 

[Josheb]

It simply depends on the CONTEXT where it is used. That's why it is man's "machinations" that try to change aion in Matthew 24:3 to mean just the time of Christ's Apostles which excludes the verse context, because the actual context of that verse is clearly about the time of Christ's 2nd coming at the literal end of this present world.

Matt 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
KJV

It is really ignorant to try and separate that "sign of thy coming" context away from that "end of the world" context. To say it means any other time than Jesus' future 2nd coming back to this earth is to lie against that Scripture.

Yes, it does depend on context and I went through several of the aspects of the passage that provide the holy writ's self-reported context and you have ignored those facts in favor of red herrings and ad hominem.



The single verse Matthew 24:3 should not be ripped from its scripture-reported contexts. Doing so is a practice called "proof-texting," and proof-texting should be avoided at all costs because it is rarely if ever sound exegetical practice. I have posted this to you in many previous posts and you continue this malpractice.

The single verse Matthew 24:3 occurs within a narrative that coverse neraly six chapters of Matthews gospel. Those six chapters cover the events of single day, beginning in the morning of that day with Jesus' return to Jerusalem after having cleaned out the temple (Mt. 21:18), and it concludes with his sitting atop the Mount of Olives answering the disciples' three-pronged question... ending his answer disclosing the fact he is going to be handed over for crucifixion.

You ignored all of those contexts.

This is self-evident. There is no debate over the facts of scripture as I just posted them. Anyone and everyone can open their Bible and verify the facts of scripture. Anyone and everyone can then see that what I posted is correct and you think red herrings and ad hominem is a cogent response.

 

[Josheb]

It is really ignorant to try and separate that "sign of thy coming" context away from that "end of the world" context. To say it means any other time than Jesus' future 2nd coming back to this earth is to lie against that Scripture.

And now an appeal to ridicule can be added to the list of fallacies being deployed to avoid the facts of scripture already posted.


Ignorance is not providing a case for ignorance before claiming something is ignorant. Ignorance is failing to examine the Greek and relying upon a 400 year old translation when a 15 second quick check of original language would have prevented the error made in this op. Seriously. I just started the timer on my celphone, went to Bible Hub, looked up the verse and clicked the tab to the Greek. It took 15.41 seconds. There is no excuse for not doing so before presuming to tell others wha to believe. That's ignorance.

Definitions:

Ignorance = lack of knowledge or information.

Red herring: That which is intended to be misleading or distracting.

Ad hominem: any argument directed against a person rather than the position asserted.

Appeal to ridicule: any argument intended to dismiss an opponent's argument based on a pejorative label and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.​

The facts of Matthew 24:3 are as I have stated and you are not discussing those facts. You are defending the translation of "aion" as "world," and then further defending an additional interpretation of "world" as "this present world," or "the world to come," when Jesus is NEVER actually ever reported ever stating any such thing in the gospels.

In other words, what you've done is copy-and-paste eisegesis, not proper exegesis.

And the minute you post that dross you make it fair game for discussion when what you should be doing is sticking to the holy writ like you said you wanted to do.

So I've given you two opportunities to get back to the facts of scripture as scripture report them when we examine the Greek and don't appeal to a 400 year old antiquated translation that is good in most cases but did not do a very good job of rendering Matthew 24:3 or Mark 10:30. I will now give you another opportunity to discuss the actual facts of scripture as I've posted them (so far).

Fact 1: The KJV does not do a very good job of rendering what the manuscripts report Jesus saying. The Greek should be consulted because it will show the word used is "aion," and not "Kosmos" or oikoumene."

Fact 2: The disciples were not asking when the world was going to end. The were asking when the Pharisees would be judged, the temple destroyed and what would be the signs of the age's end, not the actual end of the age and not the end of the world.

Fact 3: Jesus' answer is in response to the specific three-pronged question the disciples asked. No other question is asked. No other question is implied or otherwise insinuated in the chapter.

Fact 4: The Mount of Olives sits across the saddle across from Jerusalem and overlooks the temple by just a few hundred feet.

Fact 5: The disciples did not expect Jesus to die. Based upon what he'd said earlier they thought he was going to rebuild a new temple after the one they'd just left got destroyed.

Fact 6: Proof-texting is always bad practice.

Fact 7: Matthew 24:3 is one single sentence in a much longer discourse. Matthew 24:3 is one single verse in a narrative that covers parts of six chapters. The original gospel didin't have chapters and numbers. Those were added to make the Bible easy to negotiate. If we read the passage without the chapter and verse numbers then we have to go all the way back to Jesus re-entrance into Jerusalem and finish with his stating he is going to be handed over for crucifixion. Part of his answer to their question is, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion." and anyone failing to understand that is unlikely to have "real harmony" with the Olivet Discourse. It's the end of his earthly ministry, not the literal end of the literal world.

Fact 8: Red herring, ad hominem, argumentum ad nauseam, and appeals to ridicule are always and everywhere fallacious and therefore to be avoided.



So you have seven op-relevant facts of scripture to discuss and are not doing so. That is the fact in evidence. So I am now going to ask you to either acknowledge those seven facts of scripture so we can move on with the discussion of this op or prove how they are not facts. Repeating the same nonsense is not an option for cogent discourse.

If you do not get back on topic and address the facts of scripture I will proceed without you. I will go through this op line by line and 1) affirm that which bears integrity with scripture and 2) refute that which does not bear integrity with scripture. I would ordinarily ask any poster about what is either not clearly stated or what I don't adequately understand but that is proving untenable with you. The evidence shows I can't get you to agree with the facts of scripture.

So you choose, Davey: Can you acknowledge those seven facts or are you going to persist trying to defend "aion" as "world," and not just "world" in ordinary usage but "world" in a manner Jesus himself never asserted?

Titus 3:9-11
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."​

I've done my part: posted the facts of scripture and provided two opportunities for the discussion of those facts. What will you now do? I exhort you not to be the guy Paul was describing to Timothy. Don't repeat the mistakes of out past exchanges. Do it right this time.[/QUOTE]

 

[DavidPT]

That is not what the verse actually states. The verse does not state "this present world." Nor does it state, "the world to come." In fact, the gospels do not contain Jesus ever stating the phrase "this present world." in fact, the gospels do not ever show Jesus to ever use the phrase "the world to come." We must look to 1 Tim. 6:17 and Heb. 2:5 to find those phrases, not Matthew 24 or Mark 10.

You have not stuck to the holy writ.

You are adding things to the verse the verse itself does not state.

You are violating your own standard.

If you don't like me pointing this out then do not do it.

Your alleged facts are not agreeing with Scripture, though. Jesus can clearly say those things in other ways, such as He did below, and that it still adds up to Him saying what your alleged 'facts' above deny.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

In this example above, it seems to me there are two different ages in view here. 1) The children of this world marry. 2) they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Obviously---and of the end of the world(Matthew 24:3)---has to be referring to either 1) or 2) above from the Luke 20:34-35 example. It can't be meaning 2) above, that's for certain. It therefore has to be meaning the same age one marries during. IOW, 1) above. Clearly then, and of the end of the world(Matthew 24:3)--this is meaning the end of this present age. And what happens at the end of this present age? The resurrection from the dead, for one. Which then leads to the next age, the one mentioned in Luke 20:35---they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.

To then conclude--and of the end of the world(Matthew 24:3)--does not mean the literal end of this present world(age), is to not agree with what Jesus was meaning in that verse.

To sum it up then. Jesus is clearly the speaker in Luke 20:34-35. The children of this world marry---is meaning this present world(age). they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world---is meaning the world(age) to come. Therefore--- and of the end of the world(Matthew 24:3)--undeniably has to be meaning the end of this present world(age).

 

[Josheb]

Your alleged facts are not agreeing with Scripture, though. Jesus can clearly say those things in other ways, such as He did below, and that it still adds up to Him saying what your alleged 'facts' above deny.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

In this example above, it seems to me there are two different ages in view here. 1) The children of this world marry. 2) they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.

Yes, but Jesus is not stating there are two different worlds. Same world; different ages.

You are proving my point, not refuting it.

Furthermore, the NKJV translates the Greek text more accurately. Again, proving my point.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Obviously---and of the end of the world...

There is no end of the world. There is the end of aion, not kosmos or oikoumene.

...(Matthew 24:3)---has to be referring to either 1) or 2) above from the Luke 20:34-35 example. It can't be meaning 2) above, that's for certain. It therefore has to be meaning the same age one marries during. IOW, 1) above. Clearly then, and of the end of the world(Matthew 24:3)--this is meaning the end of this present age. And what happens at the end of this present age? The resurrection from the dead, for one. Which then leads to the next age, the one mentioned in Luke 20:35---they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.

Fail. This is nothing more than copy-and-paste eisegesis, not exegesis. In addition, Luke 20 is outside the scope of this op. Don't expect me to collaborate with you if what you do is constant moving from one text ot another then to another and another without every finishing the addressing of the first passage. Matthew 24 makes no mantion of any resurrection. What it does state is 1) the disciples themselves would see the events he was describing, 2) they would experience the "tribulation," 3), they would see "the sign of the Son of Man, 4) it would occur before any gathering of the elect. It is not the literal end of the literal world.

That is what the text states, not what I make it say.

If and when I get some agreement on what the text of scripture states then I will gladly discuss the meaning of what is stated but I'm not getting into competitive comparisons of wanton interpretations with anyone who will not agree with what the text states over what they make it say. I won't do it with Davey, and I won't do it with you, either.

Scripture first.

I will point out the hypocrisy of anyone claiming to want solely God's word alone when they add to God's word things that are not actually stated.

I trust you, Daivd, can see the veracity and importance of taking scripture as written, first. If not then please do not waste more of my time.

To then conclude--and of the end of the world(Matthew 24:3)-- does not mean the literal end of this present world (age), is to not agree with what Jesus was meaning in that verse.

You are proving my point: Jesus is not speaking about a literal end of the literal world. The KJV says world when it does not mean world in the literal sense and Jesus did not say "world."

When you draw distinctions between what Jesus said and what Jesus meant you're running into conflict with the op's standard to rely solely upon wholly writ and not the views of man-made ideas.

Both cases prove what I said correct so you should not be bickering with me.

The world was/is going to continue on when the things Jesus described transpire. The age, on the other hand will not. It is always and everywhere an error to treat the words "age," and "world" synonymously. It is also always and everywhere to claim to want to rely solely on scripture and emphasize an English translation over the Greek and to apply interpretive meaning to justify the first error.


It is all unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason a Christian with a personal preference for the KJV cannot or should not respond with, Yes, Jesus is speaking of the passing of an age, as is reflected in the Greek, and not the literal end of the literal world."


Do you find anyone trying to find consensus with me, David?

Simple matter. Easily addressed. Easily resolved.

So why defend the indefensible? We could be moving on in complete uniform agreement that what Jesus is addressing is his disciples' concerns about the end of an age, not the literal end of the world. From my point of view this looks like the op bailing on his own op. Why would anyone with an authentic interest in "real harmony of Christ's Olivet Discourse," now agree with the Greek?

I don't know but neither do I much care.

Jesus was asked about the end of the aion and he in his response he was talking about the end of the aion, not the end of the kosmos or oikoumene. This is important for understanding the real harmony of the Olivet Discourse and you folks are balking at it. What are you going to do when I bring up more demanding concerns?

So be faithful in the little things. Acknowledge this is about aion, and not kosmos or oikoumene, or at least not the literal end of the literal world, especially not the literal physical ending of the literal physical world.

 

[Josheb]

Your alleged facts....

Nice appeal to incredulity.


What I posted are facts. Your personal doubt doesn't change that fact. You either prove they aren't facts or you accept them as facts. The Greek says "aion." That is a fact. No denial, refutation, disagreement, nor debate of that fact.

Translating "aion" as "world" is a dubious matter. Yes, that is what the KJV does, but that translation in comparison to what the word "aion" actually means is incorrect, especially since an ordinary reading of "the end of the world," literally means a literal end of the literal world. That is a fact. It is not up for disagreement, debate, denial, or refutation.

Attempts to render the Olivet Discourse with the literal end of the world in mind fail. The text itself does not support such a reading and it cannot be made to support such a reading. Especially if the goal is to stick to the holy writ and not man-made systems. That is a fact. It is not up for disagreement, debate, denial, or refutaton.

The text of Matthew 24 explicitly reports the disciples would experience what Jesus was describing, especially everything that occurred prior to the gathering of the elect. That is a fact. It is not up for disagreement, debate, denial, or refutation.

If the disciples were alive and experiencing those events then the world had not come to an end. That is a fact. It is not up for disagreement, debate, denial or refutation.



If any poster cannot or will not accept the facts of scripture then s/he is not going to have "real harmony with the Olivet Discourse." That is a fact.


And you calling those facts, "alleged" is fallacious. That is a fact.


Matthew 24:3 is end of the age, not end of the world.

 

[Josheb]

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

....To sum it up then. Jesus is clearly the speaker in Luke 20:34-35. The children of this world marry....

In Luke 20 Jesus was asked about the resurrection. People who do not believe in a resurrection came to Jesus and asked him,

“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; and the second and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children. Finally the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.”​

In other words, In Luke 20 Jesus is being asked a different question than he os being asked in Matthew 24. The answers, therefore, pertain to two different inquiries and their inherently-existing different conditions and contexts. Luke 20 is definitely about life after the resurrection in which the Sadducees don't believe. There is no mention of "resurrection" anywhere in Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not about conditions existing on the other side of resurrection. Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world and some other world different than the one Jesus and the disciples were then living.

At best all you have is "'aion' could possibly mean 'world,' in Luke 20," but you still don't have an argument for Matthew 24:3 being a reference for the end of the world. What you have is a false equivalency.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, but Jesus is not stating there are two different worlds. Same world; different ages.

You are proving my point, not refuting it.

Furthermore, the NKJV translates the Greek text more accurately. Again, proving my point.

There is no end of the world. There is the end of aion, not kosmos or oikoumene.

The end of the world, end of the age, what is the difference if world means age in this context and not the literal planet instead, as if this planet can somehow end? The only thing I'm trying to refute is that the end of this world is not meaning the end of this present age in that context(Matthew 24:3). Of course it is meaning that.

Fail. This is nothing more than copy-and-paste eisegesis, not exegesis. In addition, Luke 20 is outside the scope of this op. Don't expect me to collaborate with you if what you do is constant moving from one text ot another then to another and another without every finishing the addressing of the first passage. Matthew 24 makes no mantion of any resurrection. What it does state is 1) the disciples themselves would see the events he was describing, 2) they would experience the "tribulation," 3), they would see "the sign of the Son of Man, 4) it would occur before any gathering of the elect. It is not the literal end of the literal world.

As to Luke 20:34-35, I only used that as an example to illustrate that Jesus indeed spoke of this present age and the age to come in the gospels, yet you claimed He in fact never did, or at least that's what I took you to be claiming, so maybe it's possible I misunderstood you there, in the event I did? So, Luke 20:34-35 is relevant to this discussion, indirectly speaking.

Matthew 24 makes no mantion of any resurrection. What it does state is 1) the disciples themselves would see the events he was describing, 2) they would experience the "tribulation," 3), they would see "the sign of the Son of Man, 4) it would occur before any gathering of the elect. It is not the literal end of the literal world.

How can any gathering of the elect not involve a resurrection from the dead?

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.


Why does the text also state this---to the uttermost part of heaven? Wouldn't this be where those that sleep in Jesus would be residing?

 

[DavidPT]

In Luke 20 Jesus was asked about the resurrection. People who do not believe in a resurrection came to Jesus and asked him,

“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; and the second and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children. Finally the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.”​

In other words, In Luke 20 Jesus is being asked a different question than he os being asked in Matthew 24. The answers, therefore, pertain to two different inquiries and their inherently-existing different conditions and contexts. Luke 20 is definitely about life after the resurrection in which the Sadducees don't believe. There is no mention of "resurrection" anywhere in Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not about conditions existing on the other side of resurrection. Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world and some other world different than the one Jesus and the disciples were then living.

At best all you have is "'aion' could possibly mean 'world,' in Luke 20," but you still don't have an argument for Matthew 24:3 being a reference for the end of the world. What you have is a false equivalency.

Once again, I only used Luke 20:34-35 as an example of something I understood you to be saying about Jesus never speaking of this age and the age to come in the gospels. I'm not claiming Luke 20:34-35 is the same context as Matthew 24:3--end of this world. I was using Luke 20:34-35 to show, in Matthew 24:3--end of this world--it has to fit one of the two choices in Luke 20:34-35. And if it fits the first choice, this present age, that means the end of the world in Matthew 24:3 can only be meaning the end of this present age when Jesus returns.

 

[DavidPT]

Nice appeal to incredulity.

If they are facts to you but not to me as well, what else would they be from my perspective other than alleged facts? I don't understand why you would take issue with this?

 

[DavidPT]

Matthew 24:3 is end of the age, not end of the world.

Let's start somewhat over if we could, since it seems I may have misunderstood some of your position somewhere along the way. What does the end of the world mean to you? It means the end of the present age to me, yet you claim end of the age and end of this world are not the same thing.

 

[Semper-Fi]

an additional interpretation of "world" as "this present world,"
or "the world to come,"

when Jesus is NEVER actually ever reported ever stating any such thing in the gospels.

Why would Jesus himself have to say it?
What if a prophet or Apostle said it.


"They are not of this world, even as
I am not of this world" The god
of this age is satan

The bible does talk about 3 worlds.
The world that was [before flood],
the world that is [this current age],
and the world to come soon in [mill].
All are the same earth we live on.


2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was,
being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now,
by the same word are kept in store, reserved
unto fire against the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.

The world to come after 6 000 years,
in the 7th thousand years time frame.

the world to come
world to come | YouVersion Search | The Bible App

Revelation 11:15 (KJV)
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[Josheb]

The end of the world, end of the age, what is the difference if world means age in this context and not the literal planet instead, as if this planet can somehow end?

That is a very good and important question to ask and when I brought it up the responses were dissent.

The only thing I'm trying to refute is that the end of this world is not meaning the end of this present age in that context (Matthew 24:3). Of course it is meaning that.

Then start by acknowledging the Greek is aion and not kosmos or oikoumene.

 

[Josheb]

Once again, I only used Luke 20:34-35 as an example of something...

And in doing so a false equivalence was asserted. False equivalencies are quite common among those who ignore context.

An example would be the word "raised" (Gk.: "egeiró"). The word "raised" is often translated as "resurrected." Lazarus was raised but he was not resurrected. Lazarus was resuscitated, not resurrected unto eternal life. So me showing you an example where "raised" means resurrected does not mean Lazarus was also resurrected. The raising of Matthew 10:8 is not the same as the raising of Matthew 20:19; these are not the same egeiró. Neither is the aion of Luke 20-34-35 the same as the aion of Matthew 24:3. You showing me an example where aion could mean the current world's order or structure (to which the word kosmos would ordinarily apply) does not in any way prove Matthew 24:3 should be translated "world."

Once again.

Yes, Luke 20:34-35 is an example of something, but it is not an example of Matthew 24:3 being correctly translated. Nor is an example of translating aion as world leading to real harmony in the Olivet discourse.

What Jesus was referencing was the end of the age. He was speaking to the end of the age when and where the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, temple, and sacrifices would end. Even the word "end" has context because Pharisees and Sadducees would continue to exist, but they would be irrelevant to the believer in the resurrected Christ. The temple of stone would eventually literally be destroyed never to be rebuilt again because Jesus would rebuild it in his own body.

What things could mean is definitely up for discussion.

Once it is acknowledged "aion" does not directly translate as "world" then we can discuss what it does mean and why it is the KJV translates it as "world," because the reason the KJV does so is because of the prevailing eschatological thinking of the early 1600s.

And this op stated he wasn't interested in rendering the holy write through "systems."

So the op and everyone who agrees with that metric should discard "world" as a function of the KJV translators' "system."

Aion means "era" or "period of time," not "world." Real harmony of the Olivet Discourse is dependent upon proper understanding of aion.

 

[Josheb]

If they are facts to you but not to me as well, what else would they be from my perspective other than alleged facts? I don't understand why you would take issue with this?

(rolls eyes) Facts are not relative, David. There are no facts to me and different facts to you. This post is evidence of your failed reasoning.

That is a fact.


I explained how and why I "took issue."

1) facts aren't relative.
2) Appeals to ridicule are fallacious.​

You not understanding what was plainly explained is also evidence of failed reasoning.

That, too, is a fact.

Want to avoid conflicts like this? Then learn not to post fallacy. Learn not to make exegetical errors. When I see evidence of either I'll point it out in hopes you will improve - for everyone's mutual benefit (including your own).

 

[summerville]

The meaning Christs disciples asked Jesus was about the end of this present... world leading up to His second coming. That is what your doctrine of men is trying to change.

Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye have nothing to do with it. They are not the ones trying to change the meaning of Matthew 24:3, it is Preterists that are trying to do that. I am not a Preterist, nor Historicist, nor a Futurist. I believe in a post-tribulation 2nd coming of Christ Jesus, just as is written in God's Word.

This has nothing to do with Preterism. Matthew also knew about Antiochus IV and the Abomination of Desolation and the Maccabean Revolt... and the reason for Hannukah.

 

[Josheb]

Let's start somewhat over if we could...

Sounds great.

What does the end of the world mean to you? It means the end of the present age to me, yet you claim end of the age and end of this world are not the same thing.

That is not starting over, David.

What Matthew wrote DOES NOT SAY "END OF THE WORLD"!!!!!!!!!!

What Matthew reported the disciples asking was "the consummation of the aiōnos."

Look it up.

Look it up to verify what I just posted. That is starting over. It is starting over BECAUSE WE DO NOT START WITH THE KJV! We start with the Greek! If and when we use an English translation we do so using one that most accurately translates the Greek.



So don't ask me, "What does the end of the world mean to you?" because that would require me to concede "the end of the world" is a correct translation of the holy write when it is not. I would be conceding to something neither Jesus nor the disciples ever actually stated.

Do you really want to start over? Then acknowledge the word used in Matthew 24:3 is aiōnos, and not kosmos or oikemene.

Then acknowledge the words aionos, kosmos, and oikoumene each have their own nuanced meaning and application in regard to "world," and if we are discussing the order or structure of the world then kosmos is the term we'd read but in Matthew 24:3 that is not the term used.



Here is something for you to think about before you post a reply: In Ephesians 2:2 both aion and kosmos are used together.

Ephesians 2:1-2 BLB
"And you, being dead in your trespasses and sins— 2in which once you walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience..."​

That's the Berean Literal Bible translation. The Greek transliteration reads,

Ephesisans 1:2 Greek transliteration
"...in which once you walked according to the age the world of this according to the ruler of the authority of the air the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience..."​

The KJV translates it,

Ephesians 2:1-2 KJV
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"​

The Greek reads, "kata ton aiōna tou kosmou toutou." The Greek reads, "the age of the world." Here also the KJV has trouble with aion. Here the KJV translated "aiōna" as "course." We can imagine the 1611 translators' collective consternation over "the world of the world," had they used aion to mean world as they did in Matthew 24:3. If we were to use the KJV translation of Ephesians 2:2 the Matthew 24:3 would read, "the end of the course"!!! Oh conundrums, conundrums!

Matthew 24:3 should not be translated "end of the world." It should be translated "end of the age."

And then and only then maybe we'll consider it as the end of the age of the world where "world" does not mean the cessation of the planet's physical existence.

But not before we accept scripture as written.

Do you want to start over? Good. Then do so by starting with the Greek, not the KJV. Can you do that? Then say so. Post it without any caveats. No ifs ands or buts.



Start with the following:

Does the Greek say "consummation of the aiōnos" or not?

What does "consummation of the age" mean to you (relevant to this op)?