There is a gap between that of Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in verse 27.

[Norbert L]

So a little misdirection from Jesus to both Caiaphas and His disciples to whom He said it would happen in “this generation” (keeping in mind that everywhere else “this generation” is used in the gospels it means that current generation).

I don't see this as a misdirection and Caiaphas will see exactly what Jesus told him face to face.

From what I understand prophecy timelines in general contain a lack of knowledge issue.

In reading Acts of the Apostles 1:7 and using the NLT version, it gives the distinct flavor that Jesus has told them and us that timelines are beyond our ability to comprehend.

"He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know."

Considering there is a lack of consensus within Christianity to the point where conflicts run so deep and CF has four safe houses for the examination of specific prophetic topics. That very little has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Hammster]

I don't see this as a misdirection and Caiaphas will see exactly what Jesus told him face to face.

From what I understand prophecy timelines in general contain a lack of knowledge issue.

In reading Acts of the Apostles 1:7 and using the NLT version, it gives the distinct flavor that Jesus has told them and us that timelines are beyond our ability to comprehend.

"He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know."

Considering there is a lack of consensus within Christianity to the point where conflicts run so deep and CF has four safe houses for the examination of specific prophetic topics. That very little has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jesus also said that “this generation” would see Him coming on the clouds. That’s not ambiguous.

 

[DavidPT]

So the saints who come out of the great tribulation are seen in New Jerusalem immediately following the close of this current Age. Not sure whether or not verse 8 above cancels out a literal thousand years in-between the return of the Lord and the second death (so no literal thousand years as the first 1,000 years of the NHNE). At first glance verse 8 above certainly seems to cancel out a literal thousand years. But that's also making an assumption (or not). (Sometimes being an agnosmillennialist isn't easy going).

More about Rivers & fountains of waters

View attachment 310507​

The following verse alone proves that the NHNE has to be meant, which is referring to the same time period that verse 8 is referring to.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

In the first century prior to 70 AD men were dwelling in it, and while Jesus walked the earth it was safely inhabited for the most part. But once 70 AD came and went, nothing in this verse was any longer true. This tells us this verse is meaning post 70 AD.

Fastforward to our day and time. Jerusalem is on the map again, and men are once again dwelling there, yet it can't be said Jerusalem is safely inhabited at all times. Nor can it yet be said there is no more utter destruction involving it. That only leaves one option remaining. The only Jerusalem that could possibly fit this is the new Jerusalem. But the new Jerusalem doesn't come down from God out of heaven until the time of the new heavens and new earth. Since it has to mean the NJ, and since you can't have the NJ without the NHNE, this means we are looking at the time of the NHNE in some of these verses.

This means that verses 16-19 involve them coming up to the NJ or facing no rain. The NHNE are eternal. And since they are eternal, we then have to assume everything recorded in verses 16-19 will be like that forever, or that there is something that can prevent that from being like that forever, where if one might refuse to come up they can be punished with no rain. If we insert a thousand years here followed by a little season, it would be the latter that prevents verses 16-19 continuining like that for forever.

We have to keep in mind this. Those of the nations that are spared which came against Jerusalem, in verses 16-19 are they mortals or immortals? If the latter, this would indicate they are among the saved. But why would any of the saved might be refusing to come up? Why would any of the saved be living outside of the NJ rather than inside of it? Doesn't the NT indicate of the saved, that where I am, you shall be also? If they are mortals, no mortal could possibly live forever, yet mortals post the 2nd coming could live an entire thousand years and then some since Adam in the beginning almost lived that long himself, and that he was a mortal.

 

[DavidPT]

I thought that maybe you’d read Isaiah 19 and see that the cloud language used was referring to destruction. It’s judgement language. So this is Jesus telling them that Jerusalem will be destroyed, and when it is, they can know it’s judgement. It’s the divorce of unfaithful Israel so that Christ can marry His bride, the church.

In the end of this age when He returns that will be involving destruction as well. There will be far more destruction involving the end of this age than there ever was in 70 AD. In 70 AD the destruction was regionally limited. When He returns it will be global. But let's just ignore any of that and pretend destruction only involves Jerusalem in the first century, and that that destruction was far more significant than any global destruction in the end of this age.

 

[Timtofly]

But it already took place once.
And the followers of Jesus who saw it, fled just as their master instructed them to do.
It was FULL-filled.

This is not Scripture though. No Scripture claims this even happened. James was already dead. In fact all those in 30AD were scattered across the earth, or dead. What those original twelve taught was handed down. Otherwise your extra biblical source declaring such an action could not have happened. Every time armies would come against Jerusalem, people should flee, no?

 

[DavidPT]

Jesus also said that “this generation” would see Him coming on the clouds. That’s not ambiguous.

Did He not say all must be fulfilled first? What does 'all' in that context mean to you? Just some things? Not all things instead? The captivity recorded in Luke 21:24, for instance, was all of that fulfilled before this generation allegedly passed away in the first century? Of course it wasn't if that captivity continued beyond the first century. That indicates it is still being fulfilled, not already fulfilled, as in the captivity ended. Until the captivity ends, all has not been fulfilled, thus that alone contradicting your interpretation.

 

[Hammster]

In the end of this age when He returns that will be involving destruction as well. There will be far more destruction involving the end of this age than there ever was in 70 AD. In 70 AD the destruction was regionally limited. When He returns it will be global. But let's just ignore any of that and pretend destruction only involves Jerusalem in the first century, and that that destruction was far more significant than any global destruction in the end of this age.

What I’m doing is discussing what Jesus discusses in the Olivet Discourse. If you have an argument for later destruction, that’s fine. But that’s not what is in view here.

 

[Hammster]

Did He not say all must be fulfilled first? What does 'all' in that context mean to you? Just some things? Not all things instead? The captivity recorded in Luke 21:24, for instance, was all of that fulfilled before this generation allegedly passed away in the first century? Of course it wasn't if that captivity continued beyond the first century. That indicates it is still being fulfilled, not already fulfilled, as in the captivity ended. Until the captivity ends, all has not been fulfilled, thus that alone contradicting your interpretation.

It either happened, or you have to give a scriptural reason for changing what “this generation” means in the Discourse.

 

[Norbert L]

Jesus also said that “this generation” would see Him coming on the clouds. That’s not ambiguous.

I find it interesting that both Caiaphas and Jesus' audience in Matthew 11:22-24 are spoken to and a claim is made to their ears in the future tense. What sticks out in the eleventh chapter is that claim is used in combination with past and present language. It only ambiguous until the dots are connected.

 

[DavidPT]

It either happened, or you have to give a scriptural reason for changing what “this generation” means in the Discourse.

This generation did not pass away in the first century because Jesus said all has to be fulfilled first, and that all wasn't fulfilled first by the time you allege this generation passed away. We are still in the times of the Gentiles, even as we speak. Jesus indicated that Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Then He later said in verse 32 that all has to be fulfilled, and that until all is fulfilled first, which obviously has to include the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled, where even today we are still living in those times, this generation can't pass away in the meantime. Your interpretation is contradicting what Jesus plainly said and plainly meant.

 

[Hammster]

I find it interesting that both Caiaphas and Jesus' audience in Matthew 11:22-24 are spoken to and a claim is made to their ears in the future tense. What sticks out in the eleventh chapter is that claim is used in combination with past and present language. It only ambiguous until the dots are connected.

I’m not sure what other tense could be used.

 

[Hammster]

This generation did not pass away in the first century because Jesus said all has to be fulfilled first, and that all wasn't fulfilled first by the time you allege this generation passed away. We are still in the times of the Gentiles, even as we speak. Jesus indicated that Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Then He later said in verse 32 that all has to be fulfilled, and that until all is fulfilled first, which obviously has to include the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled, where even today we are still living in those times, this generation can't pass away in the meantime. Your interpretation is contradicting what Jesus plainly said and plainly meant.

Then I’ll await your scriptural reasoning for “this generation” to be used differently than in any other place in the gospels.

 

[DavidPT]

Then I’ll await your scriptural reasoning for “this generation” to be used differently than in any other place in the gospels.

Why isn't what Jesus said a valid reason for rejecting what some of you are proposing, that this generation already passed away? If Jesus said all must be fulfilled first before this generation shall pass away, but that all wasn't fulfilled first by the time many of you allege this generation passed away, how can this not be a valid argument against what you are proposing? What you need to be doing instead is proving that all was fulfilled before when you allege this generation passed away.

Can you prove that the captivity that began with Luke 21:20 was fulfilled, meaning the captivity ended, before when you allege this generation passed away? Can you prove the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled, meaning we were no longer in those times, before when you allege this generation passed away? You are the one alleging this generation already passed away, not me. Therefore, you are the one that needs to prove it. A good start would be what I just brought up involving the captivity and the times of the Gentiles.

 

[trophy33]

If Jesus said all must be fulfilled first before this generation shall pass away, but that all wasn't fulfilled first by the time

What was not fulfilled?

I bet your answer will simply spark a discussion about how much literal a prophecy must be or how global. About which everybody has his own opinion, because its ambiguous.

 

[parousia70]

Every time armies would come against Jerusalem, people should flee, no?

I live in Oregon, USA.
If I see on TV that Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, I should flee From my home?

Unless you believe that passage is not meant for me to heed?

 

[Timtofly]

So the saints who come out of the great tribulation are seen in New Jerusalem immediately following the close of this current Age. Not sure whether or not verse 8 above cancels out a literal thousand years in-between the return of the Lord and the second death (so no literal thousand years as the first 1,000 years of the NHNE). At first glance verse 8 above certainly seems to cancel out a literal thousand years. But that's also making an assumption (or not). (Sometimes being an agnosmillennialist isn't easy going).

What do you mean by immediately? That is your interjection into the text. John immediately saw people walking around, but not immediately after certain events. Especially events that are separated by verses containing other events that also fit into a certain chronology. John did not see people while New Jerusalem descended. The part where the city descended, was the only immediate event to John seeing people.

Those people in chapter 7 and 21 are the same people. It is not the same event. Those people come out of great tribulation, the whole NT church age, not the GT, that happens after John sees them in chapter 7. The GT happens between chapter 7 and chapter 21. The GT happens after the 7th Seal, but John saw these people between the 6th and 7th Seal. Then again after many events, and after the 1000 year reign of Christ. The New Jerusalem was not immediately after the 6th Seal.

 

[Zao is life]

I thought that maybe you’d read Isaiah 19 and see that the cloud language used was referring to destruction. It’s judgement language. So this is Jesus telling them that Jerusalem will be destroyed, and when it is, they can know it’s judgement. It’s the divorce of unfaithful Israel so that Christ can marry His bride, the church.

That's what I thought you might say, but I did not want to assume anything hence me asking you to elaborate.

@Hammster Correction: IMO it refers to Christ's coming in power and great glory when He returns to judge all nations.

My opinion won't change your opinion, I know.

 

[Timtofly]

That’s not what it means at all. You should read what I actually write and deal with those arguments instead of trying to fit your view into what you think I’m saying.

That was not my view, that was your view from Scripture comparing your metaphor.

 

[Timtofly]

I thought that maybe you’d read Isaiah 19 and see that the cloud language used was referring to destruction. It’s judgement language. So this is Jesus telling them that Jerusalem will be destroyed, and when it is, they can know it’s judgement. It’s the divorce of unfaithful Israel so that Christ can marry His bride, the church.

The bride metaphor is also not literal. But the metaphor will not be complete until the church is complete. Do you include WW2 as the same judgment of returning in the clouds, since this metaphor is ongoing?

 

[Timtofly]

Where in the text you see 2,000 years gap?

Context is not a gap. Context is all of creation, including time. You are the one introducing a gap theory.