This generation

[jgr]

Jesus didn't come in the clouds and gather them to Him.
I'd say that's as imperfect as it gets.

That's because Jesus didn't warn them that He was coming.

Instead, He warned them to flee.

They listened and acted.

And survived.

 

[DavidPT]

I've said nothing about Matthew 24:30 recently.

The issue in these recent posts has been whether or not the entirety of Matthew 24 is future.

The experience of the Judean Christians shows that it is not.

I see the Discourse as prophetic events involving His ascension until His coming in the end of this age, and that some of it involves what He does once He returns in the end of this age. That makes the Discourse neither fully past nor fully future. That means what happened in 70 AD are a portion of these prophetic events, not the end of these events.

Maybe lately you have not brought up Matthew 24:30, yet Matthew 24:30 and Preterism seem to go hand in hand. And to this day I still can't figure out how Preterists think the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30 is somehow linked to 70 AD? Preterists typically insist that Christ came in judgment in 70 AD, except the only coming of Christ I see in the text, and let's use Luke 21 this time since Luke 21:20 obviously involves what took place in 70 AD, that coming is recorded in verse 27, except verse 27 couldn't possibly be pertaining to anything in verse 20.

From Luke 21:5 through verse 20, there is no coming of Christ recorded in the text. From verse 21 through verse 26 there is still no coming of Christ recorded in the text. It is not until verse 27 that the text records Christ coming. And that coming matches when the coming in Matthew 24 is meaning, that being after the sun goes dark since Matthew 24:29 is meaning verse 25 and 26 in Luke 21.

Per Preterism, do Preterists include the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as occurring during the assumed great tribulation, or do Preterists place that after the assumed great tribulation has ended? If the coming in Matthew 24:30 and Luke 21:27 is meaning after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple no matter how one looks at it, what then was the purpose for the coming recorded in those verses, assuming it happened in the first century if the coming is meaning after the city and temple are destroyed?

 

[Jamdoc]

That's because Jesus didn't warn them that He was coming.

Instead, He warned them to flee.

They listened and acted.

And survived.

but He did.
Matthew 24:27 and on is about His second coming.

Here

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

What's the spin to claim that's not about His second coming?

 

[jgr]

but He did.
Matthew 24:27 and on is about His second coming.

Not in Matthew 24:16, He didn't.

 

[jgr]

I see the Discourse as prophetic events involving His ascension until His coming in the end of this age, and that some of it involves what He does once He returns in the end of this age. That makes the Discourse neither fully past nor fully future. That means what happened in 70 AD are a portion of these prophetic events, not the end of these events.

Maybe lately you have not brought up Matthew 24:30, yet Matthew 24:30 and Preterism seem to go hand in hand. And to this day I still can't figure out how Preterists think the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30 is somehow linked to 70 AD? Preterists typically insist that Christ came in judgment in 70 AD, except the only coming of Christ I see in the text, and let's use Luke 21 this time since Luke 21:20 obviously involves what took place in 70 AD, that coming is recorded in verse 27, except verse 27 couldn't possibly be pertaining to anything in verse 20.

From Luke 21:5 through verse 20, there is no coming of Christ recorded in the text. From verse 21 through verse 26 there is still no coming of Christ recorded in the text. It is not until verse 27 that the text records Christ coming. And that coming matches when the coming in Matthew 24 is meaning, that being after the sun goes dark since Matthew 24:29 is meaning verse 25 and 26 in Luke 21.

Per Preterism, do Preterists include the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as occurring during the assumed great tribulation, or do Preterists place that after the assumed great tribulation has ended? If the coming in Matthew 24:30 and Luke 21:27 is meaning after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple no matter how one looks at it, what then was the purpose for the coming recorded in those verses, assuming it happened in the first century if the coming is meaning after the city and temple are destroyed?

You seem to have missed Matthew 24:16.

Or did you agree previously that that is historical?

 

[Timtofly]

You add harvest to the scripture. It’s not there.

I did not add. That is what it means.

When did that happen?

It has been happening for 1992 years.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not in Matthew 24:16, He didn't.

It's all tied to the same thing.
The apostles connected it
Jesus connected it
what gives you authority to disconnect the events when they are connected in scripture?

 

[Zao is life]

If you believe Matthew 24 was fulfilled in part, how does that make anyone NOT a Partial Preterist.
You believe part was fulfilled, and part was not.

and to be clear
I don't believe in Pretribulationism or a "seven year tribulation"
Because Jesus defines the Great Tribulation to take place after the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by the Prophet Daniel. That's 3.5 years in, so it is at most, 3.5 years.
But, 2 things of note.
Jesus says those days are cut short (Matthew 24:22), and
Jesus says the tribulation ends, then immediately after the sun and moon darken (Matthew 24:29)

That happens at Revelation 6:12.
So anything after Revelation 6:12, is not the Great Tribulation (in fact Revelation 6:16-17 tells us exactly and precisely what it is, the great day of His wrath, His being He who sits on the throne. In other words, the Day of the Lord.)
and anything before the Abomination of Desolation is not the Great Tribulation.

I don't know how long the Great Tribulation is, but I know it's not 3.5 years long, much less 7.
and I know that the second coming comes after it, and that the resurrection is at the second coming.

Reconciling all of this, I am Post Trib-Pre Wrath.

You're right about the 6th seal. But great tribulation is mentioned 3 times in the New Testament and is the experience of the saints in all three.

Tribulation, affliction and persecution is mentioned no less than 58 times as the experience of Jesus, apostles and Christians, and only twice as the experience of unbelievers.

God's Judgment is referred to as wrath in the New Testament. Not as great tribulation. See the link (I've listed every verse talking about tribulation, affliction, persecution & the three verses talking about great tribulation in that link).

Luke 21:2-24 describes the experience of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the day armies gather against the city as the great distress of the people because of the wrath coming upon the city. The rest of Luke talks about the persecution and tribulation of the saints, as does Matthew and Mark's records of the Olivet Discourse.

 

[jgr]

It's all tied to the same thing.
The apostles connected it
Jesus connected it
what gives you authority to disconnect the events when they are connected in scripture?

You're the only one doing the connecting.

What gives you the authority to attempt to discredit Jesus' warnings to His followers of that generation?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I can refute that with Matthew 24 alone.



In other words.. when you see the signs, Jesus is coming soon, within a short period of time, within a single generation.
He didn't say some of them, then more thousands of years later.
He said all these things
But because He did not know the exact timing of when, It's instructed to the apostles, and every generation until His return.
Because that is what Matthew 24 is ultimately about, His return.

It defeats the purpose of Jesus giving the signs and connecting them to His second coming, if a disconnect in events was intended.
It was not.
so why do you disconnect what Jesus has connected?

The shadow fulfillment they saw they were prudent to think this was it and follow the instructions to flee, even though it was not ultimately the abomination fo desolation, it saved their lives.
A more exact, true eschatological fulfillment of that prophecy will take place shortly before Jesus returns, and I am saying that the instructions Jesus gave are every bit if not even more valid for us to watch for, and follow.
Until He returns.

You totally ducked around the evidence presented.

 

[Hammster]

and that will not be fulfilled by earthly means. It will be fulfilled by Jesus returning. "His kingdom is growing" is not the fullness of the Kingdom delivered to the Father, and frankly, before that happens, the saints of the most High will be waged war against, and overcome.

But
Revelation 12

I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by twisting what I say.

 

[Hammster]

I did not add. That is what it means.

It’s not what He said, though. Even if He meant harvest (and nowhere have I ever seen summer associated with harvest), He only said that when you see the blooms, know summer was coming. He didn’t say what that meant except to say that when they saw the things He spoke of, which they did, He was near.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I can refute that with Matthew 24 alone.



In other words.. when you see the signs, Jesus is coming soon, within a short period of time, within a single generation.
He didn't say some of them, then more thousands of years later.
He said all these things
But because He did not know the exact timing of when, It's instructed to the apostles, and every generation until His return.
Because that is what Matthew 24 is ultimately about, His return.

It defeats the purpose of Jesus giving the signs and connecting them to His second coming, if a disconnect in events was intended.
It was not.
so why do you disconnect what Jesus has connected?

The shadow fulfillment they saw they were prudent to think this was it and follow the instructions to flee, even though it was not ultimately the abomination fo desolation, it saved their lives.
A more exact, true eschatological fulfillment of that prophecy will take place shortly before Jesus returns, and I am saying that the instructions Jesus gave are every bit if not even more valid for us to watch for, and follow.
Until He returns.

All I am getting is your opinion, which is manifestly wrong (as has been shown). Please address the above post that you skipped around.

Matthew 24:29-31 refers to the last trumpet. Jesus says of His Coming, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming [Gr. erchomai] in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and ‘they shall gather together’ [Gr. episunago] his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

This is referring to the exact same event as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4. It is the coming of the Lord that is signaled by the sound of the last trump and the uniting of the elect both on earth and in heaven. Christ tells us that the angels “shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” This agrees with Paul’s assertion in 1 Thessalonians 4 that Christ will come with and for His saints at His Coming. Those saints that the angels gather in heaven are the "dead in Christ," those that are gathered from the four winds of the earth are 'the live in Christ'. This is describing the same event. Moreover, this passage locates the catching away at the end of the tribulation, not seven years before it. There is no 7-year tribulation period mentioned in Matthew 24:29-30, or anywhere else for that matter.

Jesus repeats that truth in the parallel passage in Mark 13:24-27, 31-32: “in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming [Gr. erchomai] in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall ‘gather together’ [Gr. episunago] his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven ... Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

The first thing we should note here is that Jesus tells us that the “coming” of the Lord and the gathering (i.e. catching away) of the saints occurs after the tribulation. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 and this correlate and negate the Pretrib argument that the “gathering” (i.e. catching away) of the saints occurs before the tribulation period. Not only does He gather the living elect “from the four winds... of the earth” but He also gathers His elect from “the uttermost part of heaven.” Jesus comes “with” and “for” His saints. This challenges the popular Pretrib theory that Christ is simply coming “for” His saints the second time and coming “with” his saints the third time (7yrs later).

Matthew 24:35-39 continues: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming [Gr. parousia] of the Son of man be.”

The removal of the current heaven and earth is here connected to the coming of the Lord. After telling us that “heaven and earth shall pass away” Jesus immediately tells us: “of that day and hour knoweth no man.” This final day that is approaching is coming unexpectedly. This fits in with the “thief in the night” scenario found elsewhere in Scripture. It would seem to confirm that the day that Christ returns is the day when the current corrupt natural order (both the creature and creation) is gloriously changed. The wicked and all corruption are destroyed when Jesus comes. The Lord here identifies the passing away of “heaven and earth” with “the coming of the Son of man.”

 

[Timtofly]

It’s not what He said, though. Even if He meant harvest (and nowhere have I ever seen summer associated with harvest), He only said that when you see the blooms, know summer was coming. He didn’t say what that meant except to say that when they saw the things He spoke of, which they did, He was near.

When the word parable is used there is always a meaning beyond the given words. Otherwise Jesus would have just said, remember the fig tree when it announces summer is near. Likewise when you see ? you will see all the above. Without the parable Jesus never gave us what this generation would see. Since you don't have a meaning for the blooming and the harvest, what would you place in the question mark to understand what the generation Jesus was talking about even saw?

All you are saying is that those who see these things will see these things. Circular reasoning without any indication of what was actually seen. Then you can insert any point in history because obviously those verses could be claimed as any point in history. You have rejected the one thing that had to happen to define that generation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You can’t take one part of scripture out of context and then line it up with something you think fits, and say you are interpreting scripture with scripture. That’s still eisegesis.

That's not what I'm doing. It's very clear that Jesus was speaking of the same event in Matthew 24:35-39 as Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing that. You have nothing to refute what I'm saying so all you can do is resort to accusing me of eisegesis.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Law was to remain until all is fulfilled.

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)

Where is your discernment? That's not a reference to the old covenant and its animal sacrifices and rituals which Jesus nailed to His cross (Colossians 2:14-15). That is a reference to the moral law of God. Surely, God still doesn't want people to murder, steal, etc.

Notice in the verse you quoted it said "is ready to vanish away" meaning it had not occurred just yet.

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete (The Old Covenant);

and what is obsolete and outdated (The Old Covenant);

WILL SOON DISAPPEAR. (It had not yet disappeared but soon would.)

As I said before the verse isn't talking about the old covenant itself soon disappearing, it's talking about any traces of it, like the temple buildings, soon disappearing. It was already obsolete, so how could it still be in effect? Do you not know what it means to be obsolete? It means it was no longer in effect and it was useless.

How can you think the old covenant was still in effect at the same time as the new covenant which Christ established with His shed blood? That makes no sense. It was His blood that established the new covenant and put an end to the old covenant.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Well, there you go. You’ve disproved the OP.

You certainly haven't proven it. You are completely unable to respond to any challenges to your view. if someone brings up other scripture to aid in understanding what Jesus said you don't even want to consider it. You call interpreting scripture with scripture eisegesis instead of dealing with the scriptures I bring up such as 2 Peter 3. Peter taught about the heavens and earth passing away at Christ's return, but we should ignore that when interpreting Matthew 24 where Jesus talked about the same thing? Really? It's almost impossible to debate you because you just brush aside any serious challenges to your view while repeating the same things over and over again.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

and that makes it a collective of individuals, rather than a cohesive single operating state like a Nation or Kingdom.
That's why I say we have the passport, but we've never actually been there, not yet.

This is like saying that the body of Christ doesn't actually exist yet. Yes, it does. Are you forgetting that Christ's kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36)? And that the kingdom "is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17)? I don't know how any Christian can not recognize that we are part of Christ's spiritual kingdom right now.

 

[Hammster]

When the word parable is used there is always a meaning beyond the given words. Otherwise Jesus would have just said, remember the fig tree when it announces summer is near. Likewise when you see ? you will see all the above.

That’s what He said.

Without the parable Jesus never gave us what this generation would see.

Yes He did. “These things”.

Since you don't have a meaning for the blooming and the harvest, what would you place in the question mark to understand what the generation Jesus was talking about even saw?

These things. Like He said. And He never said harvest.

All you are saying is that those who see these things will see these things. Circular reasoning without any indication of what was actually seen. Then you can insert any point in history because obviously those verses could be claimed as any point in history. You have rejected the one thing that had to happen to define that generation.

Actually, I am saying what Jesus is saying.


so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
— Matthew 24:33-34

 

[Hammster]

That's not what I'm doing. It's very clear that Jesus was speaking of the same event in Matthew 24:35-39 as Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing that. You have nothing to refute what I'm saying so all you can do is resort to accusing me of eisegesis.

You’re assumption is that the last days that Peter is talking about are the days leading up to the second advent. Then you assume it lines up with other scripture. Peter is writing to folks who are under persecution. Him, knowing that his generation would see the destruction of the temple, and all that it meant, was speaking of those last days, and encouraging those folks.