This generation

[parousia70]

Even partial preterists spiritualize some prophesy.

ALL Christians Spiritulaize at least SOME prophesy.
Even you.
Perhaps you give yourself a "pass"?

 

[DavidPT]

Which, demonstrably, is NOT "so to" and "just as" He left, as Only the disciples saw Him go.

You're view is not the least bit consistent here, which you agree is "the hallmark of error!"

You can't claim (with any consistency) that it is "just as" and "so to" while you proudly assert there is such a MAJOR difference between the ascension and return.

It's not clear to me what your point is, but the text never says these same disciples standing there would also see Him return in like manner. The text says--- shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


The text never says--- shall so ye see Him come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

 

[Guojing]

I'm sorry, but I think you have to be completely lacking in discernment to not recognize that.

Who do you think Jesus was referring to in the following verse:

Matthew 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

Who do you think those that would be found in "the highways" and invited to the wedding represent?

Jews commonly refer to gentiles as "dogs" (Matthew 15:26)

I am merely trying to point out that there is nothing in that passage that tells you that Jesus was referring to gentiles.

You are trying to insert that term in. You may think you are correct, which is of course fine with me.

You can think of it in another way, from Scripture.

When Paul told all the listening Jews his testimony, they were all prepared to listen to him quietly until all of them immediately became mad, the moment he mentioned that God is sending him to gentiles (Acts 22:21-22).

21 Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.''
22 The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, 'Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!'

The fact that the listening Jews did not react in the same way to Jesus in that Matthew parable, tells you that the crowd did not understand Jesus as referring to gentiles.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Jews commonly refer to gentiles as "dogs" (Matthew 15:26)

I am merely trying to point out that there is nothing in that passage that tells you that Jesus was referring to gentiles.

Maybe not explicitly, but it's something that shouldn't be hard to discern.

You are trying to insert that term in. You may think you are correct, which is of course fine with me.

So, does this mean you have no answer to my question regarding who those located in "the highways" represent in the following verse?

Matthew 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

So, it seems like you're basically telling me I'm wrong even though you don't know what the right answer is? Or did you forget to answer my question?

 

[Guojing]

Maybe not explicitly, but it's something that shouldn't be hard to discern.

So, does this mean you have no answer to my question regarding who those located in "the highways" represent in the following verse?

Matthew 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

You can think of it in another way, from Scripture.

When Paul told all the listening Jews his testimony, they were all prepared to listen to him quietly until all of them immediately became mad, the moment he mentioned that God is sending him to gentiles (Acts 22:21-22).

21 Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.''
22 The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, 'Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!'

The fact that the listening Jews did not react in the same way to Jesus in that Matthew parable in Matthew 22, tells you that the crowd did not interpret Jesus as referring to gentiles.

If they did not, then you cannot insert the term gentiles into that passage, and pretend that you are correct, and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You can think of it in another way, from Scripture.

When Paul told all the listening Jews his testimony, they were all prepared to listen to him quietly until all of them immediately became mad, the moment he mentioned that God is sending him to gentiles (Acts 22:21-22).

21 Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.''
22 The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, 'Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!'

The fact that the listening Jews did not react in the same way to Jesus in that Matthew parable in Matthew 22, tells you that the crowd did not interpret Jesus as referring to gentiles.

If they did not, then you cannot insert the term gentiles into that passage, and pretend that you are correct, and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong.

So, for the third time, who do you think Jesus was referring to when He referred to those in "the highways" in Matthew 22:9?

It makes no sense for you to try to claim that my interpretation of Matthew 22:1-13 is wrong without telling me what you think the correct interpretation should be.

 

[Guojing]

So, for the third time, who do you think Jesus was referring to when He referred to those in "the highways" in Matthew 22:9?

It makes no sense for you to try to claim that my interpretation of Matthew 22:1-13 is wrong without telling me what you think the correct interpretation should be.

I interpret that as Jews scattered outside Jerusalem, the Jews of the dispersion.

You are of course free to disagree, but there is no reason why it should be gentiles, as I have established to you already.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I interpret that as Jews scattered outside Jerusalem, the Jews of the dispersion.

You are of course free to disagree, but there is no reason why it should be gentiles, as I have established to you already.

As far as I'm concerned, you have not come anywhere near establishing that "there is no reason why it should be Gentiles".

There's every reason why it should be Gentiles. He clearly first talked about inviting/calling Jews to salvation and many of them "made light of it, and went their ways" and others "took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them". That's clearly a reference to unbelieving Jews rejecting the gospel and persecuting believers like Stephen, Paul and others. And then Jesus talked about the king, which represents God the Father, becoming angry with those unbelieving Jews and sending armies to destroy them and their city. Which is exactly what happened in 70 AD.

We know that after the gospel first went to the Jews in Israel, it went out to the Gentiles in other nations. So, who else could He be referring to when calling others besides the Jews to salvation except for the Gentiles? This should be obvious. That's why I say you have to be completely lacking in discernment to not see that the invitation going to "the highways" refers to the call to salvation going out to the rest of the world. The Gentiles are the "other sheep" that Jesus said He had besides the Jews (John 10:16). It's not as if Jesus never referred to them. It just wasn't His plan to preach to them directly. He wanted His disciples to do that.

 

[Guojing]

As far as I'm concerned, you have not come anywhere near establishing that "there is no reason why it should be Gentiles".

There's every reason why it should be Gentiles. He clearly first talked about inviting/calling Jews to salvation and many of them "made light of it, and went their ways" and others "took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them". That's clearly a reference to unbelieving Jews rejecting the gospel and persecuting believers like Stephen, Paul and others. And then Jesus talked about the king, which represents God the Father, becoming angry with those unbelieving Jews and sending armies to destroy them and their city. Which is exactly what happened in 70 AD.

We know that after the gospel first went to the Jews in Israel, it went out to the Gentiles in other nations. So, who else could He be referring to when calling others besides the Jews to salvation except for the Gentiles? This should be obvious. That's why I say you have to be completely lacking in discernment to not see that the invitation going to "the highways" refers to the call to salvation going out to the rest of the world. The Gentiles are the "other sheep" that Jesus said He had besides the Jews (John 10:16). It's not as if Jesus never referred to them. It just wasn't His plan to preach to them directly. He wanted His disciples to do that.

In the first place, do you understand my point when I used how the Jews reacted aggressively to Paul at Acts 22:21-22, and I contrasted that to the lack of response by the Jews to Jesus in Matthew 22:9?

Now you can reject my point and prefer to have your own interpretation, to suit your doctrine, I am always fine with that.

I am just asking whether you understand.

 

[Hammster]

Philippians 2:15 (YLT) that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished in the midst of a generation(genea) crooked and perverse, among whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world,

I have suggested this before, maybe not in this thread though, this is the generation Jesus could be meaning in the OD, the one recorded in .Philippians 2:15 above.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

IOW---Verily I say unto you, This crooked and perverse generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

2 Peter 3:7 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.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Thus, something along the lines per the following.

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---this crooked and perverse generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled---Heaven and earth shall pass away, but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.---the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up---Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

So basically you added to the text in Mathew to come to your conclusion.

 

[Hammster]

Commentaries can be somewhat deceiving to a degree since anyone can likely find Commentaries that agree with their view of things, which then means to them, see, I was correct to interpret this or that like such, otherwise, how do you explain that this or that Commentary agrees with me? But what about the Commentaries that don't agree with one's view of things? Or better yet, what about what is recorded in the Bible itself, that if it doesn't agree with one's view of things?

Do you understand that when you post what you think a verse says, it’s a commentary?

 

[Hammster]

I cannot discus issues with a person who says that: a tender branch, putting forth leaves, is unrelated to blooming.

Leaves aren’t fruit. Blooming has to do with fruit. There’s nothing about blooming in the text.

 

[Hammster]

So, you expect me to address your argument before you address mine. I see.

I addressed it.

 

[Hammster]

The gathering of the elect didn't happen within 40 years. The times of the Gentiles weren't fulfilled within 40 years. And those were things that Jesus had just talked about before saying this generation would not pass away until all these things (things like the gathering of the elect and the times of the Gentiles) were fulfilled.

Everything happened as He said it would.

 

[Hammster]

So, you are trying to say that when Jesus used second person plurals He was always only referring to His immediate audience? Hmmm.

Mark 13:35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Sorry you’ve missed a few days. I’ve addressed that argument already.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In the first place, do you understand my point when I used how the Jews reacted aggressively to Paul at Acts 22:21-22, and I contrasted that to the lack of response by the Jews to Jesus in Matthew 22:9?

Now you can reject my point and prefer to have your own interpretation, to suit your doctrine, I am always fine with that.

I am just asking whether you understand.

Yes, I do understand the point you were trying to make. But, I don't see it as valid because it shouldn't be expected that the Pharisees and other unbelieving Jews would have understood what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 22:1-14. They may very well have understood Him to be talking about them in verses 6 and 7. But, it doesn't indicate whether they fully understood what He was saying overall in verses 1-14 or not.

So, if it explicitly indicated that they understood everything He said in that parable and didn't respond similarly to how they responded to Paul in Acts 22:21-22 then I would say you had a valid point. But, that is not the case.

Beyond all that, why would Jesus talk about the call to salvation without referencing Gentiles? Surely, He knew that the Gentiles would be called to salvation as well, so why would He not reference that at all when telling a parable relating to the call to salvation? I don't think that makes any sense.

What Jesus taught there is similar to John 10 where He first talks about His sheep, which is easily understood to be referring to Jewish believers, but then He refers later to His "other sheep" (John 10:16) which is a reference to Gentile believers who were not of "this fold" (the Jewish sheepfold). And He talked about bringing both together into "one fold" which lines up with how Paul wrote about Jew and Gentile believers being brought together as one (Eph 2:11-22, Gal 3:26-29, etc.).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Everything happened as He said it would.

Except that the gathering of the elect hasn't occurred yet and the times of the Gentiles weren't fulfilled in 70 AD.

I can do this all day (repeat myself). And I know you can, too, when I see how many posts you have. But, should we? Probably not. Agree to disagree. Move on. Sounds good, eh?

Sorry you’ve missed a few days. I’ve addressed that argument already.

Yeah, I sometimes have other things to do in my life besides this. Imagine that. Do you know what post number it was that you addressed it by chance? If not, I'll just move on.

 

[Hammster]

You said this in reference to someone questioning why preterists like yourself need the entire Olivet Discourse to be fulfilled.

So, please tell us when exactly Jesus already came when no one was expecting it. And, please tell us when and how Matthew 25:31-46 was fulfilled.

Well, 31-34 was fulfilled in the first century, as I’ve explained elsewhere in this thread a few times. Verses 35 and onward, I’m still not sure if that’s first century, or if that’s the future. Good arguments are made for both.

 

[Hammster]

Except that the gathering of the elect hasn't occurred yet and the times of the Gentiles weren't fulfilled in 70 AD.

I can do this all day (repeat myself). And I know you can, too, when I see how many posts you have. But, should we? Probably not. Agree to disagree. Move on. Sounds good, eh?

Yeah, I have other things to do in my life besides this. Imagine that. Do you know what post number it was that you addressed it by chance? If not, I'll just move on.

Those happened. They just go against what you think happens.

 

[rwb]

Which, demonstrably, is NOT "so to" and "just as" He left, as Only the disciples saw Him go.

You're view is not the least bit consistent here, which, I'll remind you, you assert is "the hallmark of error!" (unless and except maybe when YOU do it?)

You can't claim (with any consistency) that it is "just as" and "so to" while you proudly assert there is such a MAJOR difference between the ascension and return.

Christ never said, "then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" when He ascended to heaven.