This generation

[Timtofly]

Using your Logic, when My wife was pregnant we would have had absolutely no way of knowing that sometime within approximately 9 months after conception, she was going to give birth.
By your logic, since we had no advance knowledge of the day or hour that birth would take place, it would be impossible for us to know anything true and correct about the general time frame.

Do I have that correct?

Yes, the baby's birth was the 1948 birth of a nation. No, Nations do not have a time frame of coming "into conception".

 

[Timtofly]

How can you be 100% certain He was even meaning in a literal sense? What about what He said in verse 29, for instance? Was He meaning in a literal sense that literal stars fall out of the sky? The more I think about it though, based on your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10, you very well might take that in a literal sense for all I know, that literal stars fall out of the sky. As to me, I don't take it to literally be meaning stars are falling out of the sky, because how is it that the stars can fall like that, but that the earth remains in it's place at the time? When looking at the earth from the perspective of outer space surrounding it, the earth is just as much hanging in space as are the stars. If stars are literally falling, so should the earth be as well.

Those literal stars are angels. Angels are symbolically referred to as stars. Hope they like labels.

 

[Hammster]

Coming in clouds in 70AD. Scripture was still being written. It was still being scribed and handed out. Thousands of manuscripts all over the Roman Empire. Yet not a single notation of such an event in Scripture.

Interesting. It sounds like you are saying that any prophecy not fulfilled before the close of the canon cannot possibly be true.

 

[Timtofly]

Interesting. It sounds like you are saying that any prophecy not fulfilled before the close of the canon cannot possibly be true.

No, I am saying the coming in the clouds is still future. The day all the continents and mountains are re-arranged. The day like the Flood of Noah. Not just a regime failure. Israel did not defeat and utterly destroy the Romans. Pretty sure it was just the opposite condition in 70AD, than the one you are insinuating.

I am saying no one mentioned it once in the Canon of Scripture. Only secular historians recorded 70AD.

 

[Hammster]

No, I am saying the coming in the clouds is still future. The day all the continents and mountains are re-arranged. The day like the Flood of Noah. Not just a regime failure. Israel did not defeat and utterly destroy the Romans. Pretty sure it was just the opposite condition in 70AD, than the one you are insinuating.

I am saying no one mentioned it once in the Canon of Scripture. Only secular historians recorded 70AD.

It seems like you are saying that if secular historians record something, it cannot be true.

 

[claninja]

Are you equating the city and the sanctuary with heaven and earth then?

I’m equating the metaphorical language of the OT, often employed by the Hebrew prophets to describe the terror of the overthrowing of kingdoms, with the language used by Jesus in Matthew 24:29 and 2 Peter 3.

Edit:
This understanding of it being metaphorical would be further supported by:

1.) “this generation” in Matthew 24 literally meaning generation, and not having to misconstrue its actual definition.

2.) Peter stating in his first letter that the “end of all things had drawn near” (1 Peter 4:7).

3.) additional support from scholars on the use of this type of language in the OT:

Barnes notes on the Bible:
“Darkness and night, in the Scriptures, are often the emblem of calamity and distress (see the note at Matthew 24:29). 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.

(Compare Joel 2:10; Joel 3:15-16.) Thus in Amos 8:9 :”

Matthew henry
“The stars of heaven shall not give their light, the sun shall be darkened. Such expressions are often employed by the prophets, to describe the convulsions of governments.”

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.”

 

[claninja]

Are you purposely trying to avoid addressing the argument I'm making regarding this age and the age to come? Jesus talked about this age in terms of this temporal age when people get married and they die. He contrasted that with the eternal age to come that begins after the resurrection of the dead occurs and He identified that age as being the time when people will no longer get married or die. Can you tell me how you interpret this passage:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

jesus didn’t mention the bodily resurrection of the dead, nor the age to come in the olivet discourse. Since i don’t believe the OD is about Jesus’ “second advent”, I don’t find this relevant to understanding “this generation”. I believe Jesus’ generation lived during the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel at the end of the ages.

 

[claninja]

Are you being serious with these questions?

Yes

Of course that's the one of the definitions for genea and I never said otherwise. But, it's not the only one. How many times do I need to point that out before you get that?

the biblical use of genea in the LXX and NT is always of contemporaries. That’s not “one of the definitions”, it’s THE definition for the Biblical use

What changes are whether these contemporaries are grouped together by genealogy, as in “14 generations from Abraham to David”

OR by characteristics, like “this wicked generation asks for a sign”

OR without reference to genealogy or characteristics like “this generation will not pass away”

OR in reference to a time span occupied by generations, an age, like Ephesians 3:5.

The Bible and the Holy Spirit. I look at commentaries and lexicons and such occasionally, but they are not the authors of scripture. Those resources can contain both facts, which are certainly helpful, but also opinions that I'm free to disagree with and disregard.

I mean, I also believe the scriptures and Holy Spirit guide in my understanding.

I also think it’s important to let the Holy Spirit guide in learning how to understand that the Hebrews often prophesied in poetic and metaphorical language.

I also think it’s important to the let the Holy Spirit guide in learning the languages that the scriptures were written in before being translated into English.

 

[Timtofly]

It seems like you are saying that if secular historians record something, it cannot be true.

I am saying it is not God's Word. You are free to believe any human you choose.

 

[Hammster]

I am saying it is not God's Word. You are free to believe any human you choose.

If that’s your criteria, then you will have absolutely no way of knowing of any prophecy comes true in the future.

 

[Timtofly]

If that’s your criteria, then you will have absolutely no way of knowing of any prophecy comes true in the future.

Especially Revelation 6-22. It was written while it was happening. Since it has not happened yet, none of it may ever happen that way. The only ones who will know will be the ones still alive until the very end. Then they will have wished they had read and headed the warning, instead of living through it all.

 

[Hammster]

Especially Revelation 6-22. It was written while it was happening. Since it has not happened yet, none of it may ever happen that way. The only ones who will know will be the ones still alive until the very end. Then they will have wished they had read and headed the warning, instead of living through it all.

By your criteria, that can’t happen.

 

[Timtofly]

By your criteria, that can’t happen.

By my criteria it has not happened yet.

 

[Hammster]

By my criteria it has not happened yet.

But secular historians will record future events. And we can’t use those reports, by your criteria.

The canon is closed. It is no longer being scribed and handed out. Thousands of manuscripts all over the Roman Empire existed. Yet not a single notation of your understanding in Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

But secular historians will record future events. And we can’t use those reports, by your criteria.

The canon is closed. It is no longer being scribed and handed out. Thousands of manuscripts all over the Roman Empire existed. Yet not a single notation of your understanding in Scripture.

That secular historians will record the last 4 years of Adam's flesh and blood is an assumption. Unless you call the daily news a secular historical record. After Armageddon no one will remember those former things.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

 

[Hammster]

That secular historians will record the last 4 years of Adam's flesh and blood is an assumption. Unless you call the daily news a secular historical record. After Armageddon no one will remember those former things.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

I see no reason to think that news sources could not be considered secular history. Especially if they wrote while it’s happening.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because the AOD mentioned in Matthew 24:15 is the AOD that is mentioned in Daniel 11:36-37, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Daniel 12:11 (which is a repeat of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31); and it corresponds to [Daniel 12:7 & Revelation 10:5-7] (bracketed because those two passages belong together). @Spiritual Jew The AOD of Antiochus is the type of the AOD mentioned in Matthew 24:15 and this is 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

It has nothing to do with the (Jerusalem) temple and city. Matthew stopped talking about that after Matthew 24:3, and then went on to talk about the tribulation of the elect from Matthew 24:9 all the way through to Matthew 24:31, and introducing it with the birth-pains.

Mark stopped talking about that after Mark 13:4, for the same reason.

Luke spoke about destruction of temple in Luke 21:5-7 and then only spoke about destruction of city and temple again in Luke 21:20-24. The rest of the verses he's writing about the persecution of the elect and their redemption.

Most of the Olivet Discourse is talking about the tribulation of the disciples ( @Spiritual Jew not of the unbelieving Jewsin 70 a.d), and it's in this context that the AOD is mentioned and they are told to flee Judea when they "see" it.

So, you apparently don't think His answer to the question of when the temple buildings would be destroyed was recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but was only recorded in Luke 21. But, I don't see any reason why Matthew and Mark would not have recorded His answer to that question. It's clear to me that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You can say what you want. But I answered the question because I thought this was a discussion.

Most people here don't just answer questions, but also give feedback in response to points that someone makes as well. But, you're not that kind of person, apparently.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

But your position mandates that everyone who's lived and died up to now, including those living at the time, whom Jesus was directly addressing, must in fact be EXCLUDED from ANY application of the passage.

So? Since no one knows the day or hour and there wasn't any set date for His coming at the end of the age (at which time heaven and earth and this generation will pass away) then not everything He said would be applicable to everyone. But, the potential was there since, again, there was no set time for Him to come.

The thing that you and no other preterists can get around is that the end of the age has not yet come. Jesus indicated that the end of the age would be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead and would give way to the age to come during which no one will get married or die (Luke 20:34-36). He also indicated that the day of judgment of all people will occur at the end of the age (Matt 13:36-43;47-50) and that clearly has not yet occurred either.

Your position mandates He couldn't have been talking to "everyone who would hear or read His words", as your position mandates they are only and ever applicable to the "one generation" at the end.

It was potentially applicable to everyone since no one knew when His coming at the end of the age would occur, but obviously things that happen shortly before His second coming at the end of the age don't apply specifically to everyone. But, the fact is that He told everyone to watch and not just those He was talking to. What does that tell you?

In what sense did Jesus come like a thief in 70 AD? Him coming like a thief implies that His coming would occur suddenly at a time when no one is expecting it. I don't see how that applies to anything that happened in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I’m equating the metaphorical language of the OT, often employed by the Hebrew prophets to describe the terror of the overthrowing of kingdoms, with the language used by Jesus in Matthew 24:29 and 2 Peter 3.

Edit:
This understanding of it being metaphorical would be further supported by:

1.) “this generation” in Matthew 24 literally meaning generation, and not having to misconstrue its actual definition.

2.) Peter stating in his first letter that the “end of all things had drawn near” (1 Peter 4:7).

3.) additional support from scholars on the use of this type of language in the OT:

Barnes notes on the Bible:
“Darkness and night, in the Scriptures, are often the emblem of calamity and distress (see the note at Matthew 24:29). 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.

(Compare Joel 2:10; Joel 3:15-16.) Thus in Amos 8:9 :”

Matthew henry
“The stars of heaven shall not give their light, the sun shall be darkened. Such expressions are often employed by the prophets, to describe the convulsions of governments.”

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.”

I understand that figurative language was sometimes used in relation to heaven and earth in the OT, but what evidence is there to show that it's being used that way in 2nd Peter 3? I see none. Peter directly compared a past, literal, global destruction event to the heavens and earth being burned up. If he wasn't comparing two literal physical destruction events there then why did he give the impression that he was comparing two similar events in 2 Peter 3:5-7 rather than comparing a literal event to a figurative one?