This generation

[claninja]

John's understanding that Christ ushered in this age does not come from him knowing that there were already many antichrists. It came from his knowing the promised Messiah had come, which he realized meant the prophesied Day/age/era of the Lord had come.

exactly. so why did John say he knew it was the “last hour” by the appearing of many antichrists?

 

[claninja]

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.

this argument is based on YOUR presupposition of what the “times of the gentiles” mean and what the “angels being sent out to gather the elect from the four winds” means.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are ignoring the second person plurals. Jesus was specifically addressing that generation. He even said so.

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!’”

 

[rwb]

Your not understanding me.

as already stated, there is a wrong understanding of partial preterism among those on CF. Many of these individuals incorrectly believe that if one holds to the complete fulfillment of the OD in the first century then they are a full preterist. The commentaries that I post, are solely provided to show that this is NOT true and totally incorrect. I am not providing the commentaries to show my position is “correct”. I’m providing them to correct a misunderstanding of partial preterism.

Even partial preterists spiritualize some prophesy. I really don't care that there are commentaries that confirm that doctrine. As a partial preterist you believe the last days refer to the last days of the Old Covenant, not the last days of the Messianic age that Christ ushered in that end when Christ comes again. So in reality neither partial nor full preteristism is biblical.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Once again, a stunning rebuttal.

So, you were not impressed with his one liner rebuttal? That's interesting.

 

[claninja]

Even partial preterists spiritualize some prophesy. I really don't care that there are commentaries that confirm that doctrine. As a partial preterist you believe the last days refer to the last days of the Old Covenant, not the last days of the Messianic age that Christ ushered in that end when Christ comes again. So in reality neither partial nor full preteristism is biblical.

Again, you don’t seem to be understanding what I’m saying. I never post commentaries to “prove” or “affirm”that my position is the correct one. I post them to demonstrate that the belief in the OD being completely fulfilled is NOT exclusive to full preterism.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Since you brought up Isaiah 2 and are applying it to the here and now, well there is this part to consider---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more(Isaiah 2:4)


What I have to wonder then, of those that interpret it in that manner, like you do in this post, how many are or were enlisted in the military at the time since that obviously contradicts how they are interpreting---neither shall they learn war any more? As if it makes sense to interpret it like that and then not live by example but instead be enlisted in the military at the time. IOW, instead of practicing what you preach, in this case, don't practice what you preach.

To be enlisted in the military does not equal learn war no more, not even remotely. And besides, that verse also says nation shall not lift up sword against nation, which contradicts what Jesus said if Isaiah 2:4 is already true when Jesus said the following below would be what to expect.

Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Apparently, one is to believe---nation shall not lift up sword against nation---means this---For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom--rather than contradicts this.

Do you believe that Isaiah 2 will occur before the second coming of Christ and will lead up until the second coming of Christ? In 2 Peter 3:3-4, Peter indicates that the last days lead up to the second coming of Christ rather than follow the second coming of Christ as you believe. Which means you should consider that Isaiah 2 is not meant to be interpreted to be referring to the literal end of war, but is rather referring to the peace that is found when you become part of the spiritual kingdom of God.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

 

[DavidPT]

Christ was hidden by the clouds. He was not seen visibly entering heaven. So by that logic, if Christ went into heaven “out of sight in a cloud” he would come from heaven “out of sight in cloud”. Such would be consistent with the OT comings of God where he descended from heaven on the clouds to judge nations and enemies (2 Samuel 22, Micah 1, Isaiah 19, etc…..)

Acts 1:9 9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

But anyways….

Daniel 7 has the son of man coming on the clouds to the Father to receive all power, glory, dominion, and an everlasting kingdom where all peoples will serve him.

matthew 24:30, is referencing this. I believe, the reference of Daniel 7:13 is to point to daniel 7:14,27

Daniel 7:14,14And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

27And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’

Are some of you taking these clouds in question in a literal sense? Some days there is not even a cloud in the sky. I think clouds of heaven are likely meaning angels myself, since it makes sense to me angels would be escorting Jesus back to heaven. One thing some are not taking into account, Jesus wasn't on earth then a split second later He was in heaven, because if that was true, He would have simply vanished while still on the earth rather than being seen ascending to heaven. That means this cloud that received Him out of their sight was waiting above in the sky to escort Him back to heaven. How does a literal cloud receive someone?

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;


Clouds are typically white unless they are storm clouds, and that verse 10 records these 2 angels being in white apparel, thus clouds of heaven equal angels. But if not angels, are literal clouds what we should assume?

Matthew 24:30 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 in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

If we interpret Matthew 24:30 in light of Matthew 25:31, instead of this--- and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory---this instead--- and they shall see the Son of man coming, and all the holy angels with him, with power and great glory.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don’t need it to be. It just is.

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.

 

[claninja]

Are some of you taking these clouds in question in a literal sense?

taking it in the same sense as the following OT passages where God descended from heaven:

David describing God descending from heaven to defeat his enemies
2 Samuel 2:10-12 He bowed the heavens and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew;
he was seen on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.

Isaiah describing God coming to judge Egypt
Isaiah 19:1 1An oracle concerning Egypt.Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt;and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

God coming to judge Samaria:
Micah 1:3-4 3For behold, the LORD is coming out of his place,
and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains will melt under him,
and the valleys will split open,
like wax before the fire,
like waters poured down a steep place.

 

[rwb]

great! I am glad you agree that Jesus is presently sitting at the right hand of God. So how did the Sanhedrin “from now on” see Him sitting at the right hand?

Matthew 26:64 64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26:64 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

ἄρτι árti, ar'-tee

adverb from a derivative of G142 (compare G740) through the idea of suspension; just now:—this day (hour), hence(-forth), here(-after), hither(-to), (even) now, (this) present.

ἀπό apó, apo'

a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):—(× here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with.

Hereafter indicates that present time, as in just now, this day (hour). That means it goes against your understanding, because the Sanhedrin did not see Christ coming or sitting on the right hand of power at that very moment or even that day. For that matter no one has seen this event yet, and will not until Christ literally returns.

The only way the words of Christ make any sense is to understand what Christ was telling them árti apó meant. Christ is saying, Hereafter (because of this very moment in time) you shall see the Son of man....... Remember what that very moment meant was that Christ would be condemned to die!!! And it is because of His death, and resurrection that they and all humanity will see Christ coming in the clouds and sitting at the right hand of power.

Christ was hidden by the clouds. He was not seen visibly entering heaven. So by that logic, if Christ went into heaven “out of sight in a cloud” he would come from heaven “out of sight in cloud”. Such would be consistent with the OT comings of God where he descended from heaven on the clouds to judge nations and enemies (2 Samuel 22, Micah 1, Isaiah 19, etc…..)

Acts 1:9 9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

But anyways….

Daniel 7 has the son of man coming on the clouds to the Father to receive all power, glory, dominion, and an everlasting kingdom where all peoples will serve him.

matthew 24:30, is referencing this. I believe, the reference of Daniel 7:13 is to point to daniel 7:14,27

Daniel 7:14,14And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

27And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’

All the Old Testament prophets looked for ONE coming of Messiah on the Day of the Lord. They anticipate all that is written regarding that day/age/era would be fulfilled. Including Christ coming again in the clouds in glory. The Old Testament prophets do not foretell of TWO separate comings of the Messiah. It is not logical to think they would, since they believed the Messiah's coming in the Day of the Lord would fulfill ALL prophesy.

 

[rwb]

Again, you don’t seem to be understanding what I’m saying. I never post commentaries to “prove” or “affirm”that my position is the correct one. I post them to demonstrate that the belief in the OD being completely fulfilled is NOT exclusive to full preterism.

I already know there are some who hold to your doctrine of PP. There are many Christians who are sincerely wrong in their understanding. It seems you may be one. Unfortunately sincerity does not make error true. Why use commentaries to affirm your position? If it is biblical you should be able to affirm your position from the Bible.

 

[DavidPT]

Do you believe that Isaiah 2 will occur before the second coming of Christ and will lead up until the second coming of Christ? In 2 Peter 3:3-4, Peter indicates that the last days lead up to the second coming of Christ rather than follow the second coming of Christ as you believe. Which means you should consider that Isaiah 2 is not meant to be interpreted to be referring to the literal end of war, but is rather referring to the peace that is found when you become part of the spiritual kingdom of God.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Presently I don't see Isaiah 2:4 even being valid until after Christ has returned. Some of Isaiah 2 though, is clearly involving a time leading up to His return, and then involving His return. Meaning verses 6-22. I then see Isaiah 2:2-4 meaning after He has returned. In the OT a lot of times events are not exactly in chronological order some of the time.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.


This is what these verses record. Had Isaiah 2:4 said only this instead---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: shall they learn war no more. And even though Jesus still said what He said in Matthew 24:7, your interpretation of Isaiah 2:4 could possibly work in that case. But when one verse says this--- nation shall not lift up sword against nation---and another verse says this---For nation shall rise against nation---I see no way to reconcile these verses unless one verse is meaning a time after the time the other verse is meaning. If both are true at the same time, it is a contradiction. If both are not true at the same time, the contradiction seemingly goes away altogether. Granted, it could possibly cause a contradiction with something else though, which is how you are looking at it, that it would be contradicting that there are still last days after the last day.

So then, how do we reconcile these two passages where there are no contradictions with anything whatsoever? I'm not sure myself? I can see your point in regard to it appearing to be unreasonable that there could still be last days after the last day. I get it. It's clearly a valid point. But still, none of that solves this other contradiction I brought up in regard to nation shall not lift sword against nation. This obviously involves more than one nation. Which nations do you propose this is meaning if this is applying to the here and now?

 

[claninja]

I already know there are some who hold to your doctrine of PP. There are many Christians who are sincerely wrong in their understanding. It seems you may be one. Unfortunately sincerity does not make error true. Why use commentaries to affirm your position? If it is biblical you should be able to affirm your position from the Bible.

this is a subjective argument. I could say the same of you. Let’s avoid these generic subjective arguments, and focus on the contents of the post.


As to why provide commentaries? As stated already, there are many in CF, including staff and moderators, that seem to be unaware that believing the OD completely fulfilled is NOT exclusive to FP. (FP is not allowed in this forum)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Presently I don't see Isaiah 2:4 even being valid until after Christ has returned. Some of Isaiah 2 though, is clearly involving a time leading up to His return, and then involving His return. Meaning verses 6-22. I then see Isaiah 2:2-4 meaning after He has returned. In the OT a lot of times events are not exactly in chronological order some of the time.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.


This is what these verses record. Had Isaiah 2:4 said only this instead---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: shall they learn war no more. And even though Jesus still said what He said in Matthew 24:7, your interpretation of Isaiah 2:4 could possibly work in that case. But when one verse says this--- nation shall not lift up sword against nation---and another verse says this---For nation shall rise against nation---I see no way to reconcile these verses unless one verse is meaning a time after the time the other verse is meaning. If both are true at the same time, it is a contradiction. If both are not true at the same time, the contradiction seemingly goes away altogether. Granted, it could possibly cause a contradiction with something else though, which is how you are looking at it, that it would be contradicting that there are still last days after the last day.

So then, how do we reconcile these two passages where there are no contradiction with anything whatsoever? I'm not sure myself? I can see your point in regard to it appearing to be unreasonable that there could still be last days after the last day. I get it. It's clearly a valid point. But still, none of that solves this other contradiction I brought up in regard to nation shall not lift sword against nation. This obviously involves more than one nation. Which nations do you propose this is meaning if this is applying to the here and now?

Would you agree that Isaiah 2:4 occurs during the last days? It clearly does. Again, the last days lead up to the second coming of Christ, so none of the last days occur after the second coming of Christ.

I tried to explain how it should be understood in a spiritual sense in relation to the spiritual kingdom of God, but you apparently missed that or didn't understand what I was saying. So, how can I possibly explain this to you when you are insisting on a literal fulfillment of the verse in terms of there literally being no more war anywhere in the world? It's clear to me that you are going to immediately dismiss any explanation I give that doesn't involve a literal interpretation, so it's not worth my time to try to explain it further.

 

[claninja]

Matthew 26:64 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

ἄρτι árti, ar'-tee

adverb from a derivative of G142 (compare G740) through the idea of suspension; just now:—this day (hour), hence(-forth), here(-after), hither(-to), (even) now, (this) present.

ἀπό apó, apo'

a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):—(× here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with.

Hereafter indicates that present time, as in just now, this day (hour). That means it goes against your understanding, because the Sanhedrin did not see Christ coming or sitting on the right hand of power at that very moment or even that day. For that matter no one has seen this event yet, and will not until Christ literally returns.

The only way the words of Christ make any sense is to understand what Christ was telling them árti apó meant. Christ is saying, Hereafter (because of this very moment in time) you shall see the Son of man....... Remember what that very moment meant was that Christ would be condemned to die!!! And it is because of His death, and resurrection that they and all humanity will see Christ coming in the clouds and sitting at the right hand of power.

just so I understand you correctly, you believe Christ came on the clouds of heaven to the father and sat down at the right hand already in the first century, just no one has seen it yet?

All the Old Testament prophets looked for ONE coming of Messiah on the Day of the Lord. They anticipate all that is written regarding that day/age/era would be fulfilled. Including Christ coming again in the clouds in glory. The Old Testament prophets do not foretell of TWO separate comings of the Messiah. It is not logical to think they would, since they believed the Messiah's coming in the Day of the Lord would fulfill ALL prophesy.

Based on this response which doesn’t seem to address my post, I have no idea if you agree or disagree with my position on the “son of man coming on the clouds” being referenced in Matthew 24:30, alluding to Daniel 7:14,27…

 

[rwb]

this is a subjective argument. I could say the same of you. Let’s avoid these generic subjective arguments, and focus on the contents of the post.


As to why provide commentaries? As stated already, there are many in CF, including staff and moderators, that seem to be unaware that believing the OD completely fulfilled is NOT exclusive to FP. (FP is not allowed in this forum)

If your doctrine cannot be biblically proven it remains opinion. The problem with preterism in any form is inconsistency. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error!

 

[claninja]

If your doctrine cannot be biblically proven it remains opinion. The problem with preterism in any form is inconsistency. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error!

i don’t know what this means. Seems like another subjective argument that could also be said of your doctrine.

 

[parousia70]

Just as His ascending up was visible with the naked eye, so too when He comes again will be visible by all.

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.

 

[parousia70]

The problem with preterism in any form is inconsistency. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error!

How do you reconcile this with your own (inconsistent) preteristic vews?