This generation

[rwb]

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

What I don't do is spiritualize certain passages because that's the only way I can make them fit my doctrine. That's why preterists must interpret part of the Olivet Discourse literally, then attempt to spiritualize what does not fit.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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

He didn't add anything to the text. He was just illustrating how it could be understood in light of other scripture like 2nd Peter 3, which I see as a good thing.

Why not allow other scripture to aid our understanding of the Olivet Discourse? It's important to interpret it in such a way that lines up with other scripture rather than contradicting other scripture.

I see Matthew 24:29-51 as referring to the same event as 2 Peter 3:4,7,10-13 and it's clear to me that 2 Peter 3:4,7,10-13 has not yet occurred. So, that has to be taken into account, which is what I see DavidPT doing. He's trying to reconcile the two passages together since he recognizes that they're talking about the same event, which is the second coming of Christ and the passing away of the heavens and the earth that will occur at His second coming.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

Right. It makes no sense whatsoever for someone to think that Daniel 7:13-14 is referring to the same event as Matthew 24:30. Daniel 7:13-14 is clearly in reference to His ascension and Matthew 24:30 is clearly in reference to Him descending from heaven rather than ascending to heaven.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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

Ah, I see. Hmmm. Mmmhmm. Mmmhmm. How can I possibly argue against this rock solid argument?

 

[Guojing]

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.).

Okay I am glad you understand.

If you want to hold the doctrine that Jesus was also referring to gentiles in his first coming, despite verses like Matthew 15:24, Matthew 10:5 and Romans 15:8, Ephesians 2:11-12, explicitly telling you otherwise, I can understand why you want to as well.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

When someone asked you why preterists need the entire Olivet Discourse to be fulfilled, why didn't you just say that you don't need it to all be fulfilled instead of saying "I don’t need it to be. It just is."?

 

[DavidPT]

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.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.


What should we assume the chronology is here? If we take verse 7 to mean what happened in 70 AD, what should we make of verse 8 in light of that? That verse says the wedding is ready. Ready when? Before or after verse 7 is fulfilled? If after, which could still mean the wedding is ready in the first century, but after 70 AD, not prior to it, the example you provided, Acts 22:21-22, would not be applicable here since everything involving Matthew 22:7-14 is meaning after the time Acts 22:21-22 is involving.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Okay I am glad you understand.

If you want to hold the dEditoctrine that Jesus was also referring to gentiles in his first coming, despite verses like Matthew 15:24, Matthew 10:5 and Romans 15:8, Ephesians 2:11-12, explicitly telling you otherwise, I can understand why you want to as well.

Those verses don't even implicitly tell me otherwise. You are reading things into those passages. In no way, shape or form do those verses even remotely suggest that Jesus never referred to Gentiles.

You are just incredibly lacking in discernment. For example, Matthew 15:24 has to do with the fact that Jesus came to preach to the house of Israel in particular. That has nothing to do with Him not having Gentiles in mind at all. Do you think He wasn't aware that the gospel was going to go out to the Gentiles or something? He's the one who told the disciples that it would go out into the world beyond Israel. It's just that He was leaving the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles to His disciples instead of doing it Himself. That's all Matthew 15:24 means. To take it to mean that He never had the Gentiles in mind or never referred to them is ludicrous.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Those verses don't even implicitly tell me otherwise. You are reading things into those passages. In no way, shape or form do those verses even remotely suggest that Jesus never referred to Gentiles.

You are just incredibly lacking in discernment. For example, Matthew 15:24 has to do with the fact that Jesus came to preach to the house of Israel in particular. That has nothing to do with Him not having Gentiles in mind at all. Do you think He wasn't aware that the gospel was going to go out to the Gentiles or something? He's the one who told the disciples that it would go out into the world beyond Israel. It's just that He was leaving the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles to His disciples instead of doing it Himself. That's all Matthew 15:24 means. To take it to mean that He never had the Gentiles in mind or never referred to them is ludicrous.

Agree with you here.
God so loved the entire world that he sent his Son to save whosoever in the world who would believe. He had sheep of other folds who he was to bring through the shedding of his blood.

 

[Guojing]

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.


What should we assume the chronology is here? If we take verse 7 to mean what happened in 70 AD, what should we make of verse 8 in light of that? That verse says the wedding is ready. Ready when? Before or after verse 7 is fulfilled? If after, which could still mean the wedding is ready in the first century, but after 70 AD, not prior to it, the example you provided, Acts 22:21-22, would not be applicable here since everything involving Matthew 22:7-14 is meaning after the time Acts 22:21-22 is involving.

I was simply establishing that, had the listeners of Jesus at Matthew 22 thought Jesus was referring to gentiles, they would have reacted in a manner similar to how they reacted to Paul at Acts 22.

When you interpret scripture in context, you always need to take note of how the audience of that scripture would have understood the meaning.

 

[Guojing]

Those verses don't even implicitly tell me otherwise. You are reading things into those passages. In no way, shape or form do those verses even remotely suggest that Jesus never referred to Gentiles.

You are just incredibly lacking in discernment. For example, Matthew 15:24 has to do with the fact that Jesus came to preach to the house of Israel in particular. That has nothing to do with Him not having Gentiles in mind at all. Do you think He wasn't aware that the gospel was going to go out to the Gentiles or something? He's the one who told the disciples that it would go out into the world beyond Israel. It's just that He was leaving the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles to His disciples instead of doing it Himself. That's all Matthew 15:24 means. To take it to mean that He never had the Gentiles in mind or never referred to them is ludicrous.

As I said, you are free to have different interpretation to suit your doctrine.

If you also want to insist that others with different interpretations must therefore be lacking in discernment or being ludicrous, that is unfortunate but that is part and parcel of participating in Internet discussions, you cannot control how others choose to respond to you.

 

[jeffweedaman]

If you also want to insist that others with different interpretations must therefore be lacking in discernment or being ludicrous, that is unfortunate but that is part and parcel of participating in Internet discussions, you cannot control how others choose to respond to you.

Scripture should control how one responds. See my previous post.
God sent his Son to save all Mankind through the blood of his Son.
How are you saved?

 

[Guojing]

Scripture should control how one responds. See my previous post.
God sent his Son to save all Mankind through the blood of his Son.
How are you saved?

In the first place, John 3:16 has nothing to do with Christ's death burial and resurrection. You are inserting the revelation of Paul into that passage.

And secondly, under the prophetic timetable, Jesus's first coming was to usher the nation of Israel into their promised kingdom first. The gentiles could not be saved on their own, until that happens. Zechariah 8 spells that timetable out explictly.

 

[jeffweedaman]

In the first place, has nothing to do with Christ's death burial and resurrection. You are inserting the revelation of Paul into that passage.

And secondly, under the prophetic timetable, Jesus's first coming was to usher the nation of Israel into their promised kingdom first. The gentiles could not be saved on their own, until that happens. Zechariah 8 spells that timetable out explictly.

Complete and utter nonsense.

John 3:16 Has everything to do with Jesus death.

Israel's salvation will never be complete without the Gentile inclusion. Neither are granted inheritance/ glorification in the Kingdom individually.

 

[keras]

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

Then our disagreement is simply due to the difference between American English and New Zealand English.
I note that Jesus cursed the fig tree and said it would never again bear fruit. Matthew 21:19
The Jewish people did prosper and grow after 1948, but they have never produced fruit. That is; The fruit of the Spirit, it is the Christian peoples who have done that by their missionary efforts.
Proved by Matthew 21:43 The Kingdom will be taken away from you, [Jews] and given to a people who will bear the proper fruit.[Christians]

 

[Guojing]

Complete and utter nonsense.

John 3:16 Has everything to do with Jesus death.

Israel's salvation will never be complete without the Gentile inclusion. Neither are granted inheritance/ glorification in the Kingdom individually.

Do you think Cornelius at that moment of John 3, was thinking of Jesus dying on the cross, being buried, and rising on the 3rd day, for the salvation of the whole world?

If you do, then you are anticipating revelation.

 

[returntosender]

"THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS AWAY"

 

[Hammster]

He didn't add anything to the text. He was just illustrating how it could be understood in light of other scripture like 2nd Peter 3, which I see as a good thing.

Why not allow other scripture to aid our understanding of the Olivet Discourse? It's important to interpret it in such a way that lines up with other scripture rather than contradicting other scripture.

I did let other scripture aid our understanding. That was the point of the OP. It’s even in the title. “This generation”, is used by Christ in multiple places. I showed how it was used. Ignoring the pronoun isn’t letting other scripture aid in understanding.

 

[Hammster]

Ah, I see. Hmmm. Mmmhmm. Mmmhmm. How can I possibly argue against this rock solid argument?

It’s been explained ad nauseum throughout this thread.

 

[Hammster]

He had sheep of other folds who he was to bring through the shedding of his blood.

God sent his Son to save all Mankind through the blood of his Son.

Which is it?