twisted imminency doctrine

[Spiritual Jew]

Again, your response shows you are not actually reading my posts or are having a problem comprending what I am writing.

I am most definitely reading your posts. If I'm misunderstanding what you're writing, so be it. There isn't likely anything I can do about that.

I literally provided the original Greek manuscript quote where it says “like the ancient of days” (post 54) AND a link to an academic paper on this textual variance (Post 49).

I don't care. I know what Daniel 7:13-14 is about, regardless of what you say. It's about Jesus Christ's ascension to heaven.

There are 3 main versions of Daniel 7:13-14. 1.) masoretic text. 2.) theodotion Greek text 3.) old greek text.

Whatever. Let me spell this out to you. I don't care what you say about that passage. I know what it's about and don't need you to tell me. It lines up perfectly with Ephesians 1:19-23 which is undeniably related to the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Both the masoretic and theodotion state “to the ancient of days”. However, the old Greek text had “like the ancient of days”.

“To” and “like” are very similar in Greek. “Like” does not contain an epsilon, while “to” does. Some translators (like zeigler - see article) of the old Greek INSERT an epsilon into the text in order to render it “to” instead of like because they believe it is a scribal error. However, this is a translational interpretation, as the epsilon is actually absent from the original text. So if you just google English translation of the old Greek, AND depending on which translation it is, may say “to”. But you would know that if you read the article, which is clear you didn’t, and thus are not comprehending my argument, or are just continuing to have a conversation on something you have no knowledge on.

But other scholars recognize the absence of the epsilon in OG text, and do not insert the epsilon into the translations—>

“Timothy McLay states: Regardless of whether it originated with the OG translator or very soon afterwards, at some point at least some (the only three manuscripts for OG Daniel that we have did!) witnesses to OG Dan 7:13 read and he came as the Ancient of Days. Thus, the textual evidence suggests that during the NT period the text of OG Dan 7:13 could have been read as identifying the Son of Man with the Ancient of Days.”

Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man

The earliest witnesses to Old Greek Dan 7 equate the Son of Man with God and represent a perspective of Dan 7 that likely existed in the first century a.d. This throne vision coheres with the Son of Man sayings in Matthew and indicates that the

www.academia.edu

““I was looking in a dream of the night and behold, upon on the clouds of heaven came (ἤρχετο) one like (ὡς) a son of man, and like (ὡς) an ancient of days he was present, and the bystanders were present with him.” - old Greek

The epsilon being absent from the old Greek text is not an “interpretation” it’s a fact. Again, you would know this if you comprehended my argument or even just read the academic article. But it seems you chose to ignore that and just make up an argument. It’s an objective fact that the old Greek text reads “as the ancient of days” regardless of what you believe and willfully chose to ignore.

The idea is simply that the old Greek text of Daniel equates Christ with the ancient of days, as in all other circumstances the ancient of days is the only one who rides the clouds, but now the son of man is as well.

You are boring me terribly. You rely way too much on supposed scholars. Do you never rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment?

So now, just to clarify your position, even though Jesus fulfills and alludes to OT prophesies constantly throughout the gospels, in this instance, you believe Jesus is not alluding to Daniel 7:13, the only the passage in the entire OT with the exact same phrase of “son of man coming in the clouds”, in the olivet discourse?


Additionally, here are just some commentaries on Matthew 24:30. I’m curious if any commentaries agree that Jesus is not referencing Daniel 7:13? I can’t seem to find any.

Ellicot commentary on Matthew 24:30:
The vision of Daniel 7:13 supplies, it is believed, the true answer

Benson commentary on Mathew 24:30:
This sign they were led to expect, because Daniel had said prophetically, of the Son of man, (Daniel 7:13,) that he saw him coming in the clouds of heaven, and that there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, &c. Nevertheless, by the coming of the Son of man in the clouds, Daniel meant his interposing for the destruction of his enemies, particularly the unbelieving Jews

This is such a colossal waste of time. Even if He was alluding to that verse, who cares? Why does it matter? Daniel 7:13-14 is about His ascension and Matthew 24:30 is not about His ascension and rather about His second coming. So, it makes no difference to me if He was alluding to Daniel 7:13-14 or not. That has no bearing on what Matthew 24:30 is about.

I’ve never said they said the 2nd advent was near.

The verses that talk about His coming being near refer to His second advent. But, you just don't get it, so you have fallen for false preterist doctrine as a result.

The destruction of Jerusalem was literally near, which was associated with the son of man coming on the clouds, just as the ancient of days descended from heaven on the clouds in judgement of nations in the OT. That’s what was literally near to the authors of the NT.

Nope. Matthew 24:29-31 refers to the future glorious second coming of Jesus Christ when His elect (us - the church) will be gathered to Him "in the air".

Scripture states it would happen in their generation. So it’s untrue that scripture doesn’t teach this.

You are using the wrong definition of the word generation, which is translated from the Greek word "genea". Are you aware that it has more than one definition?

Matthew 24:34 34Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place

He was saying that this people group (the Jewish people) will not pass away until Jesus Christ comes again in the future. When He said right after that "Heaven and earth will pass away" He was referring to heaven and earth passing away at His future second coming, as Peter writes about in 2 Peter 3:3-13.

 

[claninja]

am most definitely reading your posts. If I'm misunderstanding what you're writing, so be it. There isn't likely anything I can do about that.

I don't care. I know what Daniel 7:13-14 is about, regardless of what you say. It's about Jesus Christ's ascension to heaven.

You are boring me terribly. You rely way too much on supposed scholars. Do you never rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment?

This is such a colossal waste of time. Even if He was alluding to that verse, who cares? Why does it matter? Daniel 7:13-14 is about His ascension and Matthew 24:30 is not about His ascension and rather about His second coming. So, it makes no difference to me if He was alluding to Daniel 7:13-14 or not. That has no bearing on what Matthew 24:30 is about.

That’s fine you don’t care about the biblical scholarly work presented. Not everyone likes to learn about the scriptures on a higher level.

That being said, my point was if you would have actually read or understood my posts, you wouldn’t have incorrectly disagreed that the old Greek text doesn’t say “like the ancient of days”. The old Greek text states objectively “the son of man came on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days”. So it’s clear you were not reading or just not understanding.

1.) I believe Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14, specifically the OLD Greek text because of textual variances in the Old Greek that match what Matthew wrote—>

A.) the son of man comes “like”, NOT to, the ancient of days

B.) the son of man comes “on”, NOT in/with the clouds

As recognized by biblical scholars, Both of these textual variances equate the son of man with the ancient of days, as only the ancient of days rode on the clouds in the OT. As a trinitarian, I believe it is extremely important and fascinating to recognize Matthew equating the son of man with the ancient of days and not a “boring” or “colossal waste of time”. But to each their own.

2.) I don’t believe Matthew 24:30 is about the ascension, but more likely about the results of the ascension. thus Matthew 24:30 is likely just alluding to Daniel 7:13-14, though I’m not dogmatic on this.

Nope

The destruction of Jerusalem happened within Jesus’ generation regardless of what you believe.

You are using the wrong definition of the word generation, which is translated from the Greek word "genea". Are you aware that it has more than one definition?

Since you didn’t provide any lexicon or dictionary evidence to back up your claim, I’m not really sure where your getting this “usage” from. Maybe you could provide your source that defines and uses it this way?

1.) why don’t the majority of English Bible translations translate genea as race? Why do the majority translate it as generation? It’s because the overwhelming majority of scholars recognize genea means generation.

2.) If the authors of the gospels meant Jewish race without any context time, why didn’t the authors just use “genos” instead of “genea”?

Genos : Kind, race, family, offspring, nation, kindred

Genea: Generation

3.) Thayers has Genea to mean the definition of generation in Matthew 24:34. In some other instances, it means Jewish race ”living at the same time”, again reflecting the definition of generation

“the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period” - thayers Greek lexicon.

He was saying that this people group (the Jewish people) will not pass away until Jesus Christ comes again in the future. When He said right after that "Heaven and earth will pass away" He was referring to heaven and earth passing away at His future second coming, as Peter writes about in 2 Peter 3:3-13.

This is literally the definition of circular reasoning.

1. Starting Assumption: The interpreter begins with the assumption that Jesus could not have been referring to his contemporaries because the events described (e.g., the parousia ) have not yet occurred.


2. Redefinition: Based on this assumption, they redefine genea to mean “race” or “kind” rather than “generation.”


3. Conclusion: They then argue that Jesus’ prophecy supports their eschatological view, because genea means “race,” as they initially assumed.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That’s fine you don’t care about the biblical scholarly work presented. Not everyone likes to learn about the scriptures on a higher level.

LOL. That isn't what I meant and you know it. But, you can't help but to be you. What a waste of time.

That being said, my point was if you would have actually read or understood my posts, you wouldn’t have incorrectly disagreed that the old Greek text doesn’t say “like the ancient of days”.

That is your opinion only. There are also old Greek texts that say "TO the Ancient of Days" and that's why it's translated that way in most English translations.

The old Greek text states objectively “the son of man came on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days”. So it’s clear you were not reading or just not understanding.

It's clear that you are completely biased and not considering my view any more than you think I'm considering yours.

1.) I believe Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14, specifically the OLD Greek text because of textual variances in the Old Greek that match what Matthew wrote—>

A.) the son of man comes “like”, NOT to, the ancient of days

B.) the son of man comes “on”, NOT in/with the clouds

Do you agree with me or not that Daniel 7:13-14 refers to the ascension of Christ? If so, then what does it matter if Jesus alluded to that or not when neither of us believe that Matthew 24:30 is a reference to His ascension?

As recognized by biblical scholars, Both of these textual variances equate the son of man with the ancient of days, as only the ancient of days rode on the clouds in the OT. As a trinitarian, I believe it is extremely important and fascinating to recognize Matthew equating the son of man with the ancient of days and not a “boring” or “colossal waste of time”. But to each their own.

What I'm saying is a waste of time is not that, but rather is trying to prove that Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14. In my view, it doesn't matter if it does or not because Daniel 7:13-14 refers to His ascension and Matthew 24:30 does not. So, what is your point in trying to prove that Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 if your point has nothing to do with saying that both are speaking of the same event?

2.) I don’t believe Matthew 24:30 is about the ascension, but more likely about the results of the ascension. thus Matthew 24:30 is likely just alluding to Daniel 7:13-14, though I’m not dogmatic on this.

So, again, why does this matter so much to you if we both agree that the two passages are not referring to the same event? I don't get that. That's why I'm saying it's a waste of time. Saying that Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 does nothing in terms of determining what Matthew 24:30 is about.

The destruction of Jerusalem happened within Jesus’ generation regardless of what you believe.

In terms of that particular definition of the word generation (Greek: genea), that is obviously true, but that is not the only definition of the word. And, no matter what we say about all of this, Jesus hasn't come yet. So, Matthew 24:29-31 cannot possibly be fulfilled yet. That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.

Since you didn’t provide any lexicon or dictionary evidence to back up your claim, I’m not really sure where your getting this “usage” from. Maybe you could provide your source that defines and uses it this way?

You obviously have spent a fair amount of time looking at Greek lexicons and dictionaries, but you couldn't be bothered to do so one more time to check on my claim? I don't get that. Anyway, here is what I see on blueletterbible.org relating to the Greek word "genea"...

In case you're not familiar with this, the "Outline of Biblical Usage" was created by Larry Pierce, creator of the Online Bible. So, this gives the possible definitions of that word as its used in the Bible. Notice that one of them is "men of the same stock" and another is "a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character" and gives the example of "a perverse nation". Jesus refers to Jews in general in verses like Matthew 17:17 as a "faithless and perverse generation". So, He is not referring to a chronological 30 or 40 year generation there, but rather is referring to a type of people who are "faithless and perverse".

1.) why don’t the majority of English Bible translations translate genea as race?

Are you sure this is a valid question? If so, can I ask you why the majority of English Bible translations interpret Daniel 7:13 as referring to the Son of man coming TO the Ancient of Days rather than LIKE the Ancient of Days? Can I use that fact alone to prove that my interpretation of Daniel 7:13 is correct? If not, the do you understand that the question you're asking me here is not a way to determine the truth of what "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is referring to? We're talking about a verse in the New Testament and it was originally written in Greek. The Greek word is "genea" and one of the definitions of that word is race.

Why do the majority translate it as generation? It’s because the overwhelming majority of scholars recognize genea means generation.

Why do the majority translate Daniel 7:13 as saying "TO the ancient of days" instead of "LIKE the ancient of days"? Was the Bible written in English? I appreciate our English translations, but we both agree that they didn't always translate the original text correctly. But, even the English word generation has several different definitions, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if it only has one.

2.) If the authors of the gospels meant Jewish race without any context time, why didn’t the authors just use “genos” instead of “genea”?

Genos : Kind, race, family, offspring, nation, kindred

Genea: Generation

The fact of the matter is that the word "genea" has some of the same definitions as the word "genos", including race, and is derived from the word "genos", so that proves nothing.

3.) Thayers has Genea to mean the definition of generation in Matthew 24:34. In some other instances, it means Jewish race ”living at the same time”, again reflecting the definition of generation

Well, good for him. I guess you trust Joseph Thayer to have been the ultimate authority on Bible interpretation? We don't need the Holy Spirit for discernment, we just need the infallible Joseph Thayer? Is that how you look at things?

A vast majority of English translators translate Daniel 7:13 as being about the Son of man coming TO the Ancient of Days. I guess it's okay for you to disregard that, but you have no choice but to agree with their translation of Matthew 24:34? Seems like you're being rather selective there in your trust of the English translators.

This is literally the definition of circular reasoning.

1. Starting Assumption: The interpreter begins with the assumption that Jesus could not have been referring to his contemporaries because the events described (e.g., the parousia ) have not yet occurred.

That is sound reasoning. It would be foolish to try to think that Jesus taught that His second coming would occur within a literal chronological generation (30 to 40 year time period) when it clearly hasn't happened yet. That would not reflect on the Glorious God of the Universe, Jesus Christ, very well, now, would it?

2. Redefinition: Based on this assumption, they redefine genea to mean “race” or “kind” rather than “generation.”

Avoiding contradictions is important. You apparently disagree because even though He hasn't come yet, you claim that He did because you don't base your beliefs at all on reality.

3. Conclusion: They then argue that Jesus’ prophecy supports their eschatological view, because genea means “race,” as they initially assumed.

I don't find any of your arguments to be convincing whatsoever, just so you know. But, thanks for sharing them, anyway. Do you even look forward to the future glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ? Or is it thinking back to what happened in 70 AD that excites you the most?

 

[claninja]

LOL. That isn't what I meant and you know it. But, you can't help but to be you. What a waste of time.

That is your opinion only. There are also old Greek texts that say "TO the Ancient of Days" and that's why it's translated that way in most English translations.

It's clear that you are completely biased and not considering my view any more than you think I'm considering yours.

**** I'm not saying old greek as in greek that's from a long time ago. There are specific manuscripts called "Old Greek". The "Old Greek" refers to the original Septuagint, not the 2nd century AD theodotion translation that eventually superseded the original Septuagint several hundred years later****

I honestly can't tell what you mean sometimes, especially with the "there are also old Greek texts that say TO the ancient of days"? I know there are. It's called the theodotion text, which was translated sometime in the 2nd century AD. The 2nd century theodotion translation is not the same as the original septuagint (Old Greek). Here's a little history lesson summarized on wiki -->

"Theodotion's translation was so widely copied in the Early Christian church that its version of the Book of Daniel virtually superseded the Septuagint's. The Septuagint Daniel survives in only two known manuscripts, Codex Chisianus 88 (rediscovered in the 1770s), and Papyrus 967 (discovered 1931). Jerome, in his preface to Daniel (A.D. 407), records the rejection of the Septuagint version of that book in Christian usage: "I ... wish to emphasize to the reader the fact that it was not according to the Septuagint version but according to the version of Theodotion himself that the churches publicly read Daniel."[3] Jerome's preface also mentions that the Hexapla had notations in it, indicating several major differences in content between the Theodotion Daniel and the earlier versions in Greek and Hebrew. However, Theodotion's Daniel is closer to the surviving Hebrew Masoretic Text version, the text which is the basis for most modern translations. Theodotion's Daniel is also the one embodied in the authorised edition of the Septuagint published by Sixtus V in 1587."
(Theodotion - Wikipedia.)


Modern day Bibles don't use the Old greek (original septuagint) in translations. Instead they use the theodotion text, which is why the majority of english translations from the theodotion say "to the ancient of days".

Here is the greek from 2 different surviving manuscripts of the Old Greek:


Papyrus 967 reads:

13 a etheoroun en horamati teis nuktos
b kai idou epi tone vephelone tou hooranoueircheto hose e huios anthropou
c kai hose (like/as) palaios (ancient) heimerone (of days) parein (he came)
d kai hoi paresteikotes prosteigagon auto

Codex 88, supported by the Syro-Hexaplar, reads:

13 a etheoroun en horamati teis nuktos
b kai idou epi tone vephelone tou hooranouhose huios anthropou eircheto
c kai hose (like/as) palaios (ancient) heimerone (of days) parein (he came)
d kai hoi paresteikotes pareisan auto

"The significance of v. 13c is that the “one like a son of man” did not come to the Ancient of Days (as in the MT and Theodotion), but as or like the Ancient of Days."

Source: (https://digitalcollections.tyndale....lds_Benjamin_2008b.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

Do you agree with me or not that Daniel 7:13-14 refers to the ascension of Christ? If so, then what does it matter if Jesus alluded to that or not when neither of us believe that Matthew 24:30 is a reference to His ascension?

What I'm saying is a waste of time is not that, but rather is trying to prove that Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14. In my view, it doesn't matter if it does or not because Daniel 7:13-14 refers to His ascension and Matthew 24:30 does not. So, what is your point in trying to prove that Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 if your point has nothing to do with saying that both are speaking of the same event?

So, again, why does this matter so much to you if we both agree that the two passages are not referring to the same event? I don't get that. That's why I'm saying it's a waste of time. Saying that Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 does nothing in terms of determining what Matthew 24:30 is about.

Like I said before, I'm not too dogmatic about it. The OT often blends the suffering servant and the parousia without distinction in chronology. And so both could be possible IMHO when it comes to daniel 7. But I think i'm inclined to believe it refers to the parousia based on following reasons-->

1.) the explanation of the visions in Daniel 7 doesn't offer that the messiah ascending to heaven. Instead, the explanation of the son of man coming on the clouds and having a kingdom that never ends where all people worship, following the defeat of the beast is explained, is explained in vs 26-27:

Daniel 7:26-27"But the court will convene, and his dominion will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him."

2.) Matthew incorporates Daniel 7:13 and its description of the son of man coming on the clouds into the olivet discourse. The olivet discourse is not about the ascension but about the coming of the son of man on the clouds following the destruction of Jerusalem.

My point was that if Matthew was written prior to 70ad, he would not have had access to the theodotion translation as it didn't exist yet. And so if matthew was using the septuagint, it would have been the old greek (original septuagint), which has the son of man coming on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days. If the son of man coming on the clouds is about the ascension to the ancient of days, it makes less sense why Matthew alludes to it in the olivet discourse. That is why there is a scholarly hypothesis as to matthew alluding to daniel 7:13 from the Old Greek (original septuagint) in the olivet discourse, and not the masoretic or theodotion texts.

In case you're not familiar with this, the "Outline of Biblical Usage" was created by Larry Pierce, creator of the Online Bible. So, this gives the possible definitions of that word as its used in the Bible. Notice that one of them is "men of the same stock" and another is "a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character" and gives the example of "a perverse nation". Jesus refers to Jews in general in verses like Matthew 17:17 as a "faithless and perverse generation". So, He is not referring to a chronological 30 or 40 year generation there, but rather is referring to a type of people who are "faithless and perverse".

Great, I am glad you posted that image. You do know that it's just an outline of Thayer's, right?

So usage II has "men of the same stock, family" as part of its definition, and then has 2 ways in which this usage occurs:

1.) ranks of descent/genealogy - Thayer provides matthew 1:17 as an example of how it's used. This is still consistent with the definition of generation --> fourteen generations from abraham to david.

***Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations

2.) METAPHORICALLY, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race. Thayer provides matthew 17:17 as an example. These were men of the same "perverse stock" in a metaphorical sense. This usage is when genea is being described with an adjective.

***Matthew 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and PERVERSE generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

How do we know its being used METAPHORICALLY of a group of men with similar characteristics? when it has an adjective like perverse to describe it. Is Genea in matthew 24:34 being described metaphorically? Nope, sure isn't, as there is no adjective aiding in describing men being of a similar stock. So Genea, in matthew 24:34, doesn't fall into this category of usage.

None of definition 2 contains any explicit definition of ethnic race that solely applies to the jews. So i still have no idea where you are getting your definition of Jewish race from??? Do you just see the words "family, men of same stock", and don't do any further investigation after that?

Are you sure this is a valid question? If so, can I ask you why the majority of English Bible translations interpret Daniel 7:13 as referring to the Son of man coming TO the Ancient of Days rather than LIKE the Ancient of Days? Can I use that fact alone to prove that my interpretation of Daniel 7:13 is correct? If not, the do you understand that the question you're asking me here is not a way to determine the truth of what "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is referring to? We're talking about a verse in the New Testament and it was originally written in Greek. The Greek word is "genea" and one of the definitions of that word is race.

Apples an oranges.

"to the ancient of days" is found in the majority of English translations, because translators use the 2nd century AD Theodotion Greek translation and NOT the Old greek (original Septuagint) translation. The Theodotion contains the greek word "to", while the Old greek (original septuagint) contains the greek word "like". 2 different words.

If some greek manuscripts of matthew 24:34 contained genos and some contained genea, then your argument would be apples and apples. But since all the greek manuscripts contain genea, your argument doesn't make sense.

So back to my question, why do the majority of english translations translate the greek work genea as generation and not race?

Why do the majority translate Daniel 7:13 as saying "TO the ancient of days" instead of "LIKE the ancient of days"?

because modern day Bibles use the Theodotion translation as its basis and NOT the Old Greek (original septuagint).

Well, good for him. I guess you trust Joseph Thayer to have been the ultimate authority on Bible interpretation? We don't need the Holy Spirit for discernment, we just need the infallible Joseph Thayer? Is that how you look at things?

It seems that if something doesn't agree with your position, then its not inspired by the Holy Spirity?

So, I would have to ask, Since the majority of English Bible translations translate genea as generation and not race, which is against what you believe, then the majority of these committees and translation teams are not inspired?

That is sound reasoning. It would be foolish to try to think that Jesus taught that His second coming would occur within a literal chronological generation (30 to 40 year time period) when it clearly hasn't happened yet. That would not reflect on the Glorious God of the Universe, Jesus Christ, very well, now, would it?

Avoiding contradictions is important. You apparently disagree because even though He hasn't come yet, you claim that He did because you don't base your beliefs at all on reality.

I don't find any of your arguments to be convincing whatsoever, just so you know. But, thanks for sharing them, anyway. Do you even look forward to the future glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ? Or is it thinking back to what happened in 70 AD that excites you the most?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, and therefore I don't find your argument convincing that the olivet discourse is about a literal bodily descension of Jesus.

Since God came down multiple times from heaven on the clouds to judge nations in the OT, I see no reason that the olivet discourse couldn't possibly be referring to something similar with Christ. If so, then there is no need to redefine genea to something it doesn't mean nor has any usage.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Like I said before, I'm not too dogmatic about it. The OT often blends the suffering servant and the parousia without distinction in chronology. And so both could be possible IMHO when it comes to daniel 7. But I think i'm inclined to believe it refers to the parousia based on following reasons-->

1.) the explanation of the visions in Daniel 7 doesn't offer that the messiah ascending to heaven. Instead, the explanation of the son of man coming on the clouds and having a kingdom that never ends where all people worship, following the defeat of the beast is explained, is explained in vs 26-27:

Daniel 7:26-27"But the court will convene, and his dominion will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him."

2.) Matthew incorporates Daniel 7:13 and its description of the son of man coming on the clouds into the olivet discourse. The olivet discourse is not about the ascension but about the coming of the son of man on the clouds following the destruction of Jerusalem.

My point was that if Matthew was written prior to 70ad, he would not have had access to the theodotion translation as it didn't exist yet. And so if matthew was using the septuagint, it would have been the old greek (original septuagint), which has the son of man coming on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days. If the son of man coming on the clouds is about the ascension to the ancient of days, it makes less sense why Matthew alludes to it in the olivet discourse. That is why there is a scholarly hypothesis as to matthew alluding to daniel 7:13 from the Old Greek (original septuagint) in the olivet discourse, and not the masoretic or theodotion texts.

You bore me with all the talk about the old Greek. You make things far more complicated than they need to be. It's very clear to me that Daniel 7:13-14 is about Christ's ascension and not at all about His second coming (parousia) and you can see that when you compare that passage to Ephesians 1:19-22.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

The similarities between these passages are obvious. Both talk about Jesus going to heaven to be in the Father's presence. Daniel 7:13 indicates that at that time He is given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom...". Is that not what happened at His resurrection and ascension? That's what it indicates in Ephesians 1:19-22. So, it's very clear to me that Daniel 7:13-14 relates to His ascension to heaven to the right hand of the Father.

By the way, when it says "and they brought him near before him" in Daniel 7:13, what do you think that means? Who is being brought before who there? Or do you have it saying something entirely different than that in the translation that you use?

Great, I am glad you posted that image. You do know that it's just an outline of Thayer's, right?

Doesn't matter. The point of it is to show the various definitions of the Greek word genea.

So usage II has "men of the same stock, family" as part of its definition, and then has 2 ways in which this usage occurs:

1.) ranks of descent/genealogy - Thayer provides matthew 1:17 as an example of how it's used. This is still consistent with the definition of generation --> fourteen generations from abraham to david.

***Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations

2.) METAPHORICALLY, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race. Thayer provides matthew 17:17 as an example. These were men of the same "perverse stock" in a metaphorical sense. This usage is when genea is being described with an adjective.

***Matthew 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and PERVERSE generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

How do we know its being used METAPHORICALLY of a group of men with similar characteristics? when it has an adjective like perverse to describe it. Is Genea in matthew 24:34 being described metaphorically? Nope, sure isn't, as there is no adjective aiding in describing men being of a similar stock. So Genea, in matthew 24:34, doesn't fall into this category of usage.

I don't find your argument here to be convincing at all. I don't believe that it's an absolutely necessity that there has to be an adjective preceding it in order for it be used metaphorically.

You have a major problem here that I need to continually remind you about. Jesus Christ has not yet come. The parousia has not yet happened. When the parousia happens, the dead in Christ will be resurrected and those who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:14-17). That has clearly not happened yet. So, how can you try to claim that the parousia happened in 70 AD? It makes no sense.

None of definition 2 contains any explicit definition of ethnic race that solely applies to the jews. So i still have no idea where you are getting your definition of Jewish race from??? Do you just see the words "family, men of same stock", and don't do any further investigation after that?

Men, or people, of the same stock can obviously refer to people of the same race. What is hard to understand about that?

Apples an oranges.

"to the ancient of days" is found in the majority of English translations, because translators use the 2nd century AD Theodotion Greek translation and NOT the Old greek (original Septuagint) translation. The Theodotion contains the greek word "to", while the Old greek (original septuagint) contains the greek word "like". 2 different words.

If some greek manuscripts of matthew 24:34 contained genos and some contained genea, then your argument would be apples and apples. But since all the greek manuscripts contain genea, your argument doesn't make sense.

So back to my question, why do the majority of english translations translate the greek work genea as generation and not race?

It's not apples and oranges. Every time I make a valid argument you try to find some way around it. EVERY time. It's comical. In your view, regardless of the reason, the English translators of our English translations did not translate Daniel 7:13 correctly. Why is it okay for you to believe that, but not okay for me to believe that they did not give the best translation of the word genea in Matthew 24:34? There are other cases where they clearly did not use the best choice of translation for a word as well. Such as their choice to translate "ethnos" as "nations" in Revelation 20:8. Is that verse talking about nations that "number as the sand of the sea"? No. It's talking about people. So, the translators didn't translate every word in the best way every time. I think they did a great job, overall, but it's not perfect. Which is why we should try to look at Hebrew and Greek resources to get a better understanding of what was written in the original manuscripts.

It seems that if something doesn't agree with your position, then its not inspired by the Holy Spirity?

We all believe that our understanding comes from the Holy Spirit. So, of course I'm not going to think that something that disagrees with me is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that's how you think about something that disagrees with your position as well.

So, I would have to ask, Since the majority of English Bible translations translate genea as generation and not race, which is against what you believe, then the majority of these committees and translation teams are not inspired?

The original manuscripts were inspired by God. I don't think we can say that about the English Bible translators, though I do believe they tried to be as accurate as they could and they sought God's help while doing so. You think the English Bible translators translated Daniel 7:13 wrong. So, should I ask you the same question? This is a waste of time. Please don't ask me questions like this anymore because it's pointless.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, and therefore I don't find your argument convincing that the olivet discourse is about a literal bodily descension of Jesus.

Since God came down multiple times from heaven on the clouds to judge nations in the OT, I see no reason that the olivet discourse couldn't possibly be referring to something similar with Christ. If so, then there is no need to redefine genea to something it doesn't mean nor has any usage.

Were my questions too difficult? You didn't answer them for some reason. I asked: Do you even look forward to the future glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ? Or is it thinking back to what happened in 70 AD that excites you the most? How would you answer those questions?

And, remember, the Olivet Discourse refers to the parousia of Christ and we know from passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 that the parousia of Christ will be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the gathering of them along with those who are alive and remain to meet Jesus in the air at that time. Do you actually think that already happened? If not, then why would you not think the Olivet Discourse has anything to do with His future second coming?

 

[claninja]

You bore me with all the talk about the old Greek. You make things far more complicated than they need to be. It's very clear to me that Daniel 7:13-14 is about Christ's ascension and not at all about His second coming (parousia) and you can see that when you compare that passage to Ephesians 1:19-22.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

The similarities between these passages are obvious. Both talk about Jesus going to heaven to be in the Father's presence. Daniel 7:13 indicates that at that time He is given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom...". Is that not what happened at His resurrection and ascension? That's what it indicates in Ephesians 1:19-22. So, it's very clear to me that Daniel 7:13-14 relates to His ascension to heaven to the right hand of the Father.

By the way, when it says "and they brought him near before him" in Daniel 7:13, what do you think that means? Who is being brought before who there? Or do you have it saying something entirely different than that in the translation that you use?

which part is boring? The part where you thought “old Greek” just meant Greek from a long time ago, or the “old Greek” meaning the original Septuagint text which came before the theodotion text?

I have no disagreement with your quotations from Ephesians. However, this doesn’t address why Matthew quotes from Daniel 7:13 in the olivet discourse.

The question is why is Matthew quoting from Daniel 7:13 in the olivet discourse, if it’s only about the ascension? One scholarly hypothesis is that he didn’t have access to the theodotion text because it didn’t exist yet. Instead He would have had access to the old Greek or original Septuagint text, which had the son of man coming “like” the ancient of days. Which makes it less obvious that it’s about the ascension, and more of equating Christ with the father. Thus his use in the olivet discourse about Christ coming on the clouds like the ancient of days.

As for your question at the end, it clearly shows you aren’t reading my posts or don’t understand what I am saying still……

I would suggest looking up what a textual variance is, if you are not familiar with that term when it comes biblical manuscripts.

Doesn't matter. The point of it is to show the various definitions of the Greek word genea.

I don't find your argument here to be convincing at all. I don't believe that it's an absolutely necessity that there has to be an adjective preceding it in order for it be used metaphorically.

You have a major problem here that I need to continually remind you about. Jesus Christ has not yet come. The parousia has not yet happened. When the parousia happens, the dead in Christ will be resurrected and those who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:14-17). That has clearly not happened yet. So, how can you try to claim that the parousia happened in 70 AD? It makes no sense.

Men, or people, of the same stock can obviously refer to people of the same race. What is hard to understand about that?

No where does the definition say what you believe it means. So I still have no idea where you are getting this from????

The definition in section 2, as provided by Thayers and outlined in blue letter Bible, has genea to be used to mean “men of same stock” in certain instances. It then provides 2 different examples by what this means for men of “same stock”

1.) men of same stock in a lineage, as in 14 generations from Abraham to David. This means genea has a temporal sense, when it comes to “men of the same family stock”.

2.) men of same stock in a METAPHORICAL meaning, as in men of the same wicked characteristic, a perverse generation. It literally says METAPHORICAL. All examples provided include an adjective to describe the characteristic of the “men of the same stock”.

Under definition 2, If one usage has generation in the sense of a literal common lineage of family, and the second usage has generation in the sense of those sharing common metaphorical characteristic, why would generation not be understood as a temporal sense in both cases? It would completely inconsistent to argue usage one is a temporal generation and usage 2 is a non-temporal, non-metaphorical race.

Matthew 24:34 doesn’t fit under either of these uses hence Thayer doesn’t put in definition 2. Matthew 24:34 isn’t about a family lineage, and neither is there any adjective to describe it in a metaphorical sense, like a wicked genea.

Your argument of using definition 2 as support to mean a non temporal literal race of Jews is untenable when you actually look at the 2 provided usages of the definition. Your argument:

1.) is inconsistent because if usage 1 has a temporal sense - as in 14 generations from Abraham to David, then why wouldn’t usage 2 also have a temporal sense, as in the wicked generation contemporaneous with Jesus, since they are both under definition 2?

2.) completely ignores the fact that usage 2 is about a METAPHORICAL stock of men with similar characteristics, as in a “wicked generation”. But you are trying to make it a non-metaphorical stock of men for some reason??? There is no adjective in Matthew 24:34 to let us know that Jesus is describing a metaphorical men of the of the same stock or wicked generation.

From thayers:

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30

It's not apples and oranges. Every time I make a valid argument you try to find some way around it. EVERY time. It's comical. In your view, regardless of the reason, the English translators of our English translations did not translate Daniel 7:13 correctly. Why is it okay for you to believe that, but not okay for me to believe that they did not give the best translation of the word genea in Matthew 24:34? There are other cases where they clearly did not use the best choice of translation for a word as well. Such as their choice to translate "ethnos" as "nations" in Revelation 20:8. Is that verse talking about nations that "number as the sand of the sea"? No. It's talking about people. So, the translators didn't translate every word in the best way every time. I think they did a great job, overall, but it's not perfect. Which is why we should try to look at Hebrew and Greek resources to get a better understanding of what was written in the original manuscripts.

Your “valid” argument makes it appear you are unaware of the difference between a “textual variant” and the “definition of word”.

Do you know what a textual variance is? Do you know that a textual variance is not the same as usage and definition of words?

Daniel 7:13 is a textual variant. In the “old Greek” or original Septuagint text, the Greek word for “like” is found. In the theodotion text, a DIFFERENT Greek word for “to” is found. This is NOT a case of one word having multiple definitions. It’s a case of textual variance -> 2 different words. The reason, AGAIN, why you will find “to” is that in most English translations use the theodotion text as the basis, and they do NOT use the “old Greek” or original Septuagint as the basis. This is NOT a case of incorrect translation. It’s a case of which textual variant is used as the basis for the English translation.

Matthew 24:34 doesn’t have a textual variance in regards to genea. All manuscripts of the Greek we have contain the same Greek word “Genea”.

So your question is not applicable. Your argument is not “valid”. It doesn’t even make any sense with what I’m saying. Its a strawman

My view has never been that they translated Daniel 7:13 incorrectly. The English absolutely translates “to” correctly from the theodotion text. My point was that the old Greek (original Septuagint) has a textual variant where a different greek word is found in the text : “like”.

Your argument is not valid because it’s:
Apples (textual variant) to oranges (word definitions).

The original manuscripts were inspired by God. I don't think we can say that about the English Bible translators, though I do believe they tried to be as accurate as they could and they sought God's help while doing so.

Ok, so you appear to believe all the translation committees and scholars are wrong to translate genea into generation. Good to know for the record.

You think the English Bible translators translated Daniel 7:13 wrong.

No, I believe they correctly translated “to” from the theodotion text. You are either misunderstood, not comprehending, or creating a strawman. The logical fallacies in your arguments are mounting.

Were my questions too difficult? You didn't answer them for some reason. I asked: Do you even look forward to the future glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ? Or is it thinking back to what happened in 70 AD that excites you the most? How would you answer those questions?

And, remember, the Olivet Discourse refers to the parousia of Christ and we know from passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 that the parousia of Christ will be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the gathering of them along with those who are alive and remain to meet Jesus in the air at that time. Do you actually think that already happened? If not, then why would you not think the Olivet Discourse has anything to do with His future second coming?

Your arguments thus far have been built on circular reasoning and a strawman. Now you’re getting into special pleading.

I believe the olivet discourse is about the destruction of the Jerusalem and Christ descending from heaven on the clouds as the ancient of days did in the Old Testament to judge nations. I don’t believe it is about the future still to come 2nd advent.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

which part is boring? The part where you thought “old Greek” just meant Greek from a long time ago, or the “old Greek” meaning the original Septuagint text which came before the theodotion text?

You bore me when you act as if this is anything but subjective. You can't prove anything this way. We have one source saying He came like the ancient of days and one saying He came to the ancient of days. You have chosen to believe that the English translators all translated Daniel 7:13 wrongly. I disagree. So be it. Going on and on about how you disagree with them is boring to me. I don't care. I disagree with you and agree with them on this. Because of how Daniel 7:13-14 lines up so well with a passage like Ephesians 1:19-22 that talks about His resurrection and ascension and what became true at that point, it's obvious to me that Daniel 7:13-14 is about His ascension to heaven after His bodily resurrection from the dead.

I have no disagreement with your quotations from Ephesians.

Do you agree or disagree that Ephesians 1:19-22 is very similar to Daniel 7:13-14? At the end of Daniel 7:13 in the KJV it says "they brought him near before him.". In your understanding of the verse, who was brought near before who there? Or does your rendering of the verse say something different? Can you paraphrase the verse to show how it reads according to your understanding of it? Are there any English translations that agree with your understanding of the verse?

However, this doesn’t address why Matthew quotes from Daniel 7:13 in the olivet discourse.

Why would I address something that I don't believe is the case? That's what you believe, so that's for you to figure out, not me.

The question is why is Matthew quoting from Daniel 7:13 in the olivet discourse, if it’s only about the ascension?

In my view, it's not quoting from Daniel 7:13, as I've told you multiple times now. So, why would you ask me that question? It only makes sense to ask that question to someone who actually believes that is the case.

One scholarly hypothesis is that he didn’t have access to the theodotion text because it didn’t exist yet. Instead He would have had access to the old Greek or original Septuagint text, which had the son of man coming “like” the ancient of days. Which makes it less obvious that it’s about the ascension, and more of equating Christ with the father. Thus his use in the olivet discourse about Christ coming on the clouds like the ancient of days.

As for your question at the end, it clearly shows you aren’t reading my posts or don’t understand what I am saying still……

So be it if that's the case. I have better things to do then spend 100 posts trying to figure out what you're saying. If I haven't understood it by now, then I likely never will. Who cares. Moving on....

No where does the definition say what you believe it means. So I still have no idea where you are getting this from????

I already told you, but we can't even agree on the meaning of definitions. What a waste of time. The bottom line in all this to me is that the parousia of Jesus hasn't happened yet and you try to say it has. If you want to be taken seriously, then show me evidence that the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the gathering of His people to Christ in the air already happened.

The definition in section 2, as provided by Thayers and outlined in blue letter Bible, has genea to be used to mean “men of same stock” in certain instances. It then provides 2 different examples by what this means for men of “same stock”

1.) men of same stock in a lineage, as in 14 generations from Abraham to David. This means genea has a temporal sense, when it comes to “men of the same family stock”.

2.) men of same stock in a METAPHORICAL meaning, as in men of the same wicked characteristic, a perverse generation. It literally says METAPHORICAL. All examples provided include an adjective to describe the characteristic of the “men of the same stock”.

Under definition 2, If one usage has generation in the sense of a literal common lineage of family, and the second usage has generation in the sense of those sharing common metaphorical characteristic, why would generation not be understood as a temporal sense in both cases? It would completely inconsistent to argue usage one is a temporal generation and usage 2 is a non-temporal, non-metaphorical race.

Matthew 24:34 doesn’t fit under either of these uses hence Thayer doesn’t put in definition 2. Matthew 24:34 isn’t about a family lineage, and neither is there any adjective to describe it in a metaphorical sense, like a wicked genea.

Your argument of using definition 2 as support to mean a non temporal literal race of Jews is untenable when you actually look at the 2 provided usages of the definition. Your argument:

1.) is inconsistent because if usage 1 has a temporal sense - as in 14 generations from Abraham to David, then why wouldn’t usage 2 also have a temporal sense, as in the wicked generation contemporaneous with Jesus, since they are both under definition 2?

2.) completely ignores the fact that usage 2 is about a METAPHORICAL stock of men with similar characteristics, as in a “wicked generation”. But you are trying to make it a non-metaphorical stock of men for some reason??? There is no adjective in Matthew 24:34 to let us know that Jesus is describing a metaphorical men of the of the same stock or wicked generation.

From thayers:

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30




Your “valid” argument makes it appear you are unaware of the difference between a “textual variant” and the “definition of word”.

Do you know what a textual variance is? Do you know that a textual variance is not the same as usage and definition of words?

Daniel 7:13 is a textual variant. In the “old Greek” or original Septuagint text, the Greek word for “like” is found. In the theodotion text, a DIFFERENT Greek word for “to” is found. This is NOT a case of one word having multiple definitions. It’s a case of textual variance -> 2 different words. The reason, AGAIN, why you will find “to” is that in most English translations use the theodotion text as the basis, and they do NOT use the “old Greek” or original Septuagint as the basis. This is NOT a case of incorrect translation. It’s a case of which textual variant is used as the basis for the English translation.

Matthew 24:34 doesn’t have a textual variance in regards to genea. All manuscripts of the Greek we have contain the same Greek word “Genea”.

So your question is not applicable. Your argument is not “valid”. It doesn’t even make any sense with what I’m saying. Its a strawman

My view has never been that they translated Daniel 7:13 incorrectly. The English absolutely translates “to” correctly from the theodotion text. My point was that the old Greek (original Septuagint) has a textual variant where a different greek word is found in the text : “like”.

Your argument is not valid because it’s:
Apples (textual variant) to oranges (word definitions).

Huge yawn. Unbelievable. You think I don't understand all that, but I do. Regardless of all that, we all have to choose which text we think is accurate. The one used by the English translators (theodotion text) or the old Greek (original Septuagint). You and I have chosen differently on that. You make simple things very complicated for whatever reason.

Ok, so you appear to believe all the translation committees and scholars are wrong to translate genea into generation. Good to know for the record.

Ok, so you appear to believe all the translation committees and scholars chose the wrong text to base their translations of Daniel 7:13 on. Good to know for the record that we both believe that the translation committees and scholars were not completely infallible.

No, I believe they correctly translated “to” from the theodotion text. You are either misunderstood, not comprehending, or creating a strawman. The logical fallacies in your arguments are mounting.

LOL. You are seriously cracking me up. That's not an exaggeration. I am literally laughing right now. I am fully comprehending what you're saying. You're the one not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're claiming that they mistranslated the text. Okay? Are you with me so far? Can you stop making assumptions and read what I'm actually saying? I'm saying that you believe they chose the wrong text to use to translate Daniel 7:13 because they translated it as saying "TO the Ancient of Days" instead of "LIKE the Ancient of Days". Understand?

Your arguments thus far have been built on circular reasoning and a strawman. Now you’re getting into special pleading.

LOL. This is truly a waste of time if this is what you think. I don't want to waste any more time on you if you're going to continue misconstruing what I'm saying so badly.

Don't think that I don't notice when you address almost everything I say EXCEPT for when I ask you to tell me how the parousia of Christ could have already happened, keeping in mind that the resurrectoin of the dead in Christ and the gathering of those who belong to Christ to Him in the air occurs at the same time. Somehow, you have the time to address everything I say you except for that. Interesting.

I believe the olivet discourse is about the destruction of the Jerusalem and Christ descending from heaven on the clouds as the ancient of days did in the Old Testament to judge nations. I don’t believe it is about the future still to come 2nd advent.

But, you believe the Olivet Discourse is partly about the parousia of Christ, right? The following passage is also about the parousia of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

So, since there is only one parousia of Christ, if you believe that the Olivet Discourse is not at all about "the future still to come 2nd advent", then do you also not believe that 1 Thess 4:14-17 is about "the future still to come 2nd advent"? If not, then explain to me how it could have occurred in the past.

Also, I've asked you the following questions twice now and it's interesting (and kind of disturbing) how you don't seem to want to answer them. I'll try one more time.

Do you look forward to the future glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ? Or is it thinking back to what happened in 70 AD that excites you the most?

 

[claninja]

I'm not saying that you're claiming that they mistranslated the text. Okay? Are you with me so far? Can you stop making assumptions and read what I'm actually saying?

Per you in post #65 -

“In your view, regardless of the reason, the English translators of our English translations did not translate Daniel 7:13 correctly….. “

You wrote in post 65 that my view on Daniel 7:13, is that they did not translate it correctly, and then compared it to your position of translators not correctly translating genea in Matthew. Then added another example of translators not translating ethnos correctly in revelation.

How in the world am I supposed to know “that’s not what you are saying”, when that’s literally what you said, and compared it to other examples of translators determining English definitions???

Do you agree or disagree that Ephesians 1:19-22 is very similar to Daniel 7:13-14? At the end of Daniel 7:13 in the KJV it says "they brought him near before him.". In your understanding of the verse, who was brought near before who there? Or does your rendering of the verse say something different? Can you paraphrase the verse to show how it reads according to your understanding of it? Are there any English translations that agree with your understanding of the verse?

I don’t think Daniel’s visions really differentiate between the kingdom’s inauguration and realization. Instead, imho, the visions demonstrate the coming of the kingdom as one event. Daniel 2, for example, just has the kingdom of God coming once at the destruction of the nations. Likewise, Daniel 7 has son of man coming on the clouds being given the kingdom with all dominion following the destruction of the beast, the fourth kingdom. This is interpreted as the saints being given the kingdom following the judgment of the beast (fourth kingdom).


So with that In mind, I agree Ephesians 1:19-22 can absolutely apply Daniel 7:13-14. And I would also argue that the son of man coming on the clouds in Matthew 24 also applies to Daniel 7:13-14.

It just seems ironic that on one hand you believe the passage on Ephesians lines up nicely, but on the other hand when Matthew quotes Daniel 7:13 literally verbatim, in regards to the son of man on the clouds, it’s not at all related? I just don’t find that convincing, considering also there are many commentaries that don’t agree it’s solely about the ascension.

the old Greek or original Septuagint differentiates from the theodotion in other ways as well. It has the son of man coming “on” the clouds, not with or in . It also says “they came before him” instead of “they brought him near”. The textual variances equate the son of man with the ancient of days in the old Greek more so than it does in the theodotion.

Additionally, Since Matthew’s quotations match the old Greek more closely than the theodotion or masoretic texts, and the theodotion text didn’t exist if Matthew was written pre 70ad, and Matthew quotes from Daniel 7:13 in regards to the events of matthew 24, it’s more likely that Matthew quoted from the old Greek.

I'm saying that you believe they chose the wrong text to use to translate Daniel 7:13 because they translated it as saying "TO the Ancient of Days" instead of "LIKE the Ancient of Days". Understand?

I don’t believe they “chose the wrong text” to translate. I believe they translated what was readily available. I just don’t think the apostles had access to the theodotion text as it didn’t exist yet.

I would have to ask, are there any other NT passages where the apostles quote from the Septuagint where the textual variances are significantly different than the masoretic text?

I already told you

Nothing you provided says genea means non temporal, literal race of Jews.

You appear to use definition 2, men of same stock, but then ignore that it’s men of same stock as in 1.) men of the same a family stock —> 14 generations from Abraham OR 2.) men of the same metaphorical charactistic —> wicked generation.

Which usage are you meaning?

But, you believe the Olivet Discourse is partly about the parousia of Christ, right? The following passage is also about the parousia of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

So, since there is only one parousia of Christ, if you believe that the Olivet Discourse is not at all about "the future still to come 2nd advent", then do you also not believe that 1 Thess 4:14-17 is about "the future still to come 2nd advent"? If not, then explain to me how it could have occurred in the past.

Sure, let’s start with the olivet discourse. Where does it explicitly and specifically mention the resurrection of dead bodies?

Also, I've asked you the following questions twice now and it's interesting (and kind of disturbing) how you don't seem to want to answer them. I'll try one more time.

while I do, but i think it’s probably more likely that I’ll die before that happens, how does this relate to me not agreeing the olivet discourse is about the 2nd advent?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Per you in post #65 -

“In your view, regardless of the reason, the English translators of our English translations did not translate Daniel 7:13 correctly….. “

You wrote in post 65 that my view on Daniel 7:13, is that they did not translate it correctly, and then compared it to your position of translators not correctly translating genea in Matthew. Then added another example of translators not translating ethnos correctly in revelation.

How in the world am I supposed to know “that’s not what you are saying”, when that’s literally what you said, and compared it to other examples of translators determining English definitions???

Calm down, buddy. Let me clear this up. What I meant is that you believe they chose the wrong Greek text to use for their English translations and therefore, to you, their translations are not accurate and you believe that the ancient Greek text they did not use is accurate instead.

I don’t think Daniel’s visions really differentiate between the kingdom’s inauguration and realization. Instead, imho, the visions demonstrate the coming of the kingdom as one event. Daniel 2, for example, just has the kingdom of God coming once at the destruction of the nations. Likewise, Daniel 7 has son of man coming on the clouds being given the kingdom with all dominion following the destruction of the beast, the fourth kingdom. This is interpreted as the saints being given the kingdom following the judgment of the beast (fourth kingdom).


So with that In mind, I agree Ephesians 1:19-22 can absolutely apply Daniel 7:13-14. And I would also argue that the son of man coming on the clouds in Matthew 24 also applies to Daniel 7:13-14.

It just seems ironic that on one hand you believe the passage on Ephesians lines up nicely, but on the other hand when Matthew quotes Daniel 7:13 literally verbatim, in regards to the son of man on the clouds, it’s not at all related?

LOL. Why is this surprising to you when it's obvious to everyone that His ascension and His second coming are different events? I don't see that passage as referring to both events.

I don’t believe they “chose the wrong text” to translate. I believe they translated what was readily available. I just don’t think the apostles had access to the theodotion text as it didn’t exist yet.

Let's stop getting bogged down in semantics, even tough I think you love doing that. No matter how you look at it, you don't believe the English translations of Daniel 7:13-14 are accurate. And I do. Don't make it any more complicated than that.

Nothing you provided says genea means non temporal, literal race of Jews.

You appear to use definition 2, men of same stock, but then ignore that it’s men of same stock as in 1.) men of the same a family stock —> 14 generations from Abraham OR 2.) men of the same metaphorical charactistic —> wicked generation.

Which usage are you meaning?

It can refer to people of the same stock throughout time. A type of people. Wicked in this case. Or Jewish in the case of the Jewish race. If you don't get that, then I can't help you. Not only do we differ in our interpretations of scripture, but we differ in our interpretations of what was meant by those definitions. We just don't think alike at all, so we aren't going to agree on much because of that.

Sure, let’s start with the olivet discourse. Where does it explicitly and specifically mention the resurrection of dead bodies?

Does it have to explicitly mention that in order for that to occur at His parousia? Of course not. Not every passage about the parousia or second coming contains all details about it.

Are you trying to avoid addressing 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? How many parousias of Christ do you think there are? If you agree that there's just one then both the Olivet Discourse and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 refer to it, so I'd like to know how you reconcile your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse with 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

while I do, but i think it’s probably more likely that I’ll die before that happens, how does this relate to me not agreeing the olivet discourse is about the 2nd advent?

If the Olivet Discourse does not relate at all to the future glorious parousia and second coming of Christ, then you must believe there are very few verses in scripture that refer to it. Why would such an incredibly significant event be something that Jesus would never talk about and that the rest of NT scripture would only mention a few times, if that (not sure how many times you think it is referenced)? It seems to me that you don't believe His future second coming is anything to be excited about and it's not something you think about nearly as much as you think about what happened in 70 AD. That's how you come across to me and I find that to be sad.

 

[DavidPT]

The Only Person Who knows when the rapture/resurrection event will take place is God the Father.

Since the rapture/resurrection event has not taken place yet, the window for it to happen is getting smaller.

Be open to the possibility that the rapture/resurrection could happen even today - as it is in God the Father's Hands as to when. And live our lives as God wants us to as Christians.

Since Jesus said when we see things happening that point to His Return, look up because our redemption draws near. That's where we are at right now as the parable of the fig tree generation, and the conditions in the world are time of the end when travel and knowledge increased (Daniel 12:4).

So stay positive and look forward to the redemption of our bodies.

That wouldn't be a problem and I could even agree with that if the rapture and the 2nd coming of Christ in the end of this age are not the same event. But if they are the same event I see what you propose being a problem in that case. And I'm sure you do too, meaning concerning the latter.

Here's 2 ways to look at it then.

1) Christ can come today or even tomorrow if the rapture and the 2nd coming in the end of this age are not the same event.

2) Christ can't come today nor tomorrow if the rapture and the 2nd coming in the end of this age are the same event.

My view is 2) because 1) is not remotely true to begin with, that the rapture and the 2nd coming in the end of this age are not the same event.

 

[claninja]

Calm down, buddy. Let me clear this up. What I meant is that you believe they chose the wrong Greek text to use for their English translations and therefore, to you, their translations are not accurate and you believe that the ancient Greek text they did not use is accurate instead.

LOL. Why is this surprising to you when it's obvious to everyone that His ascension and His second coming are different events? I don't see that passage as referring to both events.

Let's stop getting bogged down in semantics, even tough I think you love doing that. No matter how you look at it, you don't believe the English translations of Daniel 7:13-14 are accurate. And I do. Don't make it any more complicated than that.

I do not believe "they chose the wrong Greek text to use for their English translations" just like how you believe they translated genea or ethnos incorrectly. You've missed the point entirely. That's like asking is the masoretic text or the septuagint the only accurate text. Well, I'm not completely sure because there are big variances between both texts, and the Authors of the NT quote both. I would just say maybe both are accurate, and the authors just quoted from what they had available at the time, or picked the translation that better suited their views.

The point is that Matthew, like other NT authors, quoted from the Septuagint. He did not have access to the theodotion version of the text, as it didn't yet exist in his day. Thus one scholarly hypothesis as to why the gospels allude to the Daniel 7:13's "coming of the son of man on the clouds" in the context of the parousia, is because the old greek version equates the son of man with the Ancient of Days instead of the son of man coming to the ancient of days. Whether this is an accurate translation or not, is beyond my point.

If the correct understanding is the "son of man coming on the clouds to the ancient of days" it still doesn't change the fact that Matthew is alluding to Daniel 7:13 in regards to the parousia.

It can refer to people of the same stock throughout time. A type of people. Wicked in this case. Or Jewish in the case of the Jewish race. If you don't get that, then I can't help you. Not only do we differ in our interpretations of scripture, but we differ in our interpretations of what was meant by those definitions. We just don't think alike at all, so we aren't going to agree on much because of that.

Here is definition 2 provided by thayers, which is outlined by blue letter bible:

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

Then it provides 2 ways this definition is used:

When talking about men of the same stock, in regards to family --> several ranks of natural descent or successive members of a genealogy. This can mean throughout a period of time, but must be PLURAL in order to convey that sense: as in 14 generationS (PLURAL genea) from David to Abraham. Genea in matthew 24:34 is NOT plural, and in its context, is not defining generations of a family lineage throughout time.

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζειν Ρ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστιν ἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

When talking METAPHORICALLY as a "race", it is referring to a group of people with similar characteristics, such as a "wicked" generation. This is NOT a literal race based on family lineage. it is instead METAPHORICAL race, as in a wicked generation. What indicates something is a metaphorical race of men very like each other in character? WHEN there is an actual word to describe the characteristic that groups them together, such as "wicked" or "perverse". Does Matthew 24:34 have a word that groups a race of men together very much like each other in character? That's a resound NO.

b. METAPHORICALLY, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).


So you seem to be cherry picking "men of the same stock" from definition 2, but then completely ignoring its uses in a.) and b.)

Does it have to explicitly mention that in order for that to occur at His parousia? Of course not. Not every passage about the parousia or second coming contains all details about it.

Are you trying to avoid addressing 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? How many parousias of Christ do you think there are? If you agree that there's just one then both the Olivet Discourse and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 refer to it, so I'd like to know how you reconcile your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse with 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

I think that the gathering of the elect by the messengers following the destruction of Jerusalem in matthew 24:31 refers the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding feast following the destruction of Jerusalem as found in matthew 22:7-10.

that being said-->

Paul taught that prior to the parousia, the dead slept:
1 thessalonians 4:13 Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope.

But that at the parousia, the dead would rise and be with the Lord forever:
1 thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise.

A vast majority of modern Christianity believes that the dead in Christ rise to heaven to be with the Lord forever upon death (the bodily resurrection still being a future event at the 2nd advent). I believe this is what paul is referring to in 1 thessalonians 4, IF he was talking about the same event in Matthew 22:7-10, Matthew 24:31.

Do you believe you rise to be with the Lord upon death, like in 2 Corinthians 5?

 

[DavidPT]

That’s fine you don’t care about the biblical scholarly work presented. Not everyone likes to learn about the scriptures on a higher level.

That being said, my point was if you would have actually read or understood my posts, you wouldn’t have incorrectly disagreed that the old Greek text doesn’t say “like the ancient of days”. The old Greek text states objectively “the son of man came on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days”. So it’s clear you were not reading or just not understanding.

1.) I believe Matthew 24:30 alludes to Daniel 7:13-14, specifically the OLD Greek text because of textual variances in the Old Greek that match what Matthew wrote—>

A.) the son of man comes “like”, NOT to, the ancient of days

B.) the son of man comes “on”, NOT in/with the clouds

As recognized by biblical scholars, Both of these textual variances equate the son of man with the ancient of days, as only the ancient of days rode on the clouds in the OT. As a trinitarian, I believe it is extremely important and fascinating to recognize Matthew equating the son of man with the ancient of days and not a “boring” or “colossal waste of time”. But to each their own.

2.) I don’t believe Matthew 24:30 is about the ascension, but more likely about the results of the ascension. thus Matthew 24:30 is likely just alluding to Daniel 7:13-14, though I’m not dogmatic on this.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.


It seems to me if we are going to change 'to' to 'like' we also have to change this part--and they brought him near before him. Since it doesn't seem to make much sense of the text if understood like such--one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Especially if one is applying that to 70 AD how does that make sense that in 70 AD one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him? I of course disagree that 70 AD is meant, but that is beside the point if some do think 70 AD is meant. It simply doesn't make sense of the text since there is this part to also consider---and they brought him near before him.

On a different note, I don't agree with how @Spiritual Jew nor with you, how each of you are applying genea. I think it should be applied to in light of 2 Peter 3. Mainly meaning verses 7 and 10 in this case.

 

[claninja]

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.


It seems to me if we are going to change 'to' to 'like' we also have to change this part--and they brought him near before him. Since it doesn't seem to make much sense of the text if understood like such--one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Especially if one is applying that to 70 AD how does that make sense that in 70 AD one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him? I of course disagree that 70 AD is meant, but that is beside the point if some do think 70 AD is meant. It simply doesn't make sense of the text since there is this part to also consider---and they brought him near before him.

I posted earlier in here, but the old greek text of daniel 7:13 doesn't say "they brough him near before him". It says "καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ" which basically translates to "the attendants were present with him". So it reads in full "one like a son of man came on the clouds as the ancient of days and the attendants were present with him". Which is more similar to matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him." or matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels".

On a different note, I don't agree with how @Spiritual Jew nor with you, how each of you are applying genea. I think it should be applied to in light of 2 Peter 3. Mainly meaning verses 7 and 10 in this case.

not sure what you mean with this?

 

[DavidPT]

I posted earlier in here, but the old greek text of daniel 7:13 doesn't say "they brough him near before him". It says "καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ" which basically translates to "the attendants were present with him". So it reads in full "one like a son of man came on the clouds as the ancient of days and the attendants were present with him". Which is more similar to matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him." or matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels".

Though, I still don't agree 70 AD is meant, it least makes better sense of the text when rendering it like that.

not sure what you mean with this?

I don't know if I can explain it well enough where it at least makes sense to you and to others as well, but I will try.

First let's look at what Matthew 24 records.



Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
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.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 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,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Next let's look at what 2 Peter 3 records.

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.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only(Matthew 24:36) , is meaning the day of the Lord that comes like a thief in the night(2 Peter 3:10).

Heaven and earth shall pass away(Matthew 24:35), is meaning this in 2 Peter 3:10--- 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.

In Matthew 24, verses 37-39, that is meaning this in 2 Peter 3:7---reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Therefore, this generation of ungodly men shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Meaning what Jesus said needed to be fulfilled before this generation of ungodly men can pass which leads to a NHNE in it's place, which is exactly what Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away is involving once that is fulfilled. Compare with Revelation 21:1.

 

[claninja]

I don't know if I can explain it well enough where it at least makes sense to you and to others as well, but I will try.

First let's look at what Matthew 24 records.



Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
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.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 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,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Next let's look at what 2 Peter 3 records.

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.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only(Matthew 24:36) , is meaning the day of the Lord that comes like a thief in the night(2 Peter 3:10).

Heaven and earth shall pass away(Matthew 24:35), is meaning this in 2 Peter 3:10--- 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.

In Matthew 24, verses 37-39, that is meaning this in 2 Peter 3:7---reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Therefore, this generation of ungodly men shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Meaning what Jesus said needed to be fulfilled before this generation of ungodly men can pass which leads to a NHNE in it's place, which is exactly what Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away is involving once that is fulfilled. Compare with Revelation 21:1.

You are still using the English word generation. So can you clarify?

Temporal
1.) Do you mean this by its definition - a temporal group of people born and living around the same time?

In other words “this wicked ungodly temporal group of people born and living around the same time” will not pass away until all these happen?

Non temporal
2.) Or are you not meaning generation’s definition and instead making it non temporal? -> unglodly men, not grouped together by birth and living around the same time, but instead men living throughout time, grouped together by the characteristic of being ungodly? In other words, this spiritual group of ungodly men persisting throughout human history will not pass away until all these things happen.

it least makes better sense of the text when rendering it like that.

I agree that the textual variance of Daniel 7:13 in the old Greek does seem to fit better with Matthew’s allusions to Daniel 7.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

that being said-->

Paul taught that prior to the parousia, the dead slept:
1 thessalonians 4:13 Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope.

But that at the parousia, the dead would rise and be with the Lord forever:
1 thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise.

A vast majority of modern Christianity believes that the dead in Christ rise to heaven to be with the Lord forever upon death (the bodily resurrection still being a future event at the 2nd advent). I believe this is what paul is referring to in 1 thessalonians 4, IF he was talking about the same event in Matthew 22:7-10, Matthew 24:31.

You seem to be ignoring that 1 Thess 4:14-17 is talking about all of the dead in Christ rising at the same time and then all being caught up to meet Jesus in the air at the same time along with those who are alive and remain after Jesus descends from heaven. What you're saying does not fit that scenario at all because you are talking about people's souls going to heaven at all different times. That doesn't line up with what is written in 1 Thess 4:14-17 whatsoever.

Also, why would you question if Paul was talking about the same event as Matthew 24:31 or not? Matthew 24:31 is clearly related to Christ's parousia and so is 1 Thess 4:14-17. You don't believe in more than one parousia of Christ, do you? If not, then what basis is there for not relating Matthew 24:27-31 directly to 1 Thess 4:14-17?

Do you believe you rise to be with the Lord upon death, like in 2 Corinthians 5?

Not bodily. Just my soul and spirit will go to heaven when I physically die. The dead in Christ will all be bodily resurrected (will bodily rise) at the same time when Jesus comes again from heaven in the future.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.


It seems to me if we are going to change 'to' to 'like' we also have to change this part--and they brought him near before him. Since it doesn't seem to make much sense of the text if understood like such--one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Especially if one is applying that to 70 AD how does that make sense that in 70 AD one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him? I of course disagree that 70 AD is meant, but that is beside the point if some do think 70 AD is meant. It simply doesn't make sense of the text since there is this part to also consider---and they brought him near before him.

That is what I had pointed out to him as well, but he didn't address it. It makes no sense to think that it's saying "one like the Son of man came like the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him". What would that even mean? Who is being brought before who in that case? When you see it as saying one like the Son of man came to the Ancient of days, then it's easy to see that it's talking about the Son of man (Jesus) being brought before the Ancient of Days (God the Father).

On a different note, I don't agree with how @Spiritual Jew nor with you, how each of you are applying genea. I think it should be applied to in light of 2 Peter 3. Mainly meaning verses 7 and 10 in this case.

What do you mean? How do you apply it?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I posted earlier in here, but the old greek text of daniel 7:13 doesn't say "they brough him near before him". It says "καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ" which basically translates to "the attendants were present with him". So it reads in full "one like a son of man came on the clouds as the ancient of days and the attendants were present with him". Which is more similar to matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him." or matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels".

What do you make of verse 14 then?

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

According to Ephesians 1:19-23, what is described in Daniel 7:14 occurred upon the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. I assume you would agree that the timing of Daniel 7:14 is the same as the timing of verse 13, so why would you think that verse 13 is talking about a coming of Christ with His angels from heaven instead of Him ascending to heaven with the angels?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Though, I still don't agree 70 AD is meant, it least makes better sense of the text when rendering it like that.




I don't know if I can explain it well enough where it at least makes sense to you and to others as well, but I will try.

First let's look at what Matthew 24 records.



Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
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.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 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,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Next let's look at what 2 Peter 3 records.

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.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only(Matthew 24:36) , is meaning the day of the Lord that comes like a thief in the night(2 Peter 3:10).

Heaven and earth shall pass away(Matthew 24:35), is meaning this in 2 Peter 3:10--- 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.

In Matthew 24, verses 37-39, that is meaning this in 2 Peter 3:7---reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Therefore, this generation of ungodly men shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Meaning what Jesus said needed to be fulfilled before this generation of ungodly men can pass which leads to a NHNE in it's place, which is exactly what Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away is involving once that is fulfilled. Compare with Revelation 21:1.

It looks like you are saying that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 refers to "this generation of ungodly men". But, who are "this generation of ungodly men"? What does that mean? To me, since Jesus said "THIS generation" He was talking about a generation (whatever that word means) existing at that time (but not necessarily only at that time depending on your understanding of the word "genea"). So, are you saying that you believe "this generation" refers to ungodly people in general or what?

 

[claninja]

That is what I had pointed out to him as well, but he didn't address it.

That’s not true. This was addressed in post 68.